Hiv Patients In Louisiana Turned

[TheKlown]

http://healthland.time.com/2014/02/14/hiv-patients-in-louisiana-turned-away-by-obamacare-insurers/

What do you think of this? Is it true?

[leanlifter1]

The only thing we know for a fact is that Obama Care really really sucks and is a huge discredited to the American people.

[Angry-Hatter]

At 2/16/14 08:16 PM, TheKlown wrote: http://healthland.time.com/2014/02/14/hiv-patients-in-louisiana-turned-away-by-obamacare-insurers/

What do you think of this? Is it true?

Seems like the insurance companies are attempting to reinstate the discrimination against patients with pre-existing conditions. Low income HIV patients are most likely going to need to use their insurance much more often than a healthy person would, so having them as customers would likely mean a net loss for the companies. It's the US government that is chipping in with the grant - what, the insurance companies think they're going to be swindled by Uncle Sam? Ridiculous.

[Korriken]

At 2/16/14 08:16 PM, TheKlown wrote:

What do you think of this? Is it true?

Doesn't matter, Obama can wave his magic pen and fix it like he does anytime a problem with Obamacare crops up.

[leanlifter1]

At 2/16/14 09:01 PM, Korriken wrote:

At 2/16/14 08:16 PM, TheKlown wrote:

What do you think of this? Is it true?

Doesn't matter, Obama can wave his magic pen and fix it like he does anytime a problem with Obamacare crops up.

He can't fight the fact that Insurers are getting rich and health care is still privatized.

[Angry-Hatter]

At 2/16/14 09:17 PM, leanlifter1 wrote: He can't fight the fact that Insurers are getting rich and health care is still privatized.

Well, he could do something about that... but he's Obama, so he won't.

[leanlifter1]

At 2/16/14 10:46 PM, Angry-Hatter wrote:

At 2/16/14 09:17 PM, leanlifter1 wrote: He can't fight the fact that Insurers are getting rich and health care is still privatized.

Well, he could do something about that... but he's Obama, so he won't.

In the healthiest countries in the world everyone gets the same level of health care and it is payed through taxes. In the self proclaimed best country in the world you would think they would take some notes from countries with the best health care in the world.

[Camarohusky]

At 2/16/14 10:46 PM, Angry-Hatter wrote: Well, he could do something about that... but he's Obama, so he won't.

No he couldn't. Look at how much of a shitfit has been thrown over what is essentially a conservative plan (an outdated one at that). If you think that even the same amount of Democrats would have on board for a proper overhaul, I have some ocean front property in Arizona (been in my family for generations) I'd love to sell you.

[Feoric]

At 2/16/14 11:17 PM, Camarohusky wrote: No he couldn't. Look at how much of a shitfit has been thrown over what is essentially a conservative plan (an outdated one at that). If you think that even the same amount of Democrats would have on board for a proper overhaul, I have some ocean front property in Arizona (been in my family for generations) I'd love to sell you.

That's not true. Obama had the opportunity to have a public option but he immediately bargained that away. When he took office there was definitely enough political capital for Dems to pull it off. Now, not a chance.

[Angry-Hatter]

At 2/16/14 11:17 PM, Camarohusky wrote:

At 2/16/14 10:46 PM, Angry-Hatter wrote: Well, he could do something about that... but he's Obama, so he won't.

No he couldn't.

Yes he can! ... Could've.

Obama's problem has always been lack of leadership due to his obsession with being liked and being seen as reasonable by the Washington establishment. He's no-drama Obama. If he was a strong leader, he could have come out swinging after the 2008 landslide with huge majorities in the house and senate and a strong mandate for change.

