ObamaCare - exchanges ,report your states options!

[_sabotage_]

Player,

http://www.reuters.com/article/2010/04/ ... 5O20100420

According to this, in 2009 the US made up 43% of the global pharmaceutical market. We make up 5% of the world's population, but we are not consuming 14 times the medicine and we are still ranked dead last even amongst our peers in health care. So what gives? In China parents feed their kids antibiotics like they're sweets, but that's not surprising since a pack cost as much as a pack of Skittles on sale at the gas station here. So they are cheaper, have greater consumption rates and they have five times the population. With five times the population, increased usage of medicine due to sheer cheapness, and a corresponding rate of disease, why is the average Chinese spending 4% of what the American is?

In the 70s, the pharmaceutical industry got together with the psychiatric industry and said, let's make some money. They there and then laid out a plan to create and service all of the most commonly known mental illnesses today. They generated a checklist that would guarantee a high chance of anyone being diagnosed with at least one mental illness. They have added some new ones along the way. For example, recently ADHD was summoned out of the darkness, the guy who created it himself acknowledging that he made it up. The medicine to treat these "illnesses" had in many cases been stocking the pharmaceutical companies shelf prior to this conference.

It's these same pharmaceutical companies that buy the president, have their people placed in the decision making chairs, and will have some small time politician who they don't have dirt on and can't bribe be shut down by opposition everywhere he turns and then defeated next election. If the person is too known to effectively shut down, then bye-bye.

When I was young, kids were active, then hyperactive, then ADD, then ADHD, and now ADD and/or possibly ADHD with a chance of posing a security risk. Good thing we got that $300b industry to deal with them. Good thing that industry has their boy in office enforcing increased profits for them. Good thing they have their boy heading the regulatory body overseeing them. Good thing their boy is sitting in the big chair approving their products after testing them to the corporation's specifications. Good thing they have only been building their Washington network since before we were born.

This is not despicable, it's capitalism right? The government is maximizing the profits of the corporations, and therefore their own and that of it's people? No, because government is not supposed to be a player. In capitalism, government provides some partial oversight and funds useful programs that might not be profitable for business but create a greater than cost benefit to citizens when they can't deal with it on their own. It then backs off. But it is not corporatism either, because labor has no say; they've created a buyer's market for labor and stripped most of the hard earned benefits. Ah, it's corporate fascism.

Why on earth would you give a group of corporate fascists your endorsement and support? I could name a long list of single real improvements that could be achieved in health care to substantiate the governments credentials to tackle it and the reason for the long list of things to tackle is because it is bad through and through.

The ACA is just more of the same but worse. Written by and for those on a health crusade (against us).

Please stop Yeah... butting everything. If the evidence is there, then there must be a reason. Get outside of this political labyrinth you've allowed them to build and look at the evidence without a Yeah... but.

[saxitoxin]

Democratic 2016 presidential front-runner Gov. Brian Schweitzer declares Obamacare will "collapse"

During an interview with MSNBC’s Benjy Sarlin, Schweitzer deferred when asked to name one positive accomplishment by the Obama administration.

“My mother, God rest her soul, told me 'Brian, if you can’t think of something nice to say about something change the subject,' " Schweitzer said.

• On the issue of Obama's record on civil liberties, Schweitzer said the NSA revelations were “un-effing-believable."

• On the Obama administration's ability to lead: "They just haven’t been very good at running things.”

• On Obamacare: "It will collapse on its own weight."

http://news.yahoo.com/democratic-presid ... 31884.html

about Schweitzer

Schweitzer earned his Bachelor of Science degree in international agronomy from Colorado State University in 1978 and a Master of Science in soil science from Montana State University, Bozeman in 1980.

Upon finishing school, Schweitzer worked as an irrigation developer on projects in Africa, Asia, Europe and South America. He spent several years working in Libya, and Saudi Arabia, and speaks Arabic. He returned to Montana in 1986 to launch a ranching and irrigation business in Whitefish.

Bill Clinton appointed Schweitzer to the United States Department of Agriculture as a member of the Montana USDA Farm Service Agency committee, where he worked for seven years.

When incumbent Governor Judy Martz announced she would not run for re-election in 2004, Schweitzer announced his candidacy. He won the general election by defeating Montana Secretary of State Bob Brown 50%-47%. Schweitzer won re-election to a second term by a landslide, 66%-33%, over Republican State Senator Roy Brown. Schweitzer formerly served as chair of the Western Governors Association as well as the Democratic Governors Association. He also served as President of the Council of State Governments.

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

[thegreekdog]

Yeah, but... Montana?

