# Obamacare failing.



## Darren (May 10, 2002)

Aetna warning.

"Insurance giant Aetna (AET) has joined a growing number of insurers warning that the ObamaCare exchanges are failing in just the way critics said they would. This yearâs anemic enrollment wonât help.

This week, Aetna CEO Mark Bertolini warned that âwe continue to have serious concerns about the sustainability of the public exchanges.â Aetna lost more than $100 million last year on the 750,000 enrollees it has through ObamaCare exchanges."

"Guaranteeing insurance coverage to everyone, no matter how sick, and charging those with preexisting illnesses artificially low rates, provides an enormous incentive to cheat. States that had tried these reforms ended up creating premium âdeath spiralsâ and wrecking their individual markets."

http://www.investors.com/politics/e...owing-chorus-warning-about-obamacare-failing/


----------



## 7thswan (Nov 18, 2008)

Between the Nurses and Theryapists that have been comeing here ,boy I get an ear full of how damaging it had been for Medicare.


----------



## Tricky Grama (Oct 7, 2006)

Time to go to single payer, like they said would happen. Socialist nation, here we are.


----------



## mmoetc (Oct 9, 2012)

So Aetna lost about $133 on each of those 750,00 enrolled. $11 per month. And they can't figure out how to fix it? Maybe some better actuaries.


----------



## beowoulf90 (Jan 13, 2004)

Well Imagine that!

Well those who hate America and forced this garbage upon all of us can't say they weren't warned..

Now it's time to pay the piper, which is going to cost all of us dearly.

Oh and I'm laughing my rear off at those who pushed this trash, then didn't qualify for subsidies and still don't have coverage and now are being fined for not being able to afford it..

It's comical to watch them rant and rave and all I can is is say, "I told you so".
It's also comical when those who did get subsidies, finally learn that they have to claim it and pay taxes on those subsidies.. IT angers them so.. I have to laugh which makes them even madder..

But I'm just a dumb old man..


----------



## mmoetc (Oct 9, 2012)

Just a year ago they were singing a different tune. http://www.forbes.com/sites/bruceja...d-on-obamacare-exchange-in-2015/#108b0d79153e


----------



## mmoetc (Oct 9, 2012)

Seems like they figured out how to overcome such dire straights. https://news.aetna.com/news-releases/aetna-reports-fourth-quarter-and-full-year-2015-results/


----------



## Laura Zone 5 (Jan 13, 2010)

I was sent a letter (to an address that I NEVER gave my healthcare provider or the market place) telling me that I have to change doctors, to a new do, 35 min away.

I purposely picked the plan I picked so that I could see my doc (who I have been seeing for 10 years).

Awesome.


----------



## mmoetc (Oct 9, 2012)

Every year I've had insurance I've received information on the changes of doctors. Sometimes I've lost access and talked to my physician and they've worked with the insurer to be a part of that network again. Sometimes it's worked. Sometimes it hasn't. Sometimes I've gained access to doctors and facilities that worked out better. Of course, it's only been happening for 30 years or so, by my experience. That darned Obama!


----------



## Darren (May 10, 2002)

Tricky Grama said:


> Time to go to single payer, like they said would happen. Socialist nation, here we are.


This time around the insurance companies won't act like sheep. They thought they had their profits locked in via the risk corridors. The other issue is the articles saying Obama may have singlehandedly guaranteed Republicans will be in power for an entire generation.

Now that the national debt has gone up by about a third and the Federal Reserve has been backed into a corner, it's going to be super tough to fund single payer considering the oncoming social security funding issue. If you haven't noticed, the foreign countries that used to buy massive amounts of our treasuries aren't doing that anymore. We getting to the point hard choices will have to be made on what the government can pay for.

Don't forget the massive spending proposed for the military to counter the advances of the Chinese and Russians.

Obamacare was based on forcing people to do something many did not want to do. The idiots who wrote it should have been put through a test to show they could herd cats. Once they can do that, then maybe let them think about healthcare or more than likely deathcare.


----------



## arabian knight (Dec 19, 2005)

Laura Zone 5 said:


> I was sent a letter (to an address that I NEVER gave my healthcare provider or the market place) telling me that I have to change doctors, to a new do, 35 min away.
> 
> I purposely picked the plan I picked so that I could see my doc (who I have been seeing for 10 years).
> 
> Awesome.


Yes this switching doctors sure is a new one. I Have NEVER EVER received ANY letter from ANY insurance company in all my years of having been insured that I had to SWITCH doctors. Never! And even now under Medicare I still have the SAME doctors I have had for the last umtine years. LOL So this switching doctors now is something completest NEW under this ObamUNcare situation.


----------



## Nevada (Sep 9, 2004)

Darren said:


> This week, Aetna CEO Mark Bertolini warned that &#8220;we continue to have serious concerns about the sustainability of the public exchanges.&#8221; Aetna lost more than $100 million last year on the 750,000 enrollees it has through ObamaCare exchanges."


Sounds like people are getting a lot more than their money's worth with Obamacare exchange policies.


----------



## Mish (Oct 15, 2015)

Edit - sorry, double post. Gr.


----------



## Mish (Oct 15, 2015)

> This time around the insurance companies won't act like sheep. They thought they had their profits locked in via the risk corridors. The other issue is the articles saying Obama may have singlehandedly guaranteed Republicans will be in power for an entire generation.
> 
> Now that the national debt has gone up by about a third and the Federal Reserve has been backed into a corner, it's going to be super tough to fund single payer considering the oncoming social security funding issue. If you haven't noticed, the foreign countries that used to buy massive amounts of our treasuries aren't doing that anymore. We getting to the point hard choices will have to be made on what the government can pay for.
> 
> ...


Except those that pushed Obamacare on us planned for it to fail from the beginning. They've always wanted single-payer, and tearing up the fabric of the healthcare system with Obamacare, then making it fail, is the quickest way to get there.

None of this was ever supposed to work. That was the plan from the get-go. The old system is gone, you can't go back, so when Obamacare goes belly up we're likely to be trapped into single payer.


----------



## Nevada (Sep 9, 2004)

Mish said:


> The old system is gone, you can't go back


The problem with Obamacare is that the old medical system is largely intact.


----------



## Texaspredatorhu (Sep 15, 2015)

One more reason he and all his idiot cronies should be hung for treason, intentional destruction of America!


----------



## Mish (Oct 15, 2015)

Nevada said:


> The problem with Obamacare is that the old medical system is largely intact.


Except, once employers are released from being forced to provide coverage when Obamacare implodes, how many are going to continue offering it? How about the employers that already dumped their coverage and pushed their employees onto the exchange, do you really think they're going to want to start purchasing coverage again? Hourly employers are already avoiding providing coverage by only hiring part time, they may start hiring full time again once Obamacare fails, but I doubt very much they are going to start offering coverage at that point. Employers used to be the biggest healthcare coverage providers, I think that has been/is being shredded by Obamacare.

That's what I mean when I say you can't go back. Unless things change dramatically, I don't see a way that we don't go into single payer.


----------



## Nevada (Sep 9, 2004)

Mish said:


> Except, once employers are released from being forced to provide coverage when Obamacare implodes, how many are going to continue offering it? How about the employers that already dumped their coverage and pushed their employees onto the exchange, do you really think they're going to want to start purchasing coverage again? Hourly employers are already avoiding providing coverage by only hiring part time, they may start hiring full time again once Obamacare fails, but I doubt very much they are going to start offering coverage at that point. Employers used to be the biggest healthcare coverage providers, I think that has been/is being shredded by Obamacare.
> 
> That's what I mean when I say you can't go back. Unless things change dramatically, I don't see a way that we don't go into single payer.


The employer healthcare subsidy is still alive & well.


----------



## Mish (Oct 15, 2015)

Nevada said:


> The employer healthcare subsidy is still alive & well.


I wasn't talking about the subsidy. I was talking about employers being willing to provide healthcare coverage, and a lot aren't. A lot of employers are staying below the employee threshold at which they are required to purchase healthcare. A LOT of employers are hiring only part time workers so that they don't have to provide coverage. 

The only reason employers started offering coverage was to entice good employees to work for them. They really don't need to do that anymore, as there aren't currently enough jobs for all the people that need them. So, if employers are not required to offer insurance, a lot of them won't. If they are required to offer it, a lot of them skirt the edges and do what they can to avoid it because it's becoming incredibly expensive to offer. And, again, other than the government saying they have to, there really is no reason for employers to offer it anymore.

Unless I'm misreading, you sound like you think employers want to offer coverage. I don't think they do, and their actions make me believe I'm right. So, what happens to the system when/if the government stops forcing employers to offer coverage, or employers simply stop being able to financially afford to offer it?


----------



## mnn2501 (Apr 2, 2008)

Laura Zone 5 said:


> I was sent a letter (to an address that I NEVER gave my healthcare provider or the market place) telling me that I have to change doctors, to a new do, 35 min away.
> 
> I purposely picked the plan I picked so that I could see my doc (who I have been seeing for 10 years).
> 
> Awesome.


What happened to "If you like your doctor you can keep your doctor"

Perhaps a lawsuit against the "liar-in-chief" would force the issue.


----------



## Nevada (Sep 9, 2004)

Mish said:


> Unless I'm misreading, you sound like you think employers want to offer coverage. I don't think they do


Employers have used healthcare as part of a competitive employee package offering. It's true that some employers will only do the minimum without a subsidy, but quality employers will want to do it.


