Originally Posted by Marx & Lennon

You would have a much better point if you argued, as I do, that there is a cross-generational demand for support that is not being met by anyone. The young deserve a free or at least nearly free college education. The old deserve healthcare. Neither happens without subsidies by those not directly benefitting. Neither happens unless those most affected get out there and demand it.

As you know, I agree with this wholeheartedly, particularly since as an MMT adherent I know it can be done.

We should be paying young people to go to college or training schools rather than saddling them with debt.

It is not only immoral to do otherwise, it is really really stupid for our economic future.

Originally Posted by The Rani

You tell 'em, playdude! I certainly don't know anyone who can't come up with six extra grand if they happen to get sick. For people who can't, stop complaining and get a job!

If you would read for, well, actual comprehension rather than cherry pick for the basis of your sophomoric snark, you might actually learn something.

What I said is that the health providers are unlikely to pursue someone into bankruptcy over $6K and I doubt any bankruptcy judge would allow it. But feel free to provide any, you know, actual facts, to suggest otherwise - Justin seems to have given up the quest - surprise, surprise! But feel free to pile on further stupidity; it seems to be in fashion around here.

Granted a person that gets a chronic condition is not going to be able to work, to have income, and can get into lots of problems like covering the mortgage or rent or utility bills or their taxes and THAT can all add up and point to bankruptcy. That is NOT a health insurance issue unless someone is truly in magic pony land and believes health insurance should also include guarantee income insurance provisions - but even you aren't that stupid - I think.

Oh, and I assume you all are smart enough to understand that at some point the lost of income puts you into Medicaid and that puts the nail in the coffin of this stupidity of bankruptcy resulting from the cost of health care and insurance. Again, lots of assumptions here by me about the level of intelligence of certain people on this forum -I could be wrong.

-------------------------
p.s. you might want to look up SS-Disability as well.

Originally Posted by playwrite

Not a single presentation of fact or logical argument; just trash talk and near gibberish. Why is it that people like you and Justin think that such unintelligent diarrhea helps cover up your initial stupidity. At least Justin has developed it into an art form that fools some people (see "toadies"); yours doesn't do it even for a fifth grader. I guess Justin just been at it for a lot longer.

In hopes that you are at a crossroad in your life, let me give you some pointers on how to have a thoughtful argument. I'll note some of the difference with the horseshit objective of Justin's, but will mostly leave it to him to school you in that particular art of horseshit castle building - after all, he is the master of the form.

First, try to stay on topic. The initial conjecture was that the ACA is flawed because it is a long written document; but, you soon wind up with the entire Millie ennui and banksters not being perp walked. Justin is a master of this; I don't believe anyone has had discourse with him of more than four exchanges without the need to go back to his initial post of stupidity - he covers his tracks very well and lets the initial horseshit slowly slip away with piles and piles more of horseshit. Your's on the other hand is nearly instantaneous as soon as you get the first pushback. It comes immediately across as some primodial scream - perhaps a catharsis is what you're looking for but to everyone else its just nonsensical screech. Why not just fart, eat some more bean dip and return to your marathon viewing of Dancing with the Stars DVDs? Or again, perhaps the similarly valuable use of your time of some one-on-ones with Justin to raise your art form?

Second, really think about that initial conjecture and ask yourself, are you really about to put in writing something really stupid. Take a moment and Google "ACA bill length" and just for once screen out your usual sources of information like Faux News and Rush Limbaugh, i.e. stick your head out of the echo chamber every once in a while. Maybe you would come by something like this -

http://www.leadertelegram.com/blogs/...9bb2963f4.html



Maybe even cut thorough the clutter of biased secondary or, more likely, tertiary analysis and go to the source for your own fresh view; for instance -

http://housedocs.house.gov/energycommerce/ppacacon.pdf

- and notice things about fonts, margins, page size. Maybe compare them to other weighty documents such as this one -

http://www.amazon.com/Storm-Swords-S.../dp/B000FBFN1U

- which was over 1000 manuscript pages. Now I and millions are pounding on George to write faster his upcoming 1,500 page next book in the series to see if [SPOILER ALERT!!!] Jon Snow is going to come back as his wolf or if Daenerys is going to have Drogon stir fry Jhaqo. However, even George would agree that his entire set of novels (over 6000 manuscript pages) is not going to have anywhere near the impact on real peoples' lives like the landmark ACA.

Bottom line here is if you avoid writing something really really stupid in the first place, you can simply avoid the need to pile on even more stupid horseshit. Don't get as old as Justin and be beyond the ability to learn this simple truth.

