ObamaCare or Obama Care Not?

[HappyHappy]

Nobamma care. Nobamma at all.
Selective Homeycare is more like it.
EBT cards+Homeycare+fear = Democrat/Fascist election victory.

HH

[Pudfark]

well, two more days go by, and more about me, and nothing of substance. Tolwyn, please note request for Forum name change......

He's already done that for you....see "frivolous" section.

This thread was started to give you an opportunity to expound on your knowledge of "Oh-Care".
You stated you had read all 2000+ pages, implied you had a "working knowledge" of the "Oh-Care" act,
so throw out, factually, how well it's gonna work, what it covers, costs? You can go about that, should you "care"? By stating how it will help those with current coverage, such as and/or similar to yours.
Should you "care" to go forward with that? You could give a knowledgeable/factual explain on how it will fundamentally change the "care" for the poor folk? Poor folk, seemingly, more important (your words), in this entire explain, should you "care" to share it with us? I really would like to know (personally) what that $750.00 tax on the poor and unfortunates, is gonna buy them?

It's like this, see yer quote at the top of this post, It's a whine. Unless, you throw a little meat out on the table...the paragraph above this one? It's your exclusive opportunity to get back on the page.
Should ya ignore it? Well, I look forward to your increasing contributions in the section Tolwyn provided for you..."Frivolous".

[callmeslick]

and, what, of any substance can you add? I am aware enough to know that children up to age 26 can be on family coverage. I know that pre-existing conditions cannot disqualify anyone anymore(affects women disproportionately), and that a LOT of folks will get subsidies for insurance they have been buying privately. I know that insurers have caps on disparity in pricing by age, and that a lot of women's reproductive health items are now mandated to be covered. There is a lot more, but you don't really want to know, do you, Pud. You just want to(demonstrated another link) somehow tie the ACA to teenagers who murder old people. Seems like a bright plan to me.....when a fella like you doesn't have a clue.

[Pudfark]

and, what, of any substance can you add? I am aware enough to know that children up to age 26 can be on family coverage. I know that pre-existing conditions cannot disqualify anyone anymore(affects women disproportionately), and that a LOT of folks will get subsidies for insurance they have been buying privately. I know that insurers have caps on disparity in pricing by age, and that a lot of women's reproductive health items are now mandated to be covered. There is a lot more, but you don't really want to know, do you, Pud. You just want to(demonstrated another link) somehow tie the ACA to teenagers who murder old people. Seems like a bright plan to me.....when a fella like you doesn't have a clue.

So, that's what you understood from the 2000+ pages. It's obvious, Pelosi knew/knows more about it than you. Her explain was the truth of the ACA.

Seemingly, yet again, you apparently know nothing of how insurers calculate rates based upon risk.
"There is a lot more, but you don't really want to know, do you, Pud." Sure I do, that's why I asked.
I did get what I expected. Nothing.

"You just want to(demonstrated another link) somehow tie the ACA to teenagers who murder old people. Seems like a bright plan to me.....when a fella like you doesn't have a clue." It's like this Slick, the ACA ain't applicable to "murdered people" and it ain't applicable to the black teenagers who did the murdering. Yet again, you demonstrate for all to see/read, you don't know a damn thing about the ACA, certainly not anything about the two groups that I nicely asked about. Instead of taking this opportunity and the "high ground" on this issue.....you whined, dodged, blamed and threw out an insult.

No "change or transparency" here folks....just move along....wait 45 days....?
Slick will have another "factual" nauseating explain of nothing.

[callmeslick]

what's amusing, Pud, is that with NO knowledge(stated by yourownself) beyond what your puppetmasters have told you to think, you are ready to declare failure. I keep suggesting that we all just wait until October, when the hard details of specific policies for calender year 2014 are public record. Then, and only then, will one be able to compare the effect of rates, and coupled with the known provisions about tax rebates, figure out if this law works for more people than it doesn't. Seems you don't want to wait.....why? Maybe bacause you are afraid it will work for a lot of people. Gee, that would be inconvenient, huh?

[Pudfark]

what's amusing, Pud, is that with NO knowledge(stated by yourownself) beyond what your puppetmasters have told you to think, you are ready to declare failure. I keep suggesting that we all just wait until October, when the hard details of specific policies for calender year 2014 are public record. Then, and only then, will one be able to compare the effect of rates, and coupled with the known provisions about tax rebates, figure out if this law works for more people than it doesn't. Seems you don't want to wait.....why? Maybe bacause you are afraid it will work for a lot of people. Gee, that would be inconvenient, huh?

