(04-02-2014 12:15 PM)Max Power Wrote:  I don't care if he's also a doctor. Being a doctor doesn't give you a magic window into the percentage of Obamacare enrollees who have had their premiums go up.

A lot of these new patients are simply shifting from the ERs to less expensive primary care physicians, which may or may not be located in the Cleveland Clinic (whereas if they visited the ER they would be). Yes those ER visits weren't all collected but those costs were shifted to the rest of us. Plus, even those whose bottom lines are boosted now hate this law because they see this as a step towards single payer which will ultimately cut into their margins.

You ignored what I said all the way around.. I'm sure this guy has read and studied the ACA, more in depth than anyone that voted to pass the bill.. I'd be willing to bet, it's his business to know what it's going to do to him and his profession since ya know he is a CEO of one of the best hospitals in the nation along with being an MD, who will be affected by the ACA on how he performs business.

I'd believe him more than anyone in DC, regardless of the party affiliation.

But you're going to ignore that and the fact that ya boy endorsed the Chevy Cobalt.. Burns when a slam comes back and hits you square in the forehead don't it... Barrack Obama is doing victory laps for a failed "healthcare plan". Nancy Pelosi has already said she wouldn't use in her re-election campaign, you know the genius who said we have to pass it to know what's in it.. She championed it.. Claimed it was the best thing since sliced bread.. The ship is sinking Max..

I didn't ignore what you said. I discarded it because it's nonsense. He doesn't know the internal business of these insurance companies. He hasn't looked at the actuarial tables of all the insurance companies in all 50 states. He's an MD and CEO, not an actuary. And even if he was, and thought he did know generally how much premiums are going up in all 50 states, he doesn't know how many are getting subsidies to offset that otherwise-increase in premiums and what the cross distribution looks like. I'm sure he's a bright guy but to arrive at the conclusion he put forward a lot of work is involved. Oh, did I mention he's also an interested party?

Wow, Obama touted the Cobalt before anyone outside GM knew of its power steering problems. Who cares.

Nancy Pelosi doesn't need a reelection campaign.

(04-01-2014 06:48 PM)THE NC Herd Fan Wrote:  Maybe 7million people signed up, maybe not, but of those who did 75% saw their premiums increase. The premium increase numbers are from Cleveland Clinic CEO.


Obamacare hits Americans in the pocketbook

Another broken promise, "Obamacare will save American families an average of $2,500/yr."

Those numbers are inaccurate because they take into account all of the people who were required to carry health insurance who never had it before. Therefore, someone who never had it saw a 100% increase.

(04-02-2014 01:53 PM)Max Power Wrote:  I didn't ignore what you said. I discarded it because it's nonsense. He doesn't know the internal business of these insurance companies. He hasn't looked at the actuarial tables of all the insurance companies in all 50 states. He's an MD and CEO, not an actuary. And even if he was, and thought he did know generally how much premiums are going up in all 50 states, he doesn't know how many are getting subsidies to offset that otherwise-increase in premiums and what the cross distribution looks like. I'm sure he's a bright guy but to arrive at the conclusion he put forward a lot of work is involved. Oh, did I mention he's also an interested party?

Wow, Obama touted the Cobalt before anyone outside GM knew of its power steering problems. Who cares.

Nancy Pelosi doesn't need a reelection campaign.

So what you're saying is a bunch of people in DC know more about the workings of the healthcare industry? Well hell no wonder you're all about the ACA. You don't think a CEO of one of the biggest healthcare systems hasn't talked to insurance companies about their rates? My gosh you are dense.

You're the one that brought up the Cobalt. I just wanted to point out that your leader was wrong yet again.

Pelosi may not, but she's changing her talking points, much like the rest of the Donkeys..

(04-02-2014 01:53 PM)Max Power Wrote:  I didn't ignore what you said. I discarded it because it's nonsense. He doesn't know the internal business of these insurance companies. He hasn't looked at the actuarial tables of all the insurance companies in all 50 states. He's an MD and CEO, not an actuary. And even if he was, and thought he did know generally how much premiums are going up in all 50 states, he doesn't know how many are getting subsidies to offset that otherwise-increase in premiums and what the cross distribution looks like. I'm sure he's a bright guy but to arrive at the conclusion he put forward a lot of work is involved. Oh, did I mention he's also an interested party?

Wow, Obama touted the Cobalt before anyone outside GM knew of its power steering problems. Who cares.

Nancy Pelosi doesn't need a reelection campaign.

