The Way Forward: Repeal ObamaCare

[buckeye45_73]

the repubs have put up no viable alternative since Nixon was in office. Don't even think about mentioning Lyin' Ryan's budget w/ a voucher plan.

They should have done something when they had the chance. They willfully ignored the larger & larger portion of GDP devoured by ever-increasing wealth spent on healthcare. Now they're upset that the opposing party did something about it? Is that about right?

All other G8 countries have some form of universal HC including Isreal and some have better outcomes.

The old system was better than this shit. All you had to do was bring competition to it. Why do liberals like monopolies?

 

[Bfgrn]

All costs (probably not) but thoise for preventive/diagnostic care, which will skyrocket as virtually everyoine treats that like a birthright.

How about we quit trying to polish turds and get gubmint entirely out of the medical care industry, up to and including no longer allowing medical insurance as a pre-tax item for everyone?...No tax-free benefits for anybody....It doesn't get more fair than that.

If you guys have such great solutions, surely you can provide examples of other industrialized countries that have implemented these Einstein ideas?

HERE are the FACTS on how the elderly did before Medicare. Back then, insurance and medical costs were much lower, so it should have been much easier for seniors to afford comprehensive health care.

47 MILLION…the number of Americans for whom Medicare provides comprehensive health care

51 PERCENT…the number of Americans 65 or older who did not have health care before Medicare was passed, while today virtually all elderly Americans have health care thanks to Medicare

30 PERCENT…the number of elderly Americans who lived in poverty before Medicare, a number now reduced to 7.5 PERCENT

72 PERCENT…the number of Americans in a recent poll who said that Medicare is “extremely” or “very” important to their retirement security

Medicare assures health care for seniors who might otherwise find health care inaccessible. It saves our government money. It makes the lives of our seniors better.

Two concepts inspired Medicare. First, seniors require more care than younger Americans. Second, seniors usually live on less income; many survive only on Social Security. This combination renders seniors extremely vulnerable to losing their savings, homes or lives from easily treatable diseases.

And Medicare provides good care. American life expectancy at birth ranks 30th in the world. We remain 30th for the rest of our lives -- until we reach 65. Then, our rank rises until we reach 14th at 80. We can thank the remarkable access to health care provided by Medicare.

Every industrialized nation guarantees health care for seniors. Indeed, we are unhappily distinctive in being the only industrialized nation that does not guarantee care for everyone else, as well. Medicare restores us to a civilized status.

Before Medicare, only 40 percent of nonworking seniors had health insurance, and of those with coverage, private insurance paid for less than 10 percent of their hospital bills. The principle of insuring only the healthy who consume little care and avoiding the sick has always driven our private insurance industry. No insurance company can make money by offering the same comprehensive, affordable coverage to seniors as Medicare, so they don't offer it. Our experience with Medicare Advantage, an effort to privatize parts of Medicare, resulted in our government spending $17 billion more for the same benefits available through Medicare. Our private insurance industry was in no hurry to insure seniors before Medicare started. They are in no hurry now. Medicare revolutionized health care access for seniors.

Why is Medicare expensive? Simply, health care for seniors will always cost more than that of healthier, younger Americans. And costs are rising in every health care system around the world, not just Medicare. The United States is doubly cursed because our costs are rising faster and are already twice as expensive as other countries. Though hard to believe, Medicare is a leader in fighting cost increases. Private insurance industry costs are rising nearly twice as fast as those of Medicare. And when it comes to administrative expenses, private insurance is 10 times higher than Medicare. In fact, if the single payer financing of Medicare were applied to citizens of all ages, we would save $350 billion annually, more than enough to provide comprehensive health care to every American.

Medicare is good for our seniors and good for our country. It provides health care far more affordably and efficiently than our private insurance industry. It saves our country hundreds of billions of dollars in administrative overhead. And if we expand Medicare to cover younger, healthier Americans, we would all get more care at less cost.

More

I don't know where you did the cut/paste from but some of it makes sense. Its generally better to post in your own words rather than pasting an entire article.

