White House Admits Obamacare’s Individual Mandate is a Tax

gimmesometruth27

prfctlefts wrote:

gimmesometruth27 wrote:

i would like it better is it WAS gov't run healthcare. but with 2 wars, bailouts, and israel to fund we can't afford it...

the gov can't even run the post office without going in the red.and look what they did to ss medicaid and medicare,and you want them to run our healthcare ??? :shock: :shock: No thanks...

what is wrong with medicare and medicaid? i work in an orthopedic doc's office, and medicare and medicaid pays for all durable medical equipment (braces, boots, crutches, etc) and most medications more efficiently and more readily than any other insurance company at less cost to the patient. so damn right we should have a single payer system. sure they low ball the doctors, but if doctors are really doing this out of the goodness of their own hearts like so many claim to be, taking a little less money should be ok as long as they know they are helping people and doing the right thing. we have patients with private isurance that get DMEs and office procedures outright denied every day by private for profit insurance companies.

_

gimmesometruth27 wrote:

prfctlefts wrote:

gimmesometruth27 wrote:

i would like it better is it WAS gov't run healthcare. but with 2 wars, bailouts, and israel to fund we can't afford it...

the gov can't even run the post office without going in the red.and look what they did to ss medicaid and medicare,and you want them to run our healthcare ??? :shock: :shock: No thanks...

what is wrong with medicare and medicaid? i work in an orthopedic doc's office, and medicare and medicaid pays for all durable medical equipment (braces, boots, crutches, etc) and most medications more efficiently and more readily than any other insurance company at less cost to the patient. so damn right we should have a single payer system. sure they low ball the doctors, but if doctors are really doing this out of the goodness of their own hearts like so many claim to be, taking a little less money should be ok as long as they know they are helping people and doing the right thing. we have patients with private isurance that get DMEs and office procedures outright denied every day by private for profit insurance companies.

Yeah, we prefer to deal with Medicaid in the clinics I work in too.

gimmesometruth27

scb wrote:

Yeah, we prefer to deal with Medicaid in the clinics I work in too.

we had a patient 2 weeks ago that has knee arthritis and her cortisone injection (which is standard first line treatment for knee arthritis) and a secondary arthritis specific viscosupplementation injection got completely denied. she has united health care and has a policy exclusion that denies all therapeutic injections except for in the case of motor vehicle accident, cancer treatment, or infusion. now she is stuck with a $2000 bill all because of UHC denying the basic standard of care for her arthritis. it is a fucking joke...medicare would have covered this 100%, but she is 63 and ineligible for medicare...

Jason P

The sad thing is that I have yet to see any straight-forward explanation of how Obama's new healthcare system is set up. Only vague descriptions so far.

If there is a complete summary of the new system, including how it effects certain pay ranges, families (basically a breakdown of what your employer gives you), someone PLEASE post it or PM me on it. (Note: If it requires a law degree to breakdown, please do not post it)

_

gimmesometruth27 wrote:

scb wrote:

Yeah, we prefer to deal with Medicaid in the clinics I work in too.

we had a patient 2 weeks ago that has knee arthritis and her cortisone injection (which is standard first line treatment for knee arthritis) and a secondary arthritis specific viscosupplementation injection got completely denied. she has united health care and has a policy exclusion that denies all therapeutic injections except for in the case of motor vehicle accident, cancer treatment, or infusion. now she is stuck with a $2000 bill all because of UHC denying the basic standard of care for her arthritis. it is a fucking joke...medicare would have covered this 100%, but she is 63 and ineligible for medicare...

