Looks like Tea Party was right about Obamacare. America owes them an apology

[candycorn]

[

Not sure of your point but I can tell you (and any one with 2 eyeballs would tell you this as well) that preventative healthcare is much less expensive than acute care. The key to getting preventative healthcare is insurance. Thus it stands to reason; more people on insurance=lower overall costs.

uranidiot. Preventive health care is a scam since the doctor has a huge incentive to find something wrong with you. They don't make money off healthy people. I've never had a checkup in my life.

Never... okay.

 

[NYcarbineer]

there are 2 good things in the ACA, companies must take people with pre-existing conditions, and no lifetime maximums. The rest of it is crap. Congress could have implemented those 2 things with a one paragraph bill.

Why the hell should a 26 year old adult still be on his/her parent's insurance??? thats fricken stupid.

Some people go to college and need to be on insurance a bit longer. Some, like my assistant, have special needs kids who benefit greatly by the extended insurance stay.

Either way, it doesn't cost you a penny so you're "fricken stupid" for letting it bother you.

Anyone who is still going to college when they are 23 is either in grad school, milking it or too stupid to be there. And you bet your ass it costs extra to have kids and young adults on your policy.

I'll bet it's more expensive for a 23 year old to get individual coverage than it is to stay on a family plan, if the coverages are equal.

 

[NYcarbineer]

It's actually more than just "shutting something down". This is about government taking more and more and more power - and taking more and more and more freedom.

Our illustrious "government" is growing faster than any other concern in America. We are literally putting ourselves into slavery with this behemoth. NOTHING good will come from this and we have done it to ourselves.

This is the reality...you are misinformed....

Interesting since that's not the projected debt the CBO is stating after Obama's 8 years in office.

The Congressional Budget Office projects that over his 8 years in office, the Administration will have engaged in $7.5 trillion in deficit-spending and the national debt will almost double.

MISERY INDEX IS ABOUT TO SOAR

With you people, one day it's Congress controlling the pursestrings, the next it's the Administration doing all the deficit spending.

Could you pick one and stick with it please.

 

[ShaklesOfBigGov]

Its early...Not all companies offered low/zero emission vehicles at the beginning. Now most do. New markets get some doubters.... Meanwhile, the Prius is dominating the market. Chevy wishes it had gotten there first. Nothing new there.

And to correct your own statement...from your quotes it seems that they are participating on a limited basis; it isn't a case of "not participating". I'd say that is smart business practice. When we start in a new market, we don't open 26 campuses like we have here; we start with a few and expand outward duplicating a winning business model.

If your overall goal is to reduce healthcare costs and your looking to those government healthcare systems already in place in Canada and the NHS, you're not duplicating from a winning business model.

Not sure of your point but I can tell you (and any one with 2 eyeballs would tell you this as well) that preventative healthcare is much less expensive than acute care. The key to getting preventative healthcare is insurance. Thus it stands to reason; more people on insurance=lower overall costs.

I agree with Edgethro that it looks good on paper until the time comes with how it's to be implemented. To introduce a mandate where everyone is required to carry insurance becomes difficult to attain as there will always be those who fall through the cracks. Our nation can't even control our own boarders, yet we are asking the government to track all immigrants (illegal, or those with a green card), as well as those that are homeless, who become ill or injured and require care in our hospitals.

The issue of cost is another factor. Obamacare was sold under the promise of providing affordable health care. Yet there will still be many Americans that are too poor, or the countless unemployed effected by a huge loss in income with bills and obligations that don't change simply because they can't find work. Who covers their costs to provide coverage? What the government does is provide system that is nothing more than a shell game of hidden costs, diverted under the umbrella of another type of program. When someone provides a service and the bill is simply left at the table, as the grateful party simply turns and walks, someone ALWAYS has to be left to pick up the tab. Changing the system doesn't negate the problems in confronting cost. Rather we've traded uninsured patients who require treatment that raises the costs on the rest who HAVE coverage, to low income patients who now obtain their coverage divided amongst taxpayers who must acquire it FOR them among their taxable provisions. It's the government shell game, under the false premise that it will not add a cent to our debt or raise its costs onto the majority of Americans.

 

[depotoo]

Some people go to college and need to be on insurance a bit longer. Some, like my assistant, have special needs kids who benefit greatly by the extended insurance stay.

