# Yes, it was all a lie about Obamacare



## The Rabbi (Jun 3, 2013)

Cheapest policy according to the IRS will be $20,000/yr.  Where is all my savings from Obamacare??
IRS: Cheapest Obamacare Plan Will Be $20,000 Per Family | CNS News


----------



## Pete7469 (Jun 3, 2013)

The Rabbi said:


> Cheapest policy according to the IRS will be $20,000/yr.  Where is all my savings from Obamacare??
> IRS: Cheapest Obamacare Plan Will Be $20,000 Per Family | CNS News



What?

You mean government fucked something up again?

I was so sure that THIS TIME they would get it right...

906 pages of law should have covered everything right?

Assholes.


----------



## Spoonman (Jun 3, 2013)

before you know it the only people in this country with healthcare will be illegal aliens and welfare slugs


----------



## healthmyths (Jun 3, 2013)

Pete7469 said:


> The Rabbi said:
> 
> 
> > Cheapest policy according to the IRS will be $20,000/yr.  Where is all my savings from Obamacare??
> ...



It was obvious to me that when Obama repeatedly used 46 million as number of uninsured this was going to be a GIGANTIC cluster...K!
When his own Census said 10 million uninsured were not citizens, and 14 million only needed to register with Medicaid and they were covered it proved to me they didn't know what they were doing!
But when he falsely included 18 million people THAT didn't want health insurance I KNEW this was a huge fraud!
Subtract that 42 million above and you find ONLY 4 million that truly wanted and needed health insurance.
So that's why taxing lawyers 10% of $200 billion income would pay a $5,000 a person premium.  BUT then I found out lawyers gave OBAMA/Congress $300 million in 2008!
Unlike the tanning salon lobby that didn't and found themselves now responsible for 10% tax all because tanning causes cancer!
Well lawyers cause $850 billion a year in defensive medicine... why are they exempt other then they are fellow lawyers with Obama and 47% of Congress!


----------



## NYcarbineer (Jun 3, 2013)

healthmyths said:


> Pete7469 said:
> 
> 
> > The Rabbi said:
> ...



Obama never used the 46 million number.


----------



## NYcarbineer (Jun 3, 2013)

This story is an old lie by the rightwing propaganda machine that was debunked on this board a long time ago.


----------



## Soggy in NOLA (Jun 3, 2013)

NYcarbineer said:


> healthmyths said:
> 
> 
> > Pete7469 said:
> ...



Uhm, wrong again... yes he did:

Obama Again Inflates Number of Uninsured Americans--Falsely Claiming '46 Million of Our Fellow Citizens Have No Coverage' | CNS News


----------



## Redfish (Jun 3, 2013)

NYcarbineer said:


> healthmyths said:
> 
> 
> > Pete7469 said:
> ...



When did Obama say that 46 million was not the correct number?


----------



## Soggy in NOLA (Jun 3, 2013)

NYcarbineer said:


> healthmyths said:
> 
> 
> > Pete7469 said:
> ...



46 Million Uninsured: A Look Behind The Number : NPR


----------



## healthmyths (Jun 3, 2013)

NYcarbineer said:


> healthmyths said:
> 
> 
> > Pete7469 said:
> ...



Obama started:"We are not a nation that accepts nearly 46 million uninsured men, women and children,"
46 Million Uninsured: A Look Behind The Number : NPR


----------



## healthmyths (Jun 3, 2013)

NYcarbineer said:


> This story is an old lie by the rightwing propaganda machine that was debunked on this board a long time ago.



Where is the debunking?

There have NEVER BEEN 46 million uninsured legal Americans, who already had coverage OR who could afford but didn't WANT health insurance!

A) He counts 18 million people THAT DON"T want health insurance. 
They are under 34.
They earn over $50,000 and turn down their employers' health plans BECAUSE they spend less then $1,000 a year.  
So why are they being penalized for NOT wanting to have it... Yet Obama counts them and that is totally unfair, a lie and wrong!
   Source:  CRISIS OF THE UNINSURED: 2009

B) 14 million people counted as "uninsured" all they need to do is register. Enroll. And they are covered by Medicaid!
   Blue Cross and Blue Shield Association contracted with the Actuarial Research Corporation (ARC) to provide a detailed analysis 
   of the uninsured identified by the Census Bureau, which found:
   Of the 44.7 million non-elderly uninsured individuals identified in the 2004 Census Current Population Survey (CPS) data, 
   nearly one-third  almost 14 million  were reachable through existing government health programs such as Medicaid and the State
   Childrens Health Insurance Program (SCHIP) under current rules.
   Source: http://coverageforall.org/pdf/BC-BS_Uninsured-America.pdf

C) So 32 million don't want and are already covered. That leaves 14 million..except according to the Census 

10 million are not legal!
   source:Income, Poverty and Health Insurance Coverage in the United States: 2009 - Income & Wealth - Newsroom - U.S. Census Bureau


That leaves 4 million that truly need and WANT health insurance but NOT 46 million which was used to pass by only 6 votes Obamacare!
If people like you would really stop using 46 million but use 4 million that would allow this to happen!

So please TELL ME again where 10 million uninsured counted according to Census are NOT Citizens?
Tell me again that 14 million people totally eligible and totally covered by Medicaid ... that is not true???
Finally WHY are 18 million people who don't WANT, Don't NEED health insurance be forced to buy something that isn't necessary for them?
THAT's like telling ALL AMERICANS YOU must buy a solar car!

Prove to me where those numbers are WRONG????


----------



## The Rabbi (Jun 3, 2013)

This kind of thing has been debunked so many times it is amazing the left can still post it with a straight face.  It is like Al Gore won Florida.  Or The only reason we went into Iraq is because Bush lied about WMD.  They are the zombies of argumentation. No matter how many times you show conclusively they are lies the next little goose-stepping leftist out of the gate feels the need to repeat them.


----------



## healthmyths (Jun 3, 2013)

This totally incompetence in simple math should scare EVERYONE that the people who are supposedly going to be in charge of ALL our healthcare can't even
find out how big a problem it is!  If you can't first clearly identify the size of the problem WHY in the hell should any one believe anything else you produce?

In fact there is so much confusion about the FACT there are less then 4 million covered.. think about these FACTS!!!
Simply follow the links and add up the numbers!!  I'm not making any of this up folks... comes directly from the people involved!

195,900,000 in Private health insurance Health insurance coverage in the United States - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
 72,600,000 covered by Medicaid: 72,600,000: Record Number on Medicaid in 2012; Outnumbers Populations of France and UK | CNS News
59,000,000 covered by their employers plans  Number of Americans Obtaining Health Insurance Through an Employer Declines Steadily Since 2000 - Robert Wood Johnson Foundation
47,200,000 covered by Medicare
8,300,000 covered by Tricare which is the Department of Defenses health insurance for military personal and their families.  TriCare Information - Military Health Care
383,000,000
YES that is correct 383 million covered obviously in duplicate ways and again... if this is confusing HOW much confidence can we have the people in charge of Obamacare know what they are doing!


----------



## Doubletap (Jun 3, 2013)

Only a complete moron would want to turn over the management of their health care to the government.


----------



## g5000 (Jun 3, 2013)

NYcarbineer said:


> Obama never used the 46 million number.



REMARKS BY THE PRESIDENT IN HEALTH INSURANCE REFORM TOWN HALL



> Now, health insurance reform is one of those pillars that we need to build up that new foundation. I don't have to explain to you that nearly *46 million Americans don't have health insurance coverage today.* In the wealthiest nation on Earth, *46 million of our fellow citizens have no coverage*. They are just vulnerable. If something happens, they go bankrupt, or they don't get the care they need.


----------



## g5000 (Jun 3, 2013)

The Rabbi said:


> Cheapest policy according to the IRS will be $20,000/yr.  Where is all my savings from Obamacare??
> IRS: Cheapest Obamacare Plan Will Be $20,000 Per Family | CNS News



Don't worry.  The Big Brother propaganda machine will get to work claiming health insurance costs more than that now, and has for some time.


----------



## Antares (Jun 3, 2013)

Get some new material fucknut, you will soon enough be forced to grasp the fact of this cluster fuck.

Even on the shit Greenie posted the other a family policy will cost 1300 a month....that ain't "affordable" skippy.



NYcarbineer said:


> This story is an old lie by the rightwing propaganda machine that was debunked on this board a long time ago.


----------



## Pete7469 (Jun 3, 2013)

It's an intentional goat fuck. It was designed to be a complete disaster from the get go. It took 10 years of revenue collection for 7 years of "benefits", and the math was done by morons.

Now when the whole trillion dollar goat orgy shits the bed, the left will insist it was because of republican obstruction, and I won't be surprised if Bush gets blamed somewhere too. The next step will be single payer.

Mark my words.


----------



## Greenbeard (Jun 3, 2013)

The Rabbi said:


> Cheapest policy according to the IRS will be $20,000/yr.  Where is all my savings from Obamacare??
> IRS: Cheapest Obamacare Plan Will Be $20,000 Per Family | CNS News



This isn't January anymore: actual premiums for next year are now public in several states. Turns out that what was obvious at the time (a round number chosen by the IRS in an example of how to perform a calculation was not a prediction of rates) has been confirmed.

Why is this old article making the rounds again today? Did the good folks at the RNC or their social media affiliates accidentally send around four-month-old discredited talking points this morning?


----------



## Freewill (Jun 3, 2013)

Two-Thirds of Americans Don't Know If They Will Insure Under Obamacare


----------



## Lakhota (Jun 3, 2013)

Greenbeard said:


> The Rabbi said:
> 
> 
> > Cheapest policy according to the IRS will be $20,000/yr.  Where is all my savings from Obamacare??
> ...



They never seem to learn.  Like what Einstein said about insanity.


----------



## Greenbeard (Jun 3, 2013)

CNBC said:
			
		

> Nearly two-thirds of Americans who currently lack health insurance don't know yet if they will purchase that coverage by the Jan. 1 deadline set by the ACA, a new survey revealed Monday.



Perhaps shitty reporting has something to do with the confusion. They have until March 31, not January 1.


----------



## gallantwarrior (Jun 3, 2013)

Spoonman said:


> before you know it the only people in this country with healthcare will be illegal aliens and welfare slugs



Paid for by the "penalties" levied on the rest of us, of course.


----------



## gallantwarrior (Jun 3, 2013)

healthmyths said:


> NYcarbineer said:
> 
> 
> > healthmyths said:
> ...



Gotta cut him some slack, he was also campaigning in all 57 states.


----------



## The Rabbi (Jun 3, 2013)

Greenbeard said:


> The Rabbi said:
> 
> 
> > Cheapest policy according to the IRS will be $20,000/yr.  Where is all my savings from Obamacare??
> ...


Good catch.

The actual numbers are actually worse.
Rate Shock: In California, Obamacare To Increase Individual Health Insurance Premiums By 64-146% - Forbes


----------



## Greenbeard (Jun 3, 2013)

The Rabbi said:


> Good catch.
> 
> The actual numbers are actually worse.



Not quite. California's cheapest bronze plan (i.e. the one that's supposed to be $20,000) is $219/month for a middle-aged person, or about $2,600 per year. With an individual premium like that, family plans are virtually certain to be less than $10,000/year.

Similarly, the cheapest bronze plan for a family in Vermont (a state with limited competition due to its size and a regulatory climate well above anything imposed by the ACA) is about $11,600. Meanwhile, most families in the exchanges will pay significantly less than those prices if they choose those plans.

So you've only inflated the actual prices by roughly a factor of two. Baby steps toward honesty!


----------



## Plasmaball (Jun 3, 2013)

Greenbeard said:


> The Rabbi said:
> 
> 
> > Good catch.
> ...



Cali really doesnt have any regulations to hiking up rates.


----------



## Antares (Jun 3, 2013)

The cheapest Family Plan in the Vermont Flier you posted for a PPO was 754, that is NOT affordable.




Plasmaball said:


> Greenbeard said:
> 
> 
> > The Rabbi said:
> ...


----------



## Plasmaball (Jun 3, 2013)

Roo said:


> The cheapest Family Plan in the Vermont Flier you posted for a PPO was 754, that is NOT affordable.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


i didnt post it numbnuts.


----------



## Antares (Jun 3, 2013)

They absolutely do, ALL States do.

You must file proposed new rates and get approval before you can raise them.




Plasmaball said:


> Greenbeard said:
> 
> 
> > The Rabbi said:
> ...


----------



## Antares (Jun 3, 2013)

Learn to accurately read the quote dickweed.

Greenie did.



Plasmaball said:


> Roo said:
> 
> 
> > The cheapest Family Plan in the Vermont Flier you posted for a PPO was 754, that is NOT affordable.
> ...


----------



## Plasmaball (Jun 3, 2013)

Roo said:


> Learn to accurately read the quote dickweed.
> 
> Greenie did.
> 
> ...



you quoted me not greenie. Next time just quote Greenie. 
Learn to use the quote function correctly.


----------



## Plasmaball (Jun 3, 2013)

Roo said:


> They absolutely do, ALL States do.
> 
> You must file proposed new rates and get approval before you can raise them.
> 
> ...


no they really dont, and thats why Insurance in Cali goes up so fast.


----------



## Greenbeard (Jun 3, 2013)

Roo said:


> The cheapest Family Plan in the Vermont Flier you posted for a PPO was 754, that is NOT affordable.



Some obvious points:

1) This thread is about the (discredited) claim that the cheapest bronze plan available to a family is going to be $20,000. It was obvious four months ago when the rightwing blogosphere fabricated that meme that it was nonsense. Now that actual premiums are being posted, it's even more obvious. The actual premiums for the plans in question will be about half that.

2) The average cost of a group plan last year with decent benefits and consumer protections (i.e. the reasons people have historically preferred group insurance to individual) was nearing $16,000. The prices California has posted are, in most cases, lower than the prices of comparable benefit packages being sold this year (in the most extreme cases, almost 30% lower). 

3) "Affordable" is relative to income. If the family in question is making $50,000 and buys Vermont's cheapest bronze plan it will cost them about $1,000 per year. That's $83/month for this family of 5 to have the full slate of essential health benefits and the full range of consumer protections.


----------



## Flopper (Jun 3, 2013)

The Rabbi said:


> Cheapest policy according to the IRS will be $20,000/yr.  Where is all my savings from Obamacare??
> IRS: Cheapest Obamacare Plan Will Be $20,000 Per Family | CNS News


Wow!! Talk about creative journalism.  So the minimum premium a family with an undefined policy will pay is $20,000 based on what the writer assumes is an assumption that the IRS is making based on an example for calculating a penalty.  Of course the article neglects to mention that this assumed premium is prior to tax credits and does not include employee policies where most people get their insurance, but what do you expect from a publication supported by donations from right wingers.


