Skip to main content

View Diary: Six million Americans will pay less than $100/month for health insurance (91 comments)

Comment Preferences

  •  Yes, let's discourage as many people as we can. (9+ / 0-)

    We need to build on the ACA but people like you want to spread the message that enrollees will still be doomed. So hey, why bother to sign up?Better for them to just die while we wait for single payer to arrive.

    I'll say it again:If we don't back the ACA, we will not get single payer anytime soon.

    We must prove that this "government intervention" actually can work. We must gain confidence from the public if we are going to sell single payer in the states and then nationally. Seeming to agree with the Republicans is not the path to single payer.

    The politicians may be bought, and the system corrupt, but it is our duty to fix these things.

    by sebastianguy99 on Tue Sep 17, 2013 at 11:12:35 AM PDT

    [ Parent ]

    •  If the truth is discouragement then that would (3+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Willa Rogers, sjduskin, MargaretPOA

      seem to be a problem different from what you are trying to find in my comment.

      But here's a challenge for you. Point out anything I said that you can name a Republican who agrees with it. many folks to the left of you do, but I'm pretty sure that no one to the right of you does.

      There can be no protection locally if we're content to ignore the fact that there are no controls globally.

      by oldpotsmuggler on Tue Sep 17, 2013 at 12:29:13 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  actually we won't end up bankrupt because of the (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        askew

        annual maximums, and by jumping in early and saying something that is.... not true,  you detract from the post.

        Annual out of pocket caps alone would have been a great improvement as anyone who has bought insurance would know.

        “Conservation… is a positive exercise of skill and insight, not merely a negative exercise of abstinence and caution…” Aldo Leopold

        by ban nock on Tue Sep 17, 2013 at 02:08:12 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  Well, you're certainly not living hand to mouth (0+ / 0-)

          like so many. Believe it or not, there are many families who can't, even under the new system, pay "their share" to get a childs broken bone fixed. I'm just trying to keep things relevant for those between Medicaid and the limit for subsidies.

          And these concerns are legitimately being addressed in the press, so maybe you need to be scolding newspapers instead of a minor Dkos comment.

          There can be no protection locally if we're content to ignore the fact that there are no controls globally.

          by oldpotsmuggler on Tue Sep 17, 2013 at 02:40:05 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  Actually we just finished paying for my daughters (3+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            Sherri in TX, asym, askew

            broken leg in $10 monthly bills. Likewise for an emergency room visit for my sone $15 a month. We are below 120% of poverty, we will qualify for Medicaid. We do have savings and a house, as do many of my neighbors. A yearly cap on costs does make a world of difference. Under the ACA we don't lose the house.

            “Conservation… is a positive exercise of skill and insight, not merely a negative exercise of abstinence and caution…” Aldo Leopold

            by ban nock on Tue Sep 17, 2013 at 03:29:42 PM PDT

            [ Parent ]

            •  Why would (1+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              oldpotsmuggler

              you lose the house? You made the monthly payments and it took forever but you paid the bill off.

              •  A Medicaid recipient (0+ / 0-)

                may not lose their house (immediately) but upon death, any heir (children / trustee / beneficiary) WILL probably LOSE EVERY amount that the State/Fed PAID into the deceased CARE  (Including amounts "sheltered" by Living Trusts, annuities, etc.) (AND the HOUSE)  
                See estate recovery programs. Today, all states are required by federal law to have them. 42 USC 1396p(b)(1).

                "Medicaid Expansion" sounds like a 'gift' to the "middle class".    but...There are no 'free rides'.
                (While the wealthy fight 'tooth-&-nail' to protect EVERY penny of their inheritance to their heirs. ... whether 'earned', or itself inherited.)

                I don't see anyone touting ACA/"Medicaid Expansion", telling us about this .......

                ~A govt lobbied, campaigned and selected by corporation... is good for corporation. Bad for people.~ -8.88 -8.36

                by Orj ozeppi on Thu Sep 19, 2013 at 12:28:39 PM PDT

                [ Parent ]

                •  Medicaid Expansion Is No Gift Horse (1+ / 0-)
                  Recommended by:
                  BeninSC

                  I would simply assert my own feelings here.  I am disabled and on Medicare and Medicaid.  I have been very fortunate in that regard.  After I die, it matters not who gets what I left behind.  What is more important to me is the help that I get, which keeps me alive and functioning now, when I need it the most.

