Politics

[irish4ever]

You assume those plans were "******" because what? The ACA said so?!?!?

And most the people being dropped are happy with their plans and were told, by your boy Obama, that they could keep their plans.

And the "long run" is the scariest part!!! It was passed on emotion and stories of people dying in the street. What's "best" for the country is a system that covered 90% of it's people and had a competitive marketplace. The old system.

Did it need changes? Sure. Did it need the ACA? Hell no

I second that!

 

[phgreek]

And the media evaluates them based on their "noble intentions," not on the miserable results.

Docs resisting ObamaCare | New York Post

A poll conducted by the New York State Medical Society finds that 44 percent of MDs said they are not participating in the nation’s new health-care plan.

Another 33 percent say they’re still not sure whether to become ObamaCare providers.

This is a problem because Docs will basically go cash or other insurance...this concentrates the medical resources supporting whom...the rich.


All Obama care does is compete with medicare for its dwindling population of DOCS who will take it...Old folks lose again...raid medicare budget, and then compete with dwindling medicare resources...can't imagine how that feels for those seniors who voted for this...

 

[Ndaccountant]

so i have this right...insurance companies who have provided plans that dont meet all the regulations of the new ACA law are havng to drop people ecause their covergae was lousy and people have an issue with that?

to me this exposes and lets people know just how ****** their plans were in the first place, no?

i know most of you are against the ACA o matter what and othing anyne says will make you EVER even comtemplkate that it maybe just maybe could help some folks now and over the long run.

having witnessed my neighbor's 13 year old son who has had at least a dozen oprations with multiple week hisptial stays, and having "hit the cap" on what the "insurance" he had would pay, resulting in damn near bi annual fundraisers to keep his son breathing is enough for me to say enough of al these bullshit insurance company policies the majority of which have been set up NOT to pay out when disaster strikes.

GO Irish

ps these exchanges are run by and funnel biz to private companies not "the government"

An analogy.

Say someone lived in NYC and made a choice to lease a 1998 Dodge Neon since they really didn't drive much, but wanted a car around incase they wanted to drive to Buffalo to see their parents. It wasn't a great car and it may have cost them a few dollars at times to change some engine parts, but by and large, it did it's job.

Suppose the federal government comes in and says, "you know what, we want everyone in this country to have a car that at least has automatic steering, power windows, a CD player, keyless entry and functioning A/C and heat.

This is good, since so many people don't have cars. But guess what, this particular individual's car doesn't have keyless entry nor power windows and their lease is cancelled since their car no longer conforms with governments vision of what they need in a car. On top of that, their new lease payment is now $150 more per month than their old one, which sucks because the law states they have to have a car now so they really have no choice put to pay up and get a car they really didn't want or need.

So the question is, why does the federal government get to say whether or not this person has a crappy 1998 Dodge Neon?

 

[ND NYC]

An analogy.

Say someone lived in NYC and made a choice to lease a 1998 Dodge Neon since they really didn't drive much, but wanted a car around incase they wanted to drive to Buffalo to see their parents. It wasn't a great car and it may have cost them a few dollars at times to change some engine parts, but by and large, it did it's job.

Suppose the federal government comes in and says, "you know what, we want everyone in this country to have a car that at least has automatic steering, power windows, a CD player, keyless entry and functioning A/C and heat.

This is good, since so many people don't have cars. But guess what, this particular individual's car doesn't have keyless entry nor power windows and their lease is cancelled since their car no longer conforms with governments vision of what they need in a car. On top of that, their new lease payment is now $150 more per month than their old one, which sucks because the law states they have to have a car now so they really have no choice put to pay up and get a car they really didn't want or need.

So the question is, why does the federal government get to say whether or not this person has a crappy 1998 Dodge Neon?

respectfully, i'm not buying your analogy but i get what your saying...as i see it, the federal govt is making sure that the guy who bought the NEON if god forbid gets in a head on collison with an 18 wheeler and is in a hosptial for 6 months, cant work, cant feed his family wont go bankrupt with all the hospital bills if he is insured. (no lifetime caps). his insurance will cover it now (and by the way at no taxpayer expense).

 

[ND NYC]

Do they speak English in What?

wiseguy...

