Affordable Care Act: A Child's Garden Of Lies And Distortions

[RDD_1210]

The only people who will make out in this clusterfuck of a bill are those that didn't have insurance to begin with.

The folks getting insurance will pay higher premiums to cover the cost of those without. If you buy your own insurance you will be paying up the ass for it.

This bill never addressed the real problem with HC, The cost.

Anyone who thinks this clusterfuck of a bill will make anything cheaper is a fool and has blinders on.

Before "obamacare" those with insurance were already paying for those who didn't have insurance, but in an extremely costly manner. At least now, those without insurance will have their own policy and won't show up at the ER for very expensive care as opposed to seeing a doctor for a much cheaper procedure/checkup before their problem gets out of control.

But I agree the cost was not sufficiently addressed. We needed a public option to really put some competition in the market. Trouble is, people think that's "socialism".

 

[Syphon]

The name Affordable Care Act is misleading.

Forcing people to buy health insurance will do nothing to make health care more affordable. In fact if everyone has to buy insurance then insurance companies have no need to compete and because they won't have to compete prices of insurance will most likely rise.

In Assachussetts health insurance costs have risen 30% faster than the rest of the country so what makes any of you idiots think that the same thing won't happen with the misnamed Affordable Car Act?

Aside from if the act is right or wrong,

The requirement that everyone needs to buy it doesn't eliminate the need for insurance companies to compete. That makes zero sense. People still have to choose which insurance company on the open market, price will be a deciding factor.

No it won't.

I used to live in Assachusetts when they didn't allow out of state auto insurance companies to compete in the market. You could call 10 different companies and their rates were all virtually identical.

no state allows "out of state" auto insurance companies to compete in their market. if you have to be licensed to do business within the state in the first place. hence why rates vary from state to state. although i can buy All State, Farmers, State Farm and just about any other car insurance in all 50 states since each state has allowed them to do so.

Nice Fail.

 

[Full-Auto]

The only people who will make out in this clusterfuck of a bill are those that didn't have insurance to begin with.

The folks getting insurance will pay higher premiums to cover the cost of those without. If you buy your own insurance you will be paying up the ass for it.

This bill never addressed the real problem with HC, The cost.

Anyone who thinks this clusterfuck of a bill will make anything cheaper is a fool and has blinders on.

Before "obamacare" those with insurance were already paying for those who didn't have insurance, but in an extremely costly manner. At least now, those without insurance will have their own policy and won't show up at the ER for very expensive care as opposed to seeing a doctor for a much cheaper procedure/checkup before their problem gets out of control.

But I agree the cost was not sufficiently addressed. We needed a public option to really put some competition in the market. Trouble is, people think that's "socialism".

Nice theory, but in practical application. 40% of those on medicare and medicaid are having extreme difficulties in finding providers. This is projected to get much worse. Democrats will have a sudden shock at how many will openly defy it, but even to a greater extent the shock that the cost of subsiding these people is higher then even the CBO currently projects.

 

[Syphon]

The only people who will make out in this clusterfuck of a bill are those that didn't have insurance to begin with.

The folks getting insurance will pay higher premiums to cover the cost of those without. If you buy your own insurance you will be paying up the ass for it.

This bill never addressed the real problem with HC, The cost.

Anyone who thinks this clusterfuck of a bill will make anything cheaper is a fool and has blinders on.

Before "obamacare" those with insurance were already paying for those who didn't have insurance, but in an extremely costly manner. At least now, those without insurance will have their own policy and won't show up at the ER for very expensive care as opposed to seeing a doctor for a much cheaper procedure/checkup before their problem gets out of control.

But I agree the cost was not sufficiently addressed. We needed a public option to really put some competition in the market. Trouble is, people think that's "socialism".

Health Coverage Costs Rise Due to Uninsured, U.S. Study Says - Bloomberg

the right hates this article...

Insured families in six states -- New Mexico, West Virginia, Oklahoma, Montana, Texas and Arkansas -- will pay more than $1,500 in additional premiums this year to cover the costs of patients who lack medical insurance, the report found. By 2010, the list will include five more states: Florida, Alaska, Idaho, Washington and Arizona.