----------



## francoHFW (Jun 3, 2013)

OP- Pure Pubcrappe, for dupes only. CNS is a bought off POS. Masscare and latest stats prove O-Care will be a great success next year, none of these bs horrors have EVER happened, and 2014 will be the end of the new bs GOP. Good riddance!


----------



## The Rabbi (Jun 4, 2013)

Greenbeard said:


> The Rabbi said:
> 
> 
> > Good catch.
> ...



You wouldn't know honesty if it bit you.

Daniel Kessler: ObamaCare Is Raising Insurance Costs - WSJ.com


----------



## Greenbeard (Jun 4, 2013)

The Rabbi said:


> Greenbeard said:
> 
> 
> > The Rabbi said:
> ...



I can't quite tell--is that a glimmer of embarrassment? Are you starting to realize how foolish you've been to fall hook, line, and sinker for such an easily dismissed lie about prices that _are already posted_?

$20,000 indeed!


----------



## Antares (Jun 4, 2013)

Too funny, Greenie don't do this.

I am not talking about the Catastrophic Plan AS my post made clear.

Your shit won't work with me.

$754 a month is their LEAST expensive PPO plan.

You don't have an ounce of credibility.



Greenbeard said:


> Roo said:
> 
> 
> > The cheapest Family Plan in the Vermont Flier you posted for a PPO was 754, that is NOT affordable.
> ...


----------



## Antares (Jun 4, 2013)

Yes they really do, EVERY State MAKES the Ins Companies submit their rates for approval.



Plasmaball said:


> Roo said:
> 
> 
> > They absolutely do, ALL States do.
> ...


----------



## idb (Jun 4, 2013)

Soggy in NOLA said:


> NYcarbineer said:
> 
> 
> > healthmyths said:
> ...



The conclusion from your link


> So, are there really 46 million uninsured? It's the current best guess, but it might be off by several million.


and


> Whatever the exact figure, tens of millions of people don't have insurance. But that doesn't mean they don't cost money. In fact, they may cost more.
> 
> "The barriers the uninsured face in getting the care that they need means they are less likely to receive preventive care, are more likely to be hospitalized for conditions that could have been prevented, and are more likely to die in the hospital than those with insurance," according to the Kaiser Family Foundation report.
> 
> And that's a challenge for us all.


----------



## francoHFW (Jun 4, 2013)

Hahahahahahahahahahahahaha....Pub dupes!! Now dying off and out....thickest skulls in the world....Everything you know is Pubcrappe, chumps of the greedy idiot rich. Change the channel. LOL!


----------



## Greenbeard (Jun 4, 2013)

Roo said:


> I am not talking about the Catastrophic Plan AS my post made clear.



Neither am I; the cheapest catastrophic plan available to families is much cheaper (MVP's product for families in Vermont is less than $6,800).

We're talking about bronze plans here.


----------



## healthmyths (Jun 4, 2013)

idb said:


> Soggy in NOLA said:
> 
> 
> > NYcarbineer said:
> ...



DID YOU COMPREHEND THIS?

"and you find ONLY 4 million that truly wanted and needed health insurance.
So that's why taxing lawyers 10% of their $200 billion income would pay a $5,000 a person premium. 
BUT then I found out lawyers gave OBAMA/Congress $300 million in 2008!
Unlike the tanning salon lobby that didn't and found themselves now responsible for 10% tax all because tanning causes cancer!"

Now please pay close attention and I'll go slow!!!
A)   "In 1986, Congress enacted the Emergency Medical Treatment & Labor Act (EMTALA) states any hospital taking Medicare payments must see uninsured people!  
       Simple enough?  Emergency Medical Treatment & Labor Act (EMTALA) - Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services

And so hospitals "pad and pass' sometimes 6,000% OVERCHARGE for services to Medicare.. YOU WANT FACTS tell me what city you live in and I'll show you!!

But you don't want facts do you???

B) 90% of the experts, i.e. physicians SAY there is almost $850 billion a year THEY BILL insurance/medicare for duplicate tests, specialists,etc... DEFENSIVE MEDICINE. WHY?
    FEAR OF LAWYERS and lawsuits!  Remember it isn't just money BUT TIME spent in frivolous non threatening lawsuits.
    So lawyers like tanning salons should be taxed 10% of their $200 billion a year and that pays the premium for the 4 million truly uninsured that need it!

RESULTS:
1) Hospitals will register the "uninsured" and then send all claims to the "Uninsured Health Ins. Co.©"  which uses the premium to pay the claims!
2) Hospitals audited to make sure no longer "padding and passing" to Medicare/insurance companies.
3) Reduced Medicare/insurance companies claims easily $100 billion a year!
4) Reduced $850 billion a year defensive medicine which again is sent as claims to Medicare/insurance companies.. again  $100 billion a year reduction!

$200 billion a year in health care claims costs reduced means lower Medicare/insurance companies costs!

Did I go too fast???


----------



## Socio (Jun 4, 2013)

The Rabbi said:


> Cheapest policy according to the IRS will be $20,000/yr.  Where is all my savings from Obamacare??
> IRS: Cheapest Obamacare Plan Will Be $20,000 Per Family | CNS News





> The annual national average bronze plan premium for a family of 5 (2 adults, 3 children) is $20,000, the regulation says.
> 
> Bronze will be the lowest tier health-insurance plan available under Obamacare--after Silver, Gold, and Platinum. Under the law, the penalty for not buying health insurance is supposed to be capped at either the annual average Bronze premium, 2.5 percent of taxable income, or $2,085.00 per family in 2016.



At $20,000 vs $2,000 I am guessing 85-90% of the country will be uninsured fine payers.


----------



## The Rabbi (Jun 4, 2013)

Greenbeard said:


> Roo said:
> 
> 
> > I am not talking about the Catastrophic Plan AS my post made clear.
> ...



Yeah don't cherry pick Vermont, which already had laws in place similar to Obamacare.  So there wouldnt be much change in rate because insurers were already operating under the rules.
Health Insurance Premium Increase Sought By Big Company Citing Obamacare


----------



## Greenbeard (Jun 4, 2013)

The Rabbi said:


> Yeah don't cherry pick Vermont, which already had laws in place similar to Obamacare.  So there wouldnt be much change in rate because insurers were already operating under the rules.



You're not talking about the _change_ in rates, champ, you're talking about what the rates are actually going to _be_ (you gave an actual dollar amount--remember?). Vermont has stricter rules in place than the ACA requires, meaning its premiums are actually going to be higher than most plans offered in exchanges in other states.

And even they don't come anywhere near your absurd $20,000 figure for a bronze plan.


----------



## Claudette (Jun 4, 2013)

This trainwreck is going to be anything but affordable. 

The only winners will be thosse "subsidized" by we the taxpayer. 

We will have to provide for ourselves, our families and theirs. 

What does one expect from idiots who passed this POS without READING IT. They have no idea what they passed and we are all going to find that out. 

Pelosi; We have to pass it before we know whats in it. What  fucking morons she and Dem idiots who passed this POS are.


----------



## francoHFW (Jun 4, 2013)

Claudette said:


> This trainwreck is going to be anything but affordable.
> 
> The only winners will be thosse "subsidized" by we the taxpayer.
> 
> ...



She meant the publc won't get it till it starts. For example, you're a loudmouth chump who has no clue about how it works, or that it's already cutting costs, and all the horrors and fears Pubs have filled your empty head with have never happened. And Masscare and every other modern country prove it.

You already support all the freeloaders, but in the most expensive way, dingbat.


----------



## paulitician (Jun 4, 2013)

It was all about Politics. They rammed a terrible piece of Legislation through. Most didn't even read it. Obamacare is going to be a nightmare. Even Obama has admitted recently that it is going to be much more costly than previously thought. The Mandate is another awful aspect of it. The IRS has been granted unprecedented powers. Parts, if not all of it should be repealed as soon as possible.


----------



## francoHFW (Jun 4, 2013)

Not happening, and everything you know is bs propaganda. Masscare proves it...


----------



## paulitician (Jun 4, 2013)

And wait till they grant Amnesty. This Welfare/Warfare State is definitely headed for a crash.


----------



## Claudette (Jun 4, 2013)

francoHFW said:


> Claudette said:
> 
> 
> > This trainwreck is going to be anything but affordable.
> ...



Speaking of "loudmouthed chumps." Your one if I ever saw it. 

I find it hard to believe that YOU acutally believe the ACA is going to be cheaper and better. Hell. The idiots who passed it didn't even read it. 

Nothing the Govt has ever done has been cheaper or better. Its turned into a mountain of red tape, paperwork and bullshit. 

The ACA is going to be a trainwreck and once folks get a load of how much its going to cost them believe me. They will be screaming like stuck pigs and regretting that they put jackass back in the WH. I also think the Dems are gonna take one big hit as well. After all. They rammed this POS bill through all on their lonesome. Hope they get axed in 2014.

As for supporting the freeloaders? I'd be happy to let you liberal idiots support em all. Believe me. They will take you for every dime they can and don't expect a big thanks. You OWE it to em.


----------



## Antares (Jun 4, 2013)

Apparently Greenie has no idea wha a PPO plan is.

No surprise there.

Do us a favor and repost your "Vermont" brochure Dad.


----------



## The Rabbi (Jun 4, 2013)

Greenbeard said:


> The Rabbi said:
> 
> 
> > Yeah don't cherry pick Vermont, which already had laws in place similar to Obamacare.  So there wouldnt be much change in rate because insurers were already operating under the rules.
> ...



It is of course both.

Remind me how this was sold to lower health care costs.  How was that supposed to happen, again?


----------



## Greenbeard (Jun 4, 2013)

The Rabbi said:


> Greenbeard said:
> 
> 
> > The Rabbi said:
> ...



We're experiencing the slowest health care price inflation since 1998 (virtually the only time in the last half century that the cost curve actually bent, which of course is a goal of the ACA), the slowest health spending growth in the 52 years that data has been tracked, and the lowest group health insurance premium increases  since, again, 1998 according to Mercer. We've also seen literally hundreds of billions of dollars of Medicare and Medicaid obligations melt away over the next few years as health cost growth has slowed--Medicare per beneficiary cost growth last year was nearly zero.


----------



## Lakhota (Jun 4, 2013)

States Lose Billions If They Reject Obamacares Medicaid Expansion | TPMDC


----------



## The Rabbi (Jun 4, 2013)

Greenbeard said:


> The Rabbi said:
> 
> 
> > Greenbeard said:
> ...



No.  Obamacare hasn't been implemented yet so you can't attribute slower spending growth, which is not the same as a reduction, to Obamacare.

I asked how Obamacare was supposed to lower health care costs. Remember that one?  Bending down the cost curve?  Ring any bells?  Hello??


----------



## Antares (Jun 4, 2013)

Greenie just makes shit up as he goes...or he finds a nice leftwing to "prove" his claims.



The Rabbi said:


> Greenbeard said:
> 
> 
> > The Rabbi said:
> ...


----------



## Greenbeard (Jun 4, 2013)

The Rabbi said:


> No.  Obamacare hasn't been implemented yet so you can't attribute slower spending growth, which is not the same as a reduction, to Obamacare.



Its payment and delivery system reforms have been launching for three years now.



> I asked how Obamacare was supposed to lower health care costs. Remember that one?  Bending down the cost curve?  Ring any bells?  Hello??



Bending the cost curve refers to slowing the rate of increase of health spending. That's what's happening _now_. Hence my point.


----------



## The Rabbi (Jun 4, 2013)

Greenbeard said:


> The Rabbi said:
> 
> 
> > No.  Obamacare hasn't been implemented yet so you can't attribute slower spending growth, which is not the same as a reduction, to Obamacare.
> ...



You are a miserable liar.  And a fake.  On to iggy with your pals.


----------



## Flopper (Jun 4, 2013)

I think one thing that always seems missing when discussing costs and benefits of ACA is the value to the country of greater access to healthcare.   I'm sure it's hard to put a dollar value on limiting the spread of disease or catching serious health problems in the early stages but that doesn't mean there is no benefit to the nation.

I have no idea what healthcare costs will be in the future but I am confident that the nation will be healthier which is pretty damn important.


----------



## The Rabbi (Jun 5, 2013)

Flopper said:


> I think one thing that always seems missing when discussing costs and benefits of ACA is the value to the country of greater access to healthcare.   I'm sure it's hard to put a dollar value on limiting the spread of disease or catching serious health problems in the early stages but that doesn't mean there is no benefit to the nation.
> 
> I have no idea what healthcare costs will be in the future but I am confident that the nation will be healthier which is pretty damn important.



There is zero evidence for any of that.  The fact is that 97% of people already had access to health care.  So ACA didnt really change any of that.  It did impose enormous costs on everyone involved and will result in worse treatment and earlier deaths, just like every similar system has done before.


----------



## idb (Jun 5, 2013)

The Rabbi said:


> Flopper said:
> 
> 
> > I think one thing that always seems missing when discussing costs and benefits of ACA is the value to the country of greater access to healthcare.   I'm sure it's hard to put a dollar value on limiting the spread of disease or catching serious health problems in the early stages but that doesn't mean there is no benefit to the nation.
> ...



The US has the best healthcare that money can buy.


----------



## TemplarKormac (Jun 5, 2013)

idb said:


> The Rabbi said:
> 
> 
> > Flopper said:
> ...



And Obamacare is the best healthcare the government can buy.


----------



## Flopper (Jun 5, 2013)

The Rabbi said:


> Flopper said:
> 
> 
> > I think one thing that always seems missing when discussing costs and benefits of ACA is the value to the country of greater access to healthcare.   I'm sure it's hard to put a dollar value on limiting the spread of disease or catching serious health problems in the early stages but that doesn't mean there is no benefit to the nation.
> ...


In 2009, 97% of those over 65 had access to ongoing healthcare due to Medicare/Medicaid.  In the age group 18-44, the percentage was 74%.  Among the unemployed it's just over 60%.  This translates into tens of millions of people that have no ongoing healthcare.  What I mean by healthcare is ongoing care, not just access to and ER or a prescription mill.  Treatment of chronic diseases such a Cancer, Heart Disease, and Diabetics require ongoing treatments and monitoring which is what most people without health insurance do not get.  The primary goal of the ACA is to provide this level of medical care to everyone.


----------



## The Rabbi (Jun 5, 2013)

Flopper said:


> The Rabbi said:
> 
> 
> > Flopper said:
> ...


