Collarspace Discussion Forums


Home  Login  Search 

recent obamacare news


View related threads: (in this forum | in all forums)

Logged in as: Guest
 
All Forums >> [Community Discussions] >> Dungeon of Political and Religious Discussion >> recent obamacare news Page: [1] 2 3 4 5   next >   >>
Login
Message << Older Topic   Newer Topic >>
recent obamacare news - 12/19/2015 4:35:28 PM   
bounty44


Posts: 6374
Joined: 11/1/2014
Status: offline 		pretty long, and yes, edited to make it look as unpalatable as I find it:

quote:

No matter how you slice the numbers, Obamacare premiums will rise significantly next year. The Obama administration estimates rates will rise 7.5 percent in 2016…

"Many more insurers lost money than made money in 2014"

This meant that in 2014, many insurers spent more paying out medical bills than members paid in premiums. Premera Blue Cross Blue Shield of Alaska lost $9 million covering just under 8,000 Obamacare enrollees that year. In Colorado, Rocky Mountain HMO found medical bills to be about 36 percent higher than premiums.

Now insurers are raising their rates to make sure premiums do cover claims. In some states, that means double-digit rate hikes.

There are other insurers who didn't have this problem, who priced correctly and turned a profit. But they're in the minority of those selling on the health law's new marketplaces.

"Many more insurers lost money than made money in 2014," says Larry Levitt, senior vice president for special initiatives at the Kaiser Family Foundation.

This year is a different story: For the first time, insurance plans have an entire year of data on their patients. They know that their patients are sicker than expected — and will soon learn whether Obamacare enrollees are willing to pay significantly higher premiums.

As Caroline Pearson, a senior vice president at the health consulting firm Avalere, puts it, "2016 is going to be a make-or-break year."


http://www.vox.com/2015/12/14/9910650/obamacare-premiums-2016

quote:

Consumers will see their Obamacare premiums skyrocket in 2016, as insurers raise prices to cover the mounting cost of regulations and to cover losses incurred by participating in the program.

An analysis of data from the Robert Wood Johnson Foundation found that premiums for benchmark "silver plans" have risen by an average of 11.3 percent for 2016. A further breakdown reveals that consumers in 47 states saw their premiums rise, 23 states saw double-digit increases, and four states saw increases exceeding 30 percent. Alaska saw the highest increase, at 35.6 percent, and its average silver plan premiums will reach a staggering $643 in 2016.


http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/map-see-which-states-have-the-highest-obamacare-rate-hikes/article/2578545

quote:

The Affordable Care Act is in a "death spiral" predicted by Republicans, Pennsylvania Sen. Pat Toomey said Sunday.

"If we look at what is happening right now, I think we’re witnessing the death spiral that many of us predicted," Toomey said on "The Cats Roundtable" on AM 970 in New York. "Especially given a hospital has to treat someone who shows up, and you can buy health insurance even if you already have an existing condition, these people are not in fact signing up and paying the premiums."

Only the older and sicker are participating, Toomey told host John Catsimatidis, and that drives up costs, causing younger, healthier people to drop out.

Toomey noted that "fully half of the healthcare co-ops around the country have already failed," and "The other half are probably going to fail next year."


http://www.newsmax.com/Newsmax-Tv/catsimatidis-toomey-obamacare-death/2015/12/13/id/705612/#ixzz3uoMrwv00

quote:

The new insurance markets created by Obamacare in 2014 need healthy people to enroll in order to be sustainable. Last month the largest U.S. health insurer, UnitedHealth Group, said it might withdraw from the Obamacare market entirely after next year because of mounting losses.

For many people, paying the penalty might be a rational choice, because it's often still less money than what the cheapest health plan costs. Kaiser estimates that there are about 7 million uninsured people in this circumstance.


http://www.newsmax.com/Finance/StreetTalk/Obamacare-Penalties-Health-Coverage-insurance/2015/12/09/id/705116/

quote:

Today is a critical day for the roll-out of Obamacare because it is the deadline for citizens to sign up before they face hefty penalties (at least an additional 2% income tax) for not enrolling.

As of today the the Affordable Care Act’s roll out and implementation have been by all measures a disaster. Twenty-three non-profit health insurance companies who agreed to provide coverage under the provisions of the law have gone bankrupt. Premiums have skyrocketed, forcing the government to subsidize premiums even more, and worst of all just ten million people have enrolled and most of them are not the most healthy citizens who they had hoped to entice.

Why Healthy People Should Ignore Today’s Deadline

We should all have the right to be uninsured. I find it especially big-brotherish when the government behaves as if its a “civic duty” to enroll so I can help pay for all of those who really, really need health insurance.

I did the calculations and I found that by charging me a minimum of $141 per month, the government is punishing me for being healthy, to pay for the premiums of those who make less healthy choices. I’ve seen a doctor once in the past ten years. $141 per month is a ridiculous amount of money for me. And this is for a $5,000 deductible policy. No thanks.


http://www.utahstories.com/2015/12/obama-wants-you-to-sign-up-for-obamacare-today-or-you-will-pay/

apart from Obama lying/misspeaking/misrepresenting/talking out of his hat about premium costs going down....

obamacare and some of the items mentioned above are a great cutting sword illustrating the difference between right and left thinking. the former wanting to take care of themselves, expecting others to be responsible to do so as well, and everyone working together willingly when things go awry. I doubt I am going to be so charitable in my view of the latter, who seem to believe that government or a government program is the preferred (or only) solution to most problems, and don't have a problem using the force of law to get what they want (please pro-baby killers, pro-life laws aren't applicable here), freedom be damned.




