# ACA: For the Win!



## dblack (Jun 21, 2015)

Go team! .... and they say the economy isn't in recovery!



> *Anthem Makes $47 Billion Offer for Rival Cigna*
> By JEFFREY CANE and REED ABELSONJUNE 20, 2015
> 
> 
> ...


----------



## Sonny Clark (Jun 21, 2015)

dblack said:


> Go team! .... and they say the economy isn't in recovery!
> 
> 
> 
> ...


In what ways is the economy recovering? ---  FYI --- Corporations buying other corporations is NOT a sign of economic recovery. Would you mind explaining how the economy is recovering? Also, what team are you speaking of?

Please include the following if and when you explain the areas of economic recovery:
(1) Jobs mainly consist of low wage, part-time, and temporary employment
(2) Businesses are offering less company paid benefits
(3) The continuing practice of off-shore out-sourcing jobs
(4) The continuing practice of importing labor
(5) The cost of living ( food, rent, transportation, utilizes, health care, higher education )
(6) Our dependency on cheap foreign imports
(7) Less home ownership
(8) Troubled pension funds
(9) Cities going bankrupt
(10) Our rundown infrastructure ( tax revenue )
(11) 45 million plus receiving food stamps
(12) Millions receiving some form of government assistance
(13) Half of our children living at or below the poverty line
(14) The shrinking Middle Class ( more are falling than rising )
(15) Wealth concentration at the top
(16) College grads living with parents and flipping burgers for spending money
(17) The number of workers age 50 and older unemployed or underemployed
(18) Government debt being the only catalyst keeping us afloat
(19) Major malls becoming ghost buildings
(20) Retail giants closing stores and cutting the number of employees
(21) Less spendable income in the pockets of consumers

I'm looking forward to your explanation. Thanks


----------



## dblack (Jun 21, 2015)

Sonny Clark said:


> dblack said:
> 
> 
> > Go team! .... and they say the economy isn't in recovery!
> ...



Come on, don't be a spoiled sport. The insurance companies are making a bundle. Can't you just be happy for them? It's never good enough for you, is it?


----------



## Sonny Clark (Jun 21, 2015)

dblack said:


> Sonny Clark said:
> 
> 
> > dblack said:
> ...


FYI - The insurance companies have always made a "bundle", and chances are they'll continue to make a "bundle" for the foreseeable future. Insurance is a scam, a con, and protected, aided, and abetted by the government. No, I can NOT be happy for them, and won't ever be happy for them. Oh, yes, things are very good for me. I'm very blessed and very fortunate. A spoiled sport? Please explain. I'm in no way spoiled, but I am a good sport.


----------



## dblack (Jun 21, 2015)

ACA is good for America.


----------



## Sonny Clark (Jun 21, 2015)

dblack said:


> ACA is good for America.


How? Please explain. Thanks

Please consider these items when giving your explanation:
(1) Higher premiums
(2) Higher deductibles ( $6,000 in some cases )
(3) Reduced amount covered by insurance ( Cigna - down from 90% to 85% )
(4) Doctors leaving this country and going overseas to practice ( Australia has become popular )
(5) A lower percentage paid by employers ( burden on employees )
(6) Lower quality of care
(7) Fewer doctor groups participating in the ACA ( in some areas, it's harder to find a doctor accepting ACA patients )
(8) More unnecessary tests requested by doctors ( especially for seniors )

I'm looking forward to your explanation. Thanks.


----------



## dblack (Jun 21, 2015)

It's a step in the right direction. A foot in the door. With ACA no one can be denied health care!


----------



## Sonny Clark (Jun 21, 2015)

dblack said:


> It's a step in the right direction. A foot in the door. With ACA no one can be denied health care!


Right direction? How? Please explain? So, why do so many want it repealed? Higher cost is moving in the right direction? Doctors leaving this country is moving in the right direction? More cost burden placed on employees is moving in the right direction? .... Geez ... who would've thunk that ... just imagine ........... pleeeeeeeeasee...


----------



## dblack (Jun 21, 2015)

Sonny Clark said:


> dblack said:
> 
> 
> > It's a step in the right direction. A foot in the door. With ACA no one can be denied health care!
> ...



We had to do something.


----------



## Sonny Clark (Jun 21, 2015)

dblack said:


> Sonny Clark said:
> 
> 
> > dblack said:
> ...


Yes, we did, I agree. But, did we have to make matters worse? Personally, I don't think so.

We made it good for insurance companies, pharmaceuticals, labs, clinics, and hospitals. All at the expense of John Q. Public.


----------



## dblack (Jun 21, 2015)

Sonny Clark said:


> dblack said:
> 
> 
> > Sonny Clark said:
> ...


Single payer!


