Alloak - we know you are opposed to health insurance. You admitted not having it for years. You are probably currently breaking the law and not carrying health insurance now. Don't worry. The American tax payer will be there to pay for your next emergency room visit.

Correct. I didn't have health insurance for many years and never needed it anyway. It wasn't against the law not to have insurance. However, I signed up by the deadline when the government made it mandatory and still haven't needed it. I haven't broken any laws or burdened the system in any way.

Speaking of the emergency room. Wasn't Obamacare supposed to decrease the number of these costly visits? Obamacare supporters said it would, but it hasn't happened. Emergency room usage is up since the laws passage. Another lie for Obamacare.

__________________________________________________________________________

That is a fact.

Many hospitals are now requiring emergency room patients to pay up front and are charging patients up to 1,000 times the usual costs.
Without paying, emergency rooms are now ”referring” those patients to medical clinics… if they are open at this hour.

http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/opinion/huppke/ct-huppke-obamacare-lawsuit-20150610-story.html

A Republican plan to replace Obamacare
Rex Huppke

Great news, everybody. After years of trying to conjure an Obamacare alternative through the art of rhythmic complaining, Republican lawmakers have finally come up with an idea.

More on that in a minute. First, let me detail why this is such an important development.

The U.S. Supreme Court is expected to rule this month in a case called King v. Burwell, and that ruling could cause more than 6 million people to lose the government subsidies that help them afford health insurance under Obamacare.

The case focuses on one line in the Affordable Care Act that says subsidies — financial assistance from the government — will go to people enrolled "through an Exchange established by the State."

The law was set up with the expectation that states would create their own health insurance exchanges. If a state declined to do that, the government would step in and offer insurance through a federal exchange.

Though the key intent of the law is to give everyone access to affordable health care, the plaintiffs in this case, recruited and funded by libertarian and conservative groups, claim that one sentence means subsidies should only go to people in states that have set up their own exchange. In other words, Obamacare enrollees in dozens of states that use the federal exchange shouldn't be getting subsidies.

It's a preposterous argument based on sloppy language in one small part of a massive law. If the intent was to set up a federal exchange but not give people subsidies to help pay for insurance, the Affordable Care Act would effectively be shooting itself in the foot.

But language matters, and it's now up to the court to decide whether to look at that sentence in the broader context of the law — in which case it's obvious subsidies are available to people on state or federal exchanges — or to home in specifically on that sentence and pull subsidies from millions of people, including more than 200,000 in Illinois.

One possibility is that the justices will strike down Obamacare subsidies in the 37 states that didn't establish their own insurance exchanges and then rely on Congress to step in and help those people out.

During oral arguments in the case, Justice Antonin Scalia said: "What about Congress? You really think Congress is just going to sit there while all of these disastrous consequences ensue?"

The problem with that thinking is that it's insane to count on Congress to do anything. It's like a man with diabetes taping his credit card to a snail, pointing it in the direction of the pharmacy and asking it to go pick up his insulin.

The whole issue at hand in King v. Burwell could be fixed by tweaking that one sentence, but Republicans are more likely to get "I Love Hillary" tattooed on their foreheads than do anything to help Obamacare.

So, if the Supreme Court guts Obamacare, what will the GOP do? Simple. They'll do what they've been promising ever since hating Obamacare became their favorite pastime: Offer an alternative to the health care law that will help all Americans and satisfy the conservative base.

That alternative was outlined in a recent tweet sent by Republican Sen. John Thune of South Dakota: "Six million people risk losing their health care subsidies, yet @POTUS continues to deny that Obamacare is bad for the American people."

That's it, folks. That's the plan. Blame Barack Obama.

Let me break down Thune's tweet:

— Six million people losing health care subsidies is a bad thing.

— Those people received subsidies because of Obamacare, which is a bad thing.

— They may now lose subsidies because of a lawsuit pushed by Republicans dead-set on destroying Obamacare. That's a good thing.

— If Obama had never helped them get insurance in the first place, those 6 million people wouldn't be in danger of losing insurance.

— It's all Obama's fault.

It's perfectly logical, assuming that the part of the brain responsible for logical thought has died off due to lack of use.

Under this new GOP health care system, people who have insurance through their employers or who can afford to pay for Obamacare insurance without subsidies will still operate under the same kinds of plans, like HMOs or PPOs.

Those who needed subsidies to afford insurance through Obamacare, however, will be moved to plans called BBOs — Blame Barack Obama.

The great news is that if you like your doctor, you can keep your doctor. You just won't be able to see that doctor because he or she will not accept BBO plans, because they don't pay anything.

