[festinator]

He's lied about the NSA, a successful health Care act and promise to get our troops back.

Sent from my HTC Xperia S4

The troops aren't coming back?

Sent from my Nexus 4 using AC Forums mobile app

[JW4VZW]

The hate for Bush is better?

Signatures, shmignatures...

But Bush is a Republican so it is allowed to hate him.

posted on my mobile device please excuse any errors

[JW4VZW]

I voted for Obama. I even like the idea of Obamacare. But once you get into the details of Obamacare and pull back the curtain for what it really is you see that there's a lot of lies in this law. It does more harm than good.

I still can't believe that it was passed and hardly anyone read the bill. Hell, I don't sign anything until I read everything, such as buying a car, renting an apartment, enlisting, or joining the gym.

posted on my mobile device please excuse any errors

[JW4VZW]

If what you're saying is true, then why isn't he getting impeached?

Because he is a democrat.

I really don't know, because Bill Clinton was impeached for a whole lot less.

I hate to say it, but I am pretty sure that obamas race plays a hand in it.

posted on my mobile device please excuse any errors

[JW4VZW]

Bush didn't intentionally lie to people, and had the approval and encouragement of Democrats. Clinton outright lied, as Obama is now.

Sent from my XT1080 using Tapatalk

Who controlled the house during the Bush Administration?

posted on my mobile device please excuse any errors

[Aquila]

Who controlled the house during the Bush Administration?

posted on my mobile device please excuse any errors

The republicans have led the House since 1997. They also had the Senate from 1995 to 2007 except for 2001-2003, where it was split evenly.

[Kevin OQuinn]

Because he is a democrat.

I hate to say it, but I am pretty sure that obamas race plays a hand in it.

posted on my mobile device please excuse any errors

Sigh. The second post you quoted totally contradicts the answer you gave for the first post you quoted. LOL

No, it can't be race. That's not the answer for everything. If he (or any President) does anything that legitimately and impeachable offense than that should be done. Maybe, just maybe, there isn't anything legitimate being thrown out there. You know if it could happen that the Obama haters would MAKE it happen, just like they've made other things happen.

[alexlam24]

The troops aren't coming back?

Sent from my Nexus 4 using AC Forums mobile app

Not as he promised this year. He said they would be back by winter this year.

Sent from my HTC Xperia S4

[pappy53]

Now he is trying to come up with a "fix", which by the way is illegal. He cannot make amendments to a passed law. That is Congress' responsibility. He got away with it with the delay of employer mandates, but I don't think that he will this time.
Plus, the insurance companies probably won't go along with it, anyway. He is in a pickle!

[Aquila]

Now he is trying to come up with a "fix", which by the way is illegal. He cannot make amendments to a passed law. That is Congress' responsibility. He got away with it with the delay of employer mandates, but I don't think that he will this time.
Plus, the insurance companies probably won't go along with it, anyway. He is in a pickle!

So you'd rather have things continue on the course they're on, rather than have this delay allowed? This seems to be exactly what was asked for 6 weeks ago.

[NoYankees44]

Just to clear something up from page 1:

Impeachment is to bring charges against the president for breaking the law.

Clinton was impeached because he lied under oath in court. Which is illegal.

Neither Obama nor Bush has been caught breaking a law, thus no way to impeach.

Don't get me wrong, I would love to charge the man with several crimes, but there is not currently a legal leg to stand on at the moment. As far as I know, there is no evidence of him actually breaking the law.

[pappy53]

So you'd rather have things continue on the course they're on, rather than have this delay allowed? This seems to be exactly what was asked for 6 weeks ago.

No, I had just rather that it be done the way that the Constitution states, instead of him thinking that he is above the Constitution. Too much of that has gone on already (employer mandates, Dream Act).

[Aquila]

No, I had just rather that it be done the way that the Constitution states, instead of him thinking that he is above the Constitution. Too much of that has gone on already (employer mandates, Dream Act).

I definitely agree that they should follow procedures, but I'm not clear on exactly what the procedure is for this change. If this is only a change to enforcement he might be able to do that. I'd assume that he'll propose an amendment or new law to the Congress and let them vote on it, but I guess he didn't really say how he was going to try to do this.

[pappy53]

I definitely agree that they should follow procedures, but I'm not clear on exactly what the procedure is for this change. If this is only a change to enforcement he might be able to do that. I'd assume that he'll propose an amendment or new law to the Congress and let them vote on it, but I guess he didn't really say how he was going to try to do this.

It may be a moot point if that Upton bill gets passed tomorrow.

[alexlam24]

It may be a moot point if that Upton bill gets passed tomorrow.

Kate Upton?

Sent from my HTC Xperia S4

[Aquila]

It may be a moot point if that Upton bill gets passed tomorrow.

It sounds like it might have a chance of passing the House, very small chance of getting through the Senate, a guaranteed presidential veto and no chance of a joint vote to overcome the veto. That bill sheds the entire point of the law, rather than trying to make it easier on people trying to transition into the new coverage options.

What I think the country needs, and I see democrats asking for it too... if they're going to abandon the ACA long term, is a plan that replaces it with something better, not reverting to the old system that it's a relatively poor attempt to fix.

Saying, "yeah we've spent a couple billion of dollars, but it didn't work, so we're going to abandon it, screw over everyone that it was going to help and then sit here and whine about wasted spending" just doesn't seem to be effective when what we need is a way to move forward.

[Serial Fordicator]

Just to clear something up from page 1:

Impeachment is to bring charges against the president for breaking the law.

Clinton was impeached because he lied under oath in court. Which is illegal.

Neither Obama nor Bush has been caught breaking a law, thus no way to impeach.