[PLAYER57832]

Well, according to you those impossibly low wages are being topped up by government subsidies, so what's the fuss?

#1, Because it means that the rest of us are subsidizing the wealthy, by letting our taxes pay employee benefits.

#2. Those people are not paying the taxes they would, so its a double loss... our money is going to support working people instead of their employers doing so.

#3. Taxes are needed for infrastructure, other big universal needs, not to boost the pockets of stockholders...even if most people today are stockholders as well as taxpayers.

#4 Its the antithesis of any kind of market economy... backwards communism.

[PLAYER57832]

Well, according to you those impossibly low wages are being topped up by government subsidies, so what's the fuss?

#1, Because it means that the rest of us are subsidizing the wealthy, by letting our taxes pay employee benefits.

#2. Those people are not paying the taxes they would, so its a double loss... our money is going to support working people instead of their employers doing so.

#3. Taxes are needed for infrastructure, other big universal needs, not to boost the pockets of stockholders...even if most people today are stockholders as well as taxpayers.

#4 Its the antithesis of any kind of market economy... backwards communism.

[PLAYER57832]

Player,

http://www.reuters.com/article/2010/04/ ... 5O20100420

According to this, in 2009 the US made up 43% of the global pharmaceutical market. We make up 5% of the world's population, but we are not consuming 14 times the medicine and we are still ranked dead last even amongst our peers in health care. So what gives? In China parents feed their kids antibiotics like they're sweets, but that's not surprising since a pack cost as much as a pack of Skittles on sale at the gas station here. So they are cheaper, have greater consumption rates and they have five times the population. With five times the population, increased usage of medicine due to sheer cheapness, and a corresponding rate of disease, why is the average Chinese spending 4% of what the American is?

In the 70s, the pharmaceutical industry got together with the psychiatric industry and said, let's make some money. They there and then laid out a plan to create and service all of the most commonly known mental illnesses today. They generated a checklist that would guarantee a high chance of anyone being diagnosed with at least one mental illness. They have added some new ones along the way. For example, recently ADHD was summoned out of the darkness, the guy who created it himself acknowledging that he made it up. The medicine to treat these "illnesses" had in many cases been stocking the pharmaceutical companies shelf prior to this conference.

It's these same pharmaceutical companies that buy the president, have their people placed in the decision making chairs, and will have some small time politician who they don't have dirt on and can't bribe be shut down by opposition everywhere he turns and then defeated next election. If the person is too known to effectively shut down, then bye-bye.

When I was young, kids were active, then hyperactive, then ADD, then ADHD, and now ADD and/or possibly ADHD with a chance of posing a security risk. Good thing we got that $300b industry to deal with them. Good thing that industry has their boy in office enforcing increased profits for them. Good thing they have their boy heading the regulatory body overseeing them. Good thing their boy is sitting in the big chair approving their products after testing them to the corporation's specifications. Good thing they have only been building their Washington network since before we were born.

This is not despicable, it's capitalism right? The government is maximizing the profits of the corporations, and therefore their own and that of it's people? No, because government is not supposed to be a player. In capitalism, government provides some partial oversight and funds useful programs that might not be profitable for business but create a greater than cost benefit to citizens when they can't deal with it on their own. It then backs off. But it is not corporatism either, because labor has no say; they've created a buyer's market for labor and stripped most of the hard earned benefits. Ah, it's corporate fascism.

Why on earth would you give a group of corporate fascists your endorsement and support? I could name a long list of single real improvements that could be achieved in health care to substantiate the governments credentials to tackle it and the reason for the long list of things to tackle is because it is bad through and through.

The ACA is just more of the same but worse. Written by and for those on a health crusade (against us).

Please stop Yeah... butting everything. If the evidence is there, then there must be a reason. Get outside of this political labyrinth you've allowed them to build and look at the evidence without a Yeah... but.

Your bring in some things that are absolutely true... several of us have disucssed them before. You also extrspolate into things that are pure opinion, without distinguishing it from fact.

But, the biggest problem...what does that have to do with Obamacare?

The biggest problem with the affordable health care act is its name. The act really does little for overall healthcare costs, though if the intitial projections were correct, it would have saved money. But note, . a big part of why they are not correct is the stonewalling by those opposed, and so much misinformation put out by the opposition groups so that half the coutnry has become afraid, literally afraid of this act long before most measures were even implemented OR understood by those same people.

The act does offer a way for those without groups insurance to get group rates. It requires people to get insurance, but ALSO requires insurance companies to offer real coverage --not to just take money for what is essentially no real coverage, and not to take money while deducting every payment from lifetime limits that always seem high... up until you get really sick or have a child who is.

