This topic is currently marked as "dormant"—the last message is more than 90 days old. You can revive it by posting a reply.
1barney67
Lots to read on this topic.
http://time.com/4466081/broken-obamacare-promises/
As it turns out, Obamacare does not prevent insurance companies from denying you coverage, dropping your coverage, or watering down your coverage. It does not prevent insurers from limiting your coverage. It does not prevent discrimination against the sick. All of these things happened in Pinal County—and not in spite of Obamacare, but because of it. Obamacare made covering everybody in the exchange prohibitively expensive, so insurers stopped covering anybody.
President Obama also promised Obamacare would give everyone “the same kind of choice of private health insurance that members of Congress get for themselves.” Members of Congress can choose from four carriers in D.C.’s small business Exchange. (Who knew Congress is a small business?)
What about us little people? In 2017, one third of counties and one in six enrollees will have only one carrier in their Exchange. As it was before Obamacare, few Americans will have as many health-insurance choices as Congress.
President Obama repeatedly assured Americans: “If you like your health care plan, you’ll be able to keep your health care plan, period. No one will take it away, no matter what.” This year’s ongoing insurer exodus has so far added another 2 million Americans to the number that Obamacare has thrown out of their health plans.
In the same breath, Obama promised: “We will keep this promise to the American people: If you like your doctor, you will be able to keep your doctor, period.” Can you guess what one of the worst parts of all those plan cancellations is? They often force patients to switch doctors and hospitals mid-treatment.
In 2016, eight states had Obamacare plans whose premiums increased by 39% or more. Half the states saw increases of 30% or more.
Premiums appear to be rising even faster in 2017. Across Tennessee’s three exchange-participating insurers, the lowest average increase will be 44%. The highest will be 62%.
http://time.com/4466081/broken-obamacare-promises/
As it turns out, Obamacare does not prevent insurance companies from denying you coverage, dropping your coverage, or watering down your coverage. It does not prevent insurers from limiting your coverage. It does not prevent discrimination against the sick. All of these things happened in Pinal County—and not in spite of Obamacare, but because of it. Obamacare made covering everybody in the exchange prohibitively expensive, so insurers stopped covering anybody.
President Obama also promised Obamacare would give everyone “the same kind of choice of private health insurance that members of Congress get for themselves.” Members of Congress can choose from four carriers in D.C.’s small business Exchange. (Who knew Congress is a small business?)
What about us little people? In 2017, one third of counties and one in six enrollees will have only one carrier in their Exchange. As it was before Obamacare, few Americans will have as many health-insurance choices as Congress.
President Obama repeatedly assured Americans: “If you like your health care plan, you’ll be able to keep your health care plan, period. No one will take it away, no matter what.” This year’s ongoing insurer exodus has so far added another 2 million Americans to the number that Obamacare has thrown out of their health plans.
In the same breath, Obama promised: “We will keep this promise to the American people: If you like your doctor, you will be able to keep your doctor, period.” Can you guess what one of the worst parts of all those plan cancellations is? They often force patients to switch doctors and hospitals mid-treatment.
In 2016, eight states had Obamacare plans whose premiums increased by 39% or more. Half the states saw increases of 30% or more.
Premiums appear to be rising even faster in 2017. Across Tennessee’s three exchange-participating insurers, the lowest average increase will be 44%. The highest will be 62%.
2barney67
http://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2016/09/05/obamacare-and-aetnas-withdrawal
Few companies are as unpopular as insurance companies, and no tears were shed for the insurance giant Aetna when, a couple of weeks ago, it announced that it had lost more than four hundred million dollars on Obamacare policies since the Obamacare exchanges were set up, in 2014, and was going to pull out of most of them. The news, which followed similar announcements by United Healthcare and Humana, was greeted with talk of “whining” insurers who “put profits before patients’ health” and are “willing to deny care to make a few extra dollars.” But the recriminations are misplaced. Aetna’s decision reflects an awkward reality: the jerry-rigged, politically compromised nature of Obamacare has made the program unstable, and unable to live up to its lofty promises.
Some thirty million Americans remain uninsured. Participants in the A.C.A. marketplaces are less numerous, and sicker, than anticipated: 8.3 million fewer people enrolled through the exchanges this year than the Congressional Budget Office had projected. As a result, insurers in much of the country are fleeing the marketplaces. Kaiser estimates that between twenty and twenty-five per cent of U.S. counties may have only one insurer offering coverage in 2017; there’s already a county in Arizona with no Obamacare insurer at all. And the insurers that remain in these markets tend to offer an increasingly narrow network of health-care providers.
Lack of competition is a recipe for high premiums or low benefits (or both), further deterring younger, healthier people from buying policies. Which means that the risk pool gets still older and sicker, which means that more insurance companies lose money and leave the market, which means that competition is reduced even further, which means: see above.
Few companies are as unpopular as insurance companies, and no tears were shed for the insurance giant Aetna when, a couple of weeks ago, it announced that it had lost more than four hundred million dollars on Obamacare policies since the Obamacare exchanges were set up, in 2014, and was going to pull out of most of them. The news, which followed similar announcements by United Healthcare and Humana, was greeted with talk of “whining” insurers who “put profits before patients’ health” and are “willing to deny care to make a few extra dollars.” But the recriminations are misplaced. Aetna’s decision reflects an awkward reality: the jerry-rigged, politically compromised nature of Obamacare has made the program unstable, and unable to live up to its lofty promises.
Some thirty million Americans remain uninsured. Participants in the A.C.A. marketplaces are less numerous, and sicker, than anticipated: 8.3 million fewer people enrolled through the exchanges this year than the Congressional Budget Office had projected. As a result, insurers in much of the country are fleeing the marketplaces. Kaiser estimates that between twenty and twenty-five per cent of U.S. counties may have only one insurer offering coverage in 2017; there’s already a county in Arizona with no Obamacare insurer at all. And the insurers that remain in these markets tend to offer an increasingly narrow network of health-care providers.
Lack of competition is a recipe for high premiums or low benefits (or both), further deterring younger, healthier people from buying policies. Which means that the risk pool gets still older and sicker, which means that more insurance companies lose money and leave the market, which means that competition is reduced even further, which means: see above.