< Message edited by bounty44 -- 12/19/2015 4:40:26 PM >
Profile   Post #: 1
RE: recent obamacare news - 12/20/2015 6:55:24 AM   
MrRodgers


Posts: 10542
Joined: 7/30/2005
Status: offline 		As I have written repeatedly, the ACA is simply a mandate for everybody to purchase health care insurance, thus including the young and healthy that would not otherwise purchase it. This is a proviso that becomes then a catering to the for-profit health care market and results in a windfall to the biggest firms that are able to spread the risk among the most policy holders. (all insurance is merely a transfer of risk)

Many millions simply cannot afford to purchase this insurance, healthy or not. So govt. steps in, not to guarantee insurance anymore than to guarantee a profit as a direct result of subsidizing what would otherwise be...un-affordable premiums. The major effects of which are then no different then if there was no mandate and only those who can afford healthcare would be held to the mandate. The subsidy is merely a dominant requirement to justify the complete mandate and to provide those profits.

The act is misnamed no differently than all of the job growth and economic growth named tax cuts that resulted in the worse 8 year (2 term) job creation period on record from fiscal 2001 to 2009.

The overall debate of a mandated collective health insurance regime otherwise known as govt. run single payer system, is rendered and propagandized as something alien to the alleged preference of that illusory free market benefit when govt. will not even insure...there is a free market complete with full competition. This even in the knowledge that for the country as a whole (and economy) such a regime is more cost effective but from a resulting lower return in profits.

This debate is deliberately held separate to the obvious and rather expensive illusory benefits of our collective social contributions to say, defense, banking and agric. which we are told is necessary for the protection of the economy, the country and the unpredictability of agriculture without the fallaciousness of it being more cost effective which of course because...it is not and quite deliberately so.

The ACA thus is not health care reform at all. It is the 'Health Care Market Mandate and Subsidized Windfall Profit Act.' What could possibly be better than government not only forcing you to buy [my] service but even subsidizing anyone's inability to pay my high profit-prices ?

Call it right or left for whatever politically partisan motivations you may have. (same mandate offered by the repubs in 92/93) I call it very, very profitable which is the only reason we are here. Gotta love free market capitalism. [sic]




< Message edited by MrRodgers -- 12/20/2015 7:34:40 AM >

_____________________________

You can be a murderous tyrant and the world will remember you fondly but fuck one horse and you will be a horse fucker for all eternity. Catherine the Great

Under capitalism, man exploits man. Under communism, it's just the opposite.
J K Galbraith

(in reply to bounty44)
Profile   Post #: 2
RE: recent obamacare news - 12/20/2015 8:02:29 AM   
DesideriScuri


Posts: 12225
Joined: 1/18/2012
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: MrRodgers
As I have written repeatedly, the ACA is simply a mandate for everybody to purchase health care insurance, thus including the young and healthy that would not otherwise purchase it. This is a proviso that becomes then a catering to the for-profit health care market and results in a windfall to the biggest firms that are able to spread the risk among the most policy holders. (all insurance is merely a transfer of risk)
Many millions simply cannot afford to purchase this insurance, healthy or not. So govt. steps in, not to guarantee insurance anymore than to guarantee a profit as a direct result of subsidizing what would otherwise be...un-affordable premiums. The major effects of which are then no different then if there was no mandate and only those who can afford healthcare would be held to the mandate. The subsidy is merely a dominant requirement to justify the complete mandate and to provide those profits.
The act is misnamed no differently than all of the job growth and economic growth named tax cuts that resulted in the worse 8 year (2 term) job creation period on record from fiscal 2001 to 2009.
The overall debate of a mandated collective health insurance regime otherwise known as govt. run single payer system, is rendered and propagandized as something alien to the alleged preference of that illusory free market benefit when govt. will not even insure...there is a free market complete with full competition. This even in the knowledge that for the country as a whole (and economy) such a regime is more cost effective but from a resulting lower return in profits.
This debate is deliberately held separate to the obvious and rather expensive illusory benefits of our collective social contributions to say, defense, banking and agric. which we are told is necessary for the protection of the economy, the country and the unpredictability of agriculture without the fallaciousness of it being more cost effective which of course because...it is not and quite deliberately so.
The ACA thus is not health care reform at all. It is the 'Health Care Market Mandate and Subsidized Windfall Profit Act.' What could possibly be better than government not only forcing you to buy [my] service but even subsidizing anyone's inability to pay my high profit-prices ?
Call it right or left for whatever politically partisan motivations you may have. (same mandate offered by the repubs in 92/93) I call it very, very profitable which is the only reason we are here. Gotta love free market capitalism. [sic]


I truly believe the only way single-payer is going to happen here, and costs go down, is if government actually ends up owning the providers, too (like the NHS in the UK). Current hospitals won't accept the reduced reimbursements needed to bring our costs in line with other gov't-run health care systems. They'll opt out of accepting government insurance instead and only accept cash or private insurance. Talk about a clusterfuck, if that were to happen.

I truly do think government is going to have to take the whole damn thing over, including being the employer of the workforce., for this to work here. And, I still don't think there is Constitutional authority for government to do that. There would need to be a Constitutional Amendment for that. And, as crazy as it might sound, I'd support the Amendment.

_____________________________

What I support:

  • A Conservative interpretation of the US Constitution
  • Personal Responsibility
  • Help for the truly needy
  • Limited Government
  • Consumption Tax (non-profit charities and food exempt)

(in reply to MrRodgers)
Profile   Post #: 3
RE: recent obamacare news - 12/20/2015 8:06:55 AM   
ifmaz


Posts: 844
Joined: 7/22/2015
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri
...
I truly do think government is going to have to take the whole damn thing over, including being the employer of the workforce., for this to work here. And, I still don't think there is Constitutional authority for government to do that. There would need to be a Constitutional Amendment for that. And, as crazy as it might sound, I'd support the Amendment.


Your signature mentions your support for a "limited government", how does the government taking over healthcare fit into that?

(in reply to DesideriScuri)
Profile   Post #: 4
RE: recent obamacare news - 12/20/2015 8:37:39 AM   
MasterG2kTR


Posts: 6677
Joined: 8/7/2004
From: Wisconsin
Status: offline 		Below is a paper I wrote three years ago for school. I think this is a good read for all here on both sides of the ACA aisle.