People 18-44 typically don't need ongoing healthcare.  Between ages 18 and 40 I might have seen a doctor twice.  They are the ones getting royally fucked by Obamacare, forced to buy expensive coverage they don't need and will likely never use in order to subsidize the old, fat, lazy, and substance abusers.


----------



## boedicca (Jun 5, 2013)

ObamaCare is just another Big Government transfer payment system in which the relatively poor and healthy subsidize the relatively more wealthy and older people along with Big Insurance & Big Pharma.


----------



## Flopper (Jun 5, 2013)

The Rabbi said:


> Flopper said:
> 
> 
> > The Rabbi said:
> ...


Yep, the young are always invincible until they aren't.

A girl I knew age 36, never a sick day in her life who was diagnosed with Leukemia.  She had one of those temporary in between job insurance policies that could not be renewed.  She was able to get a bone marrow transplant during the policy period but after that she got really sick.  She applied for Medicaid but it took almost two months before she was able to see a doctor.  Then it was getting to see a specialist.  By the time she got the care she really needed it was too late.


----------



## The Rabbi (Jun 5, 2013)

Flopper said:


> The Rabbi said:
> 
> 
> > Flopper said:
> ...



Please look up the word "typically" and get back to me.

It's like shooting fish in a barrel around here.  Where did all the smart liberal posters go?


----------



## Greenbeard (Jun 12, 2013)

Greenbeard said:


> Its payment and delivery system reforms have been launching for three years now.



Looks like people are starting to notice:

Obamacare Shows Hospital Savings as Patients Make Gains


> Less than five months before the Affordable Care Act fully kicks in, hospitals are improving care and saving millions of dollars with one of the least touted but potentially most effective provisions of the law.
> 
> While much of the focus on Obamacare has been on the government rush to open insurance exchanges by Oct. 1, 252 hospitals and physician groups across the U.S. have signed up to join the administrations accountable care program, in which they share the financial risk of keeping patients healthy.
> 
> Under the program, hospitals and physician practices take responsibility for tracking and maintaining the health of elderly and disabled patients. If costs rise beyond an agreed upon level, hospitals may become responsible for reimbursing the government. If they cut the cost of care while maintaining quality, hospitals share in the savings. The government expects the savings may be as much as $1.9 billion from 2012 to 2015. Early indications suggest they are starting to add up.


----------



## Rozman (Jun 12, 2013)

NYcarbineer said:


> healthmyths said:
> 
> 
> > Pete7469 said:
> ...






You are right ...He claimed 47 - 48 million....



Free Republic
Browse · Search 		News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.
Obama Again Inflates Number of Uninsured Americans--Falsely Claiming '4 6
CNS News ^ | 8/12/09

Posted on Wednesday, August 12, 2009 4:31:38 PM by FromLori

In a town hall meeting in Portsmouth, N.H., yesterday aimed at &#8220;setting the record straight&#8221; on health care reform, President Obama again falsely stated the number of uninsured Americans, this time saying it was 46 million, down a million from the 47 million uninsured Americans he falsely said there were in a primetime press conference less than a month ago.

The president's claim yesterday that there are 46 million uninsured Americans overshoots the Census Bureau&#8217;s official estimate by about 10 million people&#8212;a mistake that is more than 7 times larger than the 1,315,809 people that the Census Bureau estimates make up the entire population of the state of New Hampshire.

&#8220;I don't have to explain to you that nearly 46 million Americans don't have health insurance coverage today,&#8221; Obama said in his remarks at the beginning of the town hall meeting. &#8220;In the wealthiest nation on Earth, 46 million of our fellow citizens have no coverage. They are just vulnerable.&#8221;

In fact, the latest available government statistics on the number of uninsured in America comes from the Census Bureau&#8217;s &#8220;Income, Poverty, and Health Insurance Coverage in the United States: 2007,&#8221; which is published every August. (The Census Bureau report that will estimate the number of uninsured in 2008 will be released later this month.)

The current report says that there were 35.920 million uninsured U.S. citizens and 9.737 million uninsured foreign nationals in the United States.

Table 6 on page 22 of the report says that in 2007 there were a total of 45.657 million uninsured people residing in the United States. The table provides a breakout on the demographics of these 45.657 uninsured, indicating that it includes 33.269 million native born citizens and 2.651 million naturalized citizens, for a total of 35.920 U.S. citizens who are uninsured.

The report also states there were also 9.737 million persons in the United States in 2007 who were &#8220;not a citizen&#8221; and who did not have health insurance.

The Census Bureau does not ask people their legal status, so the report does not indicate how many of these 9.737 million uninsured foreign nationals were illegal aliens, or legal permanent residents, or people studying or working in the United States.

Since his July 22 primetime press conference, President Obama has actually decreased his claim of the number of uninsured &#8220;Americans&#8221; by 1 million people. That night, Obama said there were 47 million uninsured Americans.

&#8220;This is not just about the 47 million Americans who have no health insurance,&#8221; Obama said in a prepared statement at the start that press conference. &#8220;Reform is about every American who has ever feared that they may lose their coverage if they become too sick, or lose their job, or change their job.


----------



## Antares (Jun 12, 2013)

Flopper said:


> The Rabbi said:
> 
> 
> > Flopper said:
> ...



The road to hell is paved with good intentions.

The nation cannot afford it.


----------



## Antares (Jun 12, 2013)

Greenbeard said:


> Greenbeard said:
> 
> 
> > Its payment and delivery system reforms have been launching for three years now.
> ...



What will you here when none of your pie in the sky shit happens?


----------



## Greenbeard (Jun 12, 2013)

Roo said:


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



...this article is about things that are already happening.


----------



## Antares (Jun 12, 2013)

Greenbeard said:


> Roo said:
> 
> 
> > Greenbeard said:
> ...



Pops, you quote pie in the sky shit to "prove" your points...take Cali....Cali will crash when the 20 somethings refuse t pay thos premiums that for them will skyrocket.

...and Ohio....lol.....this thing is going to bring people like you to the bottom and there will be people like me shoving it in your face every step of the way.

Bank it.


----------



## boedicca (Jun 12, 2013)

The Rabbi said:


> Flopper said:
> 
> 
> > I think one thing that always seems missing when discussing costs and benefits of ACA is the value to the country of greater access to healthcare.   I'm sure it's hard to put a dollar value on limiting the spread of disease or catching serious health problems in the early stages but that doesn't mean there is no benefit to the nation.
> ...




And a lot of the people who don't want health insurance (because the ACA is really just health insurance, not health care) still don't want health insurance.

That is why Obama is going to use ACORN-Navigators to hunt down the uninsured and hound them into enrolling.  They'll likely be armed with embarrassing personnel info from the NSA Total Information Awareness data treasure trove.


----------



## Greenbeard (Jun 12, 2013)

Roo said:


> Pops, you quote pie in the sky shit to "prove" your points...take Cali....Cali will crash when the 20 somethings refuse t pay thos premiums that for them will skyrocket.



Health Sector Economic Indicators -- June 12, 2013:


> Health care price inflation in April 2013, at 1.1% year-over-year, is exhibiting historically low growth. The last time the rate was this low was in November 1997 when various price components did not exist or were not measured as accurately. The 12-month moving average at 1.8% in April 2013 is the lowest since 1.7% recorded in September 1998.
> 
> The HCPI fell due to plunging hospital price growth (to 1.8%), complimented by lower price growth for physicians (at -0.1%, the lowest  since December 2002), and very low readings for nursing home care (0.6%), prescription drugs (at 0.6%, the lowest reading in our database extending back to January 1990!), and home health (-0.2%).



Pie in the sky!


----------



## Plasmaball (Jun 12, 2013)

boedicca said:


> The Rabbi said:
> 
> 
> > Flopper said:
> ...


OO a conspiracy based on nothing, but your imagination. And if they still refuse they will ship them off to the fema camps with the hollow points they bought up recently.


----------



## paulitician (Jun 13, 2013)

It's obviously gonna get real ugly. It was an awful ill-conceived piece of Legislation. They should have actually read it before voting on it.


----------



## Antares (Jun 13, 2013)

*Dozens of lawmakers and aides are so afraid that their health insurance premiums will skyrocket next year thanks to Obamacare that they are thinking about retiring early or just quitting.

The fear: Government-subsidized premiums will disappear at the end of the year under a provision in the health care law that nudges aides and lawmakers onto the government health care exchanges, which could make their benefits exorbitantly expensive.*


Read more: Obamacare? We were just leaving ? - Anna Palmer and Jake Sherman - POLITICO.com

Poor Greenie


----------



## Antares (Jun 13, 2013)

*June 07--The Ohio Department of Insurance said most companies statewide will likely see their health insuance rates increase as a result of the the Affordable Care Act, the question is by how much.

State officials are still waiting for health insurers to file rate requests for the company-sponsored insurance plans they hope to sell next year in the private market and on the state's federally-run online health exchange.

So far, it is difficult to determine how much premiums will rise, said Ohio Lt. Governor and Ohio Department of Insurance Director Mary Taylor. But many small businesses -- defined by the health care law as those with up to 100 employees -- could be in for serious sticker shock.*

http://insurancenewsnet.com/oarticl...y-to-rise-for-most-ohio-businesses-under-aca-[dayton-daily-news-ohio]-a-383814.html?newswires

Poor Greenie


----------



## paulitician (Jun 13, 2013)

Roo said:


> *Dozens of lawmakers and aides are so afraid that their health insurance premiums will skyrocket next year thanks to Obamacare that they are thinking about retiring early or just quitting.
> 
> The fear: Government-subsidized premiums will disappear at the end of the year under a provision in the health care law that nudges aides and lawmakers onto the government health care exchanges, which could make their benefits exorbitantly expensive.*
> 
> ...



Wait till the IRS begins its coming reign of terror. Most Americans have no idea what 'Obamacare' really means. They're even less informed than the idiot Politicians who voted for it. It is going to be a monumental catastrophe.


----------



## asaratis (Jun 13, 2013)

NYcarbineer said:


> healthmyths said:
> 
> 
> > Pete7469 said:
> ...


You may be right.  I seem to recall him using 47 million instead.

http://schotline.us/obamas-47-million-uninsured-claim-is-false/

http://www.newsmax.com/InsiderReport/47-Million-Uninsured/2009/07/27/id/337520

There are lots of links to this bullshit.


----------



## NYcarbineer (Jun 13, 2013)

Soggy in NOLA said:


> NYcarbineer said:
> 
> 
> > healthmyths said:
> ...



I stand corrected.  I'm going to give you what I think are the first positive reps I've ever handed out on this forum, thus breaking my own rule.


----------



## Flopper (Jun 13, 2013)

Roo said:


> *June 07--The Ohio Department of Insurance said most companies statewide will likely see their health insuance rates increase as a result of the the Affordable Care Act, the question is by how much.
> 
> State officials are still waiting for health insurers to file rate requests for the company-sponsored insurance plans they hope to sell next year in the private market and on the state's federally-run online health exchange.
> 
> ...


What is never mentioned is that coverage also increase such as elimination of life time maximums, lower  yearly out of pocket expense limits,  elimination of pre-existing condition, and no deductible or copay for preventive services plus significant tax credits for middle class families to reduce the premium costs.  Funny how the OP never mentions any of this.


----------



## Antares (Jun 14, 2013)

Flopper said:


> Roo said:
> 
> 
> > *June 07--The Ohio Department of Insurance said most companies statewide will likely see their health insuance rates increase as a result of the the Affordable Care Act, the question is by how much.
> ...



LOL, sorry...you miss the point.

The level of coverage is IMMATERIAL if one CANNOT afford the premiums...do try and keep up.


----------



## PredFan (Jun 14, 2013)

Here's another lie about obamacare:

"There are no death panels!"

In fact, as we all knew, there will be death panels in obamacare. Kathleen Sebelius just conducted the first death panel when she denied the lung transplant for that little girl. Thank God a judge told her to fuck off and allowed the girl to get her lung and have her life saved.


----------



## Antares (Jun 14, 2013)

PredFan said:


> Here's another lie about obamacare:
> 
> "There are no death panels!"
> 
> In fact, as we all knew, there will be death panels in obamacare. Kathleen Sebelius just conducted the first death panel when she denied the lung transplant for that little girl. Thank God a judge told her to fuck off and allowed the girl to get her lung and have her life saved.



I was crucified by both sides last week for making this very point.

"Some live, some die."


----------



## PredFan (Jun 14, 2013)

Roo said:


> PredFan said:
> 
> 
> > Here's another lie about obamacare:
> ...



The left can never ever argue, they can only ridicule.


----------



## thereisnospoon (Jun 14, 2013)

NYcarbineer said:


> healthmyths said:
> 
> 
> > Pete7469 said:
> ...


OOPS....Well the Office of Management and Budget used this very figure.
You should punt. 4th and 15.
Counting the Uninsured: 46 Million or ?More than 30 Million?? | The White House


----------



## Antares (Jun 14, 2013)

thereisnospoon said:


> NYcarbineer said:
> 
> 
> > healthmyths said:
> ...



Carb is willingly obtuse, he/she/it will simply in effect say "nuh-uh".


----------



## thereisnospoon (Jun 14, 2013)

Pete7469 said:


> It's an intentional goat fuck. It was designed to be a complete disaster from the get go. It took 10 years of revenue collection for 7 years of "benefits", and the math was done by morons.
> 
> Now when the whole trillion dollar goat orgy shits the bed, the left will insist it was because of republican obstruction, and I won't be surprised if Bush gets blamed somewhere too. The next step will be single payer.
> 
> Mark my words.



The goal of Obamacare IS single payer. Obama stated many times he supported single payer. 
He tried that path. He found that it was a non-starter then threw the ACA piece of garbage together. 
He then tried to get the GOP to go along for the sole purpose of gaining political cover. The GOP would have none of it. So the democrat leadership closed the GOP out of all negotiations and with the help of the insurance industry, cobbled this POS together. All 2500 mind boggling pages of it.


----------



## Flopper (Jun 14, 2013)

PredFan said:


> Here's another lie about obamacare:
> 
> "There are no death panels!"
> 
> In fact, as we all knew, there will be death panels in obamacare. Kathleen Sebelius just conducted the first death panel when she denied the lung transplant for that little girl. Thank God a judge told her to fuck off and allowed the girl to get her lung and have her life saved.


Sarah Palin is credited with the death panel myth.  In August 2009, she claimed Democrats would create a &#8220;death panel,&#8221; in which government bureaucrats would decide whether disabled and elderly patients are &#8220;worthy of healthcare.&#8221;  Despite being debunked by fact-checkers and mainstream media outlets, this myth has persisted.

