How does it feel to now be a taxpayer?

[Dixie - In Memoriam]

Wow...that's the craziest spin on words I've ever heard, even from a right winger. Fact is, the money was used for "something else". By George Bush.

Ah... but the "budget surplus" was the inclusion of the Social Security trust fund. This happened under Clinton, not Bush.

And yeah... I guess you could say it's semantics, but technically speaking, they have not 'spent the money on other things', they borrowed the money and haven't paid it back. The money is legally supposed to be paid back, and we can't take them to the SCOTUS for violating the constitution until they fail to pay it back.

 

[ekg]

Sorry, but the trust fund hasn't been used for other purposes. They have "borrowed" money from the trust fund to do other things, with the promise the money would be paid back into the fund before it's needed... the money wasn't "used for something else" it was borrowed, and is supposed to be paid back at some point. The SCOTUS ruled they couldn't "borrow" from the fund to pay for Obamacare.

where did you get that from? certainly not from that snip you keep posting.. so can you provide any proof of this claim?

 

[Dixie - In Memoriam]

where did you get that from? certainly not from that snip you keep posting.. so can you provide any proof of this claim?

There is about 3 pages worth of very complicated constitutional foundation explanation at the very beginning of the opinion. It establishes the parameters of what the Fed can and can't do, according to the Constitution, with regard to funds appropriated to other programs, and whether they could be used to fund aspects of Obamacare. It is in those explanations, and I am not sure how I would post a 'snippet' to support it... you kind of have to READ the whole thing, to understand it. Now, I know that you know where to find the actual opinion yourself, I think you have posted it already... so go read it, and you will find what I am telling you, in the first section of the opinion.

The first thing that you pinheads screamed, was that I hadn't "proven" they couldn't regulate Obamacare under the commerce clause, and after two days of whining and ridiculous behavior, I finally posted the text of the opinion that explains it! Immediately, you begin demanding I post some other aspect... you completely ignore that I just put a bullet in the head of your two-day-old whinefest for "proof" by giving it to you, and you start whining about "proof" for something else! Look, there were NUMEROUS details addressed and ruled on with this case, it wasn't something you can sum up in a pull-quote. SORRY! Hate to be that way, but that's how this is! It's a VERY complicated case, with a LOT of constitutional caveats and nuance. We can't possibly pick and peck our way through the whole thing, holding your hand and explaining every word of the opinion as it applies to every detail... the elections in November will be over before we can do that. The entire REASON they couldn't take back their Medicaid money from the states, was because this can't be paid for with the Medicaid money. It can't be paid for with ANY money from an existing and ongoing program.

Ultimately, Roberts may have pulled off a very cool move, because what it means is, ultimately... Obamacare has to be voted on as a tax by a supermajority in the House and Senate, and passed as such... or it dies of funding starvation. There is very little they can do to keep it running otherwise, and that's even IF Democrats manage to keep the WH and Senate. With a solid 55% of America opposed to this thing, you can expect some Democrats to start distancing themselves from it, because they ultimately want to keep their butts parked in their seats and not on a plane-ride home in November. You'll have your usual handful of liberal goobs from liberal states, who will continue to cling to this, but by November, you are going to see a drastic change in tempo.

And OMG... IF your glorious messiah Obama should happen to lose? I know that isn't even in your realm of thought right now... but SHOULD that actually happen? You can forget Obamacare... it will be a forgotten shitmark on the walls of history's urinal forever.

 

[apple0154]

There is about 3 pages worth of very complicated constitutional foundation explanation at the very beginning of the opinion. It establishes the parameters of what the Fed can and can't do, according to the Constitution, with regard to funds appropriated to other programs, and whether they could be used to fund aspects of Obamacare. It is in those explanations, and I am not sure how I would post a 'snippet' to support it... you kind of have to READ the whole thing, to understand it. Now, I know that you know where to find the actual opinion yourself, I think you have posted it already... so go read it, and you will find what I am telling you, in the first section of the opinion.

