(04-01-2014 12:13 AM)Machiavelli Wrote:  It will be at 7 million.

I honestly can't understand how 25% equates to success in anything. Is this the new excellence standard now?

(04-01-2014 05:40 AM)Fo Shizzle Wrote:  

(04-01-2014 12:13 AM)Machiavelli Wrote:  It will be at 7 million.

I honestly can't understand how 25% equates to success in anything. Is this the new excellence standard now?

When has gov't run anything been successful.

The three stooges: Obama, Reid, and Pelosi should be the heroes
of the insurance industry. Making huge rate jumps for them.
Can see a statue in from of insurance companies to them.
The day it's killed will be a good day for America.

This law was passed with two objectives:
1. Provide insurance for 45 million uninsured, and
2. Slow the growth in health care costs.

So let's see how they are doing

1. No matter whether it's 5 million, 6 million, 7 million, or 12 million, they've only picked up a tiny portion of that uninsured number. Particularly when there were ways to pick up 100 percent (Bismarck, and yes, single payer and single provider), that is an epic fail.

2. According to CBO, any cost savings must come from three and only three sources, 1) improved administration, 2) reduced quality, or 3) reduced access. Does anybody seriously think that adding a bunch of layers of federal bureaucracy will REDUCE the cost of administration? Seriously? That leaves reduced quality and reduced access. I think Obamacare will accomplish reduced cost--specifically by reducing quality and access. This bill doesn't really include any way to cut costs except pay docs less for performing the same services. Does anybody see any way that doesn't make medicine a less attractive career? Does anybody see any way that doesn't reduce the supply of health care providers? Can anyone point out any example in all of recorded history where increasing demand while reducing supply worked out well? Health insurance is not health care. We may all have health insurance, but none of us will have health care. Is that really an improvement?

Forget all the back and forth over the numbers. Signing people up will be the best part of Obamacare. Actually providing health care will be the worst. What is worse is that we could have extended health insurance coverage to everyone without damaging our health care delivery model. Single-payer and single-provider wouldn't do that, but Bismarck would. But we didn't go there. Until we do, I'll find it difficult to believe that any part of this was actually about improving health care.

(04-01-2014 07:11 AM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  This law was passed with two objectives:
1. Provide insurance for 45 million uninsured, and
2. Slow the growth in health care costs.

So let's see how they are doing

1. No matter whether it's 5 million, 6 million, 7 million, or 12 million, they've only picked up a tiny portion of that uninsured number. Particularly when there were ways to pick up 100 percent (Bismarck, and yes, single payer and single provider), that is an epic fail.

2. According to CBO, any cost savings must come from three and only three sources, 1) improved administration, 2) reduced quality, or 3) reduced access. Does anybody seriously think that adding a bunch of layers of federal bureaucracy will REDUCE the cost of administration? Seriously? That leaves reduced quality and reduced access. I think Obamacare will accomplish reduced cost--specifically by reducing quality and access. This bill doesn't really include any way to cut costs except pay docs less for performing the same services. Does anybody see any way that doesn't make medicine a less attractive career? Does anybody see any way that doesn't reduce the supply of health care providers? Can anyone point out any example in all of recorded history where increasing demand while reducing supply worked out well? Health insurance is not health care. We may all have health insurance, but none of us will have health care. Is that really an improvement?

Forget all the back and forth over the numbers. Signing people up will be the best part of Obamacare. Actually providing health care will be the worst. What is worse is that we could have extended health insurance coverage to everyone without damaging our health care delivery model. Single-payer and single-provider wouldn't do that, but Bismarck would. But we didn't go there. Until we do, I'll find it difficult to believe that any part of this was actually about improving health care.

You've been right all along on this. The GOP better come up with this as their one issue platform for 2016 or else HC is doomed to failure.

The only people benefiting from the current trajectory is insurance companies and bureaucratic cronies.

Thanks, Zero.

(03-31-2014 09:05 PM)Machiavelli Wrote:  They have to. I still say the worst g damn thing he did was let it be named after him. He let his opponents name his signature achievement. 1/3rd of the vitriol is because it's named Obamacare. People like the individual parts of it.

Nonsense. People didn't want it when it was being railroaded through.

