The election is over, we see the contours of what lies ahead for the next four years.

[Recidiva]

Trust me...you have paid NOTHING to educate my children.....and I have spent much to educate mine and others.

And yet I've paid taxes to certainly help educate others' children, and I am thrilled that people will get better medical care overall.

I just don't understand how anybody could fuss about a pittance a month and still have an understanding of what it takes to care for those less fortunate, the elderly and the ill.

Perhaps you should seek out your own island kingdom where you do not share roads and infrastructure with the rabble you despise for their weakness.

 

[Recidiva]

I agree with what you said....with one small difference. It is not the fault of the Democrats nor Republicans in and elected office.....it is completely the fault of those who voted for those people and the mindsets that those people have.

Isn't it the 'fault' of the fact that people get sick and old?

 

[RobDownSouth]

It's per head. But...

It might be. But I'd prefer to see independent verification of this claim nonetheless. Every article about this charge sources a HuffPo blog.

I cannot find an official government press release/communique/anything.

 

[julybaby04]

I just demonstrated to you that it's $6.30 every single month, not $31.60. Your figure is completely false because you're refusing to consider the paragraph in your article that says the fee goes right back to the insurance industry. If you think the calculation I made is wrong then counter it with a better one. Otherwise you're just wrong.

I understand it goes back. I get that it is to fund or "pad" the incurrence of higher medical costs for the newly covered people who have pre-existing. I get all of that.

What I am saying is that the $31.50 will have to be paid every single month. I will have to do that. What they do with it after that, no one will truly every know.

If anyone thinks that the government will allow a "refund", reduces rates, etc...anything that will let that money come back to an individual is truly seeing through rose colored glasses. Once that money is coming in....and I don't care what program brings it in.....they will not let it go.

 

[mercury14]

I understand it goes back. I get that it is to fund or "pad" the incurrence of higher medical costs for the newly covered people who have pre-existing. I get all of that.

What I am saying is that the $31.50 will have to be paid every single month. I will have to do that. What they do with it after that, no one will truly every know.

If anyone thinks that the government will allow a "refund", reduces rates, etc...anything that will let that money come back to an individual is truly seeing through rose colored glasses. Once that money is coming in....and I don't care what program brings it in.....they will not let it go.

What? No, not at all. There's nothing saying you'll pay more at all. Stop making things up.

 

[julybaby04]

It might be. But I'd prefer to see independent verification of this claim nonetheless. Every article about this charge sources a HuffPo blog.

I cannot find an official government press release/communique/anything.

I am not sure of the original source. I saw this listed on yahoo.....clicked on it and all the references came up. Many of these are not conservative references, so I am sure the liberal media has is correct.

 

[mercury14]

No I'm not. I have a much greater grasp of 'pipe-lining' than you seem to have. If we started today to increase medical school capacities to make up for the shortage we would not see an effect of that policy for 12 years.

Of course part of that can be alleviated by letting the patient see a nurse/PA in lieu of seeing a physician. I'd love to see someone make the case that this will maintain the same level of care. I'm pretty sure that the level of care will fall proportionately to the institution of this policy with a subsequent rise in malpractice premiums translating into an increase in costs to the patient.

You continue to flap your lips with all of these political, feel good, platitudes while completely ignoring reality and consequences.

Ishmael

Ish, what do you mean if we started now? There are currently 22 new medical schools in the works with their first classes graduating between 2012-2014. That's the biggest increase in med schools ever. Additionally PA and Nurse Practitioner programs are opening at a rapid rate as well. Your analysis is nonsense when you filter out facts you find inconvenient to your narrative.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_medical_schools_in_the_United_States#Developing_medical_schools

 

[zipman]

I understand it goes back. I get that it is to fund or "pad" the incurrence of higher medical costs for the newly covered people who have pre-existing. I get all of that.

What I am saying is that the $31.50 will have to be paid every single month. I will have to do that. What they do with it after that, no one will truly every know.

If anyone thinks that the government will allow a "refund", reduces rates, etc...anything that will let that money come back to an individual is truly seeing through rose colored glasses. Once that money is coming in....and I don't care what program brings it in.....they will not let it go.

That's right. When has the government ever given tax refunds.

Oh wait, nevermind.

 

[Recidiva]

That's right. When has the government ever given tax refunds.

Oh wait, nevermind.

Considering I got back three times as much on my tax return last year than in previous years with similar income...I'm cool with the $5. Mythical or no. I'd be okay with it even if I were paying more in taxes.

 

[RobDownSouth]

I am not sure of the original source. I saw this listed on yahoo.....clicked on it and all the references came up. Many of these are not conservative references, so I am sure the liberal media has is correct.

