Purity or Nothing, right?

Post #379,232 by Another Scott 8/14/13 12:17:48 AM Reply	Purity or Nothing, right? 1) How do you propose to get a Medicare for All bill through the House and Senate? 2) Do you think that if a Medicare for All bill made it through the House and Senate that Obama would veto it? Thanks. Cheers, Scott.
Post #379,244 by mmoffitt 8/14/13 9:32:11 AM Reply	Answer to (1) We could have representative government. Two-thirds of Americans support Medicare-for-all (#3 of 6) Informative polls show two-thirds support for single-payer By Kip Sullivan, JD In Part 2 of this six-part series, I reported on the results of two Âcitizen juryÂ experiments in which advocates for single-payer, managed competition, and high-deductible policies spoke to, and were questioned by, ÂjuriesÂ that were representative of America. In the case of the 1993 ÂjuryÂ sponsored by the Jefferson Center, 71 percent voted for single-payer. In the case of the 1996 Âjury,Â 61 percent voted for single-payer when no specific information about its cost to individuals was presented, and 79 percent voted for a single-payer system that would have lowered premium and out-of-pocket costs by as much as taxes rose. Both juries rejected proposals relying on health insurance companies by huge majorities. ... Table 1: Polls indicating majority support for single-payer ÂÂÂÂÂÂÂÂÂÂÂÂÂÂÂÂÂÂÂÂÂÂÂFor single-payerÂÂ..Opposed to single-payer General public: Polls in which support is 60 percent or higher Harvard University/Harris (1988)(a)ÂÂÂÂÂÂÂÂ61%ÂÂÂÂ..not asked LA Times (1990)(b)ÂÂÂÂÂÂÂÂÂÂÂÂÂÂÂÂÂ.66%ÂÂÂÂ.not asked Wall Street Journal-NBC (1991)(c)ÂÂÂÂÂÂÂÂÂ.69%ÂÂÂÂÂ.20% Wash Post-ABC News (2003)(d)ÂÂÂÂÂÂÂÂÂÂ..62%ÂÂÂÂ.not asked Civil Society Institute (2004)(e)ÂÂÂÂÂÂÂÂÂÂÂ67%ÂÂÂÂÂ..27% AP-Yahoo (2007)(f)ÂÂÂÂÂÂÂÂÂÂÂÂÂÂÂÂÂ..65%ÂÂÂÂ..not asked Grove Insight (2009)(g)ÂÂÂÂÂÂÂÂÂÂÂÂÂÂÂ64%ÂÂÂÂÂ..28% Grove Insight (2009)(g)ÂÂÂÂÂÂÂÂÂÂÂÂÂÂÂ60%ÂÂÂÂÂ..27% General public: Polls in which support is below 60 percent AP-Yahoo (2007)(f)ÂÂÂÂÂÂÂÂÂÂÂÂÂÂÂÂÂ..54%ÂÂÂÂÂÂ.44% Kaiser Family Foundation (2009)(h)ÂÂÂÂÂÂÂÂ..58%ÂÂÂÂÂÂ.38% Kaiser Family Foundation (2009)(h)ÂÂÂÂÂÂÂÂ..50%ÂÂÂÂÂÂ.44% Doctors New Eng J Med (medical school faculty and students) (1999)ÂÂÂÂÂÂ.57%ÂÂÂÂÂ.not asked Arch Int Med (doctors) (2004)ÂÂÂÂÂÂÂÂÂÂÂÂ64%ÂÂÂÂÂ.not asked Minnesota Med (doctors) (2007)ÂÂÂÂÂÂÂÂÂÂÂ64%ÂÂÂÂÂ.not asked http://pnhp.org/blog...thirds-support-3/
Post #379,250 by folkert 8/14/13 10:07:32 AM Reply	Question. Do you HONESTLY think that if a Medicare for All bill were introduced and Obama said he was ALL FOR IT!!!11!!!!... how long do you think it would take for it to be voted on... and what do you think the outcome would be in the House and Senate, regardless? And please be honest. -- greg@gregfolkert.net PGP key 1024D/B524687C 2003-08-05 Fingerprint: E1D3 E3D7 5850 957E FED0 2B3A ED66 6971 B524 687C
Post #379,259 by mmoffitt 8/14/13 10:36:27 AM Reply	You've got a point. Obama is, at best, an ineffectual leader.
