Obamacare *sigh* OCD_OCD: http://www.weeklystandard.com/blogs/obamacare-website-quietly-deletes-reference-free-health-care_757348.html Even as President Obama and his administration are making a last minute push to encourage enrollment in Obamacare, a quiet change was made on the Healthcare.gov website regarding those who will still not be able to afford coverage after the program kicks in. From at least June 26, 2013 to as recently as September 15, under the topic, "Where can I get free or low-cost care in my community?" the following statement appeared: "If you can't afford any health plan, you can get free or low-cost health and dental care at a nearby community health center." Here is how the page in question appeared: However, sometime between September 16 and September 23, the reference to "free" care was dropped. The title of the topic was changed as well, and now reads: "Where can I get low-cost care in my community?" Here is how the page currently appears:  davidk14: . Worse. Let the government shut down. I understand that there will those that get hurt. However, someone 'is' gonna get hurt and I sure do not want it to be the 99% of the American public. Obama waived Obamacare for one year for unions, certain friends of the WH and we can not waive for one year for the average American? Seriously? Let them close down the government. Fire Obama and lets get a new CEO. .  Chad_: I agree........the only people that suffer from the shut down is the over paid workers........ SHUT IT DOWN ...........find new american workers that will work for less and do more...  duncan124: From the Portuguese ' Publico ' newspaper. "As of Tuesday, more than a million employees of managed services by the u.s. Government can get to work without receiving and other 800,000 will stay at home, in a kind of lay-off, after the Senate and the Republican majority in the House of representatives have reached agreement for the approval of the budget. The deadline for the approval was midnight Monday, but, as expected, the Democratic majority in the Senate and the Republican majority in the House of representatives failed to agree – concerned was the requirement of the Republican party to do depend on the approval of the budget of elimination or, at least, a profound change to the health care program proposed by the Obama Administrationthe Affordable Care Act, also known as ObamaCare." http://www.publico.pt/economia/noticia/barack-obama-nao-cedeu-e-governo-federal-encerrou-por-bloqueio-orcamental-1607662 I don't know why the Publico decided to give the 'story' such coverage. Unless of course it is a reference to the Republician sponsored Portuguese politicians. 'Moscow Times' has reported the Russians have started their winter conscription program. duncan124: "... Government can get to work without receiving and other 800,000 will stay at home, in a kind of lay-off, after the Senate"--- not a reference to the sacked politicians???  Serabi: Keep on posting Duncan, your rantings are sounding more and more familiar! You have another account here as well. I'll figure it out... duncan124: OCD said " Politicians have not been sacked " I said " Politicians have not been sacked???" OCD says " Duncan, you are on ignore" When Republican sponsored politicians are sacked it sends a clear message to Republican supporters everywhere. Chad_: Like what Duncan.........that we should keep taxing the working class people to keep the lazy americans of not wanting to work ......living on the working mans dime........ Hey Duncan state your country and where your from before you spew comments about a countries problems......seems to be alot of you on here....with a opinion.... you like to stick your beak into something without stating where the hell your from ........ Chad_: Still waiting for this............WE NEED CHANGE ......obama promised in 2008............... I guess having CHINA own our ass is the change he is talking about  the real slim DEEPy: the government is picking winners and losers, thru bail-outs and exemptions, and you wonder why capitalism is seeming to fail? the real slim DEEPy: why do we tax unemployment, which is double taxed, cause you paid into it, but not tax welfare as income? whats the diff? the real slim DEEPy: tax you if you dont have enough healthcare coverage, tax you i you have too much coverage... wtf??? the real slim DEEPy: if we do not tax welfare, why tax disability and retirement???- sorry, off topic... (Edited by the real slim DEEPy) davidk14: . um....(clearing throat),,,, According to the US Federal Reserve, today October 2nd, 2013....Social Security, Medicare and Medicade are....are you sitting down.... Unfunded to the tune of $126 TRILLION Dollars. There is not enough money on the planet to fund these 3 social programs. Now.....we have Obamacare that will have cost overruns in the $100's of billions over the next 10 years. According to the US Department of Human Resources.... "....In a 2012 report, HHS conceded that it had miscalculated ... "On average, the PCIP program has experienced claims costs 2.5 times higher than anticipated." I just do not understand how they think we can balance a budget by increasing cost. There just isn't enough money on the planet to pay for these social programs. WTF are they doing  . Serabi: Millions of Poor Are Left Uncovered by Health Law James Patterson for The New York Times Claretha Briscoe. She