Third, enough already with the anecdotes - the 'I have a friend whose brother knows a guy that once dated a girl who befriended this Millie that was really pissed about Obamacare." Dude, start with some research-able facts, a link here, maybe a graph there, that makes your point in a factual and logical way. Maybe throw in an anecdote (preferable a real one) for some flavor. You may notice that most of the media (not Faux News or Rush) actually name the source of their anecdotes - not suggesting you go that far because this medium is different, but because it is different you should rely a lot less on anecdotes - it makes you look intellectually desperate.

Fourth, and this is likely the hardest one for you to grasp because of its self-centered nature, don't be an elitist a-hole. It doesn't help your argument (assuming you actually had one, which is not the case here) to present yourself as representing a downtrodden group (in this case, Millies with low incomes) by telling us that you have a Cadillac plan which obviously means you have the luxury of highly govt subsidized employer-assisted health insurance. Now, obviously here is where you push back about my wealth. The difference is I don't talk about the emotional well-being of these downtrodden Millies of yours; I don't pretend as you do that I know how they are all pissed off and ready to lead a revolt into the next Turning. I merely present the facts - 3.1 million now covered by their parents insurance; 100s of thousands (exact number to be determined soon) getting free subsidized private insurance through the exchanges; hundreds of thousands more getting some level of support; and all not being subjected to exclusion due to pre-conditions.

So there you are. You have raised several issues in your great conflation. If you want to tease out one or some rational combination of a few and argue them in some rational factual manner, let's do it! This thread is about national health care policy and has focused for a while on what the ACA does and doesn't do; if you have some issues (e.g. banksters) better fitted to other threads, then maybe you can post them there instead - that might send a signal that you are actually interested in pursuing some factual, rational arguments.

The other choice, I guess, is that you and Justin could go get a room together and practice the art of horseshit castle building.

Nothing new for trash like you. I don't read advice from human excrement. Here's my advice for you, you condescending moron.

First, buy a .45. It doesn't have to be expensive, you'll only be using it once.

Second, buy ammo that fits the weapon.

Third, pay someone to load and ready it for you. I know you'll need to pay someone because nobody can tolerate talking to you. Standing next to you requires great penance, I'm sure.

Fourth, like everything else you've ever gotten your grubby little mitts on, stick it in your mouth.

Fifth, sqeeze the trigger and instantly the world is a better place.

Originally Posted by Marx & Lennon

Complexity is often the lesser of evils. If something needs to be cerulean, blue just won't cut it.

Remember, language is used for many reasons, and legal language is intended to define and limit. That takes verbiage, and lots of it. If all that overbearing and exacting language isn't there, then the reader has the legal right to bend the generalities that are there. For one bad example: language noting that it is illegal to stab someone doesn't preclude bludgening, shooting or burning.

But we choose language that is specific enough to encompass. Length in legal terms usually involves exclusion. That's what this law is about, exclusion.

Originally Posted by Marx & Lennon

You would have a much better point if you argued, as I do, that there is a cross-generational demand for support that is not being met by anyone. The young deserve a free or at least nearly free college education. The old deserve healthcare. Neither happens without subsidies by those not directly benefitting. Neither happens unless those most affected get out there and demand it.

There are a lot of arguments that could be made for a lot of things, but when you're talking at playwright, there's no point in arguing, brick walls are less inept. At least they serve a function. The only real reason to type anything is to either for out another insult out prep up for another insult. Seriously, I've talked to some people before and this guy would be in prison for life if he couldn't afford enough space to keep his neighbors from hearing the mournful cries of all the puppies he rapes.

Originally Posted by Kepi

But we choose language that is specific enough to encompass. Length in legal terms usually involves exclusion. That's what this law is about, exclusion.



There are a lot of arguments that could be made for a lot of things, but when you're talking at playwright, there's no point in arguing, brick walls are less inept. At least they serve a function. The only real reason to type anything is to either for out another insult out prep up for another insult. Seriously, I've talked to some people before and this guy would be in prison for life if he couldn't afford enough space to keep his neighbors from hearing the mournful cries of all the puppies he rapes.

As a doggie, that image scares me. Please don't give anybody any ideas.

Originally Posted by Kepi

Nothing new for trash like you. I don't read advice from human excrement. Here's my advice for you, you condescending moron.

First, buy a .45. It doesn't have to be expensive, you'll only be using it once.

Second, buy ammo that fits the weapon.

Third, pay someone to load and ready it for you. I know you'll need to pay someone because nobody can tolerate talking to you. Standing next to you requires great penance, I'm sure.

Fourth, like everything else you've ever gotten your grubby little mitts on, stick it in your mouth.

Fifth, sqeeze the trigger and instantly the world is a better place.

It's always a pleasure to see how a moron handles his worldview exploding; particularly true when you gave them several changes to redeem themselves with at least a try of a single fact or rational argument.