3barney67
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2016/08/29/obamacares_economic_assumpt...
Economic reality is making it increasingly obvious that we are in the midst of Obamacare’s long anticipated death spiral. Most recently, Aetna joined UnitedHealthcare and Humana as the third of the "big five" insurance firms to announce major cuts to its Obamacare exchange business.
For insurers, it's simple math: Premiums collected must exceed claims paid. If too few healthy, low risk individuals enroll to offset the costs of insuring unhealthy, high risk individuals, the math doesn’t work. This imbalance forces insurers to raise premiums on the low risk individuals who do enroll to cover the costs of insuring high risk individuals. The rising premiums cause even more healthy individuals to drop coverage – resulting in what has been called a death spiral.
The problem extends beyond big insurers. ObamaCare established 23 non-profit health insurance companies called Consumer Operated and Oriented Plans (co-ops). According to the Center for Medicaid and Medicare Services, they received $2.4 billion in taxpayer dollars because they demonstrated “a high probability of financial viability”. To date, 16 of the 23 co-ops (or 70 percent) have failed due to weak balance sheets. Six of the remaining seven are on the brink of collapse.
Even President Obama knows something must be done. As recently as August 2nd, he proposed a “public option” government run insurance company that would compete against private insurers on the exchanges. This "public-option" insurer could operate at a loss indefinitely with taxpayers footing the bill, driving private insurance companies that actually have to turn a profit, out of the market. The result: A massive taxpayer-funded government bureaucracy supporting a single-payer healthcare system that eliminates consumer choice as well as the competition necessary to keep benefits up and costs down.
Economic reality is making it increasingly obvious that we are in the midst of Obamacare’s long anticipated death spiral. Most recently, Aetna joined UnitedHealthcare and Humana as the third of the "big five" insurance firms to announce major cuts to its Obamacare exchange business.
For insurers, it's simple math: Premiums collected must exceed claims paid. If too few healthy, low risk individuals enroll to offset the costs of insuring unhealthy, high risk individuals, the math doesn’t work. This imbalance forces insurers to raise premiums on the low risk individuals who do enroll to cover the costs of insuring high risk individuals. The rising premiums cause even more healthy individuals to drop coverage – resulting in what has been called a death spiral.
The problem extends beyond big insurers. ObamaCare established 23 non-profit health insurance companies called Consumer Operated and Oriented Plans (co-ops). According to the Center for Medicaid and Medicare Services, they received $2.4 billion in taxpayer dollars because they demonstrated “a high probability of financial viability”. To date, 16 of the 23 co-ops (or 70 percent) have failed due to weak balance sheets. Six of the remaining seven are on the brink of collapse.
Even President Obama knows something must be done. As recently as August 2nd, he proposed a “public option” government run insurance company that would compete against private insurers on the exchanges. This "public-option" insurer could operate at a loss indefinitely with taxpayers footing the bill, driving private insurance companies that actually have to turn a profit, out of the market. The result: A massive taxpayer-funded government bureaucracy supporting a single-payer healthcare system that eliminates consumer choice as well as the competition necessary to keep benefits up and costs down.
4barney67
https://finance.yahoo.com/news/obamacare-trouble-000000142.html
Critics of Obamacare, President’s Obama’s signature health-reform law, have sounded all kinds of exaggerated alarms over damage the program might cause. But one worrisome prediction may be coming true, in some places: the descent into an economic spiral that could render the program unviable.
Higher-than-expected costs have led several insurers such as Aetna (AET), UnitedHealth (UNH) and Humana (HUM) to pull out of marketplaces established under the Affordable Care Act, while others have scaled back coverage. That’s leaving more markets with just one or two insurers offering plans under the ACA—the point at which competition peters out and the cost of premiums potentially soars. Since Obamacare relies mostly on competition to keep costs manageable, a withdrawal of carriers in some markets could drive patients away and undermine the program.
Critics of Obamacare, President’s Obama’s signature health-reform law, have sounded all kinds of exaggerated alarms over damage the program might cause. But one worrisome prediction may be coming true, in some places: the descent into an economic spiral that could render the program unviable.
Higher-than-expected costs have led several insurers such as Aetna (AET), UnitedHealth (UNH) and Humana (HUM) to pull out of marketplaces established under the Affordable Care Act, while others have scaled back coverage. That’s leaving more markets with just one or two insurers offering plans under the ACA—the point at which competition peters out and the cost of premiums potentially soars. Since Obamacare relies mostly on competition to keep costs manageable, a withdrawal of carriers in some markets could drive patients away and undermine the program.
5barney67
http://www.fool.com/investing/2016/08/28/this-may-be-the-scariest-study-on-obama...
Obamacare fails to live up to its billing
Obamacare has its shortcomings, though. Its expansive requirements for minimum essential benefits were designed to protect the consumer, but they actually wound up causing millions of consumers to lose their pre-Obamacare healthcare plans. This more comprehensive coverage also lifted premium prices.
Meanwhile many insurers, no longer allowed to pick and choose their customers, have been hit by adverse selection. In plainer terms, sicker people who had been shut out of the healthcare system before Obamacare can now buy health insurance, which is leaving insurers with higher medical expenses than expected. For example, UnitedHealth Group (NYSE:UNH), the largest insurer in the country, is on track to lose $500 million this year from its Obamacare plans.
But the biggest concern of all has been premium inflation. It was believed that Obamacare's transparent online marketplace would allow the consumer to make smart purchasing decisions. Furthermore, the risk corridor -- a type of risk-pooling fund that collected money from overly profitable insurers and disbursed those funds to insurers who lost excessive amounts of money by pricing their premiums too low -- was expected to promote competition and help control premium inflation. Neither has had much effect, as consumers are not taking full advantage of the information that's available (many people are re-enrolling every year without comparing plans), and the risk corridor has failed to protect money-losing insurers.
The scariest Obamacare study yet
But the above concerns could be peanuts compared to the latest study released by Avalere Health, a Washington, D.C.-based consulting firm.
