- 74,655
- 24,060
- Joined
- Apr 4, 2008
- 7,626
- 442
- Joined
- Aug 2, 2008
What is wrong with this bill? IF everyone one has health insurance then people with insurance pay alot less at the hospital. Hospital have to offer discounts to those without and up the cost to those with to make up for the lost. This balances things out. This also forces people to get insurance when they can afford not at the last minute when things go wrong.
People also can get insurance when they have issues already.
1% of your yearly pay check is not much if your living like you should if it means you get health insurance
People also can get insurance when they have issues already.
1% of your yearly pay check is not much if your living like you should if it means you get health insurance
Nike Jordan
Supporter
- 32,994
- 78,243
- Joined
- Jun 27, 2002
So how many of y'all plan on moving out of the country?
- 161
- 13
- Joined
- Feb 7, 2006
So you wish to force your morality upon the nation? So you probably think that abortions should be illegal as well.
nice strawman argument there. Access to healthcare is recognized as a human right by international human rights law and by most industrialized countries. It's not my morality. It's the morality of most of the developed world.
The Human Right to Health is protected in:
- Article 25 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights
- Articel 12 of the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights
- Article 24 of the Convention on the Rights of the Child
- Article 5 of the Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination
- Articles 12 & 14 of the Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination Against Women
- Article XI (11) of the American Declaration on Rights and Duties of Man
- Article 25 of the Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities
- 2,740
- 216
- Joined
- May 9, 2007
I for one am happy and glad it was upheld
I was unemployed/working an internship after I graduated college and I was still covered on my parents plan thanks to Obamacare. Now I'm working full-time and I have my own insurance.
I also like the fact that health insurance companies can't deny people coverage from pre-existing coverage.
What I want to look for is that reddit article/post that really simplified Obamacare and post it here.
edit, here's a yahoo article that answers some questions:
http://finance.yahoo.com/...means-for-consumers.html
edit#2 here's the reddit article explaining obamacare to a 5 year old
http://www.reddit.com/r/p...ordable_health_care_act/
I was unemployed/working an internship after I graduated college and I was still covered on my parents plan thanks to Obamacare. Now I'm working full-time and I have my own insurance.
I also like the fact that health insurance companies can't deny people coverage from pre-existing coverage.
What I want to look for is that reddit article/post that really simplified Obamacare and post it here.
edit, here's a yahoo article that answers some questions:
http://finance.yahoo.com/...means-for-consumers.html
edit#2 here's the reddit article explaining obamacare to a 5 year old
http://www.reddit.com/r/p...ordable_health_care_act/
- 4,729
- 604
- Joined
- Jun 6, 2006
Insurance companies have agreements with network hospitals, so hospitals are already "pre-capped" in what they can charge the insurance company. The "losses" that these hospitals incur are on the shoulders of the hospital themselves. Thus the reason hospitals have/are gone/going under, especially near inner cities. Now the insurance companies are going to bear the burden of these "loses" which in turn are going to be imposed on those who are paying the said insurer- that would be those of us that have insurance. Furthermore, these "loses" aren't going to decrease, with an increased burden of people now insured with only a set "bucket of money" to draw from, insurance companies are at risk of accruing massive financial debt which will be put on the consumer as much as possible until failure.
But that is ultimately what the left wants, failure of our medical system so they can say, "see we told you, we need a single payer government run system." Because our government has done such a great job with the post office, social security, etc. This bill had nothing to do with "fixing" the rising cost of healthcare. It was a power grab by the left and executive branch. Now that it has been created it will only expand and continue to expand. How many IRS employees are going to be hired under this Obamacare Tax Law?
- 7,918
- 6,300
- Joined
- Jan 19, 2005
Affordable Health Care for Americans...
Sure.
Sure.
- 4,729
- 604
- Joined
- Jun 6, 2006
Again, I'll ask the question since you didn't answer it. You wish to impose, the morality of yourself and your ilk, on the rest of our country. Not an international organization, not a charity, not a foreign entity, not a "global" political structure. I am talking about the imposition of that train of thought on the Government institution of the United States of America. The U.S. Constitution seems to be missing from your references up there. Your argument is one of morality, the same argument that is used as to why abortion should be illegal.