You hold the honor of being the easiest to date.



Now go try to rub two sticks together (look it up) and see if you can get that brain of yours to develop a tad beyond the knuckle dragger level you have now so readily revealed.

Originally Posted by Kepi

Nothing new for trash like you. I don't read advice from human excrement. Here's my advice for you, you condescending moron.

First, buy a .45. It doesn't have to be expensive, you'll only be using it once.

Second, buy ammo that fits the weapon.

Third, pay someone to load and ready it for you. I know you'll need to pay someone because nobody can tolerate talking to you. Standing next to you requires great penance, I'm sure.

Fourth, like everything else you've ever gotten your grubby little mitts on, stick it in your mouth.

Fifth, sqeeze the trigger and instantly the world is a better place.

Careful. Rani will have you banned, and Glick will archive your posts on stone tablets.

Originally Posted by Kepi

But we choose language that is specific enough to encompass. Length in legal terms usually involves exclusion. That's what this law is about, exclusion.



There are a lot of arguments that could be made for a lot of things, but when you're talking at playwright, there's no point in arguing, brick walls are less inept. At least they serve a function. The only real reason to type anything is to either for out another insult out prep up for another insult. Seriously, I've talked to some people before and this guy would be in prison for life if he couldn't afford enough space to keep his neighbors from hearing the mournful cries of all the puppies he rapes.

Then, you know, actually try a rational argument for once.

You're not fooling anyone by continuing your oral defecations. But cheer up, I'm sure at this very moment Justin's trying to get a room reservation for you both to make your horseshit castles together. Who knows, maybe you can get Rani to come live in one of them!

Originally Posted by Bad Dog

Careful. Rani will have you banned, and Glick will archive your posts on stone tablets.

She only does that to people she likes.

Originally Posted by The Rani

Absolutely! Only a moron doesn't know that all prior debts are forgiven as part of Medicaid coverage.
Keep up the brilliant posts. So glad I joined your team!

Still having that reading comprehension problem, hey? You don't live in Denver by any chance?

The point was (you pull this misdirection horseshit as much as Justin does) was whether medical care and insurance cost would put you into bankruptcy. My point was it will not once you are covered one way or another under the ACA. That doesn't mean other costs (e.g. mortgage, utilities, taxes) won't get you there, but that is NOT A HEALTH INSURANCE ISSUE (I suggest ready that over and over again for just the remotest chance it will seep in and you could maybe explain it, real s-l-o-w-l-y to the slightly more dense Kepi). The point about Medicaid is that it makes it even more remote that medical costs will be the cause of a bankruptcy.

You really should join Justin and Kepi in making horseshit castles - you could play queen Rani, and morons being morons would certainly mean they'll really go for it!

Originally Posted by Bad Dog

As a doggie, that image scares me. Please don't give anybody any ideas.

Fortunately degenerates that would do something like that don't have a choice in the matter. It's nature or nurture (take your pick, I always think of them as more or less one and the same), so animal sexers, people who hop in porta johns to swim for their thrills, necrophiles and the like all have a compulsion to do so that other people don't have.

It's usually why you find that they're arrogant and smug about it. They truly believe that they are the lining end and they've found the living end. That they are the prodigy that has it all figured out. Everyone else is just beneath them because they have discovered it all.

You know, never mind the legions of people who've done it before and we threw in prison. By God, they've got it.

Originally Posted by Kepi

Fortunately degenerates that would do something like that don't have a choice in the matter. It's nature or nurture (take your pick, I always think of them as more or less one and the same), so animal sexers, people who hop in porta johns to swim for their thrills, necrophiles and the like all have a compulsion to do so that other people don't have.

It's usually why you find that they're arrogant and smug about it. They truly believe that they are the lining end and they've found the living end. That they are the prodigy that has it all figured out. Everyone else is just beneath them because they have discovered it all.

You know, never mind the legions of people who've done it before and we threw in prison. By God, they've got it.

Ah, now that we know what your mouth has experience, your apparent need to keep defecating from it does make some sense.

And all this time, I thought you might of had some ability at a rational argument. Oh well, silly me. Moving on.

Originally Posted by playwrite

Then, you know, actually try a rational argument for once.

You're not fooling anyone by continuing your oral defecations. But cheer up, I'm sure at this very moment Justin's trying to get a room reservation for you both to make your horseshit castles together. Who knows, maybe you can get Rani to come live in one of them!

