# Thank you for the 47 percent increase in my health care rate



## TheGreatGatsby (Mar 5, 2013)

My most recent monthly health insurance bill went up 47 percent. Thanks again, Obama and all you liberal a-holes who support the madness.


----------



## AceRothstein (Mar 5, 2013)

TheGreatGatsby said:


> My most recent monthly health insurance bill went up 47 percent. Thanks again, Obama and all you liberal a-holes who support the madness.



My employer sponsored health insurance plan hasn't gone up in 2 years.  THANKS OBAMA!


----------



## Claudette (Mar 5, 2013)

Get back to us in 2014 when the whole thing kicks in there sparky. 

Let us know if your rates go up because they sure as hell won't be going down.


----------



## rdean (Mar 5, 2013)

Under Bush, health care rates were skyrocketing.  The number one cause of bankruptcy are medical bills.  Republicans call that a "great system".  Course, many Republicans rely on "emergency rooms" because they don't have health care.


----------



## Black_Label (Mar 5, 2013)

TheGreatGatsby said:


> My most recent monthly health insurance bill went up 47 percent. Thanks again, Obama and all you liberal a-holes who support the madness.



The ACA doesn't kick in until next year dumbass, your insurance company is screwing you over.


----------



## Mr. Shaman (Mar 5, 2013)

TheGreatGatsby said:


> *Thank you for the 47 percent increase in my health care rate*
> 
> My most recent monthly health insurance bill went up 47 percent. Thanks again, Obama and all you liberal a-holes who support the madness.



C'mon...c'mon...they're not shy. Go-ahead and thank those folks most-responsible for....



> ....*your increa$e$**!!*


----------



## Seawytch (Mar 5, 2013)

Black_Label said:


> TheGreatGatsby said:
> 
> 
> > My most recent monthly health insurance bill went up 47 percent. Thanks again, Obama and all you liberal a-holes who support the madness.
> ...



{GASP} What?!? Blame the insurance companies for what they are doing? Nope, can't do that. Much easier to blame the President.


----------



## DiamondDave (Mar 5, 2013)

But when it happened during Bush II's time, it was blamed on him.. now it is not being blamed on Obamalama??

Mine has raised too.. but not 47%.. the insurance companies are preparing to get hit with their raised fees and taxes that come with Obamacare


----------



## boedicca (Mar 5, 2013)

The increase is not a bug, it's a feature of Obamacare.  The Obama Administration's goal is to destroy private health insurance so that they can push nationalized health care as the only plausible solution.   It's not; but the government sponsored media will push the approved narrative on the gullible low information voters who still get their "news" from them.


----------



## Mr. Shaman (Mar 5, 2013)

Black_Label said:


> TheGreatGatsby said:
> 
> 
> > My most recent monthly health insurance bill went up 47 percent. Thanks again, Obama and all you liberal a-holes who support the madness.
> ...



....More-commonly-referred-to as....



> ....*bu$ine$$-a$-u$ual**!!*
> 
> *BILL MOYERS:* *You told Congress that the industry has hijacked our health care system and turned it into a giant ATM for Wall Street.* You said, "I saw how they confuse their customers and dump the sick, all so they can satisfy their Wall Street investors." How do they satisfy their Wall Street investors?
> 
> ...



[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7QwX_soZ1GI]BILL MOYERS JOURNAL | Wendell Potter | PBS - YouTube[/ame]​


----------



## TheGreatGatsby (Mar 5, 2013)

AceRothstein said:


> TheGreatGatsby said:
> 
> 
> > My most recent monthly health insurance bill went up 47 percent. Thanks again, Obama and all you liberal a-holes who support the madness.
> ...



Transparent lie. THANKS TROLL!


----------



## rightwinger (Mar 5, 2013)

TheGreatGatsby said:


> My most recent monthly health insurance bill went up 47 percent. Thanks again, Obama and all you liberal a-holes who support the madness.



Looking for a handout moocher?


----------



## TheGreatGatsby (Mar 5, 2013)

rdean said:


> Under Bush, health care rates were skyrocketing.  The number one cause of bankruptcy are medical bills.  Republicans call that a "great system".  Course, many Republicans rely on "emergency rooms" because they don't have health care.



Can you point to a 47 percent health increase? BTW, this isn't made up-shit. I filed a complaint with the DOI. They called back ans stated that they won't rescind the rate increase and they're holding a press conference about it in LA on Thursday.


----------



## TheGreatGatsby (Mar 5, 2013)

rightwinger said:


> TheGreatGatsby said:
> 
> 
> > My most recent monthly health insurance bill went up 47 percent. Thanks again, Obama and all you liberal a-holes who support the madness.
> ...



Shut the fuck up dick face.


----------



## Claudette (Mar 5, 2013)

Don't worry. Under the ACA we taxpayers will be pay.... OOPs   subsidizing all those who can't pay for their own care. Hope everyone has deep pockets cause we are gonna need em. 

Twenty one tax increases in the ACA. Doubt its gonna be affordable for all.


----------



## rightwinger (Mar 5, 2013)

TheGreatGatsby said:


> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> > TheGreatGatsby said:
> ...



What ever happened to personal responsiblity?  You don't like your rate ....go find a better one

You can always fall back on the GOP plan..........Let em die


----------



## TheGreatGatsby (Mar 5, 2013)

rightwinger said:


> TheGreatGatsby said:
> 
> 
> > rightwinger said:
> ...



Who said I'm not going to switch plans? What happened to your state controlled fairness, though? In CA, the DOI has the authority to regulate/rescind rates. If you think 47 perecent increases are fair and reasonable then you have no clue about life in general.


----------



## Soggy in NOLA (Mar 5, 2013)

rightwinger said:


> TheGreatGatsby said:
> 
> 
> > rightwinger said:
> ...



Or the Obama plan as he spelled it out...._ just go take a pain pill._


----------



## boedicca (Mar 5, 2013)

Not even a pain pill...just ASPIRIN.


----------



## Soggy in NOLA (Mar 5, 2013)

TheGreatGatsby said:


> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> > TheGreatGatsby said:
> ...



He's probably on Medicaid, so wtf?  Everything's free!


----------



## auditor0007 (Mar 5, 2013)

Black_Label said:


> TheGreatGatsby said:
> 
> 
> > My most recent monthly health insurance bill went up 47 percent. Thanks again, Obama and all you liberal a-holes who support the madness.
> ...



Our rates have only increased 4% each of the last two years.  It will be interesting to see what happens over the next couple of years.


----------



## rightwinger (Mar 5, 2013)

TheGreatGatsby said:


> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> > TheGreatGatsby said:
> ...



What? Do you envy those who have better insurance than you?

Don't like it, better push for universal health care


----------



## talksalot (Mar 5, 2013)

My premiums went up too; not as high as yours but my coverage has decreased.

A prescription that was covered by insurance is costing me $267.00.  I have to pay for my med. so co-eds can get $30.00 birth control pills at no cost and 26-year-old "children" can remain on their parent's insurance plan.

I'm somewhat sympathetic to the 20 somethings since the Obama economy is keeping them from finding good jobs.


----------



## DiamondDave (Mar 5, 2013)

rightwinger said:


> TheGreatGatsby said:
> 
> 
> > rightwinger said:
> ...



1) He does have the freedom to  shop around if the employer plan is costing that much more
2) That is not the 'GOP Plan'...
3) You are indeed a troll with your typical bullshit

So, shut the fuck up dick face troll... Is that better??


----------



## DiamondDave (Mar 5, 2013)

auditor0007 said:


> Black_Label said:
> 
> 
> > TheGreatGatsby said:
> ...




My personal plan went up 10% this year.. My ex-wife (who is a teacher and who has my kids on her insurance because that is more stable employment than the IT companies) had hers increase close to 20% and now I am paying more in my contribution to her for the insurance for my kids...

Rates are increasing all over


----------



## TheGreatGatsby (Mar 5, 2013)

Soggy in NOLA said:


> TheGreatGatsby said:
> 
> 
> > rightwinger said:
> ...



That's what I was thinking. I'm pretty sure he just doesn't give a fuck about people either way. He's just making his troll rounds.


----------



## TheGreatGatsby (Mar 5, 2013)

DiamondDave said:


> auditor0007 said:
> 
> 
> > Black_Label said:
> ...



The plan is to create one set of plans for the have's and one set for the have-nots. If you want even decent coverage, you'll have some astronomical plan. If you want to overpay for the bare minimum, you'll be a have not on government plans. Sotra ironic, that all these dumb fucks who want social justice, are only cogs in the corporate apparatus.


----------



## Mr. Shaman (Mar 5, 2013)

DiamondDave said:


> But when it happened during Bush II's time, it was blamed on him.. now it is not being blamed on Obamalama??
> 
> Mine has raised too.. but not 47%.. *the insurance companies are preparing to get hit with their raised fees and taxes that come with Obamacare*


Gee.....how do think they knew that.....*clear-back in 2000??*


----------



## boedicca (Mar 5, 2013)

rightwinger said:


> TheGreatGatsby said:
> 
> 
> > rightwinger said:
> ...




Right on cue.

What a tool.


----------



## TheGreatGatsby (Mar 5, 2013)

boedicca said:


> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> > TheGreatGatsby said:
> ...



You guys are so full of shit. Can you please tell me what about Obama's health care law guarantees equal coverage? We all pay different prices for different coverage. That has nothing to do with envying shit. That's fucking reality, nit wits.

Now let me dumb it down for you fucking nimrods. What the fuck happened in the last month that would justify a 47 percent increase? That's right. Eat my ass bitches.


----------



## yidnar (Mar 5, 2013)

TheGreatGatsby said:


> My most recent monthly health insurance bill went up 47 percent. Thanks again, Obama and all you liberal a-holes who support the madness.


 Your'e welcome.


----------



## Harry Dresden (Mar 5, 2013)

rightwinger said:


> TheGreatGatsby said:
> 
> 
> > rightwinger said:
> ...



you think that will be any cheaper?......wont have selective things that will be covered and wont be covered?....


----------



## rightwinger (Mar 5, 2013)

What is it with conservatives and 47% ?

karma?


----------



## rightwinger (Mar 5, 2013)

Harry Dresden said:


> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> > TheGreatGatsby said:
> ...



Cheaper in Canada
Cheaper in the UK

They can do it and we can't?


----------



## bigrebnc1775 (Mar 5, 2013)

TheGreatGatsby said:


> My most recent monthly health insurance bill went up 47 percent. Thanks again, Obama and all you liberal a-holes who support the madness.



You are correct
Health Insurers Raise Some Rates by Double Digits
http://www.nytimes.com/2013/01/06/b...arp-rise-in-premiums.html?pagewanted=all&_r=0


----------



## Trajan (Mar 5, 2013)

boedicca said:


> The increase is not a bug, it's a feature of Obamacare.  The Obama Administration's goal is to destroy private health insurance so that they can push nationalized health care as the only plausible solution.   It's not; but the government sponsored media will push the approved narrative on the gullible low information voters who still get their "news" from them.



yup and I have to give it up in this case to obama too, he went back on every deal he made with Big Pharma et al, they wound up supporting obamcare then got screwed..... 

The old saying is; if you're not at the table you're on the menu, well, the idiots didn't listen to their own better senses, they trusted obama  and sat at the table. Then after they paid fore the meal, they were brought to the kitchen and put on the menu anyway.....sux for us all.


----------



## Trajan (Mar 5, 2013)

rightwinger said:


> Harry Dresden said:
> 
> 
> > rightwinger said:
> ...



oh yea, its "cheaper" in the UK  

I am sure that is a comfort to those poor bastards that have to drink water from a flower vase becasue theres no nurse to bring them any....


----------



## bigrebnc1775 (Mar 5, 2013)

Why are those people who support obamacare saying there health coverage hasn't went up?


----------



## Obamanation (Mar 5, 2013)

Yup, my employer sponsored Blue Cross/Blue Shield went up over 30% (my cost) and my benefits decreased. Last year it went up 20% and benefits decreased. Employers keep shopping trying to keep costs down, but the only way there is to keep costs down is reducing coverages.

If you aren't paying more in premiums, I'll bet dollars to donuts that your coverages have been reduced. That is why it's so phony when people on the left keep telling us that premiums haven't gone up very much since the ACA passed. --- *since the coverage gets worse every year*. Can't compare apples to oranges and make a rational conclusion to cost variances.


----------



## Trajan (Mar 5, 2013)

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2jqQsDklQEM]Animal House - Remain Calm, All Is Well - YouTube[/ame]


don't worry folks,  its all part of the plan.Remain calm.....

remember- no matter how we reform health care, we will keep this promise: If you like your doctor, you will be able to keep your doctor. Period. If you like your health care plan, you will be able to keep your health care plan. Period. "....





annnnd, obamacare is- 'budget neutral'


----------



## TheGreatGatsby (Mar 5, 2013)

rightwinger said:


> What is it with conservatives and 47% ?
> 
> karma?



A curse.


----------



## rightwinger (Mar 5, 2013)

Trajan said:


> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> > Harry Dresden said:
> ...



Drink water from a flower vase?

And yet the spend less of their GDP on healthcare and receive better coverage

How many people in the UK go bankrupt because they got sick?


----------



## Sallow (Mar 5, 2013)

TheGreatGatsby said:


> My most recent monthly health insurance bill went up 47 percent. Thanks again, Obama and all you liberal a-holes who support the madness.



Prove it.


----------



## Sallow (Mar 5, 2013)

Obamanation said:


> Yup, my employer sponsored Blue Cross/Blue Shield went up over 30% (my cost) and my benefits decreased. Last year it went up 20% and benefits decreased. Employers keep shopping trying to keep costs down, but the only way there is to keep costs down is reducing coverages.
> 
> If you aren't paying more in premiums, I'll bet dollars to donuts that your coverages have been reduced. That is why it's so phony when people on the left keep telling us that premiums haven't gone up very much since the ACA passed. --- *since the coverage gets worse every year*. Can't compare apples to oranges and make a rational conclusion to cost variances.



Prove it.


----------



## LeftofLeft (Mar 5, 2013)

rightwinger said:


> TheGreatGatsby said:
> 
> 
> > My most recent monthly health insurance bill went up 47 percent. Thanks again, Obama and all you liberal a-holes who support the madness.
> ...



I'm looking for free market health care that enables any licensed provider to compete for consumers regardless of what state or region they are located or licensed to do business. If they are in the 57 states, they can sell to anyone in those 57 states. Futher, I am looking for a pre-tax health savings account that will futher facilitate affordable healthcare. For those who don't have healthcare, Medicare can be there for them.


----------



## bigrebnc1775 (Mar 5, 2013)

Sallow said:


> Obamanation said:
> 
> 
> > Yup, my employer sponsored Blue Cross/Blue Shield went up over 30% (my cost) and my benefits decreased. Last year it went up 20% and benefits decreased. Employers keep shopping trying to keep costs down, but the only way there is to keep costs down is reducing coverages.
> ...



Blue Shield of California seeks rate hikes up to 20% - Los Angeles Times


----------



## francoHFW (Mar 5, 2013)

Health costs doubled under Bush's 8 years- that's 12.5%/yr on average.

O-care hasn't started yet. Masscare proves it'll work and all the Pubcrappe is fear mongering BS.

The insurers are up to their usual tricks until next year, dupes.


----------



## bigrebnc1775 (Mar 5, 2013)

francoHFW said:


> Health costs doubled under Bush's 8 years- that's 12.5%/yr on average.
> 
> O-care hasn't started yet. Masscare proves it'll work and all the Pubcrappe is fear mongering BS.
> 
> The insurers are up to their usual tricks until next year, dupes.



Why is it only supporters of obamacare are the only ones that say healthcare coverage hasn't gone up. Even the news media says it has went up.


----------



## francoHFW (Mar 5, 2013)

can you read?


----------



## bigrebnc1775 (Mar 5, 2013)

francoHFW said:


> can you read?



can you?


----------



## Old Rocks (Mar 5, 2013)

AceRothstein said:


> TheGreatGatsby said:
> 
> 
> > My most recent monthly health insurance bill went up 47 percent. Thanks again, Obama and all you liberal a-holes who support the madness.
> ...



Ditto


----------



## mudwhistle (Mar 5, 2013)

Claudette said:


> Get back to us in 2014 when the whole thing kicks in there sparky.
> 
> Let us know if your rates go up because they sure as hell won't be going down.



Mine went up......and now they're furlowing me.


----------



## Lovebears65 (Mar 5, 2013)

Hey dont feel bad.. Obama wants to raise Tricare by 300 percent .


----------



## ScienceRocks (Mar 5, 2013)

Well, I'm getting pretty used to being lied to by this creep.

Why oh why did you reelect this?


----------



## ScienceRocks (Mar 5, 2013)

Lovebears65 said:


> Hey dont feel bad.. Obama wants to raise Tricare by 300 percent .



Hell, the creep put a tax on all new equirment. Obama wanted to destroy our health care system...

How Mugebe like.


----------



## Harry Dresden (Mar 5, 2013)

rightwinger said:


> Harry Dresden said:
> 
> 
> > rightwinger said:
> ...



i dont give a shit about them.....will it be cheaper HERE?....and will some poor basterd who just happens to contract one of them "expensive" diseases....be covered....or will he be told tough shit like he gets told now?.....


----------



## Harry Dresden (Mar 5, 2013)

Obamanation said:


> Yup, my employer sponsored Blue Cross/Blue Shield went up over 30% (my cost) and my benefits decreased. Last year it went up 20% and benefits decreased. Employers keep shopping trying to keep costs down, but the only way there is to keep costs down is reducing coverages.
> 
> If you aren't paying more in premiums, I'll bet dollars to donuts that your coverages have been reduced. That is why it's so phony when people on the left keep telling us that premiums haven't gone up very much since the ACA passed. --- *since the coverage gets worse every year*. Can't compare apples to oranges and make a rational conclusion to cost variances.



yea i have blue cross.....a Colonoscopy co-pay used to be 50.00.....now its 250.00.....office co-pay has doubled.....


----------



## Harry Dresden (Mar 5, 2013)

bigrebnc1775 said:


> Sallow said:
> 
> 
> > Obamanation said:
> ...



thats not for group policies from what i understand....


----------



## Harry Dresden (Mar 5, 2013)

francoHFW said:


> Health costs doubled under Bush's 8 years- that's 12.5%/yr on average.
> 
> O-care hasn't started yet. Masscare proves it'll work and all the Pubcrappe is fear mongering BS.
> 
> The insurers are up to their usual tricks until next year, dupes.



so i suppose when it kicks in the hikes will go down?.....is that what your saying?.....


----------



## bigrebnc1775 (Mar 6, 2013)

Harry Dresden said:


> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> > Sallow said:
> ...




Q: Are my premiums going to go up?
A: Based on a research study commissioned by the Blue Cross Blue Shield Association, we believe that premiums will increase as a result of provisions in the reform legislation that will guarantee richer levels of benefits than most consumers who obtain their own insurance purchase today. Insufficient discounts for the young and healthy could encourage many of them to forgo coverage. New fees and taxes mandated by the new law will also likely increase the cost of premiums as they are phased in.
There are a number of factors that are driving health insurance premiums, including rising health care costs. Increasing utilization attributable to an aging population, obesity and chronic illnesses; new treatments; prescription drugs and expensive new technologies are the biggest causes of increasing health care premiums. The new law establishes a few pilot programs, but does not aggressively attempt to control rising health care costs.
BCBSAZ will continue to work with doctors, hospitals, employers and consumers to contain costs and insurance premiums while improving access to quality health care. To help accomplish this, BCBSAZ has initiatives in place to reduce unnecessary hospital readmissions, eliminate infections acquired during hospital visits and promote paying doctors and hospitals for quality outcomes to help achieve this goal.
How much premiums increase will depend on the further interpretations by the HHS and the extent to which those who are currently uninsured opt to get insurance coverage.
Blue Cross Blue Shield

22 percent rate increase by Regence BlueCross BlueShield of Oregon brings out strong protest | OregonLive.com


----------



## Obamanation (Mar 6, 2013)

Sallow said:


> Obamanation said:
> 
> 
> > Yup, my employer sponsored Blue Cross/Blue Shield went up over 30% (my cost) and my benefits decreased. Last year it went up 20% and benefits decreased. Employers keep shopping trying to keep costs down, but the only way there is to keep costs down is reducing coverages.
> ...



Don't have to prove it. You know you are facing the same things EVERY American is facing. Just be honest. Either you don't pay for insurance so you don't know - or you have seen the same premium increases/benefit cuts as the rest of us...

So BE HONEST!

...But others have shown you similar data....

Obamacare will effectively force the country to 100% socialized medicine. Of course that's been the plan all along. Gov't takeover of healthcare.


----------



## bigrebnc1775 (Mar 6, 2013)

Old Rocks said:


> AceRothstein said:
> 
> 
> > TheGreatGatsby said:
> ...


Why is it the only people that say the cost of their health care hasn't went up are those who have shown support for obamacare?
Even the media has said rates have went up.


----------



## Obamanation (Mar 6, 2013)

bigrebnc1775 said:


> Old Rocks said:
> 
> 
> > AceRothstein said:
> ...



EASY!  They are lying to protect their savior.

If their rates haven;t gone up, their coverage has been significantly cut. Like I said earlier. They may be trying to compare apples and oranges. Their rates may have only gone up a few percent if their coverage has decreased. 

Bottom line is that we are now paying more for less - and in 10 years the most basic coverage will cost more than median incomes....


----------



## bigrebnc1775 (Mar 6, 2013)

Obamanation said:


> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> > Old Rocks said:
> ...





> EASY!  They are lying to protect their savior.



That's a stupid reason, if I have more money coming out of my pocket, I'm not going too defend the person or reason because of that.


----------



## Obamanation (Mar 6, 2013)

bigrebnc1775 said:


> Obamanation said:
> 
> 
> > bigrebnc1775 said:
> ...



Yes, but logic and reason defy the liberal mind!


----------



## Claudette (Mar 6, 2013)

Get read folks. When this POS kicks in all of us who pay our part for beni's or buy our own are gonna be paying up the ass. 

Since that SOB got re-elected we can do nothing but suck it up and pay. Anyone who voted for this SOB is going to be paying right alongside you. Too bad those that voted for him can't be the only ones supporting this POS bill that none of the Dem idiots bothered to read. 

Twenty one tax increases. We are once again screwed by the Democratic Party of America. Assholes one and all.


----------



## Sallow (Mar 6, 2013)

Obamanation said:


> Sallow said:
> 
> 
> > Obamanation said:
> ...



My premium increases began under Bush. My company bounced around HMOs too. We went from Oxford to United Health to Blue Shield...then I got the boot.

The company I work for now has Aetna.

Part of the reason that Conservative plan for the Health Care was used INSTEAD of socializing medicine was BECAUSE of Conservative opposition to single payer.

It's like you guys have really short memories.


----------



## Sallow (Mar 6, 2013)

bigrebnc1775 said:


> Sallow said:
> 
> 
> > Obamanation said:
> ...



So what are you saying.

