R
redgreen5
Guest
Fine. Put your money where your mouth is:
http://healthreform.kff.org/en/quizzes/health-reform-quiz.aspx
http://healthreform.kff.org/en/quizzes/health-reform-quiz.aspx
LOL so you wingnutters think you understand the Health Care Law?
If you are going to call us wingnutters, you might as well get it right from the starting gate. The law is not about Health Care. It is about Health Insurance.
R
redgreen5
Guest
FSSL said:
"This law is not about dogs, it's about barking."
Gotcha.
Then, tell us how this law is going to improve health care.
R
redgreen5
Guest
Even that synopsis DOES NOT tell us how the health of Americans will be improved. It is adding more laws, taxes and czars. It is a misnomer to call it a Health Care law.
C
christundivided
Guest
FSSL said:
Exact.
I bet you numbnut hasn't even taken the quiz. I actually did take it and scored 100.
Turd isn't even a US citizen. He really should have paid attention to the last question. There are over 11 million illegal immigrants in the US. The Healthy care "law" doesn't even allow illegal immigrants to be part of the health care exchanges nor are they supported by Medicaid under the new "law".
So much for Obama's plan to provide "health care" for everyone..... What a bunch of morons.
T
themagneticfields
Guest
redgreen5 said:
It's not a hard quiz. When I was employed by a federal corporation I received an email stating that my insurance premiums would be going up based on new requirements by the PPACA. That's where it impacts me personally. That was equivalent to taking a pay cut.
R
redgreen5
Guest
FSSL said:
No, it isn't.
For people who had no health care, or whose health care was limited by things like lifetime caps, etc. it certainly does improve the health of those Americans.
Did you take the quiz? What was your score?
R
redgreen5
Guest
[quote author=christundivided]
Exact.
[/quote]
Exactly wrong.
Doubtful that you are being honest here.
LOL and where did you get that little gem of a notion, moron?
Exact.
[/quote]
Exactly wrong.
Doubtful that you are being honest here.
LOL and where did you get that little gem of a notion, moron?
R
redgreen5
Guest
[quote author=OZZY]"Yes I redgreen5 am a complete idiot and bafoon ."
Gotcha.[/quote]
Says the clown who cannot even spell "buffoon". Keep trying, Jethro.
Gotcha.[/quote]
Says the clown who cannot even spell "buffoon". Keep trying, Jethro.
C
christundivided
Guest
redgreen5 said:
God's got the record. I could care less if you believe me or not.
From what you've said in other posts. Are you in the country illegally? When was the last time you voted?
What about those 11 million plus illegal immigrants that are not going to be covered under the new "health care law"? Did "Barry" let you down?
I scored 100%
I'm glad some people are being helped by it, but I still think the "working poor" and the middle-class (especially the lower middle class) are getting screwed, considering 75% of the costs still fall on those families making less than $120k a year.
The thing is, this still doesn't help my family much. We make about $40 a month too much to qualify for medical care and are barely paying our basic our bills each month. We can afford our health insurance, since my husband moved to a company where it costs around $300 a month instead of over $800 a month, which is what we paid before. The good thing, for me, is that Obamacare would mean I can't be denied coverage again because I am a cancer survivor and am obese. It still doesn't change the fact that, even with insurance, my husband and I can't actually afford the medical care we need. We'd be better off short-term having skipped out on insurance the past 2 years and paid for what we needed out of pocket, but now that's not possible without even more financial penalties.
Honestly, I'd benefit from a single-payer (socialized, similar to Canada or the UK) system much more than this. I'd also supposedly benefit from the lower costs that many libertarians claim the result of a totally free-market health care system would be, but I've seen too much corporate greed from hospital systems and drug and insurance company to have much faith in them giving up the massive profits and salaries that they are used to without government intervention or a total collapse or restructuring of the system.
I'm glad some people are being helped by it, but I still think the "working poor" and the middle-class (especially the lower middle class) are getting screwed, considering 75% of the costs still fall on those families making less than $120k a year.