It ALSO sets some, (I would say not enough, but at least it is some) limits on how much profit these companies can take.

Each of those...lifetime limits, vanishing coverage, lifetime limits...along with denials of new coverage to anyone already sick, and the ability of parents to add their young adult children to their policies ... EACH of these issues was a major problem caused by the insurance industry that is now repaired.

EXCEPT... it did not do enough. As noted above, a full single payor system would almost certainly have been better for real savings, but US politics won't allow anything that can possibly be labeled "socialism" -- as if covering all citizens were somehow going to turn us communist or some such.

The electronics medical records bit was more or less recognizing,making official what was already happening.

Where Medicaid has been expanded, poor singles are now getting decent coverage. PA is not one of those states.

Anyway, for all the complaints,the REAL issue is just that it did not do enough, and people were led to think (mostly by those opposed to the bill from the getgo) that they should expect the "sun and the moon"...those same folks are naturally laughing it up because their original, very unreasonable projections, did not prove true. And, the worst part is that the proponents of the bill sat back and mostly let the opposition have their say..not matter how wrong.

THAT is the real issue.

Medicines,the pharmaceautical industry..might as well add in medical devices, technologies... Those are issues onto themselves that are absolutely driving up cost of medical care itself. Teh affordable health care act doesn't fix them. But hey... we just had a new refuse collection plan. It did not deal with school crossing gaurds, though, so I guess that means it is a failure?

[mrswdk]

#1, Because it means that the rest of us are subsidizing the wealthy, by letting our taxes pay employee benefits.

Erm, no. It means we are subsidizing the poor by letting our taxes pay their benefits.

If you so despise the people who run any given corporation then don't give it your custom. Shop at stores that pay their junior staff a higher wage. If other people continue to shop at the low-paying companies then you have to accept that what the 'market' wants is stores that pay low wages and sell cheap goods/services.

[BigBallinStalin]

If I had to guess, I reckon I am much more ashamed of Obama's foreign policy than your average Bush voter is/was ashamed of Bush's foreign policy. Indeed, FP is one of the major reasons I did not vote for Obama during his reelection campaign. You're right. No googling required. But how is this relevant, oh great balled one?

Relevance? You're asking me about relevance? There's no need to be constrained by the ideology of On Topicology.

I reject OnTopicology in all its forms, and whoever does not is a phony.

[_sabotage_]

What does it have to do with Obamacare?

Well, it shows they lack the track record or moral authority needed to impose broad, life threatening policies on their citizens. But the willingness of the American people to accept these policies in as a majority (majority in the US being about1/6 of the population) or allowing the president to breach his constitutionally imposed limits to go around that majority means that the system itself does not have the moral authority to impose life threatening policies on its citizens.

Player, "The act really does little for overall healthcare costs".

If you had changed "for" to "to lower" then this would be a true statement. As it is, it is false. It has done much, and intends to do much more for overall healthcare costs, and is to raise them.

Please do not try to lead me into your labyrinth of nonsense. On just about every issue, from healthcare, defense, enforcement, education, environment, we are No. 1 in spending. We have been No. 1 in spending for a very long time, by a very wide margin. Let's see if we can make a correlation between spending and quality.

What has happened to our comparative ranking in all these arenas? It has long and steadily fallen. Are countries piggybacking the US and then leapfrogging them? A little, but with the US now so far behind, this is limited to the military industrial complex. In all other arenas, we are a case study on how to spend a lot of money to make things worse. Most countries cannot afford waste, the US is among the few who rely on it for their economy.

When we hire these people into positions of relative prestige, benefits and decent salary, they have not lost the inherent quality of the conman, liar, hoarder and been magically granted compassion, self-sacrifice and care for the public good. They still want a higher salary than their spouse, more prestige than their brother, a better car than their neighbor and more authority than guy in cubicle A. They fight for budgets, and make sure they spend them so that they can ask for more. Spending their budgets effectively would eliminate the issue they are in charge of, The bigger the problem, the greater their authority, ability to acquire funding and incentive to keep the problem going.

Unfortunately, their superiors have the same governing forces.

We the people get to partake in these issues: suffer from them and create the demand for their servicing. If the trickle down effect isn't really well understood by you, then stand under someone pissing on you and it might clear things up a bit.

Your failure to see this attests to the effectiveness of brainwashing. That they could or would use hurricane Katrina to privatize schools and kick the poor out of the prime real estate before they could even get water to them, should ring some alarms. That they could or would use 9/11 to start a war with Iraq, Afghanistan, Libya, Syria, Sudan, should raise your eyebrows. That they could or would arrest and convict nearly a million people a year so that they could extract funding for a million more agents, should concern you. But taken into conjunction with all major policies, they should make you extremely wary. But you're their cheerleader!

