# Obamacare



## Lukelucy (Nov 19, 2011)

My husband has just returned from a doctor's appointment. This doctor went to a BCBS meeting yesterday in which very few doctors bothered to attend. This doctor learned the following:

1. The states that have opted in for Obamacare are going to be very expensive regarding healthcare.
2. No cancer screening (mammograms - everything) after the age of 70 for all people. Mind you half of people over 70 will die of cancer.
3. The doctors in the states that opted in for OCare will want to leave the states that opted in. Therefore, there will be a shortage of doctors in those states.
4. The states that did not go along with OCare are going to have a cheaper, no shortage of doctors, all the tests you need policy.
5. You cannot go out of state for any health care. I do all the time. So, if I need a top specialist, say for cancer, I will not be covered now if he/she is out of state.

There is much, much more but I cannot remember. If you question this, contact BCBS and they will not deny it. (or probably not confirm it, either). This applies to all states who opted in for OCare. 

We are not actively going to look for a new place to live in another state to avoid Obamacare. This has disrupted our entire lives.


----------



## rasputin (Apr 21, 2013)

I didn't know that states had the option.?


----------



## Lukelucy (Nov 19, 2011)

rasputin said:


> I didn't know that states had the option.?


Apparently they do. And that is where we will go - to one of them. We need to decide which one. I am soooo upset.


----------



## jennifer1954 (Nov 8, 2011)

I know a woman who found she could pay only 1/4 what she had been paying for insurance. Don't know of any doctors leaving Maryland.


----------



## jumbleburt (Mar 10, 2011)

I really don't think most of this is accurate. You might want to do some research.


----------



## Ma Kitty (Mar 15, 2013)

Too bad Obamacare isn't like our Canadian health care system. It is awesome. Our American son in law had plenty of negative things to say about our system before he moved here. Now he's in our country and using our Medicare he can't believe how good it is. We think we are very fortunate.


----------



## La la patti (Apr 3, 2011)

I think that you may have it wrong. The affordable care act is nationwide. There isba lot of confusion out there. My dd who had no insurance at all became covered by mine as soon as the first part became available.
Point 2 ...a seventy year old has Medicare. Cancer screening is covered by Medicare . It's not a perfect program yet but hopefully things will work themselves out. People are confused.


----------



## Sherry1 (May 14, 2011)

This information is inaccurate. All states will participate. It is up to them to form an exchange or use the national exchange.


----------



## Lukelucy (Nov 19, 2011)

jennifer1954 said:


> I know a woman who found she could pay only 1/4 what she had been paying for insurance. Don't know of any doctors leaving Maryland.


It is not happening yet. It will be over a period of the next 2 years. It will be a semi-gradual emigration. 
Maybe she is paying 1/4 of what she did before, but what is she paying for? Less coverage?

It will come out down the line.


----------



## Lukelucy (Nov 19, 2011)

jumbleburt said:


> I really don't think most of this is accurate. You might want to do some research.


My research is done. I am not doing research. This doctor did his research. BCBS meeting where it was confirmed.


----------



## Lukelucy (Nov 19, 2011)

Sherry1 said:


> This information is inaccurate. All states will participate. It is up to them to form an exchange or use the national exchange.


That is not what I know. I do know that some states opted out. Arizona is one.


----------



## jinkers (May 24, 2011)

The Affordable Care Act is being received very well so far here and premiums for those who qualify for coverage is running usually LESS than they were paying before. By the way, those of us over 65 and entitled to Medicare can't use the Affordable Care Act insurance anyway. Also, most of your numbered info (read the Act itself)above is not accurate.


----------



## Lukelucy (Nov 19, 2011)

jinkers said:


> The Affordable Care Act is being received very well so far here and premiums for those who qualify for coverage is running usually LESS than they were paying before. By the way, those of us over 65 and entitled to Medicare can't use the Affordable Care Act insurance anyway. Also, most of your numbered info (read the Act itself)above is not accurate.


As I said, what kind of care are you buying. I believe what I was told.

I do not want to be denied cancer screening. I want to see the doctor -in another state-the best in the field needed- for any ailment.


----------



## ninal46 (May 15, 2011)

Ma Kitty said:


> Too bad Obamacare isn't like our Canadian health care system. It is awesome. Our American son in law had plenty of negative things to say about our system before he moved here. Now he's in our country and using our Medicare he can't believe how good it is. We think we are very fortunate.


I don't know about Canada, but I do know National health in the UK is not all it's cracked up to be. My sister was diagnosed with breast cancer when she was 50 years old. She was told she had to wait several months for some of the tests. She is one of the lucky ones, she opted to go private, pay out of pocket and got a mastectomy. She just turned 74 and has been cancer free. I believe that had she not had the money, and had waited for the NHS to get her in for testing she would have died. Another friend of mine was 60 when she got cancer. Between Chemo, and Radiation she went into remission. The NHS placed her on these very expensive cancer drugs and she was staying in remission. When she turned 70 they told her she could not get the drugs anymore as they were not curing her. She died at 72. Thank you, but no thank you for anything that is remotely like a National health. I want it the way it was ... where I can pick and chose my doctors. That will be a thing of the past with Obamacare. In my opinion anyone that says that National Health is great, have not experienced real good health care. Take a number and wait ... wait ... wait = National Health.


----------



## Lukelucy (Nov 19, 2011)

ninal46 said:


> I don't know about Canada, but I do know National health in the UK is not all it's cracked up to be. My sister was diagnosed with breast cancer when she was 50 years old. She was told she had to wait several months for some of the tests. She is one of the lucky ones, she opted to go private, pay out of pocket and got a mastectomy. She just turned 74 and has been cancer free. I believe that had she not had the money, and had waited for the NHS to get her in for testing she would have died. Another friend of mine was 60 when she got cancer. Between Chemo, and Radiation she went into remission. The NHS placed her on these very expensive cancer drugs and she was staying in remission. When she turned 70 they told her she could not get the drugs anymore as they were not curing her. She died at 72. Thank you, but no thank you for anything that is remotely like a National health. I want it the way it was ... where I can pick and chose my doctors. That will be a thing of the past with Obamacare. In my opinion anyone that says that National Health is great, have not experienced real good health care. Take a number and wait ... wait ... wait = National Health.


Thank you. This is what I have been saying all along. You have verified.


----------



## Lukelucy (Nov 19, 2011)

rasputin said:


> I didn't know that states had the option.?


http://money.msn.com/now/13-states-rebelling-against-obamacare


----------



## bwtyer (Oct 31, 2012)

Ma Kitty said:


> Too bad Obamacare isn't like our Canadian health care system. It is awesome. Our American son in law had plenty of negative things to say about our system before he moved here. Now he's in our country and using our Medicare he can't believe how good it is. We think we are very fortunate.


My old boss is Canadian- he has dual citizenship. The only thing he complains about in Canada is the long wait for operations -having to be scheduled- but that is his only complaint- he goes back up there twice a year to visit family and while he is there, he does see his doctors. He has doctors here too but he tries to get all his procedures done in Canada .


----------



## Sherry1 (May 14, 2011)

This is not national health care. This is a law making health care affordable for all. Very low income will be subsidized. There are four levels of coverage from which to pick. States CANNOT opt out. It is the law. They can only chose to go with the National Exchange instead of a state exchange.


----------



## bwtyer (Oct 31, 2012)

Obama's administration gave states the option of setting up their own exchanges, partnering with the federal government or letting Washington do it. 

I don't think Texas wanted set up an exchange-they opted out- in fact several states opted not to. But people here and other states can still get the insurance if they want it. They just do not go through the state to get it. My sister in law is a doctor, she is not for it. And it is not the money- she is not in private practice.


----------



## grandmann (Feb 4, 2011)

I can answer your question that Obamacare is not set up like HMO. You can go to whatever doctor or specialist or hospital of your choice. My new doctor told me this. Plus no matter where you go everything will be on the computer. You no longer need to fax over your med. history. 

If there wasn't HMO denying you from Ins if you had a pre-exiting condition their won't be Obamacare. I think because of the HMO something I had to be done.

WI didn't set up with the state exchange. Yet I cannot be deny Ins. anymore. It would be easier for me if Governor Walker went along with the Exchange.


----------



## Ma Kitty (Mar 15, 2013)

ninal46 said:


> I don't know about Canada, but I do know National health in the UK is not all it's cracked up to be. My sister was diagnosed with breast cancer when she was 50 years old. She was told she had to wait several months for some of the tests. She is one of the lucky ones, she opted to go private, pay out of pocket and got a mastectomy. She just turned 74 and has been cancer free. I believe that had she not had the money, and had waited for the NHS to get her in for testing she would have died. Another friend of mine was 60 when she got cancer. Between Chemo, and Radiation she went into remission. The NHS placed her on these very expensive cancer drugs and she was staying in remission. When she turned 70 they told her she could not get the drugs anymore as they were not curing her. She died at 72. Thank you, but no thank you for anything that is remotely like a National health. I want it the way it was ... where I can pick and chose my doctors. That will be a thing of the past with Obamacare. In my opinion anyone that says that National Health is great, have not experienced real good health care. Take a number and wait ... wait ... wait = National Health.


We don't have the British system. You have to wait your turn. Here, the worst is first. No waiting. I know a lady that was diagnosed two weeks ago with breast cancer and the breast came off last Thursday. My husband had a massive heart attack eight years ago in a small town with just the clot buster administered. A Lear jet (medivac) came and got him immediately and flew him to Vancouver to a hospital specializing in heart patients (among other things). The jet ride was extra billed to us to the tune of $250.00. He had a stent put in and he has no damage. A real testament to our system.


----------



## Janet Cooke (Aug 14, 2013)

Lukelucy said:


> My husband has just returned from a doctor's appointment. This doctor went to a BCBS meeting yesterday in which very few doctors bothered to attend. This doctor learned the following:
> 
> 1. The states that have opted in for Obamacare are going to be very expensive regarding healthcare.
> 2. No cancer screening (mammograms - everything) after the age of 70 for all people. Mind you half of people over 70 will die of cancer.
> ...


The ACA actually guarantees mammograms for all women over the age of 40. 
http://www.factcheck.org/2013/10/aca-doesnt-restrict-mammograms/

Q: Does the Affordable Care Act restrict my ability to get a mammogram?

A: No. In fact, the law requires insurers to cover mammography, with no cost-sharing, every one to two years for women starting at age 40. Medicare fully pays for mammograms once every 12 months with no upper age limit.

FULL QUESTION

Is it true that now that ObamaCare or Affordable Care has been enacted, yearly mammograms for women over 70 will not be covered by Medicare or Obamacare. Surely not. Awful rumor going round.

_________________________

Does Obamacare limit the number of times women get a mammogram and at what age?

FULL ANSWER

Several readers have asked us questions, such as those listed above, about whether the Affordable Care Act would limit their ability to get a mammogram, or if insurance or Medicare wouldnt cover mammograms under the law. One reader wrote that a doctor told her cousin she couldnt get a mammogram under Obamacare once she turned 74. If so, that doctor is misinforming his or her patients.

The Affordable Care Act actually improves coverage of mammograms for Medicare beneficiaries and an unknown number of women on private insurance, depending on what their insurance covered previously. The law requires Medicare to cover a yearly mammography screening at no cost to women starting at age 40. For private insurance plans, the law also requires coverage of mammograms, with no cost-sharing, every one to two years for women starting at age 40.

For seniors, this is a step up in benefits: Before the health care law, mammograms were also covered, but with 20 percent cost-sharing. For private plans, coverage varied, but under the ACA, women get free mammograms as part of required preventive coverage. Thats for non-grandfathered plans starting on or after Sept. 23, 2010. We know its a big change, said Mona Shah, associate director of federal relations for the American Cancer Society Cancer Action Network. We know based on research that even a small cost-sharing can be a deterrent to getting screened.

Traditional Medicare began fully paying for mammograms in 2011, and all Medicare Advantage plans  those offered by private insurers  were required to do so as of 2012. That information is available on the website of the Medicare Rights Center, a nonprofit group that offers counseling and assistance to Medicare beneficiaries.

Also, the laws requirements for free preventive care  which, beyond mammograms, includes screenings for cholesterol, diabetes, osteoporosis, cancers such as prostate and cervical, and immunizations  are minimum requirements, designed to guarantee certain preventive benefits are part of insurance policies. Insurers could cover above and beyond whats in the law, Shah said.

She told us there wasnt any kind of upper age limit with Medicare  a fact that a Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services spokesperson also confirmed with us  and her organization hadnt heard anything about women being denied coverage. I think those claims are pretty much inaccurate, Shah said.

The American Cancer Society recommends women continue yearly mammograms as long as they are in good health. For elderly women, mammograms should continue as long as she does not have serious, chronic health problems such as congestive heart failure, end-stage renal disease, chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, and moderate to severe dementia, the ACS says.

The Medicare Rights Centers Mitchell Clark, the senior communications associate, also told us his group hadnt heard of any issues where people have been denied coverage of mammogram or had trouble getting a mammogram based on their age, but we do get calls from time to time about unexpected costs. The group notes that while the preventive services are free, there may be a facility fee at certain hospitals or an office visit fee if the patient has a doctors appointment before or after the preventive screening.

We also called the American Geriatrics Society. Carol Goodwin, associate vice president of communications for the group, told us: We have not been getting any specific reports from our members or the public that screenings have been denied for women over the age of 74.

So, where does this rumor come from? That magic 74″ age that several readers mentioned leads us to controversial recommendations in 2009 from the U.S. Preventive Services Task Force, recommendations that were specifically rejected by the Affordable Care Act and also widely misinterpreted.

The 2009 Controversy

The U.S. Preventive Services Task Force was created in 1984 during Ronald Reagans presidency. Its an independent, and volunteer, panel of primary care physicians and experts in preventive medicine. The panel makes recommendations on preventive care based on peer-reviewed evidence. Its recommendations are intended to help primary care clinicians and patients decide together whether a preventive service is right for a patients needs, as the panels website says.

Its recommendations apply to patients who have no signs or symptoms of the specific disease or condition under evaluation and pertain to only services offered in the primary care setting or services referred by a primary care clinician.

The task forces 2002 recommendations on mammography said that it recommends screening mammography, with or without clinical breast examination (CBE), every 1-2 years for women aged 40 and older. And that recommendation has been echoed by many cancer organizations, with groups including the American Cancer Society encouraging a yearly screening. The panel said available trials also have not reported a clear advantage of annual mammography over biennial mammography for women between ages 40 and 50, and that for women over 50, theres also little evidence that its better to get a mammogram annually as opposed to every other year. Risk factors such as family history would strengthen a recommendation for a yearly screening, the task force said.

In November 2009, the task force issued new mammography recommendations, saying that it recommended biennial screening starting at age 50. It said that for women younger than 50, the decision to have a mammogram should be an individual one and take patient context into account, including the patients values regarding specific benefits and harms. The harms were mainly false positive tests.

In the grading system of the Preventive Services Task Force, that recommendation for women under 50 was a C recommendation, which means providing the service depends on individual circumstances, but for most symptom-free patients there is likely to be only a small benefit from this service. As for women 75 and older, the task force said evidence wasnt available to determine benefits versus harms for that age group. Thats an I statement, which means [e]vidence is lacking, of poor quality, or conflicting, and the balance of benefits and harms cannot be determined. The task force described it as a near total lack of trial data for older women.

The 2009 recommendations did not say that women under 50 or over 74 shouldnt get mammograms at all, even though thats the way the recommendations have been wrongly interpreted by some. The task force issued the new recommendations when the health care law was being debated in Congress, likely intensifying the reaction. We debunked one ad back in 2010, from a conservative group, that falsely claimed the guidelines say that women shouldnt receive mammograms until age 50″ and that if the health care legislation were passed, such guidelines could become the law for all kinds of diseases.

That ad also criticized the task force for being a government panel that doesnt include cancer experts. As we said then, thats a matter of definition. The task force is sponsored by the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality, which is part of the Department of Health and Human Services, but its members are doctors and professors who volunteer their services. The task force is designed to be made up of primary care doctors and experts in preventive medicine. The 2009 panel included one public health expert and two experts in epidemiology, the study of the spread of disease.

As we said, the task forces 2009 recommendations were controversial, especially to groups that had long encouraged women to get screened every year once they turned 40. The American Cancer Society and the advocacy group Susan G. Komen for the Cure rejected those recommendations. The Susan G. Komen group said it worried confusion over the recommendations would lead women to not be screened. Health and Human Services Secretary Kathleen Sebelius said women should keep doing what you have been doing for years.

Sebelius, Nov. 18, 2009: The U.S. Preventive Task Force is an outside independent panel of doctors and scientists who make recommendations. They do not set federal policy and they dont determine what services are covered by the federal government.  My message to women is simple. Mammograms have always been an important life-saving tool in the fight against breast cancer and they still are today. Keep doing what you have been doing for years  talk to your doctor about your individual history, ask questions, and make the decision that is right for you.

Dr. Susan Love of the Susan Love Research Foundation supported the guidelines, saying they were just that, guidelines and that mammography is not a good tool for finding breast cancer in younger women and we need to put our efforts to finding something better.

The chair of the task force, Dr. Virginia A. Moyer, a pediatrician, was quoted by CNN in 2011 saying that the panels recommendation wasnt that women under 40 shouldnt have a mammogram, though thats the way it was interpreted. Its something that needs to be discussed on an individual basis. For some women, it will be consistent with their values to choose to have a mammogram between 40 and 50. For other women, they will choose not to, and those are both reasonable decisions.

Affordable Care Act

When the controversy erupted, Congress was debating health care overhaul legislation, which would require insurers to cover, at a minimum, certain preventive services. On Dec. 3, 2009, the Senate passed an amendment by Democratic Sen. Barbara Mikulski of Maryland that would require full coverage of annual mammograms, including for women under 50, and many other womens preventive services. The same day, the Senate agreed, without a vote, to an amendment by Republican Sen. David Vitter of Louisiana that said the law, and any other provision of law, should ignore the 2009 recommendations on mammography by the Preventive Services Task Force.

That language was in the final legislation that was signed into law in late March 2010 by President Obama. Section 2713, which deals with coverage of preventive health services says: [F]or the purposes of this Act, and for the purposes of any other provision of law, the current recommendations of the United States Preventive Service Task Force regarding breast cancer screening, mammography, and prevention shall be considered the most current other than those issued in or around November 2009.

That section says that group and individual health insurance coverage shall, at a minimum provide coverage for and shall not impose any cost sharing requirements for various preventive items, including immunizations recommended by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention and services with an A or B rating from the Preventive Services Task Force. Except, as the Vitter amendment said, the law would not consider the 2009 mammography recommendations as current. That means the minimum coverage requirements follow the 2002 recommendations.

The section notes that these are not limitations on what insurers can cover: Nothing in this subsection shall be construed to prohibit a plan or issuer from providing coverage for services in addition to those recommended by United States Preventive Services Task Force or to deny coverage for services that are not recommended by such Task Force.

This page on the Preventive Services Task Forces website lists the panels ratings that are relevant to the Affordable Care Act, noting that the law uses the 2002 recommendations on breast cancer screenings.

When the Department of Health and Human Services issued a ruling in July 2010 saying the no-cost annual mammograms starting at age 40 and other preventive services would apply to health plans issued on or after Sept. 23, 2010, the Susan G. Komen organization applauded the announcement. By requiring health insurers to offer no-cost access to mammography for women age 40 to 49, HHS has relieved concerns women have had since the United States Preventive Services Task Force issued its controversial guidelines last fall, said Jennifer M. Luray, president of the Komen Advocacy Alliance, in a press release.

So, the Affordable Care Act increases coverage of mammograms for women, depending on what their insurance covered previously. And it specifically rejects those 2009 mammography recommendations, which didnt limit mammography for women anyway.

The episode highlights the political pressures that may fall on this independent task force. Dr. Steven H. Woolf, a former task force member, and Dr. Doug Campos-Outcalt, a liaison between the American Academy of Family Physicians and the USPSTF, wrote of their concerns in the Journal of the American Medical Association, saying that using the USPSTF in the Affordable Care Act to determine coverage mandates exposes the board to pressure from interest groups and threatens its scientific independence. They concluded: A law that liberates the USPSTF to focus on the science and creates a more appropriate policy body to determine first-dollar coverage for preventive services would enable Congress to defend scientific independence and create a wiser structure for achieving the good intentions of the ACA.

Misinformation Lives On

Like a bogus viral email that wont die, false and misleading information about mammograms and the Affordable Care Act continues to circulate, as evidenced by the questions weve received from readers over the past several months. One recent source of such misinformation is a Sept. 25 interview on Fox News Fox & Friends morning show with Dr. Kris Held, an ophthalmologist and ophthalmic surgeon in Texas, a breast cancer survivor and a founder of American Doctors 4 Truth, a group that opposes the Affordable Care Act. (The group was responsible for the ad depicting President Obama throwing a grandmother off a cliff.) The Fox News segment presents a misleading version of the 2009 task force recommendations as new Restrictions on Mammograms.

Held talked to Fox News host Elisabeth Hasselbeck, telling her that Obamacare has panels and task forces which have changed the very recommendations for mammography. Hasselbeck asks Held to talk about the changes, the restrictions now, as a graphic is shown that says Health Care Law and Restrictions on Mammograms. Thats followed by a second graphic that lists Mammogram Restrictions including Screenings starting at age 50, not 40″ and Screenings end at age 74.

Thats a misrepresentation of the 2009 Preventive Services Task Force recommendations, as weve explained. The graphics on screen refer to restrictions while Held calls them recommendations, but nowhere in the segment do Held and Hasselbeck mention that theyre talking about the 2009 recommendations that arent part of the law.

When we reached Held by phone, she said that she wasnt trying to say that women under 50 cant get a mammogram under the Affordable Care Act. She knew that the 2009 recommendations had been rejected by the law, saying that was in added on parts to it and after a public outcry.

Held said her point was to criticize the task force and compare the 2009 recommendations with a recent study published in the journal Cancer that found a significant death rate among younger women who didnt get regularly mammograms. She said that experts in the field come up with very different recommendations than the Preventive Services Task Force, which the law refers to in determining free preventive coverage requirements. She said that government task forces are different and factor in allocation of resources.

I think those task force recommendations were appalling she said of the 2009 recommendations. So they got addressed and [the law] got changed. But, what happens in the future?

That point, however, wasnt made in the news segment, which leaves the distinct impression that Obamacare is restricting womens ability to get a mammogram or have one covered by insurance. Held twice stressed to us that it was really hard in three minutes to get her points across. We asked in a follow-up email if she thought there should be a clarification or correction to the segment, and she replied: The clarification to the segment should be for me to emphasize more clearly how horrible the USPSTF is and how powerful their bad recommendations are.

Held told us over the phone that there was nothing stopping insurance companies from not covering mammograms before the Affordable Care Act, but now youre forced to buy something and pay for services you may or may not want. Indeed, the American Doctors 4 Truth 11-point plan for a health care overhaul says insurance should cover unanticipated care, not preventive. The notion that insurance is pre-payment for routine and preventive healthcare cannot be fiscally sustained, it says.

In the Fox News interview, Hasselbeck asks about screenings ending at age 74, saying, Youre 75 years old, even if youve had a history? How can this be?

Held responds: What does that tell you? They dont even want to know because I guess they dont want to spend the money then to go ahead and treat you.

In our phone interview, Held maintained that mammograms werent covered by Medicare for women over age 74, saying her 78-year-old mother went to have one, and they didnt cover it this year. But after we challenged that, Held said, in a subsequent email, that her mother got through to Medicare on Oct. 16, and was told annual mammograms are covered, and a letter she says her mother had received denying coverage was wrong. She said she would send us the letter, and we will update this article if we receive it. In fact, if a doctor says its medically necessary a woman could even have one more often than annually, Held wrote. I hope it stays that way.

That makes at least one senior who is no longer misinformed about mammograms and Obamacare.

Update, Oct. 21: Held sent us the Medicare document that she says led her mother to believe mammograms werent covered. The document says nothing about mammograms. Instead, the Medicare Summary Notice  a summary of what was billed to Medicare and the amount seniors may owe  says a cervical or vaginal cancer screening; pelvic and clinical breast examination wasnt approved because Medicare pays for a screening Pap smear and/or screening pelvic examination only once every 2 years unless high risk factors are present. A pelvic examination can include a clinical breast exam, in which a doctor examines a patients breasts, according to Medicare documents. The form Helds mother received said she couldnt be billed anything for the pelvic exam, even though it was not an approved service. A note at the bottom of the page said, You didnt know this service isnt covered so you dont have to pay.  Future services of this type wont be paid.

 Lori Robertson

Sources

Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services. Your Medicare Coverage  Mammograms. Medicare.gov. accessed 18 Oct 2013.

Medicare Rights Center. Medicare coverage of mammogram screenings. Medicareinteractive.org. accessed 18 Oct 2013.

U.S. Department of Health and Human Services. Preventive Services Covered Under the Affordable Care Act. HHS.gov. accessed 18 Oct 2013.

American Cancer Society. American Cancer Society recommendations for early breast cancer detection in women without breast symptoms. Cancer.org. accessed 18 Oct 2013.

Mona Shah, associate director of federal relations for the American Cancer Society Cancer Action Network. Phone interview with FactCheck.org. 16 Oct 2013.

Mitchell Clark, the senior communications associate, Medicare Rights Center. Email interview with FactCheck.org. 17 Oct 2013.

Carol Goodwin, associate vice president of communications, American Geriatrics Society. Phone interview with FactCheck.org. 16 Oct 2013.

U.S. Preventive Services Task Force. About the USPSTF. uspreventiveservicestaskforce.org. accessed 18 Oct 2013.

U.S. Preventive Services Task Force. Screening for Breast Cancer (2002). accessed

It seems on first sight that the rest of your information is similarily flawed.


----------



## Janet Cooke (Aug 14, 2013)

Sherry1 said:


> This information is inaccurate. All states will participate. It is up to them to form an exchange or use the national exchange.


It is ridiculous for anyone who is old enough to worry about mammograms at 70+ to worry about it anyway. The ACA is about covering people who have no insurance. I think you already know that.


----------



## Raybo (Mar 12, 2011)

Lukelucy said:


> My research is done. I am not doing research. This doctor did his research. BCBS meeting where it was confirmed.


 BCBS is, unless I'm misinformed, is an insurance company, and how much can you trust them to tell you anything but what they want you to believe.


----------



## Lukelucy (Nov 19, 2011)

jelun2 said:


> The ACA actually guarantees mammograms for all women over the age of 40.
> http://www.factcheck.org/2013/10/aca-doesnt-restrict-mammograms/
> 
> Q: Does the Affordable Care Act restrict my ability to get a mammogram?
> ...


Maybe coverage differs by state. I do not know. All women over 40, but is there an upper limit that they do not talk about?


----------



## Lukelucy (Nov 19, 2011)

Raybo said:


> BCBS is, unless I'm misinformed, is an insurance company, and how much can you trust them to tell you anything but what they want you to believe.


This was a meeting of doctors. I understand what you are saying, but certain things came out that BCBS could not deny and we do not know about them yet. Remember, we do not really know what is going on with Obamacare. Frankly, it passed without people knowing anything.


----------



## bwtyer (Oct 31, 2012)

jelun2 said:


> It is ridiculous for anyone who is old enough to worry about mammograms at 70+ to worry about it anyway. The ACA is about covering people who have no insurance. I think you already know that.


I disagree, Jelin2 - Women over 70 do need to worry , my cousin was diagnosed at age 72. England realizes this.

http://www.cancerresearchuk.org/cancer-info/spotcancerearly/naedi/beclearoncancer/breastover70/

let me add - a woman over 70 has a 1 in 26 chance of getting breast cancer- 
http://www.cancer.gov/cancertopics/factsheet/detection/probability-breast-cancer


----------



## Lukelucy (Nov 19, 2011)

bwtyer said:


> I disagree, Jelin2 - Women over 70 do need to worry , my cousin was diagnosed at age 72. England realizes this.
> 
> http://www.cancerresearchuk.org/cancer-info/spotcancerearly/naedi/beclearoncancer/breastover70/


Absolutely right. Most cancer diagnosis are in people over 70.

I think that we don't know a thing about Obamacare and it is going to be a big bad surprise when it happens. It has not taken full effect yet.


----------



## Lukelucy (Nov 19, 2011)

joeysomma said:


> I don't think anyone really knows what will be covered and at what cost. The information is not available on the web.
> Again to faux quote Nancy Pelosi, you need to buy it, before you know what is in it.


Exactly. What we don't know CAN hurt us. It will all unravel.


----------



## Ma Kitty (Mar 15, 2013)

I think you Americans will be pleasantly surprised when your health care kicks in. Insurance companies will tell you loads of negative information because they will lose a pot load of money from losing that insurance. Insurance companies aren't all that great sometimes. Some decline coverage if it's a second time for a problem. Keep an open mind. You may find you don't have to mortgage your home if you need to go to the hospital and you don't have private insurance.


----------



## Lukelucy (Nov 19, 2011)

Ma Kitty said:


> I think you Americans will be pleasantly surprised when your health care kicks in. Insurance companies will tell you loads of negative information because they will lose a pot load of money from losing that insurance. Insurance companies aren't all that great sometimes. Some decline coverage if it's a second time for a problem. Keep an open mind. You may find you don't have to mortgage your home if you need to go to the hospital and you don't have private insurance.


Thanks, Ms Kitty. I hope you are right. I don't think it'll be good, though.


----------



## Janet Cooke (Aug 14, 2013)

Lukelucy said:


> Maybe coverage differs by state. I do not know. All women over 40, but is there an upper limit that they do not talk about?


I think that you do know. As you pointed out just today, you did the very first post on "smoking and obamacare" that is now about 2500 pages long.

However, here it is again from the article I just posted.

A: No. In fact, the law requires insurers to cover mammography, with no cost-sharing, every one to two years for women starting at age 40. Medicare fully pays for mammograms once every 12 months with no upper age limit.

No cost sharing means NO CO-PAY.


----------



## Ma Kitty (Mar 15, 2013)

Lukelucy said:


> Thanks, Ms Kitty. I hope you are right. I don't think it'll be good, though.


That's what my SIL from New Jersey (now living in Canada) said about our Medicare and now he is in love with it. He says you walk into the doctor, do your business and walk out and pay nothing. Best system according to him.

I think you guys are hearing a load of false information from the Obama haters. I truly believe you will be pleased. I was under the impression he was modelling it after our system. People can still pay through the nose for private insurance if they want. We have to pay if we want face lifts and cosmetic surgery that is vanity driven. If we were in an accident and needed plastic surgery the it's covered or if we had a breast removed they will reconstruct it under our Medicare. But not just implants for the sake of vanity.


----------



## Janet Cooke (Aug 14, 2013)

Ma Kitty said:


> I think you Americans will be pleasantly surprised when your health care kicks in. Insurance companies will tell you loads of negative information because they will lose a pot load of money from losing that insurance. Insurance companies aren't all that great sometimes. Some decline coverage if it's a second time for a problem. Keep an open mind. You may find you don't have to mortgage your home if you need to go to the hospital and you don't have private insurance.


Yes, indeed. Those few million who are affected by ACA will be very happy. Those of us who believe in personal responsibility won't really realize much difference with the law. We didn't feel the pain before and we won't really feel any easing now. However, people will be picking up their own tab for the most part.


----------



## Lukelucy (Nov 19, 2011)

jelun2 said:


> I think that you do know. As you pointed out just today, you did the very first post on "smoking and obamacare" that is now about 2500 pages long.
> 
> However, here it is again from the article I just posted.
> 
> ...


----------



## rasputin (Apr 21, 2013)

ninal46 said:


> I don't know about Canada, but I do know National health in the UK is not all it's cracked up to be. My sister was diagnosed with breast cancer when she was 50 years old. She was told she had to wait several months for some of the tests. She is one of the lucky ones, she opted to go private, pay out of pocket and got a mastectomy. She just turned 74 and has been cancer free. I believe that had she not had the money, and had waited for the NHS to get her in for testing she would have died. Another friend of mine was 60 when she got cancer. Between Chemo, and Radiation she went into remission. The NHS placed her on these very expensive cancer drugs and she was staying in remission. When she turned 70 they told her she could not get the drugs anymore as they were not curing her. She died at 72. Thank you, but no thank you for anything that is remotely like a National health. I want it the way it was ... where I can pick and chose my doctors. That will be a thing of the past with Obamacare. In my opinion anyone that says that National Health is great, have not experienced real good health care. Take a number and wait ... wait ... wait = National Health.


I thank you for being honest about your system. I have heard the same thing from a woman who came from England but now lives here. She said it was awful. Also when visiting Canada my husband and I asked just common people what they thought of their system. They said they didn't like it. They had to wait for operations and test, etc. I just saying what they told me. I am assuming that the ones who can afford to pay will and they will be helping subsidize the ones who can't pay. That is the way it works and to me it is a step to socialism.


----------



## Janet Cooke (Aug 14, 2013)

I hope you are right. Maybe my state has a different rule. Who knows.

What exactly do you not understand about "federal law"?


----------



## Ma Kitty (Mar 15, 2013)

rasputin said:


> I thank you for being honest about your system. I have heard the same thing from a woman who came from England but now lives here. She said it was awful. Also when visiting Canada my husband and I asked just common people what they thought of their system. They said they didn't like it. They had to wait for operations and test, etc. I just saying what they told me. I am assuming that the ones who can afford to pay will and they will be helping subsidize the ones who can't pay. That is the way it works and to me it is a step to socialism.


Critical is first. If it's not an emergency then it can take some time. I have never had a long wait for any ultrasound colonoscopy etc. there are always complainers. Mammograms are quick too.


----------



## Lukelucy (Nov 19, 2011)

rasputin said:


> I thank you for being honest about your system. I have heard the same thing from a woman who came from England but now lives here. She said it was awful. Also when visiting Canada my husband and I asked just common people what they thought of their system. They said they didn't like it. They had to wait for operations and test, etc. I just saying what they told me. I am assuming that the ones who can afford to pay will and they will be helping subsidize the ones who can't pay. That is the way it works and to me it is a step to socialism.


Right. We are on the road to Socialism. It is as clear as day. It scares me that our lives will be cut short because we wait for tests, are put in a line for care, can't choose our doctors. I see America in a battle for Socialism (Dems at this point) and a democratic society (Repubs). Some people don't see it. Our country is changing so quickly.


----------



## susanmos2000 (May 10, 2011)

Lukelucy said:


> As I said, what kind of care are you buying. I believe what I was told.
> 
> I do not want to be denied cancer screening. I want to see the doctor -in another state-the best in the field needed- for any ailment.


You mean you'd really pull up stakes and move to another state without bothering to do some research for yourself? That doesn't make sense at all.


----------



## Lukelucy (Nov 19, 2011)

susanmos2000 said:


> You mean you'd really pull up stakes and move to another state without bothering to do some research for yourself? That doesn't make sense at all.


Of course we are doing research.


----------



## susanmos2000 (May 10, 2011)

Lukelucy said:


> Of course we are doing research.


Well, besides checking out the ACA I'd recommend some research on the doctor who told you all this. It should be obvious by now that at least some of the things he told you are simply not true, as with the mammogram age limit. He sounds incompetent, to be honest.


----------



## Janet Cooke (Aug 14, 2013)

Lukelucy said:


> Right. We are on the road to Socialism. It is as clear as day. It scares me that our lives will be cut short because we wait for tests, are put in a line for care, can't choose our doctors. I see America in a battle for Socialism (Dems at this point) and a democratic society (Repubs). Some people don't see it. Our country is changing so quickly.


If you are concerned about being able to have a mammogram at 70 you are already taking full advantage of socialized medicine.


----------



## Lukelucy (Nov 19, 2011)

susanmos2000 said:


> Well, besides checking out the ACA I'd recommend some research on the doctor who told you all this. It should be obvious by now that at least some of the things he told you are simply not true, as with the mammogram age limit. He sounds incompetent, to be honest.


No, we have heard this from several doctors. He is an excellent doctor - and planning to move away, too. I think all the facts about ACA have not come out. He said that BCBS was reluctant to admit to some of the things I wrote. This is a wait and see. He could be wrong, but I really don't think so. Plus, my state (won't give that info out) is one of the worst for this.


----------



## Janet Cooke (Aug 14, 2013)

This from Pg.1
My research is done. I am not doing research. This doctor did his research. BCBS meeting where it was confirmed.



Lukelucy said:


> Of course we are doing research.


Which is what you are doing? 
It appears that rather than being interested in facts you are interested in whipping yourself up into a frenzy of anxiety for no reason. 
Are you as you imply on Medicare or not?


----------



## Lukelucy (Nov 19, 2011)

jelun2 said:


> This from Pg.1
> My research is done. I am not doing research. This doctor did his research. BCBS meeting where it was confirmed.
> 
> Which is what you are doing?
> ...


First, I "imply on Medicare". I have never mentioned Medicare.
Second, this was very, very bad information from a whole community respected doctor. He is top notch. So, yes, I am very upset.


----------



## Janet Cooke (Aug 14, 2013)

Lukelucy said:


> First, I "imply on Medicare". I have never mentioned Medicare.
> Second, this was very, very bad information from a whole community respected doctor. He is top notch. So, yes, I am very upset.


You did, however, mention mammograms at 70, which implies Medicare. 
Top Notch in East BumBum, Idaho is a whole lot different from top notch in Baltimore, MD. 
Of course, now that you have mentioned that it is SEVERAL doctors who have told you this not just this one...


----------



## momeee (Mar 22, 2011)

Interesting info and concerning also. A friend in NH, not yet eligible for Medicare, who only had private insurance, paid totally by herself, was notified that her insurance would not be offered in that state at the end of December. She asked what was available, and she was told that NH was not having any exchanges, just obamacare. When she was told what it would cover, she was horrified and scared as it was significantly less than what she had been getting...and the kicker was that it was TRIPLE the cost.

Now, if this is true for the entire state, many people will be negatively affected, I'd imagine. 

Does anyone know if my information is accurate?


----------



## Janet Cooke (Aug 14, 2013)

momeee said:


> Interesting info and concerning also. A friend in NH, not yet eligible for Medicare, who only had private insurance, paid totally by herself, was notified that her insurance would not be offered in that state at the end of December. She asked what was available, and she was told that NH was not having any exchanges, just obamacare. When she was told what it would cover, she was horrified and scared as it was significantly less than what she had been getting...and the kicker was that it was TRIPLE the cost.
> 
> Now, if this is true for the entire state, many people will be negatively affected, I'd imagine.
> 
> Does anyone know if my information is accurate?


The only way to be sure is for her to go to the website, give her individualized information, see if she qualifies for a subsidy and figure out which of the options works best for her. 
Here's the website, sorry I cannot get it to do the hyperlink thing.

https://www.healthcare.gov/marketplace/individual/


----------



## Isa53 (Jul 19, 2011)

rasputin said:


> I didn't know that states had the option.?


Which States Are Opting Out of Obamacare Health Insurance Exchanges and Why? Judge Napolitano Explains
BY 
FOX NEWS INSIDER
// NOV 29 2012 // 3:40PM
Arizona has now become the 17th state to refuse to create a state health insurance exchange under Obamacare. Instead, the state will be part of a federally-run exchange that will be set up by the new health care law.

States have until Dec. 14 to make a decision on the exchanges.


----------



## momeee (Mar 22, 2011)

ninal46

Thank you for all the information about the national health program. I had heard/ read a lot about it and it was consistent with what you experienced. Healthy folks, who get routine appointments paid for would understandably be satisfied. The honeymoon is over when there is a serious illness that doesn't get diagnosed or treated in a timely manner. I do know of a rather prominent British doctor who died while waiting for approval of what might have been life saving treatment.


----------



## Janet Cooke (Aug 14, 2013)

joeysomma said:


> It would be wonderful if you could get information from the website!


And why can't anyone get information from the website?


----------



## Lukelucy (Nov 19, 2011)

jelun2 said:


> You did, however, mention mammograms at 70, which implies Medicare.
> Top Notch in East BumBum, Idaho is a whole lot different from top notch in Baltimore, MD.
> Of course, now that you have mentioned that it is SEVERAL doctors who have told you this not just this one...


I am not on Medicare and know little, very littleabout it specifally. I am implying nothing about Medicare. One doctor gave me the latest info. My other doctor (last week) said ACA will put him out of business.

I think care is different in different places.


----------



## Lukelucy (Nov 19, 2011)

jelun2 said:


> And why can't anyone get information from the website?


Good question. I wonder if people are signing up for something that is not good. You get what you pay for.


----------



## susanmos2000 (May 10, 2011)

momeee said:


> Interesting info and concerning also. A friend in NH, not yet eligible for Medicare, who only had private insurance, paid totally by herself, was notified that her insurance would not be offered in that state at the end of December. She asked what was available, and she was told that NH was not having any exchanges, just obamacare. When she was told what it would cover, she was horrified and scared as it was significantly less than what she had been getting...and the kicker was that it was TRIPLE the cost.
> 
> Now, if this is true for the entire state, many people will be negatively affected, I'd imagine.
> 
> Does anyone know if my information is accurate?


As I understand it, New Hampshire has only one plan because only Anthem Blue Cross/Blue Shield applied to compete on the exchange. Still, there should be at least one more in the next few years--the Affordable Care Act requires the federal government to contract with two private health insurers to create "multi-state plans" by 2017.


----------



## Lukelucy (Nov 19, 2011)

teedle said:


> Which States Are Opting Out of Obamacare Health Insurance Exchanges and Why? Judge Napolitano Explains
> BY
> FOX NEWS INSIDER
> // NOV 29 2012 // 3:40PM
> ...


Good place ro move.


----------



## Janet Cooke (Aug 14, 2013)

Lukelucy said:


> I am not on Medicare and know little, very littleabout it specifally. I am implying nothing about Medicare. One doctor gave me the latest info. My other doctor (last week) said ACA will put him out of business.
> 
> I think care is different in different places.


You never did answer my question about what mystifies you about the term federal law?
Is there something that you don't understand about a federal law covering everyone in the nation?


----------



## Lukelucy (Nov 19, 2011)

Lukelucy said:


> No, we have heard this from several doctors. He is an excellent doctor - and planning to move away, too. I think all the facts about ACA have not come out. He said that BCBS was reluctant to admit to some of the things I wrote. This is a wait and see. He could be wrong, but I really don't think so. Plus, my state (won't give that info out) is one of the worst for this.


The info the doctor gave was acquired by him in a meeting for doctors only. This info is not for the general public.


----------



## Janet Cooke (Aug 14, 2013)

Lukelucy said:


> Good place ro move.


You did note the date on that, right?
It was 2012. It was about opting in or out of the ability to determine their own destiny so far as an exchange goes. 
Federal law is for everyone in the country. 
Take my word on this if on nothing else.

Oh, and when you are 65, sign up for Medicare. Then you don't have to worry about ACA.


----------



## momeee (Mar 22, 2011)

jelun2 

thank you for the link. I will pass it on to her, but I suspect she has already looked at it. She was in the insurance industry for years, then became self employed. So she is probably better informed about insurance in general than the average person. I'll be interested in what she has discovered. Last time we spoke she was looking into states where she would have access to good private insurance. Because insurance is so important it would necessitate selling her home and moving which is pretty daunting the older one gets.


----------



## susanmos2000 (May 10, 2011)

Lukelucy said:


> The info the doctor gave was acquired by him in a meeting for doctors only. This info is not for the general public.


Then why the heck did he tell you?


----------



## Janet Cooke (Aug 14, 2013)

susanmos2000 said:


> Then why the heck did he tell you?


Perhaps her husband is pulling her leg.


----------



## Janet Cooke (Aug 14, 2013)

joeysomma said:


> *You tell me how you can! *
> 
> Please pm me with the options for a 58 year old single woman with health issues in Wisconsin. This for a friend who is unable to even get on the web site.


NH agreed to the state exchange, one must be from NH to access it.

Anyone from WI should ask that wonderful governor to take over the exchange as a state responsibility. It was really smart to make the the feds do it. All he did was hurt his constituents again.


----------



## susanmos2000 (May 10, 2011)

jelun2 said:


> Perhaps her husband is pulling her leg.


Him...or someone RWN trying to spread panic an hysteria. I'd prefer to believe that a doctor wouldn't do such a thing and Joey and/or her husband misunderstood, but who knows? Given the wackiness of the TPers there must be some wacky doctors among them as well.


----------



## Janet Cooke (Aug 14, 2013)

susanmos2000 said:


> Him...or someone RWN trying to spread panic an hysteria. I'd prefer to believe that a doctor wouldn't do such a thing and Joey and/or her husband misunderstood, but who knows? Given the wackiness of the TPers there must be some wacky doctors among them as well.


Maybe it's Ben Carson.


----------



## Lukelucy (Nov 19, 2011)

susanmos2000 said:


> Then why the heck did he tell you?


Hevtold my husband. Why not? He is upset, too! His practice is done!


----------



## Lukelucy (Nov 19, 2011)

susanmos2000 said:


> Him...or someone RWN trying to spread panic an hysteria. I'd prefer to believe that a doctor wouldn't do such a thing and Joey and/or her husband misunderstood, but who knows? Given the wackiness of the TPers there must be some wacky doctors among them as well.


He is not wacky. Neither is my other doctor. Would not go to them if they were.


----------



## susanmos2000 (May 10, 2011)

Lukelucy said:


> Hevtold my husband. Why not? He is upset, too! His practice is done!


From what you've said I'm not surprised--but I doubt the ACA is why this fellow is suddenly opting for retirement. There's something fishy going on here.


----------



## Lukelucy (Nov 19, 2011)

jelun2 said:


> Perhaps her husband is pulling her leg.


I wish he was.


----------



## Lukelucy (Nov 19, 2011)

susanmos2000 said:


> From what you've said I'm not surprised--but I doubt the ACA is why this fellow is suddenly opting for retirement. There's something fishy going on here.


Nothing fishy but ACA.


----------



## Janet Cooke (Aug 14, 2013)

Lukelucy said:


> Nothing fishy but ACA.


Ok, here we go. NOW we have the answer. 
You are not mystified. You have your mind made up. It doesn't matter how much objective factual information you are fed. Have YOU decided that you want to desseminate faulty information?
It is really unfair to paint ANYONE from the medical profession as spreading incorrect information from BCBS.
(Just so you know, my daughter's SIL just happens to work for them, so I will find out about if and why they are putting this out to docs in workshops.) 
My guess is that Blue Cross is not holding these workshops at all.


----------



## bwtyer (Oct 31, 2012)

jelun2 said:


> Ok, here we go. NOW we have the answer.
> You are not mystified. You have your mind made up. It doesn't matter how much objective factual information you are fed. Have YOU decided that you want to desseminate faulty information?
> It is really unfair to paint ANYONE from the medical profession as spreading incorrect information from BCBS.
> (Just so you know, my daughter's SIL just happens to work for them, so I will find out about if and why they are putting this out to docs in workshops.)
> My guess is that Blue Cross is not holding these workshops at all.


Looks like they are - see the link - not sure of the state
http://www.wellmark.com/ACAreviewSD/

BCBS is going to carry plans for ACA but they seem to be a bit expensive for people who are watching their budget - I have insurance so I have no idea what the plans should run.
http://www.wral.com/blue-cross-nc-announces-prices-for-aca-plans/12854887/


----------



## margoc (Jul 4, 2011)

BCBS is different in every state and I would assume that will be the case with the exchange - be it a state or federal. BCBS is one of the worst insurance companies IMHO so anything regarding coverage coming from them I would never believe.


----------



## Janet Cooke (Aug 14, 2013)

momeee said:


> jelun2
> 
> thank you for the link. I will pass it on to her, but I suspect she has already looked at it. She was in the insurance industry for years, then became self employed. So she is probably better informed about insurance in general than the average person. I'll be interested in what she has discovered. Last time we spoke she was looking into states where she would have access to good private insurance. Because insurance is so important it would necessitate selling her home and moving which is pretty daunting the older one gets.


Just for your general info, this article is from a couple of weeks ago.

http://www.marketwatch.com/story/the-50-states-of-obamacare-2013-09-27


----------



## Janet Cooke (Aug 14, 2013)

margoc said:


> BCBS is different in every state and I would assume that will be the case with the exchange - be it a state or federal. BCBS is one of the worst insurance companies IMHO so anything regarding coverage coming from them I would never believe.


I was thinking pretty much the same thing. 
I haven't noted a state yet that has coverage from BC


----------



## Janet Cooke (Aug 14, 2013)

bwtyer said:


> Looks like they are - see the link - not sure of the state
> http://www.wellmark.com/ACAreviewSD/
> 
> BCBS is going to carry plans for ACA but they seem to be a bit expensive for people who are watching their budget - I have insurance so I have no idea what the plans should run.
> http://www.wral.com/blue-cross-nc-announces-prices-for-aca-plans/12854887/


Thanks for doing that research, that first link is for small businesses. So it may be a huge misunderstanding on someone's part. Sometimes doctors are better off leaving the business end of things to business people.

This is the second. The rates, especially for BC, seem pretty good.

This is lifted from that article you posted the link to. 
26 plans sounds pretty good.

CHAPEL HILL, N.C.  North Carolina's largest health insurer is telling consumers how much it will charge individuals under terms of the Affordable Care Act.

Blue Cross and Blue Shield North Carolina announced Thursday that it will offer 26 plans on the health insurance exchange. Monthly premiums will range from as little as $145 for a 25-year-old subscriber to one of two catastrophic plans, up to as much as $594 for one of six plans for a 60-year-old.

A news release from the provider said catastrophic plans will have higher deductibles and will be available for consumers under age 30 and those who get what is described as "hardship exemptions."

Blue Cross has opened at least a half-dozen offices across the state to educate people about the ACA. It will begin enrollment in October.

"The ACA will make coverage available to many who have never had it and will enhance benefits for most consumers. These are good things, but they come at a cost," said Patrick Getzen, BNBSNC vice president and chief actuary.


----------



## bwtyer (Oct 31, 2012)

I guess time will tell - -you know and I know that some will still not buy insurance, due to monetary hardship or perhaps many other reasons- ( street people, etc) I am wondering since being insured will be mandatory - will hospitals be allowed to reject patients who are not insured? wondering how they plan to enforce this. I have never seen anything in print other than fines that are cheaper than the insurance - anyone have any knowledge ?


----------



## Janet Cooke (Aug 14, 2013)

bwtyer said:


> I guess time will tell - -you know and I know that some will still not buy insurance, due to monetary hardship or perhaps many other reasons- ( street people, etc) I am wondering since being insured will be mandatory - will hospitals be allowed to reject patients who are not insured? wondering how they plan to enforce this. I have never seen anything in print other than fines that are cheaper than the insurance - anyone have any knowledge ?


I haven't seen anything about a repeal of the law that requires stablizing a patient. Who knows.


----------



## Janet Cooke (Aug 14, 2013)

bwtyer said:


> Looks like they are - see the link - not sure of the state
> http://www.wellmark.com/ACAreviewSD/
> 
> BCBS is going to carry plans for ACA but they seem to be a bit expensive for people who are watching their budget - I have insurance so I have no idea what the plans should run.
> http://www.wral.com/blue-cross-nc-announces-prices-for-aca-plans/12854887/


The OP claims that this was a SPECIAL workshop, that the info was not for general consumption, only for doctors, though.


----------



## Janet Cooke (Aug 14, 2013)

bwtyer said:


> I guess time will tell - -you know and I know that some will still not buy insurance, due to monetary hardship or perhaps many other reasons- ( street people, etc) I am wondering since being insured will be mandatory - will hospitals be allowed to reject patients who are not insured? wondering how they plan to enforce this. I have never seen anything in print other than fines that are cheaper than the insurance - anyone have any knowledge ?


Monetary hardship or because someone who doesn't know better reads foolishness such as this. 
No mention of subsidies...


----------



## Lukelucy (Nov 19, 2011)

jelun2 said:


> Ok, here we go. NOW we have the answer.
> You are not mystified. You have your mind made up. It doesn't matter how much objective factual information you are fed. Have YOU decided that you want to desseminate faulty information?
> It is really unfair to paint ANYONE from the medical profession as spreading incorrect information from BCBS.
> (Just so you know, my daughter's SIL just happens to work for them, so I will find out about if and why they are putting this out to docs in workshops.)
> My guess is that Blue Cross is not holding these workshops at all.


Another assumption. My mind is not made up. Actually, there is very little factual info disseminated to the American people. Since I received info from a trustworthy professional, I will take it seriously. Will your daughter's SIL have all the info for my state? It will all come out slowly as time goes on.

Please do not assume my feelings and thoughts. You do not know me or my circumstances.


----------



## rasputin (Apr 21, 2013)

bwtyer said:


> I guess time will tell - -you know and I know that some will still not buy insurance, due to monetary hardship or perhaps many other reasons- ( street people, etc) I am wondering since being insured will be mandatory - will hospitals be allowed to reject patients who are not insured? wondering how they plan to enforce this. I have never seen anything in print other than fines that are cheaper than the insurance - anyone have any knowledge ?


I live in Mass. I don't think any hospital will turn anyone away. (the hypocratic oath). I think we will all be paying for the ones who fall through the cracks. In my state the ones who are poor and are on welfare get insurance called Mass. Health. depending on your income is how much it costs. So welfare recipients get free care. I retired when I was 62. I had to get my own insurance. I started to collect my social security at 62. But I still had to get my own insurance until I could go on medicare at 65, So for 3 yrs I have had to pay $451.00 per month for private insurance. I didn't qualify for any help.


----------



## Janet Cooke (Aug 14, 2013)

rasputin said:



> I live in Mass. I don't think any hospital will turn anyone away. (the hypocratic oath). I think we will all be paying for the ones who fall through the cracks. In my state the ones who are poor and are on welfare get insurance called Mass. Health. depending on your income is how much it costs. So welfare recipients get free care. I retired when I was 62. I had to get my own insurance. I started to collect my social security at 62. But I still had to get my own insurance until I could go on medicare at 65, So for 3 yrs I have had to pay $451.00 per month for private insurance. I didn't qualify for any help.


It's very nice for you that you have such a great retirement. Congratulations for such good planning.


----------



## Cheeky Blighter (Nov 20, 2011)

joeysomma said:


> I don't think anyone really knows what will be covered and at what cost. The information is not available on the web.
> Again to faux quote Nancy Pelosi, you need to buy it, before you know what is in it.


The exchanges are open in all states. No state can opt out. I know because I have been out on mine in MN. All the information for MN is on MNSURE website http://mnsure.org/ There are four different levels of coverage and catastrophic coverage for those who want only that. There are a variety of Insurance carriers who are participating including BCBS in MN. I will be able to see any doctor I want and go anywhere I decide to go and it will be a lot more reasonably priced because there is no longer preexisting conditions applied to anyone. Please stop spreading your nonsense about ACA. If you are happy with your current insurance you can keep it. If you are on medicare you stay on medicare. I don't understand all this spreading lies. Lukelucy and any doubters can go out on your own state's site and see what is offered and if your state did not set up there own exchange go to the federal site listed below. Please look this stuff up for yourself folks and don't listen to silly rumors. https://www.healthcare.gov/


----------



## Lukelucy (Nov 19, 2011)

Cheeky Blighter said:


> The exchanges are open in all states. No state can opt out. I know because I have been out on mine in MN. All the information for MN is on MNSURE website http://mnsure.org/ There are four different levels of coverage and catastrophic coverage for those who want only that. There are a variety of Insurance carriers who are participating including BCBS in MN. I will be able to see any doctor I want and go anywhere I decide to go and it will be a lot more reasonably priced because there is no longer preexisting conditions applied to anyone. Please stop spreading your nonsense about ACA. If you are happy with your current insurance you can keep it. If you are on medicare you stay on medicare. I don't understand all this spreading lies. Lukelucy and any doubters can go out on your own state's site and see what is offered and if your state did not set up there own exchange go to the federal site listed below. Please look this stuff up for yourself folks and don't listen to silly rumors. https://www.healthcare.gov/


This is not a silly rumor nor a lie.


----------



## susanmos2000 (May 10, 2011)

Lukelucy said:


> Another assumption. My mind is not made up. Actually, there is very little factual info disseminated to the American people. Since I received info from a trustworthy professional, I will take it seriously.


Frankly I don't believe for an instant that your source is a trustworthy anything. No reputable doctor would frighten his patients by disseminating"top secret information" impossible for them to confirm or deny. The man is a quack--whatever his real reason for retiring you should be grateful that you'll no longer be under this charlatan's care.


----------



## Cheeky Blighter (Nov 20, 2011)

Lukelucy said:


> Another assumption. My mind is not made up. Actually, there is very little factual info disseminated to the American people. Since I received info from a trustworthy professional, I will take it seriously. Will your daughter's SIL have all the info for my state? It will all come out slowly as time goes on.
> 
> Please do not assume my feelings and thoughts. You do not know me or my circumstances.


Lukelucy if you can get on KP you must have a computer. Instead of spreading silly stories that are not based on any facts go to the federal website or your state's if they set up their own exchange. If you like your healthcare keep it. You don't have to change. If you are already on medicare you will still be on medicare.


----------



## Lukelucy (Nov 19, 2011)

susanmos2000 said:


> Frankly I don't believe for an instant that your source is a trustworthy anything. No reputable doctor would disseminate "top secret information" impossible to confirm or deny just to frighten his patients. The man is a quack--whatever his real reason for retiring you should be grateful that you'll no longer be under this charlatan's care.


I never said it was "top secret info". It was an informative meeting for doctors. This man is not a quack. You do not know him. How can you judge without knowing him? I do know him and trust him.
Please do not judge when you do not know the people involved. Please do not call something top secret when it is not and no one said it was.


----------



## Lukelucy (Nov 19, 2011)

Cheeky Blighter said:


> Lukelucy if you can get on KP you must have a computer. Instead of spreading silly stories that are not based on any facts go to the federal website or your states if they set up their own exchange. If you like your healthcare keep it. You don't have to change. If you are already on medicare you will still be on medicare.


This is not a silly story.


----------



## courier770 (Jan 29, 2011)

It really annoys me to hear the AFFORDABLE CARE ACT called "Obamacare". Agree with it or not this was NOT the result of the action of our president alone. Do I agree with the ACA....well no quite frankly though I still refuse to call it "Obamacare". "LIBERALCARE" might be more accurate terminology but heck our liberal lawmakers are exempt from being forced into it like the rest of us are.

I'm almost 60 years old and the ACA has already cost me close to $4,500.00 a year, in higher premiums, deductions and "out of pocket expenses!

I'm all for making health care more affordable...but why are most of us seeing HUGE increases in costs?


----------



## Janet Cooke (Aug 14, 2013)

Lukelucy said:


> Another assumption. My mind is not made up. Actually, there is very little factual info disseminated to the American people. Since I received info from a trustworthy professional, I will take it seriously. Will your daughter's SIL have all the info for my state? It will all come out slowly as time goes on.
> 
> Please do not assume my feelings and thoughts. You do not know me or my circumstances.


Since you haven't answered a single question, and I have asked a question with every response to your posts I can do nothing but draw a conclusion from that and our past conversations. 
I repeat, you just informed me earlier today that YOU began those Smoking and Obamacare threads. You did that almost 10 months ago. 
Can you make note of one positive comment you have made about the ACA? 2500 pages of conversation, one comment that said a good thing about the intent, about the people it will help, about the wonder that at least another million people will be able to get cancer screenings? Anything? 
There is information all over about what Obamacare is for, who it is meant to service, who will benefit from the additional medicaid, what the rates look like, what the roll out disaster has been like on the federal site, how wonderful it has been for people whose states had the foresight to develop their own exchange. 
The only way a person could have no information about Obamacare is to willfully ignore anything written about it on the internet.

So here we go, third time never fails they say. 
Do you understand that a federal law covers every state and every person in the nation? Do you understand that if your circumstances equate to the circumstances developed to be within the parameters of the law that regardless of which state you live in it affects you?

I am supposing again because gave us this information that since you and/or your husband see several doctors that you have health insurance. If that health insurance is through an employer you have no issue. Even if that health insurance company pulls out of your state the employer will be responsible, as always, for providing health insurance benefits.


----------



## Janet Cooke (Aug 14, 2013)

courier770 said:


> It really annoys me to hear the AFFORDABLE CARE ACT called "Obamacare". Agree with it or not this was NOT the result of the action of our president alone. Do I agree with the ACA....well no quite frankly though I still refuse to call it "Obamacare". "LIBERALCARE" might be more accurate terminology but heck our liberal lawmakers are exempt from being forced into it like the rest of us are.
> 
> I'm almost 60 years old and the ACA has already cost me close to $4,500.00 a year, in higher premiums, deductions and "out of pocket expenses!
> 
> I'm all for making health care more affordable...but why are most of us seeing HUGE increases in costs?


Making pronouncements doesn't make them true. 
Congress does have to use Obamacare.
Obamacare has not started in full swing yet, if your premiums are up it is not because of the ACA.


----------



## Lukelucy (Nov 19, 2011)

jelun2 said:


> Since you haven't answered a single question, and I have asked a question with every response to your posts I can do nothing but draw a conclusion from that and our past conversations.
> I repeat, you just informed me earlier today that YOU began those Smoking and Obamacare threads. You did that almost 10 months ago.
> Can you make note of one positive comment you have made about the ACA? 2500 pages of conversation, one comment that said a good thing about the intent, about the people it will help, about the wonder that at least another million people will be able to get cancer screenings? Anything?
> There is information all over about what Obamacare is for, who it is meant to service, who will benefit from the additional medicaid, what the rates look like, what the roll out disaster has been like on the federal site, how wonderful it has been for people whose states had the foresight to develop their own exchange.
> ...


I will not respond to anyone who is accusatory and does not show me respect. My lack of reponse will be the result of that and nothing more.


----------



## courier770 (Jan 29, 2011)

Lukelucy, I HAD excellent health care coverage...HAD is the key word. I worked for it and I paid for it and now the benefits I toiled for have been "eroded" under this new system. I paid for those benefits all of my life, year after year even if I didn't use them fully. Now I'm going to be punished by higher deductibles, higher out of pocket expenses and higher premiums. For what? Please tell me for what?


I'm now expected to carry the burden for those who chose to never carry the burden to being with? Worse yet our "leaders" in Washington will NEVER be forced into this mess?

I'm gong to put it very bluntly...as a senior citizen I never expected to be so screwed!


----------



## Janet Cooke (Aug 14, 2013)

Lukelucy said:


> I will not respond to anyone who is accusatory and does not show me respect. My lack of reponse will be the result of that and nothing more.


You won't respond because you can't respond. 
Your assertions are fabrications and your refusal to answer goes back to page 2 at the latest. 
I have indeed become exasperated and accusatory BECAUSE of your refusal to answer and your insistence on information that we all know is not true. 
Good luck with your free mammogram.


----------



## bwtyer (Oct 31, 2012)

courier770 said:


> Lukelucy, I HAD excellent health care coverage...HAD is the key word. I worked for it and I paid for it and now the benefits I toiled for have been "eroded" under this new system. I paid for those benefits all of my life, year after year even if I didn't use them fully. Now I'm going to be punished by higher deductibles, higher out of pocket expenses and higher premiums. For what? Please tell me for what?
> 
> I'm now expected to carry the burden for those who chose to never carry the burden to being with? Worse yet our "leaders" in Washington will NEVER be forced into this mess?
> 
> I'm gong to put it very bluntly...as a senior citizen I never expected to be so screwed!


Well put!!! This was one of the arguments against it - and we were told it would NOT affect those with insurance...so indeed, why are the premiums going up? 
Here is an article- however- I am not familiar with this newspaper- it may be one of the radical ones -
http://freebeacon.com/obamacare-raising-premiums-hurting-middle-lower-class/


----------



## susanmos2000 (May 10, 2011)

Lukelucy said:


> I never said it was "top secret info". It was an informative meeting for doctors. This man is not a quack. You do not know him. How can you judge without knowing him? I do know him and trust him.
> Please do not judge when you do not know the people involved. Please do not call something top secret when it is not and no one said it was.


It's true that I don't know this man (thank heavens), but it's clear to everyone that the information he's feeding you is simply not correct. There's no age cap on medical screenings, you will be able to receive treatment out of state, and there's no way to opt out of the ACA by moving to another state.


----------



## Cheeky Blighter (Nov 20, 2011)

courier770 said:


> It really annoys me to hear the AFFORDABLE CARE ACT called "Obamacare". Agree with it or not this was NOT the result of the action of our president alone. Do I agree with the ACA....well no quite frankly though I still refuse to call it "Obamacare". "LIBERALCARE" might be more accurate terminology but heck our liberal lawmakers are exempt from being forced into it like the rest of us are.
> 
> I'm almost 60 years old and the ACA has already cost me close to $4,500.00 a year, in higher premiums, deductions and "out of pocket expenses!
> 
> I'm all for making health care more affordable...but why are most of us seeing HUGE increases in costs?


ACA has not caused your premiums to go up. Your premiums were increased by your insurance company and no one else if they were increased or if you are covered through your employer than your employer is having you pay a larger share of the premium than you used to. Also not caused by ACA. If you don't like your insurance than go to another insurance company or check out ACA and the exchange in your state. You are not helpless are you? There are no longer preexisting conditions applied to anyone so shop around. If you need help looking I would be happy to assist you.


----------



## damemary (Mar 14, 2012)

This person doesn't let facts get in the way of her pronouncements....as you've discovered.



Lukelucy said:


> My research is done. I am not doing research. This doctor did his research. BCBS meeting where it was confirmed.


----------



## BrattyPatty (May 2, 2011)

Lukelucy said:


> My research is done. I am not doing research. This doctor did his research. BCBS meeting where it was confirmed.


Luke Lucy, isn't one thread filled with these lies enough for you? Your posts are hearsay and not based on genuine facts.


----------



## susanmos2000 (May 10, 2011)

damemary said:


> This person doesn't let facts get in the way of her pronouncements....as you've discovered.


Yes, it's true--folks like Joey are putty in mischief makers' hands.


----------



## BrattyPatty (May 2, 2011)

Lukelucy said:


> I will not respond to anyone who is accusatory and does not show me respect. My lack of reponse will be the result of that and nothing more.


How about anyone who challenges you based on facts?
This is nonsense!


----------



## bwtyer (Oct 31, 2012)

Well some are exempt from ACA. 
"The law provides a few exemptions from the requirement to have insurance, but only for those who earn too little to file taxes, those with financial hardships, those who cant find affordable coverage, and some religious groups that qualify for Social Security exemptions, mainly Mennonite or Amish."

http://www.factcheck.org/2013/05/congress-and-an-exemption-from-obamacare/


----------



## damemary (Mar 14, 2012)

Sounds like peace of mind to me. I wonder why some are fighting so hard against it. The lies and exaggerations have compounded the confusion greatly.

I expect, when all the kinks are worked out, Americans will accept and depend on ACA as they depend on Social Security and Medicare.



Ma Kitty said:


> I think you Americans will be pleasantly surprised when your health care kicks in. Insurance companies will tell you loads of negative information because they will lose a pot load of money from losing that insurance. Insurance companies aren't all that great sometimes. Some decline coverage if it's a second time for a problem. Keep an open mind. You may find you don't have to mortgage your home if you need to go to the hospital and you don't have private insurance.


----------



## damemary (Mar 14, 2012)

And heaven knows mischief makers need putty for their hijinks.



susanmos2000 said:


> Yes, it's true--folks like Joey are putty in mischief makers' hands.


----------



## damemary (Mar 14, 2012)

BrattyPatty said:


> How about anyone who challenges you based on facts?
> This is nonsense!


 :thumbup: :thumbup: :thumbup: :thumbup: :thumbup: :thumbup: :thumbup: :thumbup: :thumbup: :thumbup:


----------



## BrattyPatty (May 2, 2011)

Lukelucy said:


> Right. We are on the road to Socialism. It is as clear as day. It scares me that our lives will be cut short because we wait for tests, are put in a line for care, can't choose our doctors. I see America in a battle for Socialism (Dems at this point) and a democratic society (Repubs). Some people don't see it. Our country is changing so quickly.


You have no idea what you are talking about. I took the time and went to a seminar on the ACA. Everything you have just stated is false. EVERYTHING!
Get educated on the subject before you start spreading fear and the wrong information among the ladies here.


----------



## grandmann (Feb 4, 2011)

joeysomma said:


> *You tell me how you can! *
> 
> Please pm me with the options for a 58 year old single woman with health issues in Wisconsin. This for a friend who is unable to even get on the web site.


This is the web site I used without any problems. 
www.healthcare.gov


----------



## BrattyPatty (May 2, 2011)

It wouldn't hurt you, Lukelucy, to look at that website either. You might learn something.


----------



## BrattyPatty (May 2, 2011)

Lukelucy said:


> This is not a silly rumor nor a lie.


Oh yes it is!!


----------



## ute4kp (Nov 6, 2012)

http://www.knittingparadise.com/t-207934-1.html

Lukelucy,These are lies as is the other crap you posted here.


----------



## BrattyPatty (May 2, 2011)

joeysomma said:


> I don't think this is a fact. Most retirees that have not reached the age of 65 (Medicare) are loosing their health insurance from their former employer.
> 
> Where did you find your information?
> 
> ...


Some retirees are kept on the company's insurance through the Cobra plan. Some are given 3-6 months to find their own coverage under this plan.


----------



## jinkers (May 24, 2011)

Since the ACA doesn't even take effect until 2014, how could it have already cost you $4,500 and how could you have already seen increases in other things?


----------



## ute4kp (Nov 6, 2012)

jelun2 said:


> This from Pg.1
> My research is done. I am not doing research. This doctor did his research. BCBS meeting where it was confirmed.
> 
> Which is what you are doing?
> ...


She's in a foxy frenzy.


----------



## jinkers (May 24, 2011)

I vote for discontinuing this thread. Do I hear a second?


----------



## BrattyPatty (May 2, 2011)

jinkers said:


> I vote for discontinuing this thread. Do I hear a second?


I second the motion.


----------



## ute4kp (Nov 6, 2012)

susanmos2000 said:


> Him...or someone RWN trying to spread panic an hysteria. I'd prefer to believe that a doctor wouldn't do such a thing and Joey and/or her husband misunderstood, but who knows? Given the wackiness of the TPers there must be some wacky doctors among them as well.


Yes, a doctor friend is a wacky foxy RWN.


----------



## theyarnlady (Feb 25, 2011)

jinkers said:


> I vote for discontinuing this thread. Do I hear a second?


you have my vote. :thumbup:


----------



## ute4kp (Nov 6, 2012)

rasputin said:


> I live in Mass. I don't think any hospital will turn anyone away. (the hypocratic oath). I think we will all be paying for the ones who fall through the cracks. In my state the ones who are poor and are on welfare get insurance called Mass. Health. depending on your income is how much it costs. So welfare recipients get free care. I retired when I was 62. I had to get my own insurance. I started to collect my social security at 62. But I still had to get my own insurance until I could go on medicare at 65, So for 3 yrs I have had to pay $451.00 per month for private insurance. I didn't qualify for any help.


Just about the same in NY. I currently pay $570.00 for myself. This is a group plan , or else I'd be paying double.


----------



## ute4kp (Nov 6, 2012)

Lukelucy said:


> This is not a silly rumor nor a lie.


You post rumors and foxy scare teahaddist scare tactics. If ACA is so terrible it will fail on its own.


----------



## BrattyPatty (May 2, 2011)

Lukelucy said:


> Thank you. This is what I have been saying all along. You have verified.


She has only varified her experience over in the UK which has absolutely NOTHING to do with the ACA.

People, I suggest that you not take any of Lukelucy's postings seriously on the matter of the ACA. There are sites you can go to within your own states or on a national level to answer any questions you may have. It is not perfect yet, but then again what is?


----------



## suzy-kate (Jan 6, 2013)

ninal46 said:


> I don't know about Canada, but I do know National health in the UK is not all it's cracked up to be. My sister was diagnosed with breast cancer when she was 50 years old. She was told she had to wait several months for some of the tests. She is one of the lucky ones, she opted to go private, pay out of pocket and got a mastectomy. She just turned 74 and has been cancer free. I believe that had she not had the money, and had waited for the NHS to get her in for testing she would have died. Another friend of mine was 60 when she got cancer. Between Chemo, and Radiation she went into remission. The NHS placed her on these very expensive cancer drugs and she was staying in remission. When she turned 70 they told her she could not get the drugs anymore as they were not curing her. She died at 72. Thank you, but no thank you for anything that is remotely like a National health. I want it the way it was ... where I can pick and chose my doctors. That will be a thing of the past with Obamacare. In my opinion anyone that says that National Health is great, have not experienced real good health care. Take a number and wait ... wait ... wait = National Health.


A lot depends where you live, my brother who lives in London got cancer of the tonsil, received treatment within 6 weeks, and had the all clear two years ago. A friend had the same type of cancer had to wait three months, before she was even seen, when the first lot of treatment didn't work, they decided to give her a second, that was in January she received the go ahead in June but was dead by July.


----------



## dev7316 (Sep 2, 2011)

don't go to an insurance co. for info. they are only trying to sell theirs. If you have a pre exsisting condition you will at least be able to be insured. Evidently ins. companys are afraid of losing money. Don't listen to them.


----------



## dev7316 (Sep 2, 2011)

BCBS is biased. get your info from a non private source. BCBS also said you could only go back to original medicare once, which is completely false.


----------



## Shamrock (Jan 17, 2011)

Lukelucy said:


> Thank you. This is what I have been saying all along. You have verified.


The poster is talking about the health care system in the United Kingdom not the United States.


----------



## pam j (May 15, 2011)

How lucky we are in Australia , I also had breast cancer , I had 6 weeks of radiation, did not have to pay for accomadation while I was away from home getting treatment , after a period of time the cancer came back I had a double mastectomy , all this cost me nothing , I am a public , patient ,i also have a mammagram every 12 months this also cost me nothing , thank God Im an aussie I pay no health benefits


----------



## Janeway (Nov 22, 2011)

Sherry1 said:


> This is not national health care. This is a law making health care affordable for all. Very low income will be subsidized. There are four levels of coverage from which to pick. States CANNOT opt out. It is the law. They can only chose to go with the National Exchange instead of a state exchange.


Yes, subsidized by the person who pays their bills as my Medicare part B will double in the next years & then triple as well as my supplemental insurance.

Where do you think the subsidizing money will come from? Me Hello!


----------



## Janeway (Nov 22, 2011)

dev7316 said:


> BCBS is biased. get your info from a non private source. BCBS also said you could only go back to original medicare once, which is completely false.


What are you calling original Medicare? What is the other Medicare?


----------



## ramram0003 (Nov 7, 2011)

Sherry1 said:


> This information is inaccurate. All states will participate. It is up to them to form an exchange or use the national exchange.


Sorry, but as of right now there are 16 or 17 states that have opted OUT of Obamacare. It has been on the news recently.


----------



## grandmatimestwo (Mar 30, 2011)

The cost of our health insurance is ridiculous! My paycheck goes down every year and the benefits are fewer.


----------



## pengwensgranny (Aug 3, 2011)

Lukelucy said:


> Thank you. This is what I have been saying all along. You have verified.


I have had breast cancer twice - once in 1995 at age 53 and again last year at 70 years old.
Neither time did I have to wait for tests or treatment. It was all carried out within a short time of diagnosis.

I know things vary across the country, but here in Bedfordshire treatment for any life threatening condition is given very quickly.


----------



## orthorn (Oct 8, 2011)

My state did not opt in so we have the national exchange. I was able to get through on the site , so I could sign up for a policy under the ACA. The lowest coverage- $3500 deductible, a policy that pays 70% ,leaving me with 30% to pay out of pocket, will cost $600/ month. I can stay with my $6000 deductible, 80/20 policy through private insurance for $286/ month. For me it was an easy choice-private insurance for another year.


----------



## ramram0003 (Nov 7, 2011)

Lukelucy said:


> Thank you. This is what I have been saying all along. You have verified.


I too don't like this new law. Why can't we just take care of ourselves. With this Obamacare I have NO CHOICE but to get some kind of insurance or the IRS will take money out of my returns at the end of the year. It tells me to go on welfare. I only did that back when my ex-husband and I divorced and he wasn't helping with our son. So I went to DSS to get assistance. Mind you, I was still working and still paying into the system. I hated to do it but for my son I would do anything. We did it for a while and then my doctor wouldn't take it any more because they were paying him pennies and he couldn't make a living on that. I pay out of pocket and pray to God that I don't get real sick. But at the welfare office they did tell me that I could come back and re-open my case and they would go back 3 months to help with the medical bills. Obama just wants us all on assistance so we don't have a mind of our own. Sorry for the rant. I am done.


----------



## pam j (May 15, 2011)

janeway may be it is your turn to pay I have paid for years , Im now on a pension , and have also payed taxes , it is impossible to pay health fund on a pension , as I said glad to be an AUSSIE


----------



## damemary (Mar 14, 2012)

Gee, do you think she could be lying for effect? You got it figured.



jinkers said:


> Since the ACA doesn't even take effect until 2014, how could it have already cost you $4,500 and how could you have already seen increases in other things?


----------



## Janeway (Nov 22, 2011)

ute4kp said:


> http://www.knittingparadise.com/t-207934-1.html
> 
> Lukelucy,These are lies as is the other crap you posted here.


Yes, & you have bullied several people on the site you have quoted. You need to clean up your act!

My supplemental insurance is going up $75. A month & I am expecting less coverage from Medicare with this Obocare that crazy people think is better than apple pie!

Obo supporters are blinded by the light & don't want to know the truth, but continue to support anything Obo does.


----------



## damemary (Mar 14, 2012)

The person who began the thread would have to ask Admin to do it, the way I understand. Nice thought though jinkers.



jinkers said:


> I vote for discontinuing this thread. Do I hear a second?


----------



## damemary (Mar 14, 2012)

ute4kp said:


> You post rumors and foxy scare teahaddist scare tactics. If ACA is so terrible it will fail on its own.


 :thumbup: :thumbup: :thumbup:


----------



## Janeway (Nov 22, 2011)

pam j said:


> janeway may be it is your turn to pay I have paid for years , Im now on a pension , and have also payed taxes , it is impossible to pay health fund on a pension , as I said glad to be an AUSSIE


Sweetheart, I have "paid" taxes & anything else that was necessary to live in the United States. Since you are an Aussie, why stick your nose in something that is "none" of your business!


----------



## damemary (Mar 14, 2012)

BrattyPatty said:


> She has only varified her experience over in the UK which has absolutely NOTHING to do with the ACA.
> 
> People, I suggest that you not take any of Lukelucy's postings seriously on the matter of the ACA. There are sites you can go to within your own states or on a national level to answer any questions you may have. It is not perfect yet, but then again what is?


 :thumbup: :thumbup: :thumbup:


----------



## damemary (Mar 14, 2012)

Glad you're with us Pam. I think the absence of worry about personal cost would be a relief.



pam j said:


> How lucky we are in Australia , I also had breast cancer , I had 6 weeks of radiation, did not have to pay for accomadation while I was away from home getting treatment , after a period of time the cancer came back I had a double mastectomy , all this cost me nothing , I am a public , patient ,i also have a mammagram every 12 months this also cost me nothing , thank God Im an aussie I pay no health benefits


----------



## pam j (May 15, 2011)

I think this has got out of control , Im out of here


----------



## damemary (Mar 14, 2012)

No facts here just conjecture by someone whose mind is made up.



Janeway said:


> Yes, subsidized by the person who pays their bills as my Medicare part B will double in the next years & then triple as well as my supplemental insurance.
> 
> Where do you think the subsidizing money will come from? Me Hello!


----------



## pam j (May 15, 2011)

and another thing please don't call me sweatheart ,very cheap


----------



## damemary (Mar 14, 2012)

I don't believe this is true. Did you check your facts or do you expect us to check them?



ramram0003 said:


> Sorry, but as of right now there are 16 or 17 states that have opted OUT of Obamacare. It has been on the news recently.


----------



## Janeway (Nov 22, 2011)

BrattyPatty said:


> You have no idea what you are talking about. I took the time and went to a seminar on the ACA. Everything you have just stated is false. EVERYTHING!
> Get educated on the subject before you start spreading fear and the wrong information among the ladies here.


Well, if you know it all then do tell instead of saying Luke is wrong. I'll bet you cannot as you don't know what you are talking about except you are an Obo supporter!

Don't be shy, tell all we are waiting!


----------



## Janeway (Nov 22, 2011)

damemary said:


> No facts here just conjecture by someone whose mind is made up.


No, this is factual as everyone on Medicare has been notified of the increase of Part B.


----------



## damemary (Mar 14, 2012)

This is a complex problem, and it is not caused by the current administration, as some people claim. The ACA act is dedicated to giving individuals a break in costs. I'm fighting the same fight you are. I'm giving it a chance to see what it does for me. Right off the top, I like the idea of wiping out 'pre-existing conditions.' Who is over 60 who doesn't have one?



grandmatimestwo said:


> The cost of our health insurance is ridiculous! My paycheck goes down every year and the benefits are fewer.


----------



## damemary (Mar 14, 2012)

Did you know that most bankruptcies are caused by medical bills? That's why we can't 'just take care of ourselves.' I'm sorry for your troubles.



ramram0003 said:


> I too don't like this new law. Why can't we just take care of ourselves. With this Obamacare I have NO CHOICE but to get some kind of insurance or the IRS will take money out of my returns at the end of the year. It tells me to go on welfare. I only did that back when my ex-husband and I divorced and he wasn't helping with our son. So I went to DSS to get assistance. Mind you, I was still working and still paying into the system. I hated to do it but for my son I would do anything. We did it for a while and then my doctor wouldn't take it any more because they were paying him pennies and he couldn't make a living on that. I pay out of pocket and pray to God that I don't get real sick. But at the welfare office they did tell me that I could come back and re-open my case and they would go back 3 months to help with the medical bills. Obama just wants us all on assistance so we don't have a mind of our own. Sorry for the rant. I am done.


----------



## Janeway (Nov 22, 2011)

pam j said:


> and another thing please don't call me sweatheart ,very cheap


Well, you told me to "pay-up" without knowing anything about me. You were "very cheap" to imply that I needed to pay my share as since you were retired & paying your fare share in another country.

You don't know that my husband & I have worked hard as grain farmers & paid, paid & paid with our hard work & will have to pay more on retirement because of those who "never" paid for anything!

If you don't want anyone to reply to you then don't accuse people until you know the facts about their lives.


----------



## damemary (Mar 14, 2012)

Janey, or Sweetheart, this sounds nasty. Is that what you mean?



Janeway said:


> Sweetheart, I have "paid" taxes & anything else that was necessary to live in the United States. Since you are an Aussie, why stick your nose in something that is "none" of your business!


----------



## Janet Cooke (Aug 14, 2013)

pengwensgranny said:


> I have had breast cancer twice - once in 1995 at age 53 and again last year at 70 years old.
> Neither time did I have to wait for tests or treatment. It was all carried out within a short time of diagnosis.
> 
> I know things vary across the country, but here in Bedfordshire treatment for any life threatening condition is given very quickly.


Thanks for that information, pengwensgranny, we who think know that this is true, the hue and cry would be heard across the oceans if that were happening on a regular basis. <smh> I don't understand 1. why people relate the two as ACA is NOT a nationalized health system. Americans are much too frightened by the term socialism to try anything that benefits us all. 2. why they want to talk down the socialized/nationalized health care systems. They are working well. Nothing is perfect, but, they are working well.


----------



## damemary (Mar 14, 2012)

I agree Pam. I commented on janeway's post. Not all of us in the USA are so rude. Welcome.



pam j said:


> and another thing please don't call me sweatheart ,very cheap


----------



## damemary (Mar 14, 2012)

Tippling tonight Sweetheart? Please take a nap.



Janeway said:


> Well, if you know it all then do tell instead of saying Luke is wrong. I'll bet you cannot as you don't know what you are talking about except you are an Obo supporter!
> 
> Don't be shy, tell all we are waiting!


----------



## damemary (Mar 14, 2012)

Your autobiography has no weight here.



Janeway said:


> Well, you told me to "pay-up" without knowing anything about me. You were "very cheap" to imply that I needed to pay my share as since you were retired & paying your fare share in another country.
> 
> You don't know that my husband & I have worked hard as grain farmers & paid, paid & paid with our hard work & will have to pay more on retirement because of those who "never" paid for anything!
> 
> If you don't want anyone to reply to you then don't accuse people until you know the facts about their lives.


----------



## ChrisGV (Apr 5, 2013)

I will retire in January and with the ACA insurance for I and my husband will be $462 a month. With per existing conditions, it would be probably 3 or 4 times more if I even qualified. I choose Obamacare. And I was able to sign up in Minnesota


----------



## Janet Cooke (Aug 14, 2013)

joeysomma said:


> I don't think this is a fact. Most retirees that have not reached the age of 65 (Medicare) are loosing their health insurance from their former employer.
> 
> Where did you find your information?
> 
> ...


Joey, Please, either read things correctly the first time or reread it. I did not say that an employer cannot switch health insurance companies.


----------



## Shamrock (Jan 17, 2011)

ramram0003 said:


> Sorry, but as of right now there are 16 or 17 states that have opted OUT of Obamacare. It has been on the news recently.


These 17 states have opted out of the state run exchange for Obamacare - they will participate in the federal exchange. Obamacare is available to everyone in the US.


----------



## Janeway (Nov 22, 2011)

damemary said:


> Janey, or Sweetheart, this sounds nasty. Is that what you mean?


You cannot give information as you only know how to bully. I'm waiting for facts!


----------



## Janeway (Nov 22, 2011)

damemary said:


> Your autobiography has no weight here.


Here you are again bullying! This message was not for you so bud out!

I'm waiting for the facts you say you know so don't be shy! Do tell!


----------



## Alandgirl (May 23, 2011)

In Finland my uncle has been on the list for a hip replacement since he was 72, and fortunately he has just been approved. Unfortunately he died 4 years ago at the age of 81.


----------



## fibermcgivver (Dec 18, 2012)

La la patti said:


> I think that you may have it wrong. The affordable care act is nationwide. There isba lot of confusion out there. My dd who had no insurance at all became covered by mine as soon as the first part became available.
> Point 2 ...a seventy year old has Medicare. Cancer screening is covered by Medicare . It's not a perfect program yet but hopefully things will work themselves out. People are confused.


As a nurse that is extremely interested in health care, I agree with Patti. Don't forget about Medicare, people. It is still there. There is a lot of fear-mongering out there and a lot of unknowns. The fact that there will be so much more health care available for so many appeals to me. The uninsured people cost our country so much in terms of health care by crisis (excessive ER visits), needless suffering and premature death. I know a woman who was unable to receive cancer care due to lack of insurance, but several years ago, she donated stem cells to her brother for a bone marrow transplant. There is a lot wrong with our health care system -- it can only get better. We gotta be positive.


----------



## sumpleby (Aug 3, 2013)

Janeway said:


> Yes, subsidized by the person who pays their bills as my Medicare part B will double in the next years & then triple as well as my supplemental insurance.
> 
> Where do you think the subsidizing money will come from? Me Hello!


Got news--we've been paying for uninsured people for years. All of us pay higher hospital prices for everything, from care down to aspirin and bedpans. All that helps cover for the folks who've been getting care through the emergency rooms.

At least with the ACA the numbers of uninsured will be reduced as people who've never been able to afford health insurance will be able to get it.

Will the system be perfect--especially straight out of the gate? No. But then neither was Medicare. And it is funny how many people who scream that they don't want government involved in healthcare also shrilly cry that no one had better touch their Medicare...


----------



## rasputin (Apr 21, 2013)

NRoberts said:


> Florida has the Exchange and 27 insurers. I looked at three of them, Blue Cross included, to try to figure out what the plans were. There is a Bronze, Gold, and Platinum, maybe Silver too. The prices on insurance have gone up DRASTICALLY even with the Bronze plan, the most affordable. There is no way I will be able to afford to be insured and still keep a roof over my head and food on the table.
> 
> Very scary.


That is the way Massachusetts has been set up. If people get their insurance through their work that's fine. I am talking about people who don't have health ins. through work. I am not working so I get my ins. through the Massachusetts health plan. Gold Silver Bronze, I think. We can pick from different companies, I don't know how many at this moment.
The whole thing is: if you are healthy (young) and don't have to see the Dr. a lot you can go with a higher deductible and that in turn will bring the montly premium down. But I'm 64 and have some health issues. Right now I am on the Bronze plan and pay $450 per month. I have a deductible, co-pays, co-insurance. It is not the best plan, but I can handle it until I turn 65 in Feb. Then of course besides Medicare I will have to have a supplement for Dr. visits and medication.


----------



## Globee (Sep 5, 2013)

There is so much incorrect info out there. Much of what's incorrect is from a misreading or misunderstanding of the law. All states will be in the new health law. Some will do it on their own and others have opted to have the federal government. You can check out the issues on snopes.com which is a great site for verifying rumors.


----------



## emuears (Oct 13, 2012)

Although we are privately insured, our choice, our Medicare seems to work for most. Yes non urgent cases have to wait but it does get done. We can choose to go public if we want and it costs us nothing but we don't get to choose the doctor.


----------



## my2blkcats (Jun 9, 2011)

I live in MA and have been told we have 3 years before we have to sign up because we already have mandated health care through the state and have had it for quite a few years now. I'm glad we don't have to get involved in this Obamacare mess.


----------



## Globee (Sep 5, 2013)

Totally agree with the nurse. No one ever talks about how much the uninsured cost us by using emergency rooms for treatment where they must receive it.


----------



## Boxmjb (May 19, 2013)

Most docs in my state are for this. Other countries make this work. Most of what you hear are rumors. It is political wrangling, each party wanting credit. It is all about the next election. Cannot find fault with millions being able to afford health insurance despite preexisting illnesses and kids staying on parents insurance while in College. When you work for a company, the bigger the plan, the less it is. This should be the biggest group of people so should be affordable. I will give it a chance. How many past presidents have tried to get this off the ground and failed? Don't believe everything you hear because saw on FB govt is going to take your house if you do opt out when in reality it is a 1 percent or $95 penalty. It may not be perfect but just a starting point. When it was called Romney care those same politicians thought it was great.


----------



## chinalake66 (Sep 21, 2013)

I was told when I went for my physical in June - that it has been determined that women "my age" (67) no longer need pap smears, that I do not need a mammogram and will no longer be able to get a mammo after I turn 70. I informed my new physician that I was due for an AC1 test - which she did not schedule...for my annual physical, she checked my pulse and looked down my throat. I am a severe asthmatic and diabetic. Shortly after I had this so-called physical, I broke my wrist. When I went to the Dr. he told me that "at my age" I should be able to "deal with" a "slight decrease" in my flexibility, ordered the wrist casted. A week later when I went in for a follow-up visit, he told me that the wrist was not healing properly, but he didn't want to do surgery because "if every broken distal radius got surgery, Medicare would go broke." I insisted that he fix my wrist - which he did - reluctantly. After paying into the system for 50+ years, I am appalled at the attitude of healthcare towards seniors. I am sure that neither of these incidences would have occurred if government were not getting involved in our lives. Yes - I know Obamacare does not kick in until 2014, but the panel making these decisions was formed five years ago.


----------



## flohel (Jan 24, 2011)

I do believe you have been misinformed.. My daughter in Idaho signed her family up and it is so much less expensive for them. You need to go to the website and read it for yourself.


----------



## flohel (Jan 24, 2011)

I do believe you have been misinformed.. My daughter in Idaho signed her family up and it is so much less expensive for them. You need to go to the website and read it for yourself.Anyhow at seventy medicare covers that.


----------



## Janet Cooke (Aug 14, 2013)

Globee said:


> There is so much incorrect info out there. Much of what's incorrect is from a misreading or misunderstanding of the law. All states will be in the new health law. Some will do it on their own and others have opted to have the federal government. You can check out the issues on snopes.com which is a great site for verifying rumors.


Luckily, I don't have to decipher all this info. It seems to me, however, that anyone who is really confused at this point probably should stop talking to people on the internet and find an independent agent to talk to OR rather than trying to go through a website that isn't working use a phone. You have until March, people.


----------



## Janet Cooke (Aug 14, 2013)

chinalake66 said:


> I was told when I went for my physical in June - that it has been determined that women "my age" (67) no longer need pap smears, that I do not need a mammogram and will no longer be able to get a mammo after I turn 70. I informed my new physician that I was due for an AC1 test - which she did not schedule...for my annual physical, she checked my pulse and looked down my throat. I am a severe asthmatic and diabetic. Shortly after I had this so-called physical, I broke my wrist. When I went to the Dr. he told me that "at my age" I should be able to "deal with" a "slight decrease" in my flexibility, ordered the wrist casted. A week later when I went in for a follow-up visit, he told me that the wrist was not healing properly, but he didn't want to do surgery because "if every broken distal radius got surgery, Medicare would go broke." I insisted that he fix my wrist - which he did - reluctantly. After paying into the system for 50+ years, I am appalled at the attitude of healthcare towards seniors. I am sure that neither of these incidences would have occurred if government were not getting involved in our lives. Yes - I know Obamacare does not kick in until 2014, but the panel making these decisions was formed five years ago.


Where is this panel? 
BTW, you need to find a new doc.
It has been cited repeatedly on this thread, with verifying links, that cancer screenings ARE paid for.


----------



## flohel (Jan 24, 2011)

Some state have opted out on expanding medicaid and therefore loosing millions of dollars in funding. Not the Affordable care act.


----------



## obxamom (Apr 21, 2013)

Globee said:


> There is so much incorrect info out there. Much of what's incorrect is from a misreading or misunderstanding of the law. All states will be in the new health law. Some will do it on their own and others have opted to have the federal government. You can check out the issues on snopes.com which is a great site for verifying rumors.


I hope that is not where you are getting all you factual info....from snopes they aren't as credible as one thinks. Seriously... I doubt any of you have thoughrly read through the thousand plus page law if you have then I want to hear. This is the only fact that I know... Many people I personally have had their. Current insurance premiums double or triple....I know of a couple people who were dropped from their insurance e carrier because their plan they had could not keep up to date with the Obama care mandates....my cousin who is a nurse said that the hospital is cutting back no longer offering extra pay for night and weekends..who h equates to a 7-20% pay cut for nurses...laid off personel.....the fact is why ....BC they know that the reimbursement rates for services are going to be lower..they have to cut costs in order to keep hospital afloat...that answer straight from her ..there ha e been some.companies who started cutting employee hours from full time to part time so they don't qualify to ha e to provide insurance ...if you have 50 or more full to.e employees you have to provide insurance ....we own our own companyij know....sure there are docs for it and there r docs that are NOT...some have quit...some have started taking cash only fkr office visits...no insurance......there are some.good points to the law everyone needs access to health care ...that I agree...but I do think there are some shady things that have not come to fruition. In America we just can't believe that the land of the free would do this or that but I say you may want to wake up. This is not the first time I have heard that if you were over a certain age that you would and could be denied certain treatments and screenings under the new health care....only time will tell. We do Christian Share Medi share. Very affordable... health sharing works just like insurance several options for annual deductible to lower premium costs and if you have this you are exempt from this Obama care....you may want to at least loom them up and see that may be a better option for you...at least you don't have to worry about being denied because you are 70 and have cancer.


----------



## serena (Apr 15, 2012)

I have to defend the n h s in the uk I was just in England and dad got very sick w erushed him to the hospital in Boston I have to say he is getting the care all the nurse and doctors have been so good to my dad and to my brother sister and I have kept us up dated at every turn , I do not like it when I hear people bad mouthing the n h s in the uk because my family have been taken of so well.


----------



## Knitted by Nan (Aug 3, 2013)

pam Im now on a pension said:


> So am I. All my x rays, blood tests, ct scans and three visitss per week to the doctor in July and August were completely free and no waiting for appointments, same day treatment in every case. Plus my doctor game me free samples of the medicines she prescribed. mind you the scripts only cost $5.90 each when I did present them at the chemist. I am glad and proud to be an Aussie woman.


----------



## Janet Cooke (Aug 14, 2013)

NRoberts said:


> Florida has the Exchange and 27 insurers. I looked at three of them, Blue Cross included, to try to figure out what the plans were. There is a Bronze, Gold, and Platinum, maybe Silver too. The prices on insurance have gone up DRASTICALLY even with the Bronze plan, the most affordable. There is no way I will be able to afford to be insured and still keep a roof over my head and food on the table.
> 
> Very scary.


And did you check out the subsidies? If you find it that frightening perhaps you would be a good candidate to either work with an agent or do the planning through phone contact.


