Enrollment In Obamacare's Federal Exchange, So Far, May Only Be In 'Single Digits'

Re: Enrollment In Obamacare's Federal Exchange, So Far, May Only Be In 'Single Digits

winston53660 said:

Yeah the uninsured get *druh roll please* medicaid!

Click to expand...

People on Medicaid ARE insured, just another subject you know very little about nor do you understand. More trolling?

Re: Enrollment In Obamacare's Federal Exchange, So Far, May Only Be In 'Single Digits

Gimmesometruth said:

Again and again you continue this moronic argument that ignores the point. The point is not about Medicaid, the point is not about Texas, the point is not about the diversion of federal funds......THE POINT IS THAT ALL STATES RECEIVE FEDERAL DOLLARS TO COVER UNINSURED MEDICAL COSTS.

You are so busy trying to find any and all tangents to bury the main point of the counter-argument because it directly counters your false claim.

Click to expand...

The point is which of course you ignore is what the general fund in TX actually funds. Further you don't understand one basic statement BY THE FEDERAL Govt. NO LAWS WERE BROKEN

It really is sad that we have people like you more concerned about what the state of TX is doing than where your tax dollars are being spent. The state of TX sends $1 to the Federal govt. and gets .91 back, Pardon me if I am not concerned that part of that is Medicaid funding that is directed to the general fund which reimburses lower income hospitals for the uninsured and Medicaid patients. Where do you want that money to go? Can you prove that the Medicaid patients in TX are being short changed?

Re: Enrollment In Obamacare's Federal Exchange, So Far, May Only Be In 'Single Digits

Conservative said:

People on Medicaid ARE insured, just another subject you know very little about nor do you understand. More trolling?

Click to expand...

So now you are for government insurance? What is the specious point you are trying to make?

Re: Enrollment In Obamacare's Federal Exchange, So Far, May Only Be In 'Single Digits

ItAin'tFree said:

This disaster of a law, Obamadon'tcare, is costing people their livelihoods and is preventing others from obtaining a decent life because it is a job killer. Plus, Obamadon'tcare is an unmanageable debt because the taxpayers will pay for medicaid or subsidies and still get stuck with the tab for anyone not covered. The biggest difference to the taxpayer will be the huge increase he or she is responsible for. It's a lose, lose for the taxpayer and that's before individual liberty is even considered.

Click to expand...

We'll see, won't we? You say you "get it," but what you get is what you've heard, and what you heard is propaganda. Everything I've heard for and against this thing is propaganda. But I read as much of the bill as I can understand, and this is the thing for me: I think the bill looks great. I think it's filled with fantastic provisions. It increases competition, gives subsidies, requires people to obtain coverage (many don't like this but it can't work any other way without a federal public option), it prevents insurance companies from denying people based on pre-existing conditions, has the minimum standards for insurance policies which protects consumers, reforms medicare to some extent, and gives states say in what they want to offer. I don't think it's a job killer at all. I think most large companies won't change their policies at all. The company I work for didn't. Small businesses (with under 50 employees) are completely exempt.

Maybe you know all this stuff. But most people just hear how terrible the bill is and have no idea what's in it. I read it and I like it. Maybe you don't. We'll find out how it works out, but remember this: we're comparing what will kick in soon to what we had throughout the first decade of this country. Health insurance premiums were skyrocketing and people were being denied care. It was horrible. And Republicans had spent the last 20 years blocking any potential health care reform. This isn't a commercial for bleach where you're comparing one white shirt to a whiter shirt. You're comparing this white shirt to the shirt with red wine on it.

Re: Enrollment In Obamacare's Federal Exchange, So Far, May Only Be In 'Single Digits

Before, the question was:

Conservative said:

Do you pay for the uninsured in TX?

Click to expand...

Now, after it has been clearly shown that federal tax dollars go to every state to pay for uninsured hospital costs, Con tries a new tact:

Conservative said:

Pardon me if I am not concerned that part of that is Medicaid funding that is directed to the general fund which reimburses lower income hospitals for the uninsured and Medicaid patients.

Click to expand...

Sigh....

