One Political Plaza - Home of politics
Home Active Topics Newest Pictures Search Login Register
Main
I Have a Serious Question about the Affordable Care Act
Page <<first <prev 13 of 25 next> last>>
Jan 15, 2017 13:05:23   #
CounterRevolutionary
 
Barry Jackson wrote:
Presently I am attempting to launch a class-action lawsuit against our federal government and all Liberal members of parliament, jointly and severally, for having STOLEN billions of dollars from the Canadian taxpayers in order to advance the criminal agenda of "climate change." Perhaps some enterprising conservative Americans could do likewise, for all manner of theft from the public treasury. I felt that the surest way to punish the fascists would be to attack the bastards personally, where it hurts the most - in their pocketbooks. Political intervention in the delivery of health care is immoral, stupid and wasteful. Obamacare needs to be abolished, period. Retaining some semblance of it merely kicks the can down the road. You may consider the lawsuit approach, as it would likely generate considerable publicity that the enemedia would otherwise ignore.
Presently I am attempting to launch a class-action... (show quote)


Go for it, Barry. Set the example we need down here to follow.

Reply
Jan 15, 2017 13:33:13   #
JFlorio Loc: Seminole Florida
 
You are spot on. The trouble with our snowflake liberals like peter is they want and trust government to take care of them from birth to grave. So stupidly naïve to think politicians have your best interests in mind over their own. Health care to most politicians is no more than another way to curry favor with a segment of voters. Pete has already found fault with Trump who hasn't implemented one policy but gives Obama a pass for lying to us for eight years. They don't mind government control of their lives because they were mostly subsidized by the rest of us anyway.
badbob85037 wrote:
When it allows government to know all your financial and banking business it is. I don't call paying twice as much for half the coverage and a deductible that could only be reached if dying AFFORDABLE. I don't call lying right to my face on the bill honest making obama a piece of dog lawn decor needing some justice. Maybe these worthless tree stumps and illegals that crowd our emergency rooms for a hang nail do. But these are the lower life forms America should lose

Reply
Jan 15, 2017 14:04:31   #
boofhead
 
tbarber wrote:
If they don't replace it the pre existing conditions will be astronomical.I couldn't venture a guess at how many would be uninsured at this point. Without insurance medication is unaffordable. People who can't afford to take medication will end up in the hospital because of conditions that could have been controlled becoming critical.Who pays for it then? Not the patients that couldn't afford it. It will be much more cost effective to replace,repair,or leave it alone for now.


Everyone goes on about the pre-existing conditions but as one who has paid for his own family for over 20 years that was ALWAYS something you had to figure in. The way it was done was that you had insurance from the time you started to work, either company or individual. That way, you were always covered and could not be denied for "pre-existing" conditions because the insurance company had accepted you and your family as they were at the time of entry into the plan. If you had a condition when you applied there was a waiting period before they would cover you for it and you could apply for special consideration if you were not being treated fairly. Sure there were times when the insurance companies were hard- nosed and you would need to fight a bit, and that is an area that needed to be examined and fixed, but there were no problems with pre-existing conditions if you played by the rules.

Now anyone can come in and even after a diagnosis of an illness, get coverage. Like crashing your car and then calling the insurance company for a policy to cover the accident that had already happened. That is not insurance. It sounds good, all touchy-feely for them, but it makes people like me who played by the rules all my life an idiot for doing so, and shows that I wasted tens of thousands of dollars when I could have just sat around and guzzled beer until I got sick then forced the system to give me money. We have a word for people like that.

And so you got the ACA. What about the fact that most doctors will not take you? They won't take you if you have Medicare or Medicaid either. What good is your ACA? Answer: it is worthless. Too many deadbeats in it. Don't you think that the doctors and hospitals know that? You are not a good risk if you can only get healthcare by forcing the productive members of society to pay for it. It makes the entire country one of deadbeats. What a goal. Thanks Barry.

I am more concerned that when I am the one who gets sick and loses my job, I can no longer pay for my healthcare premiums. When I need it most I lose it. The ACA does not address that. Medicaid could help but that is public money and enrollment is always full, the states do not accept new patients in Medicaid, just because they are sick. Usually you have to be indigent to qualify, no home, no car, no money. The ACA did not address that, it just moved money around and has resulted in a worse system in every way you can measure it.

So scrap it. Now. Don't wait. You will find that the doctors will take cash or else they will lose their jobs too. You can bargain and I would begin at about 10 percent of the normal charge rate. They will take you or they will go bankrupt. Hospitals will be the same. My wife had surgery 5 years ago at a major non-profit hospital a few years back and for a shared room they charged her $5,000 a day. Just for the room. That is way beyond gouging that should be criminal. The ACA did not change that, it just forced me to pay for your medical costs. A scam, a crock, a crime beyond belief. Scrap it. Toss out all the Democrats along with it and the RINOS. Clean House.