They have fed off your team spirit and distracted you into cheering for every yard rushed and tackle made enough to make you forget that they lose every game by such a wide margin that winning is not even discussed. And you, so intent on cheering for the tackles, forget a need for a defensive strategy because you are so deeply engaged and focus when the coach says, "Look at how Johnny tackles, you guys need to be more like Johnny." Wow if we were only tackling more like Johnny, then there would be more to cheer about, hip hip hurrah!

[Symmetry]

What does it have to do with Obamacare?

Well, it shows they lack the track record or moral authority needed to impose broad, life threatening policies on their citizens. But the willingness of the American people to accept these policies in as a majority (majority in the US being about1/6 of the population) or allowing the president to breach his constitutionally imposed limits to go around that majority means that the system itself does not have the moral authority to impose life threatening policies on its citizens.

Player, "The act really does little for overall healthcare costs".

If you had changed "for" to "to lower" then this would be a true statement. As it is, it is false. It has done much, and intends to do much more for overall healthcare costs, and is to raise them.

Please do not try to lead me into your labyrinth of nonsense. On just about every issue, from healthcare, defense, enforcement, education, environment, we are No. 1 in spending. We have been No. 1 in spending for a very long time, by a very wide margin. Let's see if we can make a correlation between spending and quality.

What has happened to our comparative ranking in all these arenas? It has long and steadily fallen. Are countries piggybacking the US and then leapfrogging them? A little, but with the US now so far behind, this is limited to the military industrial complex. In all other arenas, we are a case study on how to spend a lot of money to make things worse. Most countries cannot afford waste, the US is among the few who rely on it for their economy.

When we hire these people into positions of relative prestige, benefits and decent salary, they have not lost the inherent quality of the conman, liar, hoarder and been magically granted compassion, self-sacrifice and care for the public good. They still want a higher salary than their spouse, more prestige than their brother, a better car than their neighbor and more authority than guy in cubicle A. They fight for budgets, and make sure they spend them so that they can ask for more. Spending their budgets effectively would eliminate the issue they are in charge of, The bigger the problem, the greater their authority, ability to acquire funding and incentive to keep the problem going.

Unfortunately, their superiors have the same governing forces.

We the people get to partake in these issues: suffer from them and create the demand for their servicing. If the trickle down effect isn't really well understood by you, then stand under someone pissing on you and it might clear things up a bit.

Your failure to see this attests to the effectiveness of brainwashing. That they could or would use hurricane Katrina to privatize schools and kick the poor out of the prime real estate before they could even get water to them, should ring some alarms. That they could or would use 9/11 to start a war with Iraq, Afghanistan, Libya, Syria, Sudan, should raise your eyebrows. That they could or would arrest and convict nearly a million people a year so that they could extract funding for a million more agents, should concern you. But taken into conjunction with all major policies, they should make you extremely wary. But you're their cheerleader!

They have fed off your team spirit and distracted you into cheering for every yard rushed and tackle made enough to make you forget that they lose every game by such a wide margin that winning is not even discussed. And you, so intent on cheering for the tackles, forget a need for a defensive strategy because you are so deeply engaged and focus when the coach says, "Look at how Johnny tackles, you guys need to be more like Johnny." Wow if we were only tackling more like Johnny, then there would be more to cheer about, hip hip hurrah!

What does your therapist say about all this?

[_sabotage_]

Can I see your insurance card again, and you wouldn't happen to have two pieces of ID on you?

After the insurance has been reconfirmed, she says, If you like your doctor, you can keep your doctor. *

[Dukasaur]

That law in Washington would have been there with or without the ACA.

That law in Washington has been on the books for years without issue. It only became a problem with the ACA's system-demolishing approach, as the article said "collision of state rules with the ACA."

NEW - Obama: "People Without Health Insurance Don't Have to Get It"

Obama now says people who had their health insurance canceled because of him can legally live without any healthcare, as though he's giving them a gift. All those millions of people want health insurance and see the logical value proposition in being insured. They didn't want Obama to cancel their health insurance policies. This is their new reality - people who have been responsibly insured for years now just have to roll the dice and pray they don't get sick.

In 2014, millions of Americans who previously had access to healthcare will now have to die on the street corner in agony, like pigs, or declare bankruptcy just to have the flu treated. Why does Obama hate working families having access to healthcare?

Probably because they vote Republican.