The BBOs will focus on a more natural form of healing predicated on the belief that not having to live under the tyranny of Obamacare will heal all that ails you. For example, if you break your arm and can't afford to see a doctor, the BBO plan will reassure you that pain builds character and that it's better to have the use of only one arm than to have government coming between you and the doctor you can no longer afford.

Feel a mild case of Ebola coming on? Blame Barack Obama!

Sprained an ankle? Blame the pain away!

Need a heart valve replacement? Say farewell to your loved ones and remind them to blame Barack Obama!

The GOP's BBO Obamacare Replacement Plan will cost far less than the Affordable Care Act, because instead of cynically helping millions of uninsured people gain health insurance, it does nothing.

And nothing is exactly what the Republicans had planned all along.

Alloak - we know you are opposed to health insurance. You admitted not having it for years. You are probably currently breaking the law and not carrying health insurance now. Don't worry. The American tax payer will be there to pay for your next emergency room visit.

Correct. I didn't have health insurance for many years and never needed it anyway. It wasn't against the law not to have insurance. However, I signed up by the deadline when the government made it mandatory and still haven't needed it. I haven't broken any laws or burdened the system in any way.

This guy didn't think he needed insurance either, right up until he actually needed it:

https://allmanbrothersband.com/modules.php?op=modload&name=XForum&file=viewthread&tid=139058

Of course, for some reason he blames Obamacare, not understanding that he would be in the exact same situation - needing insurance he doesn't have - even if their wasn't Obamacare.

But alloak, I'm happy you have insurance now even if you're not.

http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/opinion/huppke/ct-huppke-obamacare-lawsuit-20150610-story.html

A Republican plan to replace Obamacare
Rex Huppke

Great news, everybody. After years of trying to conjure an Obamacare alternative through the art of rhythmic complaining, Republican lawmakers have finally come up with an idea.

More on that in a minute. First, let me detail why this is such an important development.

The U.S. Supreme Court is expected to rule this month in a case called King v. Burwell, and that ruling could cause more than 6 million people to lose the government subsidies that help them afford health insurance under Obamacare.

The case focuses on one line in the Affordable Care Act that says subsidies — financial assistance from the government — will go to people enrolled "through an Exchange established by the State."

The law was set up with the expectation that states would create their own health insurance exchanges. If a state declined to do that, the government would step in and offer insurance through a federal exchange.

Though the key intent of the law is to give everyone access to affordable health care, the plaintiffs in this case, recruited and funded by libertarian and conservative groups, claim that one sentence means subsidies should only go to people in states that have set up their own exchange. In other words, Obamacare enrollees in dozens of states that use the federal exchange shouldn't be getting subsidies.

It's a preposterous argument based on sloppy language in one small part of a massive law. If the intent was to set up a federal exchange but not give people subsidies to help pay for insurance, the Affordable Care Act would effectively be shooting itself in the foot.

But language matters, and it's now up to the court to decide whether to look at that sentence in the broader context of the law — in which case it's obvious subsidies are available to people on state or federal exchanges — or to home in specifically on that sentence and pull subsidies from millions of people, including more than 200,000 in Illinois.

One possibility is that the justices will strike down Obamacare subsidies in the 37 states that didn't establish their own insurance exchanges and then rely on Congress to step in and help those people out.

During oral arguments in the case, Justice Antonin Scalia said: "What about Congress? You really think Congress is just going to sit there while all of these disastrous consequences ensue?"

The problem with that thinking is that it's insane to count on Congress to do anything. It's like a man with diabetes taping his credit card to a snail, pointing it in the direction of the pharmacy and asking it to go pick up his insulin.

The whole issue at hand in King v. Burwell could be fixed by tweaking that one sentence, but Republicans are more likely to get "I Love Hillary" tattooed on their foreheads than do anything to help Obamacare.

So, if the Supreme Court guts Obamacare, what will the GOP do? Simple. They'll do what they've been promising ever since hating Obamacare became their favorite pastime: Offer an alternative to the health care law that will help all Americans and satisfy the conservative base.

That alternative was outlined in a recent tweet sent by Republican Sen. John Thune of South Dakota: "Six million people risk losing their health care subsidies, yet @POTUS continues to deny that Obamacare is bad for the American people."

That's it, folks. That's the plan. Blame Barack Obama.

Let me break down Thune's tweet:

— Six million people losing health care subsidies is a bad thing.

— Those people received subsidies because of Obamacare, which is a bad thing.

— They may now lose subsidies because of a lawsuit pushed by Republicans dead-set on destroying Obamacare. That's a good thing.

— If Obama had never helped them get insurance in the first place, those 6 million people wouldn't be in danger of losing insurance.

— It's all Obama's fault.

It's perfectly logical, assuming that the part of the brain responsible for logical thought has died off due to lack of use.