Dude, get real for a moment. People wanted Obamacare because they thought they'd save $2500 on their insurance plans. For anyone not saving that amount that could be considered a rate hike over what they were promised they would save. Also, how do you insure millions of additional people who can't afford it without raising rates? How? Break out your number line and do the math. Let us know what you come up with.

Sure. I really do not believe 7.1 million people "signed up".
We have been lied to so much, it seems like only administrative
slips ever reveal anything truthful. I would have more faith
right now in Putin telling us the truth.

(04-02-2014 09:06 AM)Max Power Wrote:  

(04-02-2014 07:36 AM)gdunn Wrote:  So we believe those who wrote a bill they had to pass without reading it vs a CEO of one of the best hospitals in the nation who's probably read it and understood it better than those who drafted it?

Yea, I'll place my bets on the CEO.

Yeah, businessmen are always trustworthy. Hopefully you don't drive a Chevy Cobalt.

DrTorch Wrote:You have no evidence of that.

Basically, someone who has access to the numbers reported something. Something that fits w/ logic. And something tommy claimed doctors weren't concerned w/, so now we have the proper party reporting.

And yet you still deny it. Guess which side of reality that puts you on.

bull**** he has "access to the numbers." A hospital CEO doesn't know the premiums rate and the subsidies applied to those rates from the government for everyone who signed up for Obamacare. If he had a survey he would cite it. Sorry, but most of these numbers have to come from the Obama administration because they're the only ones who can aggregate all the data. But even they probably don't even know this one because I don't think they track the previous premium rates for those signing up.

Healthcare providers know every detail of every insurance provider in their network, that's the only way they can maximize profits. Everything from knowing the billing cutoff dates for services to what services are not allowed for certain age groups or are gender specific. My doctor knows what Rx's are covered by my plan and those that are not. Don't discount the knowledge of healthcare professionals over the democrat buffons making the counter arguments.

(04-02-2014 06:10 PM)THE NC Herd Fan Wrote:  

(04-02-2014 09:06 AM)Max Power Wrote:  

(04-02-2014 07:36 AM)gdunn Wrote:  So we believe those who wrote a bill they had to pass without reading it vs a CEO of one of the best hospitals in the nation who's probably read it and understood it better than those who drafted it?

Yea, I'll place my bets on the CEO.

Yeah, businessmen are always trustworthy. Hopefully you don't drive a Chevy Cobalt.

DrTorch Wrote:You have no evidence of that.

Basically, someone who has access to the numbers reported something. Something that fits w/ logic. And something tommy claimed doctors weren't concerned w/, so now we have the proper party reporting.

And yet you still deny it. Guess which side of reality that puts you on.

bull**** he has "access to the numbers." A hospital CEO doesn't know the premiums rate and the subsidies applied to those rates from the government for everyone who signed up for Obamacare. If he had a survey he would cite it. Sorry, but most of these numbers have to come from the Obama administration because they're the only ones who can aggregate all the data. But even they probably don't even know this one because I don't think they track the previous premium rates for those signing up.

Healthcare providers know every detail of every insurance provider in their network, that's the only way they can maximize profits. Everything from knowing the billing cutoff dates for services to what services are not allowed for certain age groups or are gender specific. My doctor knows what Rx's are covered by my plan and those that are not. Don't discount the knowledge of healthcare professionals over the democrat buffons making the counter arguments.

Herd.. He's a doctor, he doesn't know what's best for you, only Obama and the people in DC know what's best for you and your health.. Start driving an electric car and eat more veggies than meat and you'll be fine.

(04-02-2014 03:56 PM)GoApps70 Wrote:  Sure. I really do not believe 7.1 million people "signed up".
We have been lied to so much, it seems like only administrative
slips ever reveal anything truthful. I would have more faith
right now in Putin telling us the truth.

From the LA Times

Here's the catch:

the headline and first paragraph:

Quote:Obamacare has led to health coverage for millions more people
At least 9.5 million previously uninsured people have gotten health insurance since Obamacare started, surveys and reports show.

HOWEVER!! Read the article and you find the following line:

Quote:At least 6 million people have signed up for health coverage on the new marketplaces, about one-third of whom were previously uninsured.

So is it 9.5 million or is it 2 million?

[quote]A February survey by consulting firm McKinsey & Co. found 27% of new enrollees were previously uninsured, but newer survey data from the nonprofit Rand Corp. and reports from marketplace officials in several states suggest that share increased in March.

SO we went from 27% (or about 1.2 million to 2 million?)

