JMS

The morning after pill is irrelevant. It's was legal and covered by insurance BEFORE Obamacare. Larry as usual, with the exception being when he argues against me vociferously, is correct. The name does matter.

The catholic church opposes the birth control pill and probable every other kind of birth control.. Hobby Lobby opposes 4 of the 20 federally approved methods of birth control..

If you want viagra.. that's covered.. nobody is complaining about it except maybe your wife if you don't get it. Viagra which has been around for 10 years and is used by what 10% of all males over 50? If Peggy Sue want's the pill, something that's been around for 50 years and is used by 90% of all women at one time or another over their life... That's unprecedented.. outrageous and against God's word? It's really obscene logic even if it wasn't bending all concepts of religious freedom on it's head. Since when does somebody else's religious freedom give them the right to tell others what they can and can't do? Your health insurance is YOUR HEALTH INSURANCE.. It's not your employers health insurance. They don't get to sit in with you and your doctor and mandate what procedures you will or will not receive. What procedures you can and can't consider. The Christian Science Church doesn't get to go into a hospital and sweep it for their people.. Doesn't get to tell doctors they can't operate on folks who are in their flock... It's the individual Christian scientists who get to make up their own minds about what treatment they will or will not get because of their beliefs. It's the CBO, and they aren't predicting something even 3 years down the road... They are stating this year the Federal Government will take in 8 billion dollars more under Obamcare than the CBO predicted would occur 5 years ago. ? I really don't know what your point is... Did you catch that stat I posted earlier * Profits at U.S. health insurance companies increased by 56 percent just in 2009 alone. That's before Obamacare... At least Obamacare Caps what insurance companies can apply to overhead... including profits.. That's a huge step up.. Do we still pay to much for insurance absolutely... but at least now we have more folks covered, and some caps on how much we can be exploited for profits. Obamacare isn't the fix.. It's just one step on the road to a fix.

Uh, yeah, it's exactly as I'm saying.. Obamacare's says if you employ more than x number of employee's you must provide insurance to your employee's. And if you are going to sell insurance in this country you have to cover certain minimum benefits. Included in the minimum benefits which all insurance must cover are woman specific healthcare things like birth control. Hobby Shack is saying... Hey, we are a christian company, and we don't like our employee's having sex, so we don't want to pay for them to have birth control. They want to suggest that the folks managing the company have the right to impose their religious views on their employees... Same with the Catholic Church. The Catholic Church is one of the largest employers in the state of Kentucky or Tennessee running several different businesses including several large Hospitals. The Catholic Church wants the right to say Hey, we're catholic and nobody who works for us can use Birth Control... It's our companies religion. The Federal Government should say... Hey, your personal religion is up to you. YOU get to decide whatever the hell you want to do for yourself. BUT if you want to run a business in our country you have fulfill the business requirements of any company other entity which does business in our country. And in this case that means providing healthcare which meets the designated minimum levels of service to your employees... That you don't like folks using birth control isn't your choice, it's your employee's choice and always has been.. so deal with it or go back to dark ages Europe where your ideas of religions imposing their beliefs on folks regardless of the folks beliefs belong.

Really, when was the last time you saw a Corporation get Circumcised? There is a big difference between the religions of the folks who are controling the corporation and saying all the people who have invested money in that corporation subscribe to that guys religion. Really, you think the Catholic church should be able to enter a hospital and intercede between a doctor and a nun or a priest who is receiving some procedure the Catholic church doesn't agree with? I would argue the Catholic Church doesn't even have the right to know what doctors procedures a Nun or a Priest may undergoe as it is none of their damned business. It's the Nun or Priest's religion who is protected under the law... Not the Churches. The Church doesn't have the right to burn folks at the stake either.. The people's right not to be burned at the stake trumps the Churches right! The Church doesn't have any rights to impose things on folks in this country.. never has. It's a right they want to claim now.

Hobby Lobby is a what, not a who. And they are objecting to providing minimum health insurance to their employees. They want to pick and choose what services their employees received based upon the religious beliefs of the folks who control the company.. It's like me saying if you work for me and I'm jewish I have the right to circumcise you because hey, It's my religious beliefs.. Where did you get that from, Rush Limbaugh? There are no voided cuts. CBO said in 2010 Obamacare would reduce the deficit by 143 billion from 2010-2019. An average of 14 billion per year. http://useconomy.about.com/od/candidatesandtheeconomy/f/Healthcare_Reform_and_Budget.htm In just feb of 2014 the CBO told the Senate the US government would save an additional 8 billion in 2014. And the CBO is still saying we will save more than a trillion dollars over the second ten years of the law.