Increases in Health Care just started when Obama won the Presidency?

Is that what you are posting?

Really?


----------



## JoeB131 (Mar 6, 2013)

boedicca said:


> The increase is not a bug, it's a feature of Obamacare.  The Obama Administration's goal is to destroy private health insurance so that they can push nationalized health care as the only plausible solution.   It's not; but the government sponsored media will push the approved narrative on the gullible low information voters who still get their "news" from them.



Um, yeah.  Actually, every year, insurance costs have been going up and levels of service have been going down.  

I remember back in the 1990's, we called HMO's "Horrible Medical Options" and the program you really didn't want to be on because the service was so bad.  

At our last benefits meeting, our HR Director bragged that she was lucky her husband's company was still one of the few LUCKY enough to have an HMO, as opposed to the POS plan we had.  (And,no, not Point of Service" but "Piece of Shit").


----------



## JoeB131 (Mar 6, 2013)

Claudette said:


> Don't worry. Under the ACA we taxpayers will be pay.... OOPs   subsidizing all those who can't pay for their own care. Hope everyone has deep pockets cause we are gonna need em.
> 
> Twenty one tax increases in the ACA. Doubt its gonna be affordable for all.



So you're saying, "Fuck them, let them die"?  I'm trying to understand your logic here. 

The thing is, you are ALREADY subsidizing the poor who can't pay.  

They show up at an emergency room for that pneumonia that developed because they couldn't get in to see a General Practitioner because they didn't have insurance, and they skip out on the bill, who do you think pays for that? 

Yuppers- the hospitals spread that amongst all the patients who CAN pay.


----------



## J.E.D (Mar 6, 2013)

DiamondDave said:


> But when it happened during Bush II's time, it was blamed on him.. now it is not being blamed on Obamalama??
> 
> Mine has raised too.. but not 47%.. the insurance companies are preparing to get hit with their raised fees and taxes that come with Obamacare



Right. Insurance companies are "preparing". I guess they've been preparing for years; because they've been raising rates and raking in the dough from long before Obama took office and long before it was evident that the ACA was going to be the law of the land.


----------



## Sallow (Mar 6, 2013)

LeftofLeft said:


> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> > TheGreatGatsby said:
> ...



I seriously don't understand why you think that would be the magic pill.

First off, PRIOR to the ACA, HMOs were raising premiums at an alarming rate. This didn't seem to have ANYTHING to do with the cost of providing health care and a GREAT DEAL to do with listing on stock market. Additionally, they started booting people, for almost any reason at all, most of whom were paying out the nose for coverage.

The "Free Market" you describe would more than likely see even more of the same and in even a more severe form. Free Markets generally lead to less, not more competition.


----------



## bigrebnc1775 (Mar 6, 2013)

Sallow said:


> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> > Sallow said:
> ...



You didn't read the link did you?

"Reserves are needed to ensure our members' claims can be paid no matter what," said Blue Shield spokeswoman Lindy Wagner. "We need them to protect against uncertainties like a pandemic or another crisis."

The company also expects higher costs from an influx of new customers under the federal healthcare law in 2014.

"It's a once-in-a-lifetime change in the healthcare market that will bring a lot of volatility, and we need higher reserves for that," Wagner said.

Even with these proposed rate increases, Blue Shield said, it expects to lose money in the individual insurance market in 2013.

The insurer said its medical costs for this segment of the business grew 10.6% and what it actually pays is rising 12.5% after adjusting for its portion after customer deductibles. The state's largest for-profit health insurer, Anthem Blue Cross, cited a similar jump in medical costs in seeking rate hikes as high as 25% for some individual policyholders, effective in February.


----------



## editec (Mar 6, 2013)

> My most recent monthly health insurance bill went up 47 percent.



I'm dubious.


----------



## Harry Dresden (Mar 6, 2013)

bigrebnc1775 said:


> Harry Dresden said:
> 
> 
> > bigrebnc1775 said:
> ...



when i asked Blue Shield if my rates are going up they told me group policies are determined by a contract as far as how much is paid by you and the Employer.....Individual policies ....no....


----------



## rightwinger (Mar 6, 2013)

bigrebnc1775 said:


> Old Rocks said:
> 
> 
> > AceRothstein said:
> ...



Obamacare doesn't kick in until 2014


----------



## Harry Dresden (Mar 6, 2013)

Obamanation said:


> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> > Old Rocks said:
> ...



thats it with me.....my Premium that i pay is determined by the Unions contract with the PO.....but my coverage has changed.....i am paying a HIGHER co-pay on many things and some things don't seem to be covered anymore......


----------



## Harry Dresden (Mar 6, 2013)

Sallow said:


> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> > Sallow said:
> ...



for me they did.......my Ins coverage was pretty dam steady until this Obama stuff started.....


----------



## Harry Dresden (Mar 6, 2013)

JoeB131 said:


> boedicca said:
> 
> 
> > The increase is not a bug, it's a feature of Obamacare.  The Obama Administration's goal is to destroy private health insurance so that they can push nationalized health care as the only plausible solution.   It's not; but the government sponsored media will push the approved narrative on the gullible low information voters who still get their "news" from them.
> ...



then it depends on who you have and what coverage you have.....i have had Blue Shield since around '92 and out side of slight premium increases over that time the level of service has never gone down.....


----------



## Claudette (Mar 6, 2013)

JoeB131 said:


> Claudette said:
> 
> 
> > Don't worry. Under the ACA we taxpayers will be pay.... OOPs   subsidizing all those who can't pay for their own care. Hope everyone has deep pockets cause we are gonna need em.
> ...



No. I'm saying I have no wish to pay anyone elses bills there sparky. 

If you have no problem with it then feel free to open your wallet and pay away. Its just to bad that those that want to support others can't pay for them and leave the rest of us out of the equation. 

Yes. We are forced to pay. We have no say in the matter. We will also be paying for the ACA. Those of us who pay Fed taxes and those of us who pay for beni's or buy our own that is. Anyone who can't pay will be "subsidized" by we the taxpayer. 

We will also be hit with twenty one tax increased through the ACA. Can hardly wait.


----------



## Claudette (Mar 6, 2013)

rightwinger said:


> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> > Old Rocks said:
> ...



Your right it doesn't but that didn't stop the Insurance companies from upping premiums to get ready for Obamacare. Mine went up and will continue to do so as will everyones. 

Affordable Care Act?? I think you find it will be anything but affordable.


----------



## Harry Dresden (Mar 6, 2013)

JoeB131 said:


> Claudette said:
> 
> 
> > Don't worry. Under the ACA we taxpayers will be pay.... OOPs   subsidizing all those who can't pay for their own care. Hope everyone has deep pockets cause we are gonna need em.
> ...



those without Ins. should be made to go to Urgent Care Centers.....not ER's.....and like i have said before.....the President should have just tackled those people right now who dont have Ins. instead of taking on 300,000,000 people.....i have Ins. he doesn't need to worry about me.....for right now take care of those who don't have it but NEED it.....taking care of 25 million is a lot easier and less expensive than 300 million people.....if he would have done that i would have been on his train and i think a hell of a lot of other people would have been too.....


----------



## Polk (Mar 6, 2013)

Liberals in this thread: it's pretty stupid to claim "well, the ACA hasn't taken effect yet".
Conservatives in this thread: it's pretty stupid to blame Obama for a long-existing trend in the individual insurance market.


----------



## Harry Dresden (Mar 6, 2013)

Sallow said:


> LeftofLeft said:
> 
> 
> > rightwinger said:
> ...


the 2 features of this thing i am for is.....
1-no one can be turned down for an existing condition......
2- you should not be able to boot someone because they just happen to get an illness that might just be one of them "expensive" ones....you except someone into your plan.....if they get sick,you take care of them to the best of your ability....


----------



## boedicca (Mar 6, 2013)

rightwinger said:


> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> > Old Rocks said:
> ...




You're wrong about that.  Certain provisions are already in effect (such as the taxes), which along with  the prospect of 2014 changes are affecting pricing now.

I'm sure you've blocked out the fact that this Obamanation was justified as reducing the deficit because the taxes started much earlier than the benefits, which cooked the 10 year score.


----------



## Polk (Mar 6, 2013)

Harry Dresden said:


> Sallow said:
> 
> 
> > LeftofLeft said:
> ...



If you only made those two changes, what's to keep a person from waiting until they get sick to buy coverage?


----------



## Polk (Mar 6, 2013)

boedicca said:


> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> > bigrebnc1775 said:
> ...



The taxes didn't start "much earlier" than the benefits. Most of the benefits and revenue provisions kick in in 2014. There are other provisions that start earlier, they're relatively minor in the scheme of the law. The revenue provisions that started this year are relatively minor in the total cost analysis of the bill.


----------



## RDD_1210 (Mar 6, 2013)

Claudette said:


> JoeB131 said:
> 
> 
> > Claudette said:
> ...



So what should happen to people who truly can't afford the cost of a hospital visit? Tough shit? Suck it up? I'd like to know your plan. You obviously know that you don't want to help pay for these people, so what should they do? 

We've been through this all before and you never have an answer. It doesn't bother you at all that there is this large gaping hole in your viewpoint?


----------



## RDD_1210 (Mar 6, 2013)

Claudette said:


> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> > bigrebnc1775 said:
> ...



"upping premiums to get ready for Obamcare". You mean they get more customers and that means prices go up? And you believe that? LOL. Which economics class is that taught in? 

You'll listen to anything that puts blame on Obama, let's be honest.


----------



## RDD_1210 (Mar 6, 2013)

Harry Dresden said:


> JoeB131 said:
> 
> 
> > Claudette said:
> ...



They administer chemo at urgent care centers? 
They do surgery at urgent care centers? 

What happens to those people who were denied/can't afford insurance and need something that an Urgent care center can't handle (which is a lot).


----------



## boedicca (Mar 6, 2013)

Polk said:


> boedicca said:
> 
> 
> > rightwinger said:
> ...



You are wrong.

The first Obamacare taxes started in 2010.  A long list with start dates at the link.

Americans for Tax Reform : Comprehensive List of Tax Hikes in Obamacare


----------



## Claudette (Mar 6, 2013)

RDD_1210 said:


> Claudette said:
> 
> 
> > JoeB131 said:
> ...



Thats the're problem. Its just to bad that the're problems have been foisted on we taxpayers. 

Hey RD if you want to support em then feel free. I don't. Too bad I have no say in the matter. 

And really and truly I could give shit one.


----------



## Claudette (Mar 6, 2013)

RDD_1210 said:


> Claudette said:
> 
> 
> > rightwinger said:
> ...



No. I mean they upped the premiums for those that have HC already. Getting ready for those millions who don't have HC. those who can't afford their own care. 

Someones got to pay their way and that will be you and me and everyone who pays Fed Taxes and has HC.  Mine have gone up. Jeeze. RD haven't you been following this?? 

As for blaming Obama. You bet. He's the one who wants to transform America and this was his idea. Aided by those two clowns Pelosi and Reid. I sure as hell ain't gonna thank em.

BTW Good to see you.


----------



## Polk (Mar 6, 2013)

boedicca said:


> Polk said:
> 
> 
> > boedicca said:
> ...



The only taxes on that list that started before this year were the excise tax on tanning salons  and the drug company provisions. Neither of them is a significant revenue stream. Combined, they raise 25 billion in revenue over ten years.


----------



## RDD_1210 (Mar 6, 2013)

Claudette said:


> RDD_1210 said:
> 
> 
> > Claudette said:
> ...



So your answer is if people can't afford it, they should suffer. I guess I'm just a sucker who doesn't want to see people suffer simply because they're not rich. That's what separates people like me and you and I'm glad to point that out.


----------



## RDD_1210 (Mar 6, 2013)

Claudette said:


> RDD_1210 said:
> 
> 
> > Claudette said:
> ...



You're still just not getting it. They are upping their premiums just like the were before but now they can blame it on Obama and you lap it up. The insured were ALWAYS paying for the uninsured, that hasn't changed. Now we're at least allowing more people to actually purchase insurance who weren't even permitted to before due to "pre-existing conditions".


----------



## arie2l (Mar 6, 2013)

RDD_1210 said:


> Harry Dresden said:
> 
> 
> > JoeB131 said:
> ...



What has always amused me about this debate is the fact that those who are whining the most about "paying for others" are already doing so through their own plan.  Not only are they (and their insurance companies) paying for those w/o insurance who use the ER as their only health care resource, but they're also paying for those in the plan who actually use their insurance for health care.  That's why we have insurance, so we won't have to pick up the entire bloated tab.


----------



## RDD_1210 (Mar 6, 2013)

arie2l said:


> RDD_1210 said:
> 
> 
> > Harry Dresden said:
> ...



I can't even begin to count the number of times I've attempted to explain this to people on this site. They don't get it, nor do they want to get it. They just want to live in their bubble and blame Obama and "all those moochers".


----------



## Harry Dresden (Mar 6, 2013)

Polk said:


> Harry Dresden said:
> 
> 
> > Sallow said:
> ...


since the law is made where they cant get turned down......i guess nothing.....but there are a lot of people out there who have lost their Ins. and have an existing condition.....and if they have been treated before,there will be a record of it....for them anyway.....


----------



## Harry Dresden (Mar 6, 2013)

RDD_1210 said:


> Harry Dresden said:
> 
> 
> > JoeB131 said:
> ...



when my dad was taken to the ER here at UCI before he died...the Paramedics had him there 3-4 times.....the waiting room was packed but since the Paramedics took him in he got around that.....when i commented to the Nurse there about the amount of people waiting....she is the one who told me that 95% of the people that come to her ER anyway,can get treated at an Urgent Care Center.....they come in because their kid is not feeling well.....has a temp......headaches....hurt body parts like sprains....she said the great majority of people through here are NOT emergencies.....and out here there are a lot of Urgent Care Centers....some right down the Street from UCI....


----------



## Obamanation (Mar 6, 2013)

Sallow said:


> Obamanation said:
> 
> 
> > Sallow said:
> ...



There is no CONSERVATIVE plan. We weren't invited to the meetings. We have "the way things were" and Obama's plan to do a "government take over of healthcare". The GOP was never allowed to provide an alternative. We want honest open discussions to come up with a solution to the bad(the way things were) and the horrible (obamacare).


----------



## Obamanation (Mar 6, 2013)

Sallow said:


> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> > Sallow said:
> ...



Nobody suggested that at all. It is obvious that we are seeing a response to the ACA. As soon at the POS bill was forced on Americans - a lot of things started happening. Doctors began retiring, students picked alternative careers to medicine, insurances started gutting plans and raising prices on premium healthcare. Hospitals started eliminating non-essential positions, now are redefining essential positions to make more cuts.

I work in the field and have seen it all happen first hand. Turning Emergency Rooms into clinics where the cost of care is 8-10 times more is not the solution healthcare problems. It is a certain way to ensure the destruction of the entire system. As bad as healthcare was, it EXPONENTIALLY getting worse!

Cost cutting is where the emphasys should have been, not increasing costs to ensure failure!


----------



## RDD_1210 (Mar 6, 2013)

Harry Dresden said:


> RDD_1210 said:
> 
> 
> > Harry Dresden said:
> ...



That's great. What about the people who need medical attention for their cancer, accident, major illness, accident, etc...that can't be treated at an Urgent Care facility?


----------



## RDD_1210 (Mar 6, 2013)

Obamanation said:


> Sallow said:
> 
> 
> > Obamanation said:
> ...



Everything in the above statement is false. Be proud of yourself.


----------



## Obamanation (Mar 6, 2013)

Harry Dresden said:


> RDD_1210 said:
> 
> 
> > Harry Dresden said:
> ...



minimum cost at an urgent care is about 75$ while minimum care at an ER is about $500. 

typical visit to an Urgent Care is $150- $200 (after x-ray and lab) at an ER $1000....

and all the ACA is gonna do is get more people to misuse ERs effectively raising the cost of immediate need medicine 3 to 4 times....


----------



## Obamanation (Mar 6, 2013)

RDD_1210 said:


> Harry Dresden said:
> 
> 
> > RDD_1210 said:
> ...



or an emergency room...

thats handled through your oncologist.


----------



## boedicca (Mar 6, 2013)

Polk said:


> boedicca said:
> 
> 
> > Polk said:
> ...




Only a total moonbat thinks 25 billion is meaningless.

A bunch of taxes kick in this year.  Where are the benefits?


----------



## Obamanation (Mar 6, 2013)

RDD_1210 said:


> Obamanation said:
> 
> 
> > Sallow said:
> ...



The hell it is...

I have to drive to work at the hospital now. 2.5 hours from my home as there are fewer medical imaging jobs now than EVER before. I'll be there for 3 days - and I'll have time to discuss this in depth with you. Go ahead and tell me where my statements are "false".  LMAO!!

I can't wait to get to a point I can respond to you!! Looking forward to it!!


----------



## Claudette (Mar 6, 2013)

RDD_1210 said:


> Claudette said:
> 
> 
> > RDD_1210 said:
> ...




As I said. You and all like minded can pay for them. You obviously feel morally obligated so hey, make it happen. I'm sure Uncle Sam will take every dime you want to give em. 

I, on the other hand, have my own bills to pay and don't feel morally obligated to pay anyone elses. 

Its just to bad that we are forced to pay for those other folks. 

You asked me and I told you. I could give shit one about someone elses bills.


----------



## DiamondDave (Mar 6, 2013)

Old Rocks said:


> AceRothstein said:
> 
> 
> > TheGreatGatsby said:
> ...



Funny how insurance companies or Obamacare itself can specifically target left wingers in order to have them as the only ones not having cost increases...

Or is it more likely the winger would just lie in a feeble attempt to add credence to their cause??

I'll let others decide for themselves on that


----------



## boedicca (Mar 6, 2013)

DiamondDave said:


> Old Rocks said:
> 
> 
> > AceRothstein said:
> ...




They must work in one of the thousands of organizations which were granted Waivers from Obamacare.


----------



## RDD_1210 (Mar 6, 2013)

Obamanation said:


> RDD_1210 said:
> 
> 
> > Harry Dresden said:
> ...



And if they can't afford it? Tough luck?


----------



## GHook93 (Mar 6, 2013)

TheGreatGatsby said:


> My most recent monthly health insurance bill went up 47 percent. Thanks again, Obama and all you liberal a-holes who support the madness.



You ain't seen nothing yet! Obaminationcare doesn't kick in until 2014! Amazing that it goes up so high!


----------



## RDD_1210 (Mar 6, 2013)

Obamanation said:


> RDD_1210 said:
> 
> 
> > Obamanation said:
> ...



Oh goodie. Let's start with your first incorrect statement that "conservatives weren't invited to the healthcare discussion meetings". 

They were in fact, they even broadcast the discussions on TV. Bipartisan meetings. 

[ame="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uTd6v3VQf5s"]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uTd6v3VQf5s[/ame]

Let me know when you're done with that and I'll address your next incorrect statement. I can do this all day long


----------



## RDD_1210 (Mar 6, 2013)

Claudette said:


> RDD_1210 said:
> 
> 
> > Claudette said:
> ...



I know you don't care about the bills. I get that. You also don't care about the people and what happens to them. I do. You're not even open minded enough to talk about what those people should do. You avoid answering because you know how selfish it makes you look. I get it, you and your wallet is all that matters...you're making that plainly clear by not even addressing what I actually asked you. Shame on you.


----------



## J.E.D (Mar 6, 2013)

Obamanation said:


> Sallow said:
> 
> 
> > Obamanation said:
> ...



Sure there is. It's called, Romneycare. Obamacare was based on it. They are pretty much the same law. And the main component of the law -- the individual mandate -- was a conservative idea. 

Besides all of that; if Republicans wanted more input into the law, then they should have done more than offer a "free market" solution. They were happy with the status quo. But the status quo was not working. So, something else had to be done. They didn't want to play. Oh well. Nothing new. They're always on the wrong side of history.


----------



## Polk (Mar 6, 2013)

boedicca said:


> Polk said:
> 
> 
> > boedicca said:
> ...



25 billion over ten years is meaningless. That works out to 2.5 billion a year. It's 0.1% of the annual budget.


----------



## Greenbeard (Mar 6, 2013)

Obamanation said:


> Nobody suggested that at all. It is obvious that we are seeing a response to the ACA. As soon at the POS bill was forced on Americans - a lot of things started happening. Doctors began retiring, students picked alternative careers to medicine, insurances started gutting plans and raising prices on premium healthcare. Hospitals started eliminating non-essential positions, now are redefining essential positions to make more cuts.



What's actually happened? 2012 just saw record medical school applications, the lowest health care price inflation since 1998, the smallest increases for group health insurance premiums in 15 years, unprecedented slowing of Medicare's per capita cost growth, and the smallest increase in total national health spending ever seen in the 52 years those numbers have been tracked.


----------



## bigrebnc1775 (Mar 6, 2013)

rightwinger said:


> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> > Old Rocks said:
> ...



So,e of obamacare started back in 2010, some started in 2011 and some started in 2012 and some will start this year


----------



## bigrebnc1775 (Mar 6, 2013)

boedicca said:


> Polk said:
> 
> 
> > boedicca said:
> ...



They know that they're just being stupid.


----------



## Greenbeard (Mar 6, 2013)

Claudette said:


> Twenty one tax increases. We are once again screwed by the Democratic Party of America. Assholes one and all.



In fairness, if folks had known in 2009 that those taxes weren't actually necessary to pay for the law, most of the revenue raisers probably wouldn't be there (though one hopes the ones with a very strong policy case behind them would've remained).

I don't think anybody foresaw slowing health cost growth lopping hundreds of billions off the cost of Medicare (above anything the ACA directly does) over this period. That's been a pleasant surprise. Certainly CBO never would've scored those savings back then, as even now they have to keep revising their projections for Medicare spending downward every single time they update their budget numbers.


----------



## Mac1958 (Mar 6, 2013)

.

The sloppy mess that is the ACA is the predictable result of one political party writing a law of this magnitude.

.


----------



## Trajan (Mar 6, 2013)

rightwinger said:


> Trajan said:
> 
> 
> > rightwinger said:
> ...



I don't know, you using the cooked  numbers form Elizabeth Warrens study


and yes , oh you have not heard the flower vase story? 


better coverage? really? Oh yeah right the other mis-characterized, misreported,  poorly conducted  and cooked numbers from WHO? Oh and right the long term cancer survival treatment rate here is better too but hey, whats that


----------



## Polk (Mar 6, 2013)

Greenbeard said:


> Claudette said:
> 
> 
> > Twenty one tax increases. We are once again screwed by the Democratic Party of America. Assholes one and all.
> ...



Nothing breeds anger like success.


----------



## rdean (Mar 6, 2013)

TheGreatGatsby said:


> My most recent monthly health insurance bill went up 47 percent. Thanks again, Obama and all you liberal a-holes who support the madness.



Kaiser Family Foundation found that family health care *costs increased by 78 percent between 2001 and 2008*. 

FACT CHECK NO.1: Health Care Costs Versus Wages - ABC News

35 seconds of research.