If I was Obama, I would have come out for a single payer system, medicare for everyone. The Republicans would belly ache and cry rivers over it, and some corporatist Democrats would undoubtedly have chimed in with them, but they did that ANYWAY, even with the weak sauce 1990's Republican plan Obama ended up going with. I'd take a tour of America, go to town hall meetings, hospitals, nursing homes, home town diners, and deliver some of my inspirational Obama speeches to the good folks of America. I would go out and hold press conferences as many times as I needed to in order to list off all of the numerous flaws with the current system, and to top off each press conference, I would drop the names of all the people in Congress who were being obstructionist on this vital reform (i.e. the Republicans), rinse and repeat. I'd leave my own party members out of the public shaming, to start. I'd go around to each and every Democratic Senator and impress on them how much I would appreciate their support on this very important issue and the amount of gratitude I would bestow on them for helping me get this high priority agenda issue done. Conversely, I would have my Chief of Staff (Howard Dean perhaps?) come meet with them separately to inform them of what failure to come through on this issue would result in: not a penny of DNC or DSCC money to help their reelection campaigns, a guaranteed primary challenger, and a permanent spot on the President's weekly shit list announcement until the reform passes. Herding cats isn't as hard as you'd think; you just need a couple cans of sardines and an occasional crack of the whip.

Naturally, I'd gradually negotiate down the original demand for a complete single payer system in favor of something more modest to make it more palatable, perhaps medicare for everyone 45 years and up, with a public option for anyone younger than that, with a dash of health insurance industry regulations to top it off, and in the end, the Republicans and health care industry will feel so relieved that they managed to get away so unscathed, all things considered.

Then we move on to banking reform...

As you can tell, if I were the president, I'd likely end up getting less than zero dollars in reelection campaign contributions from any corporation. But screw it, I'll be a one-term President if that's what it takes to get some real reforms done. If I cared what the corporate fat cats and lobbyist thought about me then I'd be.... Obama.

[Camarohusky]

At 2/17/14 12:29 AM, Angry-Hatter wrote: Obama's problem has always been lack of leadership due to his obsession with being liked and being seen as reasonable by the Washington establishment.

You are right to this extent only. Obama is far too into consensus politics.

However, anyone who thinks a single payer system would have had any reasonable chance of passing is just fooling themselves. I don't care how much of a majority Obama had, it doesn't matter. Enough Democrats would have balked at it that the reform would have failed completely.

Unlike other subject where he's given up significant support and ground to aim for the middle, a HUGE chunk of independents (and therefore, Democrats in more contested districts) do not like the idea of socialized medicine (of which single payer is).

Think of it like trying to sail a galleon into hurricane force winds.

[xxxcreep]

At 2/16/14 11:14 PM, leanlifter1 wrote: In the healthiest countries in the world everyone gets the same level of health care and it is payed through taxes. In the self proclaimed best country in the world you would think they would take some notes from countries with the best health care in the world.

I agree with this. I'll never understand why we don't follow the same healthcare laws that the UK, canada, France, and Cuba have.

[Angry-Hatter]

At 2/17/14 12:41 AM, Camarohusky wrote: However, anyone who thinks a single payer system would have had any reasonable chance of passing is just fooling themselves. I don't care how much of a majority Obama had, it doesn't matter. Enough Democrats would have balked at it that the reform would have failed completely.

Unlike other subject where he's given up significant support and ground to aim for the middle, a HUGE chunk of independents (and therefore, Democrats in more contested districts) do not like the idea of socialized medicine (of which single payer is).

Think of it like trying to sail a galleon into hurricane force winds.

Didn't you read the conclusion of my scenario? I recognize that single payer is a long ways off and would have had a lot of trouble passing in this current environment. But that's why you start off with single payer and negotiate downwards from there. When you're bartering, you always start off by asking for more than what you're expecting to get.

Obama started out with an already lukewarm Republican plan and ACTIVELY fought his own party to weaken the bill by getting the public option pulled. He sent his Chief of Staff, the repugnant Rahm Emanuel, to the progressive caucus members who were actually fighting for real reform to bully them into submission. If he can do that to the progressives, why not the Blue Dogs? The Congressional Progressive Caucus had 82 members when the Affordable Care Act was being worked on, while the Blue Dog Coalition had about half that number, 44. And yet, the progressives were referred to as "fucking retarded" by Rahm Emanuel, while the Blue Dogs got private meetings with the President.