Yeah, I love Medicaid because we know what it will pay and can count on it to be paid. We don't have to go around arguing for prior auths or trying to figure out the proper paperwork. Medicaid is standardized and simplified. And when we've thought it should pay for something it doesn't, we've sometimes advocated for that and always (as far as I know) won. So then it's covered for ALL patients, not just the ones who fight their denials, and we don't have to go to battle for every single patient. With private insurance, they aren't really accountable to anyone but their stockholders, so we (the public or the medical community) aren't able to have any influence over their policies.

mikepegg44

scb wrote:

mikepegg44 wrote:

gimmesometruth27 wrote:

2 words

heritage foundation

:roll:

why do you always question the source any time something comes up you disagree with, why don't you read it? Is old George S part of that conservative mouth piece for pressing Obama? The justice department, and now the entire administration is forced to call this what it is, a tax. So was he obama stretching the truth about what it was, or did he truly not consider this a tax increase. I would say probably the latter. But now that it is being challenged in court they are forced to define it as a tax so that it can be seen as constitutional.

whether you want obamacare or not is irrelevant. It is just another story that shows the hope and change that was promised has not come. there are the same old dirty politics as with anyone else. Sad really.

I don't care if the call it a tax or a mandate, it makes no difference to me, I still think that unless we are going to go to a single payer system like canada or the UK we shouldn't have done anything at all.

:? Shouldn't we always question the sources of information? Isn't that part of critical thinking?

sure, it is always good to question the source, but not at the cost of actually reading the story. Does this coming out of the heritage foundation mean this is any less of s real story? No. I was speaking togimme directly as it seems as though if it comes from fox or any "right wing branch of the media" it is not a real story.
It is sad really, for all those who speak badly about fox as a right wing mouth piece cannot see that MSNBC, CNN and a host of others are just the left wing mouth pieces.
I like to gather facts in a sense of reading the actual article not for the conclusions that are made but for the facts they report. If it can be verified through other sources does that mean that the heritage foundation got it wrong? Is the heritage foundation reporting this make it less true that the administration is having to change the language so this bill stands up to legal challenge?
All too often on this board I see oh its just fox news, with the implication that nothing they say or report can possibly ever be true, which is ridiculous

mikepegg44

scb wrote:

gimmesometruth27 wrote:

scb wrote:

Yeah, we prefer to deal with Medicaid in the clinics I work in too.

we had a patient 2 weeks ago that has knee arthritis and her cortisone injection (which is standard first line treatment for knee arthritis) and a secondary arthritis specific viscosupplementation injection got completely denied. she has united health care and has a policy exclusion that denies all therapeutic injections except for in the case of motor vehicle accident, cancer treatment, or infusion. now she is stuck with a $2000 bill all because of UHC denying the basic standard of care for her arthritis. it is a fucking joke...medicare would have covered this 100%, but she is 63 and ineligible for medicare...

Yeah, I love Medicaid because we know what it will pay and can count on it to be paid. We don't have to go around arguing for prior auths or trying to figure out the proper paperwork. Medicaid is standardized and simplified. And when we've thought it should pay for something it doesn't, we've sometimes advocated for that and always (as far as I know) won. So then it's covered for ALL patients, not just the ones who fight their denials, and we don't have to go to battle for every single patient. With private insurance, they aren't really accountable to anyone but their stockholders, so we (the public or the medical community) aren't able to have any influence over their policies.

which is exactly why changing healthcare the way they did does nothing. Medicaid is ok, it does pay us on time as well, however if you look at just about every state that is in the red right now, including the federal government, it is a big reason why there is a deficit. Guarantees far too much in payments, like paying for a god damn hoveround. It is way too easily defrauded. It is a good program for the patient, but terrible for the government as a whole. hopefully some day we can get something that works for everyone involved.

_

Jason P wrote:

The sad thing is that I have yet to see any straight-forward explanation of how Obama's new healthcare system is set up. Only vague descriptions so far.