Again, virtually every single article listed on Yahoo is a rewrite of the AP press release that sources back to a single conservative blogger on HuffPo.

I want to see a bit more documentation on this claim.

 

[tactful]

The $31.60 will be required for me to pay every single month.....doesn't matter what "goes back". I have NEVER had premiums go down....and most certainly do not expect that in the future.

As far as Medicaid......I probably am poor enough. I prefer taking care of my family myself......not looking for the government's help. But thanks for the information.

Never fear, because after your political parties have settled the small tax situation, they will thrust themselves ever so diligently into the unemployment problem, there-by reducing your finanical burden, of course, this is what should have been done in the first place, but then again, we're talking political agenda. Besides only about 35% maybe 40% won't be paying anything. (percentages are approx)

 

[mercury14]

That's right. When has the government ever given tax refunds.

Oh wait, nevermind.

She's saying that she'd get a $31.60 fee handed directly to her but then refuses to factor in that she'd also get a check for like $26 on the same day. She says she acknowledges that the fee goes right back to insurers in a nearly equal amount then turns around and swears she's a victim anyway.

 

[julybaby04]

And yet I've paid taxes to certainly help educate others' children, and I am thrilled that people will get better medical care overall.

I just don't understand how anybody could fuss about a pittance a month and still have an understanding of what it takes to care for those less fortunate, the elderly and the ill.

Perhaps you should seek out your own island kingdom where you do not share roads and infrastructure with the rabble you despise for their weakness.

...my state taxes take care of the infrastructure and I have already paid plenty for that as well....but thank you for your concern about driving on roads.

I know what it takes to take care of the ill....you will just have to trust me on this one. I know the benefit of having insurance when doing this.

I also know that there is no reason why the government could not have provided healthcare to those who truly do no have it (even pre-existings) without revamping the whole entire system. If people already have insurance, then those should have been left alone.

I know that many will think nothing will change as a result of the mandated health care....but it already has. This fee is just the beginning.

I will also say again.....that there is only so much money any one person has. To continually take more to make things "fair" for everyone will not work. I am making it...but to add more on me to pay for everyone else will become a problem for me.

I help where I can...and when I have been blessed with a bit more money. That is not every month. To mandate "helping" will only cause issues for many others.

Think about the people on Social Security. They will be required to have insurance...pay for it....and now an extra "fee". They are most certainly on a limited income. Or if one thinks this will not affect those on Social Security, how about those who saved a finite amount to retire on. An extra fee could be huge for them.

Government does not think of these things. They only think of "what is fair for everyone"....and it is not "right" for some to have and some not to have. There is very little thought on the impact. They may not see it as a big "fee" and that it will have little impact......but until those people live on a fixed income or small income....they will never know how big the impact can be.

 

[mercury14]

Again, virtually every single article listed on Yahoo is a rewrite of the AP press release that sources back to a single conservative blogger on HuffPo.

I want to see a bit more documentation on this claim.

A word search of the text of the ACA comes up with no $63 fees or fees of any sort on a per-person basis. And there's nothing about a pre-existing condition fee.

http://www.healthcare.gov/law/resources/authorities/patient-protection.pdf
http://www.healthcare.gov/law/full/index.html

July - Have you bothered to consider the veracity of your blog?

 

[julybaby04]

That's right. When has the government ever given tax refunds.

Oh wait, nevermind.

That is your own money......

Awfully nice of the big ole kind-hearted government to give the money you worked so hard for...back. (well, at least what they decide you are worthy to have....as long as it is not too much and you don't make people feel bad with what you have.....that would not be fair... )

 

[julybaby04]

What? No, not at all. There's nothing saying you'll pay more at all. Stop making things up.

Is that not what the article said? $63.00/per year...per person....fee?

 

[tactful]

She's saying that she'd get a $31.60 fee handed directly to her but then refuses to factor in that she'd also get a check for like $26 on the same day. She says she acknowledges that the fee goes right back to insurers in a nearly equal amount then turns around and swears she's a victim anyway.

When there are insurance companies involved, everyone gets ripped off, a true free healthcare program would eliminate all health insurances companies, after all shouldn't everyone be treated equally as far as health care goes, or didn't Obamecare think of that.

 

[julybaby04]

Again, virtually every single article listed on Yahoo is a rewrite of the AP press release that sources back to a single conservative blogger on HuffPo.

I want to see a bit more documentation on this claim.

I thought the Huffington Post was liberal.

 

[julybaby04]

She's saying that she'd get a $31.60 fee handed directly to her but then refuses to factor in that she'd also get a check for like $26 on the same day. She says she acknowledges that the fee goes right back to insurers in a nearly equal amount then turns around and swears she's a victim anyway.

I don't understand where you see there would be a check back...especially the same day. I thought it was stating that it was going into a "fund"

 

[zipman]

That is your own money......

