Obamacare

Quote: rxwine

Try holding a rock in that hand.

Good idea. Something to throw at the next lib. (haha)

Quote: rxwine

Try holding a rock in that hand.

How do you know that he isn't already?

Quote: s2dbaker

How do you know that he isn't already?

Reminds me of an old joke.

Guy digging ditch complains to foreman why he is never promoted.
Foreman puts hand on steel post, and says, "Hit my hand."
They guy throws a fist and the foreman moves his hand so he hits the post.

Later his friend asks him what happened to him.
The guy smiles and puts his hand in front of his own face, and says, "Hit my hand."

Quote: s2dbaker

How do you know that he isn't already?

Because you haven't been hit yet. haha

Quote: rxwine

Reminds me of an old joke.

More like a non-funny joke.

Quote: SOOPOO

I actually cannot believe that you, Mr. Bluejay, actually believes that malpractice insurance costs 3k per year.

He read it on the Liberal Bible, HuffnPuff. Of course
it's true.

Quote: AZDuffman

No, you are not. There is nothing capitalistic about punitive damages. They are awarded only to punish, not to compensate. Nothing is created. They have become little more than a shakedown.

Cap lawyer fees and watch all the lawsuits dry up.

Quote: anonimuss

Cap lawyer fees and watch all the lawsuits dry up.

That sounds like a big government program with many layers of government regulation and oversight. Personally, I'm all for it. But I thought that you guys were against government intervention.

Quote: s2dbaker

That sounds like a big government program with many layers of government regulation and oversight. Personally, I'm all for it. But I thought that you guys were against government intervention.

the govt loves to provide things cheaply and restrict costs even if it means going billions in debt.

take the postal service which needs govt approval to raise rates for stamps

think of it. send a letter picked up from your mail box and delivered to another mailbox across country in a few days....for less than 50cents. Do you think UPS could match that price? Its a bargain. It mkaes us happpy. And the post office have billions in losses yearly. If it were a private business it would have filed bor bankruptcy years ago...it would be out of business today.

The same thing is going to be done with healthcare.

I love how liberals' best argument is to twist around the words of others. Shows you just how lame their side really is.

Quote: anonimuss

Cap lawyer fees and watch all the lawsuits dry up.

Actually even better is a loser-pays system. Saul will not take so many marginal cases if he has to pay for the losers. And it has the beauty of being less regulatory.

I'm just glad Obama gave the GOP this gift and hope that they don't mess up what could be the end of liberal policies for a long time. I still believe most Americans (or at least enough to win elections) expect people to support themselves and be held responsible for the decisions they make in life. Many are sick and tired of the constant expansion of government handouts such as Food Stamps and don't believe people will stave without them.

Quote: s2dbaker

Here's some reality. My insurance premiums will go down starting in January for a better insurance plan. Obamacare has helped me. It would be illogical to assume that I'm the only one that Obamacare helped. Obamacare is working. Hundreds of links to brightbart or foxnews will not change that reality.

Get your hand out of my pocket!

You will pay less because I will pay for you.

Our country needs to answer this one question: Is healthcare a right or a privilege? Only then can we devise a reasonable healthcare delivery system.

The ACA was very poorly designed to obtain voluntary support (in a financial sense) for socialized medicine. I believe we will soon find out that most young, healthy people WILL NOT voluntarily support such a system.

There are NOT millions of Americans going without health care. There are millions of Americans not paying for health care.

I live in the midwest, and I am a financial professional in the healthcare industry. There are very few multimillion dollar lawsuits, and malpractice premiums are nowhere near the $100,000 mark.

In my experience, it is true that people who don't pay for healthcare utilize the system much more than those that pay for their own healthcare.

Fact update. Second major local insurer is treating Obamacare exchange like 'regular' insurance when making rates to pay doctors. One of my fears was that they would tie rates to dismally low Medicare/Medicaid rates, and thus many docs would not have accepted 'Obamacare'. So as far as the claim about access, my guess is that most docs will accept 'Obamacare' the same as 'regular' insurance, so those signing up will still have access to the doctor and hospitals they presently use. My personal fear about inadequate reimbursement pushing many older docs who can afford to retire into early retirement will probably not come to pass.