If there is a complete summary of the new system, including how it effects certain pay ranges, families (basically a breakdown of what your employer gives you), someone PLEASE post it or PM me on it. (Note: If it requires a law degree to breakdown, please do not post it)

I don't know if these are what you're looking for and I haven't read all of them, but some of these sites might be useful:

http://www.healthcare.gov/

http://healthreform.kff.org/

http://www.healthreformgps.org/

http://www.familiesusa.org/health-reform-central/

http://www.kff.org/healthreform/upload/8061.pdf

http://www.kff.org/healthreform/8060.cfm

_

mikepegg44 wrote:

sure, it is always good to question the source, but not at the cost of actually reading the story. Does this coming out of the heritage foundation mean this is any less of s real story? No. I was speaking togimme directly as it seems as though if it comes from fox or any "right wing branch of the media" it is not a real story.
It is sad really, for all those who speak badly about fox as a right wing mouth piece cannot see that MSNBC, CNN and a host of others are just the left wing mouth pieces.
I like to gather facts in a sense of reading the actual article not for the conclusions that are made but for the facts they report. If it can be verified through other sources does that mean that the heritage foundation got it wrong? Is the heritage foundation reporting this make it less true that the administration is having to change the language so this bill stands up to legal challenge?
All too often on this board I see oh its just fox news, with the implication that nothing they say or report can possibly ever be true, which is ridiculous

Sure, biased sources can provide factual information. But it should still be suspect until proven factual by primary sources. I have also seen plenty of BS come from such sources, haven't you?

_

mikepegg44 wrote:

scb wrote:

Yeah, I love Medicaid because we know what it will pay and can count on it to be paid. We don't have to go around arguing for prior auths or trying to figure out the proper paperwork. Medicaid is standardized and simplified. And when we've thought it should pay for something it doesn't, we've sometimes advocated for that and always (as far as I know) won. So then it's covered for ALL patients, not just the ones who fight their denials, and we don't have to go to battle for every single patient. With private insurance, they aren't really accountable to anyone but their stockholders, so we (the public or the medical community) aren't able to have any influence over their policies.

which is exactly why changing healthcare the way they did does nothing. Medicaid is ok, it does pay us on time as well, however if you look at just about every state that is in the red right now, including the federal government, it is a big reason why there is a deficit. Guarantees far too much in payments, like paying for a god damn hoveround. It is way too easily defrauded. It is a good program for the patient, but terrible for the government as a whole. hopefully some day we can get something that works for everyone involved.

I think if we moved to a single-payer system it would work for everyone involved. The resources are just currently being diverted to the wallets of private insurance CEOs.

mikepegg44

scb wrote:

mikepegg44 wrote:

scb wrote:

Yeah, I love Medicaid because we know what it will pay and can count on it to be paid. We don't have to go around arguing for prior auths or trying to figure out the proper paperwork. Medicaid is standardized and simplified. And when we've thought it should pay for something it doesn't, we've sometimes advocated for that and always (as far as I know) won. So then it's covered for ALL patients, not just the ones who fight their denials, and we don't have to go to battle for every single patient. With private insurance, they aren't really accountable to anyone but their stockholders, so we (the public or the medical community) aren't able to have any influence over their policies.

which is exactly why changing healthcare the way they did does nothing. Medicaid is ok, it does pay us on time as well, however if you look at just about every state that is in the red right now, including the federal government, it is a big reason why there is a deficit. Guarantees far too much in payments, like paying for a god damn hoveround. It is way too easily defrauded. It is a good program for the patient, but terrible for the government as a whole. hopefully some day we can get something that works for everyone involved.

I think if we moved to a single-payer system it would work for everyone involved. The resources are just currently being diverted to the wallets of private insurance CEOs.

