(12-27-2015 01:12 PM)DefCONNOne Wrote:  

(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.

I think an honest, informed discussion is what is needed, but we will never get one here. And your use of the expression does matter. You need to look up what the expression means so that you don't continue to misuse it.

(12-27-2015 01:01 PM)blunderbuss Wrote:  

(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:  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

Obviously it is to make a profit.

(12-27-2015 01:05 PM)Kaplony 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 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.

You have to remember, its a right...

(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.

Considering that a large percentage of that reduction was no more than increasing the roles of Medicaid, they should have just relaxed the Medicaid eligibility rules and been done with it. Instead, all they have done is eff up millions of other folks insurance- you know, the ones that actually pay for it........

(12-28-2015 10:28 AM)Crebman 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.

Considering that a large percentage of that reduction was no more than increasing the roles of Medicaid, they should have just relaxed the Medicaid eligibility rules and been done with it. Instead, all they have done is eff up millions of other folks insurance- you know, the ones that actually pay for it........

The vast majority of the previously insured saw little to no change whatsoever.

(12-28-2015 10:35 AM)Redwingtom Wrote:  

(12-28-2015 10:28 AM)Crebman 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.

Considering that a large percentage of that reduction was no more than increasing the roles of Medicaid, they should have just relaxed the Medicaid eligibility rules and been done with it. Instead, all they have done is eff up millions of other folks insurance- you know, the ones that actually pay for it........

The vast majority of the previously insured saw little to no change whatsoever.

Only because they get their insurance through their employer, but that is slowly changing as well, I know that mine is significantly more expensive than it was.

(12-28-2015 10:44 AM)Crebman Wrote:  

(12-28-2015 10:35 AM)Redwingtom Wrote:  

(12-28-2015 10:28 AM)Crebman Wrote:  

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

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

A historic reduction in the number of uninsured.

Considering that a large percentage of that reduction was no more than increasing the roles of Medicaid, they should have just relaxed the Medicaid eligibility rules and been done with it. Instead, all they have done is eff up millions of other folks insurance- you know, the ones that actually pay for it........

The vast majority of the previously insured saw little to no change whatsoever.

Only because they get their insurance through their employer, but that is slowly changing as well, I know that mine is significantly more expensive than it was.

So you blame it on the ACA? While a small portion of that increase could be attributed to it, the primary factors aren't.

(12-28-2015 10:44 AM)Crebman Wrote:  

(12-28-2015 10:35 AM)Redwingtom Wrote:  

(12-28-2015 10:28 AM)Crebman Wrote:  

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

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

A historic reduction in the number of uninsured.

Considering that a large percentage of that reduction was no more than increasing the roles of Medicaid, they should have just relaxed the Medicaid eligibility rules and been done with it. Instead, all they have done is eff up millions of other folks insurance- you know, the ones that actually pay for it........

The vast majority of the previously insured saw little to no change whatsoever.

Only because they get their insurance through their employer, but that is slowly changing as well, I know that mine is significantly more expensive than it was.

Well...duh. The ACA was designed to get those without health insurance...INSURANCE!

And again, insurance costs increased on a yearly basis before the ACA and will continue to do so after the ACA.

They're likely never going to start going down for several reasons. A big one is the continual resistance by Republican governors to at least try and make it work. The other is getting people to buy insurance instead of paying the penalty. The yearly increase to the penalty should start to change that. It's going to start getting expensive for the hard-liners to refuse to buy insurance.

(12-28-2015 12:29 PM)Redwingtom Wrote:  Well...duh. The ACA was designed to get those without health insurance...INSURANCE!

But not health CARE.

And what good is health INSURANCE without health CARE?

There are approaches that would provide health care. That's where we should be going. Single-payer/single-provider systems are not among those ways.

(12-28-2015 01:27 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(12-28-2015 12:29 PM)Redwingtom Wrote:  Well...duh. The ACA was designed to get those without health insurance...INSURANCE!

But not health CARE.

And what good is health INSURANCE without health CARE?

There are approaches that would provide health care. That's where we should be going. Single-payer/single-provider systems are not among those ways.

If you have insurance you can get care. It isn't that complicated.

(12-28-2015 03:15 PM)dawgitall Wrote:  

(12-28-2015 01:27 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(12-28-2015 12:29 PM)Redwingtom Wrote:  Well...duh. The ACA was designed to get those without health insurance...INSURANCE!