Reply
 
 
Jan 15, 2017 15:11:11   #
CounterRevolutionary
 
boofhead wrote:
Everyone goes on about the pre-existing conditions but as one who has paid for his own family for over 20 years that was ALWAYS something you had to figure in. The way it was done was that you had insurance from the time you started to work, either company or individual. That way, you were always covered and could not be denied for "pre-existing" conditions because the insurance company had accepted you and your family as they were at the time of entry into the plan. If you had a condition when you applied there was a waiting period before they would cover you for it and you could apply for special consideration if you were not being treated fairly. Sure there were times when the insurance companies were hard- nosed and you would need to fight a bit, and that is an area that needed to be examined and fixed, but there were no problems with pre-existing conditions if you played by the rules.

Now anyone can come in and even after a diagnosis of an illness, get coverage. Like crashing your car and then calling the insurance company for a policy to cover the accident that had already happened. That is not insurance. It sounds good, all touchy-feely for them, but it makes people like me who played by the rules all my life an idiot for doing so, and shows that I wasted tens of thousands of dollars when I could have just sat around and guzzled beer until I got sick then forced the system to give me money. We have a word for people like that.

And so you got the ACA. What about the fact that most doctors will not take you? They won't take you if you have Medicare or Medicaid either. What good is your ACA? Answer: it is worthless. Too many deadbeats in it. Don't you think that the doctors and hospitals know that? You are not a good risk if you can only get healthcare by forcing the productive members of society to pay for it. It makes the entire country one of deadbeats. What a goal. Thanks Barry.

I am more concerned that when I am the one who gets sick and loses my job, I can no longer pay for my healthcare premiums. When I need it most I lose it. The ACA does not address that. Medicaid could help but that is public money and enrollment is always full, the states do not accept new patients in Medicaid, just because they are sick. Usually you have to be indigent to qualify, no home, no car, no money. The ACA did not address that, it just moved money around and has resulted in a worse system in every way you can measure it.

So scrap it. Now. Don't wait. You will find that the doctors will take cash or else they will lose their jobs too. You can bargain and I would begin at about 10 percent of the normal charge rate. They will take you or they will go bankrupt. Hospitals will be the same. My wife had surgery 5 years ago at a major non-profit hospital a few years back and for a shared room they charged her $5,000 a day. Just for the room. That is way beyond gouging that should be criminal. The ACA did not change that, it just forced me to pay for your medical costs. A scam, a crock, a crime beyond belief. Scrap it. Toss out all the Democrats along with it and the RINOS. Clean House.
Everyone goes on about the pre-existing conditions... (show quote)


Yes, let the revolution begin! Ha!
Wells Fargo was the largest provider of health insurance prior Obamacare, able to purchase policies in blocks in most all 50 states at a great discount. They offered catastrophic health insurance policies, some for at little as $50/month. One could couple that with a Health Savings Account and do quite sufficiently until the wretched, arrogant government interceded forcing everybody to carry Cadillac coverage.

First, the government sickens us, and then professes to love us and cure us. Yes, throw them all in jail, life sentences.

Reply
Jan 15, 2017 16:18:56   #
straightUp Loc: California
 
Barry Jackson wrote:
If politics were removed from the equation and the provision of health care were treated as a business like any other, where competition is the consumer's best friend, costs would plummet. Politicians got in on the act because they realized that they could exploit the issue for political gain: Once the government controls your health care, it controls YOU. It has never been about controlling costs; it has always been about controlling the people.

We always go back to the innocence of that classroom model don't we? "Competition is good". It's a great way to introduce economics to school kids, because in a theoretical model, competition *IS* good and it forms the basis for how we want capitalism to work. But it's a little naive for grown adults to keep saying that about a real system in the real world. The real world tends to complicate things beyond what we would expect a kid to understand. Even Adam Smith, the god-father of capitalism who coined the term "Invisible Hand" made it a point to call it a theory and suggested that in practice it might not work the same way.

I was going to get into a comprehensive response to explain how a market based on covering losses makes the free market inherently more expensive, but you might not have time for long-winded liberals. So I'm just going to say that any comprehensive response will reveal the logic behind the inarguable fact that the ACA has indeed slowed the rate of escalating prices for health coverage to a rate not seen since 1965.
https://www.whitehouse.gov/sites/default/files/docs/healthcostreport_final_noembargo_v2.pdf

Of course I'd be more than happy to explain how this happens... if you like... 'just let me know.