----------



## Sonny Clark (Jun 21, 2015)

dblack said:


> Sonny Clark said:
> 
> 
> > dblack said:
> ...


Single payer what?


----------



## The Irish Ram (Jun 21, 2015)

So the insurance companies made out on the deal.  Not the public.  Skyrocketing insurance premiums enabled the buy out.  What about that makes you think our economy is growing?  Insurance companies are growing.  paychecks are dwindling.


----------



## The Irish Ram (Jun 21, 2015)

Walmart care is what all of those who can no longer afford the astronomical ins. premiums are looking at.  And Obama is stealing from every fund in Washington including the education fund to try to keep this burden afloat.  There is nothing good about this mess.


----------



## dblack (Jun 21, 2015)

Single Payer!


----------



## Maryland Patriot (Jun 23, 2015)

dblack said:


> Sonny Clark said:
> 
> 
> > dblack said:
> ...


 Why, there was nothing wrong with it as it was.
 My insurance was good and affordable.
 my family was well covered.


----------



## dblack (Jun 23, 2015)

Maryland Patriot said:


> dblack said:
> 
> 
> > Sonny Clark said:
> ...



Before ACA, the insurance companies ran the show. Now, government has reigned them in.


----------



## Darkwind (Jun 23, 2015)

dblack said:


> Maryland Patriot said:
> 
> 
> > dblack said:
> ...


Yet.....they haven't.


----------



## dblack (Jun 23, 2015)

Darkwind said:


> dblack said:
> 
> 
> > Maryland Patriot said:
> ...



Single Payer!!


----------



## Maryland Patriot (Jun 23, 2015)

dblack said:


> Darkwind said:
> 
> 
> > dblack said:
> ...


I agree with single payer, just like my car payments were, I was the single payer for what I bought, like my house, I was the single payer, like when I go to buy food, Im the single payer.
 Insurance should be the same. You want it? you buy it and for your policy you should be the single payer.
 you want to make it affordable? the high cost is not from those that purchase their insurance, the high cost is because of those who don't, so fine those that don't buy their own policies without the money from others.
 I agree totally with single payer. its not the responsibility of others to purchase something for you.


----------



## JGalt (Jul 5, 2015)

dblack said:


> It's a step in the right direction. A foot in the door. With ACA no one can be denied health care!




Actually with the ACA, nobody can be denied insurance. But "insurance" is not "health care". Big difference there.


----------



## dblack (Jul 6, 2015)

JGalt said:


> dblack said:
> 
> 
> > It's a step in the right direction. A foot in the door. With ACA no one can be denied health care!
> ...



Normal people can't afford health care without health insurance.


----------



## Maryland Patriot (Jul 6, 2015)

dblack said:


> JGalt said:
> 
> 
> > dblack said:
> ...


 normal people can afford health insurance.. well, before the ACA they could.


----------



## JGalt (Jul 6, 2015)

Maryland Patriot said:


> dblack said:
> 
> 
> > JGalt said:
> ...



Better quality health care too, before the ACA.


----------



## Maryland Patriot (Jul 6, 2015)

JGalt said:


> Maryland Patriot said:
> 
> 
> > dblack said:
> ...


 You can already see a decrease in service at the ER.


----------



## KissMy (Jan 14, 2016)

Repubtards claimed the Obamacare would stop medical innovations like New Drug Discoveries & Approvals. Look at how New Drug Products have already TRIPLED under Obamacare. Republicans have been caught in another Big Fat LIE!!!


----------



## PredFan (Jan 14, 2016)

KissMy said:


> Repubtards claimed the Obamacare would stop medical innovations like New Drug Discoveries & Approvals. Look at how New Drug Products have already TRIPLED under Obamacare. Republicans have been caught in another Big Fat LIE!!!



You stupid left wing idiot. No one expected innovation to stop despite obamacare. 

Obamacare has done nothing for innovation or against it yet. Do you even know what it is that obamacare does? Evidently not.


----------



## saveliberty (Jan 14, 2016)

KissMy said:


> Repubtards claimed the Obamacare would stop medical innovations like New Drug Discoveries & Approvals. Look at how New Drug Products have already TRIPLED under Obamacare. Republicans have been caught in another Big Fat LIE!!!



Funny, the FDA site this comes from ever mentions Obamacare as a factor.

 A greater proportion of drugs approved on their first cycle were first in their class, increasing the likelihood that they are for diseases with treatments that have less favorable benefit-risk profiles or have no available treatment options. Lastly, about half of all drugs approved on their first cycle were for rare conditions while no drugs approved on a subsequent cycle were.

