(01-10-2018 02:01 PM)Machiavelli Wrote: They've always rose. Obamacare was trying to flatten them and it WAS working until the GOP sabotaged it. I also want to make the point that one guy had links to back up his point.
Obama said they would decrease by $2,500 per family. Did that happen? Or did they increase?
The premiums for my cadillac plan rarely saw increases. I definitely didn't see changes in copays, out-of-pocket.
But keep telling yourself whatever you have to.
Yes you are correct.
Premiums did actually increase. Did you honestly believe that your premiums would go down?
I didn't.
I was still glad that my premiums didn't rise as much as they had in the 8 years under Bush.
Consider where you would be if Obamacare never happened.
Well at least you admit you knew Obama was lying to you.
(01-10-2018 05:10 PM)Fitbud Wrote: I'm simply asking you to acknowledge that it was an attempt a better system and it was compared to what we had before.
I am not willing to acknowledge that because I do not believe that was either the intent or the result.
I believe it was designed to create a crisis which democrats could then not allow to go to waste, by passing single-payer. And I don't think anybody involved gave a **** about making anything better.
See. Owl gets it.
Except Owl wants single-payer as well. Oh sure, he'll say he wants Bismarck and foolishly claim it's not single-payer. But, we all know it's the most basic, stripped-down version of single payer there is.
Except it’s not. Period. And it’s basically what Heritage recommended in the 1980s. And republicans could have done it then and Clinton would have signed it and we would have been spared Obama. And maybe Obama.
(01-10-2018 05:10 PM)Fitbud Wrote: I'm simply asking you to acknowledge that it was an attempt a better system and it was compared to what we had before.
I am not willing to acknowledge that because I do not believe that was either the intent or the result.
I believe it was designed to create a crisis which democrats could then not allow to go to waste, by passing single-payer. And I don't think anybody involved gave a **** about making anything better.
That's quite a cynical view point considering that 20 million people obtained health insurance because of it. Including people with pre existing conditions and children up to age 26.
That's quite an accomplishment for a law that was only suppose to create a crisis.
And a comparable number saw their previously affordable insurance and care become unaffordable. And it is proving to be economically unaffordable in the long run.
As CBO noted in their famous letter saying that it would not increase the budget deficit, absent reductions in overhead (not really possible with all the regulatory hoops it added for providers to jump through), those projections could only be achieved by reducing access or quality. If you want to reduce the price of health care to consumers, you have to reduce the cost to providers of providing it. Obamacare does nothing in that regard, when steps to do so were available.
This is true but healthcare was going to become unaffordable anyway. Obamacare may not have made healthcare cheaper for most Americans but doing nothing would have brought about the same result except people with preexisting conditions would still be left out, 26 year olds would still be out of insurance along with another 20 million people.
If you don't like Obamacare that's find. But to suggest that it was diliberately created to cause a crisis is a bit much don't you think? You aren't one to believe in conpsiracy theories.
(01-10-2018 05:10 PM)Fitbud Wrote: I'm simply asking you to acknowledge that it was an attempt a better system and it was compared to what we had before.
I am not willing to acknowledge that because I do not believe that was either the intent or the result.
I believe it was designed to create a crisis which democrats could then not allow to go to waste, by passing single-payer. And I don't think anybody involved gave a **** about making anything better.
See. Owl gets it.
Except Owl wants single-payer as well. Oh sure, he'll say he wants Bismarck and foolishly claim it's not single-payer. But, we all know it's the most basic, stripped-down version of single payer there is.
Except it’s not. Period. And it’s basically what Heritage recommended in the 1980s. And republicans could have done it then and Clinton would have signed it and we would have been spared Obama. And maybe Obama.
Let me put it this way. If we adopted single payer I would find another country to move to. Bismarck is not single payer. You have private health care. You have competing private health insurance companies. Single-payer doesn’t have those things.
(01-10-2018 05:10 PM)Fitbud Wrote: I'm simply asking you to acknowledge that it was an attempt a better system and it was compared to what we had before.
