(12-24-2015 02:20 PM)Redwingtom Wrote:  

(12-24-2015 11:59 AM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(12-24-2015 11:45 AM)Redwingtom Wrote:  Serious question because I honestly don't know, so please don't jump my ****, but...
How do you know this had anything directly at all to do with Obamacare? Have you had an MRI for this in the past before the ACA that didn't require a hold?
MRI's are extremely expensive are they not? Sounds more like BC/BS trying to save some coin. I suppose you could say that's because they make less now with the ACA, but how do you really know?
Aside from that...I pray that it's nothing serious and that you're feeling better.

You're asking the question in a way that, intentional or not (and I'm willing to give you the benefit of the doubt), will produce an answer that is misleading.

There is not a DIRECT causal link in that there is no line in the Act that says, "GTS cannot have an MRI.'

What there is are very strong indirect causal links. Obamacare forces insurers and docs and hospitals to do business in different ways (Hambone can explain this better than I). What you now have is more people lining up to get care (which is a good thing) but no increased capacity to provide care (which is a bad thing). So insurance companies have to ration scarce resources differently. And the odds are very strong that this is what is catching GTS. This will get worse as controlling costs becomes a larger part of the mission.

This is exactly what Hambone and I and a lot of others have been saying from day one will be an eventual outcome of Obamacare. We may do a better job of keeping well people well. We may not, but either way it will be cheaper. Because won't be treating sick people.

I'm asking the question because, as you're well aware, some people blame every thing even remotely negative that happens with their insurance or doctor on Obamacare. And while some are true, many are not.

My sister-in-law even thought a minor change in her net pay on the first pay of the new year a couple years back was because of the ACA.

But as long as we're providing anecdotal evidence...

My wife had knee pain earlier this year. We directly called a orthopaedic surgeon, no referral needed...got an appointment in a week...got some shots...pain got worse...surgery recommended...surgery scheduled and done in less than 2 weeks...her pulse-ox was low so we got in home oxygen immediately upon discharge...home therapy received...physical therapy received...went to family doctor...home sleep study approved for possible sleep apnea issue causing the low oxygen...second knee giving problems...surgery scheduled and knee replaced immediately...more home therapy received...more physical therapy received.

Through all of that, I had not one issue with a doctor, the hospital, the home therapy, the physical therapy, the oxygen company or my insurance company in relation to not covering something or making me jump through any more hoops than I've ever jumped through dealing with health care before or after the ACA.

Sure, our experiences were probably not typical, but you can't just keep blaming everything on the ACA if you're being honest.

Based on your experience, you didn't have an exchange plan unless you left the part about your huge deductible out. the problems with the ACA is that there were people who were kicked off their plans who were perfectly happy with what they had, and then there are those who are now on ACA market plans but still have a $5k deductible, so it's basically like being uninsured until you spend $5k.

(12-24-2015 05:22 PM)dfarr Wrote:  

(12-24-2015 02:20 PM)Redwingtom Wrote:  

(12-24-2015 11:59 AM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(12-24-2015 11:45 AM)Redwingtom Wrote:  Serious question because I honestly don't know, so please don't jump my ****, but...
How do you know this had anything directly at all to do with Obamacare? Have you had an MRI for this in the past before the ACA that didn't require a hold?
MRI's are extremely expensive are they not? Sounds more like BC/BS trying to save some coin. I suppose you could say that's because they make less now with the ACA, but how do you really know?
Aside from that...I pray that it's nothing serious and that you're feeling better.

You're asking the question in a way that, intentional or not (and I'm willing to give you the benefit of the doubt), will produce an answer that is misleading.

There is not a DIRECT causal link in that there is no line in the Act that says, "GTS cannot have an MRI.'

What there is are very strong indirect causal links. Obamacare forces insurers and docs and hospitals to do business in different ways (Hambone can explain this better than I). What you now have is more people lining up to get care (which is a good thing) but no increased capacity to provide care (which is a bad thing). So insurance companies have to ration scarce resources differently. And the odds are very strong that this is what is catching GTS. This will get worse as controlling costs becomes a larger part of the mission.