 

[wizards8507]

respectfully, i'm not buying your analogy but i get what your saying...as i see it, the federal govt is making sure that the guy who bought the NEON if god forbid gets in a head on collison with an 18 wheeler and is in a hosptial for 6 months, cant work, cant feed his family wont go bankrupt with all the hospital bills if he is insured. (no lifetime caps). his insurance will cover it now (and by the way at no taxpayer expense).

Why is it the federal government's job to take care of that family? Why isn't the guy responsible for taking care of his OWN family (including choosing a smart insurance policy)?

Also, you can't say "at no taxpayer expense" just because it's not funded with tax dollars. With the exception of FIVE states (Colorado, New Jersey, New York, Ohio, and Rhode Island), Americans will see the cost of comparable health insurance plans increase. Furthermore, they might not even be able to GET a "comparable" plan if they've been dropped from their existing plan and forced to purchase something more expensive. No, it's not techically tax dollars, but it's dishonest to say it's at "no taxpayer expense" since just about EVERYONE'S insurance will be going up, which has the same impact as a new tax (i.e. reducing your take-home income).

 

[phgreek]

Why is it the federal government's job to take care of that family? Why isn't the guy responsible for taking care of his OWN family (including choosing a smart insurance policy)?

Also, you can't say "at no taxpayer expense" just because it's not funded with tax dollars. With the exception of FIVE states (Colorado, New Jersey, New York, Ohio, and Rhode Island), Americans will see the cost of comparable health insurance plans increase. Furthermore, they might not even be able to GET a "comparable" plan if they've been dropped from their existing plan and forced to purchase something more expensive. No, it's not techically tax dollars, but it's dishonest to say it's at "no taxpayer expense" since just about EVERYONE'S insurance will be going up, which has the same impact as a new tax (i.e. reducing your take-home income).

..well, and the penalties are defined as a tax...and when this thing needs bailed out...its paid for "if ever" by tax revenue...so its a tax.

 

[ND NYC]

Why is it the federal government's job to take care of that family? Why isn't the guy responsible for taking care of his OWN family (including choosing a smart insurance policy)?
Also, you can't say "at no taxpayer expense" just because it's not funded with tax dollars. With the exception of FIVE states (Colorado, New Jersey, New York, Ohio, and Rhode Island), Americans will see the cost of comparable health insurance plans increase. Furthermore, they might not even be able to GET a "comparable" plan if they've been dropped from their existing plan and forced to purchase something more expensive. No, it's not techically tax dollars, but it's dishonest to say it's at "no taxpayer expense" since just about EVERYONE'S insurance will be going up, which has the same impact as a new tax (i.e. reducing your take-home income).

i never said its the feds responsibility. where are you getting that from?
quite the opposite.

The insurance companies (they are the ones to whom the premiums get paid) are now required, by law, to pay for their policyholders healthcare costs.

Imagine that!

 

[ND NYC]

i will repeat what i posted in an earlier post n this thread:

NEWSFLASH!

Insurance Premiums have been SKYROCKETING for DECADES...the ACA should not be blamed for how we got here and for how much we pay now. the baseline cost we pay now is a result of DECADES of increasing healthcare costs...at least we are trying SOMETHING.

doing nothing would have been far worse and if as you pessimists say costs are going to continue to skyrocket and its all due to the ACA well at least what we are paying for will be far better in terms of the insurance we actually get than what we were getting.

we can all agree to disagree here i think the basic thing that separates us is that i chose to trust the government over the insurance companies while you guys have more trust in the insurance companies.

 

[wizards8507]

i never said its the feds responsibility. where are you getting that from?
quite the opposite.

The insurance companies (they are the ones to whom the premiums get paid) are now required, by law, to pay for their policyholders healthcare costs.

Imagine that!

That's already true! If they weren't paying legitimate claims, they'd have major lawsuits on their hands. If they're not paying because the idiot guy picked a shtty policy and didn't understand the loopholes, (once again) it's the idiot guy's fault. No, the feds aren't PAYING healthcare costs, but they're mandating what the policies can and can't contain. The people who can't read the bill before they pass it are now taking over the "reading" of our insurance policies to make sure they're up to snuff. I can do that myself and for much cheaper.