I strongly suggest watching the video in source #3....it's a real eye opener
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~


Health Care in America


In recent years the soaring cost of health care in America has been in the public spotlight. How much have health care costs risen in the past ~20 years, and what are those costs? The most prevalent costs (to the consumer) involved are that of health insurance premiums and out-of-pocket expenses.
For this research specific numbers from 1990-1999 appear to be non-existent, but statistics will be included in trending reports from other economic sources. The [1]graph below (see source for graph) shows insurance premiums paid by individuals (single) and families from 1999 thru 2009. Over the ten-year period the cost for singles increased 245%. During the same period the cost for family coverage increased 228%. Indications from other sources show that similar increases took place from 1990 thru 1999. This means that both groups experienced increases of more than 400% in premium costs over the 20 years.
The increase in premiums is only part of the burden experienced during this period. While premiums paid had increased, people also experienced substantial increases in out-of-pocket costs, deductibles and co-pays. In 1990 deductibles were still as low as $200 and co-pays were still as low as 10%, while maximum out-of-pocket costs were as low as $500 for singles and $1000 for families. In 2009 deductibles now average $1500, co-pays are commonly 20% to 30% and maximum out-of-pocket costs are as high as $3000 for singles and $7500 for families.

Comparing these price increases to the overall costs of inflation for the same time period, [2] it shows a trend in health care costs that exceed four times the rate of inflation. In comparative terms, going back to 1960 health care accounted for a little more than 5% of the U.S. GDP. In 1990 it had risen to 11% of the total GDP. Today health care accounts for more than 18% of the U.S. GDP. This means that nearly $1 in every $5 we spend goes towards health care. The U.S. spends more money per capita on health care than any other nation. [3]”Yet we rank 37th in the world in terms of quality and fairness of the service provided”.

What are the major causes for the high price of health care? [4] During the 1990’s, payers (insurance companies) were partially successful in slowing cost growth by reducing the prices of physician and hospital payments, but more recently, hospitals increased their market power by consolidations and mergers, and could demand higher prices. Market power is the degree of influence that an organization has over another organization. In economic terms, it is the ability of a seller to raise prices without losing business. Take the common example of health insurance plans buying hospital services: If the hospital (the seller) can negotiate a contract with the insurer that gives the hospital the reimbursement (price) it wants, the hospital has market power. If the insurer can prevent the hospital from raising its price by refusing to sign a contract with the hospital (causing the hospital to lose the patients enrolled in that insurance plan), the insurer has market power.

Some observers believe that provider market power explains much of the outlier status of U.S. health expenditures compared with those of other nations. According to this view, when payers have market power, costs rise more slowly; when providers or suppliers wield market clout, costs increase more rapidly. When health insurance developed in Canada, the market power of the sole payers of health services—provincial governments—enabled those payers to restrict prices paid to hospitals and physicians. In contrast, the U.S. health insurance industry was initially dominated by Blue Cross and Blue Shield, institutions that were controlled by hospitals and physicians. This uncontested provider market power allowed lucrative reimbursement formulas for hospitals and physicians. These formulas were replicated in Medicare as a result of the influence of Blue Cross, Blue Shield, the American Hospital Association, and the American Medical Association over the writing of Medicare regulations. In addition, the pharmaceutical industry has deterred most governmental regulation of drug prices by using its influence over legislators. The result of the historical domination of providers and suppliers over payers has been a price structure far different from that of health care in most developed nations.

While demand and supply of health care needs and services are relatively constant, from here it would be safe to say that the cause for the high cost in the U.S. is largely due to suppliers (not supply).

Can anything be done to improve affordability, and fairness in access (from a cost point-of-view)? Currently there are nearly 750,000 Americans forced into bankruptcy each year due to medical debts. There are almost 50 million Americans who cannot afford insurance or are denied insurance because of pre-existing conditions. This does not mean they are denied services. They simply can’t afford them without insurance coverage. [5]According to "Dying for Coverage," the latest report by Families USA, 72 Americans die each day, 500 Americans die every week and approximately Americans 2,175 die each month, due to lack of health insurance.

In a nation as wealthy as ours is these figures are unacceptable. Other developed industrial nations do far better than the U.S. when it comes to providing health care to all its citizens at prices that don’t force them to choose between food and medicine.
Many people believe that the U.S. would do well to adopt a universal health care system similar to those of Great Britain, Japan, or Germany. Of these it seems that Japan has the most practical and stable system that is good not only for the citizens seeking health care but also for the doctors and hospitals. Under their plan, everyone is covered. Though the system is government run everyone still must sign up for an insurance provider. Those who can’t afford it are paid for by the government. The policies are acquired thru work or a community based insurer. Surprisingly more than 80% of their hospitals are private (more than in the U.S.). They have no “gatekeepers”, which means they are free to see any doctor they want at anytime, this includes specialists.
Hospital stays are, on average, nearly twice as long as that of the U.S. and hospital rooms are only $10 per night, with four beds to a room, or $90 per night if you want a private room. They also have twice as many MRI scans as that of the U.S. and nearly eight times as many as the British. In the U.S. an MRI costs on average $1200, but in Japan that same MRI is only $98.

How can there be such a difference in price? The government negotiates the prices for everything, down to the smallest of details, and the price is always the same no matter where you go.

Another aspect that is better than the U.S. is that, if you lose your job you don’t lose your insurance. You simply switch to a community-based insurer and the government pays for it. Insurers cannot deny coverage to anyone, and more interesting is the fact that, by law, they are not allowed to make a profit. Insurance premiums average $280 per month and employers pay at least half of that.
What’s the down side to all of this? Currently 50% of hospitals in Japan are running at a deficit and government officials admit that prices will have to be adjusted to account for this. They do say that the system in general works and they are not about to change that, and price changes will not be drastic.
Currently Japan’s health care system accounts for approximately 8% of their GDP, less than half of the cost in the U.S. per capita. No one in Japan has ever been forced into bankruptcy for medical debt and no one has ever been denied coverage because of pre-existing conditions. Their services rank among the highest in the world in both quality and fairness.

