[besson3c]

Originally Posted by BadKosh 

Start copying your posts to WORD documents so you can re-post it later.

Word? Ew...

[subego]

Originally Posted by The Final Dakar 

Well there was the fiscal discussion also.

But my point is, single-payer was a large concession.

I don't think you're looking at this the right way.

The issue is a monumentally divisive atmosphere.

The "here... I'll take something you 100% hate and make it only 70% hate" discussion can only happen with someone you're on good terms with.

If your goal is something on the 70-100% scale, and you're not on good terms, the only solution is to get on better terms.

If you just go with it anyway, what you end up with is a mess, which I say aptly describes this whole situation.


We can talk the economy, but my ability to do research is limited at the moment.

How much you need to raise taxes after a cut depends on how well the economy is stimulated by said cut. You're taxing less, but the stimulated economy provides more to tax.

Overall though, thinking of Bush as fiscally responsible is kinda ludicrous, innit?

[Shaddim]

Originally Posted by subego 

I feel like the lone defender of the baggage-free term "socialism".

The ACA is socialist, so is the military.

I like the military, therefore I am capable of liking socialism.

My dislike of the ACA isn't anti-socialism. That would be inordinately hypocritical of me considering I'm in a state pool right now. My main issue has been it's going to be too expensive.

If we could fund it without deficit spending, I wouldn't have major issues with a more socialized HC system, provided the coverage is good. Obamacare is a steaming pile, however (not talking about the web portal).

[Shaddim]

Originally Posted by The Final Dakar 

But my point is, single-payer was a large concession.

Never would have passed, even if Congress were all Dems. We don't have the budget for it, not with what's on our plate. Sure, it could be made to work, sit me down with them for two weeks , but the warhawks and subsidy/pork lovers would choke on their own fluids.

[ebuddy]

Originally Posted by The Final Dakar 

Feel free to elucidate rather than take vague pot shots at me.

That's why I offered both possibilities. I'm not going to assume which one applies to you.

socialism: a transitional economic model in which there is a fully-realized cooperation between government and corporation for the ownership and planning of the means of production under a centralized authority. Generally, socialism grows from capitalism and transitions away from a free market-based economic model toward fully-realized communism. Because socialism is transitional, it naturally occurs over a continuum of progress away from free market capitalism.

socialist: a policy or position that, when combined with all or most other policies would constitute fully-realized cooperation between government and corporation under a centralized authority; another point along the continuum of progress away from free market capitalism.

socialize: the act of placing a policy or provision into the co-op.

The only reason it has negative baggage is because no one admits to the parts of it we use and like. So we get idiots like this:

Again, it's all about perspectives. Either you appreciate the idea or you don't. Taking something that applies to 12.4% of the population and rolling it into a co-op that applies to the remaining 87.6% of us constitutes a relatively major jump along the continuum. Hence, the complaint. It hardly does any good to complain once socialism is fully-realized. If you oppose such a thing.

[BadKosh]

Health care isn't a right. WHY must I pay for others health care? Wouldn't it have easier to fix the parts that were flawed or unfair without re-inventing the wheel that now looks like a triangle shaped piece of rock?

[besson3c]

Originally Posted by BadKosh 

Health care isn't a right. WHY must I pay for others health care? Wouldn't it have easier to fix the parts that were flawed or unfair without re-inventing the wheel that now looks like a triangle shaped piece of rock?

The parts that were flawed were the costs (this is the big one), the pre-existing condition loopholes, the complexity of the individual state regulations, the fact that health care expenses often lead to personal bankruptcy which others have to pay for, the tethering to employment discouraging personal risk taking in the form of starting new businesses, the fact that individuals pay more for their insurance plans than larger employers do, the lack of preventative care/treatment, the opaqueness of medical costs, the inefficiency of referrals, etc. All of this is off the top of my head.

What would you do about this?

[Shaddim]

The Bronze deductibles are enough to nearly bankrupt some people.

[besson3c]

Originally Posted by Shaddim 

The Bronze deductibles are enough to nearly bankrupt some people.

Compared to what though, paying for the treatment out-of-pocket?

It seems to me that if you can't afford a bronze deductible, you most likely can't afford the deductible of a plan today, and you can't afford to pay out-of-pocket, so no matter what you are screwed.


