The Affordable Care Act is Coming Home to Roost

[IDBillzFan]

Today's Tweet from the WH. It's like they put gatorman in charge of typing.

 

 

[B-Man]

Another Layer in the "Onion of Fail":

 

Connecticut Obamacare Exchange, Praised in Rose Garden, Gave Wrong Info for Every Single Individual Plan: And the state was aware of the problems a full month before Obama’s speech.

 

Another layer:

 

ObamaCare “enrollees” don’t seem to be actually paying for their insurance.

 

 

Another layer:

 

Obamacare forcing 14 percent cut in Medicare’s home health care program. (This one really hits my organization)

 

 

Another layer:

 

 

Vote of Confidence: Hill Staffers Warned Not to Rely on Info From ObamaCare Exchange.

 

 

Another layer:

 

 

Hacker Says ObamaCare Website Security Still Not Fixed.

 

 

 

.

[OCinBuffalo]

Quick response to OCinBuffalo, you're an ideologue. To impatient to spend time thinking through issues so you just resort to your visceral response. You type up a bunch mindless b.s. call it a day and pat yourself on the back.

Mindless?

 

I assure you I've done more quality thinking about this single issue than you've done in your entire lifetime, combined. And, I actually KNOW how to solve the "out of control" cost problem. I do that: for a job.

 

In terms of quality thinking?

 

Here comes the boom.

America's health system before obamacare was seriously screwed up. Too much money going to administrative costs as opposed to treatment. Highest per-capita spending of any oecd country with some of the worst health outcomes. Im not saying Canada's system is not with out flaws, in fact i never mentioned Canada, you just through it in there as a strawman. So i will instead say this every health system in the developed world be it Germany, UK, Scandinavian countries was out performing the U.S. status quo. The U.S. the most advanced/wealthiest country in the world had a crackpot healthy system. .. nothing to a shame of, in fact im proud of America for taking steps to fix it

Your are a f'ing umitigated moron if you actually believe this. Nothing, and I mean nothing in this is accurate at all. It's the same old thing with you clowns: compare apples to oranges, call that a "study" and then run to the media. Same thing with education, same thing with healthcare.

 

ALL socialized medicince, in ALL countries that have it, DOES NOT provide what it says it does. It's a flat out lie. You don't have an "administrative costs/waste" problem? Check your own budget. Again, Canada's doctors/RNs/techs get paid schit. So, are we supposed to call that "savings of administrative costs"?

 

No. That's called: price fixing, or wage and price controls. That's patently retarded, because you know damn well every rich Canadian in your country ends up in mine for their healthcare, and almost every good Canadian doctor has already filed his papers with our immigration people. The data is out there and clear: go eductate yourself. While you're at it: explain why we've seen an 200% increase in Private Insurance policies in both Canada and Britain, over the last 5 years. I mean, you have single payer, so....why is that happening?

 

I'll tell you: You don't know better about how to control costs, administrative or otherwise. In fact you know nothing/aren't even trying to understand. ALL you do is cap what you will reimburse providers, do nothing about costs, and call it a day. Nothing is gained by this, and you never learn anything. It's perhaps the single laziest approach there is. Then, you ration care.

 

And what do Canadians get for their $, when and if they actually receive care? The care is not affordable, it certainly isn't accessible(7 months to see the doc?), and the ONLY thing it does do is allow clowns like you a false sense of smug, "look at us".

 

EDIT: How just like Obama! Now that I think about it: too lazy to actually do the work that a real solution requires, would rather walk around Sabres games claiming to be superior....yeah, exactly like Obama.

 

Meanwhile those of us who know the facts, and how this stuff really works, laugh at you trying to be smug, because it's pathetic, and therefore: hilarious.

From 50 million uninsured, to job lock, to Cadillac plans because of favourable tax treatment. The system was broken. As I said obamacare implementation has had many hiccups but the system will work see Germany or Massachusetts as an example. The great thing is this theory is testable, in a couple years come the next presidential election we will see who was right and who was wrong when it comes to obamacare.

Germany? Here we go again. Does Germany pay for its own defense? Does Canada?

