RE: Interesting Take on Obamacare

RE: Interesting Take on Obamacare (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Community Discussions] >> Dungeon of Political and Religious Discussion

Message

mnottertail -> RE: Interesting Take on Obamacare (9/24/2013 10:00:48 AM)
I doubt forbes since they have no actual causal facts however: Because Obamacare forces most Americans to buy health insurance, and subsidizes the purchase of that insurance for certain low-income populations, individual-market premiums in many of these highly-regulated states will go down. But in most others, rates will go up. New Mexico, Vermont, South Dakota, and Connecticut will see the steepest rate hikes: on average, 130, 97, 83, and 59 percent, respectively. Three states will see meaningful declines in rates: Colorado (34 percent), Ohio (30 percent), and New York (27 percent). Yeah? Why is that due to Obamacare, and remember they gotta keep in the 20% margin. So how does (assuming it is true which I do not) 130% increase gonna keep them in 20% margin? Are they losing 110% of their money now? Yeah, it is innumerate and no work shown. Forbes is full of shit on this one. Well Avik Roy in anycase, from the conservative market oriented think tank Manhattan Institute, so even more suspicious in that he is almost absolutely innumerate.

Hillwilliam -> RE: Interesting Take on Obamacare (9/24/2013 10:03:19 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Phydeaux limiting damages for pain and suffering is tort reform ron. I've been for tort reform for a couple of decades but I don't think we'll ever see it as long as Congress is primarily made up of lawyers.

Phydeaux -> RE: Interesting Take on Obamacare (9/24/2013 10:04:38 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri quote: ORIGINAL: Phydeaux If you liked your healthcare - you could keep it (false) Obamacare isn't directly stopping anyone from keeping their current physician or health care. The claim and the rebuttal of the claim are both partially correct. quote: It would control the cost of healthcare - (false) How do you know it isn't controlling the cost of health care? You might be wrong about the intended control result. [8D] quote: It would reduce the number of uninsured (false) I believe the latest CBO projection still comes out with a net increase in the number of people insured. http://www.cms.gov/Research-Statistics-Data-and-Systems/Statistics-Trends-and-Reports/NationalHealthExpendData/Downloads/Proj2012.pdf The very last page of the report is Table 17, and that shows the % of insured rising overall. Fig leafs Desi. Obamacare removes the grandfather clause (and hence forces you onto a different plan) from any insurance plan that so much as changes a formulary. Since changes to plans occur every year as doctors change, and prices change, and drugs become removed (or available) it means that obamacare does indeed prevent you from keeping your healthcare. Not to mention if you have healthcare that excludes abortion benefits. I do agree that one of the intents of the acts is to force private providers into health care conglomerates, due to the experience with hillary's health care which was defeated, by and large, by the ridiculous requirements that you couldn't have your own doctor, couldn't pay in cash, etc. Rather than change the goal, they changed the tactic. The projections in the CBO for coverage were stipulations put. Ie., the assumptions they were directed to use dictated the results, and it has no handwaving relationship to reality. The massive numbers of employees losing health care due to corporate policies is only going to continue. And yes, I think that was deliberate as well. You can't get single payer if you have a functioning system. So the dims destroyed the system. The reason that the O administration needed to remove the $2000 - $3500 dollar penalties because they were afraid the system would hemorraghe so many users that failure would be obvious early in implimentation. Changing the political calculus.

DomKen -> RE: Interesting Take on Obamacare (9/24/2013 10:05:32 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Hillwilliam quote: ORIGINAL: Phydeaux limiting damages for pain and suffering is tort reform ron. I've been for tort reform for a couple of decades but I don't think we'll ever see it as long as Congress is primarily made up of lawyers. If you check the states that have instituted tort reform have not seen health care costs go down.

Phydeaux -> RE: Interesting Take on Obamacare (9/24/2013 10:07:13 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: mnottertail I doubt forbes since they have no actual causal facts however: Because Obamacare forces most Americans to buy health insurance, and subsidizes the purchase of that insurance for certain low-income populations, individual-market premiums in many of these highly-regulated states will go down. But in most others, rates will go up. New Mexico, Vermont, South Dakota, and Connecticut will see the steepest rate hikes: on average, 130, 97, 83, and 59 percent, respectively. Three states will see meaningful declines in rates: Colorado (34 percent), Ohio (30 percent), and New York (27 percent). Yeah? Why is that due to Obamacare, and remember they gotta keep in the 20% margin. So how does (assuming it is true which I do not) 130% increase gonna keep them in 20% margin? Are they losing 110% of their money now? Yeah, it is innumerate and no work shown. Forbes is full of shit on this one. Well Avik Roy in anycase, from the conservative market oriented think tank Manhattan Institute, so even more suspicious in that he is almost absolutely innumerate. But obamacare does not force individuals to buy insurance. So any assumptions based on that predication will fail.