FDA Law Blog: Drug Development


----------



## Arianrhod (Jan 14, 2016)

PredFan said:


> KissMy said:
> 
> 
> > Repubtards claimed the Obamacare would stop medical innovations like New Drug Discoveries & Approvals. Look at how New Drug Products have already TRIPLED under Obamacare. Republicans have been caught in another Big Fat LIE!!!
> ...



"Yet."


----------



## PredFan (Jan 14, 2016)

Arianrhod said:


> PredFan said:
> 
> 
> > KissMy said:
> ...



Yes, yet.


----------



## Arianrhod (Jan 14, 2016)

PredFan said:


> Arianrhod said:
> 
> 
> > PredFan said:
> ...



So what's the statute of limitations?  I'm guessing it's "until Cruz takes the WH and scraps everything!"


----------



## PredFan (Jan 14, 2016)

Arianrhod said:


> PredFan said:
> 
> 
> > Arianrhod said:
> ...



I have no idea. What provisions of obamacare have yet to come into effect? How long will it take for the current provisions to start to effect research? Too many variables to know.


----------



## Arianrhod (Jan 14, 2016)

PredFan said:


> Arianrhod said:
> 
> 
> > PredFan said:
> ...



Well, you can always read the text:

Text of H.R. 3590 (111th): Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (Passed Congress/Enrolled Bill version) - GovTrack.us


----------



## PredFan (Jan 14, 2016)

Arianrhod said:


> PredFan said:
> 
> 
> > Arianrhod said:
> ...



No thanks.

And that is only part of it.


----------



## Arianrhod (Jan 14, 2016)

PredFan said:


> Arianrhod said:
> 
> 
> > PredFan said:
> ...



So you haven't read it, you don't intend to read it, you deny that it's the complete text (despite the fact that it is, but you refuse to read it), and you prefer to speculate based on rumor and regurgitated Breitbart.

This, ladies and germs, is your RW believer.


----------



## PredFan (Jan 14, 2016)

Arianrhod said:


> PredFan said:
> 
> 
> > Arianrhod said:
> ...



Ladies and gentlemen, here is your typical left wing idiot.


----------



## Arianrhod (Jan 14, 2016)

PredFan said:


> Arianrhod said:
> 
> 
> > PredFan said:
> ...



PredFan believes that people who read and keep themselves informed are "idiots."  It's like he's co-opted English words and used them to invent his own language.


----------



## PredFan (Jan 14, 2016)

Arianrhod said:


> PredFan said:
> 
> 
> > Arianrhod said:
> ...



Your stupidity is boring me, retard.


----------



## KissMy (Jan 15, 2016)

Repubtards claimed Obamacare would skyrocket healthcare cost.

Oh look! Republicans are wrong again as always!

Obamacare made the healthcare cost bend down.


----------



## dblack (Jan 15, 2016)

I think we all be required to carry papers showing which insurance company we belong to.


----------



## Maryland Patriot (Jan 15, 2016)

dblack said:


> I think we all be required to carry papers showing which insurance company we belong to.


no, actually your chart shows that consumption went down, that means that less people can afford to go to their doctor now.


----------



## Arianrhod (Jan 15, 2016)

PredFan said:


> Arianrhod said:
> 
> 
> > PredFan said:
> ...



At least this time you remembered the comma.


----------



## dblack (Jan 15, 2016)

Maryland Patriot said:


> dblack said:
> 
> 
> > I think we all be required to carry papers showing which insurance company we belong to.
> ...



Were you talking to someone else? I'm worried about the freeloaders. I think we should all have to carry insurance id cards, like with car insurance, to prove we're sponsored by an insurance company.


----------



## Maryland Patriot (Jan 15, 2016)

dblack said:


> Maryland Patriot said:
> 
> 
> > dblack said:
> ...


Yes I was was talking to the idiot that posted the chart. Sorry.
I agree with you however, everyone should carry papers proving they have insurance. and everyone should pay according to their needs and their health record. Just like car insurance, you pay for what you need and its based on your driving record.
Have an addiction or alcohol issues in the past? Pay more, smoke? Pay more. live in da hood and have a history of having lead removed from yo ass? pay a whole lot more. Live a proven healthy lifestyle with no illnesses in the past? pay less. Not based on income at all.


----------



## dblack (Jan 15, 2016)

Maryland Patriot said:


> dblack said:
> 
> 
> > Maryland Patriot said:
> ...



Indeed. The fatties too. They should be forced to go on a fitness regimen or be required to pay for their excess. People with a history of sexually transmitted diseases, or a lifestyle prone to catching them, should all be require to pay their fair share as well.


----------



## Maryland Patriot (Jan 15, 2016)

dblack said:


> Maryland Patriot said:
> 
> 
> > dblack said:
> ...


and for gay guys there should be the option of the rectal rider. additional insurance to cover rectal reconstruction after it gets ripped open at a drunken gay costume party.