If anything the hope on Obamacare is that competition will lower prices. What we've seen however is millions of Americans who will lose their current coverage because it doesn't meet ACA standards. Insurance companies stand to make a bundle, and they knew this when they lobbied.

Quote: boymimbo

If anything the hope on Obamacare is that competition will lower prices. What we've seen however is millions of Americans who will lose their current coverage because it doesn't meet ACA standards. Insurance companies stand to make a bundle, and they knew this when they lobbied.

It is as if GM lobbied for a law said you had to buy at least a Buick no matter what your needs were. Hopefully it makes this younger generation learn free cheese from the government is only found in a mousetrap.

Quote: Headlock

Get your hand out of my pocket!

You will pay less because I will pay for you. Our country needs to answer this one question: Is healthcare a right or a privilege? Only then can we devise a reasonable healthcare delivery system.

The ACA was very poorly designed to obtain voluntary support (in a financial sense) for socialized medicine. I believe we will soon find out that most young, healthy people WILL NOT voluntarily support such a system.

There are NOT millions of Americans going without health care. There are millions of Americans not paying for health care.

I live in the midwest, and I am a financial professional in the healthcare industry. There are very few multimillion dollar lawsuits, and malpractice premiums are nowhere near the $100,000 mark.

In my experience, it is true that people who don't pay for healthcare utilize the system much more than those that pay for their own healthcare.

The midwest is very different from the rest of the nation, where the malpractice insurance premiums vary greatly due to the litigious nature of the states involved. I left a link a couple of pages back which deal with Soopoo's profession. That paper was four years old. But here's something more current which says that internist's premiums range from 3,375 (Wisconsin/Minnesota) to $47,707 (Miami-Dade) for internists and $16,240 (Mid California) - $227,900 (New York) for OB/GYNs.

In my mind, healthcare is a right, not a privilege. There are probably hundreds of millions of people who live in countries with socialized medicine who would agree with me, and we're not all brainwashed leftist pinkos (just most of us).

Quote: boymimbo

In my mind, healthcare is a right, not a privilege. There are probably hundreds of millions of people who live in countries with socialized medicine who would agree with me, and we're not all brainwashed leftist pinkos (just most of us).

How is taking someone else's labor or property a "right?" This is what I do not get.

Quote: AZDuffman

How is taking someone else's labor or property a "right?" This is what I do not get.

+1

It's funny how some people think they have a right to go up to a physician and say, "Heal me for free!"

We know that it's not free. We distribute the payment for the services collectively as part of our collection of taxes. Everyone gets paid. In Canada, it's a single Payor system. When I go to my doctor's office, I have already paid about $6,000 in provincial taxes for the province's health care budget (about 40% of my total Ontario tax that I pay). Other people pay nothing.

My view, and I've said it before, is that every resident of this country should have the ability to obtain health care if they are sick, rich or poor. That's because, in general, sickness does not target the rich or the poor. It will target you based on genetic factors out of your control, bad luck, and environmental factors within your control.

Americans already have this program in piecemeal, in Medicare and Medicaid and several welfare programs in-between. All this creates is layers of bureaucracy. I know Soopoo doesn't agree with me, but what % of his total expenses does he spend going receiveables and billing tasks? On top of all this is this layer of health insurance which steadily get more expensive every year (well beyond inflation), not due to malpractice (costs are decreasing) insurance which makes the middle class walk a tight rope between paying the minimum amount of premiums vs getting catastrophically ill and losing everything.

Countries with socialized medicine take away this insecurity. If you're sick, you can get care, and needn't worry about (for the most part) losing your home. And I'm not talking about those who already are on Medicaid, I'm talking those who are underinsured and have to come up with the funds for gigantic deductables. If costs go up, they can adjust the level of care, adjust revenues, or change programs to account for rising costs.

Quote: boymimbo

Countries with socialized medicine take away this insecurity. If you're sick, you can get care, and needn't worry about (for the most part) losing your home.

No, you get care if the government says you can get care, and if there is not a 6 month waiting list ahead of you.

Really? Because I can pretty much get care anytime, anywhere. I can drive myself over to the ER (of any hospital, not just "in-network") and get care. Do you actually think that you get good value when you're paying double of what anyone else is, and your system doesn't cover tens of millions of people?