[jbrettlip]

went back 2 pages of this and I am so glad I left this forum "debate". Same old shit. People for it think it will end in utopia for all, people against it can do math and understand economics. You won't convince the other side, and the supporters have more time than the opponents to discuss this due to not having jobs.

[Symmetry]

went back 2 pages of this and I am so glad I left this forum "debate". Same old shit. People for it think it will end in utopia for all, people against it can do math and understand economics. You won't convince the other side, and the supporters have more time than the opponents to discuss this due to not having jobs.

Congrats on leaving. Your voice of reason will be sorely missed.

[PLAYER57832]

went back 2 pages of this and I am so glad I left this forum "debate". Same old shit. People for it think it will end in utopia for all, people against it can do math and understand economics. You won't convince the other side, and the supporters have more time than the opponents to discuss this due to not having jobs.

Well, intelligent debate does require reading skills. This post of yours makes is clear that either yours are pretty poor or don't choose to use those skills.

Bye.

[PLAYER57832]

My focus was actually on how many people against Obamacare refuse to even acknowledge that it has worked to help a lot of people with their insurance problems, even in passing, or a footnote, and will bring up taxes or insurance horror stories (like those didn't exist before ACA) or the budget to avoid doing so. It definitely comes across as uncaring, and you did it immediately after quoting me, which is great.

And it's caused insurance problems for more people than it has helped. And most of those who have been helped have only been done so because they're not paying the real price of their insurance due to the rest of us subsidizing them. THAT is why we focus on the "horror" stories.

You believe this ONLY because you choose to ignore the fact that people getting insurance through their employers have ALWAYS "subsidized others". The only real change in this regard is that now individuals are effectively grouped together just like those with employer-based insurance always have been. That, and the worst , outright abusive "policies" that allowed insurers to take money without really covering much of anything at all, are now disallowed. But again, those
policies already were disallowed for large employers. It was only individuals, who insurers could previously exclude, who had to take them.

Sadly, that has gotten twisted by folks like you who decided this bill was wrong long before it was even written.

And yes, you did...the above thread shows that well, if anyone bothers to go back that far.

See, that is the REAL problem with your criticism. You never bothered to even LOOK honestly at this bill or law. You just tried to pick out points to verify what you "already knew". Anyone like myself who tried to be objective, you just labeled an "Obama lover" or "lacking any knowledge".

Pretty funny that you, who probably has STILL not read through the bill or understood it, tries to call the rest of us ignorant.

And no, I have never said this bill was any wonderful panacea... I say it is slightly better than what we had. The reality of what we had, not your fictionaly dream.

Actually, the real problem is that welfare DOES work, but we are caught in a negative system that says employers get to take whatever profits they want, and only pay people what's left...even if its too little to live upon.

Because businesses HAVE to make a profit to stay in business. Businesses are NOT charities, so if they're not allowed to make money by being open, then they'll just close.

Correct, businesses are not charities. They are built to benefit the owners /stockholders. Therefore demanding that taxpayers subsidize them by allowing them to pay workers less than it takes those workers to live is plain wrong.

If you cannot structure your business to make a profit, then you lose your gamble. You close. You don't get to-- make that OUGHT NOT to be able to-- make taxpayers help you out. AND....other, more talented, more honest business owners (those not happy about depending on government subsidies to support THEIR workers), will survive.

That's the market, that is competition. For all your claim about wanting "freedom from government control" you are quite happy that our tax dollars are artificially supporting private business. You just complain when the government is doing what it is supposed to do... take care of public concerns.

Government puts thousands of regulations on every business, so if they keep making new regulations that make it harder to make money, businesses will either cut expenses (like jobs) or just close altogether.

Ah, there we go that nasty "government regulations" ---"MUST be bad" (derp) argument.

I don't seem to see you railing agains the anti compete clauses that often come when PRIVATE business is brought in to take over public responsibilities. And, you seemed perfectly happy with antitrust rules, etc... etc.

No, its not regulations you hate, its that you don't think businesses really should be held accountable.

And no, profits still come AFTER all expenses in a business, including paying employees. Furthermore, that "profit" word that you hate on in many cases is the actual income of the person who owns the business. But they're still too evil for trying to make a profit (income) off their business in your world.

[/quote]

LOL.. I want businesses to be responsible, pay their bills and that means I "hate profit". I hate personal profit that comes out of MY TAXES, yes. .. nice try at pretending you are about fiscal responsibility!

People OFTEN try to blame others for their problems. Here is a secret -- go to any large business and you will find a few managers who "cannot find good help", who are facing "too many problems"...etc,etc. And... go down the hall, (or maybe you have to go to the next similar company... depending) to another hall, another company and guess what? They will tell you how "wonderful" their employees are, how "things are tough, but....".

