(03-05-2015 07:50 PM)dfarr Wrote:  Shouldn't it be zero, kinda like the number of uninsured drivers?

I can choose to drive or not to drive depending on whether or not I produce enough funds to cover the cost of insurance (among other things). I can not choose to breath.

(03-09-2015 11:54 AM)geosnooker2000 Wrote:  

(03-05-2015 07:50 PM)dfarr Wrote:  Shouldn't it be zero, kinda like the number of uninsured drivers?

I can choose to drive or not to drive depending on whether or not I produce enough funds to cover the cost of insurance (among other things). I can not choose to breath.

Which is why health insurance is subsidized but auto insurance is not.... and why the ACA penalties are a tax and you are taxed on healthcare subsidies.

The point is that NOBODY legally drives without insurance. If healthcare is a mandate, then NOBODY should legally breathe without it either. I'm not saying I agree with that position... I'm saying that is what the law purports to say.

(03-09-2015 01:22 PM)Hambone10 Wrote:  

(03-09-2015 11:54 AM)geosnooker2000 Wrote:  

(03-05-2015 07:50 PM)dfarr Wrote:  Shouldn't it be zero, kinda like the number of uninsured drivers?

I can choose to drive or not to drive depending on whether or not I produce enough funds to cover the cost of insurance (among other things). I can not choose to breath.

Which is why health insurance is subsidized but auto insurance is not.... and why the ACA penalties are a tax and you are taxed on healthcare subsidies.

The point is that NOBODY legally drives without insurance. If healthcare is a mandate, then NOBODY should legally breathe without it either. I'm not saying I agree with that position... I'm saying that is what the law purports to say.

It would be a lot easier to live with that if the government would make everyone pay for their own. Can't pay for your own - go to a government clinic or government hospital and get taken care of.

That funding would come from and increase in taxes that the Democrats would have to champion and own.

(03-09-2015 01:22 PM)Hambone10 Wrote:  

(03-09-2015 11:54 AM)geosnooker2000 Wrote:  

(03-05-2015 07:50 PM)dfarr Wrote:  Shouldn't it be zero, kinda like the number of uninsured drivers?

I can choose to drive or not to drive depending on whether or not I produce enough funds to cover the cost of insurance (among other things). I can not choose to breath.

Which is why health insurance is subsidized but auto insurance is not.... and why the ACA penalties are a tax and you are taxed on healthcare subsidies.

The point is that NOBODY legally drives without insurance. If healthcare is a mandate, then NOBODY should legally breathe without it either. I'm not saying I agree with that position... I'm saying that is what the law purports to say.

And that is about as Un-American as I can fathom. And it only figures to get worse from here on out. No person should be compelled to purchase any good or service under threat of legal penalization.

(03-09-2015 01:27 PM)Crebman Wrote:  

(03-09-2015 01:22 PM)Hambone10 Wrote:  

(03-09-2015 11:54 AM)geosnooker2000 Wrote:  

(03-05-2015 07:50 PM)dfarr Wrote:  Shouldn't it be zero, kinda like the number of uninsured drivers?

I can choose to drive or not to drive depending on whether or not I produce enough funds to cover the cost of insurance (among other things). I can not choose to breath.

Which is why health insurance is subsidized but auto insurance is not.... and why the ACA penalties are a tax and you are taxed on healthcare subsidies.

The point is that NOBODY legally drives without insurance. If healthcare is a mandate, then NOBODY should legally breathe without it either. I'm not saying I agree with that position... I'm saying that is what the law purports to say.

It would be a lot easier to live with that if the government would make everyone pay for their own. Can't pay for your own - go to a government clinic or government hospital and get taken care of.

That funding would come from and increase in taxes that the Democrats would have to champion and own.

Unfortunately that already happens on a smaller scale with the VA, and we've all read the recent articles about their waiting lists. My office actually sees VA patients when they approve a certain number of visits. Apparently it's impossible to get into a VA urologist.

(03-09-2015 02:16 PM)dfarr Wrote:  

(03-09-2015 01:27 PM)Crebman Wrote:  

(03-09-2015 01:22 PM)Hambone10 Wrote:  

(03-09-2015 11:54 AM)geosnooker2000 Wrote:  

(03-05-2015 07:50 PM)dfarr Wrote:  Shouldn't it be zero, kinda like the number of uninsured drivers?

