Hey, I was giving you both the group discount of $25/each. On reflection, though, I think elucidator is old enough now to be on medicare. So, the bill should be:
eludcidator: $.75
Stratocastor: $99.25
Gotta keep them profit margins up!
:rolleyes: Like our political representatives should assist in supporting a law they think is wrongheaded and bad for the country. Those meanies!
By the way, do you agree that Obama lied to us?
No, because the EMTALA law requires them to give extremely expensive treatment regardless of ability, or willingness, to pay. The next medicare patient who comes in with a heart attack or stroke is going to have to be treated, and hospitals prefer to get something rather than nothing.
[
If people actually sign up for exchange policies – and it mostly is in their interest – they now have an insurer who negotiated lower prices with covered hospitals. If the hospital insists on $25 aspirin tablets, the insurer will not include that hospital as a preferred provider.
One of the fair-to-make criticisms* of the Affordable Care Act is that exchange insurers are cutting out the most expensive hospitals. That part of the controversy is discussed here:
http://www.healthbeatblog.com/tag/cedars-sinai/
- I don’t agree with the criticism. I’m just saying it is a reasonable one.
Wait. Who all is paying the $25 for aspirin today? Surely most of those people have insurance, no? Why haven’t those insurers excluded those hospitals?
But more in line with this thread topic… so, I can’t keep my doctor after all? I’m going to have to go to a different hospital?
You really have no fucking idea what responsibilities the citizens of a democratic republic, and their representatives, have, do you? None whatever. No more than you have about the ACA law, anyway.
Not until I am shown us such a thing. What is your favorite such quote, and (another important part you show know awareness of) what is its context?
By the way, have you actually gotten around to reading the law yet, instead of pouting about how you’re being “kept” from doing so? 
Perhaps this post will refresh your memory.
Alternatively, you could read this thread. It’s all right here.
You asked whether the prevalence of $25 aspirin pills will decline. My interpretation of this is that you were asking about people being billed that kind of ridiculous price – the sort of thing that leads to personal bankruptcy, since no one this side of a Saudi royal medical tourist can pay it.
I explained that there would be a lot fewer aspirin bills, because people will have insurers that negotiate prices. Although I didn’t mention it before, Blue Cross insists on clauses so they they aren’t billed individually for something like aspirin.
As for as insurers excluding the most expensive hospitals, some do today. Blue Cross can always get expensive hospitals to lower their rates for them, but still pays a lot more for hospitals that have a big name. It’s all a matter of degree.
Suppose you had a crappy policy that has an annual payout limit, or a lifetime payout limit, or both. This kind of policy, which is only good until you get a serious disease like cancer, is now illegal. So you have to get a better policy – something that actually deserves to be called health insurance. It doesn’t have to be in the exchange unless you want a subsidy. And it may have a bigger or smaller preferred provider network.
You didn’t know this? Or are you just asking so you can get another chance to call the President a name (liar) that the moderators would wisely call you on if used against another poster?
Sorry, I’m just not finding your theoretical explanation all that persuasive. This is a really complex issue, and frankly I doubt if anyone can really predict if the $25 aspirin thing is going to get better or worse. If you think it is, then short Bayer and make a fortune.
Eh. I voted for Obama twice, and would vote for him again. I’m just not in awe of him (or anyone else in power). I thought it was ironic that you pointed out a “fix” to a problem in thread about Obama lying that makes his lie a bit worse. I don’t care who the president is, or whether I voted for him or not. If I think he lied, I’ll say he lied. If I don’t think he did, I won’t. You can infer nefarious motives if you wish, but they’re all in your mind, not mine.
Tell me chum, what part of that right-wing rag, the Washington Post’s assessment that Obama lied do you quibble with. And just to refresh your memory, he received not ONe, not Two, not Three, but FOUR Pinocchios. Which equates: to Whopper!
Just what wold it take for you to admit he just flat-out lied. How about if we have him on film, repeatedly spouting the same lie over and over, would that do it. Oh wait, we DO have that! Maybe try some Dr. Pepper or some Snapple. Because you’re overdoing with the KoolAid.
No that was just about somebody pouting.
So you can’t point out the lie, either. Got it.
Hey, here’s an idea: read the thread you’re posting in. :rolleyes:
I asked YOU for YOUR best example, complete with context.
What would it mean if I dropped context and did that? Would you consider that you’ve finally received some blessed, long-awaited validation of the, um emotion-based view you’ve had ever since you first heard of him and heard he’s a Democrat? Or would it mean that ACA is evil and should be repealed (and not replaced)? Seriously, why is *this *important to you while the well-being of millions is apparently not? And do you have any idea how narrow this topic is and how desperate for cherries to pick your guiding “news” sources are showing themselves to be?
Don’t be so hard on yourself.
Already done. Have you taken the time to read this thread? If not, we won’t mind if you stop interrupting it while you catch up. Here’s a hint:
Check somewhere between post 303 and 305.
I started a whole friggin thread about it. With quotes, with cites. IN the OP and subsequent posts. Including a link (originally provided by John Mace) to the Washington Post assessment that he’s a liar. In fact, a Whopper of a Liar. So, if you want what you claim you want, read, or reread, the thread, wouldya. Either that, or keep playing in the pit.
Do you include “The Washing Post” in that list of news sources? :rolleyes:
Now, what it would mean if you were able to see the light and admit that Obama flat-out lied—as the WP concluded—is that you’re not so hyper-partisan as to be a joke. That you do look at the facts and slap down guys on your side when they do shitty things. This won’t change my assessment of Obama, and it certainly won’t change the fact that he lied to us repeatedly. It might, however, change how you will be viewed. So, it’s no skin off my nose. In fact, the more you dig in and attempt to misdirect, obfuscate and excuse, the more I chuckle. Seriously. and I’m pretty sure I’m not alone in that.
See, this is a perfect example of what’s wrong with ACA. We strapping, young 52-year-olds with no need or desire for health insurance have to carry the load for those free-loading elderly headache sufferers!
Should have known that FactCheck would’ve weighed in by now:
What is this “context” that is missing? The man said that if an individual liked his current plan he could keep it. He even added “Period!” after he said it.
In what context does that unambiguous statement mean “…unless we decide it doesn’t contain what we consider minimum coverage, plus a few items in our left-wing goodie bag, then you cannot keep it.”?
The part about being able to get an even *better *one, with *real *coverage. Yes, you “keep” the shitty coverage levels that are all your Almighty-Dollar employer deigns to provide, but now you get to do better too.
The context where he’s had to dumb down everything he’s said about ACA for the sake of people who *still *refuse to fucking listen, and are still too fucking lazy to change the channel and find out what it really is, but are *still *fucking fighting it and sabotaging every step of the way even though we already *had *the national debate and ACA won. The quotes you’ve stripped down to essentials, out of context, and are crowing over with glee are just examples of the problem he, and we, have had to face.
Now, what, if anything, are you looking for here other than a chance to feel you’re scoring a cheap point of some kind?
What a load of shit. That’s not “dumbing something down.” “Dumbing something down” is simplifying something, reducing it to an understandable essence. What Obama did in this instance is assert something patently false. God almighty, your head won’t explode if you admit this self-evident fact.
The “understandable essence” is what I just fucking said it was. Maybe it wasn’t understandable enough even at that level?