Of course you are are not concerned now....since it is an inconvenient fact that cannot be accepted since it counters the foundation of your objection to the PPACA. You are in denial that states/hospitals do have to depend upon federal dollars to cover the costs of the uninsured because it crumbles your "states don't need federal HC dollars".

Of course you want to ignore it, it is essential to your argument that you do.

Re: Enrollment In Obamacare's Federal Exchange, So Far, May Only Be In 'Single Digits

Gimmesometruth said:

Before, the question was:

Now, after it has been clearly shown that federal tax dollars go to every state to pay for uninsured hospital costs, Con tries a new tact:



Sigh....

Of course you are are not concerned now....since it is an inconvenient fact that cannot be accepted since it counters the foundation of your objection to the PPACA. You are in denial that states/hospitals do have to depend upon federal dollars to cover the costs of the uninsured because it crumbles your "states don't need federal HC dollars".

Of course you want to ignore it, it is essential to your argument that you do.

Click to expand...

I am so glad that all you have to do is worry about what TX does with its taxdollars which Texans send to D.C. and get .91 cents back. I know that eventually that light bulb is going to go off and you realize that there is a difference between the uninsured and Medicaid patients so the only thing I can assume is that you want to troll, divert, and seek attention. The best I can do with people like you is ignore them. I told you that Medicaid patients are insured and they are, the people who are uninsured in TX and don't pay their bills are paid for by the taxpayers of TX not the taxpayers of your state.

Because of the ignorance of liberals to the reality that states fund their own uninsured expenses we need ACA as a stepping stone to that liberal utopian single payer system. I sincerely hope you and others get exactly what you deserve.

Re: Enrollment In Obamacare's Federal Exchange, So Far, May Only Be In 'Single Digits

Conservative said:

Then it should be handled in the state not the Federal Govt. Why should a federal bureaucrat decide where to send money when that expense is at the state level? You and others like you are working hard to get that liberal utopian dream of a large central govt with permanent liberal power collecting all the money and distributing it how the bureaucrats want. You don't see a problem with that and therein lies the real problem.

Click to expand...

Yeah and when Katrina hit, can you believe that the federal government was involving in cleaning it up? That's Louisiana's job, right? What lazy morons, making us clean up the hurricane they allowed to hit them. If they didn't want to be hit by it, they should have flown a helicopter over it and thrown a bomb into it and it would have disappeared.

A federal power collecting taxes and distributing them is actually an idea that's been around for a few hundred years now. While the original guidelines were to distribute money according to population, it was always up for debate. In the early 1910s, the 16th amendment was ratified. The 16th amendment states: The Congress shall have power to lay and collect taxes on incomes, from whatever source derived, without apportionment among the several States, and without regard to any census or enumeration.

I think Hamilton is the guy you really hate. He was a complete Marxist with Saul Alinsky tactics, you know.

Re: Enrollment In Obamacare's Federal Exchange, So Far, May Only Be In 'Single Digits

Mustachio said:

Yeah and when Katrina hit, can you believe that the federal government was involving in cleaning it up? That's Louisiana's job, right? What lazy morons, making us clean up the hurricane they allowed to hit them. If they didn't want to be hit by it, they should have flown a helicopter over it and thrown a bomb into it and it would have disappeared.

A federal power collecting taxes and distributing them is actually an idea that's been around for a few hundred years now. While the original guidelines were to distribute money according to population, it was always up for debate. In the early 1910s, the 16th amendment was ratified. The 16th amendment states: The Congress shall have power to lay and collect taxes on incomes, from whatever source derived, without apportionment among the several States, and without regard to any census or enumeration.

I think Hamilton is the guy you really hate. He was a complete Marxist with Saul Alinsky tactics, you know.

Click to expand...

Apples and Oranges but then again you don't see to understand the difference. The state of TX stepped up and helped our neighbors to our East, again something you don't understand.

What does any of this have to do with the uninsured and my statement? Seems you have no problem with the Federal Govt. collecting your money and sending it to another state for an individuals personal responsibility in that state? Is that what they are teaching you in school?

