Obamacare: Say goodnight, Gracie...

[historian]

Thermidor arrives: Cash-only doctors abandon the insurance system - Jun. 11, 2013

RIP Copy Editing:

It's believed that only a small number of doctors have switched to a cash-only model. The American Academy of Family Physicians said about 4% of respondents to a 2012 survey reported taking only cash, up from 3% in 2010. A Medscape survey found 6% of physicians in the cash-only business in 2013, up from 4% in 2012.

 

[jedi]

If your house is on fire, you don't drop 10 gallons of gas on to it, and then state "something had to be done".

You do if your indent was to get rid of the house all along.

Some day I'll regale my grandchildren of the days when I was allowed to buy the health insurance I wanted that only covered what I wanted it to and didn't cover anything I didn't need...and cost much less.

...and they'll whisper to my kids: "bad news...grandpa's gone round the bend."

you see your grandkids will report you to BIG BROTHER long before that for speaking about such non-sense that is not approved NEWSPEAK.

RIP Copy Editing:

[/FONT][/COLOR]

 

[pudly]

Blue Cross Blue Shield seeks 60% rate hikes in Texas in 2017 - Houston Chronicle

 

[jedi]

You do,understand that the end user of obamacare will not end up seeing this,increase as their advance tax credit will just increase to cover the premium increase. Its the tax payer that is footing the bill. What the end user will see is the increase in the deductible as well so most of them will never meet that high deductible and thus never have the insurance kick in.

 

[zippy23]

This is the plan. Obamacare was designed to fail. Its designed to make the little guy bankrupt, consolodate the big corps, and when more and more people lose their coverage, or prices get so high, they will beg the gov't to step in(because those people are idiots). Single payer will be the result. The democrats are evil. They know the people would never just give up their freedom and hand over their health to the gov't. They must do something step by step to make it so bad that the people demand something be done and they will come in and save the day! Obamacare is the stepping stone to single payer. The dems have admitted it, the media wont report anything, and the republican establishment is ok with this. They will remain in their position while the country fails. The sick part is that our side new it, screamed it and no one believed it. They called us racists, bigots, etc. and that worked. The republicans stayed quiet and funded it. Unless something dramatic happens, this is here to stay and we will all pay the price. meanwhile those idiots that voted for it will remain uncovered and still blame rich people and corporations. Sadly, public education has dumbed enough people down that there arent enough people left who know whats going on.

 

[Ericpwp]

The Aetna-Humana merger was the reason Aetna bailed on Obamacare - Business Insider

 

[dvd1955]

Actually, everyone not a Democrat. It was passed strictly along party lines.

Why doesn't Trump harp on things like this, especially in a battleground state like PA? Seems like that would be more effective at changing some votes than what he's doing now.

 

[pudly]

In case you don't understand the background for that image, here is the reason:

 

[1DOWN4UP]

White House announces massive changes in bid to head off ObamaCare disaster

 

[actaeon277]

White House announces massive changes in bid to head off ObamaCare disaster

Must be nice for this administration to just be able to make changes without actually going through Congress.

 

[rhino]

Obamacare is like herpes. It makes most of us miserable and we can't get rid of it.

 

[Jludo]

Obamacare is like herpes. It makes most of us miserable and we can't get rid of it.

I disagree, at no point was getting Obamacare enjoyable.

 

[SSGSAD]

I NEVER said good morning ..... This "act" cost me my insurance ..... nuff said .....

I turned 60, on July 10, 2016 .....

I now have "Tricare" for life ..... IF bho, doesn't screw me out of that !!!!!

 

[david890]

Must be nice for this administration to just be able to make changes without actually going through Congress.

You're making 2 assumptions here: first, that Congress has a better plan than the ACA (or RomneyCare, for those in MA), and second, that they're willing to act. I see no evidence of either.

So if Congress is unwilling or unable to do something, what should the Executive Branch do? Nothing? That doesn't seem like a smart plan either. So, take Executive action and force Congress to act.

IMHO, that's what should happen with Garland's appointment to SCOTUS: swear him in, force Congress to appeal to SCOTUS (with Garland recused, obviously), then see what happens. I suspect Congress wouldn't like the outcome, as Scalia himself argued that the failure to act, when the opportunity to act clearly exists, is tacit approval. So, since Congress has not denied Garland's appointment, they are tacitly okay with it.

 

[actaeon277]

You're making 2 assumptions here: first, that Congress has a better plan than the ACA (or RomneyCare, for those in MA), and second, that they're willing to act. I see no evidence of either.

So if Congress is unwilling or unable to do something, what should the Executive Branch do? Nothing? That doesn't seem like a smart plan either. So, take Executive action and force Congress to act.

IMHO, that's what should happen with Garland's appointment to SCOTUS: swear him in, force Congress to appeal to SCOTUS (with Garland recused, obviously), then see what happens. I suspect Congress wouldn't like the outcome, as Scalia himself argued that the failure to act, when the opportunity to act clearly exists, is tacit approval. So, since Congress has not denied Garland's appointment, they are tacitly okay with it.

Wow.
So you're saying we should get away from representative government, and have a king????

Maybe you need a government primer, but the law is SUPPOSED to be made by the LEGISLATIVE branch.

 

[actaeon277]

If you think the Government shouldn't have to follow the rules set out for them, then why are you even here?

 

[jedi]

Must be nice for this administration to just be able to make changes without actually going through Congress.

/thread

 

[halfmileharry]

You're making 2 assumptions here: first, that Congress has a better plan than the ACA (or RomneyCare, for those in MA), and second, that they're willing to act. I see no evidence of either.

So if Congress is unwilling or unable to do something, what should the Executive Branch do? Nothing? That doesn't seem like a smart plan either. So, take Executive action and force Congress to act.

IMHO, that's what should happen with Garland's appointment to SCOTUS: swear him in, force Congress to appeal to SCOTUS (with Garland recused, obviously), then see what happens. I suspect Congress wouldn't like the outcome, as Scalia himself argued that the failure to act, when the opportunity to act clearly exists, is tacit approval. So, since Congress has not denied Garland's appointment, they are tacitly okay with it.

Geez and Rice!! Surely I didn't just read this dribble. Bloomington. Never mind. Must be a teacher.

 

[actaeon277]

All hail the overlord


We'll just have our "King" and his supporters decide what is best.
No more rule by man.

 

[david890]

Wow.
So you're saying we should get away from representative government, and have a king????

Not at all. Dude, that must be a YUUUUGE pile of tea leaves to read that deeply into my post.

Maybe you need a government primer, but the law is SUPPOSED to be made by the LEGISLATIVE branch.

And the Senate is SUPPOSED to hold hearings on SCOTUS nominees, but they aren't doing that, are they?

My point is that if Congress is unwilling to do something, force their hand. There's really nothing stopping Obama from swearing in Garland. It would be challenged by the Senate, or perhaps a Circuit court, but since it would be an EXEC vs. LEG battle, it would go to SCOTUS at some point for resolution.

Now (pay attention here) SCOTUS would have 2 options: hear the case or let the appointment stand. I'm guessing their involvement in the 2000 election would make them leery to hear the case, and given the current makeup, a 4-4 vote seems likely. As such, the appointment would stand. If a Circuit court is involved, the court passes an injunction to halt the appointment, and the case goes to SCOTUS. Again, refuse to hear or 4-4, and the appointment stands.

BTW, nothing in my post was about Obama "making law". It's about getting the Senate to fulfill its Constitutional duty.

Let me put it this way: if Trump wins in November, but the DEMs take the Senate, we won't see a SCOTUS nominee hearing until 2020.