Why wouldn’t we want this in the United States? It would put more disposable income into the economy. People would not have to fear losing coverage. No fear of being denied coverage. Getting the services actually needed without fear of huge out-of-pocket costs. No fear of medical bankruptcy. Fewer overall health related costs at all levels of society because people in general would be healthier.


[1] The Burden of Health Insurance Premium Increases on American Families http://www.whitehouse.gov/assets/documents/Health_Insurance_Premium_Report.pdf

[2] Health Insurance Prices
http://curryrecipe-jp.net/wp-content/uploads/2012/06/health-insurance-prices.jpg

[3] Frontline: Sick Around The World - PBS
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/sickaroundtheworld/

[4] Annals of Internal Medicine: High and Rising Health Care Costs. Part 3: The Role of Health Care Providers, et al
http://annals.org/article.aspx?volume=142&issue=12&page=996

[5] Dying for Coverage – Families USA
http://www.familiesusa.org/issues/uninsured/publications/dying-for-coverage.html
http://thechart.blogs.cnn.com/2012/06/20/families-usa-says-26000-die-prematurely-without-health-insurance/?hpt=hp_bn1
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~



< Message edited by MasterG2kTR -- 12/20/2015 8:44:14 AM >

_____________________________

Did you know.....
Two wrongs don't make a right,
but three rights make a left
....think about it

(in reply to bounty44)
Profile   Post #: 5
RE: recent obamacare news - 12/20/2015 9:28:16 AM   
defiantbadgirl


Posts: 2988
Joined: 11/14/2005
Status: offline 		In my opinion, the biggest problems with the health insurance law are:

1. It doesn't reduce the cost of health care

2. Subsidies are too difficult to qualify for.

3. The affordability test doesn't include deductibles or family members on the policy only the worker

4. The employer mandate

5. No public option

We need cost control. It shouldn't cost 3 to 4 times more to have an MRI in the US than it does in other countries. Same with surgery and prescription drugs. Deductibles aren't income based on employer provided health insurance like they are on the exchange. Full time workers making $10/hr can't afford $5,000 deductibles but they're not eligible for subsidies because being offered health insurance through their employers disqualifies them. Why is there an employer mandate when the US already has a problem with jobs being off-shored? Doesn't tying health insurance to employment encourage companies to off-shore jobs? A non-profit public option would be far more effective in lowering health insurance costs than selling health insurance across state lines. How is each of these issues going to be fixed? Wouldn't it be easier to just expand Medicare? Too bad the president can't expand Medicare through executive order.

_____________________________


Only in the United States is the health of the people secondary to making money. If this is what "capitalism" is about, I'll take socialism any day of the week.


Collared by MartinSpankalot May 13 2008

(in reply to bounty44)
Profile   Post #: 6
RE: recent obamacare news - 12/20/2015 9:47:06 AM   
Phydeaux


Posts: 4828
Joined: 1/4/2004
Status: offline 		ACA is ridiculous.

The point of insurance is to pay for catastrophic illness. It used to be I could get catastrophic illness coverage for $59/mo. The rest of things - doctors visits, preventive care, I will pay out of my own pocket thank you.
Instead ACA forced me to buy coverage I don't need or want - and wanted me to pay more than $500/mo for coverage that was worse than my catastrophic plan. No thanks. Penalty for me, since the government made my insurer no longer carry my catastrophic plan.

Pushing more and more crap INTO the ACA made it unaffordable.

(in reply to defiantbadgirl)
Profile   Post #: 7
RE: recent obamacare news - 12/20/2015 9:59:04 AM   
jlf1961


Posts: 14840
Joined: 6/10/2008
From: Somewhere Texas
Status: offline 		Obamacare sucks ass.

Look, my niece's fiance had surgery to remove a brain tumor 4 years ago, since then he has applied for (and been denied) for disability dispite the fact that after the surgery he basically had to learn to walk and talk all over again.

He lost his company insurance because of the extremely high costs of the care he received, and the nature of the tumor prevented complete removal, thus ongoing care would and did exceed a million dollars.

Now, we have jumped through every hoop, dotted every 'i', crossed every 't', and still the Obamacare website, consultants, Hospital social workers cannot find one carrier that will provide coverage for him for less than $1200 a month! (and this is with the "assistance" that Obamacare was to provide to help people get insurance.)

So, now in addition to the bills from the original treatment, he is looking at bills from 2 hospital stays due to seizures do severe they tore muscles from bone, dislocated his shoulder and elbow, and left him in a vegetative state for 36 hours.

So, we filed the paper work out for the social worker at the hospital to push an expedited social security disability claim with the rider for immediate medicare coverage, which means instead of 9 months for social security to consider the claim, they will do it in 3 to six months.

His anti siezure medication (with help from various agencies) still costs him 200 bucks for a month's supply, the medication to keep the remaining cancer in remission runs around $1000 for the month (with the same help) and the physical therapy to get him back to 'normal' is racking up $400 a session.

Obamacare took an already fucked up system, and fucked it up to such an extreme point that FUBAR does not even come close.

He (Obama) did not stick to anything resembling what he said he wanted in health care reform, then turned around and instead of presenting goals in some form, he just told congress to come up with something. In attempting to placate the GOP and keep the liberals happy that he was actually attempting to reform healthcare, he gave us a system that makes it easier for someone to get fucked over to the point where suicide is preferable to hearing what cant be done in a reasonable time frame.

What Obamacare should have provided was a cyanide capsule to every person with a catastrophic illness and an income below the poverty line. It would have been a hell of a lot better than offering some worthless idea of hope to those who need it.