I agree. It is tough because the insurance companies do employ a crap load of people. It is a hard thing to go backwards on. Just hope someday it works out. I think it will, but who knows

gimmesometruth27

mikepegg44 wrote:

sure, it is always good to question the source, but not at the cost of actually reading the story. Does this coming out of the heritage foundation mean this is any less of s real story? No. I was speaking togimme directly as it seems as though if it comes from fox or any "right wing branch of the media" it is not a real story.
It is sad really, for all those who speak badly about fox as a right wing mouth piece cannot see that MSNBC, CNN and a host of others are just the left wing mouth pieces.
I like to gather facts in a sense of reading the actual article not for the conclusions that are made but for the facts they report. If it can be verified through other sources does that mean that the heritage foundation got it wrong? Is the heritage foundation reporting this make it less true that the administration is having to change the language so this bill stands up to legal challenge?
All too often on this board I see oh its just fox news, with the implication that nothing they say or report can possibly ever be true, which is ridiculous

i stated why i refused to read it. any source that uses antagonistic and condescending buzzwords like obamacare is not worthy of my consideration. there is no journalistic integrity involved in that. same as with blogs. they are essentiall op/ed writings and are not held to the same standards as legitimate journalists...when is the last time a blogger won a pulitzer prize? you might think otherwise, but to me it is just bullshit to rev up the base of the gop, and undermine the president and make him look bad.

mikepegg44

gimmesometruth27 wrote:

i stated why i refused to read it. any source that uses antagonistic and condescending buzzwords like obamacare is not worthy of my consideration. there is no journalistic integrity involved in that. same as with blogs. they are essentiall op/ed writings and are not held to the same standards as legitimate journalists...when is the last time a blogger won a pulitzer prize? you might think otherwise, but to me it is just bullshit to rev up the base of the gop, and undermine the president and make him look bad.

I remember in minnesota when Pawlenty, who was and still is a big won't raise taxes guy, added a user fee to cigarettes. Now, we all knew what it was, but some allowed the governor to get away with the crafty lingo and some didn't. I am not talking about pulitzer prize winning material or any of that. But sometimes the MSM do not do a good enough job holding our leaders accountable for what they say and then what they do. It isn't just about it being a democrat or anything like that. Again, sometimes reading the articles for what they are, taking out of them the facts they purport and checking them is a good thing. No matter what the source is or what else they are saying. Changing the terminology is a big deal. saying you won't increase taxes on the middle class and then doing it is a big deal to a lot of people. Now, I knew when I voted for him that he was a democrat and that generally means a little more in taxes, but don't piss on my leg and tell me its raining. Just tell me why you are pissing on my leg. This may not be a big deal to you, and you may be able to look at the source and say, oh this article is just mean spirited or whatever, but it is a big deal to lie. Especially when public opinion is so divided on the manner. If they had called it a tax from the beginnning do you think those that supported it in the house and senate would have put all their support behind it? do you think the people of America would have been in favor of it?
For someone who based their campaign on HOPE and CHANGE, they sure seem to be doing a lot of the things that every politician did before them. It isn't the article that makes President Obama and his administration look bad, it is the administration and President Obama.

_

mikepegg44 wrote:

So was he obama stretching the truth about what it was, or did he truly not consider this a tax increase. I would say probably the latter.

mikepegg44 wrote:

it is a big deal to lie.

Would you mind reconciling these two statements for me, please.

mikepegg44

scb wrote:

mikepegg44 wrote:

So was he obama stretching the truth about what it was, or did he truly not consider this a tax increase. I would say probably the latter.

mikepegg44 wrote:

it is a big deal to lie.

Would you mind reconciling these two statements for me, please.

sure, I don't believe that the motivations of Obama himself were to deceive the public on this. What i think happened was simply that they thought they had the authority to do it, and when it turned out they didn't, they changed the tune.
But that is just my feeling. It could certainly be that it was a lie, which is a huge deal.

Either way the questions should be raised. And raising them does not demean the president or his administration, it is simply a need for clarification. Either way, calling something a fee, like my example with Pawlenty, is just a way around it, just a political game, which is what his campaign seemed to be against. Either way I am a little disappointed in him for how he handled the questions. It is a tax, he should have just called it a tax

aerial

gimmesometruth27 wrote:

prfctlefts wrote:

so what your saying is if it came from the huffington post or media matters you would believe it ? am I right ?

that is not what i am saying, no.

the term "obamacare" is nothing more than an attempt to discredit the merits of the program and trick the stupid people into being against their own self interests. classic example of the scare and smear tactics of the conservative media outlets.. keep the people stupid and angry at the president so they never realize how bad they are getting fucked by special interests and the corporations.

