(09-25-2013 01:39 PM)mathenis89 Wrote:  

(09-25-2013 01:37 PM)JMUDunk Wrote:  

(09-25-2013 01:34 PM)mathenis89 Wrote:  

(09-25-2013 01:32 PM)JMUDunk Wrote:  

(09-25-2013 01:19 PM)mathenis89 Wrote:  I keep forgetting that in GOP-World, facts are synonymous with "leftist spin". You should probably come back and attend to reality.

Uhhh, okay. Care to read the rest of the post and offer some kind of legitimate rebuttal? You can do that, correct? Being all in "reality" and such... I won't hold my breath on you progs.

Is that really the best response Auntie Pinko could offer for you to think and post? Ya'll need to step up your game.

Why offer a rebuttal? I could tell you the sky is blue and you would argue that it isn't, simply because I identify on the left end of the spectrum.

Instead, I will stoop to your level, making broad, sweeping generalizations and make claims with no proof.

Right. got it. You can't refute anything I posted, just as I suspected. Good we can both move on now.

I hardly bother reading what you post. It's typical right-wing garbage that you sheep hear on Fox News.

*Sigh* I thought we could move on? I stand by precisely what I posted and you can't offer any kind of coherent or cogent response, so what more is there to talk about?

And to play the "Fox News" card? Is that really the best you've got? Nothing better than that coming from the DU these days? Kinda sad, really. ah well.

Time to move on. Again.

(09-25-2013 01:40 PM)Smaug Wrote:  

(09-25-2013 01:34 PM)Redwingtom Wrote:  

(09-25-2013 12:52 PM)Smaug Wrote:  

(09-25-2013 10:51 AM)Redwingtom Wrote:  Obamacare Premiums Report Shows Low Prices For Uninsured With Wide Variation

Quote:The average price for basic health coverage purchased on health insurance exchanges created by President Barack Obama's health care reform law will be $249 a month, not counting subsidies, in 48 states reviewed by the Department of Health and Human Services, according to a government report published Wednesday.

The health insurance exchanges, marketplaces for uninsured people and consumers who don't get health benefits from their employers, are scheduled to launch on Oct. 1 for an enrollment period that runs through the end of March for 2014 coverage. This latest analysis of what the health insurance plans will cost comes just six days before people will be able to find out what they'll actually pay.

"For millions of Americans, these new options will finally make health insurance work within their budget," Health and Human Services Secretary Kathleen Sebelius said during a conference call with reporters Tuesday. Reporters were provided access to the report prior to its publication.

That's great, as far as it goes, but what about when all the new uninsured, when their employer drop them like a bag of dirt, crash the system?

What the hell are you talking about? Your employer doesn't manage your health care, the insurance companies do. These same companies are offering the plans in the exchanges. And adding currently uninsured people to the exchanges should only lower costs further as the insurance companies will be competing for these new customers.

And when all those new folks get dumped into the system, then what?

Am I missing something here? I think he answered that.

I thought you rightwinger types believed in supply and demand?

(09-25-2013 01:58 PM)RobertN Wrote:  

(09-25-2013 01:40 PM)Smaug Wrote:  

(09-25-2013 01:34 PM)Redwingtom Wrote:  

(09-25-2013 12:52 PM)Smaug Wrote:  

(09-25-2013 10:51 AM)Redwingtom Wrote:  Obamacare Premiums Report Shows Low Prices For Uninsured With Wide Variation

That's great, as far as it goes, but what about when all the new uninsured, when their employer drop them like a bag of dirt, crash the system?

What the hell are you talking about? Your employer doesn't manage your health care, the insurance companies do. These same companies are offering the plans in the exchanges. And adding currently uninsured people to the exchanges should only lower costs further as the insurance companies will be competing for these new customers.

And when all those new folks get dumped into the system, then what?

Am I missing something here? I think he answered that.

I thought you rightwinger types believed in supply and demand?

I'm glad you brought that up. What affect do you think all those new patients are going to have on the price and/or quality of the care available?