As to medicare---I agree that it has been a good program. Are you aware that medicare advantage goes away next january 1 ?

medicare advantage is a program that works great for the people, insurance companies, and the medical community------but obozocare killed it.

There is an embedded link at the end of the article. I used copy/paste. Cut would delete the original. Being intelligent is knowing where to find knowledge, facts and evidence. I have also posted my own thoughts on this board.

If you read my copy/paste, you will find this information on Medicare Advantage.

Medicare Advantage, an effort to privatize parts of Medicare, resulted in our government spending $17 billion more for the same benefits available through Medicare.

 

[Eric Cartman]

Name the last....check that...the FIRST time that gubmint stuck its nose into something and the costs went down.

3...

2...

1...

GO!

Diversionary tactic: When someone is making points that you are unable to counter then it is time to throw out a pointless and misleading question (e.g. when did you stop beating your wife) in order to appear not to be getting your butt kicked in an argument.

1 Prices tend to go up slightly... that is our monetary policy.
2 The government taxes and regulates every industry to some degree.
3 Even with an intentional low inflation rate, prices still fluctuate up an down in regulated industries (e.g. housing, energy, technology) despite regulations.

hence the question is pointless. Talk radio hosts use this question when they are losing arguments.

Diversionary tactic my ass.

One of the primary talking points of Obloshevikcare is that was goint to bring prices down, which it hasn't.....In fact Medicare, Medicaid and the welfare state in general all cost far, far more than any of the projections laid out when those fool programs were put into place....That's the fact, jack.

What's pointless is telling everyone that the incompetence, mismanagement and outright lies of the left are pointless.

If I remember correctly the talking points were that it was going to "bend the cost curve" which does't lower costs but keeps them from growing as fast as they would without the bill.

I would prefer a single payer system to the affordable care act, it would definitely do a better job of keeping costs down but the insurance lobby was way to powerful for that to happen, so we settled for rewarmed ideas from a conservative think tank.

I am sure you can go back and find some old projections that were inaccurate, we were all suppose to have flying cars by now too. Projections are only as good as the information you have at the time.

 

[Oddball]

Diversionary tactic: When someone is making points that you are unable to counter then it is time to throw out a pointless and misleading question (e.g. when did you stop beating your wife) in order to appear not to be getting your butt kicked in an argument.

1 Prices tend to go up slightly... that is our monetary policy.
2 The government taxes and regulates every industry to some degree.
3 Even with an intentional low inflation rate, prices still fluctuate up an down in regulated industries (e.g. housing, energy, technology) despite regulations.

hence the question is pointless. Talk radio hosts use this question when they are losing arguments.

Diversionary tactic my ass.

One of the primary talking points of Obloshevikcare is that was goint to bring prices down, which it hasn't.....In fact Medicare, Medicaid and the welfare state in general all cost far, far more than any of the projections laid out when those fool programs were put into place....That's the fact, jack.

What's pointless is telling everyone that the incompetence, mismanagement and outright lies of the left are pointless.

If I remember correctly the talking points were that it was going to "bend the cost curve" which does't lower costs but keeps them from growing as fast as they would without the bill.

Oh, it bent the cost curve alright.....Upward, just like every other federal program....And that "kept costs from rising as fast" garbage is an outright lie...The acolytes of Obolshevikcare claimed that it would bring costs down.

I would prefer a single payer system to the affordable care act, it would definitely do a better job of keeping costs down but the insurance lobby was way to powerful for that to happen, so we settled for rewarmed ideas from a conservative think tank.

What you would prefer is irrelevant...If it's one thing that the federal gubmint has proven itself entirely incapable of, it's keeping the costs of anything down...It's a defining characteristic of monopolies...Why are you a monopolist?

I am sure you can go back and find some old projections that were inaccurate, we were all suppose to have flying cars by now too. Projections are only as good as the information you have at the time.

I can find scads of them, while you cannot find a single instance where any federal program delivered the goods as claimed and came in costing less than projected/promised.

