Joe Miner Posted January 24, 2014 Posted January 24, 2014 you truly are dim aren't you. in your case, lets say you're going to get hair replacement and liposuction. you can gewt them both for 2k in thailand or for 10k in des moines. you went to thailand, saved 8 k but unfortunately you're still homely. I'd just order mine of Amazon. Free two day shipping, plus I can use my credit card points.
B-Large Posted January 24, 2014 Posted January 24, 2014 (edited) Historically, central planning has always screwed the poor the most. Those closest to starvation, disease, etc. the most vulnerable, are always the people who take the brunt of the central plan FAIL. You look at China, and how much forced starvation occurred during the Great Leap Forward. Millions died for no good reason, other than: proving to the rest of the world that central planning is for morons. The only question is: will you let their deaths be in vain? Will you continue support of central planning, even though we have gallons of historical evidence that it sucks, different flavors of its FAIL too, like Nixon Wage and Price Controls FAIL, and the 90% of the New Deal FAIL(most people don't even realize how big a failure the New Deal actually was) and NOTHING that shows any real success. When you compare the sucess of markets vs. central planning, OBJECTIVELY, every rational human being comes away saying there is no comparison, markets are superior. So the other queston? Are you are rational human being, or not? As I understand it, not only are most of them against Obamacare, they are also not signing up. Once again, we've bought an entire car...so that we could use the cigarette ligther and the radio. We sorta agree, but taking TPA out of the mix is patently retarded. You should know better. The entire point of TPA? Efficiency and cutting cost. Why do we want to cut out the thing that saves $? TPAs compete with each other. You want to get rid of the competition? How does that cut cost? Taking TPA away means forcing either the insurer or the insured to hire somebody. Joe's Garage does car repair, not health insurance management, and the # of people on his staff mean hiring somebody to manage a 10 person plan, is never going to be an efficient use of Joe's resources. All you're doing by getting rid of TPAs is creating a costly and inefficient bottleneck in the policy management/claims business process. Either the government is the bottleneck, or the insurers, or the insured. Take your pick. This solves nothing. I want HSAs, same as you, for the same reasons. But, I want those HSAs managed by the 401k people. They already have all the resources, and the experience of doing this type of thing. HSA = the fastest way to create wealth. You don't need to try to buy a house or a big job that has 401k. All you need is pre-tax income. And, you can pass on your HSA to your beneficiary(ies), no taxes. Boom, wealth creation. However, I want Walmat, Target, etc., to be a TPA for all catastrophic policies, and I want those policies sold across state lines. Walmart handles massive amounts of money, and they arleady have the resources in place to handle more. They can scale. You start talking catastrophic pools that have 1 million people in them? That "bends the cost curve" down, big time. It's not phony state exchanges == wealth redistribution. It's smacking the hell out of cost, and pre-existing conditions? Spread across a pool of 1 million? Too many? How about 200k? Either way, nobody cares. Walmart does what they always do: Buy health insurance policies for highway robbery prices, and re-sell them. Somebody is going to find a way to meet their price, especially if we are talking nationally. Hell if Walmart makes you squeamish? Then run a catastrophic public option alongside, and see who wins. That is how you control cost, in both the day to day and catastrophic. You let the big guys fight it out for the one-size-fits-all catastrophic, because one-size-fits-all is what large companies/Federal government, is good at. Then, you let the doctors and patients and hospitals, and all the custom needs and issues, resolve itself in the local market....backed up by the county, and local employers, who can pay into HSAs however they want. This is the superior approach, until I hear a better one. Why does a TPA take a 20% cut of every premium dollar? And remember, it was more prior to 2010 and the passage of the ACA- 25-30%? you can't tell me that 20% versus a State Run risk pool such as Medicare, 4% is a better deal, not matter what scale you get. out of 1 Trillion dollar of healthcare premium dollars, 200 Billion go to something that doesn't involve care.... that's a racket of epic proporations. As for competition, who cares who back up the big payment form the risk pool- you have a each American cover large deductibles and that is where your competition lies, in hospital and provider to attract and retain loyal patients. Insurance compaines don't care so much about cost as long as the cover they loss spread and make money.... you still have no explained (as has anybody who ever utter the phrase) why selling Policies across State Lines is anyting other that comepletely empty notion- you cede regulatory control of the health insurance to the Federal Government when they sell nationally rather than the State. The Fed gets control of what can be sold, how much, and they set-up the guidelines. Also, Aetna can sell policies in any State they wish- and I am sure Rocky Mountain Health PLans does not want to sell policies to fatties Mississippi- so the State Line argument is wihtout merit- it makes no difference until you prove clearly otherwise. Edited January 24, 2014 by B-Large
Nanker Posted January 24, 2014 Posted January 24, 2014 You think government workers work for free? Hundreds of thousands of federal employees (not on Obamacare) administrating single payer won't cost taxpayers anything? OC's right in that the way they control costs is to pay 29 cents on the dollar.