Awfully nice of the big ole kind-hearted government to give the money you worked so hard for...back. (well, at least what they decide you are worthy to have....as long as it is not too much and you don't make people feel bad with what you have.....that would not be fair... )

And the refund checks that were part of the stimulus program?

The point is that you, in your partisan denial, made a claim that the government would never refund money once they had it. That is simply untrue and highlights your extreme bias.

I also think you do not understand the difference between "knowing" something and "believing" something. Knowing is based on actual facts. Just sayin'

 

[julybaby04]

A word search of the text of the ACA comes up with no $63 fees or fees of any sort on a per-person basis. And there's nothing about a pre-existing condition fee.

http://www.healthcare.gov/law/resources/authorities/patient-protection.pdf
http://www.healthcare.gov/law/full/index.html

July - Have you bothered to consider the veracity of your blog?

Nope....just read the article. I saw that even MSN is reporting it. They are liberal. THought all of you would find that to be factual.

Is it so hard to conceive that this might be true? That the wonderful new health mandate might be a bit of a problem?

 

[julybaby04]

And the refund checks that were part of the stimulus program?

The point is that you, in your partisan denial, made a claim that the government would never refund money once they had it. That is simply untrue and highlights your extreme bias.

I also think you do not understand the difference between "knowing" something and "believing" something. Knowing is based on actual facts. Just sayin'

Those refund checks you spoke of were included in the tax returns filed for that year......they were taxed.

 

[mercury14]

Is that not what the article said? $63.00/per year...per person....fee?

No, the article says the fee goes to your insurer and is given right back to the industry. Then out of anything left over, you may receive a portion of the temporary increase. The fee seems to be going 80% back to insurance companies and 20% to providers to help defray their cost to providing insurance to certain groups who can't pay. But that 20% will lead to lower cost of care and a lower cost to you, therefore your net increase should approach $0.

There's nothing about this fee in the text of the Affordable Care Act though. Can you show me what law it's from?

 

[Recidiva]

...my state taxes take care of the infrastructure and I have already paid plenty for that as well....but thank you for your concern about driving on roads.

I know what it takes to take care of the ill....you will just have to trust me on this one. I know the benefit of having insurance when doing this.

I also know that there is no reason why the government could not have provided healthcare to those who truly do no have it (even pre-existings) without revamping the whole entire system. If people already have insurance, then those should have been left alone.

I know that many will think nothing will change as a result of the mandated health care....but it already has. This fee is just the beginning.

I will also say again.....that there is only so much money any one person has. To continually take more to make things "fair" for everyone will not work. I am making it...but to add more on me to pay for everyone else will become a problem for me.

I help where I can...and when I have been blessed with a bit more money. That is not every month. To mandate "helping" will only cause issues for many others.

Think about the people on Social Security. They will be required to have insurance...pay for it....and now an extra "fee". They are most certainly on a limited income. Or if one thinks this will not affect those on Social Security, how about those who saved a finite amount to retire on. An extra fee could be huge for them.

Government does not think of these things. They only think of "what is fair for everyone"....and it is not "right" for some to have and some not to have. There is very little thought on the impact. They may not see it as a big "fee" and that it will have little impact......but until those people live on a fixed income or small income....they will never know how big the impact can be.

Okay. I accept a perspective change, but if you don't want your own island, I will ask you this: Who ever made you think that life is fair?

I feel blessed that I can work, that I can produce, that I can live a reasonably productive life, even though I'm disabled. I have severe migraines through no fault of my own. I give back what I can, but I rely to a great extent on my family and my husband for support.

Life is not fair. If it were fair, we wouldn't need medical infrastructure. Yes, this might amount to a "tax on the healthy" to some extent - but for all that is holy to anybody - being healthy has much more value to the person that is ill, and they'd pay a lot more in cash for the privilege. But...as they are ill...they damned well can't. This is not a political issue, it's reality. Acknowledging it and realizing that in order to maintain a set of hospitals that provide care to all at least emergently is not feasible unless people are accorded basic care throughout their lives to stave off horrendously expensive emergencies.

In the end it may well be a tax on the healthy. But keep in mind, each day that someone is healthy does not mean that they can't or won't, through no fault of their own, be among the ranks of the disabled in a hot second.

So the healthy can appreciate their health, which is priceless, and give back a little cash (a very little in perspective) to help those who have no health to take for granted.

 

[mercury14]

I don't understand where you see there would be a check back...especially the same day. I thought it was stating that it was going into a "fund"

You need to look at the net cost to the insurance industry before trying to figure what might be passed on to you. The net cost approaches $0 but you're insisting on some bullshit figure where you strip out a key fact that doesn't fit into what you want to believe.