Why would I bother dealing with trash? Look dude I don't read past 6 lines (that's max, not average) in your constant state of oral masturbating, because you're such an arrogant, condescending, shortsighted dimwit that I'd rather beat myself into submission with a claw hammer that read more garbage and contribute to your wankfest. I like to do this because I know I'm derailing exactly what you get off on. You're not worth an argument. You're dense, stupid, and completely devoid of any human virtue.

horseshit, you lie - -

http://www.thewire.com/politics/2014...tories/356728/

Lessons from the Obamacare 'Horror Stories'

At the root of every debunked, cancelled plan, Obamacare "horror story" is usually a person who isn't as informed as he or she would like to believe. Usually that person is a journalist. Last week Maggie Mahar at HealthInsurance.org debunked yet another horror story, but she didn't blame the misguided former policy holders so much as the journalist who wrote the story. "It appeared that no one at the Star-Telegram even attempted to run a background check on the sources, or fact check their stories," Mahar wrote. "I couldn’t help but wonder: 'Why?'"

Obamacare horror story debunkings are actually just journalists calling out their peers. While the Obamacare "victim" — usually someone whose policy was cancelled — may be motivated by political leanings, an aversion to subsidies or just a lack of knowledge, it's not their job to give an accurate, thorough report on the issue from all sides. “The whole concept of the media checking the media is a new phenomenon,” Bill Adair of PolitiFact told Poynter in November. There was once a time when journalists were a little more discreet with their critics of their peers, but now calling people out is the norm. And with Obamacare, which leads all kinds of reporters to pick and choose details, everyone (everyone) can learn something from the mistakes of others. Here are the key lessons from the last three months of bogus horror stories.

The Texas Horror Story: In late November Yamil Berard at the Fort Worth Star-Telegram wrote a piece on Obamacare's losers, people whose plans had been cancelled and who were having a hard time finding new plans. Whitney Johnson, a 26-year-old with multiple sclerosis, claimed she was being quoted $1,000 a month for her new premium. Robert Kecseg, 61, said his deductible was "double" the $10,000 he paid previously. Shari Lusk, 57, refused a subsidy.

Mahar found that Johnson, Kecseg and Lusk are all active Tea Party members. Meanwhile, it's extremely unlikely for a 26-year-old to pay $1,000 monthly premium, and anyone following the health care law would know that it limits deductibles for families at $12,700 and $6,350 for individuals. Unfortunately, Berard hadn't been following the Obamacare news. “I haven’t written about healthcare in a long time. We don’t have a healthcare writer," she told Mahar. "I cover about 15 other topics."

The Lesson: Google your sources, or someone else will do it for you. Also, someone who thinks "We as a nation need to stand with the likes of Senator Ted Cruz and Senator Mike Lee who are committed to stopping ObamaCare,” as Johnson wrote in a letter to a pro-life organization, probably has a bias against Obamacare that should be mentioned.

The Los Angeles Horror Story: In October, Deborah Cavallaro of Los Angeles was quoted $478 a month by her insurance broker, nearly $200 more than her current plan. "Please explain to me," she told Maria Bartiromo on CNBC Wednesday, "how my plan is a 'substandard' plan when ... I'd be paying more for the exchange plans than I am currently paying by a wide margin?" She also said, "for the first time in my whole life, I will be without insurance." But, as Michael Hiltzik at the Los Angeles Times found, her current plan kind of sucks:

Her current plan, from Anthem Blue Cross, is a catastrophic coverage plan for which she pays $293 a month as an individual policyholder. It requires her to pay a deductible of $5,000 a year and limits her out-of-pocket costs to $8,500 a year. Her plan also limits her to two doctor visits a year, for which she shoulders a copay of $40 each. After that, she pays the whole cost of subsequent visits.

A silver plan with a $2,000 deductible would cost her $333 a month after the subsidy that the Times confirmed she was eligible for. Cavallaro, 60, also worried that her income would fluctuate, reducing her subsidy, and that her network would shrink.

See also: 56-year-old Dianne Barrette, whose $54 a month plan hardly covered anything.

The Lesson: No one benefits when journalists don't dig deeper. CNBC failed to explain to Cavallaro why her plan was substandard — the super low cap on doctors visits, the high out-of-pocket costs (now capped at $6,350 for individuals) — so someone else had to. The network also didn't dig deeper to see if she had better options. Maybe telling people they're screwed gets more viewers.

And that goes both ways. As Cavallaro said later, she didn't research Covered CA plans, but she was reluctant to choose a cheaper plan with fewer doctor options (which Hiltzik glossed over) and was worried there were security risks associated with Covered CA (a somewhat valid concern Hiltzik didn't mention).

The Michigan Horror Story: Twenty-six year old Ashley "Obamacare raped my future" Dionne's story was told on several conservative media outlets, including Campus Reform, American Thinker, the Drudge Report, Red Alert Politics, The Blaze, and Mediaite. She claimed her premium was skyrocketing from $75 a month to $319, which was more than she could afford working 32 hours a week at $8 an hour.