Either way, it doesn't cost you a penny so you're "fricken stupid" for letting it bother you.

Anyone who is still going to college when they are 23 is either in grad school, milking it or too stupid to be there. And you bet your ass it costs extra to have kids and young adults on your policy.

I'll bet it's more expensive for a 23 year old to get individual coverage than it is to stay on a family plan, if the coverages are equal.

my son at 23 was able to get his own policy 2 years ago for the amount of $60 a month, free preventative, low co-pays, and deductible of $500. And it reduced our policy by $200 a month.

 

[ShaklesOfBigGov]

This is the reality...you are misinformed....

Interesting since that's not the projected debt the CBO is stating after Obama's 8 years in office.

The Congressional Budget Office projects that over his 8 years in office, the Administration will have engaged in $7.5 trillion in deficit-spending and the national debt will almost double.

MISERY INDEX IS ABOUT TO SOAR

With you people, one day it's Congress controlling the pursestrings, the next it's the Administration doing all the deficit spending.

Could you pick one and stick with it please.

What did the liberal Democrats advocate and pass under speaker Nancy Pelosi?

$787 BILLION stimulus
Obamacare
Cash for Clunkers
Cash for Appliances
Government incentives for the Chevy Volt
Funding for hand picked green corporations like Solyndra, US Geothermal, etc.
Blank Checks in an attempt to keep Fannie Mae and Freddy Mac afloat without accountability
Prolonged Federal unemployment extension (even over a job creating pipeline)
.... just to name a few

Now President Obama would like to see yet ANOTHER stimulus spending (not-so-shovel-ready) package pushed through Congress. I find that it's all quite obvious where a lot of this government spending has been coming from.

 

[NYcarbineer]

How could a President/Congress double the national debt and this chart be an honest appraisal?

The same way as if you divorce and your ex spouse has left you bills that are now coming in and that spouse has subtracted from income by a tax cut so you have a double whammy to deal with...that is how that happens.. It is not that you are spending heavily and irresponsibly..

Hate to burst your bubble since you've really grown attached to your nice colored graph, but let's start things off with just ONE concrete fact that should help bring things into their proper perspective.

After the eight year term of President George W. Bush was up, the Iraq War cost taxpayers $820 BILLION dollars.
SOURCE - http://www.dpc.senate.gov/docs/fs-112-1-36.pdf

Now we look to the Obama stimulus bill which has the CBO estimate of $821 BILLION dollars.
SOURCE - CBO raises its stimulus cost estimate, again - Washington Times

Then to that you include the Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac blank checks, the Chevy Volt incentives, the prolonged unemployment extensions which brings in no federal revenue ( had this president use some intelligence to look to the pipeline construction from Canada for jobs instead of insisting on more unemployment checks ), oh we must not forget all those tax dollars wasted on green corporations that fell towards bankruptcy - Solyndra, US Geothermal, etc. You know ....... it's not really looking good for President Barrack Obama at this point, I think you should take the time to find a better graph.

So the 800 billion you're saying that the stimulus cost, that the stimulus added to the defict?

 

[Flopper]

Hell yes the insurance companies signed off on the deal. The promise by Obama of 30 million new health insurance customers, all paid in full by the US Government. In addition, millions more will be partially funded on their policies with the full faith and credit of Uncle Sugar.
They would have been foolish not to see that bird nest on the ground.

If they signed off then tell me why these MAJOR companies aren't participating???

Aetna (AET, Fortune 500) has actually pulled out of at least five exchanges after submitting proposals in 14 states. Its policies will not be found on the exchanges in Maryland, New York, Georgia, Ohio or its home state of Connecticut. The insurer recently bought Coventry Health Plans, which had also filed to be on several state exchanges, so Aetna is now reviewing both companies' remaining fillings.

"We believe it is critical that our plans not only be competitive, but also financially viable, in order to meet the long-term needs of the exchanges in which we choose to participate," the company said last month after withdrawing from the New York exchange. It will offer individual plans outside of Obamacare in the Empire State.

UnitedHealthcare (UNH, Fortune 500) is also planning limited participation in the new exchanges, at least for 2014. The company said it is taking its time to evaluate the exchanges, which it believes have the potential to be a growth market. It is only participating in about a dozen exchanges next year.
"[We] see 2014 as just the very start of the exchange markets," said spokesman Tyler Mason.