Oh, and pretty weak stab at the straw man argument...Try harder next time.

 

[Eric Cartman]

Diversionary tactic my ass.

One of the primary talking points of Obloshevikcare is that was goint to bring prices down, which it hasn't.....In fact Medicare, Medicaid and the welfare state in general all cost far, far more than any of the projections laid out when those fool programs were put into place....That's the fact, jack.

What's pointless is telling everyone that the incompetence, mismanagement and outright lies of the left are pointless.

If I remember correctly the talking points were that it was going to "bend the cost curve" which does't lower costs but keeps them from growing as fast as they would without the bill.

Oh, it bent the cost curve alright.....Upward, just like every other federal program....And that "kept costs from rising as fast" garbage is an outright lie...The acolytes of Obolshevikcare claimed that it would bring costs down.

I would prefer a single payer system to the affordable care act, it would definitely do a better job of keeping costs down but the insurance lobby was way to powerful for that to happen, so we settled for rewarmed ideas from a conservative think tank.

What you would prefer is irrelevant...If it's one thing that the federal gubmint has proven itself entirely incapable of, it's keeping the costs of anything down...It's a defining characteristic of monopolies...Why are you a monopolist?

I am sure you can go back and find some old projections that were inaccurate, we were all suppose to have flying cars by now too. Projections are only as good as the information you have at the time.

I can find scads of them, while you cannot find a single instance where any federal program delivered the goods as claimed and came in costing less than projected/promised.

Oh, and pretty weak stab at the straw man argument...Try harder next time.

Insurance companies have raised premiums in anticipation of the law but that is in the short term because they will be limited once the law is in effect. I am not sure how you know that it bends the cost curve up when it isn't in full effect yet and you have no idea what the costs would be without the law.

flying cars is a straw man... really? Get a sense of humor.

Others have posted tons of stats and info and your only rebuttal has been crap that you heard on talk radio. Have fun.

 

[lynn63]

Medicare Advantage is not going to be terminated in 2014. Humana's Medicare Advantage is looking forward to expanding their member count in the coming years as well as others. The government has made stricter regulations on them which they do not like right now but they will either adjust or eliminate that product from their portfolio.

 

[Redfish]

If you guys have such great solutions, surely you can provide examples of other industrialized countries that have implemented these Einstein ideas?

HERE are the FACTS on how the elderly did before Medicare. Back then, insurance and medical costs were much lower, so it should have been much easier for seniors to afford comprehensive health care.

47 MILLION…the number of Americans for whom Medicare provides comprehensive health care

51 PERCENT…the number of Americans 65 or older who did not have health care before Medicare was passed, while today virtually all elderly Americans have health care thanks to Medicare

30 PERCENT…the number of elderly Americans who lived in poverty before Medicare, a number now reduced to 7.5 PERCENT

72 PERCENT…the number of Americans in a recent poll who said that Medicare is “extremely” or “very” important to their retirement security

Medicare assures health care for seniors who might otherwise find health care inaccessible. It saves our government money. It makes the lives of our seniors better.

Two concepts inspired Medicare. First, seniors require more care than younger Americans. Second, seniors usually live on less income; many survive only on Social Security. This combination renders seniors extremely vulnerable to losing their savings, homes or lives from easily treatable diseases.

And Medicare provides good care. American life expectancy at birth ranks 30th in the world. We remain 30th for the rest of our lives -- until we reach 65. Then, our rank rises until we reach 14th at 80. We can thank the remarkable access to health care provided by Medicare.

Every industrialized nation guarantees health care for seniors. Indeed, we are unhappily distinctive in being the only industrialized nation that does not guarantee care for everyone else, as well. Medicare restores us to a civilized status.