- 5,712
- 1,019
- Joined
- Mar 31, 2005
Cost will rise. How much? It all depends. However Health Care cost has been skyrocketing anyways in the past 10 years so what's the difference? Considering our country is a Fast/Fat food Nation, what do you expect?
Some of the pros I like...
Elderly will have their Premiums reduced due to the age rating rules!
Americans with Pre-Existing conditions can now qualify for coverage!
Poor Americans can now qualify for the Fed/State Medicaid program!
Americans can now comparison shop insurance policies!
Parents can keep children under age 26 on their insurance plans!
Some of the pros I like...
Elderly will have their Premiums reduced due to the age rating rules!
Americans with Pre-Existing conditions can now qualify for coverage!
Poor Americans can now qualify for the Fed/State Medicaid program!
Americans can now comparison shop insurance policies!
Parents can keep children under age 26 on their insurance plans!
- 9,253
- 3,007
- Joined
- Sep 10, 2005
Should have had tort reform, that would have lowered costs.
RustyShackleford
Supporter
- 64,047
- 192,219
- Joined
- Jul 20, 2009
That doesn't make you an authority,
An economist yeah, doctor nope
And based on your hyperbolic statements, just sounds like you dislike Obama.
superblytrife
Supporter
- 20,815
- 21,948
- Joined
- Mar 20, 2002
So how does that happen?
kdawg
Staff member
- 10,660
- 11,833
- Joined
- Jun 25, 2003
It's unbelievable that this is still a pervasive argument in the US - arguably the most advanced country in the world. I'm no constitutional scholar (and as most of you not American) but you'll all be familiar with the Declaration of Independence:
We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain inalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.
Would being able to live a life in good health not be part of that?
A friend of my wife's just had a freak accident which needed an ambulance, a few days in hospital and surgery. Her FB update today says "It's all fun and games until...the hospital bill arrives!". She's 35 and she's going to be paying for this for a long time. Is that fair? Is it reasonable. Does it allow "the pursuit of Happiness"? I don't think so. But hey, that's the American dream. Doesn't matter what happens to other people as long as you don't have to pay for it.
My family in the US have good healthcare as my wife's mom works for the Postal Service - but when her son had leukaemia she still had to take time each week to argue with them about the treatment and force them to pay for it. They used every trick they could to try and not pay for thousands of dollars of treatment. That doesn't do anything for the recovery of a patient - just makes money for a private company.
The US doesn't do healthcare really anyway - it provides sickness treatment. There's a lot more money in that.
I don't want to go into my pet peeve at the moment - which mostly comes from US medical practices. Partly because they are afraid of being sued and partly because they can milk insurance companies (and thus your pocket) doctors do all sorts of unncessary tests. Sure US medicine is great - it produces many great breakthroughs - but that scattergun, or cover your back, way of practising medicine isn't good and isn't cost effective. You need skilled clinicians doing the right tests to work out what is wrong. Instead you have a culture where everyone wants a MRI scan when they have a headache - "just in case".
Anyway, that's a different argument - but they're related.
- 17,722
- 7,997
- Joined
- Jul 7, 2005
Originally Posted by SunDOOBIE
Cost will rise. How much? It all depends. However Health Care cost has been skyrocketing anyways in the past 10 years so what's the difference? Considering our country is a Fast/Fat food Nation, what do you expect?
Some of the pros I like...
Elderly will have their Premiums reduced due to the age rating rules!
Americans with Pre-Existing conditions can now qualify for coverage!
Poor Americans can now qualify for the Fed/State Medicaid program!
Americans can now comparison shop insurance policies!
Parents can keep children under age 26 on their insurance plans!
Excellent post champ, and I agree 100%. I'm glad to finally see a post like this from you, it appears as though your back on track. Keep up the good work
Trey Bantz
formerly trey ohh five
- 19,602
- 10,574
- Joined
- Sep 4, 2009
From http://www.reddit.com/r/e...and_what_did_it/c530lfx, an explanation of the bill, what it does, and when it will go into effect.
Okay, explained like you're a five year-old (well, okay, maybe a bit older), without too much oversimplification, and (hopefully) without sounding too biased:
What people call "Obamacare" is actually the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act. However, people were calling it "Obamacare" before everyone even hammered out what it would be. It's a term mostly used by people who don't like the PPACA, and it's become popularized in part because PPACA is a really long and awkward name, even when you turn it into an acronym like that.