As it stands, everyone that had a hand in writing the bill, objected to even the most rudimentary assistance it originally provided, and the fucking republican that came up with the mandate during the Clinton Administration and Obama for signing the damn thing are guilty of crimes against the people of the United States and should be taken out and hung in front of the capital.

So any jackass that wants to claim that Obamacare is a good thing, let me know, I will give you his room number in ICU and you can go tell him that.

_____________________________

Boy, it sure would be nice if we had some grenades, don't you think?

You cannot control who comes into your life, but you can control which airlock you throw them out of.

Paranoid Paramilitary Gun Loving Conspiracy Theorist AND EQUAL OPPORTUNI

(in reply to defiantbadgirl)
Profile   Post #: 8
RE: recent obamacare news - 12/20/2015 10:11:54 AM   
MasterG2kTR


Posts: 6677
Joined: 8/7/2004
From: Wisconsin
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: jlf1961

He (Obama) did not stick to anything resembling what he said he wanted in health care reform, then turned around and instead of presenting goals in some form, he just told congress to come up with something. In attempting to placate the GOP and keep the liberals happy that he was actually attempting to reform healthcare, he gave us a system that makes it easier for someone to get fucked over to the point where suicide is preferable to hearing what cant be done in a reasonable time frame.



He (Obama), is not the one that fucked it up. The republicans ass-hats who didn't want to do anything good for the people are the ones who gutted the language of what could have been something good for all.

_____________________________

Did you know.....
Two wrongs don't make a right,
but three rights make a left
....think about it

(in reply to jlf1961)
Profile   Post #: 9
RE: recent obamacare news - 12/20/2015 10:19:37 AM   
freedomdwarf1


Posts: 6845
Joined: 10/23/2012
Status: offline 		Your experience is exactly why insurance-based healthcare systems fall flat on their face.
If this had happened here, it wouldn't have cost your niece's fiance one single red cent.
The hospital treatment would be free. The medications would be free. The therapy would be free.
And when he needs more treatment - that would be free too.

That's because it is paid for from those that do pay into a centralized pot.
That means that men pay for women's breast surgery and women pay for men's prostate problems.
It all goes into one single pot to pay for everyone no matter what the problem.

We have seen many on on here who refuse to pay for things that don't directly affect them personally.
They refuse to see why socialized healthcare is better than anything driven by private insurance companies.

And given that the original Obamacare package was side-swiped by the GOP to the tune of over 11,000 extra pages of watering down, it's no wonder it doesn't work as envisaged - as I commented some time ago.

This is a prime example of insurance-based healthcare at it's fucked-up finest.
And I agree, the GOP did indeed sell the American people down the river on this.


_____________________________

“If liberty means anything at all, it means the right to tell people what they do not want to hear.”
George Orwell, 1903-1950


(in reply to jlf1961)
Profile   Post #: 10
RE: recent obamacare news - 12/20/2015 10:30:12 AM   
NorthernGent


Posts: 8730
Joined: 7/10/2006
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri

quote:

ORIGINAL: MrRodgers
As I have written repeatedly, the ACA is simply a mandate for everybody to purchase health care insurance, thus including the young and healthy that would not otherwise purchase it. This is a proviso that becomes then a catering to the for-profit health care market and results in a windfall to the biggest firms that are able to spread the risk among the most policy holders. (all insurance is merely a transfer of risk)
Many millions simply cannot afford to purchase this insurance, healthy or not. So govt. steps in, not to guarantee insurance anymore than to guarantee a profit as a direct result of subsidizing what would otherwise be...un-affordable premiums. The major effects of which are then no different then if there was no mandate and only those who can afford healthcare would be held to the mandate. The subsidy is merely a dominant requirement to justify the complete mandate and to provide those profits.
The act is misnamed no differently than all of the job growth and economic growth named tax cuts that resulted in the worse 8 year (2 term) job creation period on record from fiscal 2001 to 2009.
The overall debate of a mandated collective health insurance regime otherwise known as govt. run single payer system, is rendered and propagandized as something alien to the alleged preference of that illusory free market benefit when govt. will not even insure...there is a free market complete with full competition. This even in the knowledge that for the country as a whole (and economy) such a regime is more cost effective but from a resulting lower return in profits.
This debate is deliberately held separate to the obvious and rather expensive illusory benefits of our collective social contributions to say, defense, banking and agric. which we are told is necessary for the protection of the economy, the country and the unpredictability of agriculture without the fallaciousness of it being more cost effective which of course because...it is not and quite deliberately so.
The ACA thus is not health care reform at all. It is the 'Health Care Market Mandate and Subsidized Windfall Profit Act.' What could possibly be better than government not only forcing you to buy [my] service but even subsidizing anyone's inability to pay my high profit-prices ?
Call it right or left for whatever politically partisan motivations you may have. (same mandate offered by the repubs in 92/93) I call it very, very profitable which is the only reason we are here. Gotta love free market capitalism. [sic]


I truly believe the only way single-payer is going to happen here, and costs go down, is if government actually ends up owning the providers, too (like the NHS in the UK). Current hospitals won't accept the reduced reimbursements needed to bring our costs in line with other gov't-run health care systems. They'll opt out of accepting government insurance instead and only accept cash or private insurance. Talk about a clusterfuck, if that were to happen.

I truly do think government is going to have to take the whole damn thing over, including being the employer of the workforce., for this to work here. And, I still don't think there is Constitutional authority for government to do that. There would need to be a Constitutional Amendment for that. And, as crazy as it might sound, I'd support the Amendment.


Just like to add a small point here:

The government do not own the NHS; the people own it.

Of course were you to abandon your voice then the government will own it, that much is obvious.

And, in that circumstance they can take it in whatever direction they so desire.

But, one thing that is a cast iron fact is that in the United States you are encouraged to visit the doctor or the hospital no matter the seriousness of the ailment, absolutely anything is within bounds because as long as you are there you are being charged; whereas in England you are encouraged to not turn up with no more than a common cold because it is public funds footing the bill and there is only so much of public funds to go around.