I can choose to drive or not to drive depending on whether or not I produce enough funds to cover the cost of insurance (among other things). I can not choose to breath.

Which is why health insurance is subsidized but auto insurance is not.... and why the ACA penalties are a tax and you are taxed on healthcare subsidies.

The point is that NOBODY legally drives without insurance. If healthcare is a mandate, then NOBODY should legally breathe without it either. I'm not saying I agree with that position... I'm saying that is what the law purports to say.

It would be a lot easier to live with that if the government would make everyone pay for their own. Can't pay for your own - go to a government clinic or government hospital and get taken care of.

That funding would come from and increase in taxes that the Democrats would have to champion and own.

Unfortunately that already happens on a smaller scale with the VA, and we've all read the recent articles about their waiting lists. My office actually sees VA patients when they approve a certain number of visits. Apparently it's impossible to get into a VA urologist.

Oh I know. The current government run health system sucks, but who exactly is surprised by this.

It's the same old same old - government sucks at whatever they do because, unlike the private sector, they have no incentive to perform well. No government run operation is efficient - none. They all suck.

(03-09-2015 01:27 PM)Crebman Wrote:  It would be a lot easier to live with that if the government would make everyone pay for their own. Can't pay for your own - go to a government clinic or government hospital and get taken care of.

That funding would come from and increase in taxes that the Democrats would have to champion and own.

That is essentially what the SCOTUS said it was. I would have been far happier if we had been honest and simply doubled or tripled the medicare/medicaid taxes... even if we scaled them so that the poor paid less and the wealthy paid more...

This whole 'is it a tax, is it a penalty' debate, plus the 'taking' of 700mm from Medicaid was all at attempt to push through a massive tax increase without having to call it a massive tax increase.

That's all...

If they force you to buy something, how is ALL healthcare spending now anything but a tax?

(03-09-2015 03:51 PM)Hambone10 Wrote:  

(03-09-2015 01:27 PM)Crebman Wrote:  It would be a lot easier to live with that if the government would make everyone pay for their own. Can't pay for your own - go to a government clinic or government hospital and get taken care of.

That funding would come from and increase in taxes that the Democrats would have to champion and own.

That is essentially what the SCOTUS said it was. I would have been far happier if we had been honest and simply doubled or tripled the medicare/medicaid taxes... even if we scaled them so that the poor paid less and the wealthy paid more...

This whole 'is it a tax, is it a penalty' debate, plus the 'taking' of 700mm from Medicaid was all at attempt to push through a massive tax increase without having to call it a massive tax increase.

That's all...

If they force you to buy something, how is ALL healthcare spending now anything but a tax?

That has been my take as well - nothing more than a massive tax increase (on some but not others) disguised as something else. Disguised because the crafters of it wanted the power and control, but didn't want to own what they were doing.

If they would have just increased the medicare/medicaid taxes only they wouldn't have screwed up the vast majority of everyone else's health care/insurance in the process.

.........but anyone with a brain realizes this whole ACA mess really never was about healthcare for everyone - just about power and control and the perks that get funneled that the power and control gives. The fact that the ignorant masses (John Gruber's words) were too stupid to figure it out - and still haven't - I guess isn't surprising.

In the end it's about "free stuff for me" and "lets see who will pay enough to get exemptions".

(03-09-2015 11:24 AM)Hambone10 Wrote:  

(03-06-2015 10:53 PM)dawgitall Wrote:  I took my 19, now 20 year old off my employer plan and on to the one offered by ECU. It is a better policy all the way around, lower premium, deductible, and co pay. So I did the math too.

You are looking today. I looked prior to the implementation of the ACA.... and more to the point, just because it was better than the one offered by ECU has more to do with ECU's priorities than anything having to do with the ACA. Depending on the focus of an employer or an insurer, you might have to shop around. The bottom line is that while shopping around is fine, keeping a 26 year old on your policy isn't an 'advantage' of the ACA like some say.

Quote:My point about the 26ers was simply that they in all likelihood aren't a major factor in bringing the uninsured rate down between the end of 2014 and the beginning of 2015 as had been asserted by the poster I was responding to.