This is exactly what Hambone and I and a lot of others have been saying from day one will be an eventual outcome of Obamacare. We may do a better job of keeping well people well. We may not, but either way it will be cheaper. Because won't be treating sick people.

I'm asking the question because, as you're well aware, some people blame every thing even remotely negative that happens with their insurance or doctor on Obamacare. And while some are true, many are not.

My sister-in-law even thought a minor change in her net pay on the first pay of the new year a couple years back was because of the ACA.

But as long as we're providing anecdotal evidence...

My wife had knee pain earlier this year. We directly called a orthopaedic surgeon, no referral needed...got an appointment in a week...got some shots...pain got worse...surgery recommended...surgery scheduled and done in less than 2 weeks...her pulse-ox was low so we got in home oxygen immediately upon discharge...home therapy received...physical therapy received...went to family doctor...home sleep study approved for possible sleep apnea issue causing the low oxygen...second knee giving problems...surgery scheduled and knee replaced immediately...more home therapy received...more physical therapy received.

Through all of that, I had not one issue with a doctor, the hospital, the home therapy, the physical therapy, the oxygen company or my insurance company in relation to not covering something or making me jump through any more hoops than I've ever jumped through dealing with health care before or after the ACA.

Sure, our experiences were probably not typical, but you can't just keep blaming everything on the ACA if you're being honest.

Based on your experience, you didn't have an exchange plan unless you left the part about your huge deductible out. the problems with the ACA is that there were people who were kicked off their plans who were perfectly happy with what they had, and then there are those who are now on ACA market plans but still have a $5k deductible, so it's basically like being uninsured until you spend $5k.

Even worse, you have to pay the monthly premiums. So its like you have to spend $10K a year to be uninsured until you have more than $5K in medical expenses.

(12-24-2015 05:22 PM)dfarr Wrote:  

(12-24-2015 02:20 PM)Redwingtom Wrote:  

(12-24-2015 11:59 AM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(12-24-2015 11:45 AM)Redwingtom Wrote:  Serious question because I honestly don't know, so please don't jump my ****, but...
How do you know this had anything directly at all to do with Obamacare? Have you had an MRI for this in the past before the ACA that didn't require a hold?
MRI's are extremely expensive are they not? Sounds more like BC/BS trying to save some coin. I suppose you could say that's because they make less now with the ACA, but how do you really know?
Aside from that...I pray that it's nothing serious and that you're feeling better.

You're asking the question in a way that, intentional or not (and I'm willing to give you the benefit of the doubt), will produce an answer that is misleading.

There is not a DIRECT causal link in that there is no line in the Act that says, "GTS cannot have an MRI.'

What there is are very strong indirect causal links. Obamacare forces insurers and docs and hospitals to do business in different ways (Hambone can explain this better than I). What you now have is more people lining up to get care (which is a good thing) but no increased capacity to provide care (which is a bad thing). So insurance companies have to ration scarce resources differently. And the odds are very strong that this is what is catching GTS. This will get worse as controlling costs becomes a larger part of the mission.

This is exactly what Hambone and I and a lot of others have been saying from day one will be an eventual outcome of Obamacare. We may do a better job of keeping well people well. We may not, but either way it will be cheaper. Because won't be treating sick people.

I'm asking the question because, as you're well aware, some people blame every thing even remotely negative that happens with their insurance or doctor on Obamacare. And while some are true, many are not.

My sister-in-law even thought a minor change in her net pay on the first pay of the new year a couple years back was because of the ACA.

But as long as we're providing anecdotal evidence...