Phydeaux -> RE: Interesting Take on Obamacare (9/24/2013 10:09:47 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: DomKen quote: ORIGINAL: Hillwilliam quote: ORIGINAL: Phydeaux limiting damages for pain and suffering is tort reform ron. I've been for tort reform for a couple of decades but I don't think we'll ever see it as long as Congress is primarily made up of lawyers. If you check the states that have instituted tort reform have not seen health care costs go down. I generally agree with that statement; but the problem is the practice of defensive medicine has gotten so pervasive that even removing the stimulus the response is still conditioned. Every doctor I go to no longer carries malpractice insurance. It is simply too expensive. And the presence of insurance has been incentive to sue, leading to another insurance death spiral.

mnottertail -> RE: Interesting Take on Obamacare (9/24/2013 10:12:58 AM)
SO then you are set. The assumptions predicated on the forbes articles are complete fabrication and dipshits lying. Yanno, I remember from the acutely knowledgeable buffoons regarding Gary Johnson, oh......New Mexico. The largest welfare state. 5) New Mexico > Federal spending per capita net of income taxes: $12,399 > Total federal spending per capita: $13,578 > Federal income taxes per capita: $1,179 New Mexico received the third-highest procurement spending per capita in the U.S. at $3,641.68. A significant component of this spending was under the category of non-defense agency spending for the Department of Energy. New Mexico received more federal funding from the Department of Energy than any other state, with an amount of $4.8 billion. This is due to the three nuclear weapons facilities located within the state. New Mexico also ranks seventh for the grant expenditures it received per capita. More than 60% of these grants were from the Department of Health and Human Services. Some 22.53% of the population was on Medicaid — the fourth highest percentage in the nation — which is funded through this department. As I said, the fuckstick is innumerate who wrote the forbes article, it can be dismissed out of hand as a teabagger disinformation propaganda piece.

SweetAnise -> RE: Interesting Take on Obamacare (9/24/2013 10:13:59 AM)
I often wonder if individuals even read the healthcare law which has been available since last year via long and short version and timeline. I often find people who are screaming about how this is going to impact us negatively haven't even read the law nor understand it. I know I can't wait for it to go full effect. It has saved me a lot of money thus far. I can't wait for it to save me even more.

DomKen -> RE: Interesting Take on Obamacare (9/24/2013 10:18:55 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Phydeaux Fig leafs Desi. Obamacare removes the grandfather clause (and hence forces you onto a different plan) from any insurance plan that so much as changes a formulary. Since changes to plans occur every year as doctors change, and prices change, and drugs become removed (or available) it means that obamacare does indeed prevent you from keeping your healthcare. Grotesque lack of knowledge of how insurance works. A insurance contract, that is what it is, cannot be changed. If the issuer wants to make a change they have to issue a new policy that's why if they do make a change they have to send out all the same info they would send out if the policy was brand new. If you read through all of it somewhere it says something along the lines of "payment of a premium after the effective date indicates your acceptance of the new contract." And nothing about that has changed.

Phydeaux -> RE: Interesting Take on Obamacare (9/24/2013 10:21:18 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: SweetAnise I often wonder if individuals even read the healthcare law which has been available since last year via long and short version and timeline. I often find people who are screaming about how this is going to impact us negatively haven't even read the law nor understand it. I know I can't wait for it to go full effect. It has saved me a lot of money thus far. I can't wait for it to save me even more. For every law there are winners and losers Anise. You have "won" under the terms of the law. That doesn't make the law a good idea. It also doesn't mean that those of us that are opposed are ignorant, aren't aware of the law etc. My company has had at least 3 briefings on the impact of obamacare on our health care costs, and has brought in multiple vendors to try to mitigate the cost.

DomKen -> RE: Interesting Take on Obamacare (9/24/2013 10:22:22 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: SweetAnise I often wonder if individuals even read the healthcare law which has been available since last year via long and short version and timeline. I often find people who are screaming about how this is going to impact us negatively haven't even read the law nor understand it. I know I can't wait for it to go full effect. It has saved me a lot of money thus far. I can't wait for it to save me even more. The part I really like as a Medicare recipient is that as part of the cost cutting they have finally come down hard on the sleazes selling scooters and other unneeded medical devices or grossly overcharging for needed ones.