Actually they are. 24 year olds on their own typically don't carry health insurance. If they have a major issue, the went to Medicaid.... actually the hospitals went to the states through Medicaid. NOW they are 'insured'. According to the NY Times, this number is 3-4mm people. I can't verify the claim, but it is in an article talking about how great the ACA has been.

Quote:I'm not sure why you feel the need to belittle me or my posts on the subject of the ACA? We don't see eye to eye on the topic but I would think that there would be no need for that. If my posts upset you that much please just put me on ignore.

Misinformation always upsets me... and on this specific topic, you spread more of it than most. Ignoring you would allow your claims to go unfettered. As someone who works in healthcare, I owe it to others to see that they get the correct information. Bad information causes an incredible amount of trouble in healthcare. As you and others note, my solutions aren't specifically ones mentioned by any mainstream conservative (though bits and pieces have been articulated by both parties) so my solutions pretty obviously aren't rooted in politics, but in healthcare as they should be.

It's not a question of disagreeing. If you think the ACA is great for you, fine. I've never suggested it wasn't. I'm suggesting that it isn't what you describe it to be... and I'm right. Your experience is an anecdote, not a 'fact of the ACA'

1. You aren't reading what I post very well. Reread it. I moved her to the ECU plan because it was a better plan, not the other way around. Sometimes I think you read my posts and what you hear in your head is what you want it to be rather than what I actually write. I didn't look today, I looked last year. I wouldn't have looked earlier because she wasn't in college earlier. I didn't say it was an advantage, it is just a feature of the ACA. I wholeheartedly agree that people should shop around.
2. Again are you reading what I post? We were discussing the increase from the last of 2014 and the first couple of months of 2015 not from the start. You will have about as many coming off their parents plans as they get a job with employer plan, turn 26 or just shop around and get a plan on their own as you might have coming on the plan at any one point in time. The number is estimated to be roughly 1.5 to 3 million but that isn't an increase from one year to the next. It has been stable for the last couple of years. Remember the under 26er provision has been in affect since last 2010.
3. I don't post misinformation. If I make an honest mistake I correct it. The whole reason I started posting on the topic was because the huge amount of misinformation thrown around by some of the people that oppose it. I'm also frustrated that you and others seem to constantly misrepresent my motivation for showing support for the ACA. It is not and never has it been primarily based on the affect it has had on my heath care situation. There are aspects that affect me negatively as well as positively. You mention anecdotal examples in a negative light but that is all that seems to come from those that oppose the ACA on this site and in the media. In fact many if not most of the published anecdotal evidence against the ACA gets shot down when it is fact checked. My focus has primarily been in noting the numbers signed up and in statistics indicating the decreases in the uninsured, or premium rates, or average deductibles. If you dispute the numbers take it up with Gallop, Kaiser etc. as that is where those stats are coming from.
4. I appreciate that you have experience in health care and that does mean you have knowledge in some areas beyond that of a layman such as myself. However that doesn't mean that you know about all the moving parts of the issue. I am in education and I have knowledge in some areas beyond that of a layman such as yourself. That doesn't mean you should defer to me on all things education.
5. I find your solutions to the issues of health care interesting, but not very practical because politics will always be a part of it and must be factored in.
5. If you disagree with me and don't want to ignore my posts then at least be civil about it.

(03-09-2015 11:38 AM)blunderbuss Wrote:  

(03-06-2015 10:53 PM)dawgitall Wrote:  I took my 19, now 20 year old off my employer plan and on to the one offered by ECU. It is a better policy all the way around, lower premium, deductible, and co pay. So I did the math too.

If that's the case you've got a HORRIBLE health insurance plan. I used to be on the ECU offered student plan. It was a joke in comparison to what I had with my previous employer. I broke my wrist and still got stuck with $30K worth of medical bills.

That is an interesting observation given that you guys have spent the last couple of weeks telling be how my employer plan was "special" and so much better than anyone else's out there because it was grandfathered.

The ECU student plan is a BCBS plan specifically designed for college students. It is about the same premium cost but meds are free if she goes the the ECU pharmacy, the deductible is $400 I think and co pays are low. It must have changed a lot since you were there.