I'm still trying to figure out how you believe that the American style of healthcare is the right one. ObamaCare is a bloody mess, true.

Quote: boymimbo

Really? Because I can pretty much get care anytime, anywhere. I can drive myself over to the ER (of any hospital, not just "in-network") and get care. Do you actually think that you get good value when you're paying double of what anyone else is, and your system doesn't cover tens of millions of people?

Once again you confuse "health care" with "health insurance."

Quote: Headlock

Get your hand out of my pocket!

You will pay less because I will pay for you.

That's the dumbest thing I've read today but the night is young.

The only way to make Obamacare work is to make the punishment equal to the crime.

If King O says I need to buy a minimum "bronze" plan for $8,000, the only way to make the clusterfluck work is to charge me the same $8k to NOT have the insurance.

Right now I see the problem as the people who do not have care subsidized through their employer, but make enough money to not have Obama pay for their care through tax credits.

Someone like myself.

While I am insured, and my policy was grandfathered from the start because it 1. good enough to pass my masters BS line in the sand, and 2. I had the same policy long before this mess was even a sperm in the presidents nutsack, I wanted to know how much my care would be.

I have no pre-existing conditions. If I went "bronze" I would have had 60% coverage after my deductible. My current plan is 100% coverage after a deductible less than half the "bronze" plan deductible.

I would pay about $80 more a month, or 50% more than I currently pay, for crap coverage.

Now assume I was the type to gamble on insurance and did not have coverage before Obama, and didn't want it after.

My cost per month would jump from $0 to $245 a month for terrible coverage that at this point in my life I would have never used. If I was poor, (ie under $45,960) my cost for this coverage would be anywhere from $22-210 depending on how poor I am. (This is due to the credit I would be entitled to get back for having coverage). If I have no coverage, my penalty would be anywere from $16-$60 depending on how poor I am.

Now If I am rich, (ie I make $45,961+) I am now on the hook for the entire $245, or about a $75 a month penalty.

So if I already live my life without insurance, my choice is to pay an extra $170 ($245-$75) for crap insurance that will cost me potentially tens of thousands of dollars if I need care, or spend that $170 on hookers and blow and cost myself potenially tens of thousands of dollars if I need care.

If I don't have insurance pre Obamacare, I keep that $170 and roll the dice post Obamacare.

*****AND THAT IS THE RUB*****

If the healthy people who do not use/need the care do not buy insurance as they have not in the past, the house of cards that is Obamacare begins to fall, and the costs skyrocket, causing more people to drop out, causing more failure, etc.

If Odummy wants this to work, he needs to make the crap coverage $245, and the fine for not having it $244.99, otherwise those who went without coverage will continue to do so.

Quote: Headlock

Get your hand out of my pocket!

You will pay less because I will pay for you.

Quote: s2dbaker

That's the dumbest thing I've read today but the night is young.

Assume you and I are identical in every way. Sex, Pre-existing conditions, age, etc. Every way except income. You can even be the rich one.

I get the same care as you get. You pay $245. I pay $16.

How are you NOT paying for my care?

Quote: Maverick17

You can even be the rich one.

By the way, I am the rich one. I'm purchasing a Silver level policy from Blue Cross Blue Shield without any subsidy. My hand is in no one's pocket. I'm also in the top tax bracket. This year is unusual for me in that I will not hit the social security payment ceiling. If you pay only $16 for the same plan that I have, that's okay with me. I have no issue with subsidizing your insurance policy if you need the subsidy. It makes America stronger to have everyone insured.

Quote: Maverick17

Assume you and I are identical in every way. Sex, Pre-existing conditions, age, etc. Every way except income. You can even be the rich one.

I get the same care as you get. You pay $245. I pay $16.

How are you NOT paying for my care?

If you are rich from birth to death you'll benefit the least from a large pool. But if you are like most people you will be at different levels of health and income throughout your life, so sometimes you will be taking more than contributing and vice versa.