Don't get me wrong, I would love to charge the man with several crimes, but there is not currently a legal leg to stand on at the moment. As far as I know, there is no evidence of him actually breaking the law.

Impeachment would leave us worse off. Obama was no ***** when he chose biden as a running mate. Biden as president... Perish the thought. Yuck

ΜΟΛΩΝ ΛΑΒΕ

[llamabreath]

It sounds like it might have a chance of passing the House, very small chance of getting through the Senate, a guaranteed presidential veto and no chance of a joint vote to overcome the veto. That bill sheds the entire point of the law, rather than trying to make it easier on people trying to transition into the new coverage options.

What I think the country needs, and I see democrats asking for it too... if they're going to abandon the ACA long term, is a plan that replaces it with something better, not reverting to the old system that it's a relatively poor attempt to fix.

Saying, "yeah we've spent a couple billion of dollars, but it didn't work, so we're going to abandon it, screw over everyone that it was going to help and then sit here and whine about wasted spending" just doesn't seem to be effective when what we need is a way to move forward.

And whoever can come up with something (either party), somehow get it implemented and successful, will have a good chance of being elected the next President.



⊙⊙ Signatures, shmignatures

[Aquila]

And whoever can come up with something (either party), somehow get it implemented and successful, will have a good chance of being elected the next President.



⊙⊙ Signatures, shmignatures

I'd hope that the next proposal includes actual reforms on the industry, such as slashing the prices that medicare pays for everything (typically less than private insurance, but in some cases more.. but usually 8-12 times the actual cost of goods).

One of the biggest fears about a single payer system is the rediculous costs, but they all assume current costs that include a 30% markup for insurance companies on top of a 300-400% markup based on uninsured compensation + margins, etc. Now might not be the time, and it may be a long time, but I think that we're all here intelligent enough to realize that's where the destiny of healthcare lay. And in a large way, the most conservative way of thinking big about healthcare is to lower the costs for as many people as possible, for everyone if possible, especially the costs for the bloated government. We NEED to lower those costs.

Single payer might be or might not be the right option for the US, it's got some huge challenges to figure out, not the least of which is if our government has any legitimate interest in the industry.... but if it could slash federal funding by 70% and eliminate private contributions entirely, we'd be insane not to check that solution out. Even if we are looking for solutions that include private savings or insurance contributions, drastically lowering costs is still not only possible, but fairly easy. It can be as simple as inserting medicare earlier in the supply chains.

[Mooncatt]

We've already got doctors that either aren't taking new Medicare patients or not taking Medicare all together due to the low amounts they get for reimbursements. That just leads to increased wait times and it's reasonable to expect it increases unnecessary E.R visits. For example, around here it can be a 6 month wait to see a dentist if on the state sponsored plans. Pay cash and you can be seen the next day. To cut that funding even more would just increase the doctor shortage for Medicare patients.

[Aquila]

We've already got doctors that either aren't taking new Medicare patients or not taking Medicare all together due to the low amounts they get for reimbursements. That just leads to increased wait times and it's reasonable to expect it increases unnecessary E.R visits. For example, around here it can be a 6 month wait to see a dentist if on the state sponsored plans. Pay cash and you can be seen the next day. To cut that funding even more would just increase the doctor shortage for Medicare patients.

Obviously best case scenario for the ER is cash at 100% or 80%-85% (typical cash discount) of the billable cost. Next best is 40-50% that the insurance company is likely to pay, followed closely by medicare rates. The billable cost is the problem, not the % paid.

The billable cost is an aggregate markup of the % paid, including markup and includes a major push from the 80-90% of bills that aren't paid at all. Clinics and GP's are probably being paid on a higher % of their billable cost, but fixing healthcare costs is more about addressing the unpaid, eliminating the waste and middlemen and lower the total due (not necessarily the % paid) by all parties, over time.

When I say lower costs, I'm not saying necessarily to pay doctors less, but to not pay $35 for a nicotine patch that comes in a box of 12 for $18. To not pay $2.50 for a bandage that comes in a box of 100 for $4. Actually eliminating the wasted money that is marked up almost entirely because of the uninsured and under-insured populations being unable or unwilling to pay for their services/supplies in emergency situations.

So you're right, Medicare typically does pay less as a % of the billable amount than private insurance or cash payers, but they pay much more than people who have no ability to pay and sometimes they do pay more than private insurance on some things. Either way, the problem is they're still paying at least 500%, but usually 800-1000% of the actual cost of services (supplies, labor, operations, etc) to Medicare patients. If we get that down to ... around 100%, maybe 200% we have a huge cost savings and the savings could be either used to enroll 2.5 to 4 or 5 times more people in Medicare (not my favorite option) which would also lower the healthcare industries unpaid populations, meaning more profit for them OR we could use that savings to lower the Medicare contributions, increase it's solvency, etc OR create a higher taxed opt-in public option... lots of things can be done with that HUGE amount of money.

It's easy to ask a hospital if they'd rather be paid 100% of a $10,000 bill or 2% of a $100,000 bill.

[megakony]

I still cannot believe how could a USA government create a website that does not work with all the amazing technological advances that the country has made over the last few years...simply cannot understand

[Mooncatt]

I still cannot believe how could a USA government create a website that does not work with all the amazing technological advances that the country has made over the last few years...simply cannot understand

Easy, that's government for you. Remember all those "healthcare will become the DMV" jokes? Looks like they were right. o_o

[Aquila]

Easy, that's government for you. Remember all those "healthcare will become the DMV" jokes? Looks like they were right. o_o

I was only half joking when I said they should have just hired Google.

[llamabreath]

I still cannot believe how could a USA government create a website that does not work with all the amazing technological advances that the country has made over the last few years...simply cannot understand

One word: BUREAUCRACY



⊙⊙ Signatures, shmignatures