Vertigo Posted November 19, 2013 Share Posted November 19, 2013 I see that Obamacare thing is working out well for those middle class Democrats that voted for our current president. On a more serious tone, the fact she blames her state and exonerates the very law and politician that is driving the state of Washington to have these policies is just UFB. We are all fucked if that's a display of the average American's logic. I think the blame she's putting out there on the state is for the errors their exchange was giving her. Look at it this way- McDonald's is selling a Big Mac for $5; the employee ringing you up pushes the wrong key and tells you it'll be $1. So you go to pay and he say's "oops, my bad, I hit the wrong key. It's actually $3.50 (while pressing the quarter pounder key). Realizing he screwed up again he says "I'm really bad at this... the actual price is $5 for the burger you want." Who are you going to be mad/frustrated at? The kid who couldn't get his shit right and give you the correct information? Or McDonald's for pricing their burger at $5? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HeloDude Posted November 19, 2013 Share Posted November 19, 2013 Since when does a Big Mac cost $5!?? I need to lay off the peyote. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hueypilot Posted November 19, 2013 Share Posted November 19, 2013 (edited) Vertigo, the bottom line is regardless of what price they mistakenly quoted her, she can't afford the plans. She can only afford the subsidized ones which she can't qualify for. While the state of Washington may be guilty of temporarily giving her false hope, they are not guilty of setting conditions that dramatically increase the cost of plans for non-subsidized families. The Affordable Care Act law, the president and Democratic lawmakers own that one. Edited November 19, 2013 by Hueypilot Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HeloDude Posted November 19, 2013 Share Posted November 19, 2013 Vertigo--do you support any part of the ACA or any of the regulations that have risen from the law? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Vertigo Posted November 21, 2013 Share Posted November 21, 2013 Vertigo--do you support any part of the ACA or any of the regulations that have risen from the law? A couple things I like, but before I list them I'll preface this by saying I think health insurance should only be needed for catastrophic care and that routine medical care should be priced so that the vast majority of Americans can afford it out of pocket. That's what the ACA should have been about, rather than what it is about. 1- Insurers can't deny coverage for pre-existing conditions. If medical care was cheap enough to afford without insurance, I wouldn't be in favor of this as much as I am now under our current health system. 2- Tax credits for small businesses to offer insurance to employees. 3- No lifetime limits 4- The 80/20 rule Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fuzz Posted December 8, 2013 Share Posted December 8, 2013 So I guess the slogan is now "If you like your doctor just pay more", and apparently "nobody promised premiums would stay the same" according to Ezekiel Emanuel the "architect of Obamacare". http://www.breitbart.com/Breitbart-TV/2013/12/08/ObamaCare-Architect-Zeke-Emanuel-If-You-Like-Your-Doctor-You-Can-Pay-More Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HeloDude Posted December 9, 2013 Share Posted December 9, 2013 This just keeps on getting better and better. Wait until employers start dropping people off their plans for the cheaper penalty. Those people will then attempt to get on the exchanges, with higher deductibles/premiums for many, and a plan that may or may not allow them to see their current providers. Though now that a judge has ordered that a cake company must do business/provide a cake for a gay wedding, a judge may also force doctors to take people with certain plans. One thing is for certain...it's exciting times we live in! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
matmacwc Posted December 9, 2013 Share Posted December 9, 2013 Or communist Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Vertigo Posted December 10, 2013 Share Posted December 10, 2013 Those people will then attempt to get on the exchanges, with higher deductibles/premiums for many, and a plan that may or may not allow them to see their current providers. Wouldn't more customers entering the exchange encourage insurance companies to lower the premiums and deductibles in order to get those customers to choose their plan? Unless, of course, they're the only insurer in the area or there's collusion amongst the insurers. In turn, wouldn't that also encourage providers to choose those plans which are gaining more customers? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HeloDude Posted December 10, 2013 Share Posted December 10, 2013 No, the insurance on the exchanges on average will not be cheaper and for two reasons: 1) Obamacare mandates more coverage than what many people want, therefore the insurers have to charge more. 2) Since Obamacare takes people with pre-existing conditions, that cost is spread to the other healthier people. I see what you're saying about 'more people on the exchange means that the price goes down' and that would theoretically work if there weren't mandates for coverage (ie a 60 year old woman had to pay more for insurance in order to cover the mandate of pre-natal care even though she doesn't want the coverage/will mostly likely never use it) as well as the fact that Obamacare attracts more and more people who are poor and with pre-existing conditions, therefore increasing the risk pool without charging the sick people enough to cover their respected risk. This whole system defies the very concept of how instance is supposed to work effectively. So yes, the more people that sign up will theoretically lower the price of Obamacare...but it will never be truly cheaper than the way it was because of all the mandates. Obamacare will be great for the poor (people that receive damn near enough subsidies to cover the cost...I mean, who format like free shit?), and wil also be great for those with pre-existing conditions. Everybody else though is going to pay for it with increased costs. This is not how the plan was sold by Obama and the Dems, though anybody with half a brain would have seen this coming a mile away. Here's another thought--the cost of college education has risen sharply over the last 10-20 years and many believe it's due to fact that the any kid with half a brain can get loan and so schools charge more. I think the same will also occur with Obamacare being in effect. Supply vs Demand. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rusty Pipes Posted December 10, 2013 Share Posted December 10, 2013 Call me cynical, but this was a mathematical failure from the beginning... whether or not that was by design is a completely different discussion. The success of the ACA depends 100% on the healthy 18-35 yr olds signing up for and paying for coverage that they won't use and don't need. But then they said that you can stay on your parent's plan until you are 26 which wipes out almost half of that source of income to the Gov't. So then you have only the 27-35 yr old demographic that has the choice to sign up or pay the penalty. Simply set up your tax deductions so that you don't get a tax return and you take care of the "pay the penalty" part because the only way under the current law for them to collect the penalty is by withholding it from your tax return. With most existing plans on the exchanges the 27-35 yr old group will pay between $1200-2000 a year for their plan with an average of a $6000 yearly deductible... so essentially before you "really" have any health insurance you need to pay $8000 out of pocket. Who would do that... especially if you were making less than $50K per year? Most of the "sickness" you'll see at that age can be fixed with $20 off the shelf meds from CVS or Walgreens. Add on the fact that since you now can't be denied coverage for a pre-existing condition, now you can simply not sign up for coverage until you are sick and you can't be turned away if any major illness hits. 1) Set up a public option for those with pre-existing conditions 2) Disassociate healthcare insurance from your job (if a company wants to keep it as part of a compensation package then that is their call) 3) Allow insurance companies to sell coverage across State lines like auto/homeowners/life insurance... this will allow for true competition and drive down prices 4) Allow tax free health savings accounts for those who would like to participate Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Vertigo Posted December 10, 2013 Share Posted December 10, 2013 No, the insurance on the exchanges on average will not be cheaper and for two reasons: 1) Obamacare mandates more coverage than what many people want, therefore the insurers have to charge more. I see what you're saying about 'more people on the exchange means that the price goes down' and that would theoretically work if there weren't mandates for coverage (ie a 60 year old woman had to pay more for insurance in order to cover the mandate of pre-natal care even though she doesn't want the coverage/will mostly likely never use it I get what you're saying for the most part and I agree with most of it, but this portion doesn't make sense. Just because a 60 year old woman is covered for pre-natal, it doesn't mean she uses that coverage. So if she's not using that coverage, how are the insurers out of pocket any more than if she didn't have that coverage? They're not. Once the actual costs are realized and the insurers discover these mandates that aren't getting used isn't costing them what they anticipated I would expect these rates to drop. It may take a couple years but... Look at it like - Let's say the government mandated that all homeowners insurance policies nationwide must cover hurricane damages. Well the insurers are going to say this is going to cost us a fortune so we must raise our rates! But the reality is just because it's covered it doesn't mean there's going to be that many claims submitted... especially from those of us in the midwest or nowhere near the coastline. So while technically I, and hundreds of thousands of others, are "covered" against any hurricane we'll never submit a claim for that and the insurance companies will never have any actual costs associated with that coverage. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rusty Pipes Posted December 10, 2013 Share Posted December 10, 2013 I get what you're saying for the most part and I agree with most of it, but this portion doesn't make sense. Just because a 60 year old woman is covered for pre-natal, it doesn't mean she uses that coverage. So if she's not using that coverage, how are the insurers out of pocket any more than if she didn't have that coverage? They're not. Once the actual costs are realized and the insurers discover these mandates that aren't getting used isn't costing them what they anticipated I would expect these rates to drop. It may take a couple years but... Look at it like - Let's say the government mandated that all homeowners insurance policies nationwide must cover hurricane damages. Well the insurers are going to say this is going to cost us a fortune so we must raise our rates! But the reality is just because it's covered it doesn't mean there's going to be that many claims submitted... especially from those of us in the midwest or nowhere near the coastline. So while technically I, and hundreds of thousands of others, are "covered" against any hurricane we'll never submit a claim for that and the insurance companies will never have any actual costs associated with that coverage. You're forgetting a little something with your analogy here... while you may be paying for hurricane insurance in Nebraska that you will never file a claim on, there will be lots of people on the coast in North Carolina and South Carolina filing claims for hurricane damage that aren't paying anything for their insurance, yet the insurance company is still paying on their claims. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Vertigo Posted December 10, 2013 Share Posted December 10, 2013 You're forgetting a little something with your analogy here... while you may be paying for hurricane insurance in Nebraska that you will never file a claim on, there will be lots of people on the coast in North Carolina and South Carolina filing claims for hurricane damage that aren't paying anything for their insurance, yet the insurance company is still paying on their claims. So kinda like how I pay for lung cancer and COPD treatments for smokers yet I don't smoke. Or how I pay personal property taxes that support local schools when others don't. Welcome to this thing we call "society". Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ClearedHot Posted December 10, 2013 Share Posted December 10, 2013 Once the actual costs are realized and the insurers discover these mandates that aren't getting used isn't costing them what they anticipated I would expect these rates to drop. It may take a couple years but... So the insurance companies will LOWER their rates, truly, one of the funniest posts this year on BO.net. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Vertigo Posted December 10, 2013 Share Posted December 10, 2013 So the insurance companies will LOWER their rates, truly, one of the funniest posts this year on BO.net. If not by competition than indirectly by mandate with the 80/20 rule. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rusty Pipes Posted December 10, 2013 Share Posted December 10, 2013 If not by competition than indirectly by mandate with the 80/20 rule. Actually, competition would be allowing insurance companies selling policies taylored to individual needs. So kinda like how I pay for lung cancer and COPD treatments for smokers yet I don't smoke. Or how I pay personal property taxes that support local schools when others don't. Welcome to this thing we call "society". Wrong... prior to Obamacare you had the choice of whether or not you wanted to purchase healthcare. I'm not sure where you live, but where I live the government doesn't mandate that I own a home... that is a choice too. If I don't like the tax rates in New Jersey I can move to Texas. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Vertigo Posted December 10, 2013 Share Posted December 10, 2013 Actually, competition would be allowing insurance companies selling policies taylored to individual needs. Wrong... prior to Obamacare you had the choice of whether or not you wanted to purchase healthcare. I'm not sure where you live, but where I live the government doesn't mandate that I own a home... that is a choice too. If I don't like the tax rates in New Jersey I can move to Texas. I guarantee you, if you rent, your rent reflects the property owners tax liability. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rusty Pipes Posted December 10, 2013 Share Posted December 10, 2013 I guarantee you, if you rent, your rent reflects the property owners tax liability. I stay with my parents, my brother, my cousin, my girlfriend rent free... I live on base... I stay in my RV in a Walmart parking lot or at the Base Fam Camp. I know what you are saying and my response is the extreme, but the point is that Obamacare removed choice from the equation. If I don't like the taxes in one county I can move to another. If I don't like the taxes in one State I can move to another... with Obamacare I don't have that option. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Danny Noonin Posted December 10, 2013 Share Posted December 10, 2013 I guarantee you, if you rent, your rent reflects the property owners tax liability. Not necessarily. Rent reflects what the market will bear. It does not necessarily cover the owners mortgage costs let alone tax liability. 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Vertigo Posted December 11, 2013 Share Posted December 11, 2013 Actually, competition would be allowing insurance companies selling policies taylored to individual needs. Wrong... prior to Obamacare you had the choice of whether or not you wanted to purchase healthcare. I'm not sure where you live, but where I live the government doesn't mandate that I own a home... that is a choice too. If I don't like the tax rates in New Jersey I can move to Texas. Trust me I'm no fan of the mandate either, but your complaint started out about having to pay into a pool for coverage you don't need- not that you are required to have insurance- so that's what I was addressing. I'm not a smoker so I most likely will never have to have treatment for COPD or lung cancer... yet my rates go to pay for those who do. That's how pools work. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rusty Pipes Posted December 11, 2013 Share Posted December 11, 2013 Trust me I'm no fan of the mandate either, but your complaint started out about having to pay into a pool for coverage you don't need- not that you are required to have insurance- so that's what I was addressing. I'm not a smoker so I most likely will never have to have treatment for COPD or lung cancer... yet my rates go to pay for those who do. That's how pools work. There is a difference between paying into a pool to cover something that you may not need vs. paying into a pool for something that you can't possibly need. A 60 yr old man getting a personal policy cannot possibly use pre-natal care coverage nor have a need to cover himself for ovarian issues. It can't possibly work without the mandate getting the healthy young people with less money to pay for both the older sick people with more money as well as the rest of the already sick people who aren't paying anything. Not only is it wealth redistribution, it's health redistribution! Overall it isn't cheaper healthcare, it isn't better healthcare and it doesn't mean there will be less people without healthcare coverage... it is just different people without healthcare coverage. Those with plenty of money will still be able to pay to see their Doctor at the hospital of their choice... we are just redefining what a Cadillac plan is to those who can afford it! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fuzz Posted December 14, 2013 Share Posted December 14, 2013 (edited) http://www.nytimes.com/2013/12/14/nyregion/with-affordable-care-act-canceled-policies-for-new-york-professionals.html?_r=0 Listening to Liberals get slapped in the face with reality and then whine makes my day. Ms. Meinwald, the lawyer, said she was a lifelong Democrat who still supported better health care for all, but had she known what was in store for her, she would have voted for Mitt Romney. ETA: Fixed link. Edited December 14, 2013 by Fuzz Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
clouseau Posted December 14, 2013 Share Posted December 14, 2013 New Cigna coverage with a $5,000.00 deductible. ouch! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Vertigo Posted December 16, 2013 Share Posted December 16, 2013 http://www.nytimes.com/2013/12/14/nyregion/with-affordable-care-act-canceled-policies-for-new-york-professionals.html?_r=0 Listening to Liberals get slapped in the face with reality and then whine makes my day. "...had she known what was in store for her, she would have voted for Mitt Romney." So she would've voted for the guy who passed legislation for which the ACA was modeled after? Does not compute. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now