Obamacare

Quote: boymimbo

No, doctors get paid per procedure and the more procedures they do, the more money they make. Completely wrong.

That was already pointed out he just deflected by saying doctors in Canada are underpaid as though that somehow makes him less wrong.

Quote: anonimuss

People with air conditioning live longer than people without air conditioning. Canada is colder than the U.S.. So much for the "Canadians live longer because of socialized health care" argument.

Wow! Really.

Quote: SOOPOO

Are you being serious? You have insurance that forces you to use a specific surgeon? No choice whatsoever? For a hernia, an operation any general surgeon can do? In Buffalo, I am guessing any of the major insurance companies (Blue Cross, Independent Health, or Univera) would have a list of around 10 options. Seriously, s2, what would you have done if you checked on the surgeon they said you must use and found he or she had some bad reviews... or you knew of some patients that had unexpected bad outcomes?

Yes, I am being serious. This seems to upset you.

Quote: 24Bingo

You don't even know what I was saying there, do you? (I think that was actually addressed to s2dbaker, come to think of it...)

That's funny, so you don't even know what you meant either. lol! Now you've got Shifty trying to convince us that he knows what you meant. *facepalm*

Quote: Twirdman

Disagreeing with Darwin does not imply any sort of cognitive dissonance Darwin is a man we must let science speak. For instance I accept that things with mass attract each other through gravitation does that mean I have to accept everything Newton said because he also believed in alchemy. I accept one and reject the other not because of I believe Newton is some divinely inspired being but rather because one is science and the other sorcery.

LOL!

Quote: Twirdman

The US number comes from http://usatoday30.usatoday.com/news/health/2009-06-03-waittimes_N.htm . Again this study was from 2009 sorry don't have more recent and just linked to article rather than actually report.

Oddly enough, U.S. numbers for the last five years are strangely missing from most sources. Yet from the Merritt Hawkins report, this cautionary fact about the deleterious effects of Obamacare's progenitor, Romneycare, had already emerged:
States Vary in the Wait to See Doctors
June 4, 2009
Merritt Hawkins, a consulting firm that specializes in recruiting physicians and other health care professionals, surveyed more than 1,150 medical offices in 15 cities. The survey measured average appointment wait times in family practices as well as four specialties: cardiology, dermatology, obstetrics/gynecology and orthopedic surgery.

The survey found that, on average, wait times have increased by 8.6 days per city. Boston had the longest wait, averaging 49.6 days, followed by Philadelphia with 27 and Los Angeles with 24.2. The shortest was Atlanta with an 11.2-day wait. In all cities among all the specialties, the wait was 20.5 days.

The survey surmises that long wait times in Boston could be the result in part of the 2006 health reform initiative that requires nearly every Massachusetts resident to get health insurance. abc news

And in a subsequent report, Merritt Hawkins does not engender much optimism:

National Survey Points to a “Silent Exodus” of Physicians
September 24, 2012

Physicians are working fewer hours, seeing fewer patients and limiting access to their practices in light of significant changes to the medical practice environment, according to the research, titled “A Survey of America’s Physicians: Practice Patterns and Perspectives.”

The research estimates that if these patterns continue, 44,250 full-time - equivalent (FTE) physicians will be lost from the workforce in the next four years. The survey also found that over the next one to three years, more than 50 percent of physicians will cut back on patients seen, work part-time, switch to concierge medicine, retire, or take other steps likely to reduce patient access.

In addition, should 100,000 physicians transition from practice-owner to employed status over the next four years (such as working in a hospital setting) , the survey indicates that this will lead to 91 million fewer annual patient encounters.

“It is clear that the introduction of nearly 30 million new patients into the U.S. healthcare system through healthcare reform, added to the already growing physician shortage, will have profound implications for patient access to medical care,” said Walker Ray, M.D., vice president of The Physicians Foundation and chair of its Research Committee. “Combine this with changes in practice patterns that reduce the number of hours physicians spend seeing patients and the situation is truly alarming.

"These practice changes amount to a silent exodus of physicians from the workforce. When these lost hours are added up, we get a much fuller and more ominous picture of the kind of access crisis that patients may soon face.”

