Forum Settings
       
1 2 3 Next »
Reply To Thread

ACA vs ObamacareFollow

#102 Oct 09 2013 at 11:47 AM Rating: Decent
Lunatic
******
29,328 posts
Why you guys pay so much?

Captive audiences, mainly. The only practical way for most people to have healthcare is through employers. Most employers offer one provider. Many employers are the provider for all intents and purposes. Insurance companies attempt to negotiate lower costs (for the insurance companies) practitioners/device companies etc lobby for higher statutory reimbursement from federal payers, which raises the bottom of the market for private insurers, yadda. Free market healthcare might work to lower costs, obviously with significantly more dead people, but we'll never be able to test that theory when there's a large monolithic payer in the mix.
____________________________
Disclaimer:

To make a long story short, I don't take any responsibility for anything I post here. It's not news, it's not truth, it's not serious. It's parody. It's satire. It's bitter. It's angsty. Your mother's a ****. You like to jack off dogs. That's right, you heard me. You like to grab that dog by the bone and rub it like a ski pole. Your dad? ****. Your priest? Straight. **** off and let me post. It's not true, it's all in good fun. Now go away.

#103 Oct 09 2013 at 1:29 PM Rating: Good
Scholar
****
4,261 posts
rdmcandie wrote:


Profit in the system would be my guess.

The big argument I always hear about US health care and their aversion (phobia really) to public health care is that the private sector is more efficient and they don't want the big bad government telling them what to do. Competition is supposed to be some magical thing that will keep health care costs low blah blah blah.

The thing is none of that applies to health care because health care is not an optional kind of thing. You can't tell the hospital not to fix your broken leg because you don't like their price and are going to shop around. ALL the private sector does in health care is add profit margins. Health care has to be strongly regulated anywhere you go because it's a life or death industry so the private sector is going to be just as inefficient as the public sector. Public sector control also means the care you get is actually care, not a sales pitch.

Being a developed nation the US isn't about to let people die in the streets so you end up paying for everyone's health care anyway, you just do it at an inflated rate due to private sector involvement and the need for emergency services because the poor people couldn't pay for preventative care.

I just don't get why you wouldn't want universal health care, you're not going to let sick people die in the end so why have some ridiculous convoluted system of private insurance companies taking an extra piece of an already expensive pie? I mean really, you're paying monthly premiums for a service you may or may not use just in case you need it TO PREVENT YOURSELF FROM DYING everyone needs it regardless of economic class and it can only be provided by professionals so give it to everyone because you're going to give it to the people who can't afford it anyway, no brainer.
#104 Oct 09 2013 at 1:45 PM Rating: Good
******
27,272 posts
lolgaxe wrote:
Smasharoo wrote:
So great we try to get sick and injured in ways we wouldn't have considered previously.
If you need suggestions, I've got a list.
I'm thinking you've probably seen some hilarious injuries in the army.
____________________________
Theophany wrote:
YOU'RE AN ELITIST @#%^ AETHIEN, NO WONDER YOU HAVE NO FRIENDS AND PEOPLE HATE YOU.
someproteinguy wrote:
Aethien you take more terrible pictures than a Japanese tourist.
Astarin wrote:
One day, Maz, you'll learn not to click on anything Aeth links.
#105 Oct 09 2013 at 1:49 PM Rating: Excellent
******
21,717 posts
Yodabunny wrote:
I just don't get why you wouldn't want universal health care, you're not going to let sick people die in the end so why have some ridiculous convoluted system of private insurance companies taking an extra piece of an already expensive pie?


The only folks against it are those who stand to profit from the status quo and those who have zero knowledge of the industry or the economics, but will believe anything the [insert political affiliation] media wants them to believe. People like Gbaji will argue at great lengths about things they cannot possibly understand because... (wait for it...) that's what they were told, and they have no other comprehensible frame of reference.
____________________________
R.I.P. Jessica M. 5/3/2010
This post brought to you by Carl's Jr.
gbaji wrote:
You guys keep tossing facts out there like they mean something.


#106 Oct 09 2013 at 2:06 PM Rating: Default
Encyclopedia
******
31,593 posts
gbaji wrote:
Uh... We can still calculate statistical effects of the law on various economic ranges of people within our workforce. And statistically, most people will see their health costs rise significantly. Actually, most people already have. But I suspect that's where the next layer of lie will occur. Since the health providers have already been raising their prices for the last couple years in preparation for Obamacare, I'm sure that folks on the left will take prices on the day before it "officially" started and say "see! Prices didn't go up!". But if you look at price increases industry wide since the law was passed, it's a whole different story.


Catwho wrote:
We were getting 5% increases like clockwork before the ACA provisions started kicking in. Which sucked because with all the wage freezes, we weren't even getting a raise to off set it.

