Fewer doctors take Medicare

Translation: I'm talking out of my ass and slinging bullshit.

Still no links from you to support anything you say. The 1st page of your playbook must read in big bold letters: "UNDER NO CIRCUMSTANCE SHOULD YOU EVER PROVIDE A LINK OR SOURCE OF INFORMATION FOR ANYTHING YOU CLAIM"

Dude, you made an assertion and I asked you to back it up. You have yet to do so. Don't project your own stupidity.

Actually, YOU made the assertion that the ACA reduces the number people on private insurance without providing proof of that assertion. I was responding to that. Your memory is shitty. But you're insane so you have that excuse.

Whoops!
 
Still no links from you to support anything you say. The 1st page of your playbook must read in big bold letters: "UNDER NO CIRCUMSTANCE SHOULD YOU EVER PROVIDE A LINK OR SOURCE OF INFORMATION FOR ANYTHING YOU CLAIM"

Dude, you made an assertion and I asked you to back it up. You have yet to do so. Don't project your own stupidity.

Actually, YOU made the assertion that the ACA reduces the number people on private insurance without providing proof of that assertion. I was responding to that. Your memory is shitty. But you're insane so you have that excuse.

Whoops!
Here is your post #57, your first post in this thread.
If Obamacare puts more people on to private insurance, how exactly does anything that happens with Medicare become a "preview of coming attractions for Obamacare" ?

I know you won't answer, but I just wanted to highlight once again how clueless you are.

So I asked you for proof. ANd you deflected. And continue to do so.
Oops.
 
Dude, you made an assertion and I asked you to back it up. You have yet to do so. Don't project your own stupidity.

Actually, YOU made the assertion that the ACA reduces the number people on private insurance without providing proof of that assertion. I was responding to that. Your memory is shitty. But you're insane so you have that excuse.

Whoops!
Here is your post #57, your first post in this thread.
If Obamacare puts more people on to private insurance, how exactly does anything that happens with Medicare become a "preview of coming attractions for Obamacare" ?

I know you won't answer, but I just wanted to highlight once again how clueless you are.

So I asked you for proof. ANd you deflected. And continue to do so.
Oops.

Translation: I choose to ignore the evidence already provided to me so I will pretend it was never posted.
 
I suppose the fact that this trend of a fewer % of docs having admitting priviledges predates Obamacare by at least a decade is irrelvant to the thread's puropose.
 
Actually, YOU made the assertion that the ACA reduces the number people on private insurance without providing proof of that assertion. I was responding to that. Your memory is shitty. But you're insane so you have that excuse.

Whoops!
Here is your post #57, your first post in this thread.
If Obamacare puts more people on to private insurance, how exactly does anything that happens with Medicare become a "preview of coming attractions for Obamacare" ?

I know you won't answer, but I just wanted to highlight once again how clueless you are.

So I asked you for proof. ANd you deflected. And continue to do so.
Oops.

Translation: I choose to ignore the evidence already provided to me so I will pretend it was never posted.

Linking a 900 page bill is not providing evidence, dickhead.
You aren't even worth the time it would take to put you on ignore.
 
Here is your post #57, your first post in this thread.


So I asked you for proof. ANd you deflected. And continue to do so.
Oops.

Translation: I choose to ignore the evidence already provided to me so I will pretend it was never posted.

Linking a 900 page bill is not providing evidence, dickhead.
You aren't even worth the time it would take to put you on ignore.

Translation: I am lazy and choose to not read what has been provided.
 
Translation: I choose to ignore the evidence already provided to me so I will pretend it was never posted.

Linking a 900 page bill is not providing evidence, dickhead.
You aren't even worth the time it would take to put you on ignore.

Translation: I am lazy and choose to not read what has been provided.

silly-animals%5B1%5D.jpg
 
The fact is ACA is designed to all but eliminate private health insurance.

A friendly tip for you. Never, ever invest in the stock market. Just don't do it.

WellPoint’s 2nd quarter profit soars 24 pct; insurer details overhaul growth possibilities
By Associated Press, Published: July 24
INDIANAPOLIS — Shares of WellPoint Inc. hit an all-time high Wednesday, after the nation’s second-largest health insurer trounced second-quarter earnings expectations and detailed how it expects to benefit from the health care overhaul and other growth opportunities over the next few years.

The Indianapolis company’s stock had already climbed 44 percent so far this year as of Tuesday, as investors have grown more comfortable with both the insurer’s current performance and how the overhaul will affect it.

Humana posts 18% increase in profit
By Bruce Schreiner / Associated Press
Posted: July 31, 2013 - 3:00 pm ET

Humana said Wednesday its second-quarter profit rose by 18%, beating Wall Street forecasts, as the health insurer reported broad performance gains led by climbing enrollment in its Medicare Advantage and prescription drug plans.

The Louisville-based company also raised its 2013 earnings forecast, reflecting its better-than-expected performance in the three months that ended June 30. Humana said it now expects full-year earnings to range from $8.65 to $8.75 per share, up from its previous forecast of $8.40 to $8.60 per share. Analysts expect $8.57 per share, on average.

