# Obamacare Is Now on Life Support



## SassyIrishLass (Dec 11, 2015)

Is this a really, really bad time we told you so? The thing is a disaster and the only good thing that came from it is many democrat legislators lost their seats over it
*
Democrats gained the political muscle to push the Affordable Care Act (ACA) through Congress on three basic arguments.

First,* they argued that the United States had too many uninsured people, with estimates ranging from 30 million to 45 million.

*Second,* the rise in costs for health care outstripped inflation, and the market required an intervention that would bend the cost curve downward.

*Third,* Democrats claimed that insurance companies made too much profit and shorted most consumers on care, while those with generous health plans – so-called “Cadillac plans” – drove up utilization rates and costs for everyone else.

The only solution for these ills was a massive government intervention, complete with mandates for all participants in the market, including providers, insurers, and consumers. Once government ran this market, Democrats promised, consumers would see their premiums decrease (by $2,500 a year, according to Barack Obama), insurers would gain access to vast numbers of new consumers who couldn’t get insurance before, and the lifting of cost burdens would spark a job-creation surge that would lift the economy.

Such were the promises of Obamacare five years ago. The reality began looking much different in the fall of 2013, when the first open-enrollment period turned into a disaster. Millions of insurance policies were canceled even though the health care exchanges failed to work properly.

Obamacare has depressed job growth, costs are escalating at a higher rate, barely a dent has been made in the numbers of uninsured, and insurers are either exiting the markets or failing altogether

Obamacare Is Now on Life Support


----------



## SassyIrishLass (Dec 11, 2015)

*Obamacare is Hurting Real People*

Amid all the data and developments that illustrate the comprehensive failure of Obamacare -- often based on its supporters' own metrics -- it can be easy to lose sight of the fact that these failures aren't just theoretical. They're actively hurting real people.  Working and middle-class families have to grapple with the fears and financial instability associated with increasing, unaffordable costs. "Access shock" prevents individuals from securing the care they need. Rising cost curvesimpact the government's budget, which affects taxpayers. Millions of people have been stripped of their existing healthcare arrangements, including hundreds of thousands as a result of the law's collapsing co-ops, in violation of a solemn presidential promise. Healthcare policy is by its very nature deeply personal, which is why Republicans are right to continue their fight against this damaging law. Obamacare supporters dishonestly presented their legislation as a no-lose proposition, a delusion that is being painfully pierced by reality every single day. In California, the strain imposed by Obamacare's supposedly "compassionate" Medicaid expansion is constricting resources for other people in need...

Reminder: Obamacare is Hurting Real People


----------



## the_human_being (Dec 11, 2015)

R.I.P.


----------



## william the wie (Dec 11, 2015)

The collapse seems to be on schedule.


----------



## g5000 (Dec 11, 2015)

The next President, whoever he or she is, will be calling Obamacare "the ACA".  It won't matter if it is a Republican or Democrat.

And they will spend their entire Administration working with Congress to patch "the ACA".

So bookmark this topic and let's see who was right, vis a vis ObamaCare being on death's door.

When ObamaCare finally does pass into the dustbin of history, it will be to make room for single payer healthcare.  The Republican party sold us all down that river before Sassy was out of diapers.

The rest is theater for the rubes to parrot.







*Obaaaa....*



*




maaaaaa!!!*


----------



## L.K.Eder (Dec 11, 2015)

yeah, no.


----------



## g5000 (Dec 11, 2015)

The GOP has STILL not put a comprehensive alternative health care reform on the table.

After all these years.

That's how you know this is all theater for the rubes.  

A DC health care lobbyist laughed when I said that. He said, "And the rubes all live along and below the Mason-Dixon line."


----------



## Timmy (Dec 11, 2015)

"End of Obamacare!"  Yall been singing this tune since 2010. 

I'm sure the republican congress will repeal obamacare any day now !!  Lol!!


----------



## SassyIrishLass (Dec 11, 2015)

Timmy said:


> "End of Obamacare!"  Yall been singing this tune since 2010.
> 
> I'm sure the republican congress will repeal obamacare any day now !!  Lol!!



You're not paying attention, it's imploding upon itself. Like we said it would


----------



## Timmy (Dec 11, 2015)

SassyIrishLass said:


> Timmy said:
> 
> 
> > "End of Obamacare!"  Yall been singing this tune since 2010.
> ...



Yes! Like you've said for 5 years now !!  Scuse me if not buying it.


----------



## Rustic (Dec 11, 2015)

Legalized extortion...


----------



## SassyIrishLass (Dec 11, 2015)

Timmy said:


> SassyIrishLass said:
> 
> 
> > Timmy said:
> ...



I feel sorry for you rubes. It's imploding, losing millions, eventually it will fail, it can't be saved


----------



## Timmy (Dec 11, 2015)

SassyIrishLass said:


> Timmy said:
> 
> 
> > SassyIrishLass said:
> ...



I thought the GOP congress was going to fix things ??


----------



## SassyIrishLass (Dec 11, 2015)

Timmy said:


> SassyIrishLass said:
> 
> 
> > Timmy said:
> ...



This is about Obamacare imploding, it's a democrat brain child...or abortion. Deflecting won't work


----------



## bodecea (Dec 11, 2015)

My healthcare is just fine...and it's the one I got to keep.


----------



## Votto (Dec 11, 2015)

g5000 said:


> The next President, whoever he or she is, will be calling Obamacare "the ACA".  It won't matter if it is a Republican or Democrat.
> 
> And they will spend their entire Administration working with Congress to patch "the ACA".
> 
> ...


 
So America turns to the same people who created Obamacare so that they can now create a single payer system?

How stupid can people really be I wonder?


----------



## Rustic (Dec 11, 2015)

bodecea said:


> My healthcare is just fine...and it's the one I got to keep.


I pay a fine for something I will never use...


----------



## SassyIrishLass (Dec 11, 2015)

bodecea said:


> My healthcare is just fine...and it's the one I got to keep.



Yeah sure,sock. Just like all the frauds on forums the day it was launched claiming what a great deal they got....while nobody could even access the freaking site LMAO


----------



## william the wie (Dec 11, 2015)

Timmy said:


> SassyIrishLass said:
> 
> 
> > Timmy said:
> ...





Timmy said:


> SassyIrishLass said:
> 
> 
> > Timmy said:
> ...



And for five years its been going down the toilet:

First went the state mandate

Then went national coverage. 5-10% of the country has never been covered by Ocare with Western MS being the biggest contiguous area. 

The cost containment group never launched.

The risk corridor has been abandoned

The Cadillac and medical equipment tax is being postponed for another two years.

Net increases in the insurers pool have been negative from the get-go and getting worse.

No matter who is elected president the house will only become more Republican and most likely the  Senate.


----------



## BluesLegend (Dec 11, 2015)

g5000 said:


> The GOP has STILL not put a comprehensive alternative health care reform on the table.
> 
> After all these years.
> 
> ...



Here's my counter proposal, pound sand you lawless thug liberals.


----------



## BluesLegend (Dec 11, 2015)

Rustic said:


> bodecea said:
> 
> 
> > My healthcare is just fine...and it's the one I got to keep.
> ...



WTF? That sounds like something a liberal would propose, obey or be punished by a fine. I think libs know where they can go and what they can do when they get there.


----------



## william the wie (Dec 11, 2015)

I do disagree with the word implosion, rotting away is a more accurate description of what has been happening, and benevolent apathy in regards to Ocare is a more effective of letting the program die.


----------



## Elvis Obama (Dec 11, 2015)

Libtards iz dum!

Conservitards iz dum!

Copy and paste. 

No, really. Very interesting discussion. Please, carry on.


----------



## Kosh (Dec 11, 2015)

Timmy said:


> SassyIrishLass said:
> 
> 
> > Timmy said:
> ...



Show were Obama will sign any law that will do away with Obamacare..


----------



## Interpol (Dec 12, 2015)

The free market disagrees with the premise of this thread. 

The Two-Year Rise of U.S. Health-Care Stocks

On top of all that, Obamacare has proven to slow premium increases to just under 4% for the last 4 years after decades of them going up anywhere from 10-15% a year.


----------



## FA_Q2 (Dec 12, 2015)

SassyIrishLass said:


> Timmy said:
> 
> 
> > "End of Obamacare!"  Yall been singing this tune since 2010.
> ...


Irrelevant.  It is an entitlement now and there is simply no way that Americans getting money for their healthcare plan are going to give that up.  There is a reason that the system is based around subsidies - once they get in place they never go away.

Face it, Obamacare is not going anywhere.


----------



## FA_Q2 (Dec 12, 2015)

Interpol said:


> The free market disagrees with the premise of this thread.
> 
> The Two-Year Rise of U.S. Health-Care Stocks
> 
> On top of all that, Obamacare has proven to slow premium increases to just under 4% for the last 4 years after decades of them going up anywhere from 10-15% a year.


You do understand that the rise in Healthcare stocks has absolutely nothing to do with the quality or viability of actual healthcare, right?


----------



## Redfish (Dec 12, 2015)

g5000 said:


> The GOP has STILL not put a comprehensive alternative health care reform on the table.
> 
> After all these years.
> 
> ...



The alternative is simple.   Repeal obozocare,   There was no healthcare crisis before ACA,  no one in the USA was denied healthcare before ACA.  NO ONE.   Not being insured did not mean you did not receive treatment. Medicaid, medicare, and charities took care of the uninsured. Nothing needed to be changed.

As to the insurance industry, two changes were needed.   eliminate lifetime maximum payments and make insurance companies take people with pre-existing conditions.    Those two changes could have been made with a one page bill.

ACA was not about fixing healthcare, it was about the federal government taking over a major sector of the economy.

and your geographical bigotry is noted.


----------



## Greenbeard (Dec 12, 2015)

SassyIrishLass said:


> Obamacare has depressed job growth, costs are escalating at a higher rate, barely a dent has been made in the numbers of uninsured, and insurers are either exiting the markets or failing altogether
> 
> Obamacare Is Now on Life Support



The Chicken Little routine is well-worn by this point.












And here's the annual growth in health care spending--what was expected with the ACA's coverage expansions (red), what was expected had the ACA never been passed (blue), and what _actually_ has happened (green).





Health care cost growth has been the lowest on record since the ACA passed. Much lower than anyone anticipated.


----------



## jon_berzerk (Dec 12, 2015)

SassyIrishLass said:


> Is this a really, really bad time we told you so? The thing is a disaster and the only good thing that came from it is many democrat legislators lost their seats over it
> *
> Democrats gained the political muscle to push the Affordable Care Act (ACA) through Congress on three basic arguments.
> 
> ...



isnt everything of the "government" on life support these days 

i mean after all we are trillions and trillions of dollars over extended 

and either to make ends meet we  borrow or simply print up more money 

like there is no tomorrow


----------



## dblack (Dec 12, 2015)

g5000 said:


> The GOP has STILL not put a comprehensive alternative health care reform on the table.
> 
> After all these years.


Of course not. ACA is the corporate sellout they had planned in the first place. They're just peeved because the Dems beat them to it.


----------



## Jantje_Smit (Dec 12, 2015)

Redfish said:


> The alternative is simple.   Repeal obozocare....



Didn't the tea cult already try that some 50 times?


----------



## Redfish (Dec 12, 2015)

Redfish said:


> g5000 said:
> 
> 
> > The GOP has STILL not put a comprehensive alternative health care reform on the table.
> ...





Jantje_Smit said:


> Redfish said:
> 
> 
> > The alternative is simple.   Repeal obozocare....
> ...




No, congress did.   The point, which is apparently too complex for your simple mind, is that the obozocare exchanges are going broke.

Sure, you like ACA if you are getting it free,  but for all those who are paying for this BS, it sucks.


----------



## Jantje_Smit (Dec 12, 2015)

Redfish said:


> No, congress did.   The point, which is apparently too complex for your simple mind, is that the obozocare exchanges are going broke.
> 
> Sure, you like ACA if you are getting it free,  but for all those who are paying for this BS, it sucks.



The point, which is apparently too complex for your simple mind, is that the insurance companies like it and as long as they're making $$$ it's not going away. It doesn't matter what the people want or if the government has to borrow some more $billions to support them.


----------



## Seawytch (Dec 12, 2015)

g5000 said:


> The GOP has STILL not put a comprehensive alternative health care reform on the table.
> 
> After all these years.
> 
> ...



The GOP doesn't have anything to replace the ACA with because it was their idea in the first place.


----------



## Sun Devil 92 (Dec 12, 2015)

bodecea said:


> My healthcare is just fine...and it's the one I got to keep.