For Cigna (CI, Fortune 500), the decision came down to its customer base. A giant player in the employer market, Cigna is relatively new to the individual insurance side of the business. So it decided to join the exchanges in only the five states where it writes 80% of its individual policies, said spokesman Joseph Mondy. But Cigna will continue to offer plans outside the exchange in all 10 states where it is involved in the individual market.

Its early...Not all companies offered low/zero emission vehicles at the beginning. Now most do. New markets get some doubters.... Meanwhile, the Prius is dominating the market. Chevy wishes it had gotten there first. Nothing new there.

And to correct your own statement...from your quotes it seems that they are participating on a limited basis; it isn't a case of "not participating". I'd say that is smart business practice. When we start in a new market, we don't open 26 campuses like we have here; we start with a few and expand outward duplicating a winning business model.

In Washington state only half of the companies that applied for listing on the state exchange have been approved.

"We are not, and have not been a large player with a mature, robust presence to begin with in the individual market in New Jersey," an Aethna spokeswoman said.

UnitedHealthcare is also planning limited participation in the new exchanges, at least for 2014. The company said it is taking its time to evaluate the exchanges, which it believes have the potential to be a growth market. It is only participating in about a dozen exchanges next year.


Some medical insurance plans, rates approved for state?s new health exchange | Q13 FOX News

 

[NYcarbineer]

Interesting since that's not the projected debt the CBO is stating after Obama's 8 years in office.

With you people, one day it's Congress controlling the pursestrings, the next it's the Administration doing all the deficit spending.

Could you pick one and stick with it please.

What did the liberal Democrats advocate and pass under speaker Nancy Pelosi?

$787 BILLION stimulus
Obamacare
Cash for Clunkers
Cash for Appliances
Government incentives for the Chevy Volt
Funding for hand picked green corporations like Solyndra, US Geothermal, etc.
Blank Checks in an attempt to keep Fannie Mae and Freddy Mac afloat without accountability
Prolonged Federal unemployment extension (even over a job creating pipeline)
.... just to name a few

Now President Obama would like to see yet ANOTHER stimulus spending (not-so-shovel-ready) package pushed through Congress. I find that it's all quite obvious where a lot of this government spending has been coming from.

So you want to blame the 2009 and 2010 deficits on the Democratic House,

but 2011, 2012, and 2013, those deficits you want to blame on Obama because the Republicans took the House in 2010?

lol, do you consider yourself one of the smarter inmates around here?

 

[NYcarbineer]

Anyone who is still going to college when they are 23 is either in grad school, milking it or too stupid to be there. And you bet your ass it costs extra to have kids and young adults on your policy.

I'll bet it's more expensive for a 23 year old to get individual coverage than it is to stay on a family plan, if the coverages are equal.

my son at 23 was able to get his own policy 2 years ago for the amount of $60 a month, free preventative, low co-pays, and deductible of $500. And it reduced our policy by $200 a month.

Prove that and you'll have made a point, of sorts.

 

[Flopper]

If your overall goal is to reduce healthcare costs and your looking to those government healthcare systems already in place in Canada and the NHS, you're not duplicating from a winning business model.

Not sure of your point but I can tell you (and any one with 2 eyeballs would tell you this as well) that preventative healthcare is much less expensive than acute care. The key to getting preventative healthcare is insurance. Thus it stands to reason; more people on insurance=lower overall costs.

I agree with Edgethro that it looks good on paper until the time comes with how it's to be implemented. To introduce a mandate where everyone is required to carry insurance becomes difficult to attain as there will always be those who fall through the cracks. Our nation can't even control our own boarders, yet we are asking the government to track all immigrants (illegal, or those with a green card), as well as those that are homeless, who become ill or injured and require care in our hospitals.

The issue of cost is another factor. Obamacare was sold under the promise of providing affordable health care. Yet there will still be many Americans that are too poor, or the countless unemployed effected by a huge loss in income with bills and obligations that don't change simply because they can't find work. Who covers their costs to provide coverage? What the government does is provide system that is nothing more than a shell game of hidden costs, diverted under the umbrella of another type of program. When someone provides a service and the bill is simply left at the table, as the grateful party simply turns and walks, someone ALWAYS has to be left to pick up the tab. Changing the system doesn't negate the problems in confronting cost. Rather we've traded uninsured patients who require treatment that raises the costs on the rest who HAVE coverage, to low income patients who now obtain their coverage divided amongst taxpayers who must acquire it FOR them among their taxable provisions. It's the government shell game, under the false premise that it will not add a cent to our debt or raise its costs onto the majority of Americans.