----------



## Darren (May 10, 2002)

mmoetc said:


> So Aetna lost about $133 on each of those 750,00 enrolled. $11 per month. And they can't figure out how to fix it? Maybe some better actuaries.


That was the issue from the beginning. The crapola law passed by Congress wasn't based on actuarial science. That's why risk corridors were invented. It was how the insurance companies were bamboozled.

Now that the insurance companies have real world experience operating on the basis of the government's "trust me unicorns are real" scheme they understand they were screwed. The fines were supposed to force enough people to buy insurance so that the staggering overhead imposed by further involvement by government in the healthcare system, the costs of providing the service, and the planned profits for the insurance companies would be covered.

*They were wrong!

Health care exchanges are endangered "species."
*​


----------



## Mish (Oct 15, 2015)

Nevada said:


> Employers have used healthcare as part of a competitive employee package offering. It's true that some employers will only do the minimum without a subsidy, but quality employers will want to do it.


I'm just not sure how many employers have to entice workers with anything other than the offer of a job nowadays. I've had several family members job hunting in the last several years and the competition for even crappy jobs is fierce, unless you're in just the right field. I think you might be overestimating how much employers actually have to offer anymore.


----------



## Jim Bunton (Mar 16, 2004)

beowoulf90 said:


> Well Imagine that!
> 
> Well those who hate America and forced this garbage upon all of us can't say they weren't warned..
> 
> ...


Obama care is working for me. First time in my life we've had insurance. Premiums aren't any worse then they would have been if we didn't have a precondition (over weight). If you pay attention and check carefully to make sure you are being treated by a provider that accepts your carrier as payment then it is pretty good coverage. Be careful though taking the money isn't the same as accepting it as payment. Unless they accept it as payment you still owe the difference.

Jim


----------



## Nevada (Sep 9, 2004)

Jim Bunton said:


> Obama care is working for me. First time in my life we've had insurance. Premiums aren't any worse then they would have been if we didn't have a precondition (over weight).


Obamacare served it's purpose for me. I'm on Medicare now, but I was on Obamacare for about 18 months. I'm happy I got to use it first hand, since there is so much misinformation out there. There are a lot of policies to choose from, there's a whole spectrum of monthly premiums, and it's really a pretty good deal. If you qualify for a subsidy, which most Americans do, then so much the better.


----------



## beowoulf90 (Jan 13, 2004)

Jim Bunton said:


> Obama care is working for me. First time in my life we've had insurance. Premiums aren't any worse then they would have been if we didn't have a precondition (over weight). If you pay attention and check carefully to make sure you are being treated by a provider that accepts your carrier as payment then it is pretty good coverage. Be careful though taking the money isn't the same as accepting it as payment. Unless they accept it as payment you still owe the difference.
> 
> Jim



Sorry you will never convince me that 0bamacare is a good idea..

I never think giving up our Freedom is a good idea. I've committed no crime, yet if I don't do and pay what they want I'm now a criminal and they will take more from me..
I haven't been convicted of any crime, so tell me how the Government can take more from me and call it tax penalties..
That is tyranny.. 
I see that most people don't understand history, nor do they care..They only care about so-called "Free stuff" 
Which makes them cowards or traitors to their own country.
Ironic how the Government gives those who don't work or haven't earned it free health care and welfare etc. But then treats our Veterans with disdain and doesn't give them the proper care or treatment for wounds and injuries received during their service to the Country..


----------



## Farmerga (May 6, 2010)

Federal interference is the entire reason for the crap in the healthcare/insurance system. It has been going on since the 30's when the FDR administration fixed prices on wages leading to the advent of employer supplied health insurance. The Federal government has been trying to "Fix" the problem ever since, of course, making it much worse at each step.


----------



## Laura Zone 5 (Jan 13, 2010)

Called my doc.
Because I am a current patient, that used "bla bla" insurance in the past, they will continue to allow me to be a patient BUT he is NOT taking ANY new Medicaid or Marketplace patients......


----------



## Laura Zone 5 (Jan 13, 2010)

Nevada said:


> Obamacare served it's purpose for me. I'm on Medicare now, but I was on Obamacare for about 18 months. I'm happy I got to use it first hand, since there is so much misinformation out there. There are a lot of policies to choose from, there's a whole spectrum of monthly premiums, and it's really a pretty good deal. If you qualify for a subsidy, which most Americans do, then so much the better.


I am a forced heath care payer.

My policy is a Silver Plan 200.00 a month / 3,000.00 deductible.
Based upon my income, I get a 234.00 "credit: That's how my monthly cost is 200.

Sure, I could get a "cheaper" plan, but the deductible is 2-3 TIMES higher and MUST be met before the insurance kicks in.
Those plans, based upon my income are anywhere from 25-75.00 a month cheaper.

So what I have now costs me 2400.00 in premiums. 
THEN I have to meet my 3,000.00 deductible BEFORE I see any benefit for the 2400. I have paid in.

That's 5400.00 a year, based upon a 25,000.00 annual income.
That's 25% of my annual income.
When you take out a mortgage, the amount they will allow you to borrow will not exceed 30% of your annual income. Just to give a comparison.

NOW if I went with a cheaper plan, bronze, at 125.00 a month
My annual premiums would be 1500.00 
However, the deductible is 6-8,000.00 
So let say 6,000
So I have to pay the first 7500.00 before I reap any benefits from my premiums paid........MORE than the silver plan.........but it looks cheaper.

What a bait and switch load of whoooeee

I love how the commercials show plans for 25.00.
FOR WHO????
WHO qualifies for 25.00 a month premiums AND WHAT is their deductible????

It's all a load of crap.


----------



## Nevada (Sep 9, 2004)

Laura Zone 5 said:


> So what I have now costs me 2400.00 in premiums.
> THEN I have to meet my 3,000.00 deductible BEFORE I see any benefit for the 2400. I have paid in.


I selected a silver plan HMO, which doesn't have a deductible for most common services. If this concerns you, why didn't you select an HMO?


----------



## Raeven (Oct 11, 2011)

Working great for me. Had I stuck with a Silver plan this year, my deductible went down, my premiums went down and the coverage increased. But since I had a Silver plan last year and underutilized it, I stepped down to Bronze this year. I can cover the higher deductible if necessary, and all my preventive care is covered in any case -- as it is with *all* plans offered through the Exchange, and is something most fail to mention when discussing this issue. Physicals, mammograms and other preventive care are covered at no cost. 

Still, Single Payer is the way to go. We need to eliminate profit from the health care industry to make this really work.

But hey, I'm still open to hearing about the wondrous, magical health care solutions that will fix everything being offered by... well, anyone else. Please speak up!


----------



## arabian knight (Dec 19, 2005)

+


Mish said:


> That's what I mean when I say you can't go back. Unless things change dramatically, I don't see a way that we don't go into single payer.


Ya I am afraid that is what the US will be going for is a single payer deal. But wow what a horrible situation that will be for a free country like the USA is, and a free people like Americans are. Yet another liberal way to control and stop free enterprise and capitalism in America horrible ideas this left progressive thinking is.


----------



## Laura Zone 5 (Jan 13, 2010)

Silver Basic Plan
*HMO*
193.00 per month
5,000 deductible


 Emergency room care: $200 Copay after deductible
 Generic drugs: $15
 Primary doctor: No Charge
 Specialist doctor: $35 Copay after deductible


Silver CoInsurance Plan
211 per month
3500 deductible


 Emergency room care: 15% Coinsurance after deductible
 Generic drugs: $25
 Primary doctor: No Charge
 Specialist doctor: 15% Coinsurance after deductible

Silver Plus Plan
217.00 per month
2500 deductible



 Emergency room care: $350 Copay after deductible
 Generic drugs: $20
 Primary doctor: No Charge
 Specialist doctor: $45 Copay after deductible
*What I have:*
*PPO
*
197. per month
3000 deductible
Vision



 Emergency room care: $350 Copay after deductible
 Generic drugs: $20
 Primary doctor: No Charge
 Specialist doctor: $45 Copay after deductible

Maybe I get hosed because of where I live?
Maybe I get hosed because I make between 25-30K a year?
Maybe I get hosed because I am healthy, and 50?

Anyway you slice it, I am hosed.

Someone who is unhealthy (for whatever reason, obesity, drugs, alcohol, bad genes....) who spends their days and nights at the doctors; I am paying for them with higher permiums, higher dedutibles, and have to keep switching doctors because 1 by 1 docs are bailing out of this stupid system........
And all I do is take care of myself and stay healthy.

Great way to punish those who do the right thing vs those who CHOOSE unhealthy lifestyles........


----------



## Darren (May 10, 2002)

Raeven said:


> Working great for me. Had I stuck with a Silver plan this year, my deductible went down, my premiums went down and the coverage increased. But since I had a Silver plan last year and underutilized it, I stepped down to Bronze this year. I can cover the higher deductible if necessary, and all my preventive care is covered in any case -- as it is with *all* plans offered through the Exchange, and is something most fail to mention when discussing this issue. Physicals, mammograms and other preventive care are covered at no cost.
> 
> Still, Single Payer is the way to go. We need to eliminate profit from the health care industry to make this really work.
> 
> But hey, I'm still open to hearing about the wondrous, magical health care solutions that will fix everything being offered by... well, anyone else. Please speak up!