Got it?

Pick any regulation, and you can find hundreds, maybe thousands, who will swear that "that regulation" did them in/ is doing them in. However, you find others who either acknowledge that even if the regulation is a pain, it was necessary...and some who may actually say that the rules have allowed them to compete more fairly. See, for every managers saying its perfectly fine that his fulltime workers have to go to food pantries to feed their families, you have several others who are saying they WISH they could pay more, except that "joe smoe" over there puts prices so low they cannot.

I realize that some economists talk up a storm about how harmful minimum raises are for the overall economy.....but plenty of others say just the opposite. AND, those others have historical evidence to back them. Ther prosperity of America came precisely because of mandated minimum wages, subsidized education benefits, etc.,etc. It came because the previous generation saw the benefit of INVESTING in roads, utilities, education and even parks.

Today's talk of "cutting costs" "at any cost" is doing just that. It's cutting a few costs today only to send a huge bill to be paid later.

REAL fiscal responsibility is NOT JUST about cutting costs. Its about LONG term responsibility and value.

This really belongs in another thread, not the Obamacare thread (maybe I will move it).

Healthcare is a unique situation. Costs can and should be saved, but you cannot just treat it like a T-shirt shop. The stakes are too high. If someone buys a T-shirt that falls apart, bleeds color or shrinks-- not great. If a company sells vaccines that are improperly mixed or not strong enough, etc..... people can DIE. I don't care what "analysis" you want to use to justify your reasoning on this... the fact is that medical care doesn't operate the same as other markets.

That doesn't mean we ignore markets altogether. The REAL irony here is that, for all your objections about the health exchanges and such, they truly ARE putting insurance on a uniform market setting. You keep pointing to strawman arguments about how there is "no choice". Well, WAKE UP! ONLY EMPLOYERS had any real choice before.. Employers and some employees of VERY large companies that offered options insurance. Even they often offered only a few options, not the myriad available on the exchanges.

The rest of your arguments about "paying for other's care"is equally nonsense. That is no different than insurance has ALWAYS worked. The only exception was that incurance companies were previously allowed to offer a few policies, mostly pretty dismal ones to individuals. A VERY FEW of these policies were decent. Most of them were far from cheap. Are there absolutely NO people who had an OK policy and who now is going to pay more? NO. That the supporters of the bill allowed so many pundits to repeat the "100%" lie is part of how THEY failed and let the deniers write the rhetoric unchallenged. A few people, very healthy people in smaller businesses, some owners of those businesses and some employees with incomes above certain threshholds are paying more right now, out of pocket. Whether they will continue to pay more than they would have in independent policies is a loaded question and, to a large extent a plain false one.

See. its not just that we have the exchanges. The BIGGEST change was that insurers can no longer deny people with pre-existing conditions. Remember how I said "very healthy people" could sometimes have gotten lower cost policies? Guess how long that "very healthy" status lasts? You, the naysayers seem to think they would stay that way. The biggest travesty of the prior system was that no matter WHAT policy you had, basically no matter how much you were paying.... there was no real gaurantee that you woujld get to keep that policy. If you were lucky enough to be part of a large employer group policy, then you had some protection. As long as you stayed employed, you could keep your insurance.... BUT, only until "lifetime limits" were reached. Many families found how quickly insurance dropped a child born with big health issues. Of course, Medicaid then stepped in ... as long asthe family did not makemore than $250,000, at any rate. If you made more than that,then the entire medical bill for your sick/disabled child was yours. Yours and, maybe, if you were "lucky", some private charitable help. BUT.... let's not forget that much of that "charitable help" was supported by padding other bills (in the case of most average hospitals), government taxpayer help (which came in various ways too numerous to outlay here), along with what you have referred to as "voluntary private charity". Private charity works OK for places like shriners and St Jude's, but.. notice that they are no where near large enough to care for all the needs out there. AND, the truth is that for all the very, very VERY wonderful work those organizations do, they also have to spend a lot of time, money and effort in fund raising.

Independent, voluntary charity makes people feel better and absolutely is important, but its far from the most efficient way to pay for things.

Are insurance companies going to raise costs? Well, let's see... in my over 30 years of paying for my own insurance, I have yet to see even ONE year where my costs decreased without also coming with a significant increase in copayments and often also a loss of benefits. And, no, I am most definitely not some isolated case. You MIGHT find an occasional exception, but that is what they are... exceptions.

Complicating this is that medial care available has changed a LOT. Mammograms have been pretty standard for at least 30 years, though not that long before. MRI's, I believe came a bit later (though not much). Get into things like chemotherapy, respiratory care, heart surgical supplies and the changes would almsot seem like science fiction if we were not around to see it happen.