----------



## Obamanation (Mar 6, 2013)

RDD_1210 said:


> Obamanation said:
> 
> 
> > RDD_1210 said:
> ...



Please, I have worked with oncologists. My Father died of cancer not 6 years ago. He was uninsured and 64 when his treatments began, and the oncologist wrote off 70% of his charges taking only what medicare payed once medicare finally kicked in. Nobody EVER said, "You don't have coverage? Screw you! Just die!!" --- they wrote off 70% and he never paid a dime from his fixed income/savings...


----------



## Trajan (Mar 6, 2013)

Greenbeard said:


> Claudette said:
> 
> 
> > Twenty one tax increases. We are once again screwed by the Democratic Party of America. Assholes one and all.
> ...



uh huh, so that glut of CLASS act cash they were counting will be made up ......how? 

it now looks like Rands vclaim that the electronic records gig is,.well not going very well and their estimate which of course was embraced by obama et al, of $81 Bn in savings was " overstated ", which means of course since Obamacare will never ever take a step back  not voluntarily that is) ,  they'll use the usual government answer= throw more money at it. Money that was  not budgeted.....so those 'savings' will be made up....how? 



here,  watch this-


so greenbeard, is obamacare still- 'budget neutral'?


----------



## Obamanation (Mar 6, 2013)

RDD_1210 said:


> Obamanation said:
> 
> 
> > RDD_1210 said:
> ...



You can't do chit all day long. I watched the healht care summit and the GOP was shut down at every turn. Anyone who wasn't for preemptive gov't takeover of healthcare was shut down and ignored. You say my statements are false and then use bogus statements and a video that proves my point!  

You can't disprove ANY of my claims because they are all TRUE!


----------



## Obamanation (Mar 6, 2013)

RDD_1210 said:


> arie2l said:
> 
> 
> > RDD_1210 said:
> ...



What you are missing is the lack of personal responsibility. Obamacare doesn't address it either, and between the fear of law suit and lack of personal responsibility, we have the two biggest problems with healthcare costs....

Obama shoved a NON-solution to the big problems down our throat in a attempt to get the gov'ts foot in the door for an entire gov't takeover of healthcare.

It was dishonest at best!


----------



## Obamanation (Mar 6, 2013)

JosefK said:


> Obamanation said:
> 
> 
> > Sallow said:
> ...



That wasn't a plan put forward by conservatives as a solution to the Nations healthcare cost problem, and to pretend that it is isn't being honest in the least bit.

No conservatives ideas were EVER considered by the obama admin when developing the ACA. It was built behind closed doors a mere 3 months after Obama stood in front of America and said he would be the most transparent admin. ever! Once completed, Pelosi has the nerve to stand in front of America and tell us that we would like it once we got the chance to read it (but only after it passed!!!!).

Had W done this to America, you guys would be so up in arms over it, we would never hear the end of it  --- and you guys don't even have the honesty to admit that.

It's pathetic!  ...and the biggest industry in America, healthcare, has been fed a disease that the only cure will be total gov't control --- and with it, it marks the grand entrance of socialism to which a return to FREEDOM will be a very difficult journey!


----------



## Obamanation (Mar 6, 2013)

Greenbeard said:


> Obamanation said:
> 
> 
> > Nobody suggested that at all. It is obvious that we are seeing a response to the ACA. As soon at the POS bill was forced on Americans - a lot of things started happening. Doctors began retiring, students picked alternative careers to medicine, insurances started gutting plans and raising prices on premium healthcare. Hospitals started eliminating non-essential positions, now are redefining essential positions to make more cuts.
> ...



https://www.google.com/#hl=en&sugexp=les%3B&gs_rn=6&gs_ri=psy-ab&gs_mss=fewer%20stu&tok=zhPF_pTagwqXFtwCVxf4oA&cp=22&gs_id=3t&xhr=t&q=fewer+students+doctors&es_nrs=true&pf=p&biw=1254&bih=577&sclient=psy-ab&oq=fewer+students+doctors&gs_l=&pbx=1&bav=on.2,or.r_gc.r_pw.r_qf.&bvm=bv.43429836,bs.1,d.eWU&fp=7ed15a824f860d64

https://www.google.com/#hl=en&sugexp=les%3B&gs_rn=6&gs_ri=psy-ab&gs_mss=decrease%20in%20insurcoverage%20&tok=zhPF_pTagwqXFtwCVxf4oA&cp=22&gs_id=9u&xhr=t&q=decrease+in+insurance+coverage&es_nrs=true&pf=p&sclient=psy-ab&oq=decrease+in+insurance+coverage+&gs_l=&pbx=1&bav=on.2,or.r_gc.r_pw.r_qf.&bvm=bv.43429836,bs.1,d.eWU&fp=7ed15a824f860d64&biw=1254&bih=577

https://www.google.com/#hl=en&sugexp=les%3B&gs_rn=6&gs_ri=psy-ab&gs_mss=federgovernment%20cutting%20reimbursement%20&tok=zhPF_pTagwqXFtwCVxf4oA&cp=8&gs_id=df&xhr=t&q=federal+government+cutting+reimbursement&es_nrs=true&pf=p&sclient=psy-ab&oq=federal+government+cutting+reimbursement+&gs_l=&pbx=1&bav=on.2,or.r_gc.r_pw.r_qf.&bvm=bv.43429836,bs.1,d.eWU&fp=7ed15a824f860d64&biw=1254&bih=577

I just love watching lefties twist the truth to try to fit their talking points....


----------



## rdean (Mar 6, 2013)

Obamanation said:


> RDD_1210 said:
> 
> 
> > arie2l said:
> ...



Did you know that medical bills are the number one cause of bankruptcy for Americans who are "personally responsible"?


----------



## boedicca (Mar 6, 2013)

rdean said:


> Obamanation said:
> 
> 
> > RDD_1210 said:
> ...




I call shenanigans.

That myth has been debunked.   When people declare bankruptcy, they have to provide a list of liabilities, which often includes some minor amount of unpaid medical bills (but those bills are not the main cause).  The #1 cause is Over Consumption.

http://faculty.gsm.ucdavis.edu/~nzhu/papers/personal_bank.pdf


----------



## Obamanation (Mar 6, 2013)

rdean said:


> Obamanation said:
> 
> 
> > RDD_1210 said:
> ...



...and will continue to be even after Obamacare takes full effect. The levels of coverage will NEVER again meet all persons healthcare needs for the middle class. Those of us who are deemed financially capable of paying for our own healthcare will find ourselves existing on the ledge of what we can afford and it's lack of coverage!!  All the ACA will do is raise the bar of poverty to include more of the middle class!!!

It is by design and ensures an increase of gov't control over more Americans....


----------



## Greenbeard (Mar 6, 2013)

Trajan said:


> so greenbeard, is obamacare still- 'budget neutral'?



Significantly more than expected with the unexpected slowdown in health cost growth.



Obamanation said:


> No conservatives ideas were EVER considered by the obama admin when developing the ACA.



Such as?



Obamanation said:


> Greenbeard said:
> 
> 
> > Obamanation said:
> ...



Good point, I forgot that 2012 was also "the first time in the last 10 years that the rate of private health insurance coverage has not decreased," as your links note.

So cost and price growth has plummeted, med school applications are up, and private coverage decline has actually reversed for the first time in a decade. Good save.


----------



## Obamanation (Mar 6, 2013)

boedicca said:


> rdean said:
> 
> 
> > Obamanation said:
> ...



This I did not know, but is certainly going in my arsenal!  

Nothing better than a conservative American with a big arsenal!


----------



## boedicca (Mar 6, 2013)

Very happy to oblige.


----------



## Obamanation (Mar 6, 2013)

Greenbeard said:


> Trajan said:
> 
> 
> > so greenbeard, is obamacare still- 'budget neutral'?
> ...



You wish....

Your President forces a non-solution on you and you defend him. If it had been Bush you would be screaming bloody murder!  

You are dishonest and a hypocrite - at least regarding this topic!


----------



## Greenbeard (Mar 6, 2013)

Obamanation said:


> You wish....



I wish what? These are pretty easily verifiable facts. The wingnut blogs have led you astray.


----------



## Obamanation (Mar 6, 2013)

Greenbeard said:


> Obamanation said:
> 
> 
> > You wish....
> ...



They aren't verifiable at all. They are data manipulation. For example, if you find colleges with more students applying for med school it is only because standards have been lowered in an attempt to increase applicants due to the loss of previously qualified candidates.

Try as you might --- the only arguments for the ACA, as it currently stands, are DISHONEST!


----------



## Greenbeard (Mar 6, 2013)

Obamanation said:


> Try as you might --- the only arguments for the ACA, as it currently stands, are DISHONEST!



I think you've adequately demonstrated the quality of the arguments against it. You are a credit to your cult.


----------



## Trajan (Mar 6, 2013)

Trajan said:


> Greenbeard said:
> 
> 
> > Claudette said:
> ...






thought so...


----------



## Greenbeard (Mar 6, 2013)

Greenbeard said:


> Trajan said:
> 
> 
> > so greenbeard, is obamacare still- 'budget neutral'?
> ...



Reading is hard.


----------



## Obamanation (Mar 6, 2013)

Greenbeard said:


> Obamanation said:
> 
> 
> > Try as you might --- the only arguments for the ACA, as it currently stands, are DISHONEST!
> ...



WOW! feeble attempt at sarcasm. I assume that you mean know that you are beat, and that spreading more dishonest information will gain you nothing.


----------



## J.E.D (Mar 6, 2013)

Obamanation said:


> That wasn't a plan put forward by conservatives as a solution to the Nations healthcare cost problem, and to pretend that it is isn't being honest in the least bit.
> 
> *No conservatives ideas were EVER considered by the obama admin when developing the ACA.*



The individual mandate -- the cornerstone to both Romneycare and Obamacare -- originated with the Heritage Foundation. This is a well-known fact. Try again.


----------



## Trajan (Mar 6, 2013)

Greenbeard said:


> Greenbeard said:
> 
> 
> > Trajan said:
> ...



Oh I am sorry,  you nestled my question into another quote, I am most humbly apologize...



so lets see , your are saying it appears;  that not only is it still budget neutral,  according to what was forecast, but, it is even more so because of a  'slow down in health cost growth'? 

so what 'health cost' , exactly,  has gone down?


----------



## Obamanation (Mar 6, 2013)

JosefK said:


> Obamanation said:
> 
> 
> > That wasn't a plan put forward by conservatives as a solution to the Nations healthcare cost problem, and to pretend that it is isn't being honest in the least bit.
> ...



...and show us where the Heratige Foundation was involved in the implementation of the ACA? hmmmm --- not invited to those closed door meetings either, were they?


----------



## Trajan (Mar 6, 2013)

Obamanation said:


> JosefK said:
> 
> 
> > Obamanation said:
> ...



you don't get it; like  gramm rudman from what 86? was turned into the "sequester", so to has a heritage paper been turned into obamacare- when any negative effect needs to be deflected it gets  back and anything good will of course be glommed onto as "see OUR plan is working!!!!"...


----------



## Greenbeard (Mar 6, 2013)

Trajan said:


> so lets see , your are saying it appears;  that not only is it still budget neutral,  according to what was forecast, but, it is even more so because of a  'slow down in health cost growth'?



I realize this must be very hard to grasp because of the stuff Rush is spoonfeeding. So I'll keep it simple.

At the beginning of 2009, when Obama took office and five months before the health reform bills rolled out, Medicare was expected to cost $963 billion by the end of the decade, 2019. Flash forward to February 2013: now it's expected to cost $811 billion in 2019. Total savings of $152 billion in a single year. Meanwhile, the February 2013 estimates of the total net cost of the Affordable Care Act at the end of the decade--coverage provisions, tax credits, everything--are that it will cost $149 billion in 2019. 

As I said, when they were passing this legislation it was assumed a lot more revenues were needed to cover the costs because the size of the savings we're seeing today wasn't anticipated back then. Who knew?

Elmendorf has to take to his blog to explain this one:


> *The Recent Changes in CBO&#8217;s Baseline Reflect Trends That Have Developed Over the Past Few Years*
> 
> In recent years, health care spending has grown much more slowly both nationally and for federal programs than historical rates would have indicated. For example, in 2012, federal spending for Medicare and Medicaid was about 5 percent below the amount that CBO had projected in March 2010.
> 
> In response to that slowdown, over the past several years CBO has made a series of downward adjustments to its projections of spending for Medicaid and Medicare. For example, from the March 2010 baseline to the current baseline, technical revisions&#8212;mostly reflecting the slower growth in the programs&#8217; spending in recent years&#8212;have lowered CBO&#8217;s estimates of federal spending for the two programs in 2020 by about $200 billion&#8212;by $126 billion for Medicare and by $78 billion for Medicaid, or by roughly 15 percent for each program.






			
				Trajan said:
			
		

> so what 'health cost' , exactly, has gone down?





It must indeed be hard to be you guys right now.


----------



## Sallow (Mar 6, 2013)

Obamanation said:


> Greenbeard said:
> 
> 
> > Obamanation said:
> ...



Data manipulation. Ha! Good one.

Here let me show you how it's done.

1+1=2.

Let me know if you need any more data manipulated.


----------



## Obamanation (Mar 6, 2013)

Sallow said:


> Obamanation said:
> 
> 
> > Greenbeard said:
> ...



So you don't have a point at all??? 

Thanks for stopping by!!


----------



## Polk (Mar 6, 2013)

Obamanation said:


> Greenbeard said:
> 
> 
> > Obamanation said:
> ...



Articles in your first query that support you claim were from WorldNutDaily and a WSJ op-ed.
Second query only shows articles highlighting a preexisting trend.
As for the third query, normally you guys love spending cuts.


----------



## Obamanation (Mar 6, 2013)

Polk said:


> Obamanation said:
> 
> 
> > Greenbeard said:
> ...



Well that's peculiar. My first query returned 19 million results... and that is all you got out of it? You sure are a simple minded fool....

I found this...  How did you miss it?

Obamacare Guarantees Higher Health Insurance Premiums -- $3,000+ Higher 

In 2013, Millions Of Americans Face Obamacare Tax Hikes  Sally Pipes Contributor   Obamacare's Cruel War On Patient-Centered Healthcare  Sally Pipes Contributor   Obamacare's Rationers Employ The "It's Good For You" Defense  Sally Pipes Contributor   In The Aftermath Of Obama's Re-Election, What's Next For Health Care?  Sally Pipes Contributor  

 (Photo credit: Mike Licht, NotionsCapital.com)
President Obama will deliver a second inaugural address later this month. Hell no doubt reflect on what hes done during his first four years in office  and on his signature healthcare law in particular.

Lets reflect with him. During his first campaign for the presidency in 2008, the president promised that his health reform plan would bring down premiums by $2,500 for the typical family by the end of his first term.

Well, that first term is just about up. And health insurance isnt any cheaper. In fact, its more expensive. Premiums have increased by an average of $3,065. And theyre about to go up even more, as Obamacare takes effect during the presidents second term.

At the end of 2012, Mark Bertolini, the CEO of Aetna, the third-largest health insurer in the country, warned that many consumers would face premium rate shock with the advent of Obamacares major insurance regulations in 2014. He predicted that unsubsidized premiums would rise 20 to 50 percent, on average.

For some people, premiums would double. Were going to see some markets go up as much as 100 percent, Bertolini told Bloomberg News.

Aetna isnt the only company forecasting higher health-insurance premiums. In California, Blue Shield has asked regulators to approve premium increases of up to 20 percent. Obamacares new regulations were a factor in the request. A spokesperson for the company said the new law will bring a lot of volatility into the market.

A shock? Not to those whove been paying attention. When Obamacare was making its way through Congress, the Congressional Budget Office warned that premiums in the individual market would increase by 10-13 percent.

Even the laws designers admit that it will raise premiums. Massachusetts Institute of Technology Economics Professor Jonathan Gruber, one of Obamacares chief architects, estimated that premiums in Wisconsin would rise by about 30 percent by 2016 following implementation of the law. Most of the Badger States individual insurance market will see an even larger increase, averaging about 41 percent.

Obamacares defenders typically respond that the laws subsidies will decrease what people actually pay out-of-pocket for insurance.

But thats not always the case. Many individuals will still pay more even after they receive the generous subsidies to which the law entitles them. According to a report conducted by Gruber, 59 percent of the individual market will end up paying more after taking the subsidies into account. The average increase? Nearly a third.

These premium hikes will hit young people hardest. As The New York Times reported in October, insurers and health policy wonks are warning that the young will face higher premiums because of a provision that limits how much rates can vary based on a persons age.

Typically, insurers charge older individuals more because they have higher average health costs. But because Obamacare includes a community rating provision that restricts how much insurers can charge people of different ages, the young will end up paying more  essentially subsidizing the coverage of older individuals who require more expensive care.

These wont be small increases. Health insurance expert Bob Laszewski has said that young adults should expect their premiums to double thanks to Obamacares rules.

The law will make insurance more expensive for everyone else by saddling it with expensive mandates. Obamacare tasks states with figuring out which health benefits are essential and thus mandatory for insurers.

The result? Furious lobbying by every healthcare group, from acupuncturists to chiropractors to fertility specialists, all of whom want to make sure that coverage of their services is required for all policies issued in the state. The more coverage mandates there are, the higher premiums rise. Indeed, benefit mandates can add as much as 50 percent to the cost of insurance.

As President Obamas second term unfolds, few  if any  families will see the $2,500 in health insurance savings he promised four years ago. The White House is now clinging to the hope that premiums wont rise quite as fast as they have in the past.

In other words, health insurance costs are going up. And for that, you can thank Obamacare.

and even THIS from the NY Times socialist rag....

Workers at a circuit-board factory here just saw their health insurance premiums rise 20 percent. At Buddy Zarembas print shop nearby, the increase was 37 percent. And for engineers at the Woodland Design Group, they rose 43 percent. 

Enlarge This Image

Cheryl Senter for The New York Times
Buddy Zaremba, vice president of RAM Printing in Manchester, N.H. 
Related
House Votes to Help Small Businesses Comply With Health Bill, but Relief Is Held Up (March 4, 2011) 
Enlarge This Image

Cheryl Senter for The New York Times
Robert Woodland, president of Woodland Design Group, which has seen their health insurance premiums rise by 43 percent. 
Readers Comments
Readers shared their thoughts on this article.
Read All Comments (273) »
The new federal health care law may eventually bend the cost curve downward, as proponents argue. But for now, at many workplaces here, the rising cost of health care is prompting insurance premiums to skyrocket while coverage is shrinking. 

As Congress continues to debate the new health care law, health insurance costs are still rising, particularly for small businesses. Republicans are seizing on the trend as evidence that the new law includes expensive features that are driving up premiums. But the insurance industry says premiums are rising primarily because of the underlying cost of care and a growing demand for it. 

Across the country, premiums have more than doubled in the last decade, with smaller companies particularly hard hit in recent years, federal officials say. 

In New Hampshire, where the population is among the healthiest in the nation, according to various surveys, the insurance market for individuals, families and small businesses is extremely fragile. More than 90 percent of private employers in New Hampshire have fewer than 50 employees. Small and medium-size employers try to shop around for health insurance, but have few alternatives from which to choose. 

This year, groups of more than 20 workers have been experiencing premium increases of around 20 percent, insurance agents say, while smaller groups are seeing increases of 40 percent to 60 percent or more. 

The rate of increase is phenomenal, said Jean Pierre La Tourette, owner of Flora Ventures, a florist with 11 employees in Newmarket, N.H., near Portsmouth. When he was recently notified that the monthly premium for single employees at his firm was going up by $229, or 40 percent, to $789, Mr. La Tourette said, he felt a combination of anger and frustration. 

Economists and state regulators say health insurance is expensive primarily because health care is expensive. 

You wont really address the cost of health insurance unless you address the cost of health care itself, New Hampshires insurance commissioner, Roger A. Sevigny, said. 

In a letter explaining Mr. La Tourettes new rate, Anthem Blue Cross and Blue Shield said it resulted, in part, from an increase in medical trends, especially the utilization of services and the underlying cost of health care, for all small-group customers. 

William P. DeLuca III and his family own several companies, including four car dealerships and the Bank of New England, which together have 550 employees in New Hampshire and eastern Massachusetts. To obtain a better rate, Mr. DeLuca said, he switched this year to Harvard Pilgrim Health Care from Tufts Health Plan. The Tufts increase would have been 23 percent, he said, while Harvard Pilgrims was 19 percent. 

Its out of control, Mr. DeLuca said. The cost of living is barely going up 1 or 2 percent a year. But we and our employees have to absorb these huge increases in health insurance costs. 

Some insurance industry lobbyists say the new federal health care law is driving up premiums. But Vincent Capozzi, senior vice president for sales and customer service at Harvard Pilgrim, said that only one percentage point of the increases here was attributable to the federal law, mainly its requirement for free coverage of preventive services. 

Another percentage point results from new state laws requiring coverage of hearing aids and certain treatments for autism, Mr. Capozzi said. Most of the remainder, he said, reflects increases in the use and cost of medical care by small-group customers, with adjustments for demographic characteristics like age. 

In many cases, insurance coverage is shrinking as deductibles are increasing and choices of hospitals are more limited. Robert I. Woodland, the president of the Woodland Design Group, said his company had experienced double-digit increases in premiums for seven years, even as benefits were whittled back. Most recently, he was notified that the rates were being increased 43 percent, so the monthly premium for a single worker would be $550, up from $384. 

Essentially, we have been paying a lot more for a lot less, Mr. Woodland said. Its outrageous. I cannot imagine charging my clients 43 percent more in a single year. 

James D. Bell Jr., the president of the EPE Corporation, which assembles electronic circuit boards at its factory here, said health insurance trends were starkly different from those of his other business expenses. 

Everywhere else I see a decrease in costs as a percentage of sales when the business grows, Mr. Bell said. We can buy raw circuit boards from hundreds of suppliers in the United States and overseas. But only two or three health plans make serious bids for our business. 

In an effort to save money last year, Mr. Zarembas company, RAM Printing, chose a health plan that required employees to pay more of the cost. The added expense had an immediate impact. 

I took a 5 percent cut in pay, because of the economy, and I was paying more for health care at the same time, said Gary J. Silveira, a longtime print shop employee. We still owe $1,000 to our family doctor; Im paying $100 a month. Im three months overdue in paying physical therapists who treated my son. And I skipped a few months of blood pressure and cholesterol medications just to save money. 

Obama administration officials said several provisions of the new federal health law would help make insurance more affordable. 

Insurers must publicly justify large rate increases, and they must spend at least 80 percent of premium revenue on health care. Starting in 2014, each state will have a central market where consumers and small businesses can pool their purchasing power and buy insurance. In theory, the exchange could bring more insurers into the market, increase competition and drive down prices. 

In his budget address on Feb. 15, Gov. John Lynch, a Democrat, said hospitals were part of the problem. Instead of using their excess cash to reduce health care costs, Mr. Lynch said, hospitals spend it on advertising, trying to attract market share from each other, buying physician and laboratory practices across the state, and then increasing overhead charges to patients. 