Lucky for you.

I lost mine.


----------



## Sun Devil 92 (Dec 12, 2015)

Seawytch said:


> g5000 said:
> 
> 
> > The GOP has STILL not put a comprehensive alternative health care reform on the table.
> ...



Not this patent lie again......

Heritage is not the GOP.

Romneycare is not Obamacare.

Mass. is not the United States.


----------



## Seawytch (Dec 12, 2015)

bodecea said:


> My healthcare is just fine...and it's the one I got to keep.



Yup...I got to keep BOTH of my plans...and they got better.


----------



## jon_berzerk (Dec 12, 2015)

Jantje_Smit said:


> Redfish said:
> 
> 
> > No, congress did.   The point, which is apparently too complex for your simple mind, is that the obozocare exchanges are going broke.
> ...



* is that the insurance companies like it and as long as they're making $$$ it's not going away.*

are you nutz 

the insurance companies hate it 

out here there are only two left that now offer obamacare 

both are plans through medical providers 

avera and sanford


----------



## Seawytch (Dec 12, 2015)

Rustic said:


> bodecea said:
> 
> 
> > My healthcare is just fine...and it's the one I got to keep.
> ...




Well your fine will help offset the costs for those of us who will pay your bill when you end up in the hospital. You're welcome.


----------



## Sun Devil 92 (Dec 12, 2015)

Interpol said:


> The free market disagrees with the premise of this thread.
> 
> The Two-Year Rise of U.S. Health-Care Stocks
> 
> On top of all that, Obamacare has proven to slow premium increases to just under 4% for the last 4 years after decades of them going up anywhere from 10-15% a year.



1. Those slow downs are explainable.  Part of it had to do with the economy.
2. The reduction in GDP that is a problem and was hilited as part of the big sell (big lie) has not happened.  It's still at 17.5%.
3. There is no way to know who is actually benefiting.  Obamacare sells catastrophic plans that people can't afford to use.  They violate every principle that Obamacare was sold on.


----------



## Seawytch (Dec 12, 2015)

SassyIrishLass said:


> bodecea said:
> 
> 
> > My healthcare is just fine...and it's the one I got to keep.
> ...




You do realize that state exchanges were operating just fine, right?


----------



## dblack (Dec 12, 2015)

jon_berzerk said:


> Jantje_Smit said:
> 
> 
> > Redfish said:
> ...



They wrote it


----------



## Seawytch (Dec 12, 2015)

Sun Devil 92 said:


> Seawytch said:
> 
> 
> > g5000 said:
> ...



The Heritage Foundation is a conservative think tank and the plan came from them. Were the GOP to have any new ideas, it would come from places like the Heritage Foundation. The ACA is comprised of mostly GOP healthcare ideas as its basis. To deny it is to deny reality...and it is why the GOP offers no alternatives. They don't have any because they were put into the ACA. 

Now...if the GOP were to propose to get rid of employee sponsored healthcare plans and require everyone to purchase their plans as individuals...well, that would be new and different.


----------



## Seawytch (Dec 12, 2015)

Sun Devil 92 said:


> bodecea said:
> 
> 
> > My healthcare is just fine...and it's the one I got to keep.
> ...



Then you must have had a shitty plan that would have bankrupted you if you ever go hurt...or left the rest of us paying for you.


----------



## dblack (Dec 12, 2015)

Seawytch said:


> Sun Devil 92 said:
> 
> 
> > Seawytch said:
> ...


Likewise, if they were to propose repealing all the legislation propping up the current system, that would also be new and different.


----------



## Jantje_Smit (Dec 12, 2015)

jon_berzerk said:


> *is that the insurance companies like it and as long as they're making $$$ it's not going away.*
> 
> are you nutz
> 
> ...



Insurance companies hate making $$$$?


----------



## Grizz (Dec 12, 2015)

Timmy said:


> SassyIrishLass said:
> 
> 
> > Timmy said:
> ...



Well it IS imploding, Assurant was the first to bail, United Health Care is pulling out in 17.

As of Jan1 2016 UHC will no longer pay any commissions to agents, meaning no agents will sell it...meaning UHC doesn't want any more of the "uninsured".

The Republicans have no real need to put anything out, next up is NHS style healthcare run by the Gov.

My prediction is that the big dogs (BCBS, UHC, Coventry, although not in their current incarnations) will administrate the program for them.


----------



## Seawytch (Dec 12, 2015)

dblack said:


> Seawytch said:
> 
> 
> > Sun Devil 92 said:
> ...



Uh, no...that would be what they've been trying and failing to do for the last 6 years...54 votes or something like that.


----------



## Grizz (Dec 12, 2015)

SassyIrishLass said:


> bodecea said:
> 
> 
> > My healthcare is just fine...and it's the one I got to keep.
> ...



They never did force the Grand Fathered plans to be cancelled, politically it was suicide.


----------



## HereWeGoAgain (Dec 12, 2015)

Timmy said:


> SassyIrishLass said:
> 
> 
> > Timmy said:
> ...



  So you're one of those leaches were paying for...


----------



## dblack (Dec 12, 2015)

Seawytch said:


> dblack said:
> 
> 
> > Seawytch said:
> ...


They haven't been trying that at all.


----------



## HereWeGoAgain (Dec 12, 2015)

Timmy said:


> SassyIrishLass said:
> 
> 
> > Timmy said:
> ...



  Why would they fix something they didnt want in the first place Timmy?


----------



## Grizz (Dec 12, 2015)

Seawytch said:


> SassyIrishLass said:
> 
> 
> > bodecea said:
> ...



Not the first year, the first year the entire apparatus was shit.


----------



## HereWeGoAgain (Dec 12, 2015)

SassyIrishLass said:


> bodecea said:
> 
> 
> > My healthcare is just fine...and it's the one I got to keep.
> ...



  I got to keep mine....along with a 55% increase on premiums.


----------



## HereWeGoAgain (Dec 12, 2015)

Interpol said:


> The free market disagrees with the premise of this thread.
> 
> The Two-Year Rise of U.S. Health-Care Stocks
> 
> On top of all that, Obamacare has proven to slow premium increases to just under 4% for the last 4 years after decades of them going up anywhere from 10-15% a year.




  Total bullshit.
First of all there are examples of 55% percent increases which I am one.
socialHeadline

Regulators approve premium jumps averaging as much as 49 percent for some in Minnesota

  You are either woefully misinformed or a liar...which is it?


----------



## HereWeGoAgain (Dec 12, 2015)

Jantje_Smit said:


> Redfish said:
> 
> 
> > No, congress did.   The point, which is apparently too complex for your simple mind, is that the obozocare exchanges are going broke.
> ...



   Borrow more money?
Yeah that'll fix everything....
     You realize the dollar is getting ready to be replaced by the Yen right?
 When that happens this country is totally fucked.


----------



## HereWeGoAgain (Dec 12, 2015)

Seawytch said:


> bodecea said:
> 
> 
> > My healthcare is just fine...and it's the one I got to keep.
> ...



  So you were on medicaid to begin with...


----------



## Seawytch (Dec 12, 2015)

HereWeGoAgain said:


> Seawytch said:
> 
> 
> > bodecea said:
> ...




Uh no dear...I have an employee provided plan and Tricare Prime...familiar with that? You have to have served...


----------



## HereWeGoAgain (Dec 12, 2015)

Obamacare on life support.....


Seawytch said:


> HereWeGoAgain said:
> 
> 
> > Seawytch said:
> ...



   And if I was a liberal I would say you are on government assistance.
But as a conservative I believe our service men and women deserve those benefits......dear.


----------



## Seawytch (Dec 12, 2015)

HereWeGoAgain said:


> Obamacare on life support.....
> 
> 
> Seawytch said:
> ...



Except a liberal wouldn't say that...in fact, you tried to paint me as a "leech" right off the bat, implying that I was on Medicaid. You didn't recover well...


----------



## Arianrhod (Dec 12, 2015)

Timmy said:


> I thought the GOP congress was going to fix things ??



Paul Ryan promised they'd have their own plan...next year sometime.  Sorta.  Maybe.


----------



## Rustic (Dec 12, 2015)

Seawytch said:


> Rustic said:
> 
> 
> > bodecea said:
> ...


All my adult life the very few times me and my family have been to a clinic, I paid out of pocket. And plan to to continue paying of pocket. I don't appreciate extortion(insurance) I have never claimed anything off extortion(insurance) in my life...I Don't plan to start anytime in the future.


----------



## Arianrhod (Dec 12, 2015)

Rustic said:


> Seawytch said:
> 
> 
> > Rustic said:
> ...



You've got several hundred thousand dollars in your pocket?  I'd think you'd at least need a briefcase.


----------



## HereWeGoAgain (Dec 12, 2015)

Seawytch said:


> HereWeGoAgain said:
> 
> 
> > Obamacare on life support.....
> ...



 Bullshit..liberals are constantly comparing SS and military benefits to welfare every time there's a discussion on the subject.

     Thats the problem with liberalism..you cant be consistent when you stand for nothing.


----------



## Arianrhod (Dec 12, 2015)

HereWeGoAgain said:


> ...liberals are constantly comparing SS and military benefits to welfare every time there's a discussion on the subject.



First I've heard of it.


----------



## HereWeGoAgain (Dec 12, 2015)

Arianrhod said:


> HereWeGoAgain said:
> 
> 
> > ...liberals are constantly comparing SS and military benefits to welfare every time there's a discussion on the subject.
> ...



   Than you have a memory problem...or is it a selective memory problem.


----------



## Rustic (Dec 12, 2015)

Arianrhod said:


> Rustic said:
> 
> 
> > Seawytch said:
> ...


I don't appreciate to be made to pay for something that "might" happen. It's a figure of speech dumba$$ - checking/debt account.


----------



## HereWeGoAgain (Dec 12, 2015)

Rustic said:


> Arianrhod said:
> 
> 
> > Rustic said:
> ...



  She knew that. Liberals are always trying to score cheap political points that way.
   All it does is show how little they have.


----------



## Arianrhod (Dec 12, 2015)

HereWeGoAgain said:


> Than you have a memory problem...or is it a selective memory problem.



Then I'm sure you can link to numerous examples of posts on this board saying precisely that.



Rustic said:


> I don't appreciate to be made to pay for something that "might" happen.



So, no vehicle insurance, life insurance, mortgage insurance either?  Very adult of you.


----------



## Rustic (Dec 12, 2015)

Arianrhod said:


> HereWeGoAgain said:
> 
> 
> > Than you have a memory problem...or is it a selective memory problem.
> ...


I buy vehicle insurance because it's the law, never have used it never will. Same with Obamacare fine also never will. 
I am and have been debt free for my whole adult live, living within me and families means is sooooo, easy spend less than we have. Simple as that. 

Frivolous lawsuits, required insurance and insane legislation is the reason for high cost of medical care.


----------



## Arianrhod (Dec 12, 2015)

Rustic said:


> Arianrhod said:
> 
> 
> > HereWeGoAgain said:
> ...



Lucky as that.  Apparently people whose cars are struck by drunk drivers, those whose houses burn down, and those who are diagnosed with chronic non-lifestyle-related illnesses deserve what they get.



Rustic said:


> Frivolous lawsuits, required insurance and insane legislation is the reason for high cost of medical care.



Ah, the old "tort reform" rationale - I've missed that one.  Guess you think complex surgical procedures can be performed by any rube with a Leatherman.


----------



## Rustic (Dec 12, 2015)

Arianrhod said:


> Rustic said:
> 
> 
> > Arianrhod said:
> ...


It is not up to the "village" to pay for misfortunes, that is no way to live. 

Liabilities along with frivolous lawsuits are the reason most of the high costs.


----------



## Arianrhod (Dec 12, 2015)

Rustic said:


> It is not up to the "village" to pay for misfortunes, that is no way to live.



Which is precisely why you're supposed to take care of your own.  What if someone in your family needed a heart transplant?  Would you have the approximately $1 million to cover the costs, or would you say "Sucks to be you.  What kind of coffin would you like?"?


----------



## Rustic (Dec 12, 2015)

Arianrhod said:


> Rustic said:
> 
> 
> > It is not up to the "village" to pay for misfortunes, that is no way to live.
> ...


There are plenty of charities out there, no one should be forced to pay into something they what nothing to do with.

It's best to be the ant and not the grasshopper...


----------



## Arianrhod (Dec 12, 2015)

Rustic said:


> There are plenty of charities out there...



So if one of your dependents needed a million-dollar heart transplant, you'd expect a charity to fund it?  There's your village.