----------



## Arianrhod (Jan 15, 2016)

dblack said:


> Indeed. The fatties too. They should be forced to go on a fitness regimen or be required to pay for their excess.



Which is more cost effective - punishing people for overeating, or educating and encouraging them to eat sensibly?  Even before the PPACA, smarter insurers offered diet and exercise regimens, and rewarded participants with lower premiums.

Nowadays insurers pay for diabetes screenings, hospitals offer nutrition counseling, and some insurers even pay all or part of a gym membership.

dblack considers these bad things.  People need to be punished!


----------



## dblack (Jan 15, 2016)

Arianrhod said:


> dblack said:
> 
> 
> > Indeed. The fatties too. They should be forced to go on a fitness regimen or be required to pay for their excess.
> ...



We should do both. Educate those who are willing to obey, and punish the rest.


----------



## Arianrhod (Jan 15, 2016)

dblack said:


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



That sounds like an awful lot of paperwork.  And I note the choice of the word "obey."  Health care is not religion.


----------



## dblack (Jan 15, 2016)

Arianrhod said:


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



What does following the law have to do with religion?


----------



## Arianrhod (Jan 15, 2016)

dblack said:


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



Your proposed law uses terms like "punish" and "obey."  Who gets to do all the paperwork - government or the insurers?  (I mean, what if someone sticks to their diet one year but falls off the wagon the next, then goes back on their diet, rinse, repeat?  That'll require a new set of forms every year.)

The PPACA is designed to streamline paperwork.  Your plan would increase it.  And you know if the insurer has to do the paperwork, they'll charge the customer for it.


----------



## dblack (Jan 15, 2016)

Arianrhod said:


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



Oh, I wouldn't think of causing the insurance companies any inconvenience, and there's no need for any criminal statutes. We should just have tax incentives encouraging healthy lifestyles.


----------



## Arianrhod (Jan 15, 2016)

dblack said:


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



So you want more government control.  I see.


----------



## dblack (Jan 15, 2016)

Arianrhod said:


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



You don't think it's a good idea to use tax incentives to encourage good behavior?


----------



## Arianrhod (Jan 15, 2016)

dblack said:


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



Education is more effective.  But you could combine the two.  Show proof that you've completed a course in healthy eating habits, for instance, and take a deduction for it.


----------



## dblack (Jan 15, 2016)

Arianrhod said:


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



Exactly. Or deductions for people who lose weight, or bring their cholesterol down. On the flip side, we could tax dangerous activities. People who ride motorcycles or abuse drugs or alcohol could be taxed for the extra risk they impose on the health care system.


----------



## Arianrhod (Jan 15, 2016)

dblack said:


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



Smokers are already penalized by higher premiums, but if you start imposing taxes for all those other things you'll have people screaming about the Nanny State.  Not to mention lying and/or flying under the radar.


----------



## dblack (Jan 15, 2016)

Arianrhod said:


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



Fuck those whiners. We could just require that they have insurance for all their bad habits. Or pay the additional taxes. It's their choice.


----------



## Arianrhod (Jan 15, 2016)

dblack said:


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



See, I knew you were going for something like this.


----------



## dblack (Jan 15, 2016)

Arianrhod said:


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



Like what?


----------



## Stephanie (Jan 15, 2016)

Sonny Clark said:


> dblack said:
> 
> 
> > Go team! .... and they say the economy isn't in recovery!
> ...



that's the liberal math the Democrat party teaches. now any other time they're bitching about BIG CORPS. that is some cultish hero worshipping like the people who followed Jim Jones to their deaths. 900 of them drank the cyanide laced Kool-aid


----------



## Arianrhod (Jan 15, 2016)

Stephanie said:


> Sonny Clark said:
> 
> 
> > dblack said:
> ...



There is no "Democrat party."


----------



## Sonny Clark (Jan 15, 2016)

Stephanie said:


> Sonny Clark said:
> 
> 
> > dblack said:
> ...


Just plain and simple common sense, nothing more. In addition, no one that I know of teaches it. Also, I'm not a Democrat, nor a Liberal.


----------



## dblack (Jan 15, 2016)

Arianrhod said:


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



Do you think anything is wrong with these proposals?


----------



## KissMy (Jan 16, 2016)

Reagan Signed EMTALA forcing Insured people to pay for uninsured people & Hospitals to treat all uninsured. This jacked up the cost on the payers & insured to pay for them & more people couldn't pay & became uninsured. Expensive doctors had to spend most of their time redistributing cost. This created the healthcare disaster.

Reagan & Republicans cut funding for Doctors Medical School & Internships. This created Doctor Shortages & Skyrocketing Medical Cost. Obamacare reversed the declining Doctor Graduation Rates so we are now increasing the amount of Doctors in the USA once again!
	