He proposed a moratorium on the construction of new facilities by hospitals. Such construction, he said, is driving up utilization and costs. But the New Hampshire Hospital Association objected, saying a moratorium would block spending on new medical equipment and health information technology needed to improve care. 

Governor Lynch won a fourth two-year term in November. At the same time, control of both houses of the state legislature flipped to Republicans from Democrats, putting into question state efforts to carry out the federal health law, which promises to be a big issue in the states 2012 Republican presidential primary. 

Mr. Sevigny, the insurance commissioner, had been poised to award a $610,000 contract for work on a health insurance exchange. But he pulled back the contract, financed entirely with federal money, after Republicans raised questions. 

It would be frivolous to spend taxpayer dollars on implementing a law that could very well be thrown out by the courts, said William L. OBrien, speaker of the New Hampshire House of Representatives. 

The House Republican leader, D. J. Bettencourt, said, We dont want to become addicted to federal money. 

Republicans are trying to block or slow the creation of insurance exchanges in several other states as well. Delays will make it more difficult for states to meet federal deadlines, and Mr. Sevigny said it was important for state officials to understand that the federal government would itself set up an exchange in any state that did not do so. 

To some people hammered by rising premiums, the federal law offers a glimmer of hope. 

Its imperative that we move forward with a plan that spreads the cost of insurance over a large population, said Mr. La Tourette, the florist. Im just thrilled that President Obama was able to get health care passed in any form. We can improve it later. Im terrified that it will be repealed.


although they try to twist the truth with leftist conjecture the facts show the rate increases and the coverage declines....


----------



## Polk (Mar 6, 2013)

fact  
/fakt/
Noun
A thing that is indisputably the case.

As Greenbeard has already shown repeatedly isn't the case at all.


----------



## Obamanation (Mar 6, 2013)

Polk said:


> fact
> /fakt/
> Noun
> A thing that is indisputably the case.
> ...





Greenbeard said:


> Obamanation said:
> 
> 
> > You wish....
> ...



hmmm, he is the one talking about facts.... if they are so easily verifiable then why aren;t they verified? You just made the case for me...  thanks!!!

but here are the facts ----

health care actuary at Aon Hewitt, in a media statement.

Total Plan Premium Costs
             Percentage Increase   Average Cost per Employee   
2013  6.3% $11,188 

2012 4.9%  $10,522 

2011 8.5% $10,034

2010 6.2% $9,246

2009 5.0% $8,703 

2008  5.3% $8,290 

2007  5.3% $7,874


Source: Aon Hewitt Health Value Initiative database 

Keep in mind that this doesn't take into account the undeniable decrease in coverages since the ACA was forced onto Americans...

*We are paying more both in dollars and as a percentage for less coverage....*


----------



## Harry Dresden (Mar 6, 2013)

RDD_1210 said:


> Harry Dresden said:
> 
> 
> > RDD_1210 said:
> ...


accidents are emergencies are they not?....and i was at the Doctor today so i asked him about what can be taken care of at an Urgent Care Center, he said you can be taken care of at an Urgent Care Center for Cancer and most major Illnesses like Diabetes .....my late friend used to go to one where he was at for his Dialysis....he never went to a Hospital.....he went to a clinic.....


----------



## Harry Dresden (Mar 6, 2013)

Obamanation said:


> Harry Dresden said:
> 
> 
> > RDD_1210 said:
> ...



well when they passed that law saying ER's can not turn you down kinda did that.....that should have said an EMERGENCY.....NON emergencies you go to an Urgent Care Center......


----------



## Zona (Mar 6, 2013)

TheGreatGatsby said:


> My most recent monthly health insurance bill went up 47 percent. Thanks again, Obama and all you liberal a-holes who support the madness.



Speaking of 47, how bout that Romney.


----------



## Harry Dresden (Mar 6, 2013)

RDD_1210 said:


> Obamanation said:
> 
> 
> > RDD_1210 said:
> ...



no.....like i said i was at the Doc today and i decided to ask him what Urgent Care Centers can handle.....he said the Doctors there can monitor your illnesses and prescribe and he said the one he and his partners work at handle people without Ins. all the time.....they have their ways to recoup the money.....and many Drug Companies have programs to get you the drugs you need if you cant pay for them......he told me.....no one is going to let you die if you are sick........


----------



## bigrebnc1775 (Mar 6, 2013)

Here are a few things that are in obamacare that have made insurance cost go up
allowing adults to remain on their parents insurance until age 26, preexisting condition.
ANY QUESTIONS?


----------



## TheGreatGatsby (Mar 7, 2013)

bigrebnc1775 said:


> Here are a few things that are in obamacare that have made insurance cost go up
> allowing adults to remain on their parents insurance until age 26, preexisting condition.
> ANY QUESTIONS?



Yea, b/c those 25 yr-old are always in the ER or taking up hospital beds after heart attacks. The costs have went up b/c of all sorts of hidden government costs and b/c of the mandated coverage laws creating oligopoly collusion. Get government the fuck out of health care and you'll see cost dramatically lower.


----------



## bigrebnc1775 (Mar 7, 2013)

TheGreatGatsby said:


> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> > Here are a few things that are in obamacare that have made insurance cost go up
> ...



Agreed, those were two factual examples.


----------



## bigrebnc1775 (Mar 7, 2013)

Zona said:


> TheGreatGatsby said:
> 
> 
> > My most recent monthly health insurance bill went up 47 percent. Thanks again, Obama and all you liberal a-holes who support the madness.
> ...


----------



## Dante (Mar 7, 2013)

TheGreatGatsby said:


> My most recent monthly health insurance bill went up 47 percent. Thanks again, Obama and all you liberal a-holes who support the madness.



stfu and pay the bill deadbeat. this isn't even a political thread


----------



## Article 15 (Mar 7, 2013)

francoHFW said:


> Health costs doubled under Bush's 8 years- that's 12.5%/yr on average.
> 
> O-care hasn't started yet. Masscare proves it'll work and all the Pubcrappe is fear mongering BS.
> 
> The insurers are up to their usual tricks until next year, dupes.



Actually, for something to double in 8 years the average annual increase is a little over 9% a year.


----------



## Article 15 (Mar 7, 2013)

editec said:


> > My most recent monthly health insurance bill went up 47 percent.
> 
> 
> 
> I'm dubious.



You should be.

The OP is a well known liar.


----------



## bigrebnc1775 (Mar 7, 2013)

Article 15 said:


> editec said:
> 
> 
> > > My most recent monthly health insurance bill went up 47 percent.
> ...



The only people who say that their healthcare cost hasn't went up are those who support obamacare. Now who the fuck is lying derp bitch?


----------



## Article 15 (Mar 7, 2013)

bigrebnc1775 said:


> Now who the fuck is lying



The guy claiming his premiums just went up 47%


----------



## Obamanation (Mar 7, 2013)

Article 15 said:


> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> > Now who the fuck is lying
> ...



Well, don't know about his premiums, but cost to me on my premiums went up over 30%...


----------



## Article 15 (Mar 7, 2013)

Obamanation said:


> Article 15 said:
> 
> 
> > bigrebnc1775 said:
> ...



Uh huh


----------



## bigrebnc1775 (Mar 7, 2013)

Article 15 said:


> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> > Now who the fuck is lying
> ...



Are you saying it didn't?

I've heard others bitch about their healthcare coverage go up 20 to 30% An electrician  told me a month ago that his group coverage went up, and the cover letter explained that it was because of obamacare and they would be making adjustments in the near feature.
So yes 47% is fesible


----------



## Obamanation (Mar 7, 2013)

Article 15 said:


> francoHFW said:
> 
> 
> > Health costs doubled under Bush's 8 years- that's 12.5%/yr on average.
> ...



It's exactly 9% --- the rule of 72...

But, it's a bogus claim PERIOD. Under Bush costs rose a mere 5% a year...  That would have taken over 14 years to double ---- and we all know that regardless of what O would like, 8 years is the max!

Thank God we are on the other side of this mountain!


----------



## Obamanation (Mar 7, 2013)

Article 15 said:


> Obamanation said:
> 
> 
> > Article 15 said:
> ...



You can doubt all you want... With the end of the payroll tax and increases to my healthcare - I am making $315 less per month in take home.

I wish you lefties would be honest and tell the truth about Os effect on your income!!!


----------



## Article 15 (Mar 7, 2013)

Obamanation said:


> Article 15 said:
> 
> 
> > francoHFW said:
> ...



No, it's not exactly 9%.  

The 8 years is the rule of 72 estimate but I applaud your attempt to at least appear to be intelligent.

Exactly 9% takes 8.04 years to double.  9.05% takes exactly 8 years to double.


----------



## Article 15 (Mar 7, 2013)

Obamanation said:


> Article 15 said:
> 
> 
> > Obamanation said:
> ...



You must be someone who thought the temporary payroll tax holiday was permanent.

Bless your heart.


----------



## Obamanation (Mar 7, 2013)

Article 15 said:


> Obamanation said:
> 
> 
> > Article 15 said:
> ...




I guess I never looked at the actual numbers when evaluating investments. I thought the rule of 72 was EXACT - not an estimate... My mistake!

Regardless, it seems you missed the important part of my post where the moron lefty was caught lying!!!!

Funny how you in all your intelligence failed to see the IMPORTANT part....   hahaha


----------



## Obamanation (Mar 7, 2013)

Article 15 said:


> Obamanation said:
> 
> 
> > Article 15 said:
> ...



Again, it seems you are quick to jump to a faulty conclusion...  Just seems a little crazy that Obama is set on sticking it to the middle class --- when he lied and said that he was on our side!!!


----------



## Article 15 (Mar 7, 2013)

Obamanation said:


> Article 15 said:
> 
> 
> > Obamanation said:
> ...



The liars are you and the OP claiming your healthcare premium just jumped 47% and 30% respectively.


----------



## Article 15 (Mar 7, 2013)

Obamanation said:


> Article 15 said:
> 
> 
> > Obamanation said:
> ...



You would have never seen "the lefty's" post had I not corrected his poor math to begin with.


----------



## Obamanation (Mar 7, 2013)

Article 15 said:


> Obamanation said:
> 
> 
> > Article 15 said:
> ...



Thank you for pointing out that the lies from the left start all the way at the top and go ALL THE WAY to the bottom too!!


----------



## bigrebnc1775 (Mar 7, 2013)

Obamanation said:


> Article 15 said:
> 
> 
> > Obamanation said:
> ...



Hell dude you're lucky, Since January I'm making 550.00 less a month


----------



## Article 15 (Mar 7, 2013)

Obamanation said:


> Article 15 said:
> 
> 
> > Obamanation said:
> ...



The only thing I pointed out is that Franco sucks at math.


----------



## Claudette (Mar 7, 2013)

Well folks. I think we are going to find that the Affordable Care Act is going to be anything but affordable.


----------



## Obamanation (Mar 7, 2013)

Claudette said:


> Well folks. I think we are going to find that the Affordable Care Act is going to be anything but affordable.



No doubt. If we can't get rid of it with this lying idiot in the White House -- ya think maybe we could at least get it renamed to honest like the UCA??


----------



## JoeB131 (Mar 7, 2013)

Claudette said:


> JoeB131 said:
> 
> 
> > Claudette said:
> ...



I really have to wonder if you are like a stupid person.  

Okay- reality check- you are ALREADY paying their bills.  Right  now. 

Unless you are getting sick, and making claims, you are paying for other people's health care.  If you are sick and making claims, someone else is paying yours.  

The only question here, is how do we best cover people.  What we are doing, where one out of six don't have insurance, and their costs are spread out to the rest of us when the visit emergency rooms and have their costs spread out amongst others. 

The GOP lost because it went from a party that said, "Let's find a more effective way to to that", to one that says, "Let them DIE!" 

It deserves a place on the scrapheap of history if it doesn't get its head out of it's ass.


----------



## Claudette (Mar 7, 2013)

JoeB131 said:


> Claudette said:
> 
> 
> > JoeB131 said:
> ...



Of course we are but only because we have no say in the matter. The Clowns in Govt have decided that those paying should support those that don't. 

I find it laughable that anyone would think that the entire taxpaying American public wants to foot the bills for those without.

As for letting them die? Again. I find I really don't gvie a shit. If your someone who can't take care of yourself, your kids, your bills and need the taxpayers to take care of you then your not worth much and are one damned drain on the rest of us. 

If you and all like minded have no problem assuming the responsibilites of others then feel free to pay away there Joe. No one will stop you and those you are paying for will take every dime you want to give them. 

Just don't think that everyone feels the same as you do and has no problem giving their hard earned money to those without.

Oh and since I'm not a Rep or a Dem I could care less which one of those useless parties lands on your scrapheap.


----------



## G.T. (Mar 7, 2013)

TheGreatGatsby said:


> My most recent monthly health insurance bill went up 47 percent. Thanks again, Obama and all you liberal a-holes who support the madness.



What company?


----------



## Article 15 (Mar 7, 2013)

Claudette said:


> JoeB131 said:
> 
> 
> > Claudette said:
> ...



So "let them die" IS your view.

Neat.


----------



## Article 15 (Mar 7, 2013)

G.T. said:


> TheGreatGatsby said:
> 
> 
> > My most recent monthly health insurance bill went up 47 percent. Thanks again, Obama and all you liberal a-holes who support the madness.
> ...



lol


----------



## JoeB131 (Mar 7, 2013)

Claudette said:


> Of course we are but only because we have no say in the matter. The Clowns in Govt have decided that those paying should support those that don't.
> 
> I find it laughable that anyone would think that the entire taxpaying American public wants to foot the bills for those without.
> 
> ...



So essentially, you think heartlessness is a virtue, and you'd rather be vindictive than helpful. 

Got it.  

I find it amusing that you guys will scream all day about abortion but are perfectly willing to let  a child die of a treatable disease because his parents are poor. 

I just have to shake my head.  

Thankfully, I live in a civilized society where we do take care of each other, and the selfish have to pay their fair share.  Let's have more of that.


----------



## JoeB131 (Mar 7, 2013)

G.T. said:


> TheGreatGatsby said:
> 
> 
> > My most recent monthly health insurance bill went up 47 percent. Thanks again, Obama and all you liberal a-holes who support the madness.
> ...



Shhhhhh..... they don't ever give specifics...


----------



## Mac1958 (Mar 7, 2013)

.

We currently have a grand total of FOUR health care systems:


Individual/Group health insurance
Medicaid
Medicare
Indigent care
Would anyone like to offer a thoughtful explanation as to WHY this should be?

.


----------



## G.T. (Mar 7, 2013)

Article 15 said:


> G.T. said:
> 
> 
> > TheGreatGatsby said:
> ...



It's not even dispelling private information, either. It's a simple check and balance to see if any companies raised rates 47% over one year.


----------



## Article 15 (Mar 7, 2013)

Mac1958 said:


> .
> 
> We currently have a grand total of FOUR health care systems:
> 
> ...



I dunno.

I'm with you on this issue.

We need a minimum level universal coverage and a supplemental private market.

At least that's where I think you stand on it.


----------



## Article 15 (Mar 7, 2013)

G.T. said:


> Article 15 said:
> 
> 
> > G.T. said:
> ...



That or something similar will be his excuse.  

Flat out ignoring it is another option he has, I suppose.


----------



## Mac1958 (Mar 7, 2013)

Article 15 said:


> Mac1958 said:
> 
> 
> > .
> ...




*Bingo.*  And by the way, I was wrong, we have FIVE health care systems:


Individual/Group health insurance
Medicaid
Medicare
Indigent care
Veterans' care
This is absolutely ridiculous.

And on top of that, we burden businesses with paying for much of it.

.


----------



## JoeB131 (Mar 7, 2013)

Mac1958 said:


> .
> 
> We currently have a grand total of FOUR health care systems:
> 
> ...



I think the problem is, while the rest of the world was going to single payer systems or universal coverage of some sort, we had monied interests that resisted.  

The ironic thing is, group health insurance can ONLY exist because it is heavily subsidized by government.


----------



## G.T. (Mar 7, 2013)

I dont even think coverage is the issue. 

If costs were affordable, what would we even NEED insurance coverage for? 

Costs aren't affordable, therein lies the problem. Healthcare is priced as a luxury item. It's not. People have devoted their entire lives to health research to benefit human kind, as a species, not simply benefit "those who can afford it."

Every procedure, pill or anything at all that uses renewable resources should be on the CHEAP CHEAP.


----------



## Claudette (Mar 7, 2013)

Article 15 said:


> Claudette said:
> 
> 
> > JoeB131 said:
> ...



As I said. I really could give shit one. If they die, they die. I'm just not interested in paying for them. 

If you are then pay away. 

Neat.


----------



## Mac1958 (Mar 7, 2013)

JoeB131 said:


> Mac1958 said:
> 
> 
> > .
> ...




I assume you're talking about business tax deductions and that's a great freakin' point.  

Now I'm even more pissed off, thanks loads pal.

.


----------



## Article 15 (Mar 7, 2013)

Claudette said:


> Article 15 said:
> 
> 
> > Claudette said:
> ...



Then you are living in the wrong country.

You will pay whether you are interested or not.

That's the price of having in a modern, civilized society.


----------



## Claudette (Mar 7, 2013)

JoeB131 said:


> Claudette said:
> 
> 
> > Of course we are but only because we have no say in the matter. The Clowns in Govt have decided that those paying should support those that don't.
> ...



Heartless because I object to paying someone elses bills?? 

As for abortion?? Its not an issue for me at all. I have no problem with abortion just as I have no problem with gays.

Sure our civilized society takes care of everyone because we have no choice. Once again the Clowns in Govt have made that decsion for us dummies who pay for it all.

Perhaps you could show me where in the Contitution it says that those that have should pay for those that don't have. And please don't quote the GW clause. That says to promote, not provide. 

Again. I find it laugable that you automatically assume that everyone feels obligated to assume the responsibilities of others. To pay for their HC, rent, food and anything else they might need. 

If thats your cup of tea than pay away my friend. Believe me they will take every dime you want to give them.


----------



## Seawytch (Mar 7, 2013)

Article 15 said:


> Mac1958 said:
> 
> 
> > .
> ...



That is where I stand on it and have been saying that for years. A single payer system doesn't mean that private insurance has to cease to exist. They can still survive on selling supplements. 

Basic healthcare shouldn't be "for profit", period.


----------



## JoeB131 (Mar 7, 2013)

Claudette said:


> [
> 
> Heartless because I object to paying someone elses bills??
> 
> .



Yes, pretty much.  

Thankfully, you don't have a say in the matter...


----------



## Claudette (Mar 7, 2013)

Article 15 said:


> Claudette said:
> 
> 
> > Article 15 said:
> ...



As I said. The only reason this civilized society foots the bills is because we dumb taxpayers have no say in the matter. And yes, we will continue to pay whether we want to or not. 

You like Joe seem to think that every American taxpayer is obligated to help those without. Again. We have no choice if we did that would leave you, Joe and all like minded paying for those folks. You would need deep pockets because they would take every dime you wanted to give them. 

You, of course, will feel really good about yourselves as you go broke taking care of the have nots. 

Its your civilized society after all.


----------



## JoeB131 (Mar 7, 2013)

G.T. said:


> I dont even think coverage is the issue.
> 
> If costs were affordable, what would we even NEED insurance coverage for?
> 
> ...



Well, there aer a lot of factors here.  

The first is that the laws of supply and demand don't apply.  

It isn't like buying a hamburger at Wendys.  You could probably make that hamburger cheaper at home- but it's time and labor intensive.  And you'll probalby have to buy enough materials to go over several meals. 

When you are buying Chemotherapy,the provider has all the power and he can charge whatever the hell he wants.  So while you get someone like Claudette who is happy to let OTHER people die when they are poor, I don't think she'd be so keen on dying after she ran out of money.


----------



## Seawytch (Mar 7, 2013)

Article 15 said:


> Claudette said:
> 
> 
> > Article 15 said:
> ...



We already pay for people without insurance and we pay in the most expensive way possible. Single payer universal coverage is the only way we are going to compete in a global economy. The sooner we realize that, the better off we'll be.


----------



## Mac1958 (Mar 7, 2013)

Claudette said:


> As I said. I really could give shit one. If they die, they die. I'm just not interested in paying for them.





.


----------



## Claudette (Mar 7, 2013)

JoeB131 said:


> Claudette said:
> 
> 
> > [
> ...



Yes it is to bad that I and the rest of us who object to paying other peoples bills don't have a say. 

That would leave you and all likeminded paying for the have nots. One would hope you and your likeminded cohorts have deep pockets because they would take every dime you wanted to give them. Without the rest of us who don't feel as you do, your would be broke in no time.


----------



## Article 15 (Mar 7, 2013)

Claudette said:


> Article 15 said:
> 
> 
> > Claudette said:
> ...



Do you believe that the poor and uninsured who show up at ERs should not be treated?


----------



## JoeB131 (Mar 7, 2013)

Claudette said:


> [q
> 
> As I said. The only reason this civilized society foots the bills is because we dumb taxpayers have no say in the matter. And yes, we will continue to pay whether we want to or not.
> 
> ...



SO are you going to go off and dutifully die when your insurance company announces they will no longer pay for your treatment?  

Here's the thing about it.  Up until about five years ago, I was just like you.  Fuck them if they aren't taking care of themselves. 

Then I had a need for a couple of really expensive operations. No problem, I thought, I have health insurance!  

I even opted for the more premium Point of Service Plan instead of the HMO.  

Oh, wait.  Once the bills started coming in, Cigna started balking at paying them.  And then, oddly, even though I had excellent work reviews and seniority on everyone in the office, I was the first let go when they started doing cutbacks....   Hmmmm... (Other people with medical issues were let go about the same time.) 

So as a practical matter, it isn't a matter of paying for someoen else. We all are.  

It's a matter of making sure that the most people are covered in the most effective way.  

And governments have a better track record of doing that than private sector companies.


----------



## Article 15 (Mar 7, 2013)

Seawytch said:


> Article 15 said:
> 
> 
> > Claudette said:
> ...



Yup...

Preventative care is far less expensive and it would take the burden off employers to provide healthcare.


----------



## Article 15 (Mar 7, 2013)

Mac1958 said:


> Claudette said:
> 
> 
> > As I said. I really could give shit one. If they die, they die. I'm just not interested in paying for them.
> ...



Awesome people, huh?

Wouldn't you just love such a person to be your neighbor?


----------



## JoeB131 (Mar 7, 2013)

Claudette said:


> JoeB131 said:
> 
> 
> > Claudette said:
> ...



Yes, too bad we outnumber you and you keep losing elections, isn't it?  

the true tragedy of this election is the guy you ran, the Weird Mormon Robot, wasn't of your mindset, but he had to pretend to be to get people like you to vote for him.


----------



## Mac1958 (Mar 7, 2013)

.

Imagine how much money *we* would save if everyone had regular preventive and diagnostic care.  Catch everything early, before it becomes acute.

But Rush says "no", so here we are.

.