``These extra costs place unacceptable burdens on all families, as well as our small businesses and our medical providers,'' said Kansas Governor Kathleen Sebelius, a Democrat, in a statement. Kansas families will pay an additional $729 in premiums to cover the costs of the uninsured, the report found.
``We must find affordable ways to cover more workers and their families,'' Sebelius said. ``States must work with the federal government to make such coverage a reality.''

and this was 2005, so its been going on a while and the right is too stupid to notice.

 

[RDD_1210]

The only people who will make out in this clusterfuck of a bill are those that didn't have insurance to begin with.

The folks getting insurance will pay higher premiums to cover the cost of those without. If you buy your own insurance you will be paying up the ass for it.

This bill never addressed the real problem with HC, The cost.

Anyone who thinks this clusterfuck of a bill will make anything cheaper is a fool and has blinders on.

Before "obamacare" those with insurance were already paying for those who didn't have insurance, but in an extremely costly manner. At least now, those without insurance will have their own policy and won't show up at the ER for very expensive care as opposed to seeing a doctor for a much cheaper procedure/checkup before their problem gets out of control.

But I agree the cost was not sufficiently addressed. We needed a public option to really put some competition in the market. Trouble is, people think that's "socialism".

Nice theory, but in practical application. 40% of those on medicare and medicaid are having extreme difficulties in finding providers. This is projected to get much worse. Democrats will have a sudden shock at how many will openly defy it, but even to a greater extent the shock that the cost of subsiding these people is higher then even the CBO currently projects.

Can you please provide your sources. Thanks!

And what I say is not a "theory", people with insurance have been covering the uninsured for years which is driving up costs for everyone.

 

[Wry Catcher]

Four pages and growing of 'debate' generally limited to "ain't it awful" + name calling and a herd of non lawyers and non Constitutional Scholars pretending they know the truth of what is and what is not constitutional. What a ******* waste of time. I learned in these four pages that the usual idiots parrot phrases from dubious authorities and only a few offer actual evidence in support of their argument.

Doesn't anyone have an opinion on what form of health care would be best?

I do. In a nutshell I believe:

All American citizens should be covered under an expanded Medicare Program which covers preventative care and emergency treatment by private sector doctors, clinics, hospitals, etc. Payments to such providers to be determined by regional costs annually determined; co-pays to be determined by each individual provider.

In each Congressional District a Health Center would be build to provide at no cost to all citizen inoculations and education on STD's, contraceptives, medication for chronic disease including diabetes and heart conditions and treatment for minor injury's and illness (Cost-benefit keeping Emergency rooms at hospitals costs down, saving dollars for private, non profit and public hospitals and reducing the cost of private insurance to consumers).

100 Federal Hospitals would be built (one for each senator) each to include a teaching environment for any student who wishes to become a Doctor, Nurse or technician (in a medical specialty) at low or no cost, and the payment for such an education to be worked off in a health center or public hospital.

(each clinic and hospital to be named after the member of Congress who was in office when such an act was passed - since nothing will happen one needs to consider the greed and egos of those elected to Congress).

I have more ideas, but I've been accused of being Don Quixote and having Impossible Dreams (one of the niceer add hominems I must admit)

 

[Syphon]

The only people who will make out in this clusterfuck of a bill are those that didn't have insurance to begin with.

The folks getting insurance will pay higher premiums to cover the cost of those without. If you buy your own insurance you will be paying up the ass for it.

This bill never addressed the real problem with HC, The cost.

Anyone who thinks this clusterfuck of a bill will make anything cheaper is a fool and has blinders on.

Before "obamacare" those with insurance were already paying for those who didn't have insurance, but in an extremely costly manner. At least now, those without insurance will have their own policy and won't show up at the ER for very expensive care as opposed to seeing a doctor for a much cheaper procedure/checkup before their problem gets out of control.

But I agree the cost was not sufficiently addressed. We needed a public option to really put some competition in the market. Trouble is, people think that's "socialism".