(03-05-2015 06:36 PM)JMUDunk Wrote:  So what? It's the law. People are being forced to buy these pretty little cards and pay through the nose for them.

Does nothing to improve actual health care or health care delivery, quite the contrary actually.

This.

I don't want it, but I have it. The religious exempt groups aren't trustworthy enough to pay the bills when they arrive. My pre-ObamaCare plans were rising at an eye watering 5 to 15% per year EVERY SINGLE YEAR.

Yay you've destroyed the insurance market for small buyers??

(03-09-2015 09:23 PM)dawgitall Wrote:  1. You aren't reading what I post very well. Reread it. I moved her to the ECU plan because it was a better plan, not the other way around. Sometimes I think you read my posts and what you hear in your head is what you want it to be rather than what I actually write. I didn't look today, I looked last year. I wouldn't have looked earlier because she wasn't in college earlier. I didn't say it was an advantage, it is just a feature of the ACA. I wholeheartedly agree that people should shop around.

This is an absolutely meaningless correction. One plan was better than the other based on the priorities of the sponsor just as I said. It doesn't surprise me at all that a plan designed specifically for college students is 'better' than one not... and for all I know, ECU picks up some of the tab (or contracts itself with what is essentially an HMO) or that they get some kind of a subsidy from the government because they are a University. Most schools do that because the vast majority of the students need happens on campus... so while you are focusing on costs and deductibles, you completely neglect the networks. If you have a PPO, an HMO is ALWAYS going to be cheaper. You are focused on your out of pocket, which is only PART of the financial, much less 'healthcare' equation.

Sometimes I think you read my posts to try and find such pedantic corrections in an effort to imply that I don't know what I'm talking about. It doesn't matter to my point whether ECUs plan was better or worse than your company plan. They are different because their sponsors, their subsidy and their constituencies are different. The ECU plan doesn't really have to worry about things that generally happen to 40+ year olds. That is precisely what I have said all along.

Quote:2. Again are you reading what I post? We were discussing the increase from the last of 2014 and the first couple of months of 2015 not from the start.

YOU are talking about that because you think it proves your point, but the reality is that as soon as the rules were announced, insurance companies changed their rates. Hence, your information is completely misleading.

Quote:You will have about as many coming off their parents plans as they get a job with employer plan, turn 26 or just shop around and get a plan on their own as you might have coming on the plan at any one point in time. The number is estimated to be roughly 1.5 to 3 million but that isn't an increase from one year to the next. It has been stable for the last couple of years. Remember the under 26er provision has been in affect since last 2010.

Yes... and my kids went to College at that time.... but the difference is that prior to 2015, it was an option... not a requirement for those under 26 to have insurance. For you to argue that every person in the country between 18 and 26 had insurance in 2014 when it wasn't yet required is silly. NY times says that 3-4mm of the 'decrease' in the uninsured is these people. Argue with them. The number you are talking about is those turning 27 vs those turning 19... which is ultimately meaningless as you note. I looked at the time because although the rules didn't yet go into effect, 'the left' was talking about what a benefit this was going to be... but the reality is that as one would expect... changing who pays the bill doesn't in any way impact the cost of delivering the necessary healthcare to that person.

Quote:3. I don't post misinformation. If I make an honest mistake I correct it.

Yet I've demonstrably shown your claims to be false and misleading... over and over and over. The entire premise of posting the uninsured rate is in and of itself a misleading comment. Not because the math is somehow wrong... but because of what you and numerous others try and imply is the 'driving force' behind it. If the government required that everyone have a red hat, and then they posted a figure showing that 100% of the people now owned a red hat... that would prove nothing more than compliance with the law. It doesn't in any way imply that anyone is 'better off' as a result of having a red hat... which is what the entire measure of an 'uninsured rate' is meant to imply.

Quote:You mention anecdotal examples in a negative light but that is all that seems to come from those that oppose the ACA on this site and in the media. In fact many if not most of the published anecdotal evidence against the ACA gets shot down when it is fact checked.

Did I say yours were the only ones? No. Their anecdotes don't prove anything either.

The difference is, while their anecdotes are misleading, their 'side' in the debate is correct. They are often wrong about why the ACA is bad and misleading, but they are not wrong that it is so. Huge difference.