Post #379,274 by folkert 8/14/13 12:59:38 PM Reply	Ineffectual for certain things... Other things, he is doing great. I don't particularly care about many things the hand waving right is doing. Nor do I ethically approve of some of the things Obama is excelling at. But... if the Extreme Right (which is in charge of the GOP at the moment) were to actually see the insanity in which they are progressing... pushing the Bell Curve so far right that the left has dropped off... I wonder what would happen if they weren't so damned adversarial. -- greg@gregfolkert.net PGP key 1024D/B524687C 2003-08-05 Fingerprint: E1D3 E3D7 5850 957E FED0 2B3A ED66 6971 B524 687C
Post #379,251 by Another Scott 8/14/13 10:07:41 AM Reply	What color unicorn would you like with that? We could have 3% unemployment, too. Now please tell me how a Medicare for All bill would get through the House and Senate. Thanks. Cheers, Scott.
Post #379,256 by mmoffitt 8/14/13 10:27:45 AM Reply	Objection. Asked and Answered. It would only go through the Fed if we had representative government. A lot of idiots in 2008 thought they were getting "Change we can believe in", but they were delusional (and racist, BTW, "Look, he's got to be Progressive. He's mixed race!"). Obama's election made things much, much, much worse. What remained of the Left in this country has exited the process entirely. And why shouldn't they? If Obama is what passes for a Left-Of-Center politician in this country, we may as well leave everything to the Tea Baggers. We already had a Senate that was Wall Street Banker owned, his election meant we had an Executive branch that continued to be a Wall Street Banker owned institution. The House, under Pelosi and with a strong Democratic majority, was itself largely functional and the only representative government we had. But the betrayal of the Left by Obama (who gave him the White House in the first place) meant that they stayed home in the 2010 elections. The Wingnut Hard Right has one thing correct: Obama's election destroyed what was left of the country. But not for the reasons they think (his mixed race); rather, for the reason that he successfully passed as a Liberal and then showed his true Bush III colors.
Post #379,287 by hnick 8/14/13 5:04:19 PM Reply	Welp, you've made this forum a lot easier to traverse. Since only things that Big Money supports will get votes in the senate, and Big Money wants an authoritarian and unfettered fascist government, I guess fascism in the U.S. is a foregone conclusion. Not my cup of tea, but since you seem to support it, I guess everything will be fine. And it saves so much reading. Nothing to see here; we'll all be told exactly what reality is (at the moment.)
Post #379,288 by Another Scott 8/14/13 5:13:19 PM Reply	<sigh> Few things would make me happier than Medicare for All. I'd like to see it in my lifetime. Similarly for (a sensible system for) publicly funded election campaigns with uniform national voting standards (for things like days for early voting, mail-in ballots, acceptable proof of eligibility, etc., etc.). Given the *reality* of the composition of the House and Senate over the last 5+ years, and the history of the USA, I'm willing to accept incremental progress. I understand where you folks are coming from - believe it or not. I just don't think that throwing spitballs from the peanut gallery is the way to get to where we (including me) want to be. Idealism has its place for inspiring people to do better. When it becomes a hindrance to actual progress, well, then it's a hindrance to actual progress. ;-) My $0.02. Cheers, Scott.
Post #379,246 by mmoffitt 8/14/13 9:43:21 AM Reply	Answer to (2): No question. He absolutely would.
Post #379,249 by Another Scott 8/14/13 10:06:18 AM Reply	Evidence, please. http://en.wikipedia....dent_Barack_Obama Barack Obama[edit source \| editbeta] December 30, 2009: Vetoed H.J.Res. 64, Making further continuing appropriations for fiscal year 2010, and for other purposes. Override attempt failed in House.[35] October 7, 2010: Vetoed H.R. 3808, the Interstate Recognition of Notarizations Act of 2010. Override attempt failed in House.[36] Yeah, he would veto anything even slightly progressive. Look at his record. </snark> Cheers, Scott.
