Simple, honest question on the ACA

[nat4900]

One thing that might be helpful is a low-cost CATASTROPHIC ONLY plan? But then the Insurance Company cry "not enough revenue"? Very complicated?

True....Obama's greatest mistake in passing something that would place him in the history books, is to cave in to the health care providers' demands to elicit their support.
Want to know why we can't have what the rest of the civilized world already has regarding health care? Look below who warrants such high salaries and will NOT allow for health care to be cheaper and better:

Leonard S. Schleifer, Regeneron Pharmaceuticals (Tarrytown, N.Y.) — $47.46 million
Jeffrey M. Leiden, Vertex Pharmaceuticals (Boston) — $28.09 million
Larry J. Merlo, CVS Health (Woonsocket, R.I.) — $22.86 million
Robert J. Hugin, Celgene (Summit, N.J.) — $22.47 million
Alex Gorsky, Johnson & Johnson (New Brunswick, N.J.) — $21.13 million
Michael F. Neidorff, Centene (St. Louis) — $20.76 million
Alan B. Miller, Universal Health Services (King of Prussia, Pa.) — $20.43 million
Kenneth C. Frazier, Merck & Co. (Kenilworth, N.J.) — $19.89 million
Miles D. White, Abbott Laboratories (Chicago) — $19.41 million
John C. Martin, Gilead Sciences (Foster City, Calif.) — $18.76
Richard A. Gonzalez, AbbVie (North Chicago, Ill.) — $18.53 million
Heather Bresch, Mylan (Canonsburg, Pa.) — $18.16 million
David M. Cordani, Cigna (Bloomfield, Conn.) — $17.31 million
Mark T. Bertolini, Aetna (Hartford, Conn.) — $17.26
George A. Scangos, Biogen (Cambridge, Mass.) — $16.87 million
Robert L. Parkinson, Baxter International (Deerfield, Ill.) — $16.65 million
John C. Lechleiter, Eli Lilly & Co. (Indianapolis) — $16.56 million
Marc N. Casper, Thermo Fisher Scientific (Waltham, Mass.) — $16.31 million
Robert A. Bradway, Amgen (Thousand Oaks, Calif.) — $16.09 million
George Paz, Express Scripts Holding (St. Louis) — $14.84 million

 

[nat4900]

The entire Health Insurance Industry is losing their asses on the ACA.

As I responded to someone else.....take a look at how the health care industry is "losing their asses on the ACA".............

Leonard S. Schleifer, Regeneron Pharmaceuticals (Tarrytown, N.Y.) — $47.46 million
Jeffrey M. Leiden, Vertex Pharmaceuticals (Boston) — $28.09 million
Larry J. Merlo, CVS Health (Woonsocket, R.I.) — $22.86 million
Robert J. Hugin, Celgene (Summit, N.J.) — $22.47 million
Alex Gorsky, Johnson & Johnson (New Brunswick, N.J.) — $21.13 million
Michael F. Neidorff, Centene (St. Louis) — $20.76 million
Alan B. Miller, Universal Health Services (King of Prussia, Pa.) — $20.43 million
Kenneth C. Frazier, Merck & Co. (Kenilworth, N.J.) — $19.89 million
Miles D. White, Abbott Laboratories (Chicago) — $19.41 million
John C. Martin, Gilead Sciences (Foster City, Calif.) — $18.76
Richard A. Gonzalez, AbbVie (North Chicago, Ill.) — $18.53 million
Heather Bresch, Mylan (Canonsburg, Pa.) — $18.16 million
David M. Cordani, Cigna (Bloomfield, Conn.) — $17.31 million
Mark T. Bertolini, Aetna (Hartford, Conn.) — $17.26
George A. Scangos, Biogen (Cambridge, Mass.) — $16.87 million
Robert L. Parkinson, Baxter International (Deerfield, Ill.) — $16.65 million
John C. Lechleiter, Eli Lilly & Co. (Indianapolis) — $16.56 million
Marc N. Casper, Thermo Fisher Scientific (Waltham, Mass.) — $16.31 million
Robert A. Bradway, Amgen (Thousand Oaks, Calif.) — $16.09 million
George Paz, Express Scripts Holding (St. Louis) — $14.84 million

 

[nat4900]

95% of those didn't get on the ACA, they got on Medicaid and MOST of the other 5% were people who lost their jobs OR lost their Health Insurance at work BECAUSE of obamacare

FACT

After that "fact", don't forget to wipe, flush and wash your hands.