Quote:My focus has primarily been in noting the numbers signed up and in statistics indicating the decreases in the uninsured, or premium rates, or average deductibles. If you dispute the numbers take it up with Gallop, Kaiser etc. as that is where those stats are coming from.

Yeah... You'll note that I never have disputed the numbers. I've merely disputed the interpretations that people like you make from them.

Quote:4. I appreciate that you have experience in health care and that does mean you have knowledge in some areas beyond that of a layman such as myself. However that doesn't mean that you know about all the moving parts of the issue. I am in education and I have knowledge in some areas beyond that of a layman such as yourself. That doesn't mean you should defer to me on all things education.

So why do you (as a layman) feel qualified to correct people about their misconceptions? Your qualifications stem from misinformation you are being fed, but believe because of the sources of that information (the left) and your personal anecdotal experience. That is no different from those on the right who get fed misrepresentations that ALSO sit with their personal anecdotal experience.

The bottom line is that Doctors were already in shortage. NO doctor, even the bad ones had trouble filling their waiting rooms. You increased demand for healthcare by 10-20% or more while not addressing the supply. Focusing on 'enrollment rates' is a complete distraction from the stated goal of actually delivering more or better healthcare.... and you are guilty of this.

Quote:
5. I find your solutions to the issues of health care interesting, but not very practical because politics will always be a part of it and must be factored in.

Yet they have all been part of the various proposals. There is nothing particularly controversial about my proposals... other than politicians being honest about tax increases... and I've repeatedly said that the BEST thing about the ACA is that it has created a tax... now all we have to do is call it precisely what the Obama administration argued before the SCOTUS that it was and the SCOTUS agreed that it was. The only person that could POSSIBLY hurt politically today is Obama, and he can't run anymore. They're protecting his 'legacy' and not his political standing. The fact is that it is a tax and everyone knows it now. Why are we STILL trying to protect a lie over doing the right thing/making healthcare better? That's not politics... That's pettiness. That's putting self before country, and that isn't Presidential. As much as I disagree with Obama's policies... I honestly counted on him to be a better 'person'.

Quote:5. If you disagree with me and don't want to ignore my posts then at least be civil about it.

I'm trying, but I find your unwillingness to accept some simple facts... like measuring the uninsured rate is a meaningless metric... to be angering and frustrating. You are willfully 'toting the water' even when shown that it is meaningless.

Be honest Dawg, if you were merely correcting misinformation, you would wait for others to post that misinformation and then reply to it. That is precisely what I do.

Instead, you START thread after thread after thread of your own misinformation.

YOu can't claim to be merely stopping misinformation when you are the instigators of the threads. That's disingenuous at best.

(03-09-2015 09:35 PM)dawgitall Wrote:  That is an interesting observation given that you guys have spent the last couple of weeks telling be how my employer plan was "special" and so much better than anyone else's out there because it was grandfathered.

Actually, thats not what we said.

You tried to mislead about your personal experiences with Obamacare, leading us to believe your life was much better under an Obamcare policy. That was your main point in all of it; look at all of the people signing up in the exchanges, and look at what it has done for me.

We then pointed out some problems with your "facts", in that what you were saying didnt not align with an Obamacare policy.

Then you admitted to not having an Obamacare policy, but that didnt matter, because due to Obamcare, your policy was better than ever. You then listed your premiums, OOP costs, and deductibles.

We then called bullsh*t on that. There is no plan on any exchange that had deductibles and premiums for the amount you listed. We told you your plan was either exempted or grandfathered.

After a round of name calling on your behalf, you then decided to check your own facts, and had to admit your plan was grandfathered.

And thats what we have a problem with. All of the great things about your policy arent due to Obamacare, its that they have been protected and shielded from Obamacare by being grandfathered. NOBODY ELSE CAN GO OUT TO ANY EXCHANGE AND PURCHASE THE POLICY YOU HAVE.

(03-09-2015 09:35 PM)dawgitall Wrote:  

(03-09-2015 11:38 AM)blunderbuss Wrote:  

(03-06-2015 10:53 PM)dawgitall Wrote:  I took my 19, now 20 year old off my employer plan and on to the one offered by ECU. It is a better policy all the way around, lower premium, deductible, and co pay. So I did the math too.