Phydeaux -> RE: Interesting Take on Obamacare (9/24/2013 10:24:28 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: DomKen quote: ORIGINAL: Phydeaux Fig leafs Desi. Obamacare removes the grandfather clause (and hence forces you onto a different plan) from any insurance plan that so much as changes a formulary. Since changes to plans occur every year as doctors change, and prices change, and drugs become removed (or available) it means that obamacare does indeed prevent you from keeping your healthcare. Grotesque lack of knowledge of how insurance works. A insurance contract, that is what it is, cannot be changed. If the issuer wants to make a change they have to issue a new policy that's why if they do make a change they have to send out all the same info they would send out if the policy was brand new. If you read through all of it somewhere it says something along the lines of "payment of a premium after the effective date indicates your acceptance of the new contract." And nothing about that has changed. You obviously haven't read the law. I have. I agree that group insurance is set for a period - usually a year. At the end of that time and for the upcoming enrollment period the company will post what the new doctors are, the new formularies etc. Additionally, the employer may make alterations to the coverage. For example by INCREASING the employer contribution. Either of those events are sufficient to trigger losing grandfather protection under obamacare.

Phydeaux -> RE: Interesting Take on Obamacare (9/24/2013 10:25:43 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: DomKen quote: ORIGINAL: SweetAnise I often wonder if individuals even read the healthcare law which has been available since last year via long and short version and timeline. I often find people who are screaming about how this is going to impact us negatively haven't even read the law nor understand it. I know I can't wait for it to go full effect. It has saved me a lot of money thus far. I can't wait for it to save me even more. The part I really like as a Medicare recipient is that as part of the cost cutting they have finally come down hard on the sleazes selling scooters and other unneeded medical devices or grossly overcharging for needed ones. The scooter store just went out of business. It had nothing to do with obamacare. Although I am very glad they are out of business also.

mnottertail -> RE: Interesting Take on Obamacare (9/24/2013 10:29:24 AM)
quote: For example by INCREASING the employer contribution. Don't put this in google (even with record profits being splattered all over the place by companies) it is one divided by zero and will blow up the internet.

Phydeaux -> RE: Interesting Take on Obamacare (9/24/2013 10:38:51 AM)
For those interested: The administration itself predicts 66% of people ensured under obamacare will be forced out of there coverage. http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/CHRG-112hhrg76496/pdf/CHRG-112hhrg76496.pdf

DaddySatyr -> RE: Interesting Take on Obamacare (9/24/2013 10:42:04 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Phydeaux For those interested: The administration itself predicts 66% of people ensured under obamacare will be forced out of there coverage. http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/CHRG-112hhrg76496/pdf/CHRG-112hhrg76496.pdf Wait! Candidate Obummer promised us that NO ONE would lose their insurance or have to switch doctors! What happened? Did he lie? NO way!

Phydeaux -> RE: Interesting Take on Obamacare (9/24/2013 10:44:37 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: mnottertail quote: For example by INCREASING the employer contribution. Don't put this in google (even with record profits being splattered all over the place by companies) it is one divided by zero and will blow up the internet. No facts, just opinion: Heres a quote for you from huffpost http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/01/06/insurer-profits-health-care-reform_n_1190344.html It notes that profits are up to 8.24% for the big 5 health care industry thanks to obamacare when they were previously 6.68%. It also said that profit is on government policies - medicare etc as private business is flat as normal americans try to pare expenses by dropping medical insurance.... 8.8% is nowhere near what I would consider an exciting investment opportunity.

mnottertail -> RE: Interesting Take on Obamacare (9/24/2013 11:12:33 AM)
Yeah, back in January of 12 and what was it in the 18 months prior to the 18 months, and the 18 months before that? That is far from the 130% increase though in costs. So, do you go to freakazoid com or stupid shit com or where do you get all this useless but farcical information? I uh, dont see what rolling around in old business buys you other than a grimace and a laugh of derision.

graceadieu -> RE: Interesting Take on Obamacare (9/24/2013 11:18:12 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: slavekate80 Not necessarily. Even in the reasonable worst-case scenario, it won't cause a lot of obvious damage that quickly, and it's going to benefit some people, turning into a media war where the benefits to helped individuals are pitted against the harm to those who got the short end of the stick. Right. I'm optimistic that it's going to be pretty successful, but even if it's a big mess and goes way over budget, it is going to give some people access to health care that they didn't have. And it's going to be really, really hard for the Republicans in 2014/16 to get the country to support taking away people's health care. They know that. They remember that they lost this same battle with Medicare, and now almost everyone supports it and there's no way they can get rid of it.

graceadieu -> RE: Interesting Take on Obamacare (9/24/2013 11:20:08 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: DsBound quote: ORIGINAL: mnottertail But what part of 'Reality' don't 'conservatives' understand? They are borrowing and spending at massively destructive levels. With medical costs at a ridiculous amount now, Obamacare is not the answer! Well, it is true that single-payer would probably be a much better way of controlling costs. Countries that take that approach manage to cover everyone at half the cost of the US, and have longer life expectancies and lower infant mortality rates.

Page: << < prev 1 2 3 [4] 5 next > >>

Collarchat.com © 2025

Terms of Service

0.046875