Obamacare

Quote: LarryS

By forcing insurance companies to take on millions of high maintainence patients....the insurance companies are forced to pay for these people and pass the expense off on the rest of the insured population.

In the past those costs were absorbed by the government and so, indirectly, by everyone else. So what in the hey is the difference?

Quote: LarryS

So people who used to pay a 25 dollar copay for an MRI....might be paying 150. People who used to pay 400 dollars a year for their prescriptions, now can be payng 2-3 thousand easily. And it goes on and on. If you dont use obamacare its very cheap. But f you use medical services...well then u lose.
Not only are you paying more yearly for services used through higher copays or higher deductables......but you have often been forced to give up your continuity of care by having to dump your doctors that know your case well..in exchange for new medical she staff that you pick out of a brouchure and hope they are satisfactory.

I live in a very large metropolitan city and my costs have decreased thru a policy provided thru the insurance exchange. Although my premium is up around 2%, I now have a much lower deductible and lower co-pays. Are there areas where people are paying more? Yep. Frankly, too F'ing bad. They were getting a break all of this time and I probably subsidized it. If they do not like it then they should move into an area where there is some competition amongst providers and therefore lower costs.

Also, the thing about having to dump your doctors? Are you kidding me? That's been going on for ages. Anytime you switched insurance plans, you ran the risk of losing the doctors that you were using. How about a little truth without color?

Quote: RonC

The government has some great ways of lying to us that we (as a whole) seem to accept without question...

They have a budget item that is supposed to be increased by 10% from $20 billion to $22 billion...
They reduce the budgeted increase from 10% to 5% making it a $1 billion increase instead of $2 billion...
Then they tell us they have "saved" $1 billion...
Yet they have spent $1 billion more...

Why do we accept it?

Because 47% of the population is happy with it to the point that until the checks stop showing up every month they will keep voting the same way.

Quote: steeldco

In the past those costs were absorbed by the government and so, indirectly, by everyone else. So what in the hey is the difference?


I live in a very large metropolitan city and my costs have decreased thru a policy provided thru the insurance exchange. Although my premium is up around 2%, I now have a much lower deductible and lower co-pays. Are there areas where people are paying more? Yep. Frankly, too F'ing bad. They were getting a break all of this time and I probably subsidized it. If they do not like it then they should move into an area where there is some competition amongst providers and therefore lower costs.

Also, the thing about having to dump your doctors? Are you kidding me? That's been going on for ages. Anytime you switched insurance plans, you ran the risk of losing the doctors that you were using. How about a little truth without color?

the costs used to be absorbed by the govt and then idirectly by we the people???? Wow this is way too easy.

If the govt used to pay for these people, it was included in our taxes. Our taxes did not go down due to the "shift" you speak of....so we still pay the same or more taxes and now pay more for the use of healthcare.

Secondly the govt and the hospitals paid for the emergency room scenario where they cant turn away uninsured patients and therefore have to pass the cost to us. Yes that has always happened. But now we just dont have emergency room scenarios. We have 6 million people with either pre-exisiting conditions or who havent seen a doctor in years with undiagnosed conditions percolating over the years.....that need to have their healthcare paid for by our insurance companies by order of the federal govt. And the insurnce companies say thats no problem..the increased cost will be spread among the other policy holders.

So if you are saying thet the federal govt is shifting this cost to us thats fine...but we are not seeing a decrease in taxes for this "shift'


your me me me attitude is pathetic. I can easily afford the extra 4k in medical expenses my wife and I will pay this year. And good for YOU that you wont pay more.
But there will be millons of hard working middle class people who will have to make real sacrifices financially because THEY will pay more...and they believed obama that "healthcae costs will decrease". They thought the cost would DEcrease for THEM. They should instead feel great that the costs are fine for YOU.

and they believed obama when they were assured they could keep their insurance/physicians. And they should not feel bad that they have physicians they never expected to have because after all YOU or someone else somewhere in this country was not adversely affected. Have people been lied to in the past by an employer and told that in 6 months they are going to change insurance plans but that they can keep their doctors?..I guess your argument is correct. There are unethical bosses out there. And now we have an unethical president that you proudly put in that category...of LIAR. OK...i gve you that....there have been scumbag employers that have lied about healthcare in the past......and we have a president that did the same. Good for you.....you made a great point.

Well, the world doesnt revolve around YOU.

The efficacy of obamacare does not revolve around YOU and YOUR family.

There is a bigger world out there. And although I can afford to burn 4K without blinking...it doesnt mean I WILL GO IN A SHELL AND TELL EVERYONE ELSE TO "SUCK IT UP"...that is total BS.

the "thats your problem" view of the world is alien to me....but obviously not you....EXCEPT GUESS WHAT.....even if something adverse doesnt affect you right this minute....doesnt mean it will not eventually come around and smack you in the face.