Under this new GOP health care system, people who have insurance through their employers or who can afford to pay for Obamacare insurance without subsidies will still operate under the same kinds of plans, like HMOs or PPOs.

Those who needed subsidies to afford insurance through Obamacare, however, will be moved to plans called BBOs — Blame Barack Obama.

The great news is that if you like your doctor, you can keep your doctor. You just won't be able to see that doctor because he or she will not accept BBO plans, because they don't pay anything.

The BBOs will focus on a more natural form of healing predicated on the belief that not having to live under the tyranny of Obamacare will heal all that ails you. For example, if you break your arm and can't afford to see a doctor, the BBO plan will reassure you that pain builds character and that it's better to have the use of only one arm than to have government coming between you and the doctor you can no longer afford.

Feel a mild case of Ebola coming on? Blame Barack Obama!

Sprained an ankle? Blame the pain away!

Need a heart valve replacement? Say farewell to your loved ones and remind them to blame Barack Obama!

The GOP's BBO Obamacare Replacement Plan will cost far less than the Affordable Care Act, because instead of cynically helping millions of uninsured people gain health insurance, it does nothing.

And nothing is exactly what the Republicans had planned all along.

_________________________________________________________________________

The guy who wrote your post is a well known joke:
http://www.chicagoreader.com/chicago/tribune-rex-huppke-tuesday-column-facts-obituary/Content?oid=11874938

With the pending Supreme Court rule, The Republicans know better than to publicize an alternative for Obamacare. How the court rules will greatly affect how to proceed.

At least The Republicans have prepared alternatives while the Obama administration openly says that they will not propose anything.
Even better, The Republican’s have said that The American People will have an opportunity to read their proposal and comment prior to voting on it; something that the Democrats denied The People.

Obamacare is entirely an Obama/Democrats matter.

We’ll see what happens before the end of the month.

Alloak - we know you are opposed to health insurance. You admitted not having it for years. You are probably currently breaking the law and not carrying health insurance now. Don't worry. The American tax payer will be there to pay for your next emergency room visit.

Correct. I didn't have health insurance for many years and never needed it anyway. It wasn't against the law not to have insurance. However, I signed up by the deadline when the government made it mandatory and still haven't needed it. I haven't broken any laws or burdened the system in any way.

Speaking of the emergency room. Wasn't Obamacare supposed to decrease the number of these costly visits? Obamacare supporters said it would, but it hasn't happened. Emergency room usage is up since the laws passage. Another lie for Obamacare.

__________________________________________________________________________

That is a fact.

Many hospitals are now requiring emergency room patients to pay up front and are charging patients up to 1,000 times the usual costs.
Without paying, emergency rooms are now ”referring” those patients to medical clinics… if they are open at this hour.

refusing care is illegal. If you are medically stable, they can transfer or refer you. If you are not medically stable, by law you must be treated (of course you will get billed).
for instance, if you are having a heart attack at 2 AM, a whole team of people will be rushing to the hospital to take care of you, regardless of your ability to pay. Same goes for a severe injury from a car wreck, or any critical illness - all of which are typically unexpected.
if someone is truly interested in "personal responsibility", then one should be able to make sure that he / she has the means to pay (i.e. insurance)

I wish everyone against the high cost of health insurance could just opt out. Completely and totally. Sign a contract saying you refuse all medical care unless you have the liquidity to pay the cost.

All you folks opposed to the current system with no answers can go ahead and set aside whatever you can afford. Put it on a special medical debit card. When the debit card runs out. So does your time on the planet.

Let evolution sort this out.

I wish everyone against the high cost of health insurance could just opt out. Completely and totally. Sign a contract saying you refuse all medical care unless you have the liquidity to pay the cost.

All you folks opposed to the current system with no answers can go ahead and set aside whatever you can afford. Put it on a special medical debit card. When the debit card runs out. So does your time on the planet.

Let evolution sort this out.

___________________________________________________________________

The Obamacare law requires you to have insurance and help pay for those who can't/won't.

"special medical debit card" used to be called Medical Savings Accounts. Obamacare's employer mandate, if and when it is ever implemented, will kill that option.

In the next week or two we'll see how the court rules... this is gonna be interesting.

Alloak - we know you are opposed to health insurance. You admitted not having it for years. You are probably currently breaking the law and not carrying health insurance now. Don't worry. The American tax payer will be there to pay for your next emergency room visit.

Correct. I didn't have health insurance for many years and never needed it anyway. It wasn't against the law not to have insurance. However, I signed up by the deadline when the government made it mandatory and still haven't needed it. I haven't broken any laws or burdened the system in any way.

Speaking of the emergency room. Wasn't Obamacare supposed to decrease the number of these costly visits? Obamacare supporters said it would, but it hasn't happened. Emergency room usage is up since the laws passage. Another lie for Obamacare.

