(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.

Well over the last few years my wife's medical costs have been extremely high so we might have reached the lifetime max had that still been in affect. So in that sense you could call my family a winner. Of course you have that same benefit and you might need it one day. It isn't like we have something you don't also have. Each of us have employer provided plans so we don't utilize the individual market exchanges. The wife will be transitioning to Medicare later this year.

For me it is more about all the people that will see their quality of life improve because of the health coverage they now have.

(12-28-2015 09:00 PM)Redwingtom Wrote:  

(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:  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.

They never will.

(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 THAT, my friends is what we call around these parts just utter horse crap, bullschit, and a fukking empty suit, bootlicker lie.

"My" plan, AGAIN, covered me, wife, kids and employees, and did so very nicely, thank you, since 19 Hundred and 95. 1995, for you young 'uns. Not on the publics dime like so many zerOcare fans already get, but from their employer, and their hard work. It was always great to be able to offer that.

It'd now be called a "platinum" plan, or better a "CADILLAC" plan, to really stir the great unwashed and energize the occupy stupid street type morons.

Now? Not only has it gone up 25%, 24.8% and as recently as November been cancelled for the 3rd time in a scant 20 months, it's another 20% to find a FAR less comprehensive, FAR higher deductible, FAR DUMBER "crappy" plan for- wait for it..... wait....... Yep!

A lot more money even still.

So, yea. All ya'll public teet suckers enjoy the ride. When your "pensions" or SS or other entitlements are no longer flowing into the mailbox from those actually producing and putting money INTO
the system dries up, go find a mirror.

And a bed. You made it. You'll surely want to lay in it then. It'll be nap time.

More patients and fewer doctors.

Maybe one of you econ wizzes can explain to me how this makes everything better.

Thanks. I'll hang up and listen.

(12-28-2015 12:29 PM)Redwingtom Wrote:  

(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:  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.

guess which group is the least of all participants.....yep, the lower working class....

better for them to pay the penalty than pay the cost of care....

who'd a thunk it....

great plan there pal.....

(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.

NCBCBS dropped the low cost policies(Blue Value) and our local hospital no longer accepts them. How is that getting those that could not afford insurance better care now? 3 of my companies employees are simply dropping coverage and are going to pay the penalty. They say they can not afford the higher premiums BCBS is foisting on them.

(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.

Long waits aren't a significant issue unless you are the one waiting, I guess.

I have a family member waiting several months to see a dermatologist for a melanoma screening. I have another waiting six months for an endocrinologist appointment. I have a third family member struggling with bone disease in his shoulders, waiting for FDA approval for a ceramic implant since his metal implant failed. Research/approval on that device has slowed immensely since the passage of the ACA. That is per the ortho, who would be doing the implantation.

We live in the third largest metro area in the country. And, these people are all in PPOs.

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

None of those things come without additional cost, correct? And, those changes are in force for all plans, employer provided or original. So, yes, Obamacare has increased the cost of insurance.

Again, health insurance isn't rocket science. It is economics and actuarial science put into a stew pot. To stay in business, the health insurance companies charge enough to cover the cost of the care they pay, plus a small amount of overhead. No one gets anything for free. For insurance to work, the average person gets slightly less out than they pay in, obviously. So, how does that make care "affordable?"

(12-29-2015 04:03 AM)JMUDunk 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 THAT, my friends is what we call around these parts just utter horse crap, bullschit, and a fukking empty suit, bootlicker lie.

"My" plan, AGAIN, covered me, wife, kids and employees, and did so very nicely, thank you, since 19 Hundred and 95. 1995, for you young 'uns. Not on the publics dime like so many zerOcare fans already get, but from their employer, and their hard work. It was always great to be able to offer that.

It'd now be called a "platinum" plan, or better a "CADILLAC" plan, to really stir the great unwashed and energize the occupy stupid street type morons.

Now? Not only has it gone up 25%, 24.8% and as recently as November been cancelled for the 3rd time in a scant 20 months, it's another 20% to find a FAR less comprehensive, FAR higher deductible, FAR DUMBER "crappy" plan for- wait for it..... wait....... Yep!

A lot more money even still.

So, yea. All ya'll public teet suckers enjoy the ride. When your "pensions" or SS or other entitlements are no longer flowing into the mailbox from those actually producing and putting money INTO
the system dries up, go find a mirror.

And a bed. You made it. You'll surely want to lay in it then. It'll be nap time.

My comments that you bolded were clearly about the individual market. Your response appears to address employer provided plans. You said, ""My" plan, AGAIN, covered me, wife, kids and employees". That is apples and oranges.

(12-29-2015 09:44 AM)stinkfist Wrote:  

(12-28-2015 12:29 PM)Redwingtom Wrote:  

(12-28-2015 10:44 AM)Crebman Wrote:  

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

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

guess which group is the least of all participants.....yep, the lower working class....

better for them to pay the penalty than pay the cost of care....

who'd a thunk it....

great plan there pal.....

But the penalty starts to increase...pretty significantly I believe. And not all young folks will be healthy forever. When they get sick and don't have insurance, I'm sure then they'll complain that they were allowed to avoid insurance and just pay a penalty.

(12-29-2015 10:43 AM)GeorgeBorkFan Wrote:  

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

None of those things come without additional cost, correct? And, those changes are in force for all plans, employer provided or original. So, yes, Obamacare has increased the cost of insurance.

Again, health insurance isn't rocket science. It is economics and actuarial science put into a stew pot. To stay in business, the health insurance companies charge enough to cover the cost of the care they pay, plus a small amount of overhead. No one gets anything for free. For insurance to work, the average person gets slightly less out than they pay in, obviously. So, how does that make care "affordable?"

I don't generally disagree with anything here.

There are ways to reduce costs that legislation has encouraged and insurance companies have implemented. Addressing health issues before they become chronic would be an example. Getting health care for people that have gone untreated for years because they lacked insurance would be another. In that case it is a short term negative but a long term gain. Remember we are only a few years into it.

I understand one gain for us taxpayers is in regards to Medicare. Often people nearing age 65 have put off treatment until they transition to Medicare, thus they get a lot of issues addressed in those first couple of years, costing taxpayers a lot. If these same people have coverage leading up to their transition they don't neglect these issues and Medicare payouts aren't as high in those first couple of years.

(12-29-2015 08:30 AM)Smaug Wrote:  More patients and fewer doctors.

Maybe one of you econ wizzes can explain to me how this makes everything better.

Thanks. I'll hang up and listen.

But you can't just make that statement in a vacuum. You need to show that all doctors were working at full capacity before the ACA. If there were openings and spaces available pre ACA, those would be filled first before issues started to arise. In addition, changes could be made to improve speed and access.

Not to mention, that as soon as the ACA was passed that not everyone in America immediately made an appointment!

(12-29-2015 11:53 AM)dawgitall Wrote:  I don't generally disagree with anything here.

There are ways to reduce costs that legislation has encouraged and insurance companies have implemented. Addressing health issues before they become chronic would be an example. Getting health care for people that have gone untreated for years because they lacked insurance would be another. In that case it is a short term negative but a long term gain. Remember we are only a few years into it.

So, you agree the ACA has increased costs for the average user of health care?

Actually, if you are referring to what is typically categorized as preventative care, no it doesn't save money. It is a quality of life issue, certainly.

We frequently see the example of a how a colonoscopy, costing $5000, would have prevented $200,000 (or whatever) in colon cancer related costs. However, what we choose to not consider are all the colonoscopies that were also done that found nothing. I've previously cited studies that show preventative care of that sort don't save money.

I'd like to know what other cost saving methods the legislation encouraged that doesn't affect the quality of care.

(12-29-2015 11:56 AM)Redwingtom Wrote:  

(12-29-2015 08:30 AM)Smaug Wrote:  More patients and fewer doctors.

Maybe one of you econ wizzes can explain to me how this makes everything better.

Thanks. I'll hang up and listen.

But you can't just make that statement in a vacuum. You need to show that all doctors were working at full capacity before the ACA. If there were openings and spaces available pre ACA, those would be filled first before issues started to arise. In addition, changes could be made to improve speed and access.

Actually, if one is advocating for the ACA, that person should first show there was adequate, underutilized capacity in the system before putting more demand into that system. What business, and healthcare is a business, builds an extreme amount of excess capacity into their business model? That would be foolish.

Redwingtom Wrote:Not to mention, that as soon as the ACA was passed that not everyone in America immediately made an appointment!

But, here we are, several years down the road. Have they used the system yet? If not, then the ACA is a failure, eh?

(12-29-2015 12:14 PM)GeorgeBorkFan Wrote:  

(12-29-2015 11:56 AM)Redwingtom Wrote:  

(12-29-2015 08:30 AM)Smaug Wrote:  More patients and fewer doctors.

Maybe one of you econ wizzes can explain to me how this makes everything better.

Thanks. I'll hang up and listen.

But you can't just make that statement in a vacuum. You need to show that all doctors were working at full capacity before the ACA. If there were openings and spaces available pre ACA, those would be filled first before issues started to arise. In addition, changes could be made to improve speed and access.

Actually, if one is advocating for the ACA, that person should first show there was adequate, underutilized capacity in the system before putting more demand into that system. What business, and healthcare is a business, builds an extreme amount of excess capacity into their business model? That would be foolish.

Redwingtom Wrote:Not to mention, that as soon as the ACA was passed that not everyone in America immediately made an appointment!

But, here we are, several years down the road. Have they used the system yet? If not, then the ACA is a failure, eh?

The is no doubt that the ACA is failing. There are still millions upon millions without health insurance. All the ACA has accomplished is effectively raised the cost of insurance for those paying customers in order to provide insurance for the "free" crowd. In the process, some that previously paid their way can no longer afford coverage. It's just shifting coverage from previous payers to covering non-payers.

(12-29-2015 11:56 AM)Redwingtom Wrote:  But you can't just make that statement in a vacuum. You need to show that all doctors were working at full capacity before the ACA. If there were openings and spaces available pre ACA, those would be filled first before issues started to arise. In addition, changes could be made to improve speed and access.

Not exactly. That works only if the demand and the capacity are in the same place. If the idle heart surgeon is in Texas and the patient is in Idaho, that excess capacity does little good. And that is exactly why market forces allocate resources better than centrally planned economies.

(12-29-2015 12:32 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(12-29-2015 11:56 AM)Redwingtom Wrote:  But you can't just make that statement in a vacuum. You need to show that all doctors were working at full capacity before the ACA. If there were openings and spaces available pre ACA, those would be filled first before issues started to arise. In addition, changes could be made to improve speed and access.

Not exactly. That works only if the demand and the capacity are in the same place. If the idle heart surgeon is in Texas and the patient is in Idaho, that excess capacity does little good. And that is exactly why market forces allocate resources better than centrally planned economies.

Owl, the basic economics lesson will fall on deaf ears. The advocates are still in full on water carrying mode and will continue indefinitely. They will still carry the water after the system is bankrupt and will claim all it needs is a new infusion of taxpayer cash. They'll promise to "do it right this time"

I find it amusing that anyone that posts anything positive about the ACA is referred to as a "water carrier." If that is the case it seems to me that those that post constant negative comments about the ACA would have to be considered "water carriers" for the GOP.

Or maybe it could just be that we have a difference of opinion.

(12-28-2015 09:10 PM)dawgitall 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.

Well over the last few years my wife's medical costs have been extremely high so we might have reached the lifetime max had that still been in affect. So in that sense you could call my family a winner. Of course you have that same benefit and you might need it one day. It isn't like we have something you don't also have. Each of us have employer provided plans so we don't utilize the individual market exchanges. The wife will be transitioning to Medicare later this year.

For me it is more about all the people that will see their quality of life improve because of the health coverage they now have.

So explain to me how it is my responsibility to foot the bill for this for anyone beyond my immediate family.

(12-29-2015 06:18 PM)Kaplony Wrote:  

(12-28-2015 09:10 PM)dawgitall 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.

Well over the last few years my wife's medical costs have been extremely high so we might have reached the lifetime max had that still been in affect. So in that sense you could call my family a winner. Of course you have that same benefit and you might need it one day. It isn't like we have something you don't also have. Each of us have employer provided plans so we don't utilize the individual market exchanges. The wife will be transitioning to Medicare later this year.

For me it is more about all the people that will see their quality of life improve because of the health coverage they now have.

So explain to me how it is my responsibility to foot the bill for this for anyone beyond my immediate family.

We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.