Walker may reject $4 billion Obamacare funds

Please limit discussion in this area to local and state politics.
Cornbread
Forum God/Goddess
Posts: 688
Joined: Sun May 20, 2012 5:48 pm
Location: Various places
Contact:

Re: Walker may reject $4 billion Obamacare funds

Postby Cornbread » Thu Jul 05, 2012 7:19 pm

wack wack wrote:Governor Walker is a liar. Every word in your quote is a completely unsupported lie.


Are you emotionally invested in obamacare's socialized insurance scheme there wack wack?

What's the cost of obama's government health care wack wack?

In truth, the majority of people in Wisconsin will pay less money for more health care.


Wow, wack wack, you sure deem quite full of it ("truth" as you proclaim).
So either back up your "truth" or you are just a liar.

Additionally, it will decrease the size and cost of government,


Again, back this up with something other than your personal hopes and dreams.

increase the quality of health care


again, back this up with something other that it's what you proclaim to be the "truth".

Cornbread
Forum God/Goddess
Posts: 688
Joined: Sun May 20, 2012 5:48 pm
Location: Various places
Contact:

Re: Walker may reject $4 billion Obamacare funds

Postby Cornbread » Thu Jul 05, 2012 7:25 pm

jonnygothispen wrote:Considering that over 1/2 of the country's bankruptcies are from excessive medical costs


My my, what is "excessive"? Is that like the leftist definition of "excessive profit"?

And with your leftist ideology slipping in, do you really expect any normal person to take you or your posts seriously?

What we really need is single payer, already proven to save hundreds of billions a year where it's implemented.


Please show me a country that has socialized health care, that also does not enforce any national borders and has a very large, impoverished third world country on one of those borders that they let in and give them whatever they want....all on socialized dollars of course.

So, examples there jonny?

Cornbread
Forum God/Goddess
Posts: 688
Joined: Sun May 20, 2012 5:48 pm
Location: Various places
Contact:

Re: Walker may reject $4 billion Obamacare funds

Postby Cornbread » Thu Jul 05, 2012 7:35 pm

bdog wrote:Does not matter which party you are with - if you make a statement about the future you are, plain and simple, a liar.


DING DING DING! Bdog get's the award for the most thoughtful, insightful and realistic post I've read on this board so far.
So you're in the lead, 1 vote to 0 for everyone else.

Budgets are nothing more than the money you have now, and the rest are PROJECTIONS of what will happen in the future.
This is how they make things good, or balance.

I'm sitting in my livingroom chair at the moment, unemployed. I have a few grand in the bank and I'm going to get a job next week (I will start applying for jobs). This job will pay me a minimum of $50 grand per year. I'll work this job for 10 years, then move on.

So this means next week, I figure I'll be making $25K/yr after expenses, free and clear. I can get 8% on any investments, so the end result is, after next week, I'll have about $337,XXX at my disposal.

I think I'll go buy a $300,000 house......

fennel
Forum God/Goddess
Posts: 4731
Joined: Thu Sep 28, 2006 4:24 pm
Location: Inside the Green Zone, Madison

Re: Walker may reject $4 billion Obamacare funds

Postby fennel » Thu Jul 05, 2012 11:13 pm

Seemed like the thread went into troll convulsions so ...

snoqueen wrote:What I wrote, silly outraged person, was this:

...Medicare, a popular program that relieves older people of tremendous burdens and worries...


Did I ever say it didn't need some tweaking? It does. I know way more about Medicare than I ever wanted to thanks to having put in >10 years being responsible for family members, now dead, who were enrolled. I could write a laundry list of poor uses of money in Medicare. The devil is very much in the details.

But does it relieve older people of tremendous burdens and worries? It definitely does. I would have had to put Family Member #1 in a nursing home without it, a course of action that would have been far more expensive than what we ended up doing. And I was never afraid that Family Member #2 would be left without medical care thanks to Medicare.

Not everybody leads a working life that provides them with enough savings to buy their own insurance through to age 96, which was how long both these people lived.

