Hell no, I ain't paying another $300 a month (ACA)

[8bitagent]

sorry, but i'm not buying these comments as factual. if this hits lower income groups so hard--i'm fairly certain the GOP would be 100% behind it. but the GOP bitterly opposes it, so there must be some good things about it.

i'm not a democrat, but i'm certainly anti-republican, and i know those cock suckers. if they hate obamacare, there must be some good things in it.

like considering 30 hour work weeks as full time.

The GOP was also deadset against going into Syria.

[Joao]

the GOP bitterly opposes it, so there must be some good things about it.

Good point to consider, but of course there's opposition and then there's the facade of opposition, as well.

And 30 hours as full time may have its positive side, but it also sounds to me like yet another way to cook employment statistics.

[conniption]

the GOP bitterly opposes it, so there must be some good things about it.

Good point to consider, but of course there's opposition and then there's the facade of opposition, as well.

"...then there's the facade of opposition, as well."

I think you hit the nail on the head there, bucko.

[Carol Newquist]

i'm not a democrat, but i'm certainly anti-republican, and i know those cock suckers. if they hate obamacare, there must be some good things in it.

Both groups are equally brain-dead zombies marching to the tune they're handed. Neither group's opinion on the ACA amounts to anything other than propaganda points. Own your own criticism rather than letting it be dictated by a reaction to bullshit. Tune that false divide distraction out. The same goes for the numb nuts who call themselves conservatives. The pundits are laughing all the way to the bank just as Gilligan is....but at least Gilligan provided worthwhile theater in return. The same can't be said for these asshat political entertainers.

[IanEye]

Both groups are equally brain-dead zombies marching to the tune they're handed.

it's true. Like the family of Trayvon Martin have their bogus talking points, and the family of George Zimmerman have their bogus talking points.

Both families are equally bad.

We are all better served by simply tuning both families out.


"Look at you now."

[Carol Newquist]

Ian, can you show me where the woman and her children in that clip are waving the red, white and blue and reading off Republican/Democrat propaganda circulars? The analogy fails.

Personally, I have no idea what the Zimmerman family or the Trayvon Martin family said as it relates to that incident. It had no bearing on the facts of the case. However, the Left-Right false divide reaction to it was telling of the propaganda that's fed the fools of both fabricated factions.

Liberals: It was racial profiling and Gorge Zimmerman is a cold-blooded murderer who murdered Trayvon Martin because he was black.

Conservatives: Trayvon Martin was a thug, gangster wannabe who had it coming.

Neither narrative is true. Not even close. With the former group, Zimmerman was determined guilty without a trial and in the latter case Zimmerman was innocent without a trial. In both cases, the facts be damned.

[seemslikeadream]

Racist Zimmerman was a child killer...... in cold blood plain and simple.... fact

Report: Medical Examiner Shiping Bao Claims George Zimmerman Shot Trayvon Martin In The Back

[seemslikeadream]

[Carol Newquist]

Racist Zimmerman was a child killer...... in cold blood plain and simple.... fact

It's even worse than that, if you think about it. He essentially assassinated Obama's son because, afterall, if Obama had a son, he would look like Trayvon. Can you believe this conspiracy? Who would have thought we'd slip this far as to exonerate a hispanic young man from assassinating a black President's son? Where have you gone, Joe DiMaggio?

[82_28]

HTTP ERROR: 504

Gateway Timeout

RequestURI=http://www.wahbexchange.org/

Oh well. Bummer.

[Carol Newquist]

This is going to be disastrous for the poor....the very demographic it was proselytized this legislation was meant to help (a lie...one of many).

http://www.examiner.com/article/aca-creates-mandatated-tax-for-the-working-poor

Most headlines after the June 28, 2012 SCOTUS ruling allowing the individual mandate in the Affordable Care Act to stand as constitutional led every news outlet. What may have been lost in all the hoopla was a critical point---a point that 26 states, including Georgia, sued the federal government in an effort to emphasize its importance. These states challenged the constitutionality of the federal government's ability to force states to expand Medicaid. If not, grants would be withheld until the states were in compliance.