The question that needs answered is what will be the effect on advancements in medicine if the profit motive is eliminated. We're already seeing an absence of new antibiotics to counter rapidly spreading antibiotic resistance. Before someone brings up big pharma's profits, I'm not defending them.

Medical professionasl are leaving the profession because of increased paperwork. I've seen instances where assembly line treatment prevents doctors from focusing on patients to get to the bottom of their medical issues.

We can't treat medicine as a controllable process to the extent that the medically untrained are attempting to do. It should be about patients and not the bureaucracy.

If someone thinks the government can do a better job managing health care, the VA hospitals should be ample proof that's not the case. Healthcare should not be a process of pigeonholing people or shoe boxing the process.

Single payer is a double edged sword. Look at the ongoing neglect of veterans if you want a glimpse of the future beyond the tempting carrot.

The gold, silver and bronze labels should be evidence enough of the forces in play. We're being suckered.


----------



## Nevada (Sep 9, 2004)

Laura Zone 5 said:


> Maybe I get hosed because of where I live?
> Maybe I get hosed because I make between 25-30K a year?
> Maybe I get hosed because I am healthy, and 50?
> 
> Anyway you slice it, I am hosed.


Mostly where you live.


----------



## Laura Zone 5 (Jan 13, 2010)

That's a stupid, flawed plan.


----------



## Nevada (Sep 9, 2004)

Laura Zone 5 said:


> That's a stupid, flawed plan.


No different from Medicare Advantage. I get a super-generous HMO here in Las Vegas. Some other areas don't have a worthwhile Advantage plan.

It's cheaper to offer services in some places than others. Prices and benefits reflect that.


----------



## Nevada (Sep 9, 2004)

Darren said:


> The question that needs answered is what will be the effect on advancements in medicine if the profit motive is eliminated.


Americans care less about that than you think. Too many Americans can't afford the advances we already have. They're left behind by our medical system. More Americans would be satisfied with a basic level of affordable medicine than you realize.


----------



## Laura Zone 5 (Jan 13, 2010)

Again, that is just plain dumb.

So if I live in the ghetto, I get cheaper insurance?

If the government is going to force me into buying insurance, take it one step further: let your rates be based upon your healthy life choices.

If I am 50 years old, eat a good diet, exercise regularly, I am 5'6" and 122lbs, my premium should be HALF of someone who is 50 years old, eats a crap diet, is a couch potato and is 5'6" and 300lbs.

Make everyone get a physical and then let their rates be determined by the results.


----------



## Darren (May 10, 2002)

Laura Zone 5 said:


> Again, that is just plain dumb.
> 
> So if I live in the ghetto, I get cheaper insurance?
> 
> ...


You're advocating common sense and setting premiums based on individual responsibility. Obamacare ignores actuarial science. That's why, in part, it's failing.


----------



## Nevada (Sep 9, 2004)

Laura Zone 5 said:


> Again, that is just plain dumb.
> 
> So if I live in the ghetto, I get cheaper insurance?


It's not necessarily cheaper in a ghetto, but urban areas are usually cheaper than rural areas. It just depends on the marketplace.

Las Vegas us unusually affordable because UnitedHealthcare is heavily invested here. They operate specialist clinics all over town, called Southwest Medical Associates. They also have walk-in clinics for emergencies not urgent enough for an ER. Additionally, they have invested in private hospitals around town, and sit on the hospital boards. Since they provide services directly, they can do it cheaper.


----------



## Laura Zone 5 (Jan 13, 2010)

Then how is this NATIONAL* 'affordable' *FORCED health care, when it's different for everyone, based upon geography?

So should I sell my rural home, where crime is almost non existent to move to the ghetto to be able to afford my forced health care increasing my risk of being a victim of crime 100 fold???

And if this 'health care for all Americans" (oh and illegals) is such a great idea, why is HEALTH care based upon geography and not the HEALTH of the individual????


----------



## no really (Aug 7, 2013)

Reading this makes me glad I have access to the VA, ironically.


----------



## Laura Zone 5 (Jan 13, 2010)

Right? It's THAT bad!!!


----------



## Nevada (Sep 9, 2004)

Laura Zone 5 said:


> If I am 50 years old, eat a good diet, exercise regularly, I am 5'6" and 122lbs, my premium should be HALF of someone who is 50 years old, eats a crap diet, is a couch potato and is 5'6" and 300lbs.


You think like my "Archie Bunker" step father. He had no sympathy for people with health problems. He assumed that anyone with health problems got that way through actions of their own. He didn't offer sympathy, regardless of what was wrong with people he knew. He certainly didn't want any part of paying for their health problems.

Then he became ill. He developed heart problems, breathing problems, diabetes, and even renal failure. He couldn't understand it. He lived a good life, didn't drink or smoke, and kept his weight down. It just wasn't fair that these things should be happening to him.

He hung on for a few years, then died a very bitter man.

The moral of the story is that we're all one traffic accident, heart attack, or stroke away from being an invalid. But we have one thing going for us; Obamacare will assure that our health insurance won't be dropped.


----------



## Nevada (Sep 9, 2004)

Laura Zone 5 said:


> Then how is this NATIONAL* 'affordable' *FORCED health care, when it's different for everyone, based upon geography?


Obamacare is a health insurance subsidy program, which is constant throughout the USA, but the insurance plans are by zip code. You didn't really expect healthcare in Beverly Hills to be as affordable as the rest of LA, did you?


----------



## Laura Zone 5 (Jan 13, 2010)

Nevada said:


> You think like my "Archie Bunker" step father. He had no sympathy for people with health problems. He assumed that anyone with health problems got that way through actions of their own. He didn't offer sympathy, regardless of what was wrong with people he knew. He certainly didn't want any part of paying for their health problems.


Post 33 the word CHOOSE is real big
Post 39 the sentence is pretty clear: THOSE WHO CHOOSE AND UNHEALTHY LIFESTYLE.

I think like this: WHY should I be penalized for someone who is leading a lifestyle that is unhealthy and lands them at the dr.s office / ER on the reg.
That could be obesity.
That could be addiction 
That could be sexual promiscuity 
I am talking about unhealthy CHOICES choices.....choices.
No one chooses to have MS or Epilepsy, etc......



> Then he became ill. He developed heart problems, breathing problems, diabetes, and even renal failure. He couldn't understand it. He lived a good life, didn't drink or smoke, and kept his weight down. It just wasn't fair that these things should be happening to him.
> 
> He hung on for a few years, then died a very bitter man.
> 
> The moral of the story is that we're all one traffic accident, heart attack, or stroke away from being an invalid. But we have one thing going for us; Obamacare will assure that our health insurance won't be dropped.


Accident happen.
Old age happens.
Yes, those happen.........

Eating until you are 700lbs, smoking 3 packs a day and drinkin' a case of beer a day, living off MacDonalds, frozen dinners and Diet coke, sitting on your John Brown Hind Parts, 23 of 24 hours a day.......

You already know what I am talking about, and taking the opportunity to name call and insult is juvenile.

Stay on point.


----------



## Laura Zone 5 (Jan 13, 2010)

Nevada said:


> Obamacare is a health insurance subsidy program, which is constant throughout the USA, but the insurance plans are by zip code. You didn't really expect healthcare in Beverly Hills to be as affordable as the rest of LA, did you?


So affordable is a term subject to the users personal definition.......

It rewards those who cheat the system or live off the system; and punishes those trying to rise above the mire and do better.

Oy.


----------



## Nevada (Sep 9, 2004)

Laura Zone 5 said:


> So affordable is a term subject to the users personal definition.......
> 
> It rewards those who cheat the system or live off the system; and punishes those trying to rise above the mire and do better.
> 
> Oy.


You're always welcome to retire in Las Vegas. $0 copay for primary care physician visits, $0 copay for specialist visits. $0 copay for outpatient surgery, $0 copay for hospital stays. No such thing as a deductible. All for $0 premium.

[ame]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=O2oN6PxtIqU[/ame]


----------



## MO_cows (Aug 14, 2010)

Raeven said:


> Working great for me. Had I stuck with a Silver plan this year, my deductible went down, my premiums went down and the coverage increased. But since I had a Silver plan last year and underutilized it, I stepped down to Bronze this year. I can cover the higher deductible if necessary, and all my preventive care is covered in any case -- as it is with *all* plans offered through the Exchange, and is something most fail to mention when discussing this issue. Physicals, mammograms and other preventive care are covered at no cost.
> 
> Still, Single Payer is the way to go. We need to eliminate profit from the health care industry to make this really work.
> 
> But hey, I'm still open to hearing about the wondrous, magical health care solutions that will fix everything being offered by... well, anyone else. Please speak up!


Oh come on now, you are smarter than that. The reason that so many of the new drugs and treatments are developed in the US is because of the profit incentive. And why would a smart young person spend so many years and so much money to become a doctor if they weren't going to make big bucks at the end? People just aren't altruistic enough to go thru all that for $40k a year. Socialized health care works great in some countries because they are more socialized than the US to start with. I don't think it would work nearly so well here. Exhibit A - the most recent atrociousness coming out of the VA. 

Our elected reps have let us down big time on health care. The Rs, the queens of de Nile, for ignoring there was any problem with health care, and the Ds, for whom more government micromanagement and tons of other people's money can solve any problem. 