AND, of course, as more medical care is available, people want more care. If its your father, your child who needs that fancy new heart valve to survive... you really don't care how much it costs! I could be cynical and say that folks only care when its other people's family, but its far from that simple. I know you don't feel that way. Yet... well, that IS what you have said, over and over -- that you don't want to "subsidize other people's care" You qualify that, when challenged, by saying either that you want to be able to choose (charity) or that sure, you think Medicaid (or something similar) should cover truly indigent, kids.

Except, you also express utter naivite over how uninsured medical care is currently dealth with.
The fact is that we, right now, pay for that care. I don't just mean through Medicaid taxes, either. We pay for each unpaid charge, fraudulant charge, through higher overall bills.

We DO need to work on healthcare costs, but that requires things like setting limits. Ironically, insurance companies already do that right now....but you railed when some of us said we needed a uniform, educated system instead of the "catch as catch can" hit and miss system of payment approvals set forward by insurance companies...and make no mistake, it IS the insurnace companies that set the prices of medical care largely today, not any real market.

That is another point in favor of Obamacare, though again, don't try to twist bare, lukewarm "a bit better than what we have" into "unwavering support". The reform act does set limits on the profits insurance companies can take. They are high limits, but at least they exist. Before, it was nothing.

anyway,this post is alerady huge.

[mrswdk]

One of my high school teachers used to set us papers that had a 'one page' word limit, to help us practice being concise instead of just rambling on and on.

[Symmetry]

One of my high school teachers used to set us papers that had a 'one page' word limit, to help us practice being concise instead of just rambling on and on.

Trust me, that was just an excuse for the teacher to have to spend less time marking your essays.

[Phatscotty]

went back 2 pages of this and I am so glad I left this forum "debate". Same old shit. People for it think it will end in utopia for all, people against it can do math and understand economics. You won't convince the other side, and the supporters have more time than the opponents to discuss this due to not having jobs.

Iv'e acknowledged this before. We can't convince the other side, but we can confirm results as they come in and bash them with told ya sos!

[PLAYER57832]

went back 2 pages of this and I am so glad I left this forum "debate". Same old shit. People for it think it will end in utopia for all, people against it can do math and understand economics. You won't convince the other side, and the supporters have more time than the opponents to discuss this due to not having jobs.

Iv'e acknowledged this before. We can't convince the other side, but we can confirm results as they come in and bash them with told ya sos!

Yeah, pretty easy when you take the "attack anything that sounds possibly reasonable and then highlight anything that comes even close to being true" tactic.


See, here is the thing. Its not that the Affordable Care Act was the "end all" to reforms. it was a START, a BARE start, but instead of working further to improve it, the right s taken the "hold no bars on attacking... true or false, as long as its negative, its OK"

That's not about solving anything, its not about improving the world, the US or medical care/insurance coverage. its purely about the right getting ITS way... regardless of any other ideas.

[_sabotage_]

Player,

This isn't reform, it's robbery. Chris Hedges, 2009.

You spend a long time on your posts, perhaps you can spend a few minutes reading an essay.

But in case you dont , there is a quote from Dr Himmelstein, professor at Harvard and founder of Physicians for a National Health Plan:

"It will basically be a government law that says you have to buy their defective product. Health insurance is not a race to the top, it's a race to the bottom. The way you make money is by abusing people."

The outcome of the ACA has long been understood, that it was drafted by the insurers themselves is well known and that it is nothing more than a way to increase how much we the people spend on healthcare is undeniable.

So please, say something apropos and stop being an apologist for big government working hand in hand with big business against the people.

[jj3044]

Player,

This isn't reform, it's robbery. Chris Hedges, 2009.

You spend a long time on your posts, perhaps you can spend a few minutes reading an essay.

But in case you dont , there is a quote from Dr Himmelstein, professor at Harvard and founder of Physicians for a National Health Plan:

"It will basically be a government law that says you have to buy their defective product. Health insurance is not a race to the top, it's a race to the bottom. The way you make money is by abusing people."

The outcome of the ACA has long been understood, that it was drafted by the insurers themselves is well known and that it is nothing more than a way to increase how much we the people spend on healthcare is undeniable.

So please, say something apropos and stop being an apologist for big government working hand in hand with big business against the people.

I'm sure lobbyists had something to do with the law, but that doesn't mean there aren't some good provisions in it, and doesn't mean that those lobbyists got everything they wanted. There are plenty of healthcare CEO's on record saying that the law didn't go far enough with the penalty/mandate. Also, if the lobbyists got EVERYTHING they wanted, I'm sure there wouldn't be the provision in it saying that insurers have to spend 85% of income on paying healthcare expenses.