Last year we had a mere 2% premium increase, which matched the 2% cost of living adjustment/raise my husband got. They also dropped the copay for Urgent Care down to the same price as a regular doctor's office visit, to discourage people from going to the ER unless it was really an emergency. (A broken leg is a real emergency. The flu, while urgent, is not.)


It's like I'm freaking Nostradamus!
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#107 Oct 09 2013 at 2:15 PM Rating: Good
Worst. Title. Ever!
*****
14,844 posts
Ya, last couple years...

I started working here in 2003, shortly after graduating High School. Back then premiums for the health insurance plan were rising. In preparation for Obamacare, I'm sure.
____________________________
Can't sleep, clown will eat me.
#108 Oct 09 2013 at 2:16 PM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
My premium increases in the 1990's were all because of Obama. I swear it.
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#109 Oct 09 2013 at 2:31 PM Rating: Default
Encyclopedia
******
31,593 posts
Yodabunny wrote:
The thing is none of that applies to health care because health care is not an optional kind of thing. You can't tell the hospital not to fix your broken leg because you don't like their price and are going to shop around. ALL the private sector does in health care is add profit margins. Health care has to be strongly regulated anywhere you go because it's a life or death industry so the private sector is going to be just as inefficient as the public sector. Public sector control also means the care you get is actually care, not a sales pitch.


Is that were the true objective then Obamacare would only mandate life or death medical care (ok. And broken legs and other kinds of injury based stuff). It's a bait and switch argument. You scare people by talking about "life and death", but then actually push for relatively unrelated coverage. Care to explain how birth control is a non optional "life and death" medical need? The whole life and death thing is the boogieman used to scare people into allowing the government to do far more than just make sure they don't die, or suffer a broken leg without medical care.

Quote:
Being a developed nation the US isn't about to let people die in the streets so you end up paying for everyone's health care anyway, you just do it at an inflated rate due to private sector involvement and the need for emergency services because the poor people couldn't pay for preventative care.


That's complete BS. And it's a parrot of the same fearmongering I was just talking about. We already didn't let people die on the streets. So no need for a change in that regard. The problem is not the cost of emergency life saving care. That has never been the problem here. The problem is the increasing cost of optional medical care and procedures. We can debate endlessly why this is the case, but if it really was about people showing up at emergency rooms for health care which could have been avoided if only we'd provided them with some kind of magical preventative care (exactly how many emergency room visits do you think would be avoided with that btw?) we'd save billions of dollars!

It's just not true. The math doesn't add up at all.

Quote:
I just don't get why you wouldn't want universal health care, you're not going to let sick people die in the end so why have some ridiculous convoluted system of private insurance companies taking an extra piece of an already expensive pie?


The ACA makes the process of preventing people from dying vastly more convoluted and expensive than it was before. Actually, it arguably doesn't do a single thing in that regard (which is why it's so amusing that this is what you brought up). What it does do is create another layer of cost. Seriously. That's it. I fully admit that I'm opposed this socialized medicine for purely ideological reasons, and if Obamacare even at least represented a functional form of socialized medicine we could debate the issue on those ideological grounds. But that's simply not the case. Obamacare simply takes the existing health care system, with all its flaws and costs, and just mandates that we use that same system to cover more things and mandates that more people buy the result.

The insurance industry is not changed. The health care providers are not changed. The health care plans are not changed. The method of buying health care isn't changed (other than in purely cosmetic ways and with an additional layer of government involved for some people). All Obamacare does is mandate what the insurers must cover and requires that everyone must purchase the resulting insurance. Period. Obamacare is the equivalent of reforming an auto industry that's cranking out poor quality cars at too high a price by passing a law requiring everyone to buy those cars and justifying it with the bizarre notion that if more people buy the cars, then the price for each car will go down.


Quote:
I mean really, you're paying monthly premiums for a service you may or may not use just in case you need it TO PREVENT YOURSELF FROM DYING everyone needs it regardless of economic class and it can only be provided by professionals so give it to everyone because you're going to give it to the people who can't afford it anyway, no brainer.


Sure. Then take everything out which isn't directly involved in preventing me from dying.

Let's stop lying about what's really at stake here. It's not about me paying a monthly premium for a service I may or may not need just in case I need it to prevent myself from dying. It's about forcing me to pay a monthly premium for a service I don't need at all, so that other people can afford services that they want. This is not about preventing people from dying. If you honestly think that, then it's another indication of how you've been lied to.
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#110 Oct 09 2013 at 2:35 PM Rating: Excellent
******
27,272 posts
Jophiel wrote:
My premium increases in the 1990's were all because of Obama. I swear it.
The insurance companies use precogs to determine future costs.
____________________________
Theophany wrote:
YOU'RE AN ELITIST @#%^ AETHIEN, NO WONDER YOU HAVE NO FRIENDS AND PEOPLE HATE YOU.
someproteinguy wrote:
Aethien you take more terrible pictures than a Japanese tourist.
Astarin wrote:
One day, Maz, you'll learn not to click on anything Aeth links.
#111 Oct 09 2013 at 2:50 PM Rating: Good
Needs More Smut
Avatar
******
20,354 posts
Quote:
Care to explain how birth control is a non optional "life and death" medical need?