My wife had knee pain earlier this year. We directly called a orthopaedic surgeon, no referral needed...got an appointment in a week...got some shots...pain got worse...surgery recommended...surgery scheduled and done in less than 2 weeks...her pulse-ox was low so we got in home oxygen immediately upon discharge...home therapy received...physical therapy received...went to family doctor...home sleep study approved for possible sleep apnea issue causing the low oxygen...second knee giving problems...surgery scheduled and knee replaced immediately...more home therapy received...more physical therapy received.

Through all of that, I had not one issue with a doctor, the hospital, the home therapy, the physical therapy, the oxygen company or my insurance company in relation to not covering something or making me jump through any more hoops than I've ever jumped through dealing with health care before or after the ACA.

Sure, our experiences were probably not typical, but you can't just keep blaming everything on the ACA if you're being honest.

Based on your experience, you didn't have an exchange plan unless you left the part about your huge deductible out. the problems with the ACA is that there were people who were kicked off their plans who were perfectly happy with what they had, and then there are those who are now on ACA market plans but still have a $5k deductible, so it's basically like being uninsured until you spend $5k.

I had and continue to have employer provided insurance. But isn't that still like 85% of America? And weren't most of the canceled plans pretty poor in what they covered to begin with? So while someone may have liked that plan, they might not have been able to get the necessary work done and have it covered.

And I do have a substantial deductible similar to someone on the exchange because I choose to pay less out of my paycheck in hopes of good health. But it was way short of the over $100,000 in bills racked up from 2 surgeries.

I still just find it the oddest coincidence that the small percentage of Americans who end up being negatively effected by the ACA just happen to post on this board.

(12-24-2015 05:53 PM)UofMstateU Wrote:  

(12-24-2015 05:22 PM)dfarr Wrote:  

(12-24-2015 02:20 PM)Redwingtom Wrote:  

(12-24-2015 11:59 AM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(12-24-2015 11:45 AM)Redwingtom Wrote:  Serious question because I honestly don't know, so please don't jump my ****, but...
How do you know this had anything directly at all to do with Obamacare? Have you had an MRI for this in the past before the ACA that didn't require a hold?
MRI's are extremely expensive are they not? Sounds more like BC/BS trying to save some coin. I suppose you could say that's because they make less now with the ACA, but how do you really know?
Aside from that...I pray that it's nothing serious and that you're feeling better.

You're asking the question in a way that, intentional or not (and I'm willing to give you the benefit of the doubt), will produce an answer that is misleading.

There is not a DIRECT causal link in that there is no line in the Act that says, "GTS cannot have an MRI.'

What there is are very strong indirect causal links. Obamacare forces insurers and docs and hospitals to do business in different ways (Hambone can explain this better than I). What you now have is more people lining up to get care (which is a good thing) but no increased capacity to provide care (which is a bad thing). So insurance companies have to ration scarce resources differently. And the odds are very strong that this is what is catching GTS. This will get worse as controlling costs becomes a larger part of the mission.

This is exactly what Hambone and I and a lot of others have been saying from day one will be an eventual outcome of Obamacare. We may do a better job of keeping well people well. We may not, but either way it will be cheaper. Because won't be treating sick people.

I'm asking the question because, as you're well aware, some people blame every thing even remotely negative that happens with their insurance or doctor on Obamacare. And while some are true, many are not.

My sister-in-law even thought a minor change in her net pay on the first pay of the new year a couple years back was because of the ACA.

But as long as we're providing anecdotal evidence...

My wife had knee pain earlier this year. We directly called a orthopaedic surgeon, no referral needed...got an appointment in a week...got some shots...pain got worse...surgery recommended...surgery scheduled and done in less than 2 weeks...her pulse-ox was low so we got in home oxygen immediately upon discharge...home therapy received...physical therapy received...went to family doctor...home sleep study approved for possible sleep apnea issue causing the low oxygen...second knee giving problems...surgery scheduled and knee replaced immediately...more home therapy received...more physical therapy received.