You really should consider paying attention to reality.

So call out the idiots that say they are cooking the books. When will HONESTY come into the equation? What you typed above OWL makes sense to me. We need to start churning out more Dr's or Nurse Practioners. That's what I see in our future. More nurse practioners. We All see the upcoming crunch, you just have to hope you have a good relationship with your Dr. Part of my problem is I've been reading the doom and gloom for 5 plus years now and THE ONLY thing I have witnessed personally is benefits. I'm in the system and I see the system. Under the old system I would have been bankrupt or unable to afford care. She was at her cap. I've told this to you many times. You countered I was a lucky one who just hit the sweet spot. I can't counter that I can only deal with realities and so far the reality is it's working.

(04-01-2014 07:31 AM)Machiavelli Wrote:  So call out the idiots that say they are cooking the books. When will HONESTY come into the equation? What you typed above OWL makes sense to me. We need to start churning out more Dr's or Nurse Practioners. That's what I see in our future. More nurse practioners. We All see the upcoming crunch, you just have to hope you have a good relationship with your Dr. Part of my problem is I've been reading the doom and gloom for 5 plus years now and THE ONLY thing I have witnessed personally is benefits. I'm in the system and I see the system. Under the old system I would have been bankrupt or unable to afford care. She was at her cap. I've told this to you many times. You countered I was a lucky one who just hit the sweet spot. I can't counter that I can only deal with realities and so far the reality is it's working.

Just remember that IPAB and HCC and CCO haven't really cranked up yet. When they do, you won't be on the good side of things.

Mack, sooner or later you will have to admit Democrats trashed the best HC delivery system in the world and for what, politics, insurance companies and bureaucratic cronies. And you are cheerleading the demise. Shame on you.

Torch.

Get out of the bubble.

3. Some parts of the law are popular: It's the ultimate paradox. Overall, Obamacare remains mostly unpopular with the public, but many Americans give a thumbs up to most specific parts of the Affordable Care Act that have been tested in surveys .

The Bloomberg poll was the most recent study to ask about the law's specific components, and its findings are similar to what previous surveys have found. Nearly three-quarters questioned in that survey said the provision that allowed children up to age 26 to remain on their parents' policies should be kept. Nearly two-thirds said the same thing about the component that prohibits insurance companies from denying coverage based on pre-existing conditions.

A majority also wanted to keep the provision eliminating lifetime caps on how much insurance companies must pay for a person's health care.

But by a slight 51% to 47% margin, Americans wanted to repeal the individual mandate, which forces everyone to have health insurance or face penalties.

Democrats defending the overall law tout the popularity of many of the specific provisions.

"Even if you choose not to use the exchanges at all, you stand to benefit from the Affordable Care Act," wrote Democratic strategist Paul Begala in an op-ed Monday on CNN.com.

"If you or someone in your family has a pre-existing condition, you are a winner under the ACA. Ditto if, God forbid, you have an illness or an accident that would have maxed-out your pre-Obamacare coverage limit: the ACA outlaws coverage caps," added Begala, a longtime adviser to both Bill and HIllary Clinton, who's also an adviser to Priorities USA, the super PAC set up to support Obama's 2012 re-election that's now raising money for a potential Hillary Clinton campaign in 2016.

SOAF,

Sooner or later you will have to come to reality................

"Democrats defending the overall law tout the popularity of many of the specific provisions."

I think that wraps it up nicely. Unfortunately, those "specific provisions" can not offset the overall damage that this law has inflicted. Let's not forget that almost 300 million Americans had reasonable quality health care, that most liked.

The Democrats set out to achieve, as they are trying with education, to legislate equality of outcomes.

(04-01-2014 07:36 AM)Machiavelli Wrote:  Torch.

Get out of the bubble.

3. Some parts of the law are popular: It's the ultimate paradox. Overall, Obamacare remains mostly unpopular with the public, but many Americans give a thumbs up to most specific parts of the Affordable Care Act that have been tested in surveys .

The Bloomberg poll was the most recent study to ask about the law's specific components, and its findings are similar to what previous surveys have found. Nearly three-quarters questioned in that survey said the provision that allowed children up to age 26 to remain on their parents' policies should be kept. Nearly two-thirds said the same thing about the component that prohibits insurance companies from denying coverage based on pre-existing conditions.

