Medicaid increases by 10 million since ObamaCare rollout

Because one would think a genius like you could have made the connection. That you would understand that folks who don't buy insurance dodge their responsibility.

Apparently not.

Well of course they were. Wait, I'm sorry you haven't been following where we are talking about the 10 million on medicare being the lesser of two evils because of the costs? Come on, man..... you can do better.

Correct, people disagreeing with me has zero bearing on whether they are informed or not.

The lack information they possess and their inability to relate it in a thread like this in why they are un-informed.
So far your talking about me, not the topic. You got anything of substance to defend your position that the ACA was only instituted for entitlement? Or do you want to continue to talk about my arrogance? I'm good either way.

Holy grail is your word, not mine. It was provided for you to understand the basic conservative principles of personal responsibility. If you've labeled it derogatorily a holy grail, you likely haven't read it or missed the point.

Good for you. You are not just about opposition.

Now...
Without the cost containment mechanism of the personal mandate...
And without the macro savings realized by paying for the poor's insurance rather than have them show up in the hospital and not pay...
How do you propose we pay for the things you like?

Policy. What policy do you SUPPORT rather than the ACA.
Let's talk about your support, not your opposition. Because if there is a better way I'm all for it.


I am also not for subsidies. In the current reality, however, it is the lesser of two evils. Lesser as in less expensive. What policies do you support that would get more people off of all public subsidies and self-sustainable?

Again.... anybody counting???

Every year 2 million people claim bankruptcy because of medical costs they can not pay.
Another 54 million people between the ages of 19 and 64 are underwater on medical bills and slow pay, or don't pay.
Remember -- this is each year.

Medical bills are the single biggest reason for bankruptcy filing by far.
EVERY SINGLE YEAR
http://www.cnbc.com/id/100840148

Do you think the medical providers just suck up those costs and don't balance their books?
Who do you think pays for this condition?
You and I, in inflated rates.
Paying for the uninsured's insurance through medicare, is far cheaper than paying for their crisis care in our insurance rates
Come on... it's really not that complex. This is the heart of the ACA.

Look at the GAO's most recent projections http://www.gao.gov/assets/660/651703.pdf
If you are at all concerned about our out of control deficit, the ACA is counted on the positive debt reduction side.

Unrespectfully, I am not the one spinning here.
I have been backing up every contention I make with substance, links, and data.
Show me, with numbers or data, that the ACA was designed only as entitlement.
Come on... I dare ya.

Well yes, I do. I think if you show up in a hospital, you shouldn't be denied care. I agree with this principle. I can't imagine someone getting a splinter, having it get infected should have to die because they have no insurance and a hospital won't treat them with antibiotics. Yes, I believe we all have a right to life.

Now having said that, I am interested in the least expensive way to secure that right.
And it surely isn't having the poor not be able to see a doctor to attack the infection before it gets bad so that they show up in the emergency room in critical shape.

So I ask you again.... Are you not in favor of providing care to those who can not pay? You've dodged it once.
Or are you in favor of providing this care. And what economic policies do you SUPPORT that would reduce the cost burden to the rest of society?

Or do you like high cost?

Prove it. You keep saying it. I keep offering substance to support my contention that the economic benefit makes sense.
In this post alone you have numbers from CNBC that show you how many millions can't pay their insurance each year. And you have the GAO report showing you how much the ACA is saving the country -- improved over the initial 2010 forecast.

You just keep offering opinion.

Show me you are actually informed by someone other than Hannity, O'Brien, and Limbaugh. Show us how you know for FACT that the ACA is not about economics but only about entitlement. And then watch my arrogance disappear.

You do realize that we can still work to get people off of public subsidy despite saving money, right?
You do realize that we are all paying the cost whether they are on medicare or not, right?
You do realize we have an unsustainable national debt, right?

What's your point? That being for self reliance trumps all? We can't come-up with policy to pay costs more effectively?
Think about it. The condition exists. Millions don't have insurance and can't pay. The rest of us foot the bill.
Because of some notion of Conservative purity it ends there.
We can't tighten the belt and work on policy to get more people off of subsidy?

Your a piece of work.

Yeah, I'm amazed you lasted this long with so little to bring to the discussion. Seriously. And yes, I'm being purposefully arrogant.
Folks like you are in the way of solutions.
Bring something to the table.
What do you SUPPORT?

what a bold move
I capped and/or bolded a challenge.

Please ignore me. That's cool. Cause what you are doing in this thread certainly isn't debating.
Literally, you've brought nothing, except how outraged you are at people calling you on your lack of substance.

Although, I seriously would like to hear the policies you SUPPORT as outlined above.
But there -- you have your out.