Post #379,253 by mmoffitt 8/14/13 10:11:43 AM Reply	Ask and Ye shall receive. Why should we not also believe that the White House has a deal to shield insurers from competition by preventing the creation of a public option in exchange for the insurers agreeing to reforms on guaranteed issue and limited community ratings (with the flexibility Baucus provided) and to support this framework with tv ads? (Read IgnagniÂs WaPo op-ed today; while defending the PwC study, she says they made a deal, but Baucus broke it; she didnÂt say the dealÂs off.) The White House isnÂt taking up most of the chairs in HarryÂs ReidÂs meetings just to watch him make decisions on his own. TheyÂre there to make sure Harry Reid doesnÂt undo the White House deals and wander off the reservation. This President has filled the White House with people who have no inclination to pose any major challenge to the economic power of AmericaÂs dominant financial industries (GM being an exception). WeÂve already seen this in their dealings with Wall Street investment banks and their too-big-to-fail is too-big-to-challenge approach to financial regulation. WeÂre seeing it now with efforts to shield the major health and insurance industries from any fundamental challenge. Sure, there are changes being offered, new regulations being proposed, and more people will be insured than before. But there is no framework being laid for a new structure for how health care is delivered and paid for in America. That is the pattern of this White House, and there is little basis to expect otherwise. Watch the decisions Harry ÂmakesÂ in coming days. My bet is theyÂll shore up the underlying deals Â theyÂll make mandated insurance modestly more affordable and fix the mandates a bit, while protecting the insurers from a viable, functioning public option. The industry will still control a system in which consumers will be forced to buy their unreliable products with government subsidies. And seeing this coming, Nancy Pelosi will push a more reform-minded House to fight back as hard as they can. The House now carries the hopes for even limited reform. Sadly, her opposition is not just the SenateÂs 60 vote barrier; itÂs in the White House. http://my.firedoglak...-a-public-option/
Post #379,254 by Another Scott 8/14/13 10:19:29 AM Reply	FDL speculation isn't evidence. FDL was trying to lead the people who wanted a public option in the PPACA, then went off the rails and teamed up with Grover to try to kill it. http://www.youtube.c...tch?v=fpAyan1fXCE (0:54) (Please don't bring up other topics where Obama has changed his position - it's not germane to this topic.) There's a big difference in trying to craft legislation to get enough votes to pass, and vetoing legislation that has already passed. People like Hamsher and others at FDL never got that. I guess you haven't either. http://en.wikipedia....e_Care_Act#Senate On December 23, the Senate voted 60Â39 to end debate on the bill (a cloture vote to end the filibuster by opponents). The bill then passed by a vote of 60Â39 on December 24, 2009, with all Democrats and two independents voting for, and all Republicans voting against except one (Jim Bunning (R-KY), not voting).[217] Obama got all he could at the time. Medicare for All would not have passed. But we've been through this multiple times... HTH. Cheers, Scott.
Post #379,258 by mmoffitt 8/14/13 10:35:48 AM Reply	Here's our difference. The ACA accomplishes almost nothing. From strictly a pragmatic POV, if the ACA was "the best he could do" then he shouldn't have spent any political capital on it. It doesn't make anything better. The "pre-existing" thing? Hell, almost all insurers had dropped pre-existing clauses by 2000. The "cover your kids until they're 26" was similarly a fait accompli. The ACA does nothing to apply downward pressure on insurance prices. The microscopic "good" the ACA does came a far too high a cost: at USSC sanctioned law that says Americans must pay private, for-profit corporations solely on account of their being alive. That's Neo-Fascist at best. The BL: You think the marginal good the ACA accomplished was worth the effort. My experience working in medical labs, hospitals and private health insurance companies have taught me otherwise.
Post #379,261 by Another Scott 8/14/13 10:39:22 AM Reply	Expect your unicorn any day now. I'm sure it'll be great.
Post #379,263 by mmoffitt 8/14/13 10:40:47 AM Reply	Not looking for one. We're cooked. It's over. I'm still in ammunition acquisition mode. ;0)
Post #379,266 by Another Scott 8/14/13 10:44:14 AM Reply	Enjoy your bunker then. :-/
Post #379,310 by Ashton 8/15/13 5:23:32 AM Reply	SImply: you Can't get There.. from Here, IMO. It would be necessary to reverse the Winner-takes-all mentality behind virtually all financial/mercantile transactions. [And votes! ... in another sense.] to alter greatly the concept of 'Incorporation' in Murica, with even more-stringent checks/balances on any multi-nationals (ours or theirs.) 'People'?. My ass. to alter taxation: based on Wealth (at least as a factor) and not merely the easily-massaged fiction of 'annual income'. (It would be nice.. if.. the USSC all dined together to celebrate something, and the fish was rilly-bad (while throwing in a Unicorn, too.)) It would be essential (and will be--increasingly as the planet races towards a lethal environment) that the purloined $Trillions already extracted by compounded System-gamimg: be recaptured significantly, not merely to take the Fat out of our entire Med/Pharmchem Industrial Cartels, (including the expectations of MDs et al) .. but to Seriously prepare for [any future at all] worth a pitcher of warm spit.. by, say 2060. You couldn't alter these koans unless Murica suddenly yearned to become as civilized as.. the other wealthy countries. It would be a basic Revolution, bloody as usual though not inescapably: depending entirely upon how quickly a plurality of the population Could -???