Re: Enrollment In Obamacare's Federal Exchange, So Far, May Only Be In 'Single Digits

Conservative said:

the people who are uninsured in TX and don't pay their bills are paid for by the taxpayers of TX not the taxpayers of your state.

Click to expand...

I know you believe this, you have convinced me over and over that you will continue to refuse to accept the fact that federal tax dollars go back to each state to pay for the uninsured in each state and this has been in place for a numbers of years, even prior to Tx being a contributor state.

Even with your argument that TX is a contributor state, this is an admission that you, as a TX federal taxpayer, have been paying for the uninsured in other states.

I wonder....will this turn on a light bulb.....or will you go with a full on secessionist argument?

I can't wait.

Re: Enrollment In Obamacare's Federal Exchange, So Far, May Only Be In 'Single Digits

My favorite part (sarcasm) of the ACA is the fact that in delaying the the Employer Mandate portion of the law to Jan 1, 2015, the Democrats have effectively allowed all businesses to drop insurance coverage for their employees. Don't believe they'll do it? Check what Home Depot has done to over 20,000 workers.

Here are some effects of that little nugget of wisdom the Dems have perpetuated upon us:


-This allows all businesses to drop their employees from their health insurance. Why? Because their mandate isn't in effect until Jan 1, 2015 while their employees mandate is Jan 1, 2014. But wait, there's an alternative!

-If someone happens to be in a union, their union will protect them from losing their healthcare benefits. What kind of groups have over 450 members exempted? That's right, unions. Who did unions overwhelmingly support during the Presidential elections of 2008 and 2012? But wait, it gets better.

-Congress, according to a 2010 amendment to the ACA sponsored by Sen. Charles Grassley (R-Iowa), will not be exempt from the ACA. They, according to the bill, "should be treated just like those ordinary working Americans who will be dumped from their employer’s plan and forced to shop on the exchanges." However, despite this amendment being passed, the White House Office of Personnel Management ruled (dictated) that the Congress could keep their full employers share of premiums despite the fact that these payments aren't authorized under the ACA. And finally, just to add a little conspiracy theory to it.

-Just to be clear, the above are facts. This is my opinion. If a person is working for a company that resides in a right to work state, doesn't have a union to join, and loses their healthcare that was previously provided by their employer, what is the effect of that? I will say that it will have a few possible effects:
1) That person will undoubtedly have to purchase insurance through the ACA thereby taking more money from his pocket.
2) That person MAY desire to join a union due to the fact that his employer screwed him over and he doesn't want it to happen again. Nevermind the fact that his employer was forced to by the Federal gov't or risk losing money and possibly closing it's doors.
3) That person MAY decide to vote against anyone that wants to take away the ACA despite the fact that the ACA is the reason all of this happened to begin with.
4) That person MAY decide to move to a state that requires union protection for him. Now that he's in a union he's contributing money, regardless of his political beliefs, to what will undoubtedly be a Democrat.

You think this sounds far fetched? I don't. Pres Obama essentially has guaranteed that his law will stay in effect, people will buy it, the people that support him and other Democrats will be exempt from it, and it will punish people who are not a member of a union. It's not even my job to think of this crap and I just made logical deductions of how this could eventually prove to benefit unions ie Democrats and punish/flip conservatives ie people who support right to work states/free market healthcare/etc. The most disturbing of all of this is the fact that the White House Office of Personnel Management essentially usurped the Congress by "ruling" that a full share of premiums are paid towards Congressmen's healthcare. How is this not making news? Hmmmm.

Re: Enrollment In Obamacare's Federal Exchange, So Far, May Only Be In 'Single Digits

Gimmesometruth said:

I know you believe this, you have convinced me over and over that you will continue to refuse to accept the fact that federal tax dollars go back to each state to pay for the uninsured in each state and this has been in place for a numbers of years, even prior to Tx being a contributor state.

Even with your argument that TX is a contributor state, this is an admission that you, as a TX federal taxpayer, have been paying for the uninsured in other states.

I wonder....will this turn on a light bulb.....or will you go with a full on secessionist argument?

I can't wait.

Click to expand...