If this is in reference to the story of people's plans ceasing to exist because they don't meet the new ACA guidelines, I'm hoping that this is a certain population falling through the cracks sort of thing, and that this can be remedied with federal negotiations with the providers for new plans now that this has been outed.

I say that "I hope" not because of political damage, but because I'm genuinely concerned for this population, as we all are.

I'm hoping that I can come up with a better understanding of some of your opinions on health care solutions in my new thread, but my tentative understanding is that many of you on the right aren't opposed to federal regulation to help insurance companies compete across state lines, and perhaps to help provide standards to help prevent abuse such as the pre-existing condition loophole (although some might say the former will take care of the latter?), but this ACA stuff is way too-much-too-soon, and the individual mandate is a non-starter with many of you?

I'm actually starting to think that maybe things should be phased in slower or differently so that the totality of this 2014 transition isn't so massive. I'm also thinking that maybe the way the individual mandate is presented should be different so that non-political people don't feel like scum for not getting themselves insurance because they are one of those people that fell through the cracks.

I guess the lacking severity in the penalty is supposed to accomplish this, but it probably shouldn't be presented as a penalty. This transitional plan is certainly flawed. I'm not sure if there is a better way to do this that won't upset some number of people, but I'm having a really hard time deciding how much of the pains being experienced now could have been avoided.

[besson3c]

In other words, I'm starting to believe that the overall ACA plan is theoretically sound, the transition not. I don't mean to undermine the severity of the wobbly transition though, because the devil is in the details, some would say the meaty part of the ACA *is* the transition.

IOW, if all of the bronze plan people were paying under $50/month or so, the amount that needed to be fiscally subsidized was sustainable and the whole system economically sound given the higher volume of usage, and we started to see a healthy number of options, I would call this a success. Until then... Dunno.

I also think that anybody that can project how this transition will play out is full of themselves at this point, this is a very large and complex transition, but also an attempt to address a problem so very, very, badly in need of attention.

[Shaddim]

Originally Posted by besson3c 

Compared to what though, paying for the treatment out-of-pocket?

Many doctors (several in my area that I know of) will give you a cash discount and allow you to make payments on the whole bill, I don't think you can do that with a deductible.

Also, FWIW, a growing number of practitioners (nearly 10%) are no longer accepting insurance at all. It's cash, credit, or nothing.

http://www.forbes.com/sites/brucejap...are-exchanges/

[Snow-i]

Originally Posted by besson3c 

In other words, I'm starting to believe that the overall ACA plan is theoretically sound

In theory, yes. The problem with all these entitlements and government intervention is that practically speaking, several assumptions required for the "theory" to work are untrue. Assumptions such as costs would fall (they've gone up), that young healthy people would sign up (they aren't), that you if you like your plan you would be able to keep your plan (Alot can't).

So what to do as? Continue to implement a plan that essentially makes a liar out of you and has real, immediate and immense negative effects on people or hold off until we can find a plan that accomplishes our goals without destroying the economy? It's great that "more people" can now sign up for healthcare but when you destroy the underlying market and increase costs, the net effect is that the expense to quality of care ratio results in the majority of Americans paying more for shittier care. That's what we're seeing now. The money has to come from somewhere and when it doesn't it's ultimately the consumer who will suffer, either in their wallets or at the doctor's office (more than likely both). Don't you think we can do better? In this case, something is making it worse then nothing. The political process for doing so was subverted and we were lied to from the beginning. After claiming how this thing would be transparent and open to all for scrutiny, we were told that we "would have to pass it to see what's in it." From a common sense standpoint, that is so patently absurd that I have a hard time believing in the intelligence of anyone who buys into this Administration's PR.

the transition not. I don't mean to undermine the severity of the wobbly transition though, because the devil is in the details, some would say the meaty part of the ACA *is* the transition.

The devil is in the details. Details such as 28% higher costs for the same coverage, an increase in required coverage, millions losing their existing coverage, an administration that is more worried about the next election than the welfare of it's constituency.

The ACA has not only failed in its three primary goals, it has exacerbated the very problems it was supposed to fix.