If that's the case you've got a HORRIBLE health insurance plan. I used to be on the ECU offered student plan. It was a joke in comparison to what I had with my previous employer. I broke my wrist and still got stuck with $30K worth of medical bills.

That is an interesting observation given that you guys have spent the last couple of weeks telling be how my employer plan was "special" and so much better than anyone else's out there because it was grandfathered.

What does this have to do with anything? You still seem to think there's such thing as one size fits all for insurance. It's almost impossible to compare apples to apples. What's "GOOD" or "SPECIAL" is relative to the individual policy holder's needs.

(03-09-2015 09:35 PM)dawgitall Wrote:  The ECU student plan is a BCBS plan specifically designed for college students. It is about the same premium cost but meds are free if she goes the the ECU pharmacy, the deductible is $400 I think and co pays are low. It must have changed a lot since you were there.

All the same since I was there, but the "catastrophic" type of coverage (real INSURANCE) was awful and I suspect it still is if the pharmacy and deductibles are still that low.

(03-10-2015 11:20 AM)Hambone10 Wrote:  

(03-09-2015 09:23 PM)dawgitall Wrote:  1. You aren't reading what I post very well. Reread it. I moved her to the ECU plan because it was a better plan, not the other way around. Sometimes I think you read my posts and what you hear in your head is what you want it to be rather than what I actually write. I didn't look today, I looked last year. I wouldn't have looked earlier because she wasn't in college earlier. I didn't say it was an advantage, it is just a feature of the ACA. I wholeheartedly agree that people should shop around.

This is an absolutely meaningless correction. One plan was better than the other based on the priorities of the sponsor just as I said. It doesn't surprise me at all that a plan designed specifically for college students is 'better' than one not... and for all I know, ECU picks up some of the tab (or contracts itself with what is essentially an HMO) or that they get some kind of a subsidy from the government because they are a University. Most schools do that because the vast majority of the students need happens on campus... so while you are focusing on costs and deductibles, you completely neglect the networks. If you have a PPO, an HMO is ALWAYS going to be cheaper. You are focused on your out of pocket, which is only PART of the financial, much less 'healthcare' equation.

Sometimes I think you read my posts to try and find such pedantic corrections in an effort to imply that I don't know what I'm talking about. It doesn't matter to my point whether ECUs plan was better or worse than your company plan. They are different because their sponsors, their subsidy and their constituencies are different. The ECU plan doesn't really have to worry about things that generally happen to 40+ year olds. That is precisely what I have said all along.

Quote:2. Again are you reading what I post? We were discussing the increase from the last of 2014 and the first couple of months of 2015 not from the start.

YOU are talking about that because you think it proves your point, but the reality is that as soon as the rules were announced, insurance companies changed their rates. Hence, your information is completely misleading.

Quote:You will have about as many coming off their parents plans as they get a job with employer plan, turn 26 or just shop around and get a plan on their own as you might have coming on the plan at any one point in time. The number is estimated to be roughly 1.5 to 3 million but that isn't an increase from one year to the next. It has been stable for the last couple of years. Remember the under 26er provision has been in affect since last 2010.

Yes... and my kids went to College at that time.... but the difference is that prior to 2015, it was an option... not a requirement for those under 26 to have insurance. For you to argue that every person in the country between 18 and 26 had insurance in 2014 when it wasn't yet required is silly. NY times says that 3-4mm of the 'decrease' in the uninsured is these people. Argue with them. The number you are talking about is those turning 27 vs those turning 19... which is ultimately meaningless as you note. I looked at the time because although the rules didn't yet go into effect, 'the left' was talking about what a benefit this was going to be... but the reality is that as one would expect... changing who pays the bill doesn't in any way impact the cost of delivering the necessary healthcare to that person.

Quote:3. I don't post misinformation. If I make an honest mistake I correct it.

Yet I've demonstrably shown your claims to be false and misleading... over and over and over. The entire premise of posting the uninsured rate is in and of itself a misleading comment. Not because the math is somehow wrong... but because of what you and numerous others try and imply is the 'driving force' behind it. If the government required that everyone have a red hat, and then they posted a figure showing that 100% of the people now owned a red hat... that would prove nothing more than compliance with the law. It doesn't in any way imply that anyone is 'better off' as a result of having a red hat... which is what the entire measure of an 'uninsured rate' is meant to imply.