3rdnlng Posted January 24, 2014 Posted January 24, 2014 you truly are dim aren't you. in your case, lets say you're going to get hair replacement and liposuction. you can gewt them both for 2k in thailand or for 10k in des moines. you went to thailand, saved 8 k but unfortunately you're still homely. So, you know "more than a few people" who had the money but saved it by going overseas to get surgery? Isn't it like they had a bunch of money but reduced it by going overseas for elective surgery? Throw all the insults that you want. They only reflect upon you.
B-Large Posted January 24, 2014 Posted January 24, 2014 You think government workers work for free? Hundreds of thousands of federal employees (not on Obamacare) administrating single payer won't cost taxpayers anything? OC's right in that the way they control costs is to pay 29 cents on the dollar. can you read- 4% adminstrative overhead in Medicare versus 20%
birdog1960 Posted January 24, 2014 Posted January 24, 2014 So, you know "more than a few people" who had the money but saved it by going overseas to get surgery? Isn't it like they had a bunch of money but reduced it by going overseas for elective surgery? Throw all the insults that you want. They only reflect upon you. lighten up francis. how would i know whether you look more closely resemble armie hammer or quasimoto? but if i'm to read anything into your response....yes, i know several people that had elective surgery via medical tourism. also, a family member had a back mri in europe while on vacation they spent significantly less than they would have here and they were going to have them done regardless of cost, eventually. therefore, they saved money. what's so difficult?
IDBillzFan Posted January 24, 2014 Posted January 24, 2014 Affordable Care will do a better job controlling costs then the statusquo. In fact a lot estimates seem to show the health cost curve is bending. Not only will care be more affordable but more people will be insured. Goodbye 50 million uninsured americans, hello health insurance for people working part time, waitresses, barbers, minimum wage workers etc. Californa + Obamacare = Fubarsuckassmonkeytits. Or as I commented earlier, goodbye 500K who signed up, hello 900,000 who lost their coverage. You have to be an incompetent fool of gatorman levels to roll out a law this screwed up.
DC Tom Posted January 24, 2014 Posted January 24, 2014 Californa + Obamacare = Fubarsuckassmonkeytits. Or as I commented earlier, goodbye 500K who signed up, hello 900,000 who lost their coverage. You have to be an incompetent fool of gatorman levels to roll out a law this screwed up. "But it's controlling costs!" Then if you point out it's not controlling costs... "But more people have coverage!" Lather, rinse, repeat. And completely ignore the fact that what the White House has implemented isn't even the ACA at this point...
JuanGuzman Posted January 25, 2014 Posted January 25, 2014 (edited) "But it's controlling costs!" Then if you point out it's not controlling costs... "But more people have coverage!" Lather, rinse, repeat. And completely ignore the fact that what the White House has implemented isn't even the ACA at this point... Californa + Obamacare = Fubarsuckassmonkeytits. Or as I commented earlier, goodbye 500K who signed up, hello 900,000 who lost their coverage. You have to be an incompetent fool of gatorman levels to roll out a law this screwed up. Do you guys really believe that ACA is going to result in more people being uninsured, i.e., the number of uninsured Americans is going to rise from the 50 Million uninsured prior to ACA??? Edited January 25, 2014 by JuanGuzman
3rdnlng Posted January 25, 2014 Posted January 25, 2014 Do you guys really believe that ACA is going to result in more people being uninsured, i.e., the number of uninsured Americans is going to rise from the 50 Million uninsured prior to ACA??? It already has.