The only way to achieve 100% coverage is through a single payer system. The ACA will increase the number covered significantly but certainly not a 100%. Half the states, mostly red states who opted out of the expanded medicaid will create a coverage gap of over 5 million.

Although many of these states are considering offering the medicaid expansion or an alternative program, it will still create a large gap. The reason for states rejecting the expansion is political not funding. The federal government pays 100% of the expansion for the first few years and will gradually reduce federal funding to 90%.

Other coverage gaps will be unavoidable. As is the case now, employees changing jobs will have gaps in coverage. Also some employees will not be able to afford their employer offered coverage but will not meet the 8% income rule for use of the exchanges.

Since most of the costs of the ACA goes to subsidies and the Medicaid expansion, the less coverage the less financial impact on federal spending. The CBO cost estimate of $120 billion/yr for the ACA is based on 24 million enrollments on the healthcare exchanges and all states expanding medicaid. If these numbers are significantly lower, then so will be the impact on federal spending.

Counterpoint on ACA Medicaid Coverage Gap - NPQ - Nonprofit Quarterly

http://www.cbo.gov/publication/44176

 

[candycorn]

If your overall goal is to reduce healthcare costs and your looking to those government healthcare systems already in place in Canada and the NHS, you're not duplicating from a winning business model.

Not sure of your point but I can tell you (and any one with 2 eyeballs would tell you this as well) that preventative healthcare is much less expensive than acute care. The key to getting preventative healthcare is insurance. Thus it stands to reason; more people on insurance=lower overall costs.

I agree with Edgethro that it looks good on paper until the time comes with how it's to be implemented. To introduce a mandate where everyone is required to carry insurance becomes difficult to attain as there will always be those who fall through the cracks. Our nation can't even control our own boarders, yet we are asking the government to track all immigrants (illegal, or those with a green card), as well as those that are homeless, who become ill or injured and require care in our hospitals.

The issue of cost is another factor. Obamacare was sold under the promise of providing affordable health care. Yet there will still be many Americans that are too poor, or the countless unemployed effected by a huge loss in income with bills and obligations that don't change simply because they can't find work. Who covers their costs to provide coverage? What the government does is provide system that is nothing more than a shell game of hidden costs, diverted under the umbrella of another type of program. When someone provides a service and the bill is simply left at the table, as the grateful party simply turns and walks, someone ALWAYS has to be left to pick up the tab. Changing the system doesn't negate the problems in confronting cost. Rather we've traded uninsured patients who require treatment that raises the costs on the rest who HAVE coverage, to low income patients who now obtain their coverage divided amongst taxpayers who must acquire it FOR them among their taxable provisions. It's the government shell game, under the false premise that it will not add a cent to our debt or raise its costs onto the majority of Americans.

You're paying for 100% of the people who show up at the County and City clinics and emergency rooms. Preventative healthcare will reduce those numbers. Keep in mind that in many cases it's not 20 y/o adults who show up after not going to the doctor for several years even though they could; it's 10 y/o girls who have high fever whose parents wanted to but couldn't afford insurance. Now instead of that ER visit, they'll have the ability to go to scheduled doctor visits to catch problems before they result in acute care having to be delivered.

 

[candycorn]

[

Not sure of your point but I can tell you (and any one with 2 eyeballs would tell you this as well) that preventative healthcare is much less expensive than acute care. The key to getting preventative healthcare is insurance. Thus it stands to reason; more people on insurance=lower overall costs.

uranidiot. Preventive health care is a scam since the doctor has a huge incentive to find something wrong with you. They don't make money off healthy people. I've never had a checkup in my life.

Never... okay.

All this life insurance is a bunch of hooey...I've never died yet.

 

[TooTall]

Then:


And now...




I'll buy you a mirror so you can debate yourself if you ask nicely.

That won't be necessary since my conclusion is that the Insurance companies were LIED to by the Obama Administration and the Democrats that passed this tax law.

Apparently you don't understand what the word "snookered" means.