----------



## flohel (Jan 24, 2011)

Arizona opted out of the expansion of medicaid not the Affordable care act. You need to research on your own to get the facts.


----------



## pam j (May 15, 2011)

thank you I was just saying how I was treated in Australia ,it has upset me that it was taken out of context , I have just lost, my cousin with cancer she was 59 , and another one is fighting for her life so I really don't want to get into a slanging match thank you again for you understanding ,pamj


----------



## serena (Apr 15, 2012)

That is not true my parents are 83 and 82 and they have never been told they can not-receive treatment because of there age


----------



## Ahirsch601 (Jul 23, 2013)

The Affordable care act is for everyone. Some states foolishly have opted out of the Medicaid expansion which is free. A big part of this is opening up Medicaid to the working poor. My boss who is by the way. A doctor in business for 35 years just signed on for his daughter who just turned 26. She has a masters degree and hasn't been able to get a job I with benefits. He is a big supporter of Obamacare and has a sign in the waiting room saying just that... We have been seeing some benefits already okie free well care, kids on their parents insurance until age 26. We no longer do Pap tests on problem free patients after age 65. It had nothing to do with Obamacare but the AMA recommendation. I would have preferred a .Canadian type system but if this is the best we can do we need to give it time to work the kinks out. It is far better than millions of people with no care who wind up being treated very expensively in ER's. We all pay for that. Eventually we will wonder how we managed without it. Just like those social programs Social Security and Medicare.


----------



## pam j (May 15, 2011)

Aussie aussie aussie


----------



## susanmos2000 (May 10, 2011)

EveMCooke said:


> So am I. All my x rays, blood tests, ct scans and three visitss per week to the doctor in July and August were completely free and no waiting for appointments, same day treatment in every case. Plus my doctor game me free samples of the medicines she prescribed. mind you the scripts only cost $5.90 each when I did present them at the chemist. I am glad and proud to be an Aussie woman.


And so you should be--it's an absolute disgrace that it's taken the US so long to catch up with the other Western countries as far as universal healthcare goes. I'm a big supporter of the ACA--it's a giant step forward--but still I think we need more. I'd take the Australian system over ours in a heartbeat--it sounds wonderful.


----------



## Mersea (Sep 13, 2013)

In a wordit is called: "GENECIDE." Get rid of the old folks because they are usually the sickest and require a lot of medical health.



Lukelucy said:


> My husband has just returned from a doctor's appointment. This doctor went to a BCBS meeting yesterday in which very few doctors bothered to attend. This doctor learned the following:
> 
> 1. The states that have opted in for Obamacare are going to be very expensive regarding healthcare.
> 2. No cancer screening (mammograms - everything) after the age of 70 for all people. Mind you half of people over 70 will die of cancer.
> ...


----------



## Lukelucy (Nov 19, 2011)

courier770 said:


> Lukelucy, I HAD excellent health care coverage...HAD is the key word. I worked for it and I paid for it and now the benefits I toiled for have been "eroded" under this new system. I paid for those benefits all of my life, year after year even if I didn't use them fully. Now I'm going to be punished by higher deductibles, higher out of pocket expenses and higher premiums. For what? Please tell me for what?
> 
> I'm now expected to carry the burden for those who chose to never carry the burden to being with? Worse yet our "leaders" in Washington will NEVER be forced into this mess?
> 
> I'm gong to put it very bluntly...as a senior citizen I never expected to be so screwed!


Courier,

This is exactly what I have been saying. It is happening to me, too. I am afraid that when people who do not see this open their eyes, it will be too late and our system will be eroded. This is a very sad time. Devastating to Americans.


----------



## flohel (Jan 24, 2011)

Again it is about medicaid. not Affordable care act. Too bad there is so much misinformation out there. Of course if one is not a fan of Obama one will believe anything negative. Shutting down the government is an example. That hurt a lot of people. I tend to research for myself rather than listen to word of mouth even if it was a doctor. The Obama care act requires insurance companies to return part of the money one has paid in if they do not use it. In other words they cannot profit from you as they did before.


----------



## susanmos2000 (May 10, 2011)

chinalake66 said:


> I was told when I went for my physical in June - that it has been determined that women "my age" (67) no longer need pap smears, that I do not need a mammogram and will no longer be able to get a mammo after I turn 70. I informed my new physician that I was due for an AC1 test - which she did not schedule...for my annual physical, she checked my pulse and looked down my throat. I am a severe asthmatic and diabetic. Shortly after I had this so-called physical, I broke my wrist. When I went to the Dr. he told me that "at my age" I should be able to "deal with" a "slight decrease" in my flexibility, ordered the wrist casted. A week later when I went in for a follow-up visit, he told me that the wrist was not healing properly, but he didn't want to do surgery because "if every broken distal radius got surgery, Medicare would go broke." I insisted that he fix my wrist - which he did - reluctantly. After paying into the system for 50+ years, I am appalled at the attitude of healthcare towards seniors. I am sure that neither of these incidences would have occurred if government were not getting involved in our lives. Yes - I know Obamacare does not kick in until 2014, but the panel making these decisions was formed five years ago.


There's so much misinformation in your post that I won't even attempt to unravel it all. But it's obvious that you need someone to accompany you on your trips to the doctor's office to interpret what he or she is telling you. It's frightening to think that you're cheating yourself out of screenings and tests that every senior needs and is entitled to.


----------



## Lukelucy (Nov 19, 2011)

bwtyer said:


> Well put!!! This was one of the arguments against it - and we were told it would NOT affect those with insurance...so indeed, why are the premiums going up?
> Here is an article- however- I am not familiar with this newspaper- it may be one of the radical ones -
> http://freebeacon.com/obamacare-raising-premiums-hurting-middle-lower-class/


Thank you for your reply. There are many people whose health care costs are skyrocketing. The worst thing is that we will not be able to have tests that we need. This is a sad time for us.


----------



## Lukelucy (Nov 19, 2011)

jinkers said:


> I vote for discontinuing this thread. Do I hear a second?


Yes.


----------



## Lukelucy (Nov 19, 2011)

ute4kp said:


> You post rumors and foxy scare teahaddist scare tactics. If ACA is so terrible it will fail on its own.


I hope so!


----------



## Lukelucy (Nov 19, 2011)

suzy-kate said:


> A lot depends where you live, my brother who lives in London got cancer of the tonsil, received treatment within 6 weeks, and had the all clear two years ago. A friend had the same type of cancer had to wait three months, before she was even seen, when the first lot of treatment didn't work, they decided to give her a second, that was in January she received the go ahead in June but was dead by July.


I am so sorry that has happened. I have heard that it depends where you live, too. Very sad.


----------



## Lukelucy (Nov 19, 2011)

ramram0003 said:


> I too don't like this new law. Why can't we just take care of ourselves. With this Obamacare I have NO CHOICE but to get some kind of insurance or the IRS will take money out of my returns at the end of the year. It tells me to go on welfare. I only did that back when my ex-husband and I divorced and he wasn't helping with our son. So I went to DSS to get assistance. Mind you, I was still working and still paying into the system. I hated to do it but for my son I would do anything. We did it for a while and then my doctor wouldn't take it any more because they were paying him pennies and he couldn't make a living on that. I pay out of pocket and pray to God that I don't get real sick. But at the welfare office they did tell me that I could come back and re-open my case and they would go back 3 months to help with the medical bills. Obama just wants us all on assistance so we don't have a mind of our own. Sorry for the rant. I am done.


You are right. Rant on. We need to do that.


----------



## flohel (Jan 24, 2011)

I am seventy and just had a mammogram. The lady with the broken wrist If I were you I would get another Dr.


----------



## Donna M. (Oct 1, 2013)

I agree that there is a lot of information out there, that is incorrect. Hearing something second hand, does not make it gospel. If the information is a written article from a reputable Doctor, that I would pay attention to.


----------



## Lukelucy (Nov 19, 2011)

Alandgirl said:


> In Finland my uncle has been on the list for a hip replacement since he was 72, and fortunately he has just been approved. Unfortunately he died 4 years ago at the age of 81.


So sorry to hear this. Oh, dear. Who wants to have a health care system where you might or might not be treated in a timely manner?


----------



## flohel (Jan 24, 2011)

Re snopes. A little known fact it is actually one woman who runs it. All the information is from one person.


----------



## Wibdgrfan (Oct 30, 2011)

jelun2 said:


> NH agreed to the state exchange, one must be from NH to access it.
> 
> Anyone from WI should ask that wonderful governor to take over the exchange as a state responsibility. It was really smart to make the the feds do it. All he did was hurt his constituents again.


You live in MA. My guess is your only knowledge of Wisconsin's governor has come from the national media, which has not been very fair or accurate in its reports. Wisconsin is THRIVING since Gov. Walker took office.


----------



## flohel (Jan 24, 2011)

gee Janeway havent had your coffee yet?


----------



## Mersea (Sep 13, 2013)

Lukelucy said:


> This was a meeting of doctors. I understand what you are saying, but certain things came out that BCBS could not deny and we do not know about them yet. Remember, we do not really know what is going on with Obamacare. Frankly, it passed without people knowing anything.


Correct. Nancy Peloci said we have to wait until Obamacare is passed so we can find out what is in it. What? They are pasing things into being that they know nothing about. There is a ring of truth in that. And there was a Republican that illegally wrote up a section that was passed. What? UGH!


----------



## Lukelucy (Nov 19, 2011)

chinalake66 said:


> I was told when I went for my physical in June - that it has been determined that women "my age" (67) no longer need pap smears, that I do not need a mammogram and will no longer be able to get a mammo after I turn 70. I informed my new physician that I was due for an AC1 test - which she did not schedule...for my annual physical, she checked my pulse and looked down my throat. I am a severe asthmatic and diabetic. Shortly after I had this so-called physical, I broke my wrist. When I went to the Dr. he told me that "at my age" I should be able to "deal with" a "slight decrease" in my flexibility, ordered the wrist casted. A week later when I went in for a follow-up visit, he told me that the wrist was not healing properly, but he didn't want to do surgery because "if every broken distal radius got surgery, Medicare would go broke." I insisted that he fix my wrist - which he did - reluctantly. After paying into the system for 50+ years, I am appalled at the attitude of healthcare towards seniors. I am sure that neither of these incidences would have occurred if government were not getting involved in our lives. Yes - I know Obamacare does not kick in until 2014, but the panel making these decisions was formed five years ago.


You have just verified my very first post. After 70 no cancer screening. I find this just terrible as half of people over 70 will come down with cancer.


----------



## Lukelucy (Nov 19, 2011)

jelun2 said:


> Where is this panel?
> BTW, you need to find a new doc.
> It has been cited repeatedly on this thread, with verifying links, that cancer screenings ARE paid for.


Up to the age of 70.


----------



## Ahirsch601 (Jul 23, 2013)

Your doctor's attitude has nothing to do with the ACA. Pap smears at 70 aren't necessary for most people and it has nothing to do with ACA. Get a new doctor . There are no death panels!


----------



## mac.worrall (Jun 24, 2011)

Lukelucy said:


> This was a meeting of doctors. I understand what you are saying, but certain things came out that BCBS could not deny and we do not know about them yet. Remember, we do not really know what is going on with Obamacare. Frankly, it passed without people knowing anything.


Frankly I wouldn't believe a doctor in the U.S.A.-I speak as a retired doctor in the U.K.
I worked in a hospital in the States in the nineteen sixties and heard all the arguments about "socialized medicine".What the sticking point was as far as I could tell was money,not care.


----------



## Lukelucy (Nov 19, 2011)

obxamom said:


> I hope that is not where you are getting all you factual info....from snopes they aren't as credible as one thinks. Seriously... I doubt any of you have thoughrly read through the thousand plus page law if you have then I want to hear. This is the only fact that I know... Many people I personally have had their. Current insurance premiums double or triple....I know of a couple people who were dropped from their insurance e carrier because their plan they had could not keep up to date with the Obama care mandates....my cousin who is a nurse said that the hospital is cutting back no longer offering extra pay for night and weekends..who h equates to a 7-20% pay cut for nurses...laid off personel.....the fact is why ....BC they know that the reimbursement rates for services are going to be lower..they have to cut costs in order to keep hospital afloat...that answer straight from her ..there ha e been some.companies who started cutting employee hours from full time to part time so they don't qualify to ha e to provide insurance ...if you have 50 or more full to.e employees you have to provide insurance ....we own our own companyij know....sure there are docs for it and there r docs that are NOT...some have quit...some have started taking cash only fkr office visits...no insurance......there are some.good points to the law everyone needs access to health care ...that I agree...but I do think there are some shady things that have not come to fruition. In America we just can't believe that the land of the free would do this or that but I say you may want to wake up. This is not the first time I have heard that if you were over a certain age that you would and could be denied certain treatments and screenings under the new health care....only time will tell. We do Christian Share Medi share. Very affordable... health sharing works just like insurance several options for annual deductible to lower premium costs and if you have this you are exempt from this Obama care....you may want to at least loom them up and see that may be a better option for you...at least you don't have to worry about being denied because you are 70 and have cancer.


Thank you. This is what I have been saying.


----------



## Mersea (Sep 13, 2013)

"Seriously... I doubt any of you have thoughrly read through the thousand plus page law if you have then I want to hear."

And this includes those who passed it into law. Like I said Nancy Peloci said just pass the law so we can see what is in it.


----------



## Lukelucy (Nov 19, 2011)

Mersea said:


> In a wordit is called: "GENECIDE." Get rid of the old folks because they are usually the sickest and require a lot of medical health.


Mersea,
Unfortunately, that is the way it is. The older you get, the less care you get. ACA will make sure of it.


----------



## morningstar (Mar 24, 2012)

There is so much misinformation in this post. I hope the writer will seek out true info from accurate, non-biased reporting. I do not wish to start a rant here on KP so please, everyone, just get the facts from the original source...The White House. Thank you.


----------



## Lukelucy (Nov 19, 2011)

flohel said:


> Re snopes. A little known fact it is actually one woman who runs it. All the information is from one person.


I understand that snopes is not to be believed.


----------



## Lmdwf (Aug 7, 2013)

I was interested in your post, because I work in the hospital. I can tell you, it does not matter which state you live in. The states that opted out means that they are not receiving federal dollars to implement any healthcare, a negative for the citizens there. In an opted out state, you have the same access through the program on a federal level. The companies that are saying this stuff are only thinking of profits! All states have access and insurance companies vying for your dollars, this is a capitalist system all the way. As far as the breast cancer mammograms after 70, if this company is saying that not screening is a bad thing, they are just trying to scare you. The "no mammos" after 70 is a evidence based recommendation from the National Institutes ofHhealth based on research that shows that the risk form repeated exposure to radiation is higher than the risk of breast cancer. At age 70, most breast cancers will never grow big enough to harm you before your natural death anyway. Any woman who feels that something is wrong will get a mammogram, just not routine, yearly mammograms for prevention sake. There are similar recommendations for routine pap smears too, they are now every three years. Did they use that as a scare tactic too? Sound slike they are trying to persuade people to move so they don't have to cover you!!

I have been a nurse in women's health for 13 years and am almost done with my Family nurse practitioner program. I have been very involved researching these things because I will be working in women's health when I am done with school. Also, an insurance company would not be the one for reliable information. Their profits have gone from 2.5 billion to over 12 billion in the last few years. they accomplish this by charging you more and giving worse coverage, or dropping you if you get too sick. They can no longer do that!


----------



## Nancyn (Mar 23, 2013)

I just went to a program about healthcare. there are multiple levels that you may purchase whether or not you join the national program. It is for everyone. The part for Obamacare comes in when you apply for a subsidy. it will come out of your taxes. If you use a doctor out of network, you only get what the network amount is allocated for. IE: Your in network doctor gets $100 for a particular procedure and the out of network doctor gets $300 for the same procedure, you would have to pay the difference. There are states that have opted out of the national program and will have to set up there own as EVERYONE will have to have health insurance starting in 2014 or you will get fined in your taxes. this has been like this already for years in Massachusetts. there will be good things about this program and bad. but for the people without the means to get insurance, it will be a bllessing. You will not be able to be turned down for existing conditions or if you have gone over your max allowed. How it will impact doctors will remain to be seen. I am sure that some will leave their practices, but others will stay.


----------



## Janet Cooke (Aug 14, 2013)

obxamom said:


> I hope that is not where you are getting all you factual info....from snopes they aren't as credible as one thinks. Seriously... I doubt any of you have thoughrly read through the thousand plus page law if you have then I want to hear. This is the only fact that I know... Many people I personally have had their. Current insurance premiums double or triple....I know of a couple people who were dropped from their insurance e carrier because their plan they had could not keep up to date with the Obama care mandates....my cousin who is a nurse said that the hospital is cutting back no longer offering extra pay for night and weekends..who h equates to a 7-20% pay cut for nurses...laid off personel.....the fact is why ....BC they know that the reimbursement rates for services are going to be lower..they have to cut costs in order to keep hospital afloat...that answer straight from her ..there ha e been some.companies who started cutting employee hours from full time to part time so they don't qualify to ha e to provide insurance ...if you have 50 or more full to.e employees you have to provide insurance ....we own our own companyij know....sure there are docs for it and there r docs that are NOT...some have quit...some have started taking cash only fkr office visits...no insurance......there are some.good points to the law everyone needs access to health care ...that I agree...but I do think there are some shady things that have not come to fruition. In America we just can't believe that the land of the free would do this or that but I say you may want to wake up. This is not the first time I have heard that if you were over a certain age that you would and could be denied certain treatments and screenings under the new health care....only time will tell. We do Christian Share Medi share. Very affordable... health sharing works just like insurance several options for annual deductible to lower premium costs and if you have this you are exempt from this Obama care....you may want to at least loom them up and see that may be a better option for you...at least you don't have to worry about being denied because you are 70 and have cancer.


Many of us are smart enough to get our information from several different sources. 
It is getting to be frustrating, however, to see these undocumented charges that Snopes is unreliable; that would be a subject for a different thread, I suppose. 
People have had their health insurance premiums go through the roof for years. That is the reason that the ACA was developed to provide a better form of providing access to health insurance. 
Just so you understand that the reason you are "exempt" is because your plan qualifies as acceptable insurance. I am glad that you are happy with your current plan and that you can verify that being older has no impact on your health care.


----------



## bwtyer (Oct 31, 2012)

You know, I went back from the beginning, reading all of this and I am not sure where it went out of control. Some of you who are pro ACA do tend to profess yourselves a bit strongly which is all fine and good for a nice healthy debate but there are some of you who have jumped in that are more or less bullying other people because they are not agreeing with you. You need to remember that there are different types of people, different ages ,different personalities and mentality sets and different situations - I respect and enjoy a good pro and con argument and have learned to have my facts but I have a problem with downright rudeness. Some of these posts are like a slap in the face to the other party- just because they questioned something or agreed with somebody or even stated their own experience. Sorry, but this is just not right. A good pro and con debate is interesting but this particular topic has gone far beyond a debate. I am quiet sure there must be a history between some of you that I am not aware of but please- lets not share it with the world.


----------



## ikindaknit (Jun 27, 2013)

Fear makes people selfish


----------



## mac.worrall (Jun 24, 2011)

Lmdwf said:


> I was interested in your post, because I work in the hospital. I can tell you, it does not matter which state you live in. The states that opted out means that they are not receiving federal dollars to implement any healthcare, a negative for the citizens there. In an opted out state, you have the same access through the program on a federal level. The companies that are saying this stuff are only thinking of profits! All states have access and insurance companies vying for your dollars, this is a capitalist system all the way. As far as the breast cancer mammograms after 70, if this company is saying that not screening is a bad thing, they are just trying to scare you. The "no mammos" after 70 is a evidence based recommendation from the National Institutes ofHhealth based on research that shows that the risk form repeated exposure to radiation is higher than the risk of breast cancer. At age 70, most breast cancers will never grow big enough to harm you before your natural death anyway. Any woman who feels that something is wrong will get a mammogram, just not routine, yearly mammograms for prevention sake. There are similar recommendations for routine pap smears too, they are now every three years. Did they use that as a scare tactic too? Sound slike they are trying to persuade people to move so they don't have to cover you!!


Agreed

:thumbup: :thumbup: :thumbup: :thumbup: :thumbup:


----------



## Ann DeGray (May 11, 2011)

ninal46 said:


> I don't know about Canada, but I do know National health in the UK is not all it's cracked up to be. My sister was diagnosed with breast cancer when she was 50 years old. She was told she had to wait several months for some of the tests. She is one of the lucky ones, she opted to go private, pay out of pocket and got a mastectomy. She just turned 74 and has been cancer free. I believe that had she not had the money, and had waited for the NHS to get her in for testing she would have died. Another friend of mine was 60 when she got cancer. Between Chemo, and Radiation she went into remission. The NHS placed her on these very expensive cancer drugs and she was staying in remission. When she turned 70 they told her she could not get the drugs anymore as they were not curing her. She died at 72. Thank you, but no thank you for anything that is remotely like a National health. I want it the way it was ... where I can pick and chose my doctors. That will be a thing of the past with Obamacare. In my opinion anyone that says that National Health is great, have not experienced real good health care. Take a number and wait ... wait ... wait = National Health.


I certainly don't know a lot about Canada's National Health care but whenever we meet someone from Canada my husband asks about it. The people we've met have all been older people and their complaint is that even when they have been diagnosed with a very serious illness such as cancer they would have had to wait months before starting treatment. Fortunately, in each case they had money and were able to go to the US for treatment.


----------



## Lukelucy (Nov 19, 2011)

bwtyer said:


> You know, I went back from the beginning, reading all of this and I am not sure where it went out of control. Some of you who are pro ACA do tend to profess yourselves a bit strongly which is all fine and good for a nice healthy debate but there are some of you who have jumped in that are more or less bullying other people because they are not agreeing with you. You need to remember that there are different types of people, different ages ,different personalities and mentality sets and different situations - I respect and enjoy a good pro and con argument and have learned to have my facts but I have a problem with downright rudeness. Some of these posts are like a slap in the face to the other party- just because they questioned something or agreed with somebody or even stated their own experience. Sorry, but this is just not right. A good pro and con debate is interesting but this particular topic has gone far beyond a debate. I am quiet sure there must be a history between some of you that I am not aware of but please- lets not share it with the world.


Thank you for your reply. Yes, I feel bullied by certain people on this and other sites. It is really a shame. Thank you for sharing this. I hope the bullies read it and take it to heart. But, a bully is the last to see that he/she is a bully.


----------



## Lmdwf (Aug 7, 2013)

The "no mammos" after 70 is evidence based care derived from the most current research. After age 70, breast cancer is so slow growing that you will die of natural causes first. Dying from breast cancer after that age is rare, you have more risk from the repeated radiation exposure. The new recommendation is no YEARLY mammos after age 70. Any woman who needs one due to her history will still get one! I just finished a paper on this for my Nurse Practitioner degree. The new recommendations for PAP is now every three years, not every year, unless there is a history that needs to be followed more closely. Just another scare tactic from the insurance companies, who don't want to see their huge profits go down!


----------



## Lukelucy (Nov 19, 2011)

Ann DeGray said:


> I certainly don't know a lot about Canada's National Health care but whenever we meet someone from Canada my husband asks about it. The people we've met have all been older people and their complaint is that even when they have been diagnosed with a very serious illness such as cancer they would have had to wait months before starting treatment. Fortunately, in each case they had money and were able to go to the US for treatment.


I hear this all the time. Very worrisome. Would not want that to happen to me. I understand if you have money, you get good treatment and pay out of pocket.


----------



## Maimie (Sep 7, 2011)

Waiting for screening, testing? 
OMG, I am a 10 year BC survivor, I credit early detection for this. Lord Help us!!!


----------



## Lukelucy (Nov 19, 2011)

Maimie said:


> Waiting for screening, testing?
> OMG, I am a 10 BC survivor, I credit early detection for this. Lord Help us!!!


Congratulations! Early detection is the key. I am at high risk for breast cancer. I want screenings every year.


----------



## Ell-J (Aug 19, 2012)

Your post focuses on what WILL happen with Obamacare -- and there really is no way to know that, only what COULD happen. It's the difference between "the world WILL end tomorrow" (a scare tactic very effective in propaganda) and "the world COULD end tomorrow" (one possibility among many).

It's very difficult to make sense of all this right now. And I think that, like other National Health Care systems, it probably won't meet expectations in all areas. Yet for millions of people -- what a blessing.

Be very suspicious of any "information" that states that "X WILL result in Y". The organization behind this "information" has an agenda -- and it is NOT meant to educate the public or present the facts.


----------



## obxamom (Apr 21, 2013)

Someone said that the aca is not raising premiums its the insurance companies .....well who do you think put them the I insurance companies in a situation where if they are going to provide affordable health care to some then those who can pay will pay not for one policy but for two or three...heard the saying rob from peter to pay Paul. How else are they going to pay for cheap premiums ..for the original poster not reponding to some comments those who don't agree with her gripe at her how it isn't true not fact ...get your facts straight get educated....well if you are all so enlightened and so more educated then please provide us all with an unbiased informative source who has thourghly read the law and can give us pure information... simply going to the healthcare.gov hello can we say biased ????? She's not responding because you are not giving her any facts to respond on...just hearsay responses that you regurgitate from a heard of based source...refuti g the poster.unless you've read the bill and are an expert...where are u getting your Info from??? Hmmmm..why do you want to shut the thread down...is what others are saying that is opposite what you propose to believe making you upset or uncomfortable??? Some people are stating their experience good or bad with the current health care ...premiums going up....the later is costing more then what they previously had people getting their jobs slashed In. Half due to this health care ....show me the run down from someone who is simply reviewing the facts with no financial interest and agenda ...if that is what this poster doc told her then fine that is what is relayed and she is simply sharing what she heard...its up to you to counter that with facts not fear mongering and bullying.


----------



## pam j (May 15, 2011)

In Australia over 70 do not get notified for a mammagram but you can still have one free, I go to my doctor first as I can only have an ultra sound now and that is done every 12mths , that is also free


----------



## Boxmjb (May 19, 2013)

People need to do their own research instead of listening to 90 percent rumor.


----------



## bwtyer (Oct 31, 2012)

Lmdwf said:


> The "no mammos" after 70 is evidence based care derived from the most current research. After age 70, breast cancer is so slow growing that you will die of natural causes first. Dying from breast cancer after that age is rare, you have more risk from the repeated radiation exposure. The new recommendation is no YEARLY mammos after age 70. Any woman who needs one due to her history will still get one! I just finished a paper on this for my Nurse Practitioner degree. The new recommendations for PAP is now every three years, not every year, unless there is a history that needs to be followed more closely. Just another scare tactic from the insurance companies, who don't want to see their huge profits go down!


 This is probably true- however my cousin's (no breast cancer history in family) is an aggressive type - but there will always be exceptions to everything. In my humble opinion, with a 1 in 26 chance of getting breast cancer, a woman over 70 should continue to get annual mammos. And I am quiet sure, if she would request one, she can still get one.


----------



## Janet Cooke (Aug 14, 2013)

Lukelucy said:


> Thank you for your reply. Yes, I feel bullied by certain people on this and other sites. It is really a shame. Thank you for sharing this. I hope the bullies read it and take it to heart. But, a bully is the last to see that he/she is a bully.


Part of the problem would be your continuing insistence on not learning. That would be things like consistently referring to a thread as a site. People cannot tell what you mean when you use inaccurate vocabulary to explain things.


----------



## grammylynn (Mar 2, 2013)

I don't think so! So far here in FL we can't even get on to get any info at all so I called our Cardiologist to see if they had any info if they were going to take the patients on it and was told NO WE WILL NO LONGER BE ACCEPTING YOU UNLESS YOU ARE SELF PAY! They have been sending people to learning sessions with the state to see what they will have to know before it goes into effect next year and she had nothing good to say about it. They will be going all private insurances only. Our Primary care doctors turn away all Medicare patients now and will OCare too as it doesn't cover THEIR prices and most people with Medicare can't pay what they want to back bill. So at the moment it looks like the doctors in our area are staying, just not taking as many patients they will pick and choose so as not to lose money. Not one person I have talked to is going to sign up to pay more than they are now and so I think it will fail. I wouldn't take it if I didn't have to. My hubby and I can't get private ins so we will have to continue to go without. At this time private ins will take us but we would have to pay $2,400 a month premiums and have a $7,000 deductible before coverage kicks in with no meds included and can't afford that.


Ma Kitty said:


> I think you Americans will be pleasantly surprised when your health care kicks in. Insurance companies will tell you loads of negative information because they will lose a pot load of money from losing that insurance. Insurance companies aren't all that great sometimes. Some decline coverage if it's a second time for a problem. Keep an open mind. You may find you don't have to mortgage your home if you need to go to the hospital and you don't have private insurance.


----------



## Knitwitch51 (Oct 20, 2011)

For the record, I found a lump in my breast eight years ago on a Sunday evening. I left a voice message for my general practitioner at 10:00 p.m. that night asking if I could have an appointment 'sometime soon'. The Dr. called me herself at 8:30 a.m. the following day - her office doesn't open until 9 a.m. and I had an appointment for 12 noon. That was on a Tuesday. The following Tuesday I had a mammogram and the following Friday I was scheduled for a biopsy. I had my lumpectomy on January 4th. Six weeks from beginning to surgery. 

Our Canadian system is not perfect, and there are sometimes doctor or operating room shortages (mostly due to shortage of anesthesiologists, not surgeons. That being said, I do believe that no one should be refused medical care because of their social status or financial situation. God made this perfectly clear in his laws and statutes in the Hebrew Bible (Old Testament).


----------



## Lukelucy (Nov 19, 2011)

grammylynn said:


> I don't think so! So far here in FL we can't even get on to get any info at all so I called our Cardiologist to see if they had any info if they were going to take the patients on it and was told NO WE WILL NO LONGER BE ACCEPTING YOU UNLESS YOU ARE SELF PAY! They have been sending people to learning sessions with the state to see what they will have to know before it goes into effect next year and she had nothing good to say about it. They will be going all private insurances only. Our Primary care doctors turn away all Medicare patients now and will OCare too as it doesn't cover THEIR prices and most people with Medicare can't pay what they want to back bill. So at the moment it looks like the doctors in our area are staying, just not taking as many patients they will pick and choose so as not to lose money. Not one person I have talked to is going to sign up to pay more than they are now and so I think it will fail. I wouldn't take it if I didn't have to. My hubby and I can't get private ins so we will have to continue to go without. At this time private ins will take us but we would have to pay $2,400 a month premiums and have a $7,000 deductible before coverage kicks in with no meds included and can't afford that.


Thank you for telling us this. People need to know what is going on.


----------



## tamarque (Jan 21, 2011)

I have no intention of participating in any system that forces me to buy private industry product that I would never use to begin with. This is the problem with the ACA. It was written by the insurance corporations with major input from the drug corporations. It's whole purpose is to get more people under the thumb of the medical industry, and secondarily, to collect more personal information for whatever suspect reasons. Both of these industries should be totally buried.

That being said, the information put out at the beginning of this discussion is flawed, to say the least. The GOP/Tea Party have been hysterical about any possible success of the ACA. From day one they have been marketing a bunch of lies.

Consider that the ACA is basically the plan that GOP'r Mitt Romney instituted in Massachussetts. Then consider the nature of prejudice. In a poll that asked people about health care and talked about the ACA people supported it. But if the prejorative term 'Obamacare' was used, the same people rejected it.

I don't know who or what this BCBS group is but given the small turnout reported, the medical community itself did not see them as authoritative. And neither would I.


----------



## Maimie (Sep 7, 2011)

Makes me SO fearful for daughters and granddaughters.

I Can Not Believe that this is what Our Politicians have done. I agree we needed to address crippling cost of medical care............ But, This is unbelievable !!! I think we are on a slippery slope.


----------



## dev7316 (Sep 2, 2011)

Drs. are so used to greed they will price themselves out.


----------



## Lukelucy (Nov 19, 2011)

Maimie said:


> Makes me SO fearful for daughters and granddaughters.
> 
> I Can Not Believe that this is what Our Politicians have done. I agree we needed to address crippling cost of medical care............ But, This is unbelievable !!! I think we are on a slippery slope.


Very slippery.


----------



## Scottiehouse (Jan 10, 2013)

Lukelucy said:


> My husband has just returned from a doctor's appointment. This doctor went to a BCBS meeting yesterday in which very few doctors bothered to attend. This doctor learned the following:
> 
> 1. The states that have opted in for Obamacare are going to be very expensive regarding healthcare.
> 2. No cancer screening (mammograms - everything) after the age of 70 for all people. Mind you half of people over 70 will die of cancer.
> ...


I'm not sure all this information is accurate. All states are part of the Affordable Care Act. However, whether or not they use the government web site to purchase their insurance is a decision each state makes. The insurance will be the same across the states. Just think if you have a pre-existing condition you will be able to get insurance without a hassle. My husband had a stroke a few years ago due to a blood condition he has. He was not able to get insurance anywhere and we worried night and day what would happen if he needed further medical care in a hospital. It would certainly bankrupt us. As it is his doctor's care (4 visits a year plus lab) is probably twice as much as we would pay in premiums through "Obamacare".

Once all the kinks are out of the system I believe this will be a good thing for many Americans!


----------



## aw9358 (Nov 1, 2011)

I'm not saying anything about the pros and cons of the Affordable Care Act. I am objecting to attacks on our National Health Service based on the odd anecdote. Of course there are problems - every large organisation has them - and they are mostly caused by our government softening us up for privatisation. The American health companies are rubbing their hands at the prospect of cherry-picking the profitable bits of our "socialism".

I would not live under any other system than ours. It is the best thing any government has ever done for its people, and I will not allow attacks on it go unanswered from people who do not know what they are talking about trying to score political points.

I realise that what I have just written is not a beautiful piece of prose, but this makes me too angry to care.


----------



## zookeeper1 (Feb 26, 2013)

Great Deal of Confusion about Obamacare. It is a nationwide program. It works with medicare, so if you have medicare and medicare currently covers screening etc this will not change. My current insurance requires that I use their doctors in their network or I pay for it myself. or Have a Huge Deductible. this has been going on for 10 years. way before Obamacare. If you have pre-existing health issue, insurance companies will either deny you coverage or charge an extremely high premium which is out of the reach of most people. With this law, those people who currently don't have insurance will be able to chose a plan that will allow them to have insurance. Yes it is subsides by government. But at least this keeps many individual off the Medicaid rolls or they are able to help pay for some or most of their own medical expenses. the program may require Doctors to except the Medicare amount that is being paid for their services which can be less than what they would charge someone with no insurance or what current insurance companies have agreed to pay them. Some doctors charge as much as $750 for one office visit. I make way less than that. This doesn't include any test. this is just the Doctor's Fee. Sounds like your doctor is giving you his side. Remember that there is always at least 2 sides to every story. Verify all information.


----------



## Grama Guinn (Sep 12, 2013)

My Dr. told me the same as Lukelucy's husband was told, Plus I have been told by 4 specialists since then. Any one who believes it's better, don't grow old! Now if you are here illegally you are covered.


----------



## susanmos2000 (May 10, 2011)

Lukelucy said:


> Thank you for your reply. Yes, I feel bullied by certain people on this and other sites. It is really a shame. Thank you for sharing this. I hope the bullies read it and take it to heart. But, a bully is the last to see that he/she is a bully.


Sorry, sweets--but as long as you post misinformation that may dissuade others from seeking the medical care they need and are entitled to, the rest of us have an obligation to speak up. What you are doing is immoral and very sad.


----------



## Catarry (Apr 10, 2012)

Lmdwf said:


> The "no mammos" after 70 is evidence based care derived from the most current research. After age 70, breast cancer is so slow growing that you will die of natural causes first. Dying from breast cancer after that age is rare, you have more risk from the repeated radiation exposure. The new recommendation is no YEARLY mammos after age 70. Any woman who needs one due to her history will still get one! I just finished a paper on this for my Nurse Practitioner degree. The new recommendations for PAP is now every three years, not every year, unless there is a history that needs to be followed more closely. Just another scare tactic from the insurance companies, who don't want to see their huge profits go down!


 There is a difference between recommendations and the law. Please look at p.2 of this thread and the lengthy response by Jelun2. 
In fact the Affordable Care Act and Medicare legislate an annual free mammogram for all women 40 and older, improving on the recommended practice.


----------



## Lukelucy (Nov 19, 2011)

Grama Guinn said:


> My Dr. told me the same as Lukelucy's husband was told, Plus I have been told by 4 specialists since then. Any one who believes it's better, don't grow old! Now if you are here illegally you are covered.


I wish people would start to listen. Thank you!


----------



## Janet Cooke (Aug 14, 2013)

Grama Guinn said:


> My Dr. told me the same as Lukelucy's husband was told, Plus I have been told by 4 specialists since then. Any one who believes it's better, don't grow old! Now if you are here illegally you are covered.


That input about undocumented immigrants is another lie, thanks for the input, though. It shows us what your credibility is(n't).


----------



## morningstar (Mar 24, 2012)

Lmdwf said:


> I was interested in your post, because I work in the hospital. I can tell you, it does not matter which state you live in. The states that opted out means that they are not receiving federal dollars to implement any healthcare, a negative for the citizens there. In an opted out state, you have the same access through the program on a federal level. The companies that are saying this stuff are only thinking of profits! All states have access and insurance companies vying for your dollars, this is a capitalist system all the way. As far as the breast cancer mammograms after 70, if this company is saying that not screening is a bad thing, they are just trying to scare you. The "no mammos" after 70 is a evidence based recommendation from the National Institutes ofHhealth based on research that shows that the risk form repeated exposure to radiation is higher than the risk of breast cancer. At age 70, most breast cancers will never grow big enough to harm you before your natural death anyway. Any woman who feels that something is wrong will get a mammogram, just not routine, yearly mammograms for prevention sake. There are similar recommendations for routine pap smears too, they are now every three years. Did they use that as a scare tactic too? Sound slike they are trying to persuade people to move so they don't have to cover you!!
> 
> I have been a nurse in women's health for 13 years and am almost done with my Family nurse practitioner program. I have been very involved researching these things because I will be working in women's health when I am done with school. Also, an insurance company would not be the one for reliable information. Their profits have gone from 2.5 billion to over 12 billion in the last few years. they accomplish this by charging you more and giving worse coverage, or dropping you if you get too sick. They can no longer do that!


 :thumbup:


----------



## Ahirsch601 (Jul 23, 2013)

My mother lived in the UK and at age 95 was diagnosed with stomach cancer. Obviously they were not going to treat it aggressively at her age. At one point they offered some dialysis and she refused. The care however was fantastic. Everything she needed was instantly provided including therapeutic massages.She was able to stay in her own home and the doctor came to her house.The last few days of her life were in the local small hospital where we were ALL lovingly cared for. My husband had died here in the US just 15 months earlier of a rare blood cancer so I was able to compare the two. The medical care was equal but the comfort level was much higher on the NHS


----------



## tamarque (Jan 21, 2011)

Lmdwf said:


> The "no mammos" after 70 is evidence based care derived from the most current research. After age 70, breast cancer is so slow growing that you will die of natural causes first. Dying from breast cancer after that age is rare, you have more risk from the repeated radiation exposure. The new recommendation is no YEARLY mammos after age 70. Any woman who needs one due to her history will still get one! I just finished a paper on this for my Nurse Practitioner degree. The new recommendations for PAP is now every three years, not every year, unless there is a history that needs to be followed more closely. Just another scare tactic from the insurance companies, who don't want to see their huge profits go down!


Insurance profits are rising under the ACA as more younger people are being forced to buy this private product. The stats are that younger people use much less medical care so what they pay in will more than cover any extra coverage for 'pre-existing' conditions, like being alive and living longer!

On your other point about evidence-based medicine--yes, agree but if truth be told, just about all medicine is useless and needs to be trashed. Medical studies themselves have shown that more than 50% of drugs are useless. All of them cause more harm. PAP smears are not preventative, nor are mammograms. Actually, mammograms are painful and can cause damage to tissue which may become cancerous. They also have been used to scare women into totally unnecessary surgery with claims of cancer which isn't.

If this country really wanted to improve health and cut costs, it would support holistic healing protocols and teach nutrition as a major topic. And there is evidence based research by the 1000's of papers and clinical experience to back this up.

To the contrary, legally prescribed medicine in hospitals alone kill over 100,000 people a year and this is a very conservative number.

So while people fight about the ACA and what it will cost consumers, let me say the discussion is completely mis-focused. Single-payer is the way to go, simple to implement and can provide equitable coverage to every single person. As a national program it could provide very high health care to the public IF, and ONLY IF, the drug corporations were removed from consideration, the insurance corporations were eliminated from health care, and people began to focus on the national rip off by the military and its industrial partners and began to demand more or OUR money be put into the needs of the people.


----------



## Lukelucy (Nov 19, 2011)

susanmos2000 said:


> Sorry, sweets--but as long as you post misinformation that may dissuade others from seeking the medical care they need and are entitled to, the rest of us have an obligation to speak up. What you are doing is immoral and very sad.


I am not ever trying to dissuade others from seeking medical care they are entitled to. Those are your words not mine. I find you repeatedly change the meaning to my words - your projection. Your comprehension level is very, very low.

I will not ever again respond to you. I find you a bully, rude and more. I am not your "sweets". If I knew you in real life I would avoid you like the plague - as I am about to do here.


----------



## Janet Cooke (Aug 14, 2013)

Catarry said:


> There is a difference between recommendations and the law. Please look at p.2 of this thread and the lengthy response by Jelun2.
> In fact the Affordable Care Act and Medicare legislate an annual free mammogram for all women 40 and older, improving on the recommended practice.


Right, that is not to say that patients cannot opt out of the testing or spread out the testing for a year or two.


----------



## morningstar (Mar 24, 2012)

Maimie said:


> Makes me SO fearful for daughters and granddaughters.
> 
> I Can Not Believe that this is what Our Politicians have done. I agree we needed to address crippling cost of medical care............ But, This is unbelievable !!! I think we are on a slippery slope.


Your fears for your daughters and granddaughters will disappear when you get the true facts about "Obama Care."


----------



## morningstar (Mar 24, 2012)

Lukelucy said:


> I wish people would start to listen. Thank you!


Please, LukeLucy, get the accurate information. It is sad to see how you are needlessly worrying about statements that are just not so. I am not arguing with you, just wishing you peace of mind.


----------



## susanmos2000 (May 10, 2011)

Lukelucy said:


> I am not ever trying to dissuade others from seeking medical care they are entitled to. Those are your words not mine. I find you repeatedly change the meaning to my words - your projection. Your comprehension level is very, very low.
> 
> I will not ever again respond to you. I find you a bully, rude and more. I am not your "sweets". If I knew you in real life I would avoid you like the plague - as I am about to do here.


Would you be able to live with yourself if you discovered that just one person--ONE--with a lump in her breast decided not to request a mammogram because she believed that, based on your initial post, the doctors would declare her "too old"?


----------



## Lukelucy (Nov 19, 2011)

morningstar said:


> Please, LukeLucy, get the accurate information. It is sad to see how you are needlessly worrying about statements that are just not so. I am not arguing with you, just wishing you peace of mind.


Thank you. We are doing a ton of research. No offense taken. Appreciate your kind thoughts.


----------



## Ronie (Jan 21, 2011)

well this seems to be quite a topic.. 18 pages and counting. I hope to read them after work today.. I would love some honest, easy to understand facts about what is going to be happening.. I do know from the news on TV that if you are already covered by health insurance then you don't need to opt in for O-Care.. its designed for those who don't currently have health care. also company's can opt in for their employees.. I think this needs some investigation and research.. I do believe that Lukelucy got some valuable information straight from her doctor and that weather we like it or not we need to pay attention to it!!!!


----------



## Ronie (Jan 21, 2011)

susanmos2000 said:


> Would you be able to live with yourself if you discovered that just one person--ONE--with a lump in her breast decided not to request a mammogram because she believed that, based on your initial post, the doctors would declare her "too old"?


excuse me if a person found a lump in their breast and did nothing then it would be that persons fault for not going to their doctor about it immediately... we are all in charge of our own lives and by the time we are adults I would hope we would have some common sense

Before this gets any more out of hand... this whole mess shut our country down for 2 weeks!!!!! it wasn't over NOTHING!!!!!
don't let the media sugar coat this and put blinders on you... we have to keep our eyes open and our minds clear....


----------



## morningstar (Mar 24, 2012)

Ronie said:


> well this seems to be quite a topic.. 18 pages and counting. I hope to read them after work today.. I would love some honest, easy to understand facts about what is going to be happening.. I do know from the news on TV that if you are already covered by health insurance then you don't need to opt in for O-Care.. its designed for those who don't currently have health care. also company's can opt in for their employees.. I think this needs some investigation and research.. I do believe that Lukelucy got some valuable information straight from her doctor and that weather we like it or not we need to pay attention to it!!!!


If you can access the president's news conference from Oct 21st on the Internet, he clearly outlined again what the facts are.


----------



## Ahirsch601 (Jul 23, 2013)

I agree!


----------



## Lukelucy (Nov 19, 2011)

Ronie said:


> well this seems to be quite a topic.. 18 pages and counting. I hope to read them after work today.. I would love some honest, easy to understand facts about what is going to be happening.. I do know from the news on TV that if you are already covered by health insurance then you don't need to opt in for O-Care.. its designed for those who don't currently have health care. also company's can opt in for their employees.. I think this needs some investigation and research.. I do believe that Lukelucy got some valuable information straight from her doctor and that weather we like it or not we need to pay attention to it!!!!


Thank you, Ronie. Of course we will do research to verify, but I am afraid this doctor is correct. It is just common sense that health care will deteriorate with so many people coming on board. There are not enough doctors. I also think that as time goes on, it will be set in stone. It is all very unfortunate.

I am sure there are many success stories out there, but there is another side that is not so successful and it not being publicized. ACA is portrayed as all happiness and health. That is what the advertisements on tv are trying to communicate. I look at them as brainwashing.


----------



## Knit crazy (Mar 13, 2013)

morningstar said:


> There is so much misinformation in this post. I hope the writer will seek out true info from accurate, non-biased reporting. I do not wish to start a rant here on KP so please, everyone, just get the facts from the original source...The White House. Thank you.


Well, the White House is not known for truth-telling. Remember the lies about what caused the death of four Amercans in Benghazi, the role and scope of the NSA, the IRS's limited (to Ohio) vs. expansive (White House) directives to harass political opponents, and the rollout problems with the Obamacare website.

Doctors are the only people telling the truth about healthcare changes.

1. Obama telling Americans they will be able to keep their current providers was a lie for many. It depends on whether your provider accepts Medicare and Medicaid patients. Many who did won't after January 1. The truth is that some states refused to expand Medicaid coverages and that Medicare is changing to curtail costs for the government. It depends on whether your current healthcare plan meets Obamacare guidelines. Some people deliberately carried limited cost healthcare to reduce costs. They will be forced to pay much more for coverages they don't want or need.

2. Sebelius and Obama telling Americans the website would be working well on October 1 was a lie. It wasn't ready, and they knew it. If as they report, People are flooding to the site, they are forced to try again and again and again . . . . No luck, but each try is counting as traffic.

3. Sebelius and Obama telling Americans the site would work effectively was a lie because testing wasn't done. If someone wanted the truth they would ask Sebelius to provide copies of the new site's test scripts. My guess is there were none. I worked for a software development company that had a Quality Assurance Department.

4. Sebelius and Obama telling Americans it takes $500 Million to build this website was a lie. That money must be in a slush fund at this time. The software development company I worked at rolled out a similar type website in 1 1/2 years. The new website had to integrate data with and receive data from each state's insurance department, integrate and store data with different insurance companies, and the receive and send data to the NASD. Personal data was secure. We tested. It was built for under $4 million. Testing should have occurred throughout development and lots should have been done on the finished products.

5. The website's architecture was designed improperly. If, as Obama claimed, the problems are due to too much traffic, that means the website is not scaleable. It wasn't built to meet demands. That is a fatal flaw. That it was built on a 10-year old platform and with old programming code is the most fatal flaw.

Obamacare's website is a glimpse into how the healthcare for America will run. We had people in charge of building the website who knew nothing about software development. We will have people making decisions about our healthcare needs that know nothing about healthcare.

We have the blind leading the blind making important decisions that impact our lives. Their track record is poor. I don't trust them at all. Sebelius screwed up technology at the NAIC when she was Commissioner, and she's done it again. Obama is just the sales rep for a product he doesn't know anything about, and wanting it to work won't make it work. The website should have been the easy part of the ACA rollout. They have failed at that. Do you trust them not to fail at the hard part?


----------



## Lukelucy (Nov 19, 2011)

Ronie said:


> excuse me if a person found a lump in their breast and did nothing then it would be that persons fault for not going to their doctor about it immediately... we are all in charge of our own lives and by the time we are adults I would hope we would have some common sense
> 
> Before this gets any more out of hand... this whole mess shut our country down for 2 weeks!!!!! it wasn't over NOTHING!!!!!
> don't let the media sugar coat this and put blinders on you... we have to keep our eyes open and our minds clear....


Ronie,

Thank you, again. I do not read the post from the other person. Of course, I have nothing to do with another person's health decisions. It is their problem as mine are mine. The person who wrote that really twists facts in order to offend/bully. I do not read those posts.

Yes, we need to keep our eyes open and minds clear. You are wise.


----------



## Catarry (Apr 10, 2012)

Lukelucy said:


> I understand that snopes is not to be believed.


 Does that mean somone told you that Snopes is not to be believed or that, for instance, you have personal experience with something you know to be factually true that Snopes has called false?

Here's a piece from Readers Digest, a raving socialist propaganda sheet if ever there were one, that reports on Snopes, Barbara and David Mikkelson who run the site, who they are and how they conduct their research.

http://www.rd.com/home/rumor-detectives-true-story-or-online-hoax/

If you understand the ACA as you understand this, no wonder at any of this brouhaha.


----------



## susanmos2000 (May 10, 2011)

Ronie said:


> excuse me if a person found a lump in their breast and did nothing then it would be that persons fault for not going to their doctor about it immediately... we are all in charge of our own lives and by the time we are adults I would hope we would have some common sense


I would hope so as well--but the fact of this thread shows that alas, that's often not the case. I'm appalled that the originator of this thread has chosen to post her version of the facts without a caveat encouraging others to check with their doctor/hospital/insurance company as well. She's playing with people's lives, and I find that frightening.


----------



## Doubledee (May 29, 2013)

Janeway said:


> No, this is factual as everyone on Medicare has been notified of the increase of Part B.


I have not been notified of an increase in part B and I am from Wisconsin. How and when were you notified?


----------



## Janet Cooke (Aug 14, 2013)

Catarry said:


> Does that mean somone told you that Snopes is not to be believed or that, for instance, you have personal experience with something you know to be factually true that Snopes has called false?
> 
> Here's a piece from Readers Digest, a raving socialist propaganda sheet if ever there were one, that reports on Snopes, Barbara and David Mikkelson who run the site, who they are and how they conduct their research.
> 
> ...


LOL, sarcasm doesn't work with people who have no sense of humor.


----------



## Ahirsch601 (Jul 23, 2013)

$450 a month is a bargain by NJ standards!


----------



## Sherry1 (May 14, 2011)

ramram0003 said:


> Sorry, but as of right now there are 16 or 17 states that have opted OUT of Obamacare. It has been on the news recently.


They are NOT opting out of the ACA. They are opting out of a state exchange and going with the national exchange. The ACA is the law therefore it will be upheld in ALL 50 states.


----------



## Janet Cooke (Aug 14, 2013)

Sherry1 said:


> They are NOT opting out of the ACA. They are opting out of a state exchange and going with the national exchange. The ACA is the law therefore it will be upheld in ALL 50 states.


Or they may be opting out of the extended Medicaid coverage. I don't get that at all, but I don't elect those folks.


----------



## Munchn (Mar 3, 2013)

The whole Affordable Care Act SUCKS! :thumbdown: :thumbdown: :thumbdown:
Medicare is up there with Affordable Care Act. I know this because I am on Medicare.

The glitches in the start up web site shows how incompetent the gov't can be. $400 million and it doesn't work. Did nobody test the system?

Gesh-----
:roll: :roll: :roll:


----------



## theyarnlady (Feb 25, 2011)

joeysomma said:


> You have that right!


yes I agree to. People on some sites are putting down our governor and do not know a thing about this governor. Seems they forget recall and again he was elected. Not always right on everything but cares enough about this state to try and get goverment under control. We are Bless.


----------



## Obsessed (Jan 22, 2012)

jelun2 said:


> The only way to be sure is for her to go to the website, give her individualized information, see if she qualifies for a subsidy and figure out which of the options works best for her.
> Here's the website, sorry I cannot get it to do the hyperlink thing.
> 
> https://www.healthcare.gov/marketplace/individual/


I am in the same boat...We are retired andDH is old enough for Medicare, but I've got a few more years of paying privately. My ins will no longer be available.

Would love to get more info, but in case you haven't heard...THE WEBSITE DOESN'T WORK!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!


----------



## Janet Cooke (Aug 14, 2013)

Obsessed said:


> I am in the same boat...We are retired andDH is old enough for Medicare, but I've got a few more years of paying privately. My ins will no longer be available.
> 
> Would love to get more info, but in case you haven't heard...THE WEBSITE DOESN'T WORK!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!


No reason to use caps with me. Tell it to your Governor and legislators if they turned down doing their own website OR make a phone call. Or get a job that supplies benefits.


----------



## Obsessed (Jan 22, 2012)

margoc said:


> BCBS is different in every state and I would assume that will be the case with the exchange - be it a state or federal. BCBS is one of the worst insurance companies IMHO so anything regarding coverage coming from them I would never believe.


This is very true, but for those of us who have to pay for private individual insurance there are often no other options!


----------



## bwtyer (Oct 31, 2012)

well folks, I just opened yesterday's mail. It is time for open enrollment in my medical insurance options. I am retired and retained insurance from my employer. I am not old enough for medicare. My medical insurance is going up over $70 per month. No change in dental or eye care insurances. just so you know- yes there appears to be an across the board premium increase. This will cut into my yarn money. :-(


----------



## Knitter from Nebraska (Jun 9, 2013)

Lukelucy said:


> Of course we are doing research.


Lukelucy, I've not yet read all 19 pages of this thread yet, don't have time right now. But I will say this, o-care is the same in every state. What will differ is that some states have opted out of forming their own registries. People in those states will have to go through federal registries. Also, some states have opted out of the expanded Medicaid. The federal government would give states money to include low income working people in their Medicaid plans. Some states including Nebraska, understand that while the government will give money to cover these people in the present, the federal funds will and always do dry up. In the future the states will be forced to fund these people. These are expenses that we cannot afford to keep going. Nebraska is a fiscally responsible state. Our laws require a balanced budget and we cannot spend money we don't have.


----------



## Grama Guinn (Sep 12, 2013)

Lukelucy said:


> My husband has just returned from a doctor's appointment. This doctor went to a BCBS meeting yesterday in which very few doctors bothered to attend. This doctor learned the following:
> 
> 1. The states that have opted in for Obamacare are going to be very expensive regarding healthcare.
> 2. No cancer screening (mammograms - everything) after the age of 70 for all people. Mind you half of people over 70 will die of cancer.
> ...


For your information:http://www.americanthinker.com/2013/10/obamacare_a_planned_disaster_for_political_reasons.html


----------



## Obsessed (Jan 22, 2012)

jelun2 said:


> Thanks for doing that research, that first link is for small businesses. So it may be a huge misunderstanding on someone's part. Sometimes doctors are better off leaving the business end of things to business people.
> 
> This is the second. The rates, especially for BC, seem pretty good.
> 
> ...


Note that catastophic plans often have very high deductibles (initial out-of-pocket expenses) I have already heard these being as high as $12,500 in some cases. So that would add $12,500 to the cost of your insurance premium to be paid by you before anything is paid by insurance!


----------



## grammabob (Jun 4, 2013)

Lukelucy said:


> That is not what I know. I do know that some states opted out. Arizona is one.


Arizona isn't running their own exchange since they opted out but the states that have opted out have their exchanges run by the government. Basically the same thing if I understand correctly but just not state run.


----------



## Obsessed (Jan 22, 2012)

jelun2 said:


> Making pronouncements doesn't make them true.
> Congress does have to use Obamacare.
> Obamacare has not started in full swing yet, if your premiums are up it is not because of the ACA.


You are sooooo wrong. Not only has Congress been carved out of the ACA, but so have their staff. Pelosi says they are too valuable to lose to private industry! My premiums have skyrocketed in advance of the ACA as well.


----------



## lavonne10 (Nov 19, 2012)

This again? I know I don't have to click but I can't help myself. I'm amazed at lack of knowledge and then arguing about it. This came from our govt. How good do you think is going be? How many of them will use it?


----------



## Janet Cooke (Aug 14, 2013)

bwtyer said:


> well folks, I just opened yesterday's mail. It is time for open enrollment in my medical insurance options. I am retired and retained insurance from my employer. I am not old enough for medicare. My medical insurance is going up over $70 per month. No change in dental or eye care insurances. just so you know- yes there appears to be an across the board premium increase. This will cut into my yarn money. :-(


Sorry about that, sweetie. :thumbdown:


----------



## Obsessed (Jan 22, 2012)

Cheeky Blighter said:


> ACA has not caused your premiums to go up. Your premiums were increased by your insurance company and no one else if they were increased or if you are covered through your employer than your employer is having you pay a larger share of the premium than you used to. Also not caused by ACA. If you don't like your insurance than go to another insurance company or check out ACA and the exchange in your state. You are not helpless are you? There are no longer preexisting conditions applied to anyone so shop around. If you need help looking I would be happy to assist you.


You don't seem to understand that in states other than yours there are very limited options for private insurance. Your state has had a form of the ACA for quite some time.


----------



## Janet Cooke (Aug 14, 2013)

lavonne10 said:


> This again? I know I don't have to click but I can't help myself. I'm amazed at lack of knowledge and then arguing about it. This came from our govt. How good do you think is going be? How many of them will use it?


Actually all of congress and their aides will be using it. Now what?


----------



## Janet Cooke (Aug 14, 2013)

Munchn said:


> The whole Affordable Care Act SUCKS! :thumbdown: :thumbdown: :thumbdown:
> Medicare is up there with Affordable Care Act. I know this because I am on Medicare.
> 
> The glitches in the start up web site shows how incompetent the gov't can be. $400 million and it doesn't work. Did nobody test the system?
> ...


They did test the system, they didn't test it for all the curiosity seekers who have no reason to go there, however. It has been estimated ( at least I think this is what I heard on NPR) that almost 1 in 4 is a "tourist".


----------



## momforthree (Nov 10, 2011)

Lukelucy said:


> My husband has just returned from a doctor's appointment. This doctor went to a BCBS meeting yesterday in which very few doctors bothered to attend. This doctor learned the following:
> 
> 1. The states that have opted in for Obamacare are going to be very expensive regarding healthcare.
> 2. No cancer screening (mammograms - everything) after the age of 70 for all people. Mind you half of people over 70 will die of cancer.
> ...


This socialist type of health care can be applied in small countries, but it won't work in America! 
I am so surprised that there still are ppl who praise it!
It will be a complete failure! On our pocket!


----------



## Janet Cooke (Aug 14, 2013)

Obsessed said:


> You don't seem to understand that in states other than yours there are very limited options for private insurance. Your state has had a form of the ACA for quite some time.


Do you understand that before ACA there were NO options for many people? Folks who had pre-existing conditions, children with expensive medical care... too bad for them, I guess.


----------



## Boxmjb (May 19, 2013)

Even if deductible was 10 or 15 thou, you eould have a chance paying off. I think my premium was high but a day in hospital, surgery, follow up care, over 100 thousand. No shot at paying that off. Does your state require car insurance, bank require homeowners?


----------



## valmac (Nov 22, 2012)

My word! This has been very interesting reading for an outsider. I am a retired RN who has lived and worked in Canada for more than 40 years, before that I was a UK citizen. I do not claim to know very much about your (US) medical system, but I do wonder why many people in your country equate universal medical insurance with socialism.
Surely it is to everyone's advantage to have affordable medical coverage.
In Canada we have waiting lists for non-urgent care, but for those who require emergent or urgent treatment, the system responds very well and nobody suffers financial hardship due to the cost of medical treatment.
In case anyone thinks we get a free ride, remember that we pay high income taxes with far fewer 'write-offs' than US citizens. I believe that universal healthcare is a right of all citizens, this belief doesn't make me a socialist!! 
BTW my husband & I are retired we pay almost $400.00 a month for optional enhanced health insurance to cover additional drug costs, dental care, ambulance transportation & things like physio, chiropractic etc. These items are not covered by our basic (no premium) provincial medical insurance plan.
No agenda here, just expressing my opinion & providing some information,
I enjoy this forum, but dislike the nastiness some posters deem necessary, just saying........


----------



## ElyseKnox (Sep 16, 2011)

Lukelucy said:


> My husband has just returned from a doctor's appointment. This doctor went to a BCBS meeting yesterday in which very few doctors bothered to attend. This doctor learned the following:
> 
> 1. The states that have opted in for Obamacare are going to be very expensive regarding healthcare.
> 2. No cancer screening (mammograms - everything) after the age of 70 for all people. Mind you half of people over 70 will die of cancer.
> ...


Since Obamacare is a federal law how will moving to another state help? I would imagine you would run into the same restrictions regardless of the state.


----------



## Boxmjb (May 19, 2013)

Because some organizations are good at spreading fear because they do not want to work for political gain.


----------



## lavonne10 (Nov 19, 2012)

jelun2 said:


> Actually all of congress and their aides will be using it. Now what?


I find this hard to believe. They are not going to wait on long list for medical care. They will take their money and get it somewhere else. Congress can't do anything right; just look at their record.


----------



## Obsessed (Jan 22, 2012)

jelun2 said:


> No reason to use caps with me. Tell it to your Governor and legislators if they turned down doing their own website OR make a phone call. Or get a job that supplies benefits.


Seriously? I worked all my life, paid privately for insurance, probably subsidized yours as well! Now I see why everyone criticizes your posts, you just can't help but be rude! I hope you have a pleasant day and please don't take it the wrong way when i do not respond to your posts any more.


----------



## Janet Cooke (Aug 14, 2013)

Boxmjb said:


> Because some organizations are good at spreading fear because they do not want to work for political gain.


 :thumbup:


----------



## gma11331 (Oct 18, 2011)

Lmdwf said:


> The "no mammos" after 70 is evidence based care derived from the most current research. After age 70, breast cancer is so slow growing that you will die of natural causes first. Dying from breast cancer after that age is rare, you have more risk from the repeated radiation exposure. The new recommendation is no YEARLY mammos after age 70. Any woman who needs one due to her history will still get one! I just finished a paper on this for my Nurse Practitioner degree. The new recommendations for PAP is now every three years, not every year, unless there is a history that needs to be followed more closely. Just another scare tactic from the insurance companies, who don't want to see their huge profits go down!


This is the info I got from my doctor a couple weeks ago when I went in for my annual checkup (Kaiser member for 47 years): I am 82 and will no longer be sent for mammogram or colon screening. Breast cancer treatment at my age would be worse than the cancer and I agree. Same for prostate cancer in men....few elderly men with that cancer die from it, but from something else. But sometimes you can't help but think that you are just too old to be bothered with now!!!


----------



## sibergirl (May 4, 2011)

You have posted "information" that is faulty. For those of us who are on Medicare, there are additional insurance plans, called either advantage or supplemental plans. (I am positive of this since I am 70). This is the time of year that people on Medicare choose their additional plan, by the way.

Medicare lists all of the screenings for us older people, and they include mammograms, colonoscopies, prostate exams, etc. So yes, the screenings are available.

Depending on the plan you have, you will be able to go out of network for care. This is up to YOU as you will be the one to select your plan. By the way, Medicare sends you a booklet every year titled "medicare & You", giving you a lot of information. If you are on Medicare, you should have received it. You can also go to Medicare.gov or call 1 800 633-4227 and ask for a copy. 

Any doctor who is spreading misinformation or lies is unethical and I would not go to him.


----------



## ElyseKnox (Sep 16, 2011)

valmac said:


> My word! This has been very interesting reading for an outsider. I am a retired RN who has lived and worked in Canada for more than 40 years, before that I was a UK citizen. I do not claim to know very much about your (US) medical system, but I do wonder why many people in your country equate universal medical insurance with socialism.
> Surely it is to everyone's advantage to have affordable medical coverage.
> In Canada we have waiting lists for non-urgent care, but for those who require emergent or urgent treatment, the system responds very well and nobody suffers financial hardship due to the cost of medical treatment.
> In case anyone thinks we get a free ride, remember that we pay high income taxes with far fewer 'write-offs' than US citizens. I believe that universal healthcare is a right of all citizens, this belief doesn't make me a socialist!!
> ...


valmac,
We equate the legislation rammed down our throats as socialism because it IS socialism. When the government REQUIRES you to purchase something against your will, that is socialism. What about young people who don't want to spend their money on "healthcare insurance?" What about people who take care of themselves and rarely ever go to the doctor and would prefer NOT to have insurance? Making a product available to anyone who wants it is one thing but requiring everyone to purchase it is entirely a different matter.

Those in the federal government IGNORED the will of the people and forced this upon us while exempting themselves from it. That is socialism.

When they seed thousands of pages of legislations with such things as requiring your primary caregiver to determine if you have LEGAL guns in your home that is socialism.

The debacle unfolding as we speak in which people are NOT able to register because of website does not allow them to; yet they will be penalized for not registering is socialism run amok.


----------



## cspaen34 (Jan 28, 2011)

Lukelucy said:


> My husband has just returned from a doctor's appointment. This doctor went to a BCBS meeting yesterday in which very few doctors bothered to attend. This doctor learned the following:.....


I apologize, came on to this post late in the game. I am running late this morning and will try to catch back up this evening but did a quick scroll through 20 pages and couldn't see reference to what "BCBS" stands for to give me some idea of the meeting and its affliates. Please enlighten me. For the record, my doctor is on-board for the Affordable Care Act. Thanks


----------



## Chris Harris (Oct 17, 2013)

I've been hearing death panels. I guess we'll find out soon enough. I know if our insurance goes up we will be in one mess. It's hard to afford health care now. I've heard it will go up every year from now on. Like Palosi said you can't know what's in it until it passes. This is beyond ignorant! I for one am praying about this situation.


----------



## Lukelucy (Nov 19, 2011)

Munchn said:


> The whole Affordable Care Act SUCKS! :thumbdown: :thumbdown: :thumbdown:
> Medicare is up there with Affordable Care Act. I know this because I am on Medicare.
> 
> The glitches in the start up web site shows how incompetent the gov't can be. $400 million and it doesn't work. Did nobody test the system?
> ...


 :thumbup: :thumbup:


----------



## Lukelucy (Nov 19, 2011)

Knitter from Nebraska said:


> Lukelucy, I've not yet read all 19 pages of this thread yet, don't have time right now. But I will say this, o-care is the same in every state. What will differ is that some states have opted out of forming their own registries. People in those states will have to go through federal registries. Also, some states have opted out of the expanded Medicaid. The federal government would give states money to include low income working people in their Medicaid plans. Some states including Nebraska, understand that while the government will give money to cover these people in the present, the federal funds will and always do dry up. In the future the states will be forced to fund these people. These are expenses that we cannot afford to keep going. Nebraska is a fiscally responsible state. Our laws require a balanced budget and we cannot spend money we don't have.


Thank you for your reply. What a mess ACA is.


----------



## Lukelucy (Nov 19, 2011)

Grama Guinn said:


> For your information:http://www.americanthinker.com/2013/10/obamacare_a_planned_disaster_for_political_reasons.html


Wow. How upsetting. Thank you for this.


----------



## jangmb (Oct 27, 2011)

joeysomma said:


> It would be wonderful if you could get information from the website!


Touche'. The defenders of Obama Care really do not know anymore than anyone else. Too many people are hanging on to the promises that were made by the current administration on health care. Medicare will not be the same after Obama Care is enacted either. A large amount of funding is being removed from Medicare and transferred to Obama Care. Any rulings that were standard prior to this new AFA can change. I for one have not read all of the thousands of pages of this new law. Any new law that places another 16,000 IRS agents in place sounds very questionable to me.


----------



## Ruth Ray (Dec 31, 2012)

What is BCBS? I'm curious to know what was the source of your doctor's information


----------



## Lukelucy (Nov 19, 2011)

grammabob said:


> Arizona isn't running their own exchange since they opted out but the states that have opted out have their exchanges run by the government. Basically the same thing if I understand correctly but just not state run.


Thanks. Different rules for different states? Confusing.


----------



## Lukelucy (Nov 19, 2011)

Obsessed said:


> You are sooooo wrong. Not only has Congress been carved out of the ACA, but so have their staff. Pelosi says they are too valuable to lose to private industry! My premiums have skyrocketed in advance of the ACA as well.


Thank you. What a disaster.


----------



## obxamom (Apr 21, 2013)

Grama Guinn said:


> For your information:http://www.americanthinker.com/2013/10/obamacare_a_planned_disaster_for_political_reasons.html


Nice article...but we all should get it out of our system BC Obama signed into law that gives secret service the right to arrest anyone to speaks out against any one protracted by the SS and that they see a threat ...so if you go to a rally of Obama and speak out against his o care then you might just be put in jail.....and for you supporters like it or not it is a fact that this was just signed into law....although it was done under the radar. Just BC you support this health care doesn't give you the right to degrade one who doesn't. The supporters are comj g across as enlightened gurus of the law like they wrote it..quoting whatvthey heard from Obama..the white house or for goodness sakes NPR...please...There is a particular bully on here who is nasty and degrades everyone against the care act but yet I've heard nothing credible come from her mouth no factual information she has yet to share ..and I'm sure you k ow who u are.


----------



## Lukelucy (Nov 19, 2011)

lavonne10 said:


> This again? I know I don't have to click but I can't help myself. I'm amazed at lack of knowledge and then arguing about it. This came from our govt. How good do you think is going be? How many of them will use it?


Not good and they wouldn't use it ever.


----------



## Catarry (Apr 10, 2012)

cspaen34 said:


> I apologize, came on to this post late in the game. I am running late this morning and will try to catch back up this evening but did a quick scroll through 20 pages and couldn't see reference to what "BCBS" stands for to give me some idea of the meeting and its affliates. Please enlighten me. For the record, my doctor is on-board for the Affordable Care Act. Thanks


 When I googled that abbreviation it came up as BlueCross BlueShield. Depending on information not in the original post, it could have been either the national organization that represents all of the BCBS plans nationwide...or the BCBS in LukeLucy's state.


----------



## Lukelucy (Nov 19, 2011)

annacovasa said:


> This socialist type of health care can be applied in small countries, but it won't work in America!
> I am so surprised that there still are ppl who praise it!
> It will be a complete failure! On our pocket!


I agree.


----------



## Apbarr (Sep 14, 2013)

We are definately becoming a socialist country and to be honest there is alot of misinformation about obamacare most likely due to the fact that it was such a long bill (convenient?). No one bothered to read it. In fact one legislator was quoted as saying "oh do we have to read it?"

I agree it will come out in time as more of this gets rammed down our throats. I hope it helps someone but I haven't seen how it will help me. I work for a big corporation and am sure our insurance will go up considerably. I was fine with the way it was.


----------



## begarcia44 (Jan 29, 2012)

This sounds very much like the tactics of BCBS. DO not take their word for it. They are in the business of selling insurance and you need to check to see if they signed on to be one of the insurers of Obamacare. Not all large insurance companies signed on they have the "option of signing on". As of January 1 2013, most insurance companies waive the co-pay or deductible for preventative care so I think you need to go back to BCBS and ask them to show you some official document where it states the things your husband was told. Everyone is confused about Obamacare and I blame this on the administration because they have not explained it well. If you want to play the game then explain the rules and we the American people need to understand what are the rules are before we can understand what choices to make.


----------



## linnerlu (Jul 9, 2013)

Lukelucy said:


> Absolutely right. Most cancer diagnosis are in people over 70.
> 
> I think that we don't know a thing about Obamacare and it is going to be a big bad surprise when it happens. It has not taken full effect yet.


It's this kind of "thinking" that makes me crazy. i.e., "we don't know a thing about it but it's going to be bad." Aaaarrrggghhhhhh!


----------



## susannahp (Nov 7, 2011)

OMG here we go again ,the doctors will put the fear of God in you as their limit for pay will be reduced and of course he wants you to fear what the Obama care CAN do for you ,I believe no one but myself and God and there isn't a doctor or politician that can make me believe all the BS that comes down the road, if you go blindly like the lamb then you will suffer the consequences , DO your reseach do not let someone else with an agenda guide you , this is your health , your life don't you think that's worth some effort and time on your part? I am happy with our care in Canada and so is my hubby who is from Indiana,he lives here and loves it , so sad that so many ppl are led by the nose to make quick decisions based on the sayings of someone who has an agenda ! Wake up ppl take charge of your life and rely on no one but yourself! When I go to the doctor I ask a lot of questions about the meds I am not a lamb nor am I blind or deaf!!!


----------



## Lukelucy (Nov 19, 2011)

ElyseKnox said:


> Since Obamacare is a federal law how will moving to another state help? I would imagine you would run into the same restrictions regardless of the state.


I do not know right now. I think there are different things going on in some states. Must look into this.


----------



## Ruth Ray (Dec 31, 2012)

I just found the answer myself. It is Blue Cross/Blue Shield.

The way I understand it is that each state had the option of getting providers OR using the federal system to get providers for their residents.
Insurance companies decide which states thay will be active in and in some states there is a lot of competition between them while in other states only one or two insurance companies decided to be included.

If people do an online search in their own state there will be help available for people to figure out what steps to take and what financial help is available to them.


----------



## Lukelucy (Nov 19, 2011)

Obsessed said:


> Seriously? I worked all my life, paid privately for insurance, probably subsidized yours as well! Now I see why everyone criticizes your posts, you just can't help but be rude! I hope you have a pleasant day and please don't take it the wrong way when i do not respond to your posts any more.


You have seen the light.


----------



## bwtyer (Oct 31, 2012)

BCBS is Blue Cross Blue shield. I think premiums are going up due to the demise of the previous condition clause. As I have a daughter in remission who could not change jobs because she would lose her insurance, I am for this change. I hate my premiums going up but for my daughter and those like her, I am glad for the change.


----------



## Lukelucy (Nov 19, 2011)

ElyseKnox said:


> valmac,
> We equate the legislation rammed down our throats as socialism because it IS socialism. When the government REQUIRES you to purchase something against your will, that is socialism. What about young people who don't want to spend their money on "healthcare insurance?" What about people who take care of themselves and rarely ever go to the doctor and would prefer NOT to have insurance? Making a product available to anyone who wants it is one thing but requiring everyone to purchase it is entirely a different matter.
> 
> Those in the federal government IGNORED the will of the people and forced this upon us while exempting themselves from it. That is socialism.
> ...


Thank you! Yes!


----------



## Janet Cooke (Aug 14, 2013)

obxamom said:


> Nice article...but we all should get it out of our system BC Obama signed into law that gives secret service the right to arrest anyone to speaks out against any one protracted by the SS and that they see a threat ...so if you go to a rally of Obama and speak out against his o care then you might just be put in jail.....and for you supporters like it or not it is a fact that this was just signed into law....although it was done under the radar. Just BC you support this health care doesn't give you the right to degrade one who doesn't. The supporters are comj g across as enlightened gurus of the law like they wrote it..quoting whatvthey heard from Obama..the white house or for goodness sakes NPR...please...There is a particular bully on here who is nasty and degrades everyone against the care act but yet I've heard nothing credible come from her mouth no factual information she has yet to share ..and I'm sure you k ow who u are.


Thanks for the laugh.


----------



## Lukelucy (Nov 19, 2011)

Chris Harris said:


> I've been hearing death panels. I guess we'll find out soon enough. I know if our insurance goes up we will be in one mess. It's hard to afford health care now. I've heard it will go up every year from now on. Like Palosi said you can't know what's in it until it passes. This is beyond ignorant! I for one am praying about this situation.


Pray hard. I am.


----------



## Knitnutty (Feb 9, 2011)

Don't believe anything anyone says, not even a doctor that stands to lose thousands of insurance dollars and is ticked. Research it yourself.


----------



## Lukelucy (Nov 19, 2011)

obxamom said:


> Nice article...but we all should get it out of our system BC Obama signed into law that gives secret service the right to arrest anyone to speaks out against any one protracted by the SS and that they see a threat ...so if you go to a rally of Obama and speak out against his o care then you might just be put in jail.....and for you supporters like it or not it is a fact that this was just signed into law....although it was done under the radar. Just BC you support this health care doesn't give you the right to degrade one who doesn't. The supporters are comj g across as enlightened gurus of the law like they wrote it..quoting whatvthey heard from Obama..the white house or for goodness sakes NPR...please...There is a particular bully on here who is nasty and degrades everyone against the care act but yet I've heard nothing credible come from her mouth no factual information she has yet to share ..and I'm sure you k ow who u are.


Thank you for this. I am sure the bully will not recognize herself and make an excuse for her behavior.


----------



## knitpresentgifts (May 21, 2013)

jelun2 said:


> They did test the system, they didn't test it for all the curiosity seekers who have no reason to go there, however. It has been estimated ( at least I think this is what I heard on NPR) that almost 1 in 4 is a "tourist".


The system was expected to have 50,000 at one-time on the site with the ability for anyone visiting to be able to sign up for a chosen policy. The system was tested with a couple hundred people on the site at one time; the system failed that test! The Admin, Obama and Kathleen S. knew the result of the site test and knew the process was not ready for the rollout and still Obama refused to delay anything for individuals. (I'm betting he'll have to change his tune soon.)

Like you recently posted, 'now what.' The sign-up process is a complete disaster as is the law going to be a complete failure. Use your imagination what will be the resulting health care to be received.


----------



## Lukelucy (Nov 19, 2011)

Apbarr said:


> We are definately becoming a socialist country and to be honest there is alot of misinformation about obamacare most likely due to the fact that it was such a long bill (convenient?). No one bothered to read it. In fact one legislator was quoted as saying "oh do we have to read it?"
> 
> I agree it will come out in time as more of this gets rammed down our throats. I hope it helps someone but I haven't seen how it will help me. I work for a big corporation and am sure our insurance will go up considerably. I was fine with the way it was.


I hope it will not be too late to do anything about it.


----------



## Bloomers (Oct 11, 2013)

My sympathies. I think many people have no idea how drastically Nobama care will affect their lives and not just financially either! I believe that people will be sicker and die because of it as well as making people choose between the necessities of life and healthcare. Welcome to the socialist society.


----------



## Lukelucy (Nov 19, 2011)

Bloomers said:


> My sympathies. I think many people have no idea how drastically Nobama care will affect their lives and not just financially either! I believe that people will be sicker and die because of it as well as making people choose between the necessities of life and healthcare. Welcome to the socialist society.


Yes! Thank you!


----------



## Knitnutty (Feb 9, 2011)

Lukelucy said:


> Thank you for this. I am sure the bully will not recognize herself and make an excuse for her behavior.[
> 
> Lets not get crazy ladies. Good grief. Apbar is acting like we live in Hitlers Germany.


----------



## Lukelucy (Nov 19, 2011)

knitpresentgifts said:


> The system was expected to have 50,000 at one-time on the site with the ability for anyone visiting to be able to sign up for a chosen policy. The system was tested with a couple hundred people on the site at one time; the system failed that test! The Admin, Obama and Kathleen S. knew the result of the site test and knew the process was not ready for the rollout and still Obama refused to delay anything for individuals.
> 
> Like you recently posted, 'now what.' The sign-up process is a complete disaster as is the law going to be a complete failure. Use your imagination what will be the resulting health care to be received.


It will be one big mess.


----------



## linnerlu (Jul 9, 2013)

Ruth Ray said:


> What is BCBS? I'm curious to know what was the source of your doctor's information


BCBS is Blue Cross/Blue Shield. The absolute WORST and crookedest insurance company, in my experience. After years and years of paying outrageous premiums for virtually no benefits (after passing the age of 50, premiums went steeply up and benefits went steeply down), they eventually kicked me off because I tried to downgrade my policy to reduce my premiums. That attempt to reduce my policy triggered having to go through underwriting again, and they ultimately REFUSED me insurance because of my "pre-existing conditions." (Very minor stuff. The real reason is that I had gotten "old" and was no longer a great risk for them, despite the hundreds of thousands of dollars I had paid in premiums up until then, while receiving viritually no benefits.)

Before I tried to downgrade my policy, I was paying $1,200 a month for my coverage, which paid for practically nothing ... it had basically turned into a catastrophic plan.

Thank God for Obamacare. It is NOT free (I paid $420 per month until I recently turned 65 and qualified for Medicare, which costs me approx. $250 per month, including the optional Medigap plan and prescription coverage). Until Obamacare two years ago, I had gone without insurance for two years ... BECAUSE I COULDN'T GET IT.

When people scream that "premiums will go up", they evidently have NO knowledge of what happens with Obamacare, and additionally, they have NO feeling for those who either can't afford or can't get insurance! Some "Christianity" being displayed by many here.


----------



## Britty43 (Jan 8, 2012)

ninal46 said:


> I don't know about Canada, but I do know National health in the UK is not all it's cracked up to be. My sister was diagnosed with breast cancer when she was 50 years old. She was told she had to wait several months for some of the tests. She is one of the lucky ones, she opted to go private, pay out of pocket and got a mastectomy. She just turned 74 and has been cancer free. I believe that had she not had the money, and had waited for the NHS to get her in for testing she would have died. Another friend of mine was 60 when she got cancer. Between Chemo, and Radiation she went into remission. The NHS placed her on these very expensive cancer drugs and she was staying in remission. When she turned 70 they told her she could not get the drugs anymore as they were not curing her. She died at 72. Thank you, but no thank you for anything that is remotely like a National health. I want it the way it was ... where I can pick and chose my doctors. That will be a thing of the past with Obamacare. In my opinion anyone that says that National Health is great, have not experienced real good health care. Take a number and wait ... wait ... wait = National Health.


My sister is in the UK and had breast cancer and got good care... Also she had a tear on her esophagus and was operated on immediately so I think it depends on the individual Drs and hospitals


----------



## Crochet dreamin' (Apr 22, 2013)

Not replying to anyone in particular. I'm as in the dark about this dreaded thing as much as anyone. I suspect some will think it's great, and some will hate it. I do agree that this plan is meant to fail as what the Dems really want is a one payer system. In other words, nationalized healthcare. This could work, but it won't because we are allowing anyone to have it whether they are working, from this country, or whatever. 
Insurance may not be fair, but it's better than what we're going to end up with, which is a badly run, totally inadequate system, not to mention, totally unfair to the elderly and the young. I guess the thinking is that if it's good for some, it will be good for all. So we all must go along. This would be the socialist way. 
I could try to justify and reason what is in the Act, but there really is no excuse for the exclusions. What will they do if the system isn't up so people can "comply" with this mandatory plan? Will they all have to pay a "penalty" for something they didn't get that's not their fault they didn't? It's a farce.


----------



## linnerlu (Jul 9, 2013)

susannahp said:


> OMG here we go again ,the doctors will put the fear of God in you as their limit for pay will be reduced and of course he wants you to fear what the Obama care CAN do for you ,I believe no one but myself and God and there isn't a doctor or politician that can make me believe all the BS that comes down the road, if you go blindly like the lamb then you will suffer the consequences , DO your reseach do not let someone else with an agenda guide you , this is your health , your life don't you think that's worth some effort and time on your part? I am happy with our care in Canada and so is my hubby who is from Indiana,he lives here and loves it , so sad that so many ppl are led by the nose to make quick decisions based on the sayings of someone who has an agenda ! Wake up ppl take charge of your life and rely on no one but yourself! When I go to the doctor I ask a lot of questions about the meds I am not a lamb nor am I blind or deaf!!!


Thank you! I get so frustrated with these people who refuse to look at an issue honestly. This anti-Obamacare thing is, as far as I can tell, based on personal hatred of the man and his race.


----------



## ElyseKnox (Sep 16, 2011)

linnerlu said:


> BCBS is Blue Cross/Blue Shield. The absolute WORST and crookedest insurance company, in my experience. After years and years of paying outrageous premiums for virtually no benefits (after passing the age of 50, premiums went steeply up and benefits went steeply down), they eventually kicked me off because I tried to downgrade my policy to reduce my premiums. That attempt to reduce my policy triggered having to go through underwriting again, and they ultimately REFUSED me insurance because of my "pre-existing conditions." (Very minor stuff. The real reason is that I had gotten "old" and was no longer a great risk for them, despite the hundreds of thousands of dollars I had paid in premiums up until then, while receiving viritually no benefits.)
> 
> Before I tried to downgrade my policy, I was paying $1,200 a month for my coverage, which paid for practically nothing ... it had basically turned into a catastrophic plan.
> 
> ...


Linnerlu,
Just because another does not agree with your assessment of Obamacare does not mean they do not care for their fellow man. Your snipe at their "Christianity" comes across as distinctly unChristian.


----------



## nichodia (Oct 1, 2011)

ninal46 said:


> I don't know about Canada, but I do know National health in the UK is not all it's cracked up to be. My sister was diagnosed with breast cancer when she was 50 years old. She was told she had to wait several months for some of the tests. She is one of the lucky ones, she opted to go private, pay out of pocket and got a mastectomy. She just turned 74 and has been cancer free. I believe that had she not had the money, and had waited for the NHS to get her in for testing she would have died. Another friend of mine was 60 when she got cancer. Between Chemo, and Radiation she went into remission. The NHS placed her on these very expensive cancer drugs and she was staying in remission. When she turned 70 they told her she could not get the drugs anymore as they were not curing her. She died at 72. Thank you, but no thank you for anything that is remotely like a National health. I want it the way it was ... where I can pick and chose my doctors. That will be a thing of the past with Obamacare. In my opinion anyone that says that National Health is great, have not experienced real good health care. Take a number and wait ... wait ... wait = National Health.[/quote
> 
> Sorry but this is not quite accurate...from going to the doctor (GP) with breat problems..there is a deadline of ten days to be seen by the breast clinic..otherwise the hospital is fined for breaching protocols and targets. There is now no age limit on treatments in the NHS however there is a bit of a postcode lottery...you may be prescribed some drugs in some counties but not in others...
> Di (staff nurse at NHS)


----------



## linnerlu (Jul 9, 2013)

knitpresentgifts said:


> Like you recently posted, 'now what.' The sign-up process is a complete disaster as is the law going to be a complete failure. Use your imagination what will be the resulting health care to be received.


Anyone who knows ANYthing at ALL about computer programming knows that a glitchy interface has nothing at all to do with the program it represents. Good grief.


----------



## ElyseKnox (Sep 16, 2011)

linnerlu said:


> Thank you! I get so frustrated with these people who refuse to look at an issue honestly. This anti-Obamacare thing is, as far as I can tell, based on personal hatred of the man and his race.


Linnerlu,
You are fearfully ignorant (meaning uninformed, not an ad hominem attack) if you think people are against Obamacare based on the color of one man's skin. There have been numerous examples cited of the fallout of this horrendous legislation and yet you expect us to think there is serious thought behind such a post?!


----------



## Janet Cooke (Aug 14, 2013)

ElyseKnox said:


> Linnerlu,
> Just because another does not agree with your assessment of Obamacare does not mean they do not care for their fellow man. Your snipe at their "Christianity" comes across as distinctly unChristian.


Perhaps she is not a Christian, in which case that would make perfect sense. <shrug>


----------



## knitpresentgifts (May 21, 2013)

linnerlu said:


> Anyone who knows ANYthing at ALL about computer programming knows that a glitchy interface has nothing at all to do with the program it represents. Good grief.


Anyone who knows ANYthing at ALL knows Obamacare represents a political program supported by the Democrats which has nothing to do with Health Care nor Health Insurance. BTW: It is not "glitches" that is the problem with the website. It is complete incompetence and intentional deception. If you understood ANYthing about computer programming you'd know that as well. Good grief ...


----------



## Janet Cooke (Aug 14, 2013)

ElyseKnox said:


> Linnerlu,
> You are fearfully ignorant (meaning uninformed, not an ad hominem attack) if you think people are against Obamacare based on the color of one man's skin. There have been numerous examples cited of the fallout of this horrendous legislation and yet you expect us to think there is serious thought behind such a post?!


If you think that some are not, you are at least as ignorant.


----------



## Catarry (Apr 10, 2012)

obxamom said:


> Nice article...but we all should get it out of our system BC Obama signed into law that gives secret service the right to arrest anyone to speaks out against any one protracted by the SS and that they see a threat ...so if you go to a rally of Obama and speak out against his o care then you might just be put in jail.....and for you supporters like it or not it is a fact that this was just signed into law....although it was done under the radar. Just BC you support this health care doesn't give you the right to degrade one who doesn't. The supporters are comj g across as enlightened gurus of the law like they wrote it..quoting whatvthey heard from Obama..the white house or for goodness sakes NPR...please...There is a particular bully on here who is nasty and degrades everyone against the care act but yet I've heard nothing credible come from her mouth no factual information she has yet to share ..and I'm sure you k ow who u are.


What is "protracted"?


----------



## Britty43 (Jan 8, 2012)

linnerlu said:


> Thank you! I get so frustrated with these people who refuse to look at an issue honestly. This anti-Obamacare thing is, as far as I can tell, based on personal hatred of the man and his race.


So glad to see someone who has the same impression as me


----------



## damemary (Mar 14, 2012)

"There goes your balloon."



jelun2 said:


> Do you understand that before ACA there were NO options for many people? Folks who had pre-existing conditions, children with expensive medical care... too bad for them, I guess.


----------



## damemary (Mar 14, 2012)

Thank you so much for the information and your view point.



valmac said:


> My word! This has been very interesting reading for an outsider. I am a retired RN who has lived and worked in Canada for more than 40 years, before that I was a UK citizen. I do not claim to know very much about your (US) medical system, but I do wonder why many people in your country equate universal medical insurance with socialism.
> Surely it is to everyone's advantage to have affordable medical coverage.
> In Canada we have waiting lists for non-urgent care, but for those who require emergent or urgent treatment, the system responds very well and nobody suffers financial hardship due to the cost of medical treatment.
> In case anyone thinks we get a free ride, remember that we pay high income taxes with far fewer 'write-offs' than US citizens. I believe that universal healthcare is a right of all citizens, this belief doesn't make me a socialist!!
> ...


----------



## Apbarr (Sep 14, 2013)

Knitnutty said:


> Lukelucy said:
> 
> 
> > Thank you for this. I am sure the bully will not recognize herself and make an excuse for her behavior.[
> ...


----------



## meetoo (Nov 20, 2011)

rasputin said:


> I thank you for being honest about your system. I have heard the same thing from a woman who came from England but now lives here. She said it was awful. Also when visiting Canada my husband and I asked just common people what they thought of their system. They said they didn't like it. They had to wait for operations and test, etc. I just saying what they told me. I am assuming that the ones who can afford to pay will and they will be helping subsidize the ones who can't pay. That is the way it works and to me it is a step to socialism.


I was diagnosed with breast cancer four years ago. I was in hospital in a week, had the surgery the morning of admittance, came home with my drainage tubes still in five days later, had home care nurse come in once a day to tend to the drainage tubes, had them taken out and at my age I didn't want implants, so had final visit with surgeon. no extra costs. my husband had both hips replaced, no extra costs. glad we live in Canada!!!!!


----------



## linnerlu (Jul 9, 2013)

jelun2 said:


> Perhaps she is not a Christian, in which case that would make perfect sense. <shrug>


Why yes, thank you kindly for asking ... I actually don't call myself a Christian, although my values are based on what I was taught growing up as a Methodist. First, care for your brothers and sisters, regardless of race or religion, help others where I can, and, above all, DO NO HARM to others. The "Christian" Right has corrupted the word to something no longer even recognizable.

Attack away, Ye "Christians."


----------



## ElyseKnox (Sep 16, 2011)

jelun2 said:


> If you think that some are not, you are at least as ignorant.


Are you calling me uninformed or suggesting an ad hominem attack? I believe that my frequent posts reflect substantial information about the subject.

As to the issue of "racism" (and it put it in quotes because it is not racism at all--there is only one race; the human race) the incredibly small percentage of people who might oppose the MAN sitting in the white house based on the color of his skin do not have any relevence or bearing opposition to this LEGISLATION. All animus for it is based strictly on what is in the bill. Calling opposition to it racist is the worst example of that accusation itself.


----------



## damemary (Mar 14, 2012)

I'm sure she looks forward to it. 
'


Obsessed said:


> Seriously? I worked all my life, paid privately for insurance, probably subsidized yours as well! Now I see why everyone criticizes your posts, you just can't help but be rude! I hope you have a pleasant day and please don't take it the wrong way when i do not respond to your posts any more.


----------



## valmac (Nov 22, 2012)

ElyseKnox said:


> valmac,
> We equate the legislation rammed down our throats as socialism because it IS socialism. When the government REQUIRES you to purchase something against your will, that is socialism. What about young people who don't want to spend their money on "healthcare insurance?" What about people who take care of themselves and rarely ever go to the doctor and would prefer NOT to have insurance? Making a product available to anyone who wants it is one thing but requiring everyone to purchase it is entirely a different matter.
> 
> Those in the federal government IGNORED the will of the people and forced this upon us while exempting themselves from it. That is socialism.
> ...


Are US citizens not required to purchase car or (if you have a mortgage) home insurance? Do you consider that requirement socialism? Does it not apply to all?
As I said I am not personally familiar with your system, but as with anything new, it will take time to get things running smoothly. Not being able to register on a website doesn't amount to a socialist conspiracy in my opinion! 
Actually when I think about it, maybe a good dose of real socialism might solve some of your country's problems!


----------



## momforthree (Nov 10, 2011)

linnerlu said:


> Thank you! I get so frustrated with these people who refuse to look at an issue honestly. This anti-Obamacare thing is, as far as I can tell, based on personal hatred of the man and his race.


NO! Being ANTI-OBAMACARE it is NOT based on "personal hatred of the man and his race", NO, IT IS NOT! Don't say something like this. Our/ my/ position shows that we/ I/ have God given brain and we/I/ use it when it comes about MY FAMILY, MY LIFE and MY POCKET and the FREEDOM of having MY CHOISE!

...And BTW, wondering why we had to use a Canadian Comp to make this program, when we have here in USA the best: Apple, Microsoft?...


----------



## blanchebianca (May 12, 2013)

Oh please, take a breath and calm yourself. Unfortunately, you have been the victim of either ignorance or deliberate deception. Much of what you have been told is part of a well orchestrated campaign to scare people into siding with an extreme political position. It takes time to search out the roots of this campaign, but know that you aren't going to lose whatever medical care you've been accustomed to.


----------



## Britty43 (Jan 8, 2012)

linnerlu said:


> BCBS is Blue Cross/Blue Shield. The absolute WORST and crookedest insurance company, in my experience. After years and years of paying outrageous premiums for virtually no benefits (after passing the age of 50, premiums went steeply up and benefits went steeply down), they eventually kicked me off because I tried to downgrade my policy to reduce my premiums. That attempt to reduce my policy triggered having to go through underwriting again, and they ultimately REFUSED me insurance because of my "pre-existing conditions." (Very minor stuff. The real reason is that I had gotten "old" and was no longer a great risk for them, despite the hundreds of thousands of dollars I had paid in premiums up until then, while receiving viritually no benefits.)
> 
> Before I tried to downgrade my policy, I was paying $1,200 a month for my coverage, which paid for practically nothing ... it had basically turned into a catastrophic plan.
> 
> ...


I've had BCBS for years with no problems..when I hit 65 I switched to their supplemental and now I'm on Blue Medicare Advantage which costs me ZERO in premium and has good coverage


----------



## knitpresentgifts (May 21, 2013)

valmac said:


> Are US citizens not required to purchase car or (if you have a mortgage) home insurance? Do you consider that requirement socialism? Does it not apply to all?
> As I said I am not personally familiar with your system, but as with anything new, it will take time to get things running smoothly. Not being able to register on a website doesn't amount to a socialist conspiracy in my opinion!
> Actually when I think about it, maybe a good dose of real socialism might solve some of your country's problems!


Not a worthy or appropriate comparison. No American is forced to buy a car or a home. We have all been legislated to have/buy health insurance now simply because we are alive and American citizens.


----------



## Janet Cooke (Aug 14, 2013)

valmac said:


> Are US citizens not required to purchase car or (if you have a mortgage) home insurance? Do you consider that requirement socialism? Does it not apply to all?
> As I said I am not personally familiar with your system, but as with anything new, it will take time to get things running smoothly. Not being able to register on a website doesn't amount to a socialist conspiracy in my opinion!
> Actually when I think about it, maybe a good dose of real socialism might solve some of your country's problems!