Quote: LarryS

If the govt used to pay for these people, it was included in our taxes. Our taxes did not go down due to the "shift" you speak of....so we still pay the same or more taxes and now pay more for the use of healthcare.

Larry, are you saying that since the government doesn't somehow refund a portion of our taxes then it wasn't money saved? Wow, really, is that your argument?

Quote: LarryS

Secondly the govt and the hospitals paid for the emergency room scenario where they cant turn away uninsured patients and therefore have to pass the cost to us. Yes that has always happened. But now we just dont have emergency room scenarios. We have 6 million people with either pre-exisiting conditions or who havent seen a doctor in years with undiagnosed conditions percolating over the years.....that need to have their healthcare paid for by our insurance companies by order of the federal govt. And the insurnce companies say thats no problem..the increased cost will be spread among the other policy holders.

This is interesting. So you feel that those with pre-existing conditions shouldn't get reasonably priced health care coverage because it will cause everyone else's costs to go up, yet you feign concern for the lower income people who may have higher costs? You're concerned with people's financial health, but not their physical health. Is that it? Tough to reconcile......

Quote: LarryS

your me me me attitude is pathetic. I can easily afford the extra 4k in medical expenses my wife and I will pay this year. And good for YOU that you wont pay more.
But there will be millons of hard working middle class people who will have to make real sacrifices financially because THEY will pay more...and they believed obama that "healthcae costs will decrease". They thought the cost would DEcrease for THEM. They should instead feel great that the costs are fine for YOU.

See above regarding physical vs. financial health. Also, you neglect to mention the fact that the costs do NOT increase for EVERYONE just as mine have not (which was the point that I was trying to make)....I know it's difficult for narrow minded individuals to concede that they're wrong on occasion.

Quote: LarryS

and they believed obama when they were assured they could keep their insurance/physicians. And they should not feel bad that they have physicians they never expected to have because after all YOU or someone else somewhere in this country was not adversely affected. Have people been lied to in the past by an employer and told that in 6 months they are going to change insurance plans but that they can keep their doctors?..I guess your argument is correct. There are unethical bosses out there. And now we have an unethical president that you proudly put in that category...of LIAR. OK...i gve you that....there have been scumbag employers that have lied about healthcare in the past......and we have a president that did the same. Good for you.....you made a great point.

Wow, I read this again and I now stand corrected. You do apparently on occasion admit when you're wrong. Great! Now stop continually spewing the nonsense about losing your doctors. That risk occurs everytime anyone, or any company, switches their policies.

Quote: LarryS

Well, the world doesnt revolve around YOU.

The efficacy of obamacare does not revolve around YOU and YOUR family.

Absolutely correct. It doesn't revolve around me. I cited what occurred in my circumstance because Obamacare did NOT, in my case, increase my costs. Are you saying that I am the lone US citizen for whom that has happened? That others have not seen similar results? Naw....never mind, you would never admit that since it doesn't support your views.

Quote: LarryS

There is a bigger world out there. And although I can afford to burn 4K without blinking...it doesnt mean I WILL GO IN A SHELL AND TELL EVERYONE ELSE TO "SUCK IT UP"...that is total BS.

Sure. I get your viewpoint.....you seem to feel that if someone has a pre-existing condition then to hell with them. Let them "suck it up". I don't want people paying more because of it. Yep. That makes sense........

Quote: LarryS

the "thats your problem" view of the world is alien to me....but obviously not you....EXCEPT GUESS WHAT.....even if something adverse doesnt affect you right this minute....doesnt mean it will not eventually come around and smack you in the face.

Please see above.

No insurnce companies shold not be forced to cover PEOPLE with pre-existing conditions. THAT IS NOT INSURANCE. That is a welfare program that the govt should pay for if the govt feels these people need extra help. And if the govt pays for iy..they do it by shifting money away from other programs and not rasising taxes,

Just as people who has their house burn down does not have the right to get "insurance" to have their house rebuilt....after the fact.

Just as terminally ill people cant buy a 5 million dollar life insurance policy

Its not the job of an insurance company to provide upfront coverage to high risk people and if they choose to..they always have the ability to charge a premium for the coverage.

If the govt wants to cover people that are not insurable by the standards of insurance companies...then fine...the govt can shift funds away from welfare, medicare, defense, the arts, the post office. space program,....and help the poor people with medical neeeds.