I am not willing to acknowledge that because I do not believe that was either the intent or the result.
I believe it was designed to create a crisis which democrats could then not allow to go to waste, by passing single-payer. And I don't think anybody involved gave a **** about making anything better.
That's quite a cynical view point considering that 20 million people obtained health insurance because of it. Including people with pre existing conditions and children up to age 26.
That's quite an accomplishment for a law that was only suppose to create a crisis.
And a comparable number saw their previously affordable insurance and care become unaffordable. And it is proving to be economically unaffordable in the long run.
As CBO noted in their famous letter saying that it would not increase the budget deficit, absent reductions in overhead (not really possible with all the regulatory hoops it added for providers to jump through), those projections could only be achieved by reducing access or quality. If you want to reduce the price of health care to consumers, you have to reduce the cost to providers of providing it. Obamacare does nothing in that regard, when steps to do so were available.
This is true but healthcare was going to become unaffordable anyway. Obamacare may not have made healthcare cheaper for most Americans but doing nothing would have brought about the same result except people with preexisting conditions would still be left out, 26 year olds would still be out of insurance along with another 20 million people.
If you don't like Obamacare that's find. But to suggest that it was diliberately created to cause a crisis is a bit much don't you think? You aren't one to believe in conpsiracy theories.
No it’s not. If they really wanted to make things better, and they had plenty of time to look around and see what works, why did they pass such a load of crap?
(01-10-2018 06:22 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote: I am not willing to acknowledge that because I do not believe that was either the intent or the result.
I believe it was designed to create a crisis which democrats could then not allow to go to waste, by passing single-payer. And I don't think anybody involved gave a **** about making anything better.
That's quite a cynical view point considering that 20 million people obtained health insurance because of it. Including people with pre existing conditions and children up to age 26.
That's quite an accomplishment for a law that was only suppose to create a crisis.
And a comparable number saw their previously affordable insurance and care become unaffordable. And it is proving to be economically unaffordable in the long run.
As CBO noted in their famous letter saying that it would not increase the budget deficit, absent reductions in overhead (not really possible with all the regulatory hoops it added for providers to jump through), those projections could only be achieved by reducing access or quality. If you want to reduce the price of health care to consumers, you have to reduce the cost to providers of providing it. Obamacare does nothing in that regard, when steps to do so were available.
This is true but healthcare was going to become unaffordable anyway. Obamacare may not have made healthcare cheaper for most Americans but doing nothing would have brought about the same result except people with preexisting conditions would still be left out, 26 year olds would still be out of insurance along with another 20 million people.
If you don't like Obamacare that's find. But to suggest that it was diliberately created to cause a crisis is a bit much don't you think? You aren't one to believe in conpsiracy theories.
No it’s not. If they really wanted to make things better, and they had plenty of time to look around and see what works, why did they pass such a load of crap?
There's no question it could have been better. They were however on the clock knowing full well the Republican would win back the many seats in the up coming election and oppose Obama regardless of whether he agreed with them or not.
It's not any different that what the republicans did with tax reform. They needed a win so they rammed it through.
(01-10-2018 05:10 PM)Fitbud Wrote: I'm simply asking you to acknowledge that it was an attempt a better system and it was compared to what we had before.
I am not willing to acknowledge that because I do not believe that was either the intent or the result.
I believe it was designed to create a crisis which democrats could then not allow to go to waste, by passing single-payer. And I don't think anybody involved gave a **** about making anything better.
That's quite a cynical view point considering that 20 million people obtained health insurance because of it. Including people with pre existing conditions and children up to age 26.
That's quite an accomplishment for a law that was only suppose to create a crisis.
20 million gained while upwards of 50 million suffered.
On top of that, pre-existing conditions is one of the reasons it costs so much.
(01-10-2018 05:10 PM)Fitbud Wrote: I'm simply asking you to acknowledge that it was an attempt a better system and it was compared to what we had before.
I am not willing to acknowledge that because I do not believe that was either the intent or the result.