According to Avalere's analysis of exchange market regions across the country for the 2017 plan year, nearly 36% of consumers are expected to have just one participating insurer offering coverage. Seven states -- Alaska, Alabama, Kansas, North Carolina, South Carolina, Oklahoma, and Wyoming -- are expected to have just a single insurer offering Obamacare coverage in 2017. It's worth pointing out that a single insurer may offer multiple plans, even within a single ACA tier (bronze, silver, gold, and platinum). However, the only plan comparisons that can presumably be made are with the same insurer.
Furthermore, another 19% of consumers are believed to have a choice between just two insurers. The remaining 45% of consumers are forecast to have three or more competing insurers to choose from. In a small number of regions, Avalere says there may be no Obamacare plans offered at all.
How does this compare with 2016? Based on Avalere's research, just 4% of market region consumers had only one insurer to choose from, 29% had two insurers to compare, and 67% had three or more insurers competing. So, over the course of a year, the number of consumers with just a single insurer to choose from will rise 800%.
Obamacare fails to live up to its billing
Obamacare has its shortcomings, though. Its expansive requirements for minimum essential benefits were designed to protect the consumer, but they actually wound up causing millions of consumers to lose their pre-Obamacare healthcare plans. This more comprehensive coverage also lifted premium prices.
Meanwhile many insurers, no longer allowed to pick and choose their customers, have been hit by adverse selection. In plainer terms, sicker people who had been shut out of the healthcare system before Obamacare can now buy health insurance, which is leaving insurers with higher medical expenses than expected. For example, UnitedHealth Group (NYSE:UNH), the largest insurer in the country, is on track to lose $500 million this year from its Obamacare plans.
But the biggest concern of all has been premium inflation. It was believed that Obamacare's transparent online marketplace would allow the consumer to make smart purchasing decisions. Furthermore, the risk corridor -- a type of risk-pooling fund that collected money from overly profitable insurers and disbursed those funds to insurers who lost excessive amounts of money by pricing their premiums too low -- was expected to promote competition and help control premium inflation. Neither has had much effect, as consumers are not taking full advantage of the information that's available (many people are re-enrolling every year without comparing plans), and the risk corridor has failed to protect money-losing insurers.
The scariest Obamacare study yet
But the above concerns could be peanuts compared to the latest study released by Avalere Health, a Washington, D.C.-based consulting firm.
According to Avalere's analysis of exchange market regions across the country for the 2017 plan year, nearly 36% of consumers are expected to have just one participating insurer offering coverage. Seven states -- Alaska, Alabama, Kansas, North Carolina, South Carolina, Oklahoma, and Wyoming -- are expected to have just a single insurer offering Obamacare coverage in 2017. It's worth pointing out that a single insurer may offer multiple plans, even within a single ACA tier (bronze, silver, gold, and platinum). However, the only plan comparisons that can presumably be made are with the same insurer.
Furthermore, another 19% of consumers are believed to have a choice between just two insurers. The remaining 45% of consumers are forecast to have three or more competing insurers to choose from. In a small number of regions, Avalere says there may be no Obamacare plans offered at all.
How does this compare with 2016? Based on Avalere's research, just 4% of market region consumers had only one insurer to choose from, 29% had two insurers to compare, and 67% had three or more insurers competing. So, over the course of a year, the number of consumers with just a single insurer to choose from will rise 800%.
6lriley
Obama didn't kill health care so much as try to make better what we already had.
The problem with health insurance companies is they're for profit corporate middlemen and they're not really needed. What they're very good at is 1. limiting or cutting off health care options for their customers and 2. finding any excuse to jack up rates.
Where Obama failed is he could have dealt a death blow to them and brought Pharma to heel.....so we wouldn't have hedge fund investors buying up copy rites for drugs and charging more than people can afford or this epi-pen disaster currently in the news where the Pharma multi-national charges American customers many times over what they would charge say a Canadian customer....and they don't really need a reason other than they can.
Obamacare is a heavily compromised piece of legislation that fell way short of bringing cost control to the American public. Health Insurance providers, Pharmaceuticals have as much or maybe even more leeway to rip off the consumer as they've ever had......and they do that because this is what capitalist corporations dream of doing. Your health, your children's health isn't a right--your options come down to what you can afford to pay for. All the rip offs are still there.
So IMO it should be back to the drawing board. And if that were to happen it should be bye bye to Blue Cross and Aetna. Our neighbor to the north Canada offers a great model of where we should be going with this. The conservative politicians in this country--republicans and some democrats is what stands in the way.
The problem with health insurance companies is they're for profit corporate middlemen and they're not really needed. What they're very good at is 1. limiting or cutting off health care options for their customers and 2. finding any excuse to jack up rates.
Where Obama failed is he could have dealt a death blow to them and brought Pharma to heel.....so we wouldn't have hedge fund investors buying up copy rites for drugs and charging more than people can afford or this epi-pen disaster currently in the news where the Pharma multi-national charges American customers many times over what they would charge say a Canadian customer....and they don't really need a reason other than they can.
Obamacare is a heavily compromised piece of legislation that fell way short of bringing cost control to the American public. Health Insurance providers, Pharmaceuticals have as much or maybe even more leeway to rip off the consumer as they've ever had......and they do that because this is what capitalist corporations dream of doing. Your health, your children's health isn't a right--your options come down to what you can afford to pay for. All the rip offs are still there.
So IMO it should be back to the drawing board. And if that were to happen it should be bye bye to Blue Cross and Aetna. Our neighbor to the north Canada offers a great model of where we should be going with this. The conservative politicians in this country--republicans and some democrats is what stands in the way.
7jjwilson61
I agree with everything Iriley said, but I'd like to make a different point.
ACA was a major piece of legislation and like every major piece of legislation that came before it it required time to see what worked and what didn't and followup legislation to fix what didn't. But the Republicans wouldn't allow for anything but repeal, which was obviously not going to happen, so nothing got done. So, if Obamacare isn't working then you can lay the blame squarely on the Republicans in Congress.