The Democrats had 257 seats in the House after the 2008 election. Do the math. He would only have needed to coax 5 Blue Dogs to vote for the plan for it to pass in the House with 218 votes (the actual plan passed with only two more, 220). Then there's his 60 seat majority in the Senate, where he would only have to bully his caucus to break an eventual filibuster by the Republicans (though with the kind of shit storm I would have had the President send their way, I'd be surprised if a handful of the Republicans wouldn't have been ready to jump ship and at least not support a filibuster. I'm thinking Collins, Snowe, Gregg, maybe Murkowski). After that, he could have afforded to lose as many as 10 Democratic Senators and passed the plan with the vote of Vice President Biden. Rinse and repeat for the conference committee bill.

It's a near guarantee that the Affordable Care Act could have been a hell of a lot stronger and more progressive if Obama and Co. had only WANTED it to be that way.

[ASmallOstrich]

At 2/17/14 01:40 AM, xxxcreep wrote:

At 2/16/14 11:14 PM, leanlifter1 wrote: In the healthiest countries in the world everyone gets the same level of health care and it is payed through taxes. In the self proclaimed best country in the world you would think they would take some notes from countries with the best health care in the world.

I agree with this. I'll never understand why we don't follow the same healthcare laws that the UK, canada, France, and Cuba have.

Canada always has economic issues, Cuba is under a facist regime that calls itself communist, and the UK has a plethora of financial issues on a personal basis. I don't care if it makes us a less healthy world, any system that says I have to give part of my earnings to this and that is a system I will always disagree with. And before someone brings up taxes, I'm not a fan of them either.

[aviewaskewed]

Um, is this not a thread about the Hiv patients in lousianna? Because I thought it was, not a way to indict or defend the merits of the AHCA or alternatives to such. Back on topic or just stop replying to the thread and let it die please.

[leanlifter1]

At 2/17/14 05:18 AM, ASmallOstrich wrote:

At 2/17/14 01:40 AM, xxxcreep wrote:

At 2/16/14 11:14 PM, leanlifter1 wrote: In the healthiest countries in the world everyone gets the same level of health care and it is payed through taxes. In the self proclaimed best country in the world you would think they would take some notes from countries with the best health care in the world.

I agree with this. I'll never understand why we don't follow the same healthcare laws that the UK, canada, France, and Cuba have.

Canada always has economic issues, Cuba is under a facist regime that calls itself communist, and the UK has a plethora of financial issues on a personal basis. I don't care if it makes us a less healthy world, any system that says I have to give part of my earnings to this and that is a system I will always disagree with. And before someone brings up taxes, I'm not a fan of them either.

The problem with this type of thinking is that "The Economy" should never trump or interfere with the health of Humans. Canada has less economic troubles than the US and Canada has better health care than the US as does France and the UK and Sweden, Denmark etc. The affordable Care act is more about lining the pockets of a few people rather than providing excellent health care for everyone. If you don't have your health than all the money in the world means fuck all to you. Health is infinitely more valuable than money. Health is priceless.

[aviewaskewed]

Next off topic post and the thread is locked.

No more warnings. Back on topic RIGHT NOW.

[Thecrazyman]

At 2/16/14 08:37 PM, leanlifter1 wrote: The only thing we know for a fact is that Obama Care really really sucks and is a huge discredited to the American people.

The Healthcare Overhaul and it's website are without a single doubt a joke, it's not the kind of joke I simply laugh my butt at but one of THE most sickest jokes I've ever known.

That Healthcare Overhaul website is only going to keep draining lots of money for the most ill reasons imaginable, it doesn't go for freedom, it in fact goes against freedom itself. Needless to say the Healthcare Overhaul has made things corrupting and complicating, rejecting HIV patents is one of those things.