Yep... binary thinking. You can't even fathom that the situation isn't an either/or. It didn't register when I said people could do both.

***It computes in his mind as either/or...black/white....good/bad....us/them...conservative/liberal...with us/or against us. Fascinating.


max

 

What most fail to perceive is that the trend with both parents working, globalization, and ever increasing automation will inevitably mean less well paying jobs in this country and increasing levels of chronic unemployment. We can either control the breeding rate, learn how to take care of those with lower financial incomes, or become Darwinian and let them suffer and die. If we choose the path of compassion the logical course to persue is developing the lowest cost alternative to providing the necessaries of life to those that can't afford them.

The genies are out of the box and all the wishing in the world is not going to reduce the trends of globalization and automation.

 

Uhhhhhh!!!! Let's all agree not to think about it okay?

 

This is the crux of the argument.

No, I don't believe people should get state of the art medical care when they have showed absolutely no interest in providing for themselves a mechanism for payment.

It is the poor without any coverage, and the underinsured, who have escalated the cost of care for the rest of us. If you can't afford state of the art cancer care, with the latest and greatest technology and medical procedures developed by way of a capitalist model, then you shouldn't get it.

People are bankrupted by bad medical luck. I get that. We are all capable of being bankrupted by something that is a circumstance of living. I don't think that is justification for getting it for free and mitigating the personal responsibility mechanism to protect ones self.

Nobody gets to live forever, and just like decisions about what to eat, or if you smoke, decisions to not provide for your health insurance should have the same repercussions.

Pretty much.

We have created an unsustainable entitlement society.

The basis of my position is the preservation of the very foundations of this country. Individual liberty. The right to be free to make ones own decisions, and ultimately lay in the bed that one makes. This collectivism mentality, that we all have a responsibility to each other is continuing to degrade and destroy the purpose of an economic system that has proved to be wildly successful for a few hundred years.

I don't know where you live, but where I live, entitlement is rampant.

Your position on this topic skirts the crux of the issue, and only evaluates the lesser of two evils. Its a cop-out. We need to stop making decisions based on the lesser of two evils, and acting as though we have fixed something.

I think that it is great that Obamacare provided an exchange mechanism to allow people to buy coverage away from an employer. Why not have group policies untied from employment? Fantastic.

What I oppose is forcing people into coverage, and then subsidizing those costs if they can't afford them.

I am tired of the burden of taking care of other people. Nothing in the constitution tells me that I have to; but progressive liberal policies continue to force me to be more and more responsible, by way of forced charities, provided to people I don't think are worthy. Simply, it isn't my responsibility, or that of the contributing members of society to continue to fund (through programs like Obamacare) for people that are unwilling to provide for themselves.

 

I agree and disagree.

We have a shortage of people with science and engineering back-grounds to meet demand.

The days of getting a high school education and working a factory job until retirement are nearly over.

So are we going to put all of the people who failed to prepare for the new economy on the backs of those that did?

Automation needs mechanics, engineers, and designers. We are giving a large majority of our population a pass regarding maintaining a contribution to the society we are streamlining.

 

As long as dems share any blame for RR deficits, we're fine.

 

http://lmgtfy.com/?q=syria+weapons+of+mass+destruction

On September 14, 2013, the United States and Russia announced an agreement that would lead to the elimination of Syria's chemical weapon stockpiles by mid-2014.[1] In October 2013, the OPCW-UN Joint Mission destroyed all of Syria's declared chemical weapons manufacturing and mixing equipment.[2] Several months later Syria disclosed that it maintained a ricin chemical weapons program, which the Assad regime further claims the research site for which has fallen to Syrian Opposition forces in the east of the country.[3] The following month Syria further disclosed the it had 4 more previously hidden chemical weapons production sites.[4] The Israeli intelligence community believes the Assad regime retains several tons of chemical weapons

Last of Syria’s chemical weapons handed over for destruction, international body says
http://www.washingtonpost.com/world...b9a138-fad9-11e3-8176-f2c941cf35f1_story.html

Is that so? Tell us even one item you think is "wrong or without basis" and why, so everyone can see your great integrity and veracity.

 

Absolutely no interest... that's your claim?
So, let's be clear.
You would deny service.
Is this your SOLUTION?

Wait... let's take a moment to read that again.

IT IS THE POOR WITHOUT ANY COVERAGE, AND THE UNDERINSURED, WHO HAVE ESCALATED THE COST OF CARE FOR THE REST OF US

We may now have a policy discussion. You have acknowledged this.

So again... what is your SOLUTION. Deny care because they are irresponsible?
Okay. I'm with you.
What does that plan look like?
Clearly some people are poor through no fault of their own mental illness, birth defects, etc.
How about young children of the people who showed absolutely no interest in providing for themselves?
Do we also deny them coverage?