More than half of physicians (52 percent) have limited the access of Medicare patients to their practices or are planning to do so, while one out of four physicians (26 percent) have already closed their practices altogether to Medicaid patients, the survey shows. Physicians cited rising operating costs, time constraints and diminishing reimbursement as the primary reasons why they are unable to accept additional Medicare and Medicaid patients. -30-

Quote: SanchoPanza

Combine this with changes in practice patterns that reduce the number of hours physicians spend seeing patients and the situation is truly alarming.

Yup. That's why my doc has gone to consierge care.
Obama has ruined our healthcare system, with the
help of an ignorant arrogant congress. Obama won
everybody else in the country lost.

Quote: boymimbo

That's something I haven't talked about. The reason that we experience shortages is that a great deal of our doctors head south for treatment. Another major issue is that operating rooms sit empty because the government only funds them for so many hours a day which essentially regulates the wait lists. The trend now in Canadian hospitals now is to take these "third party" people after hours. The loophole for jumping the queue in Canada is have ANY corporation write a check for the procedure. You can't jump the queue if you want to pay for it yourself, but if you are for example, self-employed, and your corporation pays for it, you can jump the queue and go to any hospital in Toronto and get treatment. It's really messed up.

This is really summing up why I and I would wager most of the others who want no part of Obamacare and socialized medicine.

Quote: s2dbaker

I could have "free-market"ed my hernia out to the lowest bidder and paid for it myself but I had insurance and they called all the shots.

Funny, you have been saying you want no choice in your health insurance, that you want a socialized system, and that you were happy you were able to buy Obamacare and save all that money?!

Where are all the rainbows and unicorns?

Quote: treetopbuddy

Took a friend of mine to the emergency room recently. She was experiencing extreme pain due to the additive nature of the radiation treatments she had been receiving for her stage 4 cancer. She was a 10 out of 10 on the pain scale. In tears. She needed the good stuff.

The place was packed at midnight. Not one person appeared to be sick or in distress.

I always thought that you went to emergency room if you think you might be dying or are in extreme pain. You know an emergency.

Gotta admit, I'm an emergency room abuser. Of course, they know me on a first name basis down there...

I tore my calf on Friday. I sat on the couch Sat and Sun. Now I'm hobbling to and fro at work. It's probably not "an emergency", regardless of the fact I can't walk.

If I "go to the doctors", I might get in right now. Or I might have to wait 2 days. Either way, they're gonna ask me how I did it, what I was doing, tell me I shouldn't be doing that, refer me to a "specialist", and charge me a copay. I'll then have to make an appointment with a specialist and wait at least a day, more likely a week at least. Then I'll go see him, he'll ask me how I did it, what I was doing, and tell me I shouldn't be doing that. He'll diagnose me with a torn calf, tell me what to do for it and do about it, issue me some crutches, and charge me a copay. Then I'll go home, ignore it all, and continue on with life.

Ain't nobody got time fo dat.

Instead, I'll go to the ER a few hours from now. I'll tell them I tore my calf. They'll look at it and say "Yup!". They'll issue me crutches. And I'll be on my way. That's obviously so much better.

The last time I broke bones was even worse than that. The doctor route took 4 visits over a month to even get a cast, let alone the 3 follow ups and investigative xrays over the following month and listening to them bitch about me cutting off my cast early. The ER route was one trip. "Yup, it's broke! Here's your brace, bye!".

Sometimes you don't need high level care. Sometimes you just want "fast food" medical service. The ER gives me that. Hell, give me my own supply of lidocaine and a prescription pad, and I'd almost never need go anywhere (Now there's an awesome idea if I've ever had one)

Quote: s2dbaker

Yes, I am being serious. This seems to upset you.

It did upset me! I would like to see your contract that says you MUST use the single surgeon that they tell you to.... My insurance allows me a variety of choices.

Most Canadians are fine with the queue-jumping for military and for injuries caused at work because we have an insurance system where you are reimbursed for workplace injuries everywhere in Canada (you are paid for your recovery time when you get hurt at work -- all employers pay into this system and your rate is determined by the average industry accident rate combined with your particular workplace accident rate -- construction companies pay alot more than say, an office). And therefore it makes sense for them to be able to get speedy treatment so they can be back in the workplace faster.

However, I agree with you that other cases for jumping the queue is invalid, but they have found loopholes in the Canada health act.