Quote: s2dbaker

By the way, I am the rich one. I'm purchasing a Silver level policy from Blue Cross Blue Shield without any subsidy. My hand is in no one's pocket. I'm also in the top tax bracket. This year is unusual for me in that I will not hit the social security payment ceiling. If you pay only $16 for the same plan that I have, that's okay with me. I have no issue with subsidizing your insurance policy if you need the subsidy. It makes America stronger to have everyone insured.

The total cost of healthcare is the US is not going to change, so if you are paying less someone is paying more.

Actually, you and I could be the same person, except that we disagree on the desirability of Studebakers and healthcare policy. I am in a high tax bracket and I will pay the maximum FICA tax. My current policy with Blue Cross Blue Shield, which will expire on Dec. 31, costs almost $1,300 a month. I have purchased a non-ACA compliant policy to be issued in December 2013 for about $500 a month. My deductible will increase from $1,500 to $5,000, but overall my cost will be lower in 2014.

Quote: AZDuffman

Once again you confuse "health care" with "health insurance."

I'm always insured. That's something that I don't even think about and never had except for the two years that I lived in the US. It doesn't mean my "insurance" plan doesn't have weaknesses. It does. You're right. The government does decide when and who we get care from.

In the United States it is a private insurance company that you may be able to shop around for. In some states, there's only one player in town, so the insurance company = government. In Alabama BCBC has 89% of the market. In 30 states, one insurance company covers more than 1/2 the market. That's not free market. It allows you to run inefficiently and still make a ton of money.

There's an assumption that there is little waste in free enterprise. That is *not* true when competition is lacking, and in an industry which is merging (healthcare) what you will find is a great deal of inefficiencies as the company uses its energy to perform mergers rather than look at its own inefficiencies. It's alot easier to buy another company rather than compete with it, and that's exactly what large industries are doing around the world. When doing something simple as raising rates to a population that is hostage guarantees the shareholders their returns, there's no need to look at becoming more efficient.

Look at what "deregulation" did to the airline industry in the 80s. It created alot of low cost competition and drove down prices. The airlines have figured this out and have managed to find ways to stay afloat by cutting costs and making arrangements with each other to decrease competition on key routes when the airline could apply for and receive a permit to fly the same direct route.

For government healthcare here in Canada, the quality and delivery of healthcare always ranks among the top two concerns among voters, usually trading spots with the economy. It's not surprising. Here in Ontario 40% of the provincial budget is spent on healthcare. So, if there is a scandal or obvious waste going on (eHealth), the public hears about it, and the penalty is paid by booting out the offending party come election time. From working in healthcare, there is always money being spent on finding and reducing inefficiencies. There's big pressure to do that because the two recourses that are available in our health care is to raise revenue (taxes) or cut services. Both are extremely unpopular options, and it's far better for the ruling party to look for efficiences instead.

In contrast, insurance companies report to a board of director and its shareholders. The main indicator for success is strictly its performance over the same quarter or year last year. How it gets there doesn't really matter. That allows insurance companies to act inefficiently because it can raise rates (82% over 10 years) and provide worse insurance policies (higher deductables, smaller networks, more restrictions) without impunity because other companies are doing the same thing, and from the "smart" people on this forum, that's completely acceptable. Our government hasn't raised taxes 33% over 10 years (82% over 10 years) or made 41% in health cuts to account for rising costs. It's gone with efficiencies and making cuts in other ways that don't affect health care.

Quote: Headlock

The total cost of healthcare is the US is not going to change, so if you are paying less someone is paying more.

Why healthcare costs are rising

The short story:

(1) Technology.
(2) Administrative regulations (25-30% of doctor's revenue is spent in administration)
(3) Escalating hospital costs (Research shows that hospital market concentration leads to increases in the price of hospital care. In fact, price increases exceeded 20 percent when mergers occurred in concentrated markets). Lack of competition drives up prices.
(4) Lifestyle
(5) Chronic conditions
(6) Racial and ethnic minorities

In addition, Aetna attributes a large part of health care spending is waste, up to 1.2 trillion/year.

Quote: Headlock

so if you are paying less someone is paying more.

That's how insurance works. I hope that you're not surprised by that. Nor is this a new feature.

Quote: Headlock

so if you are paying less someone is paying more.