And if the govt feels everyone uinsured who had their home burn down should be able to have their home rebuilt at the expense of someone else....then thegovt can have a fund for those people. They dont force the insurance companies to pay for that pre-exisiting condition.

There is a difference between HEALTHCARE and Insurance.

iF you feel everyone deserves healthcare....it doesnt mean the insurance companies have to pay for it.

Making insurance companies pay for it, and thereby making them pass on the added expense to us....and causing musical chairs of physician care......is just another tax placed on the general public. They are redefining the definition of "insurance"...and are making health insurance companies into a welfare system rather than a true insurance company that has the ability to balance risks and costs and premiums.

Obama has singled out health insurance companies and turned them into a welfare system.

People dont understand what insurance companies do and how they do it,

Insurance companies turn down coverage to homes in flood zones///they can weigh risks
Insurance companies dont even try to provide earthquake coverage to areas that are likely to have earthquakes...and if they do provide coverage the deductable is huge....usually around 50k..as it is with my insurance company in california...and I dont have that coverage because of the high deductable.///they can weigh risks

In the 60's my father had a business in the area of the Newark Riots...from that day going foward insurance rates for fire and theft went so high that the insurance was out of reach. The business owners in newark were not forced to be given "affordable" business insuance./ insurance cmompanies weighed risks

A person with a terminal brain tumor , is not entitled by the govt to get an "affordable" life insurance coverage./insurance companies weighs risks

But all of a sudden health insurors are not allowed to weigh risk..they are ordered by the govt to give the people with upfront known risk the same policy as the person who is perfectly healthy. this is not "insurance"...this is welfare

Quote: LarryS

No insurnce companies shold not be forced to cover PEOPLE with pre-existing conditions. THAT IS NOT INSURANCE. That is a welfare program that the govt should pay for if the govt feels these people need extra help. And if the govt pays for iy..they do it by shifting money away from other programs and not rasising taxes,

So you want the government to pay for it rather than having everyone share the costs via health insurance premiums? Really? I'd much rather that the actuaries with the insurance companies determine the premiums rather than have government tax us using their sometimes insane methodologies.

Quote: LarryS

Just as people who has their house burn down does not have the right to get "insurance" to have their house rebuilt....after the fact.

Where does this happen? News to me. Please explain.....or are you trying to say that someone with a pre-existing health condition is the equivalent of a home being rebuilt after a catastrophe?

Quote: LarryS

Just as terminally ill people cant buy a 5 million dollar life insurance policy

Not quite the same. Why would you make this comparison? So illogical. You're equating helping a person with a health condition to allowing someone to collect monetarily on a life insurance policy? You do see a difference, do you not? Maybe not.....

Quote: LarryS

Its not the job of an insurance company to provide upfront coverage to high risk people and if they choose to..they always have the ability to charge a premium for the coverage If the govt wants to cover people that are not insurable by the standards of insurance companies...then fine...the govt can shift funds away from welfare, medicare, defense, the arts, the post office. space program,....and help the poor people with medical neeeds..

You don't really think that the insurance companies will not spread the risk, do you? Again, I'd rather have private industry set rates and not have the government paying up for those without coverage and then screwing everyone else with the taxes.

Quote: LarryS

iF you feel everyone deserves healthcare....it doesnt mean the insurance companies have to pay for it.

Um, you do know that the insurance companies aren't paying for it. Right?

Quote: LarryS

Making insurance companies pay for it, and thereby making them pass on the added expense to us....and causing musical chairs of physician care......is just another tax placed on the general public. They are redefining the definition of "insurance"...and are making health insurance companies into a welfare system rather than a true insurance company that has the ability to balance risks and costs and premiums.

We pay for it. One way, or another, we pay for it. Once again, the musical chairs argument existed for many, many years. I know it takes away some of your spin ability, but put it away.

is this insurance or welfare

Hello blue cross...I am calling to sign up for your health insurance policy that you advertise for 478.00 per month. Just to let you know...I am currently uninsured and just got out of the emrgency room where I went because I lost conciousness. They did a brain scan and it shows a lage tumor. They say it is operatable, and I will need alot of therapy aferward. They said I should get insurance because the entire therapy can cost 5 million over the years. So I would like to send off my 478.00 and get the ball rolling.

Hello allstate, I live in a flood zone and in the past havent been able to get insurance. My house flooded yesterday and now obama says you have to give me insurance for my pre-existing flooded house...I will be happy to write the check for 147.00...the usual monthly premium. I appreciate your time...and let me know when u will start the rebuilding.

Hello Farmers, I have a store in the middle of the LA riots. I would like coverage before my store gets burned down or looted. Obama says you have to provide me with affordable coverage...so I amdropping off my check for immediate coverage.