- grow. up. I can't imagine Euro-style Med funding with any of these elements unsettled. Single-Payer is a chimera in a country as historically ignorant, gullible and superstitious --and as physically deteriorated (as so many Muricans Are today) and worse.. as mentally deranged. Just look around at Our Performance on. all. scales. ... qed (And.. we'll never Know: to what extent (re Obama's 'deal' with the $$Overlords) he was out-schemed? OR [more likely, I wot] flat out-Gunned. $$$==Power==purchased votes.. The Fascistic streak, now so increasingly evident in the bloviations of the loudest minorities (collectively already a plurality?) will confound any political action in the direction of any parts of the above. So, Yes: we're fucked. Unless and Until: some Very-fucking-Unusual Event galvanizes authentic epiphanies ... amongst millions. [!!111ONE!11] Hey, I don't recall ever suggesting that the odds FOR our 'survival' were very good, all insanities considered; I suggested many times that, simply: we still have this teensy-Chance. (Oh.. And: I quite admire Scott's equanimity in the face of soo Many systems clearly in extremis; perhaps he sees the glass only 70% empty?) But I, having been near-enough sentient during both assassinations--especially the Crucial RFK-elimination--and having 'plotted' the slope of the curve ever-since: do not believe in religio-miracles as would be Required: ever to counter the miserable stats-to-date of our deservedly crumbling, sanctimonious tribe of (self-deluding) crass narcissists. (I regret that I have but one-life (not to give) for-my-country, wrong, or Wrong.)
Post #379,313 by mmoffitt 8/15/13 8:26:39 AM Reply	Largely concur. About a revolution being necessary (hence my semi-jocular allusion to "ammunition acquisition mode"), that is. I think in a different century and in a different country, Scott and I would be arguing over whether or not the Duma would save us.
Post #379,318 by Another Scott 8/15/13 9:20:14 AM Reply	There will always be things to argue about. ;-)
Post #380,301 by Another Scott 9/5/13 3:21:37 PM Reply	The "pre-existing" thing is still an issue. http://www.balloon-j.../#comment-4602112 47. Comrade Dread says: September 5, 2013 at 2:28 pm When my wife lost her job, we had two choices, add her to my companyÂs HMO plan or try to buy her individual PPO insurance. Due to her pre-existing conditions which sheÂs had since childhood, no insurance company would take her. After six months (where, by the grace of God, she remained in good health) we signed her up for our state PCIP at just $220 a month. Our state just joined the Federal PCIP plan and our monthly rates for her fell to $161 a month. If Bush and the culmination of 30 years of Republican economic policies hadnÂt already turned me from a conservative to a bleeding heart liberal, Obamacare and the Republican response to it would have assured that I would never have cast another ballot for a Republican again. There is such a thing to be said about being part of a community that takes care of one another and not simply an isolated sheep to be fleeced by the wolves of corporate capitalism. (Also, I will follow the trend and pimp my blog. I discuss religion, movies, nerd stuff, politics, and food. Click my name if you want to check it out.) HTH. Cheers, Scott.
Post #380,305 by mmoffitt 9/5/13 3:48:33 PM Reply	I'm sure in pockets it is still a problem. But not for most. And it didn't take the ACA to make it that way. And since you're a supporter of the ACA, isn't satisfying the needs of "most" good enough? ;0)
Post #380,331 by jake123 9/6/13 11:09:01 AM Reply	A brilliant example of the perfect being the enemy of the good. The ACA is better than what came before. Why shit on people for supporting something that's not ideal but better than what came before? Then start working on the next iteration of Something Better Than What Came Before.
Post #380,338 by mmoffitt 9/6/13 1:16:09 PM Reply	I'm unconvinced the ACA is better than what was. Or even significantly different from what came before. With one exception: it is now the unassailable law of the land that Americans are born owing private corporations a profit. Whatever arguable good the ACA does, it is vastly overwhelmed by that simple fact. Obama had 2/3rds of the People behind him, his political party had a super-majority in the Senate and enough support in the House to at least pass a bill with an option for Single Payer. He fought that option tooth-and-nail from the very first hearings on health care reform. It was the White House who would not let Nader speak in those hearings and it was the White House who would not let even the President of the American Medical Association testify at those hearings because they were in favor of Single Payer, and Obama (the "Change We Can Believe In" President) was opposed to Single Payer above all else. Others can let him off the hook for that in their ceaseless apologizing of the President and his policies, but I'll not join their ranks.