Or do we provide it because they can not rise to the level of personal responsibility needed?
(It's tough for a 2 year old to pay insurance -- but maybe the line could be 12 or something)
How is this line determined?
What policy has been proposed, that you SUPPORT, that outlines how this works?

It's easy to talk about concepts like personal liberty. Tough to craft policy that ensures it.

Are you familiar with John Locke? And the influence he had on the revolutionaries and our founding fathers. Locke said there can be no liberty without law.
Let me ask you... the 2 million bankrupt each year, and the tens of millions who don't have health insurance, and the other 10 of million presently on health insurance subsidies.

What is it you propose happens to them?

Do they live or die on the street? In front of your house?
How about in and amongst your trading channels?

And how might the chaos they present affect your individual liberty?
And what might the cost to ensure they conform to law so that your personal liberty is ensured cost?
And what might THAT beuracracy look like?

I believe in individual liberty -- VERY MUCH!
I believe order -- in the very society an individual lives -- is needed for man to realize his liberty.

It's easy to rail against that you oppose. Tell us what you SUPPORT. Besides the concept of liberty.

The cop out is thinking that by killing the ACA the reality around you will magically change.
Realists make the wisest choice within the current reality and than champion policy to change it.
Ideologue cling to concepts with no idea how to ensure them.
If you have policy you SUPPORT. you are not an ideologue.
I have yet to hear any policy prescription you support.

There is policy proposed that does just that. But we can't even talk about it when you are stuck on the ACA.
To untie benefits from employment the tax code must be re-written. Employers are allowed the tax credit for health insurance they provide.

But while your busy crucifying the ACA because of personal ideals on liberty -- we as a country can not move forward.

Again, what policies do you SUPPORT.
Policies, like the ACA -- not concepts like liberty.
People who support the ACA also hold liberty as dear.
And they have enacted policy -- WITHIN THE CONFINES OF REALISM -- to ensure it.
You do not possess some moral high ground on liberty.
You only demonstrate that you can't think on a macro level to help insure an ideal.

And so your solution is?????
Deny coverage and deal with the consequences?
Is there a policy put forth that puts this into affect and ensures my individual liberty?
I'm all ears errr... eyes.
Lay it on me.

Okay, so what are you going to SUPPORT. What policy do you SUPPORT to deal with the present reality.

Because, honestly, without some policy, your just saying what the rest of us are saying and opposing one policy without offering anything else.
We get that you are tired. So am I? But how are you going to face present reality? The here and now, not the ideal?

max

 

You walked me into Democrats hadn't passed a budget in 2 years?
Wha???
It's a fact.
I don't have to admit facts... they just are.
You play games.
I prefer reality.

Nice try covering for your mistake.

max

 

without being disrespectful, I'd just like to point out that the preceding post by publican is blatantly, laughably inaccurate.

 

What mistake? Saying the Republicans took over the House in 2010? Technically they did, they just weren't seated till January. Unless you can produce a link to some meaningful Legislation passed by the lame duck Democrats after the election but before the first of the year.

 

You have convoluted this so much in an attempt to cover your silliness.
But your not going to get away with it.

In your post you asked who controlled the budget after the stimulus.
I pointed out there has been no budget passed since 2009 and that we have been operating under CRs.
If you wanted to "prove" there was no budget why not just write it.
It's a fact well established.

Deflect deflect delect
max

 

Oh sorry I had you confused to another "poster" who likes to pick apart every word, I pay little attention to as well.



Look at what happens when Democrats don't pass a budget and give themselves free reign to spend as much of "OUR" money as they like. It's why they got swept to the curb like so much rubbish in the 2010 mid-term election.

 

Republicans were able to control the House even before their new members were sworn in and seated?

How does that work?

- - - Updated - - -

I appreciate history isn't your strong point, but Republicans controlled Congress through 2007 and from 2011.

 

The Democrats couldn't even get immigration reform done in those 2 months. I said "took over" YOU said "control" not me.

 

Whatever dude, it takes a signature from the whitehouse.
All I know is whenever there's a dem in the executive office deficits go down.
And that certainly has to do with a republican controlled house and a willing senate.

I don't really get hung up in the one side or the other is responsible for deficit or prosperity.
We all get the credit for the mess we are.
Once we admit that -- maybe we can get to solutions.
We're not that far off compared to most every other country.

max

 

When ever Democrats are in Executive office the Deficit goes down? Comical!

 

You aren't getting it.

I don't want to take responsibility for other people and there bad decisions.

Your entire post desires to put the burden on me, to derive a policy which addresses others inability to provide for themselves.

Why must I assume this burden? It isn't my responsibility.