Problem:Costs are too high.
Promise: ACA will reduce costs for care and services
ACA Reality:Raise costs across the board by 28%

Problem:Millions are uninsured.
Promise: If you like your plan, you can keep it!
ACA Reality: Inadvertently (and indifferently) cause millions of people to lose their existing plans.

Problem:Insurance is inaccessible to those without it now.
Promise: All else the same, Poor people can sign up through a website.
ACA Reality: Dump half a billion of taxpayer money into a website that doesn't work, see realities one and two.

Problem:For this to work, everyone has to participate.
Promise: Everyone will be, under penalty of law, required to sign up for this.
ACA Reality: Obama's friends, Congress, and Big biz get a pass. Businesses that aren't exempted cut the number of fulltime employees they have to reduce the costs (which have now gone up another 28%). Profits and productivity plummet which will have a measurable effect on jobs in the US. Starting and maintaining a business because more expensive and more difficult which results in less surviving and providing employment. The 40 hour work week is destroyed as it is simply not a smart business decision to keep it. The middle and working class suffer immensely as an already dismal employment situation becomes worse because businesses cannot afford to hire as many full time employees (since the costs have gone up). Someone has to pay, besson. Do you really think the rich and connected are going to be the ones to do so?

There is no reason that we cannot keep the aspects of the law that make sense. Allow people with preexisting conditions to get coverage and allow college kids to stay on their parents plans until 26. These two aspects are not in contention and receive not only support in the general population but bi-partisan support in Congress. However, these provisions will be entirely useless to the general population should this plan move forward and the middle class begins to disappear. Someone has to pay, besson. That is a reality that cannot be escaped, no matter how much you wish it weren't so. Increasing costs and decreasing service will not serve the interests of the population long term. If you think it's tough for poor people now, wait until the money runs out and as a result the level of care decreases and doctors leave the field because quite simply, there's no incentive to spend 15 years and hundreds of thousands of dollars to go to medical school since the money isn't there unless your clientele can pay cash (guess who that is?)

The rich, Congress, and the Unions will not suffer the same way the general population does, because they've been inexplicably exempted from a law that takes "everyone to participate to work." How many times must you be lied to in order to become skeptical of the PR campaign? A dog bites you once...

[besson3c]

Originally Posted by Shaddim 

Many doctors (several in my area that I know of) will give you a cash discount and allow you to make payments on the whole bill, I don't think you can do that with a deductible.

Also, FWIW, a growing number of practitioners (nearly 10%) are no longer accepting insurance at all. It's cash, credit, or nothing.

40 Percent Of Doctor Practices Unsure About Obamacare Exchanges - Forbes

But you don't pay the doctor directly, you pay the insurance company. I'm sure some provide deferments with interest too. The nature of these deferments and interest rates and such, if they exist, is another thing that should be properly regulated. I say "properly" in an ebuddy-esque way - i.e. not a modern day regulation, but a sound regulatory structure.

[turtle777]

Let's face the truth: The Obama administration lied. ObamaCare was never about lowering healthcare cost. It was about keeping the old racket of insurance companies, lobbyists, the pharma industry and big health care providers going a little longer.

We all know and agree that the US health care system was f*cked up. Only idiots truly believed that giving this racket a "socialist" touch would really fix the problem.

I, for one, applaud ObamaCare. It has shown clear as day how Americans get screwed on healthcare.
And rather than fixing it, it exposes this system for what it is.

ObamaCare was a big step forward towards people getting more and more angry and pissed off. This is good. Because there will be no change until people get mad and vote out the greedy a$$holes on both sides of the aisle.

Washington is corrupt to the core, both Democrats and Republicans. Unless the current parties and politicians get booted, healthcare will remain a racket ripping off millions of Americans.

And please, don't believe that any of the current breed of politicians are even remotely interested in fixing the issue. 99% of them are paid off. So shove that hope up your &%$#@.

-t

[Snow-i]

Originally Posted by Shaddim 

Many doctors (several in my area that I know of) will give you a cash discount and allow you to make payments on the whole bill, I don't think you can do that with a deductible.

Also, FWIW, a growing number of practitioners (nearly 10%) are no longer accepting insurance at all. It's cash, credit, or nothing.