 

[leftwinger]

Single: $50K. Silicon Valley. Tried GOLD plan. ouch. note: there are more plans below. Cheaper down to $500 with $6300 deductible. CRAP! i left bronze checked also! you get the point.

min coverage does not work? HSA only works with BRONZE.

 

[nat4900]

In Which Sectors Do CEOs Make The Most (Or Least)?
In 2015, executives in the healthcare, basic materials and industrial goods sectors had the highest median compensation. Those in utilities, services and technology had the lowest.

• Cigna CEO David Cordani: $17.3 million. Cordani's total compensation rose considerably compared to 2014, when he pulled in $14.5 million. ...
• Aetna CEO Mark Bertolini: $17.3 million. ...
• UnitedHealth CEO Stephen Hemsley: $14.5 million. ...
• Anthem CEO Joseph Swedish: $13.6 million. ...
• Humana CEO Bruce Broussard: $10.3 million.

Total CEO compensation included base salary, bonus, perks, stock awards, stock option awards, deferred compensation and other types of pay, benefits and perks.

 

[Crixus]

Because it don't work.

Tell the above to the 23 MILLION people who have gotten health insurance because of the ACA.....and then get back to us.

Give me their phone numbers.

 

[imawhosure]

The entire Health Insurance Industry is losing their asses on the ACA.

As I responded to someone else.....take a look at how the health care industry is "losing their asses on the ACA".............

Leonard S. Schleifer, Regeneron Pharmaceuticals (Tarrytown, N.Y.) — $47.46 million
Jeffrey M. Leiden, Vertex Pharmaceuticals (Boston) — $28.09 million
Larry J. Merlo, CVS Health (Woonsocket, R.I.) — $22.86 million
Robert J. Hugin, Celgene (Summit, N.J.) — $22.47 million
Alex Gorsky, Johnson & Johnson (New Brunswick, N.J.) — $21.13 million
Michael F. Neidorff, Centene (St. Louis) — $20.76 million
Alan B. Miller, Universal Health Services (King of Prussia, Pa.) — $20.43 million
Kenneth C. Frazier, Merck & Co. (Kenilworth, N.J.) — $19.89 million
Miles D. White, Abbott Laboratories (Chicago) — $19.41 million
John C. Martin, Gilead Sciences (Foster City, Calif.) — $18.76
Richard A. Gonzalez, AbbVie (North Chicago, Ill.) — $18.53 million
Heather Bresch, Mylan (Canonsburg, Pa.) — $18.16 million
David M. Cordani, Cigna (Bloomfield, Conn.) — $17.31 million
Mark T. Bertolini, Aetna (Hartford, Conn.) — $17.26
George A. Scangos, Biogen (Cambridge, Mass.) — $16.87 million
Robert L. Parkinson, Baxter International (Deerfield, Ill.) — $16.65 million
John C. Lechleiter, Eli Lilly & Co. (Indianapolis) — $16.56 million
Marc N. Casper, Thermo Fisher Scientific (Waltham, Mass.) — $16.31 million
Robert A. Bradway, Amgen (Thousand Oaks, Calif.) — $16.09 million
George Paz, Express Scripts Holding (St. Louis) — $14.84 million

Nat, I have a different take-----------> Ocare is a disaster, but the Republicans are not going to repeal and replace it. If they do, it will be Ocare II. There is no way, let me tell my conservative friends that again....NO WAY, that the government can mandate that insurance company's can not have caps on outlays, must cover ALL pre existing conditions 5 minutes after you sign for insurance, and lower costs. Can NOT happen.

The only way they can cover pre existing conditions is by MANDATE that everyone has to sign up for insurance, otherwise nobody will until they need it, and we are right back where we started. Also................the only way there can not be caps is if you purchase cap free insurance, and don't have a preexisting condition. Politically, nobody is going to admit that. If the insurance companies were making money now, there would be multiple insurance companies fighting for the Ocare purchasers. There isn't!