It is OK to be required to do that as it is some freaking bank making them do it. LOL, they think they have a choice.


----------



## Catladysher (Nov 7, 2012)

It has also been reported on the news (FOX) that to see rates you have to enter a lot of your info..and then you can't get out. I think I will keep my private insurance...I already know what I pay and from what I hear--the rates on Obamacare are higher for those who are not "young". I just wish they had told us before they enacted this awful law what exactly was in this medical care package. It was and still is a secret unless you put your name, address and other pertinent info onto the site...kinda locks you into something you may not want. I am sure for some people this program may work, but for me--I don't want to be on a waiting list..


----------



## damemary (Mar 14, 2012)

Blue Cross Blue Shield.



cspaen34 said:


> I apologize, came on to this post late in the game. I am running late this morning and will try to catch back up this evening but did a quick scroll through 20 pages and couldn't see reference to what "BCBS" stands for to give me some idea of the meeting and its affliates. Please enlighten me. For the record, my doctor is on-board for the Affordable Care Act. Thanks


----------



## Apbarr (Sep 14, 2013)

Here is an example now that the ACA website works. I got a quote for a plan that would be equal to the coverage I have now (POS plan with Aetna, $550 deductible, for me and my spouse). The quote from the ACA website is for $647/month and I now pay $564. This is not helping me since we only have one income and coming out of pocket even for $550 is hard. The deductible for the ACA plan has $1000 deductible which makes it even worse.


----------



## damemary (Mar 14, 2012)

Excellent example of non-proven 'information.' Ambulance from the Looney Bin must be tardy today.



joeysomma said:


> This increase in premium of part B may have to do with their personal other income. Social Security has been talking about increasing premiums for those with higher taxable incomes. It may be going into effect on Jan 1, 2014.
> 
> It was talked about in our tax update classes in 2012 but I do not remember the date it would take effect.


----------



## ElyseKnox (Sep 16, 2011)

blanchebianca said:


> Oh please, take a breath and calm yourself. Unfortunately, you have been the victim of either ignorance or deliberate deception. Much of what you have been told is part of a well orchestrated campaign to scare people into siding with an extreme political position. It takes time to search out the roots of this campaign, but know that you aren't going to lose whatever medical care you've been accustomed to.


So Bianca,
Why should we accept your version that people will not lose the insurance they've had when numerous posters have come here and given examples of just such situations?


----------



## damemary (Mar 14, 2012)

Tell me. Do 'death panels' sound reasonable to you? Did it ever occur to you that that might be a lie to get people aroused? Don't fall for it. Death Panels are against everything our country stands for.



Chris Harris said:


> I've been hearing death panels. I guess we'll find out soon enough. I know if our insurance goes up we will be in one mess. It's hard to afford health care now. I've heard it will go up every year from now on. Like Palosi said you can't know what's in it until it passes. This is beyond ignorant! I for one am praying about this situation.


----------



## Janet Cooke (Aug 14, 2013)

Apbarr said:


> Here is an example now that the ACA website works. I got a quote for a plan that would be equal to the coverage I have now (POS plan with Aetna, $550 deductible, for me and my spouse). The quote from the ACA website is for $647/month and I now pay $564. This is not helping me since we only have one income and coming out of pocket even for $550 is hard. The deductible for the ACA plan has $1000 deductible which makes it even worse.


Did you check to see if you get any assistance in that payment?Sorry, my brain wouldn't do subsidy for a minute. Do you qualify for a subsidy?


----------



## Knit crazy (Mar 13, 2013)

jelun2 said:


> No reason to use caps with me. Tell it to your Governor and legislators if they turned down doing their own website OR make a phone call. Or get a job that supplies benefits.


I agree Jelun2. The uninsured should get a job to get benefits. That way, 90% of the insured could benefit.


----------



## damemary (Mar 14, 2012)

Blue Cross Blue Shield.



Ruth Ray said:


> What is BCBS? I'm curious to know what was the source of your doctor's information


----------



## Apbarr (Sep 14, 2013)

Catladysher said:


> It has also been reported on the news (FOX) that to see rates you have to enter a lot of your info..and then you can't get out. I think I will keep my private insurance...I already know what I pay and from what I hear--the rates on Obamacare are higher for those who are not "young". I just wish they had told us before they enacted this awful law what exactly was in this medical care package. It was and still is a secret unless you put your name, address and other pertinent info onto the site...kinda locks you into something you may not want. I am sure for some people this program may work, but for me--I don't want to be on a waiting list..


I hear you however I was able to get a quote from the website without giving any personal info. I won't be using it of course and hope after another year or so I don't get fined for using my employers healthcare. That is assuming they will still be able to negotiate reasonable rates in another year. Of course this is all part of a tax anyway so it will hit my pocket eventually. It's frustrating.


----------



## damemary (Mar 14, 2012)

That's what happens when states get to choose.



Lukelucy said:


> Thanks. Different rules for different states? Confusing.


----------



## obxamom (Apr 21, 2013)

jelun2 said:


> Thanks for the laugh.


You are welcome good to see that you can laugh instead of being hateful and negative. Looks like you agree with me since you were the one to respond to this...you could clearly see that you were in fact the one whom I was talking about.....let me ask you something...have you EVER read (and yes i am using caps) the bill front to back cover.....I doubt you have.....where are you getting your so called credible facts from. facts that you really haven't shared much on....just telling everyone else that they are wrong...did you just get your facts from NPR? Get your facts together and present them credibly and respectfully to the poster and provide resources to where one can go to, to then get reliable information to be informed. I don't mean the healthcare.gov or snoopes..i Hardly would call that reliable unbiased information. I don't know a lot of the law. as I haven't read it..all I know is what I have seen to date....Some companies have stopped having full time employees to avoid the insurance issue....some people have had their insurance premiums double and triple, I know of people who have been dropped recently due to this mandate. My cousin who works in health care have seen many nurses laid off or benefits cut back,...pay cuts etc..because of the health law.... I know that the law requires religions to provide morally objectionable treatments...(abortion, morning after pill even thought it is against their religious belief...you or someone else may not find those morally objectionable but many Christians do and shouldn't be forced to go against their religious morals and faith) or face hefty penalties and there are several religious affiliations filing law suit because of this unAmerican forcing and intrusion on religion. That is another topic for another time. I don't know what the law will do....fact is non of us do...unless you have read and fully understand the 1000 plus pages of the health law which I am pretty sure you haven't. Stop being hateful and mean and if you can't say anything nice...maybe you should sit on your hands and wait until you can be more respectful....anyway...if you wish to continue with me and want to continue being hateful, that is fine,...I can hang...you don't bother me a bit! :hunf:


----------



## Janet Cooke (Aug 14, 2013)

Apbarr said:


> I hear you however I was able to get a quote from the website without giving any personal info. I won't be using it of course and hope after another year or so I don't get fined for using my employers healthcare. That is assuming they will still be able to negotiate reasonable rates in another year. Of course this is all part of a tax anyway so it will hit my pocket eventually. It's frustrating.


And you all wonder why those who NEED to get on the site cannot.


----------



## damemary (Mar 14, 2012)

Bullfeathers. Are you one who is threatening President Barack Obama? I can see why the Secret Service is doing their job. Don't see it? If some of the 'speaking out against Obamacare' is the same type of wild threats that I've seen on KP, I wouldn't be surprised that the Secret Service takes action. I wonder if they monitor KP?



obxamom said:


> Nice article...but we all should get it out of our system BC Obama signed into law that gives secret service the right to arrest anyone to speaks out against any one protracted by the SS and that they see a threat ...so if you go to a rally of Obama and speak out against his o care then you might just be put in jail.....and for you supporters like it or not it is a fact that this was just signed into law....although it was done under the radar. Just BC you support this health care doesn't give you the right to degrade one who doesn't. The supporters are comj g across as enlightened gurus of the law like they wrote it..quoting whatvthey heard from Obama..the white house or for goodness sakes NPR...please...There is a particular bully on here who is nasty and degrades everyone against the care act but yet I've heard nothing credible come from her mouth no factual information she has yet to share ..and I'm sure you k ow who u are.


----------



## Janet Cooke (Aug 14, 2013)

obxamom said:


> You are welcome good to see that you can laugh instead of being hateful and negative. Looks like you agree with me since you were the one to respond to this...you could clearly see that you were in fact the one whom I was talking about.....let me ask you something...have you EVER read (and yes i am using caps) the bill front to back cover.....I doubt you have.....where are you getting your so called credible facts from. facts that you really haven't shared much on....just telling everyone else that they are wrong...did you just get your facts from NPR? Get your facts together and present them credibly and respectfully to the poster and provide resources to where one can go to, to then get reliable information to be informed. I don't mean the healthcare.gov or snoopes..i Hardly would call that reliable unbiased information. I don't know a lot of the law. as I haven't read it..all I know is what I have seen to date....Some companies have stopped having full time employees to avoid the insurance issue....some people have had their insurance premiums double and triple, I know of people who have been dropped recently due to this mandate. My cousin who works in health care have seen many nurses laid off or benefits cut back,...pay cuts etc..because of the health law.... I know that the law requires religions to provide morally objectionable treatments...(abortion, morning after pill even thought it is against their religious belief...you or someone else may not find those morally objectionable but many Christians do and shouldn't be forced to go against their religious morals and faith) or face hefty penalties and there are several religious affiliations filing law suit because of this unAmerican forcing and intrusion on religion. That is another topic for another time. I don't know what the law will do....fact is non of us do...unless you have read and fully understand the 1000 plus pages of the health law which I am pretty sure you haven't. Stop being hateful and mean and if you can't say anything nice...maybe you should sit on your hands and wait until you can be more respectful....anyway...if you wish to continue with me and want to continue being hateful, that is fine,...I can hang...you don't bother me a bit! :hunf:


I have posted facts about the ACA for months. Many of the same people who are posting here claiming to be mystified by the process, those who already have health insurance, are the very ones who continue to insist they have not seen any info. So no, I don't post any more links to good information. The people who will use it have seen it and used it, the people who don't want to use it will continue to whine and throw stones.


----------



## Knit crazy (Mar 13, 2013)

Obsessed said:


> Note that catastophic plans often have very high deductibles (initial out-of-pocket expenses) I have already heard these being as high as $12,500 in some cases. So that would add $12,500 to the cost of your insurance premium to be paid by you before anything is paid by insurance!


The lowest level ACA plan has similar high deductibles, which is why few young, healthy Americans will opt in. They will just pay the penalty and take their chances. If something expensive happens to their health, they will join. If I were that age and relatively healthy, I'd do that. This will, of course, cause higher premiums for the others using ACA.


----------



## susanmos2000 (May 10, 2011)

joeysomma said:


> You are required to buy auto insurance to protect the person or property you injure or damage with the use of that car. You are not required to purchase it for yourself.
> Collision and comprehensive insurance is required if you have a lien on the car to protect the financial investment of the lienholder.
> 
> As far as your home insurance. It is required by the mortgage company to protect the financial investment they have in your house. If you own your home outright there is no requirement for any insurance.
> ...


Alas everyone has a body that's going to need a tuneup once in a while. People who try to ignore this fact and spurn insurance are going to lose--badly. And so will the rest of us when they get carted off to the ER and require expensive emergency treatment.


----------



## damemary (Mar 14, 2012)

Or the Blue Cross Blue Shield in LukeLucy's mind.



Catarry said:


> When I googled that abbreviation it came up as BlueCross BlueShield. Depending on information not in the original post, it could have been either the national organization that represents all of the BCBS plans nationwide...or the BCBS in LukeLucy's state.


----------



## Apbarr (Sep 14, 2013)

jelun2 said:


> Did you check to see if you get any assistance in that payment?Sorry, my brain wouldn't do subsidy for a minute. Do you qualify for a subsidy?


I don't really want to fill in all my personal info but the info here
https://www.healthcare.gov/will-i-qualify-to-save-on-out-of-pocket-costs/

states I would get assistance if my income is lower that $38,775 for family of 2. My income is higher than that. Also it states out of pocket savings apply only to silver plans which would not be helpful to me and is not equal to the plan I have now.


----------



## bwtyer (Oct 31, 2012)

damemary said:


> Bullfeathers. Are you one who is threatening President Barack Obama? I can see why the Secret Service is doing their job. Don't see it? If some of the 'speaking out against Obamacare' is the same type of wild threats that I've seen on KP, I wouldn't be surprised that the Secret Service takes action. I wonder if they monitor KP?


Really??? Can you argue with attacking? Others seem to be able to hold their own with good debate and without direct attack - why don't you follow their lead?


----------



## Lukelucy (Nov 19, 2011)

Crochet dreamin' said:


> Not replying to anyone in particular. I'm as in the dark about this dreaded thing as much as anyone. I suspect some will think it's great, and some will hate it. I do agree that this plan is meant to fail as what the Dems really want is a one payer system. In other words, nationalized healthcare. This could work, but it won't because we are allowing anyone to have it whether they are working, from this country, or whatever.
> Insurance may not be fair, but it's better than what we're going to end up with, which is a badly run, totally inadequate system, not to mention, totally unfair to the elderly and the young. I guess the thinking is that if it's good for some, it will be good for all. So we all must go along. This would be the socialist way.
> I could try to justify and reason what is in the Act, but there really is no excuse for the exclusions. What will they do if the system isn't up so people can "comply" with this mandatory plan? Will they all have to pay a "penalty" for something they didn't get that's not their fault they didn't? It's a farce.


Thank you. ACA is totally unfair. Good for some, but bad for our society.


----------



## valmac (Nov 22, 2012)

joeysomma said:


> You are required to buy auto insurance to protect the person or property you injure or damage with the use of that car. You are not required to purchase it for yourself.
> Collision and comprehensive insurance is required if you have a lien on the car to protect the financial investment of the lienholder.
> 
> As far as your home insurance. It is required by the mortgage company to protect the financial investment they have in your house. If you own your home outright there is no requirement for any insurance.
> ...


Thank you, I do realize what the purpose of that insurance is! All I am getting at is that as a society we all have to submit to regulations for whatever reason whether we agree with them or not, for the common good.


----------



## damemary (Mar 14, 2012)

I bet your large corporate health insurance has been going up every year any way. I know mine was. Happened long, long before ACA. What is your agenda?



Apbarr said:


> We are definately becoming a socialist country and to be honest there is alot of misinformation about obamacare most likely due to the fact that it was such a long bill (convenient?). No one bothered to read it. In fact one legislator was quoted as saying "oh do we have to read it?"
> 
> I agree it will come out in time as more of this gets rammed down our throats. I hope it helps someone but I haven't seen how it will help me. I work for a big corporation and am sure our insurance will go up considerably. I was fine with the way it was.


----------



## Lukelucy (Nov 19, 2011)

ElyseKnox said:


> Linnerlu,
> Just because another does not agree with your assessment of Obamacare does not mean they do not care for their fellow man. Your snipe at their "Christianity" comes across as distinctly unChristian.


I agree totally. It was not nice and totally untrue.


----------



## Catarry (Apr 10, 2012)

jelun2 said:


> Did you check to see if you get any assistance in that payment?Sorry, my brain wouldn't do subsidy for a minute. Do you qualify for a subsidy?


Yoiks! The ACA is meant, among other things, to require _uninsured_ folks to get coverage. If you have insurance, there is no guarantee you'll find cheaper coverage in the state or federal exchange.

What it does guarantee is that your insurance company will be required to offer certain folks certain annual screenings, extended coverage to your children, and coverage for preexisting conditions, again, among other things.


----------



## damemary (Mar 14, 2012)

susannahp said:


> OMG here we go again ,the doctors will put the fear of God in you as their limit for pay will be reduced and of course he wants you to fear what the Obama care CAN do for you ,I believe no one but myself and God and there isn't a doctor or politician that can make me believe all the BS that comes down the road, if you go blindly like the lamb then you will suffer the consequences , DO your reseach do not let someone else with an agenda guide you , this is your health , your life don't you think that's worth some effort and time on your part? I am happy with our care in Canada and so is my hubby who is from Indiana,he lives here and loves it , so sad that so many ppl are led by the nose to make quick decisions based on the sayings of someone who has an agenda ! Wake up ppl take charge of your life and rely on no one but yourself! When I go to the doctor I ask a lot of questions about the meds I am not a lamb nor am I blind or deaf!!!


 :thumbup: :thumbup: :thumbup: :thumbup: :thumbup: :thumbup: :thumbup: :thumbup: :thumbup: :thumbup: :thumbup: :thumbup:


----------



## Lukelucy (Nov 19, 2011)

nichodia said:


> ninal46 said:
> 
> 
> > I don't know about Canada, but I do know National health in the UK is not all it's cracked up to be. My sister was diagnosed with breast cancer when she was 50 years old. She was told she had to wait several months for some of the tests. She is one of the lucky ones, she opted to go private, pay out of pocket and got a mastectomy. She just turned 74 and has been cancer free. I believe that had she not had the money, and had waited for the NHS to get her in for testing she would have died. Another friend of mine was 60 when she got cancer. Between Chemo, and Radiation she went into remission. The NHS placed her on these very expensive cancer drugs and she was staying in remission. When she turned 70 they told her she could not get the drugs anymore as they were not curing her. She died at 72. Thank you, but no thank you for anything that is remotely like a National health. I want it the way it was ... where I can pick and chose my doctors. That will be a thing of the past with Obamacare. In my opinion anyone that says that National Health is great, have not experienced real good health care. Take a number and wait ... wait ... wait = National Health.[/quote
> ...


----------



## saarlt (May 5, 2013)

Wow, the comments, trying to recall an old story of a lady that knitted her family history into an blanket. Boy oh boy, would this be a large blanket. Am wishing that all will find a positive end to their plans. Health is so important to a quality of life. Good luck to all and again, may the outcome for all be positive.


----------



## Janet Cooke (Aug 14, 2013)

Apbarr said:


> I don't really want to fill in all my personal info but the info here
> https://www.healthcare.gov/will-i-qualify-to-save-on-out-of-pocket-costs/
> 
> states I would get assistance if my income is lower that $38,775 for family of 2. My income is higher than that. Also it states out of pocket savings apply only to silver plans which would not be helpful to me and is not equal to the plan I have now.


You said that you have insurance for your family through an employer, I really don't understand why you are even blocking others' access to the site. Unless that employer's health care plan has been deemed toxic you are not going to be getting any health care options through Obamacare.


----------



## Knit crazy (Mar 13, 2013)

jelun2 said:


> Actually all of congress and their aides will be using it. Now what?


The ACA will change guidelines for both government and private insurance. However, the President, Congress, the Supreme Court, Congressional staff, and White House staff get their healthcare under the ACA subsidized. I'll bet their personal data isn't in the system either.


----------



## damemary (Mar 14, 2012)

Thank you for posting.



linnerlu said:


> BCBS is Blue Cross/Blue Shield. The absolute WORST and crookedest insurance company, in my experience. After years and years of paying outrageous premiums for virtually no benefits (after passing the age of 50, premiums went steeply up and benefits went steeply down), they eventually kicked me off because I tried to downgrade my policy to reduce my premiums. That attempt to reduce my policy triggered having to go through underwriting again, and they ultimately REFUSED me insurance because of my "pre-existing conditions." (Very minor stuff. The real reason is that I had gotten "old" and was no longer a great risk for them, despite the hundreds of thousands of dollars I had paid in premiums up until then, while receiving viritually no benefits.)
> 
> Before I tried to downgrade my policy, I was paying $1,200 a month for my coverage, which paid for practically nothing ... it had basically turned into a catastrophic plan.
> 
> ...


----------



## Dornar (Oct 18, 2011)

I can not let this subject pass without a comment --- BULLSHIT. So many of you have been lead down the garden path about Obamacare that your BULLSHIT radar has been blunted.

NO. There will not be a mass migration of Doctors out of states that have not set up the exchanges to buy affordable insurance,

NO. So far in the states that have set up their own exchanges or are using the federal plan for market place exchanges, the rates for the insurance for ALL age groups has been compared and they are LOWER.

NO. The quality of care will not deteriorate. It will be improving because there will be more standardization of care and doctors will be measured statistically, and by their peers, on how well they are keeping their patients.

There will be more choices to choose your doctor. Right now in Georgia in the northern Atlanta metro area there are few doctors taking Medicare and Medicaid patients. Some are even asking potential patients to BUY into their practice ($2500/year for a family of 4) just for the privilege of seeing a doctor in that practice. 

The HMOs like Kaiser Permanente, Wellstar, Humana, etc are doing very well and the quality of care is outstanding for Medicare/Medicaid patients as is their monthly costs as well as their co-pays, prescriptions, specialist referrals, etc. Take a look at the Medicare Advantage plans offered in your area, some have a free monthly premium and very reasonabe co-pays and annual out-of pocket limits.

If you get your information from FOX news you are a fool. Their agenda is to keep you shocked, scared and tuned in for the next scandal. Their are advisors available to help you work through your choices in every state and population area. Go to HealthCare.gov, look at the bottom of the page and pick -- Find Local Help (In-Person in your area). These folks will help you compare and see that is best for your family. IT IS NOT SCARY. YOU DON'T have to move to get health care in the future. YOUR doctors are not going anywhere. There are folks out there with agendas of misinformation and they are being paid big bucks to do it by the corporate insurance industry attempting to keep their strangle hold on the market and on health pricing.

Obamacare is all about getting costs under control, providing competition in a free market and working policies to improve health for all Americans and not just those that can crawl to a emergency room when they are critically ill. It is different than what we have had in the past and I am confident that it leads down a better path for us all.


----------



## Catnmoe (Sep 16, 2013)

This seems in accurate to me.


----------



## obxamom (Apr 21, 2013)

damemary said:


> Bullfeathers. Are you one who is threatening President Barack Obama? I can see why the Secret Service is doing their job. Don't see it? If some of the 'speaking out against Obamacare' is the same type of wild threats that I've seen on KP, I wouldn't be surprised that the Secret Service takes action. I wonder if they monitor KP?


I am sure that they do monitor ...big brother admits to monitoring and can and do have the authority to monitor emails...what you search on the net your activity and all. Please, I could give two shakes about Obama, I only respect the man because of the office that he holds, but there is no law that says that I have to agree with everything that he says or does now is there...just b/c I don't agree with him doesn't make me a terrorist either....in another few years he will be out and we will be dealing with another. There are people who are reasonably not happy with the current health care system the way it is shaking out...have you ever heard of something called FREE SPEECH!>???? Obama used that with a lady who was trying to get her point across and ask him questions which he continually interrupted her...anywho....I don't see anyone offering any threats to the president, just concerned about what is going on and the information that is out there....good or bad false or true...as a legal, tax paying citizen of the United States of America who works very hard, whose taxes go to pay for the law and policy makers.... I have the right and the obligation to speak out if I do not agree with someone be it policy makers...that is why this country was founded, they were tired of the threats and dictates......if I can't speak my mind in a respectful way and disagree with you then what good is free speech? HUGH? Please let government monitor KP I have said absolutely nothing wrong,....nothing disrespectful, like many have. Go ahead and agree with it don't agree...i could care less. Truth is you nor do any of us really know the ins and outs of the law and the bill....or maybe you do you have read the entire thing?


----------



## Knit crazy (Mar 13, 2013)

jelun2 said:


> Do you understand that before ACA there were NO options for many people? Folks who had pre-existing conditions, children with expensive medical care... too bad for them, I guess.


I guess they didn't know about Medicaid and Medicare. Disabled people can use Medicare too. Otherwise, they aren't needy. They should do as you suggested and get a job with benefits.


----------



## Janet Cooke (Aug 14, 2013)

Knit crazy said:


> The ACA will change guidelines for both government and private insurance. However, the President, Congress, the Supreme Court, Congressional staff, and White House staff get their healthcare under the ACA subsidized. I'll bet their personal data isn't in the system either.


Actually it is just Congress and their staff that Grassley screwed with that amendment (you know one of those amendments that Republicans didn't get to make in the bill), I can't check with this computer. I will try to remember to.


----------



## Lukelucy (Nov 19, 2011)

Catladysher said:


> It has also been reported on the news (FOX) that to see rates you have to enter a lot of your info..and then you can't get out. I think I will keep my private insurance...I already know what I pay and from what I hear--the rates on Obamacare are higher for those who are not "young". I just wish they had told us before they enacted this awful law what exactly was in this medical care package. It was and still is a secret unless you put your name, address and other pertinent info onto the site...kinda locks you into something you may not want. I am sure for some people this program may work, but for me--I don't want to be on a waiting list..


Being on a waiting list is frightening. Even if one person out of a country is put on a waiting list for cancer treatment - it is a crime.


----------



## damemary (Mar 14, 2012)

Not all covered by Congress payroll make $174,000 per year. Staffers making $40,000 are in there too.



lavonne10 said:


> I find this hard to believe. They are not going to wait on long list for medical care. They will take their money and get it somewhere else. Congress can't do anything right; just look at their record.


----------



## Catarry (Apr 10, 2012)

joeysomma said:


> _Rules for higher-income beneficiaries
> If you have higher income, the law requires an
> adjustment to your monthly Medicare Part B (medical
> insurance) and Medicare prescription drug coverage
> ...


 It's interesting that this version of means testing, long an idea touted by Republicans, now has folks on the right in a twist.


----------



## Lukelucy (Nov 19, 2011)

Apbarr said:


> Here is an example now that the ACA website works. I got a quote for a plan that would be equal to the coverage I have now (POS plan with Aetna, $550 deductible, for me and my spouse). The quote from the ACA website is for $647/month and I now pay $564. This is not helping me since we only have one income and coming out of pocket even for $550 is hard. The deductible for the ACA plan has $1000 deductible which makes it even worse.


That is terrible. Obamacare is going to hurt so many people.


----------



## saarlt (May 5, 2013)

damemary said:


> :thumbup: :thumbup: :thumbup: :thumbup: :thumbup: :thumbup: :thumbup: :thumbup: :thumbup: :thumbup: :thumbup: :thumbup:


 :thumbup: :thumbup: :thumbup:


----------



## damemary (Mar 14, 2012)

Lukelucy said:


> Wow. How upsetting. Thank you for this.


Wow. I guess she likes for everyone to be upset.


----------



## Huckleberry (May 27, 2013)

Lukelucy said:


> My husband has just returned from a doctor's appointment. This doctor went to a BCBS meeting yesterday in which very few doctors bothered to attend. This doctor learned the following:
> 
> 1. The states that have opted in for Obamacare are going to be very expensive regarding healthcare.
> 2. No cancer screening (mammograms - everything) after the age of 70 for all people. Mind you half of people over 70 will die of cancer.
> ...


Lukelucy
that is the conversation the Doctor had with your husband? Really? Honestly, who made up this story? Hannity's crew again?


----------



## Lukelucy (Nov 19, 2011)

obxamom said:


> You are welcome good to see that you can laugh instead of being hateful and negative. Looks like you agree with me since you were the one to respond to this...you could clearly see that you were in fact the one whom I was talking about.....let me ask you something...have you EVER read (and yes i am using caps) the bill front to back cover.....I doubt you have.....where are you getting your so called credible facts from. facts that you really haven't shared much on....just telling everyone else that they are wrong...did you just get your facts from NPR? Get your facts together and present them credibly and respectfully to the poster and provide resources to where one can go to, to then get reliable information to be informed. I don't mean the healthcare.gov or snoopes..i Hardly would call that reliable unbiased information. I don't know a lot of the law. as I haven't read it..all I know is what I have seen to date....Some companies have stopped having full time employees to avoid the insurance issue....some people have had their insurance premiums double and triple, I know of people who have been dropped recently due to this mandate. My cousin who works in health care have seen many nurses laid off or benefits cut back,...pay cuts etc..because of the health law.... I know that the law requires religions to provide morally objectionable treatments...(abortion, morning after pill even thought it is against their religious belief...you or someone else may not find those morally objectionable but many Christians do and shouldn't be forced to go against their religious morals and faith) or face hefty penalties and there are several religious affiliations filing law suit because of this unAmerican forcing and intrusion on religion. That is another topic for another time. I don't know what the law will do....fact is non of us do...unless you have read and fully understand the 1000 plus pages of the health law which I am pretty sure you haven't. Stop being hateful and mean and if you can't say anything nice...maybe you should sit on your hands and wait until you can be more respectful....anyway...if you wish to continue with me and want to continue being hateful, that is fine,...I can hang...you don't bother me a bit! :hunf:


Obxamom,

Thank you for this. It was greatly appreciated.


----------



## bwtyer (Oct 31, 2012)

saarlt said:


> Wow, the comments, trying to recall an old story of a lady that knitted her family history into an blanket. Boy oh boy, would this be a large blanket. Am wishing that all will find a positive end to their plans. Health is so important to a quality of life. Good luck to all and again, may the outcome for all be positive.


OH YES! And some of those stitches would be really tight and others would be coming loose! And there would be many snarls in this banket! :lol:


----------



## Apbarr (Sep 14, 2013)

damemary said:


> I bet your large corporate health insurance has been going up every year any way. I know mine was. Happened long, long before ACA. What is your agenda?


It does go up but not by over $100.


----------



## Huckleberry (May 27, 2013)

Lukelucy said:


> Thank you for this. I hear it so often. So sorry about it all.


Lukelucy
oh don't we hear a lot from folks like you and the stories rotate forever.


----------



## Lukelucy (Nov 19, 2011)

bwtyer said:


> Really??? Can you argue with attacking? Others seem to be able to hold their own with good debate and without direct attack - why don't you follow their lead?


Bwtyer,

Well said!


----------



## bwtyer (Oct 31, 2012)

Huckleberry said:


> Lukelucy
> that is the conversation the Doctor had with your husband? Really? Honestly, who made up this story? Hannity's crew again?


oops - another one- please try to be nice. Debate is good, Argument is healthy, personal attack is not .


----------



## grammylynn (Mar 2, 2013)

As someone who once worked with insurances in a medical office and had to get patient preauthorized etc I can say that maybe the small turnout for Blue Cross Blue Shield meetings was because they are so hard to deal with that many doctors are restricting the plans they accept and are taking fewer and fewer BCBS plans so don't need to bother attend. I know my boss wouldn't have gone or sent anyone. We had 7 offices with hundreds of staff. If you were to come in you had to be in a small minority of people who had a specific plan with BCBS before was accepted. We dropped it as the company ins it was too expensive for what they covered. It has become the company of the government worker my MIL has Federal BCBS for her medicare Part B it covers more but many doctors refused to submit it was too much paperwork.


tamarque said:


> I have no intention of participating in any system that forces me to buy private industry product that I would never use to begin with. This is the problem with the ACA. It was written by the insurance corporations with major input from the drug corporations. It's whole purpose is to get more people under the thumb of the medical industry, and secondarily, to collect more personal information for whatever suspect reasons. Both of these industries should be totally buried.
> 
> That being said, the information put out at the beginning of this discussion is flawed, to say the least. The GOP/Tea Party have been hysterical about any possible success of the ACA. From day one they have been marketing a bunch of lies.
> 
> ...


----------



## damemary (Mar 14, 2012)

linnerlu said:


> Thank you! I get so frustrated with these people who refuse to look at an issue honestly. This anti-Obamacare thing is, as far as I can tell, based on personal hatred of the man and his race.


I have come to the same conclusion.

:hunf: :hunf:


----------



## GWPlver (Mar 15, 2013)

I see the ACA as an attempt to assist those who do not have and cannot afford health care insurance now. It's program to assist - like food stamps or free lunches for children. Those cost money also - should we take the free lunches away because their parents can't or won't get a job?


----------



## Catarry (Apr 10, 2012)

Knit crazy said:


> I guess they didn't know about Medicaid and Medicare. Disabled people can use Medicare too. Otherwise, they aren't needy. They should do as you suggested and get a job with benefits.


 Medicare and Medicaid are not options for children with a pre-existing condition.

If a child with a birth defect is born to a family with private insurance, that child will not be eligible to be covered under the policy.
Medicaid has strict income limits that essential bar a person with a preexisting condition from earning more than a very minimum amount.
If you're disabled, you cannot use Medicare unless you are 65 or older.
The world you're thinking of just doesn't exist...but it would be great.


----------



## damemary (Mar 14, 2012)

You do know that Jon Stewart is a comedian. They tell jokes to make people laugh. I'm not going to bother reading this. Too much to do today.



joeysomma said:


> Jon Stewart on Obamacare
> 
> http://www.ijreview.com/2013/10/88868-jon-stewart-obliterates-obamacare-website-smashes-obama-speech/?utm_source=EmailElect&utm_medium=Email&utm_content=Subscriber%238351&utm_campaign=10-22-2013%20IJ%20Review


----------



## Huckleberry (May 27, 2013)

Apbarr said:


> It does go up but not by over $100.


Apbarr
Reasonable individuals would expect the cost of anything going up periodically. Milk used to be about one Dollar/Gallon and now is close to $ 4.00. Gasoline was 25c/Gallon and now is $ 3.50. Cars used to cost $ 2.500.00 and now about $ 30.000.00. Should Health Care Cost remain as is? I would not want to live where that happens since it means that no advances in diagnosis and treatments are being made.


----------



## saarlt (May 5, 2013)

bwtyer said:


> OH YES! And some of those stitches would be really tight and others would be coming loose! And there would be many snarls in this banket! :lol:


LOL, lots of frogging!


----------



## damemary (Mar 14, 2012)

Good for you.



meetoo said:


> I was diagnosed with breast cancer four years ago. I was in hospital in a week, had the surgery the morning of admittance, came home with my drainage tubes still in five days later, had home care nurse come in once a day to tend to the drainage tubes, had them taken out and at my age I didn't want implants, so had final visit with surgeon. no extra costs. my husband had both hips replaced, no extra costs. glad we live in Canada!!!!!


----------



## Apbarr (Sep 14, 2013)

jelun2 said:


> You said that you have insurance for your family through an employer, I really don't understand why you are even blocking others access to the site. Unless that employer's health care plan has been deemed toxic you are not going to be getting any health care options through Obamacare.


I'm not blocking anything just trying to post info which is hard on this forum. At this point I don't think ACA will help me and I'm just a regular person and feel I represent some Americans as far as salary and such. I'm hoping that I won't be fined in the future.


----------



## Janet Cooke (Aug 14, 2013)

obxamom said:


> You are welcome good to see that you can laugh instead of being hateful and negative. Looks like you agree with me since you were the one to respond to this...you could clearly see that you were in fact the one whom I was talking about.....let me ask you something...have you EVER read (and yes i am using caps) the bill front to back cover.....I doubt you have.....where are you getting your so called credible facts from. facts that you really haven't shared much on....just telling everyone else that they are wrong...did you just get your facts from NPR? Get your facts together and present them credibly and respectfully to the poster and provide resources to where one can go to, to then get reliable information to be informed. I don't mean the healthcare.gov or snoopes..i Hardly would call that reliable unbiased information. I don't know a lot of the law. as I haven't read it..all I know is what I have seen to date....Some companies have stopped having full time employees to avoid the insurance issue....some people have had their insurance premiums double and triple, I know of people who have been dropped recently due to this mandate. My cousin who works in health care have seen many nurses laid off or benefits cut back,...pay cuts etc..because of the health law.... I know that the law requires religions to provide morally objectionable treatments...(abortion, morning after pill even thought it is against their religious belief...you or someone else may not find those morally objectionable but many Christians do and shouldn't be forced to go against their religious morals and faith) or face hefty penalties and there are several religious affiliations filing law suit because of this unAmerican forcing and intrusion on religion. That is another topic for another time. I don't know what the law will do....fact is non of us do...unless you have read and fully understand the 1000 plus pages of the health law which I am pretty sure you haven't. Stop being hateful and mean and if you can't say anything nice...maybe you should sit on your hands and wait until you can be more respectful....anyway...if you wish to continue with me and want to continue being hateful, that is fine,...I can hang...you don't bother me a bit! :hunf:


You have no idea what is truth and what is lie. It is impossible to communicate with you. God bless.


----------



## damemary (Mar 14, 2012)

valmac said:


> Are US citizens not required to purchase car or (if you have a mortgage) home insurance? Do you consider that requirement socialism? Does it not apply to all?
> As I said I am not personally familiar with your system, but as with anything new, it will take time to get things running smoothly. Not being able to register on a website doesn't amount to a socialist conspiracy in my opinion!
> Actually when I think about it, maybe a good dose of real socialism might solve some of your country's problems!


 :XD: :XD: :XD: :XD: :XD:


----------



## damemary (Mar 14, 2012)

blanchebianca said:


> Oh please, take a breath and calm yourself. Unfortunately, you have been the victim of either ignorance or deliberate deception. Much of what you have been told is part of a well orchestrated campaign to scare people into siding with an extreme political position. It takes time to search out the roots of this campaign, but know that you aren't going to lose whatever medical care you've been accustomed to.


 :thumbup: :thumbup: :thumbup:


----------



## Catarry (Apr 10, 2012)

GWPlver said:


> I see the ACA as an attempt to assist those who do not have and cannot afford health care insurance now. It's program to assist - like food stamps or free lunches for children. Those cost money also - should we take the free lunches away because their parents can't or won't get a job?


Haven't you been following the arguments in Congress about the Farm Bill and its provisions for what used to be called food stamps? Folks on the right are saying that refusing food assistance is the christian thing to do.

http://www.christianpost.com/news/should-christians-support-food-stamps-cuts-depends-on-who-you-ask-105052/

http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2013/09/24/family-research-council-nothing-more-christian-than-food-stamp-cuts/


----------



## Catarry (Apr 10, 2012)

double post, sorry


----------



## Huckleberry (May 27, 2013)

bwtyer said:


> oops - another one- please try to be nice. Debate is good, Argument is healthy, personal attack is not .


bwtyer
follow some postings and they confirm my statement.


----------



## Janet Cooke (Aug 14, 2013)

joeysomma said:


> Where have you heard this?
> The change has happened with little fanfare. The only reason I knew about it is because of a tax update class. One I needed to take to prepare taxes in my work.


Discussions have been carried on all over.


----------



## damemary (Mar 14, 2012)

Have you received a quote from Aetna for the same year?



Apbarr said:


> Here is an example now that the ACA website works. I got a quote for a plan that would be equal to the coverage I have now (POS plan with Aetna, $550 deductible, for me and my spouse). The quote from the ACA website is for $647/month and I now pay $564. This is not helping me since we only have one income and coming out of pocket even for $550 is hard. The deductible for the ACA plan has $1000 deductible which makes it even worse.


----------



## Huckleberry (May 27, 2013)

Apbarr said:


> I'm not blocking anything just trying to post info which is hard on this forum. At this point I don't think ACA will help me and I'm just a regular person and feel I represent some Americans as far as salary and such. I'm hoping that I won't be fined in the future.


Apbarr 
and I hope not to have not foot your medical bills.


----------



## Janet Cooke (Aug 14, 2013)

Apbarr said:


> I'm not blocking anything just trying to post info which is hard on this forum. At this point I don't think ACA will help me and I'm just a regular person and feel I represent some Americans as far as salary and such. I'm hoping that I won't be fined in the future.


For Heaven's Sake, every time one of you "tourists" take up a slot on the website what do you think happens to the hundreds of thousands of people who are in queue waiting while you are playing around with something you don't even qualify for? 
ACA is not meant for you, you have insurance. Sheesh.


----------



## damemary (Mar 14, 2012)

And are you comparing to Aetna cost for the same year? It may increase and/or change offerings.



jelun2 said:


> Did you check to see if you get any assistance in that payment?Sorry, my brain wouldn't do subsidy for a minute. Do you qualify for a subsidy?


----------



## obxamom (Apr 21, 2013)

Apbarr said:


> I'm not blocking anything just trying to post info which is hard on this forum. At this point I don't think ACA will help me and I'm just a regular person and feel I represent some Americans as far as salary and such. I'm hoping that I won't be fined in the future.


you are right it is hard to post anything without being publically flogged for it...God forbid you may differ in your opinion or the information that you have heard...because when you do...you are a hater...a bigot....not educated....and so on and so on and so on....there are many that this will help and there are a lot of good points to the what I know....can't deny due to pre-existing condition....etc....but you have to get the money somewhere..having several family and friends who are doctors...and nurses...I hear the other side of it the people who are in the trenches having to sort it out ...I hear the good...the bad and the ugly...how do you think that we will pay...... a country that is trillions in debt for this health care....we rob from Peter to pay Paul....we raise taxes here and there we raise others who work and can possibly afford it premiums. maybe by a few dollars but double..we lay others off work....we cut hours...we get rid of nurses.....if your premiums are low how in the world do you think the insurance companies can continue to afford to pay for astronomical medical costs at a low premium? I don't know.....now there are other things...that are going around, you see one side when researching saying yes and the other side saying no...i would say look into the source


----------



## Huckleberry (May 27, 2013)

Knit crazy said:


> The lowest level ACA plan has similar high deductibles, which is why few young, healthy Americans will opt in. They will just pay the penalty and take their chances. If something expensive happens to their health, they will join. If I were that age and relatively healthy, I'd do that. This will, of course, cause higher premiums for the others using ACA.


Knit crazy
nothing like being irresponsible.


----------



## damemary (Mar 14, 2012)

Dornar said:


> I can not let this subject pass without a comment --- BULLSHIT. So many of you have been lead down the garden path about Obamacare that your BULLSHIT radar has been blunted.
> 
> NO. There will not be a mass migration of Doctors out of states that have not set up the exchanges to buy affordable insurance,
> 
> ...


 :thumbup: :thumbup: :thumbup: :thumbup: :thumbup:


----------



## obxamom (Apr 21, 2013)

jelun2 said:


> You have no idea what is truth and what is lie. It is impossible to communicate with you. God bless.


See again, there you go. You don't know me from Joe blow down the street so how do you propose that I am not open to the truth....you again are just saying this because you honestly do not have anything that you can say because you know that you have been confronted with the truth..usually that is what people do when confronted with the truth...either become hateful...or say something like you did.. .if you had the truth and were passionate about sharing it and wanting to have others see the truth..then do so you but on this particular post I haven't seen too much that you have said that has been educational...but again you just do this.....see above....i am always open to the truth but I do believe that non of us are in a position to act as we are experts to this law...as far as God bless....maybe you should take a real hard look at your posts and how exactly you have been acting towards others...have you been doing so in a charitable way? Have you been truly acting Christ like to others who may not have been agreeing with you....? Only you can really answer that?


----------



## Janet Cooke (Aug 14, 2013)

Huckleberry said:


> Knit crazy
> nothing like being irresponsible.


It seems to be encouraged. You have to wonder what kind of families people are raising.


----------



## kiffer (Jun 3, 2011)

Lukelucy said:


> As I said, what kind of care are you buying. I believe what I was told.
> 
> I do not want to be denied cancer screening. I want to see the doctor -in another state-the best in the field needed- for any ailment.


Lukelucy, you are right about obamacare. Many docs will retire, they will opt out of accepting that insurance . The premiums depending which plan you choose will be higher and high co-pays and you may have to travel to get to a doc that will accept. I have many family members who are docs and I know that they are going to do. The deductible will be very high. What happened tp Obamas promise? If you like your insurance you can keep it. If you like your doc you can keep him. I have friends that have already received letters telling them they have been dropped from the insurance they have for years.

Luke Lucy I'm with you and those that aren't so be it. Hope they don't get cancer after 70.


----------



## Lukelucy (Nov 19, 2011)

obxamom said:


> See again, there you go. You don't know me from Joe blow down the street so how do you propose that I am not open to the truth....you again are just saying this because you honestly do not have anything that you can say because you know that you have been confronted with the truth..usually that is what people do when confronted with the truth...either become hateful...or say something like you did.. .if you had the truth and were passionate about sharing it and wanting to have others see the truth..then do so you but on this particular post I haven't seen too much that you have said that has been educational...but again you just do this.....see above....i am always open to the truth but I do believe that non of us are in a position to act as we are experts to this law...as far as God bless....maybe you should take a real hard look at your posts and how exactly you have been acting towards others...have you been doing so in a charitable way? Have you been truly acting Christ like to others who may not have been agreeing with you....? Only you can really answer that?


You are a wise, kind person. Thank you for this post.


----------



## Janet Cooke (Aug 14, 2013)

obxamom said:


> See again, there you go. You don't know me from Joe blow down the street so how do you propose that I am not open to the truth....you again are just saying this because you honestly do not have anything that you can say because you know that you have been confronted with the truth..usually that is what people do when confronted with the truth...either become hateful...or say something like you did.. .if you had the truth and were passionate about sharing it and wanting to have others see the truth..then do so you but on this particular post I haven't seen too much that you have said that has been educational...but again you just do this.....see above....i am always open to the truth but I do believe that non of us are in a position to act as we are experts to this law...as far as God bless....maybe you should take a real hard look at your posts and how exactly you have been acting towards others...have you been doing so in a charitable way? Have you been truly acting Christ like to others who may not have been agreeing with you....? Only you can really answer that?


You posted an entry full of BS. That's all I need to know that it is impossible to talk to you.


----------



## damemary (Mar 14, 2012)

Your bs radar is working perfectly.


Huckleberry said:


> Lukelucy
> that is the conversation the Doctor had with your husband? Really? Honestly, who made up this story? Hannity's crew again?


 :XD: :XD: :XD: :XD: :XD: :XD:


----------



## Lukelucy (Nov 19, 2011)

kiffer said:


> Lukelucy, you are right about obamacare. Many docs will retire, they will opt out of accepting that insurance . The premiums depending which plan you choose will be higher and high co-pays and you may have to travel to get to a doc that will accept. I have many family members who are docs and I know that they are going to do. The deductible will be very high. What happened tp Obamas promise? If you like your insurance you can keep it. If you like your doc you can keep him. I have friends that have already received letters telling them they have been dropped from the insurance they have for years.
> 
> Luke Lucy I'm with you and those that aren't so be it. Hope they don't get cancer after 70.


Thank you. I wish everyone would see what is happening. Eyes wide shut.


----------



## obxamom (Apr 21, 2013)

jelun2 said:


> You have no idea what is truth and what is lie. It is impossible to communicate with you. God bless.


Oh...and let me ask you ....what about my post response to you told you that I had no idea what the truth is and what a lie is? I am presenting first hand facts of what I have seen....that is all....how can you refute that...also I am simply asking you for credible sources where you got your information from...how is that being impossible to talk to I ask? I saw that you were being hateful and mean and just pointed out the FACTS what I saw you were the one to reply to that post...i didn't point you out...but you replied and opened that can of worms..I pointing out only facts what I have truly seen....I am asking you for credible sources and I get your response above....I ask ....who is the impossible one to talk to?????


----------



## Lukelucy (Nov 19, 2011)

obxamom said:


> Oh...and let me ask you ....what about my post response to you told you that I had no idea what the truth is and what a lie is? I am presenting first hand facts of what I have seen....that is all....how can you refute that...also I am simply asking you for credible sources where you got your information from...how is that being impossible to talk to I ask? I saw that you were being hateful and mean and just pointed out the FACTS what I saw you were the one to reply to that post...i didn't point you out...but you replied and opened that can of worms..I pointing out only facts what I have truly seen....I am asking you for credible sources and I get your response above....I ask ....who is the impossible one to talk to?????


Isn't it amazing. Such behavior. Thank you, again.


----------



## DollieD (Mar 7, 2011)

I don't know where you live, but here we have kynect.
I have 2 nieces who work for the state in this area.
I am afraid I understand very little about the effect this will have on me....however, Dave Ramsey has a very simple to understand video concerning the Affordable Care Act!
My best wishes for you and your family!


----------



## Janet Cooke (Aug 14, 2013)

damemary said:


> Your bs radar is working perfectly.
> 
> :XD: :XD: :XD: :XD: :XD: :XD:


You have to wonder what insurance people are referring to when they say "that insurance" will be denied, don't you? Same insurance companies they have been dealing with for decades, but, suddenly they will stop taking their money. 
God save us.


----------



## obxamom (Apr 21, 2013)

jelun2 said:


> You posted an entry full of BS. That's all I need to know that it is impossible to talk to you.


Exactly what was BS????? Asking you to give facts and sources? Telling you what I know...asking you if you read the bill Which I can know that you haven't.... you are not an educated expert on this situation and you don't like the fact that someone has the balls to stand up to you and call you out for what you are......


----------



## bwtyer (Oct 31, 2012)

Many arguments for ACA, just as many against. 

The GOOD thing and this is due to Obamacare, as much as I do not like admitting it, either - is that previously people who could not get insurance due to pre existing conditions can now get it. Lives will be saved. Nothing bad can be said about that. And this is for all people - all insurances.


----------



## Lukelucy (Nov 19, 2011)

obxamom said:


> Exactly what was BS????? Asking you to give facts and sources? Telling you what I know...asking you if you read the bill Which I can know that you haven't.... you are not an educated expert on this situation and you don't like the fact that someone has the balls to stand up to you and call you out for what you are......


Right on target. Great words. Thank you!


----------



## Lukelucy (Nov 19, 2011)

bwtyer said:


> Many arguments for ACA, just as many against.
> 
> The GOOD thing and this is due to Obamacare, as much as I do not like admitting it, either - is that previously people who could not get insurance due to pre existing conditions can now get it. Lives will be saved. Nothing bad can be said about that. And this is for all people - all insurances.


I think that people with pre-existing conditions should be able to be insured. That is a good thing.


----------



## damemary (Mar 14, 2012)

OK. If the cost of health care increases many times more than anything else for years, what does that indicate? Sorry I asked.



Huckleberry said:


> Apbarr
> Reasonable individuals would expect the cost of anything going up periodically. Milk used to be about one Dollar/Gallon and now is close to $ 4.00. Gasoline was 25c/Gallon and now is $ 3.50. Cars used to cost $ 2.500.00 and now about $ 30.000.00. Should Health Care Cost remain as is? I would not want to live where that happens since it means that no advances in diagnosis and treatments are being made.


----------



## damemary (Mar 14, 2012)

See GW. I told you.



Catarry said:


> Haven't you been following the arguments in Congress about the Farm Bill and its provisions for what used to be called food stamps? Folks on the right are saying that refusing food assistance is the christian thing to do.
> 
> http://www.christianpost.com/news/should-christians-support-food-stamps-cuts-depends-on-who-you-ask-105052/
> 
> http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2013/09/24/family-research-council-nothing-more-christian-than-food-stamp-cuts/


----------



## obxamom (Apr 21, 2013)

Lukelucy said:


> Right on target. Great words. Thank you!


You are welcome....I come on here for knitting advise and marvel in the talent that many of us have....i just get fed up when someone innocently tries to share what they heard and gets a public flogging for it.....I don't know you and I don't know if your doctor is right or wrong....but I am tired of seeing the immaturity and lack of charity that is displayed by many...where is the charity? I am sorry that you got flogged by your innocent post....one said makes you wonder what kind of families they are raising....well...the hatefulness I see....I wonder what kind of kids they are raising? Best of luck to you.


----------



## damemary (Mar 14, 2012)

I wish I could say I was laughing.



Catarry said:


> Haven't you been following the arguments in Congress about the Farm Bill and its provisions for what used to be called food stamps? Folks on the right are saying that refusing food assistance is the christian thing to do.
> 
> http://www.christianpost.com/news/should-christians-support-food-stamps-cuts-depends-on-who-you-ask-105052/
> 
> http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2013/09/24/family-research-council-nothing-more-christian-than-food-stamp-cuts/


----------



## cbethea (Oct 21, 2013)

None of this true or accurate. Might be wise on your part to do a little research on your own.


----------



## damemary (Mar 14, 2012)

Huckleberry said:


> Knit crazy
> nothing like being irresponsible.


 :XD: :XD: :XD: :XD:


----------



## damemary (Mar 14, 2012)

jelun2 said:


> It seems to be encouraged. You have to wonder what kind of families people are raising.


       Shameful.


----------



## marilyn1977 (Nov 3, 2011)

Have you seen this about Obamacare? I had heard there were a lot of things we would not approve of in his bill. At least I don't. Read the following, I am not sure I should put this on here, but everyone needs to read:

Fwd: OBAMA CARE AT AGE 76 - Adios!

OK HERE IT IS'......HAD IT CHECKED WITH AARP BEFORE I PASSED IT ON....GOT RESULTS BACK....IT'S TRUE


If you don't read this, and do nothing about it, don't complain when it affects you or your loved ones!!!!!



This is the second Judge to have read the Obama Care document and made comments. More highlights of Nancy 's "pass it and Then find out what's in the bill"!!!!!!

Show this to everyone nearing the ripe old age of 76. These are just a few of the things that we Seniors are going to have to deal with starting in
2014.

Even far left Democrats will not like these.

MEDICARE AT AGE 76 IMPORTANT PLEASE READ - ANYONE WHO DOUBTS THIS IS TRUE CAN DOWNLOAD THE NEW OBAMA CARE AND LOOK UP THE PAGES MENTIONED. THIS IS JUST THE BEGINNING......................

PLEASE PASS THIS OUTRAGE TO EVERYONE ON YOUR LIST!!! THIS should be read by everyone, especially important to those over 75....... If you are younger, then it may apply to your parents....

Your hospital Medicare admittance has just changed under Obama Care. You must be admitted by your primary Physician in order for Medicare to pay for it! If you are admitted by an emergency room doctor it is treated as outpatient care where hospital costs are not covered. This is only the tip of the iceberg for Obama Care. Just wait to see what happen in this year and
2014!

YOU ARE NOT GOING TO LIKE THIS... At age 76 when you most need it most, you are not eligible for cancer treatment * see page 272 What Nancy Pelosi didn't want us to know until after the healthcare bill was passed. Remember she said, "We have to pass the Bill so that we can see what's in it." Well, here it is.

Obama Care Highlighted by Page Number THE CARE BILL HB 3200 JUDGE KITHIL IS THE 2ND OFFICIAL WHO HAS OUTLINED THESE PARTS OF THE CARE BILL.

Judge Kithil of Marble Falls , TX - highlighted the most egregious pages of HB3200 Please read this....... especially the reference to pages 58 & 59

JUDGE KITHIL wrote:
** Page 50/section 152: The bill will provide insurance to all non-U.S. residents, even if they are here illegally.

** Page 58 and 59: The government will have real-time access to an individual's bank account and will have the authority to make electronic fund transfers from those accounts.

** Page 65/section 164: The plan will be subsidized (by the government) for all union members, union retirees and for community organizations (such as the Association of Community Organizations for Reform Now - ACORN).

** Page 203/line 14-15: The tax imposed under this section will not be treated as a tax.

(How could anybody in their right mind come up with that?)

** Page 241 and 253: Doctors will all be paid the same regardless of specialty, and the government will set all doctors' fees. This is what they do in Sweden too. I know because Alf's daughter Ann is an OBGYN, and her husband, Thorsten, is a surgeon.........
** Page 272. section 1145: Cancer hospital will ration care according to the patient's age.

** Page 317 and 321: The government will impose a prohibition on hospital expansion; however, communities may petition for an exception.
** Page 425, line 4-12: The government mandates advance-care planning consultations. Those on Social Security will be required to attend an "end-of-life planning" seminar every five years. (Death counseling..)

** Page 429, line 13-25: The government will specify which doctors can write an end-of-life order.

HAD ENOUGH???? Judge Kithil then goes on to identify:

"Finally, it is specifically stated that this bill will not apply to members of Congress.

No wonder they did not see the need to read it....doesn't apply to them!!!

THE AMERICAN PEOPLE NEED TO STAND UP TO WASHINGTON .....NOW! THIS IS OUTRAGEOUS!

Honorable David Kithil of Marble Falls , Texas

All of the above should give you the info you need to oppose Obamacare. Please send this information on to all of your email contacts.


----------



## Janet Cooke (Aug 14, 2013)

r


damemary said:


> OK. If the cost of health care increases many times more than anything else for years, what does that indicate? Sorry I asked.


I think it means that it was a good thing for Obamacare to set up that rebate if an insurance company charges too much more than medical costs. 
But hey what do I know? I only have curiosity on my side. LOL. 
There are some roaring beauts running around today, I think at least one is KPG in disguise, she knows way too much about me. NPR all kinds of stuff.


----------



## damemary (Mar 14, 2012)

And lukelucy sees the same person as wise and kind. And never the twain shall meet....thank heavens.



jelun2 said:


> You posted an entry full of BS. That's all I need to know that it is impossible to talk to you.


----------



## Huckleberry (May 27, 2013)

Apbarr said:


> I'm not blocking anything just trying to post info which is hard on this forum. At this point I don't think ACA will help me and I'm just a regular person and feel I represent some Americans as far as salary and such. I'm hoping that I won't be fined in the future.


apbarr
would it not be beneficial for you to contact an Insurance Agent, meet with him/her and get proper information? What you think won't do you any good, what is possible most likely will. Leaving Health Care issues to speculation is very unwise.


----------



## gma11331 (Oct 18, 2011)

Catarry said:


> Medicare and Medicaid are not options for children with a pre-existing condition.
> 
> If a child with a birth defect is born to a family with private insurance, that child will not be eligible to be covered under the policy.
> Medicaid has strict income limits that essential bar a person with a preexisting condition from earning more than a very minimum amount.
> ...


My DD is 47 and on SSI Disability and she is on Medicare.


----------



## kiffer (Jun 3, 2011)

If the ACA is so good then why wasn't Obama the first to sign up?


----------



## obxamom (Apr 21, 2013)

marilyn1977 said:


> Have you seen this about Obamacare? I had heard there were a lot of things we would not approve of in his bill. At least I don't. Read the following, I am not sure I should put this on here, but everyone needs to read:
> 
> Fwd: OBAMA CARE AT AGE 76 - Adios!
> 
> ...


Thanks for posting but buckle in get prepared for a public flogging on here....


----------



## damemary (Mar 14, 2012)

And would that have ever come about without Obamacare?



Lukelucy said:


> I think that people with pre-existing conditions should be able to be insured. That is a good thing.


----------



## Bea 465 (Mar 27, 2011)

According to the news last night, with the online system not working, the healthy young people who are used to working online will get frustrated and not sign up. Because the government will be loosing that money it will become more expensive for those who did sign up. After all, most young people don't spend a lot of money in doctor's offices so the government gets to appropriate that toward the people who require more medical attention.


----------



## Lukelucy (Nov 19, 2011)

marilyn1977 said:


> Have you seen this about Obamacare? I had heard there were a lot of things we would not approve of in his bill. At least I don't. Read the following, I am not sure I should put this on here, but everyone needs to read:
> 
> Fwd: OBAMA CARE AT AGE 76 - Adios!
> 
> ...


----------



## knitminnie (Jan 29, 2011)

I have been listening and reading everything I can about Obamacare. I personally think it is a shambles. No one seems to understand it and everyone has a different opinion. I worry about our young people who are young and healthy. They are the ones who seem to be the targeted ones to fund the old, sickly, lazy, and the "I don't give a damn". people. It is a fact you cannot get something for nothing no matter how sugary you make it. I personally resent the fact that this plan is messing up health care for people who were perfectly happy with what they had. The ones who didn't have any went to the ER anyway for a splinter. So far, my husband retired from a company who has a wonderful health care plan for us and is keeping it for us. My children however, are in that group who are healthy, working, and having to make choices. 
I think it is ridiculous for people who have never ran a business, our president and congress and staff, are telling everyone else what is best for them and not even listening to what the people are calling for. I believe in the power of the pen, so I have been pounding my keyboard e-mailing every politician with my opinion. There is just too, too much confusion.


----------



## damemary (Mar 14, 2012)

jelun2 said:


> r
> 
> I think it means that it was a good thing for Obamacare to set up that rebate if an insurance company charges too much more than medical costs.
> But hey what do I know? I only have curiosity on my side. LOL.
> There are some roaring beauts running around today, I think at least one is KPG in disguise, she knows way too much about me. NPR all kinds of stuff.


I was thinking the same thing about KPG.....Don't think she can drift into the sunset that easily. And her buddies seem like she's organizing them.


----------



## mardihar (Oct 16, 2013)

Please stay calm. There are alot of rumors going around about what Obamacare is, and isn't going to do. BCBS is not exactly an objective observer. The ACA actually requires that insurance companies provide certain screenings, like Mammograms, to women with no co-pay, so lots of women who couldn't afford them before will be able to now. The ACA would not pay for Mammograms after age 70, because by that time, you would be on Medicare.

The ACA applies to all 50 states. Some of those states have set up their own exchanges, but the Supreme Court allowed some to opt not to do so, so the Fed Govt is setting them up in those states (that's where the problem is right now -- the Federal website that is the clearing house for the federal exchanges. I'm told the state exchanges (in the states that set them up) are running very well). But the law itself applies to all 50 states, so there is no better or worse state from the perspective of the doctors.

For some reason, it appears that BCBS is trying to scare people -- maybe they don't think they are competitive enough with other insurance companies, so they won't get their share of the 30 Million new subscribers the ACA will bring.

This is a very new program, and there is going to be a lot of misunderstanding about it before it settles in. Many people didn't like Medicare when it started either.


----------



## Lukelucy (Nov 19, 2011)

Bea 465 said:


> According to the news last night, with the online system not working, the healthy young people who are used to working online will get frustrated and not sign up. Because the government will be loosing that money it will become more expensive for those who did sign up. After all, most young people don't spend a lot of money in doctor's offices so the government gets to appropriate that toward the people who require more medical attention.


And we will all pay.


----------



## damemary (Mar 14, 2012)

How do you know he wasn't?



kiffer said:


> If the ACA is so good then why wasn't Obama the first to sign up?


----------



## Huckleberry (May 27, 2013)

marilyn1977 said:


> Have you seen this about Obamacare? I had heard there were a lot of things we would not approve of in his bill. At least I don't. Read the following, I am not sure I should put this on here, but everyone needs to read:
> 
> Fwd: OBAMA CARE AT AGE 76 - Adios!
> 
> ...


Marylin 1977
Most things coming from Texas are outrageous. Sorry about my friends who are stuck there for various reasons.


----------



## Lukelucy (Nov 19, 2011)

knitminnie said:


> I have been listening and reading everything I can about Obamacare. I personally think it is a shambles. No one seems to understand it and everyone has a different opinion. I worry about our young people who are young and healthy. They are the ones who seem to be the targeted ones to fund the old, sickly, lazy, and the "I don't give a damn". people. It is a fact you cannot get something for nothing no matter how sugary you make it. I personally resent the fact that this plan is messing up health care for people who were perfectly happy with what they had. The ones who didn't have any went to the ER anyway for a splinter. So far, my husband retired from a company who has a wonderful health care plan for us and is keeping it for us. My children however, are in that group who are healthy, working, and having to make choices.
> I think it is ridiculous for people who have never ran a business, our president and congress and staff, are telling everyone else what is best for them and not even listening to what the people are calling for. I believe in the power of the pen, so I have been pounding my keyboard e-mailing every politician with my opinion. There is just too, too much confusion.


What can we all do? This ACA is poison.


----------



## damemary (Mar 14, 2012)

mardihar said:


> Please stay calm. There are alot of rumors going around about what Obamacare is, and isn't going to do. BCBS is not exactly an objective observer. The ACA actually requires that insurance companies provide certain screenings, like Mammograms, to women with no co-pay, so lots of women who couldn't afford them before will be able to now. The ACA would not pay for Mammograms after age 70, because by that time, you would be on Medicare.
> 
> The ACA applies to all 50 states. Some of those states have set up their own exchanges, but the Supreme Court allowed some to opt not to do so, so the Fed Govt is setting them up in those states (that's where the problem is right now -- the Federal website that is the clearing house for the federal exchanges. I'm told the state exchanges (in the states that set them up) are running very well). But the law itself applies to all 50 states, so there is no better or worse state from the perspective of the doctors.
> 
> ...


 :thumbup: :thumbup: :thumbup: Thank you for posting the information.


----------



## Lukelucy (Nov 19, 2011)

damemary said:


> How do you know he wasn't?


Because he would have broadcasted it without delay. It helps his cause.


----------



## damemary (Mar 14, 2012)

Huckleberry said:


> Marylin 1977
> Most things coming from Texas are outrageous. Sorry about my friends who are stuck there for various reasons.


 :XD: :XD: :XD: :XD: :XD: :XD: :XD:


----------



## cbethea (Oct 21, 2013)

If you rely on someone else to your research and ultimately your thinking for you - then you will continue to be anxious, upset and angry over nothing but misinformation. You seem to want to believe things that simply are not true.


----------



## Poor Purl (Apr 14, 2011)

Lukelucy said:


> You have just verified my very first post. After 70 no cancer screening. I find this just terrible as half of people over 70 will come down with cancer.


You take the experience of *1* woman with what seems to be one lousy doctor, and you think it applies to the whole country? I'm well past 70, and I've never been turned down for any screening. In fact, I hate mammos so much that the radiation office has to send me notices to come in.


----------



## Lukelucy (Nov 19, 2011)

cbethea said:


> If you rely on someone else to your research and ultimately your thinking for you - then you will continue to be anxious, upset and angry over nothing but misinformation. You seem to want to believe things that simply are not true.


Or maybe they are.


----------



## obxamom (Apr 21, 2013)

Boy did you ever dream Lukelucy that when you posted this you would create as many pages as you have.....your post right or wrong...i do want to say something...you have been very charitable and kind even when there have been those who have not...I commend you for that.


----------



## Lukelucy (Nov 19, 2011)

obxamom said:


> Boy did you ever dream Lukelucy that when you posted this you would create as many pages as you have.....your post right or wrong...i do want to say something...you have been very charitable and kind even when there have been those who have not...I commend you for that.


Thanks. Basically, I know they are wrong. I ignore them. They are weak people who I would never associate with. It is easy to see how pathetic they are. So, they do not bother me.


----------



## kiffer (Jun 3, 2011)

damemary said:


> How do you know he wasn't?


If he did he would tell the country........


----------



## cbethea (Oct 21, 2013)

Yes - Enough! This is just nonsense !


----------



## Lukelucy (Nov 19, 2011)

kiffer said:


> If he did he would tell the country........


You better believe it. He'd be shouting - touting - from rooftops. He doesn't want any part of it.


----------



## Huckleberry (May 27, 2013)

mardihar said:


> Please stay calm. There are alot of rumors going around about what Obamacare is, and isn't going to do. BCBS is not exactly an objective observer. The ACA actually requires that insurance companies provide certain screenings, like Mammograms, to women with no co-pay, so lots of women who couldn't afford them before will be able to now. The ACA would not pay for Mammograms after age 70, because by that time, you would be on Medicare.
> 
> The ACA applies to all 50 states. Some of those states have set up their own exchanges, but the Supreme Court allowed some to opt not to do so, so the Fed Govt is setting them up in those states (that's where the problem is right now -- the Federal website that is the clearing house for the federal exchanges. I'm told the state exchanges (in the states that set them up) are running very well). But the law itself applies to all 50 states, so there is no better or worse state from the perspective of the doctors.
> 
> ...


mardihar
THANK YOU.


----------



## Janet Cooke (Aug 14, 2013)

Lukelucy said:


> Thanks. Basically, I know they are wrong. I ignore them. They are weak people who I would never associate with. It is easy to see how pathetic they are. So, they do not bother me.


How can you possibly know who is right or wrong if, according your initial post, just yesterday you were unaware of whether all the states in the union were covered by the ACA? 
I have to give you credit you seem to have become a quick learner. In 10 months you learned nothing and then overnight you became expert. Good job.


----------



## Cin (Jul 8, 2011)

I believe they should call it "Obama doesn't care"!


----------



## Huckleberry (May 27, 2013)

Poor Purl said:


> You take the experience of *1* woman with what seems to be one lousy doctor, and you think it applies to the whole country? I'm well past 70, and I've never been turned down for any screening. In fact, I hate mammos so much that the radiation office has to send me notices to come in.


Poor Purl
I look after an 86 year old Neighbor on Medicare and never has she been denied any care by any of her many Doctors or Hospital. In fact often I feel that tests are duplicated all too often. She has Medicare, Supplemental Insurance plus RX Ins.
None of her Doctors are jumping ship. They are all well prepared for the changes.


----------



## knovice knitter (Mar 6, 2012)

I have lived here in Wisconsin all my life. Mr. Walker has done nothing to enhance my quality of life. Just the opposite. You go ahead and thrive and I will struggle along the best I can. He must have missed me when he was handing out those thrive pills. I see he is being investigated again. Oh well.


Wibdgrfan said:


> You live in MA. My guess is your only knowledge of Wisconsin's governor has come from the national media, which has not been very fair or accurate in its reports. Wisconsin is THRIVING since Gov. Walker took office.


----------



## Huckleberry (May 27, 2013)

Lukelucy said:


> Thanks. Basically, I know they are wrong. I ignore them. They are weak people who I would never associate with. It is easy to see how pathetic they are. So, they do not bother me.


Lukelucy
you are amazing. Try to keep track of your postings to check on yourself periodically.


----------



## cbethea (Oct 21, 2013)

Well now that's the point Lucy. until you research on your own, you won't really know what is correct and what is not.


----------



## Vignewood (Apr 18, 2011)

This sounds wrong, wrong, wrong. Scare tactics. If you have health insurance, you don 't need to get insurance through the affordable care act. If you are on medicare you don't either. Get your information from a primary source and don't repeat false information to scare people.


----------



## cbethea (Oct 21, 2013)

You are absolutely right on.


----------



## Lukelucy (Nov 19, 2011)

Cin said:


> I believe they should call it "Obama doesn't care"!


 :thumbup: :thumbup:


----------



## blanchebianca (May 12, 2013)

Part of the deception is the promulgation of the fallacy that anyone/everyone will be forced to change what they already have. No one is being forced to change the insurance they have. 

However, if you've not been able to get insurance because you have a preexisting condition or haven't been able to afford the premiums, you can now get insurance because insurance companies must provide insurance to everyone even those with preexisting conditions. And the insurance companies must put 80% of the premiums they charge you back into providing coverage for you. In other words your money goes into providing you coverage instead of going into outrageous bonuses for company executives.

This means that more people will be able to get insurance and those of us who have been fortunate to have health insurance, are likely to have lower premiums.


----------



## Vignewood (Apr 18, 2011)

Cin, you have it wrong. The Teaparty doesn't care.


----------



## joycevv (Oct 13, 2011)

So much misinformation in this thread! No one has to give up their present insurance policy. 
Did anyone watch when the same people were asked if they supported Obamacare and they said no. When asked if they supported the Affordable Care Act, they said yes. It is the same thing!
Of course there are going to be glitches in the beginning, but the Republicans don't even want to give it a chance to work. They want it to fail. The BCBS policy my family has costs $20,000 a year. How many people can afford that? I feel like I am only working to pay for health care and the taxes on what my husband earns.


----------



## Apbarr (Sep 14, 2013)

blanchebianca said:


> Part of the deception is the promulgation of the fallacy that anyone/everyone will be forced to change what they already have. No one is being forced to change the insurance they have.
> 
> However, if you've not been able to get insurance because you have a preexisting condition or haven't been able to afford the premiums, you can now get insurance because insurance companies must provide insurance to everyone even those with preexisting conditions. And the insurance companies must put 80% of the premiums they charge you back into providing coverage for you. In other words your money goes into providing you coverage instead of going into outrageous bonuses for company executives.
> 
> This means that more people will be able to get insurance and those of us who have been fortunate to have health insurance, are likely to have lower premiums.


I'm glad that people who didn't have insurance due to preexisting issues can now get insurance and helping others to to get cheaper insurance. I don't agree with spending billions of dollars when they could just pass a law to help people with pre-existing conditions. Meanwhile everyone else has the threat held over their heads that they have to have insurance or else. That is ridiculous.

Of course I have insurance but only through my job. Also how does this help someone who can't afford insurance? Even with a subsidy how are they supposed to pay for it? I have not seen where this is explained. We have to pay trillions of dollars for years to come for this mess.


----------



## Huckleberry (May 27, 2013)

kiffer said:


> If the ACA is so good then why wasn't Obama the first to sign up?


kiffer
obviously you know VERY little about ACA.


----------



## Huckleberry (May 27, 2013)

Apbarr said:


> I'm glad that people who didn't have insurance due to preexisting issues can now get insurance and helping others to to get cheaper insurance. I don't agree with spending billions of dollars when they could just pass a law to help people with pre-existing conditions. Meanwhile everyone else has the threat held over their heads that they have to have insurance or else. That is ridiculous.
> 
> Of course I have insurance but only through my job. Also how does this help someone who can't afford insurance? Even with a subsidy how are they supposed to pay for it? I have not seen where this is explained. We have to pay trillions of dollars for years to come for this mess.


Apbarr
why is it that whe have billions to give to other nations yearly but have no money to take care of our Citizens? And most of those Countries (if not all - need to check on that) have Universal Health Care while we do not until now. Our priorities should be with our People. Time we come first, it is our money being given out after all.


----------



## Vignewood (Apr 18, 2011)

If someone really cannot afford insurance, medicaid will cover them. Too many uninsured people use emergency rooms. That cost is passed onto us who pay what our insurance won't cover. You are going to pay o e way or another.


----------



## Huckleberry (May 27, 2013)

joeysomma said:


> Some insurance policies are no longer acceptable according to Obamacare. therefore, the ones with those policies will need to get new policies.


Joeysomma
so what? Changes will certainly benefit the subscribers. Why are you so against everyone having adequate Health Care? Belong to the Christian Scientists?


----------



## Vignewood (Apr 18, 2011)

What is the source of this information?


----------



## Vignewood (Apr 18, 2011)

You do not "sign up" for the ACA. You purchase insurance through it if you don't have any. You can now call a representative to help you sift through the options.


----------



## Huckleberry (May 27, 2013)

Vignewood said:


> If someone really cannot afford insurance, medicaid will cover them. Too many uninsured people use emergency rooms. That cost is passed onto us who pay what our insurance won't cover. You are going to pay o e way or another.


Vignewood
THANK YOU.


----------



## Huckleberry (May 27, 2013)

Vignewood said:


> This sounds wrong, wrong, wrong. Scare tactics. If you have health insurance, you don 't need to get insurance through the affordable care act. If you are on medicare you don't either. Get your information from a primary source and don't repeat false information to scare people.


Vignewood
so glad to have an informed person on board. I guess some of these folks are looking for entertainment here rather than factual informaion or they just want to stir the hornet's nest.


----------



## Lukelucy (Nov 19, 2011)

joeysomma said:


> Some insurance policies are no longer acceptable according to Obamacare. therefore, the ones with those policies will need to get new policies.


Right. Lots of people are having this problem.


----------



## ElyseKnox (Sep 16, 2011)

Senate Finance Committee Chairman Max Baucus, D-Mont., was both a sponsor of  and cheerleader for  Obamacare. He saw this coming. Once he read this 2,400-page regulatory monstrosity, he came to the same conclusion as did anyone else with two synapses to rub together. He called the implementation of Obamacare a huge train wreck and announced that, rather than resulting in his re-election, Obamas pet government health-care albatross would sink him into retirement.


----------



## obxamom (Apr 21, 2013)

Unless you are dropped by your current insurer or your premiums raise so much so that you can't afford your current health care which is what has happened to my friend....in any case many think that they are immune and no one else will decide your health care and course of treatment...case in point....have you ever heard of Terry Schiavo....here was a women who was perfectly healthy but collapsed...she was bed ridden and in a nursing home. She was unable to walk on her own and relied on a feeding tube for hydration and nutrition....now they say that she was on extensive life support...I and her family say Bull....she didn't need a ventilator she needed a feeding tube for hydration and nutrition and a wheelchair. Her so called husband fought and had the court judge to order the removal of her feeding tube. It was approved and this women endured 14 days of brutal starvation and died of severe dehydration due to a government court order. You can say I am full of Bull Shit if you want and refuse to even acknowledge it if you want but the story is true....as a matter of fact I met her family and listened to their heart breaking story...they were watched by police that were court ordered to watch their every move to make sure that they didn't give their daughter a sip of water. Her mouth was dry and cracked and sitting right next to her bed was a beautiful boquet of flowers in water. These flowers had more right to live then this woman. Her family had to sit and endure watching her sister suffer....their hands were tied because of a judge. They couldn't even just put water in her dry mouth. Oh and if you don't believe me here is their website.www.terrisfight.org ...their site is very informative ..they have helped countless other victims who were facing similar situations as their sister...they have made it their mission to help fight against this. 
Here is an excerpt How the "Right to Die" Came to America
From National Center for Life & Liberty

Most Americans are able to identify Roe v. Wade as the 1973 United States Supreme Court case that established a constitutional right for women to abort their unborn babies at the beginning of life. However, not many Americans are able to similarly identify the important court cases that paved the way for "right to die" laws and the acceptance of euthanasia or mercy killing in America. This new constitutional so-called "right to die" involves the ability to terminate those at the end of life - many of whom are elderly or disabled, or who lack a particular "quality of life" or whose care is determined to be "futile ..
The newest writing assignment from common core...here is a list of several people and a discription of them who they are their religious beliefs...political beliefs etx. your job is to work as a group...there is a sinking ship and only 7 can live...who do you decide who lives and will be saved and why? That is a common core school assignment...seems they are grooming and brain washing at an early age.? I am not trying to fear monger....but I do believe there are things out there that good Americans just can not believe are happening right here on our soil ...its like...man I knew Joe for several years he was so kind, but I never would have dreamed he could have murdered his wife. Go ahead and back lash if you want but that just means that you are upset with the truth that is confronted to you. These things do happen.


----------



## Huckleberry (May 27, 2013)

blanchebianca said:


> Part of the deception is the promulgation of the fallacy that anyone/everyone will be forced to change what they already have. No one is being forced to change the insurance they have.
> 
> However, if you've not been able to get insurance because you have a preexisting condition or haven't been able to afford the premiums, you can now get insurance because insurance companies must provide insurance to everyone even those with preexisting conditions. And the insurance companies must put 80% of the premiums they charge you back into providing coverage for you. In other words your money goes into providing you coverage instead of going into outrageous bonuses for company executives.
> 
> This means that more people will be able to get insurance and those of us who have been fortunate to have health insurance, are likely to have lower premiums.


blanchebianca
not only will everyone get help with Health Care coverage but the rest of us who have been paying for years some relief as well. Fortunately most people will shortly find out that ACA is a blessing for everyone and the screamers against it will fall silent.


----------



## Huckleberry (May 27, 2013)

ElyseKnox said:


> Senate Finance Committee Chairman Max Baucus, D-Mont., was both a sponsor of  and cheerleader for  Obamacare. He saw this coming. Once he read this 2,400-page regulatory monstrosity, he came to the same conclusion as did anyone else with two synapses to rub together. He called the implementation of Obamacare a huge train wreck and announced that, rather than resulting in his re-election, Obamas pet government health-care albatross would sink him into retirement.


Elyseknox
and he is living happily ever after with us paying for most of his Health Insurance.


----------



## susanmos2000 (May 10, 2011)

ElyseKnox said:


> Senate Finance Committee Chairman Max Baucus, D-Mont., was both a sponsor of  and cheerleader for  Obamacare. He saw this coming. Once he read this 2,400-page regulatory monstrosity, he came to the same conclusion as did anyone else with two synapses to rub together. He called the implementation of Obamacare a huge train wreck and announced that, rather than resulting in his re-election, Obamas pet government health-care albatross would sink him into retirement.


Once again a member of the anti-ACA crowd is playing fast and loose with the truth. From FactCheck.org:

"The ad uses a snippet of a five-minute exchange that Baucus had with Health and Human Services Secretary Kathleen Sebelius at an April 17 budget hearing. Baucus said he was very concerned that not enough is being done so far to educate small businesses and individuals about the law. He told her he had been hearing from constituents who have no idea what to do, what to expect. Baucus pressed her for details on the administrations outreach efforts.

Baucus: I just tell you, I just see a huge train wreck coming down. You and I have discussed this many times and I dont see any results yet. What can you do to help all these people around the country going, What in the world do I do and what  how do I know what to do?

Sebelius: Well, Mr. Chairman, as you know and we have had these discussions a number of times. We certainly take outreach and education very, very seriously. Its one of the reasons that I think we were incredibly disappointed that our request for additional outreach and education resources were not made available in the CR [continuing budget resolution] of 2013."


----------



## Huckleberry (May 27, 2013)

Lukelucy said:


> Right. Lots of people are having this problem.


Lukelucy
a problem for whom? The Insurance Carriers you mean, right? They need to tighten their belts and no longer give exorbitant bonuses to their Managers. Now that is progress.


----------



## susanmos2000 (May 10, 2011)

obxamom said:


> Unless you are dropped by your current insurer or your premiums raise so much so that you can't afford your current health care which is what has happened to my friend....in any case many think that they are immune and no one else will decide your health care and course of treatment...case in point....have you ever heard of Terry Schiavo....here was a women who was perfectly healthy but collapsed...she was bed ridden and in a nursing home. She was unable to walk on her own and relied on a feeding tube for hydration and nutrition....now they say that she was on extensive life support...I and her family say Bull....she didn't need a ventilator she needed a feeding tube for hydration and nutrition and a wheelchair. Her so called husband fought and had the court judge to order the removal of her feeding tube. It was approved and this women endured 14 days of brutal starvation and died of severe dehydration due to a government court order. You can say I am full of Bull Shit if you want and refuse to even acknowledge it if you want but the story is true....as a matter of fact I met her family and listened to their heart breaking story...they were watched by police that were court ordered to watch their every move to make sure that they didn't give their daughter a sip of water. Her mouth was dry and cracked and sitting right next to her bed was a beautiful boquet of flowers in water. These flowers had more right to live then this woman. Her family had to sit and endure watching her sister suffer....their hands were tied because of a judge. They couldn't even just put water in her dry mouth. Oh and if you don't believe me here is their website.www.terrisfight.org ...their site is very informative ..they have helped countless other victims who were facing similar situations as their sister...they have made it their mission to help fight against this.
> Here is an excerpt How the "Right to Die" Came to America
> From National Center for Life & Liberty


Schiavo's death was indeed sad, as is the premature death of any person. But what on earth does that have to do with the ACA?


----------



## Huckleberry (May 27, 2013)

susanmos2000 said:


> Once again a member of the anti-ACA crowd is playing fast and loose with the truth. From FactCheck.org:
> 
> "The ad uses a snippet of a five-minute exchange that Baucus had with Health and Human Services Secretary Kathleen Sebelius at an April 17 budget hearing. Baucus said he was very concerned that not enough is being done so far to educate small businesses and individuals about the law. He told her he had been hearing from constituents who have no idea what to do, what to expect. Baucus pressed her for details on the administrations outreach efforts.
> 
> ...


susanmos2000
I remember that exchange. He did not do too well. I love to read faces when such incidents occur. He had that "got me" face.


----------



## theyarnlady (Feb 25, 2011)

obxamom said:


> Exactly what was BS????? Asking you to give facts and sources? Telling you what I know...asking you if you read the bill Which I can know that you haven't.... you are not an educated expert on this situation and you don't like the fact that someone has the balls to stand up to you and call you out for what you are......


This is how they answer everyone who does not agree with them. As you can see there are more then one . They form a group and go on a name calling spree. No facts just name calling. Don't even bother to answer them as it will get worst.Just examine all the answers and questions from people on here who are attempt to find out or know what is happening. Then check out as many places as you can to get the information you need. 
Now watch and you will see they will start name calling of me as they have done to bwtyer, Lucklucy, ect.


----------



## susanmos2000 (May 10, 2011)

Huckleberry said:


> susanmos2000
> I remember that exchange. He did not do too well. I love to read faces when such incidents occur. He had that "got me" face.


Yep, I'm certain he knew the minute the words left his lips that he'd just produced a coveted soundbite for the right. But it happens often in this age of instant playback audios.


----------



## Lukelucy (Nov 19, 2011)

theyarnlady said:


> This is how they answer everyone who does not agree with them. As you can see there are more then one . They form a group and go on a name calling spree. No facts just name calling. Don't even bother to answer them as it will get worst.Just examine all the answers and questions from people on here who are attempt to find out or know what is happening. Then check out as many places as you can to get the information you need.
> Now watch and you will see they will start name calling of me as they have done to bwtyer, Lucklucy, ect.


 :thumbup: :thumbup: Best to ignore and not read their posts. Waste of you life/time/


----------



## Obsessed (Jan 22, 2012)

blanchebianca said:


> Oh please, take a breath and calm yourself. Unfortunately, you have been the victim of either ignorance or deliberate deception. Much of what you have been told is part of a well orchestrated campaign to scare people into siding with an extreme political position. It takes time to search out the roots of this campaign, but know that you aren't going to lose whatever medical care you've been accustomed to.


Then why is my private insurance being discontinued?


----------



## dev7316 (Sep 2, 2011)

discuss the aca when we have the honest facts, not hearsay.


----------



## calisuzi (Apr 1, 2013)

Sounds like a lot of misinformation to me.


----------



## knovice knitter (Mar 6, 2012)

I find it interesting that lukelucy is pleading for people to see the light, read her comments accurately etc. yet doesn't read others or skims. Since she used the letters BCBS, and people are asking for translation, she should be the one clarifying. Yeah, I had to look it up too.


bwtyer said:


> BCBS is Blue Cross Blue shield. I think premiums are going up due to the demise of the previous condition clause. As I have a daughter in remission who could not change jobs because she would lose her insurance, I am for this change. I hate my premiums going up but for my daughter and those like her, I am glad for the change.


----------



## Lukelucy (Nov 19, 2011)

Obsessed said:


> Then why is my private insurance being discontinued?


Some are and some aren't. There are new rules/laws and the insurance must comply. If it doesn't it goes. That is a big problem


----------



## NJG (Dec 2, 2011)

Lukelucy said:


> That is not what I know. I do know that some states opted out. Arizona is one.


What they opted out of is the additional money for medicaid, so all the people that are poor and have no money for insurance will continue to be without insurance. Whey they get sick, they have to go to the emergency room and then we all pay for it. Arizona did not opt out. Brewer decided to accept it because financially the state couldn't afford not to accept the federal money. There has been a story on the news lately about 4 couples that were on Hannity on Fox talking about how awful the ACA was. What they did was get on national TV and lie, but this seems to be the normal thing to do if you are one of the haters. There have been rumors from the beginning that if you are over 70, you won't be treated, but like someone else said the ACA has nothing to do with Medicare or the Medicare supplements. Those things continue as they are.

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2013/10/18/1248676/-How-one-smart-reporter-debunked-the-Hannity-Fox-News-lie-machine

The haters are spending a lot on money to do things like this in order to put false information out there to do everything they can to destroy this president. I don't know if your husband actually had an appointment, or you received this info in an email but it sounds real phony to me. Why say that most Drs didn't go to the meeting-maybe because most Drs won't be spreading these lies and that is to try and explain why. 
The Koch brothers have spent millions on adds that tell these lies. Why would someone one as rich as they are want people to go without insurance, but that is what they are doing, telling young people not to get insurance. Makes no sense.


----------



## theyarnlady (Feb 25, 2011)

knovice knitter said:


> I have lived here in Wisconsin all my life. Mr. Walker has done nothing to enhance my quality of life. Just the opposite. You go ahead and thrive and I will struggle along the best I can. He must have missed me when he was handing out those thrive pills. I see he is being investigated again. Oh well.


yes and why when he was recall was he elected again? It would seem to me that maybe the people in this state were tired of the nonsense that had gone on in this state, and wanted something better.


----------



## sumpleby (Aug 3, 2013)

Uh, wrong. This is a chain email that has been going around since 2009 and has nothing to do with reality. Do a bit of research before believing this codswallop.



marilyn1977 said:


> Have you seen this about Obamacare? I had heard there were a lot of things we would not approve of in his bill. At least I don't. Read the following, I am not sure I should put this on here, but everyone needs to read:
> 
> Fwd: OBAMA CARE AT AGE 76 - Adios!
> 
> ...


----------



## Janet Cooke (Aug 14, 2013)

Obsessed said:


> Then why is my private insurance being discontinued?


Why not do a little historical search? Insurance companies have gone into and left off doing business in many states numerous times.


----------



## ifangoch (Aug 28, 2012)

ninal46 said:


> I don't know about Canada, but I do know National health in the UK is not all it's cracked up to be. My sister was diagnosed with breast cancer when she was 50 years old. She was told she had to wait several months for some of the tests. She is one of the lucky ones, she opted to go private, pay out of pocket and got a mastectomy. She just turned 74 and has been cancer free. I believe that had she not had the money, and had waited for the NHS to get her in for testing she would have died. Another friend of mine was 60 when she got cancer. Between Chemo, and Radiation she went into remission. The NHS placed her on these very expensive cancer drugs and she was staying in remission. When she turned 70 they told her she could not get the drugs anymore as they were not curing her. She died at 72. Thank you, but no thank you for anything that is remotely like a National health. I want it the way it was ... where I can pick and chose my doctors. That will be a thing of the past with Obamacare. In my opinion anyone that says that National Health is great, have not experienced real good health care. Take a number and wait ... wait ... wait = National Health.


I had breast cancer 7 years ago. I went to my doctor with a lump on a Tuesday. He referred me to the consultant who I saw on the Thursday of the same week. All tests were done that day and I had the results that day. I was admitted for surgery on the Sunday of the same week and had the op on Monday. The lymph nodes showed some irregularity and I had a second op 2 weeks after the first to remove the lymph nodes. I started chemo 2 weeks later. Radiotherapy started a month after chemo finished. I then started on Tamoxifen a month after radiotherapy. I stopped taking Tamoxifen about 18 months ago and have been free of cancer since the surgery. I have no complaints with the UK NHS at all.


----------



## obxamom (Apr 21, 2013)

susanmos2000 said:


> Schiavo's death was indeed sad, as is the premature death of any person. But what on earth does that have to do with the ACA?


They talked about in a previous post that in american are death panals. Here is an example of one....it does happen just answering a previous post.


----------



## grammylynn (Mar 2, 2013)

damemary said:


> Tell me. Do 'death panels' sound reasonable to you? Did it ever occur to you that that might be a lie to get people aroused? Don't fall for it. Death Panels are against everything our country stands for.


 So is Socialism and we are running down that road very fast now. The rich can't keep doing all the paying as he wants because who will pay when we run out of rich people? Obama was on tv last year talking about what he thought was a reasonable age to stop paying for health care and what to continue with and used the term death panel. He was still considering that issue. I almost fell out of my chair!!! So it will be an issue in the future! People are living longer or were when they had good care now if you are in excellent health you might be denied some options just because of a number. I know a woman who is extremely healthy she only takes aspirin for Arthritis and wanted a knee replacement, it was totally gone, her doctor told her to get it now before she crossed 80 as it will be denied next year based on her age! She had it and now walks miles a day. It is possible that if she was confined to wheelchair she might not stay healthy I don't believe it is the governments job to decide that for me.


----------



## Huckleberry (May 27, 2013)

Lukelucy said:


> Some are and some aren't. There are new rules/laws and the insurance must comply. If it doesn't it goes. That is a big problem


Lukelucy
why is it a problem? Clarify please. Ever changed your Car or Homeowners Insurance? Ever changed your Health Insurance? Pretty simple. Why would it be a problem for you? Easier than ever since no Carrier can deny you coverage. Stop posting such nonsense.


----------



## Huckleberry (May 27, 2013)

grammylynn said:


> So is Socialism and we are running down that road very fast now. The rich can't keep doing all the paying as he wants because who will pay when we run out of rich people? Obama was on tv last year talking about what he thought was a reasonable age to stop paying for health care and what to continue with and used the term death panel. He was still considering that issue. I almost fell out of my chair!!! So it will be an issue in the future! People are living longer or were when they had good care now if you are in excellent health you might be denied some options just because of a number. I know a woman who is extremely healthy she only takes aspirin for Arthritis and wanted a knee replacement, it was totally gone, her doctor told her to get it now before she crossed 80 as it will be denied next year based on her age! She had it and now walks miles a day. It is possible that if she was confined to wheelchair she might not stay healthy I don't believe it is the governments job to decide that for me.


grammylynn
lack of medical knowledge prevents many people from understanding why certain surgeries won't be performed after certain ages. Would you rather limp for a few years or die on the operating table or from complications of surgery due to age? What is your choice? I take the limp with an Aspirin or a wheelchair.


----------



## meadow123 (Mar 6, 2012)

In England we are very fortunate with our nhs,i have always had first class treatment off the national health and so has my family.Its very unfair and disrespectful to people who are trying to help you when you get the time wasters,and the violent ones also the morons who dial 999 for fun,we need to get rid of these that come over here for our treatment and never pay,its a drain on resourses we cant afford.We have had everything privatised under the con governments over the years,this is the only thing left,but that to will go the same way if the CONDEMS get their way,


----------



## meadow123 (Mar 6, 2012)

In England we are very fortunate with our nhs,i have always had first class treatment off the national health and so has my family.Its very unfair and disrespectful to people who are trying to help you when you get the time wasters,and the violent ones also the morons who dial 999 for fun,we need to get rid of these that come over here for our treatment and never pay,its a drain on resourses we cant afford.We have had everything privatised under the con governments over the years,this is the only thing left,but that to will go the same way if the CONDEMS get their way,


----------



## meadow123 (Mar 6, 2012)

In England we are very fortunate with our nhs,i have always had first class treatment off the national health and so has my family.Its very unfair and disrespectful to people who are trying to help you when you get the time wasters,and the violent ones also the morons who dial 999 for fun,we need to get rid of these that come over here for our treatment and never pay,its a drain on resourses we cant afford.We have had everything privatised under the con governments over the years,this is the only thing left,but that to will go the same way if the CONDEMS get their way,


----------



## Latonia (Feb 9, 2013)

This is just another failed attempt by the Republicans and the Tea Party to scare the American public into believing that Obama Care is not right for our Country. Shame on you my fellow Republicans. 

The truth is that the Affordable Health Care Program is universal. States can not opt out of the program. Medicare takes care of all individuals eligible for Medicare and Cancer screening is a part of the Medicare plan. Supplemental Medicare insurance is available for those who choose to purchase additional coverage. 

Let's stop trying to confuse the people just because some of the people do not like the President. Lets face it, this is the real reason the Republicans and the Tea Party radicals do not want Obama Care to succeed. It has nothing to do with the plan, it is all about their dislike for our President. Stop wasting our time and tax payers dollars on the racist views of some of the people. President Obama was re-elected for a reason. The Republicans were not put in office for a reason. HELLO!


----------



## Connie W (Aug 3, 2011)

Amen


----------



## grammylynn (Mar 2, 2013)

As someone who is going to be in a wheelchair then bedridden with nothing that I can do about it but wait as it is part of the disease I inherited. I would choose to have the surgery if my doctor and I agree I am healthy enough for it. I want the best quality of life I can have and not be told what the textbook says I should feel or have. Age is not the only factor to consider but they are talking of it being so.


Huckleberry said:


> grammylynn
> lack of medical knowledge prevents many people from understanding why certain surgeries won't be performed after certain ages. Would you rather limp for a few years or die on the operating table or from complications of surgery due to age? What is your choice? I take the limp with an Aspirin or a wheelchair.


----------



## obxamom (Apr 21, 2013)

theyarnlady said:


> This is how they answer everyone who does not agree with them. As you can see there are more then one . They form a group and go on a name calling spree. No facts just name calling. Don't even bother to answer them as it will get worst.Just examine all the answers and questions from people on here who are attempt to find out or know what is happening. Then check out as many places as you can to get the information you need.
> Now watch and you will see they will start name calling of me as they have done to bwtyer, Lucklucy, ect.


I agree thank you.


----------



## Vignewood (Apr 18, 2011)

rasputin said:


> I didn't know that states had the option.?


States do not have an option. They can choose not to set up exchanges so that their citizens have to go to the Federal sources, websites or telephone sites, to get insurance. States that set up exchanges, like my State, CT, have had very few problems. Any new program that administers to so many people is apt to have startup problems. Unfortunately, there are many who want to see this fail.


----------



## NJG (Dec 2, 2011)

Lukelucy said:


> Right. We are on the road to Socialism. It is as clear as day. It scares me that our lives will be cut short because we wait for tests, are put in a line for care, can't choose our doctors. I see America in a battle for Socialism (Dems at this point) and a democratic society (Repubs). Some people don't see it. Our country is changing so quickly.


All lies again. What tests are you waiting for and what are you waiting in line for? I have had to change Drs twice, once when I changed jobs and therefor had to change insurance plans, and once when my employer changed insurance plans to find something cheaper. This was way before Obamacare, so who was at fault for that, insurance companies maybe. I want my Dr to do what he thinks is correct for me, not have the insurance company in control.