These states argued that it would create an unfair burden on their fiscal budget. The SCOTUS agreed and stuck down the clause, allowing states to now determine if they can afford to expand Medicaid in their respective states.

ACA would expand Medicaid coverage to anyone, single or family, whose earnings are less than 133% of the federal poverty guidelines. For a single person, this would be approximately $14,050. It would also permit a family of 3 earning $31,000 or less to become eligible for the program. Currently, eligibility would be granted for a family of 3 earning $21,000 or less.

ACA would expand the program to more than 650,000 Georgia citizens and create an estimated $2,4 billion in spending. The Georgia Medicaid eligible would increase from 16.5% to 34% by 2014.

Currently, Georgia is facing a deficit of over $300 million in the Medicaid program, according to state health officials. Unemployment still looms at 8.9%, above the national average. This correlates with the increase of eligible citizens. It also is a factor in Georgia's decreased revenue as these citizens are not earning taxable income. The Georgia Medicaid program is expanding far more rapidly than the state's economy. Medicaid is expected to encompass 17.5% of the state's total budget by 2014.

In a statement from his website, Georgia Governor Nathan Deal states “We will work to ensure that our state, not the federal government, maintains regulatory and oversight control over our healthcare delivery system. Our state’s healthcare delivery system would benefit greatly from greater flexibility and we will continue to pursue additional control.”

Shortly after the ACA ruling, Governor Deal announced he would delay implementation of ACA until after November's elections. He and other GOP officials remain hopeful that upcoming election results could yield the possibility of legislation that would repeal the law.

In the interim, 15 million Americans (working poor and lower middle class) are in limbo. In states that do not expand Medicaid, the same people would still be required to obtain insurance or face paying the IRS a penalty. Typically, this demographic pays no income taxes.

Tax credits are available to assist in the purchase of private insurance. However, in order to receive a tax credit, one must purchase the insurance up front. If this were in their budget, most would likely have purchased insurance prior to this law.

The people who can least afford taxes at all, let alone a tax increase, will unfortunately be the casualties of this policy as it stands. No insurance coverage and increased fees to the federal government certainly wouldn't seem like the hope and change any of them expected.

[Nordic]

This so-called opposition to ACA.

It's all showbiz, baby!

I'm watching on Facebook this morning as people are reacting exactly in the fashion they're supposed to.

It's incredible. It's very similar to the equally bogus 2012 "choice" between Obama and Romney.

The buttons are pushed. People respond perfectly to their programming. "I hate the OTHERS!"

[Carol Newquist]

That's precisely why those of us who aren't in lockstep with this Kabuki Debate need to own our own criticism. Here's some more for your edification. This is unnerving.....and not for the reasons the reactionary right believes.

http://www.correntewire.com/obamacare_clusterfuck_if_youre_over_55_and_forced_into_medicaid_medicaid_is_a_collateral_loan_and_a

From this -- alas anonymous -- analyst/informant to Paul Craig Roberts in Counterpunch:

If an Exchange determines you are eligible for Medicaid, you have no other choice. Code for Exchanges specifies, “an applicant is not eligible for advance payment of the premium tax credit (a subsidized plan) or cost-sharing reductions to the extent that he or she is eligible for other minimum essential coverage, including coverage under Medicaid and CHIP.” Therefore, you will be tossed into Medicaid unless there are specific rules as to why you would not be eligible. If you are enrolled in a private plan through an Exchange and have been receiving a tax credit, and your income decreases making you eligible for Medicaid, in you go. If you are allowed to opt out because you don’t want Medicaid, you will have to pay a penalty for being uninsured unless you can afford to purchase insurance in the open market. ...

Furthermore, to increase enrollment in health coverage without requiring people to complete an application on their own, states are advised to automate enrollment whenever possible by using existing databases for social services programs such as SNAP (food stamps) to enroll people who appear eligible for Medicaid but are not currently enrolled. Therefore, you could find yourself auto-enrolled in Medicaid against your will if your state acts on this advice.