----------



## Wry Catcher (Mar 7, 2013)

TheGreatGatsby said:


> My most recent monthly health insurance bill went up 47 percent. Thanks again, Obama and all you liberal a-holes who support the madness.



It's not that I would ever question your veracity (sarcasm), but I doubt very much your health insurance (which is implied) went up.  Mine actually went down.  I am now on Mecicare and Kaiser Sr. Advantage.  My Medicare cost is less than the reduction in my Kaiser Premium.  Co-pays remain the same ($10) as well as $10 for each Rx (90 day supply).


----------



## Claudette (Mar 7, 2013)

JoeB131 said:


> Claudette said:
> 
> 
> > [q
> ...



Ahh. Your insurance company tried to fuck you over.

Thats a different story. As long as your payed for you HC no way they should have refused to treat you or even balked at any part of it. My sympathies for you on that one Joe. 

As for you getting cut, I can't address that as I don't know how your company runs. Lay offs from the top down or the bottom up??

I still don't feel obliged to pay someone elses bills. Sorry but that just how I feel.


----------



## RDD_1210 (Mar 7, 2013)

Obamanation said:


> RDD_1210 said:
> 
> 
> > Obamanation said:
> ...



"They wrote it off". LOL. Tell me what you think happens when they "write it off". They just eat the cost out of the goodness of their heart.....please tell me thats what you think happens. PLEASE.


----------



## Seawytch (Mar 7, 2013)

Claudette said:


> I still don't feel obliged to pay someone elses bills. Sorry but that just how I feel.



The point you seem to be missing is that you ARE paying the bills of the unisured but you're doing it in the most irresponsible and expensive way possible. 

Imagine buying a car, but not changing the oil or getting a tune up. Will it be more expensive in the long run to fix it when it blows up? Of course it would be. Well, that's the way we insure the uninsured now. Dumb.


----------



## RDD_1210 (Mar 7, 2013)

Obamanation said:


> RDD_1210 said:
> 
> 
> > Obamanation said:
> ...



Yet your statement that they weren't invited to the discussions was in fact, false. As I've shown. LOL.


----------



## Claudette (Mar 7, 2013)

JoeB131 said:


> Claudette said:
> 
> 
> > JoeB131 said:
> ...



LOL Your assuming I voted for Romney?? Oh and BTW I'm not a Rep. I'm an Indi. 

I will say that Romney was a better choice that the current fuck in the WH. He would have repealed the ACA. The ACA that is going to be anything but affordable. He also was a damned good businessman who would have gotten this economy up and rolling at other than the slower than molassas pace its at now. 

The only reason you voted for Barry was because Romney is a Mormon. Not a goot reason in my book. Hell. I think he would have made a better POTUS than the current asshole.

Personally I could care what religion someone is. Hell. He can worship an idol in the corner for all I care. Anyone would have been a better choice that Barry boy.


----------



## lukelk (Mar 7, 2013)

TheGreatGatsby said:


> AceRothstein said:
> 
> 
> > TheGreatGatsby said:
> ...



my healthcare is doing fine as well. also my friend who has a pre existing condition was able to get healthcare he could afford for the first time in his life, he is 30. THANKS Obama, it was what needed to be done.


----------



## Claudette (Mar 7, 2013)

RDD_1210 said:


> Obamanation said:
> 
> 
> > RDD_1210 said:
> ...



The Reps were shut out. Except for that photo op of Barry and the Reps. You know. The one where he totally ignored everything the Reps had to say. 

If thats your idea of Barry and the Dems listening and taking the Reps ideas seriously then your out to lunch there RD.


----------



## lukelk (Mar 7, 2013)

Claudette said:


> JoeB131 said:
> 
> 
> > Claudette said:
> ...



You mean to tell me the guy who implemented the same system in Mass. when he was Gov. would then repeal that same system. That sounds like a stroke of awesomeness hahahahahaha


----------



## lukelk (Mar 7, 2013)

Claudette said:


> RDD_1210 said:
> 
> 
> > Obamanation said:
> ...



claudumb your mind works in very perverted ways.......


----------



## Harry Dresden (Mar 7, 2013)

Article 15 said:


> Obamanation said:
> 
> 
> > Article 15 said:
> ...



oh shit.....now you are going to have that guy coming at you with his garble.....good luck....


----------



## Synthaholic (Mar 7, 2013)

Claudette said:


> Get back to us in 2014 when the whole thing kicks in there sparky.
> 
> Let us know if your rates go up because they sure as hell won't be going down.


What goes down in price over the years?


----------



## Article 15 (Mar 7, 2013)

Synthaholic said:


> Claudette said:
> 
> 
> > Get back to us in 2014 when the whole thing kicks in there sparky.
> ...



Technology.


----------



## Luddly Neddite (Mar 7, 2013)

lukelk said:


> TheGreatGatsby said:
> 
> 
> > AceRothstein said:
> ...



I don't get it. Obviously, all right wingers' health insurance premiums have gone up while libs' premiums have gone down. Libs have also gotten the mandated refund(s). 

Does anyone know why this is?


----------



## Harry Dresden (Mar 7, 2013)

Claudette said:


> Article 15 said:
> 
> 
> > Claudette said:
> ...


thats pretty cold claudette......if the bodies are piling up on the streets who will pick them up?....create another govt agency?.....or contract some private company?.....


----------



## Article 15 (Mar 7, 2013)

Harry Dresden said:


> Article 15 said:
> 
> 
> > Obamanation said:
> ...



I'll survive.  I always do, Harry.


----------



## Harry Dresden (Mar 7, 2013)

Article 15 said:


> Claudette said:
> 
> 
> > Article 15 said:
> ...



unless its an EMERGENCY.....they should be directed to an URGENT care center....


----------



## Claudette (Mar 7, 2013)

Harry Dresden said:


> Claudette said:
> 
> 
> > Article 15 said:
> ...



I'm sure they will get rid of the bodies. 

After all. They get rid of the bodies now don't they??


----------



## Article 15 (Mar 7, 2013)

Harry Dresden said:


> Article 15 said:
> 
> 
> > Claudette said:
> ...



So flu = urgent care

Broken arm = ER

Something like that?


----------



## Harry Dresden (Mar 7, 2013)

Article 15 said:


> Seawytch said:
> 
> 
> > Article 15 said:
> ...



funny thing about that Art....a Shingles shot costs 200.00....and its supposed to be pretty effective.....my Ins. wont cover it.....but if i get the dam condition they will shell out thousands treating me......is there some kind of logic in that i don't see?....


----------



## Article 15 (Mar 7, 2013)

Harry Dresden said:


> Article 15 said:
> 
> 
> > Seawytch said:
> ...



Nope, that's pure lunacy


----------



## Harry Dresden (Mar 7, 2013)

Wry Catcher said:


> TheGreatGatsby said:
> 
> 
> > My most recent monthly health insurance bill went up 47 percent. Thanks again, Obama and all you liberal a-holes who support the madness.
> ...



i have Blue Shield....some of my coverage went up ....co-pays for office visits doubled.....Colonoscopy co-pays went from 50.00 to 250.00......i haven't used anything else yet so i don't know about other things...


----------



## Mac1958 (Mar 7, 2013)

.

So is anyone going to defend the fact that America has *FIVE (5)* different health care systems and is burdening business with much of the cost?

Anyone?


----------



## Harry Dresden (Mar 7, 2013)

Luddly Neddite said:


> lukelk said:
> 
> 
> > TheGreatGatsby said:
> ...



why the fuck does anyone who has fucking different opinion than you have to be a "rw"?....does anyone know why this is?....


----------



## Harry Dresden (Mar 7, 2013)

Claudette said:


> Harry Dresden said:
> 
> 
> > Claudette said:
> ...



yea but your scenario tells me that you dont want anyone dealing with them......so if the guy dies on your front doorstep.....who are you going to call to come and collect it,and who is going to pay for that?....


----------



## Luddly Neddite (Mar 7, 2013)

Harry Dresden said:


> Wry Catcher said:
> 
> 
> > TheGreatGatsby said:
> ...



I have BC/BS. My co-pays have not changed but my premium has gone down and we've gotten two refunds.


----------



## longknife (Mar 7, 2013)

Okay, back to he original thread:

*Obamacare?  Young?  Here's what's coming.*







From https://lh4.googleusercontent.com/1...g8RDeNRuk2G-JjJEJLOFLqFg4RK4R5M5IKZ3NFadD08Z-


----------



## Luddly Neddite (Mar 7, 2013)

Harry Dresden said:


> Luddly Neddite said:
> 
> 
> > lukelk said:
> ...



Because, right wingers are anti-Obama and anti-everything he has done. Across the board, without exception. Yes, it was a lame ass joke but its also just the way it is. I'm waiting for one of you to swear that Barry has found a way to charge R voters more for their insurance. Wouldn't surprise me at all. 

Oh and another time this happened was in a discussion about tipping. The Obama haters said they knew people who earned $14 a hour in tips. Same phenomenon.


----------



## Harry Dresden (Mar 7, 2013)

Article 15 said:


> Harry Dresden said:
> 
> 
> > Article 15 said:
> ...



since i was discussing this yesterday morning and i had a Doctors appointment that afternoon....i decided to ask my Doctor what kind of stuff the Urgent Care Centers can handle.....he told me at the one he and his partners doctor at can handle taking care of whatever illness you have including monitoring you if its one that is chronic.....they have an X-Ray machine for broken bones....ones that require surgery of course you are going to need the hospital.....they do minor surgeries.....they even have a Dialysis center.....and he said they have quite a few people without Ins....he said they get funded if no ins.....but he did tell me.....no one is going to let anyone die....


----------



## Luddly Neddite (Mar 7, 2013)

longknife said:


> Okay, back to he original thread:
> 
> *Obamacare?  Young?  Here's what's coming.*
> 
> ...



Whats the source of this?

And, why would it be young (healthier) people while my (old retired) premiums have gone down twice?


----------



## Synthaholic (Mar 7, 2013)

boedicca said:


> The increase is not a bug, it's a feature of Obamacare.  The Obama Administration's goal is to destroy private health insurance so that they can push nationalized health care as the only plausible solution.   It's not; but the government sponsored media will push the approved narrative on the gullible low information voters who still get their "news" from them.



See, folks, the ignorant in America are perfectly happy overpaying for their healthcare:







*Gauze Pads: $77*
Charge for each of four boxes of sterile gauze pads, as itemized in a  $348,000 bill following a patients diagnosis of lung cancer

*******************************************






Diagnosed with non-Hodgkins lymphoma at age 42. Total cost, in advance,  for Seans treatment plan and initial doses of chemotherapy: $83,900.  Charges for blood and lab tests amounted to more than $15,000;* with  Medicare, they would have cost a few hundred dollars*

***************************************

Dozens of midpriced items were embedded with similarly aggressive  markups, like $283.00 for a CHEST, PA AND LAT 71020. Thats a simple  chest X-ray, for which MD Anderson is routinely paid $20.44 when it  treats a patient on Medicare, the government health care program for the  elderly.

***************************************






*Test Strips*
Patient was charged $18 each for Accu-chek diabetes test strips. Amazon sells boxes of 50 for about $27, or 55¢ each


Bitter Pill: Why Medical Bills Are Killing Us | TIME.com
*************************************************


Dopes like boedicca feel like their freeeeeeedoms are taken away if they don't have the privilege of paying $18 for something that costs $0.55.

They want the freeeeeedom to be dumbasses, without gummint interference!


----------



## Luddly Neddite (Mar 7, 2013)

Synthaholic said:


> boedicca said:
> 
> 
> > The increase is not a bug, it's a feature of Obamacare.  The Obama Administration's goal is to destroy private health insurance so that they can push nationalized health care as the only plausible solution.   It's not; but the government sponsored media will push the approved narrative on the gullible low information voters who still get their "news" from them.
> ...



Thanks - I've been meaning to read this.


----------



## Harry Dresden (Mar 7, 2013)

Luddly Neddite said:


> Harry Dresden said:
> 
> 
> > Wry Catcher said:
> ...



i havent gotten any refunds.....Rx seems to be the same.....


----------



## Synthaholic (Mar 7, 2013)

The expensive technology deployed on Janice S. was a bigger factor in  her bill than the lab tests. *An &#8220;NM MYO REST/SPEC EJCT MOT MUL&#8221; was  billed at $7,997.54. That&#8217;s a stress test using a radioactive dye that  is tracked by an X-ray computed tomography, or CT, scan. Medicare would  have paid Stamford $554 for that test.*

*Janice S. was charged an additional $872.44 just for the dye used in  the test.* The regular stress test patients are more familiar with, in  which arteries are monitored electronically with an electrocardiograph,  would have cost far less &#8212; $1,200 even at the hospital&#8217;s chargemaster  price.* (Medicare would have paid $96 for it.)* And although many doctors  view the version using the CT scan as more thorough, others consider it  unnecessary in most cases.


*snip*


We don&#8217;t know the particulars of Janice S.&#8217;s condition, so we cannot  know why the doctors who treated her ordered the more expensive test.  But the incentives are clear. On the basis of market prices, Stamford  probably paid about $250,000 for the CT equipment in its operating room.  It costs little to operate, so the more it can be used and billed, the  quicker the hospital recovers its costs and begins profiting from its  purchase. *In addition, the cardiologist in the emergency room gave  Janice S. a separate bill for $600 to read the test results on top of  the $342 he charged for examining her.*


----------



## Polk (Mar 7, 2013)

Luddly Neddite said:


> longknife said:
> 
> 
> > Okay, back to he original thread:
> ...



Those two things are not inconsistent. In fact, you'd expect some level of price convergence as coverage is expanded.


----------



## Claudette (Mar 7, 2013)

Of course they charge higher prices for everything. 

They have to cover the cost of treating those that can't pay. 

The ACA is going to be anything but affordable and I'd like to hear your comments when this fact hits you in the face. And it will.


----------



## Harry Dresden (Mar 7, 2013)

Luddly Neddite said:


> Harry Dresden said:
> 
> 
> > Luddly Neddite said:
> ...



so if you think i am a right winger how come i "seem" to be sympathetic towards those who have no ins. and would have liked to have seen some kind of a program started for those without to get them out of the ER's and into clinics?.....i have Ins. the President does not have to worry about me.....he should have put his efforts towards those who dont and need it....its a lot easier and less costly taking care of 25 million instead of 300 million plus people and he probably would have had much less opposition.....and it would have been a nice start towards doing something about the Medical situation....


----------



## Synthaholic (Mar 7, 2013)

*Niacin Tablet*
Patient was charged $24 per 500-mg tablet of niacin. In drugstores, the pills go for about a nickel each


*CT Scans*
Patient was charged $6,538 for three ct scans. Medicare would have paid a total of about $825 for all three


*Chest X-Ray*
Patient was charged $333. the national rate paid by Medicare is $23.83


*Acetaminophen $1.50*
Charge for one 325-mg tablet, the first of 344 lines in an eight-page hospital bill. You can buy 100 tablets on Amazon for $1.49


*Sodium Chloride $84*
Hospital charge for standard saline solution. Online, a liter bag costs $5.16


----------



## Luddly Neddite (Mar 7, 2013)

Claudette said:


> Of course they charge higher prices for everything.
> 
> They have to cover the cost of treating those that can't pay.
> 
> The ACA is going to be anything but affordable and I'd like to hear your comments when this fact hits you in the face. And it will.



Apples and bowling balls. 

Its true that (thanks to Reagan's SOCIALIST emtala) the insured pay the bills the uninsured don't pay. A lot like paying customers pay for shoplifting. 

But, I have yet to see anything that indicates ACA will "be anything but affordable". As I've said before, I've seen just the opposite. 

Look at the OP. Where's a link that supports that? OTOH, look at the Time mag article (that has nothing at all to do with either ACA or EMTALA)  just posted.


----------



## Luddly Neddite (Mar 7, 2013)

Synthaholic said:


> *Niacin Tablet*
> Patient was charged $24 per 500-mg tablet of niacin. In drugstores, the pills go for about a nickel each
> 
> 
> ...



Easy to see why the R was against single payer. Medicare works well and within it's budget so of course R is against it. 

I carry health insurance but I have a good friend who recently retired and has only medicare. Says he doesn't need anything else because Medicare covers what he needs.


----------



## Claudette (Mar 7, 2013)

Hey. Get back to me in 2014. 

If you honestly think anything Govt sticks its fat nose in will be better or cheaper then I feel for ya dude.


----------



## RDD_1210 (Mar 7, 2013)

Article 15 said:


> Claudette said:
> 
> 
> > JoeB131 said:
> ...



Disgusting, isn't it.


----------



## Claudette (Mar 7, 2013)

Nope. Just practical. 

I can't help it if you have no problem supporting others and I have. 

Of course there are all kinds of charities out there where people can get help. Don't let that stop you from throwing other peoples money at em though. They will take every dime they can get.


----------



## RDD_1210 (Mar 7, 2013)

Claudette said:


> Nope. Just practical.
> 
> I can't help it if you have no problem supporting others and I have.
> 
> Of course there are all kinds of charities out there where people can get help. Don't let that stop you from throwing other peoples money at em though. They will take every dime they can get.



So what is your proposed solution for how to make healthcare more affordable. You've made it clear that you don't want to help pay for people in need and they should die. But how can we make it more affordable so that those people can pay and that your rates do go down. What ideas do you like?


----------



## longknife (Mar 7, 2013)

Luddly Neddite said:


> longknife said:
> 
> 
> > Okay, back to he original thread:
> ...



 You're unable to click on the provided link?


----------



## Luddly Neddite (Mar 7, 2013)

longknife said:


> Luddly Neddite said:
> 
> 
> > longknife said:
> ...



It doesn't go anywhere. Just shows the same graphic but no source.


----------



## Luddly Neddite (Mar 7, 2013)

I'd still really like to see a link to this.


----------



## Claudette (Mar 7, 2013)

RDD_1210 said:


> Claudette said:
> 
> 
> > Nope. Just practical.
> ...



No. I've made it clear that I do not feel morally  obligated to pay for someone elses HC  or anything else they might need. I feel no urge to assume other peoples resonsibilities. 


You have made it clear that you feel morally obligated to do so. Pay away. I just wish that I didn't have to aid you in the moral morass you feel obligated to.

Oh and I don't have a solution nor do I care about any solution. Sorry but I am disgusting after all.


----------



## G.T. (Mar 7, 2013)

Claudette is a G


----------



## Mac1958 (Mar 7, 2013)

Claudette said:


> No. I've made it clear that I do not feel morally  obligated to pay for someone elses HC  or anything else they might need. I feel no urge to assume other peoples resonsibilities. .




Don't you realize that when people can't get access to, or afford, health care, that *you're* already paying for it?

Don't you realize when people don't have access to preventive, diagnostic and drug care that *you're* going to be paying for it in the long run due to significantly more intensive required treatments later?

Don't you realize that *your *employer's cost of doing business is significantly higher than it should be because they have to pay much of the costs of group health insurance, and administer those plans?

Don't you realize that *your* personal health insurance premiums are higher than they have to be because your insurance company is being billed higher rates by providers due to higher costs?

Don't you realize that *you and your loved ones* have to wait longer in ER because so many have to use it for general care?

You can choose to ignore these facts so that you can remain ideologically pure, but that's one hell of a lot of ignoring you're having to do.

.


----------



## RDD_1210 (Mar 7, 2013)

Claudette said:


> RDD_1210 said:
> 
> 
> > Claudette said:
> ...



Ignorance is bliss. So you know you don't want to pay a lot but have no ideas as to how we can lower YOUR rates. 

It doesn't bother you that you're so completely clueless? How do you not have any ideas on how to make your own situation better?


----------



## Article 15 (Mar 7, 2013)

Claudette said:


> RDD_1210 said:
> 
> 
> > Claudette said:
> ...



You're paying for it right now and have been ever since you started paying premiums.

You're blindness is stunning.


----------



## Article 15 (Mar 7, 2013)

RDD_1210 said:


> Article 15 said:
> 
> 
> > Claudette said:
> ...



And really, really, really, REALLY effin' stooooooooooopid.


----------



## Article 15 (Mar 7, 2013)

Mac1958 said:


> Claudette said:
> 
> 
> > No. I've made it clear that I do not feel morally  obligated to pay for someone elses HC  or anything else they might need. I feel no urge to assume other peoples resonsibilities. .
> ...



Yeah but soshillizm.


----------



## Claudette (Mar 7, 2013)

Of course I know and have known that we all pay for those that can't pay. We pay higher premiums and pay for Medicaide. We pay for all of it. 

The ACA isn't going to change that. There is no reform in it as regards to cost. 

Oh yeah. And I'm really, really fucking stupid because I don't have any moral push to cover anyones bills.

Gottcha 

I'm sure I'll give that factoid all the consideration that its due.


----------



## Mac1958 (Mar 7, 2013)

Claudette said:


> Of course I know and have known that we all pay for those that can't pay. We pay higher premiums and pay for Medicaide. We pay for all of it.
> 
> The ACA isn't going to change that. There is no reform in it as regards to cost.
> 
> ...




That's it, huh?  After all the specifics I gave?  That's all?

Okay.

You're not stupid, you're just intellectually paralyzed by your ideology.

.


----------



## Article 15 (Mar 7, 2013)

Claudette said:


> Of course I know and have known that we all pay for those that can't pay. We pay higher premiums and pay for Medicaide. We pay for all of it.
> 
> The ACA isn't going to change that. There is no reform in it as regards to cost.
> 
> ...



Read post #265.  Nothing short of you taking yourself off the grid or moving to some crusty third world country is going to take that burden away from you but we can sure as shit do better and help lessen that burden. No, "letting them die" is not on the table.

And I said you are really, really, really, REALLY effin' stooooooooooopid.  At least get THAT right.


----------



## Vandalshandle (Mar 7, 2013)

TheGreatGatsby said:


> My most recent monthly health insurance bill went up 47 percent. Thanks again, Obama and all you liberal a-holes who support the madness.



Want some cheese with your whine?


----------



## OohPooPahDoo (Mar 7, 2013)

TheGreatGatsby said:


> My most recent monthly health insurance bill went up 47 percent. Thanks again, Obama and all you liberal a-holes who support the madness.



Mine hasn't gone up.

Is that Obama's fault, too, or are only all the bad things in the world his fault?


----------



## Claudette (Mar 7, 2013)

Mac1958 said:


> Claudette said:
> 
> 
> > Of course I know and have known that we all pay for those that can't pay. We pay higher premiums and pay for Medicaide. We pay for all of it.
> ...



Nope. I just don't like being forced to pay for others people responsibilities. Doubt ideology has anything to do with it. 

If someone showed up at my house asking for a meal. I'd be happy to give him all the food he could eat. Why you ask?? Because its is my choice to do so. It comes down to MY CHOICE. Not some asshole Govt taking that choice away. 

Its really just that simple.


----------



## OohPooPahDoo (Mar 7, 2013)

Claudette said:


> Nope. I just don't like being forced to pay for others people responsibilities.


Neither do I - so you should make sure you have health insurance.


