Healthcare Hypocricy?

[kcshocker11]

Wrong. It was mandated by the courts that states could opt out. The ruling was based on the law's three year window of covering 100% of all additional costs of the medicaid expansion. After three years, the federal government rolls back to 90%, leaving the states with a gaping hole. If you want to blame anyone, blame the democrats for drafting such idiocy.

Or do the usual and blame Bush.

ok this silliness was put in by the courts. The stupidity is still on the head of Kansas.

[MoValley John]

ok this silliness was put in by the courts. The stupidity is still on the head of Kansas.

If Pelosi and Reid had simply written into the bill that the federal government would covet all costs of their plan in perpetuity, every state would participate. States opting out is a function of the democrats not being willing to pay for expenses they created. Dont blame your state officials from being afraid of such a potential liability. Blaming Kansas politicians for a poorly written- and funded federal law is weak and you know it. You also knew before I corrected you that the opt out was not a compromise to placate conservatives, but the result of a lawsuit. For someone as informed as you to originally state otherwise and blame conservatives in Washington was disingenuous.

[Kung Wu]

Yes and this silliness was put in it to appease a certain ultra right wing element of our govt. SICKO! Universal Healthcare for all!

A supermajority that needed nor received a single Republican vote for this law needed to appease the Republican party? Sorry, the Republicans weren't allowed to touch the bill. As a reminder, here was the voting record:

Senate vote (at the time of a supermajority): December 24, 2009 -- "The bill ... passed by a vote of 60–39 ..., with all Democrats and two independents voting for, and all Republicans voting against (except for Jim Bunning, who did not vote)."

Then Scott Brown was elected causing the Dems to lose their supermajority, but that only gave Republicans the possibility of input or a filibuster if the House put forth their own bill. Did the house give the Republicans an opportunity to put a SINGLE LINE OF LAW into the bill? Nope, they passed the bill that was put together under a supermajority as-is, making sure the Republicans couldn't touch/block it. Which isn't stupid if you want to win at all costs. Unfortunately it's the poor and middle class that will paying those costs.

House Vote: March 21, 2010: "The House passed the Senate bill with a 219–212 vote ... with 34 Democrats and all 178 Republicans voting against it."

All negative consequences of this horribly written piece of legislation is 100% on the Dems.

[MoValley John]

A supermajority that needed nor received a single Republican vote for this law needed to appease the Republican party? Sorry, the Republicans weren't allowed to touch the bill. As a reminder, here was the voting record:

Senate vote (at the time of a supermajority): December 24, 2009 -- "The bill ... passed by a vote of 60–39 ..., with all Democrats and two independents voting for, and all Republicans voting against (except for Jim Bunning, who did not vote)."

Then Scott Brown was elected causing the Dems to lose their supermajority, but that only gave Republicans the possibility of input or a filibuster if the House put forth their own bill. Did the house give the Republicans an opportunity to put a SINGLE LINE OF LAW into the bill? Nope, they passed the bill that was put together under a supermajority as-is, making sure the Republicans couldn't touch/block it. Which isn't stupid if you want to win at all costs. Unfortunately it's the poor and middle class that will paying those costs.

House Vote: March 21, 2010: "The House passed the Senate bill with a 219–212 vote ... with 34 Democrats and all 178 Republicans voting against it."

All negative consequences of this horribly written piece of legislation is 100% on the Dems.

That is exactly how it went down, good work! It is sad that democrats pass a bill, then blame republicans for the ramifications. It is so easy for people like KC to forget the comment of President Obama- the back of the bus comment. In KC's revision, he would like us to believe the opt out was a result of the civil minded democrats negotiating with the intollerent republicans. Those civil minded democrats are the people that relegated the republicans to the back of the bus.

[WuDrWu]

I'm hungry. So I need free food. I also need transportation to get to the free food and free health care, because if I can't get there how will I be able to use it.

THANK YOU! I can't believe I forgot food! So, food more important than shelter and healthcare, but all are very important. Food, housing and healthcare, all free.

But that's it.

[1979Shocker]

Not enough people understand that the real problem here is too many people (like '11 and 1979) think healthcare should be free. It ought to be free. Why should you have to pay for it? It's important! You don't want people dying in the streets, right? It's not fair if you wake up and find you have cancer and then can't get insurance, right? Healthcare is important, vitally important, so it should be free.

The goal all along is to eventually get to a single payer because it's free and fair. The socialists have executed their plan beautifully.

Hold on, I just thought of something....housing is important too! Maybe more important than healthcare. I mean everyone needs a roof over their head, not everyone gets sick. Housing is more important than healthcare. Housing should be free too. So there, healthcare and housing free. Done.

Well we've about got everything fixed folks. What else is there?

Someone will have to show me where I said it should be free. I have no problem if some young adult doesn't want to have insurance as long as they're willing to pay for all the medical costs when they have an emergency ( which could be in the hundreds of thousands of dollars).