ACA was a major piece of legislation and like every major piece of legislation that came before it it required time to see what worked and what didn't and followup legislation to fix what didn't. But the Republicans wouldn't allow for anything but repeal, which was obviously not going to happen, so nothing got done. So, if Obamacare isn't working then you can lay the blame squarely on the Republicans in Congress.
8barney67
>6 lriley: Wrong, wrong, wrong...
10RickHarsch
>6 lriley: Right, right, right, wrong, right, wrong, right, right, right, left...
12JGL53
The ACA was an improvement over what we had but it is still flawed. Any "health" system founded on a profit motive will not be very healthy for many people.
Like nearly all of the rest of the world, democratic and dictatorial countries alike, what we need is single payer or universal health care. But we won't get it, I'm thinking for a long time, if ever, because too many Americans are uneducated fools - and there are plenty of politicians, including Democratic ones, quite willing to take advantage.
Until we get universal health care we are just spinning our wheels, arguing back and forth for no real good reason. I suggest we all skip this conversation and just drink beer. I think the latest scientific understanding is that beer is good for you - just don't overdo it. So, then, problem solved. You're welcome.
Like nearly all of the rest of the world, democratic and dictatorial countries alike, what we need is single payer or universal health care. But we won't get it, I'm thinking for a long time, if ever, because too many Americans are uneducated fools - and there are plenty of politicians, including Democratic ones, quite willing to take advantage.
Until we get universal health care we are just spinning our wheels, arguing back and forth for no real good reason. I suggest we all skip this conversation and just drink beer. I think the latest scientific understanding is that beer is good for you - just don't overdo it. So, then, problem solved. You're welcome.
13jjwilson61
We won't get gov't health care because the health insurance companies don't want it and they have plenty of money to buy politicians.
14m.belljackson
President Obama tried to get Medicare for all Americans, similar to what other civilized nations have.
Republicans ended that dream.
Republicans ended that dream.
17JGL53
> 16
Actually, it's just an expression. I hate beer - I am THAT UnAmerican. lol.
I prefer hard cider. A lot.
(Back in the crazy '90s I was visiting a friend in Columbus, OH and she took me to a hard cider joint - like a beer joint but they only served hard cider. The place was filled with college students. I couldn't believe it. They didn't even serve food or snacks. Just hard cider. Large mug or small mug. That was the menu.
My mind was blown and I was tempted to become a Yankee but I decided against it - I couldn't give up the S. fried chicken, grits, corn bread and turnip greens of my 50th-in-per-capita-income state. (Unfortunately, like most men, the way to my heart is through my stomach.)
Actually, it's just an expression. I hate beer - I am THAT UnAmerican. lol.
I prefer hard cider. A lot.
(Back in the crazy '90s I was visiting a friend in Columbus, OH and she took me to a hard cider joint - like a beer joint but they only served hard cider. The place was filled with college students. I couldn't believe it. They didn't even serve food or snacks. Just hard cider. Large mug or small mug. That was the menu.
My mind was blown and I was tempted to become a Yankee but I decided against it - I couldn't give up the S. fried chicken, grits, corn bread and turnip greens of my 50th-in-per-capita-income state. (Unfortunately, like most men, the way to my heart is through my stomach.)
18lriley
#17--you might like Moonshine apple pie.
pot big enough to handle more than two gallons of liquid.
1 gallon apple cider
1 gallon apple juice
2 cups white sugar
1 cup brown sugar
a couple to a few cinnamon sticks depending on how much you like cinnamon.
1 generous teaspoon of vanilla.
Throw all that in a pot and let it come to a boil--then let it cool to somewhere near room temperature.
Then you need a quart of 190 proof everclear which you pour and then stir into the cooled mixture above.
That's good enough for a little more than 9 quart jars---which you put in your refrigerator and let cool for a couple weeks. You can leave the cinnamon sticks in or out depending again on how much you like cinnamon.
pot big enough to handle more than two gallons of liquid.
1 gallon apple cider
1 gallon apple juice
2 cups white sugar
1 cup brown sugar
a couple to a few cinnamon sticks depending on how much you like cinnamon.
1 generous teaspoon of vanilla.
Throw all that in a pot and let it come to a boil--then let it cool to somewhere near room temperature.
Then you need a quart of 190 proof everclear which you pour and then stir into the cooled mixture above.
That's good enough for a little more than 9 quart jars---which you put in your refrigerator and let cool for a couple weeks. You can leave the cinnamon sticks in or out depending again on how much you like cinnamon.
19BruceCoulson
The key question (which Obamacare, aka the Affordable Care Act, carefully avoided) is; should health care be a right (like clean water, pure foods, roads, mail delivery, national defense, etc.) or part of the market economy?
If it's a right, then the government gets to set minimum standards of health care, and does their best to see that it's applied to everyone. Private health insurers, like contractors who make and maintain public roads, are entitled to a profit; but it's based on their performance.
If health care is to be part of the market economy, then a lot of people will go without health care, because it's not economical to provide it to them. By the same token, companies won't be obligated to buy health insurance for their employees, and so private health insurance companies will have to manage their costs AND how much they charge...because their customers can't be forced to buy their service.
Until this question is answered, one way or another, no system will truly work.
If it's a right, then the government gets to set minimum standards of health care, and does their best to see that it's applied to everyone. Private health insurers, like contractors who make and maintain public roads, are entitled to a profit; but it's based on their performance.
If health care is to be part of the market economy, then a lot of people will go without health care, because it's not economical to provide it to them. By the same token, companies won't be obligated to buy health insurance for their employees, and so private health insurance companies will have to manage their costs AND how much they charge...because their customers can't be forced to buy their service.
Until this question is answered, one way or another, no system will truly work.
20southernbooklady
>19 BruceCoulson: should health care be a right (like clean water, pure foods, roads, mail delivery, national defense, etc.) or part of the market economy?
Maybe not a "right" so much as recognized as fundamental to a strong infrastructure?
Maybe not a "right" so much as recognized as fundamental to a strong infrastructure?
21barney67
The key question is how to pay for it.