So, in the end, the Repubs are talking out the side of their mouth, they really, really, are. They will NOT repeal Ocare, they are going to have to fix it, period. Oh sure, they will pretend, but it isn't going to happen. How do we know this? Because if they REPEAL Ocare even with a replacement and it fails like Ocare did, they are done, period, over. They NEED Dems to take the chance along with them, to spread the possible blame, and the possible thanks. Now I grant you...........the Repubs could do NOTHING at all, and Ocare will collapse on itself. It was designed to do that Nat, because the original intention was to get everyone on board, and then get single payer when Ocare ran into problems. Thing is, Hilly didn't get elected, and the Repubs don't want to do it as it is against their philosophy. This puts the Repubs in a very bad position. Their constituents want it repealed, and there is no replacement that is sure to work, because if there was, the Dems would have put it in when Ocare was designed. All Ocare was in reality was a bridge to single payer, and I am here to tell you, the only thing that can be done is either share the blame and fix it, go to single payer, or just go back to the way it was before Ocare. None of those are good options, so I am interested to see how this is going to be handled by both sides politically!

 

[Crixus]

Because it don't work.

Tell the above to the 23 MILLION people who have gotten health insurance because of the ACA.....and then get back to us.

95% of those didn't get on the ACA, they got on Medicaid and MOST of the other 5% were people who lost their jobs OR lost their Health Insurance at work BECAUSE of obamacare

FACT

Those don't count in politics.

 

[Edgetho]

In Which Sectors Do CEOs Make The Most (Or Least)?
In 2015, executives in the healthcare, basic materials and industrial goods sectors had the highest median compensation. Those in utilities, services and technology had the lowest.

• Cigna CEO David Cordani: $17.3 million. Cordani's total compensation rose considerably compared to 2014, when he pulled in $14.5 million. ...
• Aetna CEO Mark Bertolini: $17.3 million. ...
• UnitedHealth CEO Stephen Hemsley: $14.5 million. ...
• Anthem CEO Joseph Swedish: $13.6 million. ...
• Humana CEO Bruce Broussard: $10.3 million.

Total CEO compensation included base salary, bonus, perks, stock awards, stock option awards, deferred compensation and other types of pay, benefits and perks.

What the FUCK does that have to do with the price of pussy in Peking, you sniveling little bitch????

You just can't talk to dimocraps.

 

[Sun Devil 92]

Because it don't work.

Tell the above to the 23 MILLION people who have gotten health insurance because of the ACA.....and then get back to us.

Having insurance and getting health care does not equate.

 

[nat4900]

It was designed to do that Nat, because the original intention was to get everyone on board, and then get single payer when Ocare ran into problems. Thing is, Hilly didn't get elected, and the Repubs don't want to do it as it is against their philosophy. This puts the Repubs in a very bad position. Their constituents want it repealed, and there is no replacement that is sure to work, because if there was, the Dems would have put it in when Ocare was designed. All Ocare was in reality was a bridge to single payer, and I am here to tell you, the only thing that can be done is either share the blame and fix it, go to single payer, or just go back to the way it was before Ocare. None of those are good options, so I am interested to see how this is going to be handled by both sides politically!

Well stated and very true......i too am anxious to see how this all plays out.

 

[Sun Devil 92]

ACA made inexpensive health insurance illegal.

 

[nat4900]

What the FUCK does that have to do with the price of pussy in Peking, you sniveling little bitch????

You just can't talk to dimocraps.

if your other half of the brain was functioning, you too would see that health care costs CANNOT be brought back to sanity if the CEOs within the health care industries continue to reap millions in compensation.....

 

[Slade3200]

We all know that the ACA (conveniently called with derision, Obamacare by republicans) NEEDS major improvements, while maintaining the "good" parts of what the ACT has successfully addressed.

Now, for more than five long years, elected GOPers have opposed any bipartisan attempts to improve the health law because improvements may have benefited both common Americans AND the democrats' party.......

So much for the "honest" question. I guess we couldn't expect any more from the usual liberal losers.

Keeping the "good" parts of Obamacare is like painting the superstructure of the Titanic as the deck slips under the waves.

The whole scheme amounted to forcing everybody out of their insurance and into a fantastically expensive medical-payment plan that almost no one would have chosen voluntarily, and then transferring ever more wealth from high earners to low earners to bribe them into voting for the people who came up with it.

The scheme would never work, for the straightforward reason that the liberals ran out of "Other People's Money" in record time for this program. It was so expensive that the liberals had to impose huge deductibles on the people they were trying to bribe, thus showing them just how worthless the program was and convincing them to vote against liberals.