Beg for your subsidy


HHahaha

(09-25-2013 01:34 PM)Redwingtom Wrote:  

(09-25-2013 12:52 PM)Smaug Wrote:  

(09-25-2013 10:51 AM)Redwingtom Wrote:  Obamacare Premiums Report Shows Low Prices For Uninsured With Wide Variation

Quote:The average price for basic health coverage purchased on health insurance exchanges created by President Barack Obama's health care reform law will be $249 a month, not counting subsidies, in 48 states reviewed by the Department of Health and Human Services, according to a government report published Wednesday.

The health insurance exchanges, marketplaces for uninsured people and consumers who don't get health benefits from their employers, are scheduled to launch on Oct. 1 for an enrollment period that runs through the end of March for 2014 coverage. This latest analysis of what the health insurance plans will cost comes just six days before people will be able to find out what they'll actually pay.

"For millions of Americans, these new options will finally make health insurance work within their budget," Health and Human Services Secretary Kathleen Sebelius said during a conference call with reporters Tuesday. Reporters were provided access to the report prior to its publication.

That's great, as far as it goes, but what about when all the new uninsured, when their employer drop them like a bag of dirt, crash the system?

What the hell are you talking about? Your employer doesn't manage your health care, the insurance companies do. These same companies are offering the plans in the exchanges. And adding currently uninsured people to the exchanges should only lower costs further as the insurance companies will be competing for these new customers.

Provide a link or STFU.

Positive Rep me and I'll vote for Obama in 2016

(09-25-2013 02:27 PM)ImMoreAwesomeThanYou Wrote:  

(09-25-2013 01:34 PM)Redwingtom Wrote:  

(09-25-2013 12:52 PM)Smaug Wrote:  

(09-25-2013 10:51 AM)Redwingtom Wrote:  Obamacare Premiums Report Shows Low Prices For Uninsured With Wide Variation

Quote:The average price for basic health coverage purchased on health insurance exchanges created by President Barack Obama's health care reform law will be $249 a month, not counting subsidies, in 48 states reviewed by the Department of Health and Human Services, according to a government report published Wednesday.

The health insurance exchanges, marketplaces for uninsured people and consumers who don't get health benefits from their employers, are scheduled to launch on Oct. 1 for an enrollment period that runs through the end of March for 2014 coverage. This latest analysis of what the health insurance plans will cost comes just six days before people will be able to find out what they'll actually pay.

"For millions of Americans, these new options will finally make health insurance work within their budget," Health and Human Services Secretary Kathleen Sebelius said during a conference call with reporters Tuesday. Reporters were provided access to the report prior to its publication.

That's great, as far as it goes, but what about when all the new uninsured, when their employer drop them like a bag of dirt, crash the system?

What the hell are you talking about? Your employer doesn't manage your health care, the insurance companies do. These same companies are offering the plans in the exchanges. And adding currently uninsured people to the exchanges should only lower costs further as the insurance companies will be competing for these new customers.

Provide a link or STFU.

Positive Rep me and I'll vote for Obama in 2016

A link to what? My opinions? But if you're talking about the companies offering plans in the exchanges, you'll have to google those yourself as they vary by state. In Michigan for example, there's 14 companies including BCBS.
http://www.crainsdetroit.com/article/201...al-health#

OK, lefties, explain this:

We are going to increase demand by adding 30 million people to the system.
We are going to control costs by paying doctors and other providers less and requiring them to work longer and do more.
This will make medicine a less attractive profession and lead over time to fewer docs and other providers.
If demand goes up and supply goes down, the inevitable results will be shortages, queues and other rationing (death panel) measures, lowered quality, and higher prices.
That's the way it has always worked every time in recorded history.

So answer the following:

Are you okay with those projected outcomes?
If not, do you think they will not happen?
If you think they won't, which of the above causal relationships do you expect not to materialize? Why not?
Or are you just believing in some kind of magic or witchcraft to save us?