We get back to the same problem again with democracy, with a democratic view of looking at the world, which means wanting everyone to be equal. Because some people didn't have health care, the rest of us had to pay for it, literally pay for it with our money, and figurately pay for it by having to deal with the consequences of a terrible health care system that's only going to get worse. For all of us. Bring the bottom up, bring the top down, squash the middle, until everything and everyone exists in a flat center where everyone is equally miserable.
That is a left-wing, democratic way of looking at things.
If you accept a democratic way of seeing, you have to conclude that people without health care are victims and that they need to be taken care of by the rest of us. You privilege the poor, romanticize them, cheer for the underdog, the idealized common man.
Apply it to food. You can't have good, healthy good, but you can have cheap, unhealthy fast food.
I got back surgery two years ago that was in the six figures. Without insurance companies, I never would have been able to pay for it. This is the situation many of you—Democrats, the Obamas and Clintons of the world—would like to eliminate. I'm not poor, as poor is defined in America today, and I'm not wealthy. I'm not one of the Democrats' golden chosen. Does my suffering still count because I'm not? Do I get to be a victim? Or am I disposable?
Do you have any idea what chronic pain is? Chronic means every minute of every day without surcease. If you have ever felt that, you begin to understand why people get addicted to painkillers like oxycontin. Remember that the next time you make fun of them. But you don't want them to take pills. You don't want them to have surgery. Nice of you for volunteering other people to live in pain. Do you feel their pain? Of course not. You haven't and you can't.
I'm talking about everyone, not the idealized, romanticized poor. You are condemning the victims of back pain, and other illnesses, to live in indefinite prolonged misery so the poor can afford health care.
That's impractical, immoral, and vicious. And it's hidden in the rhetoric of caring.
I find that loathsome.
We get back to the same problem again with democracy, with a democratic view of looking at the world, which means wanting everyone to be equal. Because some people didn't have health care, the rest of us had to pay for it, literally pay for it with our money, and figurately pay for it by having to deal with the consequences of a terrible health care system that's only going to get worse. For all of us. Bring the bottom up, bring the top down, squash the middle, until everything and everyone exists in a flat center where everyone is equally miserable.
That is a left-wing, democratic way of looking at things.
If you accept a democratic way of seeing, you have to conclude that people without health care are victims and that they need to be taken care of by the rest of us. You privilege the poor, romanticize them, cheer for the underdog, the idealized common man.
Apply it to food. You can't have good, healthy good, but you can have cheap, unhealthy fast food.
I got back surgery two years ago that was in the six figures. Without insurance companies, I never would have been able to pay for it. This is the situation many of you—Democrats, the Obamas and Clintons of the world—would like to eliminate. I'm not poor, as poor is defined in America today, and I'm not wealthy. I'm not one of the Democrats' golden chosen. Does my suffering still count because I'm not? Do I get to be a victim? Or am I disposable?
Do you have any idea what chronic pain is? Chronic means every minute of every day without surcease. If you have ever felt that, you begin to understand why people get addicted to painkillers like oxycontin. Remember that the next time you make fun of them. But you don't want them to take pills. You don't want them to have surgery. Nice of you for volunteering other people to live in pain. Do you feel their pain? Of course not. You haven't and you can't.
I'm talking about everyone, not the idealized, romanticized poor. You are condemning the victims of back pain, and other illnesses, to live in indefinite prolonged misery so the poor can afford health care.
That's impractical, immoral, and vicious. And it's hidden in the rhetoric of caring.
I find that loathsome.
22barney67
If you think that health care is better in Canada, England, France, or anywhere else, you are so absolutely freaking stupid that you can't be reasoned with. You are a yahoo. Go back to watching pro wrestling and don't vote.
If you think health care is getting better, or going to get better with "Medicare for everyone", you don't have a clue. You know nothing about Medicare, about medicine, health care, and so much else.
Demand more of yourself and learn. Face reality. Pull your head out of the sand. Stop hiding behind the rhetoric of caring. Stop voting for people who have been wrecking this country.
If you think health care is getting better, or going to get better with "Medicare for everyone", you don't have a clue. You know nothing about Medicare, about medicine, health care, and so much else.
Demand more of yourself and learn. Face reality. Pull your head out of the sand. Stop hiding behind the rhetoric of caring. Stop voting for people who have been wrecking this country.
23theoria
>22 barney67: "If you think that health care is better in Canada, England, France, or anywhere else, you are so absolutely freaking stupid that you can't be reasoned with. You are a yahoo. Go back to watching pro wrestling and don't vote."
Life expectancy: the US ranks 31st, behind Costa Rica and ahead of Cuba.
Canada #12
UK #20
France #9
( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_life_expectancy )
Life expectancy: the US ranks 31st, behind Costa Rica and ahead of Cuba.
Canada #12
UK #20
France #9
( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_life_expectancy )
24lriley
#22--I like your 'or anywhere else'. Our health care system certainly is No. 1 when it comes to how expensive it is. We're winning at that hands down.
As far as your advice--I think you should demand more of yourself and learn. You should face reality and pull your head out of the sand. You should stop hiding behind rhetoric and cliché.
I think you should also take a gander at Bruce Coulson's #19.
As far as your advice--I think you should demand more of yourself and learn. You should face reality and pull your head out of the sand. You should stop hiding behind rhetoric and cliché.
I think you should also take a gander at Bruce Coulson's #19.
25jjwilson61
>21 barney67: Wow, what a twisted world view you have. What you way makes no sense. In a world where there was free health care then anyone would be able to get back surgery if they need it. And yes, everyone would be paying more in taxes, but then they'd be paying zero in health insurance premiums so it all balances out.
26JGL53
During the primaries Bernie keep talking about an example of a family in some future America with universal health care who paid $7000 more in taxes each year but didn't have to pay the $12000 in health insurance premiums they do now, thus saving $5000 a year.
Was he insane? Was he lying? No and no. By cutting out the unnecessary middle man (insurance companies) and having the government set upper limit prices on drugs, nursing home care, etc. there would be incredible savings. Last time I checked the U.S. per capita spending on health care was the highest in the world. We are actually in a class all by ourselves on this. E.g., Mexico has similar health outcomes to the U.S. for about one-seventh the money (data from a few years back that I remember and I doubt anything has changed much).