I believe it was designed to create a crisis which democrats could then not allow to go to waste, by passing single-payer. And I don't think anybody involved gave a **** about making anything better.
That's quite a cynical view point considering that 20 million people obtained health insurance because of it. Including people with pre existing conditions and children up to age 26.
That's quite an accomplishment for a law that was only suppose to create a crisis.
20 million gained while upwards of 50 million suffered.
On top of that, pre-existing conditions is one of the reasons it costs so much.
Specifically, pre-existing conditions which developed when the person willfully did not have insurance, then got sick, then required tens of thousands of dollars of healthcare and wanted that covered for $100 per month or less. And if their condition was cured, they wanted to stop paying that.
(01-10-2018 05:10 PM)Fitbud Wrote: I'm simply asking you to acknowledge that it was an attempt a better system and it was compared to what we had before.
I am not willing to acknowledge that because I do not believe that was either the intent or the result.
I believe it was designed to create a crisis which democrats could then not allow to go to waste, by passing single-payer. And I don't think anybody involved gave a **** about making anything better.
That's quite a cynical view point considering that 20 million people obtained health insurance because of it. Including people with pre existing conditions and children up to age 26.
That's quite an accomplishment for a law that was only suppose to create a crisis.
20 million gained while upwards of 50 million suffered.
On top of that, pre-existing conditions is one of the reasons it costs so much.
Specifically, pre-existing conditions which developed when the person willfully did not have insurance, then got sick, then required tens of thousands of dollars of healthcare and wanted that covered for $100 per month or less. And if their condition was cured, they wanted to stop paying that.
Also, 20 million people did not get insurance because of Obamacare. The number is less than half of that. The others were forced off their existing insurance and onto one of the dipshit obamacare plans.
(01-10-2018 06:22 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote: I am not willing to acknowledge that because I do not believe that was either the intent or the result.
I believe it was designed to create a crisis which democrats could then not allow to go to waste, by passing single-payer. And I don't think anybody involved gave a **** about making anything better.
That's quite a cynical view point considering that 20 million people obtained health insurance because of it. Including people with pre existing conditions and children up to age 26.
That's quite an accomplishment for a law that was only suppose to create a crisis.
20 million gained while upwards of 50 million suffered.
On top of that, pre-existing conditions is one of the reasons it costs so much.
Specifically, pre-existing conditions which developed when the person willfully did not have insurance, then got sick, then required tens of thousands of dollars of healthcare and wanted that covered for $100 per month or less. And if their condition was cured, they wanted to stop paying that.
Also, 20 million people did not get insurance because of Obamacare. The number is less than half of that. The others were forced off their existing insurance and onto one of the dipshit obamacare plans.
(01-10-2018 02:01 PM)Machiavelli Wrote: They've always rose. Obamacare was trying to flatten them and it WAS working until the GOP sabotaged it. I also want to make the point that one guy had links to back up his point.
Obama said they would decrease by $2,500 per family. Did that happen? Or did they increase?
The premiums for my cadillac plan rarely saw increases. I definitely didn't see changes in copays, out-of-pocket.
But keep telling yourself whatever you have to.
Yes you are correct.
Premiums did actually increase. Did you honestly believe that your premiums would go down?
I didn't.
I was still glad that my premiums didn't rise as much as they had in the 8 years under Bush.
Consider where you would be if Obamacare never happened.
Well at least you admit you knew Obama was lying to you.
I didn't think he was lying, I just think he was repeating what everyone thought would happen.
It's only lying if you know it's not true and you say it anyway. I'm sure he actually thought that the bill would lower premiums.
(01-10-2018 02:01 PM)Machiavelli Wrote: They've always rose. Obamacare was trying to flatten them and it WAS working until the GOP sabotaged it. I also want to make the point that one guy had links to back up his point.
Obama said they would decrease by $2,500 per family. Did that happen? Or did they increase?
The premiums for my cadillac plan rarely saw increases. I definitely didn't see changes in copays, out-of-pocket.