The first thing that you pinheads screamed, was that I hadn't "proven" they couldn't regulate Obamacare under the commerce clause, and after two days of whining and ridiculous behavior, I finally posted the text of the opinion that explains it! Immediately, you begin demanding I post some other aspect... you completely ignore that I just put a bullet in the head of your two-day-old whinefest for "proof" by giving it to you, and you start whining about "proof" for something else! Look, there were NUMEROUS details addressed and ruled on with this case, it wasn't something you can sum up in a pull-quote. SORRY! Hate to be that way, but that's how this is! It's a VERY complicated case, with a LOT of constitutional caveats and nuance. We can't possibly pick and peck our way through the whole thing, holding your hand and explaining every word of the opinion as it applies to every detail... the elections in November will be over before we can do that. The entire REASON they couldn't take back their Medicaid money from the states, was because this can't be paid for with the Medicaid money. It can't be paid for with ANY money from an existing and ongoing program.

Ultimately, Roberts may have pulled off a very cool move, because what it means is, ultimately... Obamacare has to be voted on as a tax by a supermajority in the House and Senate, and passed as such... or it dies of funding starvation. There is very little they can do to keep it running otherwise, and that's even IF Democrats manage to keep the WH and Senate. With a solid 55% of America opposed to this thing, you can expect some Democrats to start distancing themselves from it, because they ultimately want to keep their butts parked in their seats and not on a plane-ride home in November. You'll have your usual handful of liberal goobs from liberal states, who will continue to cling to this, but by November, you are going to see a drastic change in tempo.

And OMG... IF your glorious messiah Obama should happen to lose? I know that isn't even in your realm of thought right now... but SHOULD that actually happen? You can forget Obamacare... it will be a forgotten shitmark on the walls of history's urinal forever.

I don't understand why you continually set yourself up for disappointment. From backing the wrong Republican candidate(s) during the primaries to betting the SC would strike down ObamaCare you're now hitching your proverbial wagon to a Repub win in November which common sense tells us will not happen. More and more people are realizing the benefits of Obamacare and still more will do so from now to voting day. One of the main Repub arguments against ObamaCare was funds from Medicare would be used. The SC settled that argument. One less scare tactic in the Repub's bag of imaginary horrors.

With higher than average unemployment in the 18 - 25 year age group anyone and everyone with children in that group is going to support ObamaCare assuming they give a damn about their children. Those over 65 don't have to worry about Medicare cuts due to ObamaCare. The middle age whose job is less than secure and knowing the cost of medical insurance are going to take a good look at ObamaCare. Combined, that's a nice slice of the electorate. AND the SC ruled ObamaCare is constitutionally valid.

Romney has no plan. He's running on criticizing Obama and offering nothing but the same old, same old Republican nonsense. Old, tired, worn out ideas. If you continue to support Romney I suggest you put aside a good bottle of whiskey for voting day. You'll need a friend.

 

[Taichiliberal]

Originally Posted by Taichiliberal
To date, the neocon/teabagger driven GOP offer NO alternative to the AHA beyond an expansion of the old system that put the country's citizens in the current predicament in the first place. You've got to be a new type of fool to advocate for the system that Wendell Potter warned you about, and to what Dr. Peelo testified about.

In my opinion, an even BIGGER fool would be someone who wants to keep the ineffective system we have now, dare anyone to even THINK about touching it, AND... add another much larger massively ineffective system that does virtually the same thing, just so they can "punish the rich!"

And the Dixie Dunce rides again!

The ACA is just under a year old, and the FULL enaction of it won't happen until 2014! So WTF are YOU babbling about, Dixie?

The ONLY people whose taxes will be affected will be those who draw a paycheck but REFUSE to purchase health insurance!
If you can't afford to, there is gov't assistance! If you have insurance an are happy with it, YOU DON'T HAVE TO CHANGE A THING!

Insurance companies CANNOT screw you over by dropping you because you get sick, and they are now required to be more plain language as to what they are covering , why they are raising their rates, etc. They are going to get MORE business...so why the hell should they raise their rates? Where's all the "free market competition" that you neocon/teabagger/libertarian lunkheads all swore would naturally lower costs?

ONce again, my Dixie Dunce, you avoid the FACT that YOU are NOT affected by the penalty tax, and that the GOP has NO solution other than an expansion of the old system that put Americans in dire straights regarding health insurance in the first place! Why don't you just grow the fuck up and stop being a flunky for people that couldn't care less about you unless you're serving them?