B-Man Posted January 26, 2014 Posted January 26, 2014 Young People’s Health-Plan Options Are Fine, as Long as You Ignore the Deductibles! FTA: The administration insists most uninsured young people will be able to buy plans for less than $50 per month. Sounds great, right? The GAO offered statistics that show the catch. A non-smoking woman, age 30, buying the plan with the lowest possible premium in the state of Virginia would pay $564 per year, or $47 per month. Affordable! . . . Until you realize the deductible is $7,500. That’s how much she has to pay out of pocket before her insurance pays anything. Maybe in a terrible year, full of ailments, she’ll hit it in autumn. And that’s a bargain compared to some other states. In Vermont, a 30-year-old non-smoking woman can find a plan with a monthly premium of just $56 per month! Except that the deductible is $100,000, according to the GAO report. Sure, you can get a plan with a $3,500 deductible . . . for $292 per month.
boyst Posted January 26, 2014 Posted January 26, 2014 Does anyone here actually use Obamacare? My gf did because she self insures. 30, healthy, non smoking, and possibly could save money. She applied and has yet to hear anything. After applying 2 months ago she calls twice a week and waits over an hour each time before giving up. The automation says she is in que and her coverage has not been confirmed yet. She currently uses BCBS, which she continued from last year. But how is it supposed to work when the ones looking to use it cannot get access to it?!?
IDBillzFan Posted January 26, 2014 Posted January 26, 2014 (edited) Does anyone here actually use Obamacare? My gf did because she self insures. 30, healthy, non smoking, and possibly could save money. She applied and has yet to hear anything. After applying 2 months ago she calls twice a week and waits over an hour each time before giving up. The automation says she is in que and her coverage has not been confirmed yet. She currently uses BCBS, which she continued from last year. But how is it supposed to work when the ones looking to use it cannot get access to it?!? It works just like anything else in the free market. You take your proof that you didn't buy something, print it out, and bring it to the service provider, who will gladly provide you services even though you can't prove your paid for them. They do this because the uneducated man standing in front of a teleprompter told the service providers to just provide the service and the he'll reimburse them once this little glitch gets cleared up. Edited January 26, 2014 by LABillzFan
B-Man Posted January 26, 2014 Posted January 26, 2014 (edited) Yes..........................1984 is here. Today in Newspeak The editors of the New York Times today take aim at ads that are “firing malicious falsehoods at supporters of health care reform”: The 225,000 Michigan residents who the ad said received “cancellation notices” were actually told that they could change to a better policy; they were not told they could no longer have insurance, as the ad implies. See. You didn't receive a "cancellation notice". You were simply told that your old policy no longer existed. You can change to a better policy... for an additional $800 per month and a $5,000 increase in your deductible. That's not the same thing as "cancelled". No really. And if you act now, we'll throw in this free set of steak knives (add $149 for shipping & handling) Carney: Obamacare ‘Absolutely Worth It’ if Dems Lose the Senate ' , Edited January 26, 2014 by B-Man
DC Tom Posted January 26, 2014 Posted January 26, 2014 Carney: Obamacare ‘Absolutely Worth It’ if Dems Lose the Senate In fact, Carney didn’t expect running against Obamacare to even be a winning message for Republicans “because they’ve got to explain what repeal [of the law] means.” Yeah, right. The Democrats never bothered explaining what the law actually meant, so I'm sure the burden's going to fall on the Republicans to explain its repeal.
JuanGuzman Posted January 27, 2014 Posted January 27, 2014 "But it's controlling costs!" Do you guys really believe that ACA is going to result in more people being uninsured, i.e., the number of uninsured Americans is going to rise from the 50 Million uninsured prior to ACA??? "But it's controlling costs!" is that a yes from you DC Tom? lets hear an answer... will ACA lead a higher number of americans across the country with health insurance or a lower amount?
DC Tom Posted January 27, 2014 Posted January 27, 2014 is that a yes from you DC Tom? lets hear an answer... will ACA lead a higher number of americans across the country with health insurance or a lower amount? "But more people have coverage!"
boyst Posted January 27, 2014 Posted January 27, 2014 Blue Cross cuts family policies for gay NC couples ...liberals, please chime in. Associated Press | RALEIGH — North Carolina's largest insurer has cancelled family insurance policies sold to 20 gay and lesbian couples on a federal insurance marketplace because of restrictive contract language the company plans to remove next year. Blue Cross and Blue Shield of North Carolina was legally bound to invalidate the policies because of standard language in the insurer's individual policies that define "spouse" as "opposite sex," state Insurance Department spokeswoman Kerry Hall said. Gay-rights advocates point out the nonprofit insurer offers domestic partner benefits to its own employees, The News & Observer of Raleigh reported (http://bit.ly/LWea22). Blue Cross insurance plans offered by large North Carolina companies also include health benefits for employees and their same-sex partner.
DC Tom Posted January 27, 2014 Posted January 27, 2014 Blue Cross cuts family policies for gay NC couples ...liberals, please chime in. "But it's controlling costs!"
Recommended Posts