In all the above, the insurance company has no ability to weigh risk.....wieghing risk and coming up with an appropriate charge is what insurance companies are all about. Sometimes after weighing the risk the charge will be too high for the customer to bear, or after weighing the risk the insurance company may totally bow out as they do in earthquake areas, and flood zones.

if insurance companies are ordered to ignore risk and give a standard charge to everyone......then they are a welfare system...not an insurance company

Quote: LarryS

if insurance companies are ordered to ignore risk and give a standard charge to everyone......then they are a welfare system...not an insurance company

Do you really think that insurance companies don't know how to assess the risks and determine the premiums? You feel they're going to go bankrupt since they're told to "ignore risk"? Kind of a laughable argument.

Wellpoint's chief financial officer Wayne DeVeydt said at a separate presentation. “It’s not about whether or not you're getting a sicker book. It’s whether you priced for it.”

Quote: steeldco

Do you really think that insurance companies don't know how to assess the risks and determine the premiums? You feel they're going to go bankrupt since they're told to "ignore risk"? Kind of a laughable argument.

no, while they become welfare adminisrators rather than analyzers of risk......we the people will bail them out as we become the funders of the new welfare system that the govt hoisted onto the insurance industry. They wil not go bankrupt aslong we the people pay for the new welfare system.

In the past you picked an insurance company and hoped that the company was good, stable, and had sharp people who can recognize and control risk in order to keep your premiums and deductables and copays from going sky high

Now they dont have to do that stuff anymore. Now they accept everyone and pass on the cost to you.

they are welfare profiders...not analyzers of risk

Quote: LarryS

no, while they become welfare adminisrators rather than analyzers of risk......we the people will bail them out as we become the funders of the new welfare system that the govt hoisted onto the insurance industry. They wil not go bankrupt aslong we the people pay for the new welfare system.

It doesn't matter what you call it. If you want to call it, "welfare" then knock yourself out. The bottom line is we are paying for it in some form and fashion and I would much rather have private industry assess risk and premium, rather than government.

Quote: LarryS

In the past you picked an insurance company and hoped that the company was good, stable, and had sharp people who can recognize and control risk in order to keep your premiums and deductables and copays from going sky high

Nothing has changed in that regard. The insurance companies still assess the risk and determine the premiums. If you were to tell me that they are told what to charge, or that they have to participate in all of the exchanges, then you would have a case. But they're not given any of those demands. BTW, there are many people who can not handle any sort of change whatsoever. Just curious, are you one?

Quote: LarryS

Now they dont have to do that stuff anymore. Now they accept everyone and pass on the cost to you.

You keep ignoring the fact that we have always been paying for it. Let private industry do their thing. See the prior posted Wellpoint exec's comment.

Quote: LarryS

they are welfare profiders...not analyzers of risk

No. They have choice. They set the premiums. They choose whether or not they want to be in the exchanges. If they didn't analyze the risk then they would participate everywhere.....right? You understand that they are not blindly offering coverage.

some companies love that they dont have to do any work, just accept everyone and pass the cost on to their policy holders.

the easiest form of welfare

no big analysis, no worries about taking too much risk and the consequences...not at all. They just open the doors and accept everyone and whatever the cost...the cost gets split up between the policy holders.

No longer are they working on behalf of the policy holders to keep cost down by reducing risk like they do by denying flood zone homes. earthquake zone homes, riot prone neighborhoods...all of which holds down the cost of home and business insurance and holds down those deductables.

Now they accept everyone, and just divy up the cost and pass it on.

not insurance...just a socialized medicine scheme that turns insurance companies into welfare providers....under the title of "affordable healthcare"

Imagine what homeowners insurance would cost if they were obligated to take everyone in under the same montly premium. If they had to provide eartghquake insurance to everyone at an "affordable" cost with 1000 dollar deductables. If they had to provide "affordable" policies to flood zone homes.

No worries for them about assessing risk...just accept everyone, and split up the costs plus admin fees..and pass on to the policy holders.....socialized home insurance

Quote: LarryS

some companies love that they dont have to do any work, just accept everyone and pass the cost on to their policy holders.

the easiest form of welfare

no big analysis, no worries about taking too much risk and the consequences...not at all. They just open the doors and accept everyone and whatever the cost.

You do know that what you just said is untrue, don't you?

Quote: steeldco

You feel they're going to go bankrupt since they're told to "ignore risk"? .

No, it's because Obama promised them the healthy
young people would sign up in droves. Obama
doesn't know the young have no interest in health
insurance because they don't need it. They can't
be bribed or cajoled into getting it, and that simple
fact alone means Obamacare is doomed. All these
other arguments are a waste of time. Just like car
insurance depends on people who never have accidents
paying their premiums every month, health insurance
depends on people who never use it. And the opposite
are signing up for Obamacare.