So lets stack up the qualifications:

Your opinion vs. the insurance companies.
Your opinion vs. their accountants, lawyers, advisors, board members, etc...
Your opinion vs. the millions of new policy holders they will get

Yeah...I'm pretty sure you're full of shit. Pick a position at some point and try to make a cognitive argument.

It is not my opinion that a number of insurance companies are backing out after learning about the hazards of believing a government scam. It is a fact!

It is not my opinion that the insurance companies are listening to their accountants, lawyers, board members, etc. and that is the reason they are limiting their participation in the government exchanges. It is a fact.

It is not my opinion that MOST of those NEW policy holders premiums will be paid by the federal government and they will get the money by increasing the taxes and premiums from those who already have policies. It is a fact.

Look in the mirror if you want to see a pile of shit.

 

[TooTall]

Not sure of your point but I can tell you (and any one with 2 eyeballs would tell you this as well) that preventative healthcare is much less expensive than acute care. The key to getting preventative healthcare is insurance. Thus it stands to reason; more people on insurance=lower overall costs.

I agree with Edgethro that it looks good on paper until the time comes with how it's to be implemented. To introduce a mandate where everyone is required to carry insurance becomes difficult to attain as there will always be those who fall through the cracks. Our nation can't even control our own boarders, yet we are asking the government to track all immigrants (illegal, or those with a green card), as well as those that are homeless, who become ill or injured and require care in our hospitals.

The issue of cost is another factor. Obamacare was sold under the promise of providing affordable health care. Yet there will still be many Americans that are too poor, or the countless unemployed effected by a huge loss in income with bills and obligations that don't change simply because they can't find work. Who covers their costs to provide coverage? What the government does is provide system that is nothing more than a shell game of hidden costs, diverted under the umbrella of another type of program. When someone provides a service and the bill is simply left at the table, as the grateful party simply turns and walks, someone ALWAYS has to be left to pick up the tab. Changing the system doesn't negate the problems in confronting cost. Rather we've traded uninsured patients who require treatment that raises the costs on the rest who HAVE coverage, to low income patients who now obtain their coverage divided amongst taxpayers who must acquire it FOR them among their taxable provisions. It's the government shell game, under the false premise that it will not add a cent to our debt or raise its costs onto the majority of Americans.

You're paying for 100% of the people who show up at the County and City clinics and emergency rooms. Preventative healthcare will reduce those numbers. Keep in mind that in many cases it's not 20 y/o adults who show up after not going to the doctor for several years even though they could; it's 10 y/o girls who have high fever whose parents wanted to but couldn't afford insurance. Now instead of that ER visit, they'll have the ability to go to scheduled doctor visits to catch problems before they result in acute care having to be delivered.

I never was able to schedule a high fever in my girls or boys. They usually woke us up in the middle of the night. How many doctors do you know that are able to take an unscheduled visit in the middle of the night, let alone during normal office hours? Since there will be many more patients waiting for appointments, and fewer doctors, a visit to the clinic or emergency room would be where I would and have taken my kids.

We raised 5 kids, three of ours 2 adopted. How many have you raised.

On edit: Since city and county clinics are paid for out of local taxes, I am sure my property tax will go down. Just thought I would insert a bit of humor in this post, because you know that ain't gonna happen.

 

[ShootSpeeders]

Hey stupid. Obozo doesn't count all the trillions of $ he's borrowed from the federal reserve and given to the banks!!! He says we borrowed it from ouselves so it shouldn't count, ignoring the fact that the federal reserve is a cartel of PRIVATE banks. And the PPP lets himi get away with it.

 

[candycorn]

That won't be necessary since my conclusion is that the Insurance companies were LIED to by the Obama Administration and the Democrats that passed this tax law.

Apparently you don't understand what the word "snookered" means.

So lets stack up the qualifications:

Your opinion vs. the insurance companies.
Your opinion vs. their accountants, lawyers, advisors, board members, etc...
Your opinion vs. the millions of new policy holders they will get

Yeah...I'm pretty sure you're full of shit. Pick a position at some point and try to make a cognitive argument.

It is not my opinion that a number of insurance companies are backing out after learning about the hazards of believing a government scam. It is a fact!

It is not my opinion that the insurance companies are listening to their accountants, lawyers, board members, etc. and that is the reason they are limiting their participation in the government exchanges. It is a fact.