 

[Dixie - In Memoriam]

The ACA is just under a year old, and the FULL enaction of it won't happen until 2014!

No it won't because it's going to be repealed in 2013.

The ONLY people whose taxes will be affected will be those who draw a paycheck but REFUSE to purchase health insurance!

No, someone still has to replace the money they can't siphon out of Medicaid now. You see, in the real world, money has to actually come from a source.

Insurance companies CANNOT screw you over by dropping you because you get sick.

Great, so our insurance premiums will reflect having to pay for all the sick people the insurance has to cover! Brilliant!

They are going to get MORE business...so why the hell should they raise their rates?

Because they are going to pay more claims, because now they have to pay for people who are already sick, or insure against what has already happened.

Where's all the "free market competition" that you neocon/teabagger/libertarian lunkheads all swore would naturally lower costs?

Poor people shouldn't be concerned with free market competition, they can go to any number of health clinics and not pay a dime.

 

[Taichiliberal]

that... does not say


what you just posted says only that the mandate is allowed and the gov't cannot penalize states for not expanding medicaid..

it says nothing about what you said..

but it also says that it's only a 'tax' if you can, but don't get health insurance.. in other words, it won't affect anyone who has insurance now..

so much for that whole 'largest tax increase in history' mantra going on..




LOL... try me..



is that what you get from what you posted? because that's not what it says.. at all.

can you made highlight the part that says that? because it doesn't, over here.. over here its says..



meaning, Congress can offer Obamacare, what it can't do is penalize the states that won't expand medicaid, which is a part of Obamacare..The idea was to expand medicaid since it's cheaper to cover people under medicaid.. to force their hands, they threatened to penalize the states that wouldn't do this by taking away their medicaid funds.. SCOTUS said they can't..

nothing about medicare and nothing about not using the money for one to the other..




here's the law in Obamacare talking about the penalty for not expanding medicaid, and here is SCOTUS saying, you can't do that.



blah blah blah.. mandate is legal..

I don't know where your talking point came from, but it didn't come from that section you posted.

You've logically and factually deconstructed Dixie's dumb diatribe...his counter will be repeating his dreck coupled with his opinion, supposition and conjecture, which in his mind is a corrct support.

Like I said, Dixie's just carrying water for the 1 to 3% of people who can easily afford healthcare insurance but just don't want to pay it...and Dixie ain't one of those folk.

 

[Althea]

HAH! Dixie is still spouting the same garbage about Medicaid funds.

This thread reads like the Sunday funnies.

 

[Taichiliberal]

What you are experiencing is the insipid stubborness and willful ignorance of the neocon/teabagger flunkie. Although Dixie cannot find any state or federal source documentation that supports his beliefs regarding medicare and medicaid in relation to the ACA, he'll just keep parroting his erroneous BS six ways to Sunday. Pathetic, but not unexpected.

 

[Dixie - In Memoriam]

Laugh all you like Alfalfa, the Medicaid nest egg is off the table according to SCOTUS. That money will have to come from someplace else, it doesn't just 'not matter' anymore. If you want to ignore what the court said until after the election, that's fine.. I think most Americans are up on it, but we shall see... maybe people are stupid enough to buy your shit sandwiches of Hope and Change again?

 

[Althea]

Laugh all you like Alfalfa, the Medicaid nest egg is off the table according to SCOTUS. That money will have to come from someplace else, it doesn't just 'not matter' anymore. If you want to ignore what the court said until after the election, that's fine.. I think most Americans are up on it, but we shall see... maybe people are stupid enough to buy your shit sandwiches of Hope and Change again?

Where does Medicaid money come from?

 

[NOVA]

Where does Medicaid money come from?

The Medicaid program is jointly funded by the federal government and states. The federal government pays states for a specified percentage of program

http://www.nhpf.org/library/details.cfm/2528

This publication provides an overview of how the Medicaid program is financed. It explains the basic structure of the federal-state matching relationship and briefly describes how money flows from the federal government to the states as well as some of the strategies states have identified to help them maximize federal Medicaid matching funds.