Yep... * In 2009 One out of every $700 spent on healthcare in this country went to pay for the compensation of a single healthcare executive. the President of UnitedHealth.[/size] * The chairman of Aetna, the third largest health insurance company in the United States, brought in a staggering [/size]$68.7 million during 2010. Ron Williams [/size] * “profits at 10 of the country’s largest publicly-traded health insurance companies in 2007, rose 428 percent from 2000 to 2007, from $2.4 billion to $12.9 billion.” [/size] [/size]http://healthcareforamericanow.org/site/content/new_report_private_insurers_consolidate_and_control_prices * Profits at U.S. health insurance companies increased [/size]by 56 percent just in 2009 alone.[/size] * According to a report by Health Care for America Now, America’s five biggest for-profit health insurance companies ended 2009 [/size]with a combined profit of $12.2 billion.[/size] * According to an article on the Mother Jones website, health insurance premiums for small employers in the U.S. [/size]increased 180% between 1999 and 2009.[/size] * Between 2000 and 2006, wages in the United States increased by 3.8%, but health care premiums [/size]increased by 87%.[/size] * In 2007, the chief executive officers the counties 10 largest healthcare companies collected combined total compensation of $118.6 million — an average of $11.9 million each.” [/size]http://healthcareforamericanow.org/site/content/new_report_private_insurers_consolidate_and_control_prices * The top executives at the five largest for-profit health insurance companies in the United States combined to receive [/size]nearly $200 million in total compensation in 2009.[/size] * before Obamacare o[/size]ne study found that [/size]approximately 41 percent of working age Americans either have medical bill problems or are currently paying off medical debt.[/size] * before Obamacare [/size]Over the last decade, the number of Americans without health insurance has risen from about 38 million [/size]to about 52 million.[/size] * According to one survey, approximately 1 out of every 4 Californians under the age of 65 [/size]had absolutely no health insurance.[/size] * Before Obamacare according to a report published in The American Journal of Medicine, medical bills were a major factor in [/size]more than 60 percent of the personal bankruptcies in the United States. Of those bankruptcies that were caused by medical bills, approximately 75 percent of them involved individuals that actually did have health insurance.[/size] http://endoftheamericandream.com/archives/25-shocking-facts-that-prove-that-the-entire-u-s-health-care-industry-has-become-one-giant-money-making-scam

How does Obamacare expedite the process? Employers could offer high deductible plans before Obamacare. Obamacare just says if you have insurance it actually has to do something, which is the big difference between pre and post Obamacare coverage.

? What?, This article doesn't have anything to do with savings. We are already saving money, and the savings accelerate the longer this law is in effect.. Only we aren't saving enough so Obamacare will need to be augmented by the next administration with more savings. Obamacare was more about enrolling the unenrolled and making the healthcare system work better. Folks not loosing their insurance if they got sick, folks buying insurance which won't cover them for much, folks being denied insurance because they had been sick or might get sick again in the future, and Insurance companies spending 30-40-50% of their annual budgets on overhead.

Just kills me... Since when does religious freedom mean the Religion get's to make decisions for citizens whether they subscribe to that religion or not. Should Religious freedom mean the people get to decide what they believe themselves? I mean most Catholic women use birth control at some time or another, as is their right. Should the Catholic Church be able to impose Catholic doctrine upon them if they happen to work for a Catholic business? What if they aren't catholic? What if the business is owned by Christian Scientists are they exempt from providing any healthcare? Are the Christian Scientists going to become to American Corporations what Libya is to the Merchant Marine Fleet? What if the business is Jewish owned.. can they imposed circumcision on all male employee's because it's their religion? Doesn't it make it more just to just let people decide the tenets of their own religion and say businesses universally must offer some minimum services.

In a startling reversal. The GOP has issued law to dramatically expand Obamacare coverage prior to the 2016 elections. The democrats have applauded the effort and Obama has pledged to sign it and labeled it exactly the kind of improvement the law needs...