Tell me, do you think you have enough money to buy your own insurance until you're 96?

I didn't think so.
---------------------------


Let us move on.

Regarding those insurance premiums:

I know you believe the Secretary of Health and Human Services doesn't know as much about the healthcare law as you do, but here's what she says:

Today, 11 million Americans buy health insurance on their own, without the help of an employer, Medicare or Medicaid. Too often, these people pay more money but get fewer benefits than people who have insurance through their employer. What’s more, people in the individual market have higher out-of-pocket costs, including larger deductibles and copays, and a lower likelihood of having prescription drug coverage....

...if adults in the individual market during 2001-08 had benefits similar to those provided under the Affordable Care Act, they would have seen:

An average annual savings of $280 in annual out-of-pocket spending for medical care and drugs,
Average out-of-pocket savings of $589 for those 55-64 and $535 for those 26-64 with low incomes, respectively, and
Near elimination of out-of-pocket expenses over $6,000 for all adults and a reduced likelihood of those expenses over $4,000.


Read the rest here:
http://www.healthcare.gov/blog/2012/05/ ... 51712.html

-------------------------------------------------

Please note she is discussing people who pay for their own insurance, not those who are covered by an employer's plan. You should check here if you are interested in small businesses and the ACA: http://www.healthcare.gov/news/factshee ... iness.html

In the quote I printed above, Sebelius is addressing out-of-pocket expenses because those are the biggies when medical bills start arriving. Did your insurance cover all, part, or none of those expenses? Too often, the insurance company's expertise at finding loopholes way exceeds the individual's ability to fight, and the individual ends up with nearly-insurmountable denied claims. Now there will be a ceiling.

---------------------------------------------

And what about premiums, which are only part of an individual's health care expenses?

Prices for policies sold in Affordable Insurance Exchanges have not been established yet. Exchanges—state-run marketplaces where individuals and small businesses can purchase private insurance policies—will begin operation in 2014. Insurers will offer plans with a certain guaranteed set of benefits at a range of prices. Members of Congress will purchase their health insurance through the new Exchanges, and you will be able to as well.

The law makes clear that insurers won’t be able to charge more based on your gender or your health status, and there will be limits to how much premiums can vary based on your age.

In addition, consumers with income below 400% of the Federal Poverty Level (about $88,000 per year for a family of four) who are buying insurance for themselves or their family will get tax credits that cover a significant part of their costs. A recent report estimated that a family earning twice the federal poverty level would pay less than $3,000 for their coverage for a year – compared to more than $11,000 without the Affordable Care Act



From: http://answers.healthcare.gov/questions/7720

That's a search engine where you can get more answers if you like.

Tax credits means you get part of your premiums back at tax time if you qualify, so in comparing premiums before and after ACA, be sure to include the credits.

----------------------------------------------

It is assumed companies will enroll more people (because of the tax/fine) if they offer desirable plans, which under normal conditions results in lower costs due to scale. What various plans cover will be more easily compared with other plans due to the new regulations. People will be able to make more informed choices, supposedly, when they buy. And the 80% rule should cut overhead.

Those forces and others set in motion by the ACA will act as a downward pressure on monthly premiums.

In addition premiums cannot rise more than 10% a year without the companies making a special application to DHSS, so the giant increases of recent years should be curbed.

On the other hand, the usual market forces of inflation and healthcare becoming more expensive and complex haven't been repealed. Those are the upward pressures against which the downward pressures apply.

--------------------------------------------------

Overall, I would expect premium costs to rise less than they would have without the ACA simply because it brings to bear downward pressures that did not exist previously. And for some people (see boxed quotes above) premiums will clearly go down. That includes people with pre-existing conditions, a large group: diabetics, those on dialysis, those with disabilities, those with HIV/AIDS, and more.