                  Would I feel different if I owned a home and had a whole bunch of money?  I would probably feel the same.  The ACA is meant to help the living, not the dead.  Not only to help the living financially by providing help to get insurance, but to also allow people to live with the semblance of dignity that all deserve.

                  Those on the right have chosen to either ignore those types of benefits, or just plain don't care whether all of us in the 99% category live or die.

            •  The Medicaid recipients I know of that that can't (0+ / 0-)

              retain title to their homes are elderly and needing nursing home placement. If you're saying that the ACA has changed that then (1) I hope you're right; and (2) that would be another item in "The ACA Plus Column".

              There can be no protection locally if we're content to ignore the fact that there are no controls globally.

              by oldpotsmuggler on Tue Sep 17, 2013 at 08:10:59 PM PDT

              [ Parent ]

              •  You're n0t far off ... (actually) (0+ / 0-)

                See comment/reply (above), to Nance.

                (unless there are retractions --in the nEw "ACA"--  that roll back such "Estate Recovery" programs?  ---I haven't seen/heard-of any such forebearance...)
                (IF you get "help" from Medicaid .... they'll recover it.)

                So, you're n0t very far off really (in the long run of it) ...... (whatever people try to convince you.)

                ~A govt lobbied, campaigned and selected by corporation... is good for corporation. Bad for people.~ -8.88 -8.36

                by Orj ozeppi on Thu Sep 19, 2013 at 12:42:22 PM PDT

                [ Parent ]

    •  No; what will kill single-payer... (4+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      oldpotsmuggler, sjduskin, Nance, Bensdad

      ...is our not acknowledging that PPACA's not all sunshine and ponies, and that there are real problems within it that will need to be fixed.

      Remember the Pass It Then Fix It mantra? It wasn't Pass It Then Bullshit It for good reasons: Those who wrote the bills knew there would have to be changes.

      Everytime I see the sort of "shut up and get on the bandwagon" bullying as in your post here, I plan to call it out for the bullshit it is. If "we must prove" that PPACA will work, that means a reality-based acknowledgment of its good parts and its current flaws--not trying to smear any criticism that comes as a result of concrete problems.

      •  bullying? (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        freakofsociety

        I do not think that word means what you think it means.

        Telling Eeyore to cheer up isn't bullying.

        I know it's always cool to be contrary, but nobody is pretending the ACA is a panacea.

        •  He was compared to a freeper... (2+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          Nance, oldpotsmuggler

          ...for raising a legitimate complaint--and that's far from the first time I've seen the tactic used here as a response to genuine concerns of the nuts and bolts of PPACA.

          Dismissing those concerns as coming from an "Eeyore" would be another example of the sort of kneejerk tribalistic response I consider to be a bullying tactic.

          Any time someone's told to STFU and get with the bandwagon is a form of bullying.

    •  Pretending it's not going to happen (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      oldpotsmuggler

      Won't prevent people going broke under this plan or having to choose between a health insurance policy or some other necessities. "Build on" it you say? Build on a Heritage Foundation written, Bob Dole approved plan to get more rich hands in poor peoples' pockets? No, thanks. Sometimes you just can turn a pig's ear into a silk purse. Especially when that pig's ear came from a pig in a poke.

      "Given the choice between a Republican and someone who acts like a Republican, people will vote for a real Republican every time." Harry Truman

      by MargaretPOA on Tue Sep 17, 2013 at 03:43:11 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  Single Payer (0+ / 0-)

      Are you ever correct in saying that. I'm on Medicare and wish all could have it. It has gotten a bum rap also. I've had three lumbar surgeries with the rods and screws (couldn't get out of it with degenerative disc disease among other) I've recently had rods and screws installed in my cervical spine. I've had cataracts removed and later a retinal detachment in each eye fixed. Now, guess what? I did not lose my house, I did not have to file bankruptcy, the bills are paid and were not horrendous, I can still see and I can still walk. Tell me what is wrong with Medicare?

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site