How is Obama Care going to impact CPAP?

[rkuntz123]

Nate,
It sounds like you're Baby Boomer so you should understand the demographics. So puzzle me this about Social Security and then extend it to the ACA.

The budgetary problem with SS isn't between the Boomers and their Parents as there were enough of us, as Mom and Dad had lots of kids, that are now paying into the system to keep them covered after retirement. The demographic problem is between the Boomers and their Children, as we are an age cohort didn't have lots of kids, so there aren't the numbers in the work force behind us to support the current SS benefit model for us. So do we as Boomers bite the bullet and sacrifice some of our benies for the sake of our kids? Or do we attempt to bankrupt them with doubled or tripled contribution rates?

The ACA compounds these issues.

By the way most of our Docs are Boomers and just like us already approaching their natural retirement age and if the ACA accelerates their natural retirement rate even a little and I see no reason why it won't, as they have their school loans paid, their kids have finished school and they're set financially, we're screwed.

Sorry Nate the demographics of your Mom's era were quite different than today's and the social dynamic she experienced doesn't translate forward.

[ems]

Contrast this Poll:
"A new poll by the New York State Medical Society found that a full 44 percent of physicians say they aren’t participating in ObamaCare and 23 percent say they aren’t taking those few patients who manage to get their insurance from the state exchanges." …
Politics aside, the poll results about our Docs walking away from their practices worries me and should worry you.

Those of us who are old enough have seen all this play out before. When Medicare legislation was being debated, my dear mother worked at a then very large medical clinic, and she came home from work one day, angry at the damn Democrats and almost in tears from a mass employees meeting at which the doctors warned that if Medicare passed they were going to close down the entire facility within 12 months. {"So go home and write your congressman and tell your friends to do the same! yada yada!"}

Medicare passed in 1966 and she was still working there when she retired years later, and the facility had grown to almost five times its original size, had huge new buildings, lush landscaping and had the best reputation for quality care in the area, and about 40% or more of its patients were on Medicare. By then including, of course, my Mom.

Regards, Nate

Even tho I'm not old enough to have seen this played out before , this is precisely what happens, every time.

[idamtnboy]

The budgetary problem with SS isn't between the Boomers and their Parents as there were enough of us, as Mom and Dad had lots of kids, that are now paying into the system to keep them covered after retirement. The demographic problem is between the Boomers and their Children, as we are an age cohort didn't have lots of kids, so there aren't the numbers in the work force behind us to support the current SS benefit model for us. So do we as Boomers bite the bullet and sacrifice some of our benies for the sake of our kids? Or do we attempt to bankrupt them with doubled or tripled contribution rates?

The ACA compounds these issues.

By the way most of our Docs are Boomers and just like us already approaching their natural retirement age and if the ACA accelerates their natural retirement rate even a little and I see no reason why it won't, as they have their school loans paid, their kids have finished school and they're set financially, we're screwed.

Sorry Nate the demographics of your Mom's era were quite different than today's and the social dynamic she experienced doesn't translate forward.

Quite true. That is one reason for such a high immigration rate. Immigrants will replace the children who aren't being birthed. SS benefits don't depend on generational blood relationship, only that the upcoming generation be there in sufficient numbers to support the preceding generation.

But, there still is a real concern about the demographics as you say. Unfortunately, it doesn't just affect SS and ACA. It impacts the whole of our economy. Money is only a means to exchange labor. The lower the percentage of people actively working and producing real products, (cars, bread, homes, clothes, etc., not fake wealth such as numbers in a balance sheet) but continuing to consume those real products will place a greater and greater burden on the percentage of people actively working and producing real products. Regardless of savings and investment schemes, labor is always a current production/consumption cycle. The greater problem we have taking place today is the fact that fewer and fewer people are needed to produce the goods and services to keep the current population supplied with the goods and services necessary to live. That excess unused labor potential is held by the homeless, those on welfare, the sick and disabled, and retirees, and those engaged in non-producing jobs such as firemen, police, hair dressers, stock brokers, etc. Those people moving over into product and service producing jobs will help offset, but not alleviate, the shortage of labor caused by a greater percentage of the population voluntarily moving into the non-productive, i.e., retired, status. But a serious complication to all this is the fact that so much of the producing jobs have been moved overseas. We consume, but don't produce.

