Tiberius Posted April 11, 2014 Posted April 11, 2014 I'll answer your question now. Waaaaaaaaay too early to tell. But you toe the company line so to you it's working. And you call me pathetic. You'll answer in a hundred years, right? No, it's starting to work. Don't take a partisan Democrat to see that
Chef Jim Posted April 11, 2014 Posted April 11, 2014 You'll answer in a hundred years, right? No, it's starting to work. Don't take a partisan Democrat to see that That's funny because the only people that I'm hearing that it's working from are partisan Democrats. Pardon my wait and see approach. It would be interesting to see your take on this if it were called Bushcare.
Azalin Posted April 11, 2014 Posted April 11, 2014 It would be interesting to see your take on this if it were called Bushcare. this is one of those statements that has the potential to inspire some seriously legendary humor.
3rdnlng Posted April 11, 2014 Posted April 11, 2014 That's funny because the only people that I'm hearing that it's working from are partisan Democrats. Pardon my wait and see approach. It would be interesting to see your take on this if it were called Bushcare. If you know anything about insurance as I'm sure you do, the Law of Large Numbers can't be beaten. The ACA is trying to do just that. If they can't get enough 18-34 year old people to sign up then the premiums and deductibles will be sky high. The only way to keep them down will be with large government subsidies, or put another way---other peoples money.
Chef Jim Posted April 11, 2014 Posted April 11, 2014 If you know anything about insurance as I'm sure you do, the Law of Large Numbers can't be beaten. The ACA is trying to do just that. If they can't get enough 18-34 year old people to sign up then the premiums and deductibles will be sky high. The only way to keep them down will be with large government subsidies, or put another way---other peoples money. That horse has been beaten to the point unrecognition.
BillsFanM.D. Posted April 11, 2014 Posted April 11, 2014 That's funny because the only people that I'm hearing that it's working from are partisan Democrats. Pardon my wait and see approach. It would be interesting to see your take on this if it were called Bushcare. this is one of those statements that has the potential to inspire some seriously legendary humor. Amen Azalin. That has boundless potential.
DC Tom Posted April 11, 2014 Posted April 11, 2014 It would be interesting to see your take on this if it were called Bushcare. Doesn't the ACA include a mandate to provide Bushcare?
Chef Jim Posted April 11, 2014 Posted April 11, 2014 Doesn't the ACA include a mandate to provide Bushcare? Depends on what you mean by Bushcare. Grooming or plumbing?
3rdnlng Posted April 11, 2014 Posted April 11, 2014 That horse has been beaten to the point unrecognition. It doesn't change the basic premise though. It is fatally flawed, so I don't need to take a wait and see position. As constituted today, it is and will be a complete failure.
PearlHowardman Posted April 12, 2014 Posted April 12, 2014 ....If they can't get enough 18-34 year old people to sign up then the premiums and deductibles will be sky high. The premiums already are sky high. Same for the deductibles and copays. People have health insurance but they'll need to spend a lot of their own money before they ever see any financial benefit - if they ever do. Insurance companies know what they're doing here. They bankrolled Obama's campaign. They wrote Obamacare. They make some serious bucks from the unfortunate suckers who are legally forced to pay the sky high premiums and get little financial return. They then donate to democrats running for office. When republicans start to understand this, they'll make big inroads with the American voting public.
3rdnlng Posted April 12, 2014 Posted April 12, 2014 The premiums already are sky high. Same for the deductibles and copays. People have health insurance but they'll need to spend a lot of their own money before they ever see any financial benefit - if they ever do. Insurance companies know what they're doing here. They bankrolled Obama's campaign. They wrote Obamacare. They make some serious bucks from the unfortunate suckers who are legally forced to pay the sky high premiums and get little financial return. They then donate to democrats running for office. When republicans start to understand this, they'll make big inroads with the American voting public. Explain please.