Health insurer Aetna's 2Q profit rises 17%
By Tom Murphy / Associated Press
Posted: July 30, 2013 - 5:30 pm ET

Aetna's second-quarter earnings jumped 17%, and the health insurer raised its 2013 forecast as it reaped revenue and enrollment gains from its acquisition of fellow insurer Coventry Health Care.

The Hartford, Conn., company said Tuesday that it earned $536 million, or $1.49 per share, in the three months that ended June 30. That's up from $457.6 million, or $1.32 per share, a year ago.

Adjusted earnings totaled $1.52 per share, excluding capital losses and one-time items such as costs tied to the Coventry deal.

Revenue climbed 31% to $11.56 billion, also excluding items like capital losses.

UnitedHealth Group Inc. : UnitedHealth second-quarter profit rises beyond expectations
07/18/2013 | 06:41am

(Reuters) - UnitedHealth Group Inc on Thursday reported a bigger-than-expected rise in second-quarter net income as it enrolled more people in private and government-paid health insurance plans and sold more health technology systems.
The company, the largest U.S. health insurer, reported net income of $1.44 billion (945.68 million pounds), or $1.40 per share, compared with $1.34 billion, or $1.27 per share, a year earlier.
 
Last edited:
You understand Ocare hasn't been fully implemented yet, right? And where do you think those profits come from?
Fail.
 
Medicine is not and should never be held prisoner to Licensed Doctors.

Far better to go on letting big insurance and big pharma decide who gets health care and who does not.

oh right, as long as obama tells them who and how, no matter how unworkable that may be and become....when the yngens don't sign up to inflate their customer base to offset costs, what then? Subsidize everyone right, got it....:lol:
 
You understand Ocare hasn't been fully implemented yet, right? And where do you think those profits come from?
Fail.

:lol:

You I would like to see try and invest in the stock market.

Nah, just kiddin. That's mean. Join thereisnospoon on the sidelines.

I have for over 40 years, numbnuts.
But it is nice to see that Obama is supporting the same big gynormous health insurance companies he demonized during his first term. I thought the idea was to make costs LESS for families, not line the pockets of rich insurance companies?
 
I have for over 40 years, numbnuts.
But it is nice to see that Obama is supporting the same big gynormous health insurance companies he demonized during his first term. I thought the idea was to make costs LESS for families, not line the pockets of rich insurance companies?

I suppose even three years in isn't too late to get the message: the ACA is a giant increase (tens of millions over the next decade) in private insurance coverage. Even the Medicaid expansions amount to the same, as most of Medicaid is privatized at this point.

And yes, costs go down for families, and at the same time private insurance coverage increases drastically.

Surprise! Again, folks with no idea how the world works should refrain from investing in the stock market. Stick to slogans on political forums. You won't lose any money that way!
 
I have for over 40 years, numbnuts.
But it is nice to see that Obama is supporting the same big gynormous health insurance companies he demonized during his first term. I thought the idea was to make costs LESS for families, not line the pockets of rich insurance companies?

I suppose even three years in isn't too late to get the message: the ACA is a giant increase (tens of millions over the next decade) in private insurance coverage. Even the Medicaid expansions amount to the same, as most of Medicaid is privatized at this point.

And yes, costs go down for families, and at the same time private insurance coverage increases drastically.

Surprise! Again, folks with no idea how the world works should refrain from investing in the stock market. Stick to slogans on political forums. You won't lose any money that way!

So let's see: customers will have more money and providers will have more money. Remind me how that's possible, given it is basically a zero sum game--someone has to make more by someone else making less.
Are you going for a perpetual motion machine next?
 
So let's see: customers will have more money and providers will have more money. Remind me how that's possible, given it is basically a zero sum game--someone has to make more by someone else making less.
Are you going for a perpetual motion machine next?

I didn't say providers will have more money. Ideally, their $2+ trillion share of the pie will grow a lot slower than it has in the past.

You understand that providers are physicians and hospitals (i.e. those who suck up a sixth of the economy), not the insurers who use your money to pay them. Right?
 
So let's see: customers will have more money and providers will have more money. Remind me how that's possible, given it is basically a zero sum game--someone has to make more by someone else making less.
Are you going for a perpetual motion machine next?

I didn't say providers will have more money. Ideally, their $2+ trillion share of the pie will grow a lot slower than it has in the past.

You understand that providers are physicians and hospitals (i.e. those who suck up a sixth of the economy), not the insurers who use your money to pay them. Right?

Providers of health insurance, which is the subject here. Pay attention, dummy.
 
Providers of health insurance, which is the subject here. Pay attention, dummy.

Providers of health insurance are doing just fine (despite the small contingent of idiots who think they won't exist next year). Did you miss my post?

No but you obviously missed mine where I asked how both the buyers and the sellers could end up with more money.
 
Providers of health insurance, which is the subject here. Pay attention, dummy.

Providers of health insurance are doing just fine (despite the small contingent of idiots who think they won't exist next year). Did you miss my post?

No but you obviously missed mine where I asked how both the buyers and the sellers could end up with more money.

The sellers are the actual providers of health care (insurers are payers, they pay for care on your behalf), the physicians and hospitals who take in a sixth of the GDP each year.

Jesus, do you need an overview of health econ 101?
 

Forum List

Back
Top