This is probably the most debunkable story of all debunked stories. No one can say what Dionne can afford, but that $319 premium ignored the subsidies she was eligible for (based on the income she gave) and the fact that's she'll likely be eligible for Medicaid now that her state expanded the program.

The Lesson: Just because someone (Dionne) agrees with you (a conservative news outlet) doesn't mean she knows what she's talking about. It's not a journalist's job to determine what someone can afford, but her story didn't check out.

The Washington Horror Story: Jessica Sanford started out as an Obamacare success story. She wrote a letter to President Obama stating that the law allowed her to get insurance for herself and her son for $169 a month, after years of not having insurance. Obama read that letter to the entire country at a press conference.

But then! It turned out that the exchange in Sanford's home state, Washington, had screwed up her subsidy calculation. As in, she wasn't getting a subsidy and insurance suddenly became too expensive for her again.

But then again! As The Seattle Times reported, Sanford's son is eligible for Medicaid, and her own insurance would be much less than what she'd been quoted in the past. As Danny Westneat at the Times put it:

So here’s a family that was totally uninsured for 15 years because it had always cost at least $500 to $600 a month for skimpy policies to cover them both. And what they can get now is full coverage for $30 a month for the son and scantier coverage in the $250 to $300 a month range for the mom.

If $250-$300 a month is too much for Sanford that's her call. But her son could have cheap insurance and his $250-a-month ADHD medication would be free thanks to the Medicaid expansion.

The Lesson: Stop ignoring Medicaid. There are problems with the Medicaid expansion, but for a lot of people it's a solution. About 3.9 million people have enrolled in expanded Medicaid, while five million have been left out in states that haven't expanded, according to Businessweek. But that's often overlooked.

Well, at least we know Kepi and Justin will always be able to get a job - apparently there's great demand for horseshit castles.

Who'd of thought we get two replacements for Glick???

Benghazi! Obamacare!!! Mufasa! Mufasa!

Originally Posted by Kepi

Why would I bother dealing with trash? Look dude I don't read past 6 lines (that's max, not average) in your constant state of oral masturbating, because you're such an arrogant, condescending, shortsighted dimwit that I'd rather beat myself into submission with a claw hammer that read more garbage and contribute to your wankfest. I like to do this because I know I'm derailing exactly what you get off on. You're not worth an argument. You're dense, stupid, and completely devoid of any human virtue.

Yep, it fits.

Can't read more than 6 lines. The ACA is bad because its too big.

You probable informed your kindergarten teacher of the same regarding "Dick and Jane."

No one should doubt why the only thing you think of as an argument is the oral diarrhea that you have spewed so far on this thread. That just makes you a moron; liking it makes you a sociopath.

Originally Posted by playwrite

She only does that to people she likes.

http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/Tsundere

She loves me, and I have the scar tissue and the bannings to prove it.

Originally Posted by The Rani

Oh, thanks for the clarification!
And once again, you're absolutely spot on. No reason that people should be able to afford medical care AND heat. Let 'em choose one or the other!

I know right, the nerve wanting both heat and medical care.

Originally Posted by playwrite

You really should join Justin and Kepi in making horseshit casles.

- you could play queen Rani, and morons being morons would certainly mean they'll really go for it!

...

Well, at least we know Kepi and Justin will always be able to get a job - apparently there's great demand for horseshit castles.

Song needed!



Minor update 1969 sand = 2014 shit

Castles, castles made of shit, slip into to the sea, eventually...

Queen/king toad

Originally Posted by The Rani

You tell 'em, playdude! I certainly don't know anyone who can't come up with six extra grand if they happen to get sick. For people who can't, stop complaining and get a job!

Don't you get how he works by now? If you can't provide him five years' of tax returns and a stool sample from your supposed "person who doesn't have six grand laying around", then that proves that no such person exists. And if you do provide him the necessary-to-him evidence, then that means that the person you identified doesn't count for some other reason he'll make up on the fly.

Liars lie.


---
-edit-
See how reliable he is?

Originally Posted by playwrite

The point was (you pull this misdirection horseshit as much as Justin does) was whether medical care and insurance cost would put you into bankruptcy. My point was it will not once you are covered one way or another under the ACA. That doesn't mean other costs (e.g. mortgage, utilities, taxes) won't get you there, but that is NOT A HEALTH INSURANCE ISSUE...

Get it? There won't be any people driven to penury by medical costs under the ACA since *anyone* can come up with the six grand off the top of their income or savings. It's the eating and having a roof over their house that will bankrupt people. Not the medical care, you see.