And don't forget rural families, who are a large sector in Wisconsin as Walker surely must know:

Rural families currently pay for nearly half of their health insurance costs out of their own pockets, but the new law helps put an end to this by capping out-of-pocket expenses.


from
http://www.healthcare.gov/news/factshee ... icans.html

---------------------------------------------

If you choose to believe the law is going to be an overall burden, you need to show why in detail. This is not a yes/no question or a stupid/smart law, and if you refuse to bother to read the details you will leave your answers full of holes. Please use the web site linked above, which is extensive and reasonably well-organized, instead of partisan blogs whose intent is not to elucidate the law but to make it look as bad as possible to discredit President Obama.

wack wack
Forum God/Goddess
Posts: 3247
Joined: Mon Jan 20, 2003 4:32 pm
Contact:

Re: Walker may reject $4 billion Obamacare funds

Postby wack wack » Fri Jul 06, 2012 8:02 am

Cornbread wrote:
wack wack wrote:Governor Walker is a liar. Every word in your quote is a completely unsupported lie.


Are you emotionally invested in obamacare's socialized insurance scheme there wack wack?

What's the cost of obama's government health care wack wack?

In truth, the majority of people in Wisconsin will pay less money for more health care.


Wow, wack wack, you sure deem quite full of it ("truth" as you proclaim).
So either back up your "truth" or you are just a liar.

Additionally, it will decrease the size and cost of government,


Again, back this up with something other than your personal hopes and dreams.

increase the quality of health care


again, back this up with something other that it's what you proclaim to be the "truth".


Seriously, Cornhole, when you don't understand what you read, just stay out. I don't even like you and I'm embarrassed for you.

Here's a hint: my response was a completely farcical response to a completely unsupported assertion. So farcical, in fact, that I literally copied the offending assertion and changed a few words to the exact opposite. I understand that you don't have the attention span to remember one post while reading the next, but you really should try to string a few together. Context is important.

wack wack
Forum God/Goddess
Posts: 3247
Joined: Mon Jan 20, 2003 4:32 pm
Contact:

Re: Walker may reject $4 billion Obamacare funds

Postby wack wack » Fri Jul 06, 2012 8:04 am

Comrade wrote:This is classic! Archived for future use. Henry has absolutely no idea what the costs are, but wants it anyway. Wack wack doesn't believe his taxes will go up. Snowqueen believes insurance premiums will decline and believes Medicare is a model of success (despite the ginormous deficits in coming years making it unsustainable at current levels)

I am absolutely stupefied by the level of naivitee' on display here. There just isn't anything left to say.'


I'm still waiting for that economics lesson, Comrade. You can start by explaining exactly how my taxes will go up.

bdog
Forum God/Goddess
Posts: 3975
Joined: Wed Mar 31, 2010 5:26 am

Re: Walker may reject $4 billion Obamacare funds

Postby bdog » Fri Jul 06, 2012 8:05 am

far·ci·cal  (färs-kl)
adj.
1. Of or relating to farce.
2.
a. Resembling a farce; ludicrous.
b. Ridiculously clumsy; absurd.
farci·cali·ty (-kl-t), farci·cal·ness n.
farci·cal·ly adv.

snoqueen
Forum God/Goddess
Posts: 14409
Joined: Fri Feb 14, 2003 10:42 pm

Re: Walker may reject $4 billion Obamacare funds

Postby snoqueen » Fri Jul 06, 2012 2:55 pm

wack wack wrote:
I'm still waiting for that economics lesson, Comrade. You can start by explaining exactly how my taxes will go up.


I guess we just found one way to shut them down at least temporarily: write a post that's halfway educational and offers actual facts from a reputable source. Then even if they come back and start spouting nonsense again, the rest of the readership has the facts straight. All good.

Side effect: Maybe Comrade just found out he's in line for a nice tax credit and that nasty ol' bill -- and nasty ol' president -- aren't so bad after all.