Quote: boymimbo

Most Canadians are fine with the queue-jumping for military and for injuries caused at work because we have an insurance system where you are reimbursed for workplace injuries everywhere in Canada (you are paid for your recovery time when you get hurt at work -- all employers pay into this system and your rate is determined by the average industry accident rate combined with your particular workplace accident rate -- construction companies pay alot more than say, an office). And therefore it makes sense for them to be able to get speedy treatment so they can be back in the workplace faster.

However, I agree with you that other cases for jumping the queue is invalid, but they have found loopholes in the Canada health act.

Sounds the same as workman's comp in the USA, just no queue jumping here.

Quote: Beethoven9th

That's funny, so you don't even know what you meant either. lol! Now you've got Shifty trying to convince us that he knows what you meant. *facepalm*

I know exactly what I was saying. I just find it amusing that your goto "HAHA FUNNY BIG WORDS!" quote has come to be a passage jumping down the throat of someone for saying that conservatives were a bunch of semi-literate morons.

Quote: 24Bingo

I know exactly what I was saying.

OK, then what exactly are you saying here, pray tell? Egyptian hieroglyphics are more clear to people than this mishmash of words. lol

"Like a creationist digging up quotes from Darwin, you seek to impeach some god, of whom understanding, even understanding of the pursuit of understanding, is a horrible thing, so not giving a damn where he comes from or why he is what he is, you look for what "even" this god "admits," since surely these acolytes cannot attack such a proposition, since surely these creatures of whom understanding is anathema could only be brainwashed acolytes. So, satisfied, you stand and fling feces."

...I... I literally just told...

...

To coin a phrase, *facepalm*.

I was talking to s2dbaker, and the "god" in question was Santorum. The conversation went something like this:

s2dbaker: "Even Santorum admits Republicans are idiots!" (Santorum: "We will never have the 'smart' people," or whatever he said in that clip.)
Me: "'Admits'? You realize his political career started playing devil's advocate in college, right? He's a contrarian; he would say that."
(You: ARF! ARF!)
s2dbaker: "Hey, everybody, remember Dan Savage's joke about anal lube and feces?"

I'd say I think you can take it from there, but that would require you actually learning to read at an eighth-grade level, so I'll spell out to you that that was my commentary on the attitude he displayed in that exchange (the one you seem to be doing everything in your power to vindicate).

My working stiff friends are telling me they are now claiming more dependents to eliminate getting a tax return....and avoiding having to pay the fine.

Quote: 24Bingo

...I... I literally just told...

No, you didn't "literally just tell" anybody anything. All you said was that you knew what you were saying. (And that's good because no one else does. lol)

Quote: 24Bingo

I was talking to s2dbaker, and the "god" in question was Santorum. The conversation went something like this:

s2dbaker: "Even Santorum admits Republicans are idiots!" (Santorum: "We will never have the 'smart' people," or whatever he said in that clip.)
Me: "'Admits'? You realize his political career started playing devil's advocate in college, right? He's a contrarian; he would say that."
(You: ARF! ARF!)
s2dbaker: "Hey, everybody, remember Dan Savage's joke about anal lube and feces?"

Nah, I don't buy it. Does anyone out there buy Bingo's excuse for this quote:

"Like a creationist digging up quotes from Darwin, you seek to impeach some god, of whom understanding, even understanding of the pursuit of understanding, is a horrible thing, so not giving a damn where he comes from or why he is what he is, you look for what "even" this god "admits," since surely these acolytes cannot attack such a proposition, since surely these creatures of whom understanding is anathema could only be brainwashed acolytes. So, satisfied, you stand and fling feces."

I didn't think so, Bingo.

Quote: mickeycrimm

My working stiff friends are telling me they are now claiming more dependents.

My wife did that years ago, she'd rather have
a fatter paycheck every week then get the
refund. She saves the extra money so it's in
her bank and not the governments.

Below is a quote from Aetna CEO......you guys are knock yourselves out discussing it. "Irrelevant".

"As for Aetna, Obamacare plans make up 3 percent of its revenue, he said. "Whether or not there's a government bailout because we lose some money on members is irrelevant to us from our standpoint of our earnings."

By 2020, Bertolini said he sees 75 million people buying health-care insurance from exchanges. "Some portion of that will be public exchanges—probably 20 million to 25 million will be public exchanges—the rest will be private exchanges."

"We're going to have individuals buying health care with a subsidy from their government or a subsidy from their employer," he said.

Quote: AZDuffman

Funny, you have been saying you want no choice in your health insurance, that you want a socialized system, and that you were happy you were able to buy Obamacare and save all that money?!