Quote:You mention anecdotal examples in a negative light but that is all that seems to come from those that oppose the ACA on this site and in the media. In fact many if not most of the published anecdotal evidence against the ACA gets shot down when it is fact checked.

Did I say yours were the only ones? No. Their anecdotes don't prove anything either.

The difference is, while their anecdotes are misleading, their 'side' in the debate is correct. They are often wrong about why the ACA is bad and misleading, but they are not wrong that it is so. Huge difference.

Quote:My focus has primarily been in noting the numbers signed up and in statistics indicating the decreases in the uninsured, or premium rates, or average deductibles. If you dispute the numbers take it up with Gallop, Kaiser etc. as that is where those stats are coming from.

Yeah... You'll note that I never have disputed the numbers. I've merely disputed the interpretations that people like you make from them.

Quote:4. I appreciate that you have experience in health care and that does mean you have knowledge in some areas beyond that of a layman such as myself. However that doesn't mean that you know about all the moving parts of the issue. I am in education and I have knowledge in some areas beyond that of a layman such as yourself. That doesn't mean you should defer to me on all things education.

So why do you (as a layman) feel qualified to correct people about their misconceptions? Your qualifications stem from misinformation you are being fed, but believe because of the sources of that information (the left) and your personal anecdotal experience. That is no different from those on the right who get fed misrepresentations that ALSO sit with their personal anecdotal experience.

The bottom line is that Doctors were already in shortage. NO doctor, even the bad ones had trouble filling their waiting rooms. You increased demand for healthcare by 10-20% or more while not addressing the supply. Focusing on 'enrollment rates' is a complete distraction from the stated goal of actually delivering more or better healthcare.... and you are guilty of this.

Quote:
5. I find your solutions to the issues of health care interesting, but not very practical because politics will always be a part of it and must be factored in.

Yet they have all been part of the various proposals. There is nothing particularly controversial about my proposals... other than politicians being honest about tax increases... and I've repeatedly said that the BEST thing about the ACA is that it has created a tax... now all we have to do is call it precisely what the Obama administration argued before the SCOTUS that it was and the SCOTUS agreed that it was. The only person that could POSSIBLY hurt politically today is Obama, and he can't run anymore. They're protecting his 'legacy' and not his political standing. The fact is that it is a tax and everyone knows it now. Why are we STILL trying to protect a lie over doing the right thing/making healthcare better? That's not politics... That's pettiness. That's putting self before country, and that isn't Presidential. As much as I disagree with Obama's policies... I honestly counted on him to be a better 'person'.

Quote:5. If you disagree with me and don't want to ignore my posts then at least be civil about it.

I'm trying, but I find your unwillingness to accept some simple facts... like measuring the uninsured rate is a meaningless metric... to be angering and frustrating. You are willfully 'toting the water' even when shown that it is meaningless.

Be honest Dawg, if you were merely correcting misinformation, you would wait for others to post that misinformation and then reply to it. That is precisely what I do.

Instead, you START thread after thread after thread of your own misinformation.

YOu can't claim to be merely stopping misinformation when you are the instigators of the threads. That's disingenuous at best.

I am honest and I have my opinions as you do. I find that you confuse opinion with fact.

(03-10-2015 12:28 PM)UofMstateU Wrote:  

(03-09-2015 09:35 PM)dawgitall Wrote:  That is an interesting observation given that you guys have spent the last couple of weeks telling be how my employer plan was "special" and so much better than anyone else's out there because it was grandfathered.

Actually, thats not what we said.

You tried to mislead about your personal experiences with Obamacare, leading us to believe your life was much better under an Obamcare policy. That was your main point in all of it; look at all of the people signing up in the exchanges, and look at what it has done for me.

We then pointed out some problems with your "facts", in that what you were saying didnt not align with an Obamacare policy.

Then you admitted to not having an Obamacare policy, but that didnt matter, because due to Obamcare, your policy was better than ever. You then listed your premiums, OOP costs, and deductibles.

We then called bullsh*t on that. There is no plan on any exchange that had deductibles and premiums for the amount you listed. We told you your plan was either exempted or grandfathered.