Nice theory, but in practical application. 40% of those on medicare and medicaid are having extreme difficulties in finding providers. This is projected to get much worse. Democrats will have a sudden shock at how many will openly defy it, but even to a greater extent the shock that the cost of subsiding these people is higher then even the CBO currently projects.

the problem with the shortage of primary care physicians is not restricted to only medicare and medicaid. it is a larger underlying problem.

Doctor shortage looms; more primary care physicians needed | kens5.com San Antonio

"Many of the 900 medical students studying at the U.T. Health Science Center today won’t choose to be a primary care doctor, though, for fear of being overworked, underpaid and exhausted. Students are more likely to pursue a specialty.

“There’s a lot of glamour to procedures and to thing you do to patients, surgeries, tests, that are very glamorous.” Holly commented. “And quite frankly, they’re also highly reimbursed.”

San Antonio’s medical school is trying to erase some long-held stigmas surrounding primary care to help stave off a shortage.
The Association of American Medical Colleges says the U.S. will be in need of 28,900 primary care doctors by 2015.
Second year medical student Jerry Abraham said even some doctors he knows try to talk him out of family medicine."

so your solution is not to try and get more people into family medicine, its to give people less health care so they cant see a doctor at all? yup, good philosophy.

 

[Flaylo]

Lets not forget that the CBO, once they got the real numbers, has said this clusterfuck is going to cost way more than Pelosi, Reid, the Dems and Barry have "projected."

This is a damn lie, you only read half the damn story.

 

[Syphon]

Four pages and growing of 'debate' generally limited to "ain't it awful" + name calling and a herd of non lawyers and non Constitutional Scholars pretending they know the truth of what is and what is not constitutional. What a ******* waste of time. I learned in these four pages that the usual idiots parrot phrases from dubious authorities and only a few offer actual evidence in support of their argument.

Doesn't anyone have an opinion on what form of health care would be best?

I do. In a nutshell I believe:

All American citizens should be covered under an expanded Medicare Program which covers preventative care and emergency treatment by private sector doctors, clinics, hospitals, etc. Payments to such providers to be determined by regional costs annually determined; co-pays to be determined by each individual provider.

In each Congressional District a Health Center would be build to provide at no cost to all citizen inoculations and education on STD's, contraceptives, medication for chronic disease including diabetes and heart conditions and treatment for minor injury's and illness (Cost-benefit keeping Emergency rooms at hospitals costs down, saving dollars for private, non profit and public hospitals and reducing the cost of private insurance to consumers).

100 Federal Hospitals would be built (one for each senator) each to include a teaching environment for any student who wishes to become a Doctor, Nurse or technician (in a medical specialty) at low or no cost, and the payment for such an education to be worked off in a health center or public hospital.

(each clinic and hospital to be named after the member of Congress who was in office when such an act was passed - since nothing will happen one needs to consider the greed and egos of those elected to Congress).

I have more ideas, but I've been accused of being Don Quixote and having Impossible Dreams (one of the niceer add hominems I must admit)

"thats socialism" is about the only response youre gonna get unfortunately.

anyways, i would amend your idea to say 100 hospitals is not enough, and it should be determined based on overall population to begin with. with states like CA, NY and TX with such huge populations compared to WY, CT, RI and MT. having a state hospital for every "x" amount of people would provide a better network.

i would also say, citizens are free to purchase more costly private insurance, but having a basic level of public care will alleviate the strain on the private market.

 

[Flaylo]

Forcing someone to sign a contract does not stand up in court. This is what Ocare does. It forces everyone to sign a contract. That's illegal according to the constitution.

Well you're forced to pay taxes and thats not illegal so what gives? The same with selective service when a male turns 18 years old, they must register or receive no benefits.

 

[Full-Auto]

Before "obamacare" those with insurance were already paying for those who didn't have insurance, but in an extremely costly manner. At least now, those without insurance will have their own policy and won't show up at the ER for very expensive care as opposed to seeing a doctor for a much cheaper procedure/checkup before their problem gets out of control.

But I agree the cost was not sufficiently addressed. We needed a public option to really put some competition in the market. Trouble is, people think that's "socialism".

