Tiberius Posted April 4, 2014 Posted April 4, 2014 Would you just STFU! So you consider insuring just over 10% of the uninsured a success? If I had someone celebrating achieving 10% of their goal I'd fire their ass. Yeah, it's working alright. Again, answer my question, why would you want it to work? And again, I guess you can't understand because you are an idiot, this is a process. 7 million to start, its still going. Boo hoo, more people are going to get health insurance. I hope you don't go on suicide watch when we pass 14 million.
Chef Jim Posted April 4, 2014 Posted April 4, 2014 Again, answer my question, why would you want it to work? I want it to work because I'm tired of us being the laughing stock of the world.
TakeYouToTasker Posted April 4, 2014 Posted April 4, 2014 I would love it if it worked, because I am results driven, and pragmatic. I find it desirable that all Americans have access to top quality health care. The problem is that I knew this program wouldn't work in acheiving it's stated goals. I work in a results driven industry, where we are measured by our successes; and as such, we spend the large majority of our time laying out comprehnsive strategies, testing our models, and evaluating our testing before we implement anything, and then, when we do implement, we do gradual roll-outs rather than diving in head first, such that if we hit any unexpected or unforseen circumstances, we can back out with minimal losses. Even after that, those who pushed to move forward, or those whose individual failures led to those losses wear the event like a damn albatross if they are able to retain their jobs. By any standards used by a reasonable person, the ACA has been a miserable failure. It has acheived none of it's stated goals; and worse, it has acheived the opposite in most cases. Had this been undertaken by private industry, rather than government, it's likely that it's perpetrators would be hauled before congress to testify, and then thrown in jail.
B-Man Posted April 4, 2014 Posted April 4, 2014 By any standards used by a reasonable person, the ACA has been a miserable failure. It has acheived none of it's stated goals; and worse, it has acheived the opposite in most cases. Had this been undertaken by private industry, rather than government, it's likely that it's perpetrators would be hauled before congress to testify, and then thrown in jail. "So you don't want poor people to have health care"?...................................lol.........standard buffoon response. NPR Poll Finds Obamacare Woes Portend GOP ‘Midterm Wave’ Mediaite.com FTA: “For the first time in NPR polling, a majority of voters disapproves of the health care law,” the Resurgent Republic’s release continued. While the NPR poll finds that only 51 percent to 47 percent disapprove of the law, the vast majority of recent public polls show the ACA to be underwater by more than 10 points, sometimes by more than 15 points. Further, the release notes, self-described independents oppose the law by 59 to 38 percent with only 1 in 5 likely independent voters expressing support for the law. More voters are strongly opposed to the law (40 points) than strongly back it (28 points), and Republicans are far more likely to be strongly opposed to the ACA than Democrats are to be strongly supportive of it. .
birdog1960 Posted April 4, 2014 Posted April 4, 2014 I want it to work because I'm tired of us being the laughing stock of the world. much of the developed world is laughing at us because we have citizens getting care in church basements and tents from volunteers (some sent from more developed but less wealthy countries). well, it's not really laughter it's more like pity mixed with disbelief.
KD in CA Posted April 4, 2014 Posted April 4, 2014 it means that half the states stonewalled medicaid expansion. Oh. So, why aren't we being reminded of the scope of this tragedy on a daily basis any longer?
Chef Jim Posted April 4, 2014 Posted April 4, 2014 much of the developed world is laughing at us because we have citizens getting care in church basements and tents from volunteers (some sent from more developed but less wealthy countries). well, it's not really laughter it's more like pity mixed with disbelief. No they're laughing at us because we can't get a !@#$ing website to work. But you keep telling youself they pity us because a vast majority of us have always had access to the best medical care in the world. What you call pity I call envy.
B-Man Posted April 4, 2014 Posted April 4, 2014 much of the developed world is laughing at us because we have citizens getting care in church basements and tents from volunteers (some sent from more developed but less wealthy countries). well, it's not really laughter it's more like pity mixed with disbelief. Link? As a thirty year veteran of the Healthcare community, I have grown weary of this type of hyperbole. I live in Allegany County ...61st out of 62 NYS counties in median income, our poverty level is over 17%, our unemployment rate is thru the roof. ....and let me tell you , everyone who wants it can get good care here. We do a damn good job reaching out to everyone and meeting their needs. Our Medicaid system is overloaded already and the strain that the ACA is going to put on everybody has only just started. .
