Speakeasy forum: Obamacare - Rationing begins

is that because of the mandated increase by Obamacare of the States having to take on 30M+ new people onto their Medicaid roles, the only way the States can do something like that is to 'spread the wealth' that is available, making less available per person. Obamacare doesn't tell people this.........never has, never will........It was promoted as a 'healthcare for everyone' package but neglected to tell people the whole story. It was a lie then, and it's an even bigger lie today.

I haven't changed my stance on how I feel about 'free loaders' and the 'entitlement mentality'.......I'm just pointing out that in order to do what BO wants with this 'healthcare reform' he's actually putting people's lives in jeopardy with cuts to what they have already been able to get in order to 'give a little to a lot'.........

As for 'States can always put in more money'...........where do you propose they GET that money to do so, when so many States are looking at cities within their States going bankrupt already? Even with Federal subsidies from Obamacare, that is only a temporary situation......little by little, year by year, the States will take on more and more of that burden and eventually be on their own to keep up that cost. And with the Federal subsidies, where do you propose THAT money comes from? Oh wait.....printing more has become the norm for this administration.

....because it's happening under the Obama Administration. Period.

1. Obamacare adds 30M+ to the Medicaid (State level) roles and will only subsidize that new expense for a short period of time, then the State will pick up the whole tab.........causing the States to increase their tax base in order to afford it.

2. Obamacare assumes every person will buy insurance when they won't because it's cheaper to pay a YEARLY fine rather than pay a MONTHLY premium until they need the coverage which will now be guaranteed to them.

3. State Medicaid has fraud history in abundance and needs to be overhauled to cut that State expense instead of having an additional burden of covering massive numbers of people that will overwhelm the system where fraud will be even worse because the State won't have the ability to keep up with uncovering and stopping the fraud.

4. Those people who supposedly can't afford to buy insurance will get a Federal subsidy check to help them pay for that insurance premium adding to the burden of finding the funding to do so. Since most companies will pay the fine rather than keep insurance for their employees and many individuals won't buy the insurance for the same reason, the burden of paying that subsidy will fall on the Federal government.........where will the Feds get that money to send out checks every month and will they have a way to track that the checks are actually being used to pay for insurance and not just be spent by the individual? What safeguards are in place.........ARE there any?

5. What government agencies will have cutbacks in order to make up the money spent above?

6. I want cutbacks across the board, agencies within the Federal Government closed that are useless or redundant, etc. I want fraud and abuse finally addressed on a serious basis, not just on a Federal level, but State and Local levels as well. I want LESS welfare not MORE like BO just gave directives for.

....the states have to come up with the money themselves, and the most common way to do that is a tax increase. That's what happens when you get what you wish for, Toni.

That's the problem

The Feds can only directly control (without getting approval from the state) certain expenses and collect (without getting approval from the state) certain taxes.

When the Feds cut certain things (YOU want them to cut spending)...Is it the responsibility of the state to pick up the slack? (Don't you want the States to also cut spending?) You also want individuals to have "skin in the game".

Feds cut, States don't take up the slack....everyone pays....you use it, you pay

Here's their chance to have "skin in the game"

A politician that doesn't tell the truth...feigned indignation?

A politician that does, is even rarer.

anyone who owns a vehicle will pay more at the DMV, more in sales taxes, more in real estate taxes, more in personal property taxes (such as farm equipment or ATVs, etc), more in taxes on every aspect that those governments can tap.

SKIN IN THE GAME!!!!!!!!!!!

I opened the link and was faced with a page which contained a photograph of some twirling sign somewhere saying "Don't believe what the Liberal Media are telling you."

So I took its advice, and didn't read your article.

More Conservative Crypto-Fascist Boilerplate. As meaningless as Donald Trump.

Oh, I use the term Crypto-Fascist in honour of Gore Vidal who died yesterday. In the very early 70's or maybe even the late 60's he ran against Norman Mailer for Mayor of New York. During the debate he referred to Mailer who was only a little less liberal than was Vidal himself, as a crypto-fascist several times. At one point Mailer's patience gave out and he yelled, "Stop calling me a Crypto-fascist, you fruit!" I watched the debate and laughed myself silly.

Rob

dexterity, there were some charges that reduced both Mailer and Mr Buckley to simple Baiting in response. Certainly there was more creativity to the term Crypto-Fascist but I'm sure Vidal had been honing it for weeks, or months or years.

Rob

unlike Vidal. That was astutely apparent.