Before Medicare, only 40 percent of nonworking seniors had health insurance, and of those with coverage, private insurance paid for less than 10 percent of their hospital bills. The principle of insuring only the healthy who consume little care and avoiding the sick has always driven our private insurance industry. No insurance company can make money by offering the same comprehensive, affordable coverage to seniors as Medicare, so they don't offer it. Our experience with Medicare Advantage, an effort to privatize parts of Medicare, resulted in our government spending $17 billion more for the same benefits available through Medicare. Our private insurance industry was in no hurry to insure seniors before Medicare started. They are in no hurry now. Medicare revolutionized health care access for seniors.

Why is Medicare expensive? Simply, health care for seniors will always cost more than that of healthier, younger Americans. And costs are rising in every health care system around the world, not just Medicare. The United States is doubly cursed because our costs are rising faster and are already twice as expensive as other countries. Though hard to believe, Medicare is a leader in fighting cost increases. Private insurance industry costs are rising nearly twice as fast as those of Medicare. And when it comes to administrative expenses, private insurance is 10 times higher than Medicare. In fact, if the single payer financing of Medicare were applied to citizens of all ages, we would save $350 billion annually, more than enough to provide comprehensive health care to every American.

Medicare is good for our seniors and good for our country. It provides health care far more affordably and efficiently than our private insurance industry. It saves our country hundreds of billions of dollars in administrative overhead. And if we expand Medicare to cover younger, healthier Americans, we would all get more care at less cost.

More

I don't know where you did the cut/paste from but some of it makes sense. Its generally better to post in your own words rather than pasting an entire article.

As to medicare---I agree that it has been a good program. Are you aware that medicare advantage goes away next january 1 ?

medicare advantage is a program that works great for the people, insurance companies, and the medical community------but obozocare killed it.

There is an embedded link at the end of the article. I used copy/paste. Cut would delete the original. Being intelligent is knowing where to find knowledge, facts and evidence. I have also posted my own thoughts on this board.

If you read my copy/paste, you will find this information on Medicare Advantage.

Medicare Advantage, an effort to privatize parts of Medicare, resulted in our government spending $17 billion more for the same benefits available through Medicare.

yes, I know the difference between cut/paste and copy/paste. please forgive me for using the wrong word

Wherever you got that "stat" on medicare advantage is a lie. that program used exactly the same amount per person as standard medicare. The difference is that it was many times more efficient with the result being better care to the people at the same cost to the govt----obozo did not like it because the insurance companies actually managed to provide excellent care and still make a profit------and we all know that to a marxist like obama, profit is evil.

 

[Oddball]

If I remember correctly the talking points were that it was going to "bend the cost curve" which does't lower costs but keeps them from growing as fast as they would without the bill.

Oh, it bent the cost curve alright.....Upward, just like every other federal program....And that "kept costs from rising as fast" garbage is an outright lie...The acolytes of Obolshevikcare claimed that it would bring costs down.


What you would prefer is irrelevant...If it's one thing that the federal gubmint has proven itself entirely incapable of, it's keeping the costs of anything down...It's a defining characteristic of monopolies...Why are you a monopolist?

I am sure you can go back and find some old projections that were inaccurate, we were all suppose to have flying cars by now too. Projections are only as good as the information you have at the time.

I can find scads of them, while you cannot find a single instance where any federal program delivered the goods as claimed and came in costing less than projected/promised.

Oh, and pretty weak stab at the straw man argument...Try harder next time.

Insurance companies have raised premiums in anticipation of the law but that is in the short term because they will be limited once the law is in effect. I am not sure how you know that it bends the cost curve up when it isn't in full effect yet and you have no idea what the costs would be without the law.

flying cars is a straw man... really? Get a sense of humor.

Others have posted tons of stats and info and your only rebuttal has been crap that you heard on talk radio. Have fun.

Bullshit.

The only one spouting what he has herd from others without a scintilla of analytical thought is you, Captain Strawman.

Your "stats and info" are pure crap...Conjecture and sunshine-up-the-ass from politicians, bureaucrats and leftist toady proponents, who completely disregard the abysmal track record of the feds ever delivering on their promises.