	
	
		
		

		
			




*Reaganomics caused a huge rise in healthcare cost!*


----------



## Stephanie (Jan 16, 2016)

Sonny Clark said:


> Stephanie said:
> 
> 
> > Sonny Clark said:
> ...



I think you mistook my post dear. I was referring to the op


----------



## Arianrhod (Jan 16, 2016)

KissMy said:


> Reagan Signed EMTALA forcing Insured people to pay for uninsured people & Hospitals to treat all uninsured. This jacked up the cost on the payers & insured to pay for them & more people couldn't pay & became uninsured. Expensive doctors had to spend most of their time redistributing cost. This created the healthcare disaster.
> 
> Reagan & Republicans cut funding for Doctors Medical School & Internships. This created Doctor Shortages & Skyrocketing Medical Cost. Obamacare reversed the declining Doctor Graduation Rates so we are now increasing the amount of Doctors in the USA once again!
> 
> ...



Useful information which they'll ignore or claim is a lie, but thank you!


----------



## dblack (Jan 16, 2016)

The main thing is to go after all those "freeloaders" who refuse to buy their fair share of insurance.


----------



## Arianrhod (Jan 16, 2016)

dblack said:


> The main thing is to go after all those "freeloaders" who refuse to buy their fair share of insurance.



You still don't understand how it works.


----------



## dblack (Jan 16, 2016)

Arianrhod said:


> dblack said:
> 
> 
> > The main thing is to go after all those "freeloaders" who refuse to buy their fair share of insurance.
> ...



How does it work?


----------



## Arianrhod (Jan 16, 2016)

dblack said:


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



See?


----------



## dblack (Jan 16, 2016)

Arianrhod said:


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


See what? What am I missing? I thought the point of the mandate was to address the free rider problem. What am I missing?


----------



## Arianrhod (Jan 16, 2016)

dblack said:


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



Do you have evidence that those who've chosen the mandate are not paying it?


----------



## Stephanie (Jan 16, 2016)

here the LATEST wonderful news for this YEAR and next year the FINE goes up even more. now who is this hurting the most? OUR CHILDREN just going out starting their lives.  

SNIP:
snip;
With less than three weeks of open enrollment left, Covered California is working to highlight increased penalties for not having health insurance this year.

Since its individual coverage requirement took effect in 2014, Obamacare has doled out increasingly expensive fines to people who do not purchase coverage through health exchanges or obtain insurance from an employer or a government program such as Medicare. This year brings the highest penalty yet, Peter Lee, Covered California’s executive director, said during a news conference Wednesday.


*“This is real money going straight to the IRS, where the consumer gets nothing in return,” Lee said.*


This year, the penalty is $695 per adult and $347 per child up to a family cap of $2,500 or 2.5 percent of household income, whichever is greater. Last year’s penalty was $325 for adults, with a $975 maximum or 2 percent of household income.


For some consumers, getting an exchange policy is a no-brainer. People in lower income brackets can qualify for* significant government subsidies that help pay monthly premiums,* and many in those categories also qualify for health plans with lower out-of-pocket costs.

all of it here:
Penalties grow for not getting insurance


----------



## Stephanie (Jan 16, 2016)

THIS WILL BE NEXT; and some on here will be cheering for it. sick



*"You're 2 weeks late on your Commiecare payment! Turn him over!!"*


----------



## Arianrhod (Jan 16, 2016)

Stephanie said:


> THIS WILL BE NEXT; and some on here will be cheering for it. sick
> 
> 
> 
> *"You're 2 weeks late on your Commiecare payment! Turn him over!!"*



Stephanie, do you have health insurance?  Why don't you share your experiences instead of repeatedly posting this photo?


----------



## dblack (Jan 16, 2016)

Arianrhod said:


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



I don't know what that question means. Can you rephrase it?

I made the claim that the point of the mandate is to deal the free rider problem, and you claimed that I don't understand how it works. What were you talking about?


----------



## Arianrhod (Jan 16, 2016)

dblack said:


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



Either your questions are deliberately disingenuous, or you don't understand the basics of how insurance works.  You keep asking the same questions and no answer seems to satisfy you no matter which poster supplies it from which sources.

You're a natural-born strawman.  "See, boys and girls?  This is why it was so difficult to bring the USA into the 21st century vis-a-vis health insurance, access, cost containment, and improved outcomes just like those in the rest of the civilized world."

You've been very helpful.


----------



## dblack (Jan 16, 2016)

Arianrhod said:


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



So... you got nuthin'. You say I don't know how it works, you don't even really mean it. You just say it reflexively, just as an empty retort. The fact is, I know a good deal more about "how it works" than you do. You've proven that repeatedly in thread after thread of idiotic claims and irrational arguments.