I'm self employed and have always paid for my own health insurance. I didn't have to change a thing during the whole ACA transition. Kept my same plan and haven't noticed a significant change in rates. I know others have have had problems and others have gotten insurance as a result, but you are not being accurate when you say "The whole scheme amounted to forcing everybody out of their insurance and into a fantastically expensive medical-payment plan"

You were not paying attention or just lucky.

I am the only one on my insurance plan, yet I am forced to pay for coverage in case I ever get pregnant. As a 56 year-old man, I think that is highly unlikely.

The whole point of insurance is that some people pay for medical needs of others that they will never use. That is what Insurance is. If not then there would be no need for insurance and we would just pay for what we use.

 

[bripat9643]

We all know that the ACA (conveniently called with derision, Obamacare by republicans) NEEDS major improvements, while maintaining the "good" parts of what the ACT has successfully addressed.

Now, for more than five long years, elected GOPers have opposed any bipartisan attempts to improve the health law because improvements may have benefited both common Americans AND the democrats' party.......

So, give us a good and valid reason why current democrats in congress should now help republicans pass the same exact and needed improvements (of course, beside the real fact of being less partisan than their right wing colleagues)???

No, we don't need that, and Republicans don't need Democrats to repeal Obamacare.

 

[bripat9643]

What the FUCK does that have to do with the price of pussy in Peking, you sniveling little bitch????

You just can't talk to dimocraps.

if your other half of the brain was functioning, you too would see that health care costs CANNOT be brought back to sanity if the CEOs within the health care industries continue to reap millions in compensation.....

CEO compensation is like 0.1% of total revenues, so that claim is total bullshit. Envy is the real motive for turds like you insisting on limitations for CEO compensation.

 

[bripat9643]

We all know that the ACA (conveniently called with derision, Obamacare by republicans) NEEDS major improvements, while maintaining the "good" parts of what the ACT has successfully addressed.

Now, for more than five long years, elected GOPers have opposed any bipartisan attempts to improve the health law because improvements may have benefited both common Americans AND the democrats' party.......

So much for the "honest" question. I guess we couldn't expect any more from the usual liberal losers.

Keeping the "good" parts of Obamacare is like painting the superstructure of the Titanic as the deck slips under the waves.

The whole scheme amounted to forcing everybody out of their insurance and into a fantastically expensive medical-payment plan that almost no one would have chosen voluntarily, and then transferring ever more wealth from high earners to low earners to bribe them into voting for the people who came up with it.

The scheme would never work, for the straightforward reason that the liberals ran out of "Other People's Money" in record time for this program. It was so expensive that the liberals had to impose huge deductibles on the people they were trying to bribe, thus showing them just how worthless the program was and convincing them to vote against liberals.

I'm self employed and have always paid for my own health insurance. I didn't have to change a thing during the whole ACA transition. Kept my same plan and haven't noticed a significant change in rates. I know others have have had problems and others have gotten insurance as a result, but you are not being accurate when you say "The whole scheme amounted to forcing everybody out of their insurance and into a fantastically expensive medical-payment plan"

You were not paying attention or just lucky.

I am the only one on my insurance plan, yet I am forced to pay for coverage in case I ever get pregnant. As a 56 year-old man, I think that is highly unlikely.

The whole point of insurance is that some people pay for medical needs of others that they will never use. That is what Insurance is. If not then there would be no need for insurance and we would just pay for what we use.

Insurance isn't supposed to pay for stuff you will never need. I don't have hang gliding insurance because I never go hang gliding. If you don't own a car, you don't buy auto insurance.

Your understanding of insurance is seriously flawed.

 

[bripat9643]

---------------------------------------- Defiant said it first and for me the only thing i care about is the mandate that allows YOU people to extort me of my money Nat !!

You AND Defiant don't seem to have a real understanding of how any insurance system MUST work.

In the same way that most of us would only choose to buy car insurance AFTER a car accident, without the mandate to have young, healthy people also be responsible to purchase health insurance, would not have had insurance companies comply with the most important facet of the ACA; that is, to provide insurance to people with previous adverse health conditions.

In other words, it's a scheme to rob the young for the benefit of the elderly.

One of the central features of real insurance is that it's voluntary. If the government forces you to pay for it, then it's welfare.