I think generally that business is a better bet in running most things, even though I have been in business long enough to know that the theoretical invisible hand is absolute nonsense and there are a boat load of sycophants and politicians in business that make it inefficient in its own way. It ain't no meritocracy.

But, health is one area that really should not be ran by business and the United States is a very good example of why that is the case.




_____________________________

I have the courage to be a coward - but not beyond my limits.

Sooner or later, the man who wins is the man who thinks he can.

(in reply to DesideriScuri)
Profile   Post #: 11
RE: recent obamacare news - 12/20/2015 10:40:25 AM   
bounty44


Posts: 6374
Joined: 11/1/2014
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: MasterG2kTR


quote:

ORIGINAL: jlf1961

He (Obama) did not stick to anything resembling what he said he wanted in health care reform, then turned around and instead of presenting goals in some form, he just told congress to come up with something. In attempting to placate the GOP and keep the liberals happy that he was actually attempting to reform healthcare, he gave us a system that makes it easier for someone to get fucked over to the point where suicide is preferable to hearing what cant be done in a reasonable time frame.



He (Obama), is not the one that fucked it up. The republicans ass-hats who didn't want to do anything good for the people are the ones who gutted the language of what could have been something good for all.


excuse me what?? you are somehow under the impression that the republicans co-wrote the bill? or had some influence as to its content?

or alternatively, have somehow since its passage, significantly altered the essence of the bill?

as for this particular part:

quote:

The republicans ass-hats who didn't want to do anything good for the people


do you know how infantile that sounds? right, republicans don't want to do anything good for people. they are all greedy and evil. have you ever just stopped to think that the "good" they want to do is simply achieved in a way you don't value? or perhaps, that what they value as "good", you don't?


< Message edited by bounty44 -- 12/20/2015 10:43:03 AM >

(in reply to MasterG2kTR)
Profile   Post #: 12
RE: recent obamacare news - 12/20/2015 10:41:08 AM   
Nthrall


Posts: 65
Joined: 3/16/2015
Status: offline 		If you want a proper healthcare system I suggest you Americans vote in a Democrat president AND a Democrat Congress.

And why do you need cyanide when you've got guns?

Just a suggestion.

(in reply to jlf1961)
Profile   Post #: 13
RE: recent obamacare news - 12/20/2015 10:56:57 AM   
bounty44


Posts: 6374
Joined: 11/1/2014
Status: offline 		here is more or less the essential question almost every one either dances around or completely ignores.

if a handful of people want to get together and willingly participate in cost sharing, either themselves, or through the market in some way, I see that as being free.

if the government steps in and forces its citizens to do so, then some freedom is lost.

to me, the collectivists need to give those who oppose them a convincing philosophical argument as to how this is moral.

(in reply to Nthrall)
Profile   Post #: 14
RE: recent obamacare news - 12/20/2015 11:00:55 AM   
servantforuse


Posts: 6363
Joined: 3/8/2006
Status: offline 		Obama and the democrat controlled congress passed the ACA that we have now.

(in reply to Nthrall)
Profile   Post #: 15
RE: recent obamacare news - 12/20/2015 11:09:57 AM   
NorthernGent


Posts: 8730
Joined: 7/10/2006
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: bounty44

here is more or less the essential question almost every one either dances around or completely ignores.

if a handful of people want to get together and willingly participate in cost sharing, either themselves, or through the market in some way, I see that as being free.

if the government steps in and forces its citizens to do so, then some freedom is lost.

to me, the collectivists need to give those who oppose them a convincing philosophical argument as to how this is moral.



Five flaws in your argument, possibly more, but here are the five that immediately come to mind:

Choice does not necessarily equate to freedom: the idea that choice equals freedom is an Anglo-American philosophy not shared by other nations. In other words, it's far from a universally understood concept.

The people vote for the government, and so no one is being forced.

If the government have stepped in then haven't the people made a choice to allow the government to do so, and it follows thus by your own 'choice is freedom' argument then surely no 'freedom has been lost'?

Morals don't mean anything in this context. Morals are no more than the social norms of the day and should not be a guiding force in any philosophical argument - no one needs a 'convincing philosophical argument' in this context.

The 'handful of people getting together willingly to participate in cost sharing', by all means yes, go ahead, your call. Except this discussion isn't about the exercise of free will. It appears to be more about a system that has broken down.




_____________________________

I have the courage to be a coward - but not beyond my limits.

Sooner or later, the man who wins is the man who thinks he can.

(in reply to bounty44)
Profile   Post #: 16
RE: recent obamacare news - 12/20/2015 11:42:53 AM   
jlf1961


Posts: 14840
Joined: 6/10/2008
From: Somewhere Texas
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: MasterG2kTR


quote:

ORIGINAL: jlf1961

He (Obama) did not stick to anything resembling what he said he wanted in health care reform, then turned around and instead of presenting goals in some form, he just told congress to come up with something. In attempting to placate the GOP and keep the liberals happy that he was actually attempting to reform healthcare, he gave us a system that makes it easier for someone to get fucked over to the point where suicide is preferable to hearing what cant be done in a reasonable time frame.



He (Obama), is not the one that fucked it up. The republicans ass-hats who didn't want to do anything good for the people are the ones who gutted the language of what could have been something good for all.



You see what I highlighted?

In his campaign, he said exactly what he wanted in health care reform.

When he went to congress and asked them to write the bill, none of what he wanted was really mentioned.

He:

1) Never presented a plan of his own, which begs the question, did he have a plan in the first place, or was it a half formed idea that needed fleshed out before he gave his instructions to congress?

2) Had enough of a majority in the Senate and an overwhelming majority in the house to get everything he wanted without having to back down and eat shit from anyone, he just never had the balls or back bone to stand up and tell people to suck his dick.

Instead, he tried to make everyone, liberals, conservatives and the health insurance industry happy.