But keep telling yourself whatever you have to.
Yes you are correct.
Premiums did actually increase. Did you honestly believe that your premiums would go down?
I didn't.
I was still glad that my premiums didn't rise as much as they had in the 8 years under Bush.
Consider where you would be if Obamacare never happened.
Well at least you admit you knew Obama was lying to you.
I didn't think he was lying, I just think he was repeating what everyone thought would happen.
It's only lying if you know it's not true and you say it anyway. I'm sure he actually thought that the bill would lower premiums.
There was no reason for any thinking person to believe that it would work. So either he is an idiot or he was lying. You can’t reduce the amounts that providers charge for care, or insurers charge to cover that care, without reducing the costs that those providers incur to provide that care. And Obamacare does nothing to address that.
(01-11-2018 12:28 PM)Fitbud Wrote: Obamacare may not have made healthcare cheaper for most Americans but doing nothing would have brought about the same result except people with preexisting conditions would still be left out, 26 year olds would still be out of insurance along with another 20 million people.
PLEASE stop returning to this misrepresentation every time the subject comes up.
The ability to keep a 26 yr old on their parent's policy doesn't make them any more insurable than they were before when they could have purchased their own policy. I actually put myself IN that position in 2008 and the cost of keeping a 26yr old on my policy vs taking them off and then buying their own policy was 'nothing'... and had i paid the premiums for them, it would have been the exact same thing.
Insurance is simple math, not magic. It doesn't cost any more or less to deliver healthcare to a 26 yr old than before.
As to the PECs... well yes... THEY are clearly better off because HEALTHY people are subsidizing their insurance.
You realize that SOME of those people with PECs are quite wealthy, and many of those subsidizing them are not. In fact, the overwhelming number of them are middle class... and they pay just as big a subsidy for those people as healthy millionaires do.
(01-11-2018 03:35 PM)Fitbud Wrote: I didn't think he was lying, I just think he was repeating what everyone thought would happen.
It's only lying if you know it's not true and you say it anyway. I'm sure he actually thought that the bill would lower premiums.
Wow... the double-speak here.
He was the one selling it... it was named after him... so why would he be repeating what others said about it?
If you're sure he thought the bill would lower premiums then you're demonstrating that he knows less about healthcare finance than he should have,
You shouldn't have people who really don't understand what they're 'selling' doing the 'selling'... especially when people have no choice but to buy it.
THAT"S where the lie comes in. He didn't say "I think" or "I expect"... he said IT WILL. I knew better in 2008 (and have posts to prove it). His 'experts' HAD to know better as well, and I can't imagine they didn't say something. It is only the politicians who ignored those admonitions because they don't 'sell' as easily... which is part of why we've gotten 'Trump'.
(01-11-2018 12:28 PM)Fitbud Wrote: Obamacare may not have made healthcare cheaper for most Americans but doing nothing would have brought about the same result except people with preexisting conditions would still be left out, 26 year olds would still be out of insurance along with another 20 million people.
PLEASE stop returning to this misrepresentation every time the subject comes up.
The ability to keep a 26 yr old on their parent's policy doesn't make them any more insurable than they were before when they could have purchased their own policy. I actually put myself IN that position in 2008 and the cost of keeping a 26yr old on my policy vs taking them off and then buying their own policy was 'nothing'... and had i paid the premiums for them, it would have been the exact same thing.
Insurance is simple math, not magic. It doesn't cost any more or less to deliver healthcare to a 26 yr old than before.
As to the PECs... well yes... THEY are clearly better off because HEALTHY people are subsidizing their insurance.
You realize that SOME of those people with PECs are quite wealthy, and many of those subsidizing them are not. In fact, the overwhelming number of them are middle class... and they pay just as big a subsidy for those people as healthy millionaires do.
Does that even SOUND fair to you?
We've go over this a million times. It fair because it's an investment. Yes, those people who got health insurance were subsidized but those people also likely got healthier because of it. This means that they didn't end up in general hospital sicker than before where the tax payers would have paid anyway.