 

[Redfish]

Medicare Advantage is not going to be terminated in 2014. Humana's Medicare Advantage is looking forward to expanding their member count in the coming years as well as others. The government has made stricter regulations on them which they do not like right now but they will either adjust or eliminate that product from their portfolio.

got a link for that? I have talked to Humana and they have no answers as to what they are going to offer in 2014.

 

[Old Rocks]

Well, whatever the outcome for the time being with ObamaCare, what we will eventually get will be single payer universal healthcare. It is the only thing that makes sense. It is being used with excellent results in all of the other industrial nations. Their outcomes are far better than ours, and often achieved at half the cost.

And you fruitloops with be screaming 'Communism' the whole time. Until you need the care.

 

[Eric Cartman]

The only one spouting what he has herd from others without a scintilla of analytical thought is you, Captain Strawman.

Your "stats and info" are pure crap...Conjecture and sunshine-up-the-ass from politicians, bureaucrats and leftist toady proponents, who completely disregard the abysmal track record of the feds ever delivering on their promises.

I have been lazy and put forth no "stats and info" but I would love to see you address the ones other people have put forth.

If you can't we can just keep calling each other names Mr. Ditto head.

 

[Redfish]

Well, whatever the outcome for the time being with ObamaCare, what we will eventually get will be single payer universal healthcare. It is the only thing that makes sense. It is being used with excellent results in all of the other industrial nations. Their outcomes are far better than ours, and often achieved at half the cost.

And you fruitloops with be screaming 'Communism' the whole time. Until you need the care.

are you crazy? lower cost better care

why do canadians and brits come here if they have anything serious?

do you actually think that the govt can run anything efficiently?

You libs like to rant about waste in DOD, DOD will look tiny in comparison to obozocare.

 

[thereisnospoon]

Let's talk about the health insurance mandate now.

The older you get, the more sick you get, the more you cost to take care of. Therefore, to offset older people, we need to force young people who are willfully uninsured to buy health insurance. That's the insurance mandate gambit.

Now, let's examine this little shell game for a moment.

First, it was claimed there were "45 million uninsured Americans" with the heavy implication they were all uninsured against their will.

If that is the case, why do we need to FORCE anyone to buy insurance? Hmmmm...


Second, how much money does a 22 year old make? Christ, these days a lot of them are still living with their parents!

Last year, the number of 18- to 30-year-olds living with their parents grew to 20.7 million, a 3.9 percent gain from 2010.

And that is why ObamaCare forces insurance companies to allow adults up to the age of 26 to be carried on their parents' insurance policies.


Now let's think about how much money a 22 year old is making: http://www.census.gov/compendia/statab/2012/tables/12s0703.pdf

18 to 24 year old median income is $29,599.

ObamaCare subsidizes health insurance premiums for anyone earning up to 400% above the federal poverty level.

So what are the levels up to 400% FPL?

Federal Poverty Guidelines

Now let's do the math.

18 to 24 median income is $29,599.

That puts us around 250% FPL, which means our 18-24 year old will not have to pay more than about 8 percent of his income for health insurance.

I should mention here that this only applies if the insurance is bought through a health exchange established by ObamaCare. If you buy insurance through your employer, no subsidy for you!

What do you think the result of this will be? Hmmm...

More on the exchanges later.

So a median 18-24 year old will not have to pay more than $2382 a year for health insurance. Anything above that will be paid for by...the taxpayers.

The end result of the individual mandate is that it forces a cost on the US taxpayers to cover the health insurance subsidies for those young people who are in turn being forced to buy the insurance!



Next, let's take a look at the median income of all Americans. We find that figure to be $65,000 for a family of four.

Now take a look at that subsidy chart. A family of four which earns WELL ABOVE the national median income will receive a subsidy! They can earn up to $94,200 and get a federal subsidy.

Since everyone who earns the median income or more pays federal income taxes, how the ever loving hell does that math work?

Anyone?

It is my understanding that if a family or individual earns above any threshold, the bill goes to 18% of gross earnings. Or adjusted gross income. Not sure.
Great posts though.
Now the naysayers and the Obamacare cheer leaders will chime in.