----------



## Rustic (Dec 12, 2015)

Arianrhod said:


> Rustic said:
> 
> 
> > There are plenty of charities out there...
> ...


 No, for catastrophic things there are charities. PAying into a pool and/or dependending on a village is not the answer for anything. 
 Socialism is not the answer for anything, it's the only path to dictatorship.


----------



## Arianrhod (Dec 12, 2015)

Rustic said:


> No, for catastrophic things there are charities.



There are over 5,000 heart transplants performed in the U.S. annually.  At an initial cost (not counting lifelong immunosuppressive medications) of $1 million per, that's $5 billion.

List the charities that can dole out $5 billion every year.

And that's just cardiac transplantation.  What about the funding for liver transplants, kidney transplants, skin grafts?  Cancer treatments, MIs, neurosurgery, etc.?  Where do those billions come from?

What about chronic degenerative disorders like Parkinson's, RA, MS, etc., etc.?

Tell the class what magical treasure trove that money would come from on your planet.


----------



## Rustic (Dec 12, 2015)

Arianrhod said:


> Rustic said:
> 
> 
> > No, for catastrophic things there are charities.
> ...


The country is already broke has been for decades, we can't spend what we don't have. Can't get blood out of turnips.


----------



## Arianrhod (Dec 12, 2015)

Rustic said:


> Arianrhod said:
> 
> 
> > Rustic said:
> ...



Mythology and a poor attempt at deflection.

But you've admitted you refuse to take care of your own and you'd sponge off a charity if necessary.

So let's try this again:

There are over 5,000 heart transplants performed in the U.S. annually.  At an initial cost (not counting lifelong immunosuppressive medications) of $1 million per, that's $5 billion.

List the charities that can dole out $5 billion every year.

And that's just cardiac transplantation.  What about the funding for liver transplants, kidney transplants, skin grafts?  Cancer treatments, MIs, neurosurgery, etc.?  Where do those billions come from?

What about chronic degenerative disorders like Parkinson's, RA, MS, etc., etc.?

Tell the class what magical treasure trove that money would come from on your planet.

Moocher.


----------



## Rustic (Dec 12, 2015)

Arianrhod said:


> Rustic said:
> 
> 
> > Arianrhod said:
> ...


I don't expect anyone to help, I can afford to pay for anything that goes wrong with me and my family, government has proven they certainly can't help anybody except make for a socialist state. Talk about moochers. I don't want any help from the government for their price is far too high...


----------



## Arianrhod (Dec 12, 2015)

Rustic said:


> I don't expect anyone to help, I can afford to pay for anything that goes wrong with me and my family...



So you've got $1 million to pay for a heart transplant?  No wonder you're so indifferent to other people's situations.


----------



## Rustic (Dec 12, 2015)

Arianrhod said:


> Rustic said:
> 
> 
> > I don't expect anyone to help, I can afford to pay for anything that goes wrong with me and my family...
> ...


Don't need a heart transplant, I take care of myself. Been to clinic a couple times in my life paid for it right there, same with my family. Living within your means and debt free makes life easy. Less government means happier life.


----------



## Arianrhod (Dec 12, 2015)

Rustic said:


> Don't need a heart transplant, I take care of myself.



Children are born with heart defects that require multiple surgeries and often transplants.


----------



## Rustic (Dec 12, 2015)

Arianrhod said:


> Rustic said:
> 
> 
> > Don't need a heart transplant, I take care of myself.
> ...


Why put everyone in the same boat?? Healthcare is not an right.


----------



## Eaglewings (Dec 12, 2015)

Rustic said:


> Arianrhod said:
> 
> 
> > Rustic said:
> ...



You could find out tomorrow that cancer has invaded your body..
When they hear cancer, the bells start ringing Cha Ching $$$$$$$$$

$20,000 for a cancer shot x 6-10 times
$10,000 for a bag of chemo x 6-10 times
$200,000 for surgeries.
$500.00 for Dr. visits and blood work
$500.00 for MRIs , Iv's

Ya never know Rustic


----------



## Rustic (Dec 12, 2015)

Eaglewings said:


> Rustic said:
> 
> 
> > Arianrhod said:
> ...


Being forced to pay for something that "MIGHT" happen is no way to live, it's nothing more than legalized extortion.


----------



## Arianrhod (Dec 12, 2015)

Rustic said:


> Why put everyone in the same boat??



Is everyone born with a heart defect?  Your question makes no sense.



Rustic said:


> Healthcare is not an right.



So children with heart defects should die?


----------



## Rustic (Dec 12, 2015)

Arianrhod said:


> Rustic said:
> 
> 
> > Why put everyone in the same boat??
> ...


Shit happens...


----------



## Arianrhod (Dec 12, 2015)

Eaglewings said:


> Rustic said:
> 
> 
> > Arianrhod said:
> ...



If he did need care he was too irresponsible to provide for, he'd be the first one on Go Fund Me crying and pleading.


----------



## Arianrhod (Dec 12, 2015)

Rustic said:


> Arianrhod said:
> 
> 
> > Rustic said:
> ...



So as long as it's not your kid, it doesn't matter.  Even if it were your kid, you wouldn't have $1 million to pay for the transplant, anyway.  So it's back to "Sorry, Rustic, Jr.; your Dad's a deadbeat and you're gonna die.  But I'll buy you a nice Star Wars coffin."


----------



## Rustic (Dec 12, 2015)

Worrying what "might" happen is no way to live. I live within my means and am debt free. Everything I own is paid for. 
I have taught my kids this since grade school, The federal government/insurance/paying into a pool/a village means nothing. These things will not save me or my family.


----------



## Arianrhod (Dec 12, 2015)

Rustic said:


> Worrying what "might" happen is no way to live.



Exactly.  Which is why instead of worrying you behave like a responsible adult and provide for those who rely on you.

Apparently this is not something you're prepared in all cases to do.  Your repeated denial of the reality of costs for medical procedures and your "there are always charities" fallback are emblematic of this.

You plan to coast through life and hope the Red Cross or your church will bail you out if one of your dependents needs life-saving treatment.

I hope you've at least made them aware of the fact that "Daddy doesn't give a shit."


----------



## Eaglewings (Dec 12, 2015)

Rustic said:


> Worrying what "might" happen is no way to live. I live within my means and am debt free. Everything I own is paid for.
> I have taught my kids this since grade school, The federal government/insurance/paying into a pool/a village means nothing. These things will not save me or my family.



My husband is  an attorney and we buy our own insurance, glad we had it when I got my 1st diagnosis of cancer 2011. It came back this last year so I had to go through everything again. I am healing now and will tell you Rustic there is so much that we don't see everyday in those rooms. Men , women and children are lining up to get chemo, and radiation.
Cancer doesn't give a shit who you are.


----------



## Rustic (Dec 12, 2015)

Arianrhod said:


> Rustic said:
> 
> 
> > Worrying what "might" happen is no way to live.
> ...


Knowing me and my family doesn't have to depend on the federal government is the only way to live. Selling guns and ammo has been good to the family.
BTW me and my family never have to worry about money issues, they are set for life.


----------



## Arianrhod (Dec 12, 2015)

Rustic said:


> Knowing me and my family doesn't have to depend on the federal government is the only way to live.



The topic is health insurance.


----------



## Rustic (Dec 12, 2015)

Arianrhod said:


> Rustic said:
> 
> 
> > Knowing me and my family doesn't have to depend on the federal government is the only way to live.
> ...


Obamacare = legalized extortion


----------



## Arianrhod (Dec 12, 2015)

Rustic said:


> Arianrhod said:
> 
> 
> > Rustic said:
> ...





You refused to have health insurance even before the PPACA.  Tell us again how you're a responsible adult.


----------



## Rustic (Dec 12, 2015)

Arianrhod said:


> Rustic said:
> 
> 
> > Arianrhod said:
> ...


I have never claimed anything off insurance, never plan to. Me and my family have no need for insurance.


----------



## Arianrhod (Dec 12, 2015)

Rustic said:


> Arianrhod said:
> 
> 
> > Rustic said:
> ...



So far.

Grammar, OTOH...


----------



## Rustic (Dec 12, 2015)

Arianrhod said:


> Rustic said:
> 
> 
> > Arianrhod said:
> ...


I could retire tomorrow and never have to worry about finances again.


----------



## Arianrhod (Dec 12, 2015)

Rustic said:


> Arianrhod said:
> 
> 
> > Rustic said:
> ...



Barring catastrophic illness.

Do your dependents know they have no health insurance coverage?


----------



## Sun Devil 92 (Dec 12, 2015)

Seawytch said:


> Sun Devil 92 said:
> 
> 
> > Seawytch said:
> ...



Sorry, but it does not fly.  The Heritage Foundation is the Heritage Foundation.

End of discussion.

The whole connection is a fairy tale.


----------



## Sun Devil 92 (Dec 12, 2015)

Seawytch said:


> Sun Devil 92 said:
> 
> 
> > bodecea said:
> ...



 You know that ?

I had the plan....

What did you know that I didn't.

It's amazing you can be such a blatant lapdog for a group of moronic assholes who have screwed this country up bigtime.

Your parents would be proud.


----------



## Sun Devil 92 (Dec 12, 2015)

dblack said:


> Seawytch said:
> 
> 
> > Sun Devil 92 said:
> ...



Funny how that works.


----------



## FA_Q2 (Dec 13, 2015)

Arianrhod said:


> Rustic said:
> 
> 
> > Arianrhod said:
> ...


That is the rub though - insurance itself is part of the problem.  You need it to take care of that catastrophic illness but the cost of that illness in the first place is utter nonsense.

My son was diagnosed with cancer and eventually had to undergo a bone marrow transplant.  That consisted of almost 100 days on inpatient care.  We were staying at what the hospital called a 'semi-private room.'  There was normally 2 nurses assigned to each 'wing' of the ward and each one of those consisted of approximately 12 rooms. There were 5 such wings and the rooms were full - there was always some families in the overflow rooms that kept up to 6 patients in a single room.  None of the equipment there was particularly unusual and most of it I had used myself in my own home.  For accommodations that would not past muster at a motel 6, the charges were around 10,000 per night.  I am not complaining about the accommodations, do not misunderstand.  The problem I have is that the price was simply nonsensical.  It had no real connection to reality.  At 12 rooms in 5 wings you are at 60 rooms, almost always full at 10,000 per night (that does not include ANY procedures, drugs or care requirements by the way) you are looking at 600,000 per day or over 200 million a year.

They might as well charge a bazillion gazillion infinity dollars.  Again, nonsensical. That does not even get into the 30,000 per 5 min radiation session (overall less than an hour with setup and treatment) that was performed 12 times or a bone marrow transplant that is actually a very simple procedure for the type we did costing tens of thousands more.  There were drugs he took that cost more than platinum by weight.  The system itself has flown out of control and the very concept of insurance itself has helped drive it that way.


----------



## jon_berzerk (Dec 13, 2015)

Jantje_Smit said:


> jon_berzerk said:
> 
> 
> > *is that the insurance companies like it and as long as they're making $$$ it's not going away.*
> ...



who said that fuckstick


----------



## Greenbeard (Dec 13, 2015)

FA_Q2 said:


> The system itself has flown out of control and the very concept of insurance itself has helped drive it that way.



To a degree yes, but there's no universe in which you're going to buy a bone marrow transplant and a 100 day inpatient stay without being shielded from the full price by some time of insurance.

People can be made more price sensitive, sure (primarily through greater cost-sharing like deductibles)--and they are. But that generally applies to lower cost, usually outpatient expenses. When it comes to big ticket inpatient stuff like what you're talking about, there will always be limits to how much direct price exposure a family like yours can realistically bear.


----------



## Arianrhod (Dec 13, 2015)

jon_berzerk said:


> the insurance companies hate it
> 
> out here there are only two left that now offer obamacare



Insurance companies don't "offer Obamacare."  Insurance companies offer insurance.  Your policy is under the name of the insurer (Blue Cross, Blue Shield, Cigna, Aetna, etc.).  They get their premiums whether you go through one of the exchanges or a broker or the company website.

What you posted makes no sense.


----------



## FA_Q2 (Dec 13, 2015)

Greenbeard said:


> FA_Q2 said:
> 
> 
> > The system itself has flown out of control and the very concept of insurance itself has helped drive it that way.
> ...


It is not just people being more price sensitive though.  As I stated, the costs are simply nonsensical to the point that it is almost irrelevant.  Insurance has been a big part of that drive and it is something that must be addressed.


