Doctor tells Obama supporters: Go elsewhere for health care

[Ignignokt]

Not at all. My question was quite clear.

Thanks for acknowledging your ignorance.

What a .

I agree, i never doubted you're questions were clear, but questioned their motives.

Thanks for acknowledging your ignorance.

What a .

[Ignignokt]

I asked you a question about it because I didn't know the answer.

You avoided it for awhile, then finally answered it (not that you actually looked anything up, you just guessed), now you are avoiding other questions to avoid looking even more ignorant.

It's OK. I already know you are ignorant.

I'll admit to not looking up whether paying out of pocket was banned from Obamacare.

But since it was a serious question, and you're serious. You should read all the 2000 + pages to find out whether paying out of pocket with or without insurance is illegal or has been banned.

Cuz, seriously, that's a serious question you've been asking through out this thread.

lolololololololol



no seriously, you should write a report and dedicate time.

[ChumpDumper]

I'll admit to not looking up whether paying out of pocket was banned from Obamacare.

Thanks for admitting you just made up.

You pwned yourself again.

[ChumpDumper]

I agree, i never doubted you're questions were clear, but questioned their motives.

My motive was wanting an answer to the question.

Thanks for acknowledging you made it up and continue to flaunt your ignorance.

What a .

[Ignignokt]

Thanks for admitting you just made up.

You pwned yourself again.

And you can't make up with serious questions!

[ChumpDumper]

self pwnage sprinkled with contradiction is awesome.

My ignorance on one question <> your ignorance on many questions.

[Ignignokt]

My motive was wanting an answer to the question.

Thanks for acknowledging you made it up and continue to flaunt your ignorance.

What a .

Thanks for acknowledging it was a dumb question.

Hey if the question is really important, i'll make a thread with the question posed. okay.

Let me know if that's okay with you..<chuckles>..

[ChumpDumper]

And you can't make up with serious questions!

But you can make up with the answers.

[ChumpDumper]

Thanks for acknowledging it was a dumb question.

It wasn't a dumb question.

Hey if the question is really important, i'll make a thread with the question posed. okay.

Is it important to you? I believe I have my answer. Do you just want to make a thread about me? I'm sure that has crossed your mind.

Let me know if that's okay with you..<chuckles>..

Why do you feel the need to ask my permission?

[ChumpDumper]

I will say this: from what I know, a regular person can go without actually buying insurance and can pay a doctor out of pocket under this bill -- and not have to be a member of a union or government either.

I could be wrong. You are free to disprove this assumption.

[Blake]

The AMA's endorsement was bought off for support.

http://www.thebulletin.us/articles/2...e487973886.txt

of course your source would be a biased republican rag.

....And among the many reasons for the AMA's historic shift is one practical consideration: Obama's plan promises to provide millions of government dollars to help millions of patients pay their doctor bills.


http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/c...,7112379.story

they got "paid off" with the promise of helping doctors get paid.

[George Gervin's Afro]

of course your source would be a biased republican rag.



they got "paid off" with the promise of helping doctors get paid.

many of the dead enders sources are from a right win site or dead ender blogger... par for the course

the dcotors were paid off...to support a bill that will make them poorer... no i'm not kidding that is the current argument floating around..

[Blake]

That is like saying all the teachers agree with what their union does.

That's like saying all catholics have a soft stance on pedophillia because of the Vaticans lax rules.

That's like saying all doctors agree with slanted republican bloggers.

[Blake]

the dcotors were paid off...to support a bill that will make them poorer... no i'm not kidding that is the current argument floating around..

and none of them have really explained in detail how the doctors will make them poorer.

It's all been fuzzy guesstures about having to hire more help or the possibility of having a hard time of getting paid by medicare.

the best part of this thread has been watching Ignignokt get on.

very entertaining.

[Ignignokt]

I will say this: from what I know, a regular person can go without actually buying insurance and can pay a doctor out of pocket under this bill -- and not have to be a member of a union or government either.

I could be wrong. You are free to disprove this assumption.

How do you know that to be so?

I hope you're not making up.

[ChumpDumper]

How do you know that to be so?

I read things.

I hope you're not making up.

I'm not.

Feel free to actually prove me wrong. Something tells me you won't even try.

[Ignignokt]

I read things.

I'm not.

Feel free to actually prove me wrong. Something tells me you won't even try.

, you made the assumption, the burden is on you.

Tell me, how can the avg american opt out of mandated insurance?

i knew you were a big hypocrite.

[Ignignokt]

btw, i posted your serious question.

http://www.spurstalk.com/forums/showthread.php?t=150353

Hopefully people will take it seriously, and give us some answers.

[Ignignokt]

Tell me, how can the avg american opt out of mandated insurance?

[Winehole23]

Easy, by not being able to afford it or by refusing to pay for it.

There may be legal consequences for doing so, but short of fear of those very same consequences, there is no effective bar to opting out of the mandate all on one's own.

[Winehole23]

The penalties for noncompliance, at least to start with, are cheaper than the insurance itself. Seems to me noncompliance will be a no-brainer for lots of people.

[ChumpDumper]

[Winehole23]

Gaming the system in MA:

http://reason.com/blog/2010/04/05/qu...es-with-my-hea

[Winehole23]

When states tried to fix their individual health insurance markets—the marketplace for those who don't get insurance through their employers—the initial idea was to simply prohibit insurers from discriminating against individuals with preexisting conditions. But that caused what insurers called a "death spiral"—ever higher premiums as relatively healthy people decided to wait until they were sick to buy insurance, leaving smaller and smaller pools of more and more expensive individuals.

The solution to this problem, both in Massachusetts and in ObamaCare, was the individual mandate: Force everyone to pay in, bringing balance to the insurance pool and keeping prices down. Of course, that only works if everyone is actually compelled to purchase insurance. And a report by the Joint Committee on Taxation last week seems to indicate that, as written, the individual mandate may not have any teeth. Here's the relevant passage:

The penalty [for not purchasing insurance] applies to any period the individual does not maintain minimum essential coverage and is determined monthly. The penalty is assessed through the Code and accounted for as an additional amount of Federal tax owed. However, it is not subject to the enforcement provisions of sub le F of the Code. The use of liens and seizures otherwise authorized for collection of taxes does not apply to the collection of this penalty. Non-compliance with the personal responsibility requirement to have health coverage is not subject to criminal or civil penalties under the Code and interest does not accrue for failure to pay such assessments in a timely manner.

And the footnote on Code F:

IRS authority to assess and collect taxes is generally provided in sub le F, “Procedure and Administration” in the Code. That sub le establishes the rules governing both how taxpayers are required to report information to the IRS and pay their taxes as well as their rights. It also establishes the duties and authority of the IRS to enforce the Code, including civil and criminal penalties.

So there are penalties for not purchasing insurance. But there's no serious enforcement mechanism allowing the IRS to make sure those penalties get paid? Given the importance of the mandate to the health reform project, this doesn't make much sense. The law was designed to expand the number of individuals with health insurance. But without the ability to enforce the individual mandate, any expansion will likely be significantly smaller than projected.


Now, there is plenty of time to amend the enforcement provisions before the mandate kicks in in 2014. But if this is true, and it remains true, it could upend the entire health reform project.

http://reason.com/blog/2010/03/29/in...spiral-here-we

[whottt]

So you are saying we can just not pay the insurance or the penalty and that will be the end of it? Anyone?

Awesome. In that case consider all my complaints rescinded.