The rules that govern who get's organs is determined by UNOS, a nonprofit corporation whose board is made up of half organ transplant doctors and half organ recipients.  The determination of who gets the transplants must be made based on science not emotions.  Sebelius did exactly what she should have done.  To have the HHS step in and attempt to override transplant rules based on emotional appeals would be wrong.  

http://www.unos.org/


----------



## healthmyths (Jun 14, 2013)

idb said:


> Soggy in NOLA said:
> 
> 
> > NYcarbineer said:
> ...



"Tens of millions don't have insurance"?????

OK let's do the numbers again!
18 million DON"T WANT HEALTH insurance because they don't need it and pay their expense out of their pocket!  WHY force them to buy insurance?
14 million ARE ALREADY COVERED BY MEDICAID!  DO YOU understand?? THEY JUST NEED TO REGISTER!!!  
That means 32 million either don't want or don't know they are covered.
Finally even the census says there are 10 million that are COUNTED AS UNINSURED  that are ILLEGAL ALIENS!!!  Do you understand?
That leaves 4 million NOT TENS of millions!!!

NOW you never ever addressed the issue of taxing lawyers at 10% since like tanning salons that Obama taxed because tanning generates cancer /insurance claims,
TAX the lawyers $200 billion a year!  Since you don't seem to respect the EXPERTS who are telling you that nearly $850 billion in DUPLICATE TESTS are caused by FEAR of
LAWYERS!  Lawsuits!  So take the 10% tax like Obama taxed tanning salons and use the $20 billion to buy insurance for the 4 million uninsured!
Then when the uninsured goes to hospital the hospital means tests "uninsured" finds can't pay.. registers and then HOSPITAL BILLS the Uninsured Health Ins. Co.©!
The hospitals then are audited to make sure they are NOT "padding and Passing" sometimes at 6,000% over costs and watch Medicare/insurance cos. claims cost drop!
Between the two less $850 billion defensive medicine and the padding and passing" easily $200 billion a year in cost savings!

Please think what I'm writing about!
A) There are only 4 million truly that want and need insurance... the rest don't want, are covered or not legal!
B) Lawyers cause $850 billion in defensive medicine costs.. tax them 10% and use to pay the 4 million that need coverage!

Why are these two concepts totally ignored by you???


----------



## Flopper (Jun 14, 2013)

thereisnospoon said:


> Pete7469 said:
> 
> 
> > It's an intentional goat fuck. It was designed to be a complete disaster from the get go. It took 10 years of revenue collection for 7 years of "benefits", and the math was done by morons.
> ...


The law as enacted in 906 pages, not 2500 pages.  It's amazing how it keeps growing.
http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/PLAW-111publ148/pdf/PLAW-111publ148.pdf


----------



## Flopper (Jun 14, 2013)

healthmyths said:


> idb said:
> 
> 
> > Soggy in NOLA said:
> ...


Where did you get your numbers?  18 million don't want health insurance??? 

Medicaid home


----------



## healthmyths (Jun 14, 2013)

Flopper said:


> PredFan said:
> 
> 
> > Here's another lie about obamacare:
> ...



SCIENCE???  NOT EMOTION???

So I suppose you have NO problem that 670,000 fetuses are aborted each year strictly because of emotion, not science?
Why not sterilize those women that come in for their 2nd or more abortion of which 47% of all abortions are by these women?
Science would say letting these poor ignorant women go through the pain of abortion is just medieval!
Using your "SCIENCE" not emotion shouldn't that apply to those women that keep getting pregnant???


----------



## Flopper (Jun 14, 2013)

healthmyths said:


> Flopper said:
> 
> 
> > PredFan said:
> ...


Your post is a diversion.
If you want to switch topics, open an abortion thread.


----------



## PredFan (Jun 14, 2013)

Flopper said:


> PredFan said:
> 
> 
> > Here's another lie about obamacare:
> ...



Not really. She was only repeating what others said before.



Flopper said:


> In August 2009, she claimed Democrats would create a &#8220;death panel,&#8221; in which government bureaucrats would decide whether disabled and elderly patients are &#8220;worthy of healthcare.&#8221;



The point she was attempting to make was specifically about the elderly because of the context of the discussion. She knows, as everyone who correctly predicted death panels in obamacare knows, it will make decisions on who gets care and who is told "tough luck".



Flopper said:


> Despite being debunked by fact-checkers and mainstream media outlets, this myth has persisted.



What has persisted beyond logic is the left's claim that there aren't any death panels now so there never will be. Fact check all you want to NOW, but what everyone says is that there will be death panels and you cannot fact check something that hasn't happened yet.

Of course it has now.



Flopper said:


> The rules that govern who get's organs is determined by UNOS, a nonprofit corporation whose board is made up of half organ transplant doctors and half organ recipients.  The determination of who gets the transplants must be made based on science not emotions.  Sebelius did exactly what she should have done.  To have the HHS step in and attempt to override transplant rules based on emotional appeals would be wrong.
> 
> UNOS



Kathleen Sebelius denied the girl her chance to get her transplant. She did not pass the buck, she denied it. It took a federal judge to over rule her. Sebelius and the Government should have no business making any decision like that at all. Of course she will when obamacare is in full swing.


----------



## OnePercenter (Jun 14, 2013)

Spoonman said:


> before you know it the only people in this country with healthcare will be illegal aliens and welfare slugs



....and the wealthy. Just think, if Reagan hadn't screwed with the HMO act none of this would be necessary.


----------



## Trajan (Jun 14, 2013)

NYcarbineer said:


> healthmyths said:
> 
> 
> > Pete7469 said:
> ...



no he didn't, so in effect the lies  about the huge number the Dems used in the run up,  to soften up the nitwits with the usual emotional mawkish crap never existed.......

wow, you found something he didn't lie about,  congrats dude...


----------



## TemplarKormac (Jun 14, 2013)

OnePercenter said:


> Spoonman said:
> 
> 
> > before you know it the only people in this country with healthcare will be illegal aliens and welfare slugs
> ...



Maybe if you idiots hadn't elected Obama, none of this would be necessary.


----------



## TemplarKormac (Jun 14, 2013)

Flopper said:


> healthmyths said:
> 
> 
> > Flopper said:
> ...



Since Obamacare covers abortions, I think he/she should stay here. If you want to, posit an argument.


----------



## Trajan (Jun 14, 2013)

Spoonman said:


> before you know it the only people in this country with healthcare will be illegal aliens and welfare slugs



well thats harsh but hey, I have said all along, the 60% or so who liked their access and care etc. will now see it lowered to bring the bottom 20% up.....if you are not getting a means tested dole, earned income tax credits etc. , your care and access will be submarined.....its the only way to make this work at all, that is, if it does 'work'....


----------



## TemplarKormac (Jun 14, 2013)

Flopper said:


> healthmyths said:
> 
> 
> > idb said:
> ...



Heads up.



> The deadline for uninsured Americans to buy health insurance under the new federal health care reform law is quickly approaching. But a new survey shows almost two-thirds of uninsured Americans still arent sure whether theyll comply  and many are confused about whether theyll be eligible for tax credits to help pay premiums.
> 
> This information comes from a new survey, conducted on behalf of InsuranceQuotes.com by Princeton Survey Research Associates International. The survey reveals that 64 percent of the uninsured say they havent decided whether they will buy health insurance by Jan. 1, 2014, as required by the Affordable Care Act (ACA), which is also known as Obamacare.



The future of health insurance for uninsured Americans | InsuranceQuotes.com

Seems like they are planning on taking Obama up on his promise to let them keep the plans they currently have.


----------



## Trajan (Jun 14, 2013)

Flopper said:


> PredFan said:
> 
> 
> > Here's another lie about obamacare:
> ...



transplants sure that a different story not that a Judge didn't take it out of the medical panels hands.... but the IPAB? ok what would you call it? come up with an honest name that describes what it does ........and why does Congress have no oversight?


----------



## Trajan (Jun 14, 2013)

hey, obama has volunteered to go on the exchange...


----------



## OnePercenter (Jun 14, 2013)

TemplarKormac said:


> OnePercenter said:
> 
> 
> > Spoonman said:
> ...



Maybe?


----------



## OnePercenter (Jun 14, 2013)

TemplarKormac said:


> OnePercenter said:
> 
> 
> > Spoonman said:
> ...





> Reagan reformed the original HMC) Act of 1973 to include a fund to subsidize the establishment of for-profit HMOs



Fighting Against the Evils of For-Profit Health Care: The Patients "Bill of Rights"


----------



## healthmyths (Jun 14, 2013)

Flopper said:


> healthmyths said:
> 
> 
> > Flopper said:
> ...



No you stated transplants based on "science"... so you opened why "science" is used in transplants ... but emotion is allowed in abortions?
Because when 47% of women who have an abortion had had an abortion before... that is pure emotion... i.e. she got pregnant in a fit of logic... or passion?
And those are the abortions that should be done AS WELL as a sterilization of the woman who when she had the first abortion agreed.. if she has another abortion she'll be sterilized!
There is absolutely NO scientific rationale to support women who can't be responsible for their own bodies as those women who need another abortion demonstrate!


----------



## WillowTree (Jun 14, 2013)

Doubletap said:


> ]Only a complete moron would want to turn over the management of their health care to the government.


[/B]

we have plenty of those on this board they're all liberals too


----------



## Flopper (Jun 14, 2013)

PredFan said:


> Flopper said:
> 
> 
> > PredFan said:
> ...


No, she did not deny anything.  She refused to intervene and ask that the UNOS rules that governs transplant be set aside. She said Medical experts should make those decisions.

Had she intervened, she would have been setting a precedent for government to make life and death healthcare decisions, in other words death panels.   You accuse the government of having death panels and then you expect the HHS to make life and death healthcare decisions. You can't have it both ways.

Sebelius won't intervene in girl's transplant case - NBC News.com


----------



## Dragonlady (Jun 14, 2013)

WillowTree said:


> Doubletap said:
> 
> 
> > ]Only a complete moron would want to turn over the management of their health care to the government.
> ...



It works in Canada, Denmark, Germany, Japan, the Netherlands, France - in fact, every first world nation except the US, has government funded and managed health care.  And every single one of those countries does it better and cheaper than the US.

We all think you people are idiots for putting up with your crappy for profit model that only insures those who don't need it.


----------



## EriktheRed (Jun 14, 2013)

Flopper said:


> PredFan said:
> 
> 
> > Flopper said:
> ...



Aren't decisions like this basically what private insurance companies do, too?


----------



## Flopper (Jun 14, 2013)

EriktheRed said:


> Flopper said:
> 
> 
> > PredFan said:
> ...


Yes, but not as much so as in years past.


----------



## AmazonTania (Jun 14, 2013)

Dragonlady said:


> WillowTree said:
> 
> 
> > Doubletap said:
> ...



Are you sure?



> We all think you people are idiots for putting up with your crappy for profit model that only insures those who don't need it.



Needs are relative. Only individuals can determine what their needs are.


----------



## EriktheRed (Jun 14, 2013)

Flopper said:


> EriktheRed said:
> 
> 
> > Flopper said:
> ...




Well, would it still not be fair to say, then, that these so-called death panels aren't really different than the decision-making bodies of private insurance firms?


----------



## thereisnospoon (Jun 15, 2013)

Flopper said:


> PredFan said:
> 
> 
> > Here's another lie about obamacare:
> ...


You can believe there won;t be death panels if you wish.
The first item Obama mentioned after he LIED and said we would see our insurance get cheaper by $2500 per year was the term "efficiency"..
That is a buzz term for " we will decide what we will cover and if it's too expensive, we won't cover it".
Senior citizens are going to get the short end of the stick. They will be told "we will medicate you to keep you comfortable. You're 68 years old and we're not going to absorb the cost of a heart bypass that we know will allow you to live a normal life. We suggest you get your affairs in order. Thanks for contributing to the system, but we have younger people who's lives are of more value to save."
Of course the gate keepers from the federal government won't actually use those words. They will soft pedal the message.
Obamacare is a multi-trillion dollar boondoggle that will increase costs and decrease access to care.


----------



## thereisnospoon (Jun 15, 2013)

Greenbeard said:


> The Rabbi said:
> 
> 
> > Good catch.
> ...



The Bronze level is nothing. One may as well not even have insurance.


----------



## Antares (Jun 15, 2013)

thereisnospoon said:


> Flopper said:
> 
> 
> > PredFan said:
> ...



Bammy already said that he'd just give gramma pill to make her "comfortable".


----------



## thereisnospoon (Jun 15, 2013)

Greenbeard said:


> The Rabbi said:
> 
> 
> > No.  Obamacare hasn't been implemented yet so you can't attribute slower spending growth, which is not the same as a reduction, to Obamacare.
> ...



What a joke. Obamacare does not anc CANNOT control 'costs"..
The plan will for a the short term control "prices", but even that will be short lived. The money to pay for education of medical professionals, nurses, technicians, pharmaceuticals, wages, etc has to come from somewhere. 
Do you people think institutes of higher learning are just going to stop increasing tuition costs? Do you think medical personnel are going to accept pay freezes? DO you think the cost to research and develop new medical technologies is not going to rise any further?
ACA has but one goal. That is single payer. A 100% taxpayer funded socialized medicine system. A system where all medical personnel essentially become federal employees. Oh, it gets better. Because the legislative branch refuses to entertain any bill on tort reform, the lawsuits will continue to fly and malpractice insurance will continue to increase in price. Who the hell is going to pay for that?...
ACA is a plan to increase dependency on government. Period.


----------



## thereisnospoon (Jun 15, 2013)

idb said:


> The Rabbi said:
> 
> 
> > Flopper said:
> ...



Not for long.


----------



## thereisnospoon (Jun 15, 2013)

Flopper said:


> The Rabbi said:
> 
> 
> > Flopper said:
> ...


Medicaid..A government run health insurance provider....Worked real well, didn't it?
And you want the federal government in charge of the whole ball of wax.
Good thinking.


----------



## Greenbeard (Jun 15, 2013)

thereisnospoon said:


> What a joke. Obamacare does not anc CANNOT control 'costs"..



What is you want to see? For starters, it's got:


Movement toward high deductible plans that can be coupled with HSAs.
For the first time, a cap to the tax distortion that formerly provided the limitless subsidy for ever more generous employer-sponsored plans.
New pricing transparency requirements for hospitals.
Administrative simplification and limits on the portion of premium revenue that can go toward non-medical costs.
New competitive insurance markets.
Seed money for homegrown (and consumer-operated) insurance plans in markets that have been devoid of competition.
New allowances for selling insurance across state lines in multiple states simultaneously.
Funds for state-level premium oversight (which, when used aggressively, has shown potential in being able to help hold down rising costs).
Payment reforms (particularly within Medicare) that shift the system away from encouraging high-volume, low (or mediocre) value service provision and toward higher value.
Reforms and opportunities promoting and assisting health care providers in delivering better care more efficiently and less expensively, while holding them accountable for quality  outcomes.
Grants for state-level tort reform (taken right out of multiple pieces of GOP legislation).

