In Texas emergency rooms treat anyone who comes in. If it is minor,you will have to wait for the more serious injuries,illness,etc to be cared for. Our RGV hospitals are overrun with illegal aliens-yes aliens-driving across the border to have babies. The cost to the hospitals is incredible. They will also come across to have legs put in casts etc. I know of many cases of Doctors taking care of cancer patients at no charge. We also have clinics for the very low income. The cost is on a sliding scale. Yes, there is more to do,but Obama will also ration care and in the future we will experience all the long waits for surgery and some diagnostic tests other countries with NHC experience. Then the problem with fewer Doctors"-----. There will still be inequities as the very wealthy will have their own personal hospitals and medical care with some of the best specialists in the world. The lower income "wealthy" people-in the range of $200,000-8000,000 per year will have a lesser quality of boutique care. Unfortunately nothing is ever "fair".
obamacare and vaping?
- Thread starter ad356
- Start date
- th_trl_thread_readers 0
-
- Tags
- apollo nicquid revolution
- Status
I hate to burst your bubble,but when Obamacare was passed,all the legislative bodies were of the Democrat Party and the Executive Branch was held by President Obama who is a Democrat.
Yeah..I remember the mantra "anybody but bush" and who did the GOP run..McCain...Bush lite, who coincidentally seems to be supporting and standing with 0bama on practically everything he does, tell me how things would be different?
There's a ton of history on this. Both houses started working on plans they could get behind...(both from house originated bills. What the Senate did was take a bill and modify the heck out of it. It's their right.)
Although all bills originate in the House, they don't always end up being what they started out as. lol. That, unfortunately, isn't uncommon with riders and "pork" getting attached all the time. But the senate needs something to work with so they "picked one" and modified it. This was a parallel effort going on in the house and senate. Of course, whatever they came up with would have to go back to the house again, modified.
So knock off the "It wasn't created legally" propaganda. Do you really think the American people are so stupid that if you just keep saying this stuff, we'll eventually believe it? Come on. It even passed a Supreme Court check-over. All of it passed muster except for the mandatory medicaid expansion. That was left up to the states. Good luck red states.
Here's the blow-by-blow according to wikipedia
Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Although all bills originate in the House, they don't always end up being what they started out as. lol. That, unfortunately, isn't uncommon with riders and "pork" getting attached all the time. But the senate needs something to work with so they "picked one" and modified it. This was a parallel effort going on in the house and senate. Of course, whatever they came up with would have to go back to the house again, modified.
So knock off the "It wasn't created legally" propaganda. Do you really think the American people are so stupid that if you just keep saying this stuff, we'll eventually believe it? Come on. It even passed a Supreme Court check-over. All of it passed muster except for the mandatory medicaid expansion. That was left up to the states. Good luck red states.
Here's the blow-by-blow according to wikipedia
Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Yeah, all those "other" nations that have national health care do that. Used to be that in 'Merica we couldn't do it but now it's all over the place. That and testing your Annual Personal Pizza Consumption (APPC) rating.
Just look at the rest of the WORLD that has managed to implement national health systems. They are obviously all crackpots. WE are the only ones that are sane. Because WE must be smarter than all of them...our healthcare was so top notch (#32 and high mistake rate) and so inexpensive compared to them.
So yeah, we're all worried about that here too.
/sarcasm
(Boy, is this thread off topic)
Although, in all seriousness, I find the smoker penalty a bit....draconian. However, it's a well established social engineering thing right now. And a bit of atonement, IMHO, considering where smoking tobacco came from...
But I don't assume just because we implement ACA that ____ will happen when it would probably happen without ACA anyway if given half a chance. ACA seems to be spreading risks broader and eliminating more cherry-picking than anything else I've seen in recent history. So to me it's more the other way around. The big complaint is that there's not enough exclusions so rates go up. The counter to that is "why only insure the totally healthy? If that's the case, why have insurance at all?"