 

[pismoe]

We all know that the ACA (conveniently called with derision, Obamacare by republicans) NEEDS major improvements, while maintaining the "good" parts of what the ACT has successfully addressed.

Now, for more than five long years, elected GOPers have opposed any bipartisan attempts to improve the health law because improvements may have benefited both common Americans AND the democrats' party.......

So much for the "honest" question. I guess we couldn't expect any more from the usual liberal losers.

Keeping the "good" parts of Obamacare is like painting the superstructure of the Titanic as the deck slips under the waves.

The whole scheme amounted to forcing everybody out of their insurance and into a fantastically expensive medical-payment plan that almost no one would have chosen voluntarily, and then transferring ever more wealth from high earners to low earners to bribe them into voting for the people who came up with it.

The scheme would never work, for the straightforward reason that the liberals ran out of "Other People's Money" in record time for this program. It was so expensive that the liberals had to impose huge deductibles on the people they were trying to bribe, thus showing them just how worthless the program was and convincing them to vote against liberals.

I'm self employed and have always paid for my own health insurance. I didn't have to change a thing during the whole ACA transition. Kept my same plan and haven't noticed a significant change in rates. I know others have have had problems and others have gotten insurance as a result, but you are not being accurate when you say "The whole scheme amounted to forcing everybody out of their insurance and into a fantastically expensive medical-payment plan"

You were not paying attention or just lucky.

I am the only one on my insurance plan, yet I am forced to pay for coverage in case I ever get pregnant. As a 56 year-old man, I think that is highly unlikely.

The whole point of insurance is that some people pay for medical needs of others that they will never use. That is what Insurance is. If not then there would be no need for insurance and we would just pay for what we use.

Insurance isn't supposed to pay for stuff you will never need. I don't have hang gliding insurance because I never go hang gliding. If you don't own a car, you don't buy auto insurance.

Your understanding of insurance is seriously flawed.

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ thing is , if you don't want to buy car insurance don't buy a car to drive on public roads . Mandate to buy health insurance is just a way for gov to get its hooks in you .

 

[Slade3200]

We all know that the ACA (conveniently called with derision, Obamacare by republicans) NEEDS major improvements, while maintaining the "good" parts of what the ACT has successfully addressed.

Now, for more than five long years, elected GOPers have opposed any bipartisan attempts to improve the health law because improvements may have benefited both common Americans AND the democrats' party.......

So much for the "honest" question. I guess we couldn't expect any more from the usual liberal losers.

Keeping the "good" parts of Obamacare is like painting the superstructure of the Titanic as the deck slips under the waves.

The whole scheme amounted to forcing everybody out of their insurance and into a fantastically expensive medical-payment plan that almost no one would have chosen voluntarily, and then transferring ever more wealth from high earners to low earners to bribe them into voting for the people who came up with it.

The scheme would never work, for the straightforward reason that the liberals ran out of "Other People's Money" in record time for this program. It was so expensive that the liberals had to impose huge deductibles on the people they were trying to bribe, thus showing them just how worthless the program was and convincing them to vote against liberals.

I'm self employed and have always paid for my own health insurance. I didn't have to change a thing during the whole ACA transition. Kept my same plan and haven't noticed a significant change in rates. I know others have have had problems and others have gotten insurance as a result, but you are not being accurate when you say "The whole scheme amounted to forcing everybody out of their insurance and into a fantastically expensive medical-payment plan"

You were not paying attention or just lucky.

I am the only one on my insurance plan, yet I am forced to pay for coverage in case I ever get pregnant. As a 56 year-old man, I think that is highly unlikely.

The whole point of insurance is that some people pay for medical needs of others that they will never use. That is what Insurance is. If not then there would be no need for insurance and we would just pay for what we use.

Insurance isn't supposed to pay for stuff you will never need. I don't have hang gliding insurance because I never go hang gliding. If you don't own a car, you don't buy auto insurance.

Your understanding of insurance is seriously flawed.

Ok buddy, whatever you say... Except we aren't talking about hang gliding we are talking about health care and at somepoint everybody uses health care. They get old, sick or in an accident... Regardless of which insurance we are talking about my original statement is true. Take Auto Insurance. The only way the insurance companies can pay for the people who get in accidents is because there are many more people that pay into the insurance that never have and never will get in an accident.