It's used to treat medical issues like endometriosis and menorrhagia, the latter of which I have. Without it, I'd run so low on iron I'd risk hospitalization (this happened to me before I was diagnosed) and yes, eventually death from anemia.

Next?
____________________________
FFXI: Catwho on Bismarck. Once again a top bard on the server: Dardaubla 90 on 1/6/2014
Thayos wrote:
I can't understand anyone who skips the cutscenes of a Final Fantasy game. That's like going to Texas and not getting barbecue.

FFXIV: Katarh Mest on Lamia - Member of The Swarm and leader of Grammarian Tea House chat LS
#112 Oct 09 2013 at 3:01 PM Rating: Good
Scholar
****
4,261 posts
Gbaji wrote:
Care to explain how birth control is a non optional "life and death" medical need?


Nope, don't have to. It's not covered here, neither are any other drugs that are not provided during a hospital visit. We have insurance plans for that :).

You know what is covered? Doctors visits, hospital visits, non-cosmetic surgery, vaccines, baby delivery etc, you know things that people should be doing to ensure they stay healthy and don't end up in the emergency room. Things people don't do when they aren't rich and can't afford to pay for them unless they're absolutely necessary.

If something hurts and I can't explain it, I go to the doctor, because I don't have to pay for it. Usually it's nothing drastic but one day it will be and that one day may save hundreds of thousands of dollars in perfectly preventable health care.

All medical visits need to be treated as life and death situations. A hang nail can be a life or death medical condition. Prescribing the wrong pain killer can kill you. The health industry needs to be the most regulated industry in existence because the general population doesn't have the necessary skills to manage their own health care due to the human body's complexity.

Obamacare isn't universal health care, it's not nearly enough but it's all they could get your rich politicritters to go along with and it keeps 30 million poor people going to the clinic when they need to.
#113 Oct 09 2013 at 3:03 PM Rating: Excellent
******
43,650 posts
gbaji wrote:
It's like I'm freaking Nostradamus!
The one that keeps showing up in the Weekly World News, maybe.
____________________________
George Carlin wrote:
I think it’s the duty of the comedian to find out where the line is drawn and cross it deliberately.
#114 Oct 09 2013 at 5:20 PM Rating: Excellent
Lunatic
******
29,328 posts
Screenshot


Yeah you can really see the trend lines go crazy when ACA was passed in 2010. I mean, a little. Well the employee contribution spiked before it was passed, but people must have known about it. I mean the 10% total increase in the last couple of years is far more severe than the 10% year over year increases from 2000 to 2005. But you know, insurers knew this was coming in 2000, don't kid yourselves, if you fold a dollar bill just the right way you can see Washington holding a syringe towards the eagle. I mean checkmate, right?
____________________________
Disclaimer:

To make a long story short, I don't take any responsibility for anything I post here. It's not news, it's not truth, it's not serious. It's parody. It's satire. It's bitter. It's angsty. Your mother's a ****. You like to jack off dogs. That's right, you heard me. You like to grab that dog by the bone and rub it like a ski pole. Your dad? ****. Your priest? Straight. **** off and let me post. It's not true, it's all in good fun. Now go away.

#115 Oct 09 2013 at 5:41 PM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
That's a pretty sharp jump between 2001 and 2004 -- Any chance that Bush guy was an Islamonazisocialist and the insurance companies all knew it?
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#116 Oct 09 2013 at 5:45 PM Rating: Good
Avatar
****
7,465 posts
gbaji wrote:

The insurance industry is not changed. The health care providers are not changed. The health care plans are not changed. The method of buying health care isn't changed (other than in purely cosmetic ways and with an additional layer of government involved for some people). All Obamacare does is mandate what the insurers must cover and requires that everyone must purchase the resulting insurance. Period. Obamacare is the equivalent of reforming an auto industry that's cranking out poor quality cars at too high a price by passing a law requiring everyone to buy those cars and justifying it with the bizarre notion that if more people buy the cars, then the price for each car will go down.


Come on man, you still don't know how the system works.

Are you aware that 45% of your population can not get/or afford their own health insurance.

29% depend on Government assistance.
16% do not have insurance at all.