Anyway, the PPACA made a bunch of new rules regarding health care, with the purpose of making health care more affordable for everyone. Opponents of the PPACA, on the other hand, feel that the rules it makes take away too many freedoms and force people (both individuals and businesses) to do things they shouldn't have to.
So what does it do? Well, here is everything, in the order of when it goes into effect (because some of it happens later than other parts of it):
Already in effect:
It allows the Food and Drug Administration to approve more generic drugs (making for more competition in the market to drive down prices)
It increases the rebates on drugs people get through Medicare (so drugs cost less)
It establishes a non-profit group, that the government doesn't directly control, PCORI, to study different kinds of treatments to see what works better and is the best use of money. ( Citation: Page 665, sec. 1181 )
It makes chain restaurants like McDonalds display how many calories are in all of their foods, so people can have an easier time making choices to eat healthy. ( Citation: Page 499, sec. 4205 )
It makes a "high-risk pool" for people with pre-existing conditions. Basically, this is a way to slowly ease into getting rid of "pre-existing conditions" altogether. For now, people who already have health issues that would be considered "pre-existing conditions" can still get insurance, but at different rates than people without them.
It renews some old policies, and calls for the appointment of various positions.
It creates a new 10% tax on indoor tanning booths. ( Citation: Page 923, sec. 5000B )
It says that health insurance companies can no longer tell customers that they won't get any more coverage because they have hit a "lifetime limit". Basically, if someone has paid for health insurance, that company can't tell that person that he's used that insurance too much throughout his life so they won't cover him any more. They can't do this for lifetime spending, and they're limited in how much they can do this for yearly spending. ( Citation: Page 14, sec. 2711 )
Kids can continue to be covered by their parents' health insurance until they're 26.
No more "pre-existing conditions" for kids under the age of 19.
Insurers have less ability to change the amount customers have to pay for their plans.
People in a "Medicare Gap" get a rebate to make up for the extra money they would otherwise have to spend.
Insurers can't just drop customers once they get sick. ( Citation: Page 14, sec. 2712 )
Insurers have to tell customers what they're spending money on. (Instead of just "administrative fee", they have to be more specific).
Insurers need to have an appeals process for when they turn down a claim, so customers have some manner of recourse other than a lawsuit when they're turned down.
New ways to stop fraud are created.
Medicare extends to smaller hospitals.
Medicare patients with chronic illnesses must be monitored more thoroughly.
Reduces the costs for some companies that handle benefits for the elderly.
A new website is made to give people insurance and health information. (I think this is it: http://www.healthcare.gov/ ).
A credit program is made that will make it easier for business to invest in new ways to treat illness.
A limit is placed on just how much of a percentage of the money an insurer makes can be profit, to make sure they're not price-gouging customers.
A limit is placed on what type of insurance accounts can be used to pay for over-the-counter drugs without a prescription. Basically, your insurer isn't paying for the Aspirin you bought for that hangover.
Employers need to list the benefits they provided to employees on their tax forms.
8/1/2012
Any health plans sold after this date must provide preventative care (mammograms, colonoscopies, etc.) without requiring any sort of co-pay or charge.
1/1/2013
If you make over $200,000 a year, your taxes go up a tiny bit (0.9%). Edit: To address those who take issue with the word "tiny", a change of 0.9% is relatively tiny. Any look at how taxes have fluctuated over the years will reveal that a change of less than one percent is miniscule, especially when we're talking about people in the top 5% of earners.
1/1/2014
This is when a lot of the really big changes happen.
No more "pre-existing conditions". At all. People will be charged the same regardless of their medical history.
If you can afford insurance but do not get it, you will be charged a fee. This is the "mandate" that people are talking about. Basically, it's a trade-off for the "pre-existing conditions" bit, saying that since insurers now have to cover you regardless of what you have, you can't just wait to buy insurance until you get sick. Otherwise no one would buy insurance until they needed it. You can opt not to get insurance, but you'll have to pay the fee instead, unless of course you're not buying insurance because you just can't afford it.
Insurers now can't do annual spending caps. Their customers can get as much health care in a given year as they need. ( Citation: Page 14, sec. 2711 )
Make it so more poor people can get Medicaid by making the low-income cut-off higher.
Small businesses get some tax credits for two years.
Businesses with over 50 employees must offer health insurance to full-time employees, or pay a penalty.
Limits how high of an annual deductible insurers can charge customers.