That said, if I wanted a Health Care system going, I rather go for something pure and simple, easy for people to understand, not this corrupting and complicating crap that causes HIV patients to be turned down from Health Care.

[leanlifter1]

At 2/18/14 04:59 AM, Thecrazyman wrote:

At 2/16/14 08:37 PM, leanlifter1 wrote: The only thing we know for a fact is that Obama Care really really sucks and is a huge discredited to the American people.

The Healthcare Overhaul and it's website are without a single doubt a joke, it's not the kind of joke I simply laugh my butt at but one of THE most sickest jokes I've ever known.

That Healthcare Overhaul website is only going to keep draining lots of money for the most ill reasons imaginable, it doesn't go for freedom, it in fact goes against freedom itself. Needless to say the Healthcare Overhaul has made things corrupting and complicating, rejecting HIV patents is one of those things.

That said, if I wanted a Health Care system going, I rather go for something pure and simple, easy for people to understand, not this corrupting and complicating crap that causes HIV patients to be turned down from Health Care.

It's sad that some people put a price on Human life and even deny people health care because of the bottom line. It's even worse when your own Government enforces and promotes people to put a price on your head and then they have the audacity to tax you. Somethings gotta give.

[AxTekk]

At 2/17/14 02:57 PM, aviewaskewed wrote: Um, is this not a thread about the Hiv patients in lousianna? Because I thought it was, not a way to indict or defend the merits of the AHCA or alternatives to such. Back on topic or just stop replying to the thread and let it die please.

I'm not sure this is so off-topic.

These guys got turned away because HIV/ AIDs victims are easy to marginalise, and ofc insurance companies will be keen to take them off their books (them also requiring lengthy expensive courses of treatment). Equally though, I think the government genuinely wants to treat as many people as well as possible so it really is a case of them getting turned away because of how much of a stake the government has in their healthcare.

By the same token though, to cover them in the government health plan could be extremely expensive and not very effective. I genuinely think the debate does boil down to AHCA. Maybe this should have been posted in an existing AHCA thread.

[leanlifter1]

At 2/18/14 08:10 AM, AxTekk wrote:

By the same token though, to cover them in the government health plan could be extremely expensive and not very effective. I genuinely think the debate does boil down to AHCA. Maybe this should have been posted in an existing AHCA thread.

I don't think their is one. That said if these HIV victims were not forced into AHCA then they would have been covered. Once again we are witnessing the inefficiency of monetary economics.

[Camarohusky]

Is there an article that has some insight into why, even just a guess? This article is so short it's nearly meaningless.

[leanlifter1]

At 2/18/14 10:58 AM, Camarohusky wrote: Is there an article that has some insight into why, even just a guess? This article is so short it's nearly meaningless.

The question is why would people be turned away from Obama Care Insurers when the Insurance is mandatory by Law. I suppose someone will have to Insure them By Law or else the Gov should foot to bills.

[Camarohusky]

If HIV is such an insurance time bomb, why wait until now to deny them?

[AxTekk]

At 2/18/14 08:39 AM, leanlifter1 wrote:

At 2/18/14 08:10 AM, AxTekk wrote:

By the same token though, to cover them in the government health plan could be extremely expensive and not very effective. I genuinely think the debate does boil down to AHCA. Maybe this should have been posted in an existing AHCA thread.

I don't think their is one. That said if these HIV victims were not forced into AHCA then they would have been covered. Once again we are witnessing the inefficiency of monetary economics.

Yeah, then I think this is the proper place for this discussion. This is basically the new AHCA thread guiz

[leanlifter1]

At 2/18/14 12:46 PM, Camarohusky wrote: If HIV is such an insurance time bomb, why wait until now to deny them?

It does not matter about the why rather the how. This is a classic example of the Government interfering and controlling people to much.

[Gario]

At 2/18/14 01:28 PM, AxTekk wrote:

At 2/18/14 08:39 AM, leanlifter1 wrote:

At 2/18/14 08:10 AM, AxTekk wrote:

By the same token though, to cover them in the government health plan could be extremely expensive and not very effective. I genuinely think the debate does boil down to AHCA. Maybe this should have been posted in an existing AHCA thread.