I think there is one fact I can add to this dialogue between steeldco and Larrys. Insurance companies, if forced to accept the new client that will pay $10,00 a year but cost $100,000, will need to make up the costs somewhere else. The options are...
1. Lose money (not a real option!)
2. Raise rates overall (only an option if all companies do so, or else will lose via free market competition)
3. What an insurance company that I deal with, when I asked them this very question, said...

WE GET HUGE FEDERAL SUBSIDIES!

So, if you consider Obamacare 'working', if many Americans get healthcare insurance that didn't previously have such, then yes, Obamacare will be deemed a success. If you consider the additional trillions of dollars, and yes, it will be trillions, added to the debt, and the many Americans that have their rates go up, to make it a failure, then Obamacare will be deemed a failure.

So people like me (and I'm guessing larrys, evenbob, B9) consider it a failure, while Steeldco, s2, can consider it a success. Looking at the same set of facts. It all depends on what you consider more important.

Quote: SOOPOO

I think there is one fact I can add to this dialogue between steeldco and Larrys. Insurance companies, if forced to accept the new client that will pay $10,00 a year but cost $100,000, will need to make up the costs somewhere else. The options are...
1. Lose money (not a real option!)
2. Raise rates overall (only an option if all companies do so, or else will lose via free market competition)
3. What an insurance company that I deal with, when I asked them this very question, said...

WE GET HUGE FEDERAL SUBSIDIES!

So, if you consider Obamacare 'working', if many Americans get healthcare insurance that didn't previously have such, then yes, Obamacare will be deemed a success. If you consider the additional trillions of dollars, and yes, it will be trillions, added to the debt, and the many Americans that have their rates go up, to make it a failure, then Obamacare will be deemed a failure.

So people like me (and I'm guessing larrys, evenbob, B9) consider it a failure, while Steeldco, s2, can consider it a success. Looking at the same set of facts. It all depends on what you consider more important.

The problem is that it will not add a value to the economy that is equal to the amount it takes out of the economy. It may provide more people with coverage but it will do so with massive inefficiency because it is built poorly. While I don't favor the government running much of anything--we've already discussed how poorly they run many things--this administration hastily put together an "emergency" package (no transparency) that we have to pass the law to see what is in it (who wants a Cracker Jack law??) and now the won't even follow the provisions in the law regarding implementation.

There "facts" about the costs were lies, if we remember way back then...basing the results of the analysis on years when Obamacare was not even in effect.

So...if success is just a few more people inefficiently being covered by healthcare insurance, it is possible to call it a success.

That is a shallow measurement...

Quote: SOOPOO

I think there is one fact I can add to this dialogue between steeldco and Larrys. Insurance companies, if forced to accept the new client that will pay $10,00 a year but cost $100,000, will need to make up the costs somewhere else. The options are...
1. Lose money (not a real option!)
2. Raise rates overall (only an option if all companies do so, or else will lose via free market competition)
3. What an insurance company that I deal with, when I asked them this very question, said...

WE GET HUGE FEDERAL SUBSIDIES!

So, if you consider Obamacare 'working', if many Americans get healthcare insurance that didn't previously have such, then yes, Obamacare will be deemed a success. If you consider the additional trillions of dollars, and yes, it will be trillions, added to the debt, and the many Americans that have their rates go up, to make it a failure, then Obamacare will be deemed a failure.

So people like me (and I'm guessing larrys, evenbob, B9) consider it a failure, while Steeldco, s2, can consider it a success. Looking at the same set of facts. It all depends on what you consider more important.

Biue cross of Ca recently requested a 25 percent increase in premiums. So even if they are getting subsidies...it aint enough.

People are now finding that they have to accept weaker.poorer coverage in order to afford the premiums. And gamble that if they get sick, that they will be able to afford the high deductable.

what we are seing is health insurance being a policy for catastrophic illness...and anything that falls below that...3-4-5k a year can be paid out of pocket.
before obamacare, your premiums were good enough to get you very good coverage for non catastrophic procedures, like visits to specialists, lab tests, x-ray. Now for may policies due to high deductables....you now pay for all those services up to 4 or 5 k or more. insurance is more for the hospital stay type of medical claim.

Now Like Isaid...if my wife and I pay 4k out of our combined salaries each year....no big deal. But for the families that claimed obama was for the middle class....they will feel the burn of that extra 4-5k.