Is there some additional magic bullet you wish it had?


----------



## Troubled_CA (Jun 15, 2013)

thereisnospoon said:


> ACA has but one goal. That is single payer.


Be nice.
Single payer is the most efficient.
one giant insurance company, instead of a hundred.

How exactly does the ignorant con think that is going to happen when congress 
DOES NOTHING.
you think Congress is going wake up and ram some  RADICAL healthcare changes through?

That kind of loony makes sense to the average conservative?

You Doom and Gloom Conservatives have predicted the end of the US economy for the past several years.

AND 
the Romney landslide.

When you gonna learn your lied to constantly and live in world of delusion.


----------



## Flopper (Jun 15, 2013)

EriktheRed said:


> Flopper said:
> 
> 
> > EriktheRed said:
> ...


Insurance companies make decisions as to whether a procedure is covered under the terms of the policy.  Their decision is not really about healthcare but an interpretation of the contract.  If you appeal, you are no longer at the mercy of the insurance company's medical panel.  Also due to ACA, pre-existing conditions and lifetime maximums are no longer an issue.

Since there are no government death panels, I can't make a comparison with a myth.


----------



## Flopper (Jun 15, 2013)

thereisnospoon said:


> Flopper said:
> 
> 
> > The Rabbi said:
> ...


Medicaid is a state operated program that receives about half it's funding from the federal government.  The states set their own policies and are quite different from state to state.  The states can reject federal funding if they so choose.


----------



## Flopper (Jun 15, 2013)

thereisnospoon said:


> Flopper said:
> 
> 
> > PredFan said:
> ...


I'm really interest in the death panels.  Who's on these panels?  Where is it specified in the ACA?  I have gone through all 906 pages of the ACA.  That's right; the law as passed is 906 pages, not 1200 or 2500 as the opposition stated. The only reference to anything that might even come close to a death panel is  end of life counseling by the patient's physician.  Could it be that the death panel is nothing more than Sarah Palin's Aug 2009 statement that Democrats would create a death panel?

http://housedocs.house.gov/energycommerce/ppacacon.pdf


----------



## EriktheRed (Jun 15, 2013)

Flopper said:


> thereisnospoon said:
> 
> 
> > Flopper said:
> ...



Yes.


----------



## American_Jihad (Jun 15, 2013)

*If you dislike Obamacare, support the Read the Bills Act *

By James Wilson
March 13, 2013

Quote of the Day: "But we have to pass the bill so you can find out what is in it, away from the fog of the controversy."  Nancy Pelosi

"Unforeseen" costs of the Affordable Care Act (Obamacare) are higher than projected.

Is this a surprise?

It's the natural result of supporting bloated bills no one reads or understands.

That's why I told Congress to introduce and pass the Read the Bills Act.

You may borrow from or copy this letter...

...

If you dislike Obamacare, support the Read the Bills Act

If the obongocare was so great why do the unions and other liberal ilk want waivers...


----------



## Flopper (Jun 21, 2013)

American_Jihad said:


> *If you dislike Obamacare, support the Read the Bills Act *
> 
> By James Wilson
> March 13, 2013
> ...


Bills are long, complicated and expensive in order to get support from both parties.   The immigration bill is now up to 1075 pages more 150 pages longer than Obamacare.  Originally, it was about 500 pages.  We are already spending 18 billion on boarder security and this bill will add 4.5 billion just for boarder security.  We will have an immigration agent for every 1000 feet of boarder.  We will be spending more on immigration control and security than all other law enforcement combined  This is why you will have strong GOP support from the House because it allows those congressman to return home and campaign on what they have done to secure our borders.  In addition to this we have grants to boarder states for training, public relations, FEMA, local enforcement and all kinds of crap in order to get support for the bill.

This is how the game is played.


----------



## thereisnospoon (Jun 21, 2013)

Flopper said:


> American_Jihad said:
> 
> 
> > *If you dislike Obamacare, support the Read the Bills Act *
> ...



The game is WRONG.


----------



## Flopper (Jun 21, 2013)

thereisnospoon said:


> Flopper said:
> 
> 
> > American_Jihad said:
> ...


Yes, you're right but that's politics in this highly polarized environment in which a vote for a bill sponsored by the opposition has to be bought at often a high price.

If both sides were on board on legislation, the cost would be far less.  The idea that he opposition checks the party in power, doesn't really work because votes are always for sale.


----------



## Greenbeard (Jun 23, 2013)

The Rabbi said:


> No.  Obamacare hasn't been implemented yet so you can't attribute slower spending growth, which is not the same as a reduction, to Obamacare.



In honor of this brilliant tidbit, I share KFF's handy new Health Reform Implementation Timeline.

Very cool feature making it very easy to see what's already happened and what's about to happen. Health reform has been going on for more than three years now.


----------



## Antares (Jun 23, 2013)

Greenbeard said:


> The Rabbi said:
> 
> 
> > No.  Obamacare hasn't been implemented yet so you can't attribute slower spending growth, which is not the same as a reduction, to Obamacare.
> ...



You should just give it up pop's....you've had your ass kicked here over and over...despite your alighnment with flopper 

You both have singular yet over used response to being bitch slapped....the well worn Lib *NUH-UH!!!!!*


----------



## EriktheRed (Jun 23, 2013)

Roo said:


> Greenbeard said:
> 
> 
> > The Rabbi said:
> ...




What have you kicked their asses on, exactly?


----------



## Antares (Jun 23, 2013)

EriktheRed said:


> Roo said:
> 
> 
> > Greenbeard said:
> ...



(smile) Poor erik...if you aren't capable of keeping up it is not my problem. 

Here is a hint for you in the case of Greenie...he has 3 main defenses...he 
A) Creates his own "interpretations".
B) Simply uses the "Nuh-Uh" defense or....
C) Disappears for a few days and the starts again as if nothing ever happened.

Now I know that that much concentration is beyond you, but I am trying to help you.

Flopper is a late bloomer but he is mirroring the Greenie line


----------



## EriktheRed (Jun 24, 2013)

Roo said:


> EriktheRed said:
> 
> 
> > Roo said:
> ...



About the only halfway decent argument I've seen you make so far is the idea that it's not really appropriate to call the healthcare exchanges "competition" when the insurance companies on them have to meet certain criteria set by the state. BFD.

Otherwise, you've either been making arguments that have been answered or pretty much just trash-talking (kinda like what I just responded to).


----------



## thereisnospoon (Jun 24, 2013)

EriktheRed said:


> Roo said:
> 
> 
> > EriktheRed said:
> ...


Why do you think you are entitled to taxpayer funded medical care?


----------



## healthmyths (Jun 24, 2013)

Flopper said:


> EriktheRed said:
> 
> 
> > Flopper said:
> ...



It appears YOU have little or NO knowledge of risk assessment, i.e. what actuaries do.
For example you want to have complete health coverage by some entity that will exchange some value for a physician to perform a service.
That in a nutshell is what an insurance company does.  
In exchange for dollars companies will pay claims.
The question really is how much of the dollars go out to pay the claims and if MORE comes in then goes out the company can pay people to handle the claims
and pay a profit to the investors that put up the original money to start the company, i.e. profits.

NOW because NONE of the members of congress and much less Obama and his people HAD NO real day to day knowledge of how that works, they 
assumed insurance companies are greedy evil profiteers.

NOT believing the financial statements that show insurance companies pay out an average of 80% of all premiums in claims leaving 20% to pay out salaries,etc. and 4% net profit to the investors, ACA idiots are mandating two totally incompatible requirements:
1) The idiots raised the medical liability ratio to 85%... and said oh just take it out of those rich executives salaries and shareholders profits.  RIGHT
2) And these idiots furthermore added "oh by the way, you won't be able to raise rates for "pre-existing conditions".. because we are compassionate elitists that 
    know you can take EVERYONE because you are filthy evil profiteers and use that money."

So these golden goose killers are eliminating insurance companies. Which is their ultimate goal!
NOT considering that if there is JUST ONE GIGANTIC SINGLE "PAYER" there is no more consumer choices.
There is no efficiencies gained because the operating costs NEVER were the major cost driver... CLAIMS are!  Executive salaries?? less then 2/10ths of one %!

And so you ignorant people that have thought ACA's eliminating "pre-existing conditions" was such a great idea... WAIT!
Wait and watch 1,300 insurance companies go out of health insurance business.  Watch $100 billion a year in Federal/State/Local taxes vanish!
Watch 400,000 people get laid off collecting for 99 weeks over $12 billion more!

Then see how much "health insurance premiums" will cost!  NOTHING because there will be no value offered as there is now!
Why should any physician take less then they are taking now?  Surveys are showing physicians dropping out! Shortages and guess what you totally ignorant people...
WAITING IN LINES will be the RULE!  YOU think waiting is bad now... ???


----------



## Hyrcanus (Jun 24, 2013)

The Rabbi said:


> Cheapest policy according to the IRS will be $20,000/yr.  Where is all my savings from Obamacare??
> IRS: Cheapest Obamacare Plan Will Be $20,000 Per Family | CNS News



for a family of 5.

that's $4k a year per person.

$333 a month for one person.  That's not horrible.


----------



## thereisnospoon (Jun 24, 2013)

Hyrcanus said:


> The Rabbi said:
> 
> 
> > Cheapest policy according to the IRS will be $20,000/yr.  Where is all my savings from Obamacare??
> ...


That's $20 for FOUR people.
Who the hell has $333 per month per person...For Christ's sake that is three weeks worth of groceries for each of the four people in the home each month. 
And that $20 is for the most basic coverage. Which is essentially nothing care..


----------



## Dragonlady (Jun 25, 2013)

I live in Canada and we pay less than $4000 per year for full family coverage, including dental.  And our rates in Canada are higher than Europe because of our proximity to the US and the potential for doctors to go south for better reimbursement rates.

You people are on drugs to have allowed big medicine to screw you over like this.


----------



## EriktheRed (Jun 25, 2013)

Dragonlady said:


> I live in Canada and we pay less than $4000 per year for full family coverage, including dental.  And our rates in Canada are higher than Europe because of our proximity to the US and the potential for doctors to go south for better reimbursement rates.
> 
> You people are on drugs to have allowed big medicine to screw you over like this.





Nah, to the Teabaggers, corporate America's scrotum tastes like *FREEDOM!*




_(Here it comes...)_


----------



## Shoey (Jun 25, 2013)

One of the principle justifications for the lawsuits opposing the recent Health Care bill is that it requires individuals to purchase health insurance premiums. They're notable reasons for this legislation declared unconstitutional by four Supreme Court justices when we examine the 10th Amendment ,a violation of the Rights of the People and the States, Article I Section 8 and the 16th Amendment's authority to tax, the fines do not represent a tax on income nor at they apportioned based upon state populace. When a individual is forced into entering into a contract with The Federal government then it should be rendered  unconstitutional. That violates the Property Rights of the Individual and violates contract law where all contracts must be entered into voluntarily without force or coercion. "Obamcare" violates the Rights of the Individual and contract law which is the fundamental reason why this legislation is unconstitutional. The U.S government should never force a person into becoming a party to a contract against their will.


----------



## idb (Jun 25, 2013)

Shoey said:


> One of the principle justifications for the lawsuits opposing the recent Health Care bill is that it requires individuals to purchase health insurance premiums. They're notable reasons for this legislation declared unconstitutional by four Supreme Court justices when we examine the 10th Amendment ,a violation of the Rights of the People and the States, Article I Section 8 and the 16th Amendment's authority to tax, the fines do not represent a tax on income nor at they apportioned based upon state populace. When a individual is forced into entering into a contract with The Federal government then it should be rendered  unconstitutional. That violates the Property Rights of the Individual and violates contract law where all contracts must be entered into voluntarily without force or coercion. "Obamcare" violates the Rights of the Individual and contract law which is the fundamental reason why this legislation is unconstitutional. The U.S government should never force a person into becoming a party to a contract against their will.



Didn't the Supreme Court say it was constitutional...or was I watching a different show?


----------



## Dragonlady (Jun 25, 2013)

Shoey said:


> The U.S government should never force a person into becoming a party to a contract against their will.



You're forced to buy car insurance in order to drive a car.  That's not federal, but rather state law.  I'm a safe driver.  I've never been in an accident.  I've never had a speeding ticket.  Why should I have to buy insurance?


----------



## thereisnospoon (Jun 25, 2013)

Dragonlady said:


> Shoey said:
> 
> 
> > The U.S government should never force a person into becoming a party to a contract against their will.
> ...


You have to buy insurance because there is a certain amount of risk involved, to yourself AND others in operating an automobile. 
Insurance is a little about what you have done and in the majority what you COULD do. 
These are the reasons why States compel auto operators to be insured. 
The option is to NOT own or operate automobiles and thus, one is not compelled to purchase auto insurance. 
The federal government here in the States has mandated that everyone purchase health insurance. The reason they give is "you are a living person".
Big difference. 
And the reason why Chief Justice Roberts who was feeling pressure to preserve Obama care, ruled that Obama care is a tax and NOT commerce. 
Had Roberts gone the other way and opined that Obama care was Commerce, the entire law would have failed to stand up to Constitutional muster and would have been scuttled.


----------



## thereisnospoon (Jun 25, 2013)

idb said:


> Shoey said:
> 
> 
> > One of the principle justifications for the lawsuits opposing the recent Health Care bill is that it requires individuals to purchase health insurance premiums. They're notable reasons for this legislation declared unconstitutional by four Supreme Court justices when we examine the 10th Amendment ,a violation of the Rights of the People and the States, Article I Section 8 and the 16th Amendment's authority to tax, the fines do not represent a tax on income nor at they apportioned based upon state populace. When a individual is forced into entering into a contract with The Federal government then it should be rendered  unconstitutional. That violates the Property Rights of the Individual and violates contract law where all contracts must be entered into voluntarily without force or coercion. "Obamcare" violates the Rights of the Individual and contract law which is the fundamental reason why this legislation is unconstitutional. The U.S government should never force a person into becoming a party to a contract against their will.
> ...