The bottom line issue is cost. Health care has gotten so expensive most people can't afford it without insurance, and now many can't even afford the insurance. Obamacare did nothing to control cost, actually made it worse with many of the mandates. 

If it would have been up to me, I would have done tort reform to start. Then to get some money for the low incomes to have health care, I would have skimmed it off *everyone *in the industry. Everybody who provides or consumes health care pays a little. Presto chango soon you have a big wad of money to help the less fortunate, and you didn't stick it to the taxpayers, you didn't increase the federal bureaucracy by thousands and thousands, etc. It would have basically expanded Medicaid, where the bureaucracy is already in place, just added more money coming into the budget. 

Making employer-provided health insurance mandatory was backwards thinking if you ask me. If every person was their own independent health care consumer and not locked in to some group plan thru their employer, it would become more competitive and cost effective.


----------



## Raeven (Oct 11, 2011)

MO_cows said:


> And why would a smart young person spend so many years and so much money to become a doctor if they weren't going to make big bucks at the end?


I'm not talking about physicians' salaries. I agree that if anyone devotes the time/effort they do to learning their very demanding discipline, they deserve to be well compensated. That's not the "profit" I'm talking about. I'm talking about profit being taken by shareholders and investors in sick Americans. Hospital administrators who earn millions, shareholders who take profits and dividends, corporations that get richer and richer, drug companies that do the same. You and I have had this discussion over many boards. You know what I'm talking about. It's not the hard working medical staff. 



MO_cows said:


> Socialized health care works great in some countries because they are more socialized than the US to start with. I don't think it would work nearly so well here. Exhibit A - the most recent atrociousness coming out of the VA.


The problems with the VA have a lot more to do with massive numbers of veterans returning from the Iraq and Afghanistan wars who need intensive, ongoing care and a medical system that was not funded to cope with it. Private health care is struggling due to a shortage of trained medical staff as well. But I've yet to meet the veteran who would enthusiastically trade his or her health care for anything else offered here in the USA. Have you?

As for socialized medicine not working here in the USA, Medicare is one of the best programs available. It is Single Payer, socialized medicine -- like it or not. That's what it is, and it works. I just went through a very lengthy and expensive Medicare treatment situation with my father. He had a heart attack and required two very involved procedures to recover, over three different hospitals with numerous physicians and medical staff dedicated to his care. He was denied nothing, was simply given the care he needed without question. He had incredible physicians throughout. He is still not home but is receiving transitional treatment in a care facility to help him regain his independence. He was in hospital for a month. 

Just try and take that kind of care away from seniors. If profits were shifted to offset growing costs and expand Medicare for all, there would be many fewer problems with equitable distribution of health care to everyone. 



MO_cows said:


> The bottom line issue is cost. Health care has gotten so expensive most people can't afford it without insurance, and now many can't even afford the insurance. Obamacare did nothing to control cost, actually made it worse with many of the mandates.


Wrong. Obamacare did a number of things to control costs. 

- It made preventive care free, so that less money is spent on costly treatments for conditions caught late, instead of inexpensive preventive tests. The difference in cost is between treating Stage 4 melanoma and cutting out a funny-looking mole.

- It required insurance companies to hold administrative costs *and profits* to no more than 20% of their net. Insurance companies fought this provision hard.

- It required medical providers to invest in electronic infrastructure. By making all patient information available to all providers across the same system, fewer administrators are required to input data, and doctors are able to see what procedures have already been done -- reducing duplication of effort and expense. Better for the patients, too, since all information about their case is instantly available to every caregiver.



MO_cows said:


> If it would have been up to me, I would have done tort reform to start.


Studies have consistently shown that malpractice litigation accounts for something around 2% of costs. That's not where the money is going. Not only that, tort reform has been ongoing since the 80s, and it has worked. Med mal cases are very hard to bring successfully.



MO_cows said:


> Then to get some money for the low incomes to have health care, I would have skimmed it off *everyone *in the industry. Everybody who provides or consumes health care pays a little. Presto chango soon you have a big wad of money to help the less fortunate, and you didn't stick it to the taxpayers, you didn't increase the federal bureaucracy by thousands and thousands, etc. It would have basically expanded Medicaid, where the bureaucracy is already in place, just added more money coming into the budget.


We're pretty close to agreement on what you said above. I question your assertion about the "thousands and thousands" in federal bureaucracy, however. My experience with Obamacare is that it didn't add much that wasn't already there, except for those administering the federal and state health insurance exchanges. I doubt the employees number in the thousands, but I couldn't find any specific data about how many are actually employed as a result of the creation of the exchanges. Maybe you can.



MO_cows said:


> Making employer-provided health insurance mandatory was backwards thinking if you ask me. If every person was their own independent health care consumer and not locked in to some group plan thru their employer, it would become more competitive and cost effective.


On the above, we mostly agree. However, I think few aspects of health care lend themselves well to a capitalist model, because there is a serious lack of elasticity when seeking same. Again, my Dad's situation is a good example. He didn't exactly have time to get competitive bids on who would give him the best bang for his buck as he had his heart attack. No time or inclination to comparison shop.

I have no problem with capitalism, but Econ 101 teaches us that not all public concerns can be addressed through it. Health care is such a one.


----------



## Nevada (Sep 9, 2004)

MO_cows said:


> Oh come on now, you are smarter than that. The reason that so many of the new drugs and treatments are developed in the US is because of the profit incentive.


Probably the biggest medical news in my lifetime was the polio vaccine, but Jonas Salk developed it at the University of Pittsburgh. It has been said that if polio were left to big business that they wouldn't have developed a vaccine, but instead would have developed a better iron lung.

The end result was a complete financial failure, when an oral vaccine was developed at a cost of 25 cents per dose. The entire world got it.


----------



## MO_cows (Aug 14, 2010)

Raeven said:


> As for socialized medicine not working here in the USA, Medicare is one of the best programs available. It is Single Payer, socialized medicine -- like it or not. That's what it is, and it works. I just went through a very lengthy and expensive Medicare treatment situation with my father. He had a heart attack and required two very involved procedures to recover, over three different hospitals with numerous physicians and medical staff dedicated to his care. He was denied nothing, was simply given the care he needed without question. He had incredible physicians throughout. He is still not home but is receiving transitional treatment in a care facility to help him regain his independence. He was in hospital for a month.
> 
> Just try and take that kind of care away from seniors. If profits were shifted to offset growing costs and expand Medicare for all, there would be many fewer problems with equitable distribution of health care to everyone.


There's a lot of holes in your post, let's just take this one. I'll use my dad for my "study of one". When he got Medicare, I tried to get him in at the clinic me and DH used. They weren't accepting any new Medicare patients. We called a couple other places that people recommended the Dr. They weren't accepting any new Medicare patients either. We finally got him in at a Dr. who he had been sent to for follow up from an ER visit for an injury. He prefers a male doc and she's female. But since she seemed to be the only game in town, he signed on. My in laws had the same issue, they had to try a lot of Drs. before they found one who would take them with Medicare. They ended up with a 40 mile or so drive for Drs. appts, it should only be 15 or 20. So no, that isn't my definition of "one of the best programs available". Because of low reimbursement rates, and slow reimbursement times, most doctors limit their practice to a certain percent of Medicare patients. And that means they charge more to the rest of their patients to make up for it. Private insurance is subsidizing Medicare in that regard. Also, don't forget that most everyone who is getting that affordable Medicare now, they prepaid into it for 30, 40 years. If you made it everyone's health plan, it would by necessity not be affordable anymore. 

Hope your dad makes a full recovery.


----------



## Tricky Grama (Oct 7, 2006)

Laura Zone 5 said:


> Then how is this NATIONAL* 'affordable' *FORCED health care, when it's different for everyone, based upon geography?
> 
> So should I sell my rural home, where crime is almost non existent to move to the ghetto to be able to afford my forced health care increasing my risk of being a victim of crime 100 fold???
> 
> And if this 'health care for all Americans" (oh and illegals) is such a great idea, why is HEALTH care based upon geography and not the HEALTH of the individual????


Its really nothing but income re-distribution.


----------



## mmoetc (Oct 9, 2012)

Nevada said:


> You're always welcome to retire in Las Vegas. $0 copay for primary care physician visits, $0 copay for specialist visits. $0 copay for outpatient surgery, $0 copay for hospital stays. No such thing as a deductible. All for $0 premium.
> 
> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=O2oN6PxtIqU


And lots of waitressing and bar tending jobs.


----------



## Darren (May 10, 2002)

"When the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act, more commonly known as Obamacare, was enacted, Americans were promised a healthcare system in which insurance companies would be held accountable and patients would have access to affordable care. Six years later, however, the reality has proven to be quite different-a plan that was supposed to mend our nationâs fractured healthcare system has driven up healthcare costs, decreased market competition, and ultimately harmed patients.