Then you get to the key line that I believe the Times tries to spin into an Obamacare success:

Quote:At least 4.5 million previously uninsured adults have signed up for state Medicaid programs

OOps... that's state based programs?

Quote:About 9 million people have bought health plans directly from insurers, instead of using the marketplaces, Rand found.

This is about the ONLY good thing you could say about ACA.. and that's simply so they don't have to pay the TAX

There should've been a tally board somewhere for each of the categories.. If McDonald's, Amazon, or Flintstone vitamins can track their product surely a multi-million dollar website designed by Obama cronies can..

I mean it's not like it never crashed...

(04-02-2014 02:53 PM)Fitbud Wrote:  

(04-01-2014 06:48 PM)THE NC Herd Fan Wrote:  Maybe 7million people signed up, maybe not, but of those who did 75% saw their premiums increase. The premium increase numbers are from Cleveland Clinic CEO.


Obamacare hits Americans in the pocketbook

Another broken promise, "Obamacare will save American families an average of $2,500/yr."

Those numbers are inaccurate because they take into account all of the people who were required to carry health insurance who never had it before. Therefore, someone who never had it saw a 100% increase.

So by that same logic it would also be inaccurate to count those that lost their coverage and then had to enroll in the "7 million" number right?

(04-03-2014 09:56 AM)gdunn Wrote:  There should've been a tally board somewhere for each of the categories.. If McDonald's, Amazon, or Flintstone vitamins can track their product surely a multi-million dollar website designed by Obama cronies can..

I mean it's not like it never crashed...

You must not have been reading the thread I started weeks ago, "Time is running out to sign up." Go to acasignups.net and you will see a tally board for each catagory, exchange signups, medicaid expansion, Sub26ers, off exchange.

(04-02-2014 02:53 PM)Fitbud Wrote:  

(04-01-2014 06:48 PM)THE NC Herd Fan Wrote:  Maybe 7million people signed up, maybe not, but of those who did 75% saw their premiums increase. The premium increase numbers are from Cleveland Clinic CEO.


Obamacare hits Americans in the pocketbook

Another broken promise, "Obamacare will save American families an average of $2,500/yr."

Those numbers are inaccurate because they take into account all of the people who were required to carry health insurance who never had it before. Therefore, someone who never had it saw a 100% increase.

That's total BS. I'm going to give you credit for a certain level of intelligence and assume that your response was an obvious attempt at obfuscation.

Why? Because the percentage quoted was of the number of people who paid a higher premium, not the amount of the premium as your BS post implies.

And for accuracy, a 100% increase is a doubling of the previous rate. For example, if your rate went from $700 a month to $1400 a month, that would be a 100% increase. The calculation of a percentage increase over zero is mathematically undefined.

(04-04-2014 08:23 AM)200yrs2late Wrote:  

(04-02-2014 02:53 PM)Fitbud Wrote:  

(04-01-2014 06:48 PM)THE NC Herd Fan Wrote:  Maybe 7million people signed up, maybe not, but of those who did 75% saw their premiums increase. The premium increase numbers are from Cleveland Clinic CEO.


Obamacare hits Americans in the pocketbook

Another broken promise, "Obamacare will save American families an average of $2,500/yr."

Those numbers are inaccurate because they take into account all of the people who were required to carry health insurance who never had it before. Therefore, someone who never had it saw a 100% increase.

So by that same logic it would also be inaccurate to count those that lost their coverage and then had to enroll in the "7 million" number right?

(04-04-2014 08:23 AM)200yrs2late Wrote:  

(04-02-2014 02:53 PM)Fitbud Wrote:  

(04-01-2014 06:48 PM)THE NC Herd Fan Wrote:  Maybe 7million people signed up, maybe not, but of those who did 75% saw their premiums increase. The premium increase numbers are from Cleveland Clinic CEO.


Obamacare hits Americans in the pocketbook

Another broken promise, "Obamacare will save American families an average of $2,500/yr."

Those numbers are inaccurate because they take into account all of the people who were required to carry health insurance who never had it before. Therefore, someone who never had it saw a 100% increase.

So by that same logic it would also be inaccurate to count those that lost their coverage and then had to enroll in the "7 million" number right?

That is correct but if I read correctly, the article didn't say Obamacare but simply that more poeple have health insurance. Wasn't that one of the goals?

(04-04-2014 01:22 PM)Fitbud Wrote:  

(04-04-2014 08:23 AM)200yrs2late Wrote:  

(04-02-2014 02:53 PM)Fitbud Wrote:  

(04-01-2014 06:48 PM)THE NC Herd Fan Wrote:  Maybe 7million people signed up, maybe not, but of those who did 75% saw their premiums increase. The premium increase numbers are from Cleveland Clinic CEO.