It is not my opinion that MOST of those NEW policy holders premiums will be paid by the federal government and they will get the money by increasing the taxes and premiums from those who already have policies. It is a fact.

Yet if you were to log on to healthcare.gov, you'd see plan after plan listed...Amazing that they're there if what you are saying were true.

Like most conservatives, you have a very casual relationship to the truth. Again, you should buy a mirror so you can debate yourself. You seem really confused.

 

[TooTall]

Not sure of your point but I can tell you (and any one with 2 eyeballs would tell you this as well) that preventative healthcare is much less expensive than acute care. The key to getting preventative healthcare is insurance. Thus it stands to reason; more people on insurance=lower overall costs.

I agree with Edgethro that it looks good on paper until the time comes with how it's to be implemented. To introduce a mandate where everyone is required to carry insurance becomes difficult to attain as there will always be those who fall through the cracks. Our nation can't even control our own boarders, yet we are asking the government to track all immigrants (illegal, or those with a green card), as well as those that are homeless, who become ill or injured and require care in our hospitals.

The issue of cost is another factor. Obamacare was sold under the promise of providing affordable health care. Yet there will still be many Americans that are too poor, or the countless unemployed effected by a huge loss in income with bills and obligations that don't change simply because they can't find work. Who covers their costs to provide coverage? What the government does is provide system that is nothing more than a shell game of hidden costs, diverted under the umbrella of another type of program. When someone provides a service and the bill is simply left at the table, as the grateful party simply turns and walks, someone ALWAYS has to be left to pick up the tab. Changing the system doesn't negate the problems in confronting cost. Rather we've traded uninsured patients who require treatment that raises the costs on the rest who HAVE coverage, to low income patients who now obtain their coverage divided amongst taxpayers who must acquire it FOR them among their taxable provisions. It's the government shell game, under the false premise that it will not add a cent to our debt or raise its costs onto the majority of Americans.

The only way to achieve 100% coverage is through a single payer system. The ACA will increase the number covered significantly but certainly not a 100%. Half the states, mostly red states who opted out of the expanded medicaid will create a coverage gap of over 5 million.

Although many of these states are considering offering the medicaid expansion or an alternative program, it will still create a large gap. The reason for states rejecting the expansion is political not funding. The federal government pays 100% of the expansion for the first few years and will gradually reduce federal funding to 90%.

Other coverage gaps will be unavoidable. As is the case now, employees changing jobs will have gaps in coverage. Also some employees will not be able to afford their employer offered coverage but will not meet the 8% income rule for use of the exchanges.

Since most of the costs of the ACA goes to subsidies and the Medicaid expansion, the less coverage the less financial impact on federal spending. The CBO cost estimate of $120 billion/yr for the ACA is based on 24 million enrollments on the healthcare exchanges and all states expanding medicaid. If these numbers are significantly lower, then so will be the impact on federal spending.

Counterpoint on ACA Medicaid Coverage Gap - NPQ - Nonprofit Quarterly

CBO | CBO?s Estimate of the Net Budgetary Impact of the Affordable Care Act?s Health Insurance Coverage Provisions Has Not Changed Much Over Time

Only a fool would believe any projected costs published by the government.

In 1965, the House Ways and Means Committee estimated that the hospital insurance program of Medicare - the federal health care program for the elderly and disabled - would cost $9 billion by 1990. The actual cost that year was $67 billion.

In 1967, the House Ways and Means Committee said the entire Medicare program would cost $12 billion in 1990. The actual cost in 1990 was $98 billion.

In 1987, Congress projected that Medicaid - the joint federal-state health care program for the poor - would make special relief payments to hospitals of less than $1 billion in 1992. Actual cost: $17 billion.

The list goes on. The 1993 cost of Medicare’s home care benefit was projected in 1988 to be $4 billion, but ended up at $10 billion. The State Children’s Health Insurance Program (SCHIP), which was created in 1997 and projected to cost $5 billion per year, has had to be supplemented with hundreds of millions of dollars annually by Congress.

Barely two weeks in office, Mr. Obama signed a $33 billion bill that will add 4 million mostly low-income children to the SCHIP program over the next 4 1/2 years.

 

[candycorn]

I agree with Edgethro that it looks good on paper until the time comes with how it's to be implemented. To introduce a mandate where everyone is required to carry insurance becomes difficult to attain as there will always be those who fall through the cracks. Our nation can't even control our own boarders, yet we are asking the government to track all immigrants (illegal, or those with a green card), as well as those that are homeless, who become ill or injured and require care in our hospitals.