Do you not see the problem? Do you not see the US spending nearly twice as much as every other relevant nation in the world, and that the quality of its care is sitting 30 rows back from top spot. 55% of your country covers the up front Health Costs of the entire system. You are upset that now Government is asking the 45% to also pay their part? Either from a government program or a private program. I don't think you understand how much 45% more people paying into the system represents. Whether it is into the Federal program (lowering the required US Government Health Bill) or into Private insurances lowering the co-pay for everyone.

In either fashion it forces everyone into the system paying their share of health...not leaving 55% of people to set the bar for health premiums.

To think this won't have a huge effect on the industry is naive at best. Considering anyone making 400% of poverty and up to 64K as a couple will be on the government plan. It will force private industry to lower their prices because of "competition" The government then lowers their "copay" and insurance companies will again have to do the same.

Any couple making over 66K might best stand to stay in the private market, at least until costs drop below 7.5% of yearly income, which is the minimum allowable for tax reasons. However a 50 dollar drop in coverage cost per month would move that couple onto the government plan in order to take advantage of reductions based on income.

As for your @#%^ing analogy, if everyone had to buy the same car, then that car value would plummet low quality or not. When production out paces demand the value of something drops. The more people on a shared insurance plan the less it costs for everyone. Presently 55% of your country is that insurance plan, while the government props up 29%. 16% of your citizens do not pay into a plan that many have no doubt used. We still need affordable cars for 45% of your population.



Smasharoo wrote:
Screenshot


Yeah you can really see the trend lines go crazy when ACA was passed in 2010. I mean, a little. Well the employee contribution spiked before it was passed, but people must have known about it. I mean the 10% total increase in the last couple of years is far more severe than the 10% year over year increases from 2000 to 2005. But you know, insurers knew this was coming in 2000, don't kid yourselves, if you fold a dollar bill just the right way you can see Washington holding a syringe towards the eagle. I mean checkmate, right?


Interesting Graph

http://www.commonwealthfund.org/Blog/2012/Sep/~/media/Images/blog/2012/Sep/blogbox/ex%201%20L.gif (I forget how to image.)

Almost like synchronized graphing.

For every 1Million uninsured Americans its costs 10% more for health care!

Edited, Oct 9th 2013 7:50pm by rdmcandie

Edited, Oct 9th 2013 7:52pm by rdmcandie
____________________________
HEY GOOGLE. **** OFF YOU. **** YOUR **** SEARCH ENGINE IN ITS **** **** BINARY ****. ALL DAY LONG.

#117 Oct 09 2013 at 5:52 PM Rating: Excellent
******
43,650 posts
Jophiel wrote:
That's a pretty sharp jump between 2001 and 2004 -- Any chance that Bush guy was an Islamonazisocialist and the insurance companies all knew it?
Apparently we just kind of ignore things that happened in and around 2004 and any cause and effect associated with that time frame.
____________________________
George Carlin wrote:
I think it’s the duty of the comedian to find out where the line is drawn and cross it deliberately.
#118 Oct 09 2013 at 6:11 PM Rating: Excellent
Prodigal Son
*****
19,942 posts
lolgaxe wrote:
Jophiel wrote:
That's a pretty sharp jump between 2001 and 2004 -- Any chance that Bush guy was an Islamonazisocialist and the insurance companies all knew it?
Apparently we just kind of ignore things that happened in and around 2004 and any cause and effect associated with that time frame.

Unless it can be blamed on Clinton.
____________________________
publiusvarus wrote:
we all know liberals are well adjusted american citizens who only want what's best for society. While conservatives are evil money grubbing scum who only want to sh*t on the little man and rob the world of its resources.
#119 Oct 09 2013 at 9:15 PM Rating: Decent
Avatar
****
8,972 posts
Jophiel wrote:
'the fuck? Are you using spoiler tags in lieu of quotes? At least use spoiler tags around the quote tags.


Timelordwho wrote:
People were complaining about the length of his posts. He used spoiler tags to shorten it.

Ideally, he'd make more concise points, but we get what we get.


Jophiel wrote:
Yeah, that's why I said he should at least go [ spoiler][ quote][ /quote][ /spoiler]

Or better yet just put spoiler tags at top and bottom of the entire post Smiley: laugh

Edited, Oct 9th 2013 8:10am by Jophiel



I've been doing that for awhile now with Gbaji's posts, I've just been lazy in the last couple of posts. When you address every point by point as they come as opposed to the whole post, you end up repeating yourself a lot, hence my statement "read above". Ideally, I place all of his related comments into one quoted box, then spoiler tag it.
____________________________
Demea wrote:
Almalieque wrote:

I'm biased against statistics
1 2 3 Next »
Reply To Thread

Colors Smileys Quote OriginalQuote Checked Help

 

Recent Visitors: 40 All times are in CDT
Elinda, ElneClare, Poldaran, TirithRR, Anonymous Guests (36)