Obamacare hits Americans in the pocketbook

Another broken promise, "Obamacare will save American families an average of $2,500/yr."

Those numbers are inaccurate because they take into account all of the people who were required to carry health insurance who never had it before. Therefore, someone who never had it saw a 100% increase.

So by that same logic it would also be inaccurate to count those that lost their coverage and then had to enroll in the "7 million" number right?

That is correct but if I read correctly, the article didn't say Obamacare but simply that more poeple have health insurance. Wasn't that one of the goals?

It's Obamacare that is requiring people purchase insurance. If you are counting a increase in those covered, by default it reasons that you shouldn't count those that lost their coverage and were then required to purchase insurance through the exchange. That's not a net gain. I'm okay with some celebrating the successes of Obamacare, but let's not brag about adding those that were previously covered.

On another note, how do you feel about counting those that are young, healthy, and in some cases well off enough to self insure; but who are now forced to buy a policy?

(04-04-2014 02:49 PM)200yrs2late Wrote:  

(04-04-2014 01:22 PM)Fitbud Wrote:  

(04-04-2014 08:23 AM)200yrs2late Wrote:  

(04-02-2014 02:53 PM)Fitbud Wrote:  

(04-01-2014 06:48 PM)THE NC Herd Fan Wrote:  Maybe 7million people signed up, maybe not, but of those who did 75% saw their premiums increase. The premium increase numbers are from Cleveland Clinic CEO.


Obamacare hits Americans in the pocketbook

Another broken promise, "Obamacare will save American families an average of $2,500/yr."

Those numbers are inaccurate because they take into account all of the people who were required to carry health insurance who never had it before. Therefore, someone who never had it saw a 100% increase.

So by that same logic it would also be inaccurate to count those that lost their coverage and then had to enroll in the "7 million" number right?

That is correct but if I read correctly, the article didn't say Obamacare but simply that more poeple have health insurance. Wasn't that one of the goals?

It's Obamacare that is requiring people purchase insurance. If you are counting a increase in those covered, by default it reasons that you shouldn't count those that lost their coverage and were then required to purchase insurance through the exchange. That's not a net gain. I'm okay with some celebrating the successes of Obamacare, but let's not brag about adding those that were previously covered.

On another note, how do you feel about counting those that are young, healthy, and in some cases well off enough to self insure; but who are now forced to buy a policy?

I agree with your first point.

As for the young and wealthy..... I can understand why they would be upset but that is the way the cookie crumbles. It's just like people who don't have kids still pay school taxes. It's not fair to them in a way but it's good for everyone.

Quote:Obamacare increases insurance premiums for 75% of enrollees

And let's remember. This is simply year "1". Once the tables don't work due to the limited number of these young wealthy suckers, these premiums may spike spectacularly. Then it'll be time to demonize the eviiiil insurance Co., they should insure for free or not for profit, Then it will be time to bail out the ins co's cause they have only one way to make ends meet- huge premium increases. And finally we need to nationalize the ins co's to insure they don't "bankrupt good hard working Americans".

Only problem will be no one without some wealth will have health care. Yea, we'll all have "health insurance", but no health care.

Plan works to a T. Once they own your healthcare they own YOU.

(04-04-2014 08:41 AM)dawgitall Wrote:  

(04-03-2014 09:56 AM)gdunn Wrote:  There should've been a tally board somewhere for each of the categories.. If McDonald's, Amazon, or Flintstone vitamins can track their product surely a multi-million dollar website designed by Obama cronies can..

I mean it's not like it never crashed...

You must not have been reading the thread I started weeks ago, "Time is running out to sign up." Go to acasignups.net and you will see a tally board for each catagory, exchange signups, medicaid expansion, Sub26ers, off exchange.

By an independent person who was using numbers being released by newspapers.. The website should've been posting it. The government should've had a tally board saying:

Uninsured.. Uninsured now with Obamacare.. Medicaid.. Medicare.. Obamacare Covered That have Paid.. Obamacare Covered with products in shopping cart.

That could be done easily. Even you must admit as much money has been dropped on the website it could've happened and not by some independent blogger who's using the numbers via the media and trying to extrapolate what's there.

For reference, and I posted this elsewhere..

No insurance, next year I'm taxed a few hundred bucks.. The year after no insurance I'm taxed a few thousand.. The third year I'll be taxed tens of thousands..

Ok so that's the plan.. Great.. Now where does that money go.