.... You won’t find the following info in the ACA. It’s in the Omnibus Reconciliation Act of 1993 (OBRA 1993) – a federal statute which applies to Medicaid, and, if you are enrolled in Medicaid, it will apply to you depending on your age.

a) OBRA 1993 requires all states that receive Medicaid funding to seek recovery from the estates of deceased individuals who used Medicaid benefits at age 55 or older. It allows recovery for any items or services under the state Medicaid plan going beyond nursing homes and other long-term care institutions. In fact, The Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS) site says that states have the option of recovering payments for all Medicaid services provided. The Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) site says at state option, recovery can be pursued for any items covered by the Medicaid state plan.

b) The HHS site has an overview of the Medicaid estate recovery mandate which also says that at a minimum, states must pursue recoveries from the “probate estate,” which includes property that passes to the heirs under state probate law, but states can expand the definition of estate to allow recovery from property that bypasses probate. This means states can use procedures for direct recovery from bank accounts and other funds.

c) Some states use recovery for RX and hospital only as required by OBRA 1993; some recover for a few additional benefits and some recover for all benefits under the state plan. Recovery provides revenue for cash-strapped states and it’s a big business.

Your estate is what you own when you die – your home and what’s in it, other real estate you may own, your bank account, annuities and so on. And even if you have a will, your heirs are chopped liver. Low-income people often have only one major asset – the home in which they live and, in some cases, this has been the family home through several generations.

So what this boils down to is: if you are put into Medicaid – congratulations – you just got a mandated collateral loan if you use Medicaid benefits at age 55 or older! States keep a running tally.

Estate recovery can be exempted or deferred in certain situations after your death, but the regulations for this are limited and complicated with multitudes of conditions.

Sheesh. It's almost like poor elders are 3/5 of a person, or something. Even if you make it through to Medicare and manage to hang onto your house under Medicaid, you might not be able to pass it on to your kids! Or anything else, for that matter. Good news for the downwardly mobile, eh?

NOTE This is so awful I don't want to believe it. But see commenter sleepy at NC, WikiPedia, the Christian Science Monitor. And hey, guess what! Some states farm out the recoveries, and the collection agencies screw it up.

What's new is that ObamaCare forces you into Medicaid, and so forces you to put your estate at risk. But only if you're old and poor!

UPDATE Isn't this just the rankest posssible discrimination? Can this be Constitutional?

[freemason9]

This so-called opposition to ACA.

It's all showbiz, baby!

I'm watching on Facebook this morning as people are reacting exactly in the fashion they're supposed to.

It's incredible. It's very similar to the equally bogus 2012 "choice" between Obama and Romney.

The buttons are pushed. People respond perfectly to their programming. "I hate the OTHERS!"

It isn't "showbiz" at all, in my opinion. This is what I believe:

American workers have been reduced to wage slavery. This is rooted in history, but we had a brief "golden era" of labor from around 1950 through 1980. Reagan led the effort by the right wing to destroy any advances that labor may have won in America, and labor has been suffering ever since.

The primary difference between American labor and European/Australian/Canadian labor is freedom. Americans have been bound to their employers by health insurance. Although wages aren't that good anymore, people can't afford to lose their insurance. Other modern industrialized nations have national health care, and their citizens live in a completely different world.

This is the beginning of the end insofar as that goes, and that's why the right wing (headed by Koch) is so hugely opposed to it. They see the writing on the wall. The ACA is just the beginning of worker freedom in the U.S. We have a long, long way to go . . . but this is how it begins in the U.S.