__________________________________________________________________________

That is a fact.

Many hospitals are now requiring emergency room patients to pay up front and are charging patients up to 1,000 times the usual costs.
Without paying, emergency rooms are now ”referring” those patients to medical clinics… if they are open at this hour.

If it is truly an Emergency it is illegal for an emergency room to deny care; if a patient is triaged and it is deemed non-emergent that is another story.

Private physician's offices can refuse care to a new patient if they won't pay - ER can not. It is a stickier wicket with an established patient as you can be deemed as "abandoning" the patient if you don't see them for an ongoing issue.

I wish everyone against the high cost of health insurance could just opt out. Completely and totally. Sign a contract saying you refuse all medical care unless you have the liquidity to pay the cost.

All you folks opposed to the current system with no answers can go ahead and set aside whatever you can afford. Put it on a special medical debit card. When the debit card runs out. So does your time on the planet.

Let evolution sort this out.

___________________________________________________________________

The Obamacare law requires you to have insurance and help pay for those who can't/won't.

"special medical debit card" used to be called Medical Savings Accounts. Obamacare's employer mandate, if and when it is ever implemented, will kill that option.

In the next week or two we'll see how the court rules... this is gonna be interesting.

It is - but I agree with Billy in principal. Unfortunately that idea won't fly as no hospital is legally allowed to deny emergency care - and even if not there is the moral issue. And what if a parent makes the decision for the kids and they get sick?

Always say we need national health care with the option to buy into higher levels. Funding tbd. No illegals in the system (and the gov't is lying - tons of them are getting insurance through Medicaid.) The hodgepodge we have now is a travesty

The guy who wrote your post is a well known joke:
http://www.chicagoreader.com/chicago/tribune-rex-huppke-tuesday-column-fact s-obituary/Content?oid=11874938

So what do you mean? Were you trying to attack the author instead of the message again? The article you posted was actually positive about Huppke and his sense of humor....

"There's this, he allowed: in journalism as in engineering "you're figuring out how to get from A to B," and science taught him to deploy logic to make the trip. He remembered that his father didn't send him to Lehigh to become the family's next chemical engineer; the reason to go to college, he told Huppke, is to learn how to think. Huppke now thinks along lines that deeply amuse him, me, and lots of other people besides. But it's serious thought."

Obama-care: 16 million gained coverage, costs have risen at the slowest rate in 50 years, up to 129 million no longer at risk of losing coverage. Id say its not going anywhere soon. 😛

________________________________________________________________________

Pops you really are an idiot.

Obama-care: 16 million gained coverage.
- Where did you get that number? The Obama administration refuses to publish the data and most of those people were eligible for Medicare anyway. How many of that bogus number are illegal aliens?

, costs have risen at the slowest rate in 50 years
- Bull shit. The deductibles has jumped up so high that many can’t afford to use their insurance and the 27 new taxes in Obamacare are crushing business who now can not afford to offer healthcare insurance forcing many people onto the weak coverage of Obamacare.

, up to 129 million no longer at risk of losing coverage.
- If they could find a real job this would not be a problem.
- Are you talking about the “can stay on their parents plan up to age 26”? They would need to sponge off their parents if they could find a job.

Id say its not going anywhere soon.
- This thing is dead before the end of the month.

up to 129 million no longer at risk of losing coverage.
- If they could find a real job this would not be a problem.
- Are you talking about the “can stay on their parents plan up to age 26”? They would need to sponge off their parents if they could find a job.

No, he is talking about people with pre-existing conditions - do some homework before posting.........

Obama-care: 16 million gained coverage, costs have risen at the slowest rate in 50 years, up to 129 million no longer at risk of losing coverage. Id say its not going anywhere soon. 😛

________________________________________________________________________

Pops you really are an idiot.

Obama-care: 16 million gained coverage.
- Where did you get that number? The Obama administration refuses to publish the data and most of those people were eligible for Medicare anyway. How many of that bogus number are illegal aliens?

, costs have risen at the slowest rate in 50 years
- Bull shit. The deductibles has jumped up so high that many can’t afford to use their insurance and the 27 new taxes in Obamacare are crushing business who now can not afford to offer healthcare insurance forcing many people onto the weak coverage of Obamacare.

, up to 129 million no longer at risk of losing coverage.
- If they could find a real job this would not be a problem.
- Are you talking about the “can stay on their parents plan up to age 26”? They would need to sponge off their parents if they could find a job.

Id say its not going anywhere soon.
- This thing is dead before the end of the month.

The only thing "dead" is you from the neck up. 😛

________________________________________________________________________

And pops confirms that he doesn't know his Obama from a hole in the ground.