The glaring evidence that Obamacare is a catastrophic FAILURE continues to mount

[PMZ]

And now we have the pride button pushed, so there is no telling how much money will go down the drain before single payer will become the next move or maybe the only move left to make when all is said and done here. Trying to get Insurance carriers to do the right thing, when they were not doing so well before, is like trying to do surgery on a cow by cutting on a hamburger. The cow just walks away laughing in the end. This thing has revealed some ugly things now, and we the people should be taking notes as to all the ugly things that it has revealed to us. Then we should act in these elections more wisely. Learn and know the issues folks, but most of all know your true enemies.

I have heard a lot of different sources try to say that the total screw-up of the ACA was by design in attempts to eventually lead us to the single-payer system.

Where I think the case could and has been made for that approach ... It doesn't seem to reason with me.
If the government cannot accomplish a simple task without major problems ... Then that shouldn't really assist anyone in trusting the government's ability to tackle an even greater responsibility and task.

I wouldn't put trust in the government to do anything beneficial as far as reorganizing healthcare in America ... If they are incompetent and unable to oversee the building and security of a website ... As well as had four years to accomplish the task.
Screw-up after screw-up ... Re-enforced and passed into legislation through the outright billing as a pack of lies ... Then requirements and mandates in the legislation are thrown out when the lies are exposed and the fall apart.

How can anyone look at the utter failure of the ACA and actually think that any attempt at single-payer is worth the risk ... Unless of course you care more about votes than people?

.

Obamacare has elements of failure by design embedded in it. It is becoming clear by administration reaction that reality has surpassed the original design scope.

It has become such a clusterfarknado that people are just making stuff up as it goes along.

Republicans are just making stuff up as it goes along. Have been for four years.

 

[percysunshine]

I have heard a lot of different sources try to say that the total screw-up of the ACA was by design in attempts to eventually lead us to the single-payer system.

Where I think the case could and has been made for that approach ... It doesn't seem to reason with me.
If the government cannot accomplish a simple task without major problems ... Then that shouldn't really assist anyone in trusting the government's ability to tackle an even greater responsibility and task.

I wouldn't put trust in the government to do anything beneficial as far as reorganizing healthcare in America ... If they are incompetent and unable to oversee the building and security of a website ... As well as had four years to accomplish the task.
Screw-up after screw-up ... Re-enforced and passed into legislation through the outright billing as a pack of lies ... Then requirements and mandates in the legislation are thrown out when the lies are exposed and the fall apart.

How can anyone look at the utter failure of the ACA and actually think that any attempt at single-payer is worth the risk ... Unless of course you care more about votes than people?

.

Obamacare has elements of failure by design embedded in it. It is becoming clear by administration reaction that reality has surpassed the original design scope.

It has become such a clusterfarknado that people are just making stuff up as it goes along.

Republicans are just making stuff up as it goes along. Have been for four years.

Yeah, but Republicans are harmless surrender monkeys. They don't actually do anything.

 

[BlackSand]

"Conservatives fix problems all the time … But they can accomplish the fix by putting their own money and neck on the line"

As long as you believe that life is only about making more money than your neighbors, you are right.

Liberals view life more broadly then that. And that's why so many of the most successful business people in history are liberals. And why liberals excel in most other fields as well.

It's also why conservatives have such a God awful track record in governance. Politics requires a broad view.

Conservative means narrow, penurious, focused on not loosing, hoarding, protective, secretive, lonely, tight, Scrooge personified; liberal means broad, expansive, giving, open, winning, active, loving, curious.

Nobody is surprised that you are conservative.

So I guess you are trying to say that a Conservative making money and spending it wisely helping others ... Is worse than than a Liberal spending someone else's money foolishly and through destructive policies or legislation on utter failure.

I guess I am right and you are wrong … Again.

How Liberals view life does not equate to a pot to piss in until they do something to fix a problem.
Most successful business people in the world are successful business people and not because they are Liberal or Conservative.
Now most successful movie stars and educators are Liberals … But that is more of a case of quid pro quo.

Conservatives obviously have a bad track record in governance if a record at all … Because the whole idea of Conservatism is to take care of what you can without government … Try and keep up little one.
Politics requires a lot of unnecessary bullshit … which is primarily why it is ultimately ineffective at fixing any problem.

None of what you described is necessary to be a Conservative … And only what is necessary for you to incorrectly identify as being Conservative so you can believe it is bad thing.
That is how you excuse your inadequacies and lack of a desire to do what you can and should be doing on your own … And why you as well as Liberalism are both failures.

.

 

[PMZ]

Obamacare has elements of failure by design embedded in it. It is becoming clear by administration reaction that reality has surpassed the original design scope.

It has become such a clusterfarknado that people are just making stuff up as it goes along.

Republicans are just making stuff up as it goes along. Have been for four years.

Yeah, but Republicans are harmless surrender monkeys. They don't actually do anything.

That is certainly the observable result. Behind it though is a complex process.

When confronted with a problem, first blame others.

Then whine piteously about all potential solutions.

Vigorously apply massive doses of doing nothing.

After about a month or so of politicking, redistribute wealth up.