People who do not understand all this at all can talk up a lot of shit - and whether it comes out of their mouths or out of their asses does not make a fucking bit of difference.
People who do not know what the fuck they are talking about would do themselves and everyone else within earshot a giant favor if they would just SHUT THE FUCK UP - if and until they DOo actually know some god damn facts. A naked opinion based in nothing but hot air would cook popcorn, sure - otherwise it is about as useful as a dog shit sandwich.
Any questions?
Was he insane? Was he lying? No and no. By cutting out the unnecessary middle man (insurance companies) and having the government set upper limit prices on drugs, nursing home care, etc. there would be incredible savings. Last time I checked the U.S. per capita spending on health care was the highest in the world. We are actually in a class all by ourselves on this. E.g., Mexico has similar health outcomes to the U.S. for about one-seventh the money (data from a few years back that I remember and I doubt anything has changed much).
People who do not understand all this at all can talk up a lot of shit - and whether it comes out of their mouths or out of their asses does not make a fucking bit of difference.
People who do not know what the fuck they are talking about would do themselves and everyone else within earshot a giant favor if they would just SHUT THE FUCK UP - if and until they DOo actually know some god damn facts. A naked opinion based in nothing but hot air would cook popcorn, sure - otherwise it is about as useful as a dog shit sandwich.
Any questions?
27barney67
>23 theoria: You're using one dubious statistic to make a conclusion about something as complex as the health care system.
28BruceCoulson
>19 BruceCoulson:
I could see that distinction, sure. Either way, we as a people need to decide which it's going to be.
I could see that distinction, sure. Either way, we as a people need to decide which it's going to be.
29stellarexplorer
I'm in the camp that philosophically views health care as a right, not as a commodity. That is why it has been frustrating and disappointing to find my own coverage to be so inferior now that Obamacare, at least in NY, has forced the self-employed (i.e. Me) into the pool. This was done to expand the pool of individuals who would have to use the exchanges.
Whereas I formerly had the ability to pay for a more expensive policy that would offer me the one thing that is most important to me in health care -- the ability to see an out-of-network provider -- there is no such option here for me no matter how much I am willing to pay. Well at least there is no insurance option. What remains is the option to pay 100% of the fee myself. Perhaps this is the cost of bringing about a system that one day will work out its kinks. I'm not expecting anyone to cry over my dilemma. Clearly those who previously had no health insurance are better off even if I am in a less desirable position.
My issue is this: why am I as a self employed individual relegated to a different category than someone who has the same job but works for a large company that can offer insurance (including out-of-network coverage) to its employees? It strikes me that Obamacare will work better, and will enable insurance companies to offer the most competitive prices and coverages, the more people are signed up. It makes no sense to me anymore to tie insurance to employment. I would like to see everyone -- not just the poor, those who don't have insurance through work, and the self-employed -- become part of the pool. It's better for the health care system. And it's more equitable.
Whereas I formerly had the ability to pay for a more expensive policy that would offer me the one thing that is most important to me in health care -- the ability to see an out-of-network provider -- there is no such option here for me no matter how much I am willing to pay. Well at least there is no insurance option. What remains is the option to pay 100% of the fee myself. Perhaps this is the cost of bringing about a system that one day will work out its kinks. I'm not expecting anyone to cry over my dilemma. Clearly those who previously had no health insurance are better off even if I am in a less desirable position.
My issue is this: why am I as a self employed individual relegated to a different category than someone who has the same job but works for a large company that can offer insurance (including out-of-network coverage) to its employees? It strikes me that Obamacare will work better, and will enable insurance companies to offer the most competitive prices and coverages, the more people are signed up. It makes no sense to me anymore to tie insurance to employment. I would like to see everyone -- not just the poor, those who don't have insurance through work, and the self-employed -- become part of the pool. It's better for the health care system. And it's more equitable.
30theoria
>27 barney67: There's nothing dubious about life and death, unless one is undead (i.e., vampyre or zombie). There was certainly nothing "complex" about your comment >22 barney67: which is filled with cheap condescension ("you don't have a clue") and anti-democratic animus (your now edited command for those who disagree with you to "go back to watching pro wrestling and don't vote").
31jjwilson61
>29 stellarexplorer: Having companies decide what insurance company all their employees have to use means that the incentive for the insurance companies is to keep the HR managers happy. There is very little incentive to actually make their insurance easy to use for the people who actually use it.
32stellarexplorer
>31 jjwilson61: No doubt there is an internal politics to corporate health insurance offerings. This doesn't change the fact that corporate employees are exempted from the requirement to get their insurance through the exchanges; that that policy reduces the pool for the exchanges, making Obamacare less robust; that insurance options for employees who are insured through work have fewer intrinsic limitations. I maintain that one additional consequence among those I've mentioned is that this state of affairs places a unjustified burden on the self-employed. And that it is time to end the practice of linking health insurance to one's job.
33barney67
>29 stellarexplorer: I'm not expecting anyone to cry over my dilemma.
I won't, because you caused the problem yourself when you voted for Obama. Unfortunately, the rest of us have the pay the consequences of other people's bad decisions.
I won't, because you caused the problem yourself when you voted for Obama. Unfortunately, the rest of us have the pay the consequences of other people's bad decisions.
34barney67
>30 theoria: your now edited command for those who disagree with you to "go back to watching pro wrestling and don't vote").
Did I delete that part? OK. I'll say it again. I'm tired of America being run by stupid people. They should go back to watching pro wrestling and not be allowed to vote.
Again I encourage everyone to watch the movie Idiocracy.
Did I delete that part? OK. I'll say it again. I'm tired of America being run by stupid people. They should go back to watching pro wrestling and not be allowed to vote.
Again I encourage everyone to watch the movie Idiocracy.
35stellarexplorer
>33 barney67: To address this issue on the level of "you voted for him" is puerile. Surely you can do better than place the burden of fixing the system on the shoulders of my voting record. Of course that is silly if in fact you don't want it fixed. In that case, I don't see a basis for conversation.