Cut some Medicare spending
Place a $2500 limit on tax-free spending on FSAs (accounts for medical spending). Basically, people using these accounts now have to pay taxes on any money over $2500 they put into them.
Establish health insurance exchanges and rebates for the lower and middle-class, basically making it so they have an easier time getting affordable medical coverage.
Congress and Congressional staff will only be offered the same insurance offered to people in the insurance exchanges, rather than Federal Insurance. Basically, we won't be footing their health care bills any more than any other American citizen.
A new tax on pharmaceutical companies.
A new tax on the purchase of medical devices.
A new tax on insurance companies based on their market share. Basically, the more of the market they control, the more they'll get taxed.
The amount you can deduct from your taxes for medical expenses increases.
1/1/2015
Doctors' pay will be determined by the quality of their care, not how many people they treat. Edit: a_real_MD addresses questions regarding this one in far more detail and with far more expertise than I can offer in this post. If you're looking for a more in-depth explanation of this one (as many of you are), I highly recommend you give his post a read.
1/1/2017
If any state can come up with their own plan, one which gives citizens the same level of care at the same price as the PPACA, they can ask the Secretary of Health and Human Resources for permission to do their plan instead of the PPACA. So if they can get the same results without, say, the mandate, they can be allowed to do so. Vermont, for example, has expressed a desire to just go straight to single-payer (in simple terms, everyone is covered, and medical expenses are paid by taxpayers).
2018
All health care plans must now cover preventative care (not just the new ones).
A new tax on "Cadillac" health care plans (more expensive plans for rich people who want fancier coverage).
2020
The elimination of the "Medicare gap"
Okay, explained like you're a five year-old (well, okay, maybe a bit older), without too much oversimplification, and (hopefully) without sounding too biased:
What people call "Obamacare" is actually the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act. However, people were calling it "Obamacare" before everyone even hammered out what it would be. It's a term mostly used by people who don't like the PPACA, and it's become popularized in part because PPACA is a really long and awkward name, even when you turn it into an acronym like that.
Anyway, the PPACA made a bunch of new rules regarding health care, with the purpose of making health care more affordable for everyone. Opponents of the PPACA, on the other hand, feel that the rules it makes take away too many freedoms and force people (both individuals and businesses) to do things they shouldn't have to.
So what does it do? Well, here is everything, in the order of when it goes into effect (because some of it happens later than other parts of it):
Already in effect:
It allows the Food and Drug Administration to approve more generic drugs (making for more competition in the market to drive down prices)
It increases the rebates on drugs people get through Medicare (so drugs cost less)
It establishes a non-profit group, that the government doesn't directly control, PCORI, to study different kinds of treatments to see what works better and is the best use of money. ( Citation: Page 665, sec. 1181 )
It makes chain restaurants like McDonalds display how many calories are in all of their foods, so people can have an easier time making choices to eat healthy. ( Citation: Page 499, sec. 4205 )
It makes a "high-risk pool" for people with pre-existing conditions. Basically, this is a way to slowly ease into getting rid of "pre-existing conditions" altogether. For now, people who already have health issues that would be considered "pre-existing conditions" can still get insurance, but at different rates than people without them.
It renews some old policies, and calls for the appointment of various positions.
It creates a new 10% tax on indoor tanning booths. ( Citation: Page 923, sec. 5000B )
It says that health insurance companies can no longer tell customers that they won't get any more coverage because they have hit a "lifetime limit". Basically, if someone has paid for health insurance, that company can't tell that person that he's used that insurance too much throughout his life so they won't cover him any more. They can't do this for lifetime spending, and they're limited in how much they can do this for yearly spending. ( Citation: Page 14, sec. 2711 )
Kids can continue to be covered by their parents' health insurance until they're 26.
No more "pre-existing conditions" for kids under the age of 19.
Insurers have less ability to change the amount customers have to pay for their plans.
People in a "Medicare Gap" get a rebate to make up for the extra money they would otherwise have to spend.
Insurers can't just drop customers once they get sick. ( Citation: Page 14, sec. 2712 )
Insurers have to tell customers what they're spending money on. (Instead of just "administrative fee", they have to be more specific).
Insurers need to have an appeals process for when they turn down a claim, so customers have some manner of recourse other than a lawsuit when they're turned down.
New ways to stop fraud are created.