No matter.....It ALL comes from YOUR TAXES

 

[Dixie - In Memoriam]

Where does Medicaid money come from?

Mostly the states.

(Oh yeah.. the 'taxpayer', where every bit of money for everything comes from!)

You are going in circles again. We already fund public health clinics. They were established to give poor people access to free health care... but suddenly, those don't work for some reason... you have not explained why! We're just supposed to dump MORE taxpayer money into some other program that promises to do the same thing, while STILL funding this thing that isn't apparently working for some reason. The closest thing any of you have offered, is some unintelligible muttering about they won't use them because they are mandated to care for the poor. But that doesn't make sense. In fact, it contradicts sense.

 

[Taichiliberal]

The ACA is just under a year old, and the FULL enaction of it won't happen until 2014!

No it won't because it's going to be repealed in 2013.

Again, stop being a petulant child and grow the fuck up Dixie! Dupes like you swore the SCOTUS would stike down ACA....they didn't. So now yet another lame ass prediction....while YOU avoid the point I made....that YOU made a statement insinuating that we've been living under a law for a long period of time that has had disasterous effects on the country. That is a LIE pulled from the frothy mouths of Mike Savage, Krauthhamer, Limbaugh, Kristol and the like, because the TIME LINE doesn't support your contention! You were wrong on this point...deal with it!

The ONLY people whose taxes will be affected will be those who draw a paycheck but REFUSE to purchase health insurance!

No, someone still has to replace the money they can't siphon out of Medicaid now. You see, in the real world, money has to actually come from a source.

In the real world, BS artists like yourself can't deal with being wrong, so you construct all types of scenarios to avoid acknowledging your errors. Bottom line: you neocon/teabagger/libertarian flunkies all swear that the ACA is a TAX...insinuating that it is a tax that affects ALL Americans. The TRUTH is that those who can afford health insurance but REFUSE to obtain it will pay a PENALTY TAX. Period. This DOES NOT AFFECT YOU, my Dixie Dunce....and the MEDICAID portions of ACA is a DIFFERENT section that covers it's funding as always, since the court would not allow expansion. Medicaid is a federal/state program that gives care to low-income individuals. The states create their own programs within federal guidelines, and the federal government provides the bulk of the money. FYI: http://www.iidc.indiana.edu/disabilitybenefitsandwork/medicaremedicaid.htm

Insurance companies CANNOT screw you over by dropping you because you get sick.

Great, so our insurance premiums will reflect having to pay for all the sick people the insurance has to cover! Brilliant!


They are getting more paying customers, you twit!
Are your really this fucking stupid Dixie? Are you such a kiss ass toadie for your bosses that you'll parrot any mantra they tell you The whole point of health insurance companies was to pay people when they got sick, which is why people were paying the premiums for years in the first place. Problem was that a LOT of insurance comapnies were weasling out of the very contracts they made with their customers. Get off your willfully ignorant and stubborn ass and READ what Dr. Peelo, Wendell Potter and a host of other doctors and professionals testified about the health insurance industry that instigated the creation of the ACA in the first place, will ya please?

They are going to get MORE business...so why the hell should they raise their rates?

Because they are going to pay more claims, because now they have to pay for people who are already sick, or insure against what has already happened.

The new customers PAY for the services, you idiot! And a pre-existing condition does NOT automatically translate into a hefty payout IF you incorporate preventative medicine coverage as well, don't cha know.

Where's all the "free market competition" that you neocon/teabagger/libertarian lunkheads all swore would naturally lower costs?

Poor people shouldn't be concerned with free market competition, they can go to any number of health clinics and not pay a dime.

Stop trying to duck the issue, my Dixie Dunce. If you add on 30 million new PAYING customers, then the vaunted "free market competition" would result in insurance companies lowering their rates in certain areas to compete for that business. That's what dupes like you have been braying for years....now suddenly you say it's not a viable formula. Again, the ACA is NOT a poor persons solution, nor does it replace agencies designed to help such.

Jeezus Dixie, your insipid stubborness makes your dodges and BS all them more painfully absurd.

 

[apple0154]

Mostly the states.