Quote: s2dbaker

That's how insurance works. I hope that you're not surprised by that. Nor is this a new feature.

The deal-breaking difference for Obamacare is that all other insurance is intrinsically voluntary. Obamacare is required of all Americans who breathe whether they want it or need it or not, and that is ultimately enforced at the point of the I.R.S. gun.

Quote: boymimbo

Why healthcare costs are rising

The short story:

(1) Technology.
(2) Administrative regulations (25-30% of doctor's revenue is spent in administration)
(3) Escalating hospital costs (Research shows that hospital market concentration leads to increases in the price of hospital care. In fact, price increases exceeded 20 percent when mergers occurred in concentrated markets). Lack of competition drives up prices.
(4) Lifestyle
(5) Chronic conditions
(6) Racial and ethnic minorities

In addition, Aetna attributes a large part of health care spending is waste, up to 1.2 trillion/year.

Racial and ethnic minorities use more healthcare?

Quote: AZDuffman

Quote: boymimbo

Why healthcare costs are rising

Racial and ethnic minorities use more healthcare?

I report. You decide. Fair and balanced.

Quote: boymimbo

Quote: AZDuffman

Quote: boymimbo

Why healthcare costs are rising

Racial and ethnic minorities use more healthcare?

I report. You decide. Fair and balanced.

Then please report, why is this and in what forms does it happen.

Healthcare costs are rising because we have too many attorneys! These days, it seems as though everyone and their brother is an attorney. There are more attorneys than there are heating and cooling guys! If you ever have your air conditioner break, try calling an attorney instead. You'll have a better chance of reaching someone! Without tort reform I can't see how we will ever get healthcare costs under control.

Quote: Keyser

Healthcare costs are rising because we have too many attorneys! These days, it seems as though everyone and their brother is an attorney. There are more attorneys than there are heating and cooling guys! If you ever have your air conditioner break, try calling an attorney instead. You'll have a better chance of reaching someone! Without tort reform I can't see how we will ever get healthcare costs under control.

Malpractice rates are actually going down year over year according to the latest here.

Quote:

According to the Medical Economics 2012 Exclusive Malpractice Survey, mean annual premiums for family/general physicians in 2011 were $11,900 versus $12,100 in 2010, a 1.6% decrease. For internal medicine doctors, the median (midpoint) annual premium was $12,900 compared with $13,100 in 2010, a 1.5% drop. In 2009, median premiums for family and internal medicine practitioners were $12,600 and $14,100, respectively.

Overall, 50% of family/general doctors and 57% of internists reported that their premiums stayed the same or decreased from 2010 to 2011, with 16% of respondents in both categories saying their premiums increased. The remainder either did not know or didn't respond.

The survey, part of the 84th Continuing Study conducted by Medical Economics, consists of data collected from physicians in June via the Internet (see "About the survey" for more information). In addition to internal medicine and family/general practice, specialties covered in the survey and their median annual premiums were:

Sorry but I don't see a 1.6% decrease as really being that statistically relevant, considering doctors in the US are paying far more for malpractice insurance than their counterparts in Canada.

One way we could reduce the amount we pay for healthcare would be to limit the amount of money that an attorney can make on a malpractice suit. The next step would be to make the Bar examine more difficult. Lastly, teach some of them how to repair air conditioners so we don't have to wait so long when they break down.

Quote: Keyser

Sorry but I don't see a 1.6% decrease as really being that statistically relevant, considering doctors in the US are paying far more for malpractice insurance than their counterparts in Canada.

One way we could reduce the amount we pay for healthcare would be to limit the amount of money that an attorney can make on a malpractice suit. The next step would be to make the Bar examine more difficult. Lastly, teach some of them how to repair air conditioners so we don't have to wait so long when they break down.

I would agree with you that malpractice insurance is too high but it not contributing to the latest year over year increases.

Quote: Keyser

Sorry but I don't see a 1.6% decrease as really being that statistically relevant, considering doctors in the US are paying far more for malpractice insurance than their counterparts in Canada.

No, but what it certainly isn't is an increase; what you said was that health care costs were rising because we had too many attorneys, and even a similarly low increase would be a sure sign of that being false.