Reply
Jan 15, 2017 16:33:34   #
Louie27 Loc: Peoria, AZ
 
straightUp wrote:
Interesting idea. Sort of like giving them enough rope to hang themselves. I know people who are going to suffer when/if the ACA is repealed so it's hard to accept this. I'm also familiar enough with the Culture of Ignorance to know that many America idiots are incapable of learning from mistakes. Even if millions of people wind up dying from a lack of healthcare, the few that prefer it that way will always have a scapegoat to offer these incapable people. They will say it's the fault of the Marxists, or the Muslims or, whatever... it really doesn't matter, the point is to maintain ignorance. So you're idea fails to present any advantage as far as persuasion goes, but I do agree with you on a technical standpoint... Repealing the ACA without replacement would be the most effective way to understand the impact.

As far as sweeping the Republicans from office... I refer to my second point... Republican sponsored policies are responsible for almost every problem Republican voters bitch about and yet politicians always find a way (usually by lying) to blame it on Democrats. It's a game played by politicians and they have always been able to count on vast numbers of emotional and illiterate voters to keep it going.

Trump will certainly be a laughing stock for liberal-minded comedians on late night television and more importantly, his election is already spurring massive counter-movements on the ground, but Republican strategy has long relegated the office of the president to a fixture in a house of smoke and mirrors, while actual power emanates from those hidden in the shadows. Nixon was probably the last Republican president to act as a true leader. Reagan was nominated because of his popularity but he didn't lead as much as he followed. In a sense he became a mere spokesman for the agenda that others behind him controlled. GW Bush sticks out because unlike Reagan, he didn't even have the capacity to *act* like a leader. Of course, in his defense, the ulterior motives of the Republican agenda did become much harder to conceal. When you look at the nominations since then, such as Sarah Palin for vice president you can see how the qualifications have more to do with public relations than the capacity to lead. The point I'm making here is that Trump, whether or not he's what the GOP really wanted, is about to be controlled by his party. His own appointees are already promising the party to keep him on a leash so the ability for Trump to "drain the swamp" is doubtful at most.

Repealing the ACA has always been a Republican objective and they have been prompting the Culture of Ignorance into opposition since before it even became a law. Trump's opposition to the ACA is part of his banking on this Culture of Ignorance to get elected. The party will use that to their advantage of course, but if the ACA is indeed repealed, it will be the result of Republican manipulation that Trump himself will have little to do with. People will suffer of course, but once again the Culture of Ignorance will find themselves blaming anything but the repeal for the pains they endure and they will probably vote for more Republican abuse in 2018.

I expect the Republicans will loose ground in 2018 and you're right, repealing the ACA will almost guarantee that, but that's because it will motivate the apathetic half of the moderate citizens that didn't vote in 2016. The Republicans won't be wiped out... ignorance might even give them more votes than they got in 2016, but that 54% that didn't vote in 2016? Yeah, THEY will be the ones to make the change.
Interesting idea. Sort of like giving them enough ... (show quote)



The Democratic party is the party of ignorance. The Republicans have plans for health care but need to incorporate needs of the people from all of the plans to have a complete plan. They have had a number of plans but with Obama in office they knew there was no chance for Obama to vote for any other plan than, that of the Democratic party, which installed the ACA, which has not been good for many Americans.

Reply
Jan 15, 2017 16:45:29   #
archie bunker Loc: Texas
 
Louie27 wrote:

The Democratic party is the party of ignorance. The Republicans have plans for health care but need to incorporate needs of the people from all of the plans to have a complete plan. They have had a number of plans but with Obama in office they knew there was no chance for Obama to vote for any other plan than, that of the Democratic party, which installed the ACA, which has not been good for many Americans.
img src="https://static.onepoliticalplaza.com/ima... (show quote)


But....but....it's helped a few! And it hasn't impacted this genius a bit.
People like him sit in their bubble of prosperity with all of their great academic theories causing harm to people while being insulated from said harm.

Socialism is for the people, not the socialists.
Pretty simple, and America has rejected it. That's what brought Trump to the White House.

Reply
 
 
Jan 15, 2017 16:54:32   #
Barry Jackson Loc: Montreal, Canada
 
If you cited an objective source of statistics rather than the deservedly vilified Obama White House I would be more inclined to give credence to your point of view. Since Obama has been proven time and again to be an inveterate liar, all I can do is remind you of the eternal truism Bullshit Baffles Brains. Being a Canadian I can report with five decades of statistics to back me up that government is the very LAST organization a sane person would want to run a health-care delivery program. The United States is the most successful and prosperous society the world has ever known. It got this way not because of the heavy hand of government but in spite of it. Canada's socialist Medicare program is on life support because it is run by ideologues who rule out the adoption of free enterprise efficiencies because they don't want our health care system tainted by the evil of American runnning-dog capitalism. How short-sighted! How self-defeating! How stupid! Let freedom and the consumer's best friend - competition - reign!