I have already explained why number 1 is occurring and it's not because of Obamacare, but you keep claiming it is a result of Obamacare. Actually I didn't claim it one way or the other... I mearly stated it as fact... A fact which you seem to be aware of and agree with..... It is true that early on in this trend many believed the slow economy was playing a larger role in this new trend as the growth in healthcare costs was down even before Obamacare was fully implemented.... But that argument has become more shrill as Obamcare getting fully inplemented as accellerated the reduction in healthcare costs even while the economy has been growing... 3% in the last quarter of 2013.... and the healthcare cost growth contunues at a 30 year low of 1.5%... At the very least you will admit since we know Obamacare was budget neutral over the last 3 years, and healthcare costs are now so low.. The very least you can conceed is OBamcare isn't increasing the cost of healthcare... Which is a huge admistion given 30 million more americans are going to get healthcare out of this deal. 2 and 3 will be observed over time, but typically we see a different result. Again the rock beneeth your feet when you make that argument is not only crumbled... it's gone. The CBO reported it's predictions 4 years ago... You aren't arguing with predictions anymore now you are arguing with history, at least for the near term CBO predictions.... What makes the GOP's arguments on the costs of Obamacare savings so two faced is they acknowledged the savings Obamacare yeilds us when they wrote themselves an exemption for paying for the repeal of this bill, as they've tried to repeal it in the GOP lead congress now what 30, 40 times... Each time giving themselves an exemption for having to pay to cost for repealing the plan which saves us hundreds of billions of dollars. Under Obamacare, Yes the costs get passed on to the taxpayer... and the subsidized heathcare consumer... and the insurance company who wrote him the policy.. But before Obamcare it was just the taxpayer to got soaked.. Yes we pay for a subsidy.... which is a manageable negotiated thing... Which is a good thing right!! Why do most americans who can afford insurance, have insurance? Because if you can afford it, it's a smart thing to have... All I'm saying is it's still a smart thing to have even if you can't afford it.... Even if the consumer can't afford it, it makes good economic sense for the folks who are holding the burden of that dudes care to get insurance on him..... Do we pay for his insurance... yeah if he can't pay for it himself we absolutely do... we put him in a program where his care is negotiated out, costed out, and can be managed... HELL YES.... And if he can pay for a percentage of his insurance... then we let him pay for that insurance and we pick up what he can't pay for... We the consumer don't get soaked with a huge bill for unensured services... and the consumer has to pay for a percentage of his coverage... If insurance makes sense for a guy making 100k, it makes sense for the government who is responsible for a guy making 15 k...... It's not all that abstract an argument.

In my example the guy was getting subsidized insurance... So he is, and we are... which is cheaper than not giving him any insurance and allowing him to get services which has been the status quo for the last few decades. As I said, in this new model the healthcare consumer pays for a part of his insurance depending upon his income.. what he can afford..... and the hospital charges less for services for seeing someone with insurance than someone without... Both mean we win financially when compared to what it was costing us to allow that guy to go to the hospital without insurance and having the bill passed along to us anyway. No no no... the pool is bigger... a lot bigger... That's why the insurance industry endorsed Obamacare... cause now they have 30 million more consumers.... The subsidized guy pays every month just like you or I even though he doesn't use services.. His money goes to pay for the folks who do get services in that time period.... ( along with our money ).... The net pool is larger, not smaller. To be clear... Obamcare isn't about actually saving money... Obamacare was about (1) covering more Americans in our broken system.. (2) Trying to slow the growth to healthcare costs... which is what folks like the CBO is calling savings.... Instead of growing at say 3-4% or tripple the rate of inflation since the 1970's, we are going to modestly curb the growth of healthcare costs to say 3%... which saves us 100's ob billions leading to trillions over time..... What we've seen is healthcare costs have dropped to about half their 30 year average... or 1.5%.... Healthcare costs are still going up... just going up slower than at any time over the last 30 years.. The penelty for not getting insurance is about equal to the cost of getting insurance... so frankly there is no benifit finantially under obamacare to refuse to get insurance... Not everybody has gotten insurance yet, and they will probable delay the penalty phase... but the model is sound... get insurane or we will penalize you...

Chip, If you make a meaninful post I'll give you a targeted meaningful reply. Please be specific on which fact you disagree with.... Facts are: (1) Healthcare costs since March of 2013 when Obamcare went into effect are growing at a 30 year low. Some trends suggest this change will be perminent.. (2) Obamacare was paid for... it's a budget neutral bill over the first few years and a net positive over the first ten to the tune of more than 100 billion dollars. According to the CBO, which hasn't changed. (3) Obamacare after ten years will save the US Trillions according to the CBO and that hasn't changed either.. All of those would seem to be great things for the US consumer and positive things for fiscal conservatives... So I'm not sure which one you are most uncertain about.