If people can't afford care, then they can't afford it. That burden doesn't fall on me to resolve, regardless if you view that perspective as ideological or not.

I don't want to buy people a car to get to work everyday either. That perspective isn't a mandate that I must offer an alternative solution.

 

Have you ever heard of Psychological Manipulation? Otherwise known as Social engineering? Otherwise known as a conspiracy against the people? Probably not! http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Psychological_manipulation If you pay close attention to detail from the link, you will realize what you are complaining about is a direct result of Psychological manipulation. You are lead to believe that the ones who do not pay or can't afford health care are the bad guys. Again, read the link closely and it should be crystal clear that the bad guys in your head are a myth propagated by the ones creating the conspiracy.

There are basically three categories of people in this country relating to health care. (1) The rich who can pay for all theirs.(2) The middle incomers who can afford most, but not all, depending on whether they develop a catastrophic condition. Which is quite likely, and in that case, lose their health care and everything they ever worked for sometimes. (3) And then we have the poor who for the most part cannot afford it because of cost.

So, here is where I am going with this. If we were to go back to the healthcare system we had, assuming you are in the middle class, your package deal includes a health care premium you will pay, medical bills you will pay for yourself and the others who do not pay or can't, and a possible cancellation of your own policy depending on the very likely possibility you develop a catastrophic condition. So, when you say the burden isn't yours to resolve about those who can't pay, psychological manipulation just ate your lunch, because that is exactly what you are doing today as you did ten years ago, and you don't even know it. You are forced either way to take responsibility for other people, ACA or no ACA. Dude, you and I have been had for decades, because they are manipulating you and I to pay for those who won't and can't pay. And that is why ACA for the time being is the best option. It helps the poor pay a certain amount, that you and I would most certainly pay if they didn't. Anything short of that, and you are biting your own foot off.

In other words, if we make health care affordable for everyone, it takes the heat off of those carrying the heaviest load of our overall health care debt, that we all owe.

This has nothing to do with the bad decisions of those less fortunate. People making bad decisions didn't invent the rules of a crappy health care system from the past that keeps them completely out of the game. This has everything to do with how our health care system was set up. Now we have a system that creates responsibility for all.

 

And again, you desire to put other people's burden on me.

Worse, you assume that I desire that my burdens are carried by others.

Previous mandates that require me to be responsible for others is not a justification for ACA.

The system has been broken for a long time. It still is. It still creates an entitlement mentality.

Why do collectivist only see one option? Be responsible for others, or be responsible for others. This are the only two options you see, and I desire neither.

 

What? I just proposed a way to take the burden off of you by making it affordable for those you and I are paying for. You aren't making any sense.

Really? How so? If we are all paying a fair share based on our incomes, how are you assuming I desire your burdens be carried by others? Again, you aren't making any sense.

If it helps the average consumer be less responsible for others, one has to be the dumbest cat in town, or is just so filled with hate for Obama and the ACA that one no longer can see straight.

Call it what you like. If your indifference is hate driven and cannot see the benefits of taking the responsibility off the average middle income consumer by having it, then you will never meet forest and trees in one place. Nothing one can do for you. The hate bug has probably gotten the best of you.

If the ACA helps the poor afford their own health care why are you insisting you are still responsible? If you feel that strongly, we need to go with universal coverage like every other developed nation has, and you will have zero responsibility for anyone, other than yourself.

 

As someone ON Traditional Medicaid which IS a Welfare Program let me simply say the disabled historically got assistance from governments as infirmed persons with legitimate needs, this either from government aid (England) or charity and I don't see opponents denying the need for such care for the disabled here. But why should a fit poor person get it when a catastrophic plan might make more sense?

 

No I get it perfectly.
You want your liberty and think it can happen no matter the society around you.
Freedom!, you cry.... without the slightest understanding that your individual freedom must coexist and be possible with the 316 million people next to you.

Good luck.
max

- - - Updated - - -

PS, I note you still can't provide anything you are for... besides, you know... liberty.
max

 

Well yeah, and I wish my grass was made of sugar and the hills were dotted with lollipop trees.
We all hold our ideals. But there's REALITY looking you right in the face.
Some of us look back. Some of us don't.

Change the term collectivists ... (part of the manipulation) ... to realists.

We don't disagree about the situation you sumize. But what is it you plan to do about it?
Shout liberty and continue to pay more?
Keep shouting until you die -- perhaps prematurely because your coverage ran out?

max

- - - Updated - - -

Because the folks who label others collectivists never come to the table with any workable solutions?
max

 

Because wellness plans help mitigate catastrophes.
Catastrophes cost more.
Less of them = less cost.
More than enough to pay for the preventative care.
max