Your dream scenario is a world where our example guy has a great policy. GUESS WHAT!? The guy COULD have gotten a great policy all by his lonesome, without the ACA. He CHOSE not to. It's not like he picked a great policy and then the insurance company screwed him somehow. He got the coverage he paid for. Now you're taking away the choice. Yes, I believe every American should have the right to buy an awesome policy, a terrible policy, or no policy at all and then SUFFER THE CONSEQUENCES OF THEIR CHOICES.

 

[Irish Houstonian]

respectfully, i'm not buying your analogy but i get what your saying...as i see it, the federal govt is making sure that the guy who bought the NEON if god forbid gets in a head on collison with an 18 wheeler and is in a hosptial for 6 months, cant work, cant feed his family wont go bankrupt with all the hospital bills if he is insured. (no lifetime caps). his insurance will cover it now (and by the way at no taxpayer expense).

(1) It will be paid for by taxpayers, in part, if he's below the threshhold.

(2) And in any event, everyone else buying insurance will end up partly underwriting that risk (meaning they'll be paying more for their insurance). That's how this law works.

 

[Irish Houstonian]

...we can all agree to disagree here i think the basic thing that separates us is that i chose to trust the government over the insurance companies while you guys have more trust in the insurance companies.

I personally wouldn't trust either one. And the bad news is that they were both in concert in drafting PPACA.

That is, the insurance companies like the law. It's the employers who get the short end of the stick. (Well them, and the young/healthy).

 

[Polish Leppy 22]

I second that!

Count me in too

 

[phgreek]

i will repeat what i posted in an earlier post n this thread:

NEWSFLASH!

Insurance Premiums have been SKYROCKETING for DECADES...the ACA should not be blamed for how we got here and for how much we pay now. the baseline cost we pay now is a result of DECADES of increasing healthcare costs...at least we are trying SOMETHING.

doing nothing would have been far worse and if as you pessimists say costs are going to continue to skyrocket and its all due to the ACA well at least what we are paying for will be far better in terms of the insurance we actually get than what we were getting.

we can all agree to disagree here i think the basic thing that separates us is that i chose to trust the government over the insurance companies while you guys have more trust in the insurance companies.

"government" could have implemented smaller measures to address a number of issues which we all agreed would be beneficial...ie no caps on insurance, etc. I read that the cost to provide healthcare for the small percentage of people who actually WANTED it but couldn't get it would be 3-4 Billion/year... I gotta go find the reference...

That being the case...
kids on mom and dads til 26
no throwing people off for utilization/ceilings
people who are uninsurable or can't afford it go to Medicaid for another 3-4 Billion/year
pretty much all the regulatory stuff which establishes fake geo-boundaries removed

No additional IRS costs...HHS could be reduced by 1/3...No restraint of trade...No invasion of liberty/choice...no irresponsible "Do Something" disruption, no ongoing government involvement to speak of...significantly cheaper with less risk.

If ACA does not manage to stabilize cost...it would be a failure of inconceivable scope because it takes actuarial out of the insurance risk/profit argument...should be premium rates become fairly tetherable to inflation indices...now the cost and suffering to get there...OMFG.

 

[irishpat183]

And the media evaluates them based on their "noble intentions," not on the miserable results.

Docs resisting ObamaCare | New York Post

A poll conducted by the New York State Medical Society finds that 44 percent of MDs said they are not participating in the nation’s new health-care plan.

Another 33 percent say they’re still not sure whether to become ObamaCare providers.

...que the "Doctors are greedy" argument from the left...which leads to the "Well they shoudl just have to do it" slavery argument from the left.


We're getting into the arena of FORCING doctors to, bascially, work for the government.


I have a very good family friend who's a dr that is getting as far from the ACA as possible. He said the RED TAPE alone is enough to just say screw it and retire or become a specialist/private dr.

I mean, aside from dealing with the paperwork, it takes forever for them to get paid on Medicare/cade clients. can you imagine on the new plan??

 

[irishpat183]

i will repeat what i posted in an earlier post n this thread:

NEWSFLASH!