36southernbooklady
>28 BruceCoulson: I could see that distinction, sure. Either way, we as a people need to decide which it's going to be.
In fact, one of my hopes is that the ACA will get people thinking of health care as "basic infrastructure" (although like others I personally believe it is a "right" in the moral sense) just like education (also a moral "right"). I think taking pre-existing conditions off the table as a reason to deny a person health care is a big step in that direction, one people won't be stepping back from, now that they have it.
In fact, one of my hopes is that the ACA will get people thinking of health care as "basic infrastructure" (although like others I personally believe it is a "right" in the moral sense) just like education (also a moral "right"). I think taking pre-existing conditions off the table as a reason to deny a person health care is a big step in that direction, one people won't be stepping back from, now that they have it.
37rrp
Even before the ACA, the US spend a lot of taxpayers' money on other peoples health care, through Medicare, Medicaid and ER visits subsidized by other paying patients. Health care paid for by society at large has been a "right" for a long time. The only question has been what should society pay for and what should the individual pay for. We all would agree that we collectively should pay for emergency care for the poorest in society. We, maybe, all would agree that a Hollywood star should pay for their own cosmetic surgery. We can all reasonably hold different opinions on where to draw the line between those two extremes.
I don't know for sure, but I suspect that all systems in the world have a mixed system. In the UK, the government will pay for everyone, but if you want to jump the long queue, you can pay privately.
That said, the problems in the US is cost. The ACA has problems because the measures intended to control costs were gutted. The system will never be fixed until a way is found to control costs.
The US has the most expensive health care system in the world. The US Government pays more per head of population on healthcare than nearly every other county, more per head than the UK Government does for example. That's just Government expenditure, paid out of taxes, it does not include private and employer expenditure on healthcare. The US Government pays for the healthcare of the old and poor. The UK insures everyone with less. And by nearly every measure, healthcare outcomes are higher in the UK. The US Government is simply not getting sufficient value for the taxpayers' money.
I don't know for sure, but I suspect that all systems in the world have a mixed system. In the UK, the government will pay for everyone, but if you want to jump the long queue, you can pay privately.
That said, the problems in the US is cost. The ACA has problems because the measures intended to control costs were gutted. The system will never be fixed until a way is found to control costs.
The US has the most expensive health care system in the world. The US Government pays more per head of population on healthcare than nearly every other county, more per head than the UK Government does for example. That's just Government expenditure, paid out of taxes, it does not include private and employer expenditure on healthcare. The US Government pays for the healthcare of the old and poor. The UK insures everyone with less. And by nearly every measure, healthcare outcomes are higher in the UK. The US Government is simply not getting sufficient value for the taxpayers' money.
38RickHarsch
>26 JGL53:
'People who do not know what the fuck they are talking about would do themselves and everyone else within earshot a giant favor if they would just SHUT THE FUCK UP - if and until they DOo actually know some god damn facts. A naked opinion based in nothing but hot air would cook popcorn, sure - otherwise it is about as useful as a dog shit sandwich.
Any questions?'
Yes: Would you not miss people talking bullshit? I know I would.
'People who do not know what the fuck they are talking about would do themselves and everyone else within earshot a giant favor if they would just SHUT THE FUCK UP - if and until they DOo actually know some god damn facts. A naked opinion based in nothing but hot air would cook popcorn, sure - otherwise it is about as useful as a dog shit sandwich.
Any questions?'
Yes: Would you not miss people talking bullshit? I know I would.
39RickHarsch
>30 theoria: I came late to this one, so I missed the pro wrestling. I don't vote, so I am wondering: is there some important connection between not voting and watching pro wrestling? If so, though I don't watch tv I do get internet so could catch up with youtube.
Clueless in Slovenia (with free health care)
Clueless in Slovenia (with free health care)
40RickHarsch
>34 barney67: Ah, I spoke to soon. I can ask you directly, Barn (as Andy would say), is there something to this combination of not voting and watching pro wrestling?
41alco261
>21 barney67: How does one have cheap unhealthy fast food? Just a quick check - one 8 oz. bag of Lays Potato Chips - $3.49. One 10 pound bag of potatoes to be prepared any way you want - $3.00 therefore 10 pounds of potato chips would come in at $69.80. It should be noted that $3.00 is not greater than $69.80 even for very large values of $3.00.
42jjwilson61
It seems that the states that where the ACA is collapsing are the same states that have fought it since it started, http://www.latimes.com/nation/la-na-obamacare-marketplaces-turmoil-20160907-snap...
Among other things, they blocked expansion of Medicaid coverage for the poor, erected barriers to enrollment and refused to move health plans into the Obamacare marketplaces, a key step to bringing in healthier consumers.
So, if it isn't working, the residents of those states should blame their own governors and legislatures.
Among other things, they blocked expansion of Medicaid coverage for the poor, erected barriers to enrollment and refused to move health plans into the Obamacare marketplaces, a key step to bringing in healthier consumers.
So, if it isn't working, the residents of those states should blame their own governors and legislatures.
43barney67
Probably the biggest reason my sister is voting for Trump is that Obama's actions regarding medicine (pushing it over the cliff) have directly affected her in the past two years. She has had to get new insurance every year for the past two years.
It would be stupid for her to vote for Mrs Clinton and more of the same, or worse. Likely worse since Crooked Hillary believes she and she alone knows what's best for the rest of us. Maybe she can pay for my sister's insurance, if she can find any, after she finds jobs for all those coal miners she promised to put out of work.
It would be stupid for her to vote for Mrs Clinton and more of the same, or worse. Likely worse since Crooked Hillary believes she and she alone knows what's best for the rest of us. Maybe she can pay for my sister's insurance, if she can find any, after she finds jobs for all those coal miners she promised to put out of work.
44barney67
http://www.wsj.com/articles/aca-deadline-extended-for-those-who-lost-their-healt...
The Obama administration Monday confirmed a 25% average jump in premiums for the Affordable Care Act’s benchmark health plans and acknowledged later sign-up deadlines for hundreds of thousands of people whose insurers are dropping their plans because of rising costs.