----------



## NJG (Dec 2, 2011)

Lukelucy said:


> No, we have heard this from several doctors. He is an excellent doctor - and planning to move away, too. I think all the facts about ACA have not come out. He said that BCBS was reluctant to admit to some of the things I wrote. This is a wait and see. He could be wrong, but I really don't think so. Plus, my state (won't give that info out) is one of the worst for this.


Be very skeptical of what a big insurance company will tell you. They want to make the most money off of you that they can. Why else would they have been setting limits on how much your total benefits can be and refusing to insure someone with a pre existing condition. They have always controlled what the Dr can do for you regarding tests etc.


----------



## Jokim (Nov 22, 2011)

Lukelucy said:


> Because he would have broadcasted it without delay. It helps his cause.


Does the ACA apply to ALL Americans, including the president, Congress and Supreme Court? Research this and you might be surprised.


----------



## soloweygirl (Jun 9, 2012)

jelun2 said:


> You did note the date on that, right?
> It was 2012. It was about opting in or out of the ability to determine their own destiny so far as an exchange goes.
> Federal law is for everyone in the country.
> Take my word on this if on nothing else.
> ...


"The federal law is for everyone in the country." Now that is just not really true is it? Waivers would not have been granted prior to the ACA's implementation, the corporate mandate would not have been delayed, and Congress wouldn't receive special treatment if federal law was for everyone. That's just for the ACA. Sorry, won't take your word on this and hope LukeLucy doesn't either.


----------



## linnerlu (Jul 9, 2013)

blanchebianca said:


> Oh please, take a breath and calm yourself. Unfortunately, you have been the victim of either ignorance or deliberate deception. Much of what you have been told is part of a well orchestrated campaign to scare people into siding with an extreme political position. It takes time to search out the roots of this campaign, but know that you aren't going to lose whatever medical care you've been accustomed to.


Thank you for the voice of calm reason. What a breath of fresh air!


----------



## Byrdgal (Jun 27, 2011)

I do believe California is opting for Obamacare (not positive)and have heard that no one over 76 will be treated for cancer or tests persued, etc. My daughter is a nurse in oncology and I know there is already less attention given to elders.


----------



## obxamom (Apr 21, 2013)

The federal law isn't for everyone there are people exempt...I.e. Amish...Mennonite they are waived exempt from having to have insurance under the new law.


----------



## Byrdgal (Jun 27, 2011)

Byrdgal said:


> I do believe California is opting for Obamacare (not positive)and have heard that no one over 76 will be treated for cancer or tests persued, etc. My daughter is a nurse in oncology and I know there is already less attention given to elders.


I DO know they have an exchange for insurance and many don't even know about it or are not doing it. I also know insurance premiums are more than double for some people. We are waiting for our new rate for next year (Nov.).


----------



## Janet Cooke (Aug 14, 2013)

soloweygirl said:


> "The federal law is for everyone in the country." Now that is just not really true is it? Waivers would not have been granted prior to the ACA's implementation, the corporate mandate would not have been delayed, and Congress wouldn't receive special treatment if federal law was for everyone. That's just for the ACA. Sorry, won't take your word on this and hope LukeLucy doesn't either.


The exemptions, as I am sure you know since you have spent plenty of time hanging on the obamacare thread is for organizations that provide health care insurance that needs to be beefed up or tweaked. 
The corporate mandate mandate means that individuals will have to get their own insurance. 
Tell me how many people that affects, solow?
How is Congress getting special treatment? I think you know that I could give a hairy rat's butt whether you read my posts, whether you believe my posts, if you go to the same threads as I. 
Now, please, play true to form and whine about being abused and bullied. I love seeing that little bit of theatrics.


----------



## linnerlu (Jul 9, 2013)

jelun2 said:


> I have posted facts about the ACA for months. Many of the same people who are posting here claiming to be mystified by the process, those who already have health insurance, are the very ones who continue to insist they have not seen any info. So no, I don't post any more links to good information. The people who will use it have seen it and used it, the people who don't want to use it will continue to whine and throw stones.


 :thumbup: :thumbup: :thumbup:


----------



## sumpleby (Aug 3, 2013)

The ACA is for those who do not have insurance and could not afford it before. If you already have insurance, you can keep it and not buy into ACA if you don't want to. To my knowledge, the president and all of congress already have insurance and have the same option as the rest of us iwth insurance. It's up to them individually.

As for those who are in a dither about oversight of their treatment: sorry, but if you have insurance you've had THAT all through the years. Despite what your doctor wants, it is your insurance company that ultimately decides if they will cover a particular treatment. Several years ago the insurance company I was with at the time (Pacificare) had me thrown out of a hospital--I was unceremoniously evicted and told that my injuries could be treated as an outpatient despite the fact that the emergency room doctors said I needed surgery to fix them. My regular doctor got me admitted to another hospital and the surgery was done--Pacificare threatened not to pay, at which point I detailed all that had happened to me and said that despite not being a normally litigious person I would sure them up the ying yang if they didn't. They backed down.


----------



## linnerlu (Jul 9, 2013)

saarlt said:


> Wow, the comments, trying to recall an old story of a lady that knitted her family history into an blanket. Boy oh boy, would this be a large blanket. Am wishing that all will find a positive end to their plans. Health is so important to a quality of life. Good luck to all and again, may the outcome for all be positive.


So nice ... thank you!


----------



## NJG (Dec 2, 2011)

Lukelucy said:


> The info the doctor gave was acquired by him in a meeting for doctors only. This info is not for the general public.


Yes, but don't forget acquired from a big insurance company, that doesn't want to give up all of it's control.


----------



## headlemk (Feb 16, 2011)

It has EVERYTHING to do with the plan. The plan stinks. EVERY person I've talked to who have attempted to enroll have had difficulty just getting on, or completing the 1st part of the application, and those who've got so far as to shop the plans have been appalled at the price of the premiums and the price of the deductibles.

And states can opt out of the program. They have the choice to create their own state exchange through the program or opt out and send the applicants into the national exchange. Texas is one of those states and there are about 35 other states that have "opted out."



Latonia said:


> This is just another failed attempt by the Republicans and the Tea Party to scare the American public into believing that Obama Care is not right for our Country. Shame on you my fellow Republicans.
> 
> The truth is that the Affordable Health Care Program is universal. States can not opt out of the program. Medicare takes care of all individuals eligible for Medicare and Cancer screening is a part of the Medicare plan. Supplemental Medicare insurance is available for those who choose to purchase additional coverage.
> 
> Let's stop trying to confuse the people just because some of the people do not like the President. Lets face it, this is the real reason the Republicans and the Tea Party radicals do not want Obama Care to succeed. It has nothing to do with the plan, it is all about their dislike for our President. Stop wasting our time and tax payers dollars on the racist views of some of the people. President Obama was re-elected for a reason. The Republicans were not put in office for a reason. HELLO!


----------



## caat (Mar 6, 2012)

I live in AZ, and yes, it has indeed opted out.


----------



## susanmos2000 (May 10, 2011)

obxamom said:


> They talked about in a previous post that in american are death panals. Here is an example of one....it does happen just answering a previous post.


It's true that sometimes our judicial system is asked to step in when parents and guardians can't agree on a course of treatment. It's terrible when things reach that point, but I don't consider it an example of a "death panel"--nor does the court always want the treatment to be stopped. In fact, an Amish girl in Ohio just became the focus of a legal battle in which the authorities want her to continue chemo treatment for her leukemia against her parents' wishes.


----------



## linnerlu (Jul 9, 2013)

Dornar, I think I love you. :^)



Dornar said:


> NO. There will not be a mass migration of Doctors out of states that have not set up the exchanges to buy affordable insurance,
> 
> NO. So far in the states that have set up their own exchanges or are using the federal plan for market place exchanges, the rates for the insurance for ALL age groups has been compared and they are LOWER.
> 
> ...


----------



## headlemk (Feb 16, 2011)

Many people are being dropped from their current policies because they don't comply with ACA standards, even if they like the policy they have. When offered an alternate policy the premium and deductible are outrageously more expensive. They're being required to pay for options they don't want i.e.: no reason for over-50s to pay for birth control, but they're required to anyway.



sumpleby said:


> The ACA is for those who do not have insurance and could not afford it before. If you already have insurance, you can keep it and not buy into ACA if you don't want to. To my knowledge, the president and all of congress already have insurance and have the same option as the rest of us iwth insurance. It's up to them individually.
> 
> As for those who are in a dither about oversight of their treatment: sorry, but if you have insurance you've had THAT all through the years. Despite what your doctor wants, it is your insurance company that ultimately decides if they will cover a particular treatment. Several years ago the insurance company I was with at the time (Pacificare) had me thrown out of a hospital--I was unceremoniously evicted and told that my injuries could be treated as an outpatient despite the fact that the emergency room doctors said I needed surgery to fix them. My regular doctor got me admitted to another hospital and the surgery was done--Pacificare threatened not to pay, at which point I detailed all that had happened to me and said that despite not being a normally litigious person I would sure them up the ying yang if they didn't. They backed down.


----------



## linnerlu (Jul 9, 2013)

Catarry said:


> It's interesting that this version of means testing, long an idea touted by Republicans, now has folks on the right in a twist.


----------



## soloweygirl (Jun 9, 2012)

courier770 said:


> Lukelucy, I HAD excellent health care coverage...HAD is the key word. I worked for it and I paid for it and now the benefits I toiled for have been "eroded" under this new system. I paid for those benefits all of my life, year after year even if I didn't use them fully. Now I'm going to be punished by higher deductibles, higher out of pocket expenses and higher premiums. For what? Please tell me for what?
> 
> I'm now expected to carry the burden for those who chose to never carry the burden to being with? Worse yet our "leaders" in Washington will NEVER be forced into this mess?
> 
> I'm gong to put it very bluntly...as a senior citizen I never expected to be so screwed!


You are also bound by the ACA to carry and pay for some insurance that you do not want or no longer need. I.e., maternity care, birth control, pediatric care. I buy my own insurance and have been told that these options must be added, it is the law.

You are right Courier, expect to be screwed. Maybe I do need birth control after all .....


----------



## mardihar (Oct 16, 2013)

Before you post something like this, you should ALWAYS check www.Snopes.com. (If you are not familiar, Snopes is a site that debunks --or proves -- all that stuff you see on the internet. It is like www.UrbanLegends.com, and is the go-to site for checking the truth or falseness of internet e-mailings.) If you go to Snopes, you will find that this e-mail has been around since 2009, originally created by a right-wing blogger. You can find the whole report here: http://www.snopes.com/politics/medical/kithil.asp

According to Snopes -- Virtually every statement included in this list is exaggerated, misleading, inaccurate, or outright erroneous. Detailed line-by-line debunkings of this list can be found.
Read more at http://www.snopes.com/politics/medical/kithil.asp#WTd5jmwvjMuqz16V.99

What you should be angry at and afraid of are the people who are trying so hard to sabotage the ACA, which will bring health care to 30 Million Americans who don't presently have it. The saboteurs do NOT present another idea for how to insure these people, or otherwise provide them with healthcare, so we can only conclude that they don't want these people to have healthcare -- just keep going to emergency rooms when they are sick, and spread that cost to the people who do have insurance -- that's our nation's healthcare plan up to now.


----------



## susanmos2000 (May 10, 2011)

caat said:


> I live in AZ, and yes, it has indeed opted out.


Sorry, you've been misinformed. Arizona has opted out of expanding Medicaid, but the ACA is still in effect. You'll still need insurance coverage to avoid paying a fine.


----------



## Obsessed (Jan 22, 2012)

I had a job. Now I am retired (before ACA was enacted.) Are you seriously telling me to get back to work if I want to continue the same benefits I have been paying out of pocket for all along? Do you really mean that those of us who worked our whole lives and planned responsibly for retirement - including the ability to pay for healthcare insurance with nobody's help- should be forced to start new careers so that those people who act irresponsibly and opt out of insurance should be subsidized and covered? You certainly drank the "redistribution of wealth Kool Aid", didn't you?


Knit crazy said:


> I agree Jelun2. The uninsured should get a job to get benefits. That way, 90% of the insured could benefit.


----------



## NJG (Dec 2, 2011)

quote: My guess is that Blue Cross is not holding these workshops at all.


I agree, it is just easier to put the blame somewhere else for something you don't like, when his real reasons may make him look greedy.


----------



## linnerlu (Jul 9, 2013)

jelun2 said:


> It seems to be encouraged. You have to wonder what kind of families people are raising.


   (And Jelun, I keep meaning to tell you how much I love your Halloween avatar!)


----------



## sumpleby (Aug 3, 2013)

headlemk said:


> And states can opt out of the program. They have the choice to create their own state exchange through the program or opt out and send the applicants into the national exchange. Texas is one of those states and there are about 35 other states that have "opted out."


Common misconception. Those states aren't opting out of the program. Those state exchanges are still part of the ACA.


----------



## Vignewood (Apr 18, 2011)

Lukelucy said:


> Nothing fishy but ACA.


It is extremely difficult to convince someone who has a misconception about something, especially if they are reacting emotionally and are unwilling to consider facts. That being said, i will bid you farewell and use my time to read from reputable sources to stay informed. Arguing with closed minded people is as useless and hopeless as teaching a pig to fly.


----------



## mardihar (Oct 16, 2013)

Under our old system, if your friend had cancer and needed the really expensive drugs, there was nothing to prevent her private insurance company from throwing her off her coverage, or raising her premiums until they became too prohibitive to pay -- and in fact, that happened all the time. The ACA prohibits insurance companies from those practices, just because the insureds get very sick and their expenses go up.


----------



## Janet Cooke (Aug 14, 2013)

headlemk said:


> It has EVERYTHING to do with the plan. The plan stinks. EVERY person I've talked to who have attempted to enroll have had difficulty just getting on, or completing the 1st part of the application, and those who've got so far as to shop the plans have been appalled at the price of the premiums and the price of the deductibles.
> 
> And states can opt out of the program. They have the choice to create their own state exchange through the program or opt out and send the applicants into the national exchange. Texas is one of those states and there are about 35 other states that have "opted out."


Once again you are incorrect. The time for a state to opt in or out for this period is over. The exchanges are created and people are signing up. 
If people are surprised by the places of health insurance they have been living under a rock for decades.


----------



## grammylynn (Mar 2, 2013)

I am not of any party I am for the country and I am insulted by those who lump me in with one or the other just because I am smart enough to see through Obama's policies. I have seen the race card get more publicity now that he is losing his backing. they don't want to acknowledge the real reason is more people are beginning to ask questions and see how badly the country is becoming! I will never use the term African American, or Latin American, etc, any more than I want them to call me Irish American. I don't believe in labels if you are an American that is all you need to say! Labels just separates us even more in my opinion. As the insurance is still closed to Florida (we can't get online or by phone-told to wait for it to come online-- timeframe unknown) I don't know if I will be able to get insurance that will help me and we would like to travel while we can but working part-time and FL passing the law they only have to have you work 3 hrs a week for part-time it will be a long time saving for a vacation so might not be an issue I will be living under an overpass! Won't be able to pay my house payment but I will have insurance! I for one would love to see us have a flat tax and fund the national insurance from that but as that makes everyone pay the same I don't think it will ever be considered while he is in office. I could be wrong and he might, but not likely. More and more businesses here are telling applicants that you have to show proof of health insurance before they will hire you as their rates will go too high they can't stay open if they have to provide for employees. Some are only hiring retirees with private income like social security so they can have you work 1/2 aday or so a week and keep their overhead under the quotas for the new healthcare laws. As this has been our experience for the last year I know what I am talking about. So try and tell me it is going to be a good thing for the country when more and more of us are losing good jobs or can't get them anymore. Maybe each Democrat who goes around saying how much better the country is now and all the jobs that have been created nationwide and wages that have increased should hire one of us and pay our living expenses to justify the low wages and lack of income that has become the REAL norm in the past few years.


Latonia said:


> This is just another failed attempt by the Republicans and the Tea Party to scare the American public into believing that Obama Care is not right for our Country. Shame on you my fellow Republicans.
> 
> The truth is that the Affordable Health Care Program is universal. States can not opt out of the program. Medicare takes care of all individuals eligible for Medicare and Cancer screening is a part of the Medicare plan. Supplemental Medicare insurance is available for those who choose to purchase additional coverage.
> 
> Let's stop trying to confuse the people just because some of the people do not like the President. Lets face it, this is the real reason the Republicans and the Tea Party radicals do not want Obama Care to succeed. It has nothing to do with the plan, it is all about their dislike for our President. Stop wasting our time and tax payers dollars on the racist views of some of the people. President Obama was re-elected for a reason. The Republicans were not put in office for a reason. HELLO!


----------



## User5935 (Feb 9, 2011)

jennifer1954 said:


> I know a woman who found she could pay only 1/4 what she had been paying for insurance. Don't know of any doctors leaving Maryland.


Nice for her. I am low income, but our car is paid off so I dont qualify for medicaid. My monthly rate for out of pocket ins went up by more than what I paid for a prescription one my ins had to cover it, and now my ins is looking $40+ more a month come 2014. And if I qualify for a subsidy its off year of income that was about $400 more/month than we are paid now. Tell me HOW the new healthcare helps me. Or these people...

http://themattwalshblog.com/2013/10/21/the-definitive-guide-to-how-obamacare-is-destroying-american-lives/


----------



## Janet Cooke (Aug 14, 2013)

mardihar said:


> Under our old system, if your friend had cancer and needed the really expensive drugs, there was nothing to prevent her private insurance company from throwing her off her coverage, or raising her premiums until they became too prohibitive to pay -- and in fact, that happened all the time. The ACA prohibits insurance companies from those practices, just because the insureds get very sick and their expenses go up.


 :thumbup: :thumbup:


----------



## headlemk (Feb 16, 2011)

susanmos2000 said:


> Sorry, you've been misinformed. Arizona has opted out of expanding Medicaid, but the ACA is still in effect. You'll still need insurance coverage to avoid paying a fine.


AZ and TX and about 30 other states have opted out of creating their own state version of the ACA forcing their state's applicants into the national plan.


----------



## deenac (Jan 26, 2011)

Arizona has not opted out, you do need to check before you post this stuff. The Affordable Care Act (not Obamacare) was formed to insure that everyone can get health insurance, even with existing conditions. This is not the appropriate place to be discussing this; it will only create ill will among the members here.



Lukelucy said:


> That is not what I know. I do know that some states opted out. Arizona is one.


----------



## Janet Cooke (Aug 14, 2013)

Vignewood said:


> It is extremely difficult to convince someone who has a misconception about something, especially if they are reacting emotionally and are unwilling to consider facts. That being said, i will bid you farewell and use my time to read from reputable sources to stay informed. Arguing with closed minded people is as useless and hopeless as teaching a pig to fly.


 :thumbup: :thumbup: :thumbup:


----------



## Lukelucy (Nov 19, 2011)

grammylynn said:


> So is Socialism and we are running down that road very fast now. The rich can't keep doing all the paying as he wants because who will pay when we run out of rich people? Obama was on tv last year talking about what he thought was a reasonable age to stop paying for health care and what to continue with and used the term death panel. He was still considering that issue. I almost fell out of my chair!!! So it will be an issue in the future! People are living longer or were when they had good care now if you are in excellent health you might be denied some options just because of a number. I know a woman who is extremely healthy she only takes aspirin for Arthritis and wanted a knee replacement, it was totally gone, her doctor told her to get it now before she crossed 80 as it will be denied next year based on her age! She had it and now walks miles a day. It is possible that if she was confined to wheelchair she might not stay healthy I don't believe it is the governments job to decide that for me.


Right. Thank you!


----------



## linnerlu (Jul 9, 2013)

sumpleby said:


> Common misconception. Those states aren't opting out of the program. Those state exchanges are still part of the ACA.


It makes me happy when someone corrects one of these misapprehensions. Thank you!


----------



## Janet Cooke (Aug 14, 2013)

deenac said:


> Arizona has not opted out, you do need to check before you post this stuff. The Affordable Care Act (not Obamacare) was formed to insure that everyone can get health insurance, even with existing conditions. This is not the appropriate place to be discussing this; it will only create ill will among the members here.


I think that I remember reports that the Governor of Arizona finally got smart and realized it was crazy to throw away all of that medical care for voters.


----------



## Lukelucy (Nov 19, 2011)

soloweygirl said:


> "The federal law is for everyone in the country." Now that is just not really true is it? Waivers would not have been granted prior to the ACA's implementation, the corporate mandate would not have been delayed, and Congress wouldn't receive special treatment if federal law was for everyone. That's just for the ACA. Sorry, won't take your word on this and hope LukeLucy doesn't either.


I won't.


----------



## Janet Cooke (Aug 14, 2013)

MsMallo said:


> Nice for her. I am low income, but our car is paid off so I dont qualify for medicaid. My monthly rate for out of pocket ins went up by more than what I paid for a prescription one my ins had to cover it, and now my ins is looking $40+ more a month come 2014. And if I qualify for a subsidy its off year of income that was about $400 more/month than we are paid now. Tell me HOW the new healthcare helps me. Or these people...
> 
> http://themattwalshblog.com/2013/10/21/the-definitive-guide-to-how-obamacare-is-destroying-american-lives/


Sorry, somewhere in that last paragraph you lost me.


----------



## Lukelucy (Nov 19, 2011)

Byrdgal said:


> I do believe California is opting for Obamacare (not positive)and have heard that no one over 76 will be treated for cancer or tests persued, etc. My daughter is a nurse in oncology and I know there is already less attention given to elders.


Terrible.


----------



## headlemk (Feb 16, 2011)

jelun2 said:


> Once again you are incorrect. The time for a state to opt in or out for this period is over. The exchanges are created and people are signing up.
> If people are surprised by the places of health insurance they have been living under a rock for decades.


I did not say they could opt out now, I said they had opted out...past tense.

I have no health insurance. I priced private health insurance for myself (I'm a very healthy person) and chose to pay out of pocket instead of the $400+ per month premium. Thankfully I now live out of the country and can easily afford to pay out of pocket where I live. I am not looking foward to moving back to the USA if the ACA is still in effect in 3 years. I still haven't been able to determine if I must register for the program if I live out of country or if I will be required to pay the "fine" even though I don't use health care in the USA.


----------



## Janet Cooke (Aug 14, 2013)

linnerlu said:


> (And Jelun, I keep meaning to tell you how much I love your Halloween avatar!)


TY


----------



## Lukelucy (Nov 19, 2011)

headlemk said:


> It has EVERYTHING to do with the plan. The plan stinks. EVERY person I've talked to who have attempted to enroll have had difficulty just getting on, or completing the 1st part of the application, and those who've got so far as to shop the plans have been appalled at the price of the premiums and the price of the deductibles.
> 
> And states can opt out of the program. They have the choice to create their own state exchange through the program or opt out and send the applicants into the national exchange. Texas is one of those states and there are about 35 other states that have "opted out."


I think it is fewer than 35.


----------



## obxamom (Apr 21, 2013)

susanmos2000 said:


> It's true that sometimes our judicial system is asked to step in when parents and guardians can't agree on a course of treatment. It's terrible when things reach that point, but I don't consider it an example of a "death panel"--nor does the court always want the treatment to be stopped. In fact, an Amish girl in Ohio just became the focus of a legal battle in which the authorities want her to continue chemo treatment for her leukemia against her parents' wishes.


My point was to wake up...some people seem to believe that this could never happen but it does....that's all...yes courts do intervene and it could be both ways for or against treatment this is the case of a young girl with a future vs. A woman deemed not worth living compared to society standards....this is an example that government does step in and decide ....that's all j was trying to say .....


----------



## Lukelucy (Nov 19, 2011)

grammylynn said:


> I am not of any party I am for the country and I am insulted by those who lump me in with one or the other just because I am smart enough to see through Obama's policies. I have seen the race card get more publicity now that he is losing his backing. they don't want to acknowledge the real reason is more people are beginning to ask questions and see how badly the country is becoming! I will never use the term African American, or Latin American, etc, any more than I want them to call me Irish American. I don't believe in labels if you are an American that is all you need to say! Labels just separates us even more in my opinion. As the insurance is still closed to Florida (we can't get online or by phone-told to wait for it to come online-- timeframe unknown) I don't know if I will be able to get insurance that will help me and we would like to travel while we can but working part-time and FL passing the law they only have to have you work 3 hrs a week for part-time it will be a long time saving for a vacation so might not be an issue I will be living under an overpass! Won't be able to pay my house payment but I will have insurance! I for one would love to see us have a flat tax and fund the national insurance from that but as that makes everyone pay the same I don't think it will ever be considered while he is in office. I could be wrong and he might, but not likely. More and more businesses here are telling applicants that you have to show proof of health insurance before they will hire you as their rates will go too high they can't stay open if they have to provide for employees. Some are only hiring retirees with private income like social security so they can have you work 1/2 aday or so a week and keep their overhead under the quotas for the new healthcare laws. As this has been our experience for the last year I know what I am talking about. So try and tell me it is going to be a good thing for the country when more and more of us are losing good jobs or can't get them anymore. Maybe each Democrat who goes around saying how much better the country is now and all the jobs that have been created nationwide and wages that have increased should hire one of us and pay our living expenses to justify the low wages and lack of income that has become the REAL norm in the past few years.


Grammy,

Thank you. This is real life.


----------



## Janet Cooke (Aug 14, 2013)

Will the real headlemk please stand up. Politico has a cute little thing they do... "liar liar pants on fire"

headlemk wrote:
And states can opt out of the program. They have the choice to create their own state exchange through the program or opt out and send the applicants into the national exchange. Texas is one of those states and there are about 35 other states that have "opted out."



headlemk said:


> I did not say they could opt out now, I said they had opted out...past tense.
> 
> I have no health insurance. I priced private health insurance for myself (I'm a very healthy person) and chose to pay out of pocket instead of the $400+ per month premium. Thankfully I now live out of the country and can easily afford to pay out of pocket where I live. I am not looking foward to moving back to the USA if the ACA is still in effect in 3 years. I still haven't been able to determine if I must register for the program if I live out of country or if I will be required to pay the "fine" even though I don't use health care in the USA.


----------



## cspaen34 (Jan 28, 2011)

Catarry said:


> When I googled that abbreviation it came up as BlueCross BlueShield. Depending on information not in the original post, it could have been either the national organization that represents all of the BCBS plans nationwide...or the BCBS in LukeLucy's state.


Thanks Catarry and others who PM'd me! How stupid of me...my face is Red!! I have had AARP UnitedHealth for so many years I just wasn't thinking.  Anyway, for my part I hope it all smooths out since there is a need for everyone to have insurance. So many of you in other countries have better opportunities for health care, we are rated behind many of you, so we need to do better here.


----------



## obxamom (Apr 21, 2013)

MsMallo said:


> Nice for her. I am low income, but our car is paid off so I dont qualify for medicaid. My monthly rate for out of pocket ins went up by more than what I paid for a prescription one my ins had to cover it, and now my ins is looking $40+ more a month come 2014. And if I qualify for a subsidy its off year of income that was about $400 more/month than we are paid now. Tell me HOW the new healthcare helps me. Or these people...
> 
> http://themattwalshblog.com/2013/10/21/the-definitive-guide-to-how-obamacare-is-destroying-american-lives/


Well said...for those whom it doesn't affect yet helps its the greatest thing since sliced bread for those whom it screws.....I hear another story.


----------



## kiffer (Jun 3, 2011)

Huckleberry said:


> kiffer
> obviously you know VERY little about ACA.[
> 
> WRONG, I think in time you will find out I am right.......


----------



## sumpleby (Aug 3, 2013)

headlemk said:


> I did not say they could opt out now, I said they had opted out...past tense.
> 
> I have no health insurance. I priced private health insurance for myself (I'm a very healthy person) and chose to pay out of pocket instead of the $400+ per month premium. Thankfully I now live out of the country and can easily afford to pay out of pocket where I live. I am not looking foward to moving back to the USA if the ACA is still in effect in 3 years. I still haven't been able to determine if I must register for the program if I live out of country or if I will be required to pay the "fine" even though I don't use health care in the USA.


Living in Mexico, I don't think you need it--they have universal healthcare down there, and since its revamp last year it is reportedly a runaway success. Horrifying.


----------



## NJG (Dec 2, 2011)

courier770 said:


> It really annoys me to hear the AFFORDABLE CARE ACT called "Obamacare". Agree with it or not this was NOT the result of the action of our president alone. Do I agree with the ACA....well no quite frankly though I still refuse to call it "Obamacare". "LIBERALCARE" might be more accurate terminology but heck our liberal lawmakers are exempt from being forced into it like the rest of us are.
> 
> I'm almost 60 years old and the ACA has already cost me close to $4,500.00 a year, in higher premiums, deductions and "out of pocket expenses!
> 
> I'm all for making health care more affordable...but why are most of us seeing HUGE increases in costs?


Your higher premiums etc. came from your insurance company.


----------



## Obsessed (Jan 22, 2012)

Unfortuntely you are wrong. I am being forced to change the insurance I already have. BCBS sent a notice to me stating just that!



blanchebianca said:


> Part of the deception is the promulgation of the fallacy that anyone/everyone will be forced to change what they already have. No one is being forced to change the insurance they have.
> 
> However, if you've not been able to get insurance because you have a preexisting condition or haven't been able to afford the premiums, you can now get insurance because insurance companies must provide insurance to everyone even those with preexisting conditions. And the insurance companies must put 80% of the premiums they charge you back into providing coverage for you. In other words your money goes into providing you coverage instead of going into outrageous bonuses for company executives.
> 
> This means that more people will be able to get insurance and those of us who have been fortunate to have health insurance, are likely to have lower premiums.


----------



## Triskit (Jun 5, 2013)

I'm not old enough for Medicare and my employer doesn't offer insurance, so for me the ACA is a godsend. Will be paying about $47/month for a medical policy versus having no insurance as my old policy costs rose to over $800/month and I had to drop the coverage or live under a bridge.


----------



## knitpresentgifts (May 21, 2013)

jelun2 said:


> But hey what do I know? I only have curiosity on my side. LOL.
> There are some roaring beauts running around today, I think at least one is KPG in disguise, she knows way too much about me. NPR all kinds of stuff.


Jelun2 wrote,"But hey what do I know?"

Obviously, not much. Other than insulting and putting down others who do not agree with your every word. Apparently, you know nothing about me either.


----------



## susanmos2000 (May 10, 2011)

sumpleby said:


> Living in Mexico, I don't think you need it--they have universal healthcare down there, and since its revamp last year it is reportedly a runaway success. Horrifying.


Just out of curiosity I checked...you're right--Americans living overseas aren't required to buy insurance until they return.


----------



## knitpresentgifts (May 21, 2013)

obxamom said:


> re Jelun2: See again, there you go. You don't know me from Joe blow down the street so how do you propose that I am not open to the truth....you again are just saying this because you honestly do not have anything that you can say because you know that you have been confronted with the truth..usually that is what people do when confronted with the truth...either become hateful...or say something like you did.. .if you had the truth and were passionate about sharing it and wanting to have others see the truth..then do so you but on this particular post I haven't seen too much that you have said that has been educational...but again you just do this.....see above....i am always open to the truth but I do believe that non of us are in a position to act as we are experts to this law...as far as God bless....maybe you should take a real hard look at your posts and how exactly you have been acting towards others...have you been doing so in a charitable way? Have you been truly acting Christ like to others who may not have been agreeing with you....? Only you can really answer that?


 :thumbup: :thumbup: :thumbup: Thank you. I've seen her do the same to many others on several KP threads. I would prefer intelligent discussion/debate of the facts as well, instead of the constant insulting and personal attacks she prefers.


----------



## Jokim (Nov 22, 2011)

Lukelucy said:


> I won't.


You go, girl!!


----------



## Designer1234 (Aug 9, 2011)

Ma Kitty said:


> Too bad Obamacare isn't like our Canadian health care system. It is awesome. Our American son in law had plenty of negative things to say about our system before he moved here. Now he's in our country and using our Medicare he can't believe how good it is. We think we are very fortunate.


That has been my message to Americans since I joined KP. But they don't really want to believe it - at least some don't.

It has its problems but all in all there isn't in my opinion anything better although some are just as good, and certainly not in the US.

Nice to see Canadians who are in the system agree on this.


----------



## Vignewood (Apr 18, 2011)

Lukelucy said:


> Nothing fishy but ACA.


It is extremely difficult to convince someone who has a misconception about something, especially if they are reacting emotionally and are unwilling to consider facts. That being said, i will bid you farewell and use my time to read from reputable sources to stay informed. Arguing with closed minded people is as useless and hopeless as teaching a pig to fly.


----------



## MartiG (Jan 21, 2012)

It's sad that people who have political differences try to scare others as someone has done to you and your husband. As mentioned below, 70 year olds have Medicare which does cover screenings and Medicare is not affected by the Affordable Health Care Act. I went to a meeting where a speaker informed the audience on the many misconceptions and some people were sure surprised. One person who said her child was a doctor said no one will want to be doctors anymore so there will be a shortage. It seems to me that anyone who becomes a doctor now will be doing it to be an actual healer not because they will get to be a millionaire.


----------



## Knitry (Dec 18, 2011)

Lukelucy said:


> I believe what I was told.


Ahhh, the source of your problems. You are Fox News's favorite kind of viewer.


----------



## Huckleberry (May 27, 2013)

headlemk said:


> I did not say they could opt out now, I said they had opted out...past tense.
> 
> I have no health insurance. I priced private health insurance for myself (I'm a very healthy person) and chose to pay out of pocket instead of the $400+ per month premium. Thankfully I now live out of the country and can easily afford to pay out of pocket where I live. I am not looking foward to moving back to the USA if the ACA is still in effect in 3 years. I still haven't been able to determine if I must register for the program if I live out of country or if I will be required to pay the "fine" even though I don't use health care in the USA.


headlemk
please remain where you are, I do not want to foot your bills. Getting tired of it after so many years.


----------



## ute4kp (Nov 6, 2012)

ramram0003 said:


> Sorry, but as of right now there are 16 or 17 states that have opted OUT of Obamacare. It has been on the news recently.


They are opting out of the Medicaid expansion and not the ACA.
http://www.advisory.com/Daily-Briefing/Resources/Primers/Medicaid-expansion


----------



## LizAnne (Nov 25, 2011)

Give The ACA time to work and quit believing all the negative about it. It just isn't true.


----------



## mac.worrall (Jun 24, 2011)

MartiG said:


> It's sad that people who have political differences try to scare others as someone has done to you and your husband. As mentioned below, 70 year olds have Medicare which does cover screenings and Medicare is not affected by the Affordable Health Care Act. I went to a meeting where a speaker informed the audience on the many misconceptions and some people were sure surprised. One person who said her child was a doctor said no one will want to be doctors anymore so there will be a shortage. It seems to me that anyone who becomes a doctor now will be doing it to be an actual healer not because they will get to be a millionaire.


 :thumbup: :thumbup: :thumbup: :thumbup: :thumbup:


----------



## NJG (Dec 2, 2011)

bwtyer said:


> Well put!!! This was one of the arguments against it - and we were told it would NOT affect those with insurance...so indeed, why are the premiums going up?
> Here is an article- however- I am not familiar with this newspaper- it may be one of the radical ones -
> http://freebeacon.com/obamacare-raising-premiums-hurting-middle-lower-class/


Again it is the choice of your insurance company to raise your premiums. Why are they raising them? I don't know but I would guess greed. Raise those premiums, cause now we have someone to blame. There are probably a lot of execs that were concerned about their bonuses. I didn't read the entire article because it mentioned the Heritage Foundation. They along with the Koch Brothers have spent millions to spread lies about the ACA so if they are repeating info from them, it probably has a lot of lies.


----------



## Lukelucy (Nov 19, 2011)

knitpresentgifts said:


> Jelun2 wrote,"But hey what do I know?"
> 
> Obviously, not much. Other than insulting and putting down others who do not agree with your every word. Apparently, you know nothing about me either.


 :thumbup: :thumbup: So many people have told her that on this site and I still don't think it has gotten through. How many times does she need to be told. She is a bully.


----------



## knitpresentgifts (May 21, 2013)

damemary said:


> I was thinking the same thing about KPG.....Don't think she can drift into the sunset that easily. And her buddies seem like she's organizing them.


Nice, damemary. Try insulting someone else, like the community organizer you always support no matter what he says or does. I don't organize nor speak for anyone regardless of what position or opinion they hold. You're the one to follow orders, not me.

Why don't you offer something of value and logic to this discussion rather than posting only to insult me? Just doing what you were told? Shame on you.


----------



## mac.worrall (Jun 24, 2011)

NJG said:


> Again it is the choice of your insurance company to raise your premiums. Why are they raising them? I don't know but I would guess greed. There are probably a lot of execs that were concerned about their bonuses. I didn't read the entire article because it mentioned the Heritage Foundation. They along with the Koch Brothers have spent millions to spread lies about the ACA so if they are repeating info from them, it probably has a lot of lies.


 :thumbup: :thumbup: :thumbup: :thumbup: :thumbup:


----------



## Huckleberry (May 27, 2013)

MartiG said:


> It's sad that people who have political differences try to scare others as someone has done to you and your husband. As mentioned below, 70 year olds have Medicare which does cover screenings and Medicare is not affected by the Affordable Health Care Act. I went to a meeting where a speaker informed the audience on the many misconceptions and some people were sure surprised. One person who said her child was a doctor said no one will want to be doctors anymore so there will be a shortage. It seems to me that anyone who becomes a doctor now will be doing it to be an actual healer not because they will get to be a millionaire.


MartiG
I see it as you do, those who will become Doctors and there are plenty of applications to Medical Schools, will choose that profession to heal and not because of greed. The future looks bright


----------



## ute4kp (Nov 6, 2012)

Janeway said:


> Yes, & you have bullied several people on the site you have quoted. You need to clean up your act!
> 
> My supplemental insurance is going up $75. A month & I am expecting less coverage from Medicare with this Obocare that crazy people think is better than apple pie!
> 
> Obo supporters are blinded by the light & don't want to know the truth, but continue to support anything Obo does.


Hello, You are wrong. Several of us tried to inform the uneducated racists. Go over to the other link if you want to argue.


----------



## ute4kp (Nov 6, 2012)

Janeway said:


> Sweetheart, I have "paid" taxes & anything else that was necessary to live in the United States. Since you are an Aussie, why stick your nose in something that is "none" of your business!


hey, stop bullying the Aussies!!


----------



## Lukelucy (Nov 19, 2011)

knitpresentgifts said:


> Nice, damemary. Try insulting someone else, like the community organizer you always support no matter what he says or does. I don't organize nor speak for anyone regardless of what position or opinion they hold. You're the one to follow orders, not me.
> 
> Why don't you offer something of value and logic to this discussion rather than posting only to insult me? Just doing what you were told? Shame on you.


She's a bully. Very bad person.


----------



## Huckleberry (May 27, 2013)

knitpresentgifts said:


> Jelun2 wrote,"But hey what do I know?"
> 
> Obviously, not much. Other than insulting and putting down others who do not agree with your every word. Apparently, you know nothing about me either.


knitpresentgifts
try not to stay in your old habits. Got lonesome?


----------



## knitpresentgifts (May 21, 2013)

Lukelucy said:


> You better believe it. He'd be shouting - touting - from rooftops. He doesn't want any part of it.


As evidenced by his support and action to exempt himself, his family and others from the ACA.


----------



## Designer1234 (Aug 9, 2011)

Lukelucy said:


> Terrible.


Everyone -- everything you read here from the original poster has been repeated over and over and over on the other Political threads-- I would suggest that health care reform has to start somewhere.

Just keep your minds open, check out the facts mentioned here - check out all aspects of the Affordable health Care bill and then decide for yourselves. But don't believe things just because they are posted here. Read, study, question . then decide for yourself.

I believe as I have said before, that the US has to start somewhere with a Government plan -- we have one in Canada and it has been maligned by the right on many occasions, and untrue claims have been repeated over and over. I have no problem with people not liking our Insurance plan (although I would never say anything against it myself as it saved my Husbands life) however I do get upset when someone says untruths about the care and treats it as truth. The people who want the new plan to fail are the ones who quote the untruths.

This is a post that was posted recently -- I hope you will consider it before you believe a lot of the bunk that is spoken about our care in Canada. It has its problems as we are in a recession too. There are waits - for non essential care but for those in severe distress it cannot be matched. If any one is interested, I would be happy to explain my personal experience with Canadian Health care as my husband was given two major valves 2 years ago, has has 3 series of stents put in, has had numerous mri's ultrasounds, cardiac tests and the last time when he received the Aortic and Mitral bovine valves - was in the hospital for 45 days. The only thing it cost us was my parking.. Please, before any one accepts the untruths as truths -- read the information below.

Debunking Canada's health care myths

RELATED STORIES
Jun 7:
What do we pay for, anyway?

As a Canadian living in the United States for the past 17 years, I am frequently asked by Americans and Canadians alike to declare one health care system as the better one.
Often I'll avoid answering, regardless of the questioner's nationality. To choose one or the other system usually translates into a heated discussion of each one's merits, pitfalls, and an intense recitation of commonly cited statistical comparisons of the two systems.
Because if the only way we compared the two systems was with statistics, there is a clear victor. It is becoming increasingly more difficult to dispute the fact that Canada spends less money on health care to get better outcomes.
Yet, the debate rages on. Indeed, it has reached a fever pitch since President Barack Obama took office, with Americans either dreading or hoping for the dawn of a single-payer health care system. Opponents of such a system cite Canada as the best example of what not to do, while proponents laud that very same Canadian system as the answer to all of America's health care problems. Frankly, both sides often get things wrong when trotting out Canada to further their respective arguments.
As America comes to grips with the reality that changes are desperately needed within its health care infrastructure, it might prove useful to first debunk some myths about the Canadian system.

Myth: Taxes in Canada are extremely high, mostly because of national health care.

In actuality, taxes are nearly equal on both sides of the border. Overall, Canada's taxes are slightly higher than those in the U.S. However, Canadians are afforded many benefits for their tax dollars, even beyond health care (e.g., tax credits, family allowance, cheaper higher education), so the end result is a wash. At the end of the day, the average after-tax income of Canadian workers is equal to about 82 percent of their gross pay. In the U.S., that average is 81.9 percent.

Myth: Canada's health care system is a cumbersome bureaucracy.

The U.S. has the most bureaucratic health care system in the world. More than 31 percent of every dollar spent on health care in the U.S. goes to paperwork, overhead, CEO salaries, profits, etc. The provincial single-payer system in Canada operates with just a 1 percent overhead. Think about it. It is not necessary to spend a huge amount of money to decide who gets care and who doesn't when everybody is covered.

Myth: The Canadian system is significantly more expensive than that of the U.S.Ten percent of Canada's GDP is spent on health care for 100 percent of the population. The U.S. spends 17 percent of its GDP but 15 percent of its population has no coverage whatsoever and millions of others have inadequate coverage. In essence, the U.S. system is considerably more expensive than Canada's. Part of the reason for this is uninsured and under insured people in the U.S. still get sick and eventually seek care. People who cannot afford care wait until advanced stages of an illness to see a doctor and then do so through emergency rooms, which cost considerably more than primary care services.

What the American taxpayer may not realize is that such care costs about $45 billion per year, and someone has to pay it. This is why insurance premiums increase every year for insured patients while co-pays and deductibles also rise rapidly.

Myth: Canada's government decides who gets health care and when they get it.While HMOs and other private medical insurers in the U.S. do indeed make such decisions, the only people in Canada to do so are physicians. In Canada, the government has absolutely no say in who gets care or how they get it. Medical decisions are left entirely up to doctors, as they should be.

There are no requirements for pre-authorization whatsoever. If your family doctor says you need an MRI, you get one. In the U.S., if an insurance administrator says you are not getting an MRI, you don't get one no matter what your doctor thinks  unless, of course, you have the money to cover the cost.

Myth: There are long waits for care, which compromise access to care.There are no waits for urgent or primary care in Canada. There are reasonable waits for most specialists' care, and much longer waits for elective surgery. Yes, there are those instances where a patient can wait up to a month for radiation therapy for breast cancer or prostate cancer, for example. However, the wait has nothing to do with money per se, but everything to do with the lack of radiation therapists. Despite such waits, however, it is noteworthy that Canada boasts lower incident and mortality rates than the U.S. for all cancers combined, according to the U.S. Cancer Statistics Working Group and the Canadian Cancer Society. Moreover, fewer Canadians (11.3 percent) than Americans (14.4 percent) admit unmet health care needs.

Myth: Canadians are paying out of pocket to come to the U.S. for medical care.Most patients who come from Canada to the U.S. for health care are those whose costs are covered by the Canadian governments. If a Canadian goes outside of the country to get services that are deemed medically necessary, not experimental, and are not available at home for whatever reason (e.g., shortage or absence of high tech medical equipment; a longer wait for service than is medically prudent; or lack of physician expertise), the provincial government where you live fully funds your care. Those patients who do come to the U.S. for care and pay out of pocket are those who perceive their care to be more urgent than it likely is.

Myth: Canada is a socialized health care system in which the government runs hospitals and where doctors work for the government.Princeton University health economist Uwe Reinhardt says single-payer systems are not "socialized medicine" but "social insurance" systems because doctors work in the private sector while their pay comes from a public source. Most physicians in Canada are self-employed. They are not employees of the government nor are they accountable to the government. Doctors are accountable to their patients only. More than 90 percent of physicians in Canada are paid on a fee-for-service basis. Claims are submitted to a single provincial health care plan for reimbursement, whereas in the U.S., claims are submitted to a multitude of insurance providers. Moreover, Canadian hospitals are controlled by private boards and/or regional health authorities rather than being part of or run by the government.

Myth: There aren't enough doctors in Canada.

From a purely statistical standpoint, there are enough physicians in Canada to meet the health care needs of its people. But most doctors practice in large urban areas, leaving rural areas with bona fide shortages. This situation is no different than that being experienced in the U.S. Simply training and employing more doctors is not likely to have any significant impact on this specific problem. Whatever issues there are with having an adequate number of doctors in any one geographical area, they have nothing to do with the single-payer system.

And these are just some of the myths about the Canadian health care system. While emulating the Canadian system will likely not fix U.S. health care, it probably isn't the big bad "socialist" bogeyman it has been made out to be.

It is not a perfect system, but it has its merits. For people like my 55-year-old Aunt Betty, who has been waiting for 14 months for knee-replacement surgery due to a long history of arthritis, it is the superior system. Her $35,000-plus surgery is finally scheduled for next month. She has been in pain, and her quality of life has been compromised. However, there is a light at the end of the tunnel. Aunt Betty  who lives on a fixed income and could never afford private health insurance, much less the cost of the surgery and requisite follow-up care  will soon sport a new, high-tech knee. Waiting 14 months for the procedure is easy when the alternative is living in pain for the rest of your life.

Rhonda Hackett of Castle Rock is a clinical psychologist. She is a Canadian Living for many years in the US.

====
This is the way I see Canada's health care system. I am not the expert she is - but this to me is the truth.

I agree l00% with the negatives she talks about and especially the positives in our system. It isn't perfect but it does a pretty darned good job. Please check these things out for yourself -- and also check out the statements made on both sides of the US health care problems.


----------



## ute4kp (Nov 6, 2012)

Janeway said:


> Here you are again bullying! This message was not for you so bud out!
> 
> I'm waiting for the facts you say you know so don't be shy! Do tell!


geez, everyone is a bully who doesn't agree with you.


----------



## Huckleberry (May 27, 2013)

Designer1234 said:


> That has been my message to Americans since I joined KP. But they don't really want to believe it - at least some don't.
> 
> It has its problems but all in all there isn't in my opinion anything better although some are just as good, and certainly not in the US.
> 
> Nice to see Canadians who are in the system agree on this.


Designer1234
we should be so lucky to have your system.


----------



## Knitry (Dec 18, 2011)

Lukelucy said:


> That is not what I know. I do know that some states opted out. Arizona is one.


This may have been answered, but Arizona has opted IN:



> {Gov. Jan) Brewer is a conservative Republican who sued to topple the health law, refused to set up a health insurance exchange and memorably wagged her finger at President Barack Obama on a Phoenix airport tarmac. But now shes so determined to put the Obamacare Medicaid expansion in place in her state that shes vetoing any legislation that reaches her desk until the Republican Legislature caves.
> 
> ...*Brewer says its been quite the firestorm, but she insists that expansion saves money and saves lives  and that everybody would realize that if they werent so hung up on the fact that it was part of Obamas health law.*
> 
> ...


----------



## ute4kp (Nov 6, 2012)

pam j said:


> thank you I was just saying how I was treated in Australia ,it has upset me that it was taken out of context , I have just lost, my cousin with cancer she was 59 , and another one is fighting for her life so I really don't want to get into a slanging match thank you again for you understanding ,pamj


Hi, I'm sorry you lost your loved ones. My prayers are out to your family.


----------



## knitpresentgifts (May 21, 2013)

obxamom said:


> Boy did you ever dream Lukelucy that when you posted this you would create as many pages as you have.....your post right or wrong...i do want to say something...you have been very charitable and kind even when there have been those who have not...I commend you for that.


Lukelucy is a sweet soul. She was the original poster of another thread, Smoking & Obamacare. That thread is up to the 25th or so edition (2,500+ pages). The same Liberal posters who attack others personally on this thread ruined that thread as well so Lucklucy began this one. It is shameful that the same KP members who do not agree with others resort to personal attacks instead as you have quickly noticed and noted.


----------



## mardihar (Oct 16, 2013)

It's a great time to become a doctor -- aside from caring for people, there will be 30 Million more insured people wanting medical care that will now be paid for. There will be more need for doctors than ever!


----------



## Huckleberry (May 27, 2013)

knitpresentgifts said:


> As evidenced by his support and acton to exempt himself, his family and others from the ACA.


KPG
for your information, the largest percentage of individuals have Health Insurance and need to change nothing, what is your problem? Mine is that for years I have been paying for others who either could not afford it, where refused or simply depended on folks like me. I am glad to pitch in for those who need a helping hand but want relief from those who abuse me.


----------



## NJG (Dec 2, 2011)

Janeway said:


> Yes, subsidized by the person who pays their bills as my Medicare part B will double in the next years & then triple as well as my supplemental insurance.
> 
> Where do you think the subsidizing money will come from? Me Hello!


And where did you get that information please?


----------



## Huckleberry (May 27, 2013)

mardihar said:


> It's a great time to become a doctor -- aside from caring for people, there will be 30 Million more insured people wanting medical care that will now be paid for. There will be more need for doctors than ever!


mardihar
the future for any kind of medical personnel is very bright. Great profession to enter.


----------



## NJG (Dec 2, 2011)

ramram0003 said:


> Sorry, but as of right now there are 16 or 17 states that have opted OUT of Obamacare. It has been on the news recently.


They have opted out of expanding the medicaid program and receiving federal money to do it. They would rather the uninsured people in their state stay uninsured.


----------



## yanagi (Jul 7, 2013)

Affordable Health Care. Yeah. I can't afford it. The minimum payment I can find doesn't provide anything. And it's $50 more than my SS payment.


----------



## susanmos2000 (May 10, 2011)

Hmmm...there seems to be a lot of misinformation among the anti-ACA folks, including the belief that states that opt out of the Medicaid expansion are somehow opting out of the whole Obamacare thing. If the governors of these states are smart they'll get on the horn quickly and clear that misconception up, else they'll be flooded with would-be refugees (not the best and the brightest either) who believe they're fleeing the Obamacare dragon by pulling up stakes and moving.


----------



## NJG (Dec 2, 2011)

NRoberts said:


> Florida has the Exchange and 27 insurers. I looked at three of them, Blue Cross included, to try to figure out what the plans were. There is a Bronze, Gold, and Platinum, maybe Silver too. The prices on insurance have gone up DRASTICALLY even with the Bronze plan, the most affordable. There is no way I will be able to afford to be insured and still keep a roof over my head and food on the table.
> 
> Very scary.


Did you qualify for subsidies to help with the cost?


----------



## Cindy S (Oct 20, 2013)

I have had BCBS for years, so I called them after reading your post. I spent 35 minutes on the phone with them and they could not verify any one of your points.


----------



## ute4kp (Nov 6, 2012)

Lukelucy said:


> I am not ever trying to dissuade others from seeking medical care they are entitled to. Those are your words not mine. I find you repeatedly change the meaning to my words - your projection. Your comprehension level is very, very low.
> 
> I will not ever again respond to you. I find you a bully, rude and more. I am not your "sweets". If I knew you in real life I would avoid you like the plague - as I am about to do here.


Stop with your bully tactics.


----------



## linnerlu (Jul 9, 2013)

ute4kp said:


> hey, stop bullying the Aussies!!


 :lol: :lol: :lol:


----------



## NJG (Dec 2, 2011)

Janeway said:


> No, this is factual as everyone on Medicare has been notified of the increase of Part B.


I haven't.


----------



## Bloomers (Oct 11, 2013)

That is correct. Many didn't take the time to read the over 1,000 page document.


----------



## Knitry (Dec 18, 2011)

Lukelucy said:


> We are not actively going to look for a new place to live in another state to avoid Obamacare. This has disrupted our entire lives.


I'd like to know just how Obamacare has disrupted your lives. Details, please.


----------



## Bloomers (Oct 11, 2013)

Sorry, Mardihar, would have to disagree. Since the government will be deciding who gets care and who doesn't and the doctors/medical staff will be paid by the government there will be no incentive to be more productive, informed or educated since the money will remain the same. That is why the quality of care will also go down. The government will be determining what will be paid and to whom. Socialism at it's best.


----------



## ute4kp (Nov 6, 2012)

Thanks for your input, valmac. I agree with you. These people posting in their alarming ways are not informed. BTW, I like the price you pay. Currently more expensive here.


----------



## ninal46 (May 15, 2011)

yanagi said:


> Affordable Health Care. Yeah. I can't afford it. The minimum payment I can find doesn't provide anything. And it's $50 more than my SS payment.


In my opinion, people that are buying into this "Obamacare/affordable" care are not looking at the big picture. First, I do NOT want government poking around into my health care - I don't trust them and I do not wish to be told where and when I can see a doctor - hence the reason I moved here from a country that HAS National Health. Secondly, the only way that Obamacare is going to work is making someone that is young and healthy pay for someone else's medical problems. I don't think that is fair. I believe we could have done much better had we stopped frivolous law suits against doctors. That way it would bring down their malpractice insurance and therefore their cost would have been adjusted. Then give everyone the ability to shop across state lines for insurances - who ever has lower rates and the plan fits your needs, then go with that plan. Also, allow one to take their insurance with them if they change employment ... and there are a lot more things we could have done. But no ... Obama, Pelosi and Reid pushed a health plan out that is - not ready, does not help those they claim it does and ruins health care for everyone. I have a right as an American Citizen to be truly upset that a President that should care for ALL Americans is so partisan that he ONLY cares about his political left wing. I have never taken a dime from the government - and I was a young mother divorced at 24 with 3 young children. I worked, and I worked until I got where I wanted. I sold magazines over the phone. I took all three kids door to door and sold Avon ...after attending school at night ... I got a better job. So, if I can do it, anyone can. 
There, I've had my rant and that is all I am going to say.


----------



## mardihar (Oct 16, 2013)

I had BC/BS until I hit Medicare this year. Every year they sent me an increase notice anywhere from 15% to a high of 37%! They clearly wanted to force me out of the plan I had, and they finally succeeded. And every year for the 3 years before I hit Medicare, I had to move down a notch in plans, just to try to stay even. THIS WAS ALL BEFORE THE ACA! The ACA is not raising your premiums -- the insurance companies are -- but under the ACA, if you are in a group of more than 50, the insurance company must spend 80% of those premiums on your health care, and if they don't -- they have to rebate to whoever paid them, so if it's you -- you get the rebate. If it's your employer, it gets the rebate. Hopefully, after they get a couple of years of data, they'll just lower the rates, instead of paying back the rebates. Or, they could always just spend more on each of us for our healthcare!


----------



## Knitry (Dec 18, 2011)

Lukelucy said:


> First, I "imply on Medicare". I have never mentioned Medicare.
> Second, this was very, very bad information from a whole community respected doctor. He is top notch. So, yes, I am very upset.


Yeah, well, apparently being a top notch doctor doesn't make you a good analyst of the ACA. Just ask Dr. Carson.

Also, you said this was your husband's report of what his doctor said... so that BCBS to this doctor, to your husband, to you, to us. Did you ever play the parlor game called "telephone"?


----------



## ute4kp (Nov 6, 2012)

ElyseKnox said:


> valmac,
> We equate the legislation rammed down our throats as socialism because it IS socialism. When the government REQUIRES you to purchase something against your will, that is socialism. What about young people who don't want to spend their money on "healthcare insurance?" What about people who take care of themselves and rarely ever go to the doctor and would prefer NOT to have insurance? Making a product available to anyone who wants it is one thing but requiring everyone to purchase it is entirely a different matter.
> 
> Those in the federal government IGNORED the will of the people and forced this upon us while exempting themselves from it. That is socialism.
> ...


I don't understand why you are so agitated. Social security and Medicare programs were invented before my time. Did people back then say these programs were socialism?


----------



## Knitter from Nebraska (Jun 9, 2013)

This much I know is true: when you have to FORCE people to buy it, it can't be that great!!!


----------



## Knitter from Nebraska (Jun 9, 2013)

ute4kp said:


> I don't understand why you are so agitated. Social security and Medicare programs were invented before my time. Did people back then say these programs were socialism?


YUP! They did and they are!


----------



## ute4kp (Nov 6, 2012)

cspaen34 said:


> I apologize, came on to this post late in the game. I am running late this morning and will try to catch back up this evening but did a quick scroll through 20 pages and couldn't see reference to what "BCBS" stands for to give me some idea of the meeting and its affliates. Please enlighten me. For the record, my doctor is on-board for the Affordable Care Act. Thanks


I'm only on pg. 20 something out of over 40. BC/BS is Blue Cross Blue Shield, an insurance company.


----------



## ute4kp (Nov 6, 2012)

Chris Harris said:


> I've been hearing death panels. I guess we'll find out soon enough. I know if our insurance goes up we will be in one mess. It's hard to afford health care now. I've heard it will go up every year from now on. Like Palosi said you can't know what's in it until it passes. This is beyond ignorant! I for one am praying about this situation.


Mine has been going up by leaps and bounds since 2009.


----------



## Jedmo (Jan 21, 2013)

It sucks!


----------



## Knitry (Dec 18, 2011)

teedle said:


> Which States Are Opting Out of Obamacare Health Insurance Exchanges and Why? Judge Napolitano Explains
> BY
> FOX NEWS INSIDER
> // NOV 29 2012 // 3:40PM
> ...


This is more recent. I don't know about state vs. federal exchanges, but AZ has decided to expand Medicaid program under Obamacare:

{Gov. Jan) Brewer is a conservative Republican who sued to topple the health law, refused to set up a health insurance exchange and memorably wagged her finger at President Barack Obama on a Phoenix airport tarmac. But now shes so determined to put the Obamacare Medicaid expansion in place in her state that shes vetoing any legislation that reaches her desk until the Republican Legislature caves.

...Brewer says its been quite the firestorm, but she insists that expansion saves money and saves lives  and that everybody would realize that if they werent so hung up on the fact that it was part of Obamas health law.

We were all so adamant that we didnt like Obamacare. We fought tooth and nail. But there comes a time, and you have to look at the reality. You have to do the math, Brewer told POLITICO in a phone interview. I did not make this decision lightly.  Its not only a mathematical issue, but its a moral issue.

...The second-term governor said her stance on Medicaid doesnt mean shes changed her mind about Obamacare. Her website still calls it an assault on States rights and individual liberty. But she explained, Our Medicaid program was here long before Obama health care.

She also said that Medicaid-related questions have been on the ballot in the state twice  and voters supported expansion of the states relatively generous program both times. Parts were later frozen because money ran short, but those federal dollars under expansion would reopen enrollment.

Read more: http://www.politico.com/story/2013/06/arizona-jan-brewer-medicaid-obamacare-92304.html#ix...


----------



## ute4kp (Nov 6, 2012)

Lukelucy said:


> Thank you for your reply. What a mess ACA is.


The website(s) are in the mess, not ACA.


----------



## saarlt (May 5, 2013)

Designer1234 said:


> Everyone -- everything you read here from the original poster has been repeated over and over and over on the other Political threads-- I would suggest that health care reform has to start somewhere.
> 
> Just keep your minds open, check out the facts mentioned here - check out all aspects of the Affordable health Care bill and then decide for yourselves. But don't believe things just because they are posted here. Read, study, question . then decide for yourself.
> 
> ...


 :thumbup: :thumbup: :thumbup: :thumbup: :thumbup: :-D


----------



## meetoo (Nov 20, 2011)

Vignewood said:


> It is extremely difficult to convince someone who has a misconception about something, especially if they are reacting emotionally and are unwilling to consider facts. That being said, i will bid you farewell and use my time to read from reputable sources to stay informed. Arguing with closed minded people is as useless and hopeless as teaching a pig to fly.


oh so true!!!!


----------



## susanmos2000 (May 10, 2011)

Knitry said:


> I'd like to know just how Obamacare has disrupted your lives. Details, please.


I think LL's "not actively" was a typo--probably should read "now actively". If so I'd like to see what state she decides is safe from the so-called ravages of Obamacare as the ACA is a federal mandate. Even skipping the country won't help as the US is the only developed nation out of thirty-three which hasn't had a some form of universal health care in place until now.
Well, there's always Belize or somewhere like that...


----------



## Vignewood (Apr 18, 2011)

chinalake66 said:


> I was told when I went for my physical in June - that it has been determined that women "my age" (67) no longer need pap smears, that I do not need a mammogram and will no longer be able to get a mammo after I turn 70. I informed my new physician that I was due for an AC1 test - which she did not schedule...for my annual physical, she checked my pulse and looked down my throat. I am a severe asthmatic and diabetic. Shortly after I had this so-called physical, I broke my wrist. When I went to the Dr. he told me that "at my age" I should be able to "deal with" a "slight decrease" in my flexibility, ordered the wrist casted. A week later when I went in for a follow-up visit, he told me that the wrist was not healing properly, but he didn't want to do surgery because "if every broken distal radius got surgery, Medicare would go broke." I insisted that he fix my wrist - which he did - reluctantly. After paying into the system for 50+ years, I am appalled at the attitude of healthcare towards seniors. I am sure that neither of these incidences would have occurred if government were not getting involved in our lives. Yes - I know Obamacare does not kick in until 2014, but the panel making these decisions was formed five years ago.


I turned 70 and still got a mammo!


----------



## meetoo (Nov 20, 2011)

saarlt said:


> :thumbup: :thumbup: :thumbup: :thumbup: :thumbup: :-D


 :thumbup: you are right on.....thank you.


----------



## ute4kp (Nov 6, 2012)

obxamom said:


> Nice article...but we all should get it out of our system BC Obama signed into law that gives secret service the right to arrest anyone to speaks out against any one protracted by the SS and that they see a threat ...so if you go to a rally of Obama and speak out against his o care then you might just be put in jail.....and for you supporters like it or not it is a fact that this was just signed into law....although it was done under the radar. Just BC you support this health care doesn't give you the right to degrade one who doesn't. The supporters are comj g across as enlightened gurus of the law like they wrote it..quoting whatvthey heard from Obama..the white house or for goodness sakes NPR...please...There is a particular bully on here who is nasty and degrades everyone against the care act but yet I've heard nothing credible come from her mouth no factual information she has yet to share ..and I'm sure you k ow who u are.


Is this a joke? I'm not sure if what you wrote is supposed to be funny. Because it is very laughable. Is this something you heard on foxy TV?


----------



## linnerlu (Jul 9, 2013)

Cindy S said:


> I have had BCBS for years, so I called them after reading your post. I spent 35 minutes on the phone with them and they could not verify any one of your points.


Did you really expect them to? :roll:


----------



## Vignewood (Apr 18, 2011)

Jokim said:


> Does the ACA apply to ALL Americans, including the president, Congress and Supreme Court? Research this and you might be surprised.


Yes it does!!!


----------



## Lukelucy (Nov 19, 2011)

knitpresentgifts said:


> As evidenced by his support and acton to exempt himself, his family and others from the ACA.


 :thumbup: :thumbup: :thumbup: He's no fool. But a lot of people in the USA are - the one's who do not see what is going on.


----------



## linnerlu (Jul 9, 2013)

Bloomers said:


> Sorry, Mardihar, would have to disagree. Since the government will be deciding who gets care and who doesn't and the doctors/medical staff will be paid by the government there will be no incentive to be more productive, informed or educated since the money will remain the same. That is why the quality of care will also go down. The government will be determining what will be paid and to whom. Socialism at it's best.


O. M. G. More disinformation.


----------



## knitnshirl (Jan 6, 2013)

This sounds so much like what happened in Canada when Medicare was being introduced. It all started in Saskatchewan in the early 1960s. 

Insurance companies took a big stand against public health care. Rumours were flying, people were angry and many of the physicians went on strike (the strike lasted three weeks, some doctors chose to not strike). 

Deja vu.


----------



## Lukelucy (Nov 19, 2011)

mardihar said:


> It's a great time to become a doctor -- aside from caring for people, there will be 30 Million more insured people wanting medical care that will now be paid for. There will be more need for doctors than ever!


You sure have that one wrong.


----------



## Knitry (Dec 18, 2011)

joeysomma said:


> *You tell me how you can! *
> 
> Please pm me with the options for a 58 year old single woman with health issues in Wisconsin. This for a friend who is unable to even get on the web site.


Call: 1-800-318-2596

Try calling at off hours since they're busy too now that the phone number was broadcast.


----------



## ute4kp (Nov 6, 2012)

linnerlu said:


> Thank you! I get so frustrated with these people who refuse to look at an issue honestly. This anti-Obamacare thing is, as far as I can tell, based on personal hatred of the man and his race.


That's it exactly. They are so hate filled it clouds their comprehension.


----------



## linnerlu (Jul 9, 2013)

ute4kp said:


> I don't understand why you are so agitated. Social security and Medicare programs were invented before my time. Did people back then say these programs were socialism?


LOL! Yes, actually, they did. It didn't take very long, though, before they became beloved programs by pretty much everybody. (Even my poor deluded parents, who hate President Obama and everything he stands for, couldn't understand when I asked them if they were going to refuse their Social Security payments and Medicare health care.)


----------



## NJG (Dec 2, 2011)

Wibdgrfan said:


> You live in MA. My guess is your only knowledge of Wisconsin's governor has come from the national media, which has not been very fair or accurate in its reports. Wisconsin is THRIVING since Gov. Walker took office.


Everything I have read says the opposite. Wisconsin has lost jobs the last 6 months and has increased their borrowing. Walker refused the 4.4 billion from the federal government for the increased medicaid program and then has to borrow to meet expenses. You have your head buried in the sand if you think Wisconsin is THRIVING.


----------



## Cindy S (Oct 20, 2013)

Absolutely, I hold them accountable and always have.


----------



## ute4kp (Nov 6, 2012)

jelun2 said:


> Perhaps she is not a Christian, in which case that would make perfect sense. <shrug>


 :thumbup: :thumbup: :thumbup:


----------



## obxamom (Apr 21, 2013)

ute4kp said:


> Is this a joke? I'm not sure if what you wrote is supposed to be funny. Because it is very laughable. Is this something you heard on foxy TV?


Laugh or not.....it is law if Obama feels that you are a threat during a speech he can have you arrested...please ...I do t watch t.v. because all media is right winged bought by money there is no accurate reporting ....please .


----------



## obxamom (Apr 21, 2013)

ute4kp said:


> Is this a joke? I'm not sure if what you wrote is supposed to be funny. Because it is very laughable. Is this something you heard on foxy TV?


Where are your facts


----------



## ute4kp (Nov 6, 2012)

joeysomma said:


> Jon Stewart on Obamacare
> 
> http://www.ijreview.com/2013/10/88868-jon-stewart-obliterates-obamacare-website-smashes-obama-speech/?utm_source=EmailElect&utm_medium=Email&utm_content=Subscriber%238351&utm_campaign=10-22-2013%20IJ%20Review


Both he and Stephen Colbert are just too funny on a lot of topics. I'd love to see a show (like these) on foxy TV where the RWN can laugh at some of the things they do/say.


----------



## Janet Cooke (Aug 14, 2013)

knitnshirl said:


> This sounds so much like what happened in Canada when Medicare was being introduced. It all started in Saskatchewan in the early 1960s.
> 
> Insurance companies took a big stand against public health care. Rumours were flying, people were angry and many of the physicians went on strike (the strike lasted three weeks, some doctors chose to not strike).
> 
> Deja vu.


It's really too bad that we didn't jump into nationalized health care, now we will have to go through this all over again. Well, WE won't I will be long dead before they evolve into really caring legislators.


----------



## gma11331 (Oct 18, 2011)

Knitter from Nebraska said:


> YUP! They did and they are!


You should have heard my Grandpa!!! LOL


----------



## ute4kp (Nov 6, 2012)

valmac said:


> Are US citizens not required to purchase car or (if you have a mortgage) home insurance? Do you consider that requirement socialism? Does it not apply to all?
> As I said I am not personally familiar with your system, but as with anything new, it will take time to get things running smoothly. Not being able to register on a website doesn't amount to a socialist conspiracy in my opinion!
> Actually when I think about it, maybe a good dose of real socialism might solve some of your country's problems!


 :thumbup: :thumbup: If only the hysterical people only knew what real socialism was all about.


----------



## Janet Cooke (Aug 14, 2013)

knitpresentgifts said:


> Jelun2 wrote,"But hey what do I know?"
> 
> Obviously, not much. Other than insulting and putting down others who do not agree with your every word. Apparently, you know nothing about me either.


I bet you know what I am thinking. :wink:


----------



## ute4kp (Nov 6, 2012)

knitpresentgifts said:


> Not a worthy or appropriate comparison. No American is forced to buy a car or a home. We have all been legislated to have/buy health insurance now simply because we are alive and American citizens.


It's very similar. If you own/operate a vehicle, you are required to have auto insurance. If you purchase property the lien holder requires that you have property insurance.


----------



## Knitry (Dec 18, 2011)

courier770 said:


> It really annoys me to hear the AFFORDABLE CARE ACT called "Obamacare". Agree with it or not this was NOT the result of the action of our president alone. Do I agree with the ACA....well no quite frankly though I still refuse to call it "Obamacare". "LIBERALCARE" might be more accurate terminology but heck our liberal lawmakers are exempt from being forced into it like the rest of us are.


Not true. You should begin to question those news and information sources that feed you misinformation, disinformation, propaganda and lies on an ongoing basis.

This is a rightwing talking point, and just as FALSE as most of the other rightwing talking points:

*That Congressional Exemption From Obamacare? Another Myth*
...Of all the misconceptions surrounding the new health reform law known as Obamacareand there are manyone of the newest and most infuriating is the idea that Congress made itself exempt from a law that puts onerous new burdens on many other Americans. That contention is totally false. In fact, members of Congress, along with their personal staffers, are required to participate in Obamacare, which is a more stringent requirement than employees of many big companies face.
http://finance.yahoo.com/blogs/the-exchange/congressional-exemption-obamacare-another-myth-153149342.html

or Google: "congress exempt from aca" for more results



> I'm almost 60 years old and the ACA has already cost me close to $4,500.00 a year, in higher premiums, deductions and "out of pocket expenses!
> 
> I'm all for making health care more affordable...but why are most of us seeing HUGE increases in costs?


If you stay with private insurance, they pretty much have the right to set their premiums, though the ACA does mandate that insurance has to meet certain requirements. I suggest you make it your business to do some due diligence and see how the ACA would work for you. I keep seeing some astonishing good news people are finding out. One example had more coverage (eyes, dental, hearing) and the premium was less than I pay for Medicare and Supplemental. I was jealous.


----------



## StitchDesigner (Jan 24, 2011)

jinkers said:


> The Affordable Care Act is being received very well so far here and premiums for those who qualify for coverage is running usually LESS than they were paying before. By the way, those of us over 65 and entitled to Medicare can't use the Affordable Care Act insurance anyway. Also, most of your numbered info (read the Act itself)above is not accurate.


Is this the same ObamaNoCare that has an inoperative website? The same one whose programming was already over $300 Million and it's not right? The same on that has already publicly stated that if you are over 70 and you have a chronic disease, it will not be covered? The same one that has CUT Medicare to pay for NoCare? The same one that will be run by the IRS? Oh, yeah, Americans are real happy about this. *NOT!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!*


----------



## sumpleby (Aug 3, 2013)

ninal46 said:


> First, I do NOT want government poking around into my health care - I don't trust them and I do not wish to be told where and when I can see a doctor


With current insurance you have a board poking around in your healthcare, deciding what you do or do not get. You are limited for the most part to doctors that are on their lists. You have to make appointments to see those doctors. Different hoops to see specialists.



> Secondly, the only way that Obamacare is going to work is making someone that is young and healthy pay for someone else's medical problems. I don't think that is fair.


But that is how ALL insurance works. The money people pay into it is pooled by the company. If you never need to use it, you kiss that money good-bye because it is going to be used for people that do develop a need.


----------



## Janet Cooke (Aug 14, 2013)

Triskit said:


> I'm not old enough for Medicare and my employer doesn't offer insurance, so for me the ACA is a godsend. Will be paying about $47/month for a medical policy versus having no insurance as my old policy costs rose to over $800/month and I had to drop the coverage or live under a bridge.


 :thumbup: :thumbup:


----------



## StitchDesigner (Jan 24, 2011)

When it comes to most news, be it papers, TV, or internet, I *don't believe them.* Why? They're in bed with Nobama.


----------



## aw9358 (Nov 1, 2011)

ute4kp said:


> :thumbup: :thumbup: If only the hysterical people only knew what real socialism was all about.


Absolutely. I'm so sick of the word being bandied about by people who don't have the first clue about it.


----------



## Knit crazy (Mar 13, 2013)

Boxmjb said:


> Even if deductible was 10 or 15 thou, you eould have a chance paying off. I think my premium was high but a day in hospital, surgery, follow up care, over 100 thousand. No shot at paying that off. Does your state require car insurance, bank require homeowners?


You realize, I hope, that you can choose not to participate in Obamacare. Concierge doctors will work outside Obamacare guidelines and requirements. Many specialists will not take Obamacare patients or Medicare patients and especially Medicaid patients because of the fee structure. Plus, you can choose not to participate in Obamacare, pay a small penalty, and if a health event is expensive then join Obamacare to get the event covered. Many will be considering their options and making difficult choices. It is a shame that this health care bill will cause suffering to aid a few who don't have insurance, but it is what Obama promised - that he'd level the playing field. If you worked hard for years, saved your money, and lived a healthy life, you are now just a funding mechanism for providing healthcare to those who made poor life choices and/or health choices.


----------



## Knitry (Dec 18, 2011)

Lukelucy said:


> I will not respond to anyone who is accusatory and does not show me respect. My lack of reponse will be the result of that and nothing more.


You mean you won't respond to anyone who challenges your false statements and inaccuracies? That's NOT disrespect, not among equals.


----------



## NJG (Dec 2, 2011)

Ronie said:


> excuse me if a person found a lump in their breast and did nothing then it would be that persons fault for not going to their doctor about it immediately... we are all in charge of our own lives and by the time we are adults I would hope we would have some common sense
> 
> Before this gets any more out of hand... this whole mess shut our country down for 2 weeks!!!!! it wasn't over NOTHING!!!!!
> don't let the media sugar coat this and put blinders on you... we have to keep our eyes open and our minds clear....


Put the blame where the blame lies. The republicans shut our government down and cost us 24 billion. The same republicans who are always talking about cutting spending. Hypocrites is what they are.


----------



## Knitry (Dec 18, 2011)

Lukelucy said:


> Right. We are on the road to Socialism. It is as clear as day. It scares me that our lives will be cut short because we wait for tests, are put in a line for care, can't choose our doctors. I see America in a battle for Socialism (Dems at this point) and a democratic society (Repubs). Some people don't see it. Our country is changing so quickly.


What exactly is so bad about socialism? Can you even define socialism?


----------



## Janet Cooke (Aug 14, 2013)

sumpleby said:


> But that is how ALL insurance works. The money people pay into it is pooled by the company. If you never need to use it, you kiss that money good-bye because it is going to be used for people that do develop a need.


Another one who thinks life is supposed to provide a freaking rose garden. 
I am going to pen a song tonight, I think.

It isn't fair, I have to pay my own way. I know it means that I can go get a pap smear, but, before I was making contributors to PP do that paying thing...
If I fall off a mountain, I will have coverage and they can pump out my lungs(or stomach) if I fall in a Mai Tai.


----------



## Janet Cooke (Aug 14, 2013)

Knitry said:


> What exactly is so bad about socialism? Can you even define socialism?


Oh Hell, no. Can you hear Speaker Boehner?
HAHAHAAA


----------



## tired n' cranky (Aug 2, 2011)

As the daughter of a Dr. I like to tell everyone to calm down and don't believe all that you hear. The ONLY thing my father is concerned about is the rise in his malpractice insurance, which has nothing, not one thing to do with the affordable care act. Oh, and for those who are convinced that the insurance is going sky high, we got our policy info last week, it is going down by more than 10% and NO changes in our coverage. 
So, if you are interested, come to Oklahoma, our governor opted out, the cost of living is low. Hot summers, mild winters, not a lot of rain, tornados, earthquakes, though small ones, and some really wonderful people. I am a transplant from up north who calls OK home now.


----------



## Knit crazy (Mar 13, 2013)

Knitry said:


> Call: 1-800-318-2596
> 
> Try calling at off hours since they're busy too now that the phone number was broadcast.


They tell you to go to the non-working website if you can talk to anyone.


----------



## ute4kp (Nov 6, 2012)

jelun2 said:


> For Heaven's Sake, every time one of you "tourists" take up a slot on the website what do you think happens to the hundreds of thousands of people who are in queue waiting while you are playing around with something you don't even qualify for?
> ACA is not meant for you, you have insurance. Sheesh.


 :thumbup: :thumbup: :thumbup:


----------



## Knitry (Dec 18, 2011)

courier770 said:


> Lukelucy, I HAD excellent health care coverage...HAD is the key word. I worked for it and I paid for it and now the benefits I toiled for have been "eroded" under this new system. I paid for those benefits all of my life, year after year even if I didn't use them fully. Now I'm going to be punished by higher deductibles, higher out of pocket expenses and higher premiums. For what? Please tell me for what?
> 
> I'm now expected to carry the burden for those who chose to never carry the burden to being with? Worse yet our "leaders" in Washington will NEVER be forced into this mess?
> 
> I'm gong to put it very bluntly...as a senior citizen I never expected to be so screwed!


I'm going to put it very bluntly too: you're screwing yourself with the misinformation, disinformation, and fearmongering you've swallowed wholecloth. You have demonstrated that YOU KNOW NOTHING ABOUT OBAMACARE, but I'll bet you hate Obama so much you won't even acknowledge that you know nothing about it enough to do some independent research -- independent of Fox News and other equally discredited "news" sources, that is.

Here are some objective, non-agenda-driven places to start:

*OBAMACARE MADE SIMPLE(R)!* http://www.blackhealthtv.com/content/obamacare-made-simpler

*THE AFFORDABLE CARE ACT AND YOU - CONSUMER REPORTS*
http://www.consumerreports.org/health/resources/pdf/ncqa/The_Affordable_Care_Act-You_and_Your_Family.pdf

*Health Insurance Exchanges* http://www.valuepenguin.com/ppaca/exchanges


----------



## NJG (Dec 2, 2011)

Obsessed said:


> You are sooooo wrong. Not only has Congress been carved out of the ACA, but so have their staff. Pelosi says they are too valuable to lose to private industry! My premiums have skyrocketed in advance of the ACA as well.


Congress is not exempt from Obamacare.

http://www.msnbc.com/rachel-maddow-show/congress-isnt-exempt-obamacare. Again who raised your premiums? I'll bet it was your insurance company, right. Those execs must keep their big bonuses.


----------



## sumpleby (Aug 3, 2013)

jelun2 said:


> Another one who thinks life is supposed to provide a freaking rose garden.


You posted this as a reply to my post, but I don't understand what you are referencing. My post was clarifying how insurance in general works to someone who didn't seem to know. How is this thinking life "is supposed to provide a freaking rose garden?"


----------



## damemary (Mar 14, 2012)

jelun2 said:


> How can you possibly know who is right or wrong if, according your initial post, just yesterday you were unaware of whether all the states in the union were covered by the ACA?
> I have to give you credit you seem to have become a quick learner. In 10 months you learned nothing and then overnight you became expert. Good job.


 :XD: :XD: :XD: :XD: :XD: :XD: :XD: :XD: :XD:


----------



## damemary (Mar 14, 2012)

knovice knitter said:


> I have lived here in Wisconsin all my life. Mr. Walker has done nothing to enhance my quality of life. Just the opposite. You go ahead and thrive and I will struggle along the best I can. He must have missed me when he was handing out those thrive pills. I see he is being investigated again. Oh well.


 :XD: :XD: :XD: :XD: :XD: :XD:


----------



## bwtyer (Oct 31, 2012)

ute4kp said:


> That's it exactly. They are so hate filled it clouds their comprehension.


Ute4kp, I will disagree with you on this statement, not to argue, but just to let you know this is not 100% accurate - many Obama supporters are leery of ACA too - This is a huge change for the way we have done things. I guess it is human nature to resist change. So no , it is not hatred, it is the lack of good solid information educating the public on exactly what is involved and what long term effects may be.


----------



## ute4kp (Nov 6, 2012)

Lukelucy said:


> What can we all do? This ACA is poison.


Sign yourself onto the death panel.


----------



## damemary (Mar 14, 2012)

blanchebianca said:


> Part of the deception is the promulgation of the fallacy that anyone/everyone will be forced to change what they already have. No one is being forced to change the insurance they have.
> 
> However, if you've not been able to get insurance because you have a preexisting condition or haven't been able to afford the premiums, you can now get insurance because insurance companies must provide insurance to everyone even those with preexisting conditions. And the insurance companies must put 80% of the premiums they charge you back into providing coverage for you. In other words your money goes into providing you coverage instead of going into outrageous bonuses for company executives.
> 
> This means that more people will be able to get insurance and those of us who have been fortunate to have health insurance, are likely to have lower premiums.


 :thumbup: :thumbup: :thumbup: :thumbup: :thumbup: :thumbup: :thumbup: Thank you for posting.


----------



## ute4kp (Nov 6, 2012)

Lukelucy said:


> Because he would have broadcasted it without delay. It helps his cause.


How do you know?


----------



## damemary (Mar 14, 2012)

Huckleberry said:


> Apbarr
> why is it that whe have billions to give to other nations yearly but have no money to take care of our Citizens? And most of those Countries (if not all - need to check on that) have Universal Health Care while we do not until now. Our priorities should be with our People. Time we come first, it is our money being given out after all.


 :thumbup: :thumbup: :thumbup: :thumbup: :thumbup:


----------



## smigdail (Apr 10, 2011)

I too am certain that all you say is utter nonsense. Do not allow these rabid extremists to sell you a total lie! My family is in public health ... no such ting is happening .. stay where you are and benefit from what was signed into law four years ago..

Romney's Massachusetes law is almost identical to what Obamacare is ... no complaints there. People also felt that Medicare would ruin them and the country but no one wants it "removed" -- "less government," they say, "but do not touch medicare". Who do they think pays for that? We are one of the only two western countries without health care for our citizens! That's a shame.


----------



## ute4kp (Nov 6, 2012)

obxamom said:


> Boy did you ever dream Lukelucy that when you posted this you would create as many pages as you have.....your post right or wrong...i do want to say something...you have been very charitable and kind even when there have been those who have not...I commend you for that.


Yes, she must have. There is another topic that has been running a long time that is the same as this "new" topic. Lukelucy has been posting on the other topic for a while. What's up with the charitable and kind stuff? To the RWNs she is.


----------



## Janet Cooke (Aug 14, 2013)

sumpleby said:


> You posted this as a reply to my post, but I don't understand what you are referencing. My post was clarifying how insurance in general works to someone who didn't seem to know. How is this thinking life "is supposed to provide a freaking rose garden?"


Sorry, I thought you would get the joke. It is so hard, though, to remember what's what. 
You responded to a young'un who stated that having to get health insurance and then not use it possibly... 
The parting shot was "it's not fair..."


----------



## Knitry (Dec 18, 2011)

NRoberts said:


> Florida has the Exchange and 27 insurers. I looked at three of them, Blue Cross included, to try to figure out what the plans were. There is a Bronze, Gold, and Platinum, maybe Silver too. The prices on insurance have gone up DRASTICALLY even with the Bronze plan, the most affordable. There is no way I will be able to afford to be insured and still keep a roof over my head and food on the table.
> 
> Very scary.


Have gone up compared to what? Your complaint isn't clear at all. And what about subsidies? Many people don't have to pay the actual premium and it sounds like you may be one of them.

I'd suggest looking at more of those insurers and checking out getting a subsidy.


----------



## Janet Cooke (Aug 14, 2013)

ute4kp said:


> Yes, she must have. There is another topic that has been running a long time that is the same as this "new" topic. Lukelucy has been posting on the other topic for a while. What's up with the charitable and kind stuff? To the RWNs she is.


LOL, Lukelucy started the other 25 page thread. So yes, she certainly did imagine what the response to her imaginary report would be.


----------



## ute4kp (Nov 6, 2012)

Vignewood said:


> Cin, you have it wrong. The Teaparty doesn't care.


Teahaddists.


----------



## damemary (Mar 14, 2012)

Probably because the insurance company decided not to try to comply with ACA mandates, such as no pre-existing conditions.



Obsessed said:


> Then why is my private insurance being discontinued?


----------



## damemary (Mar 14, 2012)

calisuzi said:


> Sounds like a lot of misinformation to me.


 :thumbup: :thumbup: :thumbup: :thumbup: :thumbup:


----------



## ute4kp (Nov 6, 2012)

joeysomma said:


> Some insurance policies are no longer acceptable according to Obamacare. therefore, the ones with those policies will need to get new policies.


Wrong!


----------



## damemary (Mar 14, 2012)

Lukelucy said:


> Some are and some aren't. There are new rules/laws and the insurance must comply. If it doesn't it goes. That is a big problem


What is the big problem? That insurance companies must offer worthwhile plans ?

:?: :?: :?: :?: :?: :?: :?: :?: :?: :?: :?: :?: :?: :?:


----------



## ute4kp (Nov 6, 2012)

theyarnlady said:


> This is how they answer everyone who does not agree with them. As you can see there are more then one . They form a group and go on a name calling spree. No facts just name calling. Don't even bother to answer them as it will get worst.Just examine all the answers and questions from people on here who are attempt to find out or know what is happening. Then check out as many places as you can to get the information you need.
> Now watch and you will see they will start name calling of me as they have done to bwtyer, Lucklucy, ect.


Yes, facts would be nice. Care to share any?


----------



## NJG (Dec 2, 2011)

Chris Harris said:


> I've been hearing death panels. I guess we'll find out soon enough. I know if our insurance goes up we will be in one mess. It's hard to afford health care now. I've heard it will go up every year from now on. Like Palosi said you can't know what's in it until it passes. This is beyond ignorant! I for one am praying about this situation.


Death panels is a big lie, I think maybe Palin has something to do with starting that lie. My senator Grassley from Iowa was the one who started the rumor "pulling the plug on Grandma." 
You heard it will go up every year from now on!!! Hasn't it already been doing that? Mine sure did.


----------



## ute4kp (Nov 6, 2012)

Obsessed said:


> Then why is my private insurance being discontinued?


Give the company a call.


----------



## Janet Cooke (Aug 14, 2013)

ute4kp said:


> Give the company a call.


You are so much nicer than I.


----------



## misellen (Mar 8, 2013)

Lukelucy said:


> http://money.msn.com/now/13-states-rebelling-against-obamacare


This link is referring to the expansion of Medicaid not to the entire system.


----------



## ute4kp (Nov 6, 2012)

Anyone over the age of 75 will be thrown into the Grand Canyon. :twisted: :twisted:


----------



## ute4kp (Nov 6, 2012)

States can't opt out of ACA.


----------



## Jokim (Nov 22, 2011)

NJG said:


> Congress is not exempt from Obamacare.
> 
> http://www.msnbc.com/rachel-maddow-show/congress-isnt-exempt-obamacare. Again who raised your premiums? I'll bet it was your insurance company, right. Those execs must keep their big bonuses.


Congress, along with the president and staff, is exempt from ACA. Sens. Lee and Cruz, and certain Representatives, fought to put them under the same healthcare law. Haven't heard anything to the contrary, therefore, the law still doesn't apply to them.


----------



## NJG (Dec 2, 2011)

Grama Guinn said:


> For your information:http://www.americanthinker.com/2013/10/obamacare_a_planned_disaster_for_political_reasons.html


All you have to do is start to read this article and read this "People with common sense and reality-based principles -- in a word, conservatives" to know that it is a one sided political article and not worth my time to read.


----------



## ElyseKnox (Sep 16, 2011)

ute4kp said:


> I don't understand why you are so agitated. Social security and Medicare programs were invented before my time. Did people back then say these programs were socialism?


Whether or not people back then called those programs socialism is irrelevant to this discussion. (I personally believe they are.) What we are discussing happening now and I am agitated at a government that is ignoring the constitution and my rights.


----------



## grammylynn (Mar 2, 2013)

BCBS has been in use for at least 40 yrs so I understand her not clarifying when writing here it might be just habit. I do the same thing. I had it for the first 20 yrs we were married it was the best deal now the worst! As it is used on tv, radio and magazines nationwide, I sometimes forget there are people new to the country and not having had the pleasure of dealing with them as it is on their letterhead we get monthly I don't even notice anymore. The first time I saw/heard ACA I had no idea what that was. Obama started calling it Obamacare himself, as he wanted to show the world his legacy and said he was proud to have his name on it, now that it has issues he is calling it Obamacare/ACA. Good or bad down the road, it will always be Obamacare just as he wanted.


knovice knitter said:


> I find it interesting that lukelucy is pleading for people to see the light, read her comments accurately etc. yet doesn't read others or skims. Since she used the letters BCBS, and people are asking for translation, she should be the one clarifying. Yeah, I had to look it up too.


----------



## sumpleby (Aug 3, 2013)

grammylynn said:


> The first time I saw/heard ACA I had no idea what that was. Obama started calling it Obamacare himself, as he wanted to show the world his legacy and said he was proud to have his name on it, now that it has issues he is calling it Obamacare/ACA. Good or bad down the road, it will always be Obamacare just as he wanted.


Actually, it was the right that started calling the ACA "Obamacare"--and they did it as a pejorative. The fact that Obama and the left took to using the name themselves is more akin to Americans embracing the name "Yankee" and adopting the song "Yankee Doodle Dandy," after the British used it to mock them.


----------



## damemary (Mar 14, 2012)

There is no way to debate you. You are deluded.



grammylynn said:


> So is Socialism and we are running down that road very fast now. The rich can't keep doing all the paying as he wants because who will pay when we run out of rich people? Obama was on tv last year talking about what he thought was a reasonable age to stop paying for health care and what to continue with and used the term death panel. He was still considering that issue. I almost fell out of my chair!!! So it will be an issue in the future! People are living longer or were when they had good care now if you are in excellent health you might be denied some options just because of a number. I know a woman who is extremely healthy she only takes aspirin for Arthritis and wanted a knee replacement, it was totally gone, her doctor told her to get it now before she crossed 80 as it will be denied next year based on her age! She had it and now walks miles a day. It is possible that if she was confined to wheelchair she might not stay healthy I don't believe it is the governments job to decide that for me.


----------



## obxamom (Apr 21, 2013)

ute4kp said:


> Yes, she must have. There is another topic that has been running a long time that is the same as this "new" topic. Lukelucy has been posting on the other topic for a while. What's up with the charitable and kind stuff? To the RWNs she is.


I wouldn't know because for awhile I've avoided this forum like the black plague because of the hatred and nasty comments ....I have only read this post and she has maintained integrity through all this bashing that is what I was posting ...no need to get nasty again for me just making an kbservation with this post..


----------



## Janet Cooke (Aug 14, 2013)

ute4kp said:


> Anyone over the age of 75 will be thrown into the Grand Canyon. :twisted: :twisted:


 :thumbup: :thumbup: :thumbup: :thumbup: 
I heard they were thinking the ice floe thing, that pesky climate change thing botched that. 
Suppose that it the President's fault?


----------



## obxamom (Apr 21, 2013)

NJG said:


> All you have to do is start to read this article and read this "People with common sense and reality-based principles -- in a word, conservatives" to know that it is a one sided political article and not worth my time to read.


Because it points out an uncomfortable confronting truth many Americans are facing is that why you are uncomfortable and don't want to bother with it because it doesn't jive with your view and thinking


----------



## Janet Cooke (Aug 14, 2013)

obxamom said:


> Because it points out an uncomfortable confronting truth many Americans are facing is that why you are uncomfortable and don't want to bother with it because it doesn't jive with your view and thinking


Ah, I knew ya had it in you, keep going. I love the down and dirty stuff.


----------



## NJG (Dec 2, 2011)

Knit crazy said:


> I agree Jelun2. The uninsured should get a job to get benefits. That way, 90% of the insured could benefit.


So now we just need the republicans to vote on the Presidents jobs bill. But if they voted yes on a jobs bill, that would allow the president to accomplish something and that is not part of their agenda so guess they won't be doing that, which means there still won't be enough jobs, so that means no insurance. Darn!!!!!


----------



## BluesChanteuse (Oct 14, 2013)

Ma Kitty said:


> Too bad Obamacare isn't like our Canadian health care system. It is awesome. Our American son in law had plenty of negative things to say about our system before he moved here. Now he's in our country and using our Medicare he can't believe how good it is. We think we are very fortunate.


For the record, the original post is grossly inaccurate, so much so, it's not even worth debunking. That kind of disinformation is more deliberate than it is mistaken and unfortunately, there are those who spread this disinformation and then people believe it.

True. You absolutely are.

Many of the glitches of the ACA is because we were not able to get a public option much less a single payer system.

Seems as though the very people who argued for the glitches in the system are now finding fault with the very issues they insisted on creating.


----------



## Obsessed (Jan 22, 2012)

Vignewood said:


> Yes it does!!!


No It Doesn't. Congress and the President are exempt!


----------



## Knit crazy (Mar 13, 2013)

damemary said:


> What is the big problem? That insurance companies must offer worthwhile plans ?
> 
> :?: :?: :?: :?: :?: :?: :?: :?: :?: :?: :?: :?: :?: :?:


The insurance companies don't HAVE to do anything, and won't do anything that is not profitable to them. They are not governmental agencies that operate for our benefit even if it forces them into the red. Obama would like to force them out of the equation, and institute national healthcare. Reid said it yesterday. He, Pelosi and Obama want a single-payer healthcare system. That would bankrupt insurance companies and remove them from the equation, and we'd be forced to see doctors in clinics as many do on the UK.

Why do you think Obama is not more enraged about the website failure. It fits his plan.


----------



## BluesChanteuse (Oct 14, 2013)

Lukelucy said:


> My research is done. I am not doing research. This doctor did his research. BCBS meeting where it was confirmed.


BCBS is not a particularly good source.


----------



## grammylynn (Mar 2, 2013)

I don't care who was the very first person to start it, As I said the first person that I saw to talk about it on tv was him and on that day he said he was extremely pleased to have his legacy have his name on it so everyone will know he brought healthcare to all Americans. Having been born a "Yankee" I couldn't care less about where the name came from and now living in the South I am a "Damn Yankee" and that is fine too. It is just a word. 


sumpleby said:


> Actually, it was the right that started calling the ACA "Obamacare"--and they did it as a pejorative. The fact that Obama and the left took to using the name themselves is more akin to Americans embracing the name "Yankee" and adopting the song "Yankee Doodle Dandy," after the British used it to mock them.


----------



## obxamom (Apr 21, 2013)

jelun2 said:


> Ah, I knew ya had it in you, keep going. I love the down and dirty stuff.


I thought you weren't going to debate with me anymore ...not down and dirty just pointing out facts which you have a hard time processing and dealing with I see...you are unreasonable... uncharitable... unable to have a logical conversation with anyone who disagrees with you .only of they agree with you or if you can answer a question acting like you are the guru you are ..you are not worth my time and I'd rather scratch my eyeballs out then listen to your non common sensical rhetoric ..not sure what was done to you to make the hateful person you are but I hope you come to terms with it so you can have peace with yourself and stop lashing out at others ....peace to you ...