The issue of cost is another factor. Obamacare was sold under the promise of providing affordable health care. Yet there will still be many Americans that are too poor, or the countless unemployed effected by a huge loss in income with bills and obligations that don't change simply because they can't find work. Who covers their costs to provide coverage? What the government does is provide system that is nothing more than a shell game of hidden costs, diverted under the umbrella of another type of program. When someone provides a service and the bill is simply left at the table, as the grateful party simply turns and walks, someone ALWAYS has to be left to pick up the tab. Changing the system doesn't negate the problems in confronting cost. Rather we've traded uninsured patients who require treatment that raises the costs on the rest who HAVE coverage, to low income patients who now obtain their coverage divided amongst taxpayers who must acquire it FOR them among their taxable provisions. It's the government shell game, under the false premise that it will not add a cent to our debt or raise its costs onto the majority of Americans.

You're paying for 100% of the people who show up at the County and City clinics and emergency rooms. Preventative healthcare will reduce those numbers. Keep in mind that in many cases it's not 20 y/o adults who show up after not going to the doctor for several years even though they could; it's 10 y/o girls who have high fever whose parents wanted to but couldn't afford insurance. Now instead of that ER visit, they'll have the ability to go to scheduled doctor visits to catch problems before they result in acute care having to be delivered.

I never was able to schedule a high fever in my girls or boys.

Did the telephone stump you there, stupid?

They usually woke us up in the middle of the night. How many doctors do you know that are able to take an unscheduled visit in the middle of the night, let alone during normal office hours? Since there will be many more patients waiting for appointments, and fewer doctors, a visit to the clinic or emergency room would be where I would and have taken my kids.

Yeah, more people going to the doctor is a bad thing. In the other post you said that nobody will be able to get health insurance because companies are bailing out...which is it today?

And somehow Kindred Hospital, Humana, Concentra, etc... are able to take walk-ins all the time.
Concentra Location Finder - Map Search
Kindred Healthcare - Facility Locator
Welcome to Kelsey-Seybold Clinic | Kelsey-Seybold Clinic

There is this thing called a hospital now. Will emergencies still happen? Sure. Except now instead of having to drive your kid to the County seat, you can go to your neighborhood hospital because you're covered.

Fewer doctors? Sure..whatever.

On edit: Since city and county clinics are paid for out of local taxes, I am sure my property tax will go down. Just thought I would insert a bit of humor in this post, because you know that ain't gonna happen.

No but the next County emergency room may not be built as soon or ever now with more people able to go to the private health system instead of county emergency rooms.

You lost the argument already.

 

[Flopper]

That won't be necessary since my conclusion is that the Insurance companies were LIED to by the Obama Administration and the Democrats that passed this tax law.

Apparently you don't understand what the word "snookered" means.

So lets stack up the qualifications:

Your opinion vs. the insurance companies.
Your opinion vs. their accountants, lawyers, advisors, board members, etc...
Your opinion vs. the millions of new policy holders they will get

Yeah...I'm pretty sure you're full of shit. Pick a position at some point and try to make a cognitive argument.

It is not my opinion that a number of insurance companies are backing out after learning about the hazards of believing a government scam. It is a fact!

It is not my opinion that the insurance companies are listening to their accountants, lawyers, board members, etc. and that is the reason they are limiting their participation in the government exchanges. It is a fact.

It is not my opinion that MOST of those NEW policy holders premiums will be paid by the federal government and they will get the money by increasing the taxes and premiums from those who already have policies. It is a fact.

Look in the mirror if you want to see a pile of shit.

I think you're twisting the facts a bit. Insurers are not backing out of the exchanges. They either didn't apply or were not certified. Aetna and Unitedhealth have issued statements as to why they're not participating in some of the state run exchanges and their reasons have nothing to do with their faith in the US government. The primary reason why these insurers are not registering in all states is they have little or no presence in the individual healthcare market in those states. There is considerable cost for a health insurance company to induce a new product in a state, building networks, opening offices, and meeting state insurance regulations.

In my state over a dozen companies applied but only 5 were accepted by the state insurance commission. However those companies offer 34 different plans. In some states, there are as many as 36 different companies on the their exchange.