(09-25-2013 02:54 PM)Redwingtom Wrote:  

(09-25-2013 02:27 PM)ImMoreAwesomeThanYou Wrote:  

(09-25-2013 01:34 PM)Redwingtom Wrote:  

(09-25-2013 12:52 PM)Smaug Wrote:  

(09-25-2013 10:51 AM)Redwingtom Wrote:  Obamacare Premiums Report Shows Low Prices For Uninsured With Wide Variation

That's great, as far as it goes, but what about when all the new uninsured, when their employer drop them like a bag of dirt, crash the system?

What the hell are you talking about? Your employer doesn't manage your health care, the insurance companies do. These same companies are offering the plans in the exchanges. And adding currently uninsured people to the exchanges should only lower costs further as the insurance companies will be competing for these new customers.

Provide a link or STFU.

Positive Rep me and I'll vote for Obama in 2016

A link to what? My opinions? But if you're talking about the companies offering plans in the exchanges, you'll have to google those yourself as they vary by state. In Michigan for example, there's 14 companies including BCBS.
http://www.crainsdetroit.com/article/201...al-health#

I was just being a d!ck because you always ask for links for stupid stuff.

On a side note has anyone seen the prices for insurance on the exchanges? That would be a good thread. Everyone price out insurance on the exchange and compare that to what they pay now and post it.

Positive Rep me and I'll vote for Obama in 2016

(09-25-2013 03:20 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  OK, lefties, explain this:

We are going to increase demand by adding 30 million people to the system.
We are going to control costs by paying doctors and other providers less and requiring them to work longer and do more.
This will make medicine a less attractive profession and lead over time to fewer docs and other providers.
If demand goes up and supply goes down, the inevitable results will be shortages, queues and other rationing (death panel) measures, lowered quality, and higher prices.
That's the way it has always worked every time in recorded history.

So answer the following:

Are you okay with those projected outcomes?
If not, do you think they will not happen?
If you think they won't, which of the above causal relationships do you expect not to materialize? Why not?
Or are you just believing in some kind of magic or witchcraft to save us?

Even worse. They are actually brain dead and incurious enough to believe the garbage that came in that CBO report.


Course none of it dealt in this "reality" of which they speak, only the garbage in garbage out the CBO was provided by the Admin.

Really gotta wonder some times. Not often, but sometimes...

(09-23-2013 10:52 PM)smn1256 Wrote:  

(09-23-2013 10:47 PM)EagleRockCafe Wrote:  "A so-called "family glitch" in the 2010 health care law threatens to cost some families thousands of dollars in health insurance costs and leave up to 500,000 children without coverage, insurance and health care analysts say."

http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/polit...s/2804017/

More proof that the law was cobbled together without any thought. Perhaps if politicians read the law, or had someone who is literate read it to them, it might not be the disaster it is.

And liberls keep defending it.

I think there was a lot of thought in the bill ,
how to 'F' up health insurance so bad that there will be a demand for Socialized medicine ( aka Single Payer ) .

(09-25-2013 03:58 PM)sparkomemphis Wrote:  

(09-23-2013 10:52 PM)smn1256 Wrote:  

(09-23-2013 10:47 PM)EagleRockCafe Wrote:  "A so-called "family glitch" in the 2010 health care law threatens to cost some families thousands of dollars in health insurance costs and leave up to 500,000 children without coverage, insurance and health care analysts say."

http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/polit...s/2804017/

More proof that the law was cobbled together without any thought. Perhaps if politicians read the law, or had someone who is literate read it to them, it might not be the disaster it is.

And liberls keep defending it.

I think there was a lot of thought in the bill ,
how to 'F' up health insurance so bad that there will be a demand for Socialized medicine ( aka Single Payer ) .

Single payer is a non-starter. The main reason is that many of the players who carried the Dems' water either would benefit or (thought) they wouldn't be affected. Examples:

AARP sold out seniors because they sell Medicare wrap-around policies. Under a single payer, no more private or extra insurance. Watch how quickly they turn against the libs.

Private sector unions thought they'd not be affected and did get a reprieve on their Cadillac plan surcharges. But they have been complaining since passage. Watch them turn when they get dumped into a single payer.