 

NO! I love how you clowns have the F'ing temerity to be critical of us, whilst basking in the security that WE PROVIDE!

 

If either you or Germany had to actually pay for the convenience of using OUR Navy, and OUR Air Power, never mind the once-again proven hammer that is our Army, as a deterrent to basically every scumbag country in the world taking your people as hostages and stealing your schit, this socialist paradise delusion would be over the next day.

 

Free trade, that you hate so much, except when it comes time to sell your oil, only exists due to the beneficence of the USA. Period.

 

If you actually had to protect your own shipping, or we charged you full price for protecting it, and your oil reserves, and infrastructure, you'd be paying us at least half of what your entire health care system costs. So, as I said: that's the same day your socialist delusion dies.

If I remember correctly you're the blowhard who spent all of 2012 ranting about skewed polls and how gallup's poll was dead on and we could expect a mitt romney presidency, despite every other poll or aggregation pointing towards an Obama victory. Well you were proved wrong on that one and I think you'll be wrong on Obamacare. Hopefully you'll be hanging around POLLS then and I can remind you of it.

Then you remember falsely. What a surprise. I specifically, in practically every post, said: this doesn't mean Romney will win. And I also said: EITHER Nate Silver is right OR Gallup is right.

 

Clearly you don't THINK anything. You wish. That's what all of this is about: wishcasting.

 

Your wishcast: Obamacare will turn out great.

 

Nothing supports it, no evidence exists that says this will happen, there isn't one single piece of business evidence that says this product is viable. Yet...you say it will be fine. How isn't that wishcasting?

 

In contrast, my financial forecast: It's already screwed, as I've been saying, for 3 damn years. My technical forecast 3 years ago?

 

"The enterprise management and techincal management skills necessary to successfully run a project like this are not present in either the leadership of the Democratic party, or the government, therefore they are already doomed to fail, before they begin."

 

How'd I do? Yeah, looks like I nailed it, huh?

 

Let's see where your wishcast ends up, and where my forecast ends up, shall we? I would bet you, but I know that you'll welch.

Edited December 12, 2013 by OCinBuffalo

[IDBillzFan]

Politifact Lie of the Year 2013: If you like your plan...

 

It was a catchy political pitch and a chance to calm nerves about his dramatic and complicated plan to bring historic change to America’s health insurance system.

 

"If you like your health care plan, you can keep it," President Barack Obama said -- many times -- of his landmark new law.

 

But the promise was impossible to keep.

 

So this fall, as cancellation letters were going out to approximately 4 million Americans, the public realized Obama’s breezy assurances were wrong.

[JuanGuzman]

Germany? Here we go again. Does Germany pay for its own defense? Does Canada?

 

NO! I love how you clowns have the F'ing temerity to be critical of us, whilst basking in the security that WE PROVIDE!

 

If either you or Germany had to actually pay for the convenience of using OUR Navy, and OUR Air Power, never mind the once-again proven hammer that is our Army, as a deterrent to basically every scumbag country in the world taking your people as hostages and stealing your schit, this socialist paradise delusion would be over the next day.

 

Free trade, that you hate so much, except when it comes time to sell your oil, only exists due to the beneficence of the USA. Period.

 

If you actually had to protect your own shipping, or we charged you full price for protecting it, and your oil reserves, and infrastructure, you'd be paying us at least half of what your entire health care system costs. So, as I said: that's the same day your socialist delusion dies.

 

 

Are you really that stupid. You can't be that stupid, but maybe you are... First of all I'm not being critical of the U.S. I'm applauding OBAMA and the U.S. introducing the affordable care act because it is a major improvement on the status quo. also talk about going off topic, this argument is about an improvement to the U.S. health system and not whether nato countries are helped by having America's large military as a friend (they are).

Anyway just look at the chart below, the U.S. spends hell of a lot more than any country on health spending yet the outcomes in terms of life expectancy are pretty abysmal, (ideally you'd like to strip out car accidents and heart disease from this analysis because those are more prevalence in the U.S.) but the basic premise is the U.S. doesn't get much health care bang for their buck. Also not to mention the huge number of people who are uninsured in the U.S.