3rdnlng Posted April 4, 2014 Posted April 4, 2014 Again, answer my question, why would you want it to work? And again, I guess you can't understand because you are an idiot, this is a process. 7 million to start, its still going. Boo hoo, more people are going to get health insurance. I hope you don't go on suicide watch when we pass 14 million. How many of those 7 million previously had insurance but lost it because of ObamaCare?
PearlHowardman Posted April 5, 2014 Posted April 5, 2014 Obamacare is a boon to the bottom line of insurance company profits. The no out of network benefits, high monthly premiums, high deductibles, and high copayments plans SUCK!
birdog1960 Posted April 5, 2014 Posted April 5, 2014 Obamacare is a boon to the bottom line of insurance company profits. yup. why not back it up with something like this? http://finance.yahoo.com/echarts?s=UNH+Interactive#symbol=UNH;range=2y. a very imperfect solution. single payor anyone?
B-Man Posted April 7, 2014 Posted April 7, 2014 Wait. Wasn’t one of the justifications for passing the Affordable Care Act that we had to do it “for the children?” That so many children were among the uninsured that it would be heartless, cruel, and even racist to not pass Obamacare ? Then how do they explain this? While the federal government was trumpeting the benefits of Obamacare to boost enrollment earlier this year, about 1,800 families in New Jersey were receiving letters telling them their children would be losing their health coverage last week. The Affordable Care Act — the federal law that mandates everyone have insurance — effectively killed FamilyCare Advantage, a low-cost option for kids in New Jersey created six years ago for parents who earned too much to qualify for Medicaid and other subsidized programs but too little to buy on a policy on their own. The state program was the first of its kind in the nation. Horizon Blue Cross Blue Shield of New Jersey was the only insurance carrier that agreed to offer the FamilyCare Advantage plan, which covered most medical, dental and vision needs for the relative bargain of $144 a month per child. What was it that killed FamilyCare Advantage? Oh, just the lack of services Obamacare declares must be included in every policy. Such as maternity care. For children. FamilyCare Advantage was New Jersey’s experiment to help lower middle-class families who made too much to qualify for state assistance, but not enough to buy adequate insurance on their own. Under (what used to be) our federalist system, states could try different approaches to common problems, see what worked and what didn’t, and then other states could, if they wanted, copy and adapt them to their own people’s needs. It’s that famous “laboratories of democracy” concept that leads to the discovery of best practices. Instead, these 1,800 families and their children get to experience the “benefits” of a top-down, one-size-fits-all, we-know-better-than-you nationalized health care system. One that kills the health insurance plan they liked and were promised they could keep. But, don’t worry. These families can still go on the exchange and buy a policy there. Of course, it will likely be more expensive and carry a high deductible, but beggars can’t be choosy, right? After all, it’s for the children. There’s one other point that needs to be made. The article quotes one father frustrated with both Obamacare and the insurance company: “Obamacare did snuff it out, but it also looks like Horizon was looking for a reason to end it. With all of the federal mandates (for employers to offer insurance) delayed, they didn’t need to do anything right now.” Emphasis added. This kind of resentment is inevitable when you have chief executive whose governing style seems to be borrowed from Argentina’s Juan Domingo Peron. Rather than treat people as free citizens, equal under the rule of law, you instead get individuals clamoring to get the same special favor as the other guy, turning free citizens into dependent clients and a president of a constitutional republic into El Patrón, doling out the favors to those who please him (or he needs to please) most. And that dependency, in the long run, is the progressives’ real goal. http://sistertoldjah.com/archives/2014/04/07/obamacare-chronicles-middle-class-children-lose-health-insurance/
OCinBuffalo Posted April 8, 2014 Posted April 8, 2014 All these polls and wonderful arguments are nice. But, you guys do realize that the Chuck Schumerish defense of "the people will like it...someday" is the standard response, and you can't disprove it. That's the trick: never tell us when that day will be. It could be in 100 years, or a 1000, but as long as they refuse to commit to deadlines, they can always argue that Obamacare is the "underdog". That someday the underdog is going to beat the bullies that keep attacking it! Again, we know this is pathetic, but, it's just as impossible to prove a negative as it is to disprove something that has no timeline attached. If we all live long enough, we may see aliens. Disprove that.