Nice theory, but in practical application. 40% of those on medicare and medicaid are having extreme difficulties in finding providers. This is projected to get much worse. Democrats will have a sudden shock at how many will openly defy it, but even to a greater extent the shock that the cost of subsiding these people is higher then even the CBO currently projects.

Can you please provide your sources. Thanks!

And what I say is not a "theory", people with insurance have been covering the uninsured for years which is driving up costs for everyone.

I dont disagree with that point, that is the nature of insurance. But this item doesnt follow normal insurance lines. It has gotten more expensive with the must cover mandates, State monopoly's lessons competition.

Oh thats right this was suppose to be affordable care.

When does that portion start?

 

[starcraftzzz]

Nice theory, but in practical application. 40% of those on medicare and medicaid are having extreme difficulties in finding providers. This is projected to get much worse. Democrats will have a sudden shock at how many will openly defy it, but even to a greater extent the shock that the cost of subsiding these people is higher then even the CBO currently projects.

Nice lying.
^Medicare has better quality health care than the private sector.
-Medicare is accepted by 70% more physicians
-40% more Medicare patients report excellent care.
-37% more Medicare patients report getting needed care.
Who's Afraid Of Public Insurance? - Mark Blumenthal - NationalJournal.com
Meeting Enrollees

 

[RDD_1210]

Nice theory, but in practical application. 40% of those on medicare and medicaid are having extreme difficulties in finding providers. This is projected to get much worse. Democrats will have a sudden shock at how many will openly defy it, but even to a greater extent the shock that the cost of subsiding these people is higher then even the CBO currently projects.

Can you please provide your sources. Thanks!

And what I say is not a "theory", people with insurance have been covering the uninsured for years which is driving up costs for everyone.

I dont disagree with that point, that is the nature of insurance. But this item doesnt follow normal insurance lines. It has gotten more expensive with the must cover mandates, State monopoly's lessons competition.

Oh thats right this was suppose to be affordable care.

When does that portion start?

I didn't disagree that I don't believe the ACA doesn't do much to bring costs down. Hence why I said we needed true competition added to the market in the form of a public option. Until then the insurance companies have no real incentive to bring down prices.

 

[Wry Catcher]

Four pages and growing of 'debate' generally limited to "ain't it awful" + name calling and a herd of non lawyers and non Constitutional Scholars pretending they know the truth of what is and what is not constitutional. What a ******* waste of time. I learned in these four pages that the usual idiots parrot phrases from dubious authorities and only a few offer actual evidence in support of their argument.

Doesn't anyone have an opinion on what form of health care would be best?

I do. In a nutshell I believe:

All American citizens should be covered under an expanded Medicare Program which covers preventative care and emergency treatment by private sector doctors, clinics, hospitals, etc. Payments to such providers to be determined by regional costs annually determined; co-pays to be determined by each individual provider.

In each Congressional District a Health Center would be build to provide at no cost to all citizen inoculations and education on STD's, contraceptives, medication for chronic disease including diabetes and heart conditions and treatment for minor injury's and illness (Cost-benefit keeping Emergency rooms at hospitals costs down, saving dollars for private, non profit and public hospitals and reducing the cost of private insurance to consumers).

100 Federal Hospitals would be built (one for each senator) each to include a teaching environment for any student who wishes to become a Doctor, Nurse or technician (in a medical specialty) at low or no cost, and the payment for such an education to be worked off in a health center or public hospital.

(each clinic and hospital to be named after the member of Congress who was in office when such an act was passed - since nothing will happen one needs to consider the greed and egos of those elected to Congress).

I have more ideas, but I've been accused of being Don Quixote and having Impossible Dreams (one of the niceer add hominems I must admit)

"thats socialism" is about the only response youre gonna get unfortunately.

anyways, i would amend your idea to say 100 hospitals is not enough, and it should be determined based on overall population to begin with. with states like CA, NY and TX with such huge populations compared to WY, CT, RI and MT. having a state hospital for every "x" amount of people would provide a better network.

i would also say, citizens are free to purchase more costly private insurance, but having a basic level of public care will alleviate the strain on the private market.