Point is, every bill has a ton of lobbyists vying for provisions, so I don't think your criticism here means anything.

As Player, myself, and a few others have said time and time again, the law isn't perfect, and healthcare still needs more reform. However it does several things that should move the needle in the positive direction like:
-Eliminates denials for preexisting conditions
-Limits insurers overhead/profit
-Creates more performance-based contracting, instead of the fee-for-service contracting
-Wellness incentives and provisions encouraging preventive care, identifying conditions & treating earlier, saving long term costs and improving outcomes

Now, I chose a few of the provisions that I think we should all be able to agree are good, and are an improvement over the system we all knew pre-ACA. Right? Ok, let's move on.

There are also provisions that either don't make much sense, or probably will negate the cost-saving measures and improved outcomes from the measures listed above. So, although there are good provisions, there are additional reforms that need to be made. One of the very valid criticisms is how quickly it was rushed through congress, with a lot of the provisions not completely thought through.

If we can all take the positive provisions and together work on improving the ACA, we will ALL be better for it, regardless of if you are against the law or for it. It doesn't do any good, at this point, to say "na na, the law sucks", or "they should have done x", because the law is here, and it isn't being repealed. Let's ll be good citizens and make change, not waves. Too many politicians & citizens can't look beyond their own party affiliation and actually think for themselves... which is why I'm an independent. Both sides can be utterly ridiculous and honestly, make us look bad to the rest of the world.

Rant over.

[patches70]

Obama takes the case for the ACA to the people he needs most to sign up. Hilarity ensues.

[jj3044]

Obama takes the case for the ACA to the people he needs most to sign up. Hilarity ensues.

lol, thanks for posting, that was pretty entertaining. Kudos to the person that created a soundboard using snippets from speeches, that must have taken a while!

[PLAYER57832]

Player,

This isn't reform, it's robbery. Chris Hedges, 2009.

You spend a long time on your posts, perhaps you can spend a few minutes reading an essay.

But in case you dont , there is a quote from Dr Himmelstein, professor at Harvard and founder of Physicians for a National Health Plan:

"It will basically be a government law that says you have to buy their defective product. Health insurance is not a race to the top, it's a race to the bottom. The way you make money is by abusing people."

The outcome of the ACA has long been understood, that it was drafted by the insurers themselves is well known and that it is nothing more than a way to increase how much we the people spend on healthcare is undeniable.

So please, say something apropos and stop being an apologist for big government working hand in hand with big business against the people.

Yeah, about like the climate science thread... you think anyone who doesn't agree with you is just a government shill.

PART of what you are saying is true, but the way you lay it out is not. Insurance is a product, a product sold by companies that want, above all, to make money. Like any product, they can earn money by reducing costs, which in this case generally means limiting payouts, limiting benefits; or,they can increase income-- increase premiums. As you noted, this can lead to a race to the bottom. So far, not much different than any product. EXCEPT, the reason insurance companies have largely been able to get away with just the cost-cutting side, and not the "offer a better product" side of competition is that employers and not individuals have been the customer. Employers have far different incentives/goals than the user of the insurance, even though the decision makers in any company are likely to also be using the insurance themselves. A manager (or owner) might wish for better insurance, may personally be willing to pay more for better insurance, but may not be able to authorize that through the company. That is not changing immediately, though I predict soon all insurance will be individual instead of employer based, and that that is a GOOD thing.

The two parts that will hold insurance costs down a bit right now are the limit to profit (too high, but still there) and the general trend to reduce costs of medical care. NOTE, though,reducing costs of medical care itself and reducing costs of insurance are not the same thing.

The BEST way to reduce costs of insurance coverae is to have a single payor non-profit or government system, with private insurance for extras. However, that was shot down almost immediately,particularly by the tea party "against the government at all costs" types... folks with whom you seem to have a lot in common.

To reduce medical costs is another issue and a very complicated one. I have mentioned some of what is necessary above, and in a few other threads. I am not going to go over that again in this thread.

Whether insurance itself is, as you claim utterly abusive depends on if you are able to gaurantee everyone full health throughout their lives. if you can, then insurance is a poor bargain, indeed. Since most of us know full well that is not likely to happen, most of us understand that insurance is necessary. I don't like buying fire insurance for my house, either...but I don't consider myself cheated if it fails to burn. I consider myself fortunate, and rest a LOT easier knowing that my family will have a place to live if the worst does happen to our house.