Yes, and I know that you believe that a single payer system is the way to go and that eventually we will have that liberal utopia that you have dreamed about. The question is what happens if you are wrong?

I have no idea what drives people like you to promote a failed ideology and to want to transform this country from the greatest in the world to another has been European socialist economy. Being much older and wiser than you, I see the errors of your ways and eventually you will come to that reality to, hopefully not too late.

Re: Enrollment In Obamacare's Federal Exchange, So Far, May Only Be In 'Single Digits

Mustachio said:

Yeah and when Katrina hit, can you believe that the federal government was involving in cleaning it up? That's Louisiana's job, right? What lazy morons, making us clean up the hurricane they allowed to hit them. If they didn't want to be hit by it, they should have flown a helicopter over it and thrown a bomb into it and it would have disappeared.

A federal power collecting taxes and distributing them is actually an idea that's been around for a few hundred years now. While the original guidelines were to distribute money according to population, it was always up for debate. In the early 1910s, the 16th amendment was ratified. The 16th amendment states: The Congress shall have power to lay and collect taxes on incomes, from whatever source derived, without apportionment among the several States, and without regard to any census or enumeration.

I think Hamilton is the guy you really hate. He was a complete Marxist with Saul Alinsky tactics, you know.

Click to expand...

Silly example, Katrina hit multiple states and areas in three states were declared FEDERAL disaster areas.

Re: Enrollment In Obamacare's Federal Exchange, So Far, May Only Be In 'Single Digits

Conservative said:

Yes, and I know that you believe that a single payer system is the way to go and that eventually we will have that liberal utopia that you have dreamed about. The question is what happens if you are wrong?

I have no idea what drives people like you to promote a failed ideology and to want to transform this country from the greatest in the world to another has been European socialist economy. Being much older and wiser than you, I see the errors of your ways and eventually you will come to that reality to, hopefully not too late.

Click to expand...

LOL....you can't address the point that YOUR tax dollars pay for the uninsured in other states....so instead you divert with the straw "utopias". We know that SP lowers costs and increases coverage with better outcomes.....so you face another dead-end in spite of your rhetoric.

What will be the next diversion?

Re: Enrollment In Obamacare's Federal Exchange, So Far, May Only Be In 'Single Digits

Conservative said:

If you don't know the answer to that question then you are part of the problem and never will be able to implement a solution. Sending a dollar to D.C. and getting .91 back is typical liberal logic. Seems we are getting closer and closer to that liberal utopia where we have one massive central govt. that collects all the money and then distributes it as they see fit. What a wonderful world that would be, right?

Click to expand...

No, the world I live in is one where things aren't equal. Unlike your utopia where apparently every state has the same needs, wants, demographics, income, etc. Like, Alaska is a state with basically nobody living there to pay for stuff. But it also holds some national interests like a crapload of oil and some military strategic positioning. (because Russia is totally coming to get us still, right?) So yes, they're going to get some more federal dollars than other states might. North Dakota would be the third largest nuclear superpower if it were a separate country. Those cost a bit. And nobody lives there. (although their tax situation has certainly changed recently with the oil boom)

For a while, Louisiana was a big collector of federal dollars. Turns out having a major city get torn to pieces by a massive hurricane means your state ends up needing a little help. And I'm supposed to bitch and moan because it's not fair to me?

No, friend, you are the one living in this weird universe where you think life should be fair. Not me.

Re: Enrollment In Obamacare's Federal Exchange, So Far, May Only Be In 'Single Digits

Conservative said:

The question is what happens if you are wrong?

Click to expand...

What if we're right?
What if the greatest country in the world can do universal healthcare better and cheaper than everybody else?

Re: Enrollment In Obamacare's Federal Exchange, So Far, May Only Be In 'Single Digits

Gimmesometruth said:

LOL....you can't address the point that YOUR tax dollars pay for the uninsured in other states....so instead you divert with the straw "utopias". We know that SP lowers costs and increases coverage with better outcomes.....so you face another dead-end in spite of your rhetoric.

What will be the next diversion?

Click to expand...