Where are all the rainbows and unicorns?

That was stupid. Obamacare isn't single payer.

Quote: steeldco

Below is a quote from Aetna CEO......you guys are knock yourselves out discussing it. "Irrelevant".

"As for Aetna, Obamacare plans make up 3 percent of its revenue, he said. "Whether or not there's a government bailout because we lose some money on members is irrelevant to us from our standpoint of our earnings."

By 2020, Bertolini said he sees 75 million people buying health-care insurance from exchanges. "Some portion of that will be public exchanges—probably 20 million to 25 million will be public exchanges—the rest will be private exchanges."

"We're going to have individuals buying health care with a subsidy from their government or a subsidy from their employer," he said.

Since what plans have to cover is dictated by the law, it will have an impact on the majority of policies written whether or not they are called "Obamacare" policies in the way he talks about it.

Not irrelevant at all, since the entire health system is changing, for better or worse.

aetna says that obamacare patients make up 3 percent of revenue...not 3 percent of net profit.

what if that 3 percent mostly is made up of people forced upon them with pre-exisiting conditions such as aids, cancer. alzheimers

Please re-read the quote. He stated that it was irrelevant to earnings.

Quote: s2dbaker

That was stupid. Obamacare isn't single payer.

When did I say it was? You really need to stop making up things I say. Lets review what you said:

Quote:

I didn't have a choice in the matter. The insurance company was in control. I could have "free-market"ed my hernia out to the lowest bidder and paid for it myself but I had insurance and they called all the shots.

So you were complaining about "having no choice." But you in the past have said you do not want "choice." You want a single-payer system. But here you are complaining that "I had insurance and they called all the shots."

If you had single-payer they would be calling all the shots, but you would not be able to fire them.

Not to mention you were thanking Obama for the Obamacare plan that was supposedly saving you all this money.

So, do you want choice or not?

Quote: steeldco

Please re-read the quote. He stated that it was irrelevant to earnings.

Again, Obamacare changes everything. It impacts almost every policy.

Obamacare policies may be "irrelevant" to earnings; Obamacare as a whole dictates what policies of all kinds have to have.

That is very relevant.

Quote: AZDuffman

When did I say it was? You really need to stop making up things I say. Lets review what you said:



So you were complaining about "having no choice." But you in the past have said you do not want "choice." You want a single-payer system. But here you are complaining that "I had insurance and they called all the shots."

If you had single-payer they would be calling all the shots, but you would not be able to fire them.

Not to mention you were thanking Obama for the Obamacare plan that was supposedly saving you all this money.

So, do you want choice or not?

You are still comparing Obamacare to a single payer system. Why?

While the administration publicly expresses full confidence in its health care law, privately it fears one part of the system is so flawed it could bankrupt insurance companies and cripple ObamaCare itself.

"Week after week, month after month," says John Goodman of the National Center for Policy Analysis, "the Obama administration kept telling us everything's working fine, there's no problem and then they turn on a dime and fire their contractor."

To justify a no-bid contract with Accenture after firing CGI as the lead contractor, the administration released documents from the Department of Health and Human Services and the Center for Medicare and Medicaid Services that offered a rare glimpse of its worst fears, saying the problems with the website puts "the entire health insurance industry at risk" ... "potentially leading to their default and disrupting continued services and coverage to consumers."
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2014/01/22/administration-fears-part-health-care-system-so-flawed-it-could-bankrupt/

Quote: s2dbaker

You are still comparing Obamacare to a single payer system. Why?

Not quite sure where I did that, perhaps you can point it out. However, they can be compared. They are both bad ideas that limit choice.

At the same time, please explain why all of the sudden you do not like the Obamacare plan you were all goo-goo about last month and why you are upset when the insurance company limited your choices in care when that is exactly the kind of plan you want via a single-payer system.

And please note that just because a person uses the words "Obamacare" and "single-payer" in the same paragraph or sentence does not mean they are comparing one to the other.

Quote: AZDuffman

Not quite sure where I did that, perhaps you can point it out.

You should read your offerings before hitting the Post button. You're perfectly capable looking it up for yourself. You're a big boy when you need to be, go ahead and look up your own insanity.

Quote: AZDuffman

However, they can be compared. They are both bad ideas that limit choice.