 

[thereisnospoon]

About those health insurance exchanges now.

ObamaCare dictates every state to establish a health insurance exchange through which insurance will be sold to the masses. If a state "opts out" of establishing an exchange, a federal exchange will be established for the citizens of that state from which to buy their health insurance.

Couple problems here.

First, you only get subsidies if you buy through an exchange. This will be a HUGE incentive to buy insurance through the government. Yet Democrats played dumb in 2009, asking, "What government takeover?"


Second, can you imagine the corruption which will be involved in an insurance company getting listed on an exchange which is administered/overseen by government bureaucrats and politicians? Can you imagine the cash changing hands to get listed, or to prevent a competitor from being listed?

I can.

Also, imagine all the hoops of Political Correction a private company will have to jump through to get listed. "Please provide us with the number of transgender employees in your company." "You cannot be listed on the exchange unless you provide free abortions for crack whores."

"What government takeover?"

The one issue the Obama care people like to ignore is these costs are for the Bronze plan. This is basic basic coverage. Essentially, it's not coverage at all.

 

[thereisnospoon]

First, you only get subsidies if you buy through an exchange. This will be a HUGE incentive to buy insurance through the government.

ObamaCare has to be repealed because shopping for insurance in the new marketplaces is too attractive an option?

Second, can you imagine the corruption which will be involved in an insurance company getting listed on an exchange which is administered/overseen by government bureaucrats and politicians? Can you imagine the cash changing hands to get listed, or to prevent a competitor from being listed?

You seem to be relying pretty heavily on your imagination to populate this thread.

Currently, the federal government provides matching dollars to state administered Medicaid programs. Under ObamaCare, that amount is substantially increased, but then tapers over time.

...tapers to 90% FMAP in perpetuity. The feds never pay less than 90 cents on the dollar for the medical costs of the expansion population--substantially higher than the match rate for traditional Medicaid ever was.

And just WHO do you think funds the federal government.
See, this is the dream world in which you libs exist.."the government will pay for it"..NO!
The money has to come from somewhere. Not one line or calculation of creative math or bureaucratic quadruple speak and out right lies will change the fact that under Obamacare, health insurance costs to the average consumer will rocket into low Earth orbit.

 

[Redfish]

First, you only get subsidies if you buy through an exchange. This will be a HUGE incentive to buy insurance through the government.

ObamaCare has to be repealed because shopping for insurance in the new marketplaces is too attractive an option?



You seem to be relying pretty heavily on your imagination to populate this thread.

Currently, the federal government provides matching dollars to state administered Medicaid programs. Under ObamaCare, that amount is substantially increased, but then tapers over time.

...tapers to 90% FMAP in perpetuity. The feds never pay less than 90 cents on the dollar for the medical costs of the expansion population--substantially higher than the match rate for traditional Medicaid ever was.

And just WHO do you think funds the federal government.
See, this is the dream world in which you libs exist.."the government will pay for it"..NO!
The money has to come from somewhere. Not one line or calculation of creative math or bureaucratic quadruple speak and out right lies will change the fact that under Obamacare, health insurance costs to the average consumer will rocket into low Earth orbit.

according to libtards the money will come from the evil rich and the evil corporations. What they fail to comprehend is that the money will come from them, because the rich can pay their own medical bills and corporations can headquarter in any country that is smart enough to make it attractive to be there.

 

[Bfgrn]

I don't know where you did the cut/paste from but some of it makes sense. Its generally better to post in your own words rather than pasting an entire article.

As to medicare---I agree that it has been a good program. Are you aware that medicare advantage goes away next january 1 ?

medicare advantage is a program that works great for the people, insurance companies, and the medical community------but obozocare killed it.

There is an embedded link at the end of the article. I used copy/paste. Cut would delete the original. Being intelligent is knowing where to find knowledge, facts and evidence. I have also posted my own thoughts on this board.

If you read my copy/paste, you will find this information on Medicare Advantage.