The following is an unofficial, slightly edited set of excerpts from a March 4 telephone interview with Dr. Steffie Woolhandler, professor at the City University of New York School of Public Health at Hunter College, visiting professor of medicine at Harvard Medical School, and co-founder of Physicians for a National Health Program, conducted by Dr. Margaret Flowers and Kevin Zeese on their radio show “Clearing the FOG”

Dr. Steffie Woolhandler: Time to end medical debt, medical bankruptcy


How do people get into medical debt?

Some people get into medical debt because they have no insurance and they get sick. But the majority of people with serious medical debt have insurance, but their insurance is partial – full of gaps like copayments, deductibles and uncovered services.

So what happens is that people get sick, they try to use their insurance, and find that they’re still left holding literally thousands of dollars in unpaid medical bills.

You’ve done several research studies on health care and bankruptcy. What have those studies found?

We interviewed more than 2,000 people in federal bankruptcy court to figure out why they went into bankruptcy. In about 60 percent of all personal bankruptcies, medical bills and medical illness played a major role. Either people were uninsured and got sick, or they were insured, but found that their insurance really failed them when they had a serious illness.

More than three-quarters of people in medical bankruptcy had health insurance when they first got sick. Now, some of those people got so sick they lost their job, or they had to quit their job to take care of a sick family member. When they lost their job they lost their insurance. But even more commonly, people had insurance, usually private insurance, that they kept throughout their medical illness, but were bankrupted anyway because of gaps in coverage like copayments, deductibles and uncovered services.

What’s the trend regarding copayments, deductibles and uncovered services? Is the situation going to improve when Obamacare takes hold?

No. In fact, the federal health law will make the problem of gaps in coverage much more serious because the required insurance policies under the legislation are extremely skimpy. The so-called bronze policies, which are the cheapest policies that will meet the mandate under Obamacare, will only cover about 60 percent of your medical costs. People who buy those plans will still be responsible for 40 percent of total medical care costs. Typically, for someone with a bronze plan who got sick and tried to use their insurance, they would have at least $6,000 per person in out-of-pocket medical costs every single year they’re sick.

This is really the first time that the government has put its stamp of approval on such extremely skimpy policies. In the past, some states were trying to get consumer protections or were trying to regulate the insurance market to make the policies more generous, but Obamacare really reversed that trend with the federal government stepping in and saying we’re going to have these bronze policies that only pay 60 percent of your costs. The federal government is saying, “That’s fine with us, we think that’s OK.”

So the new federal health law has in some ways made the problem of underinsurance worse. It does improve the problem of being completely uninsured, we all know that. Approximately half of all currently uninsured people will receive coverage under Obamacare, and the other half – around 30 million people – will remain uninsured. But when we get to the problem of underinsurance, people with only partial coverage, Obamacare actually makes the situation worse.

The subsidies only kick in with the silver plan or higher. Is that true?

For whatever reason, the subsidies are only available if you purchase at the silver level, and the subsidies phase out at about 250 percent of the federal poverty level, so the subsidies disappear at a relatively low income level.


Can you speak about the impact of financial barriers to care on our health?

There’s a tremendous body of research saying that when people have no insurance, they don’t get preventive care, they don’t get primary care, and when they have a serious illness and go to the hospital they have much worse outcomes – they’re more likely to die.

There’s a growing body of evidence showing that people who have insurance, but have these skimpy policies, so-called underinsurance policies, also face really bad health consequences. When people have skimpy policies they delay getting primary care, they delay going to the hospital, and they also have worse outcomes than people who have full coverage.

We need a system where everybody has coverage for all medically necessary care, because that’s really the only way to assure people get the care they need, and it’s the only way to protect the budget of American families from the very high costs when a serious illness hits.

How about medical bankruptcies in Massachusetts? You’ve also done research on that, correct?

Medical bankruptcy in Massachusetts still accounts for about half of all bankruptcies. That was true before the 2006 legislation went into effect and that was true after 2009, after the legislation had been around for a couple of years.

It’s pretty clear that what was done in Massachusetts didn’t impact the problem of medical bankruptcy in any significant way. And if you look at what the insurance is like in Massachusetts, it’s pretty similar to what will occur under Obamacare, that is, very high copayments and deductibles.


More: http://www.pnhp.org/news/2013/march/...cal-bankruptcy

Originally Posted by The Rani

Oh, thanks for the clarification!
And once again, you're absolutely spot on. No reason that people should be able to afford medical care AND heat. Let 'em choose one or the other!

There is dumb, and then there is Toadie dumb. Let me see if I can explain this to both you and Danilynn in a way you might understand -

Once upon a time, little Rani and little Danilynn had no health insurance and they had to decide to either pay their heating bills or their medical bills for keeping their brain farts under control.