IDBillzFan Posted April 12, 2014 Posted April 12, 2014 (edited) From Ezra Klein: Sebelius is resigning because Obamacare has won. :lol: The evidence has piled up in recent weeks that the strategy worked. Obamacare's first year, despite a truly horrific start, was a success. More than 7 million people look to have signed up for health insurance through the exchanges. Millions more have signed up through Medicaid. And millions beyond that have signed up for insurance through their employers. Try not to piss your pants when you read this. That, ladies and gentlemen, is going full gatorman. Edited April 12, 2014 by LABillzFan
B-Man Posted April 12, 2014 Posted April 12, 2014 About Mrs. Sebelius Original Article Obamacare exit strategy brings endless waits on hold Washington Times, by Drew Johnson Original Article
B-Large Posted April 12, 2014 Posted April 12, 2014 The premiums already are sky high. Same for the deductibles and copays. People have health insurance but they'll need to spend a lot of their own money before they ever see any financial benefit - if they ever do. Insurance companies know what they're doing here. They bankrolled Obama's campaign. They wrote Obamacare. They make some serious bucks from the unfortunate suckers who are legally forced to pay the sky high premiums and get little financial return. They then donate to democrats running for office. When republicans start to understand this, they'll make big inroads with the American voting public. Isn't individuals spending a lot of their own money first the premise behind high deductible plans and HSA's? Isn't that the premise for driving prices down as consumers choose where to spend their money? So are you advocating that once you pay your monthly, every penny is covered?
3rdnlng Posted April 12, 2014 Posted April 12, 2014 Isn't individuals spending a lot of their own money first the premise behind high deductible plans and HSA's? Isn't that the premise for driving prices down as consumers choose where to spend their money? So are you advocating that once you pay your monthly, every penny is covered? What is the reason for both premiums and deductibles going up under ObamaCare?
B-Large Posted April 13, 2014 Posted April 13, 2014 (edited) What is the reason for both premiums and deductibles going up under ObamaCare? Beefing up risk pools is my guess. More payouts, more premiums and bigger out of pockets. Yet we still want this private thIrd party boondoggle.... I was thinking today our hospital has 50 FTE to deal with denials and authorizations... A whole dept just to figure of if we will be paid or not. What a wasteful mess of a delivery system... But it's what we got, best make the best of it I guess. I was thinking of your redistribution comment recently. The single biggest redistribution is how company in the US sell products cheaply abroad, and rape us domestically. Lipitor 10 bucks in Canada, 70 here.... Our own government and insurers are siphoning dollars from our pockets... It's a darn shame 3. Edited April 13, 2014 by B-Large
Wacka Posted April 13, 2014 Posted April 13, 2014 Many countries, including Canada have price controls on medicine. We don't. Who will pay for R&D which takes many years and countless dead ends? If we put controls on too, there goes mew medicines.
Deranged Rhino Posted April 13, 2014 Posted April 13, 2014 Many countries, including Canada have price controls on medicine. We don't. Who will pay for R&D which takes many years and countless dead ends? If we put controls on too, there goes mew medicines. This is a big scare tactic out there. I'd love to hear (from anyone, not calling you out Wacka) why this is the case. I just do not find it credible. Innovation is not only achieved through competition, it can be a driver of course but it's not the only, or even primary, driver in terms of medical breakthroughs. So why is it such an absolute that socialized medicine destroys innovation? Certainly there have been numerous medical breakthroughs outside of the United States -- right? Asking seriously as the concept makes no sense to me on its surface.
Keukasmallies Posted April 13, 2014 Posted April 13, 2014 Isn't individuals spending a lot of their own money first the premise behind high deductible plans and HSA's? Isn't that the premise for driving prices down as consumers choose where to spend their money? So are you advocating that once you pay your monthly, every penny is covered? Spending one's own money first may be a premise behind the ACA, but that plus increasing premiums plus higher deductibles do not add up to holding the line on health care costs.
TakeYouToTasker Posted April 13, 2014 Posted April 13, 2014 This is a big scare tactic out there. I'd love to hear (from anyone, not calling you out Wacka) why this is the case. I just do not find it credible. Innovation is not only achieved through competition, it can be a driver of course but it's not the only, or even primary, driver in terms of medical breakthroughs. So why is it such an absolute that socialized medicine destroys innovation? Certainly there have been numerous medical breakthroughs outside of the United States -- right? Asking seriously as the concept makes no sense to me on its surface. PM sent.
Recommended Posts