You see when you work for a big corporation, EVERYONE pays the same for health insurance out of their check. The people making 40k a year pays the exact same weekly for their insurance as the person making 150k. And they have the same policy. The same deductables.

So the 40k people were voting for obama. So sad.

Quote: SOOPOO

If you consider the additional trillions of dollars, and yes, it will be trillions, added to the debt, and the many Americans that have their rates go up, to make it a failure, then Obamacare will be deemed a failure.

Why would it add to it? It's already there. We've been paying for it. And YES, rates will rise, offset by lower government spending. We just need to have our politicians use those savings wisely. Certainly not a given.

Quote: steeldco

We just need to have our politicians use those savings wisely.

Should one laugh or cry at this fantasy?

Just because we can't trust our politicians is no reason not to do it. It's the right thing to do. Get it out of the hands of the politicians. It is reason to get others elected.

Quote: steeldco

Why would it add to it? It's already there. We've been paying for it.

Been paying for what. Before Obamacare the insurance
companies weren't getting subsidies, they cost the tax
payer nothing. But it's a moot point, enough insurable
low risk people will never sign up to make this abomination
work. Not even close. They will never repeal it, they'll
just whittle away at it till we get what we had before. And
then they will come up something that works, like tort
reform and letting insurance co's sell across state borders.

Evenbob, why don't you go back and read the thread and you'll discover what we're talking about.

Quote: steeldco

Evenbob, why don't you go back and read the thread and you'll discover what we're talking about.

You're talking about something that's doomed,
what's the difference. The ending is written
on the wall. Epic failure.

Quote: rob45

Should one laugh or cry at this fantasy?

+10

Unfortunately, if people are told that Mount St. Helens is going to erupt, one guy would rather "wait and see" what happens instead of getting out of Dodge.

It's obvious who was sitting around waiting to see what happened next to the rumbling volcano, and doing nothing was not the right answer either.

Quote: rxwine

It's obvious who was sitting around waiting to see what happened next to the rumbling volcano, and doing nothing was not the right answer either.

so whatis that..something like 7 percent a yearincrease?

Medical care is not like technology...lijke an iphone that goes down in price every year.

Each year there are new drugs that come out where pharmaceutical companties spend hundreds of millions of dollars from initial discovery to approval in the US market. Many of these drugs are better than what already exists. And they are more expensive than what already exists. Bacterial resistant to antibiotics over the years pop up...and the newer drugs take care of the condition.....more expensive yes. But life saving.
New procedures constantly come out.New technology.
If everything stayed the same...yes a 7 percent increase would be incredibly high.
Add to this that there is no limits to lawsuits in this country as far a ceilings....the lack of tort reform increases the cost of healthcare incrementally as well.

Do we want meidcal expertise that may be available in Russia where its difficult to treat a simple eye infection...or do we want the healthcare we are receiving.

Heathcare cant be compared to the inflation index to a can of sting beans. The can of beans is the same year after year... a doubling in price over 10 years would be head turning.

But for an ever evolving/improving arena of healthcare.......what is the big deal about a 7 percent a year increase considering the breakthroughs that occur each year.

And "doing nothing" when Obamacare is about to wreck the country is not the right answer either!

BTW, I love my new sig :D

Quote: LarryS

some companies love that they dont have to do any work, just accept everyone and pass the cost on to their policy holders.

the easiest form of welfare

no big analysis, no worries about taking too much risk and the consequences...not at all. They just open the doors and accept everyone and whatever the cost...the cost gets split up between the policy holders.

No longer are they working on behalf of the policy holders to keep cost down by reducing risk like they do by denying flood zone homes. earthquake zone homes, riot prone neighborhoods...all of which holds down the cost of home and business insurance and holds down those deductables.

Now they accept everyone, and just divy up the cost and pass it on.

not insurance...just a socialized medicine scheme that turns insurance companies into welfare providers....under the title of "affordable healthcare"

Imagine what homeowners insurance would cost if they were obligated to take everyone in under the same montly premium. If they had to provide eartghquake insurance to everyone at an "affordable" cost with 1000 dollar deductables. If they had to provide "affordable" policies to flood zone homes.

No worries for them about assessing risk...just accept everyone, and split up the costs plus admin fees..and pass on to the policy holders.....socialized home insurance

Nonsense. There are areas in the United States where there is ONE single provider and one hospital system and no competition. Yes, the ONE insurance company offered through the exchange now has to accept anyone, and they now have to divy up the costs. The size of the pool has increased because it's only fair that health insurance should be available to all. Unlike driving, unlike home insurance, unlike every other kind of insurance, one HAS to live. The choice of death shouldn't be an option for those who are sick and can't afford insurance, because despite all of the skill you might have in driving, on having a burglar alarm on your door and locking you home, your good health is not necessarily a skill.