earns too much to qualify for Medicaid but not enough to get subsidies on the new health exchange. A sweeping national effort to extend health coverage to millions of Americans will leave out two-thirds of the poor blacks and single mothers and more than half of the low-wage workers who do not have insurance, the very kinds of people that the program was intended to help, according to an analysis of census data by The New York Times. Because they live in states largely controlled by Republicans that have declined to participate in a vast expansion of Medicaid, the medical insurance program for the poor, they are among the eight million Americans who are impoverished, uninsured and ineligible for help. The federal government will pay for the expansion through 2016 and no less than 90 percent of costs in later years. Those excluded will be stranded without insurance, stuck between people with slightly higher incomes who will qualify for federal subsidies on the new health exchanges that went live this week, and those who are poor enough to qualify for Medicaid in its current form, which has income ceilings as low as $11 a day in some states. People shopping for insurance on the health exchanges are already discovering this bitter twist. “How can somebody in poverty not be eligible for subsidies?” an unemployed health care worker in Virginia asked through tears. The woman, who identified herself only as Robin L. because she does not want potential employers to know she is down on her luck, thought she had run into a computer problem when she went online Tuesday and learned she would not qualify. At 55, she has high blood pressure, and she had been waiting for the law to take effect so she could get coverage. Before she lost her job and her house and had to move in with her brother in Virginia, she lived in Maryland, a state that is expanding Medicaid. “Would I go back there?” she asked. “It might involve me living in my car. I don’t know. I might consider it.” The 26 states that have rejected the Medicaid expansion are home to about half of the country’s population, but about 68 percent of poor, uninsured blacks and single mothers. About 60 percent of the country’s uninsured working poor are in those states. Among those excluded are about 435,000 cashiers, 341,000 cooks and 253,000 nurses’ aides. “The irony is that these states that are rejecting Medicaid expansion — many of them Southern — are the very places where the concentration of poverty and lack of health insurance are the most acute,” said Dr. H. Jack Geiger, a founder of the community health center model. “It is their populations that have the highest burden of illness and costs to the entire health care system.” The disproportionate impact on poor blacks introduces the prickly issue of race into the already politically charged atmosphere around the health care law. Race was rarely, if ever, mentioned in the state-level debates about the Medicaid expansion. But the issue courses just below the surface, civil rights leaders say, pointing to the pattern of exclusion. Every state in the Deep South, with the exception of Arkansas, has rejected the expansion. Opponents of the expansion say they are against it on exclusively economic grounds, and that the demographics of the South — with its large share of poor blacks — make it easy to say race is an issue when it is not. In Mississippi, Republican leaders note that a large share of people in the state are on Medicaid already, and that, with an expansion, about a third of the state would have been insured through the program. Even supporters of the health law say that eventually covering 10 percent of that cost would have been onerous for a predominantly rural state with a modest tax base. “Any additional cost in Medicaid is going to be too much,” said State Senator Chris McDaniel, a Republican, who opposes expansion. The law was written to require all Americans to have health coverage. For lower and middle-income earners, there are subsidies on the new health exchanges to help them afford insurance. An expanded Medicaid program was intended to cover the poorest. In all, about 30 million uninsured Americans were to have become eligible for financial help. Copied and pasted from the New York Times. Serabi: BTW - Welcome to the way Africa tries to do things i.e. Seeing only what is in front of your nose without any future forsight. OCD_OCD: Federal programs are very...illogical most often. When the Feds enact a program that they cannot force on a state, what they do to make it palatable is agree to pay for a large portion of the cost of the program or expansion in the first few years. The amount that they fund decreases yearly until the state and it's taxpayers are funding either the entire amount, or they are funding the lion's share. For people who are in state office at the time, that works great for them, but it's their successors who are left holding the bag of expense that they cannot afford and cannot fund which then shifts the burden of anger onto the state level rather than the federal level where it started. Feds believe that if you can't foist something outright on a state because of the issue of state's rights, you can give them a carrot, get them to agree to do it willingly and then let them deal with the fallout when it happens. And it ALWAYS happens. | Politics Chat Room 71 People Chatting Similar Conversations |