----------



## Obsessed (Jan 22, 2012)

Knit crazy said:


> You realize, I hope, that you can choose not to participate in Obamacare. Concierge doctors will work outside Obamacare guidelines and requirements. Many specialists will not take Obamacare patients or Medicare patients and especially Medicaid patients because of the fee structure. Plus, you can choose not to participate in Obamacare, pay a small penalty, and if a health event is expensive then join Obamacare to get the event covered. Many will be considering their options and making difficult choices. It is a shame that this health care bill will cause suffering to aid a few who don't have insurance, but it is what Obama promised - that he'd level the playing field. If you worked hard for years, saved your money, and lived a healthy
> life, you are now just a funding mechanism for providing healthcare to those who made poor life choices and/or health choices.


Beautifully stated !!!!


----------



## Janet Cooke (Aug 14, 2013)

Jokim said:


> Congress, along with the president and staff, is exempt from ACA. Sens. Lee and Cruz, and certain Representatives, fought to put them under the same healthcare law. Haven't heard anything to the contrary, therefore, the law still doesn't apply to them.


If you have not heard anything different you must be trying to avoid it.

I sure hope we all see an acknowledgement.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/fact-checker/wp/2013/10/16/did-obama-exempt-1200-groups-including-congress-from-obamacare/

The president has exempted over 1,200 groups, including members of Congress, from the health care law.

 Rep. Steve Scalise (R-La.), in an interview on CNN, Oct. 15, 2013

During an appearance on CNN, Rep. Scalise, chairman of the House Republican Study Committee, combined two common assertions made by opponents of Obamacare, a.k.a. the Affordable Care Act.

How valid are these claims? Lets take a look.

The Facts

The first part of Scalises statement refers to one-year waivers that the Department of Health and Human Services granted to 1,231 companies and other organizations regarding the laws restrictions of annual benefit caps.

Yep, you read that correctly. He is referring to a one-year waiver regarding one, relatively small aspect of the law.

The waivers were granted to companies (such as McDonalds or other fast food chains) and other organizations that provided inexpensive bare-bones health plans known as mini-meds, in what the administration called a bridge to 2014, when the law would be fully implemented. Thats because the law says that annual coverage limits cant be lower than $750,000 in 2013  and there are no annual dollar limits starting in 2014. So without those waivers, employees in those plans might have been left in the lurch until the law fully went into effect.

All told, the waivers cover a little under 4 million people, or 3 percent of population. But Scalise is wrong to suggest these waivers were permanent  or went to groups. The waivers to this one part of the law expire in just a few months.

Every waiver given by President Obama to specific groups or companies constitutes an exemption from the ACA  the employer mandate and the benefit caps to 1,231 groups are two such exemptions, said Stephen Bell, communications director for the committee.

As for Congress being exempted, this is also incorrect.

As a result of an amendment offered by Sen. Charles E. Grassley (R-Iowa), the Affordable Care Act includes a provision that would require members of Congress (and their personal staffs) to get their insurance on the Obamacare exchanges. The Heritage Foundation has released a very interesting paper that details the legislative history of this provision, and how efforts to adjust it (including by Grassley) slipped away before final passage.

Thus there was an unexpected wrinkle: the exchanges are intended for people who currently do not get employer-provided insurance, whereas lawmakers and their staffs previously had about 70 percent of their insurance premiums underwritten by the federal government through the Federal Employees Health Benefits Program. For lawmakers and their staffs, the loss of employer contributions would have amounted to an unintended pay cut of between $5,000 to $10,000.

In ordinary times, technical fixes to complex bills are routinely passed, as there are often drafting errors. The Heritage paper makes clear that this problem was never intended. But as a consequence of the Democrats decision to pass such sweeping legislation with no Republican votes, it is all but impossible for such legislation to win support in the House. Politically, lawmakers also did not want to solve their particular problem while leaving other technical fixes untouched.

Under pressure from Congress, the Office of Personnel Management proposed a rule in August, which was finalized in September, saying the federal government could still contribute to health-care premiums.

The final rule would keep the subsidy in place only for members of Congress and affected staff who enroll in a Small Business Health Options Program (SHOP) plan available in the District of Columbia. Such plans most commonly will be aimed at employees of businesses with fewer than 50 workers, but perhaps the theory is that each lawmaker and his or her staff constitute a small business. In any case, lawmakers and their staffs are not eligible for the tax credits that other Americans using the exchanges might qualify for.

The Fact Checker takes no position on whether making up the lost contribution is a good or bad thing  some Republicans have proposed to eliminate it in some of the proposals circulating to end the government shutdown  but its a stretch to claim that this is some sort of exemption from the law. Members of Congress and their staffs are certainly enrolled in the health care plan, and its a rather technical question about whether the administration overstepped its authority or whether it was merely taking action that lawmakers (including reportedly House Speaker John A. Boehner) privately urged because the difficult politics of the health-care law.

Robert Moffit, a co-writer of the Heritage paper, says that the OPM rule amounts to special treatment not available to other Americans. Perhaps Scalise was linguistically imprecise in using the word exemption to describe the state of Congress and staff, but materially he was not in any way incorrect in saying that members and staff are legally exempted from the terms and conditions that apply to every other American who must buy coverage in the exchange, he said.

(For the viewpoint of congressional staffers concerning this issue, both Republican and Democrat, check out this interesting New Yorker article.)

Bell argued that under the OPM rule, approximately 16,000 congressional employees will obtain their health insurance through the SHOP exchanges, 320 times more than the amount supposedly allowed under the law. He said this is clearly an exemption from the ACA for Congress by the Obama Administration. He cited a dictionary definition of exemption: freedom from being required to do something that others are required to do.

But as we noted, the exchanges were not intended for people already with employer-provided insurance. So its already a rather unusual situation. Costs have been imposed on lawmakers and their staffs that did not previously exist, and OPMs rule appears intended to solve that problem  instead of exempting them from the health care law.

The Pinocchio Test

Scalises use of the word exempted is much too expansive. He gives the impression that vast segments of politically connected groups have been excused from the health care law when in fact he is mostly referring to a one-year waiver that was intended to make the transition to the new system easier for people with bare-bones insurance.

The issue concerning Congress is more complex, but the bottom line is that the administrations action was intended to reduce an unintended burden, not carve out an exception. Scalise would have been on stronger ground if he had claimed that Congress got special treatment, rather than suggesting that lawmakers and their staffs were not covered by the health care law. Its important to be precise when making allegations, and thus he earns Three Pinocchios.

Three Pinocchios

http://www.politifact.com/wisconsin/statements/2013/oct/21/sean-duffy/obamacare-congress-must-buy-insurance-marketplaces/


----------



## headlemk (Feb 16, 2011)

jelun2 said:


> Will the real headlemk please stand up. Politico has a cute little thing they do... "liar liar pants on fire"
> 
> headlemk wrote:
> And states can opt out of the program. They have the choice to create their own state exchange through the program or opt out and send the applicants into the national exchange. Texas is one of those states and there are about 35 other states that have "opted out."


That was really a very ugly statement. "Politico?" Seriously? I'm trying to deal honestly with the misinformation you are spreading because of your love for the current occupant in the White House and so you've turned a blind eye to what his programs are doing to our country. You actually sound like one of his paid lackeys who can't seem to think for themselves but just spew the latest "spin." It's sad, really.


----------



## obxamom (Apr 21, 2013)

headlemk said:


> That was really a very ugly statement. "Politico?" Seriously? I'm trying to deal honestly with the misinformation you are spreading because of your love for the current occupant in the White House and so you've turned a blind eye to what his programs are doing to our country. You actually sound like one of his paid lackeys who can't seem to think for themselves but just spew the latest "spin." It's sad, really.


Don't let her get to you.....she does that BC that is all she knows...read the posts between her and me...she can't and still hasn't given me any credible info that I requested just hate hate and name calling ..oh well


----------



## BluesChanteuse (Oct 14, 2013)

No, you need to do more research. No state is "opting out". It's about whether a state will set up their own exchanges or go with the national ones.


----------



## Janet Cooke (Aug 14, 2013)

Obsessed said:


> No It Doesn't. Congress and the President are exempt!


I know that this is REALLY hard for you to accept, but, part of the ACA calls for people who are employed by entities that are larger than 50 employees are covered by their employers. That is President Obama and his staff. 
So while you may not like it, it may not fit your agenda, he and his family and staff are not exempt from anything. They are covered by that provision of the law. That would be just like 90+ percent of the American working public. 
I would appreciate an acknowledgement.

I am getting really tired of this argument.

http://www.politifact.com/wisconsin/statements/2013/oct/21/sean-duffy/obamacare-congress-must-buy-insurance-marketplaces/

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/fact-checker/wp/2013/10/16/did-obama-exempt-1200-groups-including-congress-from-obamacare/


----------



## karverr (Jun 27, 2013)

Lukelucy said:


> It is not happening yet. It will be over a period of the next 2 years. It will be a semi-gradual emigration.
> Maybe she is paying 1/4 of what she did before, but what is she paying for? Less coverage?
> 
> It will come out down the line.


this obamacare insurance has tiers that as you go to a higher tier you decrease your deductible but pay for in premiums.


----------



## BluesChanteuse (Oct 14, 2013)

Lukelucy said:


> http://money.msn.com/now/13-states-rebelling-against-obamacare


That's the medicaid expansion, not the same thing.


----------



## headlemk (Feb 16, 2011)

> Vignewood wrote:
> Yes it does!!!
> 
> No It Doesn't. Congress and the President are exempt!


To be specific...the President and Congress and their staffs get a huge subsidy toward their premiums for their "cadillac" policy...as if they can't afford it and would actually qualify if they actually applied for the ACA like the rest of us peons.


----------



## Janet Cooke (Aug 14, 2013)

joeysomma said:


> Please explain where you found your information.
> 
> All policies have to have "minimum essential coverage."
> 
> ...


They have sent out written communications.


----------



## linnerlu (Jul 9, 2013)

ute4kp said:


> Anyone over the age of 75 will be thrown into the Grand Canyon. :twisted: :twisted:


LOL! Makes about as much sense as a lot of the other stuff I've seen here.


----------



## momforthree (Nov 10, 2011)

Somebody mentioned that Social Security and Medicare programs were invented long time ago, and people back then did not complain that it is "socialism".
Wake up people, Social Security and Medicare ARE PAYED BY YOU! You American workers are paying in, all your lives! Each and every paycheck ! It is YOUR RIGHT to get SS, and it is YOUR RIGHT to get Medicare. YOU! YOU! Not the people who did not pay in it! Getting back YOUR OWN MONEY is NOT socialism, socialism is the concept of" What is yours is mine too, so I take it!"


----------



## cherylthompson (Feb 18, 2013)

Lukelucy said:


> It is not happening yet. It will be over a period of the next 2 years. It will be a semi-gradual emigration.
> Maybe she is paying 1/4 of what she did before, but what is she paying for? Less coverage?
> 
> It will come out down the line.


I must say here, in Va, I have healthcare though my employer and my payments per pay period (every 2 weeks) have nearly doubled already!


----------



## linnerlu (Jul 9, 2013)

obxamom said:


> I'd rather scratch my eyeballs out then listen to your non common sensical rhetoric ..


This conversation is getting funnier and funnier! (Maybe it's the glass of wine I just had.)


----------



## kittykatzmom (Mar 1, 2011)

NOTHING the USA government is involved with is any good. Oh well the more of us seniors that pass on the more $$$ the politicians will have to waste. As for me I will hang around just go bug them!!!


----------



## kittykatzmom (Mar 1, 2011)

I'm sure some wine would help - a whole lot! Pour me a glass and I'll be right over. I'll bring the cheese.


----------



## obxamom (Apr 21, 2013)

jelun2 said:


> I know that this is REALLY hard for you to accept, but, part of the ACA calls for people who are employed by entities that are larger than 50 employees are covered by their employers. That is President Obama and his staff.
> So while you may not like it, it may not fit your agenda, he and his family and staff are not exempt from anything. They are covered by that provision of the law. That would be just like 90+ percent of the American working public.
> I would appreciate an acknowledgement.
> 
> ...


Finally some info from you ...Obama doesn't have to worry along with all of congress about the silver bronz platinum plan because they already have stellar Insurance why would they need to sign up for this in health care .gov...maybe that is what they ARE meaning by exempt.. people have legitimate concerns bit being hateful in explaining doesn't help anyone's cause ......go to bed ....go knkt something ...oh and I do have it in me j come from a long line of lawyers in my family and arguing points was a typical family get together. It.boils down to respect even if that person be wrong or right....there r many good good things I like about the law oh I bet you didn't know that about me...but as a Christian woman I find some things morally questionable.. please feel free to. P m me and I will discuss it with you maybe both can learn more huh...peace


----------



## obxamom (Apr 21, 2013)

linnerlu said:


> This conversation is getting funnier and funnier! (Maybe it's the glass of wine I just had.)


Not sure how to take your response .....maybe a glass of wine is what I should have ...I love open respectful conversations but this is not


----------



## linnerlu (Jul 9, 2013)

kittykatzmom said:


> I'm sure some wine would help - a whole lot! Pour me a glass and I'll be right over. I'll bring the cheese.


If you bring the cheese, will someone else bring dessert? How about chocolate pudding?


----------



## Designer1234 (Aug 9, 2011)

LizAnne said:


> Give The ACA time to work and quit believing all the negative about it. It just isn't true.


 :thumbup: :thumbup: :thumbup:

A health care plan has to start somewhere. With cooperation as changes are needed they can be done- at least it was in Canada- we now have a viable health care plan, even though there are things about it that are difficult due to the costs and the recession.


----------



## courier770 (Jan 29, 2011)

First of all Cobra is highly expensive!

Secondly, my understanding of the ACA is that the premium may NOT exceed a certain percentage of the income of the individual or family covered and that deductibles must also fall in line with that in addition to "out of pocket" expenses.

I did the math..this isn't how this is working. 

Let me explain, I work for a global corporation, a fortune 500 company with hundreds of thousands of US employees alone. We've all done the math..it's not working, it's not even close, unless you are a "new hire" at the bottom of the pay scale. Because we are a large corporation we are now enrolling in coverage that is supposed to meet the guidelines of the ACA. Well I shouldn't say that, the coverage meets the ACA guidelines but what ACA started out as (in affordability) and what it has become are two different things!

There is no reason in the world why retiree's should be so "gouged" on coverage but that's exactly what is happening/going to happen.

Insurance companies have always been in the "risk" business and as long as the risk involved someone elses money, that was fine!


----------



## Janet Cooke (Aug 14, 2013)

NJG said:


> All you have to do is start to read this article and read this "People with common sense and reality-based principles -- in a word, conservatives" to know that it is a one sided political article and not worth my time to read.


Heck, you don't even have to do that. You just have to read this.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_Thinker


----------



## Janet Cooke (Aug 14, 2013)

joeysomma said:


> What are they?? I don't think you know.


Yes, I am sure you think that because I haven't proven over and over during the past 2 months that I know more than you do about almost everything.


----------



## Judyh (Apr 15, 2011)

jelun2 said:


> Sorry about that, sweetie. :thumbdown:


You have been rude and you obviously have not had a very good education. Calling someone "sweetie" is reserved for your loved ones, and obviously not any people are your loved ones here. Take a course in etiquette!


----------



## Knitry (Dec 18, 2011)

PEOPLE, PEOPLE, PEOPLE --

CONGRESS IS NOT EXEMPT FROM OBAMACARE. I keep reading KPers posting this and I can only say it's the best, most resilient LIE I've seen the opponents of the President and the ACA get away with.

YOU ARE BEING LIED TO. Start questioning those sources that deliver lies and misinformation to you. (IOW: Wake the heck UP.)



> *That Congressional Exemption From Obamacare? Another Myth* Of all the misconceptions surrounding the new health reform law known as Obamacareand there are manyone of the newest and most infuriating is the idea that Congress made itself exempt from a law that puts onerous new burdens on many other Americans. That contention is totally false. In fact, members of Congress, along with their personal staffers, are required to participate in Obamacare, which is a more stringent requirement than employees of many big companies face. http://finance.yahoo.com/blogs/the-exchange/congressional-exemption-obamacare-another-myth-153149342.html


----------



## Knitry (Dec 18, 2011)

susanmos2000 said:


> I would hope so as well--but the fact of this thread shows that alas, that's often not the case. I'm appalled that the originator of this thread has chosen to post her version of the facts without a caveat encouraging others to check with their doctor/hospital/insurance company as well. She's playing with people's lives, and I find that frightening.


 :thumbup: :thumbup:


----------



## Knitry (Dec 18, 2011)

Knitter from Nebraska said:


> Lukelucy, I've not yet read all 19 pages of this thread yet, don't have time right now. But I will say this, o-care is the same in every state. What will differ is that some states have opted out of forming their own registries. People in those states will have to go through federal registries. Also, some states have opted out of the expanded Medicaid. The federal government would give states money to include low income working people in their Medicaid plans. *Some states including Nebraska, understand that while the government will give money to cover these people in the present, the federal funds will and always do dry up.[/v] In the future the states will be forced to fund these people. These are expenses that we cannot afford to keep going. Nebraska is a fiscally responsible state. Our laws require a balanced budget and we cannot spend money we don't have.*


*

The ACA covers 100% of the Medicaid expansion for all the states for 3 years and 90% after that. There's no expiration date, but if some people keep shitting down the government or threatening the world economy, who knows what will happen? Maybe the federal govt would stop subsidiizing expanded Medicaid. But there's no assurance that the feds will renege.

But no matter, let's just let people go uninsured just in case the federal govt would someday stop subsidizing Medicaid, is that what you think is a good idea? Let's just let them all die in the meantime, shall we?

Forty-Five Thousand Americans Die Every Year Due To Lack Of Insurance And a hellalot of misery for many who don't die. http://prescriptions.blogs.nytimes.com/2009/09/17/harvard-medical-study-links-lack-of-insurance-to-45000-us-deaths-a-year/*


----------



## DollieD (Mar 7, 2011)

damemary said:


> OK. If the cost of health care increases many times more than anything else for years, what does that indicate? Sorry I asked.


I will say this...MY homeowners and auto insurance are through a company that also offers health insurance. I understand (don't shout me down), that no one can be denied insurance anymore, no matter how much medical services they require. Like pre-existing cancer, diabetes, sleep apnea...whatever, no matter.
Perhaps that is why this year's home and auto insurance doubled in cost, for me! That was a tough one, and I just retired! But, I am believing I have to pay more to cover for someone, who hasn't had the coverage, I have always paid for, for all these years.
(I have filed once against my homeowners, having it 44 years!)


----------



## NJG (Dec 2, 2011)

marilyn1977 said:


> Have you seen this about Obamacare? I had heard there were a lot of things we would not approve of in his bill. At least I don't. Read the following, I am not sure I should put this on here, but everyone needs to read:
> 
> Fwd: OBAMA CARE AT AGE 76 - Adios!
> 
> ...


I have received this same stuff in an email and it is all a big lie. The rumor, regarding illegal immigrants, for instance, most notably circulated by Rep. Joe Wilson, is untrue, as the law explicitly denies insurance subsidies to "unauthorized (illegal) aliens". I will not waste my time looking them all up. That should have been your job before you pass this crap on and try to scare people. The statement at the beginning about talking to AARP is a lie.


----------



## DollieD (Mar 7, 2011)

linnerlu said:


> This conversation is getting funnier and funnier! (Maybe it's the glass of wine I just had.)


 :lol:


----------



## Sarla (Apr 22, 2013)

I think you have unfortunately wrong information . 70 year will be on Medicare & has nothing to do with affordable care act . I am 71 and am sure nothing is changing for me. I think every body should do his / her research & not add to the confusion.


----------



## DollieD (Mar 7, 2011)

Sherry1 said:


> This information is inaccurate. All states will participate. It is up to them to form an exchange or use the national exchange.


Kentucky opted out!


----------



## blanchebianca (May 12, 2013)

I hope this helps to answer the question: "How does Obamacare help the poor pay for health insurance that they couldn't afford before?"

Insurance premiums will be lower and affordable to people who previously couldn't pay for insurance because now insurance companies now must:
1. put 80% of premiums paid into coverage benefits paid out rather than into bonuses for executives. If the companies don't do this, they have to refund premiums to their policy holders. FACT: those rebates amounted to $1 billion paid out to 12.8 million Americans in 2012. 

2. compete for policy holders' business as never before. Insurance companies are now forced to list the benefits of various policies and the premiums on the Health Insurance Exchanges. People, for the first time, can shop for the policies that fit their needs at the price they can afford. This transparency also serves to lower premiums.


----------



## Knitry (Dec 18, 2011)

grammylynn said:


> I don't think so! So far here in FL we can't even get on to get any info at all so I called our Cardiologist to see if they had any info if they were going to take the patients on it and was told NO WE WILL NO LONGER BE ACCEPTING YOU UNLESS YOU ARE SELF PAY! They have been sending people to learning sessions with the state to see what they will have to know before it goes into effect next year and she had nothing good to say about it. They will be going all private insurances only. Our Primary care doctors turn away all Medicare patients now and will OCare too as it doesn't cover THEIR prices and most people with Medicare can't pay what they want to back bill. So at the moment it looks like the doctors in our area are staying, just not taking as many patients they will pick and choose so as not to lose money. *Not one person I have talked to is going to sign up to pay more than they are now and so I think it will fail. I wouldn't take it if I didn't have to. My hubby and I can't get private ins so we will have to continue to go without. At this time private ins will take us but we would have to pay $2,400 a month premiums and have a $7,000 deductible before coverage kicks in with no meds included and can't afford that.*


Most of the people sharing their experiences I've seen have reported wonderful premium rates. I saw one of $1, another of $47, some for families higher but under $500, and so forth.

You know, the insurance companies will be so happy that you don't bother to check out ACA but insist instead on overpaying for private insurance. The very idea of this makes me wonder if some of the power and force behind all these LIES about Obamacare isn't coming from them.

Really, I'm being serious. If you believe so strongly that ACA is so bad you shouldn't even look at it, or it will definitely raise your premiums more, and that there are death panels or anyone in government will be deciding on your health options, or any of the other reprehensible lies about it, I can assure you that the ONLY people who benefit are the insurance companies.

I was going to try to encourage you to actually take a look at ACA when the website settles down a bit, but I don't think I will. If you insist on believing lies (especially those of you who believe the lies because you hate that black man in the White House so much), then I will just say: may you all simply reap what you sow. And good luck with that.


----------



## NJG (Dec 2, 2011)

Republicans talking points are saying part time work is on the increase because of Obamacare, but that is all it is, just talking points. Wall Street Journal, Politifact and others are saying the data proves it wrong. Will they stop saying it? Of course not, they will keep telling lies.


----------



## Knitry (Dec 18, 2011)

linnerlu said:


> It's this kind of "thinking" that makes me crazy. i.e., "we don't know a thing about it but it's going to be bad." Aaaarrrggghhhhhh!


 :thumbup: :thumbup: :thumbup: :thumbup: :roll: :roll: :roll: :roll:


----------



## Janet Cooke (Aug 14, 2013)

Judyh said:


> You have been rude and you obviously have not had a very good education. Calling someone "sweetie" is reserved for your loved ones, and obviously not any people are your loved ones here. Take a course in etiquette!


PppFffftttt!


----------



## NJG (Dec 2, 2011)

DollieD said:


> Kentucky opted out!


I don't think so.

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2013/10/22/1249670/-Obamacare-off-to-great-start-in-Kentucky-Washington-nbsp-Oregon


----------



## CarolA (Sep 4, 2013)

Ma Kitty said:


> Too bad Obamacare isn't like our Canadian health care system. It is awesome. Our American son in law had plenty of negative things to say about our system before he moved here. Now he's in our country and using our Medicare he can't believe how good it is. We think we are very fortunate.


Has Canada's health care system changed in the last 15 years? We used to live in Montana and knew MANY Canadians who came to the US for healthcare since they couldn't get tests and treatments in Canada.


----------



## DollieD (Mar 7, 2011)

The reason the ACA was established is because 46% of the people living in the USA pay $0.000 taxes....therefore, can they afford healthcare?


----------



## NJG (Dec 2, 2011)

Knitry said:


> PEOPLE, PEOPLE, PEOPLE --
> 
> CONGRESS IS NOT EXEMPT FROM OBAMACARE. I keep reading KPers posting this and I can only say it's the best, most resilient LIE I've seen the opponents of the President and the ACA get away with.
> 
> YOU ARE BEING LIED TO. Start questioning those sources that deliver lies and misinformation to you. (IOW: Wake the heck UP.)


I have told them several times and posted links, but they keep repeating it. They seem to like the lies.


----------



## linnerlu (Jul 9, 2013)

jelun2 said:


> PppFffftttt!


Hahahaha!
(Jelun, I can highly recommend the pinot grigio, it makes this conversation much more palatable!)


----------



## Janeway (Nov 22, 2011)

serena said:


> That is not true my parents are 83 and 82 and they have never been told they can not-receive treatment because of there age


You are wrong as I went to my GYN Dr. For my yearly check up & was told no pap & no mammograms after age 65 even though I'm high risk because of my sister having breast cancer.

You need to get your facts correct before you post.


----------



## Janet Cooke (Aug 14, 2013)

annacovasa said:


> Somebody mentioned that Social Security and Medicare programs were invented long time ago, and people back then did not complain that it is "socialism".
> Wake up people, Social Security and Medicare ARE PAYED BY YOU! You American workers are paying in, all your lives! Each and every paycheck ! It is YOUR RIGHT to get SS, and it is YOUR RIGHT to get Medicare. YOU! YOU! Not the people who did not pay in it! Getting back YOUR OWN MONEY is NOT socialism, socialism is the concept of" What is yours is mine too, so I take it!"


Another subject that has been so over done.

Please, pull out a few old tax statements, most of us have some around. 
Grab the highest amount that you paid into FICA, then double it. 
Now multiply that by the number of years you worked. 
This is going to be much higher than you actually paid in, but, that's OK. 
Now, get your bank statement. Look at how much your monthly deposit is. If you are not yet collecting, please, grab the latest estimate you received. Figure out that amount for 10 years, then 20. 85? does that sound about right?Now, tell us, if you would, how much of that money you are collecting after 20 years is still covered by what you and your employer deposited?
Still think it is not socialism?


----------



## Janeway (Nov 22, 2011)

DollieD said:


> The reason the ACA was established is because 46% of the people living in the USA pay $0.000 taxes....therefore, can they afford healthcare?


Thank you! As no they cannot afford insurance.


----------



## NJG (Dec 2, 2011)

joeysomma said:


> Congress, their staff, etc are under Obama care. They just have different rules. They will have the silver plan and the government will pay 72% of the premium.
> 
> I believe it was the Grassley?? amendment made the members of Congress, their staff the same as any other person. The President Obama signed one of his illegal executive orders to treat Congress special.
> 
> This return to the amendment was the last item that the Republicans in Congress wanted to correct before the government was shut down. Harry Reid would not bring it to the floor of the Senate for a vote. Obama said he would have vetoed it.


Grassley introduced the amendment because he thought all the Democrats would be upset and say no we are not going to switch to Obamacare, and that would be a good talking point for the republicans, but they said good idea and approved it. As far as the government paying part of it, don't most employers pay part of the premium for their employees?


----------



## Knitry (Dec 18, 2011)

ElyseKnox said:


> Linnerlu,
> You are fearfully ignorant (meaning uninformed, not an ad hominem attack) if you think people are against Obamacare based on the color of one man's skin. There have been numerous examples cited of the fallout of this horrendous legislation and yet you expect us to think there is serious thought behind such a post?!


Uhhhhh, no. First, most of the "fallout" isn't. It's mostly just wild speculation and fear-based mental flights of fancy. The ACA isn't even fully implemented yet, so all these horror stories are either not due to ACA or pure fantasy. Many people seem to be conflating Medicare with Obamacare, and there's no connection at all.

As for the race issue, it arises from the clear observation by some of us that those who are complaining most bitterly have unreasonable, irrational hatred of the man. Or merely resentment him for no good reason. There HAVE been explicitly racist sentiments posted by many of the anti-ACAers, and they've been quite ugly. Others who also "hate" and fear Obamacare could have denounced or at least disavowed the racism, chose not to.


----------



## susanmos2000 (May 10, 2011)

Janeway said:


> You are wrong as I went to my GYN Dr. For my yearly check up & was told no pap & no mammograms after age 65 even though I'm high risk because of my sister having breast cancer.
> 
> You need to get your facts correct before you post.


Your experience has nothing to do with any mandates from the ACA, Janie. This from the New York Times (10/22/13):

"The American Cancer Society, the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists and the U.S. Preventive Services Task Force agree that after age 65, theres little additional benefit to routine annual screenings for low-risk women with a history of negative Pap smears and no history of cancer or precancerous lesions.

In women who have had normal annual Pap tests for many years and are in monogamous relationships, the risk of cervical cancer is very low, said Dr. Sarah Feldman, a gynecologic oncologist at Brigham and Womens Hospital in Boston and author of a recent editorial summarizing the expert consensus in The New England Journal of Medicine."


----------



## cspaen34 (Jan 28, 2011)

Triskit said:


> I'm not old enough for Medicare and my employer doesn't offer insurance, so for me the ACA is a godsend. Will be paying about $47/month for a medical policy versus having no insurance as my old policy costs rose to over $800/month and I had to drop the coverage or live under a bridge.


 :thumbup: :thumbup: How true. There are so many people in our nation, like Triskit, who are unable to obtain affordable health insurance for one reason or another. This is a situation that must change, and our emergency rooms need to be used for just that--emergencies. Even if one has insurance through employment and you lose your job you then purchase Cobra in between jobs. That is, like Triskit's situation, very expensive. We, as a nation, must do many things to control our medical costs and this is a start. I still note that, on average, those on KP who instead have "universal health care" in their countries seem happy with their care and thankful for its' benefits. :thumbup: Happy to hear you are going to be helped through ACA.


----------



## Janet Cooke (Aug 14, 2013)

DollieD said:


> The reason the ACA was established is because 46% of the people living in the USA pay $0.000 taxes....therefore, can they afford healthcare?


Well dang, I thought it was 47...
can you tell us why those people don't pay taxes?
Better yet, can you tell us why you do?


----------



## Janeway (Nov 22, 2011)

NJG said:


> I have told them several times and posted links, but they keep repeating it. They seem to like the lies.


You are just supporting Obo with anything he does while the rest of us pay more as you are probably on Welfare!


----------



## DollieD (Mar 7, 2011)

knitminnie said:


> I have been listening and reading everything I can about Obamacare. I personally think it is a shambles. No one seems to understand it and everyone has a different opinion. I worry about our young people who are young and healthy. They are the ones who seem to be the targeted ones to fund the old, sickly, lazy, and the "I don't give a damn". people. It is a fact you cannot get something for nothing no matter how sugary you make it. I personally resent the fact that this plan is messing up health care for people who were perfectly happy with what they had. The ones who didn't have any went to the ER anyway for a splinter. So far, my husband retired from a company who has a wonderful health care plan for us and is keeping it for us. My children however, are in that group who are healthy, working, and having to make choices.
> I think it is ridiculous for people who have never ran a business, our president and congress and staff, are telling everyone else what is best for them and not even listening to what the people are calling for. I believe in the power of the pen, so I have been pounding my keyboard e-mailing every politician with my opinion. There is just too, too much confusion.


WE have no money!
How are WE going to pay for this ?


----------



## theyarnlady (Feb 25, 2011)

NJG said:


> Everything I have read says the opposite. Wisconsin has lost jobs the last 6 months and has increased their borrowing. Walker refused the 4.4 billion from the federal government for the increased medicaid program and then has to borrow to meet expenses. You have your head buried in the sand if you think Wisconsin is THRIVING.


Wrong unless you live in this state I think it would be best for you to check before you sell us down the road.

As I live here and understand a lot more than you do. You may want to look at both sides. Not just from the left.


----------



## susanmos2000 (May 10, 2011)

Janeway said:


> You are just supporting Obo with anything he does while the rest of us pay more as you are probably on Welfare!


What happened to all the sweetness and light you displayed a few days ago, Janeway? I thought you no longer wanted to waste your energy quarreling and fighting and frankly, I was touched. But now your back biting everyone's head off. What gives?


----------



## Janeway (Nov 22, 2011)

susanmos2000 said:


> Your experience has nothing to do with any mandates from the ACA, Janie. This from the New York Times (10/22/13):
> 
> "The American Cancer Society, the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists and the U.S. Preventive Services Task Force agree that after age 65, theres little additional benefit to routine annual screenings for low-risk women with a history of negative Pap smears and no history of cancer or precancerous lesions.
> 
> In women who have had normal annual Pap tests for many years and are in monogamous relationships, the risk of cervical cancer is very low, said Dr. Sarah Feldman, a gynecologic oncologist at Brigham and Womens Hospital in Boston and author of a recent editorial summarizing the expert consensus in The New England Journal of Medicine."


This is not what my dr. told me as she indicated it was because of the new health care (Obocare) coming into effect.

I'm high risk for breast cancer because of my sibling having BC! It still won't be paid for by my insurance. My neighbor had breast cancer at age 79 but this was before this Obo garbage.

As long as a woman has breast she can get BC!


----------



## linnerlu (Jul 9, 2013)

Janeway said:


> You are just supporting Obo with anything he does while the rest of us pay more as you are probably on Welfare!


Snort! This is hysterical! I really have to stop reading this stuff tonight, my tummy hurts from laughing!

(I had never heard of the term "Obo" before getting on this list ... talk about disrespect ... and "you are probably on Welfare!" ... wow, what a hateful put-down.)


----------



## Janeway (Nov 22, 2011)

susanmos2000 said:


> What happened to all the sweetness and light you displayed a few days ago, Janeway? I thought you no longer wanted to waste your energy quarreling and fighting and frankly, I was touched. But now your back biting everyone's head off. What gives?


So are you!


----------



## Janeway (Nov 22, 2011)

linnerlu said:


> Snort! This is hysterical! I really have to stop reading this stuff tonight, my tummy hurts from laughing!
> 
> (I had never heard of the term "Obo" before getting on this list ... talk about disrespect ... and "you are probably on Welfare!" ... wow, what a hateful put-down.)


Well, you aren't respectful either who is calling the pot black?


----------



## susanmos2000 (May 10, 2011)

DollieD said:


> WE have no money!
> How are WE going to pay for this ?


Check and see if you qualify for any subsidies. If not you do have until April to sign up, and even the penalties for failing to do so are less than $100 for the first year. Might help to study your budget and prioritize--health care is important and should be treated as such.


----------



## Janeway (Nov 22, 2011)

jelun2 said:


> Another subject that has been so over done.
> 
> Please, pull out a few old tax statements, most of us have some around.
> Grab the highest amount that you paid into FICA, then double it.
> ...


You really are confused! Where in the universe did you think you attended school! Some alien school maybe? This is laughable at best. Gosh!


----------



## Knitted by Nan (Aug 3, 2013)

linnerlu said:


> Hahahaha!
> (Jelun, I can highly recommend the pinot grigio, it makes this conversation much more palatable!)


Thanks for the tip. Silly me I have been sticking to taking a double dose and at times a triple dose of nausea and diarrhoea medicine when I read some postings here.
 :x


----------



## Knitry (Dec 18, 2011)

Thank you, neighbor -- so good it bears repeating:



Dornar said:


> I can not let this subject pass without a comment --- BULLSHIT. So many of you have been lead down the garden path about Obamacare that your BULLSHIT radar has been blunted.
> 
> NO. There will not be a mass migration of Doctors out of states that have not set up the exchanges to buy affordable insurance,
> 
> ...


----------



## Janeway (Nov 22, 2011)

flohel said:


> gee Janeway havent had your coffee yet?


Aren't you such a sweetie for offering me a cup. I like cream/sugar please.


----------



## Janet Cooke (Aug 14, 2013)

Janeway said:


> This is not what my dr. told me as she indicated it was because of the new health care (Obocare) coming into effect.
> 
> I'm high risk for breast cancer because of my sibling having BC! It still won't be paid for by my insurance. My neighbor had breast cancer at age 79 but this was before this Obo garbage.
> 
> As long as a woman has breast she can get BC!


Then your doctor lied to you and you should begin a search immediately for someone who will not do that.


----------



## Knitry (Dec 18, 2011)

Lukelucy said:


> That is terrible. Obamacare is going to hurt so many people.


And help millions and millions more, as it already has.


----------



## bwtyer (Oct 31, 2012)

DollieD said:


> WE have no money!
> How are WE going to pay for this ?


There are exemptions - and someone who can not pay will get exempted or subsidized to an affordable amount. This was a huge worry of mine concerning people where I volunteer. Jelun2 informed me about this on another day's heated conversations. I took her information and looked it up so that I could be informed to be able to give out good information if I were asked. I had to search to find my answers but they are there.
let me add this link- you can go in person to ask questions
https://localhelp.healthcare.gov/

I have healthcare and I am not a proponent of it because of the mandatory issues. But regardless, it is here, it is law , for now, and I want to be informed for others.


----------



## Janeway (Nov 22, 2011)

flohel said:


> I am seventy and just had a mammogram. The lady with the broken wrist If I were you I would get another Dr.


I'm also 70 & was told my ins would not pay for it & I'm high risk because if a sibling with breast cancer.

You say you got a mammogram & I'm saying mine was refused! What state do you live in as this could make a difference.


----------



## Janet Cooke (Aug 14, 2013)

Janeway said:


> Well, you aren't respectful either who is calling the pot black?


Nyah Nyah


----------



## Lukelucy (Nov 19, 2011)

Designer1234 said:


> Everyone -- everything you read here from the original poster has been repeated over and over and over on the other Political threads-- I would suggest that health care reform has to start somewhere.
> 
> Just keep your minds open, check out the facts mentioned here - check out all aspects of the Affordable health Care bill and then decide for yourselves. But don't believe things just because they are posted here. Read, study, question . then decide for yourself.
> 
> ...


I disagree. We need a plan, but NOT a government plan.


----------



## Knitry (Dec 18, 2011)

valmac said:


> Are US citizens not required to purchase car or (if you have a mortgage) home insurance? Do you consider that requirement socialism? Does it not apply to all?
> As I said I am not personally familiar with your system, but as with anything new, it will take time to get things running smoothly. Not being able to register on a website doesn't amount to a socialist conspiracy in my opinion!
> *Actually when I think about it, maybe a good dose of real socialism might solve some of your country's problems!*


LOL -- I think so too.

:thumbup: :thumbup: :thumbup: :thumbup:


----------



## Knitry (Dec 18, 2011)

Catladysher said:


> It has also been reported on the news (FOX) that to see rates you have to enter a lot of your info..and then you can't get out. I think I will keep my private insurance...I already know what I pay and from what I hear--the rates on Obamacare are higher for those who are not "young". I just wish they had told us before they enacted this awful law what exactly was in this medical care package. It was and still is a secret unless you put your name, address and other pertinent info onto the site...kinda locks you into something you may not want. I am sure for some people this program may work, *but for me--I don't want to be on a waiting list..*


What waiting list??


----------



## Lukelucy (Nov 19, 2011)

ute4kp said:


> geez, everyone is a bully who doesn't agree with you.


No, it is the way it is presented. A lack of human respect is lacking. We do not mind disagreeing. It is the way it is done. Nasty, insulting, no manners, pathetic. Can't you tell the difference?


----------



## Knitry (Dec 18, 2011)

Apbarr said:


> Here is an example now that the ACA website works. I got a quote for a plan that would be equal to the coverage I have now (POS plan with Aetna, $550 deductible, for me and my spouse). The quote from the ACA website is for $647/month and I now pay $564. This is not helping me since we only have one income and coming out of pocket even for $550 is hard. The deductible for the ACA plan has $1000 deductible which makes it even worse.


Which level was that -- bronze, silver, gold, platinum? Were you eligible for any subsidies? Were there other companies available to look at? Too little information to get a real honest picture of this.


----------



## susanmos2000 (May 10, 2011)

Janeway said:


> This is not what my dr. told me as she indicated it was because of the new health care (Obocare) coming into effect.
> 
> I'm high risk for breast cancer because of my sibling having BC! It still won't be paid for by my insurance. My neighbor had breast cancer at age 79 but this was before this Obo garbage.
> 
> As long as a woman has breast she can get BC!


Makes me wonder about your doctor--even if the ACA did have the ability to dictate how often tests like mammograms were done, it doesn't take effect until 2014. Why wouldn't your doctor have you screened for this year, at least?

Frankly I'm beginning to see a pattern here. I suspect your doctor, like LL's, doesn't want to waste his or her time explaining to you why you should or should not have certain tests. Why bother when it's so much easier and faster to blame it on the ACA? Obviously they know you'll swallow that one hook, line, and sinker, saving them precious moments that would otherwise be spent in highly futile explanations.


----------



## Knitry (Dec 18, 2011)

ElyseKnox said:


> So Bianca,
> Why should we accept your version that people will not lose the insurance they've had when numerous posters have come here and given examples of just such situations?


Well, maybe because those examples were spurious, unfounded, suspect, poorly explained, unvalidated, or otherwise simply not credible??


----------



## Janet Cooke (Aug 14, 2013)

bwtyer said:


> There are exemptions - and someone who can not pay will get exempted or subsidized to an affordable amount. This was a huge worry of mine concerning people where I volunteer. Jelun2 informed me about this on another day's heated conversations. I took her information and looked it up so that I could be informed to be able to give out good information if I were asked. I had to search to find my answers but they are there.


I thought she meant WE = the nation. 
The nation has money coming in every week. 
That is why all the uber conservatives thought it was AOK to keep the debt limit as is (pre-10/17 levels) because the national income would take care of the debt and all.


----------



## Janet Cooke (Aug 14, 2013)

susanmos2000 said:


> Makes me wonder about your doctor--even if the ACA did have the ability to dictate how often tests like mammograms were done, it doesn't take effect until 2014. Why wouldn't your doctor have you screened for this year, at least?
> 
> Frankly I'm beginning to see a pattern here. I suspect your doctor, like LL's, doesn't want to waste his or her time explaining to you why you should or should not have certain tests. Why bother when it's so much easier and faster to blame it on the ACA? Obviously they know you'll swallow that one hook, line, and sinker, saving them precious moments that would otherwise be spent in highly futile explanations.


 :thumbup:


----------



## Lukelucy (Nov 19, 2011)

yanagi said:


> Affordable Health Care. Yeah. I can't afford it. The minimum payment I can find doesn't provide anything. And it's $50 more than my SS payment.


That is what I am saying. What do you get for your AHC. Not much. And you are paying a lot. Doctors are going to head for the hills. Wake up America.


----------



## Lukelucy (Nov 19, 2011)

Cindy S said:


> I have had BCBS for years, so I called them after reading your post. I spent 35 minutes on the phone with them and they could not verify any one of your points.


Right. They don't want to tell the bad news.


----------



## Lukelucy (Nov 19, 2011)

ute4kp said:


> Stop with your bully tactics.


I am not the bully. Please look a little closer.


----------



## Knitry (Dec 18, 2011)

damemary said:


> Tell me. Do 'death panels' sound reasonable to you? Did it ever occur to you that that might be a lie to get people aroused? Don't fall for it. Death Panels are against everything our country stands for.


But the thing that really amazes me is that NO ONE who buys this load of bull and fears our GOVERNMENT having control over our health (it won't) stops to think that their lives are in the hands of their insurance companies -- their FOR PROFIT insurance companies. You talk about death panels!! I've heard some horror stories, some of which aren't possible anymore because Obamacare has made it so that:

* no one can be dropped from their insurance
* pre-existing conditions don't preclude coverage any more
* there are no life-time limits

I've heard so many stories of someone being diagnosed with cancer or something and then their insurance company finding some little flaw or "error" in their application that made them ineligible for insurance -- and with a (now) pre-existing condition, they were just up a creek.

None of that happens any more, thank God, and thank the ACA. Not only that, millions of people who are uninsured and an awful lot of people who were otherwise "uninsurable" now can get insurance.


----------



## Janet Cooke (Aug 14, 2013)

joeysomma said:


> There you go assuming things. Since you were not in the room how do you know?


Since you were too impatient to copy the rest of the post (the part that I copied) how the heck would I know?

It was probably that same lie we have been reading all day. I can't have a mammogram because i am over 65, 70, 75... whatever. It is a lie.


----------



## Lukelucy (Nov 19, 2011)

Bloomers said:


> Sorry, Mardihar, would have to disagree. Since the government will be deciding who gets care and who doesn't and the doctors/medical staff will be paid by the government there will be no incentive to be more productive, informed or educated since the money will remain the same. That is why the quality of care will also go down. The government will be determining what will be paid and to whom. Socialism at it's best.


You are right on.


----------



## Janet Cooke (Aug 14, 2013)

joeysomma said:


> That is under a different part of the Obamacare law. The purpose of the amendment was to make Congress and staff the same as ordinary people. Most of the Democrats, especially Obama decided that wasn't fair. They have to be treated special.


Were you in the room?


----------



## Lukelucy (Nov 19, 2011)

ninal46 said:


> In my opinion, people that are buying into this "Obamacare/affordable" care are not looking at the big picture. First, I do NOT want government poking around into my health care - I don't trust them and I do not wish to be told where and when I can see a doctor - hence the reason I moved here from a country that HAS National Health. Secondly, the only way that Obamacare is going to work is making someone that is young and healthy pay for someone else's medical problems. I don't think that is fair. I believe we could have done much better had we stopped frivolous law suits against doctors. That way it would bring down their malpractice insurance and therefore their cost would have been adjusted. Then give everyone the ability to shop across state lines for insurances - who ever has lower rates and the plan fits your needs, then go with that plan. Also, allow one to take their insurance with them if they change employment ... and there are a lot more things we could have done. But no ... Obama, Pelosi and Reid pushed a health plan out that is - not ready, does not help those they claim it does and ruins health care for everyone. I have a right as an American Citizen to be truly upset that a President that should care for ALL Americans is so partisan that he ONLY cares about his political left wing. I have never taken a dime from the government - and I was a young mother divorced at 24 with 3 young children. I worked, and I worked until I got where I wanted. I sold magazines over the phone. I took all three kids door to door and sold Avon ...after attending school at night ... I got a better job. So, if I can do it, anyone can.
> There, I've had my rant and that is all I am going to say.


You are so right. Thank you.


----------



## Lukelucy (Nov 19, 2011)

Knitter from Nebraska said:


> This much I know is true: when you have to FORCE people to buy it, it can't be that great!!!


Right!


----------



## theyarnlady (Feb 25, 2011)

kittykatzmom said:


> NOTHING the USA government is involved with is any good. Oh well the more of us seniors that pass on the more $$$ the politicians will have to waste. As for me I will hang around just go bug them!!!


Ah your a person after my own heart. You go lady and bug them to death, I will join you. But in case I don't make it bug them double one for you and one for me.

I love your humor. :XD: :XD: :XD: :thumbup:


----------



## aw9358 (Nov 1, 2011)

Knitry and Designer, thank you for your thoughtful and well-written posts. I have learned more useful information from them than from almost anyone else here. However, I think you are wasting your valuable time and effort if you expect anyone who is against the ACA to even read what you have written. Soundbites and stupidity are much easier to digest. I suggest you go and bang your heads against a wall - at least it's nice when you stop.


----------



## Lukelucy (Nov 19, 2011)

ute4kp said:


> The website(s) are in the mess, not ACA.


All of it is a mess.


----------



## Janeway (Nov 22, 2011)

obxamom said:


> Someone said that the aca is not raising premiums its the insurance companies .....well who do you think put them the I insurance companies in a situation where if they are going to provide affordable health care to some then those who can pay will pay not for one policy but for two or three...heard the saying rob from peter to pay Paul. How else are they going to pay for cheap premiums ..for the original poster not reponding to some comments those who don't agree with her gripe at her how it isn't true not fact ...get your facts straight get educated....well if you are all so enlightened and so more educated then please provide us all with an unbiased informative source who has thourghly read the law and can give us pure information... simply going to the healthcare.gov hello can we say biased ????? She's not responding because you are not giving her any facts to respond on...just hearsay responses that you regurgitate from a heard of based source...refuti g the poster.unless you've read the bill and are an expert...where are u getting your Info from??? Hmmmm..why do you want to shut the thread down...is what others are saying that is opposite what you propose to believe making you upset or uncomfortable??? Some people are stating their experience good or bad with the current health care ...premiums going up....the later is costing more then what they previously had people getting their jobs slashed In. Half due to this health care ....show me the run down from someone who is simply reviewing the facts with no financial interest and agenda ...if that is what this poster doc told her then fine that is what is relayed and she is simply sharing what she heard...its up to you to counter that with facts not fear mongering and bullying.


Thank you for your post as you "hit the nail on the head" as the ones who are replying don't know what they are saying but continue to say we are lying about what our doctor's have told us. Thank you again.


----------



## Jar (Oct 31, 2012)

Lukelucy said:


> Right. We are on the road to Socialism. It is as clear as day. It scares me that our lives will be cut short because we wait for tests, are put in a line for care, can't choose our doctors. I see America in a battle for Socialism (Dems at this point) and a democratic society (Repubs). Some people don't see it. Our country is changing so quickly.


I agree, not to many people will speak up. But we are losing freedoms daily. Jane


----------



## kittykatzmom (Mar 1, 2011)

In my opinion those who are excited about this plan are those who don't pay taxes and live off the government. It will cost those paying taxes a whole bunch. Someone always has to pay for the cost in the end and that end is always the taxpayers. The future citizens of America are inheriting so much debt and they aren't in for a good live. Makes me so glad I'm older.
Look at this this way - Obama is also passing on the debt to his two daughters and their future families. Seems like poetic justice doesn't it?


----------



## Lukelucy (Nov 19, 2011)

Vignewood said:


> I turned 70 and still got a mammo!


Not for long. Try it at 72.


----------



## Lukelucy (Nov 19, 2011)

linnerlu said:


> O. M. G. More disinformation.


This is not disinformation. It is common sense.


----------



## kittykatzmom (Mar 1, 2011)

I just got one at 71. Heck if I get cancer and die I just die. I'm at an age it doesn't really matter anymore. Some may say I have a poor attitude, but it is just a fact. Sure I would like to live a few more years, but if I do I do and if I don't then I don't. Not going to worry about it one way or the other.


----------



## Janet Cooke (Aug 14, 2013)

theyarnlady said:


> Wrong unless you live in this state I think it would be best for you to check before you sell us down the road.
> 
> As I live here and understand a lot more than you do. You may want to look at both sides. Not just from the left.


This seems to be a good side to look at, unconstitutional activity.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/10/21/wisconsin-labor-ruling_n_4139981.html


----------



## Janet Cooke (Aug 14, 2013)

Sorry, duplicate.


----------



## Lukelucy (Nov 19, 2011)

ute4kp said:


> :thumbup: :thumbup: If only the hysterical people only knew what real socialism was all about.


It is a spectrum. Starts a little at a time and then is full blown. Wake up.


----------



## Lukelucy (Nov 19, 2011)

StitchDesigner said:


> Is this the same ObamaNoCare that has an inoperative website? The same one whose programming was already over $300 Million and it's not right? The same on that has already publicly stated that if you are over 70 and you have a chronic disease, it will not be covered? The same one that has CUT Medicare to pay for NoCare? The same one that will be run by the IRS? Oh, yeah, Americans are real happy about this. *NOT!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!*


 :thumbup: :thumbup: Good for you!


----------



## Lukelucy (Nov 19, 2011)

Knit crazy said:


> You realize, I hope, that you can choose not to participate in Obamacare. Concierge doctors will work outside Obamacare guidelines and requirements. Many specialists will not take Obamacare patients or Medicare patients and especially Medicaid patients because of the fee structure. Plus, you can choose not to participate in Obamacare, pay a small penalty, and if a health event is expensive then join Obamacare to get the event covered. Many will be considering their options and making difficult choices. It is a shame that this health care bill will cause suffering to aid a few who don't have insurance, but it is what Obama promised - that he'd level the playing field. If you worked hard for years, saved your money, and lived a healthy life, you are now just a funding mechanism for providing healthcare to those who made poor life choices and/or health choices.


You are so right. When are people going to wake up??


----------



## Janet Cooke (Aug 14, 2013)

kittykatzmom said:


> In my opinion those who are excited about this plan are those who don't pay taxes and live off the government. It will cost those paying taxes a whole bunch. Someone always has to pay for the cost in the end and that end is always the taxpayers. The future citizens of America are inheriting so much debt and they aren't in for a good live. Makes me so glad I'm older.
> Look at this this way - Obama is also passing on the debt to his two daughters and their future families. Seems like poetic justice doesn't it?


Sounds like hateful crap to me.


----------



## Lukelucy (Nov 19, 2011)

Knitry said:


> You mean you won't respond to anyone who challenges your false statements and inaccuracies? That's NOT disrespect, not among equals.


There is a nice way and a disrespectful way. I will answer anyone who treats me with respect.


----------



## susanmos2000 (May 10, 2011)

kittykatzmom said:


> I just got one at 71. Heck if I get cancer and die I just die. I'm at an age it doesn't really matter anymore. Some may say I have a poor attitude, but it is just a fact. Sure I would like to live a few more years, but if I do I do and if I don't then I don't. Not going to worry about it one way or the other.


I don't feel you have a bad attitude, kittykatzmom. Almost half of mammograms produce false negatives and needless biopsies. Not a big deal for a relatively young woman, but possibly much more serious for a senior with underlying health issues.


----------



## Lukelucy (Nov 19, 2011)

Knitry said:


> What exactly is so bad about socialism? Can you even define socialism?


Yes I can. But, why don't you look it up. We are heading there. Wake up. What is bad about socialism? Wow. Start reading about socialistic countries and how happy or unhappy the people there were. It is a terrible system. I find your statement is very uninformed. History will tell you how Socialism has not worked. It is a very sad state and very depression for a society that lives with socialism. Your statement only tells me that it is true history does repeat itself because lessons learned are forgotten. For you to state how bad is socialism tells me we are in such huge, monumental trouble in this country to even say what you said.


----------



## Janet Cooke (Aug 14, 2013)

StitchDesigner wrote:
Is this the same ObamaNoCare that has an inoperative website? The same one whose programming was already over $300 Million and it's not right? The same on that has already publicly stated that if you are over 70 and you have a chronic disease, it will not be covered? The same one that has CUT Medicare to pay for NoCare? The same one that will be run by the IRS? Oh, yeah, Americans are real happy about this. NOT!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

That's right. 
Those of us who are in with the in crowd are going to designate who the over 65 victims should be, those people are going to be done in. THEN as we have the power we are going to grab all those beautiful belongings, the homes, the vehicles, the lake views, and OMG, the yarn. Millions and millions of skeins and hanks of yarn. 
That is what this whole thing is REALLY about, stealing all the stashes.


----------



## ChrisGV (Apr 5, 2013)

kittykatzmom said:


> In my opinion those who are excited about this plan are those who don't pay taxes and live off the government. It will cost those paying taxes a whole bunch. Someone always has to pay for the cost in the end and that end is always the taxpayers. The future citizens of America are inheriting so much debt and they aren't in for a good live. Makes me so glad I'm older.
> Look at this this way - Obama is also passing on the debt to his two daughters and their future families. Seems like poetic justice doesn't it?


I've been working for 46 years and paying taxes as has my husband. We have never lived off the government. I retire in January and already have signed up for ACA. So I am stupid or a liberal user and loser? Thanks for the compliment


----------



## Lukelucy (Nov 19, 2011)

ute4kp said:


> How do you know?


Human nature. Easy to see.


----------



## Lukelucy (Nov 19, 2011)

jelun2 said:


> LOL, Lukelucy started the other 25 page thread. So yes, she certainly did imagine what the response to her imaginary report would be.


It is not imaginary. And I did not think about a 25 page thread. I was looking for good sound thinking which is not happening.


----------



## Lukelucy (Nov 19, 2011)

jelun2 said:


> LOL, Lukelucy started the other 25 page thread. So yes, she certainly did imagine what the response to her imaginary report would be.


And you are reading my mind. Give me a break.


----------



## Lukelucy (Nov 19, 2011)

damemary said:


> There is no way to debate you. You are deluded.


Grammy, She is a bully. Do not listen.


----------



## Lukelucy (Nov 19, 2011)

grammylynn said:


> I don't care who was the very first person to start it, As I said the first person that I saw to talk about it on tv was him and on that day he said he was extremely pleased to have his legacy have his name on it so everyone will know he brought healthcare to all Americans. Having been born a "Yankee" I couldn't care less about where the name came from and now living in the South I am a "Damn Yankee" and that is fine too. It is just a word.


 :thumbup: :thumbup:


----------



## Lukelucy (Nov 19, 2011)

obxamom said:


> I thought you weren't going to debate with me anymore ...not down and dirty just pointing out facts which you have a hard time processing and dealing with I see...you are unreasonable... uncharitable... unable to have a logical conversation with anyone who disagrees with you .only of they agree with you or if you can answer a question acting like you are the guru you are ..you are not worth my time and I'd rather scratch my eyeballs out then listen to your non common sensical rhetoric ..not sure what was done to you to make the hateful person you are but I hope you come to terms with it so you can have peace with yourself and stop lashing out at others ....peace to you ...


You have a way with words. Right on. Thank you. You'd think she'd take the hint and cringe at the thought of herself. Maybe learn something. No way. The blindness makes it worse.


----------



## Dot-I (Jun 25, 2011)

If Obamacare were so great why did he exempt himself and his family from it. And why are all senators not taking it. I don't want it either.
If you read what is in the Obamacare book you would be shocked what is in it>>>>>


----------



## Lukelucy (Nov 19, 2011)

headlemk said:


> That was really a very ugly statement. "Politico?" Seriously? I'm trying to deal honestly with the misinformation you are spreading because of your love for the current occupant in the White House and so you've turned a blind eye to what his programs are doing to our country. You actually sound like one of his paid lackeys who can't seem to think for themselves but just spew the latest "spin." It's sad, really.


Wow. Great words that hit the nail on the head.


----------



## Janet Cooke (Aug 14, 2013)

ute4kp said:


> Sign yourself onto the death panel.


 :roll:


----------



## courier770 (Jan 29, 2011)

It really doesn't matter WHO occupies the White House, the focal point is that ACA excludes the current and future occupants of the White House from having to depend on this act for their health care or the health care of their children and THAT speaks volumes!


----------



## Janet Cooke (Aug 14, 2013)

ChrisGV said:


> I've been working for 46 years and paying taxes as has my husband. We have never lived off the government. I retire in January and already have signed up for ACA. So I am stupid or a liberal user and loser? Thanks for the compliment


 :thumbup: :thumbup: :thumbup: :thumbup: :thumbup:


----------



## Jar (Oct 31, 2012)

Dot-I said:


> If Obamacare were so great why did he exempt himself and his family from it. And why are all senators not taking it. I don't want it either.
> If you read what is in the Obamacare book you would be shocked what is in it>>>>>


What a great point, that is lost on most people. If it is not good enough for them it is not good for the Nation. Jane


----------



## Lukelucy (Nov 19, 2011)

courier770 said:


> It really doesn't matter WHO occupies the White House, the focal point is that ACA excludes the current and future occupants of the White House from having to depend on this act for their health care or the health care of their children and THAT speaks volumes!


Wow. That is bad news.


----------



## Janet Cooke (Aug 14, 2013)

Dot-I said:


> If Obamacare were so great why did he exempt himself and his family from it. And why are all senators not taking it. I don't want it either.
> If you read what is in the Obamacare book you would be shocked what is in it>>>>>


So don't get it and pay the fine.


----------



## susanmos2000 (May 10, 2011)

Lukelucy said:


> It is not imaginary. And I did not think about a 25 page thread. I was looking for good sound thinking which is not happening.


Well, what do you expect when you begin a thread with five highly twisted statement that you allege your doctor told you husband and he told you? The good doctor's words of doom were debunked in just a few pages--all the rest has been 50% solid info and 50% hysterical scare stories by folks who don't know which way is up.


----------



## Queenmum (Dec 3, 2011)

jelun2 said:


> StitchDesigner wrote:
> Is this the same ObamaNoCare that has an inoperative website? The same one whose programming was already over $300 Million and it's not right? The same on that has already publicly stated that if you are over 70 and you have a chronic disease, it will not be covered? The same one that has CUT Medicare to pay for NoCare? The same one that will be run by the IRS? Oh, yeah, Americans are real happy about this. NOT!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
> 
> That's right.
> ...


 :thumbup: :XD: :thumbup:


----------



## theyarnlady (Feb 25, 2011)

jelun2 said:


> This seems to be a good side to look at, unconstitutional activity.
> 
> http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/10/21/wisconsin-labor-ruling_n_4139981.html


what is your problem not enough to worry about ? As I have said before to other ladies 
If you do not live in this state you do not know everything that is going on here.
The man was elected twice and one was a recall. Oh and that recall cost the tax payers in this state a couple of million.

Doesn't that tell you anything?

If you have any thing to say about this state you may want to live in it at least. Or why don't you just worry about what is going on in your state. That would make more sense. I will worry about mine and you can worry about yours. How's that for a deal????


----------



## Connie W (Aug 3, 2011)

kittykatzmom said:


> In my opinion those who are excited about this plan are those who don't pay taxes and live off the government. It will cost those paying taxes a whole bunch. Someone always has to pay for the cost in the end and that end is always the taxpayers. The future citizens of America are inheriting so much debt and they aren't in for a good live. Makes me so glad I'm older.
> Look at this this way - Obama is also passing on the debt to his two daughters and their future families. Seems like poetic justice doesn't it?


Since I have worked and been a tax payer my entire life and am excited about this plan, that makes your opinion invalid, period. I am a nurse and have seen first hand the needs. Have a little compassion.

Also, I am fortunate to have good insurance. At 65, I had no health issues, didn't need any perscriptons, had been an insurers' dream. Then it hit the fan. I am lucky to have coverage. I could have been forced to choose having treatment and living but at a cost of becoming financially devastated. I want others to have my opportunity.


----------



## Jar (Oct 31, 2012)

I said this before: my mother died of ovarian cancer as well a number of aunts and cousins. I have had trouble in the past. My Dr. Said now you only come every three years for a pap smear. I asked even with my history, what about testing for cancer? Will you draw blood for a check for cancer, that is what they would do as well. No. We have great insurance retired Air Force. I am stunned . Jane


----------



## linnerlu (Jul 9, 2013)

aw9358 said:


> Knitry and Designer, thank you for your thoughtful and well-written posts. I have learned more useful information from them than from almost anyone else here. However, I think you are wasting your valuable time and effort if you expect anyone who is against the ACA to even read what you have written. Soundbites and stupidity are much easier to digest. I suggest you go and bang your heads against a wall - at least it's nice when you stop.


 :thumbup: :thumbup: :thumbup:


----------



## linnerlu (Jul 9, 2013)

jelun2 said:


> Those of us who are in with the in crowd are going to designate who the over 65 victims should be, those people are going to be done in. THEN as we have the power we are going to grab all those beautiful belongings, the homes, the vehicles, the lake views, and OMG, the yarn. Millions and millions of skeins and hanks of yarn.
> That is what this whole thing is REALLY about, stealing all the stashes.


Jelun, you are making me giggle so hard tonight!


----------



## susanmos2000 (May 10, 2011)

Jar said:


> I said this before: my mother died of ovarian cancer as well a number of aunts and cousins. I have had trouble in the past. My Dr. Said now you only come every three years for a pap smear. I asked even with my history, what about testing for cancer? Will you draw blood for a check for cancer, that is what they would do as well. No. We have great insurance retired Air Force. I am stunned . Jane


Well, why didn't you ask your doctor to explain his or her decision? Without knowing your age and relative state of health it's impossible for anyone here to know why s/he arrived at that conclusion--but it can't possibly have anything to do with the supposed dictates of the ACA. Ask--and if you don't understand or don't like what you're hearing, change doctors.


----------



## Lukelucy (Nov 19, 2011)

Jar said:


> I said this before: my mother died of ovarian cancer as well a number of aunts and cousins. I have had trouble in the past. My Dr. Said now you only come every three years for a pap smear. I asked even with my history, what about testing for cancer? Will you draw blood for a check for cancer, that is what they would do as well. No. We have great insurance retired Air Force. I am stunned . Jane


That's the way things are going to be under ACA. So sorry.


----------



## Lukelucy (Nov 19, 2011)

StitchDesigner said:


> When it comes to most news, be it papers, TV, or internet, I *don't believe them.* Why? They're in bed with Nobama.


 :thumbup: :thumbup:


----------



## ute4kp (Nov 6, 2012)

Deleted.


----------



## Lukelucy (Nov 19, 2011)

cherylthompson said:


> I must say here, in Va, I have healthcare though my employer and my payments per pay period (every 2 weeks) have nearly doubled already!


ACA in action. So sorry.


----------



## blanchebianca (May 12, 2013)

Hoping that this thread will help inform people who don't have all the facts. But I'm beginning to be concerned that tempers are rising and that it will devolve into nastiness. Let's, please, try to keep helping each other. Remember, we need opposition in every discussion to help clarify ideas and refine communication.


----------



## mirium (May 14, 2013)

Dot-I said:


> If Obamacare were so great why did he exempt himself and his family from it. And why are all senators not taking it. I don't want it either.
> If you read what is in the Obamacare book you would be shocked what is in it>>>>>


The Affordable Care Act (a.k.a. Obamacare) is intended for those who can't afford the inflated rates charged for individuals who don't qualify for a group plan -- group plans, such as those provided through an employer, are a LOT cheaper than health insurance for individuals.

President Obama and his family, all senators, and all the Representatives who are voting against it, can get affordable health insurance through the federal group health insurance plan and don't need the program, so they don't qualify for it. But there are people who are working for Mom & Pop stores, people who work part-time, people who are self-employed, people who work for Walmart full time and still qualify for food stamps -- and they can't afford the premiums that are based on statistics for individuals. Obamacare combines all those folks into a group and offers premiums based on group statistics, which are -- wait for it -- affordable! And with that insurance, those folks will be able to see a regular doctor instead of going to the emergency room, which will result in healthier people and will be a lot cheaper for everyone because those of us with insurance won't be charged higher premiums to pay for the unpaid emergency room bills and for treatment that could have been prevented if regular health care was available.


----------



## linnerlu (Jul 9, 2013)

ute4kp said:


> What a nasty comment about a poor life choice. Many people have accidents. Also conditions brought on by genetics. Or they lived near Love canal and got cancer. Just a few examples. Sounds as if you've created your own list of illnesses for a death panel.


I wish there was a "thumbs up" smilie that wasn't smiling.

Also, I wish KP would give us options for italics or underlining, so that people wouldn't have to use ALL CAPS, which looks like yelling, but is the only way to place emphasis on words.

Oh, WAIT! I just now saw that there are Tags to create *bold *, _italics_ and underlining. Just testing to see if these work ... but what a hassle to have to use HTML formatting.


----------



## Lukelucy (Nov 19, 2011)

CarolA said:


> Has Canada's health care system changed in the last 15 years? We used to live in Montana and knew MANY Canadians who came to the US for healthcare since they couldn't get tests and treatments in Canada.


Right! Heaven help us.


----------



## Designer1234 (Aug 9, 2011)

CarolA said:


> Has Canada's health care system changed in the last 15 years? We used to live in Montana and knew MANY Canadians who came to the US for healthcare since they couldn't get tests and treatments in Canada.


It is part of our Government health care, that if there is a procedure in the States that is not available in Canada and is necessary for treatment of serious illness (I understand that there are certain restrictions on this) that a specialist can authorize a patient to go to the States for care and the Government will authorize and pay for it.

There are also wealthy Canadians who wish to jump ahead of the lineups and are willing to pay for care that they believe is more important than their doctor thinks.

* Please read my post about myths about the Canadian Health Care system - on Page 41 of this thread*. We are a much smaller country population wise than the US -- you have some absolutely wonderful hospitals in your country -- There are different procedures that are not available here - if it is a life threatening or meets certain specific requirements our Specialists can arrange in many cases, I believe, with permission from the Health Care plan to send them down for special treatment. The Government plan here will, if approved, pay for this care. This is covered in the above post I mention.


----------



## Linda6885 (Feb 13, 2011)

jumbleburt said:


> I really don't think most of this is accurate. You might want to do some research.


I think all of this UNTRUE, and you need to do your own research before believing rumors.
I believe some like to rile things up with untruths to scare people.


----------



## Lukelucy (Nov 19, 2011)

kittykatzmom said:


> In my opinion those who are excited about this plan are those who don't pay taxes and live off the government. It will cost those paying taxes a whole bunch. Someone always has to pay for the cost in the end and that end is always the taxpayers. The future citizens of America are inheriting so much debt and they aren't in for a good live. Makes me so glad I'm older.
> Look at this this way - Obama is also passing on the debt to his two daughters and their future families. Seems like poetic justice doesn't it?


What a disaster ACA is.


----------



## Knitry (Dec 18, 2011)

jangmb said:


> Touche'. The defenders of Obama Care really do not know anymore than anyone else.


Excuse me? Speak for yourself.



> Too many people are hanging on to the promises that were made by the current administration on health care. Medicare will not be the same after Obama Care is enacted either. A large amount of funding is being removed from Medicare and transferred to Obama Care.


YOU. ARE. BEING. LIED. TO.

Oh, not that there weren't reforms to Medicare on account of the ACA, there were. But -- well, here, read this:



> *Obamacares Reviled Medicare Cuts Have Turned Out Better Than Expected*
> Back in 2009 and 2010, one of the harshest criticisms of President Obamas health care law was that it would hurt seniors. The laws $700 billion in cuts to Medicare over 10 years would deprive seniors of benefits and choices, critics said. Of particular concern was the plan to cut more than $100 billion out of a quasi-governmental program called Medicare Advantage, which allows seniors to get government-funded private insurance plans in place of traditional Medicare.
> Four years later, with the ACA in place, it appears that worries about the future of Medicare Advantage have not come to fruition  at least not yet. The program is more popular than ever. Between 2010 and 2013, enrollment in the program increased 30%, defying the expectations of some of the top policy experts in Washington.
> http://nation.time.com/2013/10/14/obamacares-reviled-medicare-cuts-have-turned-out-better-than-expected/#ixzz2iVQUqRck


Another source from a really good website I just discovered: 


> ObamaCare Medicare reform improves and expands Medicare for seniors. The ObamaCare Medicare cuts are estimated at $716 billion. Those cuts are reinvested into Medicare and ObamaCare to improve care for seniors and close the Medicare Part D " donut hole" among other things. Let's take a look at what the ObamaCare's Medicare cuts and reforms really mean for seniors and how ObamaCare will impact Medicare and Medicare Advantage? (Lots more info here http://obamacarefacts.com/obamacare-medicare.php


And more:


> Obamacare extends Medicares solvency by eliminating some $700 billion in excess payments that are made to providers that contract with private MA (Medicare Advantage) plans and reducing hospital payments in an effort to incentivize efficiency. By scaling back the MA payments, the law tries to bring MA spending more in line with the traditional, public Medicare program, which consistently comes in under budget even as private plans drive up costs. As the new enrollment data proves, those cuts  which began being implemented last year  havent had any adverse effects on enrollment or benefits while significantly strengthening the Medicare entitlement. http://thinkprogress.org/health/2013/06/11/2136371/gop-talking-point-medicare/


That was describing a Kaiser Family Foundation report that said, in part: 


> In 2013, 14.4 million Medicarebeneficiaries are enrolled in Medicare Advantage plans, an increase of more than 1 million (9.7%) from 2012. Despite concerns that payment changes enacted in the Affordable Care Act of 2010 (ACA) would lead to reductions in enrollment, enrollment has increased by 30 percent since 2010. Enrollment growth has averaged about 10 percent annually since 2009 and enrollment has grown by a factor of 2.6 from 2005. About 28 percent of Medicare beneficiaries are enrolled in Medicare Advantage plans in 2013, ranging from 49 percent of beneficiaries in Minnesota to less than one percent and three percent of beneficiaries, respectively in Alaska and Wyoming. There is little evidence of an adverse effect on enrollment in low versus high cost counties as a result of payment rate changes in the ACA. As in prior years, national Medicare Advantage enrollment tends to be concen- trated among a small number of firms; five firms or affiliates (BlueCross BlueShield) account for two-thirds of all Medicare Advantage enrollment.


So, again: YOU. ARE. BEING. LIED. TO. Systematically and continuously.



> Any rulings that were standard prior to this new AFA can change. I for one have not read all of the thousands of pages of this new law.


Well, when you're ready, here's the link so you can read it yourself: http://obamacarefacts.com/obamacarebill.pdf



> Any new law that places another 16,000 IRS agents in place sounds very questionable to me.


Oh, dear, another lie. I'm shocked.

FACTCHECK.ORG:


> *Q: Will the IRS hire 16,500 new agents to enforce the health care law?*
> 
> A: No. The law requires the IRS mostly to hand out tax credits, not collect penalties. The claim of 16,500 new agents stems from a partisan analysis based on guesswork and false assumptions, and compounded by outright misrepresentation. http://www.politifact.com/georgia/statements/2012/jul/10/tom-price/price-16000-irs-agents-will-enforce-obama-health-c/


TIME MAGAZINE: *The 16,000-IRS Agent Lie* points to this really good article: *Will the IRS need 16,000 new agents to enforce health-care reform?* that includes this interesting bit of info: "FactCheck.org gives you the rundown here, but just for kicks, let's track how an estimate becomes spin becomes a lie becomes a sound bite." Worth reading.


----------



## Suzeluvs2stix (Jun 11, 2011)

Lukelucy said:


> My husband has just returned from a doctor's appointment. This doctor went to a BCBS meeting yesterday in which very few doctors bothered to attend. This doctor learned the following:
> 
> 1. The states that have opted in for Obamacare are going to be very expensive regarding healthcare.
> 2. No cancer screening (mammograms - everything) after the age of 70 for all people. Mind you half of people over 70 will die of cancer.
> ...


Our AWESOME governor had the foresight to opt out of the exchanges. Go to CCHFreedom.org for help.


----------



## misellen (Mar 8, 2013)

This is one of the nastiest and most confrontational threads I have seen on this forum. And the sad thing is that so many are just spouting nonsense based on rumor and not fact. I don't need this garbage so I am gone.


----------



## Sherry1 (May 14, 2011)

mirium said:


> The Affordable Care Act (a.k.a. Obamacare) is intended for those who can't afford the inflated rates charged for individuals who don't qualify for a group plan -- group plans, such as those provided through an employer, are a LOT cheaper than health insurance for individuals.
> 
> President Obama and his family, all senators, and all the Representatives who are voting against it, can get affordable health insurance through the federal group health insurance plan and don't need the program, so they don't qualify for it. But there are people who are working for Mom & Pop stores, people who work part-time, people who are self-employed, people who work for Walmart full time and still qualify for food stamps -- and they can't afford the premiums that are based on statistics for individuals. Obamacare combines all those folks into a group and offers premiums based on group statistics, which are -- wait for it -- affordable! And with that insurance, those folks will be able to see a regular doctor instead of going to the emergency room, which will result in healthier people and will be a lot cheaper for everyone because those of us with insurance won't be charged higher premiums to pay for the unpaid emergency room bills and for treatment that could have been prevented if regular health care was available.


Thank you Mirium!


----------



## Designer1234 (Aug 9, 2011)

linnerlu said:


> :thumbup: :thumbup: :thumbup:


I keep trying - I have had good reason to approve of the Canadian system. It saved my husband's life 2 heart attacks and 2 bypasses over 20 years and then (the aortic and mitral valve replacement surgery -- care for congestive heart failure. 3 stents, 2 bypasses, 45 days in the hospital. We pay l25.00 per month for Blue cross which is our medicines, ambulance etc. Our Government health care Insurance (which is separate from Blue cross) paid all of the above many MRI's other tests - many of them including ultra sounds and heart function tests, 2 surgeries, and follow up care once a month at the heart function clinic which is attached to the Libin Cardiac center at the Foothills Hosptial in Calgary, and the only cost out of our pocket was parking when I visited him. that is the truth. We never got a bill. not one!

Certainly, we have waits for non life threatening treatment , but when they get to the care, they are covered. We are in the same type of recession you are down in the States. They have stopped covering physio therapy and other non essential and non life threatening procedures, not many but some. Blue cross covers 85% of approved medicines under the plan we have taken - there are 3 - we took the top one - pre conditions were not a factor -there are levels you can choose our plan costs l00.00 per month for both of us. My husband was in the Armed forces and we have carried extra insurance since he got out of the Army and pay l5.00 per month the extra insurance pays 85% of what BLue cross does not pay.

In otherwords if our drugs cost 450.00 (which is the price quoted) - blue cross pays 85% of that . then our extra insurance pays 85% of what blue cross doesn't pay.

The health care plan covers surgery and procedures. there are waits for non elective surgery and even some elective surgerys but serious surgeries are covered like my husbands was.

The DOCTOR not the Government or an outside insurance company decides what procedures or care is needed . BIG THING! The person looking after you who is a physician decides not someone in an office like happens often in the states.

My feeling is that you have to start somewhere - and if this plan is sunk -- what Government will try in the future with all the problems this plan has received - to bring in a health care plan. I am sure there have been lots of changes, improvements etc. in the many years we have developed our Health care - we started many years ago and have changed it - added to it - corrected it etc. now all our citizens are covered. if you are on welfare and can't cover your meds - welfare will cover them if you qualify. Oh and he also got a pacemaker. He is doing extremely well, but 3 years later and there is no time limit as to his life expectancy. He was given 2 months when he went into emergency with congestive heart failure. YOu wonder why I am a fan of our health situation? What would his future have been in the states. We would have lost everything we have ever saved and it still would not have been enough. I would not have him with me if we had lived there.

That is a fact.


----------



## ute4kp (Nov 6, 2012)

Judyh said:


> You have been rude and you obviously have not had a very good education. Calling someone "sweetie" is reserved for your loved ones, and obviously not any people are your loved ones here. Take a course in etiquette!


One of the store clerks called me sweetie. Guess I should have had a hissy fit. And she was a gal many years my junior. Was the other person here saying sweetie to a friend here? Not sure..


----------



## susanmos2000 (May 10, 2011)

Designer1234 said:


> It is part of our Government health care, that if there is a procedure in the States that is not available in Canada and is necessary for treatment of serious illness (I understand that there are certain restrictions on this) that a specialist can authorize a patient to go to the States for care and the Government will authorize and pay for it.
> 
> There are also wealthy Canadians who wish to jump ahead of the lineups and are willing to pay for care that they believe is more important than their doctor thinks.
> 
> * Please read my post about myths about the Canadian Health Care system - on Page 41 of this thread*. We are a much smaller country population wise than the US -- you have some absolutely wonderful hospitals in your country -- There are different procedures that are not available here - if it is a life threatening or meets certain specific requirements our Specialists can arrange in many cases, I believe, with permission from the Health Care plan to send them down for special treatment. The Government plan here will, if approved, pay for this care. This is covered in the above post I mention.


Hmmm...maybe if the ACA hadn't been enacted the US and Canada would have introduced an exchange program--one set of conjoined twins sent to the States for separation in exchange for, say, two appendectomies and a gallbladder removal to be done up North.

I'm kidding, of course, but it does seem odd that the American system could pull off feats of high-tech medical wizardry but be completely incapable of managing more routine care for the average citizen. There's got to be a lesson in there somewhere.


----------



## Janet Cooke (Aug 14, 2013)

Jar said:


> I said this before: my mother died of ovarian cancer as well a number of aunts and cousins. I have had trouble in the past. My Dr. Said now you only come every three years for a pap smear. I asked even with my history, what about testing for cancer? Will you draw blood for a check for cancer, that is what they would do as well. No. We have great insurance retired Air Force. I am stunned . Jane


I have no idea how retired military health insurance support works, is there some consumer assistance division? Can you start with them to find out what your rights are? I can certainly understand your qualms. You don't mention your age... perhaps the support folks can help you find a different doc? This is a civilian facility?


----------



## Cindy S (Oct 20, 2013)

While I have been reading and enjoying this site for a while, I just registered yesterday. And this thread has poisoned me on reading any thing other than those topics that have direct impact on knitting.


----------



## susanmos2000 (May 10, 2011)

Suzeluvs2stix said:


> Our AWESOME governor had the foresight to opt out of the exchanges. Go to CCHFreedom.org for help.


Clicked on the link you posted and saw this:

"Citizens' Council for Health Freedom

cordially invites you to our 2013 Annual Dinner to support Health Freedom

with Congresswoman Michele Bachmann"

Umm, no--think I'll pass.


----------



## Poor Purl (Apr 14, 2011)

joeysomma said:


> This increase in premium of part B may have to do with their personal other income. Social Security has been talking about increasing premiums for those with higher taxable incomes. It may be going into effect on Jan 1, 2014.
> 
> It was talked about in our tax update classes in 2012 but I do not remember the date it would take effect.


Our part B premium went up a couple of years ago when we had a rise in income, then came down the following year after our income went down. So it's been going on for a while already.


----------



## Janet Cooke (Aug 14, 2013)

theyarnlady said:


> what is your problem not enough to worry about ? As I have said before to other ladies
> If you do not live in this state you do not know everything that is going on here.
> The man was elected twice and one was a recall. Oh and that recall cost the tax payers in this state a couple of million.
> 
> ...


I don't need to know everything that happens there. I do know that even though these issues were brought up to voters during the recall period not enough cared about their fellow citizens to reject a man who is PROVEN now to disregard the state constitution. 
Must be sad to have that be a person's choice for gov.


----------



## Janet Cooke (Aug 14, 2013)

susanmos2000 said:


> Clicked on the link you posted and saw this:
> 
> "Citizens' Council for Health Freedom
> 
> ...


LOL, I'll spring for the tix if you will be my date.


----------



## Knitry (Dec 18, 2011)

knitpresentgifts said:


> Anyone who knows ANYthing at ALL knows Obamacare represents a political program supported by the Democrats which has nothing to do with Health Care nor Health Insurance.


well, I guess I don't know ANYthing at ALL ... what political program? How does it "nothing to do with Health Care nor Health Insurance?" That does't make any sense to me at all. What exactly am I missing?



> BTW: It is not "glitches" that is the problem with the website. It is complete incompetence and intentional deception. If you understood ANYthing about computer programming you'd know that as well. Good grief ...


I happen to know a little something about computer programming, and incompetence I'll give you, but "intentional deception?" How so?

Oh, and don't forget links and sources in your reply.


----------



## susanmos2000 (May 10, 2011)

jelun2 said:


> LOL, I'll spring for the tix if you will be my date.


Heehee! You've talked me into it, Jelun. Hope there's time to gather a bouquet of poison ivy to present to the Guest Speaker.


----------



## Poor Purl (Apr 14, 2011)

linnerlu said:


> It's this kind of "thinking" that makes me crazy. i.e., "we don't know a thing about it but it's going to be bad." Aaaarrrggghhhhhh!


Worse than you think, linnerlu (and welcome back - I'm in love with your cat painting). One of them said it's going to decimate the country. That would mean a tenth of the country will be destroyed: 30,000,000 wiped out because of health insurance.

And we have your senator to thank for this. :roll:


----------



## mjs (Mar 3, 2011)

Lukelucy said:


> My husband has just returned from a doctor's appointment. This doctor went to a BCBS meeting yesterday in which very few doctors bothered to attend. This doctor learned the following:
> 
> 1. The states that have opted in for Obamacare are going to be very expensive regarding healthcare.
> 2. No cancer screening (mammograms - everything) after the age of 70 for all people. Mind you half of people over 70 will die of cancer.
> ...


There seems to be no end of lies that people are willing to circulate.


----------



## ute4kp (Nov 6, 2012)

jelun2 said:


> Well dang, I thought it was 47...
> can you tell us why those people don't pay taxes?
> Better yet, can you tell us why you do?


Beware the 47%.


----------



## mjs (Mar 3, 2011)

Lukelucy said:


> That is not what I know. I do know that some states opted out. Arizona is one.


The opting out has to do with medicaid.


----------



## Janet Cooke (Aug 14, 2013)

joeysomma said:


> Right on!
> 
> _A federal judge in Madison and a federal appeals court panel have both found the law constitutional._ They will be asking for a stay of the ruling and it will go to the Wisconsin Supreme court.


I know this is a toughie, Wisconsin has a constitution. It is not unconstitutional in federal courts, this order is about contempt of a court order, from a WI court.


----------



## susanmos2000 (May 10, 2011)

Poor Purl said:


> Worse than you think, linnerlu (and welcome back - I'm in love with your cat painting). One of them said it's going to decimate the country. That would mean a tenth of the country will be destroyed: 30,000,000 wiped out because of health insurance.
> 
> And we have your senator to thank for this. :roll:


Interesting how 99.99% of the doomsdayers aren't interested in researching the agent of our supposed destruction.


----------



## Designer1234 (Aug 9, 2011)

Sarla said:


> I think you have unfortunately wrong information . 70 year will be on Medicare & has nothing to do with affordable care act . I am 71 and am sure nothing is changing for me. I think every body should do his / her research & not add to the confusion.


----------



## Huckleberry (May 27, 2013)

susanmos2000 said:


> Clicked on the link you posted and saw this:
> 
> "Citizens' Council for Health Freedom
> 
> ...


susanmos2000
what an unpleasant meal that would be.


----------



## Poor Purl (Apr 14, 2011)

joeysomma said:


> They are supposed to be on the exchanges like every one else, but with one big difference. It will be the silver plan and 72% of the premium will be paid by the government. This special privilege was the last thing the Republicans in Congress wanted changed before the Democrats shut the government down. Harry Reid would not take it to the floor for a vote.


Before the _Democrats_ shut the government down? Now I know where you get all your information: The Bizarro Daily News.


----------



## ute4kp (Nov 6, 2012)

linnerlu said:


> Snort! This is hysterical! I really have to stop reading this stuff tonight, my tummy hurts from laughing!
> 
> (I had never heard of the term "Obo" before getting on this list ... talk about disrespect ... and "you are probably on Welfare!" ... wow, what a hateful put-down.)


Give me some of that wine....and I don't drink alcohol. :mrgreen:


----------



## Janet Cooke (Aug 14, 2013)

susanmos2000 said:


> Heehee! You've talked me into it, Jelun. Hope there's time to gather a bouquet of poison ivy to present to the Guest Speaker.


YIPPEE!


----------



## Obsessed (Jan 22, 2012)

Knitry said:


> Well, maybe because those examples were spurious, unfounded, suspect, poorly explained, unvalidated, or otherwise simply not credible??


Why would you accuse people of these things when we are just reporting was has happened to us? I don't understand your lack of trust in what we are saying. The insurance companies are not going to continue some of our plans and have told us to make other arrangements. Why would we lie?


----------



## Poor Purl (Apr 14, 2011)

Britty43 said:


> I've had BCBS for years with no problems..when I hit 65 I switched to their supplemental and now I'm on Blue Medicare Advantage which costs me ZERO in premium and has good coverage


That's because it gets huge subsidies from the federal government. In other words, the rest of us are paying your premiums for you.

Not that I'm knocking you for using it. You've clearly made a good choice for yourself.


----------



## Poor Purl (Apr 14, 2011)

damemary said:


> Excellent example of non-proven 'information.' Ambulance from the Looney Bin must be tardy today.


No, Joeysomma is right about this. Wow, I think that's the first time I've ever said that.


----------



## gma11331 (Oct 18, 2011)

I can't believe this diatribe has gone on for 62 pages. I'm outta here. Won't open anymore notifications as it has all been rehashed to death. Be interesting to see what the comments will be three years down the road (if I haven't been thrown off the cliff by then--I'm almost 83 now)!


----------



## ute4kp (Nov 6, 2012)

I'll try my best not to read this topic anymore. Too time consuming. It will cut down on PM that Lukelucy feels the need to send me. I deleted it Unread.


----------



## Apbarr (Sep 14, 2013)

Huckleberry said:


> Apbarr
> why is it that whe have billions to give to other nations yearly but have no money to take care of our Citizens? And most of those Countries (if not all - need to check on that) have Universal Health Care while we do not until now. Our priorities should be with our People. Time we come first, it is our money being given out after all.


Yah I don't agree with giving out money either especially to countries who don't like the US at all on basic levels.


----------



## Poor Purl (Apr 14, 2011)

Dornar, don't beat around the bush; tell us what you _really_ think.


Dornar said:


> I can not let this subject pass without a comment --- BULLSHIT. So many of you have been lead down the garden path about Obamacare that your BULLSHIT radar has been blunted.
> 
> NO. There will not be a mass migration of Doctors out of states that have not set up the exchanges to buy affordable insurance,
> 
> ...


 :thumbup: :thumbup: :thumbup: :thumbup:


----------



## Knitry (Dec 18, 2011)

Obsessed said:


> Then why is my private insurance being discontinued?


Sigh. Ever try Google? It really is an amazing tool.



> *Here's Why So Many Americans Are Getting Letters Saying Their Health Insurance Is Canceled*
> Some old plans don't meet new requirements under the ACA. Starting in 2014, most health plans will have to cover 10 "essential health benefits," from hospitalization to maternity care to dental care for children. Most will also have to limit out-of-pocket expenses to no more than $6,350 for an individual plan or $12,700 for a family plan. And they'll have to meet a minimum "actuarial value," generally meaning that across a standardized population, the insurer will have to expect to pay at least 60% of health care costs incurred by plan participants.
> 
> If your existing plan doesn't meet these requirements, it's likely that it's getting canceled. And since the new plan you're getting will offer more comprehensive coverage, it's likely to be more expensive, especially if you're young and healthy and don't qualify for a premium subsidy.
> http://www.businessinsider.com/heres-why-so-many-americans-are-getting-letters-saying-their-health-insurance-is-canceled-2013-10#ixzz2iVjtekRh


----------



## susanmos2000 (May 10, 2011)

Obsessed said:


> Why would you accuse people of these things when we are just reporting was has happened to us? I don't understand your lack of trust in what we are saying. The insurance companies are not going to continue some of our plans and have told us to make other arrangements. Why would we lie?


In fact I do accept that there's probably a grain of truth in many of these stories. The distrust comes in when we're asked to believe the explanations of the insurance companies as to why policies are being cancelled, why rates are going up, and so and so on. These companies exist to make a profit--they're only too eager to lay the blame for the rate increases and all the rest on the ACA's shoulders.


----------



## Poor Purl (Apr 14, 2011)

GWPlver said:


> I see the ACA as an attempt to assist those who do not have and cannot afford health care insurance now. It's program to assist - like food stamps or free lunches for children. Those cost money also - should we take the free lunches away because their parents can't or won't get a job?


That's exactly what a lot of them think.


----------



## linnerlu (Jul 9, 2013)

Poor Purl said:


> Worse than you think, linnerlu (and welcome back - I'm in love with your cat painting). One of them said it's going to decimate the country. That would mean a tenth of the country will be destroyed: 30,000,000 wiped out because of health insurance.
> 
> And we have your senator to thank for this. :roll:


Hi Purl, and thanks!
Ugghhh, don't remind me about Texas senators and reps ... it was bad enough to have Governor Goodhair, Gohmert, and the rest ... now we have to endure Cruz. I used to be proud to be a Texan, but now it's downright embarrassing.


----------



## Huckleberry (May 27, 2013)

mirium said:


> The Affordable Care Act (a.k.a. Obamacare) is intended for those who can't afford the inflated rates charged for individuals who don't qualify for a group plan -- group plans, such as those provided through an employer, are a LOT cheaper than health insurance for individuals.
> 
> President Obama and his family, all senators, and all the Representatives who are voting against it, can get affordable health insurance through the federal group health insurance plan and don't need the program, so they don't qualify for it. But there are people who are working for Mom & Pop stores, people who work part-time, people who are self-employed, people who work for Walmart full time and still qualify for food stamps -- and they can't afford the premiums that are based on statistics for individuals. Obamacare combines all those folks into a group and offers premiums based on group statistics, which are -- wait for it -- affordable! And with that insurance, those folks will be able to see a regular doctor instead of going to the emergency room, which will result in healthier people and will be a lot cheaper for everyone because those of us with insurance won't be charged higher premiums to pay for the unpaid emergency room bills and for treatment that could have been prevented if regular health care was available.


mirium
what a pleasure to read your posting. THANK YOU.


----------



## Designer1234 (Aug 9, 2011)

susanmos2000 said:


> Hmmm...maybe if the ACA hadn't been enacted the US and Canada would have introduced an exchange program--one set of conjoined twins sent to the States for separation in exchange for, say, two appendectomies and a gallbladder removal to be done up North.
> 
> I'm kidding, of course, but it does seem odd that the American system could pull off feats of high-tech medical wizardry but be completely incapable of managing more routine care for the average citizen. There's got to be a lesson in there somewhere.


Your Mayo Clinic is world renowned and patients from up here attend if arranged by their doctor if new procedures as used in hospitals like Mayo are proven and we don't have them here. That is one thing that is so sad about the whole situation. YOu have wonderful scientists, doctors specialists, in the United States.

I don't pretend to be an expert on your health care, and I don't pretend to be an expert on Canadian health care, but I am an expert when it comes to my own family and what our Government health care has meant to us.


----------



## Knitry (Dec 18, 2011)

MartiG said:


> It's sad that people who have political differences try to scare others as someone has done to you and your husband. As mentioned below, 70 year olds have Medicare which does cover screenings and Medicare is not affected by the Affordable Health Care Act. I went to a meeting where a speaker informed the audience on the many misconceptions and some people were sure surprised. One person who said her child was a doctor said no one will want to be doctors anymore so there will be a shortage. It seems to me that anyone who becomes a doctor now will be doing it to be an actual healer not because they will get to be a millionaire.


 :thumbup: :thumbup:

What a concept, eh? becoming a doctor to heal people, not become millionaire.


----------



## Apbarr (Sep 14, 2013)

DollieD said:


> WE have no money!
> How are WE going to pay for this ?


This is my issue for the people who can't afford insurance now. Even if there is a subsidy and it lowers the cost it still isn't free and the plan that would be offered will have a high deductible that won't help. Why would you want to spend any bit of extra money for something that isn't a good value? This just could have been handled a better way. Maybe had enhancements to Medicare?


----------



## Poor Purl (Apr 14, 2011)

damemary said:


> Have you received a quote from Aetna for the same year?


I read somewhere that Aetna has opted out of the ACA, at least in many states. It won't be making enough, I suppose.


----------



## Huckleberry (May 27, 2013)

linnerlu said:


> Hi Purl, and thanks!
> Ugghhh, don't remind me about Texas senators and reps ... it was bad enough to have Governor Goodhair, Gohmert, and the rest ... now we have to endure Cruz. I used to be proud to be a Texan, but now it's downright embarrassing.


linnerllu
what is it with so many Texans - wish to state that there are some really nice ones who suffer - too much sand in their eyes and too many stingers in their backsides? The are suffering from something for sure.


----------



## Poor Purl (Apr 14, 2011)

joeysomma said:


> Yes he is a comedian. That does not mean he does not tell the truth. He just puts a spin on it to make people laugh. It is a video. After all this seriousness on this thread, We need a laugh.


The link you gave wasn't to something by Jon Stewart; it was to something _about_ Jon Stewart. There's no reason to think that what it says accurately reflects what he said.


----------



## Huckleberry (May 27, 2013)

Poor Purl said:


> I read somewhere that Aetna has opted out of the ACA, at least in many states. It won't be making enough, I suppose.


Poor Purl
I predict that that won't be forever.


----------



## Suzeluvs2stix (Jun 11, 2011)

susanmos2000 said:


> Clicked on the link you posted and saw this:
> 
> "Citizens' Council for Health Freedom
> 
> ...


Why don't your read the whole newsletter and previous writings before you let your intolerance rule over your brain. Skip over the Bachmann part and read the other info to learn what is really going on.


----------



## Poor Purl (Apr 14, 2011)

It's my understanding that kynect is Kentucky's name for their ACA program. If you've used it, you know more than the rest of us.


DollieD said:


> I don't know where you live, but here we have kynect.
> I have 2 nieces who work for the state in this area.
> I am afraid I understand very little about the effect this will have on me....however, Dave Ramsey has a very simple to understand video concerning the Affordable Care Act!
> My best wishes for you and your family!


----------



## Huckleberry (May 27, 2013)

Apbarr said:


> This is my issue for the people who can't afford insurance now. Even if there is a subsidy and it lowers the cost it still isn't free and the plan that would be offered will have a high deductible that won't help. Why would you want to spend any bit of extra money for something that isn't a good value? This just could have been handled a better way. Maybe had enhancements to Medicare?