You are capable of only seeing what you want to see and ignore the fact that a single payer system in this country will always cost more than intended, do less than intended, and never solve a problem. The answer is the free enterprise and true capitalistic economy that built this country, you know, the one that allows you to make a fool of yourself with every post?

You have convinced me though, we need to dissolve the states, have all tax revenue and paychecks go to the Federal bureaucrats in D.C. and have them send back to the states and the individual what they deem necessary. The Federal bureaucrats obviously are more in tune with the state and local social problems than the people living there. The Federal Bureaucrats obviously know what is best for everyone else. And of course the Federal Bureaucrats care more than the state and local representatives who are closest to the people. Doctors would be absolutely foolish not to support a single payer system knowing that their pressure to keep up to date on the newest techniques and medicine would be a lot less and they wouldn't have to worry about how to spend their own money since that money isn't theirs any more.

Yes, liberal utopias all over the world with single payers are booming successes. How could I have been so blind.

Re: Enrollment In Obamacare's Federal Exchange, So Far, May Only Be In 'Single Digits

Deuce said:

What if we're right?
What if the greatest country in the world can do universal healthcare better and cheaper than everybody else?

Click to expand...

Then I would be wrong and we move on. If you are wrong you have dismantled the greatest system in the world and we will never be able to go back. What you are seeing now are private businesses dropping healthcare coverage for their employees and forcing them into the exchange. When service is poor the outrage is going to be for a single payer system and of course the people of the country will have the advantage of understanding what a wait list is for surgery and what it means to wait in ER's for hours.

Yes, this country can do it better and cheaper but not with federal interference, regulations, law suits but rather more competition.

Re: Enrollment In Obamacare's Federal Exchange, So Far, May Only Be In 'Single Digits

Deuce said:

No, the world I live in is one where things aren't equal. Unlike your utopia where apparently every state has the same needs, wants, demographics, income, etc. Like, Alaska is a state with basically nobody living there to pay for stuff. But it also holds some national interests like a crapload of oil and some military strategic positioning. (because Russia is totally coming to get us still, right?) So yes, they're going to get some more federal dollars than other states might. North Dakota would be the third largest nuclear superpower if it were a separate country. Those cost a bit. And nobody lives there. (although their tax situation has certainly changed recently with the oil boom)

For a while, Louisiana was a big collector of federal dollars. Turns out having a major city get torn to pieces by a massive hurricane means your state ends up needing a little help. And I'm supposed to bitch and moan because it's not fair to me?

No, friend, you are the one living in this weird universe where you think life should be fair. Not me.

Click to expand...

Thus the foreign concept of neighbor helping neighbor on something you fail to understand, a NATIONAL DISASTER. I don't recall the uninsured being a NATIONAL Disaster? I don't recall a personal responsibility issue requiring a mandate from the Federal Govt. I don't recall the people of your state paying for those in my state that are uninsured and not paying their bills.

What I do see however are people thinking only with their hearts and ignoring the current and past failures of the Federal Govt. to solve social problems. You are right, life isn't fair so why is it we have a liberal group trying to legislate equal outcome and not simply equal opportunity?

Re: Enrollment In Obamacare's Federal Exchange, So Far, May Only Be In 'Single Digits

Conservative said:

The answer is the free enterprise and true capitalistic economy that built this country, you know, the one that allows you to make a fool of yourself with every post?

Click to expand...

We have had a "free market" WITHIN STATES for decades, the premise you hold to SO TIGHTLY.....and it has NOT produced cheaper care, greater coverage or better outcomes for consumers. It does not produce competition within states and certainly will not if expanded since nearly all consumption is local, without knowledge of prices. Beyond this, the concept of profiting from human misery and affliction is immoral. Health care is a right, not a privilege. The system in the US is beyond broken, holding to a broken system is insane.

Re: Enrollment In Obamacare's Federal Exchange, So Far, May Only Be In 'Single Digits

Conservative said:

Then I would be wrong and we move on. If you are wrong you have dismantled the greatest system in the world and we will never be able to go back. What you are seeing now are private businesses dropping healthcare coverage for their employees and forcing them into the exchange. When service is poor the outrage is going to be for a single payer system and of course the people of the country will have the advantage of understanding what a wait list is for surgery and what it means to wait in ER's for hours.