40 Percent Of Doctor Practices Unsure About Obamacare Exchanges - Forbes

This is a great point. We haven't even gotten to the effects on the already alarmingly low number of doctors in the US, nor the effects that the consumer will experience as a result of across the board costs increases and accompanying reduction in payouts. See the end of my last post as I touched on this a little as well.

[Snow-i]

Originally Posted by besson3c 

But you don't pay the doctor directly, you pay the insurance company. I'm sure some provide deferments with interest too. The nature of these deferments and interest rates and such, if they exist, is another thing that should be properly regulated. I say "properly" in an ebuddy-esque way - i.e. not a modern day regulation, but a sound regulatory structure.

I'm not sure if you're aware of this, but there are quite a few doctors that don't accept insurance. No doctor will refuse cash as payment.

[subego]

I have a doctor who doesn't.

You pay up front, and file the claim yourself.

[turtle777]

Originally Posted by Shaddim 

Also, FWIW, a growing number of practitioners (nearly 10%) are no longer accepting insurance at all. It's cash, credit, or nothing.

40 Percent Of Doctor Practices Unsure About Obamacare Exchanges - Forbes

It;s getting worse by the minute:

Top U.S. Hospitals Are Opting Out Of Obamacare | Zero Hedge

-t

[Snow-i]

I'm really rooting for this thing to fail. The consequences of it lingering are quickly making even the most dire anti-ACA claims of the past three years look tame.

Either way, Obama and Obamacare will be remembered as a massive failure. Lets just hope we can stop it before the damage to the US reaches criticality.

[besson3c]

Originally Posted by Snow-i 

In theory, yes. The problem with all these entitlements and government intervention is that practically speaking, several assumptions required for the "theory" to work are untrue. Assumptions such as costs would fall (they've gone up), that young healthy people would sign up (they aren't), that you if you like your plan you would be able to keep your plan (Alot can't)..

Put my sharp criticism of the ACA into context here, but you can't make these claims yet, it's simply too early, your bias is perhaps encouraging this in you. You may ultimately be right, but it's simply too early to go this far.

Costs falling: the idea is that costs would fall over the long term, and in the meantime the ACA would be fiscally sustainable. The CBO projected the ACA to be fiscally sustainable, we need to wait until it has been implemented and wait until we have some numbers before making these claims. Your numbers, like the CBOs, are projections. They may or may not play out.

Young people would sign up: too early to tell. The deadline isn't until March, the website isn't working. Young people would probably rather wait for the site to work rather than fill out yucky paperwork or work with somebody over the phone.

BTW, I tried the site the other day and I was able to fill out an application, but I'm getting blank screens on the results page. I think it was ebuddy that I told I would provide updates to.

As far as keeping the plan you like, this was a messaging blunder, and one that will probably eventually be overlooked providing the replacement plan doesn't cost more. I suspect that a certain number of people fell through cracks, and that this will be corrected in time.

I will join you in all of this criticism:

- costs falling: after 6 months of actual data post launch (once the subsidies kick in)
- young people will sign up: once final enrollment numbers are posted after March
- keeping plans: if by March these people don't have sufficiently similar plans (at which point I will still criticize Obama for a messaging failure, but won't deem the plan itself a failure).


Patience, grasshopper!

[besson3c]

Originally Posted by turtle777 

Let's face the truth: The Obama administration lied. ObamaCare was never about lowering healthcare cost. It was about keeping the old racket of insurance companies, lobbyists, the pharma industry and big health care providers going a little longer.

We all know and agree that the US health care system was f*cked up. Only idiots truly believed that giving this racket a "socialist" touch would really fix the problem.

I, for one, applaud ObamaCare. It has shown clear as day how Americans get screwed on healthcare.
And rather than fixing it, it exposes this system for what it is.

ObamaCare was a big step forward towards people getting more and more angry and pissed off. This is good. Because there will be no change until people get mad and vote out the greedy a$$holes on both sides of the aisle.

Washington is corrupt to the core, both Democrats and Republicans. Unless the current parties and politicians get booted, healthcare will remain a racket ripping off millions of Americans.

And please, don't believe that any of the current breed of politicians are even remotely interested in fixing the issue. 99% of them are paid off. So shove that hope up your &%$#@.

-t

What solution would you be in favor of?

[besson3c]

Originally Posted by subego 

I have a doctor who doesn't.

You pay up front, and file the claim yourself.