Apbarr
we are in health Care Infancy sad to say. Changes will take place and FREE has never been promised and should not be either. I think that eventually we will have Universal Health Care based on Medicare. There are very good reasons way this direction was not taken at this time. Excellent foresight.


----------



## Poor Purl (Apr 14, 2011)

Lukelucy said:


> I think that people with pre-existing conditions should be able to be insured. That is a good thing.


So there is one thing about Obamacare that is not horrible, deadly, toxic?


----------



## damemary (Mar 14, 2012)

jelun2 said:


> Ah, I knew ya had it in you, keep going. I love the down and dirty stuff.


 :XD: :XD: :XD: :XD: :XD:


----------



## damemary (Mar 14, 2012)

I wonder if healthcare.gov had too many repub programmers.


----------



## Nussa (Jul 7, 2011)

mirium said:


> The Affordable Care Act (a.k.a. Obamacare) is intended for those who can't afford the inflated rates charged for individuals who don't qualify for a group plan -- group plans, such as those provided through an employer, are a LOT cheaper than health insurance for individuals.
> 
> President Obama and his family, all senators, and all the Representatives who are voting against it, can get affordable health insurance through the federal group health insurance plan and don't need the program, so they don't qualify for it. But there are people who are working for Mom & Pop stores, people who work part-time, people who are self-employed, people who work for Walmart full time and still qualify for food stamps -- and they can't afford the premiums that are based on statistics for individuals. Obamacare combines all those folks into a group and offers premiums based on group statistics, which are -- wait for it -- affordable! And with that insurance, those folks will be able to see a regular doctor instead of going to the emergency room, which will result in healthier people and will be a lot cheaper for everyone because those of us with insurance won't be charged higher premiums to pay for the unpaid emergency room bills and for treatment that could have been prevented if regular health care was available.


 :thumbup: :thumbup: :thumbup: :thumbup: :thumbup:


----------



## damemary (Mar 14, 2012)

You are wrong.



Obsessed said:


> No It Doesn't. Congress and the President are exempt!


----------



## bwtyer (Oct 31, 2012)

Jar said:


> I said this before: my mother died of ovarian cancer as well a number of aunts and cousins. I have had trouble in the past. My Dr. Said now you only come every three years for a pap smear. I asked even with my history, what about testing for cancer? Will you draw blood for a check for cancer, that is what they would do as well. No. We have great insurance retired Air Force. I am stunned . Jane


- I would question it - tricare through the VA is my secondary insurance, I am assuming it is the one you are talking about - your doctor can override the insurance company - the VA dr did it for my husband - I would see an advocate or another doctor. Your post pricked up my ears because although slow in paying claims, it is usually dependable.


----------



## cbethea (Oct 21, 2013)

Hi Linda - Come to Oregon - we're doing just fine with the ACA. have insured 56,000 folks that were not insured before and working on many more. Best of all we don't have selfish , self involved, lying, morons like Cruz to contend with. Hard to imagine someone like him getting elected up here. I know its a long shot but maybe you'll have Wendy Davis fr Govenor soon!


----------



## Poor Purl (Apr 14, 2011)

jelun2 said:


> I don't need to know everything that happens there. I do know that even though these issues were brought up to voters during the recall period not enough cared about their fellow citizens to reject a man who is PROVEN now to disregard the state constitution.
> Must be sad to have that be a person's choice for gov.


You don't have to worry about your state - you have Romneycare.

BTW, there's some scandal brewing in Wisconsin that's involving courts in several counties. I haven't had time to follow up, but Scott Walker seems to be involved, too.


----------



## Poor Purl (Apr 14, 2011)

Knitry said:


> I happen to know a little something about computer programming, and incompetence I'll give you, but "intentional deception?" How so?
> 
> Oh, and don't forget links and sources in your reply.


Knitry, you have just been contacted by the queen of conspiracy theories. You are so lucky.


----------



## Knitted by Nan (Aug 3, 2013)

Janeway said:


> As long as a woman has breast she can get BC!


Men can and do suffer from Breast Cancer.


----------



## damemary (Mar 14, 2012)

My primary concern is myself and the American people. Insurance companies....the original mutual concept was more to my liking.....the rest of them ? Not so much. I understand investments quite well. It is a separate issue.

In my opinion, education and health care should never be for profit. In order to be a civilized nation, I think we must educate everyone to the best of their abilities and inclination. And we have a duty to provide good general heath care to all.



Knit crazy said:


> The insurance companies don't HAVE to do anything, and won't do anything that is not profitable to them. They are not governmental agencies that operate for our benefit even if it forces them into the red. Obama would like to force them out of the equation, and institute national healthcare. Reid said it yesterday. He, Pelosi and Obama want a single-payer healthcare system. That would bankrupt insurance companies and remove them from the equation, and we'd be forced to see doctors in clinics as many do on the UK.
> 
> Why do you think Obama is not more enraged about the website failure. It fits his plan.


----------



## damemary (Mar 14, 2012)

Thank you Jelun for the clarification of fact.



jelun2 said:


> If you have not heard anything different you must be trying to avoid it.
> 
> I sure hope we all see an acknowledgement.
> 
> ...


----------



## damemary (Mar 14, 2012)

Blah. Those pants are smoking again.



headlemk said:


> That was really a very ugly statement. "Politico?" Seriously? I'm trying to deal honestly with the misinformation you are spreading because of your love for the current occupant in the White House and so you've turned a blind eye to what his programs are doing to our country. You actually sound like one of his paid lackeys who can't seem to think for themselves but just spew the latest "spin." It's sad, really.


----------



## Knitry (Dec 18, 2011)

Jokim said:


> Congress, along with the president and staff, is exempt from ACA. Sens. Lee and Cruz, and certain Representatives, fought to put them under the same healthcare law. Haven't heard anything to the contrary, therefore, the law still doesn't apply to them.


ABSOLUTELY FALSE.

I've posted this info already, but since you clearly missed it, here it is again. This is just ONE source -- go Google: "Congress exempt from Obamacare" and pick the source you want.



> *That Congressional Exemption From Obamacare? Another Myth* Of all the misconceptions surrounding the new health reform law known as Obamacareand there are manyone of the newest and most infuriating is the idea that Congress made itself exempt from a law that puts onerous new burdens on many other Americans. That contention is totally false. In fact, members of Congress, along with their personal staffers, are required to participate in Obamacare, which is a more stringent requirement than employees of many big companies face. http://finance.yahoo.com/blogs/the-exchange/congressional-exemption-obamacare-another-myt...


----------



## damemary (Mar 14, 2012)

Please don't give up. I hate to see deliberate lies unanswered. It is tiring, but I appreciate your persistence.



jelun2 said:


> I know that this is REALLY hard for you to accept, but, part of the ACA calls for people who are employed by entities that are larger than 50 employees are covered by their employers. That is President Obama and his staff.
> So while you may not like it, it may not fit your agenda, he and his family and staff are not exempt from anything. They are covered by that provision of the law. That would be just like 90+ percent of the American working public.
> I would appreciate an acknowledgement.
> 
> ...


----------



## damemary (Mar 14, 2012)

Can you imagine the law that might have been written if everyone hadn't wasted so much time and effort debating lies?


----------



## Poor Purl (Apr 14, 2011)

Jar, it sounds as though you have a very uncaring doctor, to say the least, and it might be a good idea to find another one. But I think pap tests are checks for cervical cancer and won't tell you anything about the ovaries. There must be another test that you should be having.


Jar said:


> I said this before: my mother died of ovarian cancer as well a number of aunts and cousins. I have had trouble in the past. My Dr. Said now you only come every three years for a pap smear. I asked even with my history, what about testing for cancer? Will you draw blood for a check for cancer, that is what they would do as well. No. We have great insurance retired Air Force. I am stunned . Jane


----------



## Knitry (Dec 18, 2011)

ElyseKnox said:


> Whether or not people back then called those programs socialism is irrelevant to this discussion. (I personally believe they are.) What we are discussing happening now and I am agitated at a government that is ignoring the constitution and my rights.


Of COURSE they are socialism. And everybody loves them, all those who benefit from them anyway. And it's not irrelevant to this discussion at all.

BTW, we have lots and lots of "socialism" in this country. Here's a sampling:

Socialisms all around us

I had a busy day yesterday! I drove along our socialist streets, giving a wave to one of our socialist police officers who had stopped to help some folks over by the socialist swimming pool. I headed downtown and had fun navigating the new socialist roundabout (with all its fancy socialist signs). At the socialist library, I returned some socialist books ("Atlas Shrugged" was WAY overdue) and checked out some new ones.

As I was leaving the library, one of our socialist fire trucks went screaming by, headed toward the socialist university. I stopped at the socialist post office to mail some letters, then decided to purchase a capitalist cup of coffee. I wandered over to the socialist park to enjoy a fine view of the socialist river. As I gazed up at our socialist mountains, I saw some socialist whitetails grazing in the socialist green space near the large socialist letters ("L" for Lenin? "M" for Mao?).

As I had a date with some socialist rainbow trout, I headed back home over the socialist bridge to retrieve my capitalist fly rod. On my way out of town I passed the socialist duck ponds and saw a bunch of fellow citizens feeding the socialist welfare ducks. I spent a lovely afternoon casting in the shade of some socialist cottonwoods.

It was very quiet on the river; only the occasional jet coming in to land at the socialist airport broke the peace and quiet. (I also saw two jets from our socialist Air Force fly over, headed, I think, toward the socialist Air Force base east of the mountains.) I was alone on the river except for the socialist osprey circling overhead, and for the very friendly socialist game warden who stopped to check my socialist fishing license.

By the time I returned home, I was tired but happy, grateful once more to live in such a beautiful state.

David Gilcrest, Missoula

http://www.missoulian.com/news/opinion/mailbag/article_ac20bff2-a45b-11de-a21e-001cc4c002e0.html


----------



## BrattyPatty (May 2, 2011)

Lukelucy said:


> Thank you for your reply. There are many people whose health care costs are skyrocketing. The worst thing is that we will not be able to have tests that we need. This is a sad time for us.


Another lie. You need to stop watching Fox News, LL.


----------



## damemary (Mar 14, 2012)

Selfish.



annacovasa said:


> Somebody mentioned that Social Security and Medicare programs were invented long time ago, and people back then did not complain that it is "socialism".
> Wake up people, Social Security and Medicare ARE PAYED BY YOU! You American workers are paying in, all your lives! Each and every paycheck ! It is YOUR RIGHT to get SS, and it is YOUR RIGHT to get Medicare. YOU! YOU! Not the people who did not pay in it! Getting back YOUR OWN MONEY is NOT socialism, socialism is the concept of" What is yours is mine too, so I take it!"


----------



## Knitry (Dec 18, 2011)

Obsessed said:


> No It Doesn't. Congress and the President are exempt!


Nope, and I do wish people would quite spouting that lie. see my several other posts for a link.


----------



## BrattyPatty (May 2, 2011)

Lukelucy said:


> So sorry to hear this. Oh, dear. Who wants to have a health care system where you might or might not be treated in a timely manner?


Once again, LL, the ACA is insurance, not health care.
And the insurance is much different than that in the UK.


----------



## damemary (Mar 14, 2012)

I guess I should have a glass too. These people aren't funny at all to me right now.



linnerlu said:


> This conversation is getting funnier and funnier! (Maybe it's the glass of wine I just had.)


----------



## Poor Purl (Apr 14, 2011)

Lukelucy said:


> That's the way things are going to be under ACA. So sorry.


Why would you tell her that? You don't know whether her problem has anything at all to do with the ACA. She is seriously concerned about her health and needs advice or reassurance, not empty words that are no help at all.


----------



## BrattyPatty (May 2, 2011)

Lukelucy said:


> You have just verified my very first post. After 70 no cancer screening. I find this just terrible as half of people over 70 will come down with cancer.


You don't "come down" with cancer like you "come down" with a cold.

Stop the idiocy, LL


----------



## damemary (Mar 14, 2012)

That's a pretty sweeping statement. What about the military? Interstate highway system? Inspection of foods? NOTHING?????



kittykatzmom said:


> NOTHING the USA government is involved with is any good. Oh well the more of us seniors that pass on the more $$$ the politicians will have to waste. As for me I will hang around just go bug them!!!


----------



## BrattyPatty (May 2, 2011)

Lukelucy said:


> I understand that snopes is not to be believed.


Nor are you!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!


----------



## katiezhouse (Jun 5, 2012)

This information has been available for quite awhile but most people have chosen not to believe it could be true. Well it is here and we are all in trouble. My sister has a heart valve that needs replacing. She is not an invalid by any means, the heart surgeon told her 2 years ago that if she waited beyond her 75th birthday they she would not be able to have surgery. This older generation has just become throwaways. Why do you suppose the politicians were given the opportunity to opt out ...how else would they vote for obamacare.

If you suspect cancer, tests are not allowed so tough for us. I will get off my soapbox now.


----------



## Poor Purl (Apr 14, 2011)

ChrisGV said:


> I've been working for 46 years and paying taxes as has my husband. We have never lived off the government. I retire in January and already have signed up for ACA. So I am stupid or a liberal user and loser? Thanks for the compliment


It doesn't pay to listen to someone who talks like that. You're someone who knows how to think for herself and is making use of what's available. I hope you enjoy your retirement and don't have to worry about health insurance for a long time.


----------



## damemary (Mar 14, 2012)

Brownies and whipped cream?



linnerlu said:


> If you bring the cheese, will someone else bring dessert? How about chocolate pudding?


----------



## BrattyPatty (May 2, 2011)

Lukelucy said:


> Thank you for your reply. Yes, I feel bullied by certain people on this and other sites. It is really a shame. Thank you for sharing this. I hope the bullies read it and take it to heart. But, a bully is the last to see that he/she is a bully.


Let's hope you heed this, LL. You are blatantly lying to the people on this thread. The sad part is that you KNOW that you are lying, but continue to do it anyway.


----------



## Poor Purl (Apr 14, 2011)

jelun2 said:


> That's right.
> Those of us who are in with the in crowd are going to designate who the over 65 victims should be, those people are going to be done in. THEN as we have the power we are going to grab all those beautiful belongings, the homes, the vehicles, the lake views, and OMG, the yarn. Millions and millions of skeins and hanks of yarn.
> That is what this whole thing is REALLY about, stealing all the stashes.


Yippee for us!


----------



## Knitted by Nan (Aug 3, 2013)

Knitry said:


> I happen to know a little something about computer programming, and incompetence I'll give you, but "intentional deception?" How so?
> 
> Oh, and don't forget links and sources in your reply.


I do not need to give links and sources to explain 'intentional deception'. As you know a little bit about computer programming you know information is stored in a database in fields. To display that information you generate a form which only displays the fields and hence the data you wish to display. You simply cannot ask a computer operator to shaw what information is stored in the database as they will only show you the information they wish to disclose. you have to see the structure of the database to determine how many fields there are and then display all those fields. When cataloguing books I had 26 fields in the database, much of this information was useless to the borrower so I designed forms that only displayed the information they required. We had problems down here when the government told the people they could go into a Medicare office and see what information they were collecting on a patients medical records. It was pointed out to the Government that all that would be displayed was what the Government wanted to disclose about what information was being collected, not all the information that was being collected. it was pointed out that people would need to see the structure of the database to determine what was being collected.

I did know a lot about computer programming, I studied several computer languages at uni, but not now. Computer science moves so rapidly you have to be working in the field, now, and keeping abreast of the latest developments to say you understand today's computers, how they operate, etc. You no doubt studied computer science at uni,which part did you dislike the most? I hated the 'structured English', thankfully one guy in our group was a whizz and helped the rest of us.


----------



## damemary (Mar 14, 2012)

jelun2 said:


> Yes, I am sure you think that because I haven't proven over and over during the past 2 months that I know more than you do about almost everything.


She doesn't get sarcasm so I will spell it out. Jelun2 you have proven consistently that you tell the complete truth backed up by thorough research. You deserve your Empress title.


----------



## damemary (Mar 14, 2012)

Silly.



Judyh said:


> You have been rude and you obviously have not had a very good education. Calling someone "sweetie" is reserved for your loved ones, and obviously not any people are your loved ones here. Take a course in etiquette!


----------



## BrattyPatty (May 2, 2011)

Lukelucy said:


> I wish people would start to listen. Thank you!


Hopefully they don't. Huck hit the nail on the head.
You are discouraging people from getting health care that could save their life one day.


----------



## damemary (Mar 14, 2012)

Knitry said:


> PEOPLE, PEOPLE, PEOPLE --
> 
> CONGRESS IS NOT EXEMPT FROM OBAMACARE. I keep reading KPers posting this and I can only say it's the best, most resilient LIE I've seen the opponents of the President and the ACA get away with.
> 
> YOU ARE BEING LIED TO. Start questioning those sources that deliver lies and misinformation to you. (IOW: Wake the heck UP.)


 :thumbup: :thumbup: :thumbup: :thumbup:


----------



## BrattyPatty (May 2, 2011)

Lukelucy said:


> I am not ever trying to dissuade others from seeking medical care they are entitled to. Those are your words not mine. I find you repeatedly change the meaning to my words - your projection. Your comprehension level is very, very low.
> 
> I will not ever again respond to you. I find you a bully, rude and more. I am not your "sweets". If I knew you in real life I would avoid you like the plague - as I am about to do here.


Then stop lying about the ACA! You know literally NOTHING about it! And here you are fearmongering and spreading untruths about the insurance program.


----------



## Knitry (Dec 18, 2011)

DollieD said:


> Kentucky opted out!


People are getting confused.

The ONLY thing states can "opt out" of is whether or not they're going to expand their Medicaid enrollments to cover more poor people.

If they expand Medicaid, the cost will be covered 100% by the federal government for the next 3 years and 90% after that.

Any state that doesn't do this is preventing poor women, children, the elderly, disabled, etc. from having healthcare. It's unconscionable.

27 states have refused to expand Medicaid, all of them with Republican governors. However, both Arizona and Ohio have relented and changed their minds to opt in to the Medicaid expansion piece of the ACA. Both Governors (Brewer and Kasich) deserve applause.


----------



## Knitted by Nan (Aug 3, 2013)

Poor Purl said:


> Yippee for us!


Can I have first bags on checking out their music cds, especially their classical music collection?


----------



## BrattyPatty (May 2, 2011)

Lukelucy said:


> Thank you. We are doing a ton of research. No offense taken. Appreciate your kind thoughts.


Another lie! You said last night that you were not doing research. You said it takes too much time. Your own words, LL.


----------



## BluesChanteuse (Oct 14, 2013)

BrattyPatty said:


> Then stop lying about the ACA! You know literally NOTHING about it! And here you are fearmongering and spreading untruths about the insurance program.


I agree Lukelucy's posts have shown a serious lack of knowledge of the ACA. Just repeating Hannity lies.


----------



## BluesChanteuse (Oct 14, 2013)

Knitry said:


> People are getting confused.
> 
> The ONLY thing states can "opt out" of is whether or not they're going to expand their Medicaid enrollments to cover more poor people.
> 
> ...


You are absolutely correct.


----------



## BrattyPatty (May 2, 2011)

bwtyer said:


> well folks, I just opened yesterday's mail. It is time for open enrollment in my medical insurance options. I am retired and retained insurance from my employer. I am not old enough for medicare. My medical insurance is going up over $70 per month. No change in dental or eye care insurances. just so you know- yes there appears to be an across the board premium increase. This will cut into my yarn money. :-(


Then find a new plan in the ACA exchange. Your insurance company is the one raising your premiums to soak you for as much as they can before the ACA makes it illegal for them to do so.


----------



## susanmos2000 (May 10, 2011)

Poor Purl said:


> Why would you tell her that? You don't know whether her problem has anything at all to do with the ACA. She is seriously concerned about her health and needs advice or reassurance, not empty words that are no help at all.


Thanks for speaking up, Purl. For some sixty pages confused and frightened people have been telling their tales of woe, and LL has been responding with excruciatingly Confucius-like platitudes that only upset them more. It's like reading an endless stream of fortune cookie papers--absolutely infuriating.


----------



## Poor Purl (Apr 14, 2011)

susanmos2000 said:


> Interesting how 99.99% of the doomsdayers aren't interested in researching the agent of our supposed destruction.


Well, it's scary to learn things that go against your preconceptions.


----------



## BrattyPatty (May 2, 2011)

Obsessed said:


> You are sooooo wrong. Not only has Congress been carved out of the ACA, but so have their staff. Pelosi says they are too valuable to lose to private industry! My premiums have skyrocketed in advance of the ACA as well.


You have nobody to blame except your insurance company for that.


----------



## damemary (Mar 14, 2012)

Please check before printing lies and save us all some time and aggravation. In most cases you are getting riled up for nothing.



NJG said:


> I have received this same stuff in an email and it is all a big lie. The rumor, regarding illegal immigrants, for instance, most notably circulated by Rep. Joe Wilson, is untrue, as the law explicitly denies insurance subsidies to "unauthorized (illegal) aliens". I will not waste my time looking them all up. That should have been your job before you pass this crap on and try to scare people. The statement at the beginning about talking to AARP is a lie.


----------



## damemary (Mar 14, 2012)

Sarla said:


> I think you have unfortunately wrong information . 70 year will be on Medicare & has nothing to do with affordable care act . I am 71 and am sure nothing is changing for me. I think every body should do his / her research & not add to the confusion.


 :thumbup: :thumbup:


----------



## BrattyPatty (May 2, 2011)

Boxmjb said:


> Because some organizations are good at spreading fear because they do not want to work for political gain.


 :thumbup: :thumbup: :thumbup:


----------



## Knitry (Dec 18, 2011)

StitchDesigner said:


> When it comes to most news, be it papers, TV, or internet, I *don't believe them.* Why? They're in bed with Nobama.


I think it's a shame that your education or perhaps just native thinking skills don't enable you to discern which are non-agenda sources of information, what is and is not objective, reliable information.

One thing for sure -- and this scares me for you and every other person for whom it applies: when the people you DO listen to have convinced you that all other sources of information and news are bogus and untrustworthy, they have successfully made you their ninny. They have successfully innoculated you against any other source of truth and accurate information. Thus, they can tell you anything, and you'll buy it and follow blindly. You become a closed system, unable to be reached by anyone outside the circle, even if your life depends on it.


----------



## damemary (Mar 14, 2012)

Do you mean that the state of Kentucky opted to create their own exchange rather that participate in the Federal exchanges? Please clarify.



DollieD said:


> Kentucky opted out!


----------



## damemary (Mar 14, 2012)

Knitry said:


> Most of the people sharing their experiences I've seen have reported wonderful premium rates. I saw one of $1, another of $47, some for families higher but under $500, and so forth.
> 
> You know, the insurance companies will be so happy that you don't bother to check out ACA but insist instead on overpaying for private insurance. The very idea of this makes me wonder if some of the power and force behind all these LIES about Obamacare isn't coming from them.
> 
> ...


 :thumbup: :thumbup: :thumbup: :thumbup: :thumbup: :thumbup: :thumbup: BRAVO!


----------



## damemary (Mar 14, 2012)

NJG said:


> Republicans talking points are saying part time work is on the increase because of Obamacare, but that is all it is, just talking points. Wall Street Journal, Politifact and others are saying the data proves it wrong. Will they stop saying it? Of course not, they will keep telling lies.


   Shame on them.


----------



## damemary (Mar 14, 2012)

jelun2 said:


> PppFffftttt!


 :XD: :XD: :XD: :XD: :XD: Begone?


----------



## BrattyPatty (May 2, 2011)

obxamom said:


> Nice article...but we all should get it out of our system BC Obama signed into law that gives secret service the right to arrest anyone to speaks out against any one protracted by the SS and that they see a threat ...so if you go to a rally of Obama and speak out against his o care then you might just be put in jail.....and for you supporters like it or not it is a fact that this was just signed into law....although it was done under the radar. Just BC you support this health care doesn't give you the right to degrade one who doesn't. The supporters are comj g across as enlightened gurus of the law like they wrote it..quoting whatvthey heard from Obama..the white house or for goodness sakes NPR...please...There is a particular bully on here who is nasty and degrades everyone against the care act but yet I've heard nothing credible come from her mouth no factual information she has yet to share ..and I'm sure you k ow who u are.


This is so ridiculous it's funny!!! :XD: :XD: :XD: :XD: :XD:


----------



## damemary (Mar 14, 2012)

NJG said:


> I don't think so.
> 
> http://www.dailykos.com/story/2013/10/22/1249670/-Obamacare-off-to-great-start-in-Kentucky-Washington-nbsp-Oregon


 :thumbup: :thumbup: :thumbup: :thumbup:


----------



## damemary (Mar 14, 2012)

You got it Bwana.



NJG said:


> I have told them several times and posted links, but they keep repeating it. They seem to like the lies.


 :mrgreen:


----------



## BrattyPatty (May 2, 2011)

linnerlu said:


> Anyone who knows ANYthing at ALL about computer programming knows that a glitchy interface has nothing at all to do with the program it represents. Good grief.


 :thumbup: :thumbup: :thumbup:


----------



## susanmos2000 (May 10, 2011)

BrattyPatty said:


> Another lie! You said last night that you were not doing research. You said it takes too much time. Your own words, LL.


I think she's researching what states she can move to to escape the Obamacare boogeyman. The answer is of course none--the ACA covers all fifty states--but she hasn't seemed to have grasped that yet.


----------



## damemary (Mar 14, 2012)

Did you ask your doctor why? I don't believe a word of it.



Janeway said:


> You are wrong as I went to my GYN Dr. For my yearly check up & was told no pap & no mammograms after age 65 even though I'm high risk because of my sister having breast cancer.
> 
> You need to get your facts correct before you post.


----------



## damemary (Mar 14, 2012)

jelun2 said:


> Another subject that has been so over done.
> 
> Please, pull out a few old tax statements, most of us have some around.
> Grab the highest amount that you paid into FICA, then double it.
> ...


Bravo Jelun. True this topic has been overworked, but you took time and effort to prove a point and give new perspective to the soso. Thank you again.


----------



## bwtyer (Oct 31, 2012)

BrattyPatty said:


> Then find a new plan in the ACA exchange. Your insurance company is the one raising your premiums to soak you for as much as they can before the ACA makes it illegal for them to do so.


Not everybody can get ACA - I am not qualified for ACA because I have an employer sponsored insurance. - actually I also have Tricare from the VA as a secondary. (government insurance) This is stated on the government website that Jelun2 pointed me to about a week or so ago. If I understood my insurances corporate office correctly, all insurances will have an increase in premiums in the next year. Cause & effect syndrome- not so much by ACA but mostly caused by the loss of the pre-existing condition clause - which in itself is a wonderful thing for all Americans.


----------



## damemary (Mar 14, 2012)

NJG said:


> Grassley introduced the amendment because he thought all the Democrats would be upset and say no we are not going to switch to Obamacare, and that would be a good talking point for the republicans, but they said good idea and approved it. As far as the government paying part of it, don't most employers pay part of the premium for their employees?


 :thumbup: :thumbup: :thumbup: :thumbup: :thumbup: :thumbup: :thumbup: :thumbup: :thumbup: :thumbup: :thumbup:


----------



## damemary (Mar 14, 2012)

Knitry said:


> Uhhhhh, no. First, most of the "fallout" isn't. It's mostly just wild speculation and fear-based mental flights of fancy. The ACA isn't even fully implemented yet, so all these horror stories are either not due to ACA or pure fantasy. Many people seem to be conflating Medicare with Obamacare, and there's no connection at all.
> 
> As for the race issue, it arises from the clear observation by some of us that those who are complaining most bitterly have unreasonable, irrational hatred of the man. Or merely resentment him for no good reason. There HAVE been explicitly racist sentiments posted by many of the anti-ACAers, and they've been quite ugly. Others who also "hate" and fear Obamacare could have denounced or at least disavowed the racism, chose not to.


 :thumbup: :thumbup: :thumbup: :thumbup: :thumbup: :thumbup: :thumbup: :thumbup: :thumbup: :thumbup: :thumbup: :thumbup: :thumbup: :thumbup: :thumbup: :thumbup: :thumbup: :thumbup: :thumbup: :thumbup: :thumbup: :thumbup: :thumbup:


----------



## damemary (Mar 14, 2012)

Risk level seems to be the determining factor. So...



susanmos2000 said:


> Your experience has nothing to do with any mandates from the ACA, Janie. This from the New York Times (10/22/13):
> 
> "The American Cancer Society, the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists and the U.S. Preventive Services Task Force agree that after age 65, theres little additional benefit to routine annual screenings for low-risk women with a history of negative Pap smears and no history of cancer or precancerous lesions.
> 
> In women who have had normal annual Pap tests for many years and are in monogamous relationships, the risk of cervical cancer is very low, said Dr. Sarah Feldman, a gynecologic oncologist at Brigham and Womens Hospital in Boston and author of a recent editorial summarizing the expert consensus in The New England Journal of Medicine."


----------



## NJG (Dec 2, 2011)

BrattyPatty said:


> Let's hope you heed this, LL. You are blatantly lying to the people on this thread. The sad part is that you KNOW that you are lying, but continue to do it anyway.


That is what the republicans do. They continue to tell the same lies over and over in hopes that somewhere along the line it will be believed.


----------



## damemary (Mar 14, 2012)

cspaen34 said:


> :thumbup: :thumbup: How true. There are so many people in our nation, like Triskit, who are unable to obtain affordable health insurance for one reason or another. This is a situation that must change, and our emergency rooms need to be used for just that--emergencies. Even if one has insurance through employment and you lose your job you then purchase Cobra in between jobs. That is, like Triskit's situation, very expensive. We, as a nation, must do many things to control our medical costs and this is a start. I still note that, on average, those on KP who instead have "universal health care" in their countries seem happy with their care and thankful for its' benefits. :thumbup: Happy to hear you are going to be helped through ACA.


 :thumbup: :thumbup: :thumbup: :thumbup: :thumbup: :thumbup: :thumbup: :thumbup: :thumbup: :thumbup: :thumbup: :thumbup: :thumbup: :thumbup:


----------



## BrattyPatty (May 2, 2011)

Lukelucy said:


> That is terrible. Obamacare is going to hurt so many people.


It is just insurance, LL. More people have died and some suffered because they could not afford HC insurance. Now there is a nation wide plan that makesHC insurance coverage for those who could not obtain it in the past.
I think it is helping much more than it is hurting.


----------



## damemary (Mar 14, 2012)

jelun2 said:


> Well dang, I thought it was 47...
> can you tell us why those people don't pay taxes?
> Better yet, can you tell us why you do?


 :XD: :XD: :XD: :XD: :XD:


----------



## damemary (Mar 14, 2012)

Cheers janey.



Janeway said:


> You are just supporting Obo with anything he does while the rest of us pay more as you are probably on Welfare!


----------



## BrattyPatty (May 2, 2011)

Lukelucy said:


> Thank you. I wish everyone would see what is happening. Eyes wide shut.


Yes, LL yours certainly are!


----------



## damemary (Mar 14, 2012)

theyarnlady said:


> Wrong unless you live in this state I think it would be best for you to check before you sell us down the road.
> 
> As I live here and understand a lot more than you do. You may want to look at both sides. Not just from the left.


Does this mean you look at all sides and not just from the right? Or are you doing what you accuse everyone else of?


----------



## bwtyer (Oct 31, 2012)

NJG said:


> That is what the republicans do. They continue to tell the same lies over and over in hopes that somewhere along the line it will be believed.


This is a downright silly statement - I am a Republican, I do not like Cruz, I was angered by the shutdown - and I do not lie.
Not all Republicans agree with the Tea Party ideas. Grow up!


----------



## damemary (Mar 14, 2012)

Cocktail time.



susanmos2000 said:


> What happened to all the sweetness and light you displayed a few days ago, Janeway? I thought you no longer wanted to waste your energy quarreling and fighting and frankly, I was touched. But now your back biting everyone's head off. What gives?


----------



## cbethea (Oct 21, 2013)

damemary said:


> Did you ask your doctor why? I don't believe a word of it.


Janeway you are so full of it ! I just has a mammogram. I'm 67 and medicare along with my supplement covered every penny of it. If your Dr told you differently then you need to get a new Dr. The one you have watches to much Faux News.


----------



## damemary (Mar 14, 2012)

So, if this conversation with your doctor actually took place, go and tell your doctor you want her to call your insurance company and give them the reasons she wishes to continue mammograms for you.....or pay for it yourself. This has nothing to do with ACA.



Janeway said:


> This is not what my dr. told me as she indicated it was because of the new health care (Obocare) coming into effect.
> 
> I'm high risk for breast cancer because of my sibling having BC! It still won't be paid for by my insurance. My neighbor had breast cancer at age 79 but this was before this Obo garbage.
> 
> As long as a woman has breast she can get BC!


----------



## NJG (Dec 2, 2011)

damemary said:


> Can you imagine the law that might have been written if everyone hadn't wasted so much time and effort debating lies?


Can you imagine where this country could be if the republicans thought first of their constituents and the rest of the country and then of their party and themselves. If they worked with the democrats and the president to pass a jobs bill, worked with the democrats and the president to pass healthcare reform. Instead all they have done is try to repeal the ACA, over 40 times. That is insanity--doing the same thing over and over and over and expecting a different result.


----------



## susanmos2000 (May 10, 2011)

damemary said:


> Risk level seems to be the determining factor. So...


True...and as for the mammogram? Well, for women suffering from several serious medical conditions there may be no benefit to screening them for breast cancer--even if they test positive, the physical stress of chemo and surgery would probably be too much for them.

Sad to say I believe some doctors are using the ACA as a way of keeping unpleasant truths from their patients. It does serve as a convenient scapegoat, something to point at when they feel there's no benefit in a certain test or treatment but don't want to reveal the fact to the person in the hospital gown.


----------



## damemary (Mar 14, 2012)

She tries but it's not an even wit field, if you know what I mean.



linnerlu said:


> Snort! This is hysterical! I really have to stop reading this stuff tonight, my tummy hurts from laughing!
> 
> (I had never heard of the term "Obo" before getting on this list ... talk about disrespect ... and "you are probably on Welfare!" ... wow, what a hateful put-down.)


----------



## BrattyPatty (May 2, 2011)

obxamom said:


> You are welcome....I come on here for knitting advise and marvel in the talent that many of us have....i just get fed up when someone innocently tries to share what they heard and gets a public flogging for it.....I don't know you and I don't know if your doctor is right or wrong....but I am tired of seeing the immaturity and lack of charity that is displayed by many...where is the charity? I am sorry that you got flogged by your innocent post....one said makes you wonder what kind of families they are raising....well...the hatefulness I see....I wonder what kind of kids they are raising? Best of luck to you.


This poster has another thread about the same thing. She knows that what she is posting is all lies, yet she continues to do so. She has no facts to back her statements up and is doing nothing but fearmongering among the women here.


----------



## BrattyPatty (May 2, 2011)

Bea 465 said:


> According to the news last night, with the online system not working, the healthy young people who are used to working online will get frustrated and not sign up. Because the government will be loosing that money it will become more expensive for those who did sign up. After all, most young people don't spend a lot of money in doctor's offices so the government gets to appropriate that toward the people who require more medical attention.


There is plenty of time to sign up before the deadline. The glitches are being worked on.


----------



## BrattyPatty (May 2, 2011)

joeysomma said:


> Some insurance policies are no longer acceptable according to Obamacare. therefore, the ones with those policies will need to get new policies.


Which ones are they, Joey?


----------



## BrattyPatty (May 2, 2011)

Latonia said:


> This is just another failed attempt by the Republicans and the Tea Party to scare the American public into believing that Obama Care is not right for our Country. Shame on you my fellow Republicans.
> 
> The truth is that the Affordable Health Care Program is universal. States can not opt out of the program. Medicare takes care of all individuals eligible for Medicare and Cancer screening is a part of the Medicare plan. Supplemental Medicare insurance is available for those who choose to purchase additional coverage.
> 
> Let's stop trying to confuse the people just because some of the people do not like the President. Lets face it, this is the real reason the Republicans and the Tea Party radicals do not want Obama Care to succeed. It has nothing to do with the plan, it is all about their dislike for our President. Stop wasting our time and tax payers dollars on the racist views of some of the people. President Obama was re-elected for a reason. The Republicans were not put in office for a reason. HELLO!


Stand up and take a bow!!!


----------



## damemary (Mar 14, 2012)

ONCE AGAIN, if this conversation actually took place, either your physician lied to you or the problem is with your insurance company.



Janeway said:


> I'm also 70 & was told my ins would not pay for it & I'm high risk because if a sibling with breast cancer.
> 
> You say you got a mammogram & I'm saying mine was refused! What state do you live in as this could make a difference.


----------



## damemary (Mar 14, 2012)

And maybe the whole thing is just another Urban Legend.



joeysomma said:


> There you go assuming things. Since you were not in the room how do you know?


----------



## Poor Purl (Apr 14, 2011)

susanmos2000 said:


> Thanks for speaking up, Purl. For some sixty pages confused and frightened people have been telling their tales of woe, and LL has been responding with excruciatingly Confucius-like platitudes that only upset them more. It's like reading an endless stream of fortune cookie papers--absolutely infuriating.


You put it in a nutshell - a right wingnutshell. It's both infuriating and dull at the same time. That woman has posted the same message several times; she's clearly worried, and all she gets is "Well, that's Obamacare."

At least with fortune cookie papers you get lucky numbers.


----------



## damemary (Mar 14, 2012)

We're fed up with constant lies, rumors and exaggeration. Makes me testy. Deal with it.



Lukelucy said:


> No, it is the way it is presented. A lack of human respect is lacking. We do not mind disagreeing. It is the way it is done. Nasty, insulting, no manners, pathetic. Can't you tell the difference?


----------



## BrattyPatty (May 2, 2011)

Obsessed said:


> I had a job. Now I am retired (before ACA was enacted.) Are you seriously telling me to get back to work if I want to continue the same benefits I have been paying out of pocket for all along?  Do you really mean that those of us who worked our whole lives and planned responsibly for retirement - including the ability to pay for healthcare insurance with nobody's help- should be forced to start new careers so that those people who act irresponsibly and opt out of insurance should be subsidized and covered? You certainly drank the "redistribution of wealth Kool Aid", didn't you?


You got that right! :thumbup: :thumbup:


----------



## Poor Purl (Apr 14, 2011)

BrattyPatty said:


> You have nobody to blame except your insurance company for that.


Bratty, I giggle hysterically every time I see your Bette Miller avatar. She was so funny in that movie.


----------



## damemary (Mar 14, 2012)

Knitry said:


> But the thing that really amazes me is that NO ONE who buys this load of bull and fears our GOVERNMENT having control over our health (it won't) stops to think that their lives are in the hands of their insurance companies -- their FOR PROFIT insurance companies. You talk about death panels!! I've heard some horror stories, some of which aren't possible anymore because Obamacare has made it so that:
> 
> * no one can be dropped from their insurance
> * pre-existing conditions don't preclude coverage any more
> ...


 :thumbup: :thumbup: :thumbup: :thumbup: :thumbup: :thumbup: :thumbup: :thumbup: :thumbup: :thumbup: :thumbup: :thumbup:


----------



## freesia792 (Feb 24, 2012)

Apparently no one has bothered to read it(politicians who praised it) and have decided they are exempt. They insist "common people" have it, they opt out and are exempt, and haven't even bothered to read it....hmmmmm If it isn't good enough for a politicians family why would I want it? Do politicians opt out inn Canada?


----------



## damemary (Mar 14, 2012)

I'll tell you a 'secret.' I found a funny typo in the middle of an informative post. I kept waiting for someone to jump on it and complain. No one has. I guess that proves they don't read it. Hopefully some people gain some information and insight.



aw9358 said:


> Knitry and Designer, thank you for your thoughtful and well-written posts. I have learned more useful information from them than from almost anyone else here. However, I think you are wasting your valuable time and effort if you expect anyone who is against the ACA to even read what you have written. Soundbites and stupidity are much easier to digest. I suggest you go and bang your heads against a wall - at least it's nice when you stop.


----------



## BrattyPatty (May 2, 2011)

Triskit said:


> I'm not old enough for Medicare and my employer doesn't offer insurance, so for me the ACA is a godsend. Will be paying about $47/month for a medical policy versus having no insurance as my old policy costs rose to over $800/month and I had to drop the coverage or live under a bridge.


Triskit, I am so happy for you! You are an example of why this plan was created. Major insurance companies have had us on a leash for so many years. Rising premiums are on the up because the insurance co's want to get as much as they can out of their clients before the ACA makes it illegal to do so.


----------



## BrattyPatty (May 2, 2011)

Poor Purl said:


> Bratty, I giggle hysterically every time I see your Bette Miller avatar. She was so funny in that movie.


I loved her!! I bought the movie, it thought it was hilarious


----------



## damemary (Mar 14, 2012)

And many people do not intend to go through cancer treatment to live a few months. I suggest you have a talk with your physician so they understand your intent.

Kittykatzmom, I'm with you.



kittykatzmom said:


> I just got one at 71. Heck if I get cancer and die I just die. I'm at an age it doesn't really matter anymore. Some may say I have a poor attitude, but it is just a fact. Sure I would like to live a few more years, but if I do I do and if I don't then I don't. Not going to worry about it one way or the other.


----------



## MaidInBedlam (Jul 24, 2012)

Thank you for all you've said about Canada's health care system. I hope the US can achieve something like Canada has. The ACA may be the start of that, and once it is in place and problems occur, there will be the opportunity for change and improvement just as there has been for the canadian system. We have to start somewhere.


Designer1234 said:


> I keep trying - I have had good reason to approve of the Canadian system. It saved my husband's life 2 heart attacks and 2 bypasses over 20 years and then (the aortic and mitral valve replacement surgery -- care for congestive heart failure. 3 stents, 2 bypasses, 45 days in the hospital. We pay l25.00 per month for Blue cross which is our medicines, ambulance etc. Our Government health care Insurance (which is separate from Blue cross) paid all of the above many MRI's other tests - many of them including ultra sounds and heart function tests, 2 surgeries, and follow up care once a month at the heart function clinic which is attached to the Libin Cardiac center at the Foothills Hosptial in Calgary, and the only cost out of our pocket was parking when I visited him. that is the truth. We never got a bill. not one!
> 
> Certainly, we have waits for non life threatening treatment , but when they get to the care, they are covered. We are in the same type of recession you are down in the States. They have stopped covering physio therapy and other non essential and non life threatening procedures, not many but some. Blue cross covers 85% of approved medicines under the plan we have taken - there are 3 - we took the top one - pre conditions were not a factor -there are levels you can choose our plan costs l00.00 per month for both of us. My husband was in the Armed forces and we have carried extra insurance since he got out of the Army and pay l5.00 per month the extra insurance pays 85% of what BLue cross does not pay.
> 
> ...


----------



## BrattyPatty (May 2, 2011)

knitpresentgifts said:


> Jelun2 wrote,"But hey what do I know?"
> 
> Obviously, not much. Other than insulting and putting down others who do not agree with your every word. Apparently, you know nothing about me either.


Who wants to know anything about you? Clap your trap, serpent! You said you were leaving KP. Lied again, didn't you?


----------



## BrattyPatty (May 2, 2011)

NJG said:


> And where did you get that information please?


Off the fox news sight??
Strange, my medicare is staying the same.


----------



## Poor Purl (Apr 14, 2011)

bwtyer said:


> This is a downright silly statement - I am a Republican, I do not like Cruz, I was angered by the shutdown - and I do not lie.
> Not all Republicans agree with the Tea Party ideas. Grow up!


Thanks for speaking up. Most of us have been wondering where the traditional GOP was hiding and why the Tea Party seems to be running the show.


----------



## cbethea (Oct 21, 2013)

BrattyPatty said:


> Stand up and take a bow!!!


Latonia -you are so right. I watched a program last night called "Independent Lens". It was about 24 or so hours in the emergency room of a county hospital in Oakland, Ca. Most of the folks seeking treatment did not have insurance and their ailments had become critical emergencies because they had no regular care. All the ACA is trying to do is insure these folks so they don't friggin die from lack of care. Why on earth would anyone with a heart want to deny medical care to these people. The answer, of course, is they hate the President so much - they've gone beyond all reason.


----------



## BrattyPatty (May 2, 2011)

Knitter from Nebraska said:


> This much I know is true: when you have to FORCE people to buy it, it can't be that great!!!


Sure it can. Now we will be paying lower medical costs that we covered for all of the uninsured that used the ER"s.


----------



## damemary (Mar 14, 2012)

jelun2 said:


> StitchDesigner wrote:
> Is this the same ObamaNoCare that has an inoperative website? The same one whose programming was already over $300 Million and it's not right? The same on that has already publicly stated that if you are over 70 and you have a chronic disease, it will not be covered? The same one that has CUT Medicare to pay for NoCare? The same one that will be run by the IRS? Oh, yeah, Americans are real happy about this. NOT!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
> 
> That's right.
> ...


 :XD: :XD: :XD: :XD: :XD: :XD: :XD: :XD: :XD: :XD: :XD: LOL


----------



## BrattyPatty (May 2, 2011)

knitpresentgifts said:


> Lukelucy is a sweet soul. She was the original poster of another thread, Smoking & Obamacare. That thread is up to the 25th or so edition (2,500+ pages). The same Liberal posters who attack others personally on this thread ruined that thread as well so Lucklucy began this one. It is shameful that the same KP members who do not agree with others resort to personal attacks instead as you have quickly noticed and noted.


And KPG here has ruined every thread she has posted in.
Smell that awful sulphur? Or is it brimstone?


----------



## susanmos2000 (May 10, 2011)

damemary said:


> And many people do not intend to go through cancer treatment to live a few months. I suggest you have a talk with your physician so they understand your intent.
> 
> Kittykatzmom, I'm with you.


So true, Dame. My brother is a good example of one who, though relatively young, decided not to spoil the remainder of his life by proceeding with a hell-on-earth treatment for it. It's a tough choice to make--if some doctors are wimping out by pointing to the ACA as the reason why this or that treatment isn't going to happen I wouldn't be at all surprised.


----------



## BrattyPatty (May 2, 2011)

Knit crazy said:


> You realize, I hope, that you can choose not to participate in Obamacare. Concierge doctors will work outside Obamacare guidelines and requirements. Many specialists will not take Obamacare patients or Medicare patients and especially Medicaid patients because of the fee structure. Plus, you can choose not to participate in Obamacare, pay a small penalty, and if a health event is expensive then join Obamacare to get the event covered. Many will be considering their options and making difficult choices. It is a shame that this health care bill will cause suffering to aid a few who don't have insurance, but it is what Obama promised - that he'd level the playing field. If you worked hard for years, saved your money, and lived a healthy life, you are now just a funding mechanism for providing healthcare to those who made poor life choices and/or health choices.


Sorry the indigent are such a thorn in your side, KC, but there are much more than just a few without insurance.


----------



## Cheeky Blighter (Nov 20, 2011)

BrattyPatty said:


> And KPG here has ruined every thread she has posted in.
> Smell that awful sulphur? Or is it brimstone?


Patty I see KPG fibbed again. She was leaving us forever. Yah sure! So much for her honesty and as usual she hasn't got one thing to contribute except her opinion. That's all you ever get from the right. They are just Ted Cruz minions and we know where his career is headed. I am thrilled about ACA as it will make my life much better along with millions of others and we won't have people going into the ER's as a last resort so that will be just one way we can save tax payers money.


----------



## Poor Purl (Apr 14, 2011)

BrattyPatty said:


> Who wants to know anything about you? Clap your trap, serpent! You said you were leaving KP. Lied again, didn't you?


Why does she keep pointing out that people don't know anything about her? Does she think that makes her more interesting? mysterious? Truth is, we know a lot about her from what she says. In fact, I think we know too much.


----------



## BrattyPatty (May 2, 2011)

Judyh said:


> You have been rude and you obviously have not had a very good education. Calling someone "sweetie" is reserved for your loved ones, and obviously not any people are your loved ones here. Take a course in etiquette!


I am one of her loved ones


----------



## Cheeky Blighter (Nov 20, 2011)

cbethea said:


> Latonia -you are so right. I watched a program last night called "Independent Lens". It was about 24 or so hours in the emergency room of a county hospital in Oakland, Ca. Most of the folks seeking treatment did not have insurance and their ailments had become critical emergencies because they had no regular care. All the ACA is trying to do is insure these folks so they don't friggin die from lack of care. Why on earth would anyone with a heart want to deny medical care to these people. The answer, of course, is they hate the President so much - they've gone beyond all reason.


cbethea - It is frightening that the the right hates the President so much that they would deny other Americans healthcare. I do believe in karma and what goes around comes around. One day any one of them could find themselves down and out through no fault of their own and I hope they will never be treated as terribly as they want to treat others. They have gone beyond all reason and now believe the lies that have been told to them over and over again and no amount of talking to them will convince them otherwise. It's a waste of breath.


----------



## BrattyPatty (May 2, 2011)

NJG said:


> Republicans talking points are saying part time work is on the increase because of Obamacare, but that is all it is, just talking points. Wall Street Journal, Politifact and others are saying the data proves it wrong. Will they stop saying it? Of course not, they will keep telling lies.


This new talking point replaces the Benghazi talking point.
So now for the next year all we will hear is how theACA is making America a part time job force, Such nonsense!
Small businesses here in Minnesota are finding that the ACA will save them a lot of money insuring their employees.


----------



## damemary (Mar 14, 2012)

Lies.



Dot-I said:


> If Obamacare were so great why did he exempt himself and his family from it. And why are all senators not taking it. I don't want it either.
> If you read what is in the Obamacare book you would be shocked what is in it>>>>>


----------



## MaidInBedlam (Jul 24, 2012)

KPG's great love for KP and all of us won't allow her to ever leave. She's stayed away from Smoking and Obamacare for awhile, probably was chastised by Admin for all her unpleasant ranting and raving. But, hey! presto! Here's a contoversial subject being discussed in a new topic so she can stop just hanging out in the sweetness and light topics and indulge in her particular brand of vitriolic posting.Once again KPG the vampire can suck the blood out of anyone who dares to say anything positive about the things she's oh-so-sure are wrong and hates with a passion. I'm so glad she has a new outlet for her ugliness. I think that smell isn't just sulfur and brimstone. There's a lot of other stuff rotting away in our dear KPG and the stench can't be hidden.


BrattyPatty said:


> And KPG here has ruined every thread she has posted in.
> Smell that awful sulphur? Or is it brimstone?


----------



## BrattyPatty (May 2, 2011)

Cheeky Blighter said:


> Patty I see KPG fibbed again. She was leaving us forever. Yah sure! So much for her honesty and as usual she hasn't got one thing to contribute except her opinion. That's all you ever get from the right. They are just Ted Cruz minions and we know where his career is headed. I am thrilled about ACA as it will make my life much better along with millions of others and we won't have people going into the ER's as a last resort so that will be just one way we can save tax payers money.


Very true, Cheeky. And more lives will be saved because they can actually get proper medical care now.


----------



## damemary (Mar 14, 2012)

susanmos2000 said:


> Well, what do you expect when you begin a thread with five highly twisted statement that you allege your doctor told you husband and he told you? The good doctor's words of doom were debunked in just a few pages--all the rest has been 50% solid info and 50% hysterical scare stories by folks who don't know which way is up.


 :thumbup: :thumbup: :thumbup: :thumbup: :thumbup:


----------



## BrattyPatty (May 2, 2011)

linnerlu said:


> Hahahaha!
> (Jelun, I can highly recommend the pinot grigio, it makes this conversation much more palatable!)


Pinot Grigio?? Slide one down to me linnerlu!


----------



## damemary (Mar 14, 2012)

Thank you for sharing....and for your compassion for others.



Connie W said:


> Since I have worked and been a tax payer my entire life and am excited about this plan, that makes your opinion invalid, period. I am a nurse and have seen first hand the needs. Have a little compassion.
> 
> Also, I am fortunate to have good insurance. At 65, I had no health issues, didn't need any perscriptons, had been an insurers' dream. Then it hit the fan. I am lucky to have coverage. I could have been forced to choose having treatment and living but at a cost of becoming financially devastated. I want others to have my opportunity.


----------



## damemary (Mar 14, 2012)

I'm shocked too. Second opinion?



Jar said:


> I said this before: my mother died of ovarian cancer as well a number of aunts and cousins. I have had trouble in the past. My Dr. Said now you only come every three years for a pap smear. I asked even with my history, what about testing for cancer? Will you draw blood for a check for cancer, that is what they would do as well. No. We have great insurance retired Air Force. I am stunned . Jane


----------



## BrattyPatty (May 2, 2011)

susanmos2000 said:


> Your experience has nothing to do with any mandates from the ACA, Janie. This from the New York Times (10/22/13):
> 
> "The American Cancer Society, the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists and the U.S. Preventive Services Task Force agree that after age 65, theres little additional benefit to routine annual screenings for low-risk women with a history of negative Pap smears and no history of cancer or precancerous lesions.
> 
> In women who have had normal annual Pap tests for many years and are in monogamous relationships, the risk of cervical cancer is very low, said Dr. Sarah Feldman, a gynecologic oncologist at Brigham and Womens Hospital in Boston and author of a recent editorial summarizing the expert consensus in The New England Journal of Medicine."


My doctor told me the same thing. Why perform unessecary tests?


----------



## damemary (Mar 14, 2012)

susanmos2000 said:


> Well, why didn't you ask your doctor to explain his or her decision? Without knowing your age and relative state of health it's impossible for anyone here to know why s/he arrived at that conclusion--but it can't possibly have anything to do with the supposed dictates of the ACA. Ask--and if you don't understand or don't like what you're hearing, change doctors.


 :thumbup: :thumbup: :thumbup: :thumbup: :thumbup: :thumbup:


----------



## NJG (Dec 2, 2011)

When I was holding my town meetings in 2009, my constituents said to me, Well, if its good enough for us, isnt it good enough for you? And thats the theory behind my amendment, Grassley said.

Oh come on Charlie, I know you better than that. You wanted the democrats to say no to your amendment so you could use that in your republican talking points. Too bad for you they thought it was a good idea. 

To explain what kind of a person Charlie is, he voted no on reopening the government and wanted this country to go into default. I will never believe another word he says. He has lost ALL credibility.


----------



## BrattyPatty (May 2, 2011)

Janeway said:


> This is not what my dr. told me as she indicated it was because of the new health care (Obocare) coming into effect.
> 
> I'm high risk for breast cancer because of my sibling having BC! It still won't be paid for by my insurance. My neighbor had breast cancer at age 79 but this was before this Obo garbage.
> 
> As long as a woman has breast she can get BC!


Then check into one of the ACA plans. It was the AMA who decided against mammograms after 70 and papsmears after 65.


----------



## BrattyPatty (May 2, 2011)

Lukelucy said:


> That is what I am saying. What do you get for your AHC. Not much. And you are paying a lot. Doctors are going to head for the hills. Wake up America.


Go to sleep, LL


----------



## damemary (Mar 14, 2012)

Due to Grassley amendment, Congress is forced to go to the exchanges for insurance although they have insurance through employer now. It will be covered 75%by employer.



mirium said:


> The Affordable Care Act (a.k.a. Obamacare) is intended for those who can't afford the inflated rates charged for individuals who don't qualify for a group plan -- group plans, such as those provided through an employer, are a LOT cheaper than health insurance for individuals.
> 
> President Obama and his family, all senators, and all the Representatives who are voting against it, can get affordable health insurance through the federal group health insurance plan and don't need the program, so they don't qualify for it. But there are people who are working for Mom & Pop stores, people who work part-time, people who are self-employed, people who work for Walmart full time and still qualify for food stamps -- and they can't afford the premiums that are based on statistics for individuals. Obamacare combines all those folks into a group and offers premiums based on group statistics, which are -- wait for it -- affordable! And with that insurance, those folks will be able to see a regular doctor instead of going to the emergency room, which will result in healthier people and will be a lot cheaper for everyone because those of us with insurance won't be charged higher premiums to pay for the unpaid emergency room bills and for treatment that could have been prevented if regular health care was available.


----------



## BrattyPatty (May 2, 2011)

Lukelucy said:


> I disagree. We need a plan, but NOT a government plan.


If not from the government, then from whom do you expect to get a plan from??


----------



## Nussa (Jul 7, 2011)

Knitry said:


> I think it's a shame that your education or perhaps just native thinking skills don't enable you to discern which are non-agenda sources of information, what is and is not objective, reliable information.
> 
> One thing for sure -- and this scares me for you and every other person for whom it applies: when the people you DO listen to have convinced you that all other sources of information and news are bogus and untrustworthy, they have successfully made you their ninny. They have successfully innoculated you against any other source of truth and accurate information. Thus, they can tell you anything, and you'll buy it and follow blindly. You become a closed system, unable to be reached by anyone outside the circle, even if your life depends on it.


 :thumbup: :thumbup: :thumbup:

And StitchDesigner, how can you expect anyone to take seriously someone who uses nonsensical words and phrases like, Nobama and ObamaNoCare. If you want to be taken seriously, it's best not to be disrespectful. JMO


----------



## cbethea (Oct 21, 2013)

Cheeky Blighter said:


> cbethea - It is frightening that the the right hates the President so much that they would deny other Americans healthcare. I do believe in karma and what goes around comes around. One day any one of them could find themselves down and out through no fault of their own and I hope they will never be treated as terribly as they want to treat others. They have gone beyond all reason and now believe the lies that have been told to them over and over again and no amount of talking to them will convince them otherwise. It's a waste of breath.


Your absolutely right, it such a waste of breath. They are a pitiful lot - influenced by Fox News and politicians who feed them crap so they'll keep giving them money and votes. I do feel heartened though after reading the posts in this discussion. There are far more smart ladies here than not. Ladies who actually know what they are talking about and care enough to speak up against lies and misconceptions.


----------



## BrattyPatty (May 2, 2011)

Lukelucy said:


> Not for long. Try it at 72.


Once again, that has nothing to do with the ACA.
The American Medical Association came up with that suggestion. this is the 4th time this info has been posted, LL


----------



## damemary (Mar 14, 2012)

Thank you for the fascinating links. You are a marvelous researcher....of course this thread gives you plenty of practice.



Knitry said:


> TIME MAGAZINE: *The 16,000-IRS Agent Lie* points to this really good article: *Will the IRS need 16,000 new agents to enforce health-care reform?* that includes this interesting bit of info: "FactCheck.org gives you the rundown here, but just for kicks, let's track how an estimate becomes spin becomes a lie becomes a sound bite." Worth reading.


----------



## damemary (Mar 14, 2012)

I'm glad you have your husband's health. Thanks for sharing your experience.



Designer1234 said:


> I keep trying - I have had good reason to approve of the Canadian system. It saved my husband's life 2 heart attacks and 2 bypasses over 20 years and then (the aortic and mitral valve replacement surgery -- care for congestive heart failure. 3 stents, 2 bypasses, 45 days in the hospital. We pay l25.00 per month for Blue cross which is our medicines, ambulance etc. Our Government health care Insurance (which is separate from Blue cross) paid all of the above many MRI's other tests - many of them including ultra sounds and heart function tests, 2 surgeries, and follow up care once a month at the heart function clinic which is attached to the Libin Cardiac center at the Foothills Hosptial in Calgary, and the only cost out of our pocket was parking when I visited him. that is the truth. We never got a bill. not one!
> 
> Certainly, we have waits for non life threatening treatment , but when they get to the care, they are covered. We are in the same type of recession you are down in the States. They have stopped covering physio therapy and other non essential and non life threatening procedures, not many but some. Blue cross covers 85% of approved medicines under the plan we have taken - there are 3 - we took the top one - pre conditions were not a factor -there are levels you can choose our plan costs l00.00 per month for both of us. My husband was in the Armed forces and we have carried extra insurance since he got out of the Army and pay l5.00 per month the extra insurance pays 85% of what BLue cross does not pay.
> 
> ...


----------



## damemary (Mar 14, 2012)

I'm sorry and I understand your feelings.



Cindy S said:


> While I have been reading and enjoying this site for a while, I just registered yesterday. And this thread has poisoned me on reading any thing other than those topics that have direct impact on knitting.


----------



## BrattyPatty (May 2, 2011)

Lukelucy said:


> That's the way things are going to be under ACA. So sorry.


Prove what you have just stated is true, LukeLucy.
I have heard enough blather, but now I am asking you for *facts* and proof of your last statement.


----------



## damemary (Mar 14, 2012)

NO!



susanmos2000 said:


> Clicked on the link you posted and saw this:
> 
> "Citizens' Council for Health Freedom
> 
> ...


----------



## BrattyPatty (May 2, 2011)

Lukelucy said:


> Right! Heaven help us.


Either you are braindead ofr just dense.
Our plan is nothing like the one in Canada or the UK!


----------



## damemary (Mar 14, 2012)

This would definitely call for a glass of wine, but I'd love to see you tear her apart.



jelun2 said:


> LOL, I'll spring for the tix if you will be my date.


----------



## BrattyPatty (May 2, 2011)

Designer1234 said:


> Your Mayo Clinic is world renowned and patients from up here attend if arranged by their doctor if new procedures as used in hospitals like Mayo are proven and we don't have them here. That is one thing that is so sad about the whole situation. YOu have wonderful scientists, doctors specialists, in the United States.
> 
> I don't pretend to be an expert on your health care, and I don't pretend to be an expert on Canadian health care, but I am an expert when it comes to my own family and what our Government health care has meant to us.


You are correct Shirl, the Mayo clinics are top notch. The mothership is here in Minnesota and t=I know of one other in Scottsdale? AZ.


----------



## damemary (Mar 14, 2012)

They are usually the same old lies repeated endlessly....even after they have been thoroughly debunked. Not too creative.



mjs said:


> There seems to be no end of lies that people are willing to circulate.


----------



## damemary (Mar 14, 2012)

susanmos2000 said:


> Interesting how 99.99% of the doomsdayers aren't interested in researching the agent of our supposed destruction.


 :thumbup: :thumbup: :thumbup: :thumbup: :thumbup:


----------



## damemary (Mar 14, 2012)

This is medicinal.



ute4kp said:


> Give me some of that wine....and I don't drink alcohol. :mrgreen:


----------



## BrattyPatty (May 2, 2011)

damemary said:


> NO!


No way!!!!!


----------



## BrattyPatty (May 2, 2011)

Ah, a nice crisp Pinot Grigio. Just what the doctor ordered!


----------



## damemary (Mar 14, 2012)

Some people on the right lie continually. Insurance companies change their offered plans all the time.



Obsessed said:


> Why would you accuse people of these things when we are just reporting was has happened to us? I don't understand your lack of trust in what we are saying. The insurance companies are not going to continue some of our plans and have told us to make other arrangements. Why would we lie?


----------



## damemary (Mar 14, 2012)

I stand corrected. I have said that before.



Poor Purl said:


> No, Joeysomma is right about this. Wow, I think that's the first time I've ever said that.


----------



## damemary (Mar 14, 2012)

Knitry said:


> :thumbup: :thumbup:
> 
> What a concept, eh? becoming a doctor to heal people, not become millionaire.


 :thumbup: :thumbup: :thumbup: :thumbup:


----------



## damemary (Mar 14, 2012)

Poor Purl said:


> I read somewhere that Aetna has opted out of the ACA, at least in many states. It won't be making enough, I suppose.


Poor Aetna. Not.


----------



## damemary (Mar 14, 2012)

cbethea said:


> Hi Linda - Come to Oregon - we're doing just fine with the ACA. have insured 56,000 folks that were not insured before and working on many more. Best of all we don't have selfish , self involved, lying, morons like Cruz to contend with. Hard to imagine someone like him getting elected up here. I know its a long shot but maybe you'll have Wendy Davis fr Govenor soon!


Yeah...before she runs for President or Vice President. Go Wendy.


----------



## damemary (Mar 14, 2012)

And she never quotes sources and she never admits being wrong or not knowing everything about everything. She promised she was leaving. Apparently she couldn't resist you.



Poor Purl said:


> Knitry, you have just been contacted by the queen of conspiracy theories. You are so lucky.


----------



## BrattyPatty (May 2, 2011)

Bazinga ladies


----------



## cbethea (Oct 21, 2013)

damemary said:


> Yeah...before she runs for President or Vice President. Go Wendy.


She got a donation from me - even if I don't live in Texas. It's a good thing to support women candidates like her and Elizabeth Warren.


----------



## damemary (Mar 14, 2012)

Nice of you to prove Grassley is a twit who can't write a bill, much less get it passed.



joeysomma said:


> Grassley Frustrated by Fight Over His Health Care Amendment
> 
> _Sen. Charles E. Grassley, R-Iowa, said Thursday he is frustrated by the continuing battle over health benefits for members of Congress and their staff, which he attributes to a drafting mistake in the Affordable Care Act by Democrats.
> 
> ...


----------



## damemary (Mar 14, 2012)

NJG said:


> That is what the republicans do. They continue to tell the same lies over and over in hopes that somewhere along the line it will be believed.


Or at least that the lie will be repeated endlessly.


----------



## damemary (Mar 14, 2012)

I had always hoped this is true. Now it is up to true Republicans to stand up to the vocal minority to save their party, and perhaps the nation.



bwtyer said:


> This is a downright silly statement - I am a Republican, I do not like Cruz, I was angered by the shutdown - and I do not lie.
> Not all Republicans agree with the Tea Party ideas. Grow up!


----------



## damemary (Mar 14, 2012)

NJG said:


> Can you imagine where this country could be if the republicans thought first of their constituents and the rest of the country and then of their party and themselves. If they worked with the democrats and the president to pass a jobs bill, worked with the democrats and the president to pass healthcare reform. Instead all they have done is try to repeal the ACA, over 40 times. That is insanity--doing the same thing over and over and over and expecting a different result.


 :thumbup: :thumbup: :thumbup: :thumbup: :thumbup:


----------



## damemary (Mar 14, 2012)

Bazinga.


----------



## KopyKat (Aug 15, 2013)

Amen to this, we are headed down a VERY VERY slippery path and I for one am sick and tired of a government that forces people in a "free" nation to "obey or be penalized"!


----------



## Janet Cooke (Aug 14, 2013)

BrattyPatty said:


> If not from the government, then from whom do you expect to get a plan from??


Oh wait, I know! How about those non-socialist, non-government folks who planned Social Security and Medicare?


----------



## Janet Cooke (Aug 14, 2013)

BrattyPatty said:


> Prove what you have just stated is true, LukeLucy.
> I have heard enough blather, but now I am asking you for *facts* and proof of your last statement.


I am not sure why she even cares how things are under Obamacare. She has Medicare, even though, if I recall, she denied that earlier. 
So, it would seem that anything she posts is suspect.


----------



## ElyseKnox (Sep 16, 2011)

damemary said:


> Some people on the right lie continually. Insurance companies change their offered plans all the time.


Your comment would seem to indicate that no liars exist on the liberal side of the aisle. Surely you are a better student of human nature than to believe that.


----------



## ElyseKnox (Sep 16, 2011)

jelun2 said:


> Oh wait, I know! How about those non-socialist, non-government folks who planned Social Security and Medicare?


Jelun,
You keep harping about SS and Medicare and those who were responsible for their becoming law of the land. Why? And they WERE "government folks" who implemented both programs--they would not exist on our law books if they weren't. As to whether they were socialists or not, they may not have been widely labelled as such but many of the citizens who were adults during that time saw them as such.

Now, again, why do you harp about the instigators of those two programs. Whether or not they are "socialism" has no bearing on whether Obamacare is socialism. Even if they are, they provide no excuse for further socialism-in fact just the opposite.


----------



## Janet Cooke (Aug 14, 2013)

KopyKat said:


> Amen to this, we are headed down a VERY VERY slippery path and I for one am sick and tired of a government that forces people in a "free" nation to "obey or be penalized"!


Where do you get this free nation thing? If we had a free nation we would not need for our freedoms to be enumerated in the Amendments to the US Constitution, everything would be assumed to be free. 
Heck, we can't even get people to agree that we should be free FROM religion. Here you are wanting to be free from the responsibility of paying for your own health care. 
Should I not be FREE from supporting your illnesses?


----------



## Janet Cooke (Aug 14, 2013)

Obsessed said:


> Why would you accuse people of these things when we are just reporting was has happened to us? I don't understand your lack of trust in what we are saying. The insurance companies are not going to continue some of our plans and have told us to make other arrangements. Why would we lie?


Why would you ask "why would we lie?" when that is quite clearly NOT what the poster mentioned?


----------



## Janet Cooke (Aug 14, 2013)

cbethea said:


> Latonia -you are so right. I watched a program last night called "Independent Lens". It was about 24 or so hours in the emergency room of a county hospital in Oakland, Ca. Most of the folks seeking treatment did not have insurance and their ailments had become critical emergencies because they had no regular care. All the ACA is trying to do is insure these folks so they don't friggin die from lack of care. Why on earth would anyone with a heart want to deny medical care to these people. The answer, of course, is they hate the President so much - they've gone beyond all reason.


I do believe that is part of it, but, those of us who remember the '90s and the vitriol piled on Hillary Clinton simply because she wanted a national health care program recognize some of this filth we see in this decade. 
Part of the reason has to be simple greed and deeply ingrained selfishness. 
All anyone has to do is pull up a couple of videos of those free clinics done in TX and NO to see how sickening it is to allow our fellow residents in the nation (how do we call ourselves great?) to go without the opportunity to see a doctor on a regular basis.


----------



## Janet Cooke (Aug 14, 2013)

ElyseKnox said:


> Jelun,
> You keep harping about SS and Medicare and those who were responsible for their becoming law of the land. Why? And they WERE "government folks" who implemented both programs--they would not exist on our law books if they weren't. As to whether they were socialists or not, they may not have been widely labelled as such but many of the citizens who were adults during that time saw them as such.
> 
> Now, again, why do you harp about the instigators of those two programs. Whether or not they are "socialism" has no bearing on whether Obamacare is socialism. Even if they are, they provide no excuse for further socialism-in fact just the opposite.


Why is your vocabulary so limited that you used variations of "harp" twice? 
Why is your sense of humor so locked up that you don't recognize something funny?
Why did you pass over the initial question asking "who if not the gov't?" in order to chastise me for not addressing the health insurance issue while not addressing the health insurance issue?


----------



## ElyseKnox (Sep 16, 2011)

jelun2 said:


> Why is your vocabulary so limited that you used variations of "harp" twice?
> Why is your sense of humor so locked up that you don't recognize something funny?
> Why did you pass over the initial question asking "who if not the gov't?" in order to chastise me for not addressing the health insurance issue while not addressing the health insurance issue?


It seems that many of your replies are more about putting down the person rather than answering the question under discussion.

You asked a question, I posted an answer. Why chastise me for answering your question. I DID address your comment; both whether it was the government that enacted both SS and Medicare into law and whether or not those who enacted it were socialists.

As to whether my humor is "locked up," I don't see the eroding away of our essential freedoms as "funny" nor did I see any indication of humor in your post.

Finally, you have still not answered the question as to why you keep bringing up those programs.


----------



## karverr (Jun 27, 2013)

NJG said:


> I have received this same stuff in an email and it is all a big lie. The rumor, regarding illegal immigrants, for instance, most notably circulated by Rep. Joe Wilson, is untrue, as the law explicitly denies insurance subsidies to "unauthorized (illegal) aliens". I will not waste my time looking them all up. That should have been your job before you pass this crap on and try to scare people. The statement at the beginning about talking to AARP is a lie.


Do you think someone would print something and give page numbers where you could look it up and find out they are lying, OMG you folks get the blinders off and actually read the junk you are defending, ignorance of the law will not used as a defense.


----------



## ikindaknit (Jun 27, 2013)

karverr said:


> Do you think someone would print something and give page numbers where you could look it up and find out they are lying, OMG you folks get the blinders off and actually read the junk you are defending, ignorance of the law will not used as a defense.


 :thumbup: :thumbup:


----------



## karverr (Jun 27, 2013)

jelun2 said:


> I do believe that is part of it, but, those of us who remember the '90s and the vitriol piled on Hillary Clinton simply because she wanted a national health care program recognize some of this filth we see in this decade.
> Part of the reason has to be simple greed and deeply ingrained selfishness.
> All anyone has to do is pull up a couple of videos of those free clinics done in TX and NO to see how sickening it is to allow our fellow residents in the nation (how do we call ourselves great?) to go without the opportunity to see a doctor on a regular basis.


Every hospital in the country receives a suppliment from the government, and they are required to treat anyone that comes in for care no matter of their ability to pay.


----------



## damemary (Mar 14, 2012)

So hang out to dry and pay the modest penalty. Quit whining. Honestly we didn't whine this much over those elusive weapons of mass destruction.



KopyKat said:


> Amen to this, we are headed down a VERY VERY slippery path and I for one am sick and tired of a government that forces people in a "free" nation to "obey or be penalized"!


----------



## Jar (Oct 31, 2012)

jelun2 said:


> I have no idea how retired military health insurance support works, is there some consumer assistance division? Can you start with them to find out what your rights are? I can certainly understand your qualms. You don't mention your age... perhaps the support folks can help you find a different doc? This is a civilian facility?


I am 52, there are two types one is Trycare Standard I have where you go to any Dr. any time. We have a secondary to pay 20% copayment. The other is trycare prime which is like a HMO. I did ask why all she said was they said that the rules have been changed. My appointment was on Sept. 30th. Jane


----------



## Janet Cooke (Aug 14, 2013)

ElyseKnox said:


> It seems that many of your replies are more about putting down the person rather than answering the question under discussion.
> 
> You asked a question, I posted an answer. Why chastise me for answering your question. I DID address your comment; both whether it was the government that enacted both SS and Medicare into law and whether or not those who enacted it were socialists.
> 
> ...


One would think it was self explanatory, the same people who moan and lie about the socialism inherent in Obamacare cling to their SS and Medicare which ARE socialism, it is obvious in their very being those who have and are producing taking care of those who no longer can product. 
To suggest that Obamacare which requires investing in self care with private corporations is socialism simply shows how little the people who lay those charges even understand about the definition. 
Honestly, I don't care what my statements and questions read like to you or to anyone else. I don't whine about being bullied and insulted. Though, the very people who complain the loudest about my posts give just as well as they get while grovelling to be let off the hook. 
Basically, Missy, if you don't like it don't respond. Skim and pass over. Otherwise. Tough.


----------



## damemary (Mar 14, 2012)

Good thought. That must be it.

Have you noticed how much easier it is for them to label things than to discuss them?



jelun2 said:


> Oh wait, I know! How about those non-socialist, non-government folks who planned Social Security and Medicare?


----------



## susanmos2000 (May 10, 2011)

karverr said:


> Do you think someone would print something and give page numbers where you could look it up and find out they are lying...


Of course they would--virtually every rightie here has demonstrated the fact that they can't be bothered to do their own research, can't even bring themselves to click on a link that brings up info that might challenge their deeply-held and erroneous beliefs about the ACA.

In fact, I'll prove it. Here's a link from uspolitics.about.com that answers the question of whether illegal aliens are covered by the ACA. I'm betting a million to one, Karverr, that you'll give it a miss.

http://uspolitics.about.com/od/healthcare/a/Are-Illegal-Immigrants-Covered-Under-Obamacare.htm


----------



## karverr (Jun 27, 2013)

jelun2 said:


> Where do you get this free nation thing? If we had a free nation we would not need for our freedoms to be enumerated in the Amendments to the US Constitution, everything would be assumed to be free.
> Heck, we can't even get people to agree that we should be free FROM religion. Here you are wanting to be free from the responsibility of paying for your own health care.
> Should I not be FREE from supporting your illnesses?


well if you are tired of that get on the band wagon against welfare all the able bodied men and women on welfare who have multiple babies just to get more money,the way they do it it makes them employees of the government.

now don't start your racism because I didn't put a color or ethnic group on any one. there are jobs they can work at but they make more on welfare by having kids you are paying for.I guess they can call you mommy.


----------



## damemary (Mar 14, 2012)

No never say never, but if only judging from this thread alone, the right wing lies even when proven wrong. Never an apology. That's what bothers me.



ElyseKnox said:


> Your comment would seem to indicate that no liars exist on the liberal side of the aisle. Surely you are a better student of human nature than to believe that.


----------



## susanmos2000 (May 10, 2011)

karverr said:


> well if you are tired of that get on the band wagon against welfare all the able bodied men and women on welfare who have multiple babies just to get more money,the way they do it it makes them employees of the government.
> 
> now don't start your racism because I didn't put a color or ethnic group on any one. there are jobs they can work at but they make more on welfare by having kids you are paying for.I guess they can call you mommy.


Get with the times, Karverr. Able-bodies parents on welfare are now required to work a minimum of thirty hours per week in most states.


----------



## damemary (Mar 14, 2012)

They are good solid programs that have benefitted the United States. If such 'socialistic' programs worked in the past over time, why is 'socialism' a bad word now?



ElyseKnox said:


> Jelun,
> You keep harping about SS and Medicare and those who were responsible for their becoming law of the land. Why? And they WERE "government folks" who implemented both programs--they would not exist on our law books if they weren't. As to whether they were socialists or not, they may not have been widely labelled as such but many of the citizens who were adults during that time saw them as such.
> 
> Now, again, why do you harp about the instigators of those two programs. Whether or not they are "socialism" has no bearing on whether Obamacare is socialism. Even if they are, they provide no excuse for further socialism-in fact just the opposite.


----------



## damemary (Mar 14, 2012)

jelun2 said:


> Where do you get this free nation thing? If we had a free nation we would not need for our freedoms to be enumerated in the Amendments to the US Constitution, everything would be assumed to be free.
> Heck, we can't even get people to agree that we should be free FROM religion. Here you are wanting to be free from the responsibility of paying for your own health care.
> Should I not be FREE from supporting your illnesses?


 :thumbup: :thumbup: :thumbup:


----------



## Janet Cooke (Aug 14, 2013)

karverr said:


> well if you are tired of that get on the band wagon against welfare all the able bodied men and women on welfare who have multiple babies just to get more money,the way they do it it makes them employees of the government.
> 
> now don't start your racism because I didn't put a color or ethnic group on any one. there are jobs they can work at but they make more on welfare by having kids you are paying for.I guess they can call you mommy.


Don't start putting words in my mouth and just maybe we can have a civil discourse. If you insist on doing that I will simply go back to ignoring what you post. 
I am much more concerned about the billions and billions of dollars that we hand out to banking institiutions and other corporations, including agribusiness and oil, than I am about the individuals who are either sick enough to need to feed a habit or desperate enough to need to feed their families. 
You can work to pull people from the welfare office, leave me to do my work to keep millionaires out of the taxpayers pockets. OK?
Now, if you want to continue would you start a new thread? It really isn't fair to hijack LL's Obamacare worries so early.


----------



## damemary (Mar 14, 2012)

jelun2 said:


> I do believe that is part of it, but, those of us who remember the '90s and the vitriol piled on Hillary Clinton simply because she wanted a national health care program recognize some of this filth we see in this decade.
> Part of the reason has to be simple greed and deeply ingrained selfishness.
> All anyone has to do is pull up a couple of videos of those free clinics done in TX and NO to see how sickening it is to allow our fellow residents in the nation (how do we call ourselves great?) to go without the opportunity to see a doctor on a regular basis.


 :thumbup: :thumbup: :thumbup:


----------



## damemary (Mar 14, 2012)

Yes. We do believe lies are deliberately written and we feel no need to research them. We have gone to the trouble many times previously, and never received a retraction, much less an apology. Is that clear enough for you ?



karverr said:


> Do you think someone would print something and give page numbers where you could look it up and find out they are lying, OMG you folks get the blinders off and actually read the junk you are defending, ignorance of the law will not used as a defense.


----------



## bwtyer (Oct 31, 2012)

jelun2 said:


> I do believe that is part of it, but, those of us who remember the '90s and the vitriol piled on Hillary Clinton simply because she wanted a national health care program recognize some of this filth we see in this decade.
> Part of the reason has to be simple greed and deeply ingrained selfishness.
> All anyone has to do is pull up a couple of videos of those free clinics done in TX and NO to see how sickening it is to allow our fellow residents in the nation (how do we call ourselves great?) to go without the opportunity to see a doctor on a regular basis.


Most free clinics in my area are pretty well run - Some things are already available in Texas for everyone- Counties have low cost clinics for the indigent, keyed to income. Texas had CHIPS for children where they can get high quality care , medical, dental, eyeglasses - all of it. Family Planning clincs deal with female health. The ones who are not getting regular screenings and check ups are the ones who are either here illegally or the ones who just do not bother- And yes - some clinics are set up to help the illegals - they may bring their sweet children, but they themselves just do not go! And there are many insured people who do not get things checked as they should. The problems comes in when the indigent get a serious disease - and to be very honest - the insurance coverage that they can afford under ACA may not help them- the copay will be astronomical. I do not think people are against the new healthcare plan itself as much as the forcing of it by the government. The same people who abuse what I call the Food Stamp program and there are MANY - are going to find a way to abuse this new system. ANd The rest of us will continue to pick up the tab. AS we did before...... and before I get attacked, by the word abuse, I mean falsifying records to be able to get the help. I was iin back of 3 woman with 3 carts of groceries who all used the first woman's Food card for 3 different households. I am not shy - I asked her how she could do that- her response was - "if they are going to give it to me, I am going to take it, that's the system, baby". They were still loading their groceries into their respective vehicles when I finished checking. AS I unloaded my groceries into my 2008 ford, the woman finished unloading her groceries into her new Lexus. By the way, she had a Coach purse too. Tell me that is not a problem that does not need to be fixed- this is what many many people are up in arms about.


----------



## damemary (Mar 14, 2012)

What is this supplement called? How is it determined? What are the full rules?

OK KP-ers, Hospital administrators, perhaps you have explanations. Thank you in advance.



karverr said:


> Every hospital in the country receives a suppliment from the government, and they are required to treat anyone that comes in for care no matter of their ability to pay.


----------



## damemary (Mar 14, 2012)

I'd keep pushing back. Seems like you're getting the runaround.



Jar said:


> I am 52, there are two types one is Trycare Standard I have where you go to any Dr. any time. We have a secondary to pay 20% copayment. The other is trycare prime which is like a HMO. I did ask why all she said was they said that the rules have been changed. My appointment was on Sept. 30th. Jane


----------



## susanmos2000 (May 10, 2011)

bwtyer said:


> Most free clinics in my area are pretty well run - Some things are already available in Texas for everyone- Counties have low cost clinics for the indigent, keyed to income. Texas had CHIPS for children where they can get high quality care , medical, dental, eyeglasses - all of it. Family Planning clincs deal with female health. The ones who are not getting regular screenings and check ups are the ones who are either here illegally or the ones who just do not bother- And yes - some clinics are set up to help the illegals - they may bring their sweet children, but they themselves just do not go! And there are many insured people who do not get things checked as they should. The problems comes in when the indigent get a serious disease - and to be very honest - the insurance coverage that they can afford under ACA may not help them- the copay will be astronomical. I do not think people are against the new healthcare plan itself as much as the forcing of it by the government. The same people who abuse what I call the Food Stamp program and there are MANY - are going to find a way to abuse this new system. ANd The rest of us will continue to pick up the tab. AS we did before...... and before I get attacked, by the word abuse, I mean falsifying records to be able to get the help. I was iin back of 3 woman with 3 carts of groceries who all used the first woman's Food card for 3 different households. I am not shy - I asked her how she could do that- her response was - "if they are going to give it to me, I am going to take it, that's the system, baby". They were still loading their groceries into their respective vehicles when I finished checking. AS I unloaded my groceries into my 2008 ford, the woman finished unloading her groceries into her new Lexus. By the way, she had a Coach purse too. Tell me that is not a problem that does not need to be fixed- this is what many many people are up in arms about.


That some people cheat on government programs is undeniable--but that's no excuse for denying aid to those who do not. One of the gentleman members who posts here rails against welfare fraud and claims that his BIL in law is such a cheat. He himself is receiving disability and other government aid--should his benefits be denied just because one of his family members is milking the system?


----------



## damemary (Mar 14, 2012)

The only exception is Emergency Room treatment. What would they do? Get cash after verifying status while allowing patients to bleed to death?



susanmos2000 said:


> Of course they would--virtually every rightie here has demonstrated the fact that they can't be bothered to do their own research, can't even bring themselves to click on a link that brings up info that might challenge their deeply-held and erroneous beliefs about the ACA.
> 
> In fact, I'll prove it. Here's a link from uspolitics.about.com that answers the question of whether illegal aliens are covered by the ACA. I'm betting a million to one, Karverr, that you'll give it a miss.
> 
> http://uspolitics.about.com/od/healthcare/a/Are-Illegal-Immigrants-Covered-Under-Obamacare.htm


----------



## susanmos2000 (May 10, 2011)

damemary said:


> What is this supplement called? How is it determined? What are the full rules?
> 
> OK KP-ers, Hospital administrators, perhaps you have explanations. Thank you in advance.


I believe he means the practice of not turning away anyone who turns up at the ER for emergency treatment. How the hospitals are reimbursed for that expense I have no idea, but I'd assume they get their money back form the Feds.


----------



## damemary (Mar 14, 2012)

Very old bugaboo. Not buying it.



karverr said:


> well if you are tired of that get on the band wagon against welfare all the able bodied men and women on welfare who have multiple babies just to get more money,the way they do it it makes them employees of the government.
> 
> now don't start your racism because I didn't put a color or ethnic group on any one. there are jobs they can work at but they make more on welfare by having kids you are paying for.I guess they can call you mommy.


----------



## susanmos2000 (May 10, 2011)

damemary said:


> The only exception is Emergency Room treatment. What would they do? Get cash after verifying status while allowing patients to bleed to death?


Alas I'm sure many conservatives would have no problem with that. Shame on them.


----------



## Judyh (Apr 15, 2011)

jelun2 said:


> Nyah Nyah


How old are you???


----------



## Lukelucy (Nov 19, 2011)

ute4kp said:


> I'll try my best not to read this topic anymore. Too time consuming. It will cut down on PM that Lukelucy feels the need to send me. I deleted it Unread.


I will post it here for everyone to see:

I take great offense to you saying that I am a bully. Could you explain how this is so? I greatly appreciate your efforts in explaining this. Thank you.

Can you answer it now?


----------



## ElyseKnox (Sep 16, 2011)

jelun2 said:


> One would think it was self explanatory, the same people who moan and lie about the socialism inherent in Obamacare cling to their SS and Medicare which ARE socialism, it is obvious in their very being those who have and are producing taking care of those who no longer can product.
> To suggest that Obamacare which requires investing in self care with private corporations is socialism simply shows how little the people who lay those charges even understand about the definition.
> Honestly, I don't care what my statements and questions read like to you or to anyone else. I don't whine about being bullied and insulted. Though, the very people who complain the loudest about my posts give just as well as they get while grovelling to be let off the hook.
> Basically, Missy, if you don't like it don't respond. Skim and pass over. Otherwise. Tough.


That SS and Medicare are socialism is no reason to go further down that road. Many recognize the socialism of those programs but the government has so bound up our citizens in them that it is next to impossible to opt out of them no matter how socialistic they are.

Further regarding SS, if the government would just give me all the money that I have paid in I would be happy to take it and withdraw from SS completely.

As to whether or not I respond to your post--that is up to me, not you as to what is acceptable or what I should do.

"Basically, Missy, if you don't like it don't respond. Skim and pass over. Otherwise. Tough." -- nice civil discourse (not!)


----------



## linnerlu (Jul 9, 2013)

cbethea said:


> Hi Linda - Come to Oregon - we're doing just fine with the ACA. have insured 56,000 folks that were not insured before and working on many more. Best of all we don't have selfish , self involved, lying, morons like Cruz to contend with. Hard to imagine someone like him getting elected up here. I know its a long shot but maybe you'll have Wendy Davis fr Govenor soon!


----------



## Judyh (Apr 15, 2011)

jelun2 said:


> One would think it was self explanatory, the same people who moan and lie about the socialism inherent in Obamacare cling to their SS and Medicare which ARE socialism, it is obvious in their very being those who have and are producing taking care of those who no longer can product.
> To suggest that Obamacare which requires investing in self care with private corporations is socialism simply shows how little the people who lay those charges even understand about the definition.
> Honestly, I don't care what my statements and questions read like to you or to anyone else. I don't whine about being bullied and insulted. Though, the very people who complain the loudest about my posts give just as well as they get while grovelling to be let off the hook.
> Basically, Missy, if you don't like it don't respond. Skim and pass over. Otherwise. Tough.


Why would you care if anyone bullies you, you are the biggest bully here.
All I can say is that you must be a very unhappy person to be so hateful!!


----------



## Janet Cooke (Aug 14, 2013)

Lukelucy said:


> I will post it here for everyone to see:
> 
> I take great offense to you saying that I am a bully. Could you explain how this is so? I greatly appreciate your efforts in explaining this. Thank you.
> 
> Can you answer it now?


I can answer that. Your posts are nasty, you attack at the first opportunity. You use comments about a situation to claim a personal attack. whining about other people being mean and then acting the same way does not balance your inability to write a logical post. Is that answer enough?


----------



## bwtyer (Oct 31, 2012)

susanmos2000 said:


> That some people cheat on government programs is undeniable--but that's no excuse for denying aid to those who do not. One of the gentleman members who posts here rails against welfare fraud and claims that his BIL in law is such a cheat. He himself is receiving disability and other government aid--should his benefits be denied just because one of his family members is milking the system?


of course not but here is the core problem - he is just going to let his BIL keep on milking the system? He is not going to do anything about it? Come on!


----------



## susanmos2000 (May 10, 2011)

Lukelucy said:


> I will post it here for everyone to see:
> 
> I take great offense to you saying that I am a bully. Could you explain how this is so? I greatly appreciate your efforts in explaining this. Thank you.
> 
> Can you answer it now?


In fact, LL, I don't consider you a bully. To do so would be crediting you with the power to overpower and intimidate others, which you simply do not possess. Ignorance and a lack of common decency are your weapons, and those even more ill-informed than you your chosen targets.


----------



## Janet Cooke (Aug 14, 2013)

Judyh said:


> Why would you care if anyone bullies you, you are the biggest bully here.
> All I can say is that you must be a very unhappy person to be so hateful!!


Actually, I am quite joyful, I have my love of God and people to carry me along. I don't even need a book to instruct me. 
I also don't need to jump into an exchange that has nothing to do with me, to a person who has made one post to me, too present such an ignorant statement. 
Now, if you can't play with the big dogs, you would do well to stay on the porch.


----------



## Judyh (Apr 15, 2011)

ElyseKnox said:


> It seems that many of your replies are more about putting down the person rather than answering the question under discussion.
> 
> You asked a question, I posted an answer. Why chastise me for answering your question. I DID address your comment; both whether it was the government that enacted both SS and Medicare into law and whether or not those who enacted it were socialists.
> 
> ...


 :thumbup: :thumbup: :thumbup: :thumbup: :thumbup:


----------



## Lukelucy (Nov 19, 2011)

freesia792 said:


> Apparently no one has bothered to read it(politicians who praised it) and have decided they are exempt. They insist "common people" have it, they opt out and are exempt, and haven't even bothered to read it....hmmmmm If it isn't good enough for a politicians family why would I want it? Do politicians opt out inn Canada?


Exactly right. Obamacare must end.


----------



## susanmos2000 (May 10, 2011)

bwtyer said:


> of course not but here is the core problem - he is just going to let his BIL keep on milking the system? He is not going to do anything about it?


I have no idea--deciding whether or not to report a family member would be a tough decision to make.

But that's beside the point--should Gentleman X be denied his rightful benefits just because someone near and dear to him is a cheat?


----------



## damemary (Mar 14, 2012)

Most retirees actually receive much more than they contribute to SS. Jelun posted an excellent post to illustrate this calculation.



ElyseKnox said:


> That SS and Medicare are socialism is no reason to go further down that road. Many recognize the socialism of those programs but the government has so bound up our citizens in them that it is next to impossible to opt out of them no matter how socialistic they are.
> 
> Further regarding SS, if the government would just give me all the money that I have paid in I would be happy to take it and withdraw from SS completely.
> 
> ...


----------



## Lukelucy (Nov 19, 2011)

joeysomma said:


> I have already posted two lists: One from the IRS website and one from the original Health care law.
> 
> If you really want to know go back and look for them.
> 
> FYI: Today it was announced there are over 300,000 people in Florida that will be losing their health insurance since they do not contain the minimums.


Joey,

It is soooo sad that when you do not agree with the bullies, they call you a liar and other bad names. They completely discount what you are writing. I will be off this site. The bullies are too pathetic.


----------



## damemary (Mar 14, 2012)

jelun2 said:


> I can answer that. Your posts are nasty, you attack at the first opportunity. You use comments about a situation to claim a personal attack. whining about other people being mean and then acting the same way does not balance your inability to write a logical post. Is that answer enough?


 :thumbup: :thumbup: :thumbup: :thumbup: Works for me.


----------



## damemary (Mar 14, 2012)

susanmos2000 said:


> In fact, LL, I don't consider you a bully. To do so would be crediting you with the power to overpower and intimidate others, which you simply do not possess. Ignorance and a lack of common decency are your weapons, and those even more ill-informed than you your chosen targets.


 :thumbup: :thumbup: :thumbup: :thumbup: Bravo!


----------



## Lukelucy (Nov 19, 2011)

KopyKat said:


> Amen to this, we are headed down a VERY VERY slippery path and I for one am sick and tired of a government that forces people in a "free" nation to "obey or be penalized"!


Thank you, KopyKat. This is so true.


----------



## susanmos2000 (May 10, 2011)

joeysomma said:


> Yes it was passed under Clinton in the 90's. Obama issued an executive order and removed the work requirement.


Wrong. This from FactCheck.org:

"Under the new policy, states can now seek a federal waiver from work-participation rules that, among other things, require welfare recipients to engage in one of 12 specific work activities, such as job training. But, in exchange, states must develop a plan that would provide a more efficient or effective means to promote employment, which may or may not include some or all of the same work activities. States also must submit an evaluation plan that includes performance measures that must be met  or the waiver could be revoked."


----------



## damemary (Mar 14, 2012)

Holding your breath and having a hissy fit didn't work. What next?



Lukelucy said:


> Exactly right. Obamacare must end.


----------



## Lukelucy (Nov 19, 2011)

ElyseKnox said:


> Your comment would seem to indicate that no liars exist on the liberal side of the aisle. Surely you are a better student of human nature than to believe that.


ElyseKnox, 
Thank you for speaking the truth. It is so sad that they have to ruin this site, which could be a great place for a discussion. Bullies have ruined it.


----------



## damemary (Mar 14, 2012)

Lukelucy said:


> Joey,
> 
> It is soooo sad that when you do not agree with the bullies, they call you a liar and other bad names. They completely discount what you are writing. I will be off this site. The bullies are too pathetic.


OK. The clock is running. I wonder how long it takes before she/he's back.


----------



## Lukelucy (Nov 19, 2011)

karverr said:


> Do you think someone would print something and give page numbers where you could look it up and find out they are lying, OMG you folks get the blinders off and actually read the junk you are defending, ignorance of the law will not used as a defense.


Karverr,

All the bullies have ruined another site that could have had a great discussion. It is so sad. Bullies in school and bullies here.


----------



## Judyh (Apr 15, 2011)

NJG said:


> That is what the republicans do. They continue to tell the same lies over and over in hopes that somewhere along the line it will be believed.


It never ceases to amaze me how generalizations are always used when Democrats don't have a good answer to the question or statement.
All I can say is if everyone was as perfect as the Democrats, what a great nation we would be. NOT


----------



## damemary (Mar 14, 2012)

Back already? Now that didn't take long. 9:30:46 to 9:33:24. I think we have a new record-holder for proven lies in posts.



Lukelucy said:


> Thank you, KopyKat. This is so true.


----------



## bwtyer (Oct 31, 2012)

susanmos2000 said:


> I have no idea--deciding whether or not to report a family member would be a tough decision to make.
> 
> But that's beside the point--should Gentleman X be denied his rightful benefits just because someone near and dear to him is a cheat?


And I answered you - of course not - but should we turn a blind eye to those cheats who are stealing benefits from those who deserve them? It would make BIL get a job or get his sister to kick his lazy a** out the door. Reporting is anonymous. Maybe I have a tough view on that because of the help that is available here - but surely it is just as available everywhere.


----------



## susanmos2000 (May 10, 2011)

Lukelucy said:


> Thank you, KopyKat. This is so true.


Confucius says...

Give it a rest, LL.


----------



## susanmos2000 (May 10, 2011)

damemary said:


> OK. The clock is running. I wonder how long it takes before she/he's back.


About five seconds. She's still posting--unfortunately.