Yes, SCOTUS narrow ruling 5-4, that ACA is a tax and therefore Constitutional under the 16th Amendment. 4 Justices saw it differently. They saw ACA as Commerce.
Chief Justice Roberts broke the 4-4 deadlock and ruled in favor of the Respondent( federal government) that ACA is Constitutional in a narrow opinion that ACA is indeed a tax.


----------



## idb (Jun 25, 2013)

thereisnospoon said:


> idb said:
> 
> 
> > Shoey said:
> ...



That's what I thought
So, despite the claims by opponents, the ACA is unconstitutional...end of story.

**edit**
Ummm, that would be 'constitutional', wouldn't it..............................._hides in corner_


----------



## EriktheRed (Jun 25, 2013)

idb said:


> thereisnospoon said:
> 
> 
> > idb said:
> ...



Uh....did you mean to put that "un" in front of "constitutional"?


----------



## thereisnospoon (Jun 25, 2013)

idb said:


> thereisnospoon said:
> 
> 
> > idb said:
> ...



Yes, based on the legal opinion of 5 SCOTUS Justices who decided ACA is a tax and not Commerce and therefore not in violation of the US Constitution. 
It was indeed a sad day for the People.


----------



## American_Jihad (Jun 25, 2013)

Flopper said:


> American_Jihad said:
> 
> 
> > *If you dislike Obamacare, support the Read the Bills Act *
> ...



[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=O9_kAGU1uX0]Nancy Pelosi pass the bill - YouTube[/ame]






...


----------



## hazlnut (Jun 25, 2013)

The Rabbi said:


> Cheapest policy according to the IRS will be $20,000/yr.  Where is all my savings from Obamacare??
> IRS: Cheapest Obamacare Plan Will Be $20,000 Per Family | CNS News




CNS = sure sign of fringe right poster.


Thanks for playing.


End thread/


----------



## American_Jihad (Jun 25, 2013)

hazlnut said:


> The Rabbi said:
> 
> 
> > Cheapest policy according to the IRS will be $20,000/yr.  Where is all my savings from Obamacare??
> ...



And the thread keeps going, hey nutsack you don't have any clout beatch...


----------



## Greenbeard (Jun 29, 2013)

thereisnospoon said:


> Hyrcanus said:
> 
> 
> > The Rabbi said:
> ...



In California's exchange, the statewide average for the cheapest bronze coverage available--the coverage this thread and that claim are ostensibly about--to a family of four is $657/month or *$7,884* annually (see page 17). That's before any subsidy they get. More generous silver plans can be bought by the same family for less than $10,000/year--again, before any subsidies are applied.

The $20,000 number was always a myth. One that appears to persist in some quarters, even though actual prices are now available.


----------



## Mac1958 (Jun 30, 2013)

.

So I was having beers yesterday with a close friend -- including an incredible special-run IPA with a 10.2% alcohol content that pretty much knocked both of us on our butts, holy shit -- an executive in the medical software industry, and he brought something up that I hadn't even considered.

The medical software industry (billing, coding, etc.) is currently in a fucking panic because Our Great & Glorious Leaders In Central Planning&#8482; have not yet gotten around to issuing final rules, regulations and expectations on what needs to be included in the software.  That one's a long story in itself, but then he said that Our Great & Glorious Leaders In Central Planning&#8482; have also warned them to expect *new, new* regs that will essentially quadruple the amount of codes that will be required.  In short, one big mess is on the way.

He's slowly selling his stock in the company and says he plans to be out of the industry in 18 months.  He loves his job, but it's pretty common knowledge in his company that things are headed in one direction.  This guy isn't a loon by any stretch, but he says there can be no way that Our Great & Glorious Leaders In Central Planning&#8482; can be doing this by accident.

The Dems should have forced a national debate on Single Payer before they wrote this pig, because at least we would have been prepared for what's on the way.  That would have been the honest thing to do.

It was at that point that I changed the subject to the recent NBA draft, because we wanted to enjoy ourselves.

.


----------



## Freewill (Jun 30, 2013)

Greenbeard said:


> thereisnospoon said:
> 
> 
> > Hyrcanus said:
> ...



Have you ever seen the cost estimates from the government ever be higher then what actually occurs?


----------



## The Rabbi (Jun 30, 2013)

Greenbeard said:


> thereisnospoon said:
> 
> 
> > Hyrcanus said:
> ...



You neglect to mention that it is more expensive than plans they can get now.  And that they will be forced to buy expensive plans.
But never mind.


----------



## Mac1958 (Jun 30, 2013)

.

According to the premiums I've seen, my family's monthly premiums will be going from about $570 to $720, an increase of $150 a month, approximately 26.3%.

I guess if you add that up it will be the savings of $2500 per year I was promised.

Maybe I'm not very good at math.

.


----------



## The Rabbi (Jun 30, 2013)

Mac1958 said:


> .
> 
> According to the premiums I've seen, my family's monthly premiums will be going from about $570 to $720, an increase of $150 a month, approximately 26.3%.
> 
> ...


Yes but they would have been even higher without Ocare, right?  In fact, Obamacare has saved the lives of 100M Americans who would have died if they hadn't passed it.  See, you can make claims that can't be proven and make anything look good.


----------



## Greenbeard (Jun 30, 2013)

Mac1958 said:


> .The medical software industry (billing, coding, etc.) is currently in a fucking panic because Our Great & Glorious Leaders In Central Planning&#8482; have not yet gotten around to issuing final rules, regulations and expectations on what needs to be included in the software.  That one's a long story in itself, but then he said that Our Great & Glorious Leaders In Central Planning&#8482; have also warned them to expect *new, new* regs that will essentially quadruple the amount of codes that will be required.  In short, one big mess is on the way.



You can tell your friend that the U.S. committed in 2008 to adopting the ICD-10 code set. A code set that has been around since 1992.

You can further tell him that the implementation date set by the Bush administration was pushed back not once (from fall of 2011 to fall of 2013) but twice (from fall of 2013 to fall of 2014) by the Obama administration to give the industry more time to adapt.

Although if he's one of the brighter bulbs in the industry, perhaps they'll need a few more years. A 20-year-old code set that's nearing its fifth year of implementation and they're confused as to what to expect--oy!





Freewill said:


> Greenbeard said:
> 
> 
> > In California's exchange, the statewide average for the cheapest bronze coverage available--the coverage this thread and that claim are ostensibly about--to a family of four is $657/month or *$7,884* annually (see page 17). That's before any subsidy they get. More generous silver plans can be bought by the same family for less than $10,000/year--again, before any subsidies are applied.
> ...



These aren't price estimates from the government, they're the price tags insurers are requesting to put on their products. They go on sale in three months and these are the premiums insurers want to charge.



The Rabbi said:


> You neglect to mention that it is more expensive than plans they can get now.  And that they will be forced to buy expensive plans.
> But never mind.



The exchanges are going to be full of formerly uninsured people who don't have plans now. And of the 5% of the population currently buying in the individual market, a substantial portion are going to see their payments fall as the affordability tax credits kick in.

So if you want to go the "what do people actually _pay_" route, the picture gets even better for those shoppers. I've been focusing only on the fact that the price of a standard set of benefits is falling, not on other factors that will defray even those costs for many folks.


----------



## The Rabbi (Jun 30, 2013)

Given that the people who do not have plans now do so by their own choice that is hardly encouraging.


----------



## asaratis (Jun 30, 2013)

I deleted my previous post.  My mistake.  NYC admitted in post #85 of this thread that the 46 million number was used by Obama.  I should have read farther into the thread before popping off.  I will pos rep his sorry ass as a sign of contrition.


----------



## Mac1958 (Jun 30, 2013)

Greenbeard said:


> Mac1958 said:
> 
> 
> > .The medical software industry (billing, coding, etc.) is currently in a fucking panic because Our Great & Glorious Leaders In Central Planning have not yet gotten around to issuing final rules, regulations and expectations on what needs to be included in the software.  That one's a long story in itself, but then he said that Our Great & Glorious Leaders In Central Planning have also warned them to expect *new, new* regs that will essentially quadruple the amount of codes that will be required.  In short, one big mess is on the way.
> ...




As I recall, he said that a newer and bigger regulation (ICD-11 I think, but I could be wrong) is causing most of the problems because the feds haven't provided the final requirements updated for the ACA.  So the companies are just sitting there and waiting while the clock is ticking.  He also said that his company has been alerted about the even *newer* regulations that are being put together that will quadruple the amount of codes, covering treatments down the molecular level, evidently.

I realize there is a lot of animosity towards corporations, but if/when the shit hits the fan it probably won't be their fault, at least in this case.  They'll get the blame, of course.

.


----------



## Greenbeard (Jun 30, 2013)

Mac1958 said:


> As I recall, he said that a newer and bigger regulation (ICD-11 I think, but I could be wrong) is causing most of the problems because the feds haven't provided the final requirements updated for the ACA.  So the companies are just sitting there and waiting while the clock is ticking.  He also said that his company has been alerted about the even *newer* regulations that are being put together that will quadruple the amount of codes, covering treatments down the molecular level, evidently.



The U.S. currently uses ICD-9 (and has since the '90s), which was developed in the '70s. That is, our billing systems are set up to capture medicine as it was delivered forty years ago. We're finally switching to ICD-10, which was completed in the early '90s. That changeover has to be completed by October 2014.

The WHO is developing ICD-11 now, and should be done in the middle of this decade. If history is any guide, the U.S. will move on to it sometime in the 2030s. 

Anyway, the health sector has twice been given extra time to make the change to ICD-10, so it's heartening to hear they're putting it to good use by "sitting there and waiting"! I can't imagine where any animosity would come from.


----------



## lynn63 (Jun 30, 2013)

Greenbeard said:


> thereisnospoon said:
> 
> 
> > Hyrcanus said:
> ...



The cost for family coverage in California is 16,000 annually and every other state is between 10,000 to 16,000 for family coverage and this is before the mandate.


----------



## Mac1958 (Jun 30, 2013)

Greenbeard said:


> Anyway, the health sector has twice been given extra time to make the change to ICD-10, so it's heartening to hear they're putting it to good use by "sitting there and waiting"!



Perhaps you didn't see where I (twice) pointed out that the software companies cannot proceed with required changes because the feds have not yet provided them with the final regulations.



Greenbeard said:


> I can't imagine where any animosity would come from.



Animosity towards corporations is easy to find, perhaps you could check any left wing website, most "news" TV networks (definitely start with MSNBC, though), or a pretty healthy percentage of left wing politicians.  Perhaps you've missed that, too.

One of the many things I like about my friend is that, in addition to being the single most intelligent person I know and a big fan of microbrew, he's not prone to viewing things through a partisan lens.  One of our similarities. So I think I'll go ahead and trust *his* word on this.

.


----------



## Antares (Jun 30, 2013)

Mac1958 said:


> Greenbeard said:
> 
> 
> > Anyway, the health sector has twice been given extra time to make the change to ICD-10, so it's heartening to hear they're putting it to good use by "sitting there and waiting"!
> ...



No..no...greenie is the ABSOLUTE final word in ALL things ACA....just ask him.


----------



## Greenbeard (Jun 30, 2013)

lynn63 said:


> Greenbeard said:
> 
> 
> > In California's exchange, the statewide average for the cheapest bronze coverage available--the coverage this thread and that claim are ostensibly about--to a family of four is $657/month or *$7,884* annually (see page 17). That's before any subsidy they get. More generous silver plans can be bought by the same family for less than $10,000/year--again, before any subsidies are applied.
> ...



...the reason I linked to the actual prices in that post is so folks could stop simply making up numbers off the top of their heads. So far, no luck.



Mac1958 said:


> Perhaps you didn't see where I (twice) pointed out that the software companies cannot proceed with required changes because the feds have not yet provided them with the final regulations.



The final regulations came out in January 2009. 



Roo said:


> No..no...greenie is the ABSOLUTE final word in ALL things ACA....just ask him.



The switch to ICD-10 doesn't have anything to do with the ACA (HIPAA would be the legislation you're looking for here). This particular requirement was put in place by the previous administration.


----------



## thereisnospoon (Jul 1, 2013)

Greenbeard said:


> lynn63 said:
> 
> 
> > Greenbeard said:
> ...


Link? What link? 
Here's a LINK....Rate Shock: In California, Obamacare To Increase Individual Health Insurance Premiums By 64-146% - Forbes
Ohio Dept. Of Insurance: Obamacare To Increase Individual-Market Health Premiums By 88 Percent - Forbes
Ohio Dept. Of Insurance: Obamacare To Increase Individual-Market Health Premiums By 88 Percent - Forbes
Now you will post some counter numbers with no link or from some blog and then claim Forbes is a publication by of and for rich white guys.


----------



## Flopper (Jul 1, 2013)

thereisnospoon said:


> Greenbeard said:
> 
> 
> > lynn63 said:
> ...


You can calculate premiums with the following calculator. The Ohio numbers exclude substitutes which in many cases will cover most of the premium.

Subsidy Calculator | The Henry J. Kaiser Family Foundation

BTW, the administration never said ACA would reduce healthcare premiums.  They said the cost of healthcare would come down.  There's a big difference.

80% of Americans will continue to get their insurance through their employer's group plans or the government and thus the prices on the exchanges will not effect them.  Also the prices on the exchanges are subject to change because the exchanges are a market place.  In states where competition is strong, premiums will be lower than states with less competition.  Thus some areas will see increases for some types of policies while other areas will see decreases.  In my opinion, most people will not see much difference in the premium for non-group polices once subsidies are included.


----------



## Greenbeard (Jul 1, 2013)

thereisnospoon said:


> Link? What link?



This one: http://www.coveredca.com/news/PDFs/CC_Health_Plans_Booklet.pdf

There are no "counter numbers," these are the prices in California's marketplace.


----------



## Antares (Jul 1, 2013)

Greenbeard said:


> thereisnospoon said:
> 
> 
> > Link? What link?
> ...



I have read somewhere that the numbers are bogus....individual compared to small group?


----------



## Greenbeard (Jul 1, 2013)

Roo said:


> Greenbeard said:
> 
> 
> > thereisnospoon said:
> ...



I don't know what you're saying--that the prices insurers have requested for their products are somehow false?


----------



## thereisnospoon (Jul 2, 2013)

Flopper said:


> thereisnospoon said:
> 
> 
> > Greenbeard said:
> ...



Subsidies. Yes, let's attempt to make the cost of ACA look lower by moving the chess pieces around the board.
Peeling back the layers of the onion reveals that the higher costs will be borne by those with the ability to pay. Subsidies mean nothing because those who's income rises above the subsidy threshold will pay their share as well as those receiving the subsidies. 
From that standpoint, is a fallacy to claim ACA will 'save' anyone a dime...