We'll just have to agree to disagree

Quote: AZDuffman

At the same time, please explain why all of the sudden you do not like the Obamacare plan you were all goo-goo about last month and why you are upset when the insurance company limited your choices in care when that is exactly the kind of plan you want via a single-payer system.

I'd gladly offer an explanation if any of that were true, but it's not.

Quote: AZDuffman

And please note that just because a person uses the words "Obamacare" and "single-payer" in the same paragraph or sentence does not mean they are comparing one to the other.

That's not what you did. You intentionally equated a single payer system with Obamacare, go ahead look it up.

Moody's downgraded the entire healthcare insurance
industry to 'negative' today, solely because of Obamacare.

This is huge, it's bigger than huge. It means Obamacare
is killing that industry and Moody's is warning investors
to be wary about future earnings. The handwriting is
on the wall for this monstrosity to everybody except
Obama.

http://www.foxbusiness.com/personal-finance/2014/01/23/moodys-downgrades-health-insurance-industry-to-negative-under-aca-changes/

Quote: s2dbaker

You should read your offerings before hitting the Post button. You're perfectly capable looking it up for yourself. You're a big boy when you need to be, go ahead and look up your own insanity.We'll just have to agree to disagreeI'd gladly offer an explanation if any of that were true, but it's not.That's not what you did. You intentionally equated a single payer system with Obamacare, go ahead look it up.

As Aetna CEO said, only 11% of customers signing up for policies under Obamacare are the young, who have to finance Obamacare in order for it to succeed. The sick and elderly are signing up in droves, for the obvious reason that their policies/premiums will be cheaper than before. Yet, they are the ones with the greatest health/medical needs and, hence, the greatest costs. The young are not signing up to the extent that they need to in order for Obamacare to be self-sustaining. The government is going to have to increase subsidies for Obamacare to succeed. That's going to mean higher taxes for those of us who pay taxes.

The fallacy of Obamacare is that it's going to bend the health care cost down. But it can't accomplish that due to the way it is designed. Prices are going to continue going up. Obama knows that. And yet he lied and continues to lie about how Obamacare will save us all $2,500 per year per family. If you believe that, then you also believe that if you like your plan, you can keep your plan.

Maybe Obamacare is not a single payer system. But have you not heard Obama's comments saying that he is in favor of a single payer system, but that it would take 10 years to get there? Obamacare is so screwed up that it will fail. It will be cheaper for the government to establish a single payer system than it will be to subsidize the insurance companies, which is Obama's ultimate goal.

Quote: Pabo

As Aetna CEO said, only 11% of customers signing up for policies under Obamacare are the young, who have to finance Obamacare in order for it to succeed..

Saw an insurance exec today say rule of thumb
is, two young people for every one person
over 45. They are light years away from that,
and without it the whole thing collapses of
it's own weight. The insurance industry
has spent 75 years keeping this balancing act
going and Obama knocks it down with one
fell swoop. There's a reason you couldn't
get insurance with a preexisting condition,
that's not insurance, it's welfare.

Good point, EB. Obama acolytes appear to be deaf, dumb and blind to just how bad Obamacare is. Slowly, but surely, however, even Democrats are beginning to learn how just bad it really is: recent polling shows that in June 2013 22% of Democrats were against Obamacare. That figure is now 30% of Democrats are against it. Most interesting is that almost 2/3 of Independents are against Obamacare, a significant uptick. Overall, 59% of all Americans are against Obamacare. Are all these people wrongheaded? Is this sea change in attitude towards Obamacare just another vast, rightwing conspiracy against Obama? Maybe racism is to blame. Yeah, that must be it: they're all racists. It will be interesting to see what the figures look like when many more people get dumped from their company plans into the federal and state health exchanges and see their premiums and out-of-pocket costs skyrocket. There's going to be a loud roar of anguish and anger from the public when that happens.

According to an article in The Blaze on 23 Jan, "The conservative American Action Forum released a study this week that stated that despite the tax penalties for not buying insurance, it would still be cheaper for 86 percent of young adults to forgot the individual mandate in 2014. In 2015 the fine increases but it would still be cheaper for 71 percent of young people to pay than buy an government-approved insurance plan on the health care exchange. By 2016, it would still be chaper for 62 percent to pay the fine than buy insurance on the exchange." My oldest son is 30 years old. His income is such that he will qualify for subsidies to pay insurance premiums. Even with that, though, it would be cheaper for him to just not enroll in Obamacare and pay the penalty/tax. The kicker is that he won't get a refund when he files his taxes, so there's no way for the IRS to collect. The way the law is written, IRS can't garnish his pay. They can only collect if a refund is due. Given that, just how does one convince the young to enroll in Obamacare? Why should they? I wouldn't.