Reply
Jan 15, 2017 17:00:58   #
Louie27 Loc: Peoria, AZ
 
Barry Jackson wrote:
If you cited an objective source of statistics rather than the deservedly vilified Obama White House I would be more inclined to give credence to your point of view. Since Obama has been proven time and again to be an inveterate liar, all I can do is remind you of the eternal truism Bullshit Baffles Brains. Being a Canadian I can report with five decades of statistics to back me up that government is the very LAST organization a sane person would want to run a health-care delivery program. The United States is the most successful and prosperous society the world has ever known. It got this way not because of the heavy hand of government but in spite of it. Canada's socialist Medicare program is on life support because it is run by ideologues who rule out the adoption of free enterprise efficiencies because they don't want our health care system tainted by the evil of American runnning-dog capitalism. How short-sighted! How self-defeating! How stupid! Let freedom and the consumer's best friend - competition - reign!
If you cited an objective source of statistics rat... (show quote)



Thanks for that information. The Democrats will not like to hear the truth from a person that is and has been involved with the care system of Canada. They only believe the lies forced fed to them by liberals bloggers and the MSM. They will not believe anyone that has had to live through it.

Reply
Jan 15, 2017 17:12:58   #
straightUp Loc: California
 
CounterRevolutionary wrote:
I think you are missing a historical point here. "Preexisting conditions" coverage was written out of health insurance policies through government regulations under the 1945 McCarran-Fergusson Act when insurance companies were re-classed as a "for profit industry," placing them under the Interstate Commerce Clause.

It's a bit misleading to say coverage of preexisting conditions were written out "though" government regulation. The 1945 McCarran-Fergusson Act is a law AGAINST federal regulation and it was the resulting *absence of regulation* that allowed *insurance companies* to write out the preexisting conditions.

CounterRevolutionary wrote:

Once this McCarran-Fergusson Act is overturned, we will have access to all 1700 health insurance companies across all state borders, where "non-profit" health insurance industries can emerge with fair prices for the chronically ill.

The McCarran-Fergusson Act itself is a bit soft. There is an exception where federal laws can override state laws if the federal law itself is limited to the "business of insurance". So to override the impact the McCarran-Fergusson Act has on the insurance industry is a matter of fine-tuning the federal law. Overturning the law won't really make any difference at all.

I'm curious about how you think free access to insurance across state lines will induce the emergence of non-profit solutions. I agree with you that non-profit solutions are the best way (or at least the more likely way) to provide affordable coverage. Are you saying that McCarran-Fergusson has to be overturned so that non-profit insurance companies like Kaiser-Permanente in California can provide more affordable coverage to customers in states that don't have non-profits?

If so, I like the idea...

CounterRevolutionary wrote:

You cannot be so naïve to think the Public Option will be more just and affordable. Under government management, it will be cheaper to kill us than cure us. It will not only cost us more financially, it will cost us our lives.

Government is your problem, not the solution!


Eh... not so with you on that one... I like that you're looking for alternatives and that you can see the non-profit advantage, but I don't understand the revulsion toward a government-operated option - after all, the government *is* non-profit. From a business perspective, the government operates as a non-profit organization. All of a sudden you get so inclusive, talking about "us" as if we all have the same needs... It's already cheaper for the existing insurance companies to kill a lot of their customers than to fix them... The providers aren't a factor in that realty the patients are... Some patients simply cost a lot of money to keep alive. This is why profit-driven insurance companies want to exclude preexisting conditions (which are usually chronic) ...because they represent those equations where it would be more cost effective for them if the patient died. The customers that profit margins favor are the young healthy customers that pay in more than they draw out... Whether the provider is public or private makes no difference to this variation, but as a non-profit organization is does have that advantage...

Also, contrary to what many people think, private companies that answer to wealthy hedge funds are not always as efficient as a government that answers to poor citizens. The public option the Democrats pushed for in 2016 was based on Medicare, which has a 5% overhead on cost. The average for the insurance industry is 20%.