After a round of name calling on your behalf, you then decided to check your own facts, and had to admit your plan was grandfathered.

And thats what we have a problem with. All of the great things about your policy arent due to Obamacare, its that they have been protected and shielded from Obamacare by being grandfathered. NOBODY ELSE CAN GO OUT TO ANY EXCHANGE AND PURCHASE THE POLICY YOU HAVE.

Not really, but your version of reality is as good as anybodies.

(03-10-2015 12:37 PM)blunderbuss Wrote:  

(03-09-2015 09:35 PM)dawgitall Wrote:  

(03-09-2015 11:38 AM)blunderbuss Wrote:  

(03-06-2015 10:53 PM)dawgitall Wrote:  I took my 19, now 20 year old off my employer plan and on to the one offered by ECU. It is a better policy all the way around, lower premium, deductible, and co pay. So I did the math too.

If that's the case you've got a HORRIBLE health insurance plan. I used to be on the ECU offered student plan. It was a joke in comparison to what I had with my previous employer. I broke my wrist and still got stuck with $30K worth of medical bills.

That is an interesting observation given that you guys have spent the last couple of weeks telling be how my employer plan was "special" and so much better than anyone else's out there because it was grandfathered.

What does this have to do with anything? You still seem to think there's such thing as one size fits all for insurance. It's almost impossible to compare apples to apples. What's "GOOD" or "SPECIAL" is relative to the individual policy holder's needs.

(03-09-2015 09:35 PM)dawgitall Wrote:  The ECU student plan is a BCBS plan specifically designed for college students. It is about the same premium cost but meds are free if she goes the the ECU pharmacy, the deductible is $400 I think and co pays are low. It must have changed a lot since you were there.

All the same since I was there, but the "catastrophic" type of coverage (real INSURANCE) was awful and I suspect it still is if the pharmacy and deductibles are still that low.

You can always look at the BCBS NC website to get the details. I compared the two, both of which were large network BCBS plans, and didn't see anything to indicate it fell short.

Frankly I don't care now. At the time I was flat broke and couldn't afford a better policy. It served it's purpose well until i had an accident.

(03-10-2015 07:15 PM)dawgitall Wrote:  I am honest and I have my opinions as you do. I find that you confuse opinion with fact.

I find that despite admitting that your opinions on the issue are less informed than mine, you confuse your uninformed opinions with my more educated ones...

And you start threads to post your uninformed opinions repeatedly... spreading those uninformed opinions. By definition, that is spreading misinformation.

My opinions are not facts... but you have yet to present anything written by anyone, including the administration on the subject to refute my opinions. My opinions are educated, logical and thus far, have not been refuted. Climatologists would call that 'settled science', but you go ahead and be a denier.

(03-10-2015 07:29 PM)dawgitall Wrote:  

(03-10-2015 12:28 PM)UofMstateU Wrote:  

(03-09-2015 09:35 PM)dawgitall Wrote:  That is an interesting observation given that you guys have spent the last couple of weeks telling be how my employer plan was "special" and so much better than anyone else's out there because it was grandfathered.

Actually, thats not what we said.

You tried to mislead about your personal experiences with Obamacare, leading us to believe your life was much better under an Obamcare policy. That was your main point in all of it; look at all of the people signing up in the exchanges, and look at what it has done for me.

We then pointed out some problems with your "facts", in that what you were saying didnt not align with an Obamacare policy.

Then you admitted to not having an Obamacare policy, but that didnt matter, because due to Obamcare, your policy was better than ever. You then listed your premiums, OOP costs, and deductibles.

We then called bullsh*t on that. There is no plan on any exchange that had deductibles and premiums for the amount you listed. We told you your plan was either exempted or grandfathered.

After a round of name calling on your behalf, you then decided to check your own facts, and had to admit your plan was grandfathered.

And thats what we have a problem with. All of the great things about your policy arent due to Obamacare, its that they have been protected and shielded from Obamacare by being grandfathered. NOBODY ELSE CAN GO OUT TO ANY EXCHANGE AND PURCHASE THE POLICY YOU HAVE.

Not really, but your version of reality is as good as anybodies.

Except that my version of reality is backed up by links from this forum.