Sharper increases had already been posted in states around the country. Market-leader insurers that are continuing to sell coverage through HealthCare.gov or a state equivalent have been granted average premium increases of 30% or more in Alabama, Delaware, Hawaii, Kansas, Mississippi and Texas. In states including Arizona, Illinois, Montana, Oklahoma, Pennsylvania and Tennessee, the approved rate increases for the market leader top 50%.
And in another blow to President Barack Obama’s signature domestic program, consumers in many areas will also have few plans to pick from.
Most of the 10 million people who currently get coverage through an insurance exchange such as HealthCare.gov don’t pay the full premiums because they receive subsidies from the federal government that are pegged to insurance prices in their area. As many as nine million people currently buy individual coverage without using the site, but at similar prices, and most of them aren’t eligible for subsidies.
Hundreds of thousands of consumers whose health insurance plans are being discontinued for 2017 will get some flexibility when signing up for a new plan during the Affordable Care Act’s open enrollment, a sign of continued turmoil in the exchange markets.
The Obama administration Monday confirmed a 25% average jump in premiums for the Affordable Care Act’s benchmark health plans and acknowledged later sign-up deadlines for hundreds of thousands of people whose insurers are dropping their plans because of rising costs.
Sharper increases had already been posted in states around the country. Market-leader insurers that are continuing to sell coverage through HealthCare.gov or a state equivalent have been granted average premium increases of 30% or more in Alabama, Delaware, Hawaii, Kansas, Mississippi and Texas. In states including Arizona, Illinois, Montana, Oklahoma, Pennsylvania and Tennessee, the approved rate increases for the market leader top 50%.
And in another blow to President Barack Obama’s signature domestic program, consumers in many areas will also have few plans to pick from.
Most of the 10 million people who currently get coverage through an insurance exchange such as HealthCare.gov don’t pay the full premiums because they receive subsidies from the federal government that are pegged to insurance prices in their area. As many as nine million people currently buy individual coverage without using the site, but at similar prices, and most of them aren’t eligible for subsidies.
Hundreds of thousands of consumers whose health insurance plans are being discontinued for 2017 will get some flexibility when signing up for a new plan during the Affordable Care Act’s open enrollment, a sign of continued turmoil in the exchange markets.
45barney67
http://www.wsj.com/articles/obama-defends-health-care-law-1476999645
"Mr. Obama made several jabs at Republicans in his bid to persuade them to join with Democrats and approve changes to the law, saying he hoped they would “just work with the next president to smooth out the kinks..."
!!!!!
"Mr. Obama made several jabs at Republicans in his bid to persuade them to join with Democrats and approve changes to the law, saying he hoped they would “just work with the next president to smooth out the kinks..."
!!!!!
46barney67
http://www.wsj.com/articles/accountability-for-obamacare-1477435661
"Mr. Trump has missed a chance by not prosecuting a consistent case against ObamaCare, despite Mrs. Clinton’s past as the chief architect of its HillaryCare prototype in the 1990s. As that episode shows, the longstanding progressive goal has been to centralize political control over American health care.
Now voters are finally seeing what happens when the planners try to design a single health-care solution for a large and diverse country."
"ObamaCare has suddenly been injected back into the 2016 election debate, on the news of the law’s 25%-plus average premium increase for 2017. "
"Next year’s enormous price increases are merely the latest expression of ObamaCare’s underlying problems, and the dysfunction is undermining the health security of Americans who lack employer coverage. A wave of major insurers have quit the exchanges, and those that are left have raised deductibles and copays and restricted choices of doctors and hospitals. "
"the law was unpopular when Democrats rammed it through Congress on a partisan vote in 2009-10"
"in 2014 President Obama tried to buck up Democrats by saying that “five years from now” people will look back on the law as “a monumental achievement.”
"millions of individual health plans that were cancelled despite President Obama’s promise about keeping them. "
"The Affordable Care Act has done what it was designed to do," Mr. Obama declared last week in Miami, "and as soon I'm done sunbathing on the beaches of Miami, I promise to look into it."
"Mr. Trump has missed a chance by not prosecuting a consistent case against ObamaCare, despite Mrs. Clinton’s past as the chief architect of its HillaryCare prototype in the 1990s. As that episode shows, the longstanding progressive goal has been to centralize political control over American health care.
Now voters are finally seeing what happens when the planners try to design a single health-care solution for a large and diverse country."
"ObamaCare has suddenly been injected back into the 2016 election debate, on the news of the law’s 25%-plus average premium increase for 2017. "
"Next year’s enormous price increases are merely the latest expression of ObamaCare’s underlying problems, and the dysfunction is undermining the health security of Americans who lack employer coverage. A wave of major insurers have quit the exchanges, and those that are left have raised deductibles and copays and restricted choices of doctors and hospitals. "
"the law was unpopular when Democrats rammed it through Congress on a partisan vote in 2009-10"
"in 2014 President Obama tried to buck up Democrats by saying that “five years from now” people will look back on the law as “a monumental achievement.”
"millions of individual health plans that were cancelled despite President Obama’s promise about keeping them. "
"The Affordable Care Act has done what it was designed to do," Mr. Obama declared last week in Miami, "and as soon I'm done sunbathing on the beaches of Miami, I promise to look into it."
47rkchr
>43 barney67: barney67
Well your sister may have had a bad experience with ACA, but mine was good.
I lost my job in 2015 and went on ACA in Jan 2016. I stayed with the healthcare provider I was using while employed and got a lower cost.
One of my friends could not get insurance before ACA cause of pre-existing conditions. He is also happy that he is able to get insured.
I do believe it could be improved, but I know it is not a disaster for all of us.
as they say : #thanksoboma
Well your sister may have had a bad experience with ACA, but mine was good.
I lost my job in 2015 and went on ACA in Jan 2016. I stayed with the healthcare provider I was using while employed and got a lower cost.
One of my friends could not get insurance before ACA cause of pre-existing conditions. He is also happy that he is able to get insured.
I do believe it could be improved, but I know it is not a disaster for all of us.
as they say : #thanksoboma