I know this is a bit rambling but hopefully you can get some idea of what I'm trying to convey.

[NateS]

Nate,
It sounds like you're Baby Boomer so you should understand the demographics. So puzzle me this about Social Security and then extend it to the ACA.

The budgetary problem with SS isn't between the Boomers and their Parents as there were enough of us, as Mom and Dad had lots of kids, that are now paying into the system to keep them covered after retirement. The demographic problem is between the Boomers and their Children, as we are an age cohort didn't have lots of kids, so there aren't the numbers in the work force behind us to support the current SS benefit model for us. So do we as Boomers bite the bullet and sacrifice some of our benies for the sake of our kids? Or do we attempt to bankrupt them with doubled or tripled contribution rates?

The ACA compounds these issues.

By the way most of our Docs are Boomers and just like us already approaching their natural retirement age and if the ACA accelerates their natural retirement rate even a little and I see no reason why it won't, as they have their school loans paid, their kids have finished school and they're set financially, we're screwed.

Sorry Nate the demographics of your Mom's era were quite different than today's and the social dynamic she experienced doesn't translate forward.

rkuntz123, I've got to say I appreciate the calm and rational way in which you present and support your argument. A refreshing change from a lot of the rude, hysterical and in some cases purely nutty red-stater sloganeering which pops up regularly in this debate in opposition to the PPACA. Hope to see some answers appear in response to the reasoned argument you make.

Best wishes, Nate

[OhHelpMe]

Our federal government is disgustingly tyrannical. Destroying the livelihood of the powerless. Making life more difficult for the poor.

RIP Fung Wah and Lucky Star: Victims to crony capitalism. Their safety records were statistically no worse than Greyhound.

"...the owners and staff of the Chinatown companies lack political connections and often speak English as a second language, making them easy targets for abuse by regulators...Fung Wah was the first company to introduce a $10 fare....Greyhound was charging about five times as much."

The Government’s Cheap, Dishonest Campaign Against the Chinatown Bus Industry
by Jim Epstein Nov 2, 2013 5:45 AM EDT

http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2 ... ustry.html

Do you think these bastards can make health insurance and medical care cheaper and more accessible? Hell no, they will make it more expensive and less accessible. Just like they have in the past.

[Sheffey]

ObamaCare is an old political story. It began as supposedly a way to deal with the problem of a segment of the population -- those without health insurance.

But, instead of directly helping those particular people to get insurance, the "solution" was to expand the government's power over everybody, including people who already had health insurance that they wanted to keep.

This disaster will not go gently into the night.

[idamtnboy]

the "solution" was to expand the government's power over everybody, including people who already had health insurance that they wanted to keep.

No, it is not an attempt to expand government's power over everybody but rather most certainly, over insurance companies, telling them to quit screwing the population!

Even one of Fox's more conservative commentator's agrees.

http://www.foxnews.com/opinion/2013/11/ ... companies/

[Wulfman...]

the "solution" was to expand the government's power over everybody, including people who already had health insurance that they wanted to keep.

No, it is not an attempt to expand government's power over everybody but rather most certainly, over insurance companies, telling them to quit screwing the population!

Even one of Fox's more conservative commentator's agrees.

WRONG!!! Juan Williams is NOT a conservative. Far from it. On the other hand, his son IS and works for the GOP.

And, YES, it IS an attempt to expand government's power over everybody. It was never about insurance or health care.....it's always been about CONTROL (of the people).


Den

.

[idamtnboy]

And, YES, it IS an attempt to expand government's power over everybody. It was never about insurance or health care.....it's always been about CONTROL (of the people).


Den

At least you and Sheffey didn't limit your rant against the Dems. Repubs also love to expand control, such as mandatory criminal sentencing, restriction of abortion, mandating SNAP recipients be drug tested, spying on everyone to find the 1 in a million supposed terrorist wannabe, and so on.

[idamtnboy]

WRONG!!! Juan Williams is NOT a conservative. Far from it. On the other hand, his son IS and works for the GOP.

Quote from http://newsbusters.org/blogs/matt-vespa ... -just-foil

However, while midway through the interview when Imus and Williams were talking about the real criticisms with Fox News, Mr. Williams reiterated that Fox News does disseminate serious content with journalistic integrity, especially in their six o'clock slot [Special Report], but then made a bizarre statement concerning how he was able to be on the network due to his conservative leanings. This coming from a man who claims to be "foil" for "right wing views."