Post #380,341 by jake123 9/6/13 2:29:51 PM Reply	50 million people that couldn't get coverage now can That's an improvement.
Post #380,343 by boxley 9/6/13 2:39:24 PM Reply	Re: 50 million people that couldn't get coverage now can if they can afford it Any opinions expressed by me are mine alone, posted from my home computer, on my own time as a free American and do not reflect the opinions of any person or company that I have had professional relations with in the past 58 years. meep
Post #380,345 by Another Scott 9/6/13 4:19:39 PM Reply	Guess who said this... "It is a good day for 30 million uninsured Americans who will have access to healthcare. It is a good day for seniors who will continue to see their prescription drug costs go down as the so-called doughnut hole goes away. It is a good day for small businesses who simply cannot continue to afford the escalating costs of providing insurance for their employees. It is a good day for 20 million Americans who will soon be able to find access to community health centers. "It is an especially good day for the state of Vermont, which stands to receive hundreds of millions of dollars in additional federal funds to help our state achieve universal health care. "In my view, while the Affordable Care Act is an important step in the right direction and I am glad that the Supreme Court upheld it, [...] No fair peaking at the URL. ;-) http://www.sanders.s...97CA-18865C0EB0C3 Cheers, Scott.
Post #380,362 by Ashton 9/7/13 12:33:57 AM Reply	As from the get-go: S i n g l e - P a y e r is the Only Sane OPTION--to millions of people demonstrably smarter-than the Σ-vox-populi of the U.S. But FIRST--as Always--we must 'try' all the self-serving, crass-conceived Alternatives-to-SANE. Because: That is what made Murica what It Is today. [Fill-in _____ ] GOOO --> Bernie!
Post #380,382 by boxley 9/7/13 3:36:52 PM Reply	St Raygun? Any opinions expressed by me are mine alone, posted from my home computer, on my own time as a free American and do not reflect the opinions of any person or company that I have had professional relations with in the past 58 years. meep
Post #380,383 by CRConrad 9/7/13 4:37:34 PM Reply	Guessing from the URL you weren't supposed to peek at... ...somebody named Sanders, probably in the Senate. Isn't there a Bernie Sanders in American politics? -- Christian R. Conrad Same old username (as above), but now on iki.fi (Yeah, yeah, it redirects to the same old GMail... But just in case I ever want to change.)
Post #380,386 by Another Scott 9/7/13 6:21:26 PM Reply	Hush! ;-)
Post #380,406 by mmoffitt 9/8/13 4:06:21 PM Reply	Yeah, a champion of Single Payer in Vermont.
Post #380,407 by Another Scott 9/8/13 4:11:39 PM Reply	And yet he supported the PPACA. Imagine that.
Post #380,409 by mmoffitt 9/8/13 5:31:35 PM Reply	He's a sixteenth of a loaf fan. For everybody else, that is. ;0) No, I like Bernie, but he used the ACA in order to get Single Payer in his state. He also switched his political affiliation from Socialist to Independent a few years back. So, he's a pragmatist. He knows that folks like the Obama Administration and his fellow career politicians are beholding to large corporations and he does the best he can by his constituents. In this case, he got the brass ring for Vermont: a single payer health plan.
Post #379,267 by mmoffitt 8/14/13 10:47:23 AM Reply	Evidence has a habit of disappearing from the tubes. You didn't click any of the links in the article I posted did you? Well, try this one: http://news.firedogl...ve-to-be-unified/ Then click the link for the White House Official Transcript the article references. Know what you'll get? 404. Have a nice day.
Post #379,269 by Another Scott 8/14/13 10:51:42 AM Reply	Archive.org is your friend. http://web.archive.o...allroom-10/20/09/ You've again missed my point. Try again. ;-) Cheers, Scott.