Medicare extends to smaller hospitals.
Medicare patients with chronic illnesses must be monitored more thoroughly.
Reduces the costs for some companies that handle benefits for the elderly.
A new website is made to give people insurance and health information. (I think this is it: http://www.healthcare.gov/ ).
A credit program is made that will make it easier for business to invest in new ways to treat illness.
A limit is placed on just how much of a percentage of the money an insurer makes can be profit, to make sure they're not price-gouging customers.
A limit is placed on what type of insurance accounts can be used to pay for over-the-counter drugs without a prescription. Basically, your insurer isn't paying for the Aspirin you bought for that hangover.
Employers need to list the benefits they provided to employees on their tax forms.
8/1/2012
Any health plans sold after this date must provide preventative care (mammograms, colonoscopies, etc.) without requiring any sort of co-pay or charge.
1/1/2013
If you make over $200,000 a year, your taxes go up a tiny bit (0.9%). Edit: To address those who take issue with the word "tiny", a change of 0.9% is relatively tiny. Any look at how taxes have fluctuated over the years will reveal that a change of less than one percent is miniscule, especially when we're talking about people in the top 5% of earners.
1/1/2014
This is when a lot of the really big changes happen.
No more "pre-existing conditions". At all. People will be charged the same regardless of their medical history.
If you can afford insurance but do not get it, you will be charged a fee. This is the "mandate" that people are talking about. Basically, it's a trade-off for the "pre-existing conditions" bit, saying that since insurers now have to cover you regardless of what you have, you can't just wait to buy insurance until you get sick. Otherwise no one would buy insurance until they needed it. You can opt not to get insurance, but you'll have to pay the fee instead, unless of course you're not buying insurance because you just can't afford it.
Insurers now can't do annual spending caps. Their customers can get as much health care in a given year as they need. ( Citation: Page 14, sec. 2711 )
Make it so more poor people can get Medicaid by making the low-income cut-off higher.
Small businesses get some tax credits for two years.
Businesses with over 50 employees must offer health insurance to full-time employees, or pay a penalty.
Limits how high of an annual deductible insurers can charge customers.
Cut some Medicare spending
Place a $2500 limit on tax-free spending on FSAs (accounts for medical spending). Basically, people using these accounts now have to pay taxes on any money over $2500 they put into them.
Establish health insurance exchanges and rebates for the lower and middle-class, basically making it so they have an easier time getting affordable medical coverage.
Congress and Congressional staff will only be offered the same insurance offered to people in the insurance exchanges, rather than Federal Insurance. Basically, we won't be footing their health care bills any more than any other American citizen.
A new tax on pharmaceutical companies.
A new tax on the purchase of medical devices.
A new tax on insurance companies based on their market share. Basically, the more of the market they control, the more they'll get taxed.
The amount you can deduct from your taxes for medical expenses increases.
1/1/2015
Doctors' pay will be determined by the quality of their care, not how many people they treat. Edit: a_real_MD addresses questions regarding this one in far more detail and with far more expertise than I can offer in this post. If you're looking for a more in-depth explanation of this one (as many of you are), I highly recommend you give his post a read.
1/1/2017
If any state can come up with their own plan, one which gives citizens the same level of care at the same price as the PPACA, they can ask the Secretary of Health and Human Resources for permission to do their plan instead of the PPACA. So if they can get the same results without, say, the mandate, they can be allowed to do so. Vermont, for example, has expressed a desire to just go straight to single-payer (in simple terms, everyone is covered, and medical expenses are paid by taxpayers).
2018
All health care plans must now cover preventative care (not just the new ones).
A new tax on "Cadillac" health care plans (more expensive plans for rich people who want fancier coverage).
2020
The elimination of the "Medicare gap"
- 4,837
- 215
- Joined
- Apr 22, 2010
- 3,949
- 1,197
- Joined
- Nov 16, 2001
Not that it will since lawyers make up the majority of congress, but...
Tort reform is a MUST if we want to get this country back on track. A loser pays system would prevent a heavy majority of the frivolous lawsuits that take place. Doctors practice in a defensive method now so they don't get sued rather than on a manner which they deem best for the care of their patients. I also believe that if we eliminated the medicare/medicaid limits that doctors could bill for, we would also limit the amount that they would be influenced by drug companies to prescribe unneeded medicines to patients since there is often an incentive or kickback from that.