If this was a Christian nation, then it would be the moral thing to do for everyone to pay into the system (as long as they are able) since eventually they'll need to use it.

[MoValley John]

Someone will have to show me where I said it should be free. I have no problem if some young adult doesn't want to have insurance as long as they're willing to pay for all the medical costs when they have an emergency ( which could be in the hundreds of thousands of dollars).

If this was a Christian nation, then it would be the moral thing to do for everyone to pay into the system (as long as they are able) since eventually they'll need to use it.

Except this Christian nation of ours used to provide healthcare for the less fortunate. In cities across the country there were Catholic hospitals, Baptist hospitals, Lutheran hospitals, Methodist hospitals and even Jewish (not Christian but religious) hospitals. They were all not for profit and provided free care to those that couldnt pay. Then the government regulated... and regulated... The government regulated Christianity right out of healthcare. Sure, you will still see hospitals with Christian names, but they are now mostly for profit and part of a healthcare consortium. It was the only way these hospitals could survive.

You can throw out the religious cheap shot, but in the end, factually, it was government that ruined Christian healthcare.

[Kung Wu]

That is exactly how it went down, good work! It is sad that democrats pass a bill, then blame republicans for the ramifications. It is so easy for people like KC to forget the comment of President Obama- the back of the bus comment. In KC's revision, he would like us to believe the opt out was a result of the civil minded democrats negotiating with the intollerent republicans. Those civil minded democrats are the people that relegated the republicans to the back of the bus.

This sums up how it went down in about 10 seconds:

[wu_shizzle]

If this was a Christian nation, then it would be the moral thing to do for everyone to pay into the system (as long as they are able) since eventually they'll need to use it.

If this were a "Christian" nation, men would realize that if they won't work they shouldn't eat.

We did this, not because we do not have the right to such help, but in order to offer ourselves as a model for you to imitate. For even when we were with you, we gave you this rule: “The one who is unwilling to work shall not eat.” We hear that some among you are idle and disruptive. They are not busy; they are busybodies. - 2 Thessalonians 3

And that there are different ways to handle the "needy"

The widow who is really in need and left all alone puts her hope in God and continues night and day to pray and to ask God for help. But the widow who lives for pleasure is dead even while she lives. Give the people these instructions, so that no one may be open to blame. Anyone who does not provide for their relatives, and especially for their own household, has denied the faith and is worse than an unbeliever. - 1 Timothy 5

But I'm guessing you don't want to live in a theocracy.

[MoValley John]

This sums up how it went down in about 10 seconds:

Yep, the dems passed it, forced it down our throats, actually. Then when the courts allow states to opt out of the medicaid expansion because the bill was so poorly written and executed, KC blames republucans.

[ShockTalk]

nm

[1979Shocker]

If this were a "Christian" nation, men would realize that if they won't work they shouldn't eat.

Actually, most of the low-income families do work. Some have 2 or 3 jobs. But with the low wages they have because of no skills or whatever (hence the low income), they aren't able to afford things such as health insurance. And with Kansas opting out and deciding that they'd rather have their tax dollars going to other states, that hurts the low-income families more. And with SNAP being cut back, it's only going to get worse for them.

I was thinking that when an uninsured low-income worker has to go the emergency room, that the hospital will just pass the cost on. But that isn't necessarily the case. The hospital will take steps to get the money from the low-income worker by sending the bill to a collection agency. The collection agency will take the steps necessary to get the money including garnishing the workers paycheck. Some employers don't like it when one of their employees has their paycheck garnished (because of extra paperwork) and could end up letting the worker go. So the low-income workier is worst off than they were.

[MoValley John]

Actually, most of the low-income families do work. Some have 2 or 3 jobs. But with the low wages they have because of no skills or whatever (hence the low income), they aren't able to afford things such as health insurance. And with Kansas opting out and deciding that they'd rather have their tax dollars going to other states, that hurts the low-income families more. And with SNAP being cut back, it's only going to get worse for them.

I was thinking that when an uninsured low-income worker has to go the emergency room, that the hospital will just pass the cost on. But that isn't necessarily the case. The hospital will take steps to get the money from the low-income worker by sending the bill to a collection agency. The collection agency will take the steps necessary to get the money including garnishing the workers paycheck. Some employers don't like it when one of their employees has their paycheck garnished (because of extra paperwork) and could end up letting the worker go. So the low-income workier is worst off than they were.

Except... Hospitals, by law, are required to forgive a percentage of their bad debt. This is part of the "Old system." It didnt change with ObamaCare. With more people insured because of ObamaCare, more and more of the debt that hospitals must forgive, reaches exactly the people you mention. That is, unless this great program that you embrace so much, really doesn't work.

[WuDrWu]

I'm afraid this is not a fair fight. But I'm still enjoying it.

[MoValley John]

For the sake of accuracy, hospitals must forgive 6% of their bad debt annually. If the federal government would simply control the borders, 6% would almost completely close the gap 1979 mentioned.

Then again, the immigration problem is the fault of Bush and the Republicans.