Post #379,280 by mmoffitt 8/14/13 3:23:20 PM Reply	Re: Archive.org is your friend. First, thanks for linky. The President's response was, essentially, "I know what you want. I know you want real reform. I know you want everybody covered. I know you want real change. But you're not going to get it. See, I made a deal with all the privateers of the existing healthcare delivery system and you're not going to screw it up. So, suck it up and take what I hand you." AUDIENCE MEMBER: Single payer! AUDIENCE MEMBER: Public option! THE PRESIDENT: Let me say this, because somebody just brought up something. (Laughter.) Among Democrats and progressives there are a whole set of views about how we should do health care. But understand that the bill you least like in Congress right now, the one you least like of the five that are out there would provide 29 million Americans health care -- 29 million Americans who don't have it right now would get it. Would that be counting the people who would have gotten it, but won't because their hours are being cut back to insure they aren't eligible? So, was he speaking naively or did he know he was slinging B.S.? If he really wanted those people covered sans profits for his Wall Street buddies, he'd have been a strong advocate for Single Payer, no? The bill you least like would prevent insurance companies from barring you from getting health insurance because of preexisting conditions. (Applause.) Um, no. Actually for the overwhelming majority the existing healthcare plan policies themselves bar non-issuance for pre-existing conditions. Mind there is no cap for policy premiums - JUST AS THERE IS NONE IN THE ACA. So, swing and a miss again. Whatever the bill you least like would set up an exchange so that people right now who are having to try to bargain for health insurance on their own are suddenly part of a pool of millions that forces insurance companies to compete for their business and give them better deals and lower rates. Um, not Ed Zachary. A lot of states are not building these exchanges. And of those that do, there is no upper bound for health insurance premiums. So there are going to be some disagreements and details to work out. Um, yeah. Like a COMPLETE Do-Over. Was that your point? :0)
Post #379,285 by Another Scott 8/14/13 3:52:11 PM Reply	No time to address everything. But you're wrong about several of your points. Mind there is no cap for policy premiums - JUST AS THERE IS NONE IN THE ACA. http://www.towerswat...yers-health-plans The PPACA also tries to make premiums more affordable to enrollees in exchanges. Individuals with family incomes between 100% and 400% of the poverty level will be eligible for sliding-scale tax credits that cap the premium for a silver plan at 2% to 9.5% of family income.4 Those with incomes between 100% and 250% of the poverty level are also eligible for cost-sharing subsidies that raise the actuarial value of a silver plan to 73% to 94%, depending on income. At all income levels, the premium for the most expensive age group is limited to three times the premium for the least expensive age group within a given plan, which will likely reduce premiums for older people.5 Premiums may not vary by personal claims history or health status. Read the rest for more of the details. There are many cost-containment features in the PPACA and there's no reason to think they won't work - http://kff.org/healt...ealth-spending-2/ Changes coming under the ACA could also affect these trends significantly. Increases in coverage will induce a modest, one-time bump of a couple percent in spending as people who were previously uninsured get insurance and better access to health services. This will likely coincide with an expected economic recovery, so higher growth rates in health spending due to that recovery should not be attributed to the ACA simply because of the coincidental timing. On the other side of the ledger, the bulk of the Medicare savings included in the ACA Â primarily achieved through smaller increases in payments to providers Â have yet to be realized and will lower the future growth in spending in that program. Changes in the delivery system Â through accountable care organizations (ACOs) and bundled payments to providers Â may also yield results and help to keep ÂexcessÂ health costs down in public programs, as well as in private insurance. In addition, the ACAÂs tax on high cost, ÂCadillacÂ employer-sponsored health plans, scheduled to take effect in 2018, is expected to trim the cost of benefits and could lead to lower overall health spending as well. Yeah, it's possible to get insurance with pre-existing conditions. But how many people didn't because they couldn't afford it, didn't want to start a business, didn't qualify for Medicaid, etc., etc. http://www.webmd.com...ve-health-problem The Federal government will build exchanges for states that don't. https://www.healthca...ce/#state=indiana Health Insurance Marketplace in Indiana If you live in Indiana, youÂll use this website, HealthCare.gov, to apply for coverage, compare plans, and enroll. You can apply as early as October 1, 2013. Learn more about the Marketplace and how you can get ready. 48 days! Don't be late!!!11 FWIW. HTH. Cheers, Scott.
Post #379,286 by mmoffitt 8/14/13 4:16:43 PM Reply	No time. Will be back tomorrow. Same Bat Channel, ... ;0)
Post #379,340 by mmoffitt 8/15/13 11:36:01 AM Reply	Okay, I'll revise. For anyone in the US making more that $46,000/year, there is no downward pressure on insurance premiums (http://aspe.hhs.gov/...ty.cfm#thresholds). And, gee, what a great deal for somebody making $45,000/year: the most they can pay a Wall Street traded, private health insurer is $4,275/year (of which up to 20% will never be spent on the delivery of healthcare). What a sweetheart of a deal! No wonder you support it! And in the face of everybody's health insurance premiums soaring, too.

Welcome to IWETHEY!