(Oh yeah.. the 'taxpayer', where every bit of money for everything comes from!)

You are going in circles again. We already fund public health clinics. They were established to give poor people access to free health care... but suddenly, those don't work for some reason... you have not explained why! We're just supposed to dump MORE taxpayer money into some other program that promises to do the same thing, while STILL funding this thing that isn't apparently working for some reason. The closest thing any of you have offered, is some unintelligible muttering about they won't use them because they are mandated to care for the poor. But that doesn't make sense. In fact, it contradicts sense.

OK. Pay attention. The following explains it.

Example one: The most poignant of all was this photo a a woman who’s sister died of cancer, because she didn’t have health insurance. The woman’s sister died of colon cancer and like so many cancer patients in America, they are removed from health insurance plans under the current system, that is before Obama’s health plan, the Affordable Care Act.
http://www.politicolnews.com/obama-comforts-woman-whos-siseter-died-of-cancer-without-healthcare/

Example two: Sept. 2, 2011: A 24-year-old Cincinnati father died from a tooth infection this week because he couldn't afford his medication, offering a sobering reminder of the importance of oral health and the number of people without access to dental or health care.

When his face started swelling and his head began to ache, Willis went to the emergency room, where he received prescriptions for antibiotics and pain medications. Willis couldn't afford both, so he chose the pain medications. The tooth infection spread, causing his brain to swell. He died Tuesday.

Example three: Willis' story is not unique. In 2007, 12-year-old Deamonte Driver also died when a tooth infection spread to his brain. The Maryland boy underwent two operations and six weeks of hospital care, totaling $250,000. Doctors said a routine $80 tooth extraction could have saved his life. His family was uninsured and had recently lost its Medicaid benefits, keeping Deamonte from having dental surgery.

An August report by the Commonwealth Fund found that 72 percent of people who lost their health insurance when they lost their jobs said they skipped needed health care or did not fill prescriptions because of cost.

"People want to believe there's a safety net that catches all of these people, and there isn't," said Dr. Glenn Stream, president-elect of the American Academy of Family Physicians. He noted that it is often young men who are the most likely to lack health coverage.

There are a number of free dental clinics in operation around the country, where dentists volunteer to provide care to those without health insurance. But even if Willis had access to a free dental clinic, Stream said he still may not have been able to get the care he needed for his infection. "The wait is often months at these clinics, and this young man died within two weeks of his problem," Stream said.

http://abcnews.go.com/Health/insurance-24-year-dies-toothache/story?id=14438171

As you can see the public health clinics never worked. People died. Not to mention the cost difference between $80 and $250,000. So let's not hear any more lies from the right wing, pro-life, anti-ObamaCare jackasses. Now you have the proof. Now you know why ObamaCare is needed and why it's a start towards a one payer/universal health care system where people have unfettered access to doctors and hospitals and medication is covered by insurance. And now you know why every country that implemented government health care never reverted to a "pay or suffer" system.

Is there anything else puzzling you?

 

[anatta]

Public clinics are usually over crowded, but do provide neeed 1st line care; i've been using one for 7 years ( although this is a private foundation),
and get great basic exams and RX's.

I thought the AFHC was gonna expand clinics? (asking?)it makes sense to treat wounds, and small infections at this level.
further care goes up to outpatient, or inpatient -nothing changes -right? ( asking again -so damn dumb about this stuff). Just the tax buy in.
Watching this legislation being made was worse then sausagemaking , as it was ground thru a grifters path to signing. I hope it works - we need universal access.

 

[FUCK THE POLICE]

I'm just wondering, I know a lot of things are being lost in the celebration, as pinheads are elated their Obamacare survived a SCOTUS challenge, but I was curious as to how many of you now feel, being a taxpayer for the first time? I know you probably haven't thought about that much, and I should probably wait until you have your first tax bill to ask, but I was curious.