Public unions get great current and retirement health care. They'll not support a single payer.

So the libs who are quietly thinking that if Obamacare fails, there will be a move to single payer are at best naive and at worst dumb.

(09-25-2013 05:22 PM)QuestionSocratic Wrote:  

(09-25-2013 03:58 PM)sparkomemphis Wrote:  I think there was a lot of thought in the bill ,
how to 'F' up health insurance so bad that there will be a demand for Socialized medicine ( aka Single Payer ) .

Single payer is a non-starter. The main reason is that many of the players who carried the Dems' water either would benefit or (thought) they wouldn't be affected. Examples:
AARP sold out seniors because they sell Medicare wrap-around policies. Under a single payer, no more private or extra insurance. Watch how quickly they turn against the libs.
Private sector unions thought they'd not be affected and did get a reprieve on their Cadillac plan surcharges. But they have been complaining since passage. Watch them turn when they get dumped into a single payer.
Public unions get great current and retirement health care. They'll not support a single payer.
So the libs who are quietly thinking that if Obamacare fails, there will be a move to single payer are at best naive and at worst dumb.

You're assuming that because it's not in their self-interests, those groups won't support single-payer. But they were dumb enough to get duped into supporting Obamacare.

I oppose single-payer systems because there's not one single-payer system in the world that isn't dreadful.

(09-25-2013 03:55 PM)JMUDunk Wrote:  

(09-25-2013 03:20 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  OK, lefties, explain this:

We are going to increase demand by adding 30 million people to the system.
We are going to control costs by paying doctors and other providers less and requiring them to work longer and do more.
This will make medicine a less attractive profession and lead over time to fewer docs and other providers.
If demand goes up and supply goes down, the inevitable results will be shortages, queues and other rationing (death panel) measures, lowered quality, and higher prices.
That's the way it has always worked every time in recorded history.

So answer the following:

Are you okay with those projected outcomes?
If not, do you think they will not happen?
If you think they won't, which of the above causal relationships do you expect not to materialize? Why not?
Or are you just believing in some kind of magic or witchcraft to save us?

Even worse. They are actually brain dead and incurious enough to believe the garbage that came in that CBO report.
Course none of it dealt in this "reality" of which they speak, only the garbage in garbage out the CBO was provided by the Admin.
Really gotta wonder some times. Not often, but sometimes...

Be careful what you criticize. Actually the "garbage" CBO report pretty much outlined the exact scenario that I laid out. But you had to read the whole report to get that. Most people just read the first part and jumped to the conclusions that they did.

What CBO actually said, if you read the whole report, was that under the specific assumptions given to us by congress (and that is the way it works, congress gives the assumptions, CBO crunches the numbers), the act would reduce the deficit. BUT (and here is where it gets interesting) if you read further back in the report, they make it pretty clear that they don't believe those assumptions. And basically, if those assumptions are not realized, then the whole thing goes up in smoke. Specifically, CBO questioned the cost increase assumptions given it by congress, noting that the bill didn't really contain any effective cost control measures. Therefore, the assumed cost savings were unlikely to occur. And to the extent that any cost savings did occur, they would have to come from a combination of improved administration (with a whole bunch of new alphabet soup regulatory agences, good luck with that), increased delays, and reduced quality. I'm actually relying on CBO as the basis for my criticism.

Can someone splain to me how the ACA is going to lower costs for middle America? Right now I, and most of middle America, have employer sponsored health insurance. Let's assume for arguments sake that sometime in the near future, say 5 years, they drop my coverage and I have to go on the exchanges. Ok, we'll say that my employer pays 50% of my premium and I pay the other 50%. When I go to the exchanges I won't have any employer sponsoring me and I don't qualify for subsidies so does anyone think I'll pay the same or less? I don't. I'm guessing that in this scenario I'll pay twice as much as before. I think we can all agree that Obamacare offers incentives to businesses that don't offer health insurance in the form of a penalty that is less than what their portion of my insurance costs. It makes sense to me that any prudent business would look at that and cancel all policies pushing everyone on the exchanges, where we'll all presumably pay more. I don't see how this will save anyone that currently has an employer sponsored plan money.


any takers?


also, there aren't any links to this Tom, just me asking questions so don't be your usual a55hole self and ask for links to back up my assumptions. I think they're all pretty reasonable.