JuanGuzman Posted April 8, 2014 Posted April 8, 2014 How many of those 7 million previously had insurance but lost it because of ObamaCare? Right now the estimate is: "Using a survey fielded by the RAND American Life Panel, we estimate a net gain of 9.3 million in the number of American adults with health insurance coverage from September 2013 to mid-March 2014." - http://www.rand.org/blog/2014/04/survey-estimates-net-gain-of-9-3-million-american-adults.html
B-Large Posted April 8, 2014 Posted April 8, 2014 yup. why not back it up with something like this? http://finance.yahoo...ol=UNH;range=2y. a very imperfect solution. single payor anyone? I guess I don't have an issue with United Healthcare doing well, if Health Insurance Corporations are going to be the centerpiece of our delivery system- if they were getting reamed, I would be more worried as it would suggest the ACA is hurting insurers thereby weakening the reform. They do have to take all sign-ups now, so the healthier the better I guess. I still think the Third Party Payer is the worst thing that could happen to a healthcare marketplace, but to be honest, it is better than what we had prior to reform. Its beating a dead horse, but I still believe State Based Single Payor is the best route to go... will never happen though, cause people love more complicated and more expensive I guess.
3rdnlng Posted April 8, 2014 Posted April 8, 2014 Right now the estimate is: "Using a survey fielded by the RAND American Life Panel, we estimate a net gain of 9.3 million in the number of American adults with health insurance coverage from September 2013 to mid-March 2014." - http://www.rand.org/...can-adults.html You really should read what you post links to. Their sample size was so low that it had a 3.5 million person margin of error. Not only that, your response doesn't answer my question.The answer is in the article though. Care to look it up?
keepthefaith Posted April 8, 2014 Posted April 8, 2014 but I still believe State Based Single Payor is the best route to go... will never happen though, cause people love more complicated and more expensive I guess. Uh, no. People want choice and would prefer not to have a Post Office-like organization orchestrating their health care. For the time being I prefer to buy health insurance from Fedex or UPS instead. Hopefully I'll be healthy enough not to rely on Medicare too much when the time comes.
TH3 Posted April 8, 2014 Posted April 8, 2014 Uh, no. People want choice and would prefer not to have a Post Office-like organization orchestrating their health care. For the time being I prefer to buy health insurance from Fedex or UPS instead. Hopefully I'll be healthy enough not to rely on Medicare too much when the time comes. Single payer ~~~ Voucher. == Choice
B-Large Posted April 8, 2014 Posted April 8, 2014 Uh, no. People want choice and would prefer not to have a Post Office-like organization orchestrating their health care. For the time being I prefer to buy health insurance from Fedex or UPS instead. Hopefully I'll be healthy enough not to rely on Medicare too much when the time comes. Uh, yes. What makes you think single payor wouldn't present people with choices? You don't have much flexibility under your current managed care plan, so in the end, what is the difference?? Less expensive, more efficient, etc. private practices were closing left and right, prior to health reform. A consolidation was gonna happen either way, it's no longer small office medicine, it's big system medicine. I see my version of single payer as more choice, and private managed care as antithetical to the very concept.
keepthefaith Posted April 9, 2014 Posted April 9, 2014 Single payer ~~~ Voucher. == Choice Single payer would likely stipulate coverage levels so where's the choice in that? How would it be funded? What does one do when they aren't happy with the service provide by their government? If the government wants to offer Medicare to anyone that wants it at any age and have people pay for that coverage themselves and not create budget deficits in the process, I'm all for it. Let the rest of us that prefer to do it privately do that.
Recommended Posts