 

[percysunshine]

Republicans are just making stuff up as it goes along. Have been for four years.

Yeah, but Republicans are harmless surrender monkeys. They don't actually do anything.

That is certainly the observable result. Behind it though is a complex process.

When confronted with a problem, first blame others.

Then whine piteously about all potential solutions.

Vigorously apply massive doses of doing nothing.

After about a month or so of politicking, redistribute wealth up.

Egads! You do understand Obamacare.

 

[PMZ]

Yeah, but Republicans are harmless surrender monkeys. They don't actually do anything.

That is certainly the observable result. Behind it though is a complex process.

When confronted with a problem, first blame others.

Then whine piteously about all potential solutions.

Vigorously apply massive doses of doing nothing.

After about a month or so of politicking, redistribute wealth up.

Egads! You do understand Obamacare.

I do. And I know how personal responsibility sucks for so many. So much more convenient to have the freedom of irresponsibility. A lesson Republicans have learned from their teenagers.

 

[BlackSand]

And I know how personal responsibility sucks for so many. So much more convenient to have the freedom of irresponsibility.

See you learn a lot through introspection ... We have faith in you eventually becoming a worthwhile member of society some day.
Keep at it PMZ you are so close to catching up a little instead of rolling backwards down hill ... You can do it!

.

 

[PMZ]

And I know how personal responsibility sucks for so many. So much more convenient to have the freedom of irresponsibility.

See you learn a lot through introspection ... We have faith in you eventually becoming a worthwhile member of society some day.
Keep at it PMZ you are so close to catching up a little instead of rolling backwards down hill ... You can do it!

.

I think that it's past time for you to have an introspective intervention. You appear to believe that you are, somehow, useful, despite being unable to provide any supporting evidence.

You also project as delusional about knowing who I am.

I already provided you a list of your symptoms in that article on extremism yesterday.

Perhaps an intervention could nip those potentially serious problems in the bud.

 

[Listening]

Just reading more about the Stamp Act.

It seems this is just as stupid and will face the same fate (already headed in that direction).

Which is what happens when you reach to far into people's lives.

 

[Listening]

Obamacare has elements of failure by design embedded in it. It is becoming clear by administration reaction that reality has surpassed the original design scope.

It has become such a clusterfarknado that people are just making stuff up as it goes along.

Republicans are just making stuff up as it goes along. Have been for four years.

Yeah, but Republicans are harmless surrender monkeys. They don't actually do anything.

We make stuff up like "You can keep your insurance...if you like it."

 

[asterism]

Why would Medicare allow Advantage programs if they were not saving money by allowing that alternative?

Because they do save money by removing the administrative burden for claims from Medicare and shouldering the risk. Instead of a single entity bearing the entire risk for the country, individual companies operate thousands of plans in smaller areas and compete with each other. Plans have to start out with adequate reserves to cover any unforeseen costs and if the finances don't work that one plan is phased out. Reserves are used to pay for the overage the other plans in the area absorb the beneficiaries.

Insurance companies handle risk like gambling establishments do. They avoid it altogether. That’s called actuarial science.

I'm sure it feels good for your to say that but it's not really the truth. Insurance companies manage risk, they don't avoid it.

 

[asterism]

Keep in mind that ACA effects only two aspects of health care.

It moves poor people from expensive, ineffective emergency room care to mainstream PCPs.

It reduces medical bankruptcies by requiring that insurance cover the conditions that typically cause them.

So health care insurance may go up from that coverage but it's offset by the cost of the bankruptcies. Different accounts, perhaps accrued to different people, but savings nonetheless.

Insurance is designed to cover those costs plus some administration fees.

So where do health insurance premium increases come from?

No more health care is being practiced. The only change is that it's being done more cost effectively by mainstream PCPs. And there are fewer medical bankruptcies causing uncollectable medical bills.

You are assuming that insurance companies charge whatever they want to, not what they anticipate paying out, plus administration.

You have no evidence demonstrating that the ACA is reducing bankruptcies. That's just another campaign promise.

You are also ignorant about what the ACA does - it's way more than just those two "key aspects." It creates an arbitrary minimum for basic care (that is far from basic) and then forces everyone to be covered for those services even if they will never use it. It removes risk based on health conditions from the actuarial metrics and instead only uses age. It actually disincentivizes PCP usage by those less well off because in subsidized plans there is co-payment to see a Physician but no co-payment for ER care.

Many people and I have been saying for years that the problem with the ACA isn't the goals as stated, it's the corrupt and unworkable implementation.

The ACA is likely to increase medical bankruptcies because only those with significant assets to protect would file for bankruptcy in the first place and that's not the poor, it's the middle class - the same middle class that now has much higher premiums, deductibles, and co-insurance.

" You have no evidence demonstrating that the ACA is reducing bankruptcies. That's just another campaign promise."

It requires insurers to cover the main causes of medical bankruptcies. How can that not reduce them?

Because the premiums, co-insurance and maximum out of pocket limits are unaffordable for millions of people in the middle class.