----------



## Greenbeard (Dec 13, 2015)

FA_Q2 said:


> It is not just people being more price sensitive though.  As I stated, the costs are simply nonsensical to the point that it is almost irrelevant.  Insurance has been a big part of that drive and it is something that must be addressed.



And that's one of the points of creating competitive insurance marketplaces. When people are shopping and insurers are going head-to-head in a transparent marketplace (which historically hasn't existed for health insurance), insurers are under heavy pressure to keep premiums down. And when they can no longer achieve that through sleight of hand or cutting out people who need care or services, provider prices are one of the key places to do that.

So insurers can push back hard against provider prices in negotiations, steer their enrollees to lower-priced providers, or in some cases cut high-priced providers out of networks entirely. Insurers in the exchanges are doing all of those things to put downward pressure on provider prices and keep costs down (e.g., tiered or narrow network product options are more common there than anywhere else at this point). And it's happening there because that's where the most intense competition on premiums is in the system right now.

At the beginning of the year when we saw hospital prices drop for the first time, what was one of the big drivers?


> Payers' efforts to drive down hospital prices may be succeeding.





> “This appears to be a combination of the public sector pressure, but an even more fierce change on behalf of the private payers,” said Paul Hughes-Cromwick, a senior health economist at the Altarum Institute's Center for Sustainable Health Spending.
> 
> “Insurers are more aggressively bargaining with hospitals and more aggressively investing in programs that lower hospital utilization rates,” said Neraj Sood, an associate professor in health economics and policy at the University of Southern California.





> But the pressure on insurers to compete on price in the Affordable Care Act-created insurance exchanges may have better positioned them to wring price concessions from hospitals, Hughes-Cromwick said.


----------



## Arianrhod (Dec 13, 2015)

FA_Q2 said:


> Greenbeard said:
> 
> 
> > FA_Q2 said:
> ...



A rather long article (posted in its entirety because the site requires a username/password), that may be helpful:


> www.medscape.com
> 
> The Affordable Care Act and Academic Medical Centers
> 
> ...


----------



## jon_berzerk (Dec 13, 2015)

Arianrhod said:


> jon_berzerk said:
> 
> 
> > the insurance companies hate it
> ...



what the fuck are you talking about 

certain insurances offered to take on *subsidized* obamacare insurance policies 

in fact the government brags that 8 of 10 people in the market place receive a subsidy 

many have quit the program because it is costly 

here we went from a half a dozen carriers down to two 

avera and sanford


----------



## Arianrhod (Dec 13, 2015)

jon_berzerk said:


> Arianrhod said:
> 
> 
> > jon_berzerk said:
> ...



Health insurance, and health insurance companies.  In your previous post, you seemed confused about what health insurance companies do.  I was helping you to clarify your understanding.  Why do you feel the need to be abusive?


----------



## jon_berzerk (Dec 13, 2015)

Arianrhod said:


> jon_berzerk said:
> 
> 
> > Arianrhod said:
> ...



turn me in then dimwit 

certain insurances offered to take on *subsidized* obamacare insurance policies 

in fact the government brags that 8 of 10 people in the market place receive a subsidy 

many have quit the program because it is costly 

here we went from a half a dozen carriers down to two 

avera and sanford


----------



## Arianrhod (Dec 13, 2015)

Now we're getting somewhere:



jon_berzerk said:


> ...certain insurances offered to take on *subsidized* obamacare insurance policies



The insurance policies are not labeled "Obamacare."  They're under the carrier's name.




jon_berzerk said:


> in fact the government brags that 8 of 10 people in the market place receive a subsidy



That doesn't seem correct.  Can you link to where you got that figure?




jon_berzerk said:


> many have quit the program because it is costly



Not true.  The insurer gets the same premium they did before.  If they're leaving the market, it's because they're pissed off that they can't reject patients for preexisting conditions or set lifetime caps anymore.



jon_berzerk said:


> here we went from a half a dozen carriers down to two
> 
> avera and sanford



I'd have to know where "here" is, but I'm guessing it's one of those states that refused to set up its own exchange and rejected the funding for the Medicaid expansion.

Prior to passage of the PPACA, there were some states in which there was just one insurer monopolizing the entire market.  No chance of getting competitive pricing from them.  They're not allowed to do that anymore - a win for the consumer.

Insurers in other states continue to flourish.  Check the stock prices if you think they're suffering.  They aren't.


----------



## Kosh (Dec 13, 2015)

Arianrhod said:


> Insurers in other states continue to flourish. Check the stock prices if you think they're suffering. They aren't.



Why would they far left drone?

They helped write the bill...

Silly far left drone supporting the big Insurance companies and Big pharmacy..


----------



## Arianrhod (Dec 14, 2015)

Kosh said:


> Arianrhod said:
> 
> 
> > Insurers in other states continue to flourish. Check the stock prices if you think they're suffering. They aren't.
> ...



jon_berzerk seems to think they would.  'splain it to him.


----------



## Kosh (Dec 14, 2015)

Arianrhod said:


> Kosh said:
> 
> 
> > Arianrhod said:
> ...



See how the far left will edit peoples posts to fit their narrative?


----------



## Arianrhod (Dec 14, 2015)

Kosh said:


> Arianrhod said:
> 
> 
> > Kosh said:
> ...



What makes you think he's "far left"?  And who are you talking to, anyway?


----------



## Kosh (Dec 14, 2015)

Arianrhod said:


> Kosh said:
> 
> 
> > Arianrhod said:
> ...



See even the far left drones get confused on their narratives..

Silly far left drone!


----------



## Arianrhod (Dec 14, 2015)

Kosh said:


> Arianrhod said:
> 
> 
> > Kosh said:
> ...



He hasn't even posted in this thread for more than 9 hours.  Now I understand what the expression "where your voices count" means.


----------



## Kosh (Dec 14, 2015)

Arianrhod said:


> Kosh said:
> 
> 
> > Arianrhod said:
> ...



See how the far left will edited posts to get us to this point!


----------



## Arianrhod (Dec 14, 2015)

Kosh said:


> Arianrhod said:
> 
> 
> > Kosh said:
> ...



Your left hand or your left brain?


----------



## Kosh (Dec 14, 2015)

Arianrhod said:


> Kosh said:
> 
> 
> > Arianrhod said:
> ...



See how the far left will edited posts to get us to this point!

They have to do what ever takes to comply with their religious programming!


----------



## Arianrhod (Dec 14, 2015)

Kosh said:


> Arianrhod said:
> 
> 
> > Kosh said:
> ...



"Will edited" is not even English, but if you want to keep reiterating your theory that john_berzerk is "far left," go for it.  I'll revisit this if and when you decide to discuss the OP.

Make sure your response to this contains the word "drone."


----------



## Kosh (Dec 14, 2015)

Arianrhod said:


> Kosh said:
> 
> 
> > Arianrhod said:
> ...



And the far left drone edits posts to divert..


----------



## jon_berzerk (Dec 14, 2015)

Arianrhod said:


> Now we're getting somewhere:
> 
> 
> 
> ...




either you are really misinformed or a total liar 




*What is ObamaCare?*
The official name for “ObamaCare” is the_Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act_(PPACA), or Affordable Care Act (ACA) for short



In 2015 1 in 6 Americans got a Health Insurance Marketplace plan for $100 or less *and 87% of people who selected a marketplace plan for 2015 got financial assistance.* For 2016 7 out of 10 returning Marketplace customers can get a plan forless than $75 a month and 8 in 10 can get one for $100 or less.
you really are a dimwit arnt'cha 


Arianrhod said:


> Kosh said:
> 
> 
> > Arianrhod said:
> ...



liar


----------



## jon_berzerk (Dec 14, 2015)

Arianrhod said:


> Kosh said:
> 
> 
> > Arianrhod said:
> ...



other folks have lives nimrod


----------



## Arianrhod (Dec 14, 2015)

jon_berzerk said:


> In 2015 1 in 6 Americans got a Health Insurance Marketplace plan for $100 or less *and 87% of people who selected a marketplace plan for 2015 got financial assistance.* For 2016 7 out of 10 returning Marketplace customers can get a plan forless than $75 a month and 8 in 10 can get one for $100 or less.



Finally some information instead of bullshit.  However, you said "8 out of 10."  Let's do the math, shall we?  

First stat: 1 in 6.  So if you take 100 people looking for health insurance, 16.6% will have gone to a health exchange website, either federal or, if they're fortunate, their state site.  16.6% of 100 is 16.6.  We'll round that up to 17, because we haven't considered fractions of people since the Emancipation Proclamation.

The second stat you provided indicates that, of those 17 people, 7 out of 10 returned to the health exchange sites to renew their policies with the insurer.  So 70% of 17 people = 11.9, rounded up to 12.

What the links you provided say is that 12 out of 100 Americans got their health insurance through a health exchange website.

The link also states that, of those 12 people, 8 out of 10 (or 80%) were eligible for subsidies and paid less than $100 a month in premiums.  80% of 12 = 9.6.  Rounding up again, 10 people out of 100 were eligible for a <$100 a month premium.

Any questions so far?  You can take out your calculator and get the same results.  Try it.

Now, as for your insistence that there's an insurance company called "Obamacare," let's look at a list of all the health insurance companies in the U.S.:

List of United States insurance companies - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

See?  Depending on the state you live in, you can get health insurance from any one of those companies.

Privately run, for-profit corporations.

No "Obamacare."

"Obamacare" is the popular name for, as you indicated, the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act.

It is a law, passed by Congress, signed by the President, governing _affordable access to health insurance_.

If you go to a health exchange website and choose, say, a Blue Cross insurance plan, and go to your doctor, you will be asked "Do you have insurance?"  You'll take your Blue Cross card out of your wallet and give it to the receptionist, who will photocopy it and return it to you.  The billing department will use the number on your Blue Cross card to bill Blue Cross for your care.  If you're under your deductible, you will be sent a bill for the office visit.

In other words, it still works the way it worked before - assuming you're an adult who's had health insurance prior to 2014, and not some idiot kid parroting what he heard Rush say.

You have a Blue Cross card.  It says "Blue Cross" on it.  Same as it ever was.

To reiterate, because some of you are incredibly slow learners: The PPACA is a law.  It is not an insurance company, no matter how many times you claim it is.


----------



## Arianrhod (Dec 14, 2015)

jon_berzerk said:


> other folks have lives



That wasn't the topic of discussion.


----------



## dblack (Dec 14, 2015)

Arianrhod said:


> ...  Depending on the state you live in, you can get health insurance from any one of those companies.
> 
> Privately run, for-profit corporations.
> 
> ...



This is an excellent point, one I wish more people understood. 

ACA essentially ensures that we get more of the same. Higher and higher premiums, for less and less coverage. We get guaranteed issue, and additional subsidies for the poor, in exchange for a mandate to keep the insurance industry afloat.

What we don't get is meaningful change to the health care market. Just a bunch of rules to make sure we keep giving the insurance companies our money.


----------



## Arianrhod (Dec 14, 2015)

dblack said:


> Arianrhod said:
> 
> 
> > ...  Depending on the state you live in, you can get health insurance from any one of those companies.
> ...



What you give us is the same talking points without any substantiation.


----------



## dblack (Dec 14, 2015)

Arianrhod said:


> dblack said:
> 
> 
> > Arianrhod said:
> ...



Talking points? "You keep using that word ..."

In as political context, _talking points _usually refers to a technique of message management employed by partisan propagandists. Usually a core group disseminates key messages to be repeated by party members or receptive media outlets. Is that what you think I'm up to? Who do you imagine is giving me my talking points?


----------



## Arianrhod (Dec 14, 2015)

dblack said:


> In as political context, _talking points _usually refers to a technique of message management employed by partisan propagandists. Usually a core group disseminates key messages to be repeated by party members or receptive media outlets. Is that what you think I'm up to? Who do you imagine is giving me my talking points?



Talking points are then repeated by followers of the official propagandists.  When asked for data to support their opinions, these followers seldom provide any.


----------



## dblack (Dec 14, 2015)

Arianrhod said:


> dblack said:
> 
> 
> > In as political context, _talking points _usually refers to a technique of message management employed by partisan propagandists. Usually a core group disseminates key messages to be repeated by party members or receptive media outlets. Is that what you think I'm up to? Who do you imagine is giving me my talking points?
> ...



Which propagandists do you believe I'm following? The supporting material I've provided has been from varied sources. Are you suggesting Bill Moyers is a propagandist?


----------



## Arianrhod (Dec 14, 2015)

dblack said:


> Which propagandists do you believe I'm following? The supporting material I've provided has been from varied sources. Are you suggesting Bill Moyers is a propagandist?