[freemason9]

That's precisely why those of us who aren't in lockstep with this Kabuki Debate need to own our own criticism. Here's some more for your edification. This is unnerving.....and not for the reasons the reactionary right believes.

http://www.correntewire.com/obamacare_clusterfuck_if_youre_over_55_and_forced_into_medicaid_medicaid_is_a_collateral_loan_and_a

From this -- alas anonymous -- analyst/informant to Paul Craig Roberts in Counterpunch:

If an Exchange determines you are eligible for Medicaid, you have no other choice. Code for Exchanges specifies, “an applicant is not eligible for advance payment of the premium tax credit (a subsidized plan) or cost-sharing reductions to the extent that he or she is eligible for other minimum essential coverage, including coverage under Medicaid and CHIP.” Therefore, you will be tossed into Medicaid unless there are specific rules as to why you would not be eligible. If you are enrolled in a private plan through an Exchange and have been receiving a tax credit, and your income decreases making you eligible for Medicaid, in you go. If you are allowed to opt out because you don’t want Medicaid, you will have to pay a penalty for being uninsured unless you can afford to purchase insurance in the open market. ...

Furthermore, to increase enrollment in health coverage without requiring people to complete an application on their own, states are advised to automate enrollment whenever possible by using existing databases for social services programs such as SNAP (food stamps) to enroll people who appear eligible for Medicaid but are not currently enrolled. Therefore, you could find yourself auto-enrolled in Medicaid against your will if your state acts on this advice.

.... You won’t find the following info in the ACA. It’s in the Omnibus Reconciliation Act of 1993 (OBRA 1993) – a federal statute which applies to Medicaid, and, if you are enrolled in Medicaid, it will apply to you depending on your age.

a) OBRA 1993 requires all states that receive Medicaid funding to seek recovery from the estates of deceased individuals who used Medicaid benefits at age 55 or older. It allows recovery for any items or services under the state Medicaid plan going beyond nursing homes and other long-term care institutions. In fact, The Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS) site says that states have the option of recovering payments for all Medicaid services provided. The Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) site says at state option, recovery can be pursued for any items covered by the Medicaid state plan.

b) The HHS site has an overview of the Medicaid estate recovery mandate which also says that at a minimum, states must pursue recoveries from the “probate estate,” which includes property that passes to the heirs under state probate law, but states can expand the definition of estate to allow recovery from property that bypasses probate. This means states can use procedures for direct recovery from bank accounts and other funds.

c) Some states use recovery for RX and hospital only as required by OBRA 1993; some recover for a few additional benefits and some recover for all benefits under the state plan. Recovery provides revenue for cash-strapped states and it’s a big business.

Your estate is what you own when you die – your home and what’s in it, other real estate you may own, your bank account, annuities and so on. And even if you have a will, your heirs are chopped liver. Low-income people often have only one major asset – the home in which they live and, in some cases, this has been the family home through several generations.

So what this boils down to is: if you are put into Medicaid – congratulations – you just got a mandated collateral loan if you use Medicaid benefits at age 55 or older! States keep a running tally.

Estate recovery can be exempted or deferred in certain situations after your death, but the regulations for this are limited and complicated with multitudes of conditions.

Sheesh. It's almost like poor elders are 3/5 of a person, or something. Even if you make it through to Medicare and manage to hang onto your house under Medicaid, you might not be able to pass it on to your kids! Or anything else, for that matter. Good news for the downwardly mobile, eh?

NOTE This is so awful I don't want to believe it. But see commenter sleepy at NC, WikiPedia, the Christian Science Monitor. And hey, guess what! Some states farm out the recoveries, and the collection agencies screw it up.

What's new is that ObamaCare forces you into Medicaid, and so forces you to put your estate at risk. But only if you're old and poor!

UPDATE Isn't this just the rankest posssible discrimination? Can this be Constitutional?

Wait, I'm not sure what you are so worked up about here. When you die, you don't own anything anymore--in fact, you don't technically "own" anything when you are alive, either, but that's another issue. Is it the inheritance thing? I personally oppose aristocracy and the laws that promote it. We do have a serious wealth concentration issue, you know. What we really NEED are better wages and salaries during a person's working life. When you're done living--well, I don't see why anyone would benefit from living off the bones.