By the way when I am talking about administrative costs I'm not talking about care providers (e.g., your wrong example of doctors and techs), I'm talking about insurers trying to verify that a client didn't have a pre-existing condition, or a doctors office going back and forth with an insurer to see if the patient has insurance and what treatments it will cover etc. I think Harvard estimates that about 30 per cent of health spending in the U.S. goes to admin costs whereas single insurer countries that number is less than half of that.

 

A couple of other things random responses to all the illogical stuff you through in there. First I love free trade (why did you say I hated it?), I support it fully. I'm not a socialist either so don't call me one. I support free trade based on evidence and theory. And I support using government dollars for health insurance based on evidence and theory as well. Exercising basic logic really.

 

I actually do look forward to the next couple years leading up to the 2016 election, I will be periodically checking to PPP forum, I expect to see Obamacare being vindicated by a bending of the health care cost curve, signing up uninsured, improving health outcomes and becoming a very popular program. If Affordable Care fails to deliver on those I will admit that i was wrong, like I said obamacare is not with out faults (I can think of a number of improvements I'd like to see made to it) but right now I see ACA as a huge improvement. Looking forward to seeing it evolve over the next few years....

 

I hope that you'll be big enough to admit that you were wrong if Obamacare succeeds.

[Wacka]

A boss I had was from England He hated their system. If you worked you had to buy your own insurance as well as the using the government system. He had an infected ingrown toenail. The doctor's office said it was a two week wait! He said he had his own insurance. They saw him the next morning.

[keepthefaith]

Are you really that stupid. You can't be that stupid, but maybe you are... First of all I'm not being critical of the U.S. I'm applauding OBAMA and the U.S. introducing the affordable care act because it is a major improvement on the status quo. also talk about going off topic, this argument is about an improvement to the U.S. health system and not whether nato countries are helped by having America's large military as a friend (they are).

Anyway just look at the chart below, the U.S. spends hell of a lot more than any country on health spending yet the outcomes in terms of life expectancy are pretty abysmal, (ideally you'd like to strip out car accidents and heart disease from this analysis because those are more prevalence in the U.S.) but the basic premise is the U.S. doesn't get much health care bang for their buck. Also not to mention the huge number of people who are uninsured in the U.S.

By the way when I am talking about administrative costs I'm not talking about care providers (e.g., your wrong example of doctors and techs), I'm talking about insurers trying to verify that a client didn't have a pre-existing condition, or a doctors office going back and forth with an insurer to see if the patient has insurance and what treatments it will cover etc. I think Harvard estimates that about 30 per cent of health spending in the U.S. goes to admin costs whereas single insurer countries that number is less than half of that.

 

A couple of other things random responses to all the illogical stuff you through in there. First I love free trade (why did you say I hated it?), I support it fully. I'm not a socialist either so don't call me one. I support free trade based on evidence and theory. And I support using government dollars for health insurance based on evidence and theory as well. Exercising basic logic really.

 

I actually do look forward to the next couple years leading up to the 2016 election, I will be periodically checking to PPP forum, I expect to see Obamacare being vindicated by a bending of the health care cost curve, signing up uninsured, improving health outcomes and becoming a very popular program. If Affordable Care fails to deliver on those I will admit that i was wrong, like I said obamacare is not with out faults (I can think of a number of improvements I'd like to see made to it) but right now I see ACA as a huge improvement. Looking forward to seeing it evolve over the next few years....

 

I hope that you'll be big enough to admit that you were wrong if Obamacare succeeds.

 

Hard to believe that somehow a study was able to capture accurately from all of those countries spending and life expectancies with comparable data quality. I don't put much weight on this. If I did then Cuba makes everyone look bad. That data really says that slashing spending on health care is our better option. That and there are these things called genetics and environment that the medical profession claims plays such large roles. If we move the US population to Japan do we all live several years longer? NO, not without other variables coming into play.

 

The problem with Obamacare is that it doesn't reduce the cost for people to buy insurance. It raises it through mandates, taxes and regulations and in turn gives care away to many. It will raise our nation's total spend which if you believe your graph will make the U.S. results even worse. Prior to Obamacare health insurance cost was rising much faster than inflation. Since Obamacare the increases have accelerated. That and Obamacare adds to the already large deficit.