Last week, UnitedHealthâthe nationâs largest health insurerâannounced that it expects to lose more than $500 million through plans they offered under the ACA in 2016. Just yesterday, Anthem came out with disappointing fourth quarter earnings as well, citing Obamacare plans. Despite an increase in enrollment, in November 2015 UnitedHealth officials were in talks of pulling out of the ACA exchanges in 2017, citing losses of over $425 million. As a result, UnitedHealth and other large insurers are narrowing networks and raising premiums to cut costs, gaining profits for themselves while hurting consumers."

http://townhall.com/columnists/kenb...s-create-more-barriers-for-consumers-n2115566


----------



## mmoetc (Oct 9, 2012)

Darren said:


> "When the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act, more commonly known as Obamacare, was enacted, Americans were promised a healthcare system in which insurance companies would be held accountable and patients would have access to affordable care. Six years later, however, the reality has proven to be quite different-a plan that was supposed to mend our nationâs fractured healthcare system has driven up healthcare costs, decreased market competition, and ultimately harmed patients.
> 
> Last week, UnitedHealthâthe nationâs largest health insurerâannounced that it expects to lose more than $500 million through plans they offered under the ACA in 2016. Just yesterday, Anthem came out with disappointing fourth quarter earnings as well, citing Obamacare plans. Despite an increase in enrollment, in November 2015 UnitedHealth officials were in talks of pulling out of the ACA exchanges in 2017, citing losses of over $425 million. As a result, UnitedHealth and other large insurers are narrowing networks and raising premiums to cut costs, gaining profits for themselves while hurting consumers."
> 
> http://townhall.com/columnists/kenb...s-create-more-barriers-for-consumers-n2115566


What a difference a year makes. http://www.modernhealthcare.com/article/20150416/NEWS/304169977

United healthcare seemed pretty happy with the ACA just a year ago.


----------



## Nevada (Sep 9, 2004)

mmoetc said:


> And lots of waitressing and bar tending jobs.


I wouldn't know. I worked for myself when I first got to Las Vegas, but I'm retired now. I've never actually had a job in Las Vegas.

But this is a city of 2 million people. The service sector is probably larger than in most cities, but a lot goes on here outside the service sector.


----------



## mmoetc (Oct 9, 2012)

Nevada said:


> I wouldn't know. I worked for myself when I first got to Las Vegas, but I'm retired now. I've never actually had a job in Las Vegas.
> 
> But this is a city of 2 million people. The service sector is probably larger than in most cities, but a lot goes on here outside the service sector.


It was more of a response reflecting the career choice and job skills of the person you were interacting with.


----------



## Nevada (Sep 9, 2004)

Darren said:


> "When the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act, more commonly known as Obamacare, was enacted, Americans were promised a healthcare system in which insurance companies would be held accountable and patients would have access to affordable care. Six years later, however, the reality has proven to be quite different-a plan that was supposed to mend our nation&#8217;s fractured healthcare system has driven up healthcare costs, decreased market competition, and ultimately harmed patients.
> 
> Last week, UnitedHealth&#8212;the nation&#8217;s largest health insurer&#8212;announced that it expects to lose more than $500 million through plans they offered under the ACA in 2016. Just yesterday, Anthem came out with disappointing fourth quarter earnings as well, citing Obamacare plans. Despite an increase in enrollment, in November 2015 UnitedHealth officials were in talks of pulling out of the ACA exchanges in 2017, citing losses of over $425 million. As a result, UnitedHealth and other large insurers are narrowing networks and raising premiums to cut costs, gaining profits for themselves while hurting consumers."
> 
> http://townhall.com/columnists/kenb...s-create-more-barriers-for-consumers-n2115566


Sounds like exchange subscribers got a pretty good deal.

But I thought republicans derided the ACA as a boon for insurance companies. Republicans must not have done their math right.


----------



## farmrbrown (Jun 25, 2012)

mmoetc said:


> What a difference a year makes. http://www.modernhealthcare.com/article/20150416/NEWS/304169977
> 
> United healthcare seemed pretty happy with the ACA just a year ago.


Yep. 
It also confirms what that opponents of ACA said would happen......
(Nevada hasn't caught that yet, and still thinks the predictions aren't coming true) 


Nevada said:


> Sounds like exchange subscribers got a pretty good deal.
> 
> But I thought republicans derided the ACA as a boon for insurance companies. Republicans must not have done their math right.


Lots of people didn't get the math right, even though it was plain as day.


----------



## Nevada (Sep 9, 2004)

farmrbrown said:


> Yep.
> It also confirms what that opponents of ACA said would happen......
> (Nevada hasn't caught that yet, and still thinks the predictions aren't coming true)
> 
> ...


I can tell you that the ACA serve it's purpose for me. While I didn't have any serious health problems, the ACA made it possible for me to start comprehensive monitoring & medications almost 2 years before I was eligible for Medicare. Without the ACA I would have had to wait for Medicare. That might add years to my life.


----------



## farmrbrown (Jun 25, 2012)

Nevada said:


> I can tell you that the ACA serve it's purpose for me. While I didn't have any serious health problems, the ACA made it possible for me to start comprehensive monitoring & medications almost 2 years before I was eligible for Medicare. Without the ACA I would have had to wait for Medicare. That might add years to my life.


Yes, we all know that by now and I'm happy for your health.
The impact the ACA has on everything and everybody else is another matter entirely.
Passing mandates to help a few should be done very carefully.
I have a totally different view, plan, and commitment, and I refuse to accept everything Uncle Sam says is "good medicine, so take it".


----------



## Nevada (Sep 9, 2004)

farmrbrown said:


> Passing mandates to help a few should be done very carefully.


Actually, most Americans are in an income range that would allow them to qualify for an ACA subsidy.


----------



## farmrbrown (Jun 25, 2012)

Nevada said:


> Actually, most Americans are in an income range that would allow them to qualify for an ACA subsidy.


Where do think that "subsidy" money comes from?
I know you're one of those that doesn't believe a large debt is anything to worry about, but you're talking to an adamant non-believer.

Yes, yes, yes.

We agree that many people can be admitted into the program and qualify for some of that tax money that is taken out every week. I happen to notice that discrepancy on my pay stub and THAT is the math that I was talking about, several posts ago.
I'm not going to dispute a fact, I'll concede every one you post.
The point is, you can't dispute a mathematical fact either.
We've been in debt or as I like to say BROKE, for a long time.
We're getting BROKER by the minute and for all the stories about how good some people have it, when the working class of this country goes broke paying all these bills, it will be time to pay the piper.

We'll go from "I want to be a millionaire" to "Name that tune".


----------



## Dutchie (Mar 14, 2003)

While the ACA is not perfect, I was uninsurable before that became available. Considering I have cancer and one of my prescriptions alone costs $11,000 a month it works great for me.


----------



## Farmerga (May 6, 2010)

Nevada said:


> Actually, most Americans are in an income range that would allow them to qualify for an ACA subsidy.


That is, one of many problems. We shouldn't encourage our population to willingly take manna from government. They pay, they control. That fact cannot be denied.


----------



## Tricky Grama (Oct 7, 2006)

Dutchie said:


> While the ACA is not perfect, I was uninsurable before that became available. Considering I have cancer and one of my prescriptions alone costs $11,000 a month it works great for me.


Happy for you. However there were 'bout 6 mill who LOST their ins when ObummerUNcare went into effect. So there's really a bunch more w/o ins. than b/4...many w/cancer who had to find other docs, hospitals, etc and who had to now pay thru the nose to give you ins. Be thankful for them, I guess.


----------



## Nevada (Sep 9, 2004)

Tricky Grama said:


> Happy for you. However there were 'bout 6 mill who LOST their ins when ObummerUNcare went into effect. So there's really a bunch more w/o ins. than b/4...many w/cancer who had to find other docs, hospitals, etc and who had to now pay thru the nose to give you ins. Be thankful for them, I guess.


I suspect that most of those 6 million found ACA compliant insurance, and there's no real disputing that between 15 and 20 million Americans got insurance who had no insurance at all before.


----------



## Farmerga (May 6, 2010)

Nevada said:


> I suspect that most of those 6 million found *ACA compliant insurance*, and there's no real disputing that between 15 and 20 million Americans got insurance who had no insurance at all before.


Yeah, you know, because we are all too st-st-st-stupid to make our own decisions as to the medical insurance that we wish to purchase. 60 year olds just need insurance coverage for child birth and birth control.

Expand welfare bring more in under the wing of the government. 15 to 20 million more slaves for the Feds, all bought and paid for by the taxpayers. 

The Democrats have always been the party of slavery, they have just been smart enough to have taxpayers pay for their slaves, then have the slaves thank them for the purchase.


----------



## Nevada (Sep 9, 2004)

Farmerga said:


> Yeah, you know, because we are all too st-st-st-stupid to make our own decisions as to the medical insurance that we wish to purchase. 60 year olds just need insurance coverage for child birth and birth control.
> 
> Expand welfare bring more in under the wing of the government. 15 to 20 million more slaves for the Feds, all bought and paid for by the taxpayers.


Why are the 6 million who had to change policies deserving of more consideration than the 15 to 20 million who had no insurance?


----------



## MO_cows (Aug 14, 2010)

Nevada said:


> I can tell you that the ACA serve it's purpose for me. While I didn't have any serious health problems, the ACA made it possible for me to start comprehensive monitoring & medications almost 2 years before I was eligible for Medicare. Without the ACA I would have had to wait for Medicare. That might add years to my life.


And meanwhile stressing over it might be taking years off of others lives! All the stress and aggravation of having your chosen plan go *poof* and have to start all over again. I would rather do my taxes or have a root canal than compare all those plans again. 