A majority also wanted to keep the provision eliminating lifetime caps on how much insurance companies must pay for a person's health care.

But by a slight 51% to 47% margin, Americans wanted to repeal the individual mandate, which forces everyone to have health insurance or face penalties.

Democrats defending the overall law tout the popularity of many of the specific provisions.

"Even if you choose not to use the exchanges at all, you stand to benefit from the Affordable Care Act," wrote Democratic strategist Paul Begala in an op-ed Monday on CNN.com.

"If you or someone in your family has a pre-existing condition, you are a winner under the ACA. Ditto if, God forbid, you have an illness or an accident that would have maxed-out your pre-Obamacare coverage limit: the ACA outlaws coverage caps," added Begala, a longtime adviser to both Bill and HIllary Clinton, who's also an adviser to Priorities USA, the super PAC set up to support Obama's 2012 re-election that's now raising money for a potential Hillary Clinton campaign in 2016.

The problem Mach is still just as Owl stated; ACA increases demand while doing absolutely nothing to encourage growth of supply. Being covered is irrelevant is there isn't anyone to provide said care. And there were significant options available to the President to affect such change. Tort reform, student Loan forgiveness, increasing awareness of doc-in-the-box facilities. Yet all were conspicuously absent.

And while you acknowledge the need for more doctors and PA's, what about the environment that's being created will encourage talented people to enter into this field? The increased hours? The reduced pay? The patient evals? The increased regulatory oversight?

And when medicare care is divided between ACA practitioners and cash only operations, will the gov't then decide to ban practicing medicine unless its done under ACA provisions?

It'll be interesting to see how many that signed up are actually paying for it.

(04-01-2014 07:38 AM)Machiavelli Wrote:  SOAF,

Sooner or later you will have to come to reality................

You are losing your grip on reality, and I suspect that reality is going to hit you in the face at some point in the future. HC won't be there for you when you need it. Then cry me a river.

(04-01-2014 07:57 AM)EverRespect Wrote:  It'll be interesting to see how many that signed up are actually paying for it.

I imagine a percentage signed up simply because they believed they had to. Fines and all. Now that everyone is finding out no one has to pay, I imagine a percentage wont.

(04-01-2014 12:22 AM)EagleX Wrote:  Yes, the obamites should be very proud that -- in the very best case, yet highly unlikely scenario -- they almost insured as many people as they cancelled.

From the article:

Quote:Rand's figures support earlier estimates that fewer than 1 million people who had health plans in 2013 are now uninsured because of cancellations. Insurance companies that issued the cancellation notices say they've retained "the vast majority" of their old customers, mostly by moving them into new, compliant, plans.

(04-01-2014 08:50 AM)Redwingtom Wrote:  

(04-01-2014 12:22 AM)EagleX Wrote:  Yes, the obamites should be very proud that -- in the very best case, yet highly unlikely scenario -- they almost insured as many people as they cancelled.

From the article:

Quote:Rand's figures support earlier estimates that fewer than 1 million people who had health plans in 2013 are now uninsured because of cancellations. Insurance companies that issued the cancellation notices say they've retained "the vast majority" of their old customers, mostly by moving them into new, compliant, plans.

Do you understand that?

(04-01-2014 08:53 AM)Paul M Wrote:  

(04-01-2014 08:50 AM)Redwingtom Wrote:  

(04-01-2014 12:22 AM)EagleX Wrote:  Yes, the obamites should be very proud that -- in the very best case, yet highly unlikely scenario -- they almost insured as many people as they cancelled.

From the article:

Quote:Rand's figures support earlier estimates that fewer than 1 million people who had health plans in 2013 are now uninsured because of cancellations. Insurance companies that issued the cancellation notices say they've retained "the vast majority" of their old customers, mostly by moving them into new, compliant, plans.

Do you understand that?

Clearly you don't. 7 million > 1 million.

(04-01-2014 07:31 AM)Machiavelli Wrote:  We need to start churning out more Dr's or Nurse Practioners. That's what I see in our future. More nurse practioners.

Exactly how are you going to do that by working them harder and paying them less?