Yes, this country can do it better and cheaper but not with federal interference, regulations, law suits but rather more competition.

Click to expand...

"Competition" is often touted as a magical fix to market woes. But the thing is, health care isn't a free market and never really can be. Choice is central to a proper free market, and health care isn't really a choice. If Sony makes a crappy television for the price, I can get a Samsung. Or a laptop. Or a tennis racket. Or nothing. I can buy a competing product, an alternative entertainment product, or just buy nothing and play with myself instead. Wait, that came out wrong.

Anyway, health care isn't like this. There isn't really a competing product. I can't really shop around for a better price. Call any hospital and ask them how much for some procedure. You wont get a direct answer. And they certainly wont let on the fact that you'll get charged $3.50 for a cotton ball and $7 for a single tylenol pill. You also can't get a different procedure. (usually) Your hip that hurts constantly isn't solved by getting an appendectomy. And choosing not to get health care isn't an option sometimes. A life of pain, or death, isn't a choice.

Our wonderful free market has created a situation in which a replacement hip that costs $400 to manufacture gets billed out at $37,000. You did not read that wrong. And that's just for the implant. All said, you're over $100,000 in some cases.

And don't tell me it's because the market isn't free enough unless you're willing to tell me which regulation results in a 10,000% markup.

Re: Enrollment In Obamacare's Federal Exchange, So Far, May Only Be In 'Single Digits

Mustachio said:

We'll see, won't we? You say you "get it," but what you get is what you've heard, and what you heard is propaganda. Everything I've heard for and against this thing is propaganda. But I read as much of the bill as I can understand, and this is the thing for me: I think the bill looks great. I think it's filled with fantastic provisions. It increases competition, gives subsidies, requires people to obtain coverage (many don't like this but it can't work any other way without a federal public option), it prevents insurance companies from denying people based on pre-existing conditions, has the minimum standards for insurance policies which protects consumers, reforms medicare to some extent, and gives states say in what they want to offer. I don't think it's a job killer at all. I think most large companies won't change their policies at all. The company I work for didn't. Small businesses (with under 50 employees) are completely exempt.

Maybe you know all this stuff. But most people just hear how terrible the bill is and have no idea what's in it. I read it and I like it. Maybe you don't. We'll find out how it works out, but remember this: we're comparing what will kick in soon to what we had throughout the first decade of this country. Health insurance premiums were skyrocketing and people were being denied care. It was horrible. And Republicans had spent the last 20 years blocking any potential health care reform. This isn't a commercial for bleach where you're comparing one white shirt to a whiter shirt. You're comparing this white shirt to the shirt with red wine on it.

Click to expand...

Of course I "get it" from what I've heard. And read, and seen and experienced. My son in law, daughter and three of my grandkids lost their health insurance because of this disaster. They are not rich, they are not poor. But they were doing the right things, obeying the law, being productive, not lazy and expecting others to supply their needs, not stupid because they work and so on. So you keep on thinking this "bill looks great" but I suspect there is a great deal of deliberate blindness on your part. Because it's just not my family that has been and will be negatively effected by this disaster. And oh, btw, guess who will be picking up the tab come 1 jan for them? The fewer productive people that are left standing after Obamadon'tcare that has ruined or harmed so many lives already.

So yeah, I know what is in this law and it ain't good for America.

Re: Enrollment In Obamacare's Federal Exchange, So Far, May Only Be In 'Single Digits

Gimmesometruth said:

We have had a "free market" WITHIN STATES for decades, the premise you hold to SO TIGHTLY.....and it has NOT produced cheaper care, greater coverage or better outcomes for consumers. It does not produce competition within states and certainly will not if expanded since nearly all consumption is local, without knowledge of prices. Beyond this, the concept of profiting from human misery and affliction is immoral. Health care is a right, not a privilege. The system in the US is beyond broken, holding to a broken system is insane.

Click to expand...