But go ahead, strike a pose! It's amusing, at the very least.


----------



## Arianrhod (Jan 16, 2016)

dblack said:


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



Keep asking the same questions again and again and again, though.  You at least put more thought into them than EddieBCrazy or Stephanie or Kosh.


----------



## dblack (Jan 16, 2016)

Arianrhod said:


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



And you keep dodging them. Ostrich much?


----------



## Arianrhod (Jan 16, 2016)

dblack said:


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



Go back and reread every answer I've given to every one of your questions.

Or just have the last word.  That seems to be more important to you.


----------



## dblack (Jan 16, 2016)

Arianrhod said:


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



Not really. I usually let you have it, because you usually prove yourself wrong with your own comments. You don't answer questions - not those that point out aspects of your political philosophy that you don't want to face. I was clearly mocking the premise of ACA in this thread, yet you couldn't really come up with any principled objections to the outrageous proposals I was making. Doesn't that bother you?

Doesn't it bother you that the same argument that justifies the individual mandate can be used to justify levying tax penalties against anyone who doesn't "measure up"? Doesn't it bother you that the policy you're selling here is fundamentally authoritarian?


----------



## Arianrhod (Jan 16, 2016)

dblack said:


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


----------



## Bern80 (Jan 18, 2016)

dblack said:


> JGalt said:
> 
> 
> > dblack said:
> ...



Perhaps that is what we should be focusing on. That is the reason Obamacare is a failure. It does not address the actual cost of services. All it said was lets get every body insured and let's throw some real wrenches into the equation so we make sure even that doesn't work.


----------



## Arianrhod (Jan 18, 2016)

How many of you would be willing to pay <$500 a year to ditch all the insurance companies?  No premiums, no deductibles, complete coverage for all essential services and treatments, and a manageable co-pay for nonessentials.  Anyone?


----------



## Bern80 (Jan 18, 2016)

Arianrhod said:


> How many of you would be willing to pay <$500 a year to ditch all the insurance companies?  No premiums, no deductibles, complete coverage for all essential services and treatments, and a manageable co-pay for nonessentials.  Anyone?



I don't have a problem with insurance companies per se. I just think we have horribly screwed up system in terms of how insurance is handled with health care. I've said before it should be treated more like auto insurance. With Health insurance the people who have insurance use it for pretty much every health service they use. If we went to a pay for service model where services were affordable enough that insurance only needed to be used for catastrophic issues, you would see the cost of services go down. Then people could choose what exactly they want their insurance to cover. Instead Obamacare makes insurance companies cover everything under the sun. I guess the dems somehow thought when you add value to a product the cost of it stays the same or goes down.


----------



## Arianrhod (Jan 18, 2016)

Bern80 said:


> Arianrhod said:
> 
> 
> > How many of you would be willing to pay <$500 a year to ditch all the insurance companies?  No premiums, no deductibles, complete coverage for all essential services and treatments, and a manageable co-pay for nonessentials.  Anyone?
> ...



Greenbeard and others have posted data indicating that hospital costs are going down.  The big problem, of course, is drug costs, and exerting downward pressure on those will be more complicated, given the influence of pharma lobbyists in Congress and the collusion between pharma companies and insurers.

But if the insurers start exerting pressure, will they outweigh the lobbyists?


----------



## dblack (Jan 18, 2016)

Arianrhod said:


> Bern80 said:
> 
> 
> > Arianrhod said:
> ...



No.


----------



## dblack (Jan 18, 2016)

Arianrhod said:


> How many of you would be willing to pay <$500 a year to ditch all the insurance companies?  No premiums, no deductibles, complete coverage for all essential services and treatments, and a manageable co-pay for nonessentials.  Anyone?



The first one is always free ...


----------



## Arianrhod (Jan 18, 2016)

dblack said:


> Arianrhod said:
> 
> 
> > Bern80 said:
> ...



And you know this because -?


----------



## dblack (Jan 18, 2016)

Arianrhod said:


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



Because insurance companies have always had incentives to cut costs by exerting pressure on health care suppliers. Now that they have mandated customers, they have less.


----------



## Bern80 (Jan 18, 2016)

Arianrhod said:


> Bern80 said:
> 
> 
> > Arianrhod said:
> ...



That will be a challenge for sure. One reason drug costs are so high, is because we (America) do the bulk of the work in developing them, which is not cheap. Developing them takes years of research and investment. Years in which they of course aren't seeing a return or revenue being generated by the drug you're working on.


----------



## Arianrhod (Jan 18, 2016)

Bern80 said:


> Arianrhod said:
> 
> 
> > Bern80 said:
> ...