The term "taxpayer" is not confined to those who pay the federal income tax. For many middle income Americans, the social security tax is a bigger matter than the federal income tax. And the poor do generally pay a higher percentage of their income in taxes than the rich in most states. Recently, however, as a result of the economy collapse, so many people have lost their jobs or taken pay cuts that, for the first time in history, only 51% of Americans are able to pay taxes. It's not like the standards have changed any, besides being adjust to cost of living. However, for some reason, conservatives feel the need to blame the people they're policies have unemployed for not being able to pay taxes anymore, and want to change the law to increase taxes on those who have managed to maintain jobs but aren't eligible for taxes under the law (as it's been for the past 30 years or so), in order to make up for the fact that the conservatives have taken so many people out of the jobs that an unprecedented number can't even pay taxes anymore. It's sort of like punching someone in the face, and then complaining that your fist now hurts.

What's that? You didn't think this would effect you because you don't make enough to pay taxes? Well, that was BEFORE an individual mandate to buy insurance, became a tax. Now that this matter is settled, all that is left is to figure up the total cost of Obamacare, and divide it up evenly among the people. What's that? You assumed this tax would be like all the other tax, something we could pawn off on the wealthy to pay and never worry with? Again, that was before the high court ruled that individual mandates are taxes. You can't expect others to cover your individual mandate, can you? Wow... I think some of you might have expected that, I can see the shocked looks on your faces as you read this.

People in lower incomes are covered by medicaid and subsidies. Actually, pretty much everyone who's not wealthy enough to be considered eligible for paying taxes right now.

Guess what wasn't in the SCOTUS ruling? That all taxes must be paid by wealthy people and the poor/middle-class are given a pass. The overwhelming and enormous cost of providing insurance coverage for every American, can't be paid for with rich people tax. Remember, they just got hit with a new individual mandate tax too. No, the cost will have to be shared by all, since we are all going to be required to buy insurance. This means, a very significant number of you, who have never had to worry with taxes, are going to get to experience that for the first time, and I think it is wonderful.

As do all people who cheered for the bully and laughed when they saw others trip in high school. Congratulations on being a sociopath. However, unfortunately, again, you are going to be deprived of the sadistic pleasure you get out of seeing others suffer unnecessarily, because, as I said, the poor are provided for under this plan. I suppose you will have to go back to torturing small animals to get your fix.

This might actually be the best thing that ever happened, if it results in all of you people becoming tax payers, who would otherwise just be a drain. Oh now, I can almost hear the tear-filled emotes already... wuh, what about the poor and elderly? Well, as always, the truly poor and elderly are going to be care for through Medicare, which fortunately, was rewarded with getting back over a half-trillion of it's own dollars, in light of this SCOTUS ruling. We'll still have to find a way to shore that program up for the Baby Boomers, but hey... by then, most of you will be old pros at this tax stuff, we can do it!

Now I realize, some of you have really shitty jobs that don't pay a whole lot and don't have all that great of an insurance plan, if they have one at all... but just think of how much better things are going to be, when you feel the satisfaction of paying for your own health insurance? What's that? You thought someone else was going to pay for your health insurance? LOL... who, the insurance fairy? No, you see... you thought that the government was going to end up paying, but that's not what the court ruled, was it? They ruled the individual mandate was constitutional, therefore, the government doesn't have to pay for jack shit, they simply delegate how much you owe the tax man for your health insurance coverage, unless you provide your own... and good luck with that these days. For some odd and peculiar reason, mandating that each individual purchase insurance, somehow makes it more valuable and cost more money... who'da thunk it? But in the long run, it's certainly worth it, I mean, what if we get sick, right?

Anyway... I know this kind of premature, and I should have probably waited until you have to pay your first tax bill, or maybe... don't get that nice cushy refund check you were depending on for vacation... but I was genuinely excited about all the new tax payers we now have! I really do think you guys are going to love the rewarding feeling of looking at your checks, and seeing an ever-bigger chunk of it going to fund the government you desired. And I promise I'll be right here to make sure no one denies you the satisfaction of knowing the joy of taxation.

Dixie, do you wake up every morning feeling this smug and self-righteous? Does it feel good, to be so pathetic? Just wondering.

 

[FUCK THE POLICE]

Yah, well.. unfortunately, not everyone will be able to afford it. Insurance cost has risen about 30% since Obamacare passed, and that was BEFORE the SCOTUS mandated that every single American purchase it. Now that insurance companies have something that everyone has to buy, you can expect the rates to increase... especially since they will now be covering all the pre-existing illnesses out there, and 'children' until they are 26.