Through all of that, I had not one issue with a doctor, the hospital, the home therapy, the physical therapy, the oxygen company or my insurance company in relation to not covering something or making me jump through any more hoops than I've ever jumped through dealing with health care before or after the ACA.

Sure, our experiences were probably not typical, but you can't just keep blaming everything on the ACA if you're being honest.

Based on your experience, you didn't have an exchange plan unless you left the part about your huge deductible out. the problems with the ACA is that there were people who were kicked off their plans who were perfectly happy with what they had, and then there are those who are now on ACA market plans but still have a $5k deductible, so it's basically like being uninsured until you spend $5k.

Even worse, you have to pay the monthly premiums. So its like you have to spend $10K a year to be uninsured until you have more than $5K in medical expenses.

The situation you describe existed before the ACA for a decent percentage of those with employer provided plans.

(12-26-2015 03:26 PM)Redwingtom Wrote:  The situation you describe existed before the ACA for a decent percentage of those with employer provided plans.

So Obamacare did nothing to make it better?

(12-26-2015 03:34 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(12-26-2015 03:26 PM)Redwingtom Wrote:  The situation you describe existed before the ACA for a decent percentage of those with employer provided plans.

So Obamacare did nothing to make it better?

Obamacare did change it. It used to be a small percentage. Now it's pretty much the rule.

(12-26-2015 03:23 PM)Redwingtom Wrote:  

(12-24-2015 05:22 PM)dfarr Wrote:  

(12-24-2015 02:20 PM)Redwingtom Wrote:  

(12-24-2015 11:59 AM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(12-24-2015 11:45 AM)Redwingtom Wrote:  Serious question because I honestly don't know, so please don't jump my ****, but...
How do you know this had anything directly at all to do with Obamacare? Have you had an MRI for this in the past before the ACA that didn't require a hold?
MRI's are extremely expensive are they not? Sounds more like BC/BS trying to save some coin. I suppose you could say that's because they make less now with the ACA, but how do you really know?
Aside from that...I pray that it's nothing serious and that you're feeling better.

You're asking the question in a way that, intentional or not (and I'm willing to give you the benefit of the doubt), will produce an answer that is misleading.

There is not a DIRECT causal link in that there is no line in the Act that says, "GTS cannot have an MRI.'

What there is are very strong indirect causal links. Obamacare forces insurers and docs and hospitals to do business in different ways (Hambone can explain this better than I). What you now have is more people lining up to get care (which is a good thing) but no increased capacity to provide care (which is a bad thing). So insurance companies have to ration scarce resources differently. And the odds are very strong that this is what is catching GTS. This will get worse as controlling costs becomes a larger part of the mission.

This is exactly what Hambone and I and a lot of others have been saying from day one will be an eventual outcome of Obamacare. We may do a better job of keeping well people well. We may not, but either way it will be cheaper. Because won't be treating sick people.

I'm asking the question because, as you're well aware, some people blame every thing even remotely negative that happens with their insurance or doctor on Obamacare. And while some are true, many are not.

My sister-in-law even thought a minor change in her net pay on the first pay of the new year a couple years back was because of the ACA.

But as long as we're providing anecdotal evidence...

My wife had knee pain earlier this year. We directly called a orthopaedic surgeon, no referral needed...got an appointment in a week...got some shots...pain got worse...surgery recommended...surgery scheduled and done in less than 2 weeks...her pulse-ox was low so we got in home oxygen immediately upon discharge...home therapy received...physical therapy received...went to family doctor...home sleep study approved for possible sleep apnea issue causing the low oxygen...second knee giving problems...surgery scheduled and knee replaced immediately...more home therapy received...more physical therapy received.

Through all of that, I had not one issue with a doctor, the hospital, the home therapy, the physical therapy, the oxygen company or my insurance company in relation to not covering something or making me jump through any more hoops than I've ever jumped through dealing with health care before or after the ACA.

Sure, our experiences were probably not typical, but you can't just keep blaming everything on the ACA if you're being honest.