In order drive down the costs of healthcare and general nuisance, the states should offer a law degree buy back plan. This would help the excess number of attorneys retrain for other jobs that are more productive (such as heating and cooling).

Think about it. There are more attorneys than there are people certified to work on your air conditioner/heater!

What's the difference between a cornered rooster and a cornered lawyer?


.ecnaifed skculc retsoor derenroc A

Quote: s2dbaker

By the way, I am the rich one. I'm purchasing a Silver level policy from Blue Cross Blue Shield without any subsidy. My hand is in no one's pocket. I'm also in the top tax bracket. This year is unusual for me in that I will not hit the social security payment ceiling. If you pay only $16 for the same plan that I have, that's okay with me. I have no issue with subsidizing your insurance policy if you need the subsidy. It makes America stronger to have everyone insured.

I believe nothing in this quote, other than you like subsidized insurance for no other reason than someone "needs" the subsidy.

Quote: Headlock

so if you are paying less someone is paying more.

Quote: s2dbaker

That's how insurance works. I hope that you're not surprised by that. Nor is this a new feature.

So you agree with the same person who called this idea:

Quote: s2dbaker

That's the dumbest thing I've read today but the night is young.

WONDERFUL!!

And Obamacare is not how "insurance works." If Obamacare is how "insurance works" why would America "need" Obamacare?

Ingnorance.

Quote: Keyser

In order drive down the costs of healthcare and general nuisance, the states should offer a law degree buy back plan. This would help the excess number of attorneys retrain for other jobs that are more productive (such as heating and cooling).

Think about it. There are more attorneys than there are people certified to work on your air conditioner/heater!

Actually the lawyers are poised for a great windfall with obamacare. As millions of new people are thrust into out system, doctors and nurses will have to see more people in the same amount of time. Meaning people just wont get the care they used to get. They wont get the needed time devoted to their case. The whiole healthcare machine will be taxed. People will be overworked, equipment will be in nonstop use......and mistakes will be made in the rush of it all.

enter the lawyers.

Is Obamacare on the rebound? Media turn to positive stories

Typical media.

Quote: Beethoven9th

Is Obamacare on the rebound? Media turn to positive stories

Typical media.

Typical FREE media
Media should have the freedom to report the news how they see it.
If you dont like the slant, dont read it. Thats why I dont watch Bill O'reilly, its supposed to be the no spin zone, but all I hear is spin when I channel surf so I dont watch it.
Its so facinating that conservatives are so interested in the media that they perceive as slanted left. Why not simply ignore.
Foxnews is slanted right so I simply ignore.

Quote: terapined

Its so facinating that conservatives are so interested in the media that they perceive as slanted left. Why not simply ignore.

Haven't you noticed? More and more are ignoring them. Fair and Balanced FNC now has over half the cable news market. Lamestream outfits are losing market share and cutting costs just to survive.

Quote: s2dbaker

Quote: Headlock

so if you are paying less someone is paying more.

That's how insurance works. I hope that you're not surprised by that. Nor is this a new feature.

Interesting observations and assumptions from both sides of the fence.

The concept has been discussed previously, but I tend to agree with the comparison of insurance to gambling.
The insurance company can be likened to the house, which has the edge.
If the casino has no edge (way to profit), they do not offer the game, and if the insurance company has no way to break even or profit, then the business will fail.
It doesn't matter whether the "company" is private, heavily regulated/controlled by the government, or owned by the government itself; if it loses money it will fail and the product (insurance in this case) will cease to be offered.

I still wonder how we would ever convince enough of the "young and healthy" population to contribute enough to offset the apparent lack of traditional risk assessment measures.

Quote: AZDuffman

Haven't you noticed? More and more are ignoring them. Fair and Balanced FNC now has over half the cable news market. Lamestream outfits are losing market share and cutting costs just to survive.

Have not noticed, Beethoven9th obviously didn't get the memo.

Quote: AZDuffman

Haven't you noticed? More and more are ignoring them. Fair and Balanced FNC now has over half the cable news market. Lamestream outfits are losing market share and cutting costs just to survive.

For quite some time now Fox News has been the most watched news channel when something of significance occurs. Slightly more than half of the American voting public may be dumb but they're not stupid.