Quoting Pelosi "vote for it and we'll all find out whats in it"...ain't an explain, except for disaster.
Same intellectual thinking went into voting for Obama...and everybody now knows how that worked out, the same.

I've read a good part of ACA....it's a tax on the poor and a substantial increase of health care cost to the dwindling middle class. Nobody knows what they're gonna get? Everybody knows that what ever yer gonna get, it's going to cost more and be valued less. Common sense and knowledge of the insurance industry practices, any and all of them says they ain't picking up the costs, they will pass them along.... Now here you come using the words "subsidies", which is taxpayers monies, saying that it will pick up the costs. Which is what I've been saying all along and you been denying.

It really tickles me at yer tactics..."full time health care" paid for by "part time workers". Based upon your words here, for years....you can afford any type of health care you want/need. Not true of the others here. And yet, those who can't afford to be wrong, the very ones at risk, that you say you're looking out for and you don't know shit, but trust me? You have no personal risk at stake, all of us do and yet you're offended by intelligent discourse. Like so many other times in the past here....you bail.

and, what, of any substance can you add? I am aware enough to know that children up to age 26 can be on family coverage. I know that pre-existing conditions cannot disqualify anyone anymore(affects women disproportionately), and that a LOT of folks will get subsidies for insurance they have been buying privately. I know that insurers have caps on disparity in pricing by age, and that a lot of women's reproductive health items are now mandated to be covered. There is a lot more, but you don't really want to know, do you, Pud. You just want to(demonstrated another link) somehow tie the ACA to teenagers who murder old people. Seems like a bright plan to me.....when a fella like you doesn't have a clue.

So, that's what you understood from the 2000+ pages. It's obvious, Pelosi knew/knows more about it than you. Her explain was the truth of the ACA.

Seemingly, yet again, you apparently know nothing of how insurers calculate rates based upon risk.
"There is a lot more, but you don't really want to know, do you, Pud." Sure I do, that's why I asked.
I did get what I expected. Nothing.

"You just want to(demonstrated another link) somehow tie the ACA to teenagers who murder old people. Seems like a bright plan to me.....when a fella like you doesn't have a clue." It's like this Slick, the ACA ain't applicable to "murdered people" and it ain't applicable to the black teenagers who did the murdering. Yet again, you demonstrate for all to see/read, you don't know a damn thing about the ACA, certainly not anything about the two groups that I nicely asked about. Instead of taking this opportunity and the "high ground" on this issue.....you whined, dodged, blamed and threw out an insult.

No "change or transparency" here folks....just move along....wait 45 days....?
Slick will have another "factual" nauseating explain of nothing.

Once again...repetitively...Slick yells "Geronimo" and hits the silk after "reading" 2000 pages and offering zilch in return.

[callmeslick]

I'm yelling nothing, Pud. I'm the one who keeps saying 'let's wait and see'....you seem impatient, and increasingly desperate. Afraid that de-funding thing is going to fail(it is, by the way)? Afraid the whole ACA might prove popular(as did Medicare after a few years)? Why the angst?

[Pudfark]

The only thing, I'm concerned with is the impending "civil war", that Obama is flirting with.
You oughta be concerned with the increasing number of population hitting the "part time" status w/o healthcare... I meant to mention this earlier, why does any kid need to be insured by his parents, after the age of 21? When, "Oh-Care" by itself, is supposed to be equal for all? Meaning, why wouldn't a parent just pay the $750.00 penalty and get off cheaper? Of, course that assumes, the parent will have a full time job, with health benefits? In order to have that choice? Right?

So far, what you don't know, after 2000 pages and two years is ?
The same as the rest of us and yet you take to task those who question it.
This is laughable. I'm betting you disappear in the next few months and shortly thereafter a whole bunch of doctors too.

It really is simple math. A shrinking tax base combined with an enlarged "subsidy" base equals debt.
Adding a dense layer of Federal Bureaucracy to the above is simple multiplication of x2. That's only at first, just wait until them poor folks who ain't been paying attention, have to pay that $750.00 for the first time. I'm certain the answers you've given here will assuage and abate their good will. All while the few remaining E.R.'s are packed to the gills with indigents using that facility as they always have....for their primary care.

[Pudfark]

Slick, please take both minutes to read this below.

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2013/08 ... obamacare/

I'd be interested, if afterwards, you chose to comment? Thank You.

[callmeslick]

The article is correct, the ACA does nothing to address the Dr. shortage in the US, which has been ongoing for two decades(go to any major city hospital and note the number of foreign born doctors, right now). The problem with YOUR logic, Pud, was that no one claimed the ACA was designed in any way to address the matter, nor is there any inkling that the bill will really increase the pressure to any degree.