Look, I didn't get this from the top of my head. I watched a documentary about it. It was about a Duke graduate student who couldn't get health insurance before Obamacare. She was diagnosed with lupus and later died. Her doctors said it could have been prevented if it was discovered earlier.
If she was under Obamacare, she would have still been on her parents insurance. If she had lived, she would have given the country years and years of production.
For Christ Sake why cant conservatives forget about the cost to their pocketbooks and consider the human beings. We are talking about lives here.
(This post was last modified: 01-11-2018 04:32 PM by Fitbud.)
(01-11-2018 12:28 PM)Fitbud Wrote: Obamacare may not have made healthcare cheaper for most Americans but doing nothing would have brought about the same result except people with preexisting conditions would still be left out, 26 year olds would still be out of insurance along with another 20 million people.
PLEASE stop returning to this misrepresentation every time the subject comes up.
The ability to keep a 26 yr old on their parent's policy doesn't make them any more insurable than they were before when they could have purchased their own policy. I actually put myself IN that position in 2008 and the cost of keeping a 26yr old on my policy vs taking them off and then buying their own policy was 'nothing'... and had i paid the premiums for them, it would have been the exact same thing.
Insurance is simple math, not magic. It doesn't cost any more or less to deliver healthcare to a 26 yr old than before.
As to the PECs... well yes... THEY are clearly better off because HEALTHY people are subsidizing their insurance.
You realize that SOME of those people with PECs are quite wealthy, and many of those subsidizing them are not. In fact, the overwhelming number of them are middle class... and they pay just as big a subsidy for those people as healthy millionaires do.
Does that even SOUND fair to you?
We've go over this a million times. It fair because it's an investment. Yes, those people who got health insurance were subsidized but those people also likely got healthier because of it. This means that they didn't end up in general hospital sicker than before where the tax payers would have paid anyway.
Look, I didn't get this from the top of my head. I watched a documentary about it. It was about a Duke graduate student who couldn't get health insurance before Obamacare. She was diagnosed with lupus and later died. Her doctors said it could have been prevented if it was discovered earlier.
If she was under Obamacare, she would have still been on her parents insurance. If she had lived, she would have given the country years and years of production.
For Christ Sake why cant conservatives forget about the cost to their pocketbooks and consider the human beings. We are talking about lives here.
if she cant pay $150/month on insurance with a starting salary of $53k a year, then she needed financial help, not free healthcare.
(01-11-2018 04:30 PM)Fitbud Wrote: For Christ Sake why cant conservatives forget about the cost to their pocketbooks and consider the human beings. We are talking about lives here.
Because only conservatives are capable of funding stuff like this. Start paying your fair share libturds. Stop being a drain on society.
(01-11-2018 12:28 PM)Fitbud Wrote: Obamacare may not have made healthcare cheaper for most Americans but doing nothing would have brought about the same result except people with preexisting conditions would still be left out, 26 year olds would still be out of insurance along with another 20 million people.
PLEASE stop returning to this misrepresentation every time the subject comes up.
The ability to keep a 26 yr old on their parent's policy doesn't make them any more insurable than they were before when they could have purchased their own policy. I actually put myself IN that position in 2008 and the cost of keeping a 26yr old on my policy vs taking them off and then buying their own policy was 'nothing'... and had i paid the premiums for them, it would have been the exact same thing.
Insurance is simple math, not magic. It doesn't cost any more or less to deliver healthcare to a 26 yr old than before.
As to the PECs... well yes... THEY are clearly better off because HEALTHY people are subsidizing their insurance.
You realize that SOME of those people with PECs are quite wealthy, and many of those subsidizing them are not. In fact, the overwhelming number of them are middle class... and they pay just as big a subsidy for those people as healthy millionaires do.
Does that even SOUND fair to you?
We've go over this a million times. It fair because it's an investment. Yes, those people who got health insurance were subsidized but those people also likely got healthier because of it. This means that they didn't end up in general hospital sicker than before where the tax payers would have paid anyway.