Quotes from here, a very right wing media company. http://www.newsmax.com/RonaldKessler/ju ... /id/374757

As a friend, it makes no difference to me whether Williams is a liberal, a conservative, or none of the above. But the fact is, Williams is no liberal.

If you doubt that, read his book “Enough: The Phony Leaders, Dead-End Movements, and Culture of Failure That Are Undermining Black America — and What We Can Do About It.” The book attacks Democrats and black leaders like Jesse Jackson and Al Sharpton for promoting a “culture of failure” among blacks.
...
To be sure, Williams usually takes the liberal side on Fox News’ round table discussions, often contributing points of view that add credibility to his argument. But on Bill O’Reilly’s Fox News show, he often sides with conservatives.

[Wulfman...]

And, YES, it IS an attempt to expand government's power over everybody. It was never about insurance or health care.....it's always been about CONTROL (of the people).


Den

At least you and Sheffey didn't limit your rant against the Dems. Repubs also love to expand control, such as mandatory criminal sentencing, restriction of abortion, mandating SNAP recipients be drug tested, spying on everyone to find the 1 in a million supposed terrorist wannabe, and so on.

I've got a lengthy list of "Republicans" I'd like to see GONE. I'm a strong supporter of term limitations. I'm tired of the "professional politicians" and the terrible things they've done to this country.......all in the name of power, greed and personal monetary gain.


Den

.

[Wulfman...]

Well, Mr. Williams usually takes the "liberal" side in the on-air discussions.
But, I've often felt that when it comes right down to it, most (liberal) people are more "conservative" when it comes to keeping or spending their own money. Look at how many rich liberals are all for spending other peoples' money but try to get the tax advantages to hang onto their own money.


Den

.

[Christine L]

This was just posted on my FB friend's wall>

From a FB friend who works in the medical field -

"Had a regular customer come in yesterday in quite a state of agitation. This individual has been all over the Affordable Care Act, singing it's praises and lauding how it was going to make insurance cheaper and better for everyone. Seems he found out Monday that BECAUSE OF the ACA, his insurance rate went UP $900/year. He was livid...spewing venomous names at the government, the administration and Barry.

This seems to be a pattern of late. It appears to me that as long as the effects of this atrocity doesn't affect liberals, they are okay with it. However, when they become the victim of it....well that's a whole different story."

[Zidane]

.

[NateS]

So, about those cancellation letters...
So, about those cancellation letters...
Submitted by THP Danielle on 4. November 2013 - 9:29

Live Blog
Thom's Blog

Surprise, surprise... Insurance companies are trying to cheat customers out of more money. Since the start of Obamacare, we've heard various reports of companies canceling insurance policies, and charging customers hundreds of dollars more each month to continue coverage. Well, it turns out that many of those cancellation letters were misleading, and failed to mention that customers could find better policies at lower prices on a healthcare exchange.

A special report by Talking Points Memo found specific examples of insurance companies contacting people before the October 1st start date, and trying to lock them in to higher priced plans than they could find on an exchange. The companies warned customers that their plans were being canceled and offered them new, higher-priced plans, but made no mention of healthcare exchanges, or subsidies that people could qualify for under Obamacare. One of the women interviewed by TPM would have had to pay more than $1,000 a month for the new plan offered by her insurance company, and it offered bare minimum coverage with a $6,300 deductible. After logging on to her state's insurance exchange, the Seattle resident found a plan for $80 dollars a month with a $250 dollar deductible.

When TPM asked her insurance company why they were using such deceptive methods, a spokesman just said that customers know they have other options. Although it's not clear how many of the cancellation letters being received throughout our country are a result of the same dishonest tactics, it's likely that many other companies are pulling the same scam. These cancellations aren't because of Obamacare, they are simply insurance companies trying to rip off more people while they still have a chance.

This is the exact reason why we needed the healthcare law to begin with. Insurance companies will always put corporate greed over people's health and wallets. And, that's the reason why we should continue to push for single payer, Medicare for all, and get the profit out of our healthcare.

http://www.thomhartmann.com/blog/2013/1 ... on-letters