Based on your experience, you didn't have an exchange plan unless you left the part about your huge deductible out. the problems with the ACA is that there were people who were kicked off their plans who were perfectly happy with what they had, and then there are those who are now on ACA market plans but still have a $5k deductible, so it's basically like being uninsured until you spend $5k.

I had and continue to have employer provided insurance. But isn't that still like 85% of America? And weren't most of the canceled plans pretty poor in what they covered to begin with? So while someone may have liked that plan, they might not have been able to get the necessary work done and have it covered.

And I do have a substantial deductible similar to someone on the exchange because I choose to pay less out of my paycheck in hopes of good health. But it was way short of the over $100,000 in bills racked up from 2 surgeries.

I still just find it the oddest coincidence that the small percentage of Americans who end up being negatively effected by the ACA just happen to post on this board.

They just like to blame every negative on the ACA. The fact is those individual plans they rave about before the ACA were either crappy plans with limited benefits that had they ever needed to use it would have left them up the creek without a paddle, or it could have been cancelled or replaced with a less inclusive policy at the end of the year, or the cost gone up substantially the next year. Then there is always the strong likelihood that when they get diagnosed with a chronic illness they get dropped, or see a huge cost increase. Then there is the fact that those complaining don't recognize the fact that they are older now then they were a few years ago and what they were paying in say 2010 is based on them being in their 30s not their 40s or 40s not their 50s.

There is also the deal about them not seeming to recognize the difference between employer provided health insurance and individual. Here again they blame everything on the ACA, which admittedly plays some role in costs but not nearly the extent that they claim. They fail to realize that employers have for years been engaging in cost saving strategies like increasing employer "skin in the game" i.e. increased deductibles and co pays.

Then there is this whole "Obamacare" plans deal. Basically all plans are "Obamacare" plans in that none of them can deny coverage, charge more than 4 times more based on age, have a yearly or lifetime max., or not meet minimum standards of coverage. Most of the grandfathered plans will have expired by next week. And if you don't qualify for a tax credit there is no real reason to buy from the exchange.

Then there is the deal about outrageous deductibles. There are all sorts of plans out there, including high and low deductibles. Depending a person's particular situation you can find a plan that works for you. If you are young and in really good health those high deductible, narrow plans might be just the thing for you in that your premiums will not be as high, but if you have some health issues, low deductible, low copay, high premiums would probably be the better route. Shop around.

(12-26-2015 09:48 PM)dawgitall Wrote:  

(12-26-2015 03:23 PM)Redwingtom Wrote:  

(12-24-2015 05:22 PM)dfarr Wrote:  

(12-24-2015 02:20 PM)Redwingtom Wrote:  

(12-24-2015 11:59 AM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  You're asking the question in a way that, intentional or not (and I'm willing to give you the benefit of the doubt), will produce an answer that is misleading.

There is not a DIRECT causal link in that there is no line in the Act that says, "GTS cannot have an MRI.'

What there is are very strong indirect causal links. Obamacare forces insurers and docs and hospitals to do business in different ways (Hambone can explain this better than I). What you now have is more people lining up to get care (which is a good thing) but no increased capacity to provide care (which is a bad thing). So insurance companies have to ration scarce resources differently. And the odds are very strong that this is what is catching GTS. This will get worse as controlling costs becomes a larger part of the mission.

This is exactly what Hambone and I and a lot of others have been saying from day one will be an eventual outcome of Obamacare. We may do a better job of keeping well people well. We may not, but either way it will be cheaper. Because won't be treating sick people.

I'm asking the question because, as you're well aware, some people blame every thing even remotely negative that happens with their insurance or doctor on Obamacare. And while some are true, many are not.

My sister-in-law even thought a minor change in her net pay on the first pay of the new year a couple years back was because of the ACA.

But as long as we're providing anecdotal evidence...

My wife had knee pain earlier this year. We directly called a orthopaedic surgeon, no referral needed...got an appointment in a week...got some shots...pain got worse...surgery recommended...surgery scheduled and done in less than 2 weeks...her pulse-ox was low so we got in home oxygen immediately upon discharge...home therapy received...physical therapy received...went to family doctor...home sleep study approved for possible sleep apnea issue causing the low oxygen...second knee giving problems...surgery scheduled and knee replaced immediately...more home therapy received...more physical therapy received.

Through all of that, I had not one issue with a doctor, the hospital, the home therapy, the physical therapy, the oxygen company or my insurance company in relation to not covering something or making me jump through any more hoops than I've ever jumped through dealing with health care before or after the ACA.

Sure, our experiences were probably not typical, but you can't just keep blaming everything on the ACA if you're being honest.

Based on your experience, you didn't have an exchange plan unless you left the part about your huge deductible out. the problems with the ACA is that there were people who were kicked off their plans who were perfectly happy with what they had, and then there are those who are now on ACA market plans but still have a $5k deductible, so it's basically like being uninsured until you spend $5k.

I had and continue to have employer provided insurance. But isn't that still like 85% of America? And weren't most of the canceled plans pretty poor in what they covered to begin with? So while someone may have liked that plan, they might not have been able to get the necessary work done and have it covered.

And I do have a substantial deductible similar to someone on the exchange because I choose to pay less out of my paycheck in hopes of good health. But it was way short of the over $100,000 in bills racked up from 2 surgeries.

I still just find it the oddest coincidence that the small percentage of Americans who end up being negatively effected by the ACA just happen to post on this board.

They just like to blame every negative on the ACA. The fact is those individual plans they rave about before the ACA were either crappy plans with limited benefits that had they ever needed to use it would have left them up the creek without a paddle, or it could have been cancelled or replaced with a less inclusive policy at the end of the year, or the cost gone up substantially the next year. Then there is always the strong likelihood that when they get diagnosed with a chronic illness they get dropped, or see a huge cost increase. Then there is the fact that those complaining don't recognize the fact that they are older now then they were a few years ago and what they were paying in say 2010 is based on them being in their 30s not their 40s or 40s not their 50s.

There is also the deal about them not seeming to recognize the difference between employer provided health insurance and individual. Here again they blame everything on the ACA, which admittedly plays some role in costs but not nearly the extent that they claim. They fail to realize that employers have for years been engaging in cost saving strategies like increasing employer "skin in the game" i.e. increased deductibles and co pays.

Then there is this whole "Obamacare" plans deal. Basically all plans are "Obamacare" plans in that none of them can deny coverage, charge more than 4 times more based on age, have a yearly or lifetime max., or not meet minimum standards of coverage. Most of the grandfathered plans will have expired by next week. And if you don't qualify for a tax credit there is no real reason to buy from the exchange.

Then there is the deal about outrageous deductibles. There are all sorts of plans out there, including high and low deductibles. Depending a person's particular situation you can find a plan that works for you. If you are young and in really good health those high deductible, narrow plans might be just the thing for you in that your premiums will not be as high, but if you have some health issues, low deductible, low copay, high premiums would probably be the better route. Shop around.

...and you, like RWT, like to make up your own facts about the awesomeness of the ACA. Despite you, and RWT, being proven wrong over and over and over and over again.

No one believes the sh*t you're shoveling!!

(12-26-2015 10:38 PM)DefCONNOne Wrote:  

(12-26-2015 09:48 PM)dawgitall Wrote:  

(12-26-2015 03:23 PM)Redwingtom Wrote:  

(12-24-2015 05:22 PM)dfarr Wrote:  

(12-24-2015 02:20 PM)Redwingtom Wrote:  I'm asking the question because, as you're well aware, some people blame every thing even remotely negative that happens with their insurance or doctor on Obamacare. And while some are true, many are not.

My sister-in-law even thought a minor change in her net pay on the first pay of the new year a couple years back was because of the ACA.

But as long as we're providing anecdotal evidence...

My wife had knee pain earlier this year. We directly called a orthopaedic surgeon, no referral needed...got an appointment in a week...got some shots...pain got worse...surgery recommended...surgery scheduled and done in less than 2 weeks...her pulse-ox was low so we got in home oxygen immediately upon discharge...home therapy received...physical therapy received...went to family doctor...home sleep study approved for possible sleep apnea issue causing the low oxygen...second knee giving problems...surgery scheduled and knee replaced immediately...more home therapy received...more physical therapy received.

Through all of that, I had not one issue with a doctor, the hospital, the home therapy, the physical therapy, the oxygen company or my insurance company in relation to not covering something or making me jump through any more hoops than I've ever jumped through dealing with health care before or after the ACA.

Sure, our experiences were probably not typical, but you can't just keep blaming everything on the ACA if you're being honest.

Based on your experience, you didn't have an exchange plan unless you left the part about your huge deductible out. the problems with the ACA is that there were people who were kicked off their plans who were perfectly happy with what they had, and then there are those who are now on ACA market plans but still have a $5k deductible, so it's basically like being uninsured until you spend $5k.

I had and continue to have employer provided insurance. But isn't that still like 85% of America? And weren't most of the canceled plans pretty poor in what they covered to begin with? So while someone may have liked that plan, they might not have been able to get the necessary work done and have it covered.

And I do have a substantial deductible similar to someone on the exchange because I choose to pay less out of my paycheck in hopes of good health. But it was way short of the over $100,000 in bills racked up from 2 surgeries.

I still just find it the oddest coincidence that the small percentage of Americans who end up being negatively effected by the ACA just happen to post on this board.

They just like to blame every negative on the ACA. The fact is those individual plans they rave about before the ACA were either crappy plans with limited benefits that had they ever needed to use it would have left them up the creek without a paddle, or it could have been cancelled or replaced with a less inclusive policy at the end of the year, or the cost gone up substantially the next year. Then there is always the strong likelihood that when they get diagnosed with a chronic illness they get dropped, or see a huge cost increase. Then there is the fact that those complaining don't recognize the fact that they are older now then they were a few years ago and what they were paying in say 2010 is based on them being in their 30s not their 40s or 40s not their 50s.

There is also the deal about them not seeming to recognize the difference between employer provided health insurance and individual. Here again they blame everything on the ACA, which admittedly plays some role in costs but not nearly the extent that they claim. They fail to realize that employers have for years been engaging in cost saving strategies like increasing employer "skin in the game" i.e. increased deductibles and co pays.

Then there is this whole "Obamacare" plans deal. Basically all plans are "Obamacare" plans in that none of them can deny coverage, charge more than 4 times more based on age, have a yearly or lifetime max., or not meet minimum standards of coverage. Most of the grandfathered plans will have expired by next week. And if you don't qualify for a tax credit there is no real reason to buy from the exchange.

Then there is the deal about outrageous deductibles. There are all sorts of plans out there, including high and low deductibles. Depending a person's particular situation you can find a plan that works for you. If you are young and in really good health those high deductible, narrow plans might be just the thing for you in that your premiums will not be as high, but if you have some health issues, low deductible, low copay, high premiums would probably be the better route. Shop around.

...and you, like RWT, like to make up your own facts about the awesomeness of the ACA. Despite you, and RWT, being proven wrong over and over and over and over again.

No one believes the sh*t you're shoveling!!

People can decide for themselves if they do their own research. That would be the best thing they could do. I don't think anyone believes that the ACA is flat out "awesomeness". It has its share of problems, but it is better than what we had before and it can and should be fine tuned.