Then one day, this fellow named Obama came along and put little Rani and Danilynn (as well as 4.5 million other people) on Medicaid and they no longer had to choose between paying their heating bills or their medical bills because the latter was all taken care of by the nice Mr. Obama.

Now this may not be the happy ending we would all wish for little Rani and Danilyn. That's because we don't know for sure if little Rani and Danilyn actually paid their heating bills - apparently, the treatment for their brain farts doesn't seem to be working too well.

Are you really this dumb by nature or do you have to constantly work at it?

Originally Posted by Justin '77

Don't you get how he works by now? If you can't provide him five years' of tax returns and a stool sample from your supposed "person who doesn't have six grand laying around", then that proves that no such person exists. And if you do provide him the necessary-to-him evidence, then that means that the person you identified doesn't count for some other reason he'll make up on the fly.

Liars lie.


---
-edit-
See how reliable he is?



Get it? There won't be any people driven to penury by medical costs under the ACA since *anyone* can come up with the six grand off the top of their income or savings. It's the eating and having a roof over their house that will bankrupt people. Not the medical care, you see.

so that's now the excuse - you believe you have to collect stool samples in order to show a single case of someone going bankrupt over $6K in health care costs? That's a pretty pathetic excuse, toadie. You do know that court records are public?

I like how you now restate my point as being obvious (i.e. its not the medical costs; it's the other bills when one has no income due to a long-term malady). Too funny.

Funnier still is where will that take your brain if you at least have 1/2 of one. Do you want health insurance to have a built-in guarantee of income replacement? Would that include Medicaid? Private insurance? Let's just see how far down the rabbit hole you can take this. My bet is on you staying with your juvenile 'you lie!' response - that's more the Justin we've seen you evolve into.

By the way, how's that video going of you shooting 100+ rounds with a revolver going? Or did stool samples get in the way on that one as well? Smart move on your part at least relative to Glick; I believe he shot himself in the head trying to video his attempt at the stunt explaining his absence on the forum and your trying fill his shoes here.

Originally Posted by playwrite

so that's now the excuse - you believe you have to collect stool samples in order to show a single case of someone going bankrupt over $6K in health care costs? That's a pretty pathetic excuse, toadie. You do know that court records are public?

No. The point of the exercise (as always) is to underscore and draw attention your lies as your produce them. In doing so, I hope to ensure that you are accorded in as timely a fashion by any who might not already be aware of you and your lying ways the null-level of credibility you deserve.

Once, back in olden days, I made a final and fully-explicit attempt to actually engage with you in meaningful conversation. You've given, since then, no indication whatsoever that your total disinterest in that has changed. So you lie, and from time to time I directly and assertively point to your lies and call them what they are.

Originally Posted by Deb C

The following is an unofficial, slightly edited set of excerpts from a March 4 telephone interview with Dr. Steffie Woolhandler, professor at the City University of New York School of Public Health at Hunter College, visiting professor of medicine at Harvard Medical School, and co-founder of Physicians for a National Health Program, conducted by Dr. Margaret Flowers and Kevin Zeese on their radio show “Clearing the FOG”

Dr. Steffie Woolhandler: Time to end medical debt, medical bankruptcy


How do people get into medical debt?

Some people get into medical debt because they have no insurance and they get sick. But the majority of people with serious medical debt have insurance, but their insurance is partial – full of gaps like copayments, deductibles and uncovered services.

So what happens is that people get sick, they try to use their insurance, and find that they’re still left holding literally thousands of dollars in unpaid medical bills.

You’ve done several research studies on health care and bankruptcy. What have those studies found?

We interviewed more than 2,000 people in federal bankruptcy court to figure out why they went into bankruptcy. In about 60 percent of all personal bankruptcies, medical bills and medical illness played a major role. Either people were uninsured and got sick, or they were insured, but found that their insurance really failed them when they had a serious illness.

More than three-quarters of people in medical bankruptcy had health insurance when they first got sick. Now, some of those people got so sick they lost their job, or they had to quit their job to take care of a sick family member. When they lost their job they lost their insurance. But even more commonly, people had insurance, usually private insurance, that they kept throughout their medical illness, but were bankrupted anyway because of gaps in coverage like copayments, deductibles and uncovered services.

What’s the trend regarding copayments, deductibles and uncovered services? Is the situation going to improve when Obamacare takes hold?

No. In fact, the federal health law will make the problem of gaps in coverage much more serious because the required insurance policies under the legislation are extremely skimpy. The so-called bronze policies, which are the cheapest policies that will meet the mandate under Obamacare, will only cover about 60 percent of your medical costs. People who buy those plans will still be responsible for 40 percent of total medical care costs. Typically, for someone with a bronze plan who got sick and tried to use their insurance, they would have at least $6,000 per person in out-of-pocket medical costs every single year they’re sick.