That's certainly true for the major pharma companies' R&D, but much of the cutting-edge research is being done by small biotech companies buying "orphan" molecules from the big companies and showing amazing returns.

You'd think Big Pharma would be able to sell enough Viagra to support R&D on more life-saving drugs.

Then there's the burden of advertising.  If your competitor is making splashy commercials ("Ask your doctor if X is right for you"), you've got to do the same.  That's a big chunk of change.  But maybe as the computer-phobic generation dies out more ad buys will switch to the Internet and even DTC texting.  That would be cheaper.


----------



## Bern80 (Jan 18, 2016)

Arianrhod said:


> Bern80 said:
> 
> 
> > Arianrhod said:
> ...



Like I said. A challenge. I don't know how you work around those issues.


----------



## Arianrhod (Jan 18, 2016)

Bern80 said:


> Arianrhod said:
> 
> 
> > Bern80 said:
> ...



I'd count on the insurers to cover their asses by pressuring the pharma companies into lowering their prices.  That's why we saw the mildly hysterical rush to raise prices at the start of the year.  Now, traditionally they do that every January, but not with quite the sense of panic they evidenced this year.  This suggests they're seeing the handwriting on the wall.

If I were a pharma lobbyist, I'd be polishing my résumé.


----------



## KissMy (Jan 24, 2016)

Repubtards regulations stalled & prevented most drug approvals. They prefer expensive police state that kills it's citizens!


----------



## Care4all (Jan 24, 2016)

Bern80 said:


> Arianrhod said:
> 
> 
> > How many of you would be willing to pay <$500 a year to ditch all the insurance companies?  No premiums, no deductibles, complete coverage for all essential services and treatments, and a manageable co-pay for nonessentials.  Anyone?
> ...


Isn't that what the high deductibles do?

It makes insurance more of a catastrophic policy, because we have to pay for the every day medical care stuff with these higher deductible amounts before the insurance companies begin paying?


----------



## Greenbeard (Jan 29, 2016)

Care4all said:


> Bern80 said:
> 
> 
> > Arianrhod said:
> ...



This is a good question. Are people overusing their overgenerous insurance or underusing their overly skimpy insurance? Both arguments are being made.


----------



## dblack (Jan 29, 2016)

Care4all said:


> Bern80 said:
> 
> 
> > Arianrhod said:
> ...



That's what they're supposed to do. But the idea also includes such policies costing much less. Since these policies cost the insurance companies far less in terms of claims they traditionally charged much less for them. Before ACA you could get a $5000 deductible policy for less than $100/mo - I know, I had one. But now, with guaranteed issue, insurance companies are using that savings to pay for the previously uninsurable. 

That's what people are complaining about. It's not that catastrophic plans are bad - I think they're the only sane way to use insurance - but they now cost as much as the low deductible plans did before ACA. From the consumer's point of view, they're simply paying more for less.


----------



## Sun Devil 92 (Jan 30, 2016)

dblack said:


> Care4all said:
> 
> 
> > Bern80 said:
> ...



Yep.

I had one for one of my daughters too.

But it was a "junk plan".  Of course, it only became a "junk plan" when they had to respond to the fact that they were taking them away.  There was never any discussion prior.  The lying bastards.

Now, they are more expensive, unless you can qualify for "subsidies" which means you toss your dignity aside and crawl to the government asking for help where you didn't need it before.

Unbelievable.


----------



## Sun Devil 92 (Jan 30, 2016)

BTW dblack 

Thanks for the laugh.....At first, I thought you were drunk......

Fun thread.


----------



## Sun Devil 92 (Feb 9, 2016)

The following came from a blog post that I thought was funny (but sad too).

The blog title was: The ACA can suck it

The post said:

That is all.

Well, no, not really.

I just got a denial letter in the mail today from a "real" private insurance plan due to preexisting conditions. 

So I went to the pcip site to try to enroll in the new pre-existing conditions plans, only to discover that I can't.

Why not, you ask? Because, in an attempt to be responsible, I've spent the last 9 months on a short term (month to month) catastrophic plan. And in order to be eligible for the new pre-existing conditions plans created under the ACA, you have to be COMPLETELY without insurance for the last six months.

So apparently the gov'ts great plan to fix the health care crisis was to make people go six months with absolutely no health insurance coverage before offering them coverage.

Genius.

#fucktheACA

Read more: The ACA can suck it. | GBCN


----------



## Arianrhod (Feb 9, 2016)

Sun Devil 92 said:


> The following came from a blog post that I thought was funny (but sad too).
> 
> The blog title was: The ACA can suck it
> 
> ...



Your blog post is dated October 10, *2012*.

The PPACA went into full effect on January 1, *2014*.