(12-27-2015 12:04 AM)dawgitall Wrote:  It has its share of problems, but it is better than what we had before

How?

how 'bout this.....fk it, go to the ER, and watch what happens....

you silly people think any of this shite matters.....

silly folks.....

ol' TJ said summin' along the lines of the following.....An enlightened citizenry is indispensable for the proper functioning of a republic. Self-government is not possible unless the citizens are educated sufficiently to enable them to exercise oversight. It is therefore imperative that the nation see to it that a suitable education be provided for all its citizens. It should be noted, that when Jefferson speaks of "science," he is often referring to knowledge or learning in general.

he was a pretty smart feller.....

that's what you fkr's should be worried about.....

things have moved too quickly.......it is now insurmountable....

but keep on trying.....that's all you guys have left in cupboard.....

good luck with all the stupid shite you spew......

(12-27-2015 04:32 AM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(12-27-2015 12:04 AM)dawgitall Wrote:  It has its share of problems, but it is better than what we had before

How?

A historic reduction in the number of uninsured.

(12-27-2015 12:34 PM)dawgitall Wrote:  

(12-27-2015 04:32 AM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(12-27-2015 12:04 AM)dawgitall Wrote:  It has its share of problems, but it is better than what we had before

How?

A historic reduction in the number of uninsured.

So is the goal of health insurance coverging as many people as possible?

Sent from my VS980 4G using Tapatalk

What we have is far worse than what we used to have, for me at least.

(12-27-2015 12:51 PM)HeartOfDixie Wrote:  What we have is far worse than what we used to have, for me at least.

You might want to keep that opinion on the down low, lest dawg and RWT scold you over your uninformed opinion.

(12-27-2015 12:49 PM)blunderbuss Wrote:  

(12-27-2015 12:34 PM)dawgitall Wrote:  

(12-27-2015 04:32 AM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(12-27-2015 12:04 AM)dawgitall Wrote:  It has its share of problems, but it is better than what we had before

How?

A historic reduction in the number of uninsured.

So is the goal of health insurance coverging as many people as possible?

Sent from my VS980 4G using Tapatalk

That would be one of the main goals of the ACA.

(12-27-2015 12:53 PM)DefCONNOne Wrote:  

(12-27-2015 12:51 PM)HeartOfDixie Wrote:  What we have is far worse than what we used to have, for me at least.

You might want to keep that opinion on the down low, lest dawg and RWT scold you over your uninformed opinion.

I don't think you understand the actual meaning of the expression, "on the down low".

(12-27-2015 12:55 PM)dawgitall Wrote:  

(12-27-2015 12:49 PM)blunderbuss Wrote:  

(12-27-2015 12:34 PM)dawgitall Wrote:  

(12-27-2015 04:32 AM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(12-27-2015 12:04 AM)dawgitall Wrote:  It has its share of problems, but it is better than what we had before

How?

A historic reduction in the number of uninsured.

So is the goal of health insurance coverging as many people as possible?

Sent from my VS980 4G using Tapatalk

That would be one of the main goals of the ACA.

The ACA isn't what we had before. I'm talking about insurance industry in general. Why can't liberals answer a with a straight up yes or no? What is the goal of the industry?

Sent from my VS980 4G using Tapatalk

(12-27-2015 12:34 PM)dawgitall Wrote:  

(12-27-2015 04:32 AM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(12-27-2015 12:04 AM)dawgitall Wrote:  It has its share of problems, but it is better than what we had before

How?

A historic reduction in the number of uninsured.

So you see the government forcing people to make the choice between paying for a service they do not want/need or the government seizing part of their income as better than before?

Says a lot about you honestly.

(12-27-2015 12:56 PM)dawgitall Wrote:  

(12-27-2015 12:53 PM)DefCONNOne Wrote:  

(12-27-2015 12:51 PM)HeartOfDixie Wrote:  What we have is far worse than what we used to have, for me at least.

You might want to keep that opinion on the down low, lest dawg and RWT scold you over your uninformed opinion.

I don't think you understand the actual meaning of the expression, "on the down low".

Doesn't matter. You think the ACA is this most awesome piece of legislation, and anyone who disagrees with you is uninformed and/or grossly ignorant.