And to see the premiums go up every year, meanwhile the deductible goes up too. I started out with independent insurance for $350 a month and a $3000 deductible. The next year it was $429 and $5000. This year it went up to $529 a month and a $6500 deductible. DH's employer pays $800 a month for his policy. That's the equivalent of $5 an hour. Does that sound "affordable" to you? Does it sound like something that can be sustained? 

I'm sure it was a great experience for you getting a free ride. But for those of us who are not, it is nothing but stress, aggravation and ever higher expense that we can't afford.


----------



## Nevada (Sep 9, 2004)

MO_cows said:


> And to see the premiums go up every year, meanwhile the deductible goes up too. I started out with independent insurance for $350 a month and a $3000 deductible. The next year it was $429 and $5000. This year it went up to $529 a month and a $6500 deductible.


Honestly, I didn't see much change from 2014 to 2015 in either premium or deductible, and I kept the same Obamacare policy.


----------



## Farmerga (May 6, 2010)

Nevada said:


> Why are the 6 million who had to change policies deserving of more consideration than the 15 to 20 million who had no insurance?


 Because it is not the right, or, responsibility of the Federal government to be involved in healthcare insurance, in any way.


----------



## Nevada (Sep 9, 2004)

Farmerga said:


> Because it is not the right, or, responsibility of the Federal government to be involved in healthcare insurance, in any way.


Insurance doesn't work without regulation. The interests of the insurance company and the public are too dissimilar. It's absurd to suggest that the government shouldn't be involved in healthcare insurance, at least on some level.

The government has decided that it's in the public interest to get everyone insured and guarantee a basic level of medical care. I agree.


----------



## MO_cows (Aug 14, 2010)

Nevada said:


> Insurance doesn't work without regulation. The interests of the insurance company and the public are too dissimilar. It's absurd to suggest that the government shouldn't be involved in healthcare insurance, at least on some level.
> 
> *The government has decided that it's in the public interest to get everyone insured and guarantee a basic level of medical care.* I agree.


But that's not what they did. They bastardized a system that already worked pretty well for the majority. All they had to do was focus on cost control and they could have helped everyone and not turned a major industry inside out, and screwed up health care for more people than were helped. Also they should have let the industry solve its own problem. Just like mandating MPG and safety standards to auto makers, they could have mandated to the health care industry and then let them figure out how to solve it rather than micromanaging.


----------



## Nevada (Sep 9, 2004)

MO_cows said:


> All they had to do was focus on cost control and they could have helped everyone


That's all? All they had to do was to get congress to create legislation that cut profits of an industry that has most of congress in their pocket? Good luck on that...


----------



## MO_cows (Aug 14, 2010)

Nevada said:


> That's all? All they had to do was to get congress to create legislation that cut profits of an industry that has most of congress in their pocket? Good luck on that...


I'm working on it. My political party has become "anti incumbent". 

If us voters created a revolving door in Washington (and the state capitols) as the founding fathers intended, the reps don't get so entrenched it makes it worthwhile for the lobbyists to buy them. If we just did our job and gave DC a good flushing, lobbying would be a lot less effective. 

Instead most people spat over the same old issues and "left versus right", can't see the forest for the trees.


----------



## Farmerga (May 6, 2010)

Nevada said:


> Insurance doesn't work without regulation. The interests of the insurance company and the public are too dissimilar. It's absurd to suggest that the government shouldn't be involved in healthcare insurance, at least on some level.
> 
> The government has decided that it's in the public interest to get everyone insured and guarantee a basic level of medical care. I agree.


 
Let me repeat myself AGAIN and bold the relevant word:

"It is not the right, or, responsibility of the *Federal *government to be involved in healthcare insurance in any way."

See?


----------



## SLFarmMI (Feb 21, 2013)

I'm still waiting for the "if you like your plan, you can keep your plan" provision to kick in. Apparently I missed the "ha, ha, just kidding" part of that speech.

I liked my plan and wanted to keep it. So did all my co-workers. Too bad for us I guess. So now I get less coverage for a big deductible, triple the co-pay for office visits, quadruple the co-pay for any ER visits and double the co-pay for prescriptions. What a deal!


----------



## beowoulf90 (Jan 13, 2004)

SLFarmMI said:


> I'm still waiting for the "if you like your plan, you can keep your plan" provision to kick in. Apparently I missed the "ha, ha, just kidding" part of that speech.
> 
> I liked my plan and wanted to keep it. So did all my co-workers. Too bad for us I guess. So now I get less coverage for a big deductible, triple the co-pay for office visits, quadruple the co-pay for any ER visits and double the co-pay for prescriptions. What a deal!



Me too!

We all now know it was a lie, but that doesn't matter to those who support 0bama and his hoods..

We also know that every time 0bama changes the 0bamacare law that the Dems passed through EO, he is in violation of the law. But again it doesn't matter to the wanna be slaves.. They don't care how many laws are violated as long as they get what they want..


----------



## mnn2501 (Apr 2, 2008)

OK, so this will not be popular but bear with me and I can explain why it would be better.

I am all for Universal single payer coverage.
I am for an independent board and administrators to run it, the board could only be ran by doctors who have practiced medicine for at lead 20 years. They would make the policies and the administration of it would follow those policies and just be there basically to write checks.
I would be all for reasonable (to the average person) co-pays (like, for example, $25 per doctor visit, $250 per ER visit)

Why am I for this?
1. The cost of doing business would fall. My employer pays $1200 a month and my contribution is $800 a month for our insurance, thats $24,000 per year in mine and my employers pocket.
2. Small business is at a competitive disadvantage due to current insurance using 'groups', if you work for a small business your insurance costs will be sky high and usually you personally will pay a greater share of it. With universal single payer their is only one group for everyone in the nation.
3. Small businesses produce the most jobs. If they did not have to worry about their own and their employee's insurance costs more people would be willing and able to start small business.
4. It would finally cover everyone.
5. Yes, personal taxes would go up to pay for it, but then so would your personal paycheck since you would no longer be paying for (your share) of insurance costs. I would be willing to bet that for most middle class people it would be a wash.
6. If you lost your job or changed jobs you would not have to worry about loss of insurance.
7. All doctors, hospitals, etc would participate in the universal coverage, therefore this time if you like your doctor you really could keep your doctor.
8. Vets wouldn't be stuck going to one clinic/hospital that is slow, impersonal, and many times far from where they live.
9. Having copays with much higher ER copays would force people (usually the poor who right now do not have insurance) who now use ER's as a doctors office to actually find and use a doctors office. CareNow or Emergency Clinics type offices would be able to help those without a personal doctor.


----------



## Farmerga (May 6, 2010)

mnn2501 said:


> OK, so this will not be popular but bear with me and I can explain why it would be better.
> 
> I am all for Universal single payer coverage.
> I am for an independent board and administrators to run it, the board could only be ran by doctors who have practiced medicine for at lead 20 years. They would make the policies and the administration of it would follow those policies and just be there basically to write checks.
> ...


If it were done by the States, I would have absolutely no problem with it. It is the Federal government doing it that draws my ire.


----------



## JoePa (Mar 14, 2013)

The moral of the story is - - don't get sick


----------



## Nevada (Sep 9, 2004)

JoePa said:


> The moral of the story is - - don't get sick


Oh, that was the republican healthcare plan all along.

[ame]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-usmvYOPfco[/ame]


----------



## mnn2501 (Apr 2, 2008)

Farmerga said:


> If it were done by the States, I would have absolutely no problem with it. It is the Federal government doing it that draws my ire.


I understand where you are coming from but if all 50 states didn't adopt the same thing at the same time you'd have the poor sick people moving to states that supplied it which would overwhelm a state's system. It has to be done on a national level IMO or it would not work.
Now it could be done like the Canadian Health care system where the Feds require that each Province (in our case each state) come up with universal single payer. I would worry that each state would want to tweak it so it ends up something less than it should. I can see the lawmakers sticking their nose in and that's what I am trying to avoid by only allowing doctors on the Board of Directors.


----------



## MO_cows (Aug 14, 2010)

mnn2501 said:


> OK, so this will not be popular but bear with me and I can explain why it would be better.
> 
> I am all for Universal single payer coverage.
> I am for an independent board and administrators to run it, the board could only be ran by doctors who have practiced medicine for at lead 20 years. They would make the policies and the administration of it would follow those policies and just be there basically to write checks.
> ...


You make some good points but I'm just not ready to go there!


----------



## Annsni (Oct 27, 2006)

Laura Zone 5 said:


> Silver Basic Plan
> *HMO*
> 193.00 per month
> 5,000 deductible
> ...


What is sad is that you can go to your primary but he will send you to a specialist for anything out of the absolute ordinary. I've also recently learned that there is now a specialist co-pay for lab work so I can go to the doctor for a sore throat, pay my $15 co-pay for the doctor, have to drive my strep test to a lab because the insurance doesn't allow the doctor to do it and I have a $35 co-pay for the lab. On the plans you are showing, I'd have to pay the full lab fee up to my deductible. Unbelievable.

Plus in addition to seeing my regular doctor, I see my gynecologist (who I think they count as a regular doctor and not a specialist usually) who then sends me for a mammogram (lab AND radiologist who is a specialist). I also had to get a colonoscopy this year (specialist towards a deductible), I had gotten something in my eye at the barn and had to see an opthamologist (oh look - another specialist) and I still need to go to the dermatologist for a full body check (I do this every 2 years). I would have SO much out of pocket towards that deductible that I'd be broke!


----------



## Nevada (Sep 9, 2004)

mnn2501 said:


> Now it could be done like the Canadian Health care system where the Feds require that each Province (in our case each state) come up with universal single payer. I would worry that each state would want to tweak it so it ends up something less than it should.


I doubt that would work here. States could probably opt out because the federal government can't force states to spend money. That's why the court ruled that states could opt out of expanding Medicaid.


----------



## Tricky Grama (Oct 7, 2006)

Nevada said:


> Why are the 6 million who had to change policies deserving of more consideration than the 15 to 20 million who had no insurance?


Oh, gee I don't know, maybe b/c they were the RESPONSIBLE folks who got ins. then it was TAKEN from them.
Maybe b/c most of those 15 mil either were illegals, or folks who did NOT want ins. There's a lot of those you may have heard 'em when we were forced to buy something we did not want.


----------



## farmrbrown (Jun 25, 2012)

Nevada said:


> I doubt that would work here. States could probably opt out because the federal government can't force states to spend money. That's why the court ruled that states could opt out of expanding Medicaid.


Which is WHY the ACA mandate on individuals to spend money, is also unconstitutional.
I predict there will eventually be a SCOTUS ruling that states that as a result of one of the cases they will hear.
You can thank me later.


----------



## Dutchie (Mar 14, 2003)

Tricky Grama said:


> Oh, gee I don't know, maybe b/c they were the RESPONSIBLE folks who got ins.then it was TAKEN from them.
> Maybe b/c most of those 15 mil either were illegals, or folks who did NOT want ins. There's a lot of those you may have heard 'em when we were forced to buy something we did not want.


OR perhaps some people, who lost their jobs and health insurance could not get insurance on their own because of pre- consisting ailments.


----------



## arabian knight (Dec 19, 2005)

Tricky Grama said:


> Oh, gee I don't know, maybe b/c they were the RESPONSIBLE folks who got ins. then it was TAKEN from them.
> Maybe b/c most of those 15 mil either were illegals, or folks who did NOT want ins. There's a lot of those you may have heard 'em when we were forced to buy something we did not want.


I hear so many so they lost their job and so they lost their insurance. What is it that those people could not have just kept their insurance trough the COBRA law? Sure it is not forever but at least it is for 18 months gives ya time to find another job in the meantime.


----------



## no really (Aug 7, 2013)

mnn2501 said:


> OK, so this will not be popular but bear with me and I can explain why it would be better.
> 
> I am all for Universal single payer coverage.
> I am for an independent board and administrators to run it, the board could only be ran by doctors who have practiced medicine for at lead 20 years. They would make the policies and the administration of it would follow those policies and just be there basically to write checks.
> ...


I like your plan, I feel that insurance companies have become a cancer, they are the middle man that does little more than make access to healthcare frustrating and at times impossible. 

I like the part best of the plan the medical professionals are in a positions of direction.


----------



## Nevada (Sep 9, 2004)

farmrbrown said:


> Which is WHY the ACA mandate on individuals to spend money, is also unconstitutional.
> I predict there will eventually be a SCOTUS ruling that states that as a result of one of the cases they will hear.
> You can thank me later.


That matter has already been heard. It was ruled constitutional on the basis that the penalty was a tax.


----------



## Farmerga (May 6, 2010)

mnn2501 said:


> I understand where you are coming from but if all 50 states didn't adopt the same thing at the same time you'd have the poor sick people moving to states that supplied it which would overwhelm a state's system. It has to be done on a national level IMO or it would not work.
> Now it could be done like the Canadian Health care system where the Feds require that each Province (in our case each state) come up with universal single payer. I would worry that each state would want to tweak it so it ends up something less than it should. I can see the lawmakers sticking their nose in and that's what I am trying to avoid by only allowing doctors on the Board of Directors.


That could be largely be prevented by residency requirements and the like. Mass didn't have such a problem when it was the ONLY one doing it. 

The Feds haven't the right, or, responsibility to act for, or, against healthcare insurance, nor should they be allowed to mandate what States do in reference to it.


----------



## Farmerga (May 6, 2010)

Nevada said:


> That matter has already been heard. It was ruled constitutional on the basis that the penalty was a tax.


But, that wasn't the intent of the law. Obama, Reid, Pelosi, etc. assured us that it was, in no way, a tax. So, this is, without doubt, a case of the SCOTUS re-writing the law to suit them. That is beyond their mandate and those involved should be impeached and removed from the bench.


----------



## Nevada (Sep 9, 2004)

Farmerga said:


> The Feds haven't the right, or, responsibility to act for, or, against healthcare insurance, nor should they be allowed to mandate what States do in reference to it.


Again, the courts disagree with you.


----------



## Farmerga (May 6, 2010)

Nevada said:


> Again, the courts disagree with you.


I am sure they do. Think about what you said. The Federal government, which grows and prospers by gaining money and power, has said that their latest money and power grab is perfectly legal. If it weren't so mind numbingly sad, it would be funny. 

The most corrupt corporations, on the planet, only wish they had 0.1% of the power of the U.S. Federal government.


----------



## MO_cows (Aug 14, 2010)

arabian knight said:


> I hear so many so they lost their job and so they lost their insurance. What is it that those people could not have just kept their insurance trough the COBRA law? Sure it is not forever but at least it is for 18 months gives ya time to find another job in the meantime.


COBRA is too expensive for most people. When DH lost his job it was almost $2k a month to keep the insurance we had thru COBRA. That was more than his unemployment benefits!


----------



## beowoulf90 (Jan 13, 2004)

Well I keep seeing, 

"The Courts have already ruled that it is Constitutional" 

Well if that was the final say then you had better get back to your plantation.
Because the Court ruled that Slavery was legal also..

The final say is with the people and not the Courts, Politicians or Bureaucrats.. 
In fact they are all there at Our Pleasure and we the people need to start getting rid of the criminals and corruption.
But sadly many people have already accepted their role as slaves and won't do anything to correct it. They would rather accept what the Government has taken from others..


----------



## arabian knight (Dec 19, 2005)

MO_cows said:


> COBRA is too expensive for most people. When DH lost his job it was almost $2k a month to keep the insurance we had thru COBRA. That was more than his unemployment benefits!


Mine was 265 a month which was not only a good deal but great insurance as well.


----------



## Nevada (Sep 9, 2004)

beowoulf90 said:


> The final say is with the people and not the Courts, Politicians or Bureaucrats..


I don't think the people will want to see Obamacare repealed. Without question, if that happens more than 20 million Americans will lose their health insurance and not afford to replace it with anything. Even people who can afford healthcare insurance don't want to see their kids go without it.

It might be repealed, but not without replacing it with something else.


----------



## no really (Aug 7, 2013)

Don't think it has enough time left to be repealed, IMHO it will and has started collapsing in on itself. It will be catastrophic to many. Unintended consequences.


----------



## Farmerga (May 6, 2010)

Nevada said:


> I don't think the people will want to see Obamacare repealed. Without question, if that happens more than 20 million Americans will lose their health insurance and not afford to replace it with anything. Even people who can afford healthcare insurance don't want to see their kids go without it.
> 
> It might be repealed, but not without replacing it with something else.


That is why our system was set up so that the Federal Government was not supposed to do things like this. Once The People get a taste of the welfare, they can't get enough and will gladly sit by and let the nation fall rather than give up "theirs". Also, no one wants to be thought of as "mean" for wanting to take away someone else's "benefits". 

But, the die has been cast and we have reached the tipping point. The U.S. has been mortally wounded by greed and envy. It started in 1913 with the income tax against those "evil rich" (see how that works). The fear of the 30's brought it forward by leaps and bounds. The 60's, and LBJ wanting the black folks to vote Democrat for the next 200 years and using taxpayer money to achieve the goal, was a devastating blow to the Ole USA. and now, Obama, with his silly, unstable Federal power grab is the latest in the long line of evil Federal Boondoggles that historians will look back upon and ask Why?


----------



## mnn2501 (Apr 2, 2008)

arabian knight said:


> Mine was 265 a month which was not only a good deal but great insurance as well.


When was that - 1985?


----------



## arabian knight (Dec 19, 2005)

About 10 years ago. So it is not that far back in time. And i had excellent insurance as well, my deductible was only 2,500. Not bad at all, considering I racked up over 200K in hospital bills during that time.


----------



## Annsni (Oct 27, 2006)

arabian knight said:


> About 10 years ago. So it is not that far back in time. And i had excellent insurance as well, my deductible was only 2,500. Not bad at all, considering I racked up over 200K in hospital bills during that time.


10 years ago is a lifetime ago because that was before all of the health care reform. Our costs are SIGNIFICANTLY more than what we spent 10 years ago.


----------



## Nevada (Sep 9, 2004)

Farmerga said:


> That is why our system was set up so that the Federal Government was not supposed to do things like this. Once The People get a taste of the welfare, they can't get enough and will gladly sit by and let the nation fall rather than give up "theirs". Also, no one wants to be thought of as "mean" for wanting to take away someone else's "benefits".


That's not really what the government is concerned about. The thing is that if people aren't insured a certain number of them will get sick, and that winds up costing the government, one way or another. What the ACA does is get people insured by having them make a contribution that they can afford towards their healthcare.