----------



## Lukelucy (Nov 19, 2011)

bwtyer said:


> Most free clinics in my area are pretty well run - Some things are already available in Texas for everyone- Counties have low cost clinics for the indigent, keyed to income. Texas had CHIPS for children where they can get high quality care , medical, dental, eyeglasses - all of it. Family Planning clincs deal with female health. The ones who are not getting regular screenings and check ups are the ones who are either here illegally or the ones who just do not bother- And yes - some clinics are set up to help the illegals - they may bring their sweet children, but they themselves just do not go! And there are many insured people who do not get things checked as they should. The problems comes in when the indigent get a serious disease - and to be very honest - the insurance coverage that they can afford under ACA may not help them- the copay will be astronomical. I do not think people are against the new healthcare plan itself as much as the forcing of it by the government. The same people who abuse what I call the Food Stamp program and there are MANY - are going to find a way to abuse this new system. ANd The rest of us will continue to pick up the tab. AS we did before...... and before I get attacked, by the word abuse, I mean falsifying records to be able to get the help. I was iin back of 3 woman with 3 carts of groceries who all used the first woman's Food card for 3 different households. I am not shy - I asked her how she could do that- her response was - "if they are going to give it to me, I am going to take it, that's the system, baby". They were still loading their groceries into their respective vehicles when I finished checking. AS I unloaded my groceries into my 2008 ford, the woman finished unloading her groceries into her new Lexus. By the way, she had a Coach purse too. Tell me that is not a problem that does not need to be fixed- this is what many many people are up in arms about.


Now we can add ACA to the list of resources for people who want to abuse the government.


----------



## Janet Cooke (Aug 14, 2013)

susanmos2000 said:


> Wrong. This from FactCheck.org:
> 
> "Under the new policy, states can now seek a federal waiver from work-participation rules that, among other things, require welfare recipients to engage in one of 12 specific work activities, such as job training. But, in exchange, states must develop a plan that would provide a more efficient or effective means to promote employment, which may or may not include some or all of the same work activities. States also must submit an evaluation plan that includes performance measures that must be met  or the waiver could be revoked."


This is what happens when heads get stuck in red sand. The people who can't see what is really happening just become more and more bitter and wary that someone else may get some of what they think they have. That might mean that they move down in the pecking order as someone else moves a step up. If they could only bring themselves to share that step life would be so much easier.


----------



## damemary (Mar 14, 2012)

I've tried publically shaming her. Perhaps she can explain her actions.



susanmos2000 said:


> About five seconds. She's still posting--unfortunately.


----------



## Lukelucy (Nov 19, 2011)

Judyh said:


> How old are you???


Thanks Judyh. The bullies are immature and still school age. If they could see what they are doing, they'd be embarrassed.


----------



## Bloomers (Oct 11, 2013)

It would also be nice if Obama and his cohorts would set the example by not EXEMPTING THEMSELVES from the program. To me that says a great deal about the plan itself as well as it's creator!


----------



## Lukelucy (Nov 19, 2011)

Judyh said:


> Why would you care if anyone bullies you, you are the biggest bully here.
> All I can say is that you must be a very unhappy person to be so hateful!!


She has so many people on this site writing that to her and she doesn't even regard it. Amazing. I'd be really looking into my soul if I were her. Just think of her deep unhappiness. Scary.


----------



## Lukelucy (Nov 19, 2011)

jelun2 said:


> I can answer that. Your posts are nasty, you attack at the first opportunity. You use comments about a situation to claim a personal attack. whining about other people being mean and then acting the same way does not balance your inability to write a logical post. Is that answer enough?


You are completely wrong.


----------



## Lukelucy (Nov 19, 2011)

susanmos2000 said:


> About five seconds. She's still posting--unfortunately.


Bully.


----------



## susanmos2000 (May 10, 2011)

Bloomers said:


> It would also be nice if Obama and his cohorts would set the example by not EXEMPTING THEMSELVES from the program. To me that says a great deal about the plan itself as well as it's creator!


I actually have no problem with dropping the subsidized health care for the President and members of Congress--they earn very decent salaries and can certainly afford to pay the bill themselves. But it's very difficult to do that without affecting all federal employees who, President and lowly file clerk alike, receive their insurance through the Federal Employees Health Benefits (FEHB) Program. Asking park rangers and Capitol janitors to take what amounts to a substantial pay cut is simply not right, particularly when it's just to make a political point.


----------



## knovice knitter (Mar 6, 2012)

Finally, laying it all out correctly. Thank you.


Dornar said:


> I can not let this subject pass without a comment --- BULLSHIT. So many of you have been lead down the garden path about Obamacare that your BULLSHIT radar has been blunted.
> 
> NO. There will not be a mass migration of Doctors out of states that have not set up the exchanges to buy affordable insurance,
> 
> ...


 :thumbup:


----------



## kiffer (Jun 3, 2011)

I have read most of the posts and am disgusted with most of them. Everyone has the right to their opinion, but to be so nasty and bully those you don't agree with it to me a disgrace. I was brought up to respect other opinions whether I agreed or not. Enough said. LL started this thread with her experience and only that and didn't deserve this.


----------



## susanmos2000 (May 10, 2011)

Lukelucy said:


> She has so many people on this site writing that to her and she doesn't even regard it. Amazing. I'd be really looking into my soul if I were her. Just think of her deep unhappiness. Scary.


Confucius says.... Real knowledge is to know the extent of ones ignorance.


----------



## Janet Cooke (Aug 14, 2013)

susanmos2000 said:


> I actually have no problem with dropping the subsidized health care for the President and members of Congress--they earn very decent salaries and can certainly afford to pay the bill themselves. But it's very difficult to do that without affecting all federal employees who, President and lowly file clerk alike, receive their insurance through the Federal Employees Health Benefits (FEHB) Program. Asking park rangers and Capitol janitors to take what amounts to a substantial pay cut is simply not right, particularly when it's just to make a political point.


Yes, those Congresspersons are only giving up their lives to public service. I know that doesn't seem to mean much to people these days. None of us are standing up to leave our families four days a week and to travel on back to our homes, in many cases ,trips that take a full day. 
Then spending the weekends at "townhall meetings" where constituents think it is great to play "gotcha" with this issue or that. 
Who, that is doing all the complaining, wants to take that on? 
It takes a VERY comfortable person these days to take on the job and responsibility. It is a myth that these "guys" work 100 days a year. I figure it is just like the garbage man, if I am not willing to do the job,I shouldn't second guess his pay.


----------



## ElyseKnox (Sep 16, 2011)

Judyh said:


> Why would you care if anyone bullies you, you are the biggest bully here.
> All I can say is that you must be a very unhappy person to be so hateful!!


Julin,
The reply above is yours. How would you describe this comment:
"Basically, Missy, if you don't like it don't respond. Skim and pass over. Otherwise. Tough."

It is your comment BTW.


----------



## linnerlu (Jul 9, 2013)

BrattyPatty said:


> Pinot Grigio?? Slide one down to me linnerlu!


Here you go, Patty ... although, this morning, I've substituted a refreshing and bubbly Mimosa for your soothing breakfast drink. :lol:


----------



## Bloomers (Oct 11, 2013)

Knovice Knitter, I am afraid you are just as blind as many others and just as mistaken. Time will answer all these questions and more. Unfortunately many people are in for some very distressing news. Obama and his agenda has, effectually, destroyed the United States. He has broken the back of the family unit, and, the economy and is working hard to destroy all that is good and decent in this country. The family unit was the foundation of this country and as ethical, immoral and illegal behavior has been forced on so many we have slowly become a fragmented and negative and empty people. This has come directly from the White House from people who should set the example. We used to be the country that the world looked up to and respected, now we are among the countries sliding into social and economic oblivion. Living in the US will become more and more difficult in the coming years due to the lack of moral, ethical family based leadership in our government. We have become a parasite nation, "gimme' gimme' gimme, only I matter".


----------



## ElyseKnox (Sep 16, 2011)

damemary said:


> Most retirees actually receive much more than they contribute to SS. Jelun posted an excellent post to illustrate this calculation.


I was addressing her contention that people draw both SS and Medicare and don't consider it socialism and don't want to give up either. Well,it is next to impossible to withdraw from either unless one is over the top wealthy. In my theoretical scenario If I were able to withdraw, I did not propose to get anything more back than what I paid in, not even interest on my money for the past 30 years.

So, a post showing that other people draw out more than they pay in is irrelevant to mine. It just shows that the government has taken my money and given it to others.


----------



## Lukelucy (Nov 19, 2011)

Bloomers said:


> Knovice Knitter, I am afraid you are just as blind as many others and just as mistaken. Time will answer all these questions and more. Unfortunately many people are in for some very distressing news. Obama and his agenda has, effectually, destroyed the United States. He has broken the back of the family unit, and, the economy and is working hard to destroy all that is good and decent in this country. The family unit was the foundation of this country and as ethical, immoral and illegal behavior has been forced on so many we have slowly become a fragmented and negative and empty people. This has come directly from the White House from people who should set the example. We used to be the country that the world looked up to and respected, now we are among the countries sliding into social and economic oblivion. Living in the US will become more and more difficult in the coming years due to the lack of moral, ethical family based leadership in our government. We have become a parasite nation, "gimme' gimme' gimme, only I matter".


Bloomers,

You see it, too. How very, very sad for our nation. The bullies on this site are an example of what you write. No respect for others. Thank you.


----------



## karverr (Jun 27, 2013)

Jar said:


> I am 52, there are two types one is Trycare Standard I have where you go to any Dr. any time. We have a secondary to pay 20% copayment. The other is trycare prime which is like a HMO. I did ask why all she said was they said that the rules have been changed. My appointment was on Sept. 30th. Jane


from jutlen2 remark there is so much she doesn't know but that has not topped her from voicing her opinion on the subject.


----------



## Janet Cooke (Aug 14, 2013)

ElyseKnox said:


> Julin,
> The reply above is yours. How would you describe this comment:
> "Basically, Missy, if you don't like it don't respond. Skim and pass over. Otherwise. Tough."
> 
> It is your comment BTW.


You want me to "describe" that?
It is called direct, a response to a whiny person who adds nothing to the conversation other than accusations of bullying. It is honest frustration with hearing the same thing repeatedly from biased posters who don't call anyone on their "side" for reacting personally to issue oriented comments; who then use personal attacks because they know that they cannot stand up for the fabrications and outright lies presented for our edification.


----------



## linnerlu (Jul 9, 2013)

cbethea said:


> Your absolutely right, it such a waste of breath. They are a pitiful lot - influenced by Fox News and politicians who feed them crap so they'll keep giving them money and votes. I do feel heartened though after reading the posts in this discussion. There are far more smart ladies here than not. Ladies who actually know what they are talking about and care enough to speak up against lies and misconceptions.


 :thumbup: :thumbup: :thumbup:


----------



## susanmos2000 (May 10, 2011)

joeysomma said:


> My statement was correct. Obama undid Clinton's law.


Wrong again. The end result is no different--those receiving government aid must work.

From Ca.gov:

Adults in one-parent families must spend at least 30 hours per week in welfare to work activities. The minimum participation requirement for two-parent families is 35 hours per week. After receiving aid for up to a maximum of 24 months, non-exempt adults must work in unsubsidized employment or participate in community services activities for the minimum number of hours listed above.


----------



## karverr (Jun 27, 2013)

Lukelucy said:


> Bloomers,
> 
> You see it, too. How very, very sad for our nation. The bullies on this site are an example of what you write. No respect for others. Thank you.


 :thumbup: :thumbup: :thumbup: :thumbup: :thumbup: :thumbup: :thumbup: :thumbup: :thumbup: :thumbup: :thumbup: :thumbup: :thumbup: :thumbup: :thumbup: :thumbup: :thumbup: :thumbup: :thumbup: :thumbup: and amen


----------



## Janet Cooke (Aug 14, 2013)

karverr said:


> from jutlen2 remark there is so much she doesn't know but that has not topped her from voicing her opinion on the subject.


I asked questions. I did not express an opinion. How could I? I am only a woman.


----------



## bwtyer (Oct 31, 2012)

kiffer said:


> I have read most of the posts and am disgusted with most of them. Everyone has the right to their opinion, but to be so nasty and bully those you don't agree with it to me a disgrace. I was brought up to respect other opinions whether I agreed or not. Enough said. LL started this thread with her experience and only that and didn't deserve this.


 One or two from both sides have been in on it from the beginning with good arguments, everyone respects a healthy debate , but some jumped in late and are only tearing into others without providing substantial back up facts. Kind of like a pack of pitbulls if you stand back and look at it. LL is entitled to her view, others are entitled to theirs - not sure of previous history but obviously there is some . Would be nice if they stated their credentials that made them such an expert on the subject. From reading most of LL posts- she is expressing the fears and views of many people- instead if tearing her down personally, they should be providing the facts they are arguing for.


----------



## ElyseKnox (Sep 16, 2011)

Judyh said:


> It never ceases to amaze me how generalizations are always used when Democrats don't have a good answer to the question or statement.
> All I can say is if everyone was as perfect as the Democrats, what a great nation we would be. NOT


As hominem attacks are standard liberal tactics when one has no real answer to the issue at hand.


----------



## Country Bumpkins (Feb 18, 2011)

jelun2 said:


> Don't start putting words in my mouth and just maybe we can have a civil discourse. If you insist on doing that I will simply go back to ignoring what you post.
> I am much more concerned about the billions and billions of dollars that we hand out to banking institiutions and other corporations, including agribusiness and oil, than I am about the individuals who are either sick enough to need to feed a habit or desperate enough to need to feed their families.
> You can work to pull people from the welfare office, leave me to do my work to keep millionaires out of the taxpayers pockets. OK?
> Now, if you want to continue would you start a new thread? It really isn't fair to hijack LL's Obamacare worries so early.


You have already done that! :shock: :roll:


----------



## susanmos2000 (May 10, 2011)

Lukelucy said:


> Bloomers,
> 
> You see it, too. How very, very sad for our nation. The bullies on this site are an example of what you write. No respect for others. Thank you.


Confucius says... The Superior Man is aware of Righteousness, the inferior man is aware of advantage.


----------



## karverr (Jun 27, 2013)

jelun2 said:


> You want me to "describe" that?
> It is called direct, a response to a whiny person who adds nothing to the conversation other than accusations of bullying. It is honest frustration with hearing the same thing repeatedly from biased posters who don't call anyone on their "side" for reacting personally to issue oriented comments; who then use personal attacks because they know that they cannot stand up for the fabrications and outright lies presented for our edification.


OMG I was trying to describe you ladies and you have given me a perfect description of yourselves,thank you thank you thank you
All you obamacare supporters on this thread ,your own has put a description on here for you all.


----------



## ElyseKnox (Sep 16, 2011)

jelun2 said:


> You want me to "describe" that?
> It is called direct, a response to a whiny person who adds nothing to the conversation other than accusations of bullying. It is honest frustration with hearing the same thing repeatedly from biased posters who don't call anyone on their "side" for reacting personally to issue oriented comments; who then use personal attacks because they know that they cannot stand up for the fabrications and outright lies presented for our edification.


You must have gotten me confused with someone else. I don't make personal attacks. I DO address issues and illogical posts. There is a difference.

As to calling out others on my "side," I never withhold a comment based on a person's political affilliation. If I feel there is something to comment on I do so. It does go to reason that I am not as likely to disagree with a conservative point of view.


----------



## Connie W (Aug 3, 2011)

Bloomers said:


> Knovice Knitter, I am afraid you are just as blind as many others and just as mistaken. Time will answer all these questions and more. Unfortunately many people are in for some very distressing news. Obama and his agenda has, effectually, destroyed the United States. He has broken the back of the family unit, and, the economy and is working hard to destroy all that is good and decent in this country. The family unit was the foundation of this country and as ethical, immoral and illegal behavior has been forced on so many we have slowly become a fragmented and negative and empty people. This has come directly from the White House from people who should set the example. We used to be the country that the world looked up to and respected, now we are among the countries sliding into social and economic oblivion. Living in the US will become more and more difficult in the coming years due to the lack of moral, ethical family based leadership in our government. We have become a parasite nation, "gimme' gimme' gimme, only I matter".


Good grief!!! That there are people who believe as you do is really terrifying


----------



## Lukelucy (Nov 19, 2011)

karverr said:


> OMG I was trying to describe you ladies and you have given me a perfect description of yourselves,thank you thank you thank you
> All you obamacare supporters on this thread ,your own has put a description on here for you all.


 :lol: :lol: Thanks Karverr. You can see it, too.


----------



## karverr (Jun 27, 2013)

jelun2 said:


> You want me to "describe" that?
> It is called direct, a response to a whiny person who adds nothing to the conversation other than accusations of bullying. It is honest frustration with hearing the same thing repeatedly from biased posters who don't call anyone on their "side" for reacting personally to issue oriented comments; who then use personal attacks because they know that they cannot stand up for the fabrications and outright lies presented for our edification.


OMG I was trying to describe you ladies and you have given me a perfect description of yourselves,thank you thank you thank you
All you obamacare supporters on this thread ,your own has put a description on here for you all.


----------



## Huckleberry (May 27, 2013)

Connie W said:


> Good grief!!!


Connie W
Good grief is fitting. Thank you.


----------



## karverr (Jun 27, 2013)

Lukelucy said:


> :lol: :lol: Thanks Karverr. You can see it, too.


Of course I don't need a mack truck in my windshield to know they are in the wrong lane.


----------



## Lukelucy (Nov 19, 2011)

karverr said:


> Of course I don't need a mack truck in my windshield to know they are in the wrong lane.


 :lol: :lol: You have a great sense of humor. Thanks again!


----------



## susanmos2000 (May 10, 2011)

karverr said:


> OMG I was trying to describe you ladies and you have given me a perfect description of yourselves,thank you thank you thank you
> All you obamacare supporters on this thread ,your own has put a description on here for you all.


Says one who dismissed the other side as "lesbians" when he couldn't think of anything else to say. Cute--and hypocritical.


----------



## Country Bumpkins (Feb 18, 2011)

jelun2 said:


> Actually, I am quite joyful, I have my love of God and people to carry me along. I don't even need a book to instruct me.
> I also don't need to jump into an exchange that has nothing to do with me, to a person who has made one post to me, too present such an ignorant statement.
> Now, if you can't play with the big dogs, you would do well to stay on the porch.


Are these they big dogs you are talking about?http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wHEvhrqOpwE


----------



## linnerlu (Jul 9, 2013)

susanmos2000 said:


> That some people cheat on government programs is undeniable--but that's no excuse for denying aid to those who do not. One of the gentleman members who posts here rails against welfare fraud and claims that his BIL in law is such a cheat. He himself is receiving disability and other government aid--should his benefits be denied just because one of his family members is milking the system?


Excellent response, Susanmos!


----------



## Lukelucy (Nov 19, 2011)

Country Bumpkins said:


> Are these they big dogs you are talking about?http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wHEvhrqOpwE


The bullies here sure remind me of the Wild Dogs in the site you gave us. That is a good name for them.


----------



## Designer1234 (Aug 9, 2011)

BrattyPatty said:


> Another lie! You said last night that you were not doing research. You said it takes too much time. Your own words, LL.


 :mrgreen: :thumbup:


----------



## MaidInBedlam (Jul 24, 2012)

This topic duplicates the contentious topic, Smoking and Obamacare, now up to S&O #26. When there is already atopic where people exchange insults about each others opinions and knowledge, what is the point of creating yet another topic to do exactly the same thing?

I'm beginning to wonder if the majority of participants here are gluttons for punishment. It's pointless to watch this topic or post anthing here, so this I bid you all farewell. Please don't all applaud at once. :hunf: :thumbdown:


----------



## saarlt (May 5, 2013)

MaidInBedlam said:


> This topic duplicates the contentious topic, Smoking and Obamacare, now up to S&O #26. When there is already atopic where people exchange insults about each others opinions and knowledge, what is the point of creating yet another topic to do exactly the same thing?
> 
> I'm beginning to wonder if the majority of participants here are gluttons for punishment. It's pointless to watch this topic or post anthing here, so this I bid you all farewell. Please don't all applaud at once. :hunf: :thumbdown:


 :thumbup: :thumbup: :thumbup: :thumbup: :thumbup:


----------



## saarlt (May 5, 2013)

MaidInBedlam said:


> This topic duplicates the contentious topic, Smoking and Obamacare, now up to S&O #26. When there is already atopic where people exchange insults about each others opinions and knowledge, what is the point of creating yet another topic to do exactly the same thing?
> 
> I'm beginning to wonder if the majority of participants here are gluttons for punishment. It's pointless to watch this topic or post anthing here, so this I bid you all farewell. Please don't all applaud at once. :hunf: :thumbdown:


 :thumbup: :thumbup: :thumbup: :thumbup: :thumbup: Right behind you, back to reading the rest of the topics and see who needs help! That is what Knitting Paradise is for so.....back to basics I go.


----------



## Jokim (Nov 22, 2011)

freesia792 said:


> Apparently no one has bothered to read it(politicians who praised it) and have decided they are exempt. They insist "common people" have it, they opt out and are exempt, and haven't even bothered to read it....hmmmmm If it isn't good enough for a politicians family why would I want it? Do politicians opt out inn Canada?


Members of Congres and their staff are subsidized in their premiums by their employer, US!!! Obama and family are EXEMPT !!!!! - Sen. Corker, TN, 10-23-2013


----------



## Jokim (Nov 22, 2011)

karverr said:


> OMG I was trying to describe you ladies and you have given me a perfect description of yourselves,thank you thank you thank you
> All you obamacare supporters on this thread ,your own has put a description on here for you all.


Hit the nail right on the head, karverr! Thank you!!!


----------



## linnerlu (Jul 9, 2013)

susanmos2000 wrote:
Get with the times, Karverr. Able-bodies parents on welfare are now required to work a minimum of thirty hours per week in most states.



joeysomma said:


> Yes it was passed under Clinton in the 90's. Obama issued an executive order and removed the work requirement.


This is such an old canard.

Work requirements were not simply dropped. States may now change the requirements  revising, adding or eliminating them  as part of a federally approved state-specific plan to increase job placement.

The same distortion is still being repeated when people say that under President Obamas revision you wouldnt have to work and wouldnt have to train for a job. The law never required all welfare recipients to work. Only 29 percent of those receiving cash assistance met the work requirement by the time President Obama took office.

Under the new policy, states ("states rights!") can now seek a federal waiver from work-participation rules that, among other things, require welfare recipients to engage in one of 12 specific work activities, such as job training. But, in exchange, states must develop a plan that would provide a more efficient or effective means to promote employment, which may or may not include some or all of the same work activities. States also must submit an evaluation plan that includes performance measures that must be met  or the waiver could be revoked.

The revised policy responds to state officials who say they can improve job placement and retention if freed from the time-consuming process of documenting and verifying that recipients are engaged in those work activities.

Once again, this was a response by President Obama to the Republican cry for "states rights!"


----------



## misellen (Mar 8, 2013)

susanmos2000 said:


> About five seconds. She's still posting--unfortunately.


You were wrong. It was 1min and 32 seconds :lol: :lol: :lol:


----------



## knitpresentgifts (May 21, 2013)

Lukelucy said:


> ElyseKnox,
> Thank you for speaking the truth. It is so sad that they have to ruin this site, which could be a great place for a discussion. Bullies have ruined it.


The same ones always do.


----------



## Nussa (Jul 7, 2011)

I see we have gotten down to the Lunatic Fringe. 
Don't you think enough is enough? 
It's time to get on with your daily lives. 
I wish you all a great day.


----------



## knitpresentgifts (May 21, 2013)

ElyseKnox said:


> As hominem attacks are standard liberal tactics when one has no real answer to the issue at hand.


 :thumbup:


----------



## Poor Purl (Apr 14, 2011)

And where does the government get the money for the supplements? From us, the taxpayers. I'd rather pay for someone to see a doctor to prevent or treat an illness than to have the illness become an emergency before it can be treated.


karverr said:


> Every hospital in the country receives a suppliment from the government, and they are required to treat anyone that comes in for care no matter of their ability to pay.


----------



## damemary (Mar 14, 2012)

Pants on fire again joey.



susanmos2000 said:


> Wrong. This from FactCheck.org:
> 
> "Under the new policy, states can now seek a federal waiver from work-participation rules that, among other things, require welfare recipients to engage in one of 12 specific work activities, such as job training. But, in exchange, states must develop a plan that would provide a more efficient or effective means to promote employment, which may or may not include some or all of the same work activities. States also must submit an evaluation plan that includes performance measures that must be met  or the waiver could be revoked."


----------



## damemary (Mar 14, 2012)

I thought liars ruined it.



Lukelucy said:


> ElyseKnox,
> Thank you for speaking the truth. It is so sad that they have to ruin this site, which could be a great place for a discussion. Bullies have ruined it.


----------



## Poor Purl (Apr 14, 2011)

My guess is you've never known anyone on welfare. Very few men qualify at all - it's mostly for children and the adults who care for them, usually women. Many of these work, sometimes at two jobs, because welfare payments are very low. Others are grandparents, above retirement age but taking care of the grandchildren because the parents are incapable of it or are in prison or dead.


karverr said:


> well if you are tired of that get on the band wagon against welfare all the able bodied men and women on welfare who have multiple babies just to get more money,the way they do it it makes them employees of the government.
> 
> now don't start your racism because I didn't put a color or ethnic group on any one. there are jobs they can work at but they make more on welfare by having kids you are paying for.I guess they can call you mommy.


----------



## Poor Purl (Apr 14, 2011)

jelun2 said:


> Don't start putting words in my mouth and just maybe we can have a civil discourse. If you insist on doing that I will simply go back to ignoring what you post.
> I am much more concerned about the billions and billions of dollars that we hand out to banking institiutions and other corporations, including agribusiness and oil, than I am about the individuals who are either sick enough to need to feed a habit or desperate enough to need to feed their families.
> You can work to pull people from the welfare office, leave me to do my work to keep millionaires out of the taxpayers pockets. OK?
> Now, if you want to continue would you start a new thread? It really isn't fair to hijack LL's Obamacare worries so early.


 :thumbup: :thumbup: :thumbup: :thumbup: :thumbup:


----------



## Poor Purl (Apr 14, 2011)

Where did see her call you a bully? I've seen you accuse other people of bullying, but nobody accusing you.


Lukelucy said:


> I will post it here for everyone to see:
> 
> I take great offense to you saying that I am a bully. Could you explain how this is so? I greatly appreciate your efforts in explaining this. Thank you.
> 
> Can you answer it now?


----------



## susanmos2000 (May 10, 2011)

misellen said:


> You were wrong. It was 1min and 32 seconds :lol: :lol: :lol:


Just enough time for her to retrieve a new bag of fortune cookies and start snapping them open--no doubt her stock of sage and pithy responses was running low.


----------



## Poor Purl (Apr 14, 2011)

susanmos2000 said:


> In fact, LL, I don't consider you a bully. To do so would be crediting you with the power to overpower and intimidate others, which you simply do not possess. Ignorance and a lack of common decency are your weapons, and those even more ill-informed than you your chosen targets.


 :thumbup: :thumbup: :thumbup: :thumbup: :thumbup:


----------



## Poor Purl (Apr 14, 2011)

joeysomma said:


> Yes it was passed under Clinton in the 90's. Obama issued an executive order and removed the work requirement.


What??? Either he did that when unemployment was at nearly 10% and nobody could find a job, or he never did that. Which was it?


----------



## Poor Purl (Apr 14, 2011)

damemary said:


> Holding your breath and having a hissy fit didn't work. What next?


Abracadabra. Poof - it's ended.


----------



## NJG (Dec 2, 2011)

karverr said:


> Do you think someone would print something and give page numbers where you could look it up and find out they are lying, OMG you folks get the blinders off and actually read the junk you are defending, ignorance of the law will not used as a defense.


Yes I believe they would do that, because I received the same email and it was all lies. Here are some links explaining that these references aren't even from Obamacare, but from another bill that never passed. They also take things out of context and print only part of it so that it sounds the way they want it to.

http://www.factcheck.org/2009/08/twenty-six-lies-about-hr-3200/

http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/article/2009/jul/30/e-mail-analysis-health-bill-needs-check-/

http://www.snopes.com/politics/medical/kithil.asp

Don't be so gullible. Most of the emails one receives about Obamacare are lies. People need to fact check before they pass them on.


----------



## kiffer (Jun 3, 2011)

bwtyer said:


> One or two from both sides have been in on it from the beginning with good arguments, everyone respects a healthy debate , but some jumped in late and are only tearing into others without providing substantial back up facts. Kind of like a pack of pitbulls if you stand back and look at it. LL is entitled to her view, others are entitled to theirs - not sure of previous history but obviously there is some . Would be nice if they stated their credentials that made them such an expert on the subject. From reading most of LL posts- she is expressing the fears and views of many people- instead if tearing her down personally, they should be providing the facts they are arguing for.


Thank you well said. As I said everyone has their opinion and that's fine. I don't have to agree but I would not trash them because I don't agree. I happen to agree with LL. the rest will find out as this plan takes takes effect.


----------



## Poor Purl (Apr 14, 2011)

Lukelucy said:


> Bully.


Okay, that's one "bully" too many. If you really had an answer,you'd use it. Instead, you call everyone who disagrees with you a bully. Who's holding you down while she steals your lunch money?

A bully picks on people who are smaller and/or weaker than them. If you're forever being bullied, maybe it's something to do with you, not the ones you call bullies.


----------



## Poor Purl (Apr 14, 2011)

joeysomma said:


> My statement was correct. Obama undid Clinton's law.


Show us outside confirmation of that. Just you saying that your statement is correct is hardly proof. To paraphrase someone around here, if you can't prove what you say, I'll never believe anything you say.


----------



## Poor Purl (Apr 14, 2011)

If you ever want to change your name from Knovice Knitter, how about Drama Queen?


Bloomers said:


> Knovice Knitter, I am afraid you are just as blind as many others and just as mistaken. Time will answer all these questions and more. Unfortunately many people are in for some very distressing news. Obama and his agenda has, effectually, destroyed the United States. He has broken the back of the family unit, and, the economy and is working hard to destroy all that is good and decent in this country. The family unit was the foundation of this country and as ethical, immoral and illegal behavior has been forced on so many we have slowly become a fragmented and negative and empty people. This has come directly from the White House from people who should set the example. We used to be the country that the world looked up to and respected, now we are among the countries sliding into social and economic oblivion. Living in the US will become more and more difficult in the coming years due to the lack of moral, ethical family based leadership in our government. We have become a parasite nation, "gimme' gimme' gimme, only I matter".


----------



## marilyn1977 (Nov 3, 2011)

I posted a long list of things about the bill on Obamacare and I am totally sorry. It seems that I made a very aggregious error in that I did not check it out on FastCheck.org or other sights. Please forgive me the error in my way. I was just so upset about what I read and wanted everyone to know it also. I will never copy and paste anything again that I don't know personally that it is true. Please forgive my error in judgement of believing what I thought was a truly honest report.


----------



## Poor Purl (Apr 14, 2011)

ElyseKnox said:


> As hominem attacks are standard liberal tactics when one has no real answer to the issue at hand.


They are equally standard conservative attacks. Count how many times LL has accused people of being bullies.


----------



## meetoo (Nov 20, 2011)

karverr said:


> Every hospital in the country receives a suppliment from the government, and they are required to treat anyone that comes in for care no matter of their ability to pay.


 :thumbup: :thumbup: :thumbup:


----------



## cbethea (Oct 21, 2013)

knitpresentgifts said:


> The same ones always do.


LL you started this with a post full of lies and nonsense, and when folks who know better pushed back - their bullies and your a victim. Please!


----------



## Knitted by Nan (Aug 3, 2013)

Lukelucy said:


> Thanks Judyh. The bullies are immature and still school age. If they could see what they are doing, they'd be embarrassed.


I agree with you totally. I can see your red, embarrassed face from down under. Your tone towards people who hold an opinion that differs from yours can only be described as bullying. I make this comment as someone who is reading these postings. Your language directed at people who agree with you is moderated and kind whereas your language directed at people who disagree is the opposite. I honestly believe you may not know this.


----------



## MaidInBedlam (Jul 24, 2012)

One last gasp from me. I have a sneaking suspicion that LTL started this topic so KPG could safely post her vitriolic garbage. For whatever reason(s), KPG has had to stop doing same on S&O. Now she's back to doing what she most loves to do, throwing around the ugliest nonsense she can think up. :hunf: :hunf: :hunf: :thumbdown: :thumbdown: :-( :-( Please, don't let her have this forum. Let's try to keep her penned up in the topics where she agrees with everyone and can only respond with ooey-gooey sugary remarks. Our little KP world will be better for it. Hope you'll help and reject and unwatch this topic. NOW I'm done here. :mrgreen: :mrgreen: :mrgreen: :thumbup: :thumbup:


----------



## Poor Purl (Apr 14, 2011)

marilyn1977 said:


> I posted a long list of things about the bill on Obamacare and I am totally sorry. It seems that I made a very aggregious error in that I did not check it out on FastCheck.org or other sights. Please forgive me the error in my way. I was just so upset about what I read and wanted everyone to know it also. I will never copy and paste anything again that I don't know personally that it is true. Please forgive my error in judgement of believing what I thought was a truly honest report.


Marilyn, do you realize how unusual it is for someone who has posted an anti-Obamacare message to correct herself? This makes what you say in the future so much more believable. Thank you for checking yourself and apologizing.


----------



## Poor Purl (Apr 14, 2011)

cbethea said:


> LL you started this with a post full of lies and nonsense, and when folks who know better pushed back - their bullies and your a victim. Please!


 :thumbup: :thumbup: :thumbup: :thumbup:


----------



## bwtyer (Oct 31, 2012)

marilyn1977 said:


> I posted a long list of things about the bill on Obamacare and I am totally sorry. It seems that I made a very aggregious error in that I did not check it out on FastCheck.org or other sights. Please forgive me the error in my way. I was just so upset about what I read and wanted everyone to know it also. I will never copy and paste anything again that I don't know personally that it is true. Please forgive my error in judgement of believing what I thought was a truly honest report.


don't worry about it- there is so much misinformation out there on both sides - it happens frequently. The government did not do a good job on educating the public on this one. This does not mean I back it - but there is a definite need for something - even if Obamacare does fall by the wayside in the future, it is setting the footwork for some type of progam to help those who need help. I do not think anyone can argue with that.


----------



## Poor Purl (Apr 14, 2011)

joeysomma said:


> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Personal_Responsibility_and_Work_Opportunity_Act
> 
> It was undone by a joint memo between Obama and HHS not an executive order.
> 
> Not quite the same as when I told that to you. Remember your statement was you read the *Bible* in the original language and then you were unable to read Greek. In your statement you never qualified your Bible as only the Old Testament. So don't say you can do something and not be able to follow through.


To Jews, there's no such thing as the "Old Testament"; that phrase implies that it's over and done with and been replaced by something else. To us, it's still the *only* Bible, and a living document, not replaced by the Testament of Jesus.

Besides, I said "original language" (singular), which to people who understand English would mean the first language it was written in, i.e. Hebrew. The second language would have been Aramaic, because some later books are in that language. Greek would be the third language, since that was written much later than the Hebrew. But I've forgiven you for calling me a liar because you know not what you do. Or pretty much what you read.

Did you get to the part where it says:


> Mitt Romney attacked the measure, saying that Obama was "gutting welfare reform". However, fact checker PolitiFact debunked the claim, stating it was "not accurate" and "inflames old resentments", giving it a "Pants on Fire" rating. CNN also reported that assertions that Obama was "taking the work requirement off the table" was false. In response to Republican criticism, Kathleen Sebelius, the Secretary of Health and Human Services said that states, including some with Republican governors, had previously asked Congress to allow waivers.


 A waiver on the part of a state is not the same as an undoing on the part of the feds.

And in case you didn't get to the end, here are a couple of downsides to the bill that Clinton signed:


> Jason DeParle of the New York Times, after interviews with single mothers, said that they have been left without means to survive, and have turned to desperate and sometimes illegal ways to survive, including shoplifting, selling blood, scavenging trash bins, moving in with friends, and returning to violent partners.


 And probably becoming prostitutes.



> Diana Spatz, executive director of Lifetime, a statewide organization of low-income parents in California, advocates for the repeal of PRWORA because it prevents women from doing what she did prior to its passage, earn her bachelor's degree while supported by welfare.


It would be awful if anyone were allowed to do that. :hunf:

So maybe it would be a good thing to get rid of it. WHICH HAS NOT BEEN DONE BY OBAMA OR ANYONE ELSE.


----------



## Poor Purl (Apr 14, 2011)

bwtyer said:


> don't worry about it- there is so much misinformation out there on both sides - it happens frequently. The government did not do a good job on educating the public on this one. This does not mean I back it - but there is a definite need for something - even if Obamacare does fall by the wayside in the future, it is setting the footwork for some type of progam to help those who need help. I do not think anyone can argue with that.


Thank you. It's so nice to read objective posts from someone with sense.


----------



## sumpleby (Aug 3, 2013)

joeysomma said:


> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Personal_Responsibility_and_Work_Opportunity_Act
> 
> It was undone by a joint memo between Obama and HHS not an executive order.
> 
> Not quite the same as when I told that to you. Remember your statement was you read the *Bible* in the original language and then you were unable to read Greek. In your statement you never qualified your Bible as only the Old Testament. So don't say you can do something and not be able to follow through.


From the article you linked to:

"In July 2012, the Department of Health and Human Services released a memo notifying states that they are able to apply for a waiver for the work requirements of the TANF program, but only if states were also able to find credible ways to increase employment by 20%.[10] The waiver would allow states to provide assistance without having to enforce the work component of the program, which currently states that 50 percent of a state's TANF caseload must meet work requirements.[11] The Obama administration stated that the change was made in order to allow more flexibility in how individual states operate their welfare programs."

And from FactCheck.org--http://www.factcheck.org/2012/08/does-obamas-plan-gut-welfare-reform/:

"A Mitt Romney TV ad claims the Obama administration has adopted a plan to gut welfare reform by dropping work requirements. The plan does neither of those things.

* Work requirements are not simply being dropped. States may now change the requirements  revising, adding or eliminating them  as part of a federally approved state-specific plan to increase job placement.

* And it wont gut the 1996 law to ease the requirement. Benefits still wont be paid beyond an allotted time, whether the recipient is working or not.

Romneys ad also distorts the facts when it says that under President Obamas plan you wouldnt have to work and wouldnt have to train for a job. The law never required all welfare recipients to work. Only 29 percent of those receiving cash assistance met the work requirement by the time President Obama took office.

Under the new policy, states can now seek a federal waiver from work-participation rules that, among other things, require welfare recipients to engage in one of 12 specific work activities, such as job training. But, in exchange, states must develop a plan that would provide a more efficient or effective means to promote employment, which may or may not include some or all of the same work activities. States also must submit an evaluation plan that includes performance measures that must be met  or the waiver could be revoked."


----------



## Poor Purl (Apr 14, 2011)

sumpleby said:


> From the article you linked to:
> 
> "In July 2012, the Department of Health and Human Services released a memo notifying states that they are able to apply for a waiver for the work requirements of the TANF program, but only if states were also able to find credible ways to increase employment by 20%.[10] The waiver would allow states to provide assistance without having to enforce the work component of the program, which currently states that 50 percent of a state's TANF caseload must meet work requirements.[11] The Obama administration stated that the change was made in order to allow more flexibility in how individual states operate their welfare programs."
> 
> ...


 :thumbup: :thumbup: :thumbup: :thumbup:


----------



## Lukelucy (Nov 19, 2011)

Quoted from today's Wall Street Journal:

Three years after the disastrous launch of the Affordable Care Act, most of the website troubles finally have been ironed out. People are now able to log on to the government's ACA website and to most of the state health-insurance exchanges. The public has grudgingly come to accept higher insurance premiums, new taxes and increases in part-time workers who were formerly full-time. But Americans are irate anywaybecause now they're seeing the health-care law's destructive effect on the fundamental nature of the way their care is delivered.

Even before the ACA's launch in 2013, many physiciansseeing the changes in their profession that lay aheadhad begun talking their children out of going to medical school. After the launch, compensation fell, while nothing in the ACA stopped lawsuits and malpractice premiums from rising. Doctors must now see many more patients each day to meet expenses, all while dealing with the mountains of paperwork mandated by the health-care law. 


The forecast shortage of doctors has become a real problem. It started in 2014 when the ACA cut $716 billion from Medicare to accommodate 30 million newly "insured" people through an expansion of Medicaid. More important, the predicted shortage of 42,000 primary-care physicians and that of specialists (such as heart surgeons) was vastly underestimated. It didn't take into account the ACA's effect on doctors retiring early, refusing new patients or going into concierge medicine. These estimates also ignored the millions of immigrants who would be seeking a physician after having been granted legal status.

It is surprising that the doctor shortage was not better anticipated: After all, when Massachusetts mandated health insurance in 2006, the wait to see a physician in some specialties increased considerably, the shortage of primary-care physicians escalated and more doctors stopped accepting new patients. In 2013, the Massachusetts Medical Society noted waiting times from 50 days to 128 days in some areas for new patients to see an internist, for instance.

But doctor shortages are only the beginning.

Even before the ACA cut $716 billion from its budget, Medicare only reimbursed hospitals and doctors for 70%-85% of their costs. Once this cut further reduced reimbursements, and the ACA added stacks of paperwork, more doctors refused to accept Medicare: It just didn't cover expenses. 

Then there is the ACA's Medicare (government) board that dictates and rations care, and the board has begun to cut reimbursements. Some physicians now refuse even to take patients over 50 years old, not wanting to be burdened with them when they reach Medicare age. Seniors aren't happy. 

Medicaid in 2016 has similar problems. A third of physicians refused to accept new Medicaid patients in 2013, and with Medicaid's expansion and government cuts, the numbers of doctors who don't take Medicaid skyrocketed. The uninsured poor now have insurance, but they can't find a doctor, so essentially the ACA was of no help.

The loss of private practice is another big problem. Because of regulations and other government disincentives to self employment, doctors began working for hospitals in the early 2000s, leaving less than half in private practice by 2013. The ACA rapidly accelerated this trend, so that now very few private practices remain.

When doctors are employed like factory workers by hospitals, data from the Medical Group Management Association and others indicate, their productivity fallssometimes by more than 25%. They see fewer patients and perform fewer timely procedures, exacerbating the troubles caused by physician shortages. Continuity of care also declines, since now a physician's responsibilities end when his shift is over.

Of those doctors still in private practice, many have taken refuge from the health-care law by going into concierge medicine, where the patient pays an annual fee (typically $500-$3,000 a year per individual) to a primary-care physician. This doctor provides enhanced care, grants quicker appointments and spends more time with each patient, working with a base of 300-600 patients instead of the 3,000-5,000 typical in the ACA era. Doctors and patients who can afford it love concierge medicine: It allows treatment to be administered as the doctor sees fit, instead of as if the patient is on an assembly line with care directed on orders from Washington.

Patients who can't afford concierge medicine but have seen their doctor take that route are out of luck: They have been added to the swelling rolls of patients taken care of by the shrinking pool of physicians. So even people with "private" insurance have found that the quality of their health care declined. Nowadays, many are forced instead to see a nurse or other health-care provider. The traditional doctor-patient relationship is now reserved primarily for those who can pay extra.

Concierge-type care was easily expanded to specialists. The top surgeons now simply opt out of Medicare or become "out of network" providers, allowing them to bill patients directly. Many have joined the plastic surgeons and ophthalmologists who work on a straight fee-for-service basis.

Equally important: With the best and most successful doctors disappearing into concierge medicine or refusing new Medicare and Medicaid patients, replacing these experienced physicians with bright young doctors to work with the "general public" has become difficult. Why? Because such doctors are hard to findgoing into medicine doesn't have the professional allure it once did. 

With an average of $300,000 in student loans, eight years of college and medical school, and three to seven years as underpaid, overworked residents, a prospective physician in the ACA era would be starting a career at age 30 in a job that requires working 70-80 hours a week in an assembly-line fashion to earn perhaps $100,000 a year. No wonder so many qualified individuals these days are choosing careers on Wall Street or in Silicon Valley instead of medicine.

It is also no wonder that three years ago members of Congress got themselves exempted from the Affordable Care Act. They may have passed the law, but they're not stupid.

Dr. Allen, a pediatric heart surgeon, is a former professor and surgical director of the Children's Heart Institute in Houston. 







.

.

.



























931 Comments
Order Reprints

Facebook
Twitter

Google+

LinkedIn


----------



## misellen (Mar 8, 2013)

marilyn1977 said:


> I posted a long list of things about the bill on Obamacare and I am totally sorry. It seems that I made a very aggregious error in that I did not check it out on FastCheck.org or other sights. Please forgive me the error in my way. I was just so upset about what I read and wanted everyone to know it also. I will never copy and paste anything again that I don't know personally that it is true. Please forgive my error in judgement of believing what I thought was a truly honest report.


We all make mistakes. Acknowledging a mistake is a hard thing to do. You have my greatest respect.


----------



## Poor Purl (Apr 14, 2011)

Lukelucy said:


> Quoted from today's Wall Street Journal:<snip>


 This is an opinion piece, not a piece of news. In fact, the news section of the WSJ, though owned by Rupert Murdoch of Faux News, has said some good things about the ACA


----------



## Poor Purl (Apr 14, 2011)

joeysomma said:


> The statement I made was true. Clinton signed the law for a federal requirement for work for welfare. Obama and HHS undid the federal law.
> 
> No more federal law. I never mentioned states.
> 
> This is the last I will say on this.


Good. Because, as your link to Wikipedia showed, you're wrong.


----------



## Lukelucy (Nov 19, 2011)

From today's Wall Street Journal:


Oct. 22, 2013 7:07 p.m. ET

The panic of the liberals is not unfounded. 

The young and healthy will not persevere through a balky ObamaCare website to buy overpriced insurance policies. Older and sicker shoppers have the biggest incentive to try 63 times (as one journalist did) to register. President Obama is right. For these customers, ObamaCare is a very good deal: hundreds or thousands of dollars a month in health care for as little as $0 a month in premiums after direct subsidies.

Voilà, the insurance death spiral.

Three lessons jump to mind. ObamaCare's disastrous launch is not just a programmer's bad hair day but deeply implicated in the central con of ObamaCare.

Secondly, ObamaCare did not need to be founded on misdirection and hidden taxes on the young. It would actually have been a better program and cheaper for the country if it hadn't been. 

Finally liberals hate to be told their hardball policy aim is to make more Americans dependent on government. But in a year or two thousands or millions of older, sicker ObamaCare customers may find their premiums soaring when the young and healthy didn't show up to subsidize their care. Then what?

Bad hair day: One reason for the snafu-laden rollout is that the administration apparently delayed in setting key rules and specs so no discussion drafts would be floating around before the 2012 election. Why? Because the media would then inevitably dig into the question of who wins and loses under ObamaCare's thicket of explicit and implicit subsidies. 

President Obama talks up his health-care law in the Rose Garden, Oct. 21. jason reed/Reuters 

A second reason for the pestilential rollout is complexity created by the requirement that users enter and confirm their personal information before they begin shopping. Some speculate the administration's goal was simply to ensure those customers who are entitled to big discounts aren't scared off by seeing only unsubsidized prices. But success depends on signing up enough unsubsidized customers. A likelier motive was to make the healthy and affluent, once they enrolled, fearful of unwanted IRS attention if they didn't follow through on their mandated duty to buy overpriced insurance to keep the scheme afloat. 

With enough time and unlimited resources, the government can invent the atom bomb or deliver men to the moon with 1960s technology. Fixing the exchange websites, though, won't fix the fact that ObamaCare depends on noneconomic enthusiasm to drive enlistment of people for whom ObamaCare is an objectively bad dealthe "marks" in grifter terminology. 

The mandate is too weak. The penalties are too light to give ObamaCare's juiciest marks a rational incentive to buy. Yet with enough tweets from celebrities; with enough cloying talk urging 20- and 30-somethings to "have Obama's back;" with enough blather about "young invincibles," as if a young person's reluctance to overpay for health insurance is somehow a blind spot, the hope is that enough young, healthy, low-risk applicants could be gulled into paying through the nose in order to subsidize the high-risk. 

This is what's actuarially known as wishful thinking.

ObamaCare did not need to be a con job. Insurers could have been allowed to offer the young and low-risk the sensible, affordable policies that insurers already sell them in voluntary transactions. The older and sicker customers whom ObamaCare wishes to subsidize could have been subsidized directly with tax dollars. 

Yes, the visible budgetary cost would have been higher, but only because the program would have to be funded with honest, visible taxes rather than a surreptitious tax on young people. And the actual cost would have been lower for two reasons. A lot more low-risk people would have signed up. Secondly, under ObamaCare as now designed, any low-risk customer who signs up has an incentive to overconsume health care to recoup his mandated investment in overpriced health insurance.

We come now to the last redoubt of the defendersthe claim that, yes, the young and low-risk are being asked to pay up now, but they will benefit from the generational cross subsidy as they get older.

This is a lie. Politicians are in no position to deliver generational equity. Think about Social Security and Medicare. In response to the incentives that actually guide their behavior, politicians have repeatedly jacked up the taxes paid by today's working Americans to supply benefits to those already retired, on terms that absolutely guarantee that similarly generous benefits won't be available to today's workers when they retire.

Democrats like Harry Reid, who favors a single payer system, and Republicans like Ted Cruz, who favors something or other, have one important thing in common. Both have figured out that ObamaCare can't fix our health-care system and that new fights over "reform" lie in our not-distant future.


----------



## sumpleby (Aug 3, 2013)

Wow. Relying on a fiction piece to prove a point. Just...wow.


----------



## Janet Cooke (Aug 14, 2013)

Poor Purl said:


> What??? Either he did that when unemployment was at nearly 10% and nobody could find a job, or he never did that. Which was it?


You know what, that temporary reprieve in maybe '09 rings a vague little bell...

It was in 2012 that the response to Governors came in the form of a memo to all 50 states.

2012[edit]

In July 2012, the Department of Health and Human Services released a memo notifying states that they are able to apply for a waiver for the work requirements of the TANF program, but only if states were also able to find credible ways to increase employment by 20%.[10] The waiver would allow states to provide assistance without having to enforce the work component of the program, which currently states that 50 percent of a state's TANF caseload must meet work requirements.[11] The Obama administration stated that the change was made in order to allow more flexibility in how individual states operate their welfare programs.[12] According to Peter Edelman, the director of the Georgetown Center on Poverty, Inequality and Public Policy, the waivers would reduce restrictions that increase the difficulty for states in helping TANF applicants find jobs.[13]

The change has been questioned by Republicans including Dave Camp, chairman of the House Ways and Means Committee and Orrin Hatch, who requested further details from HHS over concerns that the memo would remove the main focus of PRWORA.[11] Mitt Romney attacked the measure, saying that Obama was "gutting welfare reform". However, fact checker PolitiFact debunked the claim, stating it was "not accurate" and "inflames old resentments", giving it a "Pants on Fire" rating.[14] CNN also reported that assertions that Obama was "taking the work requirement off the table" was false.[15] In response to Republican criticism, Kathleen Sebelius, the Secretary of Health and Human Services said that states, including some with Republican governors, had previously asked Congress to allow waivers.[16]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Personal_Responsibility_and_Work_Opportunity_Act


----------



## Cindy S (Oct 20, 2013)

never take anything Wikipedia says as fact, ANY person can go to Wikipedia and add to any thing they have listed. :roll:


----------



## bwtyer (Oct 31, 2012)

sumpleby said:


> Wow. Relying on a fiction piece to prove a point. Just...wow.


actually just showing you that many of those most familiar with healthcare do not agree with it either. He just did it in a nice way - and before you say something about him -I'll tell you that he is well known for his charitable acts. I suspect his "story" will pretty much come true. We all will have to wait and see.


----------



## Janet Cooke (Aug 14, 2013)

And then they review and correct any problems...

http://www.livescience.com/32950-how-accurate-is-wikipedia.html
http://news.cnet.com/Study-Wikipedia-as-accurate-as-Britannica/2100-1038_3-5997332.html



Cindy S said:


> never take anything Wikipedia says as fact, ANY person can go to Wikipedia and add to any thing they have listed. :roll:


----------



## Chris Harris (Oct 17, 2013)

It's all going to come out in the wash!


----------



## Janet Cooke (Aug 14, 2013)

marilyn1977 said:


> I posted a long list of things about the bill on Obamacare and I am totally sorry. It seems that I made a very aggregious error in that I did not check it out on FastCheck.org or other sights. Please forgive me the error in my way. I was just so upset about what I read and wanted everyone to know it also. I will never copy and paste anything again that I don't know personally that it is true. Please forgive my error in judgement of believing what I thought was a truly honest report.


It takes a lot of courage to wander in here and admit an error. GG. 
I am not so sure that making a mistake of that type rises to the level of needing forgiveness, if you do though, you have mine. 
Have a great day.


----------



## bwtyer (Oct 31, 2012)

Chris Harris said:


> It's all going to come out in the wash!


 :thumbup: You are so right - everyone can argue whatever but only time will tell.


----------



## knitpresentgifts (May 21, 2013)

MaidInBedlam said:


> One last gasp from me. I have a sneaking suspicion that LTL started this topic so KPG could safely post her vitriolic garbage. For whatever reason(s), KPG has had to stop doing same on S&O. Now she's back to doing what she most loves to do, throwing around the ugliest nonsense she can think up. :hunf: :hunf: :hunf: :thumbdown: :thumbdown: :-( :-( Please, don't let her have this forum. Let's try to keep her penned up in the topics where she agrees with everyone and can only respond with ooey-gooey sugary remarks. Our little KP world will be better for it. Hope you'll help and reject and unwatch this topic. NOW I'm done here. :mrgreen: :mrgreen: :mrgreen: :thumbup: :thumbup:


You'd better be done libeling me. Not smart yet expected from you as evidenced by your history of posts.

LukeLucy, not LTL, began this thread, and I'm free to post on any thread I prefer, exactly as everyone else. For the record, I've posted little in this thread but since you continue to insult me every time you post, perhaps I should follow your lead to give you a dose of your own medicine. It seems you prefer to shout your hatred towards me while offering nothing to the conversation being discussed.

I have not 'had' to do anything on any thread. I choose to whom I respond and that doesn't include you or many Liberals who post only to spread their hate and lies. (we all know who they are)

For some reason you hate me but you do not have the right to libel me. Grow up, act your age and learn to be respectful towards others and do no harm. Your posts are ridiculous, hate-filled and stupid.


----------



## karverr (Jun 27, 2013)

Poor Purl said:


> It would be awful if anyone were allowed to do that. :hunf:
> 
> So maybe it would be a good thing to get rid of it. WHICH HAS NOT BEEN DONE BY OBAMA OR ANYONE ELSE.


the old testament is the history of the Jewish people, they live and breath all the laws of Moses. that is the only part they believe. how dumb it is to say they don't believe it. I don't know what religous sect you are associated with but as to most religons in the protestant and Catholic sects we believe the new testament and that Jesus is the Christ, son of God.


----------



## Lukelucy (Nov 19, 2011)

knitpresentgifts said:


> You'd better be done libeling me. Not smart yet expected from you as evidenced by your history of posts.
> 
> LukeLucy, not LTL, began this thread, and I'm free to post on any thread I prefer, exactly as everyone else. For the record, I've posted little in this thread but since you continue to insult me every time you post, perhaps I should follow your lead to give you a dose of your own medicine. It seems you prefer to shout your hatred towards me while offering nothing to the conversation being discussed.
> 
> ...


They have libeled me as well. Calling me a liar speaks more about them then me. Great post. Thank you.


----------



## knitpresentgifts (May 21, 2013)

karverr said:


> the old testament is the history of the Jewish people, they live and breath all the laws of Moses. that is the only part they believe. how dumb it is to say they don't believe it. I don't know what religous sect you are associated with but as to most religons in the protestant and Catholic sects we believe the new testament and that Jesus is the Christ, son of God.


I agree karverr; all my Jewish friends and associates believe in the complete Bible; the old and new testaments. Of course, the Jews also have the Tanakh, the Torah and Talmud. I, as a Christian, believe both testaments comprise the Bible that I believe to be the word of God; that I follow.


----------



## medusa (Nov 20, 2012)

damemary said:


> I'll tell you a 'secret.' I found a funny typo in the middle of an informative post. I kept waiting for someone to jump on it and complain. No one has. I guess that proves they don't read it. Hopefully some people gain some information and insight.


I also saw the typo, and am surprised no-one caught it! :lol: :lol: :lol:


----------



## Poor Purl (Apr 14, 2011)

karverr said:


> the old testament is the history of the Jewish people, they live and breath all the laws of Moses. that is the only part they believe. how dumb it is to say they don't believe it. I don't know what religous sect you are associated with but as to most religons in the protestant and Catholic sects we believe the new testament and that Jesus is the Christ, son of God.


_Where did I say they don't believe it?_ And thanks for calling me dumb for no reason at all. For your information, I am not associated with any religious sect; I practice Judaism, which is a religion, not a sect, and is a few thousand years older than whatever sect you belong to (I use the word sect because that's what you used).


----------



## Poor Purl (Apr 14, 2011)

medusa said:


> I also saw the typo, and am surprised no-one caught it! :lol: :lol: :lol:


I missed it. What was it?


----------



## karverr (Jun 27, 2013)

Poor Purl said:


> It would be awful if anyone were allowed to do that. :hunf:
> 
> So maybe it would be a good thing to get rid of it. WHICH HAS NOT BEEN DONE BY OBAMA OR ANYONE ELSE.


You are right about one thing, the first language of the Old Testament was written in Hebrew but never in Aramaic. Some of the prophesies of Ezra and Daniel were written in Aramaic as well as 1 verse in Jeremiah and that's it. The rest was in Hebrew, google it if you want proof.


----------



## Poor Purl (Apr 14, 2011)

karverr said:


> You are right about one thing, the first language of the Old Testament was written in Hebrew but never in Aramaic. Some of the prophesies of Ezra and Daniel were written in Aramaic as well as 1 verse in Jeremiah and that's it. The rest was in Hebrew, google it if you want proof.


Thank you for confirming what I know to be true. Ezra, Daniel, and Jeremiah are all part of the Jewish Bible. I don't need to Google it; I spent twelve years studying it, and I don't need you to tell me what it's about.


----------



## karverr (Jun 27, 2013)

Poor Purl said:


> _Where did I say they don't believe it?_ And thanks for calling me dumb for no reason at all. For your information, I am not associated with any religious sect; I practice Judaism, which is a religion, not a sect, and is a few thousand years older than whatever sect you belong to (I use the word sect because that's what you used).


Here is your words,To Jews, there's no such thing as the "Old Testament"


----------



## karverr (Jun 27, 2013)

Poor Purl said:


> Thank you for confirming what I know to be true. Ezra, Daniel, and Jeremiah are all part of the Jewish Bible. I don't need to Google it; I spent twelve years studying it, and I don't need you to tell me what it's about.


i didn't call you dumb, you read it wrong as usual I said it was dumb to say they didn't believe. I now know much more about you, thanks for telling me your religious denomination, is that a better word for you? I myself am a Baptist and believe the Bible in it's entirety. I would hate to know that I had no hope for eternity, what does your religion say is for you at the end of your life? I have the promise of God through Jesus sacrifice on the cross to pay for my sins and by accepting him as the son of God and him paying my debt for my sins that I can be lifted up to the place God has for me in his Kingdom. If this is a fairy tale in your religion so be it , let me and others believe it and you may believe what Judaism tell.


----------



## Poor Purl (Apr 14, 2011)

karverr said:


> Here is your words,To Jews, there's no such thing as the "Old Testament"


That's true. We don't regard it as "old"; only Christians do, since they've replaced it with what they call the New Testament.


----------



## medusa (Nov 20, 2012)

marilyn1977 said:


> I posted a long list of things about the bill on Obamacare and I am totally sorry. It seems that I made a very aggregious error in that I did not check it out on FastCheck.org or other sights. Please forgive me the error in my way. I was just so upset about what I read and wanted everyone to know it also. I will never copy and paste anything again that I don't know personally that it is true. Please forgive my error in judgement of believing what I thought was a truly honest report.


What a noble gesture! It takes a lot of intestinal fortitude to admit this- thank you!!!


----------



## Knuttyknitter941 (Oct 22, 2012)

What is BCBS?


----------



## medusa (Nov 20, 2012)

Knuttyknitter941 said:


> What is BCBS?


Blue Cross Blue Shield.


----------



## Poor Purl (Apr 14, 2011)

karverr said:


> i didn't call you dumb, you read it wrong as usual I said it was dumb to say they didn't believe. I now know much more about you, thanks for telling me your religious denomination, is that a better word for you? I myself am a Baptist and believe the Bible in it's entirety. I would hate to know that I had no hope for eternity, what does your religion say is for you at the end of your life? I have the promise of God through Jesus sacrifice on the cross to pay for my sins and by accepting him as the son of God and him paying my debt for my sins that I can be lifted up to the place God has for me in his Kingdom. If this is a fairy tale in your religion so be it , let me and others believe it and you may believe what Judaism tell.


Fine, I have never tried to convince you otherwise. In fact, it's against Jewish practice to proselytize; that is, to try to get non-Jews to convert to Judaism. As to the Kingdom of God, the Jewish belief is that there is a world to come, but everyone gets there; there's no hell that some are sent to. All "sins" are dealt with in this world, and each person needs to take care of his/her sins without depending on anyone else to pay his/her debts.


----------



## Poor Purl (Apr 14, 2011)

Knuttyknitter941 said:


> What is BCBS?


Blue Cross/Blue Shield, the largest, and I think the first, health insurance company in the US.


----------



## bwtyer (Oct 31, 2012)

karverr said:


> i didn't call you dumb, you read it wrong as usual I said it was dumb to say they didn't believe. I now know much more about you, thanks for telling me your religious denomination, is that a better word for you? I myself am a Baptist and believe the Bible in it's entirety. I would hate to know that I had no hope for eternity, what does your religion say is for you at the end of your life? I have the promise of God through Jesus sacrifice on the cross to pay for my sins and by accepting him as the son of God and him paying my debt for my sins that I can be lifted up to the place God has for me in his Kingdom. If this is a fairy tale in your religion so be it , let me and others believe it and you may believe what Judaism tell.


 I am going to insert here before this becomes a religous war too - I am Catholic but a dear friend is Jewish and we have had many discussions on religion - her religion focuses on now and doing, good now, much the same as ours focus on doing good now for later. If I recall - there is "world to come" in the Jewish religion, it is just not as pronounced as yours or mine. Regardless, all of them point to doing your good on earth now. Yours, mine, the Jewish, etc. The Bible and the Torah have nothing to do with ACA. I don't think the government cares what religion you are, they just want you to get insured.


----------



## karverr (Jun 27, 2013)

Poor Purl said:


> That's true. We don't regard it as "old"; only Christians do, since they've replaced it with what they call the New Testament.


my dear, we did not replace it ,we consider the old testament to be the history of the Israelite's and the prophesies of the Bible. the new testament is the fulfillment of those prophesies. The prophesies tell of the coming of the Messiah which is the new testament story.


----------



## Poor Purl (Apr 14, 2011)

Once again, a sensible post. I'm glad we have you around.


bwtyer said:


> I am going to insert here before this becomes a religous war too - I am Catholic but a dear friend is Jewish and we have had many discussions on religion - her religion focuses on now and doing, good now, much the same as ours focus on doing good now for later.  If I recall - there is "world to come" in the Jewish religion, it is just not as pronounced as yours or mine. Regardless, all of them point to doing your good on earth now. Yours, mine, the Jewish, etc. The Bible and the Torah have nothing to do with ACA. I don't think the government cares what religion you are, they just want you to get insured.


----------



## Poor Purl (Apr 14, 2011)

karverr said:


> my dear, we did not replace it ,we consider the old testament to be the history of the Israelite's and the prophesies of the Bible. the new testament is the fulfillment of those prophesies. The prophesies tell of the coming of the Messiah which is the new testament story.


As others have pointed out, this is not the place for it.

And I don't like being called "my dear." It's a very patronizing phrase.


----------



## Janet Cooke (Aug 14, 2013)

medusa said:


> What a noble gesture! It takes a lot of intestinal fortitude to admit this- thank you!!!


What was Gene's last name?


----------



## knitpresentgifts (May 21, 2013)

Poor Purl said:


> That's true. We don't regard it as "old"; only Christians do, since they've replaced it with what they call the New Testament.


I'm a Christian and do not regard it as "old" so please don't tell us what you don't know nor understand about those of which you are not. I have not ever replaced the "old" with the "new" testament as you suggest nor have any of the Christians I've known throughout my lifetime.

To quote you, "I don't need you to tell me what its about."


----------



## Janet Cooke (Aug 14, 2013)

Poor Purl said:


> Once again, a sensible post. I'm glad we have you around.


Yes, indeed. She can take a hard line, she doesn't twist and turn tho. She (assuming here) has a straightforward certainty about her.


----------



## BrattyPatty (May 2, 2011)

knitpresentgifts said:


> I'm a Christian and do not regard it as "old" so don't tell what you don't know nor understand about people of which you are not. I have not ever replaced the "old" with the "new" testament as you suggest nor have any of the Christians I've known throughout my lifetime.
> 
> To quote you, "I don't need you to tell me what its about."


Keep posting what you want, Purl. The beast has a knack for trying to overtake threads and control what others have to say.
It is just it's nature.


----------



## MaidInBedlam (Jul 24, 2012)

knitpresentgifts said:


> You'd better be done libeling me. Not smart yet expected from you as evidenced by your history of posts.
> 
> LukeLucy, not LTL, began this thread, and I'm free to post on any thread I prefer, exactly as everyone else. For the record, I've posted little in this thread but since you continue to insult me every time you post, perhaps I should follow your lead to give you a dose of your own medicine. It seems you prefer to shout your hatred towards me while offering nothing to the conversation being discussed.
> 
> ...


Libel? Good one, KPG. Since when is the truth considered libel? As to the rest of what you've said, insults from you are like glorious compliments from people I actually respect.

Sorry about mixing up LTL and LL. You all look so alike in print that it's easy to mistake one of you for another.

PS. I'm actually stilll torn between believing you're karverr or that Knit crazy's husband is.


----------



## Janet Cooke (Aug 14, 2013)

knitpresentgifts said:


> I'm a Christian and do not regard it as "old" so don't tell what you don't know nor understand about people of which you are not. I have not ever replaced the "old" with the "new" testament as you suggest nor have any of the Christians I've known throughout my lifetime.
> 
> To quote you, "I don't need you to tell me what its about."


Remind me of this when you try to say that certain parts of the "old testament" are no longer relevant.


----------



## Janet Cooke (Aug 14, 2013)

Grass is green.


----------



## BrattyPatty (May 2, 2011)

Lukelucy said:


> ElyseKnox,
> Thank you for speaking the truth. It is so sad that they have to ruin this site, which could be a great place for a discussion. Bullies have ruined it.


I don't believe a person who disagrees with you is a bully. I believe this thread is a bunch of nonsense on your part. You say that you do not research what you print. It's all "I heard from...." If you took the time to actually open your mind and go to one of the sites that provide *accurate* information you will see how wrong you are.


----------



## damemary (Mar 14, 2012)

Apology accepted. This is all that's needed. Hope we can have real discussion. Thank you.



marilyn1977 said:


> I posted a long list of things about the bill on Obamacare and I am totally sorry. It seems that I made a very aggregious error in that I did not check it out on FastCheck.org or other sights. Please forgive me the error in my way. I was just so upset about what I read and wanted everyone to know it also. I will never copy and paste anything again that I don't know personally that it is true. Please forgive my error in judgement of believing what I thought was a truly honest report.


----------



## BrattyPatty (May 2, 2011)

MaidInBedlam said:


> Libel? Good one, KPG. Since when is the truth considered libel? As to the rest of what you've said, insults from you are like glorious compliments from people I actually respect.
> 
> Sorry about mixing up LTL and LL. You all look so alike in print that it's easy to mistake one of you for another.
> 
> PS. I'm actually stilll torn between believing you're karverr or that Knit crazy's husband is.


 :XD: :XD: :XD: :XD: That coming from a predator and the queen of libel itself! :XD: :XD: :XD:


----------



## damemary (Mar 14, 2012)

I think you're right.



MaidInBedlam said:


> One last gasp from me. I have a sneaking suspicion that LTL started this topic so KPG could safely post her vitriolic garbage. For whatever reason(s), KPG has had to stop doing same on S&O. Now she's back to doing what she most loves to do, throwing around the ugliest nonsense she can think up. :hunf: :hunf: :hunf: :thumbdown: :thumbdown: :-( :-( Please, don't let her have this forum. Let's try to keep her penned up in the topics where she agrees with everyone and can only respond with ooey-gooey sugary remarks. Our little KP world will be better for it. Hope you'll help and reject and unwatch this topic. NOW I'm done here. :mrgreen: :mrgreen: :mrgreen: :thumbup: :thumbup:


----------



## knitpresentgifts (May 21, 2013)

jelun2 said:


> Remind me of this when you try to say that certain parts of the "old testament" are no longer relevant.


I've never said such and never will so what is your point? Do you even have a point?


----------



## damemary (Mar 14, 2012)

Why not? They believe blogs and Faux News.



sumpleby said:



> Wow. Relying on a fiction piece to prove a point. Just...wow.


----------



## damemary (Mar 14, 2012)

Hmmmmm. I've seen all these tactics many times. lovethelake, joeysomma, lukelucy, janeway, etc. Never anything factual. Boring.



knitpresentgifts said:


> You'd better be done libeling me. Not smart yet expected from you as evidenced by your history of posts.
> 
> LukeLucy, not LTL, began this thread, and I'm free to post on any thread I prefer, exactly as everyone else. For the record, I've posted little in this thread but since you continue to insult me every time you post, perhaps I should follow your lead to give you a dose of your own medicine. It seems you prefer to shout your hatred towards me while offering nothing to the conversation being discussed.
> 
> ...


----------



## damemary (Mar 14, 2012)

Does this have anything to do with the topic at hand? Did I miss something?



karverr said:


> the old testament is the history of the Jewish people, they live and breath all the laws of Moses. that is the only part they believe. how dumb it is to say they don't believe it. I don't know what religous sect you are associated with but as to most religons in the protestant and Catholic sects we believe the new testament and that Jesus is the Christ, son of God.


----------



## damemary (Mar 14, 2012)

I see you've adopted a paraphrase of mine.



Lukelucy said:


> They have libeled me as well. Calling me a liar speaks more about them then me. Great post. Thank you.


----------



## damemary (Mar 14, 2012)

Isn't it a hoot?



medusa said:


> I also saw the typo, and am surprised no-one caught it! :lol: :lol: :lol:


----------



## NJG (Dec 2, 2011)

joeysomma wrote:
Yes it was passed under Clinton in the 90's. Obama issued an executive order and removed the work requirement.

This was discussed so many times during the last presidential election. I can not believe some one with all the knowledge you claim to have still has not retained that bit of information, or maybe it is easier to just continue to spread the lies. Romney tried to use it against President Obama too, even though when he was governor he asked for a waiver for Mass.


----------



## BrattyPatty (May 2, 2011)

karverr said:


> well if you are tired of that get on the band wagon against welfare all the able bodied men and women on welfare who have multiple babies just to get more money,the way they do it it makes them employees of the government.
> 
> now don't start your racism because I didn't put a color or ethnic group on any one. there are jobs they can work at but they make more on welfare by having kids you are paying for.I guess they can call you mommy.


More kids just to get more welfare....You're kidding right?
I guess they could all have abortions and then you wouldn't have anything to complain about or pay for anyone but yourself.


----------



## damemary (Mar 14, 2012)

Blue Cross Blue Shield. Large health insurance company.


Knuttyknitter941 said:


> What is BCBS?


----------



## damemary (Mar 14, 2012)

Who rattled your chain?



knitpresentgifts said:


> I'm a Christian and do not regard it as "old" so please don't tell us what you don't know nor understand about those of which you are not. I have not ever replaced the "old" with the "new" testament as you suggest nor have any of the Christians I've known throughout my lifetime.
> 
> To quote you, "I don't need you to tell me what its about."


----------



## knovice knitter (Mar 6, 2012)

I worked hard all my life (since the age of 16) until I lost my job at the age of 58. I went to school to bone up on current marketable skills etc. applied everywhere on line and knocking on doors and networking. Nothing. Who is going to hire a 58 year old woman who drove a forklift for 19 years and has no current experience in today's workplace? So I had no income for the last four years. I am healthy. I never missed a day of work in my life due to illness. And that goes for my secondary school years as well. I did not have children to insure. I've never had surgery. I have never been in the hospital over night. I worked hard, saved the max in my 401k program at work, spent wisely, never have debt. I never smoked, drank or did drugs. My property taxes are high and much of it goes to schools. Schools I've never had children attend. But I don't mind. I feel that educated youth is a foundation for a hopeful future. I marched at our state capital for teachers' bargaining rights in the freezing cold because I thought it was important. And now you say, self-righteously, that the ACA is for the people who made poor life and/or health choices. Well, frankly, I find that offensive. I did everything right and I still need the ACA.


Knit crazy said:


> You realize, I hope, that you can choose not to participate in Obamacare. Concierge doctors will work outside Obamacare guidelines and requirements. Many specialists will not take Obamacare patients or Medicare patients and especially Medicaid patients because of the fee structure. Plus, you can choose not to participate in Obamacare, pay a small penalty, and if a health event is expensive then join Obamacare to get the event covered. Many will be considering their options and making difficult choices. It is a shame that this health care bill will cause suffering to aid a few who don't have insurance, but it is what Obama promised - that he'd level the playing field. If you worked hard for years, saved your money, and lived a healthy life, you are now just a funding mechanism for providing healthcare to those who made poor life choices and/or health choices.


----------



## Janet Cooke (Aug 14, 2013)

damemary said:


> Isn't it a hoot?


----------



## damemary (Mar 14, 2012)

I know many with similar stories. There, but for the grace of God, go I. That's the difference between them and us. May you receive all you deserve.



knovice knitter said:


> I worked hard all my life (since the age of 16) until I lost my job at the age of 58. I went to school to bone up on current marketable skills etc. applied everywhere on line and knocking on doors and networking. Nothing. Who is going to hire a 58 year old woman who drove a forklift for 19 years and has no current experience in today's workplace? So I had no income for the last four years. I am healthy. I never missed a day of work in my life due to illness. And that goes for my secondary school years as well. I did not have children to insure. I've never had surgery. I have never been in the hospital over night. I worked hard, saved the max in my 401k program at work, spent wisely, never have debt. I never smoked, drank or did drugs. My property taxes are high and much of it goes to schools. Schools I've never had children attend. But I don't mind. I feel that educated youth is a foundation for a hopeful future. I marched at our state capital for teachers' bargaining rights in the freezing cold because I thought it was important. And now you say, self-righteously, that the ACA is for the people who made poor life and/or health choices. Well, frankly, I find that offensive. I did everything right and I still need the ACA.


----------



## BrattyPatty (May 2, 2011)

knitpresentgifts said:


> You'd better be done libeling me. Not smart yet expected from you as evidenced by your history of posts.
> 
> LukeLucy, not LTL, began this thread, and I'm free to post on any thread I prefer, exactly as everyone else. For the record, I've posted little in this thread but since you continue to insult me every time you post, perhaps I should follow your lead to give you a dose of your own medicine. It seems you prefer to shout your hatred towards me while offering nothing to the conversation being discussed.
> 
> ...


Take your own advice. You better? Is that some sort of threat, beasty?


----------



## Janet Cooke (Aug 14, 2013)

damemary said:


> Who rattled your chain?


Just more hypocrisy and lies.


----------



## knovice knitter (Mar 6, 2012)

Obama did not call it Obamacare. The right started that. He did not like it at first, but since it wasn't going away, he conceded to it's use and has learned to like it a bit himself. Sorry, I can't say where I saw this televised interview, but it came out of his mouth. He prefers ACA because his haters don't like the program with his name on it.


grammylynn said:


> BCBS has been in use for at least 40 yrs so I understand her not clarifying when writing here it might be just habit. I do the same thing. I had it for the first 20 yrs we were married it was the best deal now the worst! As it is used on tv, radio and magazines nationwide, I sometimes forget there are people new to the country and not having had the pleasure of dealing with them as it is on their letterhead we get monthly I don't even notice anymore. The first time I saw/heard ACA I had no idea what that was. Obama started calling it Obamacare himself, as he wanted to show the world his legacy and said he was proud to have his name on it, now that it has issues he is calling it Obamacare/ACA. Good or bad down the road, it will always be Obamacare just as he wanted.


----------



## Queenmum (Dec 3, 2011)

knovice knitter said:


> I worked hard all my life (since the age of 16) until I lost my job at the age of 58. I went to school to bone up on current marketable skills etc. applied everywhere on line and knocking on doors and networking. Nothing. Who is going to hire a 58 year old woman who drove a forklift for 19 years and has no current experience in today's workplace? So I had no income for the last four years. I am healthy. I never missed a day of work in my life due to illness. And that goes for my secondary school years as well. I did not have children to insure. I've never had surgery. I have never been in the hospital over night. I worked hard, saved the max in my 401k program at work, spent wisely, never have debt. I never smoked, drank or did drugs. My property taxes are high and much of it goes to schools. Schools I've never had children attend. But I don't mind. I feel that educated youth is a foundation for a hopeful future. I marched at our state capital for teachers' bargaining rights in the freezing cold because I thought it was important. And now you say, self-righteously, that the ACA is for the people who made poor life and/or health choices. Well, frankly, I find that offensive. I did everything right and I still need the ACA.


 :thumbup: :thumbup: :thumbup:


----------



## NJG (Dec 2, 2011)

karverr wrote:
Every hospital in the country receives a suppliment from the government, and they are required to treat anyone that comes in for care no matter of their ability to pay.

The Emergency Medical Treatment and Active Labor Act (EMTALA)[1] is a U.S. Act of Congress passed in 1986 as part of the Consolidated Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act (COBRA). It requires hospitals to provide care to anyone needing emergency healthcare treatment regardless of citizenship, legal status or ability to pay. THERE ARE NO REIMBURSEMENT PROVISIONS.

Uncompensated care represents 6% of total hospital costs.[8] The uncompensated or non-reimbursed amounts are written off as bad debt thus becoming a tax write off and the unpaid bills are also sold to third party collection agencies for an average of 20 cents per dollar[


----------



## Jokim (Nov 22, 2011)

BrattyPatty said:


> It is just insurance, LL. More people have died and some suffered because they could not afford HC insurance. Now there is a nation wide plan that makesHC insurance coverage for those who could not obtain it in the past.
> I think it is helping much more than it is hurting.


It is not insurance. As determined by the Supreme Court, it is a tax!


----------



## knovice knitter (Mar 6, 2012)

I live here and NJG is completely correct. I believe we ranked 48th or 49th in new job creation in the US in the last quarter.


theyarnlady said:


> Wrong unless you live in this state I think it would be best for you to check before you sell us down the road.
> 
> As I live here and understand a lot more than you do. You may want to look at both sides. Not just from the left.


----------



## Country Bumpkins (Feb 18, 2011)

Everyone needs to listen to this.http://www.dailypaul.com/303150/i-called-obamacare-here-s-the-recording Oh my!


----------



## NJG (Dec 2, 2011)

marilyn1977 said:


> I posted a long list of things about the bill on Obamacare and I am totally sorry. It seems that I made a very aggregious error in that I did not check it out on FastCheck.org or other sights. Please forgive me the error in my way. I was just so upset about what I read and wanted everyone to know it also. I will never copy and paste anything again that I don't know personally that it is true. Please forgive my error in judgement of believing what I thought was a truly honest report.


Thank you so much for that apology and it is very much accepted. It is very refreshing to hear an apology instead of just repeating the lie as truth.


----------



## sumpleby (Aug 3, 2013)

knovice knitter said:


> Obama did not call it Obamacare. The right started that. He did not like it at first, but since it wasn't going away, he conceded to it's use and has learned to like it a bit himself. Sorry, I can't say where I saw this televised interview, but it came out of his mouth. He prefers ACA because his haters don't like the program with his name on it.


I pointed this out to someone earlier in this thread. The reply I got was she didn't care about that--people were calling it by his name and that was enough for her to hate it.


----------



## Jokim (Nov 22, 2011)

Lukelucy said:


> From today's Wall Street Journal:
> 
> Oct. 22, 2013 7:07 p.m. ET
> 
> ...


Again, thank you for the supportive arguments and statements of the true picture of ACA. More dependents on gov't = more control of the people. From the womb to the tomb, they now control both ends, and the entire spectrum. Will anyone have the courage to believe?


----------



## Janet Cooke (Aug 14, 2013)

That is really a HOOT! Could you tell us where it came from?

Lukelucy wrote:
Quoted from today's Wall Street Journal:

Three years after the disastrous launch of the Affordable Care Act, most of the website troubles finally have been ironed out. People are now able to log on to the government's ACA website and to most of the state health-insurance exchanges. The public has grudgingly come to accept higher insurance premiums, new taxes and increases in part-time workers who were formerly full-time. But Americans are irate anywaybecause now they're seeing the health-care law's destructive effect on the fundamental nature of the way their care is delivered.

Even before the ACA's launch in 2013, many physiciansseeing the changes in their profession that lay aheadhad begun talking their children out of going to medical school. After the launch, compensation fell, while nothing in the ACA stopped lawsuits and malpractice premiums from rising. Doctors must now see many more patients each day to meet expenses, all while dealing with the mountains of paperwork mandated by the health-care law. 


The forecast shortage of doctors has become a real problem. It started in 2014 when the ACA cut $716 billion from Medicare to accommodate 30 million newly "insured" people through an expansion of Medicaid. More important, the predicted shortage of 42,000 primary-care physicians and that of specialists (such as heart surgeons) was vastly underestimated. It didn't take into account the ACA's effect on doctors retiring early, refusing new patients or going into concierge medicine. These estimates also ignored the millions of immigrants who would be seeking a physician after having been granted legal status.

It is surprising that the doctor shortage was not better anticipated: After all, when Massachusetts mandated health insurance in 2006, the wait to see a physician in some specialties increased considerably, the shortage of primary-care physicians escalated and more doctors stopped accepting new patients. In 2013, the Massachusetts Medical Society noted waiting times from 50 days to 128 days in some areas for new patients to see an internist, for instance.

But doctor shortages are only the beginning.

Even before the ACA cut $716 billion from its budget, Medicare only reimbursed hospitals and doctors for 70%-85% of their costs. Once this cut further reduced reimbursements, and the ACA added stacks of paperwork, more doctors refused to accept Medicare: It just didn't cover expenses. 

Then there is the ACA's Medicare (government) board that dictates and rations care, and the board has begun to cut reimbursements. Some physicians now refuse even to take patients over 50 years old, not wanting to be burdened with them when they reach Medicare age. Seniors aren't happy. 

Medicaid in 2016 has similar problems. A third of physicians refused to accept new Medicaid patients in 2013, and with Medicaid's expansion and government cuts, the numbers of doctors who don't take Medicaid skyrocketed. The uninsured poor now have insurance, but they can't find a doctor, so essentially the ACA was of no help.

The loss of private practice is another big problem. Because of regulations and other government disincentives to self employment, doctors began working for hospitals in the early 2000s, leaving less than half in private practice by 2013. The ACA rapidly accelerated this trend, so that now very few private practices remain.

When doctors are employed like factory workers by hospitals, data from the Medical Group Management Association and others indicate, their productivity fallssometimes by more than 25%. They see fewer patients and perform fewer timely procedures, exacerbating the troubles caused by physician shortages. Continuity of care also declines, since now a physician's responsibilities end when his shift is over.

Of those doctors still in private practice, many have taken refuge from the health-care law by going into concierge medicine, where the patient pays an annual fee (typically $500-$3,000 a year per individual) to a primary-care physician. This doctor provides enhanced care, grants quicker appointments and spends more time with each patient, working with a base of 300-600 patients instead of the 3,000-5,000 typical in the ACA era. Doctors and patients who can afford it love concierge medicine: It allows treatment to be administered as the doctor sees fit, instead of as if the patient is on an assembly line with care directed on orders from Washington.

Patients who can't afford concierge medicine but have seen their doctor take that route are out of luck: They have been added to the swelling rolls of patients taken care of by the shrinking pool of physicians. So even people with "private" insurance have found that the quality of their health care declined. Nowadays, many are forced instead to see a nurse or other health-care provider. The traditional doctor-patient relationship is now reserved primarily for those who can pay extra.

Concierge-type care was easily expanded to specialists. The top surgeons now simply opt out of Medicare or become "out of network" providers, allowing them to bill patients directly. Many have joined the plastic surgeons and ophthalmologists who work on a straight fee-for-service basis.

Equally important: With the best and most successful doctors disappearing into concierge medicine or refusing new Medicare and Medicaid patients, replacing these experienced physicians with bright young doctors to work with the "general public" has become difficult. Why? Because such doctors are hard to findgoing into medicine doesn't have the professional allure it once did. 

With an average of $300,000 in student loans, eight years of college and medical school, and three to seven years as underpaid, overworked residents, a prospective physician in the ACA era would be starting a career at age 30 in a job that requires working 70-80 hours a week in an assembly-line fashion to earn perhaps $100,000 a year. No wonder so many qualified individuals these days are choosing careers on Wall Street or in Silicon Valley instead of medicine.

It is also no wonder that three years ago members of Congress got themselves exempted from the Affordable Care Act. They may have passed the law, but they're not stupid.

Dr. Allen, a pediatric heart surgeon, is a former professor and surgical director of the Children's Heart Institute in Houston. 


Thanks, Lukelucy. You have done it again, brought reasoned arguments against the efficacy of ACA. It is a shame that the blind will not be made to see the 'light'.


----------



## medusa (Nov 20, 2012)

sumpleby said:


> I pointed this out to someone earlier in this thread. The reply I got was she didn't care about that--people were calling it by his name and that was enough for her to hate it.


That's typical! Also, I love your avatar!!!


----------



## Knitry (Dec 18, 2011)

Knitry wrote:
What exactly is so bad about socialism? Can you even define socialism?



Lukelucy said:


> Yes I can. But, why don't you look it up. We are heading there. Wake up. What is bad about socialism? Wow. Start reading about socialistic countries and how happy or unhappy the people there were. It is a terrible system. I find your statement is very uninformed. History will tell you how Socialism has not worked. It is a very sad state and very depression for a society that lives with socialism. Your statement only tells me that it is true history does repeat itself because lessons learned are forgotten. For you to state how bad is socialism tells me we are in such huge, monumental trouble in this country to even say what you said.


Oh, you poor thing. I had two questions, and NO statement which means you're putting words in my mouth and criticizing me for what's not even there.

Tsk, tsk.


----------



## knovice knitter (Mar 6, 2012)

Wow, that's interesting. I agree it's a gimme nation but more like "gimme another tax loophole so I can have more, more, more and the hell with everyone else" You addressed me, yet did not use quote reply or even try to paraphrase what I said that would prove me a blind fool. Plus, I had no idea Obama was so powerful that he can destroy an entire nation and break the back of the family unit. Did you mean this comment for someone else? I don't know why this is addressed to me. I am truly puzzled.


Bloomers said:


> Knovice Knitter, I am afraid you are just as blind as many others and just as mistaken. Time will answer all these questions and more. Unfortunately many people are in for some very distressing news. Obama and his agenda has, effectually, destroyed the United States. He has broken the back of the family unit, and, the economy and is working hard to destroy all that is good and decent in this country. The family unit was the foundation of this country and as ethical, immoral and illegal behavior has been forced on so many we have slowly become a fragmented and negative and empty people. This has come directly from the White House from people who should set the example. We used to be the country that the world looked up to and respected, now we are among the countries sliding into social and economic oblivion. Living in the US will become more and more difficult in the coming years due to the lack of moral, ethical family based leadership in our government. We have become a parasite nation, "gimme' gimme' gimme, only I matter".


----------



## Janet Cooke (Aug 14, 2013)

knovice knitter said:


> Wow, that's interesting. I agree it's a gimme nation but more like "gimme another tax loophole so I can have more, more, more and the hell with everyone else" You addressed me, yet did not use quote reply or even try to paraphrase what I said that would prove me a blind fool. Plus, I had no idea Obama was so powerful that he can destroy an entire nation and break the back of the family unit. Did you mean this comment for someone else? I don't know why this is addressed to me. I am truly puzzled.


 :thumbup: :thumbup:


----------



## Knitry (Dec 18, 2011)

annacovasa said:


> Somebody mentioned that Social Security and Medicare programs were invented long time ago, and people back then did not complain that it is "socialism".
> Wake up people, *Social Security and Medicare ARE PAYED BY YOU! You American workers are paying in, all your lives! Each and every paycheck ! It is YOUR RIGHT to get SS, and it is YOUR RIGHT to get Medicare. YOU! YOU! Not the people who did not pay in it! Getting back YOUR OWN MONEY is NOT socialism, socialism is the concept of" What is yours is mine too, so I take it!"*


I truly love this post, I really do. I've reread it several times, savoring it. It's just so CUTE. So muddleheadedly CUTE. And revealing: the lengths the rightwing will go to to try to justify what THEY want, while still trying to keep their ideology straight. Just precious.

Anyway, I hate to burst your bubble, but you paid into both Social Security and Medicare ONLY to the extent that you are a taxpayer and worker. Are you currently receiving Medicare??? if not you aren't and haven't paid into it.

Let me be a little more clear. ALL the social security payments you ever made to "pay into" the system went directly to whoever was receiving social security back then (or currently). They didn't go into some savings account with your name on it. When it's your turn to receive benefits, you'll be getting social security payments courtesy of the younger people still in the workforce. The social security payments you made are unlikely to have ever been enough to fund you own social security -- unless you die early, of course.

Ad yes, Social Security was called socialism when it was introduced.

As for Medicare, you pay a premium -- and those are the only direct pay-ins you make -- but the rest is paid by taxpayers. Else how could Medicare spending be a share of GDP?



> *Total Medicare spending as a share of GDP*
> This measure, which examines Medicare spending in the context of the U.S. economy as a whole, is expected to increase from 3.6 percent in 2010 to 5.6 percent in 2035 and to 6.2 percent by 2080. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Medicare_%28United_States%29#Costs_and_funding_challenges


Both programs are definitely socialistic, people banding together, pooling resources for the good of ALL, not just the privileged, selfish few.


----------



## Knitry (Dec 18, 2011)

Bloomers said:


> Sorry, Mardihar, would have to disagree. Since the government will be deciding who gets care and who doesn't and the doctors/medical staff will be paid by the government there will be no incentive to be more productive, informed or educated since the money will remain the same. That is why the quality of care will also go down. The government will be determining what will be paid and to whom. Socialism at it's best.


----------



## knovice knitter (Mar 6, 2012)

Purl, help. I can't go back 80 some pages to see what I said that would qualify me as Drama Queen. Do you mean that comment for me or for Bloomers here, who is on my case for some reason. Seriously, I don't know what either of you are talking about.


Poor Purl said:


> If you ever want to change your name from Knovice Knitter, how about Drama Queen?


----------



## Janet Cooke (Aug 14, 2013)

So, of course, since life gets in the way of hobbies, I missed the edit time limit.

So LukeLucy, you don't have to respond to my question about where that WSJ piece came from. I found it on the OPED page. I found it by doing a search for Spoof in WSJ.

It looks like this if one is not trying to pretend it is a NEWS article.

http://online.wsj.com/news/articles/SB10001424052702303448104579149642030106938

Opinion

ObamaCare 2016: Happy Yet?

The website problems were finally solved. But the doctor shortage is a nightmare.
By
Bradley Allen

Oct. 22, 2013 7:04 p.m. ET

Three years after the disastrous launch of the Affordable Care Act, most of the website troubles finally have been ironed out. People are now able to log on to the government's ACA website and to most of the state health-insurance exchanges. The public has grudgingly come to accept higher insurance premiums, new taxes and increases in part-time workers who were formerly full-time. But Americans are irate anywaybecause now they're seeing the health-care law's destructive effect on the fundamental nature of the way their care is delivered.

Even before the ACA's launch in 2013, many physiciansseeing the changes in their profession that lay aheadhad begun talking their children out of going to medical school. After the launch, compensation fell, while nothing in the ACA stopped lawsuits and malpractice premiums from rising. Doctors must now see many more patients each day to meet expenses, all while dealing with the mountains of paperwork mandated by the health-care law.

The forecast shortage of doctors has become a real problem. It started in 2014 when the ACA cut $716 billion from Medicare to accommodate 30 million newly "insured" people through an expansion of Medicaid. More important, the predicted shortage of 42,000 primary-care physicians and that of specialists (such as heart surgeons) was vastly underestimated. It didn't take into account the ACA's effect on doctors retiring early, refusing new patients or going into concierge medicine. These estimates also ignored the millions of immigrants who would be seeking a physician after having been granted legal status.

It is surprising that the doctor shortage was not better anticipated: After all, when Massachusetts mandated health insurance in 2006, the wait to see a physician in some specialties increased considerably, the shortage of primary-care physicians escalated and more doctors stopped accepting new patients. In 2013, the Massachusetts Medical Society noted waiting times from 50 days to 128 days in some areas for new patients to see an internist, for instance.

But doctor shortages are only the beginning.

Even before the ACA cut $716 billion from its budget, Medicare only reimbursed hospitals and doctors for 70%-85% of their costs. Once this cut further reduced reimbursements, and the ACA added stacks of paperwork, more doctors refused to accept Medicare: It just didn't cover expenses.

Then there is the ACA's Medicare (government) board that dictates and rations care, and the board has begun to cut reimbursements. Some physicians now refuse even to take patients over 50 years old, not wanting to be burdened with them when they reach Medicare age. Seniors aren't happy.

Medicaid in 2016 has similar problems. A third of physicians refused to accept new Medicaid patients in 2013, and with Medicaid's expansion and government cuts, the numbers of doctors who don't take Medicaid skyrocketed. The uninsured poor now have insurance, but they can't find a doctor, so essentially the ACA was of no help.

The loss of private practice is another big problem. Because of regulations and other government disincentives to self employment, doctors began working for hospitals in the early 2000s, leaving less than half in private practice by 2013. The ACA rapidly accelerated this trend, so that now very few private practices remain.

When doctors are employed like factory workers by hospitals, data from the Medical Group Management Association and others indicate, their productivity fallssometimes by more than 25%. They see fewer patients and perform fewer timely procedures, exacerbating the troubles caused by physician shortages. Continuity of care also declines, since now a physician's responsibilities end when his shift is over.

Of those doctors still in private practice, many have taken refuge from the health-care law by going into concierge medicine, where the patient pays an annual fee (typically $500-$3,000 a year per individual) to a primary-care physician. This doctor provides enhanced care, grants quicker appointments and spends more time with each patient, working with a base of 300-600 patients instead of the 3,000-5,000 typical in the ACA era. Doctors and patients who can afford it love concierge medicine: It allows treatment to be administered as the doctor sees fit, instead of as if the patient is on an assembly line with care directed on orders from Washington.

Patients who can't afford concierge medicine but have seen their doctor take that route are out of luck: They have been added to the swelling rolls of patients taken care of by the shrinking pool of physicians. So even people with "private" insurance have found that the quality of their health care declined. Nowadays, many are forced instead to see a nurse or other health-care provider. The traditional doctor-patient relationship is now reserved primarily for those who can pay extra.

Concierge-type care was easily expanded to specialists. The top surgeons now simply opt out of Medicare or become "out of network" providers, allowing them to bill patients directly. Many have joined the plastic surgeons and ophthalmologists who work on a straight fee-for-service basis.

Equally important: With the best and most successful doctors disappearing into concierge medicine or refusing new Medicare and Medicaid patients, replacing these experienced physicians with bright young doctors to work with the "general public" has become difficult. Why? Because such doctors are hard to findgoing into medicine doesn't have the professional allure it once did.

With an average of $300,000 in student loans, eight years of college and medical school, and three to seven years as underpaid, overworked residents, a prospective physician in the ACA era would be starting a career at age 30 in a job that requires working 70-80 hours a week in an assembly-line fashion to earn perhaps $100,000 a year. No wonder so many qualified individuals these days are choosing careers on Wall Street or in Silicon Valley instead of medicine.

It is also no wonder that three years ago members of Congress got themselves exempted from the Affordable Care Act. They may have passed the law, but they're not stupid.

Dr. Allen, a pediatric heart surgeon, is a former professor and surgical director of the Children's Heart Institute in Houston.