But you have the opportunity to move to a state that does do it cheaper. Maybe you can get your liberal leadership to arrange for transfer packages for you. What we really need are more regulations, more attorneys, more price control, more bureaucrats so we can get to that utopia much quicker. I quite frankly profited for over 35 years starving kids, killing seniors, and polluting the air, isn't that what you claim conservatives do?

I guess if healthcare is a right then it is the right of those administering it to tell you what to eat, drink, how to live your life, what you can and cannot do to your own body. I have been wrong all these years, accepting personal responsibility for my own healthcare and eating/drinking habits, and of course my own drug usage. Had I only known that some govt. bureaucrat knew better and was there to take that responsibility away from me, life would have been so much easier. Want to compare resumes?

Re: Enrollment In Obamacare's Federal Exchange, So Far, May Only Be In 'Single Digits

Conservative said:

so we can get to that utopia much quicker.

Click to expand...

Oh well, back to this meme again. You are just repeating yourself, going off topic and getting nowhere.

Pad your post count with someone else, your argument was toast a few pages back.

Re: Enrollment In Obamacare's Federal Exchange, So Far, May Only Be In 'Single Digits

Deuce said:

"Competition" is often touted as a magical fix to market woes. But the thing is, health care isn't a free market and never really can be. Choice is central to a proper free market, and health care isn't really a choice. If Sony makes a crappy television for the price, I can get a Samsung. Or a laptop. Or a tennis racket. Or nothing. I can buy a competing product, an alternative entertainment product, or just buy nothing and play with myself instead. Wait, that came out wrong.

Anyway, health care isn't like this. There isn't really a competing product. I can't really shop around for a better price. Call any hospital and ask them how much for some procedure. You wont get a direct answer. And they certainly wont let on the fact that you'll get charged $3.50 for a cotton ball and $7 for a single tylenol pill. You also can't get a different procedure. (usually) Your hip that hurts constantly isn't solved by getting an appendectomy. And choosing not to get health care isn't an option sometimes. A life of pain, or death, isn't a choice.

Our wonderful free market has created a situation in which a replacement hip that costs $400 to manufacture gets billed out at $37,000. You did not read that wrong. And that's just for the implant. All said, you're over $100,000 in some cases.

And don't tell me it's because the market isn't free enough unless you're willing to tell me which regulation results in a 10,000% markup.

Click to expand...

What is exactly your expertise on healthcare and what the individual needs? Isn't it amazing how that one size fits all package seems to change depending on the issue? What you and others want to ignore is that you influence your healthcare by what you do to your body but I seem that freedom of choice only matters on certain issues. You see it is ok to murder an unborn baby, ok to inhale or interject drugs into your body, ok to demand that someone else pay for your personal responsibility issues but only in the liberal world.

Told you the story about offering healthcare to my 1200 employees and how 50% of them opted into the program. What should I have done to force the other 50% to opt in? You see, they know there are no consequences for being stupid in today's world because some liberal will create a program to save them from their own poor

Why does any liberal care what a hip replacement costs? Why do you really care if someone in my state is insured or not? Why don't you and others always get so uptight about issues that don't concern you and why don't you stop trying to legislate equal outcome and personal responsibility issues?.

Re: Enrollment In Obamacare's Federal Exchange, So Far, May Only Be In 'Single Digits

Gimmesometruth said:

Oh well, back to this meme again. You are just repeating yourself, going off topic and getting nowhere.

Pad your post count with someone else, your argument was toast a few pages back.

Click to expand...

Well, I am glad to hear that you are the one who determines whether or not a post is toast. I sure wish I could be as smart as you think you are then I would have no problems at all. I look forward to that utopian world that liberals are creating for us all and of course no cost to those of us paying federal income taxes. The outstanding liberal results are models for the world, 17 trillion dollar debt in a 16 trillion dollar economy, 48 million on food stamps, stagnant economic growth, 22 million unemployed/under employed/discouraged workers and yet people like you aren't satisfied. I don't get it, stellar numbers created by the people who are building this utopian country. All it takes is more spending of other people's money as the last group of liberals didn't spend the money right but this group will.