----------



## Claudette (Mar 7, 2013)

Article 15 said:


> Claudette said:
> 
> 
> > Of course I know and have known that we all pay for those that can't pay. We pay higher premiums and pay for Medicaide. We pay for all of it.
> ...



No. You and your likeminded buddies think I'm stupid because I DON"T AGREE WITH YOUR TAKE ON THINGS. I'm not interested in assuming someone elses responsibilities. 

Its just that simple.

I don't agree with you so I'm stupid and you moral giants are just the greatest. You feel we should all be thinking just like you. Sorry but that isn't the case. 

I'm sure if anyone asked you you'd be more than delighted to tell them just how great you are because you love spending yours and everyone elses money taking care of those poor downtrodden souls who can't take care of themselves. 

And of course there is no way to get out of paying for everyone. Not as long as our Govt ignores the constitution. Nothing in the constitution about paying for HC or Welfare or Medicade. No where will you find a mention of Charity in that document.


----------



## Article 15 (Mar 7, 2013)

Claudette said:


> Article 15 said:
> 
> 
> > Claudette said:
> ...



No, you're stupid because your take on things is a) not set in reality and b) outrageously cruel if it somehow were reality.

What makes you even more stupid is that despite the fact that you seem to be aware you are paying for it anyway you are resistant to ideas that would help ease the burden on you and your employer.

Like I said, your blindness is stunning.


----------



## Mr. Shaman (Mar 7, 2013)

Claudette said:


> Mac1958 said:
> 
> 
> > Claudette said:
> ...



Riiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiight....as if your auto-insurance premiums get put-into a private, lil' lock-box.....for *your* use, *ONLY*.


----------



## Claudette (Mar 7, 2013)

Article 15 said:


> Claudette said:
> 
> 
> > Article 15 said:
> ...



No. I just don't agree with you so I'm blind and stupid. Got it. 

Oh and please let me know how the ACA is going to ease the cost of HC. I mean really. There is no reform as regards to cost in it. 

AFter all. It will be the law of the land in 2014. Would be nice if it reduced cost but I surely won't hold my breath.

Oh and how are your HC costs in MA?

http://www.kff.org/healthreform/upload/8311.pdf

According to this you have almost everyone covered but your costs are going up. Way up. I can see the same with the ACA.


----------



## Vandalshandle (Mar 7, 2013)

I'm not interested in assuming someone elses responsibilities."

...and yet, you have no problem with the present health care system whereby 67% of hospitals bills are not collected because people simply can not pay them, so the hospitals are kept afloat by state and federal tax money.... 

"


----------



## Article 15 (Mar 7, 2013)

Claudette said:


> Article 15 said:
> 
> 
> > Claudette said:
> ...



I'm not championing ACA, moron, have you been paying any attention at all?

Geez


----------



## Seawytch (Mar 7, 2013)

A public option would control costs. Shame the Republicans won't let us have that...


----------



## Claudette (Mar 7, 2013)

Vandalshandle said:


> I'm not interested in assuming someone elses responsibilities."
> 
> ...and yet, you have no problem with the present health care system whereby 67% of hospitals bills are not collected because people simply can not pay them, so the hospitals are kept afloat by state and federal tax money....
> 
> "



Where did I say that?? 

Who says I have no problem with the present system?? Certainly not me. 

This system isn't the greatest but the ACA isn't any better. Neither do anything about the real problem, the cost. 

As I said. The ACA is going to be anything but affordable. There is no reform as regards to cost in it and your adding loads of folks onto the system. It will be costly.


----------



## Article 15 (Mar 7, 2013)

Claudette said:


> Oh and how are your HC costs in MA?



My health care costs have been basically the same for about three years now.

I spent two and a half days over XMas in the hospital with colitis and racked up $14k in bills ... my cost?  $150.


----------



## Claudette (Mar 7, 2013)

Article 15 said:


> Claudette said:
> 
> 
> > Article 15 said:
> ...



Just where did I say you were championing ACA?? 

I merely mentioned it along with your MA HC system. 

Moron. Geeze.


----------



## Article 15 (Mar 7, 2013)

Claudette said:


> Article 15 said:
> 
> 
> > Claudette said:
> ...



When you asked me to "please let me know how the ACA is going to ease the cost of HC" in response to this:



> What makes you even more stupid is that despite the fact that you seem to be aware you are paying for it anyway you are resistant to ideas that would help ease the burden on you and your employer.


----------



## RDD_1210 (Mar 7, 2013)

Claudette said:


> Mac1958 said:
> 
> 
> > Claudette said:
> ...



Are you forced to live in America? For the matter, are you forced to live in a 1st world country? 

You sure aren't. The things you seek don't exist in ANY 1st world civilized country. Maybe you need to reevaluate your value system.


----------



## Claudette (Mar 7, 2013)

So asking a question about ACA is championing ACA. Got it. 

Sorry I asked. I surely won't ask again.


----------



## RDD_1210 (Mar 7, 2013)

Claudette said:


> Article 15 said:
> 
> 
> > Claudette said:
> ...



LOL, you are so ignorant it's stunning. Hopefully you've never had cancer or some other major illness. But if you did you would know that treatment for such horrible diseases costs hundreds of thousands of dollars. Costs that I promise you, that you couldn't afford without going broke. Good thing you have insurance though......which is other people paying for your treatment. Yes you pay in, but you can and will get coverage beyond the amount that you've contributed. 

Still think other people shouldn't have to pay for your healthcare? Then drop your insurance since you're mooching off of me the day you get sick.


----------



## Dubya (Mar 7, 2013)

*Thank you for the 47 percent increase in my health care rate *

Always with the 47 percent! Don't you people ever learn?


----------



## Claudette (Mar 7, 2013)

RDD_1210 said:


> Claudette said:
> 
> 
> > Mac1958 said:
> ...



Nothing wrong with my values there RD. I just don't agree with yours so therefore I'm stupid and a moron. At least according to you and Arty. In fact I have a pretty good set of values. I just don't appreciate being forced to pay other peoples bills.  On that. I'll disagree with you all day long. 

Thing is our country didn't used to run that way.  Folks took care of themselves. No one payed someone elses bill for them. And no one expected them to. Oh yeah and we were a 1st World country back then also. 

Big difference today. Folks with hands out all over this country and folks like you see nothing wrong with taking care of their needs. Oh yeah.  

There is no charity in the constitution yet look at us today. Loads of folks live on our taxdollars. I'm sure the FF would turn in their graves if they could see the America of today.  

Personal responsibility is becoming extinct. 

Yeah. We are a 1st World country. I hope we stay that way and no. I will never believe as you do RD. I like to make my own choices about charity.

Its really just that simple.


----------



## Article 15 (Mar 7, 2013)

Claudette said:


> RDD_1210 said:
> 
> 
> > Claudette said:
> ...



This country used to have a top marginal tax rate of 90%


----------



## Vandalshandle (Mar 7, 2013)

Claudette said:


> Vandalshandle said:
> 
> 
> > I'm not interested in assuming someone elses responsibilities."
> ...




Medicare is the only effective cost control medical system in the USA. Why? Because the government has contracted to pay medical costs at a rate that is exactly 6% above the average cost of any device or proceedure. As a result, what Medicare pays for my hospital bill is somewhere areound 10% of what a hospital would bill someonewho had no insurance. If someone has HMO insrance, the Hospital has probably contracted to bill about 15-20% above their actual costs. The only thing that this does not apply to is RX, which the pharmacutical companies have managed to get a law passed forbidding the government from negotiating RX costs. As a result, RX in this country costs 50% more than in any other developed nation. If this country had switched to a simgle payer universal health system, trillions would have been saved over a decade.

I am not just making this stuff up. My career was negotiating HMO provider contracts. The facts are also laid out in full in Time Magazine March 4 special edition, which was solely dedicated to this issue.


----------



## Claudette (Mar 7, 2013)

Vandalshandle said:


> Claudette said:
> 
> 
> > Vandalshandle said:
> ...




As I said. I'm no fan of the current system but I don't see where the ACA is going to be better. 

The CBO says this thing is going to cost up the ass.


----------



## Claudette (Mar 7, 2013)

RDD_1210 said:


> Claudette said:
> 
> 
> > Article 15 said:
> ...



I'm ignorant? Your beginning to sound pretty damned ignorant yourself.  

Of course cancer treatments as well as other can run into the hundreds of thousands of dollars. Why do you think I don't want to pay for someone elses HC you idiot. Why should I pay higher premiums so someone can get free HC?? 

I wonder if someone is paying for your HC. Thats why your so sure that everyone should foot the bill.


----------



## Vandalshandle (Mar 7, 2013)

Claudette said:


> Vandalshandle said:
> 
> 
> > Claudette said:
> ...



By law, a hospital must stabilize a patient with an emergency, regardless of whether he has insurance or not. This means that your taxes are already paying for the uninsured. The only thing that ACA is going to do is to shift the cost of this care from the taxes, to the private sector. There will be some increses in costs, because under the present law, a hospital is not required to give you a heart bypass or chemo treratment, since that is not "stabilization". however, in most cases, the uninsured manage to get this done under Medicaid, or other government programs. If all else fails, they simply write it off, and mark up the cost to your insurance comapny, instead, which simply passes it on to you. So, for the most part, all ACA is doing is "cost shifting", "not cost increasing".


----------



## Claudette (Mar 7, 2013)

We'll all find out in 2014.


----------



## RDD_1210 (Mar 7, 2013)

Claudette said:


> RDD_1210 said:
> 
> 
> > Claudette said:
> ...



So you're ok with other people paying for your treatment but you don't want to pay anyone elses bills. Hypocritical much? 

This is where you say..."I never said that". But the fact that you have insurance is proof enough that you're ok with a shared pool system where other people will pay for your treatment when the bills get expensive. That's the way insurance works, people pitching in to pay for others bills when they need it the most. 

Don't like paying for others, then you should drop your insurance and show how personally responsible you really are.


----------



## Vandalshandle (Mar 7, 2013)

Claudette said:


> We'll all find out in 2014.



It certainly won't be worse than 1982, when, as Director of Underwriting for a health insurance comapny, I was being forced to load in a 22% annual health insurance premium inflationary rate, into my annual renewal quote to employers.


----------



## Claudette (Mar 7, 2013)

RDD_1210 said:


> Claudette said:
> 
> 
> > RDD_1210 said:
> ...



Your just being silly now. I have no control over how the insurance system works. Neither do you. Can't change it and neither can you. Nothing hypocritical about it. It is what it is. 

I don't agree with you so I'm wrong and your're right. Got it. 

I will never agree with you and you won't agree with me. No sweat. I sure as shit don't need your approval for anything. 

I live a pretty good life. Have a great job that I'm damned good at. 

Don't owe anyone a dime and I do as I please. That personal responsibility you seem to abhorr pays dividends down the road. It sure has for me. 

Hope you can say the same.


----------



## Harry Dresden (Mar 7, 2013)

Article 15 said:


> Claudette said:
> 
> 
> > Oh and how are your HC costs in MA?
> ...



my wife last year spent a week in there .....she had Ulcerative colitis and had about 3-4 inches of the Intestines removed Artie....are you at that point yet?....by the way it only cost me $250.00 for the week and her Surgery.........


----------



## RDD_1210 (Mar 7, 2013)

Claudette said:


> RDD_1210 said:
> 
> 
> > Claudette said:
> ...



LOL. Clueless doesn't begin to describe you. Willfully ignorant and admittedly selfish are more fitting.


----------



## bigrebnc1775 (Mar 7, 2013)

Synthaholic said:


> Claudette said:
> 
> 
> > Get back to us in 2014 when the whole thing kicks in there sparky.
> ...



Nothing will go down. News will be an "unexpected price hike" will be the reason why it will go up.


----------



## Obamanation (Mar 7, 2013)

JoeB131 said:


> G.T. said:
> 
> 
> > TheGreatGatsby said:
> ...



I sure did!!!!  

...but it's the lefties who refuse to give info about their helathcare costs....  hmmmm wonder why???

Could it really be that Obama could take every last cent from you nutjobs and you would still support him if he gave you fed housing and food stamps???


----------



## LibertyLemming (Mar 7, 2013)

just wait, i work in insurance, premiums gonna go up around 150% im betting


----------



## Trajan (Mar 7, 2013)

Greenbeard said:


> Trajan said:
> 
> 
> > so lets see , your are saying it appears;  that not only is it still budget neutral,  according to what was forecast, but, it is even more so because of a  'slow down in health cost growth'?
> ...



rush?  why is it drones that peddle the truth ministrys line  always  seem to burp up crap like that?

so lets get back to cases- your logic is wonderful, you guys are the only ones I know that claim to be smart before the fact. 

this savings which you claim is going benefit obamacre costs ( you actually said health costs btw) ,  obamacare did not foresee nor schedule for, its a windfall. Plain and simple 
( if in fact it exists) so, in effect, IF this had not occurred, would obamacare be budget neutral? No.




But hey, you stick to the don't worry its all going according to plan horsehockey.....hard for you guys? well, I don't think its hard for you, at all, you're a sheep and you have been programmed, this must succeed and like say, head-start, even when it isn't succeeding since it must, it will , the questions is, I just wonder when the whole thing turns to shit if you'll still show your face here. I'd say yea, shame isn't an emotion in an apparatchiks liibrary....( I love how the CBO now has gained favored status again too)..what a riot...



I am patient, we've heard this all before, we heard it every year while Medicare outran its budget so far its a running joke,  those yahoos in  1965 saw Medicare spending by 1990 at 9 Bn, thats NINE Bn...it was 67 Bn..Sixty Seven Billion......between  1985 and 2009 medicare costs grew 9% a year, the Bush Medicare drug benefit? a DISASTER!!!! Its way over budget,  its a mess, ...but here?  Nope, not here, won't happen, all is well, everything is A-ok and will be, we'll just pray some more health care costs 'savings' to bail us out......but every line of BS runs out of steam eventually and so to, will this


----------



## Obamanation (Mar 7, 2013)

RDD_1210 said:


> Obamanation said:
> 
> 
> > RDD_1210 said:
> ...



I know exactly what happens, been involved in the business for 23 years... 
(fist thing and most important to him living on a fixed income is that he never paid a cent)
Why don't you tell me what YOU THINK HAPPENS after that...

My wife is a masters level therapist (LPC) who deals with unpaid bills every year, so don't try to liberalize the truth... 


go on... share with us...


----------



## Obamanation (Mar 7, 2013)

RDD_1210 said:


> Obamanation said:
> 
> 
> > RDD_1210 said:
> ...



Dumbass!!  Those weren't discussion on the draft of the ACA. They were "pre"discussions. You know that you have to manipulate the truth in order to have a defense. Obama to dems, behind closed doors to draft the ACA --- prompting even the democrat, Nanci Pelosi, to tell ALL of America that we will like it ONCE WE GET A CHANCE to find out what's in it....

Your lies will not work with me!


----------



## Obamanation (Mar 7, 2013)

Article 15 said:


> Harry Dresden said:
> 
> 
> > Article 15 said:
> ...



See you guys keep missing the REALITY in this. If an ER sent a patient to an urgent care in an attempt to keep the cost of heralthcare down....

Well lets put it like this ---- If an idengent person shows up with the flu to an ER we end up doing a CT of the Abdomen/Pelvis with IV and oral contrast. The reason is that the doctor is afraid of missing the ileus that we may not realize is happening and being hidden by the symptoms of the flu. After all the ER doctor doesn't want to get sued. 

So the cost of one person with the flu can be over $3000.00 through one trip to the ER.

The ACA does NOTHING to fix the cost of healthcare!!!  

This example shows us EXACTLY why the cost of health care is so outragous.

First, the patient with the flu should have made an appointment to see their doctor for $60.00 as there NEVER WAS AN EMERGENCY!!!!

Second, the ER doc should not be so afraid of lawsuit that he could simply treat the patient for the obvious (and provable) case of the flu WITHOIUT HAVING TO WORRY ABOUT A 1 in 10,000 ilius that would cost the hospital SEVERAL MILLION dollars if missed.

Again, I will be glad to explain more when I am not busy doing $2500.00 procedures on patients with NON -Emergent issues...


----------



## Greenbeard (Mar 7, 2013)

Trajan said:


> this savings which you claim is going benefit obamacre costs ( you actually said health costs btw) ,  obamacare did not foresee nor schedule for, its a windfall. Plain and simple
> ( if in fact it exists) so, in effect, IF this had not occurred, would obamacare be budget neutral? No.



Sure it was, even under the (as it turns out, overly pessimistic) spending growth estimates they used. But it's a moot point now, given how quickly health care cost growth has mitigated.

I get that in the rightwing fantasy world it wasn't (or still isn't?) deficit neutral because health spending was supposed to speed up. In the real world, health spending growth has slowed to historic lows.

I'll continue to deal with my real world, you continue to analyze it through the prism of your made-up world.


----------



## Obamanation (Mar 7, 2013)

Greenbeard said:


> Trajan said:
> 
> 
> > this savings which you claim is going benefit obamacre costs ( you actually said health costs btw) ,  obamacare did not foresee nor schedule for, its a windfall. Plain and simple
> ...



It's not deficit neutral!!  That is just more liberal misrepresentation of facts....

*Even after including $515 billion in associated tax hikes, the net cost increase totals nearly $1.2 trillion. The new spending is the one certainty of the Presidents health care takeover; without it, Obamacare doesnt exist.
*Obamacare Loses Again in Deficit Reduction Debate | The Foundry: Conservative Policy News Blog from The Heritage Foundation



*2. There is no dispute that the scoring convention used to find that the ACA reduces federal deficits differs from actual law 
*Why Obamacare Expands the Deficit: Charles Blahous Rebuts His Critics - Forbes


*New CBO Report States Obamacare not "Deficit Neutral", as Dems said
*New CBO Report States Obamacare not "Deficit Neutral", as Dems said

*Such a repeal would knock another $28 billion out of the funding for the deficit-blasting ObamaCare, which was once hilariously advertised as revenue-neutral or even a cost-efficiency system that would actually reduce the deficit.  But as always with Democrat schemes, once the lollipop-dispensing vote-buying machinery is in place, it is no longer necessary to pretend that Big Government can actually pay for it.  Well pass the bills along to our children, and theyll pass them on to their children, forever and ever.
*ObamaCare's New Year tax "surprises" | Conservative News, Views & Books


*First, I will not sign a plan that adds one dime to our deficits  either now or in the future, said President Obama about health care reform on September 9th of 2009. I will not sign it if it adds one dime to the deficit, now or in the future, period. And to prove that Im serious, there will be a provision in this plan that requires us to come forward with more spending cuts if the savings we promised dont materialize.

Well, according to the GAO, Obamacare is set to add $6.2 trillion to budget deficits. So, uh, wheres that provision for spending cuts?*

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4RHt7Iqerls&feature=player_embedded]Sessions: GAO Report Indicates Obamacare Will Add $6.2T to Deficit - YouTube[/ame]


----------



## Article 15 (Mar 7, 2013)

Harry Dresden said:


> Article 15 said:
> 
> 
> > Claudette said:
> ...



Yikes.

No, thankfully I'm not at that point.  This was the first time it came up for me.  It was pretty damn scary at the time.  I had no idea what was going on with me.  Needless to say when I showed up at the ER and told them my symtoms I was moved immediately to the front of the line.

After I was released I was told I SHOULD be fine but not to eff around if anything doesn't feel right in the future.


----------



## Dante (Mar 7, 2013)

Article 15 said:


> Harry Dresden said:
> 
> 
> > Article 15 said:
> ...



Gatsby is a blowhard. thank you guys for real stories


----------



## JoeB131 (Mar 8, 2013)

Claudette said:


> Ahh. Your insurance company tried to fuck you over.
> 
> Thats a different story. As long as your payed for you HC no way they should have refused to treat you or even balked at any part of it. My sympathies for you on that one Joe.
> 
> ...



No, my insurance company SUCCESSFULLY fucked me over. that's kind of the point. 

As for who got cut, it was based mostly on cuttnig the people with medical issues first, followed by people who had seniority because they were making more and realized the boss was mostly full of shit. 

That's why the notion of "paying someone else's bills" is kind of silly.  We are all paying someone else's bills, that's the point.  Whether it be through a public program, a private program that is heavily subsidized by the government, or through just showing up at an emergency room.  

So the question is, would you rather have whether you get treatment determined by the government we have the option of voting out if they aren't providing good service, or by an insurance company that is answerable to shareholders to produce a profit. 

Oh, the rest of the industrialized world has already figured this one out.  They pay less, live longer and have better results overall.


----------



## JoeB131 (Mar 8, 2013)

Claudette said:


> [
> 
> LOL Your assuming I voted for Romney?? Oh and BTW I'm not a Rep. I'm an Indi.



No one wants to admit to being a Republican these days... 

Now, if you threw away your vote on a third party non-entity, that's your own business. 



Claudette said:


> I will say that Romney was a better choice that the current fuck in the WH. He would have repealed the ACA. The ACA that is going to be anything but affordable. He also was a damned good businessman who would have gotten this economy up and rolling at other than the slower than molassas pace its at now.



First, businessmen make shitty presidents because for the most part, businessmen are shitty human beings.  Our "Businessmen" Presidents.  Hoover and Bush-43.  Nuff said.  

Second, Romney would not have repealled the ACA. He invented it! He'd give a few more wet sloppy kisses to big insurance and big pharma and called it a day.  Please don't imagine Romney was a small government conservative or teabagger.  






Claudette said:


> [
> The only reason you voted for Barry was because Romney is a Mormon. Not a goot reason in my book. Hell. I think he would have made a better POTUS than the current asshole.
> 
> Personally I could care what religion someone is. Hell. He can worship an idol in the corner for all I care. Anyone would have been a better choice that Barry boy.



Mormons are fucking evil.  Period.  They are a batshit crazy cult started by child molestors.  

Pretty much the discussion was over when I found out he was a Mormon.


----------



## Obamanation (Mar 8, 2013)

JoeB131 said:


> Claudette said:
> 
> 
> > Ahh. Your insurance company tried to fuck you over.
> ...



That is the lefty angle to work. The real issue is that you don't believe in the free market and you are confused into thinking that FREEDOM doesn't really matter that much.

Either way Obamacare is a FAR CRY from what you are describing when you say "pay less, live longer and have better lives." As a matter of fact that just isn't the truth at all - or I should say you would have to provide substancial data before I would even consider the possiblity of truth to that!


----------



## tyroneweaver (Mar 8, 2013)

Black_Label said:


> TheGreatGatsby said:
> 
> 
> > My most recent monthly health insurance bill went up 47 percent. Thanks again, Obama and all you liberal a-holes who support the madness.
> ...




so if I don't kick in this year the irs can't send me to jail:


----------



## JoeB131 (Mar 8, 2013)

Obamanation said:


> [
> 
> That is the lefty angle to work. The real issue is that you don't believe in the free market and you are confused into thinking that FREEDOM doesn't really matter that much.



I don't think people should DIE because someone needs to make a quick buck. (Contrariwise, I also don't think that we should extend the lives of terminal patients for an agonizing few more weeks because the hospitals are making a mint off that shit.) 

whenever a Wingnut talks about "freedom", it usually means the ability of those with money to abuse the rest of us.  