Okay, once you mentioned Moyers, I actually reread the entire thread because I thought "Did I miss something?" and all I see is you agreeing with whatever the anti-PPACA side says, usually in one sentence.  No references to source material at all, certainly no reference to Moyers.

Now I suppose you expect me to go through every post you've ever made in this forum or the ObamaCare forum to find some reference to Moyers.  Then whatever I post in reply you'll dismiss.

So here's a thought: No.  Whine all you want about being "forced" while simultaneously claiming you "refuse to get personal."  The disconnect right there is untenable.


----------



## FA_Q2 (Dec 14, 2015)

Arianrhod said:


> dblack said:
> 
> 
> > Which propagandists do you believe I'm following? The supporting material I've provided has been from varied sources. Are you suggesting Bill Moyers is a propagandist?
> ...


Typically, if you are going to charge what he states as propaganda then you would have challenged one or more of the statements he made.  The core of what he states I think is rather obviously true - the ACA enshrines and protects the insurance industry.  Even most supporters of the ACA acknowledge this reality.  Are you challenging that premise or just the premise it leads to reduced coverage at grater cost?


----------



## Arianrhod (Dec 14, 2015)

FA_Q2 said:


> Typically, if you are going to charge what he states as propaganda then you would have challenged one or more of the statements he made.



And I've done so, repeatedly, in thread after thread.



FA_Q2 said:


> The core of what he states I think is rather obviously true - the ACA enshrines and protects the insurance industry.  Even most supporters of the ACA acknowledge this reality.  Are you challenging that premise or just the premise it leads to reduced coverage at grater cost?



If you've read my posts (and clearly you haven't, or you wouldn't have issued this lecture), you'd know that I've never denied the role the insurance industry has played and continues to play in the implementation of the PPACA.  I've also been very clear about my preference for single-payer.

dblack's main theme is "We're being forced...we're being forced...we're being forced."  

Nothing will change his mind, and I knew that after the third or fourth time around.  Since then I've been using him as a foil to instruct others.

But thank you for your concern.


----------



## jon_berzerk (Dec 14, 2015)

Arianrhod said:


> jon_berzerk said:
> 
> 
> > In 2015 1 in 6 Americans got a Health Insurance Marketplace plan for $100 or less *and 87% of people who selected a marketplace plan for 2015 got financial assistance.* For 2016 7 out of 10 returning Marketplace customers can get a plan forless than $75 a month and 8 in 10 can get one for $100 or less.
> ...



hey dumb ass the figures are from the government 

and they claim 8 of 10 in the market place get assistance in paying the premium


----------



## jon_berzerk (Dec 14, 2015)

Arianrhod said:


> jon_berzerk said:
> 
> 
> > other folks have lives
> ...



fuck you


----------



## Arianrhod (Dec 14, 2015)

jon_berzerk said:


> the figures are from the government



That's correct.



			
				jon_berzerk said:
			
		

> and they claim 8 of 10 in the market place get assistance in paying the premium



They state that 1 in 6 Americans went to a marketplace site to apply for health insurance.

Of that 1 in 6, 70% renewed their coverage for 2015.

Of that 70%, 8 out of 10 were eligible for a premium of <$100.

It's right there in the links you cited.


----------



## dblack (Dec 15, 2015)

Arianrhod said:


> FA_Q2 said:
> 
> 
> > Typically, if you are going to charge what he states as propaganda then you would have challenged one or more of the statements he made.
> ...



I haven't noticed that. But let's try again, with the post you were responding to: 


dblack said:


> ACA essentially ensures that we get more of the same. Higher and higher premiums, for less and less coverage. We get guaranteed issue, and additional subsidies for the poor, in exchange for a mandate to keep the insurance industry afloat.
> 
> What we don't get is meaningful change to the health care market. Just a bunch of rules to make sure we keep giving the insurance companies our money.



I was agreeing with a point you made, so I'm not sure which claim you feel requires 'substantiation'.


----------



## jon_berzerk (Dec 15, 2015)

Arianrhod said:


> jon_berzerk said:
> 
> 
> > the figures are from the government
> ...


----------



## Arianrhod (Dec 15, 2015)

jon_berzerk said:


> Arianrhod said:
> 
> 
> > jon_berzerk said:
> ...



To the dimwit who messed up his tags and still doesn't understand what the numbers from the links _he posted_ mean, let's run it again:

First link says that 1 in 6 Americans used the marketplace sites to apply for health insurance. So if you take 100 people looking for health insurance, 16.6% will have gone to a health exchange website, either federal or, if they're fortunate, their state site. 16.6% of 100 is 16.6. We'll round that up to 17, because we haven't considered fractions of people since the Emancipation Proclamation.

The second stat you provided indicates that, of those 17 people, 7 out of 10 returned to the health exchange sites to renew their policies with the insurer. So 70% of 17 people = 11.9, rounded up to 12.

What the links you provided say is that 12 out of 100 Americans got their health insurance through a health exchange website.

The link also states that, of those 12 people, 8 out of 10 (or 80%) were eligible for subsidies and paid less than $100 a month in premiums. 80% of 12 = 9.6. Rounding up again, 10 people out of 100 were eligible for a <$100 a month premium.

Any questions so far? You can take out your calculator and get the same results. Try it.

Or do you need me to 'splain what you posted again?


----------



## Arianrhod (Dec 15, 2015)

dblack said:


> Arianrhod said:
> 
> 
> > FA_Q2 said:
> ...



It was that last sentence I took issue with: 

"What we don't get is meaningful change to the health care market. Just a bunch of rules to make sure we keep giving the insurance companies our money."

That depends on who "we" are.  Healthy people might not notice the change, but those who've been denied coverage for a preexisting condition and those with chronic or life-threatening illnesses will no longer hit that lifetime "fuck you" coverage cap.

I saw a stat this morning indicating that 140,000+ Americans are diagnosed with colon cancer annually - some of them under 40 years of age.  A course of chemo can cost up to $40,000.  If the cancer comes back, rinse, repeat.  Not many <40 have that kind of money.

I can give you dozens more examples, but the point is: the change in coverage is a beginning toward lowering the costs of care.

Insurers are realizing that they're going to have to put pressure on doctors, hospitals, and especially pharma companies to lower costs.  That's not going to happen instantly, but it's a good example of market forces at work.

Now, if Congress would just stop wasting taxpayer money on Attempt #50+ to "kill Obamacare," that would show real progress.


----------



## dblack (Dec 15, 2015)

Arianrhod said:


> dblack said:
> 
> 
> > > ACA essentially ensures that we get more of the same. Higher and higher premiums, for less and less coverage. We get guaranteed issue, and additional subsidies for the poor, in exchange for a mandate to keep the insurance industry afloat.
> ...



First off, thanks for the thoughtful response. It really is appreciated.

I've acknowledged that the ACA achieves more coverage for the poor. But we could have done that by simply beefing up Medicare. We could have done that without the insurance industry sell-out.

But more help for the poor doesn't change the health care market. It doesn't address the existing inflationary pressures. By providing even more "free money" for medical services it, arguably, accelerates them.

Your contention that ACA will prompt insurers to put pressure on the health care industry to lower prices doesn't hold water. They've always had the incentive to do that. Why would they have more incentive now that their customers have no choice but to buy their policies? Wouldn't they have even more incentive if people were able to refuse? How does preventing their customers from saying "no - I won't buy your insurance, it's too expensive" give the insurers _more_ incentive to cut costs? Wouldn't it do the opposite? This doesn't make sense to me.


----------



## Arianrhod (Dec 15, 2015)

^As long as they could refuse or cap coverage, the insurers had no motivation to exert pressure on the doctors, hospitals, and pharma to cut waste and lower costs.  They could just tell their customers "Sorry, not covering that.  Sucks to be you.  But we'll send a nice form letter to your family expressing our condolences after you die."

Insurance companies' first "loyalty" is to their shareholders.  Not that that differentiates them from any corporation following the capitalist blueprint, but the difference is in the "commodity" they're selling.

Again, the better solution would have been, as you say, to expand Medicare/Medicaid coverage or, to use the word that has GOOPers shitting their pants, "single-payer," but the GOOPers are the problem.  They're frightened by words and can't be reasoned with.

For the record, it's not just poor working people who've been helped by the change in the law, but plenty of middle-class people who'd be bankrupted by a catastrophic or chronic degenerative illness if the insurers were allowed to kick them off the cliff as they had been doing for decades.


----------



## jon_berzerk (Dec 15, 2015)

Arianrhod said:


> jon_berzerk said:
> 
> 
> > Arianrhod said:
> ...






you are the fucking stupid one 

as i posted originally of the people who used the market place 8 or 10 received a subsidy 

the government is proud of that fact 

you lost this long ago 

when you tried to make claims i never made


----------



## jon_berzerk (Dec 15, 2015)

http://www.nytimes.com/2015/03/11/u...ans-have-insurance-under-health-act.html?_r=0


----------



## Arianrhod (Dec 15, 2015)

jon_berzerk said:


> as i posted originally of the people who used the market place 8 or 10 received a subsidy



That's not what you originally posted, and it's not what your links say.



jon_berzerk said:


> http://www.nytimes.com/2015/03/11/u...ans-have-insurance-under-health-act.html?_r=0



And -?


----------



## dblack (Dec 15, 2015)

Arianrhod said:


> ^As long as they could refuse or cap coverage, the insurers had no motivation to exert pressure on the doctors, hospitals, and pharma to cut waste and lower costs.  They could just tell their customers "Sorry, not covering that.  Sucks to be you.  But we'll send a nice form letter to your family expressing our condolences after you die."



Alright. That might help some. I still don't see how it compensates for removing themselves from the need to actually satisfy customers to make a profit. With a captive customer base, and product fixed by law, their ability to make money now depends, first and foremost, on their ability to lobby regulators - something they're quite good at.



> Insurance companies' first "loyalty" is to their shareholders.  Not that that differentiates them from any corporation following the capitalist blueprint, but the difference is in the "commodity" they're selling.



This is exactly why I find ACA so detestable. It's just another corporate scheme to convert public funds into private profits.



> Again, the better solution would have been, as you say, to expand Medicare/Medicaid coverage or, to use the word that has GOOPers shitting their pants, "single-payer," but the GOOPers are the problem.  They're frightened by words and can't be reasoned with.



I'm not the slightest bit interested in the partisan pissing matches. Congress passed ACA. It just so happens that this time it was controlled by the Democrats, but I have no delusions that Republicans would have done anything differently.



> For the record, it's not just poor working people who've been helped by the change in the law, but plenty of middle-class people who'd be bankrupted by a catastrophic or chronic degenerative illness if the insurers were allowed to kick them off the cliff as they had been doing for decades.



If you're bankrupted, you're poor. If you can't afford what you need to live, you're poor. While, ideally, I don't think it's a proper concern of government, a state run safety net isn't an entirely unreasonable proposition. Most societies have enough excess that they can afford to support those who fall through the cracks. The problem with ACA is that attempts to push everyone into the safety net, and that's simply not sustainable. Further, it sets up private, for-profit companies to run it. It's an incredible conflict of interest. It will erode our rights and squander our wealth.


----------



## jon_berzerk (Dec 16, 2015)

Arianrhod said:


> jon_berzerk said:
> 
> 
> > as i posted originally of the people who used the market place 8 or 10 received a subsidy
> ...



and you are a nutjob


----------



## Arianrhod (Dec 16, 2015)

jon_berzerk said:


> Arianrhod said:
> 
> 
> > jon_berzerk said:
> ...



If by "nutjob" you mean "someone who can do math," you're correct.


----------



## Arianrhod (Dec 16, 2015)

dblack said:


> Arianrhod said:
> 
> 
> > ^As long as they could refuse or cap coverage, the insurers had no motivation to exert pressure on the doctors, hospitals, and pharma to cut waste and lower costs.  They could just tell their customers "Sorry, not covering that.  Sucks to be you.  But we'll send a nice form letter to your family expressing our condolences after you die."
> ...



The thing is, satisfying customers was not their priority – making profit was.  The captive audience was a result of people needing healthcare and costs being prohibitive.  Costs were allowed to go up because the insurers knew they could gouge their customers or ditch them altogether.  This began with for-profit insurers entering the market to compete with the Blues.



dblack said:


> > Insurance companies' first "loyalty" is to their shareholders.  Not that that differentiates them from any corporation following the capitalist blueprint, but the difference is in the "commodity" they're selling.
> 
> 
> 
> This is exactly why I find ACA so detestable. It's just another corporate scheme to convert public funds into private profits.


