Separate names with a comma.
Discussion in 'Politics, Religion, Social Issues' started by jkcerda, Jun 6, 2015.
What a mess
The Hawaii Prepaid Healthcare Act, effective 1974, required all businesses to provide healthcare insurance to those who work over 20 hours per week.
The uninsured rate is the second lowest in the nation and at one point reached a 98% insured rate. Perhaps the reason the exchange is insolvent is because there wasn't enough people to realistically meet the minimum target to start with?
Note: this information was missing from the Fox News article.
Of course it wasn't.. Omitting the details gives Fox the opportunity to rile up their base; Hence, their lack of journalistic integrity.
In fact, Hawaii News Now is reporting that they are transitioning to the federal exchange at Healthcare.gov, another item missing from the Fox News article.
The TL;DR: This has nothing to do with the ACA failing; this has to do with issues plaguing their own healthcare exchange. But Fox definitely doesn't want to let is readers/viewers know that.. The less informed their viewers/readers are, the more mindless automatons they control.
A mess easily avoided by not relying of fox news.
Hawaii cannot sustain an entitlement and it's Fox's fault. LOL
You and reading comprehension need to get on speaking terms again ASAP.
Get your head out of the annointed one's ass. Holy crap.
"The board of Hawaii's financially troubled health exchange has approved a plan to shut down the small business side of the exchange and transition individual users to the federal marketplace."
What the hell do you think financially troubled means? That the racist Republican Hawaiians are making their exchange fail? It was unsustainable so now they are going to the feds for financial aid.
Hopefully the SCOTUS strikes down the federal subsidies.
Read post #2 of this thread. There is some additional information that wasn't in the Fox News article.
And if the Court rules against the Government, about 6.5 million Americans will lose their health insurance subsidies. Shameful and pathetic that you're smiling about it. Partisanship above all, it seems.
The problem isn't insurance, it's the cost of actual services.
The federal exchanges were never meant to allow subsidies, just state (according to how the ACA was written). We were all "Grubered."
GO SCOTUS GO!!!!
Lol. You sure will be disappointed when they uphold those subsidies. The plaintiffs are basically asking the court to take one sentence out of the entire law out of context to fit their agenda. Good luck with that!
Nice of you to be so gung ho about stripping millions of people of their health coverage. Ahh conservative "values".
Hey, guys! I've got a great idea! Let's break society, cuz society is socialist! IT'S RIGHT THERE IN THE NAME!
edit: the new mad emotes are awesome, by the way.
Next time they should read the bill they are about to pass.
The post-ACA health insurance plans are too expensive without subsidies... but it's by design. If SCOTUS strikes it down, Congress plans a temporary extension (1 year) which will give plenty of time until next enrollment.
The funny thing is that a Republican Congressman (Lee Terry) had a great idea that Pelosi never let come out of committee back when the Dems were putting this massive bill together (that they did not read, obviously).
He proposed that regular Americans should be allowed to purchase the same high quality PRIVATE insurance plans that federal employees ALREADY get to enjoy on our dime. These plans are already negotiated across state lines (funny how that works, but it's not allowed for the rest of us, just the federal employees) by the FEHB to get the best deal. Then we would have a massive expansion of private health plans. The biggest obstacle is lowering the costs of services. Do you think Queen Pelo-C wants you to have the same quality care that she does? HA!
If you're poor, you don't pay for health care (thanks to charity care and various state programs). The cost gets passed to the middle class (and upper) folks that have regular private insurance. That's why one night in a hospital gets billed something like $20,000+ but the poor person that incurred that cost never pays it...a middle class insurance plan customer does.
Socialized medicine sounds great in theory, but we all saw the VA scandal in how they treated our troops like garbage just to shuffle the books a bit. If they're willing to do that to veterans, just imagine how the average Joe would get treated.
Personally, I like the Swiss system (tiered), but we're a country of 310 million citizens/legals + 20-30 million illegal aliens.
Vermont was going to try single payer....and we all saw what happened there. They admitted they couldn't sustain the cost. When we already have the 53%/47% divide, those of us in the 53% can't continue paying for the 47% forever.
You obviously didn't read post #2 in this thread. To reiterate:
If the state exchange was spending more money to reach only 2% of the population, where its own healthcare act was already reaching the other 98%, it is useless spending to spend all of that money to reach a very select few of the population.
You're reading into the aforementioned lack of journalistic integrity that Fox wants you to believe, whereas local news has better, more in-depth coverage than what Fox is passing as the story.
It's actually a good thing that they are going to the Federal Exchange. In Republican terms, they are cutting spending, yet you're up in arms about that? Just where do your political ideologies and priorities lie? Because you obviously are confused in what they should be, and how they should be carried out.
Good job reading the thread.
The OP lacked any real credibility for discussion as soon as they cited a fox news article.
What, exactly, is a 'regular' American?
Non-federal employee American citizens, but thanks for asking a stupid and irrelevant question instead of commenting on how smart Terry's plan was.
It would have saved so much money since the website already worked. Healthcare.gov is an abomination. Any webdesigner worth a damn could have designed something cheaper and better, but that's not how gov contracts work.
The shrekening is real in this thread.
The intellectual level of the question was commensurate with your post, and significantly above the level of your reply. My question is relevant to understanding your point of view. Are you implicitly implying the unemployed are worth less? If you are, then the worth of a person is not determined by their wallet.
If you are talking about opening up BC/BS to everybody, my father had high option BC/BS (same as members of Congress). In spite of this, before he died he chewed through almost a million dollars in deductibles and fees not covered by insurance because they represented needed personal care but not 'treatment'. When he died, he was broke and the quality of the care dropped precipitously. I am not sure that the solution you favour would be as wonderful as you think, for the profiteering in the medical industry would have continued.
How many times have the sites of Apple, Microsoft, Yahoo, Facebook, Amazon, etc. failed during high demand or just outright errors? I take your point about government contracts being slack, but it is not as though private contracts are flawless (example - Apple just fire their contractor for their new campus for - you guessed it - cost overruns and delays).
do you need it to be in addicting infor .org?
What does this even mean?
one of lefties favorite site, addictinginfo.org
That's nice. I've never heard of it