(09-25-2013 06:01 PM)ImMoreAwesomeThanYou Wrote:  Can someone splain to me how the ACA is going to lower costs for middle America? Right now I, and most of middle America, have employer sponsored health insurance. Let's assume for arguments sake that sometime in the near future, say 5 years, they drop my coverage and I have to go on the exchanges. Ok, we'll say that my employer pays 50% of my premium and I pay the other 50%. When I go to the exchanges I won't have any employer sponsoring me and I don't qualify for subsidies so does anyone think I'll pay the same or less? I don't. I'm guessing that in this scenario I'll pay twice as much as before. I think we can all agree that Obamacare offers incentives to businesses that don't offer health insurance in the form of a penalty that is less than what their portion of my insurance costs. It makes sense to me that any prudent business would look at that and cancel all policies pushing everyone on the exchanges, where we'll all presumably pay more. I don't see how this will save anyone that currently has an employer sponsored plan money.


any takers?


also, there aren't any links to this Tom, just me asking questions so don't be your usual a55hole self and ask for links to back up my assumptions. I think they're all pretty reasonable.

Everyone gets dumped into exchanges over time...exchanges evolve into single payer. It is the end game. ACA is a step in the process.

(09-25-2013 06:03 PM)mptnstr@44 Wrote:  

(09-25-2013 06:01 PM)ImMoreAwesomeThanYou Wrote:  Can someone splain to me how the ACA is going to lower costs for middle America? Right now I, and most of middle America, have employer sponsored health insurance. Let's assume for arguments sake that sometime in the near future, say 5 years, they drop my coverage and I have to go on the exchanges. Ok, we'll say that my employer pays 50% of my premium and I pay the other 50%. When I go to the exchanges I won't have any employer sponsoring me and I don't qualify for subsidies so does anyone think I'll pay the same or less? I don't. I'm guessing that in this scenario I'll pay twice as much as before. I think we can all agree that Obamacare offers incentives to businesses that don't offer health insurance in the form of a penalty that is less than what their portion of my insurance costs. It makes sense to me that any prudent business would look at that and cancel all policies pushing everyone on the exchanges, where we'll all presumably pay more. I don't see how this will save anyone that currently has an employer sponsored plan money.


any takers?


also, there aren't any links to this Tom, just me asking questions so don't be your usual a55hole self and ask for links to back up my assumptions. I think they're all pretty reasonable.

Everyone gets dumped into exchanges over time...exchanges evolve into single payer. It is the end game. ACA is a step in the process.

I agree but that doesn't answer my question. I was mainly asking our resident lefties.

Positive Rep me and I'll vote for Obama in 2016

(09-25-2013 03:20 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  OK, lefties, explain this:

We are going to increase demand by adding 30 million people to the system.
We are going to control costs by paying doctors and other providers less and requiring them to work longer and do more.
This will make medicine a less attractive profession and lead over time to fewer docs and other providers.
If demand goes up and supply goes down, the inevitable results will be shortages, queues and other rationing (death panel) measures, lowered quality, and higher prices.
That's the way it has always worked every time in recorded history.

So answer the following:

Are you okay with those projected outcomes?
If not, do you think they will not happen?
If you think they won't, which of the above causal relationships do you expect not to materialize? Why not?
Or are you just believing in some kind of magic or witchcraft to save us?

Owl, it's been explained to them every way possible for almost 6 years and they still don't understand. They are blind followers, too bad the law wasn't written to only affect the ones who wanted it and passed it. **** that they say, let's scuttle the whole damn country.

It's obvious what the leftist plan is, for them to accomplish the final chapter they need morons like the ones posting on this board to follow along in the zombie line.