Obamanation said:


> Either way Obamacare is a FAR CRY from what you are describing when you say "pay less, live longer and have better lives." As a matter of fact that just isn't the truth at all - or I should say you would have to provide substancial data before I would even consider the possiblity of truth to that!



I think ACA has a lot of flaws.  Frankly, we should have just set up a single payer system like Canada or the UK or most of the rest of the world where they do exactly that.  But the political reality was that Big Pharma and Big Insurance have the "Freedom" to buy politicians, and Obama took too many things off the table right off the bat. 

Still, a vast improvment over what we've been doing.


----------



## Claudette (Mar 8, 2013)

RDD_1210 said:


> Claudette said:
> 
> 
> > RDD_1210 said:
> ...



LOL  Think I will manage to survive your condemnation there RD. 

After all you have the moral highground, what with wanting to take care of your fellow man no matter what it costs. Just be glad the rest of us are on board, willing or not, to foot those bills because if we weren't. You'd be broke in no time. Loads of freeloaders in this country and they love being taken care of. Good thing your on the job. LOL

LMAO Can't say you bother me one way or the other. I just have my view and you have yours. So be it.


----------



## editec (Mar 8, 2013)

Vandalshandle said:


> Claudette said:
> 
> 
> > Vandalshandle said:
> ...



I'm somewhat dubious of that happy theory.

As ACA forces the uninsured (mostly young kids) to buy insurance, it WILL be putting more money (in aggregate) into the overall HC coffers.

Now the question that I think TRULY matters is what will the HC establishment (HC insurance companies included) do with that NEW FOUND money?

Will they use it more effectively or will costs imply rise to absorb that new money?

Based on your employment you seem to have been more on board with ACA than I am.

So what cost containment  measures do you feel will keep the system from inflating costs?

I don't see any, but like I say, I know that I am not up to snuff on the details of this law.

I'm hoping you can convince me that I am wrong, incidently, more than I can convince you that I am right.

I would be MUCH MUCH more convinced that ACA could do a better job if, for example, ACA did something to increase SUPPLY of HC.

But I do not see anything like that in ACA, _do you?_


----------



## Harry Dresden (Mar 8, 2013)

Article 15 said:


> Harry Dresden said:
> 
> 
> > Article 15 said:
> ...



if it keeps happening see a gastrointestinologist...dont leave it to a regular Doctor.....


----------



## Harry Dresden (Mar 8, 2013)

JoeB131 said:


> Claudette said:
> 
> 
> > [
> ...



* if you threw away your vote on a third party non-entity*

the way i look at it Joe YOU are throwing YOUR vote away by voting for the same old shit....and getting the same old shit for it....


----------



## Claudette (Mar 8, 2013)

Harry Dresden said:


> JoeB131 said:
> 
> 
> > Claudette said:
> ...



Couldn't have said it better.


----------



## Trajan (Mar 8, 2013)

editec said:


> Vandalshandle said:
> 
> 
> > Claudette said:
> ...



well, those young folks who don't buy a plan or contribute in any way to the 'health care  $$ coffers' and say pay the fine, then go off and get sick at 40, 50 and require care treatment etc. costing much mpore than they and their pool has built via plan $$, what then?


as to this-


> I would be MUCH MUCH more convinced that ACA could do a better job if, for example, ACA did something to increase SUPPLY of HC.



well, it will be lowering the present levels of care treatment access to those getting it now in the upper 60-70% range and transferring it to the lower 30-40%% range. ( squeezing the balloon so to speak) 

Look, Its terribly simple, the government thinks they can do or found a way to do what no free market private industries/entity, etc.  has tried to do since thog sold the first arrowhead to thag;

 increase customer base using the same amount of services/good(s), keeping prices flat and delivering  the same customer care/satisfaction here to fore delivered( and increasing it for some)- all at once....call it the holy grail, super holy market trinity,  whatever.... 

Aint happening.


----------



## RDD_1210 (Mar 8, 2013)

Obamanation said:


> RDD_1210 said:
> 
> 
> > Obamanation said:
> ...



You didn't actually tell me what you think happens. You asserted that you know what happens, but I'm still doubting you have any clue what "writing it off" entails. But yeah, you stating that your wife has a masters is plenty of proof


----------



## RDD_1210 (Mar 8, 2013)

Obamanation said:


> RDD_1210 said:
> 
> 
> > Obamanation said:
> ...



When all else fails....move the goal posts! Good for you.


----------



## editec (Mar 8, 2013)

Trajan said:


> editec said:
> 
> 
> > Vandalshandle said:
> ...


----------



## Trajan (Mar 8, 2013)

Greenbeard said:


> Trajan said:
> 
> 
> > this savings which you claim is going benefit obamacre costs ( you actually said health costs btw) ,  obamacare did not foresee nor schedule for, its a windfall. Plain and simple
> ...



serendipity is the real world folks!!! 

You are delusional, seriously......, you actually state right above that spending on health care has slowed (and  to fit your rubric must stay slow), thats your out ( for  now) , meanwhile, an avalanche of boomers rolling into their prime Medicare years, less productivity due to technology and worker replacement etc......jesus, you're really fucking nuts

you haven't dealt in the real world since you came thru the birth canal sonny......its pathological.


_
increase customer base using the same amount of services/good(s), keeping prices flat and delivering the same customer care/satisfaction here to fore delivered ( and increasing it for some)- all at once....call it the holy grail, super holy market trinity, whatever...._


I have watched this 'actualize'  my entire lifetime, the government , whom has failed at every endeavor in this context will, fail again.  I don't need several massive failures before I learn,  then again, I am not into desperate denial either. I am not even sure if the DSM has a category for folks like you. ..

 but hey you keep up the party line. 

class act dies? hey we stumbled upon 'savings' we had exactly zero to do with, so we don't need that cash, its all good!!!!


----------



## Trajan (Mar 8, 2013)

editec said:


> Trajan said:
> 
> 
> > editec said:
> ...


----------



## Vandalshandle (Mar 8, 2013)

editec said:


> Vandalshandle said:
> 
> 
> > Claudette said:
> ...



ACA is not going to reduce costs. It is going to shift health care payments from taxes to businesses and individuals. Unfortunately, the only effective way to reduce health insurance costs is through a single payer universal health care system, whereby the government contracts provider contracts the same way it does with Medicare. Since that is not going to fly in this country, the second best way is to have universal health care with coverage provided by private companies, as is also done with Medicare. They will add a profit level to the premium. This is what is going to happen someday, which is why I own lots of stock in health insurance companies..Saddaling businesses with employee health care costs is not sustainable, in a world market where no other country ties health insurance to employment. Ford has been paying more for health insurance than they pay for steel since 1978.


----------



## Synthaholic (Mar 8, 2013)

Claudette said:


> Mac1958 said:
> 
> 
> > Claudette said:
> ...



Please describe what buying choices you have when you are rushed to the hospital, say, after getting hit by another car?

Do you get to shop around?

Do you get to say "How much will this test cost, and can I get an outside practitioner to do that test instead?"

Do you get to say you won't pay for that $77 box of gauze?  That $24 niacin pill that actually costs a nickel?


Please describe what power you have, financially, in that situation.


----------



## Vandalshandle (Mar 8, 2013)

There is no free market sytem in the world of American health care.


----------



## Synthaholic (Mar 8, 2013)

Claudette said:


> Vandalshandle said:
> 
> 
> > I'm not interested in assuming someone elses responsibilities."
> ...


So, what would you do to control costs?


----------



## Synthaholic (Mar 8, 2013)

Article 15 said:


> Claudette said:
> 
> 
> > Oh and how are your HC costs in MA?
> ...


Yet your $14,000 bill, in real world costs, was most likely closer to $1,500.

That's what that Steven Brill Time Magazine story illuminates.

We have a health care cost problem, not a health care problem.


----------



## Trajan (Mar 8, 2013)

Vandalshandle said:


> There is no free market sytem in the world of American health care.



got that right...what, publicly financed HC is already over....45%(?)


----------



## Synthaholic (Mar 8, 2013)

Claudette said:


> So asking a question about ACA is championing ACA. Got it.
> 
> Sorry I asked. *I surely won't ask again.*



Please don't, unless you are looking for information.  You are woefully under-educated when it comes to the ACA, which I wish you would go back to calling Obamacare, because it's going to end up as a great legacy for the President.

It is the first step toward getting the price-gouging out of medicine.  For that alone, it is monumental.

If Congresscritters weren't so beholden to lobbyists we would be farther along.  So maybe there should be a renewed push for lobby reform.


----------



## Synthaholic (Mar 8, 2013)

Dubya said:


> *Thank you for the 47 percent increase in my health care rate *
> 
> Always with the 47 percent! Don't you people ever learn?



I've been waiting for this post.  




Article 15 said:


> This country used to have a top marginal tax rate of 90%




And the very rich did very well during those years.  A great example is George Romney.  H. Ross Perot.  Warren Buffett.  T. Boone Pickens.  Lee Iaccoca.  Elvis Presley.

They all had the means to live a very luxury lifestyle, from cars to houses to travel to banking money.  That's the American Dream.  Not making $108 million in bonuses for running a failed financial institution that has only taken from the American taxpayer.  And continues to take $85 billion per year, with no return.

And I never heard any of them bitch about their tax rates.  It would have been seen as ungrateful, and gauche.  The rich had manners, and more importantly, perspective. 





Claudette said:


> RDD_1210 said:
> 
> 
> > Claudette said:
> ...




You are extremely confident that this bolded situation will continue indefinitely.  Shit happens, Claudette.  You, hubby, son, daughter, could get an illness, then be dropped from your coverage.  You could het blindsided in your car and be confined to a wheelchair, while being dropped from your insurance coverage.  You could have a few of the common situations that are described in that Time article (HAVE YOU READ IT?) and all of a sudden be looking at an $83,900 hospital bill.

You cannot predict the future, and you cannot negotiate cost, and you can not 'shop'.  As it says in the article, the medical industry is the "ultimate seller's market".


----------



## Synthaholic (Mar 8, 2013)

bigrebnc1775 said:


> Synthaholic said:
> 
> 
> > Claudette said:
> ...


Like what oil companies and wall street speculators do?


----------



## bigrebnc1775 (Mar 8, 2013)

Synthaholic said:


> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> > Synthaholic said:
> ...



like when Bush lift the president offshore drilling ban, and obama m,ade anothe ban?


----------



## Synthaholic (Mar 8, 2013)

Harry Dresden said:


> JoeB131 said:
> 
> 
> > Claudette said:
> ...


Ahh, but we got the beginnings of health care reform.  That's new shit!


----------



## Synthaholic (Mar 8, 2013)

bigrebnc1775 said:


> Synthaholic said:
> 
> 
> > bigrebnc1775 said:
> ...


Go be stupid somewhere else.


----------



## Trajan (Mar 8, 2013)

Synthaholic said:


> Dubya said:
> 
> 
> > *Thank you for the 47 percent increase in my health care rate *
> ...




I have been waiting for this post too, this makes, what, the 3rd time I will address this  red herring. 

Lets see you do some homework-

first- how many people actually paid that rate? 

second- why was the AMT created




answer question 1, then, if you're even remotely logical, you'll get the answer to the second......


----------



## Claudette (Mar 8, 2013)

Synthaholic said:


> Dubya said:
> 
> 
> > *Thank you for the 47 percent increase in my health care rate *
> ...




You can't predict the future there either Syn.  

Your saying that Obamacare, ACA, will be cheaper and better??

I really hope your right but I also really, really doubt it. 

Anytime the govt sticks its fat nose in you have problems and loads of unintended consequences. You should know that if you've been around amy length of time. 

We will see come 2014. I really hope your right. 

As for my situation in bolded letters?? I really don't owe anyone a dime. My house, cars, everything is payed for because hey, I watched my money, payed extra when I could and so I don't owe a dime.

Now does shit happen?? You bet it does so I hope it never happens to me but if it should I'm in  a lot better place than loads of folks.


----------



## bigrebnc1775 (Mar 8, 2013)

Synthaholic said:


> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> > Synthaholic said:
> ...



Truth hurt your feelings dumb ass?


----------



## Harry Dresden (Mar 8, 2013)

Synthaholic said:


> Harry Dresden said:
> 
> 
> > JoeB131 said:
> ...



i said this a while back......each Election cycle the people get thrown a bone.....that was the bone this time.....and we have yet to see if it lives up to its billing.....and all in all Synth, if the same old people are there.....you are going to get basically the same old shit....you know it and i know it.....the 2 parties act like the tax dollars they control are their personal funds from their own pockets and it seems they only want to spend it if they are going to get something back....


----------



## JoeB131 (Mar 8, 2013)

Harry Dresden said:


> * if you threw away your vote on a third party non-entity*
> 
> the way i look at it Joe YOU are throwing YOUR vote away by voting for the same old shit....and getting the same old shit for it....



Dude you are entitled to that opinion, but the reality is, our presidents will always be either Democrats or Republicans.  This is just the reality. 

Now, frankly, I liked Gary Johnson. He was a Libertarian who wasn't completely batshit out of his mind, unlike the Paul family. But he had absolutely no chance of winning a single electoral vote.


----------



## Obamanation (Mar 8, 2013)

Synthaholic said:


> The expensive technology deployed on Janice S. was a bigger factor in  her bill than the lab tests. *An NM MYO REST/SPEC EJCT MOT MUL was  billed at $7,997.54. Thats a stress test using a radioactive dye that  is tracked by an X-ray computed tomography, or CT, scan. Medicare would  have paid Stamford $554 for that test.*
> 
> *Janice S. was charged an additional $872.44 just for the dye used in  the test.* The regular stress test patients are more familiar with, in  which arteries are monitored electronically with an electrocardiograph,  would have cost far less  $1,200 even at the hospitals chargemaster  price.* (Medicare would have paid $96 for it.)* And although many doctors  view the version using the CT scan as more thorough, others consider it  unnecessary in most cases.
> 
> ...




You are starting in the middle of a process. Not sure who you are blaming for the cost in these issues, but you have to consider all of the exams that are done for free. You also do a great job of showing how doctors are forced to use the more expensive tests, rather than using clinical skills to come up with a differential diagnosis. 

Most of the exams you are talking about didn't even exist 20 years ago. There is R&D that hasn't even been fully payed for with newer technology. You are paying for the research, the development, the production, and the use of the newest technology. 

The "dye" you referred to is really a radio-pharmaceutical. They mix a radioactive material into a "shot" that allows the radioactive material to be scanned in a patients heart with the heart both stressed and relaxed. Typically, patients with heart trouble can't run on a treadmill, their heart must be chemically stressed -- they use another drug (adenosine) to stress the heart. As you can imagine, the patient must be monitored during this process. The next thing you need to consider - is that if the best test is not used and the patient dies - the family is going to sue the doctor and the facility --- thereby forcing all involved to use the more expensive and best tests...

*The real thing you are missing is that you are talking about things that you really don;t understand and parroting people who have a vested interest in your reaction.*


----------



## longknife (Mar 8, 2013)

Someone asked me for a link to a graphic. Well, here's the article:

REPORT: Youth Healthcare Premiums to Skyrocket 145%-203%





If health insurance prices triple, do we still have to call Obamacare the "Affordable Care Act?

Read full thing with links @ REPORT: Youth Healthcare Premiums to Skyrocket 145%-203%


----------



## Obamanation (Mar 8, 2013)

Synthaholic said:


> *Niacin Tablet*
> Patient was charged $24 per 500-mg tablet of niacin. In drugstores, the pills go for about a nickel each
> 
> 
> ...



You are darn right about one thing. Medicare reimbursement is HORRIBLE!!!  It's a wonder hospitals can keep their doors open only getting $24 for a chest x-ray and less than $300.00 for a CT - the ionated contrast alone for a CT costs facilities $100 per patient.


----------



## Obamanation (Mar 8, 2013)

OohPooPahDoo said:


> Claudette said:
> 
> 
> > Nope. I just don't like being forced to pay for others people responsibilities.
> ...



Health insurance IS paying for other peoples responsibilities --- whether it's provided by the gov't or private insurers. People who won't use medical treatment buy insurance and their money is used to pay for people who do use treatment....

Do you not even understand that basic concept?


----------



## Obamanation (Mar 8, 2013)

Vandalshandle said:


> Claudette said:
> 
> 
> > Vandalshandle said:
> ...



The only thing you are wrong about here is that unisured people without govt' programs will still get bypass surgery. If you show at the ER with chest pain and no coverage you will be sent to the cath lab for a CABG (coronary arterial bypass graft) and spend a week (miniminum) the hospital recovering. Should you contract a pneumonia you will continue to stay in the hospital... You are what we call Private Pay --- and usually the hospital will receive very little, if any, payment for ANY of your bills...

The ACA does NOTHING to address the cost of healthcare in the US. The cost problems have NOTHING to do with the gov't taking over the biggest industry in the Country. That is just socialism -- and it will not fix the cost problem!!!


----------



## Harry Dresden (Mar 8, 2013)

JoeB131 said:


> Harry Dresden said:
> 
> 
> > * if you threw away your vote on a third party non-entity*
> ...



and as long as everyone has that opinion.....we will have the same old shit.....until people decide that these too trees have got to be shaken and have the balls to do some shaking....nothing is going to change...we will get a bone thrown at us every now and then.....if thats what you want.....keep voting for the so called...."lessor of two evils"....


----------



## Obamanation (Mar 8, 2013)

RDD_1210 said:


> Obamanation said:
> 
> 
> > RDD_1210 said:
> ...



No, I was pointing that she "writes off" unpaid clients every year... I am vastly informed as to how it works... I turned it around and am suggesting that you may know the process but don't understand it's affects AT ALL!!!!!

I'm trying to get you to describe how you think "writing off" changes ANYTHING!!!! which you kind of implied that it does!!!!


----------



## Obamanation (Mar 8, 2013)

RDD_1210 said:


> Obamanation said:
> 
> 
> > RDD_1210 said:
> ...



Nobody move any goal posts... When authoring the ACA there were NO MEMBERS OF THE GOPS INVOLVED!!!!  It was done with ZERO TRANSPARANCY. It was done in a way that it was passed without the GOP even having a chance to fully read it --- and that what makes Obama a liar and Pelosi a moron for pointing out to the entire world that the Dems were trying to pull a sneaky trick on ALL OF US - by passing it before anyone had a chance to react!

The Demcratic Party came out and said that we had to fix the growing problem cost of health care! Went behind closed doors to draft a law that would allow the gov't to eventually take over healthcare ENTIRELY. They passed the law without allowing ANYONE outside the circle to read it --- and low and behold, IT DOES NOTHING TO FIX THE COST OF HEALTHCARE IN AMERICA!!!

They manipulated YOU too!!!


----------



## Obamanation (Mar 8, 2013)

Vandalshandle said:


> editec said:
> 
> 
> > Vandalshandle said:
> ...



I'd sure like to know why you think the ONLY way to reduce costs is to remove freedom. That is soooo totally opposite of the premise this Country was founded on. I don't believe it for a second. I believe the only FREE way to fix the cost of healhtcare is to ensure fair competition in the market. I still believe in capitalism, and that capitalism will always provide a better solution than socialism.


----------



## Obamanation (Mar 8, 2013)

Vandalshandle said:


> editec said:
> 
> 
> > Vandalshandle said:
> ...



But you are TOTALLY right that the ACA will not reduce costs. It will more than likely tear the system apart more rapidly forcing the gov't to step in and do a total takeover. Which I believe may have been Obama's strategy from the beginning.


----------



## Vandalshandle (Mar 8, 2013)

Obamanation said:


> Vandalshandle said:
> 
> 
> > Claudette said:
> ...



As I said, ACA is not going to reduce costs, so we agree. A single payer Medicare like universal health care WOULD have reduced costs, and so would the alternative Universal health care through private insureds, like Medicare Advantage.


----------



## Obamanation (Mar 8, 2013)

Vandalshandle said:


> There is no free market sytem in the world of American health care.



Which is exactly why we are in this mess!!! If you want to restore healthcare you have to ensure that free market principals are truely the driving force in determining cost. ...and once again, you are totally right, it's not!


----------



## Obamanation (Mar 8, 2013)

Harry Dresden said:


> JoeB131 said:
> 
> 
> > Harry Dresden said:
> ...



I like Gary Johnson too. A Libertarian who doesn't have totally wacko foreign affairs positions. That is my single big issue thith libertarians!


----------



## Obamanation (Mar 8, 2013)

Vandalshandle said:


> Obamanation said:
> 
> 
> > Vandalshandle said:
> ...



Even if it would... I would be against it. A legitimate free market is ALWAYS a better solution than gov't run ANYTHING. Look at all the failing gov't programs we have now. Even the ones people like aren't solvent. If you really want to see something screwed up, put the gov't in charge!


----------



## Synthaholic (Mar 8, 2013)

Claudette said:


> Synthaholic said:
> 
> 
> > Dubya said:
> ...



I don't agree.  Medicare, Social Security, the Rural Electrification/Tennessee Valley Authority, the Hoover Dam, the Interstate Highway System, the New York City Subway System, and a bunch of others.

The problem is that government has stopped doing those types of things.





> We will see come 2014. I really hope your right.
> 
> As for my situation in bolded letters?? I really don't owe anyone a dime. My house, cars, everything is payed for because hey, I watched my money, payed extra when I could and so I don't owe a dime.
> 
> Now does shit happen?? *You bet it does so I hope it never happens to me but if it should I'm in  a lot better place than loads of folks.*



Well, continued good luck.  Just remember the old "if not for the grace of God go I", because life situations can change at any time.

A functioning society needs a degree of empathy.


----------



## Synthaholic (Mar 8, 2013)

bigrebnc1775 said:


> Synthaholic said:
> 
> 
> > bigrebnc1775 said:
> ...


No, just not interested in your trolling and derail attempts.

Now fuck off.


----------



## Synthaholic (Mar 8, 2013)

Harry Dresden said:


> Synthaholic said:
> 
> 
> > Harry Dresden said:
> ...



You see health care as a privilege for those who can afford it (or who have employers currently paying for it, even when it's taxpayer dollars).

I see basic health care as a right of every citizen of the United States Of America.


----------



## Synthaholic (Mar 8, 2013)

Obamanation said:


> Synthaholic said:
> 
> 
> > *Niacin Tablet*
> ...



Perhaps reforming the executive pay would be a start to being able to charge real-world costs:


*The president of MD Anderson is paid like someone running a  prosperous business. Ronald DePinhos total compensation last year was  $1,845,000. *That does not count outside earnings derived from a much  publicized waiver he received from the university that, according to the  Houston _Chronicle_, *allows him to maintain unspecified financial ties with his three principal pharmaceutical companies.*


*DePinhos salary is nearly two and a half times the $750,000 paid to  Francisco Cigarroa, the chancellor of entire University of Texas system,  of which MD Anderson is a part.* This pay structure is emblematic of  American medical economics and is reflected on campuses across the U.S.,  where the president of a hospital or hospital system associated with a  university  whether its Texas, Stanford, Duke or Yale  is invariably  paid much more than the person in charge of the university.