Don't we all?
Yeah.. I used to say "I would love to be young again. But only with what I know now!"
But now, with things turning out the way they are.... joblessness, time-limited working contracts, housing unaffordable, big government regulating / trying to regulate every facet of people's private lives, prospective employers sniffing out people's private lives .. etc etc... I say with feeling: I am so happy that I am no longer young!
And I mean it.
When I was young, I lived. Did I ever!
But now? In this world? naaawwwwwww.... that is no place for young people.. who have decades still ahead of them. Decades of this development.. naaawwwww...
You have a lot of company with that thought. I was so fed up with what people considered work that I retired as quickly as my employer let me and still be eligible for health benefits. Then I turned around and volunteered for five years at a non-profit until they didn't need me anymore. There is no way I'd want to be young in this environment. The chance of me not getting into trouble somewhere along the line would have been pretty slim unless I had an entirely different youth.
And I wasn't particularly bad, just young.Well, my goodness, the IRS needs to know everything about us. That way they can really pick and choose the people they want to audit.
Getting back to the original post. If it ask me if I use tobacco. I'm not going to read into it and try to figure out what they might or want to know. There were some very smart people that wrote the questions. I'm going to correctly answer the question. My answer is going to be "NO"! I don't use tobacco, I smoke VG/PB/H2O/Nic and some flavors that the manufacture does not disclose what in it to protect their intellectual property. I'm sure if the insurance people want to know it I Vap they would word together a question.
But here is the real deal, until the actuaries have enough data about Vaping, they can not use it in the rating. The rating is all base on statistical data, which there is plenty of data for tobacco use, almost none for Vaping.
But here is the real deal, until the actuaries have enough data about Vaping, they can not use it in the rating. The rating is all base on statistical data, which there is plenty of data for tobacco use, almost none for Vaping.
Yeah, that's one of the things I find so frustrating about the whole debate. Ok, so the big wigs don't think there's sufficient evidence to prove that vaping's harmless -- or to prove the extent to which vaping might be harmful, if you prefer. Fine. But why is it acceptable to assume that it is harmful, in the absence of sufficient evidence? As you point out, actuarial data requires time to mine. And for all we know at this point, habitual jogging might prove more harmful to the average person than habitual vaping -- wear and tear on the knees, don'tchaknow.
All we do know at this early stage is that the primary components of vapor (VG/PG) are harmless, and that nicotine itself isn't any more harmful than caffeine in the relevant dosage.
That right. At a time when like 70+% of Americans wanted a goverment health care law; It was voted on by both houses, the president signed it into law. The high court reviewed it. The presidential election of 2012 was mainly about do you want the law? and the majority of the people voted for the president that put it into law. The law has gone through all the due process. What we have is the minority of the people don't want it and will do anything to change it. To reverse the law all you need is the majority of the people represented to reverse the law. But still the majority of the people when polled want the law.
Yes, I'm sure some very smart people wrote those questions.
And when you say you don't use tobacco, that may even be fine until the FDA deems electronic cigarettes to be tobacco products.
And when you say you don't use them, and by law you do, hope you don't run into any legal troubles.
cause the IRS is sooo much fun to deal with when you owe them money.
I think they wanted the system reformed and fixed...not TRANSFORMED
I wonder what a poll would look like if they asked, do you want healthcare - probably 100% or close to it, next question: "do you want the federal government to have the power and control to tell you you MUST buy insurance and charge a fine if you don't" somehow I don't think that one would be such a high number
Well, that's 217 previous posts and I still don't know how the heck to answer the question. I say it's NO for Smoking, but for "tobacco product" I'm unclear if the S.C. ruling was just to the limit of the FDA's authority, or it actually made them a "tobacco product" and if so what happens with the FDA approved (for long term use even) NRT's? The NRT's have the same or similar trace stuff in them.
Not to me. But I'm not an insurance company looking to up rates or not pay out.
- Status
Similar threads