Target to drop health policies for part-timers

I wonder how many of these part-timers voted for Obama? lol

Obama supporters need to learn that you get what you vote for!

It seems to me that the conservatives on this board have a problem with reading comprehension and my guess would be because their blinders are obstructing their vision.

It seems to me that the liberals on this board have a problem with reading comprehension and my guess would be because their blinders are obstructing their vision.

Interesting article, B9. Thanks. I noticed that it talks about rising premiums for healthcare insurance as being one of the major reasons for the companies decidng to drop coverage for their part-time employees. One of the major selling points of Obamacare was that it would reduce healthcare expenses, yet it can not and will not be able to do anything to control rising healthcare costs. The article further states that many of those part-time workers being dropped by Target and other companies will qualify for government subsidies to help pay for their health insurance under Obamacare. And from where do those subsidies come? Taxpayers, of course. It is inevitable that taxes will have to go up in order to pay the subsidies for those who qualify for Obamacare but can't afford it, and for those who don't qualify for Obamacare and get dumped into Medicaid.

In putting together Obamacare and trying to figure out how to pay for it through various taxes, fees, penalties, etc., the administration woefully underestimated the true costs of the program. Inevitably, major changes will have to be made to Obamacare in order to raise taxes, fees, and penalties to try and pay for what arguably is the single worst piece of legislation passed by Congress since Prohibition.

Obama not only lied when he said that people would save money under Obamacare, he lied yet again (does that really surprise anyone at this point?) when he stated that it would not add one dime to the federal deficit. He even said that he would not sign it if it did. That lie has been repeated by my Democrat senators from the great commonwealth of Virginia and other states. I only hope that their constituents remember the lies come November.

Quote: steeldco

It seems to me that the conservatives on this board have a problem with reading comprehension and my guess would be because their blinders are obstructing their vision.

Typical lib response. When you have no facts to argue your case, resort to slander.

Quote: steeldco

It seems to me that the conservatives on this board have a problem with reading comprehension and my guess would be because their blinders are obstructing their vision.

Peggy Noonan doesn't seem to have anything
obstructing her vision:

The bigger problem is that the president stands up there Tuesday night with ObamaCare not a hazy promise but a fact. People now know it was badly thought, badly written and disastrously executed. It was supposed to make life better by expanding coverage. It has made it worse, by throwing people off coverage. And—as we all know now but did not last year—the program was passed only with the aid of a giant lie. Now everyone knows if you liked your plan, your doctor, your deductible, you can't keep them.

It's difficult for employers to offer health care when prices for such have increased 185% over 10 years, as it has in California (same story). You can't blame ObamaCare for that.

Why did costs skyrocket 185% over 10 years. Inflation only accounts for 35% of that. What new major medical breakthroughs have happened to justify the increases?

- There is waste in administrative costs, accounting for 25-30% of the overall revenue for doctors. 85% of these excess costs are attributable to insurance overhead.
- When healthcare consolidates, prices get much more expensive. The most widely publicized example was an ECG in Nevada that went from a cost of $373 to $1,605 after a merger.
- Technology is the other big cost driver, but the technology is usually put into place before it is proven effective.

Source: Forbes

Quote: s2dbaker

You intentionally equated a single payer system with Obamacare, go ahead look it up.

I have looked and do not see it, perhaps you can look it up. That is if I ever did it, which I did not. Please cut it with the insults and just post where I did this. No changing what I said in a quote, just post where I did this.

OTOH, you said here that Obamare was saving you money. You said "Obama won, America won." (or whatever the exact wording was.) So I will ask you to please explain if it was such a great policy why are you now so upset?

steeldco, you apparently are in favor of Obamacare and have a differing opinion about it compared to those of us who think it's bad. Rather than resorting to insults, tell us why you think it's so great. Please keep in mind that I'm not against universal health care for everyone per se. I just think Obamacare is not the way to go.

Go ahead and try to convince me that the the many experts in the fields of government, economics, medical/health care, insurance industry, manufacturing and other industries that have weighed in and pointed out the problems with Obamacare are wrong.