----------



## C_Clayton_Jones (Mar 8, 2013)

> Thank you for the 47 percent increase in my health care rate



Obviously conservatives know only how to whine.


----------



## Obamanation (Mar 8, 2013)

Synthaholic said:


> Obamanation said:
> 
> 
> > Synthaholic said:
> ...



*You have to be kidding me. You don't think one of the best oncologists in medicine is worth 2 million a year???*

DePinho's laboratory has produced an array of discoveries leading to better methods of early cancer detection, improved cancer patient care and new cancer drug development. The range of his research includes cancer drug and biomarker development, cancer gene discovery, stem cell biology and development of genetically engineered mouse models to study cancer in humans.

DePinho was the first to show that the Myc family of oncogenes (cancer-causing genes) function through common cell signaling pathways to transform normal cells into malignant ones.

In a series of key experiments, DePinho established the concept of tumor maintenance to address the question of whether an original cancer-causing oncogene can remain active in maintaining a tumor despite the accumulation of many alterations in DNA during the malignant transformation process. This concept has contributed to cancer drug development by guiding identification of new therapeutic points of attack, as well as novel biomarkers that measure a patients response to a drug during a course of treatment.

His research also provided some of the first evidence that the p53 gene can suppress the development of some cancers by stimulating apoptosis, a process by which the majority of cancer cells die naturally. DePinho and Robert Eisenman discovered a co-repressor complex (known as mSin3/HDAC) that links a transcription factor and chromatin regulation in suppressing cancers. His lab also provided the first genetic evidence that a familial melanoma gene serves as a potent tumor suppressor in melanoma and many other cancer types.

With about 78% of all cancers diagnosed in people older than 55, perhaps DePinhos most notable contributions concern the link between advancing age and increasing risk of cancer. He convincingly established that three factors  telomere dysfunction, an impaired ability of a cell to repair DNA damage and the continued renewal of the epithelial layer of tissue that covers organs  all unite to cause rearrangements in the DNA that drive the genesis of many common cancers.

Telomeres are sections of DNA at the ends of chromosomes. Each time a cell divides, telomeres lose a small amount of DNA and become shorter. In cancer cells, however, the telomeres are maintained by activation of a special enzyme, telomerase. Cancer cells usually have more telomerase than most normal cells, which contributes to their immortality and ability to spread.

Beyond cancer, DePinhos work on telomeres has established the role of telomere dysfunction in acquired and inherited degenerative disorders, such as end-stage liver failure. His findings even suggest that there may be a point of return in which medicines might help severely aged organs recover a youthful state.

DePinho has created many faithful mouse models of human cancer. Most recently, he has developed the first metastatic prostate cancer model in mice, which he has used to identify tumor biomarkers that can stratify men into either high risk or low risk for spread of their disease. Using this approach, his laboratory has discovered prostate cancer markers that predict how lethal a cancer may be, which will better direct the course of therapy for men with this common cancer.

In addition to his presidential duties at MD Anderson, DePinho remains an active scientist in his laboratory and in the new Institute for Applied Cancer Science. His lab focuses mainly on basic-to-translational research programs for brain, colorectal, pancreas and prostate cancers, as well as aging and neuro-degeneration.

Honors
DePinho is a member of the National Academy of Sciences and the Institute of Medicine, a fellow of the American Academy of Arts and Sciences, and has received numerous other honors and awards including:

American Italian Cancer Foundation Prize for Scientific Excellence in Medicine, 2012
Albert Szent-Gyorgyi Prize for Progress in Cancer Research, 2009
Helsinki Medal, 2007
Albert Einstein College of Medicine Distinguished Alumnus Award, 2004
American Association for Cancer Research Clowes Memorial Award, 2003
American Society for Clinical Investigation Award, 2002


----------



## JoeB131 (Mar 9, 2013)

Obamanation said:


> You are darn right about one thing. Medicare reimbursement is HORRIBLE!!!  It's a wonder hospitals can keep their doors open only getting $24 for a chest x-ray and less than $300.00 for a CT - the ionated contrast alone for a CT costs facilities $100 per patient.



Actually, it sounds like we could solve all our problems by just expanding medicare to EVERYONE and calling it a day.  

Oh, the doctors won't like it.  They'll have to buy a 25 foot yacht instead of a 40 footer...


----------



## JoeB131 (Mar 9, 2013)

Obamanation said:


> OohPooPahDoo said:
> 
> 
> > Claudette said:
> ...



We understand that perfectly well. 

The problem is, no one can budget for a major medical problem. So if you aren't going to do what every other industrialized nation has done and make it a public service, making everyone buy insurance is the only other option.


----------



## JoeB131 (Mar 9, 2013)

Harry Dresden said:


> JoeB131 said:
> 
> 
> > Harry Dresden said:
> ...



You can shake the trees all day.. but the fact is, third party movements last all of two cycles. 

Since 1900, you've had-

The Prohibition Party
The Progressive Party
The Socialist Party
The Communist Party
The States Rights Party
The Independent Party
The Reform Party
The Green Party
The Libertarian Party...

Guess what, they never go anywhere. There's a reason for that.


----------



## Synthaholic (Mar 9, 2013)

Obamanation said:


> Synthaholic said:
> 
> 
> > Obamanation said:
> ...



Not when he's running a non-profit, I don't.


----------



## Trajan (Mar 9, 2013)

Synthaholic said:


> Claudette said:
> 
> 
> > Synthaholic said:
> ...





> I don't agree.  Medicare, Social Security, the Rural Electrification/Tennessee Valley Authority, the Hoover Dam, the Interstate Highway System, the New York City Subway System, and a bunch of others.



Medicare and social security are programs you would count as proof the government can manage 300 million peoples finances, health etc.? wow....

The TVA ( a concentrated REGIONAL project)  turned out well, but if you asked say  Wendell Willkie , he'd tell you that private industry could have got that done ( and have) , the feds had one thing they didn't unfettered access they granted themselves to do much of that work. 

The Hoover Dam was built by a private co.,  Six Companies, Inc.....the feds gave them access to building materials and cleared the way via states rights issues over the land and power sharing generated there after. 

Interstate Highway System, was built at the impetus opf the feds ( going back to early in the century) but Dwight certainly owns the honor. The states (own) and managed the building via private co's, they were provided funding by the feds via  Highway Revenue Act in 1956, and  Federal Aid Highway Act of 1956. 

Uhm, perhaps a history of the New York City Subway System might be in order. The city  got on board a going private venture which was already proven and had laid much track ( considering the times, 1900's) and eventually sucked them up as city municipal utilities.

bzxh11

I am not sure what these examples are supposed to prove. They have very little to provide as virtuous examples of [the] requirements for dealing with the machinations and management of a complex system like  health access, treatments and fund manipulation, or  that the federal gov. can direct and manage an entity  ( like uhm Medicare? the DOD?) that will affect and effect over 300 million people with individual needs, in a very technical field? 
The first clue, to their cluelessness,  should have been the excise tax they slapped on medical device makers..... thats like slapping an excise tax on steel or concrete used for construction of the Hoover dam


----------



## boedicca (Mar 9, 2013)

Obamanation said:


> Synthaholic said:
> 
> 
> > Obamanation said:
> ...





Justin Bieber made $23 million last year.  How many lives did he save?


----------



## Synthaholic (Mar 9, 2013)

boedicca said:


> Obamanation said:
> 
> 
> > Synthaholic said:
> ...


No one is forced to buy Justin Beiber.  If you are in an accident you are forced to buy services which you have no negotiation on price.

Rightwingers only believe in the free market when it's convenient.


----------



## Synthaholic (Mar 9, 2013)

Trajan said:


> Synthaholic said:
> 
> 
> > Claudette said:
> ...



Definitely.  SS is solvent through 2032.  Medicare is being harmed by out of control costs, which is the concern of this thread.




> The TVA ( a concentrated REGIONAL project)  turned out well, but if you asked say  Wendell Willkie , he'd tell you that private industry could have got that done ( and have) , the feds had one thing they didn't unfettered access they granted themselves to do much of that work.
> 
> The Hoover Dam was built by a private co.,  Six Companies, Inc.....the feds gave them access to building materials and cleared the way via states rights issues over the land and power sharing generated there after.
> 
> ...




Well, if Wendle Wilkie says it . . .


----------



## Trajan (Mar 9, 2013)

whatever........you're more comfortable with rex tugwell I am sure sorry I wasted your time....(and mine)


----------



## Harry Dresden (Mar 9, 2013)

Obamanation said:


> Harry Dresden said:
> 
> 
> > JoeB131 said:
> ...



and i have seen many say they like the guy too......but a lot of them also said they will still vote for one of the 2 front runners.....if you want REAL change you are going to have to vote for it and it wont be from the 2 big guys......there is no reason for them to change,they know their hangers on are to scared to cut the cord.....


----------



## Harry Dresden (Mar 9, 2013)

Synthaholic said:


> Harry Dresden said:
> 
> 
> > Synthaholic said:
> ...



no i don't.....i just think Obama and Company are taking on way too much right now the way things are.....i felt he should have addressed those who right now are without Ins. and need it ......me and many other have Ins.....for right now he doesn't have to worry about us.....take care of those millions who don't, but need it right now.....it would have been easier and less expensive for everyone involved to try and get 25 million insured compared to 300 million plus.....and he would have had less resistance......and when things settled down they could look at the bigger picture......


----------



## Harry Dresden (Mar 9, 2013)

C_Clayton_Jones said:


> > Thank you for the 47 percent increase in my health care rate
> 
> 
> 
> Obviously conservatives know only how to whine.



yea they are standing right next to the Liberals whining just as loud....if you were not such a hack you would be able to see that....


----------



## Harry Dresden (Mar 9, 2013)

JoeB131 said:


> Harry Dresden said:
> 
> 
> > JoeB131 said:
> ...


yea....no one has enough balls to vote outside of the 2 parties.....even all these so called"Independents" i see STILL say they will vote Democrat or Republican....if you want the same old shit Joe....keep voting for the...."lessor of 2 evils"....as many call it.....i have to put up with the same old shit,but i dont have to support that shit....


----------



## JoeB131 (Mar 9, 2013)

Harry Dresden said:


> JoeB131 said:
> 
> 
> > Harry Dresden said:
> ...



No, I have to live in the real world. 

The real world was ONLY Romney or Obama was going to be president in 2012.  Those WERE the only two viable choices.  

So I had to make the decision between the well-meaning but inept guy and the evil Mormon Douchebag. 

But that became an easy choice when I found out he was a Mormon.


----------



## Harry Dresden (Mar 10, 2013)

JoeB131 said:


> Harry Dresden said:
> 
> 
> > JoeB131 said:
> ...



how many times do i have to repeat this?.....as long as people in this Country have that attitude.....NOTHING is going to change......so Joe you need a rare operation or you will suffer badly and die.....only 2 surgeons can do it .....both have done it a hundred times....one is a guy who has a 25% survival rate at it.....the other guy has a 95% survival rate.....oh but he is a Mormon....who are you going to pick Joe?.....


----------



## JoeB131 (Mar 10, 2013)

Harry Dresden said:


> [
> 
> how many times do i have to repeat this?.....as long as people in this Country have that attitude.....NOTHING is going to change......so Joe you need a rare operation or you will suffer badly and die.....only 2 surgeons can do it .....both have done it a hundred times....one is a guy who has a 25% survival rate at it.....the other guy has a 95% survival rate.....oh but he is a Mormon....who are you going to pick Joe?.....



The last thing I would do would ever let a Mormon take a knife to me.  

Hey, when a third party builds itself up to a point where it can 1) Potentially win an elections 2) Have the policy chops to actually run the country if it actually won an election, maybe, just maybe I'd consider it. 

Dirty little secret. In 1992, I seriously considered voting for H. Ross Perot.  I didn't like Bush because I thought the Gulf War was wrong, he lied to me on taxes and he was generally kind of a weasel. (Again, a lot more conservative then than I am now.) Clinton was pretty clearly a weasel from day one.  So Perot looked attractive. 

Until it became pretty darned clear he was batshit crazy.  

And after Ross Perot, the Reform Party nominated a Nazi (Pat Buchanan) and a Socialist (Ralph Nader).  

Again, this was the most successful "Third Party" movement of my life time... and it was a joke.


----------



## Obamanation (Mar 10, 2013)

Why are all liberal hypocrites on EVERY topic? It's like all they does is take the point opposing logic even if it is a pure contradiction to their last point. Then when you point out that they are defying simple logic they accuse you of not having a heart...

The ACA will not fix the problem with healthcare, which is the COST!!!!  Obama forced an uber-expensive program on us that DOES NOT even do what he claimed that he intended it to do. He condusted the first step in a gov't takeover of medicine and that is all....

socialism!!


----------



## Greenbeard (Mar 10, 2013)

Obamanation said:


> The ACA will not fix the problem with healthcare, which is the COST!!!!  Obama forced an uber-expensive program on us that DOES NOT even do what he claimed that he intended it to do.



Surprise!

Health care price growth plummets  2012 lowest year since 1998


> Health care price growth in December, at 1.7% year-over-year, was three-tenths below Novembers reading, and the lowest rate since February 1998.  The 12-month moving average at 2.0% is the lowest since a fractionally lower 2.0% figure was recorded in December 1998.  [...]
> 
> December was the 43rd month of economic expansion but price pressures are nowhere to be found. Indeed, lower PPI and CPI readings are likely exerting downward pressure on the health price index rather than the expected opposite whereby health care prices would be stimulating general inflation.  This scenario, in conjunction with aggressive measures that providers are taking to become more efficient, argue for continued price stability (or even another leg down!).



Health insurance premiums see smallest increase in 15 years


> The cost of providing health care benefits to employees rose by just 4.1% this year, the smallest increase in 15 years, according to a survey by human resources consultant Mercer.
> 
> And employers are expecting to see another modest increase of 5% next year, the survey of 2,800 companies found. That's a far cry from the beginning of the decade, when employers reported increases of 10% to nearly 15% a year. Last year, benefit costs rose by 6.1%.



Growth In Medicare Spending Per Beneficiary Continues To Hit Historic Lows


> The slow growth in spending per beneficiary from 2010 to 2012 combined with the projections of spending growth at GDP+0 for 2012-2022 is unprecedented in the history of the Medicare program.



The Budget and Economic Outlook:  Fiscal Years  2013 to 2023


> _Medicaid and Medicare._ In recent years, health care spending has grown much more slowly both nationally and for federal programs than historical rates would have indicated. (For example, in 2012, federal spending for Medicare and Medicaid was about 5 percent below the amount that CBO had projected in March 2010.) In response to that slowdown, over the past several years, CBO has made a series of downward technical adjustments to its projections of spending for Medicaid and Medicare. From the March 2010 baseline to the current baseline, such technical revisions have lowered estimates of federal spending for the two programs in 2020 by about $200 billionby $126 billion for Medicare and by $78 billion for Medicaid, or by roughly 15 percent for each program.



Growth of Health Spending Stays Low


> January 7, 2013
> WASHINGTON  National health spending climbed to $2.7 trillion in 2011, or an average of $8,700 for every person in the country, but as a share of the economy, it remained stable for the third consecutive year, the Obama administration said Monday.
> 
> The rate of increase in health spending, 3.9 percent in 2011, was the same as in 2009 and 2010  the lowest annual rates recorded in the 52 years the government has been collecting such data.



Slower Growth of Health Costs Eases U.S. Deficit


> WASHINGTON  A sharp and surprisingly persistent slowdown in the growth of health care costs is helping to narrow the federal deficit, leaving budget experts trying to figure out whether the trend will last and how much the slower growth could help alleviate the countrys long-term fiscal problems. [...]
> 
> Health experts say they do not yet fully understand what is driving the lower spending trajectory. But there is a growing consensus that changes in how doctors and hospitals deliver health care  as opposed to merely a weak economy  are playing a role. Still, experts sharply disagree on where spending might be in future years, a question with major ramifications for the federal deficit, family budgets and the overall economy.
> 
> Part of the slowdown stems from the recession and the loss of income and wealth causing people to cut back on health care, Douglas W. Elmendorf, the director of the Congressional Budget Office, said last week. But he added that a significant part of the slowdown probably arises from structural changes in the health care system.



Hello structural change, hello slowing cost growth.


----------



## JoeB131 (Mar 10, 2013)

Obamanation said:


> Why are all liberal hypocrites on EVERY topic? It's like all they does is take the point opposing logic even if it is a pure contradiction to their last point. Then when you point out that they are defying simple logic they accuse you of not having a heart...
> 
> The ACA will not fix the problem with healthcare, which is the COST!!!!  Obama forced an uber-expensive program on us that DOES NOT even do what he claimed that he intended it to do. He condusted the first step in a gov't takeover of medicine and that is all....
> 
> socialism!!



Actually, the ACA fixes a lot of the cost problems. 

1) It encourages more preventive care and makes it more accessable.  That brings down costs by avoiding more expensive procedures. 

2) It gives people access to General Practioners so they aren't crowding out emergency rooms at much higher expense. 

3) By covering everyone, hospitals aren't passing along losses to everyone else. 

4) Reducing the 62% of bankruptcies linked to medical crisis will save billions.  

Simple logic.  

Every other country has universal coverage.  They pay less, live longer and less of their babies die in infancy...


----------



## Antares (Mar 10, 2013)

ALL DOI's must APPROVE any and ALL rate increases.
Insurance cannot just simply raise rates as they wish.



TheGreatGatsby said:


> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> > TheGreatGatsby said:
> ...


----------



## Cowman (Mar 10, 2013)

TheGreatGatsby said:


> My most recent monthly health insurance bill went up 47 percent. Thanks again, Obama and all you liberal a-holes who support the madness.



Mine didn't.

Sucks to be you!


----------



## Trajan (Mar 10, 2013)

Greenbeard said:


> Obamanation said:
> 
> 
> > The ACA will not fix the problem with healthcare, which is the COST!!!!  Obama forced an uber-expensive program on us that DOES NOT even do what he claimed that he intended it to do.
> ...



so this is what its come to?


----------



## Antares (Mar 10, 2013)

Tell me dad....

Try not to dodge the truth here....

What is the BIGGEST "trick" that BammyCare will "use" to "control" costs?





Greenbeard said:


> Obamanation said:
> 
> 
> > The ACA will not fix the problem with healthcare, which is the COST!!!!  Obama forced an uber-expensive program on us that DOES NOT even do what he claimed that he intended it to do.
> ...


----------



## proudveteran06 (Mar 11, 2013)

http://http://www.forbes.com/sites/toddhixon/2012/03/01/why-are-u-s-health-care-costs-so-high/


----------



## t_polkow (Mar 11, 2013)

TheGreatGatsby said:


> My most recent monthly health insurance bill went up 47 percent. Thanks again, Obama and all you liberal a-holes who support the madness.



Brought to you by Corporate America!
[ame]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Xl_TD7yppBM[/ame]


----------



## California Girl (Mar 11, 2013)

Vandalshandle said:


> Obamanation said:
> 
> 
> > Vandalshandle said:
> ...



Single payer systems are a clusterfuck across the globe. Personally, I would prefer we learn from the mistakes of others instead of pretending that - somehow - it will be different. 

Try the NHS in the UK. Great people - clusterfuck system.


----------



## Greenbeard (Mar 11, 2013)

Roo said:


> What is the BIGGEST "trick" that BammyCare will "use" to "control" costs?



No tricks, delivery system reform.

I.e. the "structural changes in the health care system" that are now underway. Higher quality, slower cost growth.


----------



## Antares (Mar 11, 2013)

Ahhh, the Party line, I thought better of you than that...my mistake.

Sorry dad, you flunk....don't quote ANYONE all that bullshit Obama Speak....you just lose credibility when you do that.


Now, try again and use reality.



Greenbeard said:


> Roo said:
> 
> 
> > What is the BIGGEST "trick" that BammyCare will "use" to "control" costs?
> ...


----------



## Greenbeard (Mar 11, 2013)

Roo said:


> Sorry dad, you flunk....don't quote ANYONE all that bullshit Obama Speak....you just lose credibility when you do that.



I think we'll all be familiar with "Obama speak" soon--it'll even burrow through the thick skulls of the right wingnuts eventually as reality sets in.

Annual Growth Rates Broadly Decelerate in December 2012 According to the S&P Healthcare Economic Indices


> New York, February 21, 2013  Today S&P Dow Jones Indices announced the results of S&P Economic Healthcare Indices for 2012. Data released by S&P Dow Jones Indices for the S&P Healthcare Economic Composite Index indicates that the average per capita cost of healthcare services covered by commercial insurance and Medicare programs increased by 3.73% over the 12-months ending December 2012. This is a deceleration from the +4.46% annual growth rate recorded in November 2012 and the lowest rate in the eight- year history of the index.
> 
> All nine S&P Healthcare Economic Indices posted deceleration in their annual growth rates in December 2012. As measured by the S&P Healthcare Economic Commercial Index, healthcare costs covered by commercial insurance plans increased by 5.39% over the year ending December 2012, down from +6.19% reported for November 2012. Annual growth rates in Medicare claim costs rose by 1.20%, according to the S&P Healthcare Economic Medicare Index, down from +1.81% recorded in November 2012. It is the lowest growth rate in the history of the Medicare Index.


----------



## Antares (Mar 11, 2013)

Dad you are completely full of shit.

All you can do is cut and paste Bammy shit, you are a complete disappointment....worse yet a liar.

Monkey Boy is using "price controls", even a moron like you knows that doesn't work.

You aren't intelligent enough to understand ...or worse yet, just an abject liar to cover up for monkey boy.

Come October when all of these businesses cut their Health Care Plans because of the out given to them by President Monkey Boy you will will still be spouting the same stupid shit you are now...Bammy is our Saviour.

You have NEVER run a business so you have ZERO idea how anythng actually works....you just cut and patse White House lies.

You are dismissed shill.





Greenbeard said:


> Roo said:
> 
> 
> > Sorry dad, you flunk....don't quote ANYONE all that bullshit Obama Speak....you just lose credibility when you do that.
> ...


----------



## JoeB131 (Mar 11, 2013)

California Girl said:


> [
> 
> Single payer systems are a clusterfuck across the globe. Personally, I would prefer we learn from the mistakes of others instead of pretending that - somehow - it will be different.
> 
> Try the NHS in the UK. Great people - clusterfuck system.



Except for a few rich douchebags who don't like waiting in queu, no one in the UK is talking about scrapping the NHS.  

On the stats- Brits live longer than we do, have a lower infant mortality rate and spend less.


----------



## buckeye45_73 (May 2, 2013)

RDD_1210 said:


> Claudette said:
> 
> 
> > rightwinger said:
> ...


 
It does if those customers dont pay......which is why they didnt get it to begin with dipshit......if you give away free stuff, someone pays for it....usually the middle class and working poor.


----------



## TheGreatGatsby (May 2, 2013)

The sad part about the system; is that it's so convoluted that there is no self correct.


----------