Look, I didn't get this from the top of my head. I watched a documentary about it. It was about a Duke graduate student who couldn't get health insurance before Obamacare. She was diagnosed with lupus and later died. Her doctors said it could have been prevented if it was discovered earlier.
If she was under Obamacare, she would have still been on her parents insurance. If she had lived, she would have given the country years and years of production.
For Christ Sake why cant conservatives forget about the cost to their pocketbooks and consider the human beings. We are talking about lives here.
if she cant pay $150/month on insurance with a starting salary of $53k a year, then she needed financial help, not free healthcare.
What makes you think she had a starting salary of 53k?
(01-10-2018 02:01 PM)Machiavelli Wrote: They've always rose. Obamacare was trying to flatten them and it WAS working until the GOP sabotaged it. I also want to make the point that one guy had links to back up his point.
Obama said they would decrease by $2,500 per family. Did that happen? Or did they increase?
The premiums for my cadillac plan rarely saw increases. I definitely didn't see changes in copays, out-of-pocket.
But keep telling yourself whatever you have to.
Yes you are correct.
Premiums did actually increase. Did you honestly believe that your premiums would go down?
I didn't.
I was still glad that my premiums didn't rise as much as they had in the 8 years under Bush.
Consider where you would be if Obamacare never happened.
Well at least you admit you knew Obama was lying to you.
I didn't think he was lying, I just think he was repeating what everyone thought would happen.
It's only lying if you know it's not true and you say it anyway. I'm sure he actually thought that the bill would lower premiums.
OK. Let me make sure I understand what you're saying.
You're saying that Obama honestly thougt Americans would pay less in premiums?
Is that your contention?
Did they just throw together 20,000 pages off the cuff with little to no understanding of what the heck would happen?
Is that what you're saying?
"Hey, I think this will save American families $2,500 per year."
(01-11-2018 12:28 PM)Fitbud Wrote: Obamacare may not have made healthcare cheaper for most Americans but doing nothing would have brought about the same result except people with preexisting conditions would still be left out, 26 year olds would still be out of insurance along with another 20 million people.
PLEASE stop returning to this misrepresentation every time the subject comes up.
The ability to keep a 26 yr old on their parent's policy doesn't make them any more insurable than they were before when they could have purchased their own policy. I actually put myself IN that position in 2008 and the cost of keeping a 26yr old on my policy vs taking them off and then buying their own policy was 'nothing'... and had i paid the premiums for them, it would have been the exact same thing.
Insurance is simple math, not magic. It doesn't cost any more or less to deliver healthcare to a 26 yr old than before.
As to the PECs... well yes... THEY are clearly better off because HEALTHY people are subsidizing their insurance.
You realize that SOME of those people with PECs are quite wealthy, and many of those subsidizing them are not. In fact, the overwhelming number of them are middle class... and they pay just as big a subsidy for those people as healthy millionaires do.
Does that even SOUND fair to you?
We've go over this a million times. It fair because it's an investment. Yes, those people who got health insurance were subsidized but those people also likely got healthier because of it. This means that they didn't end up in general hospital sicker than before where the tax payers would have paid anyway.
Look, I didn't get this from the top of my head. I watched a documentary about it. It was about a Duke graduate student who couldn't get health insurance before Obamacare. She was diagnosed with lupus and later died. Her doctors said it could have been prevented if it was discovered earlier.
If she was under Obamacare, she would have still been on her parents insurance. If she had lived, she would have given the country years and years of production.
For Christ Sake why cant conservatives forget about the cost to their pocketbooks and consider the human beings. We are talking about lives here.
if she cant pay $150/month on insurance with a starting salary of $53k a year, then she needed financial help, not free healthcare.
What makes you think she had a starting salary of 53k?
average starting salary for a Duke grad is $53k, article from 2013
Quote:Duke graduates are the only ones from the Triangle that will break the six-figure threshold on average by mid-career and will begin their careers with an average salary of $53,000.