Quote: boymimbo

It's difficult for employers to offer health care when prices for such have increased 185% over 10 years, as it has in California (same story). You can't blame ObamaCare for that.

Why did costs skyrocket 185% over 10 years. Inflation only accounts for 35% of that. What new major medical breakthroughs have happened to justify the increases?

- There is waste in administrative costs, accounting for 25-30% of the overall revenue for doctors. 85% of these excess costs are attributable to insurance overhead.
- When healthcare consolidates, prices get much more expensive. The most widely publicized example was an ECG in Nevada that went from a cost of $373 to $1,605 after a merger.
- Technology is the other big cost driver, but the technology is usually put into place before it is proven effective.

Source: Forbes

boymimbo, you make an excellent point. But remember that the major selling point of Obamacare was that it would reduce those costs and everyone was supposed to save money. But we now know that that will not be the case. Obamacare will not be able to stem the rising tide of healthcare costs, including insurance premiums. If the government does not subsidize insurance companies for their losses to make up for the lack of young enrollees into Obamacare, then the insurance companies will be forced to raise their premiums even more on everyone else to make up for the costs of providing coverage for the elderly and seriously ill. That's a major problem, one which Obamacare is not designed to address. It ultimately will lead to a government takeover of the insurance industry in order to try and mandate insurance prices. It will be far cheaper to establish a one payer system (i.e. the government) than it will be to subsidize the insurance industry. That's exactly what Obama's goal is.

Quote: Pabo

It will be far cheaper to establish a one payer system (i.e. the government) than it will be to subsidize the insurance industry. That's exactly what Obama's goal is.

Even if that was the goal in 2009, it will never
pass congress. Obama's side was stunned when
they lost so many seats in 2010, and now there's
a good chance they'll lose the senate.

Quote: EvenBob

Even if that was the goal in 2009, it will never
pass congress. Obama's side was stunned when
they lost so many seats in 2010, and now there's
a good chance they'll lose the senate.

Outcome will depend on whether or not the low-information voter crowd have they learned their lesson. Are they going to believe yet again Obama's lies and vote Democrat? I doubt very many Senate and House Democrats running for re-election will want to to say much about Obamacare.

Resorting to insults? Between Twirdman s2b, Beethoven, and others, the insults compose about 75% of the posts in this thread.

The rollout of ObamaCare is lousy but there are some benefits:

(1) Eliminates limits on the amount of benefits you can receive.
(2) Your kids can remain on your plan until you are 26.
(3) Closes the Medicare prescription loophole over time.
(4) Provides no cost screenings and preventative care, especially to women.
(5) No denial for pre-existing conditions including the millions of children who were denied insurance for preexisting conditions.
(6) Tax credits to small business to buy insurance.
(7) Provides coverage and subsidies for low income Americans.

Quote: boymimbo

(4) Provides no cost screenings and preventative care, especially to women.

There is no more such a thing as "no cost screening" than there is "free health care." What has happened is we are now mandated to pay for everyone's screening whether we want it or not. Instead of more choice and free-market reforms that would lower costs we get more mandates that raise it.

Quote: Pabo

Please keep in mind that I'm not against universal health care for everyone per se. I just think Obamacare is not the way to go.

If you're for universal healthcare at all, there is no way that I know of to have a plan doesn't end up taking more from some people than they are putting in, and giving more to others than they put in. Trying to increase the pool in some fashion makes more sense than just being hopeful people will want to join in and that costs will go down.

I don't think some other conservatives here are onboard with that idea in general, so you may be different in that respect.

Quote: rxwine

If you're for universal healthcare at all, there is no way that I know of to have a plan doesn't end up taking more from some people than they are putting in, and giving more to others than they put in.

I'm confused.
I have been under the impression that the conservatives have claimed that universal healthcare, while being a noble concept, results in wealth redistribution.
Meanwhile, the liberals have claimed that it does not result in redistribution of wealth.

Are you stating that the liberals have not been truthful?

Guys, insurance itself redistributes costs. That's what you sign up for when you sign up for insurance.

You pay in small amounts regularly and then take out large amounts infrequently. When you pay in you are paying for others, and when you take out you are taking from others.

Generally there is also a "rake" known as the insurance company, but the basic idea behind insurance is to pool risk and payments among many to protect each other.