Insurance Premiums have been SKYROCKETING for DECADES...the ACA should not be blamed for how we got here and for how much we pay now. the baseline cost we pay now is a result of DECADES of increasing healthcare costs...at least we are trying SOMETHING.

doing nothing would have been far worse and if as you pessimists say costs are going to continue to skyrocket and its all due to the ACA well at least what we are paying for will be far better in terms of the insurance we actually get than what we were getting.

we can all agree to disagree here i think the basic thing that separates us is that i chose to trust the government over the insurance companies while you guys have more trust in the insurance companies.

So the ACA hikes them up more....and you're happy?

Hell, if the ACA came out and lowered costs? You'd have a point.

NOt to mention, the healthy people (mainly the 27-35 crowd) that were carrying the load before are simply just going to drop coverage and pay the "fines" until they get married or have kids. Which is going to ****ing destroy this whole plan as they're banking on the healthy 27 year old to pay the big *** prems (which is ****ing absurd given the job market and economy) to offset the broke dick and old bastards.

 

[NDFan4Life]

i will repeat what i posted in an earlier post n this thread:

NEWSFLASH!

Insurance Premiums have been SKYROCKETING for DECADES...the ACA should not be blamed for how we got here and for how much we pay now. the baseline cost we pay now is a result of DECADES of increasing healthcare costs...at least we are trying SOMETHING.

doing nothing would have been far worse and if as you pessimists say costs are going to continue to skyrocket and its all due to the ACA well at least what we are paying for will be far better in terms of the insurance we actually get than what we were getting.

we can all agree to disagree here i think the basic thing that separates us is that i chose to trust the government over the insurance companies while you guys have more trust in the insurance companies.

Any time I see someone say, "I trust the government", I'm reminded of a quote by Ronald Reagan:

The nine most terrifying words in the English language are, 'I'm from the government and I'm here to help.'

This government is so screwed up right now. And it happened a long time before Obama came into office.

 

[Buster Bluth]

So the ACA hikes them up more....and you're happy?

Hell, if the ACA came out and lowered costs? You'd have a point.

Wouldn't he have a point if the ACA lowered costs increases, say from 10%/yr to 2%/yr?

Not a fan of ACA at all, but your thinking is off here.

 

[ND NYC]

well Pat i will light a candle in the Grotto for the 27-35 year olds who (your words) "are just going to drop covergae until they get married or have kids" and pray that they never get sick or injured.

 

[BobD]

I guess the best thing about this long as$ conversation is that eventually we'll all get a chance to see who was right.

 

[ND NYC]

Any time I see someone say, "I trust the government", I'm reminded of a quote by Ronald Reagan:



This government is so screwed up right now. And it happened a long time before Obama came into office.

That Reagan quote is laughable...ask anyone who was ever helped or saved by a cop of fireman.

 

[Irish Houstonian]

That Reagan quote is laughable...ask anyone who was ever helped or saved by a cop of fireman.

Perhaps federal gov't would be a good qualifier there.

 

[BobD]

Some of you guys sound like the ACA is gonna cause the earth to burst into flames.

 

[ND NYC]

ps NDFan4Life i should have said i trust the government more than the insurance companies.

semantics really but kudos to you to pounce quickly with your talking point

 

[Buster Bluth]

That Reagan quote is laughable...ask anyone who was ever helped or saved by a cop of fireman.

FEDERAL government

 

[ND NYC]

Perhaps federal gov't would be a good qualifier there.

so the FBI agent is bad (federal police) and only local (not fed) cop is good?

is that what you intend to qualify here?

cant have it both ways

 

[Buster Bluth]

cant have it both ways

Sure you can. Of course I could go on all day criticizing both. The fact of the matter is that when the FBI is corrupt, it's normally much worse than the local cops.

 

[Buster Bluth]

ps NDFan4Life i should have said i trust the government more than the insurance companies.

Ummm, who do you think wrote the bill?

 

[ACamp1900]

Ummm, who do you think wrote the bill?

Obama.

 

[NDFan4Life]

so the FBI agent is bad (federal police) and only local (not fed) cop is good?

is that what you intend to qualify here?

cant have it both ways

I don't trust the FBI, CIA, NSA, IRS, or any other FEDERAL government agency.

How many local cops or firemen are in prison for turning over classified information to our adversaries?