----------



## Sun Devil 92 (Feb 9, 2016)




----------



## Stephanie (Feb 9, 2016)

so much BS propaganda it's sad. anyway the majority of the people knows its a failure. that's why they took away control of the congress from the Democrats RIGHT after they passed this off on our backs


----------



## Sun Devil 92 (Feb 9, 2016)

Stephanie said:


> so much BS propaganda it's sad. anyway the majority of the people knows its a failure. that's why they took away control of the congress from the Democrats RIGHT after they passed this off on our backs



No real definition of the issue is the way I see it.

The ignorance of those claiming insurance is now "more affordable" is depressing.

It is now more affordable for some and just as unaffordable for others (for whom it might have been affordable before).

Nobody can really define what we set out to accomplish with this mess.


----------



## Arianrhod (Feb 9, 2016)

Stephanie said:


> so much BS propaganda it's sad. anyway the majority of the people knows its a failure.



That's why you're going to show us the stats to prove that, right?


----------



## Sun Devil 92 (Feb 10, 2016)

Stephanie said:


> so much BS propaganda it's sad. anyway the majority of the people knows its a failure. that's why they took away control of the congress from the Democrats RIGHT after they passed this off on our backs



What is failure to you.  Something measurable.

I ask everyone else and I get all kinds of crazy answers.


----------



## Sun Devil 92 (Feb 25, 2016)

dblack said:


> Go team! .... and they say the economy isn't in recovery!
> 
> 
> 
> ...



A bump for the information that tells us that our pols are to stupid to know better or have integrity that must be measured in angstroms.

For Jake and other morons: Ångström - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


----------



## Conservative65 (Mar 4, 2016)

dblack said:


> ACA is good for America.



In what way?  If you truly cared for those that didn't have coverage as much as you say, what you believe needed to be done could have been done without the government playing any role.


----------



## Conservative65 (Mar 4, 2016)

dblack said:


> Sonny Clark said:
> 
> 
> > dblack said:
> ...



We did?  No, those of you that believed someone without coverage could have done something and the government need not be involved.  All it took is for those like you find someone that couldn't provide coverage and pay their premiums entirely from your own pockets.


----------



## Arianrhod (Mar 4, 2016)

Conservative65 said:


> dblack said:
> 
> 
> > Sonny Clark said:
> ...



This is an object lesson in why it's smart to read the entire thread before you jump in at the end.  Had you done so, you'd realize dblack was being sarcastic (though the overuse of exclamation points might have been a hint).


----------



## Conservative65 (Mar 4, 2016)

Arianrhod said:


> Conservative65 said:
> 
> 
> > dblack said:
> ...



Here's a lesson.  The post to which I responded didn't have any "!".  If you were smart you would have seen that by having read through the entire thread.


----------



## Arianrhod (Mar 4, 2016)

Conservative65 said:


> Arianrhod said:
> 
> 
> > Conservative65 said:
> ...



So you did realize dblack was being sarcastic, and that you were disagreeing with someone who agrees with you?

Okay.


----------



## Sun Devil 92 (Mar 5, 2016)




----------



## Sun Devil 92 (May 20, 2016)

dblack said:


> Go team! .... and they say the economy isn't in recovery!
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Thought we could pull this one back up......

It's happening.


----------



## Arianrhod (May 20, 2016)

Sun Devil 92 said:


> dblack said:
> 
> 
> > Go team! .... and they say the economy isn't in recovery!
> ...



Wow, a corporate buy-out!  Like that's never happened before.

Over 90% of Americans have health insurance despite all the off-camera maneuvering.

Is Trump still touting single-payer?  None of his acolytes seem to know.


----------



## Sun Devil 92 (May 20, 2016)

Conservative65 said:


> dblack said:
> 
> 
> > ACA is good for America.
> ...



Just so you know...this a was a punk job.

He no more believes that than anyone believes Hillary is interested in you as an individual.

Or Trump.....


----------



## Sun Devil 92 (Oct 14, 2016)

dblack said:


> Go team! .... and they say the economy isn't in recovery!
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Just wanting to keep this one rolling.

They make money....end of discussion.


----------



## Arianrhod (Oct 14, 2016)

Sun Devil 92 said:


> dblack said:
> 
> 
> > Go team! .... and they say the economy isn't in recovery!
> ...



Not the end of the discussion as long as you keep playing both sides of the issue.  Some of us on the left pointed that out weeks ago. Let's see you explain to your RW apologists how "duh poor widdle insurance companies are hemorrhaging* money - WAAAAAHHHH!" that they aren't.  Really.

No?  Didn't think so.

*Though I doubt most of them can spell "hemorrhaging" even with a spellchecker.


----------



## Sun Devil 92 (Oct 14, 2016)

dblack said:


> ACA is good for America.



You bet.

If you spell America "Aetna".


----------