Medicare Advantage, an effort to privatize parts of Medicare, resulted in our government spending $17 billion more for the same benefits available through Medicare.

yes, I know the difference between cut/paste and copy/paste. please forgive me for using the wrong word

Wherever you got that "stat" on medicare advantage is a lie. that program used exactly the same amount per person as standard medicare. The difference is that it was many times more efficient with the result being better care to the people at the same cost to the govt----obozo did not like it because the insurance companies actually managed to provide excellent care and still make a profit------and we all know that to a marxist like obama, profit is evil.

You just abdicated with the marxist crap. That better care to the people does not come at the same cost. It is enhanced benefits like dental services, vision care, hearing aids, podiatry, and other supplemental services even some form of gym or health club membership.

 

[Redfish]

There is an embedded link at the end of the article. I used copy/paste. Cut would delete the original. Being intelligent is knowing where to find knowledge, facts and evidence. I have also posted my own thoughts on this board.

If you read my copy/paste, you will find this information on Medicare Advantage.

Medicare Advantage, an effort to privatize parts of Medicare, resulted in our government spending $17 billion more for the same benefits available through Medicare.

yes, I know the difference between cut/paste and copy/paste. please forgive me for using the wrong word

Wherever you got that "stat" on medicare advantage is a lie. that program used exactly the same amount per person as standard medicare. The difference is that it was many times more efficient with the result being better care to the people at the same cost to the govt----obozo did not like it because the insurance companies actually managed to provide excellent care and still make a profit------and we all know that to a marxist like obama, profit is evil.

You just abdicated with the marxist crap. That better care to the people does not come at the same cost. It is enhanced benefits like dental services, vision care, hearing aids, podiatry, and other supplemental services even some form of gym or health club membership.

yes, because the insurance companies are much more efficient than the govt they can include other health benefits with no increase in cost. medicare advantage is a net zero impact on the medicare budget. But it provides excellent care at a very small premium and the insurance companies still make a small profit, Everyone wins-----so that program must be killed.


and obama is a marxist, have you studied marxism?

 

[Greenbeard]

The one issue the Obama care people like to ignore is these costs are for the Bronze plan. This is basic basic coverage. Essentially, it's not coverage at all.

What costs are for a bronze plan? And why isn't a bronze plan coverage at all?

Not one line or calculation of creative math or bureaucratic quadruple speak and out right lies will change the fact that under Obamacare, health insurance costs to the average consumer will rocket into low Earth orbit.

Insurers' proposed rates for next year have been released in several states. No rate shock (and, in several cases, decreases relative to the costs of comparable plans this year).

medicare advantage is a net zero impact on the medicare budget.

Under the Affordable Care Act, that becomes more or less true. Over the past decade, it absolutely is not true, Medicare Advantage was substantially more expensive than fee-for-service Medicare. Hence the reforms to it.

 

[Bfgrn]

yes, I know the difference between cut/paste and copy/paste. please forgive me for using the wrong word

Wherever you got that "stat" on medicare advantage is a lie. that program used exactly the same amount per person as standard medicare. The difference is that it was many times more efficient with the result being better care to the people at the same cost to the govt----obozo did not like it because the insurance companies actually managed to provide excellent care and still make a profit------and we all know that to a marxist like obama, profit is evil.

You just abdicated with the marxist crap. That better care to the people does not come at the same cost. It is enhanced benefits like dental services, vision care, hearing aids, podiatry, and other supplemental services even some form of gym or health club membership.

yes, because the insurance companies are much more efficient than the govt they can include other health benefits with no increase in cost. medicare advantage is a net zero impact on the medicare budget. But it provides excellent care at a very small premium and the insurance companies still make a small profit, Everyone wins-----so that program must be killed.


and obama is a marxist, have you studied marxism?

Private insurance is not more efficient than Medicare. It's not even close. Do you still believe in the tooth fairy? Looks like you're the marxist...

Read more: Medicare Advantage was to cut Medicare, but cost $283 billion more - UPI.com