AND FAILED MISERABLY.

3) When industry experts (health care, not insurance) pointed out the flaws in what was being written, he ignored them, and went back to kissing ass and eating shit to make everyone happy.

4) The bill never even addressed the real cost of rising health care (and it aint doctors and hospitals trying to make a super profit) which is basically three problems.

A) For doctors to pay off the loans they had to take out to actually complete medical school, their prices for an office visit has to be enough to cover the cost of staff, supplies, and pay their loans all while leaving them enough to live on, which is about 3% of the total of what they are charging.

B) with the lawsuit happy american population, in order to avoid being sued, every conceivable test has to be ordered to avoid even the slightest chance of a complaint being filed with the AMA or the state medical board.

C) Hospitals have to charge more per patient due to the ever increasing costs of mal practice insurance. This simple fact has forced 20 small hospitals in West Texas to close because they never have enough patients to make enough money as an institution to cover the fucking premiums, thus resulting in the nearest emergency rooms that could possibly stabilize a severe medical case being anything from 50 to 100 miles away.

That situation is so bad that in some towns, even a mild heart attack can be a death sentence.

So do not give me the shit it was the Republicans. He had the numbers to force the republicans to back down, and could have used it to push the republicans into a forced deal.

He fucking chose not to. He fucking chose to kiss ass and throw his balls in the toilet.

And finally, after getting the original bill passed, knowing the problems in it, he chose to walk away.

And I voted for the stupid son of a bitch twice.

_____________________________

Boy, it sure would be nice if we had some grenades, don't you think?

You cannot control who comes into your life, but you can control which airlock you throw them out of.

Paranoid Paramilitary Gun Loving Conspiracy Theorist AND EQUAL OPPORTUNI

(in reply to MasterG2kTR)
Profile   Post #: 17
RE: recent obamacare news - 12/20/2015 12:03:12 PM   
freedomdwarf1


Posts: 6845
Joined: 10/23/2012
Status: offline 		The repubs were in congress after the 2010 mid-term elections.

Obama had a plan.
The republicans threatened to filibuster the ACA to death if significant changes weren't made to it.
They produced an 11,000 page amendment to the original plan.
What eventually came out of the final approval was nothing like what Obama had originally proposed.

Effectively, he was gunned down by the republicans on all sides.
He vowed for healthcare reforms but to get anything at all through the quagmire, he basically gave away everything he originally had.
So it wasn't a case of not sticking to what he wanted - the repubs said they wouldn't approve anything of what he proposed.
They didn't co-write it, they basically re-wrote it.

That's why you have the mess you currently have.
It's all down to the republicans.
'He' didn't fail miserably - the republicans failed the American people.
He knew the flaws but the repubs wouldn't allow him to fix it.
The repubs refused every fix he wanted even though they knew that at the end it would be a white-wash.
It was political bribery.
A simple case of 'Our way or it won't get approval'. He was railroaded.


_____________________________

“If liberty means anything at all, it means the right to tell people what they do not want to hear.”
George Orwell, 1903-1950


(in reply to jlf1961)
Profile   Post #: 18
RE: recent obamacare news - 12/20/2015 12:12:15 PM   
bounty44


Posts: 6374
Joined: 11/1/2014
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: bounty44

here is more or less the essential question almost every one either dances around or completely ignores.

if a handful of people want to get together and willingly participate in cost sharing, either themselves, or through the market in some way, I see that as being free.

if the government steps in and forces its citizens to do so, then some freedom is lost.

to me, the collectivists need to give those who oppose them a convincing philosophical argument as to how this is moral.



quote:

ORIGINAL: NorthernGent

Five flaws in your argument, possibly more, but here are the five that immediately come to mind:

Choice does not necessarily equate to freedom: the idea that choice equals freedom is an Anglo-American philosophy not shared by other nations. In other words, it's far from a universally understood concept.


im pretty confident if I were to look in Korean dictionary under the word "freedom" id see the phrase "not being in anyone else's power." I interpret that as "choice." im also confident if I were to look in an ancient Egyptian one, id find something similar.

quote:

ORIGINAL: NorthernGent
The people vote for the government, and so no one is being forced.


creating a law that confiscates someone's earnings when they don't participate in a government mandated activity doesn't miraculously change from "force" to "not force" simply because that government is elected.

quote:

ORIGINAL: NorthernGent

If the government have stepped in then haven't the people made a choice to allow the government to do so, and it follows thus by your own 'choice is freedom' argument then surely no 'freedom has been lost'?


that I couldn't quite follow how you got to the end from the beginning aside for a moment---the bill was created and passed in the most partisan fashion possible, not to mention the American people were deceived in the process. note the carnage that soon followed in the subsequent congressional elections where democrats were voted out in droves. and also, that the personal mandate was made "legal" because of slight of hand turning it into a tax.

quote:

ORIGINAL: NorthernGent

Morals don't mean anything in this context. Morals are no more than the social norms of the day and should not be a guiding force in any philosophical argument - no one needs a 'convincing philosophical argument' in this context.


(please don't take this meanly) if you are more or less godless and a leftie, then you are correct but some of the rest of us believe in things that transcend social norms of the day, and are universal and timeless. if you want me to buy into something, I want to know how/why its a right thing to do, not just an expedient one.

quote:

ORIGINAL: NorthernGent

The 'handful of people getting together willingly to participate in cost sharing', by all means yes, go ahead, your call. Except this discussion isn't about the exercise of free will. It appears to be more about a system that has broken down.


actually its about a war between systems...collectivists on one hand, and those who oppose them on the other.





< Message edited by bounty44 -- 12/20/2015 12:16:11 PM >

(in reply to NorthernGent)
Profile   Post #: 19
RE: recent obamacare news - 12/20/2015 12:35:31 PM   
Termyn8or


Posts: 18681
Joined: 11/12/2005
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: ifmaz


quote:

ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri
...
I truly do think government is going to have to take the whole damn thing over, including being the employer of the workforce., for this to work here. And, I still don't think there is Constitutional authority for government to do that. There would need to be a Constitutional Amendment for that. And, as crazy as it might sound, I'd support the Amendment.