 

In this country, most people don't want Obamacare and most people support the principles of freedom and personal responsibility. Obamacare is simply a lousy solution and infringes on those principles.

Edited December 13, 2013 by keepthefaith

[JuanGuzman]

Hard to believe that somehow a study was able to capture accurately from all of those countries spending and life expectancies with comparable data quality. I don't put much weight on this. If I did then Cuba makes everyone look bad. That data really says that slashing spending on health care is our better option. That and there are these things called genetics and environment that the medical profession claims plays such large roles. If we move the US population to Japan do we all live several years longer? NO, not without other variables coming into play.

 

The problem with Obamacare is that it doesn't reduce the cost for people to buy insurance. It raises it through mandates, taxes and regulations and in turn gives care away to many. It will raise our nation's total spend which if you believe your graph will make the U.S. results even worse. Prior to Obamacare health insurance cost was rising much faster than inflation. Since Obamacare the increases have accelerated. That and Obamacare adds to the already large deficit.

 

First of all the data is OECD data, about as reputable as you can get. Second the one of the ways Obamacare will reduce cost is by improving the risk pool of the insured and reducing uninsured visits to hospitals when they actually require primary care.

 

Here is an article about costs falling as a result of affordable care: http://www.nytimes.com/2013/07/17/health/health-plan-cost-for-new-yorkers-set-to-fall-50.html?hp&_r=1&pagewanted=all&

[boyst]

My GF is self insured and has been prior to this Obamacare bull ****. She has a basic health insurance plan, what comes to a Silver plan, if you are familiar. She had everything she needed and nothing more. Now, she got her letter this week. It went up by $89 a month. Why? Because she now has increased mental health coverage (she doesn't need), all sorts of maternity coverage (for which she had bare bones, because she is not planning on children at this time), and a majority of factors. Couple this with her income, which is far below what you would even want to know - and well... ACA is another proven failure. She is not even sure she will be able to keep many of her Dr's, including her OBGYN she's had since she started needing an OBGYN.

 

every post you've made

Seriously, you're an idiot. The way to fix health care costs is to jack up the price of health insurance coverage? See above, please explain. You're by far a teet sucking ideologue cut off the hip of a liberal douche bag scum sucking bigot. And that'd putting it nice.

[JuanGuzman]

My GF is self insured and has been prior to this Obamacare bull ****. She has a basic health insurance plan, what comes to a Silver plan, if you are familiar. She had everything she needed and nothing more. Now, she got her letter this week. It went up by $89 a month. Why? Because she now has increased mental health coverage (she doesn't need), all sorts of maternity coverage (for which she had bare bones, because she is not planning on children at this time), and a majority of factors. Couple this with her income, which is far below what you would even want to know - and well... ACA is another proven failure. She is not even sure she will be able to keep many of her Dr's, including her OBGYN she's had since she started needing an OBGYN.

 

Sorry to hear about your GF. Anecdotal evidence is not persuasive to me though. The theory and the evidence says personal mandates will push down the cost of insurance for most people, although not all. As this article states it looks like the plan is working http://www.nytimes.c...pagewanted=all

 

Seriously, you're an idiot. The way to fix health care costs is to jack up the price of health insurance coverage? See above, please explain. You're by far a teet sucking ideologue cut off the hip of a liberal douche bag scum sucking bigot. And that'd putting it nice.

 

haha

[boyst]

Sorry to hear about your GF. Anecdotal evidence is not persuasive to me though. The theory and the evidence says personal mandates will push down the cost of insurance for most people, although not all. As this article states it looks like the plan is working http://www.nytimes.c...pagewanted=all

 

 

 

haha

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Communism

That is a theory, too. How is that working out? I can quote you a bunch of neat links that all mean about the same thing when you talk about "theory." So, let me do just that.

 

www.clownpenis.fart

www.howtopickyournose.org

www.obamaforchange.com

www.NYTimes.com/obamacarefailure

www.obamacarehelpspeople.com

 

And a picture for you!

 

My links are much more useful then yours.