----------



## susanmos2000 (May 10, 2011)

knovice knitter said:


> Wow, that's interesting. I agree it's a gimme nation but more like "gimme another tax loophole so I can have more, more, more and the hell with everyone else" You addressed me, yet did not use quote reply or even try to paraphrase what I said that would prove me a blind fool. Plus, I had no idea Obama was so powerful that he can destroy an entire nation and break the back of the family unit.


I too find it interesting that the conservatives accuse us of being Obama's lackeys, yet they themselves have elevated him to the status of a GOD--an evil being capable of bringing the nation down with a single swipe of his Executive pen.


----------



## susanmos2000 (May 10, 2011)

Knitry said:


> Both programs are definitely socialistic, people banding together, pooling resources for the good of ALL, not just the privileged, selfish few.


Excellent info, Knitry. Thanks so much!


----------



## Janet Cooke (Aug 14, 2013)

knovice knitter said:


> Purl, help. I can't go back 80 some pages to see what I said that would qualify me as Drama Queen. Do you mean that comment for me or for Bloomers here, who is on my case for some reason. Seriously, I don't know what either of you are talking about.


I can't speak for Poor Purl, I did have the impression that she mistook Bloomer's post as being from you. 
We were WAY too prolific, trying to find a couple of older things about made me lose my mind (more).


----------



## Janet Cooke (Aug 14, 2013)

Knitry said:


> Both programs are definitely socialistic, people banding together, pooling resources for the good of ALL, not just the privileged, selfish few.


Yes, those who have providing for those who cannot provide for themselves. 
I tried telling that to someone earlier... you can guess what I got back.


----------



## knovice knitter (Mar 6, 2012)

Thank you for your support. The best to you as well.


damemary said:


> I know many with similar stories. There, but for the grace of God, go I. That's the difference between them and us. May you receive all you deserve.


----------



## knovice knitter (Mar 6, 2012)

Well, there you are. This is what we are dealing with. I did see your post, but as I had read all this in spurts, when I saw her post, I had to correct that. Then I saw that you had. Do you think two people can change her mind? Nah.


sumpleby said:


> I pointed this out to someone earlier in this thread. The reply I got was she didn't care about that--people were calling it by his name and that was enough for her to hate it.


----------



## Chris Harris (Oct 17, 2013)

As I've said before...It will all come out in the wash!!! It's going take a lot of washing to get rid of the stink.


----------



## Janet Cooke (Aug 14, 2013)

Chris Harris said:


> As I've said before...It will all come out in the wash!!! It's going take a lot of washing to get rid of the stink.


Yup, those lies and manipulations and fake news articles surely do stink.


----------



## Knitry (Dec 18, 2011)

damemary said:


> My primary concern is myself and the American people. Insurance companies....the original mutual concept was more to my liking.....the rest of them ? Not so much. I understand investments quite well. It is a separate issue.
> 
> *In my opinion, education and health care should never be for profit. In order to be a civilized nation, I think we must educate everyone to the best of their abilities and inclination. And we have a duty to provide good general heath care to all.*


I couldn't agree more.


----------



## Poor Purl (Apr 14, 2011)

karverr said:


> my dear, we did not replace it ,we consider the old testament to be the history of the Israelite's and the prophesies of the Bible. the new testament is the fulfillment of those prophesies. The prophesies tell of the coming of the Messiah which is the new testament story.


As others have pointed out, this is not the place for it.

And I don't like being called "my dear." It's a very patronizing phrase.


----------



## Knitry (Dec 18, 2011)

damemary said:


> I wonder if healthcare.gov had too many repub programmers.


I've actually begun to wonder if there hasn't been some sabotage going on.


----------



## Knitry (Dec 18, 2011)

Apbarr said:


> This is my issue for the people who can't afford insurance now. Even if there is a subsidy and it lowers the cost it still isn't free and the plan that would be offered will have a high deductible that won't help. Why would you want to spend any bit of extra money for something that isn't a good value? This just could have been handled a better way. Maybe had enhancements to Medicare?


Just a FYI:

You're believing the utterly hysterical fearmongering on this thread instead of going and doing your own research. YOU HAVE NO IDEA whether any of that will be true for you or not.

As for "enhancements to Medicare," that's exactly what Obama initially wanted to do, Medicare for ALL. No way in hell the Republicans were going to let that idea germinate.


----------



## Knitry (Dec 18, 2011)

susanmos2000 wrote:
Clicked on the link you posted and saw this:
"Citizens' Council for Health Freedom
cordially invites you to our 2013 Annual Dinner to support Health Freedom
with Congresswoman Michele Bachmann"
Umm, no--think I'll pass.



Suzeluvs2stix said:


> Why don't your read the whole newsletter and previous writings before you let your intolerance rule over your brain. Skip over the Bachmann part and read the other info to learn what is really going on.


She decided to save her time and energy because Michelle Bachman is -- about the least credible person on earth (maybe in a tie with Sarah Palin). No NEED to go further than that.


----------



## Janet Cooke (Aug 14, 2013)

Knitry said:


> I've actually begun to wonder if there hasn't been some sabotage going on.


Somebody somewhere said it was a Canadian company that developed it. Last night, I listened to a man say that they didn't allow enough time, that there should have been beta testing, and then, of course, there were all the cheap azz states that couldn't take responsibility for their own citizens having exchanges. That delayed things.

The man didn't say that about the cheap azz states, I did.


----------



## Knitry (Dec 18, 2011)

Knitry wrote:
Well, maybe because those examples were spurious, unfounded, suspect, poorly explained, unvalidated, or otherwise simply not credible??



Obsessed said:


> Why would you accuse people of these things when we are just reporting was has happened to us? I don't understand your lack of trust in what we are saying. The insurance companies are not going to continue some of our plans and have told us to make other arrangements. Why would we lie?


Exactly: why WOULD you lie? Except again and again we've seen nothing but lies spread about the ACA. Why WOULD you (you plural)? I don't have any idea, but ya'll persist in doing it.

And as for the first post in the thread of "just reporting what happened to us," it's no the least bit credible either.


----------



## bwtyer (Oct 31, 2012)

Knitry said:


> I've actually begun to wonder if there hasn't been some sabotage going on.


can't agree on that- I think the programmers were working very long hours, were stressed out to meet a deadline, and not thinking clearly. They should have had the programmers from the different states that had healthcare systems in place called in to help or supervise. The ones calling the shots probably had no real knowledge of the system.


----------



## Poor Purl (Apr 14, 2011)

knitpresentgifts said:


> I'm a Christian and do not regard it as "old" so please don't tell us what you don't know nor understand about those of which you are not. I have not ever replaced the "old" with the "new" testament as you suggest nor have any of the Christians I've known throughout my lifetime.
> 
> To quote you, "I don't need you to tell me what its about."


Then you don't call it the Old Testament? And you refrain from eating pork or working on Saturdays?

I didn't mean you did the replacing; it was Paul who did the replacing. And please don't bother to respond, because I'm not interested in another argument, and this has nothing to do with Obamacare.


----------



## Knitry (Dec 18, 2011)

NJG said:


> That is what the republicans do. They continue to tell the same lies over and over in hopes that somewhere along the line it will be believed.


I read a wonderful essay today that had this line:



> The rich require control of a successful political party in order to maintain their privileged status. And they retain that control through a campaign of lies to the rank and file of that party. They've been lying to the rank and file of the GOP for decades as a means to convince working class Republicans to screw themselves in favor to the rich.


Anyone interested in reading the rest can PM me for the link to the source. I'm not going to post it here.


----------



## Knitry (Dec 18, 2011)

damemary said:


> Does this mean you look at all sides and not just from the right? Or are you doing what you accuse everyone else of?


 :thumbup: :thumbup: :thumbup: :thumbup:


----------



## Janet Cooke (Aug 14, 2013)

bwtyer said:


> can't agree on that- I think the programmers were working very long hours, were stressed out to meet a deadline, and not thinking clearly. They should have had the programmers from the different states that had healthcare systems in place called in to help or supervise. The ones calling the shots probably had no real knowledge of the system.


Apparently, the connectors to the health insurance companies are off as well.


----------



## Poor Purl (Apr 14, 2011)

sumpleby said:


> I pointed this out to someone earlier in this thread. The reply I got was she didn't care about that--people were calling it by his name and that was enough for her to hate it.


Actually, he has said he likes the name Obamacare.


----------



## Knitry (Dec 18, 2011)

NJG wrote:
That is what the republicans do. They continue to tell the same lies over and over in hopes that somewhere along the line it will be believed.



bwtyer said:


> This is a downright silly statement - I am a Republican, I do not like Cruz, I was angered by the shutdown - and I do not lie.
> Not all Republicans agree with the Tea Party ideas. Grow up!


I'm SURE she meant "Republican politicians" and as a generalization, not an absolute iron-clad rule.

Even so, her claim is demonstrably true (again, as a generalization), so I'd encourage you to examine what they (the politicians) tell you a little more thoroughly, esp. since you seem like a person with a good head on her shoulders, certainly capable of independent thought.


----------



## Poor Purl (Apr 14, 2011)

knovice knitter said:


> Purl, help. I can't go back 80 some pages to see what I said that would qualify me as Drama Queen. Do you mean that comment for me or for Bloomers here, who is on my case for some reason. Seriously, I don't know what either of you are talking about.


I'm sorry. You must have been quoted in the message I responded to. I'll go back and hunt for it and let you know. Then you'll be knovice knitter in the know (groan).


----------



## Poor Purl (Apr 14, 2011)

BrattyPatty said:


> Keep posting what you want, Purl. The beast has a knack for trying to overtake threads and control what others have to say.
> It is just it's nature.


So I have found. I'm just not interested in it.


----------



## bwtyer (Oct 31, 2012)

Knitry said:


> NJG wrote:
> That is what the republicans do. They continue to tell the same lies over and over in hopes that somewhere along the line it will be believed.
> 
> I'm SURE she meant "Republican politicians" and as a generalization, not an absolute iron-clad rule.
> ...


I do - I used to be a Democrat. :evil:


----------



## Janet Cooke (Aug 14, 2013)

knovice knitter wrote:
Purl, help. I can't go back 80 some pages to see what I said that would qualify me as Drama Queen. Do you mean that comment for me or for Bloomers here, who is on my case for some reason. Seriously, I don't know what either of you are talking about.



Poor Purl said:


> I'm sorry. You must have been quoted in the message I responded to. I'll go back and hunt for it and let you know. Then you be knovice knitter in the know (groan).


I remember thinking at the time, Poor Purl, that you were responding to the copier and not the post that you thought you were talking to. It was too darned hectic to do anything about at the time. Bloomer, I think, it fit the "don't get your bloomers in a twist that was being thrown around.


----------



## Poor Purl (Apr 14, 2011)

damemary said:


> Hmmmmm. I've seen all these tactics many times. lovethelake, joeysomma, lukelucy, janeway, etc. Never anything factual. Boring.


Bully. You're bullying all of them at once. And calling them boring is libelous.


----------



## Knitry (Dec 18, 2011)

damemary said:


> I'll tell you a 'secret.' I found a funny typo in the middle of an informative post. I kept waiting for someone to jump on it and complain. No one has. I guess that proves they don't read it. Hopefully some people gain some information and insight.


Thanks for mentioning that.

It was really a HILARIOUS, SHOCKINGLY funny typo. Kind of a Freudian slip as well. But no one -- NO ONE -- noticed.

Anti-ACAers not only want to believe the lies, they refuse to even READ anything that might challenge those lies.


----------



## Janet Cooke (Aug 14, 2013)

Knitry said:


> Thanks for mentioning that.
> 
> It was really a HILARIOUS, SHOCKINGLY funny typo. Kind of a Freudian slip as well. But no one -- NO ONE -- noticed.
> 
> Anti-ACAers not only want to believe the lies, they refuse to even READ anything that might challenge those lies.


Isn't it great? It is truly finny, oops, I mean funny.


----------



## Poor Purl (Apr 14, 2011)

jelun2 said:


> I can't speak for Poor Purl, I did have the impression that she mistook Bloomer's post as being from you.
> We were WAY too prolific, trying to find a couple of older things about made me lose my mind (more).


That's exactly what happened. It was Bloomer, on p. 79. She has a really cute llama as her avatar. Or maybe an alpaca, but it's cute anyway


----------



## Knitry (Dec 18, 2011)

cbethea said:


> She got a donation from me - even if I don't live in Texas. It's a good thing to support women candidates like her and Elizabeth Warren.


 :thumbup: :thumbup: :thumbup: :thumbup:


----------



## Poor Purl (Apr 14, 2011)

knovice knitter said:


> Purl, help. I can't go back 80 some pages to see what I said that would qualify me as Drama Queen. Do you mean that comment for me or for Bloomers here, who is on my case for some reason. Seriously, I don't know what either of you are talking about.


You were absolutely right. It was from Bloomer, on p.79.

Interestingly, both of you have llamas (or alpacas? I'm a city girl; how would I know) in your avatars. Plus she began that queenly message with your name, and I was going too fast to notice.

I do apologize. I shouldn't have posted it without previewing.


----------



## Knitry (Dec 18, 2011)

jelun2 said:


> Oh wait, I know! How about those non-socialist, non-government folks who planned Social Security and Medicare?


 :thumbup: :thumbup: :thumbup:

ROFL.You have quite a wit.


----------



## Knitry (Dec 18, 2011)

ElyseKnox said:


> Your comment would seem to indicate that no liars exist on the liberal side of the aisle. Surely you are a better student of human nature than to believe that.


Not all that much, actually. There have been some, but not that much whereas Republicans apparently can't tell the truth from a lie, and don't much care.


----------



## Knitry (Dec 18, 2011)

KopyKat said:


> Amen to this, we are headed down a VERY VERY slippery path and I for one am sick and tired of a government that forces people in a "free" nation to "obey or be penalized"!


Well, if you really don't want "obey or be penalized," perhaps you'd be happier in a place like Somalia where there IS no government to speak of. Because you can't have any laws without "penalties" for disobeying those laws.


----------



## Knitry (Dec 18, 2011)

jelun2 said:


> snip
> Though, the very people who complain the loudest about my posts give just as well as they get while grovelling to be let off the hook.
> snip


I've noticed that myself.

:XD:


----------



## Poor Purl (Apr 14, 2011)

jelun2 said:


> knovice knitter wrote:
> Purl, help. I can't go back 80 some pages to see what I said that would qualify me as Drama Queen. Do you mean that comment for me or for Bloomers here, who is on my case for some reason. Seriously, I don't know what either of you are talking about.
> 
> I remember thinking at the time, Poor Purl, that you were responding to the copier and not the post that you thought you were talking to. It was too darned hectic to do anything about at the time. Bloomer, I think, it fit the "don't get your bloomers in a twist that was being thrown around.


Or that cartoon with bloomers that Janeway sent us.


----------



## Poor Purl (Apr 14, 2011)

Knitry said:


> Well, if you really don't want "obey or be penalized," perhaps you'd be happier in a place like Somalia where there IS no government to speak of. Because you can't have any laws without "penalties" for disobeying those laws.


 :thumbup: :thumbup: :thumbup: :thumbup:


----------



## knovice knitter (Mar 6, 2012)

Totally accepted and understandable. I still don't know what she was trying to say to me, but I thought perhaps you were really trying to reprimand her. It was quite dramatic of her to think that Mr. Obama has the capability to destroy families and nations. Thanks for clearing this up.


Poor Purl said:


> You were absolutely right. It was from Bloomer, on p.79.
> 
> Interestingly, both of you have llamas (or alpacas? I'm a city girl; how would I know) in your avatars. Plus she began that queenly message with your name, and I was going too fast to notice.
> 
> I do apologize. I shouldn't have posted it without previewing.


----------



## knovice knitter (Mar 6, 2012)

Poor Purl said:


> You were absolutely right. It was from Bloomer, on p.79.
> 
> Interestingly, both of you have llamas (or alpacas? I'm a city girl; how would I know) in your avatars. Plus she began that queenly message with your name, and I was going too fast to notice.
> 
> I do apologize. I shouldn't have posted it without previewing.


Oh about the animals. My avatar is a llama that I used in a pack hike through the back country of Yellowstone National Park, way before the Republican Majority House closed the park. I live in the city as well. I think Bloomers avatar is alpaca.


----------



## Poor Purl (Apr 14, 2011)

knovice knitter said:


> Oh about the animals. My avatar is a llama that I used in a pack hike through the back country of Yellowstone National Park, way before the Republican Majority House closed the park. I live in the city as well. I think Bloomers avatar is alpaca.


Well, they're both cute. I thought alpacas had rounder faces and ears, but, again, what do I know?


----------



## bwtyer (Oct 31, 2012)

Knitry said:


> Not all that much, actually. There have been some, but not that much whereas Republicans apparently can't tell the truth from a lie, and don't much care.


gosh these kinds of statements burn a fire under me, I can't help it. It is obvious that you can not see past the tip of your Democratic nose. If you open your eyes wider, maybe you would see more. you have constantly dissed Republicans- there have been very very few posts dissing Democrats- people are concerned about the domino effects of the ACA mandate - not the Democrats. You know, the Republicans were the party that was for freedom, way back when the parties were formed. The Democrats were for control. I am signing off and going try to knit a while. I imagine my stitches will be very tight.....


----------



## Janet Cooke (Aug 14, 2013)

Poor Purl said:


> Or that cartoon with bloomers that Janeway sent us.


 :thumbup:


----------



## Janet Cooke (Aug 14, 2013)

bwtyer said:


> gosh these kinds of statements burn a fire under me, I can't help it. It is obvious that you can not see past the tip of your Democratic nose. If you open your eyes wider, maybe you would see more. you have constantly dissed Republicans- there have been very very few posts dissing Democrats- people are concerned about the domino effects of the ACA mandate - not the Democrats. You know, the Republicans were the party that was for freedom, way back when the parties were formed. The Democrats were for control. I am signing off and going try to knit a while. I imagine my stitches will be very tight.....


I can understand that, if I had worked on my afghan last night it would have been a mess. It just isn't worth it to get that tense. Take a deep breath. 
Does it really matter what was "when the parties were formed"? 
The only place I know of that intent can be held up as meaningful in later years is marriage and labor negotiations.
I do think, too, that there is a world of difference between slanted viewpoint and outright lies. 
As with that opinion piece by Jaclyn Smith's husband in the WSJ. Now that might have been posted in a moment of "yippee, I found support" naive exuberance OR it might have been planted with outright devious intentions. 
I know which side I fall on. Others might see it another way.


----------



## Janet Cooke (Aug 14, 2013)

Knitry said:


> :thumbup: :thumbup: :thumbup:
> 
> ROFL.You have quite a wit.


TY TY


----------



## Cheeky Blighter (Nov 20, 2011)

bwtyer said:


> gosh these kinds of statements burn a fire under me, I can't help it. It is obvious that you can not see past the tip of your Democratic nose. If you open your eyes wider, maybe you would see more. you have constantly dissed Republicans- there have been very very few posts dissing Democrats- people are concerned about the domino effects of the ACA mandate - not the Democrats. You know, the Republicans were the party that was for freedom, way back when the parties were formed. The Democrats were for control. I am signing off and going try to knit a while. I imagine my stitches will be very tight.....


I think you may be a bit anal retentive. Maybe, yoga and some deep breathing exercises or muscle relaxers might help you ease your way out of the 18th century and into the 21st where reality exists.


----------



## Knitry (Dec 18, 2011)

Bloomers said:


> It would also be nice if Obama and his cohorts would set the example by not EXEMPTING THEMSELVES from the program. To me that says a great deal about the plan itself as well as it's creator!


Oh, GAWD (GAWD = God, a Woman Deity).

You won't read it, but you are freakin' DEAD WRONG and this isn't the first time you've posted that crap.

Here's the L.A. Times with the truth, should you (or others) develop enough intellectual honesty to give a damn:

*The Obamacare exemptions that aren't* 
http://www.latimes.com/opinion/letters/la-le-1005-shutdown-obamacare-mailbag-20131005,0,3748083.story#axzz2ibPTYbi5


----------



## Knitry (Dec 18, 2011)

kiffer said:


> I have read most of the posts and am disgusted with most of them. Everyone has the right to their opinion, but to be so nasty and bully those you don't agree with it to me a disgrace. I was brought up to respect other opinions whether I agreed or not. Enough said. LL started this thread with her experience and only that and didn't deserve this.


I was brought up not to respect LIES, whether they came from someone intentionally telling them, or someone innocently relaying them, or someone holding on tight to them for all their worth. I was further brought up not to respect those who do not value the truth, do not recognize it when it bites them on the butt, do not seek it, do not respect it, preferring instead to protect their favorite prejudices and biases and prejudices by denying the truth.


----------



## Knitry (Dec 18, 2011)

joeysomma said:


> My statement was correct. Obama undid Clinton's law.


And where's YOUR factcheck.org or other validating link for that claim? Or is any old thing YOU prefer to believe "the truth" for you. You have your own personal version of reality??


----------



## BrattyPatty (May 2, 2011)

Lukelucy said:


> They have libeled me as well. Calling me a liar speaks more about them then me. Great post. Thank you.


No,LL you "libeled yourself." :XD:


----------



## Janet Cooke (Aug 14, 2013)

joeysomma wrote:
My statement was correct. Obama undid Clinton's law.

First error: Clinton's Law? Really? Why do we have that abortion of a welfare reform law? Think back, check facts...


----------



## BrattyPatty (May 2, 2011)

Jokim said:


> It is not insurance. As determined by the Supreme Court, it is a tax!


Oh really?? Show your resources for this inane post. People who do not comply may be taxed, but all in all it is affordable health insurance.


----------



## Knitry (Dec 18, 2011)

bwtyer said:


> One or two from both sides have been in on it from the beginning with good arguments, everyone respects a healthy debate , but some jumped in late and are only tearing into others without providing substantial back up facts. Kind of like a pack of pitbulls if you stand back and look at it. LL is entitled to her view, others are entitled to theirs - not sure of previous history but obviously there is some . Would be nice if they stated their credentials that made them such an expert on the subject. From reading most of LL posts- she is expressing the fears and views of many people- instead if tearing her down personally, they should be providing the facts they are arguing for.


Oh, good GAWD. Some of us have been doing nothing BUT providing facts -- they go unnoticed, unread, and basically utterly ignored. Go have a look at all my posts.

LL is doing more than expressing "the fears and views of many people," she is fanning the flames of ignorance by promoting and endorsing lies with glee and abandon. Where I come from, keeping people in ignorance, enslaved to lies, is morally wrong (evil).


----------



## Knitry (Dec 18, 2011)

ElyseKnox said:


> As hominem attacks are standard liberal tactics when one has no real answer to the issue at hand.


LOL. I think it's more like we end up so frustrated that the REAL ANSWERS we have been providing to the LIES gets so ferociously ignored we get frustrated.

But you just go on believing your little version of reality if it suits you.


----------



## Jokim (Nov 22, 2011)

BrattyPatty said:


> Oh really?? Show your resources for this inane post. People who do not comply may be taxed, but all in all it is affordable health insurance.


Look up Chief Justice Roberts' reasoning in qualifying this law as constitutional: it is a tax and gov't has the right to tax the people. A very tenuous connection with constitutionality.


----------



## Poor Purl (Apr 14, 2011)

jelun2 said:


> joeysomma wrote:
> My statement was correct. Obama undid Clinton's law.
> 
> First error: Clinton's Law? Really? Why do we have that abortion of a welfare reform law? Think back, check facts...


Dont'cha love the way she announces that she's correct. She sometimes doesn't quite understand what she reads.

And I've had it with this thread. Hitting unwatch. Good night.


----------



## Knitry (Dec 18, 2011)

EveMCooke said:


> I agree with you totally. I can see your red, embarrassed face from down under. Your tone towards people who hold an opinion that differs from yours can only be described as bullying. I make this comment as someone who is reading these postings. Your language directed at people who agree with you is moderated and kind whereas your language directed at people who disagree is the opposite. I honestly believe you may not know this.


 :thumbup:


----------



## Knitry (Dec 18, 2011)

joeysomma said:


> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Personal_Responsibility_and_Work_Opportunity_Act
> 
> It was undone by a joint memo between Obama and HHS not an executive order.
> 
> Not quite the same as when I told that to you. Remember your statement was you read the *Bible* in the original language and then you were unable to read Greek. In your statement you never qualified your Bible as only the Old Testament. So don't say you can do something and not be able to follow through.


Not at ALL what you said. From the Wikipedia listing:



> 2012
> 
> In July 2012, the Department of Health and Human Services released a memo notifying states that they are able to apply for a waiver for the work requirements of the TANF program, but only if states were also able to find credible ways to increase employment by 20%. The waiver would allow states to provide assistance without having to enforce the work component of the program, which currently states that 50 percent of a state's TANF caseload must meet work requirements. The Obama administration stated that the change was made in order to allow more flexibility in how individual states operate their welfare programs. According to Peter Edelman, the director of the Georgetown Center on Poverty, Inequality and Public Policy, the waivers would reduce restrictions that increase the difficulty for states in helping TANF applicants find jobs.
> 
> The change has been questioned by Republicans including Dave Camp, chairman of the House Ways and Means Committee and Orrin Hatch, who requested further details from HHS over concerns that the memo would remove the main focus of PRWORA. *Mitt Romney attacked the measure, saying that Obama was "gutting welfare reform". However, fact checker PolitiFact debunked the claim, stating it was "not accurate" and "inflames old resentments", giving it a "Pants on Fire" rating. CNN also reported that assertions that Obama was "taking the work requirement off the table" was false. In response to Republican criticism, Kathleen Sebelius, the Secretary of Health and Human Services said that states, including some with Republican governors, had previously asked Congress to allow waivers.*


Basically, what you claimed is completely false.

But I really do have to applaud you heartily for posting a link. I really mean it. I think it's spectacular that you bothered to go find a source and posted it.


----------



## Knitry (Dec 18, 2011)

Poor Purl said:


> Marilyn, do you realize how unusual it is for someone who has posted an anti-Obamacare message to correct herself? This makes what you say in the future so much more believable. Thank you for checking yourself and apologizing.


 :thumbup: :thumbup: :thumbup: :thumbup: :thumbup: :thumbup: :thumbup: :thumbup: :thumbup: :thumbup: :thumbup: :thumbup: :thumbup: :thumbup: :thumbup:


----------



## Knitry (Dec 18, 2011)

joeysomma said:


> The statement I made was true. Clinton signed the law for a federal requirement for work for welfare. Obama and HHS undid the federal law.
> 
> No more federal law. I never mentioned states.
> 
> This is the last I will say on this.


Not true and several people including me have pointed that out from the Wikipedia link you yourself provided.


----------



## Knitry (Dec 18, 2011)

misellen said:


> We all make mistakes. Acknowledging a mistake is a hard thing to do. You have my greatest respect.


Absolutely. Misellen has made herself, IMO, the absolute star of this thread thereby.


----------



## Knitry (Dec 18, 2011)

knovice knitter said:


> I worked hard all my life (since the age of 16) until I lost my job at the age of 58. I went to school to bone up on current marketable skills etc. applied everywhere on line and knocking on doors and networking. Nothing. Who is going to hire a 58 year old woman who drove a forklift for 19 years and has no current experience in today's workplace? So I had no income for the last four years. I am healthy. I never missed a day of work in my life due to illness. And that goes for my secondary school years as well. I did not have children to insure. I've never had surgery. I have never been in the hospital over night. I worked hard, saved the max in my 401k program at work, spent wisely, never have debt. I never smoked, drank or did drugs. My property taxes are high and much of it goes to schools. Schools I've never had children attend. But I don't mind. I feel that educated youth is a foundation for a hopeful future. I marched at our state capital for teachers' bargaining rights in the freezing cold because I thought it was important. And now you say, self-righteously, that the ACA is for the people who made poor life and/or health choices. Well, frankly, I find that offensive. I did everything right and I still need the ACA.


Thank you, thank you, thank you. There are millions of Americans who are in similar position as you -- same story, only different. I am sincerely sorry for your situation, but I'm so appreciative of your posting the details and calling out those who have no compassion whatsoever.

Unfortunately, too many Republicans believe that if you're rich it's because you deserve it, and if you're poor it's because you deserve it, as you saw from the comments you're responding to.

I support the ACA specifically because it will help people in similar situations as yours.

And thanks for marching, btw. Good luck with everything. I'm pullin' for ya.


----------



## Knitry (Dec 18, 2011)

bwtyer said:


> gosh these kinds of statements burn a fire under me, I can't help it. It is obvious that you can not see past the tip of your Democratic nose. If you open your eyes wider, maybe you would see more. you have constantly dissed Republicans- there have been very very few posts dissing Democrats- people are concerned about the domino effects of the ACA mandate - not the Democrats. You know, the Republicans were the party that was for freedom, way back when the parties were formed. The Democrats were for control. I am signing off and going try to knit a while. I imagine my stitches will be very tight.....


I'm sorry to have offended you. You DO realize, don't you, that I'm not talking about people like you, but a lot of our "elected" Republicans? There are many good decent everyday people who are Republicans, but I'm sorry, too few of them are in Congress. Too few of them are in State Legislatures or serve as Governors. There are some, but not enough.

I'll repeat something I said in the other thread, and it's one of the main reasons I'm so frustrated with today's GOP. I do NOT want to see the Republican party die. I want it to be alive well, thriving. I believe in the 2 party (or more) system, and a Republican party that is imploding, as this one is at the moment, isn't that healthy for the country. OTOH, given its current policy initiatives, which consist entirely of just obstructing everything Obama, it's healthier for the country for it to implode than continue.

Put another way, and I don't know if you can see it or not, I'm mostly on your side re the GOP (at least I think I am).


----------



## momeee (Mar 22, 2011)

Lukelucy, thank you for the informative WSJ article.


----------



## NJG (Dec 2, 2011)

bwtyer wrote:
This is a downright silly statement - I am a Republican, I do not like Cruz, I was angered by the shutdown - and I do not lie.
Not all Republicans agree with the Tea Party ideas. Grow up!

Nothing silly about it all. If you ever watch fox news it is one lie after another. Following is a link to Hannity and the people he had on talking about how terrible Obamacare was. It was all debunked, but do you suppose Hannity will comment on it or apologize? I doubt it. If as you say you do not participate, then good for you. I'm glad to hear it, but too many people do participate. If Fox says it is considered the truth and they never check anything out, just repeat.

http://www.salon.com/2013/10/18/inside_the_fox_news_lie_machine_i_fact_checked_sean_hannity_on_obamacare/


----------



## NJG (Dec 2, 2011)

joeysomma wrote:
My statement was correct. Obama undid Clinton's law.



Like I said before, republicans tell lies and then keep repeating them in hopes that someone will believe them at some point. There is more to the story than the way Joey repeats it, but she won't tell the whole story cause it won't make President Obama look bad. Joey certainly falls into that category.


----------



## NJG (Dec 2, 2011)

According to Dick Durbin, there was a leading republican from the house said to our President, "I can't even stand to look at you." No names associated with it yet, but I hope it comes out so we know who said it. Why do some republicans show such a lack of respect to the president? I just don't understand. Is that the way they raised their kids? No wonder this country has so many problems, when people like that are elected to office.


----------



## sumpleby (Aug 3, 2013)

NJG said:


> According to Dick Durbin, there was a leading republican from the house said to our President, "I can't even stand to look at you." No names associated with it yet, but I hope it comes out so we know who said it. Why do some republicans show such a lack of respect to the president? I just don't understand. Is that the way they raised their kids? No wonder this country has so many problems, when people like that are elected to office.


The White House has said that no one said that to Obama himself--though there is a congressman who said something like that to his constituents at a town hall meeting.

As for the rest, the right has generally shown Obama no respect since he first ran for president. Basically it boils down to his race, and the fact that his name isn't Joe or Matthew or some other "normal red-blooded American" name. Their dislike generally excludes respect for the office as well. If he'd been white or had a "normal" name his citizenship, his religion and his patriotism would never have been called into question.

And I was just thinking this evening that if Hilary Clinton or some other woman gets elected we'll be treated to more of the same. Her intelligence and stability will be attacked. No doubt any woman candidate's independence will be questioned as well--isn't her husband really running things in the background? And if she has kids, can she really be relied on to run the country with her kids to think about? I will lay money that we will see just that in the event that Hilary duns for president, and more of it constantly if she's elected.


----------



## damemary (Mar 14, 2012)

NJG, thank you for the research. You have added detail to the discussion. Thank you very much.

Well karverr, I think that is quite different from what you wrote.

Do you understand now that hospitals are required to treat but not reimbursed directly for this aid? A write off as bad debt and selling that debt to debt collectors prevent patient's families from having good credit, which means it is difficult to very expensive to borrow money to buy a car to get to work.

I hope these examples are helpful.



NJG said:


> karverr wrote:
> Every hospital in the country receives a suppliment from the government, and they are required to treat anyone that comes in for care no matter of their ability to pay.
> 
> The Emergency Medical Treatment and Active Labor Act (EMTALA)[1] is a U.S. Act of Congress passed in 1986 as part of the Consolidated Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act (COBRA). It requires hospitals to provide care to anyone needing emergency healthcare treatment regardless of citizenship, legal status or ability to pay. THERE ARE NO REIMBURSEMENT PROVISIONS.
> ...


----------



## damemary (Mar 14, 2012)

Does it make you feel better that people are suffering over a 'tax' as determined by the Supreme Court? Strange thinking IMHO.



Jokim said:


> It is not insurance. As determined by the Supreme Court, it is a tax!


----------



## damemary (Mar 14, 2012)

Good morning CB. I hope all is well with you, but please don't tell me what I 'need to listen to.' Have a nice day.



Country Bumpkins said:


> Everyone needs to listen to this.http://www.dailypaul.com/303150/i-called-obamacare-here-s-the-recording Oh my!


----------



## damemary (Mar 14, 2012)

Well, at least that's a truthful reply.



sumpleby said:


> I pointed this out to someone earlier in this thread. The reply I got was she didn't care about that--people were calling it by his name and that was enough for her to hate it.


----------



## damemary (Mar 14, 2012)

This is what happens around here when someone gets their bloomers twisted. Ignore and carryon.



knovice knitter said:


> Wow, that's interesting. I agree it's a gimme nation but more like "gimme another tax loophole so I can have more, more, more and the hell with everyone else" You addressed me, yet did not use quote reply or even try to paraphrase what I said that would prove me a blind fool. Plus, I had no idea Obama was so powerful that he can destroy an entire nation and break the back of the family unit. Did you mean this comment for someone else? I don't know why this is addressed to me. I am truly puzzled.


----------



## damemary (Mar 14, 2012)

Thank you Knitry. Your post is a wonderful mix of truth and humor. I loved it. Keep up the good work.



Knitry said:


> Both programs are definitely socialistic, people banding together, pooling resources for the good of ALL, not just the privileged, selfish few.


----------



## damemary (Mar 14, 2012)

Kudos and pats on the back, as you deserve? At least some of us appreciate your efforts.



jelun2 said:


> Yes, those who have providing for those who cannot provide for themselves.
> I tried telling that to someone earlier... you can guess what I got back.


----------



## damemary (Mar 14, 2012)

Two people or two thousand people will not change her mind. But the efforts will not allow lies to go unanswered.



knovice knitter said:


> Well, there you are. This is what we are dealing with. I did see your post, but as I had read all this in spurts, when I saw her post, I had to correct that. Then I saw that you had. Do you think two people can change her mind? Nah.


----------



## damemary (Mar 14, 2012)

Knitry said:


> susanmos2000 wrote:
> Clicked on the link you posted and saw this:
> "Citizens' Council for Health Freedom
> cordially invites you to our 2013 Annual Dinner to support Health Freedom
> ...


Yeah, and I thought Dan Qualye was a joke. I stand corrected.


----------



## damemary (Mar 14, 2012)

But they keep chugging along. I think I can. I think I can. Karl Rove was a sneaky sob, but at least he was clever. These jokers need handlers. On second thought, I take that back. Don't want to help the GOP.....not that they listen to anyone.



Knitry said:


> Knitry wrote:
> Well, maybe because those examples were spurious, unfounded, suspect, poorly explained, unvalidated, or otherwise simply not credible??
> 
> Exactly: why WOULD you lie? Except again and again we've seen nothing but lies spread about the ACA. Why WOULD you (you plural)? I don't have any idea, but ya'll persist in doing it.
> ...


----------



## damemary (Mar 14, 2012)

You're probably right, but some people just love conspiracy theories.



bwtyer said:


> can't agree on that- I think the programmers were working very long hours, were stressed out to meet a deadline, and not thinking clearly. They should have had the programmers from the different states that had healthcare systems in place called in to help or supervise. The ones calling the shots probably had no real knowledge of the system.


----------



## damemary (Mar 14, 2012)

Poor Purl said:


> Bully. You're bullying all of them at once. And calling them boring is libelous.


 :XD: :XD: :XD: :XD:


----------



## damemary (Mar 14, 2012)

I still can't stop giggling about the Freudian Slip. Wasn't there a cartoon somewhere that fit with an elephant scooting?



Knitry said:


> Thanks for mentioning that.
> 
> It was really a HILARIOUS, SHOCKINGLY funny typo. Kind of a Freudian slip as well. But no one -- NO ONE -- noticed.
> 
> Anti-ACAers not only want to believe the lies, they refuse to even READ anything that might challenge those lies.


----------



## damemary (Mar 14, 2012)

You and Jelun should do standup comedy.....but I'm so glad to have you around here. It gets so deadly dull. Thanks to all for the rays of sunshine.



Knitry said:


> :thumbup: :thumbup: :thumbup:
> 
> ROFL.You have quite a wit.


----------



## damemary (Mar 14, 2012)

Knitry said:


> Not all that much, actually. There have been some, but not that much whereas Republicans apparently can't tell the truth from a lie, and don't much care.


 :mrgreen: :mrgreen: :mrgreen: :mrgreen: :mrgreen: :mrgreen:


----------



## damemary (Mar 14, 2012)

Knitry said:


> Well, if you really don't want "obey or be penalized," perhaps you'd be happier in a place like Somalia where there IS no government to speak of. Because you can't have any laws without "penalties" for disobeying those laws.


 :thumbup: :thumbup: :thumbup: :thumbup: :thumbup: :thumbup: :thumbup: :thumbup: :thumbup: :thumbup:


----------



## damemary (Mar 14, 2012)

I keep begging for a pack of alpaca. (groan....but they're so cute....and YARN!)



knovice knitter said:


> Oh about the animals. My avatar is a llama that I used in a pack hike through the back country of Yellowstone National Park, way before the Republican Majority House closed the park. I live in the city as well. I think Bloomers avatar is alpaca.


----------



## damemary (Mar 14, 2012)

Depends when they've been sheered, I think.



Poor Purl said:


> Well, they're both cute. I thought alpacas had rounder faces and ears, but, again, what do I know?


----------



## damemary (Mar 14, 2012)

Very interesting thoughts.



jelun2 said:


> I can understand that, if I had worked on my afghan last night it would have been a mess. It just isn't worth it to get that tense. Take a deep breath.
> Does it really matter what was "when the parties were formed"?
> The only place I know of that intent can be held up as meaningful in later years is marriage and labor negotiations.
> I do think, too, that there is a world of difference between slanted viewpoint and outright lies.
> ...


----------



## damemary (Mar 14, 2012)

Knitry said:


> Oh, GAWD (GAWD = God, a Woman Deity).
> 
> You won't read it, but you are freakin' DEAD WRONG and this isn't the first time you've posted that crap.
> 
> ...


 :XD: :XD: :XD: :XD: :XD: :XD:


----------



## damemary (Mar 14, 2012)

Me too. I will always respect others with opposing opinions if they are based on facts. Otherwise, capes ready and onward for me!



Knitry said:


> I was brought up not to respect LIES, whether they came from someone intentionally telling them, or someone innocently relaying them, or someone holding on tight to them for all their worth. I was further brought up not to respect those who do not value the truth, do not recognize it when it bites them on the butt, do not seek it, do not respect it, preferring instead to protect their favorite prejudices and biases and prejudices by denying the truth.


----------



## damemary (Mar 14, 2012)

Reality doesn't exist for her. Perception is everything.



Knitry said:


> And where's YOUR factcheck.org or other validating link for that claim? Or is any old thing YOU prefer to believe "the truth" for you. You have your own personal version of reality??


----------



## damemary (Mar 14, 2012)

Knitry said:


> Oh, good GAWD. Some of us have been doing nothing BUT providing facts -- they go unnoticed, unread, and basically utterly ignored. Go have a look at all my posts.
> 
> LL is doing more than expressing "the fears and views of many people," she is fanning the flames of ignorance by promoting and endorsing lies with glee and abandon. Where I come from, keeping people in ignorance, enslaved to lies, is morally wrong (evil).


 :thumbup: :thumbup: :thumbup: :thumbup: :thumbup: :thumbup: :thumbup: :thumbup: :thumbup: :thumbup: :thumbup: :thumbup: :thumbup: :thumbup: :thumbup: :thumbup:


----------



## damemary (Mar 14, 2012)

Knitry said:


> LOL. I think it's more like we end up so frustrated that the REAL ANSWERS we have been providing to the LIES gets so ferociously ignored we get frustrated.
> 
> But you just go on believing your little version of reality if it suits you.


But we will answer your lies and exaggerations with truth. Not everyone believes your bs.


----------



## damemary (Mar 14, 2012)

Gee, that's always what I think of when I think of people dying because they have had a pre-existing condition or no preventative health care.

NOT.



Jokim said:


> Look up Chief Justice Roberts' reasoning in qualifying this law as constitutional: it is a tax and gov't has the right to tax the people. A very tenuous connection with constitutionality.


----------



## damemary (Mar 14, 2012)

She just assumed no one would check to see if it supported the argument. Close, but no cigar.



Knitry said:


> Basically, what you claimed is completely false.
> 
> But I really do have to applaud you heartily for posting a link. I really mean it. I think it's spectacular that you bothered to go find a source and posted it.


----------



## damemary (Mar 14, 2012)

Their training requires them to never admit they've been wrong and to never, ever apologize. If it ever happens, I'll be amazed.



Knitry said:


> Not true and several people including me have pointed that out from the Wikipedia link you yourself provided.


----------



## damemary (Mar 14, 2012)

Knitry said:


> Thank you, thank you, thank you. There are millions of Americans who are in similar position as you -- same story, only different. I am sincerely sorry for your situation, but I'm so appreciative of your posting the details and calling out those who have no compassion whatsoever.
> 
> Unfortunately, too many Republicans believe that if you're rich it's because you deserve it, and if you're poor it's because you deserve it, as you saw from the comments you're responding to.
> 
> ...


 :thumbup: :thumbup: :thumbup: :thumbup: :thumbup: :thumbup: :thumbup: :thumbup: :thumbup: :thumbup: :thumbup: :thumbup: :thumbup: :thumbup: :thumbup: :thumbup: :thumbup: :thumbup:


----------



## damemary (Mar 14, 2012)

NJG said:


> bwtyer wrote:
> This is a downright silly statement - I am a Republican, I do not like Cruz, I was angered by the shutdown - and I do not lie.
> Not all Republicans agree with the Tea Party ideas. Grow up!
> 
> ...


 :thumbup: :thumbup: :thumbup: :thumbup: :thumbup:


----------



## damemary (Mar 14, 2012)

Good bet. I think Hillary can handle it. Didn't they say she was running things when Bill was President? She is tough and she certainly knows how things work in DC and around the world. Her child is certainly able to take care of herself and her parents too. The only question is whether she wants to bother with it all at her stage of life. Either way, I will support her.



sumpleby said:


> The White House has said that no one said that to Obama himself--though there is a congressman who said something like that to his constituents at a town hall meeting.
> 
> As for the rest, the right has generally shown Obama no respect since he first ran for president. Basically it boils down to his race, and the fact that his name isn't Joe or Matthew or some other "normal red-blooded American" name. Their dislike generally excludes respect for the office as well. If he'd been white or had a "normal" name his citizenship, his religion and his patriotism would never have been called into question.
> 
> And I was just thinking this evening that if Hilary Clinton or some other woman gets elected we'll be treated to more of the same. Her intelligence and stability will be attacked. No doubt any woman candidate's independence will be questioned as well--isn't her husband really running things in the background? And if she has kids, can she really be relied on to run the country with her kids to think about? I will lay money that we will see just that in the event that Hilary duns for president, and more of it constantly if she's elected.


----------



## damemary (Mar 14, 2012)

Something new I promise to try. I will refrain from posting only emoticons to express agreement or frustration.


----------



## Janet Cooke (Aug 14, 2013)

NJG said:


> According to Dick Durbin, there was a leading republican from the house said to our President, "I can't even stand to look at you." No names associated with it yet, but I hope it comes out so we know who said it. Why do some republicans show such a lack of respect to the president? I just don't understand. Is that the way they raised their kids? No wonder this country has so many problems, when people like that are elected to office.


That information should be made public. The people who voted for that person should have that firmly in their memories when they go to vote.


----------



## Janet Cooke (Aug 14, 2013)

damemary said:


> You and Jelun should do standup comedy.....but I'm so glad to have you around here. It gets so deadly dull. Thanks to all for the rays of sunshine.


It's funny that you say that, as I was becoming particularly depressed while thinking about human rights abuses sparked by that cartoon on another thread, I thought how wonderful it is to be able to dump that here. It makes it possible to go out into the world with a smile on my face. So thank you, and you, and you, for welcoming me here.


----------



## Janet Cooke (Aug 14, 2013)

momeee said:


> Lukelucy, thank you for the informative WSJ article.


What informative article would that be? 
The OPED? 
Did you even look at what it said? 
Do you think that Dr. Allen has developed clairvoyance?
Perhaps he has a time machine and was sending a report back from 2016?


----------



## bwtyer (Oct 31, 2012)

Cheeky Blighter said:


> I think you may be a bit anal retentive. Maybe, yoga and some deep breathing exercises or muscle relaxers might help you ease your way out of the 18th century and into the 21st where reality exists.


Get real! - I am actually for ACA itself. I was in another conversation where Jelun2 pointed me to the government website which I studied for 2 days and then got on the phone for over an hour with my questions. My questions were answered. I volunteeer in a place that provides information to those who are down on their luck. This afternoon, I have 7 appointments to help people apply for ACA. 
Save your ugly words .. There is only confusion on this topic. Like I said from the beginning- there has not been enough public education on ACA- the only thing people know is the propaganda that has been spilled out. And this propaganda is very believable. If I had not previously been involved with politics, even I may not have questioned it. Your constant insults are not helping your cause. Links to education on this matter would. No I am not an Obama fan. But I was not a Romney fan either. Yes, I adore Wendy Davis,but all women should, no matter their party. When I vote, I look closely at the candidate, not the party, something that more of you should do. It would help get rid of the sorry state of affairs we are dealing with. Enjoy shooting off your insults, I am pretty sure you have chased everyone off the topic without accomplishing a darn thing other than getting people angry instead of educated.. I have had enough, myself and will unwatch it. Have a fantastic day.


----------



## Lukelucy (Nov 19, 2011)

bwtyer said:


> gosh these kinds of statements burn a fire under me, I can't help it. It is obvious that you can not see past the tip of your Democratic nose. If you open your eyes wider, maybe you would see more. you have constantly dissed Republicans- there have been very very few posts dissing Democrats- people are concerned about the domino effects of the ACA mandate - not the Democrats. You know, the Republicans were the party that was for freedom, way back when the parties were formed. The Democrats were for control. I am signing off and going try to knit a while. I imagine my stitches will be very tight.....


Thank you! Great words. :thumbup: :thumbup:


----------



## Lukelucy (Nov 19, 2011)

Knitry said:


> Oh, good GAWD. Some of us have been doing nothing BUT providing facts -- they go unnoticed, unread, and basically utterly ignored. Go have a look at all my posts.
> 
> LL is doing more than expressing "the fears and views of many people," she is fanning the flames of ignorance by promoting and endorsing lies with glee and abandon. Where I come from, keeping people in ignorance, enslaved to lies, is morally wrong (evil).


Please Read from the Wall Street Journal: Very Important Information:

Oct. 22, 2013 7:07 p.m. ET

The panic of the liberals is not unfounded.

The young and healthy will not persevere through a balky ObamaCare website to buy overpriced insurance policies. Older and sicker shoppers have the biggest incentive to try 63 times (as one journalist did) to register. President Obama is right. For these customers, ObamaCare is a very good deal: hundreds or thousands of dollars a month in health care for as little as $0 a month in premiums after direct subsidies.

Voilà, the insurance death spiral.

Three lessons jump to mind. ObamaCare's disastrous launch is not just a programmer's bad hair day but deeply implicated in the central con of ObamaCare.

Secondly, ObamaCare did not need to be founded on misdirection and hidden taxes on the young. It would actually have been a better program and cheaper for the country if it hadn't been.

Finally liberals hate to be told their hardball policy aim is to make more Americans dependent on government. But in a year or two thousands or millions of older, sicker ObamaCare customers may find their premiums soaring when the young and healthy didn't show up to subsidize their care. Then what?

Bad hair day: One reason for the snafu-laden rollout is that the administration apparently delayed in setting key rules and specs so no discussion drafts would be floating around before the 2012 election. Why? Because the media would then inevitably dig into the question of who wins and loses under ObamaCare's thicket of explicit and implicit subsidies.

President Obama talks up his health-care law in the Rose Garden, Oct. 21. jason reed/Reuters

A second reason for the pestilential rollout is complexity created by the requirement that users enter and confirm their personal information before they begin shopping. Some speculate the administration's goal was simply to ensure those customers who are entitled to big discounts aren't scared off by seeing only unsubsidized prices. But success depends on signing up enough unsubsidized customers. A likelier motive was to make the healthy and affluent, once they enrolled, fearful of unwanted IRS attention if they didn't follow through on their mandated duty to buy overpriced insurance to keep the scheme afloat.

With enough time and unlimited resources, the government can invent the atom bomb or deliver men to the moon with 1960s technology. Fixing the exchange websites, though, won't fix the fact that ObamaCare depends on noneconomic enthusiasm to drive enlistment of people for whom ObamaCare is an objectively bad dealthe "marks" in grifter terminology.

The mandate is too weak. The penalties are too light to give ObamaCare's juiciest marks a rational incentive to buy. Yet with enough tweets from celebrities; with enough cloying talk urging 20- and 30-somethings to "have Obama's back;" with enough blather about "young invincibles," as if a young person's reluctance to overpay for health insurance is somehow a blind spot, the hope is that enough young, healthy, low-risk applicants could be gulled into paying through the nose in order to subsidize the high-risk.

This is what's actuarially known as wishful thinking.

ObamaCare did not need to be a con job. Insurers could have been allowed to offer the young and low-risk the sensible, affordable policies that insurers already sell them in voluntary transactions. The older and sicker customers whom ObamaCare wishes to subsidize could have been subsidized directly with tax dollars.

Yes, the visible budgetary cost would have been higher, but only because the program would have to be funded with honest, visible taxes rather than a surreptitious tax on young people. And the actual cost would have been lower for two reasons. A lot more low-risk people would have signed up. Secondly, under ObamaCare as now designed, any low-risk customer who signs up has an incentive to overconsume health care to recoup his mandated investment in overpriced health insurance.

We come now to the last redoubt of the defendersthe claim that, yes, the young and low-risk are being asked to pay up now, but they will benefit from the generational cross subsidy as they get older.

This is a lie. Politicians are in no position to deliver generational equity. Think about Social Security and Medicare. In response to the incentives that actually guide their behavior, politicians have repeatedly jacked up the taxes paid by today's working Americans to supply benefits to those already retired, on terms that absolutely guarantee that similarly generous benefits won't be available to today's workers when they retire.

Democrats like Harry Reid, who favors a single payer system, and Republicans like Ted Cruz, who favors something or other, have one important thing in common. Both have figured out that ObamaCare can't fix our health-care system and that new fights over "reform" lie in our not-distant future. 
General Chit-Chat (non-knitting talk) -> Obamacare (go to message) Oct 23, 13 14:06:16 
Quoted from today's Wall Street Journal:

Three years after the disastrous launch of the Affordable Care Act, most of the website troubles finally have been ironed out. People are now able to log on to the government's ACA website and to most of the state health-insurance exchanges. The public has grudgingly come to accept higher insurance premiums, new taxes and increases in part-time workers who were formerly full-time. But Americans are irate anywaybecause now they're seeing the health-care law's destructive effect on the fundamental nature of the way their care is delivered.

Even before the ACA's launch in 2013, many physiciansseeing the changes in their profession that lay aheadhad begun talking their children out of going to medical school. After the launch, compensation fell, while nothing in the ACA stopped lawsuits and malpractice premiums from rising. Doctors must now see many more patients each day to meet expenses, all while dealing with the mountains of paperwork mandated by the health-care law.

The forecast shortage of doctors has become a real problem. It started in 2014 when the ACA cut $716 billion from Medicare to accommodate 30 million newly "insured" people through an expansion of Medicaid. More important, the predicted shortage of 42,000 primary-care physicians and that of specialists (such as heart surgeons) was vastly underestimated. It didn't take into account the ACA's effect on doctors retiring early, refusing new patients or going into concierge medicine. These estimates also ignored the millions of immigrants who would be seeking a physician after having been granted legal status.

It is surprising that the doctor shortage was not better anticipated: After all, when Massachusetts mandated health insurance in 2006, the wait to see a physician in some specialties increased considerably, the shortage of primary-care physicians escalated and more doctors stopped accepting new patients. In 2013, the Massachusetts Medical Society noted waiting times from 50 days to 128 days in some areas for new patients to see an internist, for instance.

But doctor shortages are only the beginning.

Even before the ACA cut $716 billion from its budget, Medicare only reimbursed hospitals and doctors for 70%-85% of their costs. Once this cut further reduced reimbursements, and the ACA added stacks of paperwork, more doctors refused to accept Medicare: It just didn't cover expenses.

Then there is the ACA's Medicare (government) board that dictates and rations care, and the board has begun to cut reimbursements. Some physicians now refuse even to take patients over 50 years old, not wanting to be burdened with them when they reach Medicare age. Seniors aren't happy.

Medicaid in 2016 has similar problems. A third of physicians refused to accept new Medicaid patients in 2013, and with Medicaid's expansion and government cuts, the numbers of doctors who don't take Medicaid skyrocketed. The uninsured poor now have insurance, but they can't find a doctor, so essentially the ACA was of no help.

The loss of private practice is another big problem. Because of regulations and other government disincentives to self employment, doctors began working for hospitals in the early 2000s, leaving less than half in private practice by 2013. The ACA rapidly accelerated this trend, so that now very few private practices remain.

When doctors are employed like factory workers by hospitals, data from the Medical Group Management Association and others indicate, their productivity fallssometimes by more than 25%. They see fewer patients and perform fewer timely procedures, exacerbating the troubles caused by physician shortages. Continuity of care also declines, since now a physician's responsibilities end when his shift is over.

Of those doctors still in private practice, many have taken refuge from the health-care law by going into concierge medicine, where the patient pays an annual fee (typically $500-$3,000 a year per individual) to a primary-care physician. This doctor provides enhanced care, grants quicker appointments and spends more time with each patient, working with a base of 300-600 patients instead of the 3,000-5,000 typical in the ACA era. Doctors and patients who can afford it love concierge medicine: It allows treatment to be administered as the doctor sees fit, instead of as if the patient is on an assembly line with care directed on orders from Washington.

Patients who can't afford concierge medicine but have seen their doctor take that route are out of luck: They have been added to the swelling rolls of patients taken care of by the shrinking pool of physicians. So even people with "private" insurance have found that the quality of their health care declined. Nowadays, many are forced instead to see a nurse or other health-care provider. The traditional doctor-patient relationship is now reserved primarily for those who can pay extra.

Concierge-type care was easily expanded to specialists. The top surgeons now simply opt out of Medicare or become "out of network" providers, allowing them to bill patients directly. Many have joined the plastic surgeons and ophthalmologists who work on a straight fee-for-service basis.

Equally important: With the best and most successful doctors disappearing into concierge medicine or refusing new Medicare and Medicaid patients, replacing these experienced physicians with bright young doctors to work with the "general public" has become difficult. Why? Because such doctors are hard to findgoing into medicine doesn't have the professional allure it once did.

With an average of $300,000 in student loans, eight years of college and medical school, and three to seven years as underpaid, overworked residents, a prospective physician in the ACA era would be starting a career at age 30 in a job that requires working 70-80 hours a week in an assembly-line fashion to earn perhaps $100,000 a year. No wonder so many qualified individuals these days are choosing careers on Wall Street or in Silicon Valley instead of medicine.

It is also no wonder that three years ago members of Congress got themselves exempted from the Affordable Care Act. They may have passed the law, but they're not stupid.

Dr. Allen, a pediatric heart surgeon, is a former professor and surgical director of the Children's Heart Institute in Houston.


----------



## karverr (Jun 27, 2013)

Poor Purl said:


> As others have pointed out, this is not the place for it.
> 
> And I don't like being called "my dear." It's a very patronizing phrase.


I will agree this is not the place for this discussion, as this thread was posted for intelligent discussion on Obamacare, so what are you ladies from S & O doing on here.


----------



## Lukelucy (Nov 19, 2011)

momeee said:


> Lukelucy, thank you for the informative WSJ article.


The world needs to listen. Everyone: READ THOSE ARTICLES. Could save your life.

Three years after the disastrous launch of the Affordable Care Act, most of the website troubles finally have been ironed out. People are now able to log on to the government's ACA website and to most of the state health-insurance exchanges. The public has grudgingly come to accept higher insurance premiums, new taxes and increases in part-time workers who were formerly full-time. But Americans are irate anywaybecause now they're seeing the health-care law's destructive effect on the fundamental nature of the way their care is delivered.

Even before the ACA's launch in 2013, many physiciansseeing the changes in their profession that lay aheadhad begun talking their children out of going to medical school. After the launch, compensation fell, while nothing in the ACA stopped lawsuits and malpractice premiums from rising. Doctors must now see many more patients each day to meet expenses, all while dealing with the mountains of paperwork mandated by the health-care law.

The forecast shortage of doctors has become a real problem. It started in 2014 when the ACA cut $716 billion from Medicare to accommodate 30 million newly "insured" people through an expansion of Medicaid. More important, the predicted shortage of 42,000 primary-care physicians and that of specialists (such as heart surgeons) was vastly underestimated. It didn't take into account the ACA's effect on doctors retiring early, refusing new patients or going into concierge medicine. These estimates also ignored the millions of immigrants who would be seeking a physician after having been granted legal status.

It is surprising that the doctor shortage was not better anticipated: After all, when Massachusetts mandated health insurance in 2006, the wait to see a physician in some specialties increased considerably, the shortage of primary-care physicians escalated and more doctors stopped accepting new patients. In 2013, the Massachusetts Medical Society noted waiting times from 50 days to 128 days in some areas for new patients to see an internist, for instance.

But doctor shortages are only the beginning.

Even before the ACA cut $716 billion from its budget, Medicare only reimbursed hospitals and doctors for 70%-85% of their costs. Once this cut further reduced reimbursements, and the ACA added stacks of paperwork, more doctors refused to accept Medicare: It just didn't cover expenses.

Then there is the ACA's Medicare (government) board that dictates and rations care, and the board has begun to cut reimbursements. Some physicians now refuse even to take patients over 50 years old, not wanting to be burdened with them when they reach Medicare age. Seniors aren't happy.

Medicaid in 2016 has similar problems. A third of physicians refused to accept new Medicaid patients in 2013, and with Medicaid's expansion and government cuts, the numbers of doctors who don't take Medicaid skyrocketed. The uninsured poor now have insurance, but they can't find a doctor, so essentially the ACA was of no help.

The loss of private practice is another big problem. Because of regulations and other government disincentives to self employment, doctors began working for hospitals in the early 2000s, leaving less than half in private practice by 2013. The ACA rapidly accelerated this trend, so that now very few private practices remain.

When doctors are employed like factory workers by hospitals, data from the Medical Group Management Association and others indicate, their productivity fallssometimes by more than 25%. They see fewer patients and perform fewer timely procedures, exacerbating the troubles caused by physician shortages. Continuity of care also declines, since now a physician's responsibilities end when his shift is over.

Of those doctors still in private practice, many have taken refuge from the health-care law by going into concierge medicine, where the patient pays an annual fee (typically $500-$3,000 a year per individual) to a primary-care physician. This doctor provides enhanced care, grants quicker appointments and spends more time with each patient, working with a base of 300-600 patients instead of the 3,000-5,000 typical in the ACA era. Doctors and patients who can afford it love concierge medicine: It allows treatment to be administered as the doctor sees fit, instead of as if the patient is on an assembly line with care directed on orders from Washington.

Patients who can't afford concierge medicine but have seen their doctor take that route are out of luck: They have been added to the swelling rolls of patients taken care of by the shrinking pool of physicians. So even people with "private" insurance have found that the quality of their health care declined. Nowadays, many are forced instead to see a nurse or other health-care provider. The traditional doctor-patient relationship is now reserved primarily for those who can pay extra.

Concierge-type care was easily expanded to specialists. The top surgeons now simply opt out of Medicare or become "out of network" providers, allowing them to bill patients directly. Many have joined the plastic surgeons and ophthalmologists who work on a straight fee-for-service basis.

Equally important: With the best and most successful doctors disappearing into concierge medicine or refusing new Medicare and Medicaid patients, replacing these experienced physicians with bright young doctors to work with the "general public" has become difficult. Why? Because such doctors are hard to findgoing into medicine doesn't have the professional allure it once did.

With an average of $300,000 in student loans, eight years of college and medical school, and three to seven years as underpaid, overworked residents, a prospective physician in the ACA era would be starting a career at age 30 in a job that requires working 70-80 hours a week in an assembly-line fashion to earn perhaps $100,000 a year. No wonder so many qualified individuals these days are choosing careers on Wall Street or in Silicon Valley instead of medicine.

It is also no wonder that three years ago members of Congress got themselves exempted from the Affordable Care Act. They may have passed the law, but they're not stupid.

Dr. Allen, a pediatric heart surgeon, is a former professor and surgical director of the Children's Heart Institute in Houston.


----------



## Janet Cooke (Aug 14, 2013)

FGS, will you STOP promoting that stupid piece as an ARTICLE and making it sound as if it presents FACTS?
It is an OPINION piece. 
If anyone actually reads it they will see that it is supposedly written in 2016. 
Do you think the man is in Back to the Future?



Lukelucy said:


> Please Read from the Wall Street Journal: Very Important Information:
> 
> Oct. 22, 2013 7:07 p.m. ET
> 
> ...


----------



## Lukelucy (Nov 19, 2011)

jelun2 said:


> FGS, will you STOP promoting that stupid piece as an ARTICLE and making it sound as if it presents FACTS?
> It is an OPINION piece.
> If anyone actually reads it they will see that it is supposedly written in 2016.
> Do you think the man is in Back to the Future?


Oct. 22, 2013 7:07 p.m. ET

From the Wall Street Journal

The panic of the liberals is not unfounded.

The young and healthy will not persevere through a balky ObamaCare website to buy overpriced insurance policies. Older and sicker shoppers have the biggest incentive to try 63 times (as one journalist did) to register. President Obama is right. For these customers, ObamaCare is a very good deal: hundreds or thousands of dollars a month in health care for as little as $0 a month in premiums after direct subsidies.

Voilà, the insurance death spiral.

Three lessons jump to mind. ObamaCare's disastrous launch is not just a programmer's bad hair day but deeply implicated in the central con of ObamaCare.

Secondly, ObamaCare did not need to be founded on misdirection and hidden taxes on the young. It would actually have been a better program and cheaper for the country if it hadn't been.

Finally liberals hate to be told their hardball policy aim is to make more Americans dependent on government. But in a year or two thousands or millions of older, sicker ObamaCare customers may find their premiums soaring when the young and healthy didn't show up to subsidize their care. Then what?

Bad hair day: One reason for the snafu-laden rollout is that the administration apparently delayed in setting key rules and specs so no discussion drafts would be floating around before the 2012 election. Why? Because the media would then inevitably dig into the question of who wins and loses under ObamaCare's thicket of explicit and implicit subsidies.

President Obama talks up his health-care law in the Rose Garden, Oct. 21. jason reed/Reuters

A second reason for the pestilential rollout is complexity created by the requirement that users enter and confirm their personal information before they begin shopping. Some speculate the administration's goal was simply to ensure those customers who are entitled to big discounts aren't scared off by seeing only unsubsidized prices. But success depends on signing up enough unsubsidized customers. A likelier motive was to make the healthy and affluent, once they enrolled, fearful of unwanted IRS attention if they didn't follow through on their mandated duty to buy overpriced insurance to keep the scheme afloat.

With enough time and unlimited resources, the government can invent the atom bomb or deliver men to the moon with 1960s technology. Fixing the exchange websites, though, won't fix the fact that ObamaCare depends on noneconomic enthusiasm to drive enlistment of people for whom ObamaCare is an objectively bad dealthe "marks" in grifter terminology.

The mandate is too weak. The penalties are too light to give ObamaCare's juiciest marks a rational incentive to buy. Yet with enough tweets from celebrities; with enough cloying talk urging 20- and 30-somethings to "have Obama's back;" with enough blather about "young invincibles," as if a young person's reluctance to overpay for health insurance is somehow a blind spot, the hope is that enough young, healthy, low-risk applicants could be gulled into paying through the nose in order to subsidize the high-risk.

This is what's actuarially known as wishful thinking.

ObamaCare did not need to be a con job. Insurers could have been allowed to offer the young and low-risk the sensible, affordable policies that insurers already sell them in voluntary transactions. The older and sicker customers whom ObamaCare wishes to subsidize could have been subsidized directly with tax dollars.

Yes, the visible budgetary cost would have been higher, but only because the program would have to be funded with honest, visible taxes rather than a surreptitious tax on young people. And the actual cost would have been lower for two reasons. A lot more low-risk people would have signed up. Secondly, under ObamaCare as now designed, any low-risk customer who signs up has an incentive to overconsume health care to recoup his mandated investment in overpriced health insurance.

We come now to the last redoubt of the defendersthe claim that, yes, the young and low-risk are being asked to pay up now, but they will benefit from the generational cross subsidy as they get older.

This is a lie. Politicians are in no position to deliver generational equity. Think about Social Security and Medicare. In response to the incentives that actually guide their behavior, politicians have repeatedly jacked up the taxes paid by today's working Americans to supply benefits to those already retired, on terms that absolutely guarantee that similarly generous benefits won't be available to today's workers when they retire.

Democrats like Harry Reid, who favors a single payer system, and Republicans like Ted Cruz, who favors something or other, have one important thing in common. Both have figured out that ObamaCare can't fix our health-care system and that new fights over "reform" lie in our not-distant future.


----------



## Janet Cooke (Aug 14, 2013)

damemary said:


> Something new I promise to try. I will refrain from posting only emoticons to express agreement or frustration.


Oh you just reminded me, I meant to post this yesterday on another thread. 
It says pretty much the same as you just did. We need to take the time to organize and speak our thoughts rather than just do a one liner.

http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2013/10/23/chomsky-the-internet-is-full-of-people-who-cant-read-and-want-to-talk-about-sandwiches/


----------



## karverr (Jun 27, 2013)

The only thing good about Obamacare and the aca is that both only have 3 years . The first thing a new president will do is throw it out with the rest of the garbage, and this goes for Obama also. the one thing this has done is, it has got the American people awake to the stupidity of congress. I hope everyone there is replaced on voting day and we get people in there that care for the people not to line their pockets. why does congress think they should be exempt from the laws they pass on the people who put them there. Wouldn't you like to wok for a minimum of 4 years then retire and collect your pay for life and then your wife can collect it till she dies. when you vote don't vote for this party or that party vote for the man who is for the people. If you vote for someone follow him through out his term, if he doesn't do what he promised or even try, vote him out. We the people of the United States of America need to take responsibility for our government as the WE are the government. If you don't vote don't gripe later about the out come.


----------



## Lukelucy (Nov 19, 2011)

karverr said:


> The only thing good about Obamacare and the aca is that both only have 3 years . The first thing a new president will do is throw it out with the rest of the garbage, and this goes for Obama also. the one thing this has done is, it has got the American people awake to the stupidity of congress. I hope everyone there is replaced on voting day and we get people in there that care for the people not to line their pockets. why does congress think they should be exempt from the laws they pass on the people who put them there. Wouldn't you like to wok for a minimum of 4 years then retire and collect your pay for life and then your wife can collect it till she dies. when you vote don't vote for this party or that party vote for the man who is for the people. If you vote for someone follow him through out his term, if he doesn't do what he promised or even try, vote him out. We the people of the United States of America need to take responsibility for our government as the WE are the government. If you don't vote don't gripe later about the out come.


Great words, Karverr. You are right!


----------



## karverr (Jun 27, 2013)

The thing I don't like about aca is when I get older and if I get cancer and need an operation I don't want my case heard by the Kevorkian board of death to see if I can have it. Why have 
insurance that when you need it it doesn't apply to you.


----------



## damemary (Mar 14, 2012)

Watching your kind for lies posted as God's truth?



karverr said:


> I will agree this is not the place for this discussion, as this thread was posted for intelligent discussion on Obamacare, so what are you ladies from S & O doing on here.


----------



## Lukelucy (Nov 19, 2011)

karverr said:


> The thing I don't like about aca is when I get older and if I get cancer and need an operation I don't want my case heard by the Kevorkian board of death to see if I can have it. Why have
> insurance that when you need it it doesn't apply to you.


Right. That is what I have been saying. Thanks Karverr.


----------



## susanmos2000 (May 10, 2011)

karverr said:


> The only thing good about Obamacare and the aca is that both only have 3 years . The first thing a new president will do is throw it out with the rest of the garbage, and this goes for Obama also. the one thing this has done is, it has got the American people awake to the stupidity of congress. I hope everyone there is replaced on voting day and we get people in there that care for the people not to line their pockets. why does congress think they should be exempt from the laws they pass on the people who put them there. Wouldn't you like to wok for a minimum of 4 years then retire and collect your pay for life and then your wife can collect it till she dies. when you vote don't vote for this party or that party vote for the man who is for the people. If you vote for someone follow him through out his term, if he doesn't do what he promised or even try, vote him out. We the people of the United States of America need to take responsibility for our government as the WE are the government. If you don't vote don't gripe later about the out come.


For once you're right, Karverr. The American people now know the score, and when voting day rolls around in 2014 it'll be time to change words into action. I expect the Democrats to make a clean sweep when the Tea Haddists are sent packing.


----------



## damemary (Mar 14, 2012)

My dear, you are assuming that the next President of the United States will not be a strong Democrat intent on improving the ACA rather than destroying it. I think you're completely wrong.

I agree what you had to say about Congress for the most part. This bunch of Republicans have done nothing but obstruct the passage of anything associated with President Obama. According to most polls, most voters have come to feel this way. (Hence bringing my first statement full circle.)

Ps. Once again, repeating the LIE that Congress is exempt will not pass unanswered.



karverr said:


> The only thing good about Obamacare and the aca is that both only have 3 years . The first thing a new president will do is throw it out with the rest of the garbage, and this goes for Obama also. the one thing this has done is, it has got the American people awake to the stupidity of congress. I hope everyone there is replaced on voting day and we get people in there that care for the people not to line their pockets. why does congress think they should be exempt from the laws they pass on the people who put them there. Wouldn't you like to wok for a minimum of 4 years then retire and collect your pay for life and then your wife can collect it till she dies. when you vote don't vote for this party or that party vote for the man who is for the people. If you vote for someone follow him through out his term, if he doesn't do what he promised or even try, vote him out. We the people of the United States of America need to take responsibility for our government as the WE are the government. If you don't vote don't gripe later about the out come.


----------



## damemary (Mar 14, 2012)

I think they have managed to post and repost this line of garbage to attempt to prove they have factual answers. Anyone buying what they're pedaling? I'm not.



jelun2 said:


> Copyright infringement now?


----------



## cookiequeen (Jun 15, 2011)

I really can't believe this battle is still raging. If it were called something like "Americare" it would be off and running. I'll bet most of the people protesting aren't even candidates for getting insurance under the ACA. Why do people hate the fact that their less-fortunate fellow Americans can get government help to obtain healthcare? The ACA is less than perfect, and what I think we really need is a single payer system. OK, go ahead, call me a socialist. It's time for Americans to unite and make the most of the law that's going to benefit so many American citizens. It's time to stop listening to the repub and tea party lies. I'm so sick of the repub falsehoods that go unchallenged. Is everyone that gullible??? Let's fix the website and get the show on the road and start concerning ourselves with other important matters. The real train-wreck is the House of Representatives that shut down the government to play politics.
End of rant


----------



## damemary (Mar 14, 2012)

Weak try. Insurance companies now are known to refuse necessary life saving treatment as experimental trying to save themselves money NOW. Now I can see calling that the 'Kevorkian board of death,' but I think you were trying to make another point.



karverr said:


> The thing I don't like about aca is when I get older and if I get cancer and need an operation I don't want my case heard by the Kevorkian board of death to see if I can have it. Why have
> insurance that when you need it it doesn't apply to you.


----------



## damemary (Mar 14, 2012)

But you are the only ones listening. Why don't you stick to PM's?



Lukelucy said:


> Right. That is what I have been saying. Thanks Karverr.


----------



## Janet Cooke (Aug 14, 2013)

alcameron said:


> I really can't believe this battle is still raging. If it were called something like "Americare" it would be off and running. I'll bet most of the people protesting aren't even candidates for getting insurance under the ACA. Why do people hate the fact that their less-fortunate fellow Americans can get government help to obtain healthcare? The ACA is less than perfect, and what I think we really need is a single payer system. OK, go ahead, call me a socialist. It's time for Americans to unite and make the most of the law that's going to benefit so many American citizens. It's time to stop listening to the repub and tea party lies. I'm so sick of the repub falsehoods that go unchallenged. Is everyone that gullible??? Let's fix the website and get the show on the road and start concerning ourselves with other important matters. The real train-wreck is the House of Representatives that shut down the government to play politics.
> End of rant


You have me stumped on that one, Alcameron, why do people who are on Medicare (and lie about it) give a care what other people do for health care insurance? 
What do disabled people who are getting Medicare (who don't know, it seems, that ACA and Obamacare are the same thing) care what other people do for health insurance? 
I am here to cheer on those lucky few who soon have the same freedoms I have to go to a doctor for preventative care, to find out what is wrong when they don't feel well, to get well check ups and annual blood work. 
Why does anyone want to deny that to others?


----------



## Janet Cooke (Aug 14, 2013)

damemary said:


> Weak try. Insurance companies now are known to refuse necessary life saving treatment as experimental trying to save themselves money NOW. Now I can see calling that the 'Kevorkian board of death,' but I think you were trying to make another point.


Some people just have no sense, damemary. 
Some don't understand that health insurance providers already deny people coverage for catastrophic illness already. Is that not a "death panel"? Are for profit entities so generous that they are going to say "to heck with dividends for our share holders" let's spend hundreds and hundreds of thousands of dollars saving this 90 yo so s/he can die in 3 months of a hemorage?


----------



## damemary (Mar 14, 2012)

The simple answer is that they managed to attach President Barack Obama's name to it and they have circulated spurious lies about it constantly. Still give it time, and I too hope it leads to a one payer system.



alcameron said:


> I really can't believe this battle is still raging. If it were called something like "Americare" it would be off and running. I'll bet most of the people protesting aren't even candidates for getting insurance under the ACA. Why do people hate the fact that their less-fortunate fellow Americans can get government help to obtain healthcare? The ACA is less than perfect, and what I think we really need is a single payer system. OK, go ahead, call me a socialist. It's time for Americans to unite and make the most of the law that's going to benefit so many American citizens. It's time to stop listening to the repub and tea party lies. I'm so sick of the repub falsehoods that go unchallenged. Is everyone that gullible??? Let's fix the website and get the show on the road and start concerning ourselves with other important matters. The real train-wreck is the House of Representatives that shut down the government to play politics.
> End of rant


----------



## momeee (Mar 22, 2011)

joeysoma said:"I am watching the hearing on the Obamacare website. I'm wondering, who in their right mind, would sign up for something, and agree to pay for it without knowing the exact cost and exactly what it covers.

You are getting no more than a promise. And we know how good Obama's promises are. Remember, If you like your insurance you can keep it, period.

Tell that to the 300,000+ people in Florida who recently lost their insurance."
Good post, but the negative nasties will disagree without offering another valid view. I thought it was interesting when reported that much of the area in Fla. that was receiving these cancellations notices were 'Blue" and O.supporters. Sometimes folks get what they deserve.


----------



## Zelana (May 5, 2012)

Alcameron, the attitudes shown on this thread have me confused too.

I don't know how the US Police and Fire Service are paid for but if it's similar to the UK then you don't all make the same contribution towards it but you expect the same coverage. Why should health care be different? Is your property worth more than your life?


----------



## Huckleberry (May 27, 2013)

joeysomma said:


> I am watching the hearing on the Obamacare website. I'm wondering, who in their right mind, would sign up for something, and agree to pay for it without knowing the exact cost and exactly what it covers.
> 
> You are getting no more than a promise. And we know how good Obama's promises are. Remember, If you like your insurance you can keep it, period.
> 
> Tell that to the 300,000+ people in Florida who recently lost their insurance.


joeysomma
nobody is losing Insuance, some are being rolled over into different, more inclusive plans. As to the cost, everyone applying is being given choices as to which plan to accept. Quit spreading untruth day in and day out. We like our Insurance and 
keep it.


----------



## knitpresentgifts (May 21, 2013)

NJG said:


> According to Dick Durbin, there was a leading republican from the house said to our President, "I can't even stand to look at you." No names associated with it yet, but I hope it comes out so we know who said it. Why do some republicans show such a lack of respect to the president? I just don't understand. Is that the way they raised their kids? No wonder this country has so many problems, when people like that are elected to office.


Nice, NJG, this is a complete lie, yet, you repeated the lie just like a loyal Democrat. Why do you show such contempt for Republicans and no respect? Is that the way you were raised?


----------



## knitpresentgifts (May 21, 2013)

jelun2 said:


> That information should be made public. The people who voted for that person should have that firmly in their memories when they go to vote.


It never happened - another Liberal/Democrat lie. BTW: Is *was* public information, otherwise, how do you think NJG heard about it? Get your news from journalists instead of your Liberal/biased opinion folks.


----------



## cookiequeen (Jun 15, 2011)

. 
Why does anyone want to deny that to others?[/quote]

Because they're such good people??.


----------



## Huckleberry (May 27, 2013)

Zelana said:


> Alcameron, the attitudes shown on this thread have me confused too.
> 
> I don't know how the US Police and Fire Service are paid for but if it's similar to the UK then you don't all make the same contribution towards it but you expect the same coverage. Why should health care be different? Is your property worth more than your life?


Zelana
In the USA. the services in question are mainly paid by Real Estate Taxes. I like your question re. value of Life or Property. Thank you. Your Health Care System is very good, not perfect (what ever is) but very good and so far what we have had is despicable for being a developed Country. Finally we are getting help.


----------



## Huckleberry (May 27, 2013)

alcameron said:


> .
> Why does anyone want to deny that to others?


Because they're such good people??.[/quote]

alcameron
is it that "Christian Nation" thing? Go figure.


----------



## Nussa (Jul 7, 2011)

Just an observation........If you keep going on with this tit for tat day after day, you're going to end up giving yourself a heart attack, then you will need ACA.....I say take a deep breath, and consider it a draw. There are no winners in this argument. JMO


Lukelucy said:


> From the Wall Street Journal
> 
> Three years after the disastrous launch of the Affordable Care Act, most of the website troubles finally have been ironed out. People are now able to log on to the government's ACA website and to most of the state health-insurance exchanges. The public has grudgingly come to accept higher insurance premiums, new taxes and increases in part-time workers who were formerly full-time. But Americans are irate anywaybecause now they're seeing the health-care law's destructive effect on the fundamental nature of the way their care is delivered.
> 
> ...


----------



## Huckleberry (May 27, 2013)

knitpresentgifts said:


> It never happened - another Liberal/Democrat lie.


knitpresentgifts
even worse and some of it here has been thrown at President Obama. Shame, the Tea Party Republicans have none. Bible in hand and devil on the their tongues.


----------



## knitpresentgifts (May 21, 2013)

momeee said:


> joeysoma said:"I am watching the hearing on the Obamacare website. I'm wondering, who in their right mind, would sign up for something, and agree to pay for it without knowing the exact cost and exactly what it covers.
> 
> You are getting no more than a promise. And we know how good Obama's promises are. Remember, If you like your insurance you can keep it, period.
> 
> ...


 :thumbup: Like Grayson (Democrat) who is promoting the KKK down in Florida? Yep, they deserve him too.


----------



## knitpresentgifts (May 21, 2013)

Huckleberry said:


> joeysomma
> nobody is losing Insuance, some are being rolled over into different, more inclusive plans. As to the cost, everyone applying is being given choices as to which plan to accept. Quit spreading untruth day in and day out. We like our Insurance and
> keep it.


Hundreds of thousands are losing their insurance and it has only just begun! 60-77% of all those who HAD insurance have seen increased premiums. No surprise there; our Nation cannot insure 30 million more people without raising taxes *and* premiums.

Get a clue ...


----------



## aw9358 (Nov 1, 2011)

Here's a suggestion: why don't you wait and see and then come back when it's running everywhere and tell everyone how it's going? Crazy, but it might just work.


----------



## cookiequeen (Jun 15, 2011)

knitpresentgifts said:


> :thumbup: Like Greyson (Democrat) who is promoting the KKK down in Florida? Yep, they deserve him too.


What an interesting choice of words: "promote? "

What she's really trying to say is "Grayson, Democrat, is a vile person. I think I'll write this sentence that says he's "promoting" the KKK so that people will think he's a vile person AND a Domocrat." Look it up.


----------



## Huckleberry (May 27, 2013)

jelun2 said:


> You have me stumped on that one, Alcameron, why do people who are on Medicare (and lie about it) give a care what other people do for health care insurance?
> What do disabled people who are getting Medicare (who don't know, it seems, that ACA and Obamacare are the same thing) care what other people do for health insurance?
> I am here to cheer on those lucky few who soon have the same freedoms I have to go to a doctor for preventative care, to find out what is wrong when they don't feel well, to get well check ups and annual blood work.
> Why does anyone want to deny that to others?


jelun2
some folks just do not like their Neighbors. They do not like the People who go to the "other" Church either. Looks like their dislikes are religion based. Sharing and caring is not important to them.


----------



## marilyn1977 (Nov 3, 2011)

That is why I gave an apology yesterday. I listed that page about "obamacare" and then I felt guilty about not checking it out before I posted it. I am so sorry that I caused so much dickering about this matter. Please everyone just stop bickering back and forth and just enjoy KP. That is what matters. We will know soon enough how everything will work out, and there is nothing we can do about it anyway.


----------



## saarlt (May 5, 2013)

marilyn1977 said:


> That is why I gave an apology yesterday. I listed that page about "obamacare" and then I felt guilty about not checking it out before I posted it. I am so sorry that I caused so much dickering about this matter. Please everyone just stop bickering back and forth and just enjoy KP. That is what matters. We will know soon enough how everything will work out, and there is nothing we can do about it anyway.


Agreed! :thumbup: :thumbup:


----------



## saarlt (May 5, 2013)

karverr said:


> I will agree this is not the place for this discussion, as this thread was posted for intelligent discussion on Obamacare, so what are you ladies from S & O doing on here.


Pardon my ignorance but what does S & O stand for?


----------



## Jokim (Nov 22, 2011)

karverr said:


> The only thing good about Obamacare and the aca is that both only have 3 years . The first thing a new president will do is throw it out with the rest of the garbage, and this goes for Obama also. the one thing this has done is, it has got the American people awake to the stupidity of congress. I hope everyone there is replaced on voting day and we get people in there that care for the people not to line their pockets. why does congress think they should be exempt from the laws they pass on the people who put them there. Wouldn't you like to wok for a minimum of 4 years then retire and collect your pay for life and then your wife can collect it till she dies. when you vote don't vote for this party or that party vote for the man who is for the people. If you vote for someone follow him through out his term, if he doesn't do what he promised or even try, vote him out. We the people of the United States of America need to take responsibility for our government as the WE are the government. If you don't vote don't gripe later about the out come.


Kudos! We, the people of the US, are the government. Government serves the people under the Constitution. That document has been disrespected lately. Most voters are taken in by pie-in-the-sky promises of candidates and quickly forget that they fail to carry them out, after being elected. The few, in the House and the Senate, that are doing what their voters sent them to do, are vilified, called names and threatened with violence. We should be supporting them. They are only doing what their constituents sent them to Washington to do.


----------



## Lukelucy (Nov 19, 2011)

Jokim said:


> Kudos! We, the people of the US, are the government. Government serves the people under the Constitution. That document has been disrespected lately. Most voters are taken in by pie-in-the-sky promises of candidates and quickly forget that they fail to carry them out, after being elected. The few, in the House and the Senate, that are doing what their voters sent them to do, are vilified, called names and threatened with violence. We should be supporting them. They are only doing what their constituents sent them to Washington to do.


This is so true. Thank you.


----------



## Knitry (Dec 18, 2011)

susanmos2000 said:


> For once you're right, Karverr. The American people now know the score, and when voting day rolls around in 2014 it'll be time to change words into action. I expect the Democrats to make a clean sweep when the Tea Haddists are sent packing.


Happily, that's looking more and more likely:

*NEW CNN poll - Majority do not want Republicans in control of House* 
http://www.cnn.com/2013/10/21/politics/cnn-poll-gop-boehner-shutdown/index.html?hpt=hp_t1
...more than half the public says that it's bad for the country that the GOP controls the House of Representatives, according to a new national poll conducted after the end of the partial government shutdown.
...The poll was conducted Friday through Sunday, just after the end of the 16-day partial federal government shutdown that was caused in part by a push by House conservatives to try and dismantle the health care law, which is President Barack Obama's signature domestic achievement.
According to the survey, 54% say it's a bad thing that the GOP controls the House, up 11 points from last December, soon after the 2012 elections when the Republicans kept control of the chamber. Only 38% say it's a good thing the GOP controls the House, a 13-point dive from the end of last year.

*Democrats Have A Shot At Taking Back The House As Republican Popularity Continues To Drop: Poll*
When voters were informed their Republican candidate supported the government shutdown, 11 more districts flipped and one race became a tie. Democrats in the House only need to see a net increase of 17 seats in order to take back the majority. This poll indicates that Democrats could see an increase of as many as 49 seats. 
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/10/20/democrats-take-back-house_n_4133836.html?utm_hp_ref=politics

*Cook Report Moves 14 House Races Towards Democrats Following Shutdown* 
http://talkingpointsmemo.com/livewire/cook-report-moves-14-house-races-closer-to-democrat-favorability-following-shutdown


----------



## Janet Cooke (Aug 14, 2013)

knitpresentgifts said:


> It never happened - another Liberal/Democrat lie. BTW: Is *was* public information, otherwise, how do you think NJG heard about it? Get your news from journalists instead of your Liberal/biased opinion folks.


It is wonderful to see that you finally believe something that the White House is saying. 
The information came from Dick Durbin's FB page. 
What has not been made public is the identity of the person who said this vile thing.


----------



## Nussa (Jul 7, 2011)

aw9358 said:


> Here's a suggestion: why don't you wait and see and then come back when it's running everywhere and tell everyone how it's going? Crazy, but it might just work.


 :thumbup: :thumbup: :thumbup: :thumbup: :thumbup:


----------



## Knitry (Dec 18, 2011)

Zelana said:


> Alcameron, the attitudes shown on this thread have me confused too.
> 
> I don't know how the US Police and Fire Service are paid for but if it's similar to the UK then you don't all make the same contribution towards it but you expect the same coverage. Why should health care be different? Is your property worth more than your life?


That's a fabulous analogy. Thanks.


----------



## sumpleby (Aug 3, 2013)

knitpresentgifts said:


> :thumbup: Like Grayson (Democrat) who is promoting the KKK down in Florida? Yep, they deserve him too.


Now, see, this is typical far right misdirection. From your sentence, a reader would think that representative Grayson was in favor of the KKK and was promoting their interests in Florida. Unless they took it with a grain of salt and decided to look into it themselves. In actuality Grayson took a page out of the Tea Party's book--he compared them to the KKK. Hardly a "promotion."


----------



## Knitry (Dec 18, 2011)

momeee said:


> joeysoma said:"I am watching the hearing on the Obamacare website. I'm wondering, who in their right mind, would sign up for something, and agree to pay for it without knowing the exact cost and exactly what it covers.
> 
> You are getting no more than a promise. And we know how good Obama's promises are. Remember, If you like your insurance you can keep it, period.
> 
> ...


Yes, that's what the anti-ACAers do all right. It's called "psychological projection" when people accuse others of what they themselves are doing:


> ...a defense mechanism in which a person unconsciously rejects his or her own unacceptable attributes by ascribing them to objects or persons in the outside world. For example, a person who is rude may accuse other people of being rude. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Psychological_projection


Or bullies??



> I thought it was interesting when reported that much of the area in Fla. that was receiving these cancellations notices were 'Blue" and O.supporters. Sometimes folks get what they deserve.


Their policies are being canceled because they don't live up to the requirements for private insurance under the ACA: 


> The main reason insurers offer is that the policies fall short of what the Affordable Care Act requires starting Jan. 1. Most are ending policies sold after the law passed in March 2010. At least a few are cancelling plans sold to people with pre-existing medical conditions.
> 
> By all accounts, the new policies will offer consumers better coverage, in some cases, for comparable cost -- especially after the inclusion of federal subsidies for those who qualify. The law requires policies sold in the individual market to cover 10 essential benefits, such as prescription drugs, mental health treatment and maternity care. In addition, insurers cannot reject people with medical problems or charge them higher prices. The policies must also cap consumers annual expenses at levels lower than many plans sold before the new rules. http://www.kaiserhealthnews.org/Stories/2013/October/21/cancellation-notices-health-insurance.aspx


----------



## Nussa (Jul 7, 2011)

Well aw9358, it looks like we're wasting our time. I'm afraid it's hopeless to try to talk sense into those who thrive on confrontation. Time for me to find something constructive to do with my time.


----------



## Knitry (Dec 18, 2011)

Lukelucy said:


> From the Wall Street Journal
> 
> Three years after the disastrous launch of the Affordable Care Act, most of the website troubles finally have been ironed out. People are now able to log on to the government's ACA website and to most of the state health-insurance exchanges. The public has grudgingly come to accept higher insurance premiums, new taxes and increases in part-time workers who were formerly full-time....yadayadayada


SO eager to find and post negative information about the ACA, SO resistant to the truth that she doesn't even "hear" that this is a piece of fiction -- a pretend oped written in 2016 -- that she posts it again, imagining it to be real, I guess.

LL isn't the first person on the right to imagine things -- there's Michelle Bachman, Sarah Palin, Ted Cruz, Paul Ryan, Louie Gomert, and many, many others. But she certainly validates and exemplifies the whole notion of "low information voter," doesn't she?


----------



## Knitry (Dec 18, 2011)

Governor Kasich (R-OH) on his adoption of expanded Medicaid under the ACA:



> *When you die and get to the meeting with St. Peter, hes probably not going to ask you much about what you did about keeping government small, but hes going to ask you what you did for the poor. Youd better have a good answer, *Kasich, a Christian conservative, says he told one Ohio lawmaker last week.
> 
> Most Republicans oppose Obamas Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act as a costly, ineffective and unnecessary expansion of government. But some Republican governors, like Arizonas Jan Brewer and Michigans Rick Snyder, have broken ranks to embrace the laws Medicaid expansion as a practical way to help the poor while infusing their state budgets with billions of dollars in federal funding to pay for it.
> http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2013/06/26/ohio-governor-john-kasich-warns-fellow-republicans-on-the-moral-consequences-of-blocking-medicaid-expansion/


----------



## aw9358 (Nov 1, 2011)

Nussa said:


> Well aw9358, it looks like we're wasting our time. I'm afraid it's hopeless to try to talk sense into those who thrive on confrontation. Time for me to find something constructive to do with my time.


So am I. Hopeless is definitely the word.


----------



## Knitry (Dec 18, 2011)

joeysomma said:


> They will *loose* the insurance they have now. The company will put them in a new plan that they probably don't need (if they needed it they would have had it) and are probably unable to pay for. It still shows Obama's lie, _If you like your insurance you can keep it._ These 300,000+ Floridians are victims of Obamacare.
> 
> They will not be able to choose the *coverage*, only costs like copays, deductibles etc.
> 
> http://members.jacksonville.com/business/2013-10-22/story/florida-blue-policies-transition-not-being-dropped


GOOD GRIEF, woman. Do you read at all? The very headline for the link you provided utterly contradicts your claim:

*Florida Blue policies in 'transition,' not being dropped
Tallahassee | A top Florida Blue official said Wednesday that the cancellation of 300,000 individual health insurance policies does not mean affected customers will lose coverage. Rather, it's part of a "transition" to the Affordable Care Act.*

UN-FREAKING-BELIEVABLE.


----------



## Knitry (Dec 18, 2011)

Well, gang, it's been good, and it's been real, but it ain't been real good, as the (very) old saying goes.

I'm going to follow Poor Purl's excellent lead and bow out of this particular conversation. 

What I've learned here about the right wing rank and file has been incredibly eye-opening. And sobering. And depressing. So I guess I have to thank LL for that, eh? 

I wish LL and all of you who are so negative about ACA before it even gets going everything you so fervently hope for.


----------



## aw9358 (Nov 1, 2011)

Knitry said:


> Well, gang, it's been good, and it's been real, but it ain't been real good, as the (very) old saying goes.
> 
> I'm going to follow Poor Purl's excellent lead and bow out of this particular conversation.
> 
> ...


Well done for recognising futility, but I do hope you're not bowing out of the saner threads. I wrote elsewhere about what you have said in your second paragraph, and I agree completely about finding out more than you wanted to.


----------



## Janet Cooke (Aug 14, 2013)

That sounds as if you are saying that if I go out and replace my bicycle with a 2014 Mercedes that I have lost my bicycle.



joeysomma said:


> Read what I wrote before you comment.
> 
> *"They will loose the insurance they have now."*
> 
> ...


----------



## Lukelucy (Nov 19, 2011)

joeysomma said:


> Read what I wrote before you comment.
> 
> *"They will loose the insurance they have now."*
> 
> ...


----------



## painthoss (Jul 10, 2012)

Lukelucy said:


> ACA is portrayed as all happiness and health. That is what the advertisements on tv are trying to communicate. I look at them as brainwashing.


Advertizements on tv ARE brainwashing. But that doesn't mean the truth can't be in the middle. Its not all dreariness and death, either.


----------



## Lukelucy (Nov 19, 2011)

painthoss said:


> Advertizements on tv ARE brainwashing. But that doesn't mean the truth can't be in the middle. Its not all dreariness and death, either.


Yes, advertisements sure are brainwashing. The ones for ACA are particularly so.


----------



## Sarla (Apr 22, 2013)

I think it is time to close this topic & move on.


----------



## susanmos2000 (May 10, 2011)

jelun2 said:


> That sounds as if you are saying that if I go out and replace my bicycle with a 2014 Mercedes that I have lost my bicycle.


Absolutely ridiculous--it's a given that all existing insurance policies have to meet federal minimums, just as mandatory car insurance does. I remember the humpty-dumpty policies available through the university when I was a student--they basically gave me the right to go to the Student Health Center for bandaids and to call for an ambulance if I was injured during a dormitory fire. Such policies are worthless, but you can bet the insurance companies would be peddling them like mad if federal minimums hadn't been put into place.


----------



## Janet Cooke (Aug 14, 2013)

susanmos2000 said:


> Absolutely ridiculous--it's a given that all existing insurance policies have to meet federal minimums, just as mandatory car insurance does. I remember the humpty-dumpty policies available through the university when I was a student--they basically gave me the right to go to the Student Health Center for bandaids and to call for an ambulance if I was injured during a dormitory fire. Such policies are worthless, but you can bet the insurance companies would be peddling them like mad if federal minimums hadn't been put into place.


Yes, I remember something like that when my daughter was going to school. I was SO happy that we had good coverage. 
I think that it was something like $500. per semester or year, and pretty much worthless.


----------



## admin (Jan 12, 2011)

This is an automated notice.

This topic was split up because it reached high page count.
Please feel free to continue the conversation in the new topic that was automatically created here:

http://www.knittingparadise.com/t-210405-1.html

Sorry for any inconvenience.


----------