Reply
Jan 15, 2017 17:17:54   #
Louie27 Loc: Peoria, AZ
 
straightUp wrote:
Eh... not so with you on that one... I like that you're looking for alternatives and that you can see the non-profit advantage, but I don't understand the revulsion toward a government-operated option - after all, the government *is* non-profit. From a business perspective, the government operates as a non-profit organization. All of a sudden you get so inclusive, talking about "us" as if we all have the same needs... It's already cheaper for the existing insurance companies to kill a lot of their customers than to fix them... The providers aren't a factor in that realty the patients are... Some patients simply cost a lot of money to keep alive. This is why profit-driven insurance companies want to exclude preexisting conditions (which are usually chronic) ...because they represent those equations where it would be more cost effective for them if the patient died. The customers that profit margins favor are the young healthy customers that pay in more than they draw out... Whether the provider is public or private makes no difference to this variation, but as a non-profit organization is does have that advantage...

Also, contrary to what many people think, private companies that answer to wealthy hedge funds are not always as efficient as a government that answers to poor citizens. The public option the Democrats pushed for in 2016 was based on Medicare, which has a 5% overhead on cost. The average for the insurance industry is 20%.
Eh... not so with you on that one... I like that y... (show quote)


The federal government has never been good with the peoples money. Anything they touch costs much more than what can be provided by the private sector.

Reply
 
 
Jan 15, 2017 17:25:33   #
straightUp Loc: California
 
Louie27 wrote:

The Democratic party is the party of ignorance. The Republicans have plans for health care but need to incorporate needs of the people from all of the plans to have a complete plan. They have had a number of plans but with Obama in office they knew there was no chance for Obama to vote for any other plan than, that of the Democratic party, which installed the ACA, which has not been good for many Americans.
img src="https://static.onepoliticalplaza.com/ima... (show quote)

aw... is this a party thing? You're rubber, I'm glue is that it?

1. There is no party of ignorance, but there is a culture of ignorance and the Republican party uses that to their advantage.
2. The Republicans have had plans for decades... A lot of the ACA is based on ideas borrowed from the likes of Romney and Gingrich. The problem is the Republicans can't come up with anything that doesn't cut into profits of the insurance industry. It seems that the industry is set on squeezing the people and they want the government to stop interfering. So, despite the fact that the moral side of the Republican Party has actually tried to come up with a solution, the business side of the Republican Party won't pass it. The Democrats have already sworn they will support any solution the Republicans come up with that will actually help the people. As it stands right now... the Republicans got nothing.

Reply
Jan 15, 2017 17:35:20   #
archie bunker Loc: Texas
 
straightUp wrote:
aw... is this a party thing? You're rubber, I'm glue is that it?

1. There is no party of ignorance, but there is a culture of ignorance and the Republican party uses that to their advantage.
2. The Republicans have had plans for decades... A lot of the ACA is based on ideas borrowed from the likes of Romney and Gingrich. The problem is the Republicans can't come up with anything that doesn't cut into profits of the insurance industry. It seems that the industry is set on squeezing the people and they want the government to stop interfering. So, despite the fact that the moral side of the Republican Party has actually tried to come up with a solution, the business side of the Republican Party won't pass it. The Democrats have already sworn they will support any solution the Republican come up with that will actually help the people. As it stands right now... the Republicans got nothing.
aw... is this a party thing? You're rubber, I'm gl... (show quote)


Damn you're a smart bastard aren't you? Why aren't you our president? I mean, shit!! You know everything, are an expert on everything. Why aren't YOU running the show? Really! I mean REALLY!! You are so fking smart, why don't you just fix it for all of us?
Jeez what a narcissistic fool you are!!

Reply
Jan 15, 2017 17:38:15   #
straightUp Loc: California
 
Louie27 wrote:
The federal government has never been good with the peoples money. Anything they touch costs much more than what can be provided by the private sector.

There are plenty of cases where that's true... mostly in cases of corruption involving the private sector, such as the rampant corruption of the military-industrial complex where we can find $7,000 hammers. But for the most part, government tends to be more transparent than the private sector which means the government is more exposed to public scrutiny and that's why it's errors are more prevalent the media which gives people the impression that it's more corrupt, when in reality corruption is far more rampant in the private sector but we just don't see it because unlike the government a private firm is "none of our fucking business".

Reply
Jan 15, 2017 17:42:29   #
straightUp Loc: California
 
archie bunker wrote:
Damn you're a smart bastard aren't you? Why aren't you our president? I mean, shit!! You know everything, are an expert on everything. Why aren't YOU running the show? Really! I mean REALLY!! You are so fking smart, why don't you just fix it for all of us?
Jeez what a narcissistic fool you are!!

LOL... might be time for your pills archie.

Reply
Page <<first <prev 13 of 25 next> last>>
If you want to reply, then register here. Registration is free and your account is created instantly, so you can post right away.
Main
OnePoliticalPlaza.com - Forum
Copyright 2012-2024 IDF International Technologies, Inc.