----------



## thereisnospoon (Jul 2, 2013)

Greenbeard said:


> thereisnospoon said:
> 
> 
> > Link? What link?
> ...



There aren't?....No chance you looked at the link provided in the Forbes article.
Heck, I even posted a link from the White House website. Yet you throw out some other link that counters the government's own information. 
We're done.


----------



## thereisnospoon (Jul 2, 2013)

Flopper said:


> thereisnospoon said:
> 
> 
> > Greenbeard said:
> ...


"BTW, the administration never said ACA would reduce healthcare premiums.  They said the cost of healthcare would come down.  There's a big difference."
Really? Difference with no distinction. 
The cost of health care IS the cost of the premium....
Look, ACA is nonsense. The Obama admin sold this thing as a way to control 'costs'...That's impossible. 
What ACA will attempt to do is control 'price'...
With that in mind, ACA simply takes control of the medical care marketplace with the goal of manipulating the marketplace. This will be done by slashing reimbursements to medical professionals, placing new taxes on pharmaceutical firms and those companies that manufacture and market medical equipment and machinery.
All of which is 100% unnecessary. ACA creates an illusion that healthcare will be free to those voters the democrat party is most heavily invested. Those would be voters on public assistance those with an entitlement mentality.


----------



## Antares (Jul 2, 2013)

Greenbeard said:


> Roo said:
> 
> 
> > Greenbeard said:
> ...



*But this good news is not as good as it might sound, because its based on a misleading comparison: next years individual market rates with this years small-employer plans. A more useful comparison would be with this years individual-market premiums. And what that comparison reveals is that rate shock is real, and that the hikes are far larger than the comparison with small-group rates would suggest.*

California Regulators Hide Obamacare Rate Shock With Misleading Comparison - Hit & Run : Reason.com


----------



## Antares (Jul 2, 2013)

thereisnospoon said:


> Flopper said:
> 
> 
> > thereisnospoon said:
> ...



Barak Hussein Obama promised repeatedly, you are dismissed.

*Thats not the way it was supposed to be. President Obama repeatedly promised that health insurance premiums for a family would be $2,500 a year lower by the end of his first term. They were actually $3,000 higher, but whats $5,500 among comrades*

PolicyBytes: Here come the health insurance price control police - Your Houston News: Opinion

*We have previously dinged Republicans for claiming that premiums have already gone up because of the law. And we have noted the president made what we called a foolish, dubious campaign promise with a huge asterisk  that premiums would be $2,500 lower than they would have been without the law.*

President Obama?s claim that insurance premiums ?will go down? - The Washington Post


----------



## Greenbeard (Jul 4, 2013)

thereisnospoon said:


> Greenbeard said:
> 
> 
> > thereisnospoon said:
> ...



You quoted a chain above but don't appear to actually be responding to it. Someone claimed the cost of a plan for a family of four in California's exchange will be $16,000. I pointed out (correctly) that California's prices are now available and the statewide average for the cheapest bronze plan for a family of four next year will be $7,884. That's the price _before_ they get any affordability tax credit, meaning the cost to them could even end up being substantially lower than the posted price.

That's based on the published prices (i.e. insurers' submissions of the rates they want to charge). There's no counterargument or "counter number" to be had here.

If I tell you that you can get one of the specialty pizzas from the place across the street from me for $13.29 (you can and they're worth it), that's a statement of fact. There's no "count number" for the price they charge for their pizzas.

So whatever strange obfuscation you're attempting here, it doesn't even make enough sense to work.



Roo said:


> But this good news is not as good as it might sound, because it&#8217;s based on a misleading comparison: next year&#8217;s individual market rates with this year&#8217;s small-employer plans.



_What comparison_? This a menu of prices. No comparison is being made, it's just a list of how much things cost.


----------



## thereisnospoon (Jul 5, 2013)

Greenbeard said:


> thereisnospoon said:
> 
> 
> > Greenbeard said:
> ...



A chain?....Look, you go on ahead cheerleading for what you think is 'free shit'..
Then we will see who is correct when the bill is delivered.
Actually, this is being done in a very sneaky manner. As a payroll deduction and when one files their tax return. The charge is "hidden"...
When worker's net pay shrinks dramatically and refunds disappear, those in Congress had better acquire a thick skin real quick.
You have no clue what you are posting about. 
ACA is going to be VERY expensive!


----------



## Redfish (Jul 5, 2013)

thereisnospoon said:


> Greenbeard said:
> 
> 
> > thereisnospoon said:
> ...



yes it will, and the dumb shits that are on here defending it will be the most seriously hurt by it.

I will never understand how supporting obama causes a person to completely lose his/her ability to think retionally.


----------



## Greenbeard (Jul 5, 2013)

thereisnospoon said:


> A chain?....Look, you go on ahead cheerleading for what you think is 'free shit'..



"Free shit" wouldn't have premiums (and cost-sharing), genius. Which is what we've been talking about the entire time. Save the stock insults for occasions in which they make sense.


----------



## Redfish (Jul 5, 2013)

Greenbeard said:


> thereisnospoon said:
> 
> 
> > A chain?....Look, you go on ahead cheerleading for what you think is 'free shit'..
> ...



true, but the vast majority of obama supporters think that obamacare will be free for THEM.   it won't but they have sold their votes to that lie.


----------



## thereisnospoon (Jul 5, 2013)

Greenbeard said:


> thereisnospoon said:
> 
> 
> > A chain?....Look, you go on ahead cheerleading for what you think is 'free shit'..
> ...



For a family of 4 making $1 under 400% of poverty it will be 'free shit'..
Nice try at deliberately missing the point.
Low info voters, the uninformed and Obamabots such as yourself believe ACA will relieve them of ALL out of pocket expense for medical care.


----------



## lynn63 (Jul 5, 2013)

Here are the facts regarding those that are eligible for "free shit":

Only the states that agreed to the medicaid expansion will those people in low paying jobs earning under 138% PPL will be eligible.  Most of those states pay a higher minimum wage so many will not be eligible. Those people will not be responsible for any premiums but they will have to pay a small copay if they require care.

Most of the low income population with no insurance are in the Southern States that is Republican dominate, refused the expansion and have the federal minimum wage or below.  None of these people will be able to enroll in Medicaid.

They project that only 7 million people will be added to Medicaid in 2014.


----------



## Greenbeard (Sep 3, 2013)

The Rabbi said:


> Cheapest policy according to the IRS will be $20,000/yr.  Where is all my savings from Obamacare??
> IRS: Cheapest Obamacare Plan Will Be $20,000 Per Family | CNS News



California's exchange has a great new tool out today in anticipation of open enrollment in October. Lets you see exactly how much each plan in your local market will cost a household of your size.

Let's imagine you're a family of 5 in LA county: two 40-year-old parents, three kids. How much is the cheapest plan available to you? $20,000?

No, it's an L.A. Care bronze plan available to your family for $393/month or $4,716/year. 

Now let's say your household makes $60,000/year so that you qualify for an affordability tax credit. Your premium for that plan falls to $216/month or $2,592/year. Wow! Glad there wasn't some idiot telling me it would cost $20,000/year for a family of five!


----------



## thereisnospoon (Sep 3, 2013)

Greenbeard said:


> The Rabbi said:
> 
> 
> > Cheapest policy according to the IRS will be $20,000/yr.  Where is all my savings from Obamacare??
> ...



First..A family of 5 in LA County with a household income of $60k is not even middle class. Not even close.
Second, that bronze plan is bare bones. It leaves the insured with 40% of the bill. 
That's like having very little coverage at all. 
Suppose these people have $10k in medical bills for one year...That works out to them paying $4,000..PLUS the $4716...
That kind of insurance coverage is for people who PRAY they don't get sick or injured.
And the reimbursements are so paltry, many health care providers will more than likely not take Obamacare patients. They will be sent to public hospitals. 
Either that or a lot of medical facilities are going to close because they just will not be able to afford staying in business.
This law is a piece of shit.
Oh, today..The Transport Workers Union and The Longshoreman's union have split form the AFL/CIO over the AFL CIO's support for Obama care.
The rats are jumping ship.


----------



## dblack (Sep 3, 2013)

Insurance, uber alles.


----------



## Flopper (Sep 4, 2013)

Greenbeard said:


> The Rabbi said:
> 
> 
> > Cheapest policy according to the IRS will be $20,000/yr.  Where is all my savings from Obamacare??
> ...


*Q: Did the IRS say that the cheapest health insurance plan under the federal health care law would cost $20,000 per family?
A: No. The IRS used $20,000 in a hypothetical example to illustrate how it will calculate the tax penalty for a family that fails to obtain health coverage as required by law. Treasury says the figure is not an estimate of premiums.

Just one of a number of myths created by the right, like the healthcare law which grew from 906 pages to 3000 after passage.  Repeat a lie often enough and there are always fools that will believe it.*

*?Obamacare? to cost $20,000 a Family?*


----------



## Greenbeard (Sep 4, 2013)

thereisnospoon said:


> Second, that bronze plan is bare bones. It leaves the insured with 40% of the bill.



The conceit of the thread is that the cheapest bronze plan would cost a family of 5 $20,000/year in premiums. That was a lie, told by idiots to idiots. The point of looking up actual numbers is to expose the absurdity of that claim. The actual cheapest bronze plan for a family that large is actually less than $5,000, with families potentially being asked to pay substantially less than that.

That's not a recommendation that this family actually choose to buy catastrophic coverage, the point is that catastrophic coverage doesn't cost $20,000, as the more impressionable minds in the rightwing herd were led to believe.

Derp.


----------



## Flopper (Sep 4, 2013)

lynn63 said:


> Here are the facts regarding those that are eligible for "free shit":
> 
> Only the states that agreed to the medicaid expansion will those people in low paying jobs earning under 138% PPL will be eligible.  Most of those states pay a higher minimum wage so many will not be eligible. Those people will not be responsible for any premiums but they will have to pay a small copay if they require care.
> 
> ...


As a part of the Medicaid Expansion, eligibility expanded from 133 to 138% of FPL.  Medicaid Expansion was  required in the healthcare law but the Supreme Court gave states the right to say no. Currently 16 states, mostly red states have done so. 

These state will be denying Medicaid coverage to millions of the working poor, not because of a shortage of funds but for ideology reasons.  The cost to states will not start till 2017 and is modest with the federal government picking up most of the cost.


APHA: Medicaid Expansion


----------



## jgarden (Sep 4, 2013)

> Cybercast News Service
> 
> CNSNews.com was founded by L. Brent Bozell III on June 16, 1998, under the name Conservative News Service and the domain name conservativenews.org.  According to Bozell, the website would "report news ...not touched by traditional television news outlets" and "fill the growing news void left by the establishment media in their chase for the sensational."
> 
> ...


*Yes, it was all a lie about Obamacare 

- originally the "C" in CNSNews.com, the OP's source, stood for "conservativenews.org."

- Scott Hogenson, CNSNews.com's editor from 1998-2005, took a leave of absence in November, 2003 to serve as the director of radio and online operations for the Republican National Committee

- Terence P. Jeffrey, editor-in-chief in September 2007, was research director for the presidential campaign of Patrick J. Buchanan in 1992 and his national campaign manager in 1996

- CNSNews.com questioned the validity of Democratic Rep. John Murtha's purple hearts (after Murtha's criticized the U.S. War in Iraq)

When it comes to accusations emanating from "news" sources with such obvious conservative biases, "lie" is the operative word! *


----------



## Claudette (Sep 4, 2013)

thereisnospoon said:


> Flopper said:
> 
> 
> > thereisnospoon said:
> ...



Yup. As I said. Anyone who can afford it will be paying their hc costs along with all those  we taxpayers will be forced to subsidize. 

The ACA is a POS and it will break the bank.


----------



## Flopper (Sep 4, 2013)

Claudette said:


> thereisnospoon said:
> 
> 
> > Flopper said:
> ...


*Your claims aren't supported by the facts.  Healthcare cost in the US have fallen for the first time in four decades and according to  CBO estimates, the the total cost of the ACA will be 3.6% of the 2014 budget.

Medical Costs Register First Decline Since 1970s - Real Time Economics - WSJ
CBO | CBO?s Estimate of the Net Budgetary Impact of the Affordable Care Act?s Health Insurance Coverage Provisions Has Not Changed Much Over Time*


----------



## The Rabbi (Sep 4, 2013)

Flopper said:


> Claudette said:
> 
> 
> > thereisnospoon said:
> ...



You understand that most of Ocare has not been enacted it, right?  And that there are many explanations for the lowering of amounts spent.  Like the Obama recovery that has been worse than the Bush recession.


----------



## Flopper (Sep 4, 2013)

The Rabbi said:


> Flopper said:
> 
> 
> > Claudette said:
> ...


Since the law is not fully enacted there is no way to know what the actually costs will be, just projections which I've sighted. Yes, there are many explanations of why healthcare cost is falling, one being that the health insurance companies and healthcare providers have been cleaning up their act for some years knowing that healthcare reform was coming.


----------



## Greenbeard (Sep 4, 2013)

The Rabbi said:


> You understand that most of Ocare has not been enacted it, right?  And that there are many explanations for the lowering of amounts spent.  Like the Obama recovery that has been worse than the Bush recession.



Lowering of amounts spent? Are we now in an unprecedented era of slowing health care cost growth and record low health care price inflation (not to mention the lowest per capita Medicare cost growth ever recorded)? Has slowing health care cost growth chopped 15% off the combined price tags of Medicare and Medicaid by 2020?

I hadn't heard anything about that! Not from the right, anyway. Pray, tell me more. Don't forget to reiterate how it certainly has _nothing_ (certainly not!) to do with the unprecedented reforms of the health care system that started three and a half years ago. That's key.


----------



## NYcarbineer (Sep 4, 2013)

This rightwing propaganda was debunked on USMB months ago.  Why is it still kicking around?


----------



## dblack (Sep 4, 2013)

Corporate whores.


----------



## Old Rocks (Sep 4, 2013)

Let us say that you are married to a woman 10 years younger than you are, and you retire at 70 with an income of 30K. You are covered  by MediCare, but she has to get insurance on her own. If she has no prior illnesses, she can get that insurance for about 8K. A significant bite out of an income of 30K. Under the ACA, the cost to the old couple is $1800. That can be handled.