The alternative to no health insurance is bankruptcy. The cost gets passed to you anyway because the bad debt has to be passed on to the consumer, right? And when you are bankrupt, guess what? You are living off of welfare and the government. And when you are sick, you also are not likely to be working either.

You have to look at the entire picture.

That's a beautiful graph, and it's interesting. A family of four is supposed to pay $20K of their annual income in health care. I'd like to see the graph showing the average income over those 11 years and you can see an obvious problem. Healthcare is unaffordable.

Quote: boymimbo

That's a beautiful graph, and it's interesting. A family of four is supposed to pay $20K of their annual income in health care. I'd like to see the graph showing the average income over those 11 years and you can see an obvious problem. Healthcare is unaffordable.

Healthcare is affordable to most. Because of Obamacare and various state mandates, health I-N-S-U-R-A-N-C-E has gotten very costly. If Obamacare did not require coverage for so many things people might not want, coverage would be cheaper.

Wait until care is rationed, like in single-payer-systems, and you will really hear screaming.

Quote: Beethoven9th

BTW, I love my new sig :D

Do gr8player and tournamentking read this thread?

Quote: rxwine

Do gr8player and tournamentking read this thread?

Who cares? They're not stalkers. ;)

Quote: boymimbo

Nonsense. There are areas in the United States where there is ONE single provider and one hospital system and no competition. Yes, the ONE insurance company offered through the exchange now has to accept anyone, and they now have to divy up the costs. The size of the pool has increased because it's only fair that health insurance should be available to all. Unlike driving, unlike home insurance, unlike every other kind of insurance, one HAS to live. The choice of death shouldn't be an option for those who are sick and can't afford insurance, because despite all of the skill you might have in driving, on having a burglar alarm on your door and locking you home, your good health is not necessarily a skill.

The alternative to no health insurance is bankruptcy. The cost gets passed to you anyway because the bad debt has to be passed on to the consumer, right? And when you are bankrupt, guess what? You are living off of welfare and the government. And when you are sick, you also are not likely to be working either.

You have to look at the entire picture.

In some parts of he country its so cold at times that if you didnt have a heat generating device in your home ...your wuld die.Are they entitled to a furnace. Is it ok for the govt require that everyone pay into a furnace fund even if they dont need a furnace right now....so that someone else can get a cheaper price on a furnce today because after all they deserve to live.

What about refrigerators. In modern society refrigerated food allows for healthier population and less disease and illness. People can die from poorly preserved food,
Should we all pay into a refigerator fund even though we dont need a refrigerator right now....so that someone else can afford a refigerator today.

We need more than healthcare in order to live.

Quote: Beethoven9th

Who cares? They're not stalkers. ;)

Yeah, their name wasn't in a sig line. Maybe it's someone else? ; )

Quote: LarryS

In some parts of he country its so cold at times that if you didnt have a heat generating device in your home ...your wuld die.Are they entitled to a furnace. Is it ok for the govt require that everyone pay into a furnace fund even if they dont need a furnace right now....so that someone else can get a cheaper price on a furnce today because after all they deserve to live.

What about refrigerators. In modern society refrigerated food allows for healthier population and less disease and illness. People can die from poorly preserved food,
Should we all pay into a refigerator fund even though we dont need a refrigerator right now....so that someone else can afford a refigerator today.

We need more than healthcare in order to live.

Actually you can go years without health insurance. Without a furnace, refrigerator, and in many cases a car your life goes bad in days or even hours.

Quote: AZDuffman

Wait until care is rationed, like in single-payer-systems, and you will really hear screaming.

You don't hear it in Canada and the UK because
they've had it since 1947, generations have gone
by and they're used to it. Start making people wait
for weeks for things they get right away now will
not go over well and elections will show it. We will
elect people to change it. Like Krauthammer says,
this is a law that effects everybody, there is nobody
who is safe from it. Just like Prohibition. And if
it doesn't work well, it will get changed, it's inevitable.

Quote: AZDuffman

Actually you can go years without health insurance.

You can go your whole life without it, as the
majority of the worlds population does. India,
for instance, has terrible healthcare. 50% of
the population doesn't even have access to
medical services. China has health reform
where most people are covered, but the actual
care itself is a joke. It's mostly non existent if
you're rural, which most Chinese are. And if
you're in a city, there's a shortage of everything
imaginable. Unless you're rich, of course.