Your signature mentions your support for a "limited government", how does the government taking over healthcare fit into that?



Reading the thread, I stopped at your post because you make a good point. How DO you reconcile these two points of view ? I do not see alot of ways but there is a way.

First of all there are too many people. If this country was one million we would all have acreage. but the way it is with houses ten feet away from each other there has to be noise ordinances against assholes playing their 300 watt stereo at four in the morning.

We all give up freedoms for the benefits that society can bring. It is a tradeoff, a compromise.

Now I am totally against the ACA and believe it was crafted just to put more money in the pockets of insurers and those in the healthe care industry, under the guise of doing something for the People. Those who approve of it are either in the system or hoodwinked. As I have always said, the way it is structured it encourages more price gouging. And now, as opposed to the past, price gouging is actually good for the underwriters as they have a solid limit on the percentage of the profits. This is good for them.

Taxes on gasoline are alot more than the profit of the oil companies. they make alot of money because they move so much product. They would suck a mile of donkey dick to make 20 %.

So now the insurance industry has to pay out 80 % in claims, keeping the other 20 % of course. Now, 20 % OF WHAT ? Twenty percent of more is more. so now,m instead of trying to negotiate lower costs with the medical industry, they can just let them charge whatever. the more the better. The more you fuck us, the more we get to fuck the people. It is the WORST thing to do, and these bleeding heart assholes who do not know math at all, got enough power to get it passed. No - now that I think of it they DID know what they were doing, they were helping their friends fuck us out of more money. They are not stupid, they are clever thieves.

Now comes the debate about the whole thing.

The government is charged with protecting the People from enemies, foreign and domestic. While my views on most things run like libertarian, there are two things about their doctrine I cannot embrace. First of course is the pledge against violence. Fuck that, I will shoot any motherfucker I choose. the other is the deregulation of business.

Now I do agree that Mom and Pop shops should be left alone, when you get to a scale of operations where you are "essential", then you might as well just get out of that chair and the government should step in. Utilities should be publicly owned. Companies that get that extra digit, grossing billions, should be regulated so bad they don't even want to co eto work.

And the government does not have the balls to call their bluff. They can threaten to move shit to China and our pussy motherfuckers suck their dick, and then a few years later they move out anyway. To say the least, this is not doing us any good.

But, as I consider things like the electric and gas, and even internet and phone to be things that should be tightly regulated because it is a captive market, I would say that healthcare might be in that group of necessary services.

That comes back to the well being, ad survival of the People. Now that there are almost no furnaces that do not require electricity, if they shut your electricity off in February you might die.

So boil it down to that. Do you want the government to protect you from freezing to death at the hands of greedy corporate moguls ? They have actually passed laws preventing utilities from cutting off your electric and gas during the winter months.

Do you approve of that ?

There is a balance, and that is the argument you brought up, and it is a good one.

The government built the roads with public money. But did the public set the speed limits ? Should the speed limits be voted on ? It is all in who has what power. [How much power do we want to give them ?

And another thing, seat belt laws got passed because insurance companies saw a possible loss. (I believe they were wrong because if you are more likely to die they would pay off less, the only other conclusion is they are in cahoots with the medical industry that would like to keep you in diapers and a wheelchair for fifty years)

But now, consider this : you buy a new car, it has a warranty. that means the manufacturer has to fix it if it breaks. As such, they have a right to require you to get regular oil changes and whatever.

Now health insurance is just like a warranty on your body. you break it they have to fix it.

Do they have the right to tell you what to eat ? Order you not to smoke, or do drugs or drink, or eat fatty ot sugary foods ? All of these things are EXACTLY like not maintaining a machine, like a car. They wear it out and make it fuck up.

So by extension, your health care underwriter should have the power to dictate your diet as well as your habits.

I probably should havve made this its own thread but fukit. Here is just fine. do you agree ?

Seriously, I eat whole foods whenever possible, I limit carbs, eat my vegetables and eat meat which is essential. I do not drink soda, I avoid sugar, I only use unrefined sea salt. And I do not overeat.

Why the fuck should I pay for heart surgery for some fat 400 pound motherfucker who lives on Mallow Cups and french fries all the time ?

See this is the crux of the matter. Collectivism and individualism. Diametrically opposed and at the heart of most matters. The ultimate paradox. How much freedom do you wat to give...today.

You can be free. You can go live in the bowels of Africa hoping not to get eaten by a lion or tiger or whatever the fuck they have down there. And you will be free to die from disease, have your kids die from stupid shit society can fix, you can be free to be captured and enslaved and sold to the highest bidder. (believe it or not that shit is still going on, especially with the little girls, sick motherfuckers, I got no respect for them animals) but I don't see any drones over there. Drones go to kill people who are related to the wrong people, and to create more enemies so the government can look useful.

Anyway, you set the balance. I won't be around long and have no kids. you set this world up for them. (did a shit job so far) You decide how much socialism you want. I got my shit together. Fuck the gov and got two jobs, though I may quit one.

Fukum, fukum all.

T^T

(in reply to ifmaz)
Profile   Post #: 20
Page:   [1] 2 3 4 5   next >   >>
All Forums >> [Community Discussions] >> Dungeon of Political and Religious Discussion >> recent obamacare news Page: [1] 2 3 4 5   next >   >>
Jump to:





New Messages No New Messages
Hot Topic w/ New Messages Hot Topic w/o New Messages
Locked w/ New Messages Locked w/o New Messages
 Post New Thread
 Reply to Message
 Post New Poll
 Submit Vote
 Delete My Own Post
 Delete My Own Thread
 Rate Posts




Collarchat.com © 2025
Terms of Service Privacy Policy Spam Policy

0.125