That certainly lowers their administrative overhead, I'm sure. Interesting...

[besson3c]

Originally Posted by turtle777 

It;s getting worse by the minute:

Top U.S. Hospitals Are Opting Out Of Obamacare | Zero Hedge

-t

This is meaningless though, as far as I can tell. If you are a health insurance company you don't have to be in the Obamacare insurance exchange thing, and if you are a customer you don't need to buy a plan in the insurance exchange, as long as it is ACA compliant.

The ramifications of the ACA compliance is what is in question.

[Snow-i]

Originally Posted by besson3c 

This is meaningless though, as far as I can tell. If you are a health insurance company you don't have to be in the Obamacare insurance exchange thing, and if you are a customer you don't need to buy a plan in the insurance exchange, as long as it is ACA compliant.

The ramifications of the ACA compliance is what is in question.

So all the people that sign up for Obamacare (including many of the people dropped from coverage because of the ACA) will not be able to utilize many top US hospitals, and that's meaningless to you? Talk about class warfare.

I'm not willing to sacrifice my future and the future of my countrymen to "see what happens"

[Snow-i]

Originally Posted by besson3c 

This is meaningless though, as far as I can tell. If you are a health insurance company you don't have to be in the Obamacare insurance exchange thing, and if you are a customer you don't need to buy a plan in the insurance exchange, as long as it is ACA compliant.

The ramifications of the ACA compliance is what is in question.

lets try another way. Aside from staying on your parents plan and pre existing conditions, what positive impacts has Obamacare had to date? Not what its supposed to do, what it has done. I'd like to know what I'm getting for the extra money I'm supposed to be paying into this thing.

[turtle777]

In case it is not blatantly clear: ObamaCare does NOT lower healthcare cost in aggregate.

It is merely a shell game, shifting cost from to pocket (the more healthy) in favor of those that are very sick and had to pay high premiums in the past.

It is NOT doing anything about high cost of healthcare in general.

-t

[besson3c]

Originally Posted by Snow-i 

So all the people that sign up for Obamacare (including many of the people dropped from coverage because of the ACA) will not be able to utilize many top US hospitals, and that's meaningless to you? Talk about class warfare.

I'm not willing to sacrifice my future and the future of my countrymen to "see what happens"

You don't sign up for Obamacare, do you realize that?

Obamacare just pairs you up with an existing (compliant) private insurance plan, it is just functions as matchmaker. You can choose whatever plan you want, there is no "Obamacare" plan. If the ACA website suggests 5 plans and you know your hospital won't take some of them, don't buy that plan, it's not any different than today's situation really, unfortunately.

[besson3c]

Originally Posted by Snow-i 

lets try another way. Aside from staying on your parents plan and pre existing conditions, what positive impacts has Obamacare had to date? Not what its supposed to do, what it has done. I'd like to know what I'm getting for the extra money I'm supposed to be paying into this thing.

Nothing, because it hasn't started yet.

Honestly Snow-i, I know I'm going to sound like a dick saying this, but it sounds like you should read more about what the ACA is because it's not like my understanding is superb, but even I know that it hasn't started yet, that there is no "Obamacare" insurance plan, etc.

[besson3c]

Besides Snow-i, I think your anger is being misdirected.

Anger that your hospital won't cover your insurance policy? Welcome to my life when I left my old job and needed to buy my own plan years ago. It has been this way for a long time, the whole in-network/out-of-network thing is frustrating and horrible, but it sadly is not new, and the ACA sadly doesn't seem to do much about this.

Honesty, I think the only way to address that might be to take away for-profit insurance companies.

[Snow-i]

Originally Posted by besson3c 

You don't sign up for Obamacare, do you realize that?

My apologies, I was signed up for it against my will and am now forced to buy a product that I don't want or need.

it's not any different than today's situation really, unfortunately.

Really? I don't remember being forced to sign up for more expensive plans before the ACA under penalty of law.

It really is alot different, and I consider your input on the matter to be meaningless until you address my points above that point out how it's different. And I'm not being a dick - this has a real impact on me personally, and I'd still like to hear how you justify it.

Here, I'll requote them for you:

Originally Posted by snow-i

The devil is in the details. Details such as 28% higher costs for the same coverage, an increase in required coverage, millions losing their existing coverage, an administration that is more worried about the next election than the welfare of it's constituency.