I don't think their is one. That said if these HIV victims were not forced into AHCA then they would have been covered. Once again we are witnessing the inefficiency of monetary economics.

Yeah, then I think this is the proper place for this discussion. This is basically the new AHCA thread guiz

There actually was a thread on AHCA set up a few months ago - I'm not going to look for it, but it's a place to talk solely about AHCA. Enough on that, I have an on topic question, here.

I'm not sure how a state law can circumvent a federal one - isn't there a statement or two about how insurance companies can deny patients insurance based on pre-existing conditions? I mean, if it's mandated, it makes no sense to allow this at all - are people from Louisiana going to take action against this sometime?

[leanlifter1]

At 2/18/14 02:28 PM, Gario wrote:

At 2/18/14 01:28 PM, AxTekk wrote:

At 2/18/14 08:39 AM, leanlifter1 wrote:

At 2/18/14 08:10 AM, AxTekk wrote:

By the same token though, to cover them in the government health plan could be extremely expensive and not very effective. I genuinely think the debate does boil down to AHCA. Maybe this should have been posted in an existing AHCA thread.

I don't think their is one. That said if these HIV victims were not forced into AHCA then they would have been covered. Once again we are witnessing the inefficiency of monetary economics.

Yeah, then I think this is the proper place for this discussion. This is basically the new AHCA thread guiz

There actually was a thread on AHCA set up a few months ago - I'm not going to look for it, but it's a place to talk solely about AHCA. Enough on that, I have an on topic question, here.

There were two AHCA threads set up this week and both were taken down by mods before the first post was submitted. Me smellz some serious censorship going on here. This thread is directly about AHCA and how it delegates the responsibility of public health coverage to the middle man being the Insurance company's to dictate who get's health care coverage. This can be said to be economic bigotry.

[Gario]

At 2/18/14 02:44 PM, leanlifter1 wrote:

At 2/18/14 02:28 PM, Gario wrote:

At 2/18/14 01:28 PM, AxTekk wrote:

At 2/18/14 08:39 AM, leanlifter1 wrote:

At 2/18/14 08:10 AM, AxTekk wrote:

By the same token though, to cover them in the government health plan could be extremely expensive and not very effective. I genuinely think the debate does boil down to AHCA. Maybe this should have been posted in an existing AHCA thread.

I don't think their is one. That said if these HIV victims were not forced into AHCA then they would have been covered. Once again we are witnessing the inefficiency of monetary economics.

Yeah, then I think this is the proper place for this discussion. This is basically the new AHCA thread guiz

There actually was a thread on AHCA set up a few months ago - I'm not going to look for it, but it's a place to talk solely about AHCA. Enough on that, I have an on topic question, here.

There were two AHCA threads set up this week and both were taken down by mods before the first post was submitted. Me smellz some serious censorship going on here. This thread is directly about AHCA and how it delegates the responsibility of public health coverage to the middle man being the Insurance company's to dictate who get's health care coverage. This can be said to be economic bigotry.

http://www.newgrounds.com/bbs/topic/1352490

There, the thread I was talking about - I'm sure that thread is suitable for AHCA, if you have future problems. Now that we have that out of the way, did you want to answer my question, or do you want to spew more crap on the NG moderator conspiracy? :/

[leanlifter1]

At 2/18/14 03:49 PM, Gario wrote:

There, the thread I was talking about - I'm sure that thread is suitable for AHCA, if you have future problems. Now that we have that out of the way, did you want to answer my question, or do you want to spew more crap on the NG moderator conspiracy? :/

Problem is that thread is not about debating the fallacy behind AHCA rather it's simply about complaining about some laggy Internet site.

Anyway putting absolute power in the hands of Insurance companies when they are all about making money and not about providing health care is absolutely atrocious.