The thing is, this still doesn't help my family much. We make about $40 a month too much to qualify for medical care and are barely paying our basic our bills each month. We can afford our health insurance, since my husband moved to a company where it costs around $300 a month instead of over $800 a month, which is what we paid before. The good thing, for me, is that Obamacare would mean I can't be denied coverage again because I am a cancer survivor and am obese. It still doesn't change the fact that, even with insurance, my husband and I can't actually afford the medical care we need. We'd be better off short-term having skipped out on insurance the past 2 years and paid for what we needed out of pocket, but now that's not possible without even more financial penalties.
Honestly, I'd benefit from a single-payer (socialized, similar to Canada or the UK) system much more than this. I'd also supposedly benefit from the lower costs that many libertarians claim the result of a totally free-market health care system would be, but I've seen too much corporate greed from hospital systems and drug and insurance company to have much faith in them giving up the massive profits and salaries that they are used to without government intervention or a total collapse or restructuring of the system.
R
redgreen5
Guest
[quote author=clueless and divided]
God's got the record. I could care less if you believe me or not. [/quote]
Indeed He does. That's why you should worry.
Feel free to point out the posts you're talking about.
The law doesn't cover them.
Duh.
God's got the record. I could care less if you believe me or not. [/quote]
Indeed He does. That's why you should worry.
Feel free to point out the posts you're talking about.
The law doesn't cover them.
Duh.
R
redgreen5
Guest
Raine said:
Well, no. The source for that comment is an op-ed by a (ahem) Wall Street Journal Economist, which (predictably) puts the conservative, big-business spin on the law in order to try and dismiss it. And of course, this particular helping of rightwing kool-aid got dished out (where else) on FOX. Both the WSJ and FOX are owned by Murdoch, so you need to consider the sources.
Things that you probably don't know about the person (the "Wall Street Journal Economist") making this claim about "75% of the costs":
Stephen Moore has opposed regulations on the public corporations such as Enron, Tyco, Worldcom and Global Crossing, all of which defrauded their investors and ruined their lives. He's also founded the Club for Growth, a 527 group with an associated political action committee (PAC) that employs lobbyists. After Club for Growth, Moore founded several other PACs to lobby Congress. He wants to privatize Social Security (because banks have done such a swell job with our 401k and IRAs and mortgages, I guess).
So his position as "chief economist of the Wall Street Journal" doesn't stand up well under close scrutiny. What he actually is , is a conservative business lobbyist. In fact, he only has a Masters in Economics from a rather average school (George Mason University), instead of a top-tier institution like an Ivy League establishment, Stanford, LSE, Chicago, Insead, etc. That's rather sad for someone in the position of "Chief Economist" at what proports to be the world's most important financial news source. HE ought to be at least a PhD from such a school, and have some real-world economic modeling experience outside of political action groups or think tanks. But Stephen Moore has no such education. Nor does he have any such experience; his entire adult career has been in one far-right political thinktank after another, starting PACs every few years and writing position papers for people like Dick Armey.
Then you might will be helped by it. One of the parts of this law is an expansion of Medicaid for the working poor.
http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-18563_162-57463122/medicaid-expansion-could-help-millions-but-not-all-states-want-in/
The Medicaid expansion was designed for people like Nikki who cannot afford private insurance. Medicaid would grow to include those making 33 percent above the poverty line. The maximum income to qualify would go from $23,050 per year for a family of four to nearly $31,000.
I'm hoping you would be included in this Medicaid expansion. Mostly that will depend upon where you live. Some far-right GOP governors are saying that they won't expand coverage for people like you & your husband.
We all would.
Indeed. Americans pay 2 or 3 times more for health care than any other industrialized western democracy. And the results are no better; often worse. Access is worse. This National Geographich chart shows how Americans fare on the issues of health care spending per capita, results, and access to doctors and health care: