The stated goal was to get affordable health CARE, not insurance, to the people. What it has done is force millions to pay for insurance that is essentially worthless. With no increase in the quantity or quality of care, you can't care to Judy without taking it away from Jake.

(08-26-2016 11:03 AM)Fitbud Wrote:  

(08-26-2016 11:01 AM)solohawks Wrote:  

(08-26-2016 10:58 AM)Fitbud Wrote:  

(08-26-2016 10:56 AM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(08-26-2016 10:43 AM)Fitbud Wrote:  Perhaps but before, they also waited until they were very sick to go to the general hospital and then we would pay for their terminal illnesses that could have been prevented through preventative medicine.

Which still happens.

Of course it does. Why do conservatives constantly judge the effectiveness of a law on whether or not it is 100% effective.

Nothing is 100% effective. That's not a reason to not do something.

I mean I know you guys want to keep things they way they are and thus you are known as conservatives but sheeeeesh.

the purpose of the law was to get affordable health insurance to people.

how would you like me to measure it?

it has not been effective in its primary goal.

the cost v. benefit ratio of the law is dismal.

Millions of people who did not previously have insurance now have it so clearly it has become affordable for many.

Many of those now have insurance they cannot afford to use because the deductibles are so high.

so congratulations??

I am not going to say it has not done any good, but big picture, it has hurt more people than it has helped.

Look the problem is that no system can pay billions in excess compensation to executives, tens (if not hundreds) of billions in excess pharma costs, and subsidize actors that don't act in the public interest.

(08-26-2016 11:05 AM)Tom in Lazybrook Wrote:  Look the problem is that no system can pay billions in excess compensation to executives, tens (if not hundreds) of billions in excess pharma costs, and subsidize actors that don't act in the public interest.

so lets fire over 1 million healthcare workers

that will help

(08-26-2016 11:06 AM)solohawks Wrote:  

(08-26-2016 11:05 AM)Tom in Lazybrook Wrote:  Look the problem is that no system can pay billions in excess compensation to executives, tens (if not hundreds) of billions in excess pharma costs, and subsidize actors that don't act in the public interest.

so lets fire over 1 million healthcare workers

that will help

A doctor from South Africa that treats me on Obamacare is far better than a doctor that won't treat me, regardless of qualifcations.

(08-26-2016 11:13 AM)Tom in Lazybrook Wrote:  

(08-26-2016 11:06 AM)solohawks Wrote:  

(08-26-2016 11:05 AM)Tom in Lazybrook Wrote:  Look the problem is that no system can pay billions in excess compensation to executives, tens (if not hundreds) of billions in excess pharma costs, and subsidize actors that don't act in the public interest.

so lets fire over 1 million healthcare workers

that will help

A doctor from South Africa that treats me on Obamacare is far better than a doctor that won't treat me, regardless of qualifcations.

Mexican doctors are cheap, and are close to you. Why dont you use them?

(08-26-2016 11:16 AM)UofMstateU Wrote:  

(08-26-2016 11:13 AM)Tom in Lazybrook Wrote:  

(08-26-2016 11:06 AM)solohawks Wrote:  

(08-26-2016 11:05 AM)Tom in Lazybrook Wrote:  Look the problem is that no system can pay billions in excess compensation to executives, tens (if not hundreds) of billions in excess pharma costs, and subsidize actors that don't act in the public interest.

so lets fire over 1 million healthcare workers

that will help

A doctor from South Africa that treats me on Obamacare is far better than a doctor that won't treat me, regardless of qualifcations.

Mexican doctors are cheap, and are close to you. Why dont you use them?

When we get single-payer, he will.

(08-26-2016 11:05 AM)Tom in Lazybrook Wrote:  Look the problem is that no system can pay billions in excess compensation to executives, tens (if not hundreds) of billions in excess pharma costs, and subsidize actors that don't act in the public interest.

And no system does that. So move on. Thank you.

(08-26-2016 10:58 AM)Fitbud Wrote:  

(08-26-2016 10:56 AM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(08-26-2016 10:43 AM)Fitbud Wrote:  

(08-26-2016 10:37 AM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(08-26-2016 10:24 AM)Fitbud Wrote:  And how is that any different than before?

Before, they weren't paying insurance premiums or penalties for the privilege of not getting the care that they needed.

Perhaps but before, they also waited until they were very sick to go to the general hospital and then we would pay for their terminal illnesses that could have been prevented through preventative medicine.

Which still happens.

Of course it does. Why do conservatives constantly judge the effectiveness of a law on whether or not it is 100% effective.

Nothing is 100% effective. That's not a reason to not do something.

I mean I know you guys want to keep things they way they are and thus you are known as conservatives but sheeeeesh.

I did not get to keep my plan.
I did not get to keep my doctor.
I did not see a reduction in my costs.
All were pitched as the positives of the ACA. It failed miserably for me.

As Owl stated...It made winners and losers. Winners were those getting subsidies. The rest of us became losers.

(08-26-2016 09:38 AM)Fo Shizzle Wrote:  

(08-25-2016 06:47 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(08-20-2016 08:48 PM)Tom in Lazybrook Wrote:  The solution is obvious. Get the insurance companies Gub'ment and employers out of the system and put everyone on Medicare treat everyone equally. Insurance companies Gub'ment policymakers and politicians provide no value to anyone except themselves.

FIFY

Without insurance companies there would be no Medicare.

It is pretty clear that a combination of single payer and market driven insurance is going to be necessary to achieve some level of sanity. There does however not seem to be any candidate putting forth such plans. They either want to continue the ACA disaster or repeal it and go back to what we had before. Neither is the answer.
I had lousy insurance before and now have high cost lousy insurance.

I'd be all for that solution as long as those who opt for a market-based solution were free to choose nothing and self-insure if they wished (or were allowed to only get an inexpensive catastrophic policy for worst case scenarios, which is what insurance really is, or should be, imo), and their taxes did not ever pool into paying one penny for the single-payer people's plans (government would ONLY use the dollars directly received from single payer people, and could not borrow or attach any other money to pay for it), and finally people could freely have the choice of what was and was not in every plan, with no government coverage mandates and competition across state lines, plus Health Savings Accounts would be fully restored to at least what they were before ACA, if not better, with full tax benefits restored. In other words, only the single-payer people should pay for a single payer scenario and leave everyone else alone. If people wanted to switch between the two, they should then freely be able to do so at any time, as many times as they wished, whenever they wished.

The single payer people would then bear the full cost of their stupid utopian fallacy themselves. If someone wants to pay $10,000 or more per year for $200 worth of "coverage" who am I to stop them? I don't and do not because it is a rip-off. Let them be stupid without affecting anyone else.

(08-26-2016 11:05 AM)solohawks Wrote:  

(08-26-2016 11:03 AM)Fitbud Wrote:  

(08-26-2016 11:01 AM)solohawks Wrote:  

(08-26-2016 10:58 AM)Fitbud Wrote:  

(08-26-2016 10:56 AM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  Which still happens.

Of course it does. Why do conservatives constantly judge the effectiveness of a law on whether or not it is 100% effective.

Nothing is 100% effective. That's not a reason to not do something.

I mean I know you guys want to keep things they way they are and thus you are known as conservatives but sheeeeesh.

the purpose of the law was to get affordable health insurance to people.

how would you like me to measure it?

it has not been effective in its primary goal.

the cost v. benefit ratio of the law is dismal.

Millions of people who did not previously have insurance now have it so clearly it has become affordable for many.

Many of those now have insurance they cannot afford to use because the deductibles are so high.

so congratulations??

I am not going to say it has not done any good, but big picture, it has hurt more people than it has helped.

You are entitled in that opinion but unless you back it up with facts, it's simply just your opinion.

(08-26-2016 01:23 PM)Fitbud Wrote:  

(08-26-2016 11:05 AM)solohawks Wrote:  

(08-26-2016 11:03 AM)Fitbud Wrote:  

(08-26-2016 11:01 AM)solohawks Wrote:  

(08-26-2016 10:58 AM)Fitbud Wrote:  Of course it does. Why do conservatives constantly judge the effectiveness of a law on whether or not it is 100% effective.

Nothing is 100% effective. That's not a reason to not do something.

I mean I know you guys want to keep things they way they are and thus you are known as conservatives but sheeeeesh.

the purpose of the law was to get affordable health insurance to people.

how would you like me to measure it?

it has not been effective in its primary goal.

the cost v. benefit ratio of the law is dismal.

Millions of people who did not previously have insurance now have it so clearly it has become affordable for many.

Many of those now have insurance they cannot afford to use because the deductibles are so high.

so congratulations??

I am not going to say it has not done any good, but big picture, it has hurt more people than it has helped.

You are entitled in that opinion but unless you back it up with facts, it's simply just your opinion.

Those are facts that have continuously been proven.

(08-26-2016 10:43 AM)Fitbud Wrote:  

(08-26-2016 10:37 AM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(08-26-2016 10:24 AM)Fitbud Wrote:  

(08-26-2016 10:15 AM)solohawks Wrote:  People will adjust to these high deducitbles by not getting the care they need.

And how is that any different than before?

Before, they weren't paying insurance premiums or penalties for the privilege of not getting the care that they needed.

Perhaps but before, they also waited until they were very sick to go to the general hospital and then we would pay for their terminal illnesses that could have been prevented through preventative medicine.

Americans in general don't take care of themselves. I see insured patients everyday who don't go to the doctor. Having insurance doesn't necessarily mean that you'll use it or get an annual physical. My dad has had good insurance all his life, is married to a nurse, and has a son who is a nurse practitioner, yet still does not get an annual physical, has never had a colonoscopy, etc despite both my mother and I telling him that he should have them done.

(08-26-2016 11:04 AM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  The stated goal was to get affordable health CARE, not insurance, to the people. What it has done is force millions to pay for insurance that is essentially worthless. With no increase in the quantity or quality of care, you can't care to Judy without taking it away from Jake.

Saw a kid with a kidney stone yesterday. He has an Obamacare plan. His deducible is $10k. He elected to not have surgery due to basically being uninsured, despite being insured.

(08-26-2016 10:24 AM)Fitbud Wrote:  

(08-26-2016 10:15 AM)solohawks Wrote:  

(08-26-2016 10:11 AM)Fitbud Wrote:  

(08-26-2016 10:08 AM)VA49er Wrote:  

(08-26-2016 09:59 AM)Fitbud Wrote:  Perhaps not completely broken but why should we settle for a government that waits until something is broken to fix it?

Well in most cases when govt tries to fix something it just makes it worse.

That is a matter of opinion. What most would suggest as "worse" is really just "different".

People don't like change because with change, there is always glitches.

Over time however, people adjusts and things get changed again and eventually, things get better.

Let's be realistic, Obamacare hasn't been in effect for very long.

People will adjust to these high deducitbles by not getting the care they need.

And how is that any different than before?

Before I wasn't paying for a bunch of crap I clearly will NEVER need. Instead, I'm paying for a bunch of crap someone else, whi isn't paying for it will need and use.

Before: Good policy, solid coverage, reasonable premium and low OOP expenses.

Result: coverage for me. my family AND employees.

Now?!? hahahahahahaha. Let's just say it's about the exact opposite of any of that...

A total disaster and the worse part is, it was completely unnecessary.

In the next 45 days, the 2017 rates for Medicare Advantage plans will be announced.

Although it is impossible to speculate what those will be, it is known that the government increase that is paid to the insurance companies will only be 0.85% (that's less than 1% for those of you who are decimal challenged).

It's also a fact that at least 30% of all those on Medicare use Medicaid Advantage.

Now if the rates rise substantially, those roughly 18 million seniors, might just be a bit annoyed and they do vote.

(08-26-2016 11:03 AM)Fitbud Wrote:  

(08-26-2016 11:01 AM)solohawks Wrote:  

(08-26-2016 10:58 AM)Fitbud Wrote:  

(08-26-2016 10:56 AM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(08-26-2016 10:43 AM)Fitbud Wrote:  Perhaps but before, they also waited until they were very sick to go to the general hospital and then we would pay for their terminal illnesses that could have been prevented through preventative medicine.

Which still happens.

Of course it does. Why do conservatives constantly judge the effectiveness of a law on whether or not it is 100% effective.

Nothing is 100% effective. That's not a reason to not do something.

I mean I know you guys want to keep things they way they are and thus you are known as conservatives but sheeeeesh.

the purpose of the law was to get affordable health insurance to people.

how would you like me to measure it?

it has not been effective in its primary goal.

the cost v. benefit ratio of the law is dismal.

Millions of people who did not previously have insurance now have it so clearly it has become affordable for many.

Cause it's THE LAW!

Why do people keep spouting this foolishness? You are now required to have "insurance". That, or face a fine or worse.

(08-26-2016 01:20 PM)GoodOwl Wrote:  

(08-26-2016 09:38 AM)Fo Shizzle Wrote:  

(08-25-2016 06:47 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(08-20-2016 08:48 PM)Tom in Lazybrook Wrote:  The solution is obvious. Get the insurance companies Gub'ment and employers out of the system and put everyone on Medicare treat everyone equally. Insurance companies Gub'ment policymakers and politicians provide no value to anyone except themselves.

FIFY

Without insurance companies there would be no Medicare.

It is pretty clear that a combination of single payer and market driven insurance is going to be necessary to achieve some level of sanity. There does however not seem to be any candidate putting forth such plans. They either want to continue the ACA disaster or repeal it and go back to what we had before. Neither is the answer.
I had lousy insurance before and now have high cost lousy insurance.

I'd be all for that solution as long as those who opt for a market-based solution were free to choose nothing and self-insure if they wished (or were allowed to only get an inexpensive catastrophic policy for worst case scenarios, which is what insurance really is, or should be, imo), and their taxes did not ever pool into paying one penny for the single-payer people's plans (government would ONLY use the dollars directly received from single payer people, and could not borrow or attach any other money to pay for it), and finally people could freely have the choice of what was and was not in every plan, with no government coverage mandates and competition across state lines, plus Health Savings Accounts would be fully restored to at least what they were before ACA, if not better, with full tax benefits restored. In other words, only the single-payer people should pay for a single payer scenario and leave everyone else alone. If people wanted to switch between the two, they should then freely be able to do so at any time, as many times as they wished, whenever they wished.

The single payer people would then bear the full cost of their stupid utopian fallacy themselves. If someone wants to pay $10,000 or more per year for $200 worth of "coverage" who am I to stop them? I don't and do not because it is a rip-off. Let them be stupid without affecting anyone else.

There are plenty of scenarios I suppose. I'm not sure if we will ever get rid of the mandate now.

I have no problem with a national insurance plan for everyone that provides "basic" benefits and preventive care. That is actually what single payer does a good job of. After that? You are own your own if you don't qualify for Medicaid. Let the market provide catastrophic plans tailored to one's situation and budget. They could range from low to high deductibles and varying cost depending upon the risk you can take and your age and health.

(08-26-2016 11:13 AM)Tom in Lazybrook Wrote:  

(08-26-2016 11:06 AM)solohawks Wrote:  

(08-26-2016 11:05 AM)Tom in Lazybrook Wrote:  Look the problem is that no system can pay billions in excess compensation to executives, tens (if not hundreds) of billions in excess pharma costs, and subsidize actors that don't act in the public interest.

so lets fire over 1 million healthcare workers

that will help

A doctor from South Africa that treats me on Obamacare is far better than a doctor that won't treat me, regardless of qualifcations.

Just great.

So that's what we're left with. And in the process ya'll managed to **** it up for everyone else involved.

So, yea. Wreck the entire system so as to make it "fair". Everyone is worse off for it, but indeed it's fair.

Dumbing down America, one socialist policy at a time.

(08-26-2016 01:52 PM)JMUDunk Wrote:  

(08-26-2016 11:13 AM)Tom in Lazybrook Wrote:  

(08-26-2016 11:06 AM)solohawks Wrote:  

(08-26-2016 11:05 AM)Tom in Lazybrook Wrote:  Look the problem is that no system can pay billions in excess compensation to executives, tens (if not hundreds) of billions in excess pharma costs, and subsidize actors that don't act in the public interest.

so lets fire over 1 million healthcare workers

that will help

A doctor from South Africa that treats me on Obamacare is far better than a doctor that won't treat me, regardless of qualifcations.

Just great.

So that's what we're left with. And in the process ya'll managed to **** it up for everyone else involved.

So, yea. Wreck the entire system so as to make it "fair". Everyone is worse off for it, but indeed it's fair.

Dumbing down America, one socialist policy at a time.

But...It is not fair. How can it be fair for me to be forced to have to pay $740 per month for a 5k deductible plan? Basically Im paying close to 9 grand for the same crappy basic policy that before the ACA that I paid $3600 for. How is that fair?
...and please...no one try and tell my that policy would be 9 grand today without the ACA. No fcking way that would have happened...no fcking way.