Again, the PPACA was a compromise between “Let’s try to get coverage for every American” and “NO, NO, NO, NO, NO!  Socialism!111!!”

It will need to be revised and repaired or else replaced, the question is: With what?

“Just go back to the way it was before” is not the answer.  Not only would it abandon millions of Americans who have been paying premiums for coverage, but it would cost billions to discard, and if you think insurance companies were gouging customers before, just imagine what they’d do in this eventuality.



dblack said:


> > Again, the better solution would have been, as you say, to expand Medicare/Medicaid coverage or, to use the word that has GOOPers shitting their pants, "single-payer," but the GOOPers are the problem.  They're frightened by words and can't be reasoned with.
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Middle-class people who file for bankruptcy are for the most part given a fresh start.  When I say “poor,” I mean working-class people who have no savings, can’t afford to own a house, live from one paycheck to the next.

That aside, you’ve suggested expanding Medicare (even as the GOP wants to gut or “privatize” it), but at the same time you say you don’t want everyone pushed into the safety net, so I’m a little confused about the differences.


----------



## dblack (Dec 16, 2015)

Arianrhod said:


> The thing is, satisfying customers was not their priority – making profit was.



Maybe not. But in the end, the couldn't sell people something they didn't want. Now, we can't refuse.



> dblack said:
> 
> 
> > > Insurance companies' first "loyalty" is to their shareholders.  Not that that differentiates them from any corporation following the capitalist blueprint, but the difference is in the "commodity" they're selling.
> ...



I have lots of ideas, but let's be clear - a straight repeal would be better than letting it stand. If ACA is a compromise, it's the worst kind of compromise. It's quite literally the worst of both extremes. It serves corporate profits with coercive state mandates.



> That aside, you’ve suggested expanding Medicare (even as the GOP wants to gut or “privatize” it), but at the same time you say you don’t want everyone pushed into the safety net, so I’m a little confused about the differences.



The difference is that reasonably expanding Medicare - and I'm NOT talking about 'Medicare for all' - would still be a safety net, an "insurer of last resort", for people who can't afford to pay for their own health care. As I said, I still think it would be a mistake, as I don't believe taking care of people is the job of government. But it wouldn't be a sellout, it wouldn't be a corporate power grab - which is the heart and soul of ACA.

My point of my suggestion is that, if what you really want to achieve is coverage for people who are currently getting screwed, we could do it without shit like ACA. But I don't think that's what ACA supporters really want. I think what they really want is government supplying us with health care (ie socialized medicine) and they've convinced themselves that colluding with the insurance corporations will achieve that.


----------



## Greenbeard (Dec 16, 2015)

dblack said:


> The difference is that reasonably expanding Medicare - and I'm NOT talking about 'Medicare for all' - would still be a safety net, an "insurer of last resort", for people who can't afford to pay for their own health care. As I said, I still think it would be a mistake, as I don't believe taking care of people is the job of government. But it wouldn't be a sellout, it wouldn't be a corporate power grab - which is the heart and soul of ACA.



These are numbers for the first three quarters of this year from UnitedHealthCare, the nation's largest health insurer:







They pull in more revenue from their Medicare line of business than they do from their employer and individual commercial insurance business (even under the ACA).


----------



## dblack (Dec 16, 2015)

Greenbeard said:


> dblack said:
> 
> 
> > The difference is that reasonably expanding Medicare - and I'm NOT talking about 'Medicare for all' - would still be a safety net, an "insurer of last resort", for people who can't afford to pay for their own health care. As I said, I still think it would be a mistake, as I don't believe taking care of people is the job of government. But it wouldn't be a sellout, it wouldn't be a corporate power grab - which is the heart and soul of ACA.
> ...



Fascinating. So you're saying Medicare is a scam too? If that's true, then we should eliminate that as well.


----------



## Greenbeard (Dec 16, 2015)

dblack said:


> Fascinating. So you're saying Medicare is a scam too? If that's true, then we should eliminate that as well.



I'm saying that health insurance doesn't generally exist independent of health insurers, regardless of whether they take risk. That's true in the commercial space, and it's also true in the Medicare and Medicaid spaces.


----------



## dblack (Dec 16, 2015)

Greenbeard said:


> dblack said:
> 
> 
> > Fascinating. So you're saying Medicare is a scam too? If that's true, then we should eliminate that as well.
> ...



Right. Medicare and Medicaid suffer from the same flaws as ACA. The attempt to implement socialism via capitalism. They're fundamentally conflicted. If we want to help people with government, we should just give them money to pay for health care - or whatever they want to spend it on. There's no need to funnel it through corporate interests. Other than to solicit political support, which is how Congress uses these programs.


----------



## jon_berzerk (Dec 17, 2015)

Arianrhod said:


> jon_berzerk said:
> 
> 
> > Arianrhod said:
> ...




you are incorrect dimwit


----------



## the_human_being (Dec 17, 2015)




----------



## Arianrhod (Dec 17, 2015)

the_human_being said:


> View attachment 57162



No.



jon_berzerk said:


> you are incorrect



I'm using the numbers from the links you provided.  If my math is incorrect, you can correct it.  What are you waiting for?



dblack said:


> Right. Medicare and Medicaid suffer from the same flaws as ACA. The attempt to implement socialism via capitalism. They're fundamentally conflicted. If we want to help people with government, we should just give them money to pay for health care - or whatever they want to spend it on. There's no need to funnel it through corporate interests. Other than to solicit political support, which is how Congress uses these programs.



Before you thought Medica[re]id expansion was a good idea.  Now you're waffling.  The one thing you're consistent on is tossing out the PPACA and replacing it with -?

Somehow I have a feeling the answer is going to be a variation on "let market forces decide" and "if people can't afford health care, then..."


----------



## jon_berzerk (Dec 17, 2015)

the_human_being said:


> View attachment 57162



yup


----------



## jon_berzerk (Dec 17, 2015)

Arianrhod said:


> the_human_being said:
> 
> 
> > View attachment 57162
> ...



yes except the numbers that 8 for 10 that use the market place get a subsidy a number the government brags about


----------



## Arianrhod (Dec 17, 2015)

jon_berzerk said:


> yes except the numbers that 8 for 10 that use the market place get a subsidy a number the government brags about



(A) That has nothing to do with what dblack posted, and
(B) It's not 8 out of 10 who use the marketplace, but you are getting closer to understanding the actual figure.

When you're ready, kindly go over my math and show the errors, instead of simply repeating yourself.

If you can't, we'll assume my math is correct.


----------



## the_human_being (Dec 17, 2015)




----------



## Arianrhod (Dec 17, 2015)

the_human_being said:


> View attachment 57174



No one here is talking about "free stuff" except you.

I bet you've got lots more images to post.  Go for it.


----------



## dblack (Dec 17, 2015)

Arianrhod said:


> Before you thought Medica[re]id expansion was a good idea.  Now you're waffling.


I 'waffle' whenever I get new information. That's how we learn and grow. It wouldn't surprise much to discover that Medicare is also a scheme to funnel tax dollars to corporations. If what Greenbeard posted is factual, then I couldn't support expanding the program. Surely we can help the poor without indulging corporate welfare, eh?



> The one thing you're consistent on is tossing out the PPACA and replacing it with -?



Yep.



> Somehow I have a feeling the answer is going to be a variation on "let market forces decide" and "if people can't afford health care, then..."



There's nothing wrong with that answer. I've been clear that I don't think government should function as our caretaker. But there's a wide gulf between corporate sellout and laissez faire. Just about anything would be better than the former.


----------



## Arianrhod (Dec 17, 2015)

^You want no government involvement at all.  You want no insurance companies involved, either.

So if someone needs life-saving surgery, they should pay for it with chickens?

You've made an excellent case for what you _don't_ want, but something has to fill that vacuum.  Your lack of a viable option suggests some _Mad Max_ universe where some rich guy with end-stage renal disease can have you killed so his minions can harvest your kidneys.


----------



## dblack (Dec 17, 2015)

Arianrhod said:


> ^You want no government involvement at all.  You want no insurance companies involved, either.
> 
> So if someone needs life-saving surgery, they should pay for it with chickens?



They should pay for it however they like. If they can make insurance work, then fine - they should go with that. But if it doesn't work out, when the way they're using insurance makes no sense, they have no right to enlist government to bail themselves out.



> You've made an excellent case for what you _don't_ want, but something has to fill that vacuum.



And it would. But we should be free to figure that out for ourselves, and not solutions dictated to us by government.



> Your lack of a viable option suggests some _Mad Max_ universe where some rich guy with end-stage renal disease can have you killed so his minions can harvest your kidneys.



How so? Apart from frantic strawmen, that really has nothing to do with my point of view. I would never condone such a thing, nor accept a government that did.

In point of fact, I have proposed many viable options, on this very board. But none of them involve government - other than removing legislation currently blocking said options.


----------



## Arianrhod (Dec 17, 2015)

dblack said:


> Arianrhod said:
> 
> 
> > ^You want no government involvement at all.  You want no insurance companies involved, either.
> ...


IOW, you feel only wealthy people should be allowed to have surgery, because your magical thinking doesn't allow for any other scenario.


dblack said:


> If they can make insurance work, then fine - they should go with that.


You make it sound as if insurance works like eBay. 


dblack said:


> But if it doesn't work out, when the way they're using insurance makes no sense, they have no right to enlist government to bail themselves out.


That’s three unconnected ideas predicated on your opinion, not fact.


dblack said:


> > You've made an excellent case for what you _don't_ want, but something has to fill that vacuum.
> 
> 
> And it would. But we should be free to figure that out for ourselves, and not solutions dictated to us by government.


The solution is: Either you have insurance or you don’t.  You can’t expect something you don’t have to work for you.  Yes, you should be able to figure that out for yourself, but post after post after post, you still don’t seem to get it, or you’re just being petulant.


dblack said:


> > Your lack of a viable option suggests some _Mad Max_ universe where some rich guy with end-stage renal disease can have you killed so his minions can harvest your kidneys.
> 
> 
> 
> How so? Apart from frantic strawmen, that really has nothing to do with my point of view. I would never condone such a thing, nor accept a government that did.


Ever hear of a guy named Martin Shkreli?



dblack said:


> In point of fact, I have proposed many viable options, on this very board. But none of them involve government - other than removing legislation currently blocking said options.



That last one is the only practical solution I recall you making.  Maybe it's your scattershot approach to practical solutions that still come down to "I don't WANNA!" that clouds the issue.


----------



## dblack (Dec 17, 2015)

Arianrhod said:


> dblack said:
> 
> 
> > Arianrhod said:
> ...



No. That's your strawman.


> dblack said:
> 
> 
> > If they can make insurance work, then fine - they should go with that.
> ...



I don't know what that mean. Insurance certainly should work like Ebay. ACA makes it work like Homeland Security.


> dblack said:
> 
> 
> > But if it doesn't work out, when the way they're using insurance makes no sense, they have no right to enlist government to bail themselves out.
> ...



????


> dblack said:
> 
> 
> > > Your lack of a viable option suggests some _Mad Max_ universe where some rich guy with end-stage renal disease can have you killed so his minions can harvest your kidneys.
> ...



The guy the market ran out of business? Yep. So what?



> dblack said:
> 
> 
> > In point of fact, I have proposed many viable options, on this very board. But none of them involve government - other than removing legislation currently blocking said options.
> ...



You insist on making this personal. But I won't indulge your petty nonsense. You're defending an systematic fraud.


----------



## Arianrhod (Dec 17, 2015)

dblack said:


> You insist on making this personal. But I won't indulge your petty nonsense.



There's nothing more personal than "I don't wanna, I don't WANNA, I DON'T WANNA!!!!!!!" I've been indulging your petulance for far too long.

You don't wanna?  Then don't.  But pray to whatever gods you believe in that you never need surgery or long-term treatment.

And in the meantime, go bore someone else with your tantrums.


----------



## dblack (Dec 17, 2015)

Arianrhod said:


> dblack said:
> 
> 
> > You insist on making this personal. But I won't indulge your petty nonsense.
> ...



I've never said that. That's your delusion. I guess it's easier than defending your views.



> You don't wanna?  Then don't.  But pray to whatever gods you believe in that you never need surgery or long-term treatment.
> 
> And in the meantime, go bore someone else with your tantrums.



The tantrums are yours. I'm trying to discuss policy. Its sad that when you are faced with the real opposition to your views you resort to these petty personal attacks. Wouldn't it be better to rationally defend your views?


----------



## Arianrhod (Dec 17, 2015)

dblack said:


> Arianrhod said:
> 
> 
> > dblack said:
> ...