Alot like the term Teabaggers.....so lets try this...
the term "Teabagger" and everything said about it buy the left is nothing more than an attempt to discredit the merits of the program and trick the stupid people into being against their own self interests. classic example of the scare and smear tactics of the liberal media outlets.. keep the people stupid and angry at regular every day people so they never realize how bad they are getting fucked by liberal media and the current administration.[/

Godfather.

good thing Nixon didn't do this helth care thing or we might be calling it "tricky dickie care"

Godfather.

gimmesometruth27

aerial wrote:

gimmesometruth27 wrote:

prfctlefts wrote:

so what your saying is if it came from the huffington post or media matters you would believe it ? am I right ?

that is not what i am saying, no.

the term "obamacare" is nothing more than an attempt to discredit the merits of the program and trick the stupid people into being against their own self interests. classic example of the scare and smear tactics of the conservative media outlets.. keep the people stupid and angry at the president so they never realize how bad they are getting fucked by special interests and the corporations.

Alot like the term Teabaggers.....so lets try this...
the term "Teabagger" and everything said about it buy the left is nothing more than an attempt to discredit the merits of the program and trick the stupid people into being against their own self interests. classic example of the scare and smear tactics of the liberal media outlets.. keep the people stupid and angry at regular every day people so they never realize how bad they are getting fucked by liberal media and the current administration.[/

actually no it is nothing like that at all. it is not in the same league and it is not even the same sport. you seem to forget that at the original rallies over a year ago, the tea party originally referred to themselves as tea baggers and held signs saying they were "teabagging" this or "teabagging" that or "i'm teabagging obama before he teabags me". etc...the democrats and those that supported the health care overhaul were not referring to it as "obamacare"..it was the talking heads on the right that started calling it that in a derogatory, condescending, and glib manner with the whole goal of getting everyone on the right in a damn tizzy...

inmytree

aerial

gimmesometruth27 wrote:

gimmesometruth27 wrote:

prfctlefts wrote:

so what your saying is if it came from the huffington post or media matters you would believe it ? am I right ?

that is not what i am saying, no.

the term "obamacare" is nothing more than an attempt to discredit the merits of the program and trick the stupid people into being against their own self interests. classic example of the scare and smear tactics of the conservative media outlets.. keep the people stupid and angry at the president so they never realize how bad they are getting fucked by special interests and the corporations.

Alot like the term Teabaggers.....so lets try this...
the term "Teabagger" and everything said about it buy the left is nothing more than an attempt to discredit the merits of the program and trick the stupid people into being against their own self interests. classic example of the scare and smear tactics of the liberal media outlets.. keep the people stupid and angry at regular every day people so they never realize how bad they are getting fucked by liberal media and the current administration.[/

actually no it is nothing like that at all. it is not in the same league and it is not even the same sport. you seem to forget that at the original rallies over a year ago, the tea party originally referred to themselves as tea baggers and held signs saying they were "teabagging" this or "teabagging" that or "i'm teabagging obama before he teabags me". etc...the democrats and those that supported the health care overhaul were not referring to it as "obamacare"..it was the talking heads on the right that started calling it that in a derogatory, condescending, and glib manner with the whole goal of getting everyone on the right in a damn tizzy...[/quote]




I think "Obamacare" is called a tax now...but I was refering more to this and not the word Teabaggers....everything said about it buy the left is nothing more than an attempt to discredit the merits of the program and trick the stupid people into being against their own self interests. classic example of the scare and smear tactics of the liberal media outlets.. keep the people stupid and angry at regular every day people so they never realize how bad they are getting fucked by liberal media and the current administration.[/[/quote]