Edited December 13, 2013 by jboyst62

[DC Tom]

Because she now has increased mental health coverage (she doesn't need),

 

That's debatable. Have you met her boyfriend?

[JuanGuzman]

Like I said to OCinBuffalo. The great thing about this debate is that we will see in a couple years if its worked or not. Shakey website launch aside, I'm sure its an improvement on the status quo. Its a good thing for america and I expect to be proven right.

[DC Tom]

First of all the data is OECD data, about as reputable as you can get. Second the one of the ways Obamacare will reduce cost is by improving the risk pool of the insured and reducing uninsured visits to hospitals when they actually require primary care.

 

Here is an article about costs falling as a result of affordable care: http://www.nytimes.c...pagewanted=all

 

What does "per capita spending" include?

[boyst]

That's debatable. Have you met her boyfriend?

Which one?

 

Like I said to OCinBuffalo. The great thing about this debate is that we will see in a couple years if its worked or not. Shakey website launch aside, I'm sure its an improvement on the status quo. Its a good thing for america and I expect to be proven right.

Look, according to you it may be a good theory. And in time we may find that it is going to be better then what it is now. But, right now it is really really messing things up. Have you read all the articles out there? Seriously, did you see where an 89 year old woman now pays $500 a month on insurance with her preexisting condition and has to have maternity coverage despite being on welfare already which will only cover 15% of her costs and leave her nearly broke paying for her rent? Yeah, probably not but if you want to: http://www.tulsaworl...st/house...rent

 

How is it going to help her?

Edited December 13, 2013 by Alaska Darin

[JuanGuzman]

What does "per capita spending" include?

 

I think its a broad definition of any expenditures towards health e.g., doctor, nursing, technology, pharmaceuticals,

 

Which one?

 

 

Look, according to you it may be a good theory. And in time we may find that it is going to be better then what it is now. But, right now it is really really messing things up. Have you read all the articles out there? Seriously, did you see where an 89 year old woman now pays $500 a month on insurance with her preexisting condition and has to have maternity coverage despite being on welfare already which will only cover 15% of her costs and leave her nearly broke paying for her rent? Yeah, probably not but if you want to: http://www.tulsaworl...st/house...rent

 

How is it going to help her?

 

I have no idea but i thought if you were 89 you'd be medicare, or if you were on welfare on medicaid. Again I'm more interested in the big picture than anecdotes.

Edited December 13, 2013 by JuanGuzman

[DC Tom]

Like I said to OCinBuffalo. The great thing about this debate is that we will see in a couple years if its worked or not. Shakey website launch aside, I'm sure its an improvement on the status quo. Its a good thing for america and I expect to be proven right.

 

The problem with that is that you expect to be proven right. So you will go way the hell out of your way to make sure you massage and cherry-pick data that only supports your expectation. If health insurance coverage goes down, you'll point to something like increased Medicare and Medicaid enrollment and call it a success. If health care costs go up, you'll pick specific anecdotes that buck the trend and show individual cases of costs going down, or you'll find some adjusted number that shows if you ignore certain costs it actually went down.

 

The same thing the other side will do, of course. The bigger problem being: neither your side nor the other side is interested in solving the actual problem, only in being right. To the point where if reality is otherwise, you'll call reality wrong.

[boyst]

I think its a broad definition of any expenditures towards health e.g., doctor, nursing, technology, pharmaceuticals,

 

 

 

I have no idea but i thought if you were 89 you'd be medicare, or if you were on welfare on medicaid. Again I'm more interested in the big picture than anecdotes.

So, instead of reading the actual articles you just think. Well, that explains a lot of it - clearly, you don't think very well.

[4merper4mer]

A boss I had was from England He hated their system. If you worked you had to buy your own insurance as well as the using the government system. He had an infected ingrown toenail. The doctor's office said it was a two week wait! He said he had his own insurance. They saw him the next morning.

 

If he is an Englishman why is he even getting his skanky toenail fixed? Won't it just be back in a week?

[JuanGuzman]

If im wrong im wrong. If the numbers of uninsured goes up, or if the cost curve continues the current trend ill admit im wrong. Right now i think obamacare will be an improvement but I'd be prepared to admit im wrong if the evidence shows otherwise