If by "discuss" you mean "relying on emotionally fraught words," you're correct.


----------



## dblack (Dec 17, 2015)

Arianrhod said:


> dblack said:
> 
> 
> > Arianrhod said:
> ...



Well, I'm pointing out how the insurance industry has co-opted health care reform and turned it into a corporate welfare boondoggle. What are you up to?


----------



## Arianrhod (Dec 17, 2015)

dblack said:


> Arianrhod said:
> 
> 
> > dblack said:
> ...



Reiterating that I'd have preferred single-payer, that you'll be even unhappier with the eventuality of single-payer, and observing that it's interesting that this is the only corporate welfare boondoggle that seems to upset you, which I find very revealing.


----------



## dblack (Dec 17, 2015)

Arianrhod said:


> dblack said:
> 
> 
> > Well, I'm pointing out how the insurance industry has co-opted health care reform and turned it into a corporate welfare boondoggle. What are you up to?
> ...



That's not true. I've said, repeatedly, that single payer would be better than ACA.



> ... and observing that it's interesting that this is the only corporate welfare boondoggle that seems to upset you, which I find very revealing.



Also untrue. I guess it's easier to assume some kind of stereotype.


----------



## dblack (Dec 17, 2015)

dblack said:


> Arianrhod said:
> 
> 
> > dblack said:
> ...



It's honestly disappointing that you always come back around to this kind of response.


----------



## Onyx (Dec 17, 2015)

Honestly I don't see how a single payer healthcare system is better than what the affordable care act did. They are both bad, but the former is even more limiting and controlling than the latter. At least the ACA provided a degree of sustainability too; unlike the decade long fiction of single-payer healthcare, which is always bound to end in fiscal disaster


----------



## dblack (Dec 17, 2015)

Onyx said:


> Honestly I don't see how a single payer healthcare system is better than what the affordable care act did. They are both bad, but the former is even more limiting and controlling than the latter. At least the ACA provided a degree of sustainability too; unlike the decade long fiction of single-payer healthcare, which is always bound to end in fiscal disaster



Single-payer could, in theory at least, be an honest government service, something like what we do with public education. And you're probably right. Single-payer would most likely not be sustainable. But we'd at least find that out. 

ACA is an order of magnitude more corrupt, selling us out to corporate interests that have no public accountability, and no public motive other than generating profits for shareholders. It's the forerunner of corporatist government and will, in my view, pave the way for fascism in the US.


----------



## Onyx (Dec 17, 2015)

dblack said:


> Single-payer could, in theory at least, be an honest government service, something like we do with public education.



I do not find public education to be at all honest. It has just established itself into our society, therefore few people are left to argue against it. If you establish single payer healthcare for long enough, you will find it will become impossible to rid the nation of it. We have a "push forward" mentality, not one to promote taking a step back. 



> ACA is an order of magnitude more corrupt, selling us out to corporate interests that have no public accountability, and no public motive other than generating profits for shareholders. It's the forerunner of corporatist government and will, in my view, pave the way for fascism in the US.



I still don't exactly see how the ACA is *MORE* susceptible to corruption via corporatism. If anything, it is worst, because it takes the individual completely out of the equation in terms of making independent buying decision, leaving the only parties at the negotiating table being the government and corporations,  and the corporations are influencing every policy decision in order to protect their interests.


----------



## FA_Q2 (Dec 18, 2015)

Onyx said:


> dblack said:
> 
> 
> > Single-payer could, in theory at least, be an honest government service, something like we do with public education.
> ...


Because it give companies access to the powers of government.  Government is bad on its own but the people have some modicum of control over it and it does not serve a profit motive.  Companies, on the other hand, are only looking to increase the bottom line.  Giving them access to governmental powers is enormously corrupt.  This is no different than the religious governments of the past (or many of the ones that exist now).  I can expect the government service to serve itself but that also entails servicing me.  I can expect a company with the power to require me to pay it to only serve itself.  It has no reason to give a shit about me and I have almost no power to influence it.  All the company is going to really care about is how much they need to pay the politician to continue to keep the cash cow going.


----------



## jon_berzerk (Dec 18, 2015)

Arianrhod said:


> jon_berzerk said:
> 
> 
> > yes except the numbers that 8 for 10 that use the market place get a subsidy a number the government brags about
> ...



there are no errors jackass


----------



## Arianrhod (Dec 18, 2015)

jon_berzerk said:


> there are no errors



So we agree that the numbers you provided are correct; you simply misinterpreted them.  Excellent.


----------



## Onyx (Dec 18, 2015)

FA_Q2 said:


> Because it give companies access to the powers of government.


That isn't different in single-payer.



> :Government is bad on its own but the people have some modicum of control over it and it does not serve a profit motive.


First of all, the government does serve a profit motive when influenced by corporations, even on some level without corporations.

Anyways, the ACA *IS* having the government limit insurance companies. What, did you think it gave insurance companies more freedom to set premiums? It is the exact opposite.



> Companies, on the other hand, are only looking to increase the bottom line.  Giving them access to governmental powers is enormously corrupt.


That is exemplified in a single-payer system, since you are taking away all powers from the individual to make decisions regarding his or her healthcare, and shifting it solely to the government and insurance companies.

The ACA did help some corporations gain a business advantage since its primary function was controlling prices, which drove smaller insurance companies into ruins which could not compete. It didn't give them more economic freedom though.



> I can expect the government service to serve itself but that also entails servicing me.  I can expect a company with the power to require me to pay it to only serve itself.  It has no reason to give a shit about me and I have almost no power to influence it.  All the company is going to really care about is how much they need to pay the politician to continue to keep the cash cow going.



It is pretty naive to think that the government functions any different than a corporation simply out of principle. Even most corporations put forward quite noble goals "on paper."


----------



## dblack (Dec 18, 2015)

Onyx said:


> FA_Q2 said:
> 
> 
> > Because it give companies access to the powers of government.
> ...



It sounds like you have a different notion of what single-payer is referring to. In my understanding, insurance companies will have no role to play in single-payer, other than offering supplemental insurance for services the government plan doesn't cover.



> The ACA did help some corporations gain a business advantage since its primary function was controlling prices, which drove smaller insurance companies into ruins which could not compete. It didn't give them more economic freedom though.



They major 'players' in industry generally don't have much trouble controlling regulatory regimes. Insurance executives and lobbyists wrote ACA. There's no reason to believe they won't be able to control it going forward.



> > I can expect the government service to serve itself but that also entails servicing me.  I can expect a company with the power to require me to pay it to only serve itself.  It has no reason to give a shit about me and I have almost no power to influence it.  All the company is going to really care about is how much they need to pay the politician to continue to keep the cash cow going.
> 
> 
> 
> It is pretty naive to think that the government functions any different than a corporation simply out of principle. Even most corporations put forward quite noble goals "on paper."



Well, these days, there's some truth to that. But it's a major problem that we should never just concede. The merging of government and corporate power is very dangerous. That's really what we're talking about here.


----------



## Onyx (Dec 18, 2015)

dblack said:


> =
> It sounds like you have a different notion of what single-payer is referring to. In my understanding, insurance companies will have no role to play in single-payer, other than offering supplemental insurance for services the government plan doesn't cover.



No, that's different. What you are thinking of is total government-run healthcare. Single-payer is where the government collects all dues from the populace, and negotiates and buys healthcare on behalf of everyone in the collective.

Insurance companies are not out of the picture. They are in direct negotiation with the government. There are some benefits to this system, but not really of the things you argued. 



> They major 'players' in industry generally don't have much trouble controlling regulatory regimes. Insurance executives and lobbyists wrote ACA. There's no reason to believe they won't be able to control it going forward.


The ACA was implemented because some insurance companies lobbied the government. I agree with you that the law was passed to protect certain corporate interests.




> Well, these days, there's some truth to that. But it's a major problem that we should never just concede. The merging of government and corporate power is very dangerous. That's really what we're talking about here.



I don't think that can be prevented to be honest. Attempts to prevent it usually just lead to more controlling and oppressive regimes. When it comes down to giving governments power to limit corporations, or corporations power to limit governments, I would rather just tell both to fuck off. My personal opinion.[/QUOTE]


----------



## Arianrhod (Dec 18, 2015)

Onyx said:


> Single-payer is where the government collects all dues from the populace, and negotiates and buys healthcare on behalf of everyone in the collective.



This is exactly what businesses do in terms of negotiating with insurers for a group plan to cover their employees, but try explaining that to the people screaming about the PPACA.


----------



## Onyx (Dec 18, 2015)

Arianrhod said:


> Onyx said:
> 
> 
> > Single-payer is where the government collects all dues from the populace, and negotiates and buys healthcare on behalf of everyone in the collective.
> ...


I have a problem with that though, because it takes away choice from the individual. There is a clause in the ACA that made businesses  responsible for paying more into their employees health care plans, and this had really poor results.


----------



## dblack (Dec 18, 2015)

Onyx said:


> dblack said:
> 
> 
> > =
> ...



Why would insurance companies be negotiating with government? If government is paying for our health care, where do insurance companies enter into it? (apart from, as I mentioned, supplemental insurance for services the government won't cover)



> > They major 'players' in industry generally don't have much trouble controlling regulatory regimes. Insurance executives and lobbyists wrote ACA. There's no reason to believe they won't be able to control it going forward.
> 
> 
> The ACA was implemented because some insurance companies lobbied the government. I agree with you that the law was passed to protect certain corporate interests.
> ...



That's my opinion as well. The only way to reduce collusion between government and corporate interests is to revoke state power to interfere in our economic decisions.


----------



## Onyx (Dec 18, 2015)

dblack said:


> Why would insurance companies be negotiating with government? If government is paying for our health care, where do insurance companies enter into it? (apart from, as I mentioned, supplemental insurance for services the government won't cover)



That would involve the government keeping a constant stockpile of funds to pay for medical expenses, kind of like a safety net. Such a system isn't always viewed as being fiscally responsible, so many governments just pay immediate premiums to the insurance companies. 

You could do it like you are saying, and just pay direct expenses, but there are risks associated with that as well. 



> That's my opinion as well. The only way to reduce collusion between government and corporate interests is to revoke state power to interfere in our economic decisions.


Absolutely agreed, and I think that goes back to my opinion of not giving the government *ANY* space in healthcare services. It just makes room for exploitation from the state, or corporations actively exploiting the state to protect their bottom line.


----------



## dblack (Dec 18, 2015)

Onyx said:


> dblack said:
> 
> 
> > Why would insurance companies be negotiating with government? If government is paying for our health care, where do insurance companies enter into it? (apart from, as I mentioned, supplemental insurance for services the government won't cover)
> ...



The proposals I have read for single-payer don't include outsourcing it to private companies. I wouldn't certainly be opposed to doing it that way.



> > That's my opinion as well. The only way to reduce collusion between government and corporate interests is to revoke state power to interfere in our economic decisions.
> 
> 
> Absolutely agreed, and I think that goes back to my opinion of not giving the government *ANY* space in healthcare services. It just makes room for exploitation from the state, or corporations actively exploiting the state to protect their bottom line.



Sure. But we were talking about why I saw hybrid programs like ACA as worse than direct government welfare programs like single-payer.


----------



## FA_Q2 (Dec 18, 2015)

Onyx said:


> FA_Q2 said:
> 
> 
> > Because it give companies access to the powers of government.
> ...


No, they don't/  The government is not motivated by profit motive as there is no share holders to gain.  The government does not have a profit - they have a deficit and always will until the basics of our economy change.

Also, I have never stated that the ACA does not limit the insurance companies.  I said that those companies are using the ACA to gain access to government power.  The fact that the government limits the companies freedom is irrelevant (and actually something that the company itself seeks out in the end).  By limiting those companies they are also limiting the possibility for competition and ensuring continued profits.



Onyx said:


> > Companies, on the other hand, are only looking to increase the bottom line.  Giving them access to governmental powers is enormously corrupt.
> 
> 
> That is exemplified in a single-payer system, since you are taking away all powers from the individual to make decisions regarding his or her healthcare, and shifting it solely to the government and insurance companies.
> ...


Large companies do not want more freedom.  That means they actually have to compete and continue to innovate or refine processes.  Large companies much prefer a static marketplace.  A static marketplace ensures not only continued profits but also predictable ones.  It limits the possibility of competition and allows the company to simply make money without risk.