Quote: EvenBob

You don't hear it in Canada and the UK because
they've had it since 1947, generations have gone
by and they're used to it. Start making people wait
for weeks for things they get right away now will
not go over well and elections will show it. We will
elect people to change it. Like Krauthammer says,
this is a law that effects everybody, there is nobody
who is safe from it. Just like Prohibition. And if
it doesn't work well, it will get changed, it's inevitable.

I don't know if people will vote to change it. 47% of the population is going to vote for the handout no matter what. The question is when do the so-called 1% go on strike.

Quote: EvenBob

You don't hear it in Canada and the UK because
they've had it since 1947, generations have gone
by and they're used to it. Start making people wait
for weeks for things they get right away now will
not go over well and elections will show it. We will
elect people to change it. Like Krauthammer says,
this is a law that effects everybody, there is nobody
who is safe from it. Just like Prohibition. And if
it doesn't work well, it will get changed, it's inevitable.

I think this november we will see what florida thinks of obamacare/

that state is "healthcare central"

Quote: rxwine

Maybe it's someone else? ; )

Wow, somebody remembers a sig from several months ago. Talk about obsession...lol

If this already happens with insurance, how much worse will it get with Obamacare and worse insurance (less choices, less doctors, etc.)?

"The study, published Wednesday in JAMA Surgery, found that uninsured patients with severe injuries – the kind commonly associated with car crashes, serious falls and gunshots – were significantly more likely than insured patients to be transferred out of hospitals not specializing in trauma care."

http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation/2014/02/19/uninsured-trauma-treatment/5614227/

Say it isn't so...another possibly illegal change to a ill-conceived law just to try to keep low-information voters in the dark long enough for them to vote Dem one more time...

"As early as this week, according to two sources, the White House will announce a new directive allowing insurers to continue offering health plans that do not meet ObamaCare’s minimum coverage requirements.

Prolonging the “keep your plan” fix will avoid another wave of health policy cancellations otherwise expected this fall.

The cancellations would have created a firestorm for Democratic candidates in the last, crucial weeks before Election Day.'

Read more: http://thehill.com/blogs/healthwatch/health-reform-implementation/199784-new-obamacare-delay-to-help-midterm-dems#ixzz2v0JGO4EC
Follow us: @thehill on Twitter | TheHill on Facebook

The unbelievable is now commonplace and even completely predictable... geez

obamacare is ending up being a great proposition for big business.

Before obamacare big business felt obligated to get into providing healthcare so that employees and family could get coverage.

Now with obamacare, the company can tell their employees to go get their own. Look at Walgreens. They totally drop healthcare. They give the employee a small stipend to help pay ofr healthcare....and they are sent off to get what they can from the obamacare options on their own.

This is great for stockholders. Companies can save a ton of money this way.

yes the employee has to pay more for healthcare...but now they cant be denied healthcare...so the company doesnt have to get involved and provide "group coverage". This is a huge windfall for big companies.

So while republicans were viewed as being "for big business"....and the dems/obama was "for the workingman".........it hasnt really turned out that way.

Granted the walgreens decision only involves 160,000 people who have to get their own insurance now.....maybe new doctors.........but other companies are following.

Down the road, the idea of getting health insurance through your employer as a "benefit" will be a faint memory.

"A pair of surveys released on Thursday suggest that just one in 10 uninsured people who qualify for private health plans through the new marketplace have signed up for one — and that about half of uninsured adults has looked for information on the online exchanges or plans to look."

http://www.washingtonpost.com/national/health-science/health-insurance-marketplaces-signing-up-few-uninsured-americans-surveys-say/2014/03/06/cdae3152-a54d-11e3-84d4-e59b1709222c_print.html

Obamacare results continue to underwhelm even liberal-leaning media like the Post.

That's because uninsured people are young, or cheap,
or like the current system of visiting the emergency
room. Most uninsured folks aren't crying themselves
to sleep every night over healthcare, as the Obama-ite's
want us to believe.

Quote: EvenBob

That's because uninsured people are young, or cheap,
or like the current system of visiting the emergency
room. Most uninsured folks aren't crying themselves
to sleep every night over healthcare, as the Obama-ite's
want us to believe.

NOW in ca there are adverts all over tv, with somme very young black adult, talking into the camers....close up....to the viewers(more likely to his demgraphic)
about how they need to sign up for healthcare now that is "afordable", You know what...even to the poorest people on welfare a jsr of caviar is "affordable",,, but if people dont need caviarm dont want caviar,.....then they wont buy caviar.

people who dont want or feel they dont need health insurance ....wont buy

Quote: AZDuffman

The question is when do the so-called 1% go on strike.

Still waiting for them to go Galt. Funny how they never do.

Quote: rxwine

Do gr8player and tournamentking read this thread?

I do, occasionally.