The ACA has not only failed in its three primary goals, it has exacerbated the very problems it was supposed to fix.

Problem:Costs are too high.
Promise: ACA will reduce costs for care and services
ACA Reality:Raise costs across the board by 28%

Problem:Millions are uninsured.
Promise: If you like your plan, you can keep it!
ACA Reality: Inadvertently (and indifferently) cause millions of people to lose their existing plans.

Problem:Insurance is inaccessible to those without it now.
Promise: All else the same, Poor people can sign up through a website.
ACA Reality: Dump half a billion of taxpayer money into a website that doesn't work, see realities one and two.

Problem:For this to work, everyone has to participate.
Promise: Everyone will be, under penalty of law, required to sign up for this.
ACA Reality: Obama's friends, Congress, and Big biz get a pass. Businesses that aren't exempted cut the number of fulltime employees they have to reduce the costs (which have now gone up another 28%). Profits and productivity plummet which will have a measurable effect on jobs in the US. Starting and maintaining a business because more expensive and more difficult which results in less surviving and providing employment. The 40 hour work week is destroyed as it is simply not a smart business decision to keep it. The middle and working class suffer immensely as an already dismal employment situation becomes worse because businesses cannot afford to hire as many full time employees (since the costs have gone up). Someone has to pay, besson. Do you really think the rich and connected are going to be the ones to do so?

We'll just start with that.

[besson3c]

Originally Posted by Snow-i 

My apologies, I was signed up for it against my will and am now forced to buy a product that I don't want or need.

This is at the heart of your frustration, isn't it? This is your best point, I think.

[BadKosh]

Why does a single male in his late 50's need with prenatal care? Again, its the stone triangle. Why is a 3% tax added to house sales part of this? Again, the DEMOCRATS were a bunch of mean spirited dicks who assumed they would not participate in this BS. That is being challenged in court.

[Snow-i]

Originally Posted by besson3c 

This is at the heart of your frustration, isn't it? This is your best point, I think.

No, this is:

Originally Posted by Snow-i

The devil is in the details. Details such as 28% higher costs for the same coverage, an increase in required coverage, millions losing their existing coverage, an administration that is more worried about the next election than the welfare of it's constituency.

The ACA has not only failed in its three primary goals, it has exacerbated the very problems it was supposed to fix.

Problem:Costs are too high.
Promise: ACA will reduce costs for care and services
ACA Reality:Raise costs across the board by 28%

Problem:Millions are uninsured.
Promise: If you like your plan, you can keep it!
ACA Reality: Inadvertently (and indifferently) cause millions of people to lose their existing plans.

Problem:Insurance is inaccessible to those without it now.
Promise: All else the same, Poor people can sign up through a website.
ACA Reality: Dump half a billion of taxpayer money into a website that doesn't work, see realities one and two.

Problem:For this to work, everyone has to participate.
Promise: Everyone will be, under penalty of law, required to sign up for this.
ACA Reality: Obama's friends, Congress, and Big biz get a pass. Businesses that aren't exempted cut the number of fulltime employees they have to reduce the costs (which have now gone up another 28%). Profits and productivity plummet which will have a measurable effect on jobs in the US. Starting and maintaining a business because more expensive and more difficult which results in less surviving and providing employment. The 40 hour work week is destroyed as it is simply not a smart business decision to keep it. The middle and working class suffer immensely as an already dismal employment situation becomes worse because businesses cannot afford to hire as many full time employees (since the costs have gone up). Someone has to pay, besson. Do you really think the rich and connected are going to be the ones to do so?

The best you can come up with is "These are just projections" which is not only factually incorrect but intellectually lazy. You haven't addressed a single word in that post. I'm certain you don't have an answer to these points because the reality doesn't fit with the promise - this legislation is failing in almost every objective it has set out to accomplish (infact, it's making those problems worse). You've not provided one shred of data to support your position, and are content with ruining the lives of millions of people to "see what happens" based on your "theories" since "that's all we have." Forget that only one of my above points is a projection (from the society of actuaries, no less) and the others are already happening. Go be full of shit with your own money, and stop wasting mine "to see what happens."

Here's your hope and change guys.