I'm surprised that the opposition to the ACA hasn't constantly brought up that once medicare was passed by Johnson, the cost of healthcare begin to rise drastically. Since we as consumers no longer pay for it, we no longer know exactly how much our care is costing and thus use it more often that we need. Prior to the UAW negotiating healthcare into their contracts with the Big 3, workers were responsible for paying their own healthcare costs (read ~ insurance).
If you think that health care costs will decrease now, think about what the cost of education used to be before we deemed that everyone should have the right to go to college whether they were qualified or not. Once the government started subsidizing student loan costs, colleges were more than willing to increase the price of an education to offset any savings that would have been had with increased government funding and used that to increase their endowments.
- 9,264
- 58
- Joined
- Jun 30, 2003
much to digest ... it's a step in the right direction ... at the end of the day though ... we have too many people that don't have the best interest of the country in mind ... nothing matters until both parties work together on everything ... too much greed, corruption and nonsense
/rant
/rant
- 4,837
- 215
- Joined
- Apr 22, 2010
I always thought that blaming the people who weren't insured for the rising health care costs was wrong. Reason being that large portion of these people never used health care. The people that were to blame for rising health care costs are the people who HAD health insurance. You can't inflate the cost on someone who can't pay, you can inflate the cost of care who HAS insurance because they do not see the DIRECT cost of care. Hospitals will always inflate the cost, because they have a bottom line and they know they will be reimbursed by the insurance companies.
Now that everyone will have insurance, just wait and see how much the cost will inflate.
Now that everyone will have insurance, just wait and see how much the cost will inflate.
- 4,729
- 604
- Joined
- Jun 6, 2006
Would being able to live a life in good health not be part of that?
A friend of my wife's just had a freak accident which needed an ambulance, a few days in hospital and surgery. Her FB update today says "It's all fun and games until...the hospital bill arrives!
My family in the US have good healthcare as my wife's mom works for the Postal Service - but when her son had leukaemia she still had to take time each week to argue with them about the treatment and force them to pay for it. They used every trick they could to try and not pay for thousands of dollars of treatment. That doesn't do anything for the recovery of a patient - just makes money for a private company.
The US doesn't do healthcare really anyway - it provides sickness treatment. There's a lot more money in that.
I don't want to go into my pet peeve at the moment - which mostly comes from US medical practices. Partly because they are afraid of being sued and partly because they can milk insurance companies (and thus your pocket) doctors do all sorts of unncessary tests. Sure US medicine is great - it produces many great breakthroughs - but that scattergun, or cover your back, way of practising medicine isn't good and isn't cost effective. You need skilled clinicians doing the right tests to work out what is wrong. Instead you have a culture where everyone wants a MRI scan when they have a headache - "just in case".
Anyway, that's a different argument - but they're related.
The Declaration of Independence only proves my point. Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness are in the context of a persons rights to be free from government control. Freedom of self-reliance without having to give one's life for the benefit of anothers'. Freedom of thought without government control of thought. Freedom to achieve happiness without devote one's existence to another- hence, happiness.
The DoI stated that the government work for the people and not the people for the government. It was a rejection of the British monarchy. It is this context in which these terms apply.
And in this case the U.S. government is telling us we do have an obligation to the moral existence of others. We are responsible to pay for the others at the expense of the self. You are in essence giving of money that would promote your self well-being for the well-being of other individuals. Of course this situation is not the same, because we as a society "chose" this for ourselves. Chose, is a relative term because our elected officials passed this tax law without reading the bill, without civil discourse, and without any of the openness and transparency that the Obama administration promised us.
As I feel for your family's plight. This tax law did nothing to improve the healthcare system, it only extended benefits to more individuals at the cost of others. The rising cost needs to be fixed before we dump more people on a broken system.
kdawg
Staff member
- 10,660
- 11,833
- Joined
- Jun 25, 2003
- 1,519
- 152
- Joined
- May 2, 2007
Really? I work for DPH and all the M.D. here praise the ACA.
- 4,837
- 215
- Joined
- Apr 22, 2010
DPH as in Department of Pubic Health?
- 4,729
- 604
- Joined
- Jun 6, 2006
Government bureaucracy employees happy with an extension of bureaucracy resources does not surprise me.
- 5,215
- 118
- Joined
- May 18, 2009
A few things from the Reddit post: