2016 Presidential Horse Race

[Goldedommer44]

Agreed Fighting Irish

 

[Buster Bluth]

The President told the country that ACA would save the average family $2500. Absolute garbage. You'd rather try to make simple things like that complex just to disagree with me. That's both weird and sad.

Or, it was one of those bogus political tricks where they calculate "instead of it rising $10k it only went up $7.5k, see you saved $2500!" Kinda like "we lowered the deficit by $100 billion!" when it's over ten years...

I don't know the context of his statement. I don't care to look it up. I'm no fan of the ACA, you cannot find one post from me on here saying it's what I want. I do like fair and meaningful criticisms though.

But yeah, just stick to the same old malarkey you use with the ACA and stimulus. It's pretty weak.

 

[Polish Leppy 22]

Lololol what a cop out.

There are plenty of studies out there showing how the electorate is basically meaningless. The favorability of a bill has no bearing on its passage. Seriously, look it up.

It's all wedge issues to divide people while government waste (read: corporate profit built into bills...you didn't think they were just lighting the money on fire did you?) continues.

Own it and fix it? Dream on chief.

You even refuse to listen to the only candidate who is promising left and right to go after the corporate control of Congress. It's comical.

There is only one issue in this country, that Congress has tremendous difficulty passing a bill without the approval of their donor daddies. Up your cynicism a bit because it's as simple as that.

I mean why do you think Trump wants to wall of Mexico? Some corporate buddies would get paid tens of billions. It has nothing to do with Mexicans.

I'd never want to lead the life of bitterness and anger you seem to live your life. I'm a go lucky happy guy who works in business, enjoys people, and tries to stay optimistic about the future of our country.

You can blame the corporations all day long. Hell, they deserve some blame but on ACA it's solely on the Democrats. And I wouldn't trust Bernie Sanders with a pumpkin stand, mayor's seat of my town, governor, or anything else.

 

[IrishJayhawk]

He asked what I found "offensive." I find everything about Wright to be offensive, but I didn't wanna play that card. Wright is a sick, angry man and is as much a "preacher" as Ty Willingham is recruiter of the year.

He asked what you found extreme about the comments he posted. You called Wright a name and dodged the question.

 

[pkt77242]

How do you defend 16.9% (and this is only ONE state) when we were promised ACA would save the average family $2500 per year? And please do so without the talking points from the Daily Kos, Moveon.org, or the Bernie Sanders facebook page. Thanks.

As usual you didn't actually comment on my post (that or you didn't read it). I explained why the 16.9% isn't really 16.9%, if you can't understand the math let me know and I will try to break it down differently for you. Care to try again? Maybe actually comment on what I posted.

 

[Goldedommer44]

The President told the country that ACA would save the average family $2500. Absolute garbage. You'd rather try to make simple things like that complex just to disagree with me. That's both weird and sad.

If I remember correctly the $2,500 discussion was the savings people would get by buying insurance through the ACA compared to private insurance before the ACA, but I could be wrong.

 

[pkt77242]

Obamacare doesn't work, because it's competing with private issuance companies.

That's why rates are volatile.

We need universal health care, corporations should not control our health care.

People should not be profiting off our health.

Now this I agree with.

 

[Polish Leppy 22]

He asked what you found extreme about the comments he posted. You called Wright a name and dodged the question.

Wright said "white America" got a wake up call on 9/11.

Wright claimed we started the AIDS virus.

"No no no, not God bless America, God damn America." Where else in America can you find a preacher uttering those words? Disgusting.

So, as I hope you understand, I'd rather not talk about the worst America has to offer.

 

[Buster Bluth]

Wright said "white America" got a wake up call on 9/11.

Wright claimed we started the AIDS virus.

"No no no, not God bless America, God damn America." Where else in America can you find a preacher uttering those words? Disgusting.

So, as I hope you understand, I'd rather not talk about the worst America has to offer.

I didn't quote those in the part he brought up. I broke it down pretty specifically.

But it's pretty easy to write in the context for that first comment. He's speaking to a group of people who feel disenfranchised by their government--and lists many (not all) truths to make that point--and basically said the folks in charge (ie white america) got a wake up call from their bad policies. It's not different from when people like Ron Paul or the damn CIA say except that they aren't preachers at a black church in south Chicago so they don't use "White America."

 

[IrishJayhawk]

Wright said "white America" got a wake up call on 9/11.

Wright claimed we started the AIDS virus.

"No no no, not God bless America, God damn America." Where else in America can you find a preacher uttering those words? Disgusting.

So, as I hope you understand, I'd rather not talk about the worst America has to offer.

Well, you didn't really address the content and context of what Buster posted, but kudos for getting closer.

 

[kmoose]

If I remember correctly the $2,500 discussion was the savings people would get by buying insurance through the ACA compared to private insurance before the ACA, but I could be wrong.

You don't happen to work at Smuckers, do you?

 

[Polish Leppy 22]

As usual you didn't actually comment on my post (that or you didn't read it). I explained why the 16.9% isn't really 16.9%, if you can't understand the math let me know and I will try to break it down differently for you. Care to try again? Maybe actually comment on what I posted.

OK, I'll play your game. 16.9% isn't really 16.9%. The rise in rates is just normal, and has nothing to do with ACA. Obama didn't lie.

So try these, and no I'm not drunk or high. Maybe this writer from Forbes is?

Forbes Welcome

Blue Cross Blue Shield of Minnesota, for example, is requesting a 51 percent rate hike after losing more than $135 million on Obamacare last year. It expects its losses to be “significantly higher” this year.

In Massachusetts, Fallon Community Health Plan wants a 21 percent premium boost to cover “increasing medical costs and the fees and charges” imposed by Obamacare.

Blue Cross Blue Shield of Illinois is asking for a 29 percent increase, citing the fact that “actual claims experience . . . is significantly higher than expected.”

CareFirst in Maryland, which has 80 percent of the state’s Obamacare market, wants a 34 percent increase for its PPO plan.

Increases like these, if approved, will come on top of the average 41 percent hike in rates during Obamacare’s first year.

 

[Polish Leppy 22]

I didn't quote those in the part he briught up. I broke it down pretty specifically.

But it's pretty easy to write in the context for that first comment. He's speaking to a group of people who feel disenfranchised by their government--and lists many (not all) truths to make that point--and basically said the folks in charge (ie white america) got a wake up call from their bad policies. It's not at all different from when people like Ron Paul or the damn CIA say...only they aren't preachers at a black church is south Chicago so they don't use "White America."

Your post from weeks ago about this led to an 8 paragraph diatribe on foreign policy, and I wasn't even close to interested in that. The original topic was Obama's ties to Wright and its correlation to Ben Carson's religious beliefs.

 

[Buster Bluth]

Your post from weeks ago about this led to an 8 paragraph diatribe on foreign policy, and I wasn't even close to interested in that. The original topic was Obama's ties to Wright and its correlation to Ben Carson's religious beliefs.

Lololol

 

[IrishJayhawk]

.

 

[pkt77242]

OK, I'll play your game. 16.9% isn't really 16.9%. The rise in rates is just normal, and has nothing to do with ACA. Obama didn't lie.

So try these, and no I'm not drunk or high. Maybe this writer from Forbes is?

Forbes Welcome

Blue Cross Blue Shield of Minnesota, for example, is requesting a 51 percent rate hike after losing more than $135 million on Obamacare last year. It expects its losses to be “significantly higher” this year.

In Massachusetts, Fallon Community Health Plan wants a 21 percent premium boost to cover “increasing medical costs and the fees and charges” imposed by Obamacare.

Blue Cross Blue Shield of Illinois is asking for a 29 percent increase, citing the fact that “actual claims experience . . . is significantly higher than expected.”

CareFirst in Maryland, which has 80 percent of the state’s Obamacare market, wants a 34 percent increase for its PPO plan.

Increases like these, if approved, will come on top of the average 41 percent hike in rates during Obamacare’s first year.

Seriously?
1. They are asking for increase, not that it will be approved (though it might be)
2. I can't comment on individual companies.

Having said that
Illinois
2014: $212
2015: $215
2016: $198

From 2014-2016 Illinois went from $212 to $198 so a -6.6%, yes negative.

Minnesota
2014: $154
2015: $183
2016: $235

From 2014-216 Minnesota went from $154 to $235 a 52.6% increase. Very high. Though I would point out that their original price in 2014 was ridiculously low.

Maryland
2014: $229
2015: $235
2016: $249
Maryland from 2014-2016 it went from $229-$249 which is an 8.7% increase (over 2 years).

MA has no info available for me.

There is no doubt that some places have seen large increases (I have already pointed this out). There is also no doubt that some places have seen decreases. I will also add that you should not take one year of numbers and celebrate or cry about them. One year (or even two) years does not show the picture. I don't know how else to explain it to you. You want to latch onto all these high numbers (without context) but you refuse to look at the whole picture and just see what you wand and what "validates" your opinion. Sorry.

 

[Goldedommer44]

You don't happen to work at Smuckers, do you?

No, but I do run a company in that town

 

[T Town Tommy]

So her surviving cancer gives he some special insight into how healthcare should be financed for everyone else? She might as well have said, as a failed CEO I think we should have provocative military exercises in the Balkans to draw Russia into a costly war. .

For the record, I don't think the failed CEO has any more business being President than I do the failed attorney, failed senator, failed Sec of State does. Come to think of it... I don't think any of the candidates from either side are Presidential material.

 

[kmoose]

No, but I do run a company in that town

I was just wondering. I know my brother met with some folks from Smuckers, when he was an Assistant Director in ND's MBA program, to try to get them to recruit ND MBAs to the company.

 

[phgreek]

Seriously?
1. They are asking for increase, not that it will be approved (though it might be)
2. I can't comment on individual companies.

Having said that
Illinois
2014: $212
2015: $215
2016: $198

From 2014-2016 Illinois went from $212 to $198 so a -6.6%, yes negative.

Minnesota
2014: $154
2015: $183
2016: $235

From 2014-216 Minnesota went from $154 to $235 a 52.6% increase. Very high. Though I would point out that their original price in 2014 was ridiculously low.

Maryland
2014: $229
2015: $235
2016: $249
Maryland from 2014-2016 it went from $229-$249 which is an 8.7% increase (over 2 years).

MA has no info available for me.

There is no doubt that some places have seen large increases (I have already pointed this out). There is also no doubt that some places have seen decreases. I will also add that you should not take one year of numbers and celebrate or cry about them. One year (or even two) years does not show the picture. I don't know how else to explain it to you. You want to latch onto all these high numbers (without context) but you refuse to look at the whole picture and just see what you wand and what "validates" your opinion. Sorry.

1) These costs do NOT account for the cost of having added thousands of heads to the federal government...costs that WILL need to be included in the evaluation of cost...or you are just perpetuating the Obama administration's lies so commonly "forgotten" around here. 2) ANY increase at all is a failure based on how ACA was passed. Thats it...no further discussion required. That is, however, a different discussion than the one this usually turns into...so let me acknowledge, yes some people have benefited...well sure they have, but at what cost (not dumb ass premium costs, but total ownership cost). And here is where conservatives part ways with liberals...for a conservative, there is a cost where this just does not make sense...for liberals there just doesn't seem to be one...

By my perspective ACA has not been an economic success, and has little chance of being one. What about its coverage goals?

ERs are still dealing with people who do not have insurance, and people who NEED it (children) are not covered.

ACA may become successful in terms of covering those in need, but it is NOT currently so.

 

[BleedBlueGold]

No one is screwing the customer more than the feds and Obamacare as we have it today. Obamacare is crushing the very same people it was claimed to save from the "corporations." I'm not Carly and I don't work on her campaign. All I noted is that as a cancer survivor she didn't expect anything for "free" and wants markets to work for customers, not government.

Perhaps you should take a glance at her plan on her website and judge for yourself. Thanks.

This is just not true.

Private insurance companies have completely changed and are more for-profit than ever. I deal with this on a daily basis. I work in oncology and for each patient with private insurance, we have to call the company and get approval for their treatment. In some cases, the insurance company will flat out decline the better treatment because it's more expensive for them. This is wrong and unconstitutional imo. This has nothing to do with Obamacare and everything to do with private insurance companies and their greed. Can you explain to me how a private insurance company with a hired general physician can argue with a medical/radiation oncologist and a course of action? Do you have any idea how many doctors this infuriates? They can't provide the best treatment possible because the insurance companies say so. Explain that. There are numerous times we have to fight them to approve it because w/o X-treatment, the patient will have severe complications. Only with a threat of lawsuit will these insurance companies back down (sometimes).

This is the best example I can give that explains my view on why healthcare should never be for-profit and privatized. The customer (patients in this case) get royally screwed out of having the best possible care because Joe Schmo Insurance Company doesn't want to cut into their bottom line. That's fucked up.


To add via the Fact Check article a few posts below:

CARLY FIORINA: "Obamacare isn't really helping anybody."

THE FACTS: President Barack Obama's health care law may or may not be good for the country on balance. But it's clearly helping many people.

In the two years it's been in effect, the share of Americans without health insurance has declined to 9 percent, a historic low. People with pre-existing health conditions can no longer be turned away by insurers, and everyone is required to have coverage or face fines.

While the coverage mandate in Obama's law remains highly unpopular, state-run high-risk health insurance pools like the one Fiorina proposes to replace the law have been tried before and failed to solve the problem.

So while Obamacare could be enhanced, it's not a complete failure like most people claim.

It's extremely annoying to hear ignorant people blast the very system that has allowed them to get affordable insurance when they otherwise wouldn't have it OR get insurance with a pre-existing condition. This is something I see/hear on a daily basis.

 

[BleedBlueGold]

I'd also like to add that rising healthcare costs are also associated with reimbursement rates. What a facility bills out is not what they get paid and the difference is insane. So what happens? Costs go way up so the amount that is reimbursed isn't causing them to actually lose money.

Mission statements for medical facilities read false. It's never about the patient. It's always about making more money.

 

[phgreek]

This is just not true.

Private insurance companies have completely changed and are more for-profit than ever. I deal with this on a daily basis. I work in oncology and for each patient with private insurance, we have to call the company and get approval for their treatment. In some cases, the insurance company will flat out decline the better treatment because it's more expensive for them. This is wrong and unconstitutional imo. This has nothing to do with Obamacare and everything to do with private insurance companies and their greed. Can you explain to me how a private insurance company with a hired general physician can argue with a medical/radiation oncologist and a course of action? Do you have any idea how many doctors this infuriates? They can't provide the best treatment possible because the insurance companies say so. Explain that. There are numerous times we have to fight them to approve it because w/o X-treatment, the patient will have severe complications. Only with a threat of lawsuit will these insurance companies back down (sometimes).

This is the best example I can give that explains my view on why healthcare should never be for-profit and privatized. The customer (patients in this case) get royally screwed out of having the best possible care because Joe Schmo Insurance Company doesn't want to cut into their bottom line. That's fucked up.

...and the recourse for a person is to get different insurance. What is the recourse when a panel of people determine coverage guidelines from the government?

 

[GoIrish41]

I'd also like to add that rising healthcare costs are also associated with reimbursement rates. What a facility bills out is not what they get paid and the difference is insane. So what happens? Costs go way up so the amount that is reimbursed isn't causing them to actually lose money.

Mission statements for medical facilities read false. It's never about the patient. It's always about making more money.

This. The problem with Obamacare is that it retains the involvement of insurance complanies.

 

[BleedBlueGold]

...and the recourse for a person is to get different insurance. What is the recourse when a panel of people determine coverage guidelines from the government?

This isn't shopping for a tv where if you don't like the deal at one store, you simply shop at another. This is my problem w/ the system. People who can afford better insurance are privileged to get better treatment. That's morally wrong. And it's what you seem to be suggesting.

I understand your concern with having the government dictate coverage guidelines. I agree that it'd probably be just as bad. I don't think there's a simple solution to this. But there has to be a way to make it better all around for everyone.

 

[GoIrish41]

AP FACT CHECK: In Republican debate, flubs and funny numbers | Fox News

 

[Wild Bill]

This isn't shopping for a tv where if you don't like the deal at one store, you simply shop at another. This is my problem w/ the system. People who can afford better insurance are privileged to get better treatment. That's morally wrong. And it's what you seem to be suggesting.

I understand your concern with having the government dictate coverage guidelines. I agree that it'd probably be just as bad. I don't think there's a simple solution to this. But there has to be a way to make it better all around for everyone.

Assuming the individual is paying with their own money, why is it morally wrong?

If an individual or family wants to pay for superior coverage from superior doctors, let them. We see this all the time. For instance, a family may choose to buy a Mercedes rather than a Honda b/c it's regarded as a safer vehicle. If they're paying, what do I care?

 

[IrishJayhawk]

This isn't shopping for a tv where if you don't like the deal at one store, you simply shop at another. This is my problem w/ the system. People who can afford better insurance are privileged to get better treatment. That's morally wrong. And it's what you seem to be suggesting.

I understand your concern with having the government dictate coverage guidelines. I agree that it'd probably be just as bad. I don't think there's a simple solution to this. But there has to be a way to make it better all around for everyone.

This is why Fiorina isn't necessarily the best person to talk about it. As a wealthy person, she had access to every possible benefit and treatment.

 

[IrishJayhawk]

Assuming the individual is paying with their own money, why is it morally wrong?

If an individual or family wants to pay for superior coverage from superior doctors, let them. We see this all the time. For instance, a family may choose to buy a Mercedes rather than a Honda b/c it's regarded as a safer vehicle. If they're paying, what do I care?

Because the converse is also true. People who can't afford it die of things we could cure.

 

[GoIrish41]

Assuming the individual is paying with their own money, why is it morally wrong?

If an individual or family wants to pay for superior coverage from superior doctors, let them. We see this all the time. For instance, a family may choose to buy a Mercedes rather than a Honda b/c it's regarded as a safer vehicle. If they're paying, what do I care?

I think the problem with it is that the poor do not have any realistic access to the better treatment available. It's different than which car people can afford -- those are luxury decisions. With health care, determinining the quality of treatment for a human being should probably have nothing to do with how much wealth a person can accumulate. That says that the wealthy are more important, more deserving, and simply better than the working poor. The minimum level of care should be the best possible care available.