Before Obamacare I paid nothing, because there wasn't any health insurance I could realistically afford. After the ACA passed I got good insurance for about $50/month, or about $600/year. You could look at it from the standpoint that I got a $3000/year subsidy, or you could look at it from the standpoint of my contributing $600 more to my healthcare that year than I would have without the ACA. Multiply that times the millions of others who who got Obamacare and it's a huge contribution.

In short, the government doesn't want to be in the hook for uninsured medical bills. Obamacare helps get them off the hook.


----------



## MO_cows (Aug 14, 2010)

Nevada said:


> That's not really what the government is concerned about. The thing is that if people aren't insured a certain number of them will get sick, and that winds up costing the government, one way or another. What the ACA does is get people insured by having them make a contribution that they can afford towards their healthcare.
> 
> Before Obamacare I paid nothing, because there wasn't any health insurance I could realistically afford. After the ACA passed I got good insurance for about $50/month, or about $600/year. You could look at it from the standpoint that I got a $3000/year subsidy, or you could look at it from the standpoint of my contributing $600 more to my healthcare that year than I would have without the ACA. Multiply that times the millions of others who who got Obamacare and it's a huge contribution.
> 
> In short, the government doesn't want to be in the hook for uninsured medical bills. Obamacare helps get them off the hook.


The insurance companies have a 20% profit built in, so if the govt was just paying medicals bills for the poor it should be 20% cheaper than buying them insurance.


----------



## Nevada (Sep 9, 2004)

MO_cows said:


> The insurance companies have a 20% profit built in, so if the govt was just paying medicals bills for the poor it should be 20% cheaper than buying them insurance.


Hopefully we'll have that eventually.


----------



## mnn2501 (Apr 2, 2008)

arabian knight said:


> Mine was 265 a month which was not only a good deal but great insurance as well.


Which had to be for just you at that cost in that time frame.

Most of us have families to pay insurance for. Mine currently cost $2K a month. Were I unemployed my unemployment check couldn't pay for it.


----------



## farmrbrown (Jun 25, 2012)

Nevada said:


> That matter has already been heard. It was ruled constitutional on the basis that the penalty was a tax.


Yes, indeed they did, and I read the ruling.
Now for the part that HASN'T been brought before the SCOTUS - yet.
I told you when it happened the was an underlying reason Justice Roberts and the court ruled that way. Many thought Obama had blackmailed him, but I doubt that.

The ruling on the constitutionality of the ACA was based on the premise of Congress' authority to *tax*, Article I, section 8.
That much is true and a matter of record.
Whether or not THAT tax and the law passed for that tax *is constitutional* has NOT been heard and ruled upon.
And now I'll tell you exactly *why........*

In order to bring a suit to court, any court including SCOTUS, a plaintiff must have a claim of damages, otherwise they have no basis of standing and it will be dismissed on those grounds.
THIS year (2016) will be the first year that a penalty can or will be assessed on the 2015 tax year, where proof of health insurance was to be required.
So NO ONE has incurred that penalty yet, therefore no one has any damages to legally claim and bring before the court on whether such tax is constitutional or not.
The SCOTUS ruling simply allowed the tax to go forward. Once someone claims that tax as unconstitutional THEN SCOTUS can rule on whether it is or isn't.
Wait and see if I'm wrong about that, but I don't think you'll have to wait very long.


----------



## Tricky Grama (Oct 7, 2006)

arabian knight said:


> I hear so many so they lost their job and so they lost their insurance. What is it that those people could not have just kept their insurance trough the COBRA law? Sure it is not forever but at least it is for 18 months gives ya time to find another job in the meantime.


COBRA is horribly expensive. If you're outta work you cannot eat & have ins. too.


----------



## Tricky Grama (Oct 7, 2006)

Nevada said:


> I don't think the people will want to see Obamacare repealed. Without question, if that happens more than 20 million Americans will lose their health insurance and not afford to replace it with anything. Even people who can afford healthcare insurance don't want to see their kids go without it.
> 
> It might be repealed, but not without replacing it with something else.


We've already seen the polls of the majority who DO want it repealed.
Those who are on it will be switched to an interim plan while it all gets strait. 
Could be a pool of some sort for pre-existing & medicaid for those who are on that anyway. Most of ObummerUNcare is medicaid.


----------



## Txsteader (Aug 22, 2005)

Nevada said:


> In short, the government doesn't want to be in the hook for uninsured medical bills. Obamacare helps get them off the hook.


Aren't they on the hook for all those subsidies?

Won't they be on the hook for even more, as insurance costs rise and more people qualify for/rely on subsidies?

:smack

Oh, silly me. I forgot......the goal is single-payer. :goodjob:


----------



## Nevada (Sep 9, 2004)

Tricky Grama said:


> We've already seen the polls of the majority who DO want it repealed.


People hate Obamacare, but they like the ACA much better. That shows that conservatives are very good at getting their message out. Democrats have never been good at touting their successes the way republicans have been. This clip demonstrates what I mean.

[ame]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sx2scvIFGjE[/ame]


----------



## Cornhusker (Mar 20, 2003)

Annsni said:


> 10 years ago is a lifetime ago because that was before all of the health care reform. Our costs are SIGNIFICANTLY more than what we spent 10 years ago.


What health care reform?
All Obama did was sell insurance and make a mess of it.


----------



## Nevada (Sep 9, 2004)

Cornhusker said:


> What health care reform?
> All Obama did was sell insurance and make a mess of it.


Don't conservatives claim that Obamacare was a complete takeover of the health care system, along with almost 20% if the GDP?


----------



## Farmerga (May 6, 2010)

Nevada said:


> That's not really what the government is concerned about. The thing is that if people aren't insured a certain number of them will get sick, and that winds up costing the government, one way or another. What the ACA does is get people insured by having them make a contribution that they can afford towards their healthcare.
> 
> Before Obamacare I paid nothing, because there wasn't any health insurance I could realistically afford. After the ACA passed I got good insurance for about $50/month, or about $600/year. You could look at it from the standpoint that I got a $3000/year subsidy, or you could look at it from the standpoint of my contributing $600 more to my healthcare that year than I would have without the ACA. Multiply that times the millions of others who who got Obamacare and it's a huge contribution.
> 
> *In short, the government doesn't want to be in the hook for uninsured medical bills. Obamacare helps get them off the hook.*


 
Why would they be? They are not supposed to be involved one way or another.


----------



## Nevada (Sep 9, 2004)

Farmerga said:


> Why would they be? They are not supposed to be involved one way or another.


Because it's in the best interest of this country to require that hospital ERs treat everyone who comes through the door. And if the government is going to require it, they're going to have to pay for it.


----------



## no really (Aug 7, 2013)

The gov requires things the taxpayers pay for them.


----------



## Farmerga (May 6, 2010)

Nevada said:


> Because it's in the best interest of this country to require that hospital ERs treat everyone who comes through the door. And if the government is going to require it, they're going to have to pay for it.


 I disagree with that assessment and there is nothing, in the Constitution, that gives them the right. Of course, they have illegally taken on that burden and regularly steal my money to pay for it, but, If they say it is legal, I guess it is ok. I also suppose that these were not the droids we were looking for, after all.


----------



## Nevada (Sep 9, 2004)

Farmerga said:


> I disagree with that assessment and there is nothing, in the Constitution, that gives them the right.


I disagree. I think that having a place to go to get comprehensive treatment in an emergency is in the interest of the welfare of the nation.

Imagine if they didn't know who you were so they didn't know if you had insurance or the ability to pay? If you were unconscious and had no ID then they couldn't tell. You might be deserving of treatment, but they just don't know. What would become of you?

What if they treated a patient and it turned out to be an indigent without the ability to pay? Who gets stuck with the bill?


----------



## Farmerga (May 6, 2010)

Nevada said:


> I disagree. I think that having a place to go to get comprehensive treatment in an emergency is in the interest of the welfare of the nation.
> 
> Imagine if they didn't know who you were so they didn't know if you had insurance or the ability to pay? If you were unconscious and had no ID then they couldn't tell. You might be deserving of treatment, but they just don't know. What would become of you?
> 
> What if they treated a patient and it turned out to be an indigent without the ability to pay? Who gets stuck with the bill?


 The States could make up their own laws as they see fit. The Feds haven't the right.


----------



## Nevada (Sep 9, 2004)

Farmerga said:


> The States could make up their own laws as they see fit. The Feds haven't the right.


Seriously, you don't think it's in the interest of the welfare of the country? Doesn't the welfare clause of the constitution cover that?


----------



## JeffreyD (Dec 27, 2006)

Nevada said:


> Seriously, you don't think it's in the interest of the welfare of the country? Doesn't the welfare clause of the constitution cover that?


Nope. &#128561;


----------



## Farmerga (May 6, 2010)

Nevada said:


> Seriously, you don't think it's in the interest of the welfare of the country? Doesn't the welfare clause of the constitution cover that?


There is no welfare clause. What is commonly called the "General Welfare Clause" is simply a prerequisite to tax. It means that taxes cannot be taken from all to be spent on the few. The power to tax must be linked to one of the other legitimate roles of government. For example, taxes cannot be taken from all to fund an army that only protects New York.

In actuality what is mistakenly called the "general welfare clause" is another Constitutional argument AGAINST wealth transfer projects such as the ACA, as such programs take money from all to give "subsidies" to the few.


----------