Onyx said:


> > I can expect the government service to serve itself but that also entails servicing me.  I can expect a company with the power to require me to pay it to only serve itself.  It has no reason to give a shit about me and I have almost no power to influence it.  All the company is going to really care about is how much they need to pay the politician to continue to keep the cash cow going.
> 
> 
> 
> It is pretty naive to think that the government functions any different than a corporation simply out of principle. Even most corporations put forward quite noble goals "on paper."


No, its not.  The government does not work like a corporation because it is nothing like a corporation at all.  There is are similarities between company and the government.  It really is naive to believe that the two entirely different entities operate in the same manner.

Boiled down to its most basic concept - the government has control and power over your RIGHTS as well as the sole entity in charge or protecting the same where a company is primarily driven by the profit motive of its members even at the expense of all that are not its members.  Give the latter control over your rights and you will soon find that you have none.


----------



## FA_Q2 (Dec 18, 2015)

dblack said:


> Onyx said:
> 
> 
> > dblack said:
> ...


Why?  That idea is rather silly IMHO.

You have to ask yourself what *purpose *the insurance companies serve?  Why do they exist?

The simple answer is that they exist to establish risk.  An insurance companies sole purpose is to establish what your overall risk is to determine what you need to pay into the whole in order to come out even at worst.  That is it.  They do not exist to pay your bills - that is the consequence of the system not its primary purpose.  If the government is paying those premiums then what purpose does the insurance companies serve?  Nothing at all.  They would make money for essentially moving money around.


----------



## dblack (Dec 19, 2015)

FA_Q2 said:


> dblack said:
> 
> 
> > Onyx said:
> ...



Well, yeah. That's what gets lost in all of this. Insurance is a hedge against risk. Not a viable means of financing the things we need.


----------



## jon_berzerk (Dec 19, 2015)

Arianrhod said:


> jon_berzerk said:
> 
> 
> > there are no errors
> ...



just like a libtard making up shit 

i did not misinterpret anything 

for all your twisting and dancing and jumping around 

at the end of the day my original post is still correct


----------



## Greenbeard (Dec 19, 2015)

FA_Q2 said:


> Why?  That idea is rather silly IMHO.
> 
> You have to ask yourself what *purpose *the insurance companies serve?  Why do they exist?
> 
> The simple answer is that they exist to establish risk.  An insurance companies sole purpose is to establish what your overall risk is to determine what you need to pay into the whole in order to come out even at worst.  That is it.  They do not exist to pay your bills - that is the consequence of the system not its primary purpose.  If the government is paying those premiums then what purpose does the insurance companies serve?  Nothing at all.  They would make money for essentially moving money around.



You're conflating an insurance company with an _actuary_. Obviously insurers will employ actuaries for the function you're describing but more broadly insurers _pool_ risk. They design and sell a financial product, the point being that they take on risk for your expenses if you have a health issue. (This is unavoidable--health spending is incredibly concentrated on a relative small segment of the population at any given time, which is why an insurance model--whether public or private--will always be needed to finance it.) And in doing so they have to do all of the administrative side of that: building and maintaining provider networks, negotiating prices, and yes actually paying the claims when you have a health issue.

If you imagine the basic template for single-payer health care being essentially Medicare-for-all, that program is still going to be administered by private insurers. That's how Medicare has always worked (today those insurers are called Medicare Administrative Contractors). They pay the claims, even as the government bears the actual financial risk and sets prices.

However, the trend of the past 20 years or so in public insurance has been away from that model. State Medicaid programs have gotten away from it and gone toward risk-bearing managed care organizations. In other words, they privatized. People in Medicaid tend to enroll in private insurance plans these days and their insurers are at risk for their expenses, not the state.

Same thing for the subset of Medicare that has been privatized (Medicare Advantage). Enrollees get to pick whether they want to enroll in traditional Medicare (which, again is still actually administered in practice by the MACs) or enroll in Medicare Advantage where they choose a private insurance plan. Enrollment in the latter has been growing pretty quickly.






So I would not expect that even if we ultimately migrate toward a "single-payer" model that it wouldn't follow the same trends that have re-shaped the single-payer programs we've had since the '60s. Namely partially privatized with less risk for the public sector and more risk for the private sector (in addition to the inevitable administrative role for the private sector).


----------



## regent (Dec 19, 2015)

When Democrats wrote the Social Security Act, FDR insisted that it be written so that Republicans could not kill Social Security when they got into office. Of course, that did not stop Republicans from trying to change it as did Bush with his privatization plan, but now with Social Security gaining acceptance it will be even harder for Republicans to drop, or change Social Security.


----------



## Arianrhod (Dec 19, 2015)

The only time Social Security comes into the conversation is when someone repeats the "Social Security is going broke!!!! (And it's just a Ponzi scheme anyway)" myth, completely ignoring the pilfering from the SS Trust Fund that's been going on for decades.


----------



## FA_Q2 (Dec 19, 2015)

Greenbeard said:


> FA_Q2 said:
> 
> 
> > Why?  That idea is rather silly IMHO.
> ...


That is essentially what I stated.  Again, what purpose does pooling that risk have when the source of the funds all come from the same location?

I cant see any other purpose than skimming money off the top.


----------



## FA_Q2 (Dec 19, 2015)

Arianrhod said:


> The only time Social Security comes into the conversation is when someone repeats the "Social Security is going broke!!!! (And it's just a Ponzi scheme anyway)" myth, completely ignoring the pilfering from the SS Trust Fund that's been going on for decades.


That 'pilfering' is intrinsic to how SS works.

That is where the 'ponzi' scheme claim comes from anyway.


----------



## dblack (Dec 19, 2015)

FA_Q2 said:


> Greenbeard said:
> 
> 
> > FA_Q2 said:
> ...



I think what Greenbeard is trying to say is that the insurance industry will figure out a way to skim money off the top regardless.


----------



## Arianrhod (Dec 19, 2015)

FA_Q2 said:


> Arianrhod said:
> 
> 
> > The only time Social Security comes into the conversation is when someone repeats the "Social Security is going broke!!!! (And it's just a Ponzi scheme anyway)" myth, completely ignoring the pilfering from the SS Trust Fund that's been going on for decades.
> ...



Really?  Where in the Social Security Act of 1935 does it say "Congress can divert funds from the Social Security Trust Fund to pay for their favorite pork projects and not pay it back"?


----------



## Greenbeard (Dec 19, 2015)

FA_Q2 said:


> That is essentially what I stated.  Again, what purpose does pooling that risk have when the source of the funds all come from the same location?
> 
> I cant see any other purpose than skimming money off the top.



As I said, states and the federal government have both become increasingly reluctant to take on risk for health spending. That's why they've increasingly privatized both Medicare and Medicaid and shifted risk to private entities.

I don't foresee that reversing, even if everyone were put into a program like one of those. In practice single-payer would be: (1) real universal enrollment in some kind of insurance plan, (2) a stronger role for federal policy setting in the health sector (right now the feds and states push the market through policies implemented through Medicare and Medicaid; under single-payer they could be much more assertive about pushing change), and (3) perhaps a price-setting role for the government.


----------



## TyroneSlothrop (Dec 19, 2015)




----------



## FA_Q2 (Dec 19, 2015)

Arianrhod said:


> FA_Q2 said:
> 
> 
> > Arianrhod said:
> ...


Title II of the actual law covers that: 
www.ourdocuments.gov/doc.php?flash=false&doc=68&page=transcript

It established the fist account that overages of SS funds go to - bonds.  You do understand what the means by necessity, right?


----------



## dblack (Dec 20, 2015)

Greenbeard said:


> FA_Q2 said:
> 
> 
> > That is essentially what I stated.  Again, what purpose does pooling that risk have when the source of the funds all come from the same location?
> ...



Single payer isn't insurance. It isn't "taking on risk". It's socializing the cost of health care via government.



> I don't foresee that reversing, even if everyone were put into a program like one of those. In practice single-payer would be: (1) real universal enrollment in some kind of insurance plan, (2) a stronger role for federal policy setting in the health sector (right now the feds and states push the market through policies implemented through Medicare and Medicaid; under single-payer they could be much more assertive about pushing change), and (3) *perhaps a price-setting role for the government.*



Sure. That's the end-game. It's a statist's wet dream.


----------



## gipper (Dec 20, 2015)

regent said:


> When Democrats wrote the Social Security Act, FDR insisted that it be written so that Republicans could not kill Social Security when they got into office. Of course, that did not stop Republicans from trying to change it as did Bush with his privatization plan, but now with Social Security gaining acceptance it will be even harder for Republicans to drop, or change Social Security.


Propaganda

Congress and BO just made huge changes to SS that have many negative effects to middle class and working poor.  Have you heard?


----------



## Greenbeard (Dec 20, 2015)

dblack said:


> Single payer isn't insurance. It isn't "taking on risk". It's socializing the cost of health care via government.



These are different ways of saying the same thing.



> Sure. That's the end-game. It's a statist's wet dream.



Single-payer generally is.


----------



## dblack (Dec 20, 2015)

Greenbeard said:


> dblack said:
> 
> 
> > Single payer isn't insurance. It isn't "taking on risk". It's socializing the cost of health care via government.
> ...



No, it's misleading equivocation. "Taking on risk" refers to hedge against unforseen calamity. That's a reasonable way to use insurance. 

Socializing routine expenses has nothing to do with risk, it's simply cost sharing. Using insurance for this function is unnecessary and irrational. That's the point of going to single payer in the first place.


----------



## Sun Devil 92 (Apr 9, 2016)

g5000 said:


> The GOP has STILL not put a comprehensive alternative health care reform on the table.
> 
> After all these years.
> 
> ...



Four months later.....

The primaries are getting hot....

And still no leadership from the GOP.

Dickweeds like Fake Malarky (the very core of the establishment RINO's) have nothing to offer.


----------



## william the wie (Apr 10, 2016)

The votes for single payer do not and will not exist. The slow but steady migration of the poor to the blue wall states while the slow and steady migration of the wealthy to low tax states, mostly the red edge states, will continue. That means that single payer will nor pass the house.


----------



## Sun Devil 92 (Apr 10, 2016)

So...let's get back to the OP.....

Has anyone seen anything that looks remotely successful ?


----------



## dblack (Apr 10, 2016)

Sun Devil 92 said:


> So...let's get back to the OP.....
> 
> Has anyone seen anything that looks remotely successful ?



The thing with judging success is that we need some agreement on what the goals were. I've talked to a lot of ACA apologists who recognized it was a bad law, but supported it because it represented a "foot in the door" (a way for government to get a piece of the action?). I guess by that criteria, it was a success.


----------



## Sun Devil 92 (Apr 10, 2016)

dblack said:


> Sun Devil 92 said:
> 
> 
> > So...let's get back to the OP.....
> ...



You nailed it.

The goals of the effort (in other words...why was it necessary) were never fully defined.

By either side.

Clearly there was an issue...but defining it would mean you could identify when you've achieved your purpose.

When your purpose is all out single payer health care run by the government, you can't state that.


----------



## Sun Devil 92 (Apr 10, 2016)

TyroneSlothrop said:


>



Yes, let's pass a law that says you can't shoot other people....

Oh, wait


----------



## rdean (Apr 10, 2016)

You have to be a monster to want Americans to suffer.  Unfortunately, too many of them have joined the GOP.


----------



## dblack (Apr 10, 2016)

rdean said:


> You have to be a monster to want Americans to suffer.



True that.


----------



## Sun Devil 92 (Apr 10, 2016)

rdean said:


> You have to be a monster to want Americans to suffer.  Unfortunately, too many of them have joined the GOP.



You''d have to be a moron to take rdean seriously.

Please show us where the goals of any group openly state that "we want americans to suffer".

Obama has made people suffer...is that really a goal of his ?  No.  It's just a by-product of his failed policies (like Obamacare which now has people paying for insurance they can't afford to use....so STFU).


----------



## regent (Apr 10, 2016)

It's the Social Security song again, but without the communism chorus. But Republicans did play the communism thing in the beginning of ACA, so has America lost its fear of communism or what?


----------



## Sun Devil 92 (Apr 16, 2016)

regent said:


> It's the Social Security song again, but without the communism chorus. But Republicans did play the communism thing in the beginning of ACA, so has America lost its fear of communism or what?



Social Security ain't what it used to be...

Politically or economically.

Are you saying the republicans at the time were dead wrong ?


----------



## Sun Devil 92 (Oct 19, 2016)

I thought we might bring this back since the claim has not changed.

8,700 per person per year (not disputed) and not changed in the last couple of years.  Way more than any other country.

Obamacare is a failed experiment.  If it were applied to the entire country (and it has screwed up a lot of insurance...but not to the extent it could), we'd be in big trouble.


----------