No no no... gettting a subsidized plan isn't the same as getting a plan for free... folks still have to pay for a subsidized plan... which is the point... (1) the consumers are contributing under Obamacare... (2) The hostpitals charge those guys for services based upon the negotiated price the insurance company has with them; and not on the rape the consumer cost the uninsured get...... Net effect is we save a lot of coin by insuring folks even while expanding medicare and subsidizing a lot of the new plans.

Yeah the Hospitals writing off unpaid bills is still the US Taxpayer getting soaked for the costs... And facts are under Obamacare healthcare cost increases are at a historic 30 year low averaging 1.5% since March of 2013 when Obamacare went fully into effect; less than half the 30 year average for growth in healthcare costs... The lowest growth in healthcare costs for 30 years. Not to mention the fact the CBO has has several reports stating Obamacare is a net positive for the budget, the deficite, and the American consumer... (1) It's all paid for.. (2) It saves hundreds of billions over the first 10 years, and trillions after that.

Well that's true.... I don't think we care about Asprin, but let's look at say heart surgery.... One model the uninsured guy soaks the hostpital and the hospital turns around and soaks everybody including the federal government..... In the second model the guy now with insurance, has that insurance cover his heart surgury and nobody get's soaked... But you are right we subsidized that insurance for many folks in Obamacare.... The benifit to the consumer isn't that we don't have to pay nothing for that guy to get insurance. The benifit is we are only subsidizing his plan and not paying for all the care after the fact.... Again their is little debate about the fiscal savings associated wiht Obamcare's position of extending insurance to 30 million more Amricans. The fact is today, with Obamacare fully in place, even adding the costs of covering 30 million more americans, as of March 2013; Healthcare costs are growing at half the rate they were averaging over Bush's 8 years in office. Our growth in healthcare costs is at a 30 year low and analysis of those numbers is suggesting it's a perminent decline in growth....

If someone goes to the hospital and recieves care without insurance... we all pay.... If someone goes to the hospital and recieves data prior to Obamcare we still might all pay.... One of the objectives of Obamacare was to get more folks covered, and to have that coverage be more meaninful for picking up the costs of their care.

No, our workforce is growing and will continue to grow between the period in question.... 2014-2024... Our job base is growing and will continue to grow between the priod in question. The CBO report says after 2017 our growth will slow... GDP will not shrink, but our growth will slow and the biggest reason for this slower growth because of the aging of the population. Which is true of the entire industrialized world to a greater extent then the US. As for the CBO report and new info on Obamacare, what is shrinking is not the # of jobs our economy will produce, or the number of workers, but the projected hours worked by our workforce starting in 2017..... people will choose to work about 1.5-2 % fewer hours per week... for a person working 40 hours per week this amounts to about 15 minutes per week.

Pay for it up front, or pay for it out the back... We pay for it... Your argument is the costs the hospitals incure have no basis on the consumer costs? So saving money has no purpose? I don't think that's a valid argument from a policy position, even though I don't entirely disagree with you.

I don't think the CBO report was as granual as your question... remember this report was not about Obamacare.. only about 15% of the 175 pages discussed Obamacare... and did this broadly.

Because we as a country have a vested interest in folks having insurance... even folks who are between jobs... because if they don't have insurance, and they get sick, they will still recieve treatment and all the rest of us will collect the bill anyway..... Because what good is COBRA if only 5-10% of people eligible for it can afford it.

Yes you are absolutely correct.. most COMPANIES do use that as a standard for when employees get benifits... The problem with using "most companies" perspective is it's not representative of the workers perspective... The average work week from the company's perspective in the US has been on the decline in the United States as companies cut workers hours to avoid paying benifits. From the perspective of the workers, hours worked have been going up steadily since the 1970's... The typical American middle-income family put in an average of 11 hours, or more than 20% more hours a week, in 2006 than it did in 1979... even while the Dept of Labor shows from an employers perspective the average work week declined.

Do I really rate such a response larry?

Yes that is exactly what the CBO is predictiong... Net employment is going to go up.. The economy is going to create more jobs under OBamacare.. not fewer.. Net hours worked will go down by 2% because across the labor pool workers will choose to work about 2% fewer hours per week, not because a handful of folks will choose not to work at all... Again Obamacare doesn't give insurance to folks who don't work... Those folk already had insurance through medicare and medicaid... Obamacare helps the working poor get insurance.... in our country even middle class folks have traditionally gone without insurance, folks wiht full time jobs or more than full time.. .... with the net effect of the American work week to remain among the highest in the industrial world.