No, it's going to get quite expensive, but you've planned for this, right? I mean, you had it all figured out how we could do this and not cost anything, didn't you? Oh yeah, that's right... the SCOTUS isn't going to allow you to steal $600 billion from Medicare to fund this now.... oooo... that's a problem. You see, the key can be found in the term, "individual mandate." I know that many of you have been accustomed to a system of entitlement, whereby, nothing could be 'mandated' or even expected from the 'less fortunate' souls out there, but the court has changed this philosophy now. You will be required to pay for your health care insurance, and it won't matter if you are struggling and having difficulty getting by, it's still a mandate and you are still required to follow it.

Those who make between 133% and 400% are going to be picked up by subsidies. Those who made less than 133% were supposed to be picked up by medicaid (in an expansion that was going to be almost entirely funded by the federal government - it would pay for 100% of the costs in the first 3 years, and 90% after), and, indeed, that's no longer mandatory, so not all states are going to pick it up. Clearly, this is an issue that's going to need to be addressed, since not all states are going to participate int he expansion. IMHO, since they're paying for nearly the entire thing anyway, I don't see why the feds don't just do it all at the federal level.

 

[Dixie - In Memoriam]

Stop trying to duck the issue, my Dixie Dunce. If you add on 30 million new PAYING customers, then the vaunted "free market competition" would result in insurance companies lowering their rates in certain areas to compete for that business.

But you aren't adding "new paying customers" you are adding new "unpaying" customers... and ones who already have something wrong they need treatment for. Insurance makes a profit by insuring people who aren't sick, not by offering insurance for stuff that already happened. I'm sure, if a fire insurance company offered to give policies to people who had experienced a fire but didn't have insurance, the would have PLENTY of customers. They wouldn't be in business long, but customers would be no problem. Meanwhile, the cost of their premiums would be considerably higher than, say, an insurance company that didn't pay for fires that already happened.

 

[Dixie - In Memoriam]

OK. Pay attention. The following explains it.

Example one: [NOTHING about why this example couldn't use the health clinic]

Example two: [NOTHING about why this example couldn't use the health clinic]

Example three: [NOTHING about why this example couldn't use the health clinic]

An August report by the Commonwealth Fund found that 72 percent of people who lost their health insurance when they lost their jobs said they skipped needed health care or did not fill prescriptions because of cost. [NOTHING about why this example couldn't use the health clinic]

There are a number of free dental clinics in operation around the country, where dentists volunteer to provide care to those without health insurance. But even if Willis had access to a free dental clinic, Stream said he still may not have been able to get the care he needed for his infection. "The wait is often months at these clinics, and this young man died within two weeks of his problem," Stream said.
[I've never waited for more than a few hours at the most.]

As you can see the public health clinics never worked. People died.

But we implemented them because you said they would work! We have spent trillions of dollars over the years funding them, and you now want to reveal they didn't work? BUT... this NEW idea, it WILL work, right? But why would we believe you this time? You obviously didn't know what you were talking about the last time, because your idea didn't work. Right?

And see... here's the thing, I have not heard a thing in Obamacare that convinces me it would prevent people from dying. I think, even WITH Obamacare, people are still going to die and get sick, and it won't solve this problem. This will include poor people, but wealthy people too! And whether they have Cadillac health care plans or Obamacare, they may still not seek medical attention for their ailments, and subsequently, might die. I don't think this problem can ever really be solved, apple.

Now you have the proof. Now you know why ObamaCare is needed and why it's a start towards a one payer/universal health care system where people have unfettered access to doctors and hospitals and medication is covered by insurance. And now you know why every country that implemented government health care never reverted to a "pay or suffer" system.

No we don't really have anything other than your typical long-winded examples of people who apparently never heard of a public health clinic. We already had unfettered access to doctors, hospitals and medication, covered by Medicaid for the poor, and either free or at low cost for those who don't qualify for Medicaid.

And I don't recall ever suggesting that we eliminate our "government health care" through state-run health clinics, and revert to the "pay or suffer" system.