But not health CARE.

And what good is health INSURANCE without health CARE?

There are approaches that would provide health care. That's where we should be going. Single-payer/single-provider systems are not among those ways.

If you have insurance you can get care. It isn't that complicated.

Right. They like to ignore the fact that many didn't get regular care because they could not afford it without insurance. And getting regular care by and large saves lives...and money.

(12-28-2015 03:36 PM)Redwingtom Wrote:  

(12-28-2015 03:15 PM)dawgitall Wrote:  

(12-28-2015 01:27 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(12-28-2015 12:29 PM)Redwingtom Wrote:  Well...duh. The ACA was designed to get those without health insurance...INSURANCE!

But not health CARE.

And what good is health INSURANCE without health CARE?

There are approaches that would provide health care. That's where we should be going. Single-payer/single-provider systems are not among those ways.

If you have insurance you can get care. It isn't that complicated.

Right. They like to ignore the fact that many didn't get regular care because they could not afford it without insurance. And getting regular care by and large saves lives...and money.

and you still like to ignore the fact that people cant afford insurance, and if you dont have insurance, you'll get penalized on your taxes. So tell me, how is that saving money?

(12-28-2015 03:15 PM)dawgitall Wrote:  

(12-28-2015 01:27 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(12-28-2015 12:29 PM)Redwingtom Wrote:  Well...duh. The ACA was designed to get those without health insurance...INSURANCE!

But not health CARE.

And what good is health INSURANCE without health CARE?

There are approaches that would provide health care. That's where we should be going. Single-payer/single-provider systems are not among those ways.

If you have insurance you can get care. It isn't that complicated.

If you can afford the deductibles, and if you can afford to wait in line for care. The ACA did NOTHING to address the increase in demand. Same supply, more demand. Basic economics accounts for what happens next.

My family, and my parents are experiencing terrible waits for appointments with specialists. Long waits for an appointment with my GP are now normal too.

(12-28-2015 03:15 PM)dawgitall Wrote:  

(12-28-2015 01:27 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(12-28-2015 12:29 PM)Redwingtom Wrote:  Well...duh. The ACA was designed to get those without health insurance...INSURANCE!

But not health CARE.

And what good is health INSURANCE without health CARE?

There are approaches that would provide health care. That's where we should be going. Single-payer/single-provider systems are not among those ways.

If you have insurance you can get care. It isn't that complicated.

If there's no more care, then it has to be a zero sum game. Jimmy now has insurance so Jimmy gets care, but the care he gets is the care that Johnny got before, and now Johnny doesn't get it. Simply cannot work any other way.

And Obamacare makes it less attractive financially to provide care. How does that result in anything other than less care in the long run?

(12-28-2015 04:50 PM)GeorgeBorkFan Wrote:  

(12-28-2015 03:15 PM)dawgitall Wrote:  

(12-28-2015 01:27 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(12-28-2015 12:29 PM)Redwingtom Wrote:  Well...duh. The ACA was designed to get those without health insurance...INSURANCE!

But not health CARE.

And what good is health INSURANCE without health CARE?

There are approaches that would provide health care. That's where we should be going. Single-payer/single-provider systems are not among those ways.

If you have insurance you can get care. It isn't that complicated.

If you can afford the deductibles, and if you can afford to wait in line for care. The ACA did NOTHING to address the increase in demand. Same supply, more demand. Basic economics accounts for what happens next.

My family, and my parents are experiencing terrible waits for appointments with specialists. Long waits for an appointment with my GP are now normal too.

Long wait aren't a significant issue according to Kaiser research. My family hasn't experienced any delays in scheduling appointments. The wife sees ortho, cardio, urology and a couple of others all the time and there haven't been any issues. We had to get in to see the wife's GP and the urology nurses at the last minute a few weeks ago and got in for both the same day we called. That isn't to say that you aren't having problems, but that results vary from location to location.

(12-28-2015 04:00 PM)UTSAMarineVet09 Wrote:  

(12-28-2015 03:36 PM)Redwingtom Wrote:  

(12-28-2015 03:15 PM)dawgitall Wrote:  

(12-28-2015 01:27 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(12-28-2015 12:29 PM)Redwingtom Wrote:  Well...duh. The ACA was designed to get those without health insurance...INSURANCE!

But not health CARE.

And what good is health INSURANCE without health CARE?

There are approaches that would provide health care. That's where we should be going. Single-payer/single-provider systems are not among those ways.

If you have insurance you can get care. It isn't that complicated.

Right. They like to ignore the fact that many didn't get regular care because they could not afford it without insurance. And getting regular care by and large saves lives...and money.

and you still like to ignore the fact that people cant afford insurance, and if you dont have insurance, you'll get penalized on your taxes. So tell me, how is that saving money?

Health insurance is expensive, but if you need health care to any significant degree it is the best investment you can ever make. Develop a heart condition and see how long you can go paying out of pocket before you exhaust all of your savings and have to take out that second mortgage. Suddenly those deductibles don't seem so bad after all.

(12-27-2015 02:26 PM)dawgitall Wrote:  I think an honest, informed discussion is what is needed, but we will never get one here.

You are right about that because you have your Obamacare cheerleader uniform surgically attached to your body because you are one of the few winners from this boondoggle.

(12-28-2015 08:31 PM)Kaplony Wrote:  

(12-27-2015 02:26 PM)dawgitall Wrote:  I think an honest, informed discussion is what is needed, but we will never get one here.

You are right about that because you have your Obamacare cheerleader uniform surgically attached to your body because you are one of the few winners from this boondoggle.

I believe RWT and his family are also 'winners'. At least I think he's said that, I'm not sure.

(12-28-2015 08:21 PM)dawgitall Wrote:  

(12-28-2015 04:50 PM)GeorgeBorkFan Wrote:  

(12-28-2015 03:15 PM)dawgitall Wrote:  

(12-28-2015 01:27 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(12-28-2015 12:29 PM)Redwingtom Wrote:  Well...duh. The ACA was designed to get those without health insurance...INSURANCE!

But not health CARE.

And what good is health INSURANCE without health CARE?

There are approaches that would provide health care. That's where we should be going. Single-payer/single-provider systems are not among those ways.

If you have insurance you can get care. It isn't that complicated.

If you can afford the deductibles, and if you can afford to wait in line for care. The ACA did NOTHING to address the increase in demand. Same supply, more demand. Basic economics accounts for what happens next.

My family, and my parents are experiencing terrible waits for appointments with specialists. Long waits for an appointment with my GP are now normal too.

Long wait aren't a significant issue according to Kaiser research. My family hasn't experienced any delays in scheduling appointments. The wife sees ortho, cardio, urology and a couple of others all the time and there haven't been any issues. We had to get in to see the wife's GP and the urology nurses at the last minute a few weeks ago and got in for both the same day we called. That isn't to say that you aren't having problems, but that results vary from location to location.

Same for me. No issues with appts for me and my wife and she had two surgeries done this year.

My brother has a brain tumor that was removed several years ago. He has no issue getting in to whatever doctor he needs to.

My father has all sorts of 80+ year old person health issues associated with diabetes and has appointments weekly and has no issue getting in when he needs to.

My step-daughter had an emergency appendectomy a couple weeks ago. She was the only patient in the surgery wing of the hospital and she had one nurse dedicated directly to her. Granted, it was after hours, but still. She also had no real delays in the ER before surgery was determined to need done that night.

I hurt my knee this summer and went to the ER on a Saturday. I saw the doctor, filled a prescription, and was home in under an hour and a half.

We live in southern mid-Michigan while my father, brother and step-daughter live in NW Ohio, so we're not talking about a real localized area.

I'm guessing it has to do with your location in the country. Chances are these wait issues were just about the same in these places before the ACA...but I doubt the naysayers would ever admit it if so.

(12-28-2015 08:36 PM)DefCONNOne Wrote:  

(12-28-2015 08:31 PM)Kaplony Wrote:  

(12-27-2015 02:26 PM)dawgitall Wrote:  I think an honest, informed discussion is what is needed, but we will never get one here.

You are right about that because you have your Obamacare cheerleader uniform surgically attached to your body because you are one of the few winners from this boondoggle.

I believe RWT and his family are also 'winners'. At least I think he's said that, I'm not sure.

I've noticed no real differences at all in care, wait times, accessibility and costs before and after the ACA. If that makes me a winner, then sobeit.