Henry Vilas
Forum God/Goddess
Posts: 24685
Joined: Wed Sep 04, 2002 8:57 pm
Location: Name sez it all
Contact:

Re: Walker may reject $4 billion Obamacare funds

Postby Henry Vilas » Wed Nov 07, 2012 11:35 am

Walker said he would not implement federal health care reform, hoping that Romney would be elected and the "Obamacare" would be repealed. In light of last night's election results, will he change his mind?

wack wack
Forum God/Goddess
Posts: 3247
Joined: Mon Jan 20, 2003 4:32 pm
Contact:

Re: Walker may reject $4 billion Obamacare funds

Postby wack wack » Wed Nov 07, 2012 11:37 am

Henry Vilas wrote:Walker said he would not implement federal health care reform, hoping that Romney would be elected and the "Obamacare" would be repealed. In light of last night's election results, will he change his mind?


No, too much uncertainty for the next four years.

Henry Vilas
Forum God/Goddess
Posts: 24685
Joined: Wed Sep 04, 2002 8:57 pm
Location: Name sez it all
Contact:

Re: Walker may reject $4 billion Obamacare funds

Postby Henry Vilas » Wed Nov 07, 2012 12:02 pm

State has week to decide on health insurance exchange

Will Walker, our procrastinator-in-charge, finally make up his mind?

Huckleby
Forum God/Goddess
Posts: 9947
Joined: Thu Oct 20, 2005 5:12 pm
Location: parents' basement

Re: Walker may reject $4 billion Obamacare funds

Postby Huckleby » Wed Nov 07, 2012 12:15 pm

I don't think it much matters whether Walker decides to setup an insurance exchange. In fact, I think I'd rather have the feds do it. What counts is whether he will accept medicaid expansion.

Here is very good summary of where the health care bill stands:
http://www.kaiserhealthnews.org/Stories ... rc=nl_wonk

Six southern governors are standing in the way of medicaid expansion, and I expect they will be able to spitefully block change for a few years. In a way, it's a lot like the gay marriage issue, we know where the story ends, but the reactionaries can hold-up the transition.

Huckleby
Forum God/Goddess
Posts: 9947
Joined: Thu Oct 20, 2005 5:12 pm
Location: parents' basement

Re: Walker may reject $4 billion Obamacare funds

Postby Huckleby » Thu Nov 08, 2012 10:50 am

The smoke signals indicate Walker is going to implement a state exchange:
http://www.bizjournals.com/milwaukee/bl ... table.html


Depending on how the state plans to approach the issue, Robert Kraig with Citizen Action of Wisconsin says there are pros and cons to having federal officials take control of the process. He says if the state’s goal with an exchange is to work with providers and consumers, then Wisconsin would benefit from doing the work on its own. However, Kraig says if Republicans just want to undermine the law, then residents may be better off if the federal government steps in.
http://wsau.com/news/articles/2012/nov/ ... exchanges/

This Robert Kraig was on Sly's radio show this morning, I only caught a few minutes of it. But the gist was that Walker is the informal leader of a coalition of Republican governors seeking to undermine Obamacare implementation. I look forward to hearing the whole interview when it is online later today.
http://slysoffice.blogspot.com/

Huckleby
Forum God/Goddess
Posts: 9947
Joined: Thu Oct 20, 2005 5:12 pm
Location: parents' basement

Re: Walker may reject $4 billion Obamacare funds

Postby Huckleby » Thu Nov 08, 2012 9:51 pm

If you have any interest in how Obmacare is going to play-out in WI, you gotta listen to this 10 minute interview. Take some alka-seltzer first as preventative measure.
http://slysoffice.blogspot.com/2012/11/ ... ector.html

Henry Vilas
Forum God/Goddess
Posts: 24685
Joined: Wed Sep 04, 2002 8:57 pm
Location: Name sez it all
Contact:

Re: Walker may reject $4 billion Obamacare funds

Postby Henry Vilas » Fri Nov 09, 2012 11:17 am

Florida just said no.

Florida Republican Gov. Rick Scott says he will not implement the state health insurance exchanges mandated in the 2010 federal health care law despite President Barack Obama's re-election.


Return to “Local Politics & Government”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 9 guests