Subsidy Calculator | The Henry J. Kaiser Family Foundation

Results



The information below is about subsidized exchange coverage. Note that subsidies are only available for people purchasing coverage on their own in the exchange (not through an employer). Depending on your state's eligibility criteria, you or some members of your family may qualify for Medicaid. 
Household income in 2014:193% of poverty levelUnsubsidized annual health insurance premium in 2014:$8,191Maximum % of income you have to pay for the non-tobacco premium, if eligible for a subsidy:6%Amount you pay for the premium:$1,799 per year
 (which equals 6% of your household income and covers 22% of the overall premium) You could receive a government tax credit subsidy of up to:$6,392
 (which covers 78% of the overall premium) .
Bronze Plan

The premium and subsidy amounts above are based on a Silver plan. You have the option to apply the subsidy toward the purchase of other levels of coverage, such as a Gold plan (which would be more comprehensive) or a Bronze plan (which would be less comprehensive). 

For example, you could enroll in a Bronze plan for about $397 per year (which is 1.32% of your household income, after taking into account $6,392 in subsidies). For most people, the Bronze plan represents the minimum level of coverage required under health reform. Although you would pay less in premiums by enrolling in a Bronze plan, you will face higher out-of-pocket costs than if you enrolled in a Silver plan. 

Out of Pocket Costs

Your out-of-pocket maximum for a Silver plan (not including the premium) can be no more than $2,250. Whether you reach this maximum level will depend on the amount of health care services you use. Currently, about one in four people use no health care services in any given year. 

You are guaranteed access to a Silver plan with an actuarial value of 87%. This means that for all enrollees in a typical population, the plan will pay for 87% of expenses in total for covered benefits, with enrollees responsible for the rest. If you choose to enroll in a Bronze plan, the actuarial value will be 60%, meaning your out-of-pocket costs when you use services will likely be higher. Regardless of which level of coverage you choose, deductibles and copayments will vary from plan to plan, and out-of-pocket costs will depend on your health care expenses. Preventive services will be covered with no cost sharing required.


----------



## Old Rocks (Sep 4, 2013)

The Rabbi said:


> Flopper said:
> 
> 
> > Claudette said:
> ...



LOL. Mostly the reason for the flapyap from idiots like you is that the reality is that things are improving, and the cost of health care is rising at a much slower rate than it was under "W". Come 1Jan14, a lot of people are going to find out that they can afford basic health care coverage, and people like Rabid are going to look as dumb on those predictions as they have on the predicitons of impending economic doom.

They will be back to crying about turning socialist, and muttering darkly about second amendment solutions and revolution.


----------



## MeBelle (Sep 4, 2013)

Greenbeard said:


> thereisnospoon said:
> 
> 
> > Second, that bronze plan is bare bones. It leaves the insured with 40% of the bill.
> ...



Bronze is not a catastrophic plan.

I checked some numbers real quick.
For a real family of five that I know, the cheapest bronze plan would cost $26,980 before any benefits are paid out. 

I then went to the cheapest platinum plan. Cost: $25,240.

Neither of those numbers come even close to what that family currently pays.

Dental not included.
Eye care not included.
Formularies not included.

The families 'health insurance' just doubled!

Let's not even talk about the number of Docs dropping MediCal patients.


----------



## Flopper (Sep 4, 2013)

MeBelle60 said:


> Greenbeard said:
> 
> 
> > thereisnospoon said:
> ...


Checked where?


----------



## MeBelle (Sep 4, 2013)

Flopper said:


> MeBelle60 said:
> 
> 
> > Greenbeard said:
> ...



post# 189...I used Greenbeard's 'tool' 

 (sorry, seriously giggling @ the word 'tool'. I am guilty of warped humor @ times  )


----------



## American_Jihad (Oct 18, 2013)

*On to the ObamaCare Meltdown*

October 18, 2013 By Arnold Ahlert 







Theres good news and bad news for Republicans in the wake of the deal that reopened the federal government. The bad news is that Republicans signed off on a lousy package that does nothing to solve the nations out-control spending habits. The good news is that much of the attention the public devoted to the shutdown and the debt ceiling will now be focused on the disaster known as ObamaCare. It is a disaster wholly owned by Democrats.

Moreover, it is one born of unbridled hubris. Health and Human Services (HHS) Secretary Kathleen Sebelius and her planners were given ample warning by health industry insiders and low-level Obama administration officials that the exchanges had not been properly tested and implementation schedules were not being met, despite having a three year window and hundreds of millions of dollars to spend on building the Healthcare.gov. website. Sebelius ignored those warnings. But telltale signs, such as her ongoing efforts to denigrate critics, as well as her refusal to turn over documents the HHS inspector general for a routine performance audit, indicated all was not well.

The latter revelation might be telling: the actual money spent setting up the website is almost impossible to determine. According to Reuters, the original cost to build the site was approximately $93.7 million. Yet that total tripled to $292 million when new money was assigned to site construction as late as April. That assignment apparently coincided with warnings from federal and state officials that the information technology on which these online exchanges were based was not working properly.

...

On to the ObamaCare Meltdown | FrontPage Magazine


----------



## Politico (Oct 18, 2013)

Old Rocks said:


> LOL. Mostly the reason for the flapyap from idiots like you is that the reality is that things are improving, and the cost of health care is rising at a much slower rate than it was under "W". Come 1Jan14, a lot of people are going to find out that they can afford basic health care coverage, and people like Rabid are going to look as dumb on those predictions as they have on the predicitons of impending economic doom.
> 
> They will be back to crying about turning socialist, and muttering darkly about second amendment solutions and revolution.



Being forced to buy insurance that you can't afford is an improvement? Who knew?


----------



## billyerock1991 (Oct 18, 2013)

The Rabbi said:


> Cheapest policy according to the IRS will be $20,000/yr.  Where is all my savings from Obamacare??
> IRS: Cheapest Obamacare Plan Will Be $20,000 Per Family | CNS News



have you filed for health insurance at all ??? I realize the state handles its sign up, but I just got my health care coverage ... its just for me ... starting january 1 2014 I will pay $251.12 a month with a 250 dollar deductible with a max pay out of 2000 dollars... my insurance now cost me 550 dollars a month with a 5000 dollar deductible with no max pay out ... now tell me again how that's worse ... I would love to know how you came to that conclusion ...


----------



## Antares (Oct 18, 2013)

Flopper said:


> Claudette said:
> 
> 
> > thereisnospoon said:
> ...



You do know that......

A) The ACA has not been enacted yet?
B) That does nothing to address Healthcare Costs?


----------



## dblack (Oct 18, 2013)

Politico said:


> Being forced to buy insurance that you can't afford is an improvement? Who knew?



Guess who said the following:



> &#8220;So, I focus more on lowering costs. This is a modest difference. But, it&#8217;s one that she&#8217;s tried to elevate, arguing that because I don&#8217;t force people to buy health care that I&#8217;m not insuring everybody. Well, *if things were that easy, I could mandate everybody to buy a house, and that would solve the problem of homelessness. It doesn&#8217;t*."



Makes you wonder what's next, eh?


----------



## Claudette (Oct 18, 2013)

billyerock1991 said:


> The Rabbi said:
> 
> 
> > Cheapest policy according to the IRS will be $20,000/yr.  Where is all my savings from Obamacare??
> ...



I'm sure the guy with at $13,999.00 deductable would have a hard time agreeing with you.

Oh and BTW, are you being subsidized by we the taxpayer??

Oh an a gentleman I work with got on the site last night. He just wanted to see how affordable his HC would be through the ACA. 

His monthly premium for he and his wife $729 a month. However the deductable is $11,000 per year. 

Yep. One has to wonder just who the hell the ACA is affordable for??


----------



## thereisnospoon (Oct 18, 2013)

billyerock1991 said:


> The Rabbi said:
> 
> 
> > Cheapest policy according to the IRS will be $20,000/yr.  Where is all my savings from Obamacare??
> ...



You are subsidized. Which plan did you choose?
If it is Bronze, you are still out 0f pocket for 40% of ALL costs.
Most people will opt for the cheapest insurance they can get. Until they have to file a claim. Then they won't have the money to cover their portion.


----------



## thereisnospoon (Oct 18, 2013)

Flopper said:


> Claudette said:
> 
> 
> > thereisnospoon said:
> ...



That's the Obama administration's version.


----------



## thereisnospoon (Oct 18, 2013)

Flopper said:


> The Rabbi said:
> 
> 
> > Flopper said:
> ...



Sure they are...For those who's private or employer provided insurance does not meet the nearly impossible Obamacare mandates, their premiums will double or even triple.
For example, maternity plus pre and post natal care are required with ACA...So even those who are beyond childbearing years or those who have no intentions of ever having children are forced to cover themselves for having children...
Gee, that makes sense.
ACA is nothing but a gigantic welfare/redistribution of wealth program.


----------



## thereisnospoon (Oct 18, 2013)

NYcarbineer said:


> This rightwing propaganda was debunked on USMB months ago.  Why is it still kicking around?



Because it HAS NOT been debunked. 
Your side just wishes is has been.


----------



## Flopper (Oct 18, 2013)

American_Jihad said:


> *On to the ObamaCare Meltdown*
> 
> October 18, 2013 By Arnold Ahlert
> 
> ...


I've gone through the entire registration process.  It's slow and it could stand improvement but it does work and tens of thousands of people are buying insurance through the exchanges.  From one who bought individual insurance a few years ago, completing an 18 page health history questionnaire and waiting 6 weeks just to find out if you were approved, this is a much better process and the cost is about the same.


----------



## RandallFlagg (Oct 18, 2013)

Flopper said:


> American_Jihad said:
> 
> 
> > *On to the ObamaCare Meltdown*
> ...



Now, pray to God that the personal information that you provided doesn't get hacked (every IT professional in the world says it's "security" is a dangerous joke) and anything and everything you may or may not have, gets stolen.

oh! and enjoy those deductibles!


----------



## Trajan (Oct 18, 2013)

NYcarbineer said:


> Obama never used the 46 million number.
> 
> 
> This story is an old lie by the rightwing propaganda machine that was debunked on this board a long time ago.



you're right, he said 47...

THE WHITE HOUSE

Office of the Press Secretary
_______________________________________________________________
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE                                      July 22, 2009

Excerpts of the President's Opening Remarks at Tonight's News Conference
-As Prepared for Delivery-
That is why I&#8217;ve said that even as we rescue this economy from a full-blown crisis, we must rebuild it stronger than before.  And health insurance reform is central to that effort.
This is not just about the 47 million Americans who have no health insurance.  Reform is about every American who has ever feared that they may lose their coverage if they become too sick, or lose their job, or change their job.  It&#8217;s about every small business that has been forced to lay off employees or cut back on their coverage because it became too expensive.  And it&#8217;s about the fact that the biggest driving force behind our federal deficit is the skyrocketing cost of Medicare and Medicaid.

Excerpts of the President's Opening Remarks at Tonight's News Conference, 7-22-09 | The White House


----------



## Freewill (Oct 18, 2013)

NYcarbineer said:


> healthmyths said:
> 
> 
> > Pete7469 said:
> ...



"We are not a nation that accepts nearly 46 million uninsured men, women and children," 

From NPR: 46 Million Uninsured: A Look Behind The Number : NPR

So are you lying?

So were you duped into believing a lie by some liberal publication?

Or were you just saying what you wanted to believe without really knowing.


----------



## Antares (Oct 18, 2013)

Freewill said:


> NYcarbineer said:
> 
> 
> > healthmyths said:
> ...



Carb is a Bammy lemming, she/it will NEVER acknowledge ANY Bammy fuck ups.


----------



## Trajan (Oct 18, 2013)

46, 47, whats a million or 2 when you only plan on covering, what, 20 million anyway?


----------



## American_Jihad (Oct 18, 2013)

*ObamaCare Website Now Officially the Most Incompetent Thing Obama has Ever Done*

October 18, 2013 By Daniel Greenfield







Sure theres a lot of things to choose from. But I think we have a winner.

The ObamaCare website, which estimates have placed at anywhere from under 100 million to 400 million to just under 300 million to 634 million dollars, not only tops  even Solyndra, but couldnt have been designed any worse if Joe Biden had tried making it in his spare time.

Its all the worse for Obama Inc. which boasted of being web savvy only to unveil this...

...

So the website was only tested four days before launch by a government agency that had little to no experience with websites on this scale.

How could a plan so perfect have gone so wrong?

...

Well this whole plan is Hillarys health care plan from 1993 remixed. So why not give it a 1993 website?

ObamaCare Website Now Officially the Most Incompetent Thing Obama has Ever Done | FrontPage Magazine

---   ---   ---

*Tech Expert: Obamacare's Website is Super Broken and Should be Shut Down For Major Repairs*

Tech Expert: Obamacare's Website is Super Broken and Should be Shut Down For Major Repairs - Guy Benson


----------



## petro (Oct 18, 2013)

The  American Medical Association has weighed in on Obama's new health care package. 
The Allergists were in favor of scratching it, but the Dermatologists advised not to make any rash moves. 
The Gastroenterologists had sort of a gut feeling about it, but the Neurologists thought the Administration had a lot of nerve. 
Meanwhile, Obstetricians felt certain everyone was laboring under a misconception, while the Ophthalmologists considered the idea shortsighted.
Pathologists yelled, "Over my dead body!" while the Pediatricians said, "Oh, grow up!" 
The Psychiatrists thought the whole idea was madness while the Radiologists could see right through it. 
Surgeons decided to wash their hands of the whole thing and the Internists claimed it would indeed be a bitter pill to swallow. 
The Plastic Surgeons opined that this proposal would "put a whole new face on the matter". 
The Podiatrists thought it was a step forward, but the Urologists were pissed off at the whole idea. 
Anesthesiologists thought the whole idea was a gas, and those lofty Cardiologists didn't have the heart to say no.

In the end, the Proctologists won out, leaving the entire decision up to the assholes in Washington.


----------



## thereisnospoon (Oct 18, 2013)

petro said:


> The  American Medical Association has weighed in on Obama's new health care package.
> The Allergists were in favor of scratching it, but the Dermatologists advised not to make any rash moves.
> The Gastroenterologists had sort of a gut feeling about it, but the Neurologists thought the Administration had a lot of nerve.
> Meanwhile, Obstetricians felt certain everyone was laboring under a misconception, while the Ophthalmologists considered the idea shortsighted.
> ...


That is  a CLASSIC!!!!!


----------



## Flopper (Oct 19, 2013)

RandallFlagg said:


> Flopper said:
> 
> 
> > American_Jihad said:
> ...


I provided far less information than I provide the IRS each year and unlike insurance companies selling individual plans in the past, *no health information*.


----------



## Antares (Oct 19, 2013)

Flopper said:


> RandallFlagg said:
> 
> 
> > Flopper said:
> ...



You do know they already have it don't you?


----------