This is really the first time that the government has put its stamp of approval on such extremely skimpy policies. In the past, some states were trying to get consumer protections or were trying to regulate the insurance market to make the policies more generous, but Obamacare really reversed that trend with the federal government stepping in and saying we’re going to have these bronze policies that only pay 60 percent of your costs. The federal government is saying, “That’s fine with us, we think that’s OK.”

So the new federal health law has in some ways made the problem of underinsurance worse. It does improve the problem of being completely uninsured, we all know that. Approximately half of all currently uninsured people will receive coverage under Obamacare, and the other half – around 30 million people – will remain uninsured. But when we get to the problem of underinsurance, people with only partial coverage, Obamacare actually makes the situation worse.

The subsidies only kick in with the silver plan or higher. Is that true?

For whatever reason, the subsidies are only available if you purchase at the silver level, and the subsidies phase out at about 250 percent of the federal poverty level, so the subsidies disappear at a relatively low income level.


Can you speak about the impact of financial barriers to care on our health?

There’s a tremendous body of research saying that when people have no insurance, they don’t get preventive care, they don’t get primary care, and when they have a serious illness and go to the hospital they have much worse outcomes – they’re more likely to die.

There’s a growing body of evidence showing that people who have insurance, but have these skimpy policies, so-called underinsurance policies, also face really bad health consequences. When people have skimpy policies they delay getting primary care, they delay going to the hospital, and they also have worse outcomes than people who have full coverage.

We need a system where everybody has coverage for all medically necessary care, because that’s really the only way to assure people get the care they need, and it’s the only way to protect the budget of American families from the very high costs when a serious illness hits.

How about medical bankruptcies in Massachusetts? You’ve also done research on that, correct?

Medical bankruptcy in Massachusetts still accounts for about half of all bankruptcies. That was true before the 2006 legislation went into effect and that was true after 2009, after the legislation had been around for a couple of years.

It’s pretty clear that what was done in Massachusetts didn’t impact the problem of medical bankruptcy in any significant way. And if you look at what the insurance is like in Massachusetts, it’s pretty similar to what will occur under Obamacare, that is, very high copayments and deductibles.


More: http://www.pnhp.org/news/2013/march/...cal-bankruptcy

Nice try, little Miss Information, but nothing it that disputes what I have said.

I'm not sure if this is deliberate attempt at misdirection or if you are just not capable of understanding the issue. Let me try to explain -

This study was done nearly a year ago looking back at cases even older; all before the ACA kicked in this January 1.

Prior to the ACA coverage, out-of-pocket expenses could exceed levels where if a person was not paying those excessive bills alone could be the basis for bankruptcy REGARDLESS of any other non-payment of non-medical bills (e.g., housing, utilities, taxes).

After ACA coverage, certainly by Medicaid and by the limits on OPE imposed on private insurers, no one is going to go bankrupt based on owing the upper limit of $6350. If someone can find a case of bankruptcy based on ANY non-payment, medical or otherwise, of $6350, I sure like to see it (I was counting on Justin but he's to busy looking at people's stool samples; Rani was my back-up but her brain fart condition seems to be getting the better of her at the moment; Kepi is off in a corner shedding crocodile tears over other Millies not being able to afford his heavily-subsidized, employer-based Cadillac plan).

Does that mean people will not be going bankrupt as a result of income lost due to some long-term malady? Absolutely not, bankruptcies will continue to be the way people get out from under non-payment situations, but the debt they owe is going to be much larger than $6350 and its going to about their NON-MEDICAL bills.

The ONLY way one can rationally complain about this is that they believe HEALTH INSURANCE should have INCOME GUARANTEE PROVISIONS. That opens a whole can of worms that nobody here who has raised the bankruptcy 'issue' SO FAR has indicated they have the intellectual capacity to comprehend. But surprise me.

Originally Posted by Justin '77

No. The point of the exercise (as always) is to underscore and draw attention your lies as your produce them. In doing so, I hope to ensure that you are accorded in as timely a fashion by any who might not already be aware of you and your lying ways the null-level of credibility you deserve.

Once, back in olden days, I made a final and fully-explicit attempt to actually engage with you in meaningful conversation. You've given, since then, no indication whatsoever that your total disinterest in that has changed. So you lie, and from time to time I directly and assertively point to your lies and call them what they are.

Yes, Gollum, master is tricksey.

Master points to your stupid assertion and asks once again for you to back it up.

Once again, you can't, so master lies.

Very tricky, master, poor Gollum, poor Smeagol.