Single payer would indicate that I'm not paying for someone else's healthcare.

Dems would never go for that and if you believe that they are, you are a moron.

(09-25-2013 01:34 PM)Redwingtom Wrote:  

(09-25-2013 12:52 PM)Smaug Wrote:  

(09-25-2013 10:51 AM)Redwingtom Wrote:  Obamacare Premiums Report Shows Low Prices For Uninsured With Wide Variation

Quote:The average price for basic health coverage purchased on health insurance exchanges created by President Barack Obama's health care reform law will be $249 a month, not counting subsidies, in 48 states reviewed by the Department of Health and Human Services, according to a government report published Wednesday.

The health insurance exchanges, marketplaces for uninsured people and consumers who don't get health benefits from their employers, are scheduled to launch on Oct. 1 for an enrollment period that runs through the end of March for 2014 coverage. This latest analysis of what the health insurance plans will cost comes just six days before people will be able to find out what they'll actually pay.

"For millions of Americans, these new options will finally make health insurance work within their budget," Health and Human Services Secretary Kathleen Sebelius said during a conference call with reporters Tuesday. Reporters were provided access to the report prior to its publication.

That's great, as far as it goes, but what about when all the new uninsured, when their employer drop them like a bag of dirt, crash the system?

What the hell are you talking about? Your employer doesn't manage your health care, the insurance companies do. These same companies are offering the plans in the exchanges. And adding currently uninsured people to the exchanges should only lower costs further as the insurance companies will be competing for these new customers.

What the hell are you talking about? My insurance doesn't manage my health care; my doctor and I do.

(09-25-2013 05:46 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(09-25-2013 03:55 PM)JMUDunk Wrote:  

(09-25-2013 03:20 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  OK, lefties, explain this:

We are going to increase demand by adding 30 million people to the system.
We are going to control costs by paying doctors and other providers less and requiring them to work longer and do more.
This will make medicine a less attractive profession and lead over time to fewer docs and other providers.
If demand goes up and supply goes down, the inevitable results will be shortages, queues and other rationing (death panel) measures, lowered quality, and higher prices.
That's the way it has always worked every time in recorded history.

So answer the following:

Are you okay with those projected outcomes?
If not, do you think they will not happen?
If you think they won't, which of the above causal relationships do you expect not to materialize? Why not?
Or are you just believing in some kind of magic or witchcraft to save us?

Even worse. They are actually brain dead and incurious enough to believe the garbage that came in that CBO report.
Course none of it dealt in this "reality" of which they speak, only the garbage in garbage out the CBO was provided by the Admin.
Really gotta wonder some times. Not often, but sometimes...

Be careful what you criticize. Actually the "garbage" CBO report pretty much outlined the exact scenario that I laid out. But you had to read the whole report to get that. Most people just read the first part and jumped to the conclusions that they did.

What CBO actually said, if you read the whole report, was that under the specific assumptions given to us by congress (and that is the way it works, congress gives the assumptions, CBO crunches the numbers), the act would reduce the deficit. BUT (and here is where it gets interesting) if you read further back in the report, they make it pretty clear that they don't believe those assumptions. And basically, if those assumptions are not realized, then the whole thing goes up in smoke. Specifically, CBO questioned the cost increase assumptions given it by congress, noting that the bill didn't really contain any effective cost control measures. Therefore, the assumed cost savings were unlikely to occur. And to the extent that any cost savings did occur, they would have to come from a combination of improved administration (with a whole bunch of new alphabet soup regulatory agences, good luck with that), increased delays, and reduced quality. I'm actually relying on CBO as the basis for my criticism.

Fair enough. We're on the same page here. My "criticism" is/was aimed at those on the left that took, and some amazingly still take, the CBO report as Gospel based on the garbage assumptions given it by congress. There is no way what they tried to portray was ever going to pan out. That's really what I was driving at.

If CBO then went on to make their own assessments based in reality and not from fairy dust and unicorn farts then good for them. I honestly didn't know they had that latitude, only knew they had to go on what info was handed to them, sane or not.