 

[Listening]

Because they do save money by removing the administrative burden for claims from Medicare and shouldering the risk. Instead of a single entity bearing the entire risk for the country, individual companies operate thousands of plans in smaller areas and compete with each other. Plans have to start out with adequate reserves to cover any unforeseen costs and if the finances don't work that one plan is phased out. Reserves are used to pay for the overage the other plans in the area absorb the beneficiaries.

Insurance companies handle risk like gambling establishments do. They avoid it altogether. That’s called actuarial science.

I'm sure it feels good for your to say that but it's not really the truth. Insurance companies manage risk, they don't avoid it.

Yeah,

If they avoided risk, they'd not be paying for things like floods and car accidents. Hail damage in a large area can really impact their bottom line.

Avoid risk..this guy is sleeping on some book written (or farted) by Paul Krugman.

 

[PMZ]

Because they do save money by removing the administrative burden for claims from Medicare and shouldering the risk. Instead of a single entity bearing the entire risk for the country, individual companies operate thousands of plans in smaller areas and compete with each other. Plans have to start out with adequate reserves to cover any unforeseen costs and if the finances don't work that one plan is phased out. Reserves are used to pay for the overage the other plans in the area absorb the beneficiaries.

Insurance companies handle risk like gambling establishments do. They avoid it altogether. That’s called actuarial science.

I'm sure it feels good for your to say that but it's not really the truth. Insurance companies manage risk, they don't avoid it.

What risk do they take? Only the risk that the future will be much unlike the past. Health insurance is the least risky if all insurances that way.

When did you ever hear of any insurance company going broke due to claims?

Not even BP could accomplish that.

 

[PMZ]

You have no evidence demonstrating that the ACA is reducing bankruptcies. That's just another campaign promise.

You are also ignorant about what the ACA does - it's way more than just those two "key aspects." It creates an arbitrary minimum for basic care (that is far from basic) and then forces everyone to be covered for those services even if they will never use it. It removes risk based on health conditions from the actuarial metrics and instead only uses age. It actually disincentivizes PCP usage by those less well off because in subsidized plans there is co-payment to see a Physician but no co-payment for ER care.

Many people and I have been saying for years that the problem with the ACA isn't the goals as stated, it's the corrupt and unworkable implementation.

The ACA is likely to increase medical bankruptcies because only those with significant assets to protect would file for bankruptcy in the first place and that's not the poor, it's the middle class - the same middle class that now has much higher premiums, deductibles, and co-insurance.

" You have no evidence demonstrating that the ACA is reducing bankruptcies. That's just another campaign promise."

It requires insurers to cover the main causes of medical bankruptcies. How can that not reduce them?

Because the premiums, co-insurance and maximum out of pocket limits are unaffordable for millions of people in the middle class.

If they are unaffordable now they were really unaffordable before ACA. When premiums go up, Rick goes down. Basic actuarial science.

 

[PMZ]

Insurance companies handle risk like gambling establishments do. They avoid it altogether. That’s called actuarial science.

I'm sure it feels good for your to say that but it's not really the truth. Insurance companies manage risk, they don't avoid it.

Yeah,

If they avoided risk, they'd not be paying for things like floods and car accidents. Hail damage in a large area can really impact their bottom line.

Avoid risk..this guy is sleeping on some book written (or farted) by Paul Krugman.

"If they avoided risk, they'd not be paying for things like floods and car accidents."

They charge their customers for the risk that insurance companies are expert at evaluating.

The only reason that they are in business is to spread the risk among their customers.

 

[Antares]

" You have no evidence demonstrating that the ACA is reducing bankruptcies. That's just another campaign promise."

It requires insurers to cover the main causes of medical bankruptcies. How can that not reduce them?

Because the premiums, co-insurance and maximum out of pocket limits are unaffordable for millions of people in the middle class.

If they are unaffordable now they were really unaffordable before ACA. When premiums go up, Rick goes down. Basic actuarial science.

Well except for that whole 41% on average increase that the Law caused.

 

[Listening]

Obamacare Horror Stories | RedState

I am a 62 year old woman who has an individual policy with BCBS of North Carolina. My premiums are $249.50 per month. I bought the policy when I retired and moved to NC to be closer to my aging parents. The policy is a high deductible one with a $2700 deductible, $5000 out of pocket maximum. BCBS has told me my plan is no longer offered due to Obamacare and that my new plan will cost $600.55 per month and has a required an out of pocket maximum of $6350. I have been trying for three weeks to see what Obamacare offers without success. I experienced the same issues most people have:

*******************

And yet another.....

 

[PMZ]

Because the premiums, co-insurance and maximum out of pocket limits are unaffordable for millions of people in the middle class.

If they are unaffordable now they were really unaffordable before ACA. When premiums go up, Rick goes down. Basic actuarial science.

Well except for that whole 41% on average increase that the Law caused.

If those premiums (assuming that your figure is right) don't go to reducing the insured's risk, what did they go for?

BTW, the figures that I saw for state by state went from a savings to about a 30% increase.

 

[Listening]

Another Obamacare horror story debunked - Los Angeles Times

Look at this dickhead article. The guy says he debunked her claims.

He's claiming the subsidy. Why didn't they just subsidize her original plan ?

These guys are reaching.

This thing is swirling down the toilet.