Thanks for reading my post. I learned long ago more than three short paragraphs are usually too much for the average USMB member to read. Your points are well received; the devil is always in the details and to be specific and detailed would be too much for this forum.

 

[Valerie]

Obamacare: Orwellian and Malevolent At the Same Time
By Dr. Mark W. Hendrickson - Op/Ed 3/26/2012

...


Would Obamacare’s 15-member Independent Payment Advisory Board (IPAB) actually protect patients’ welfare? The panel members would operate as “super czars,” issuing decrees without external review, comment, or public notice. They would be exempt from judicial review—totally unaccountable. That unelected officials should hold the power of life and death over citizens is a monstrosity that belongs in a totalitarian system, not a democratic republic.

...

Nationalized health care is a favorite goal of socialists, communists, and other power-mongers because of the leverage it gives them over people. When control of the necessities of life—such as food and health care—is ceded to government, citizens and their liberty are vulnerable.

...

Ah, but that couldn’t happen in the United States, could it? That brings us to Team Obama’s assault on Texas last week. Health and Human Services Secretary Kathleen Sebelius announced that Team Obama would withhold $30 million of Medicaid funding from Texas, because Texas’ government was refusing to disburse funds to the abortion provider, Planned Parenthood.

This is perverse and vicious. It doesn’t hurt Governor Rick Perry or Texas Attorney General Greg Abbott when funding designated for low-income women’s health programs (WHPs) is cut. It is the poor women for whom those funds were appropriate who are paying the price for Obama’s ire.

Planned Parenthood comprises less than 10 percent of the WHPs funded by Medicaid in Texas. Rather than continuing to fund all those other programs for poor women’s health care while trying to resolve the Planned Parenthood dispute, the Obama administration threw a fit and is withholding Medicaid from poor Texas women until the Texas government submits to Team Obama’s will. If jeopardizing the health of a group of citizens for purposes of political extortion doesn’t illustrate the underlying malevolence of Obamacare, I don’t know what does.

Team Obama is overplaying its hand. Regardless of what the Supreme Court decides, the heartless, power-grabbing fraud called the “Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act” must be dismantled, repeal, condemned, and buried.

Obamacare: Orwellian and Malevolent At the Same Time - Forbes

 

[The Rabbi]

Before "obamacare" those with insurance were already paying for those who didn't have insurance, but in an extremely costly manner. At least now, those without insurance will have their own policy and won't show up at the ER for very expensive care as opposed to seeing a doctor for a much cheaper procedure/checkup before their problem gets out of control.

But I agree the cost was not sufficiently addressed. We needed a public option to really put some competition in the market. Trouble is, people think that's "socialism".

Nice theory, but in practical application. 40% of those on medicare and medicaid are having extreme difficulties in finding providers. This is projected to get much worse. Democrats will have a sudden shock at how many will openly defy it, but even to a greater extent the shock that the cost of subsiding these people is higher then even the CBO currently projects.

Can you please provide your sources. Thanks!

And what I say is not a "theory", people with insurance have been covering the uninsured for years which is driving up costs for everyone.

That's of course not strictly true. People who don't make claims on their health insurance subsidize people who do. But first that is the nature of insurance, and second insurance is a voluntary contract. At least it was until O-care.
It is well known and has been posted multiple times that Medicare/Medicaid recipients have trouble finding doctors because reimbursements are below market rates. This is part of what drives up medical costs, btw as the rest of us have to subsidize Medicare patients.

 

[California Girl]

Why do conservatives feel the need to protect the insurance companies and their profits over their own best interests......

<Snipped to edit out the stupid>

But you fail to mention that your hero O signed Ocare, which forces everyone to sign a contract with insurance companies.

There is an (unwritten) rule that quoting Mr Stupid is a neggable offense. Just sayin'. Please cease and desist from doing so in future. This is your one and only warning.

 

[driveby]

Lets not forget that the CBO, once they got the real numbers, has said this clusterfuck is going to cost way more than Pelosi, Reid, the Dems and Barry have "projected."

This is a damn lie, you only read half the damn story.

Cost went from 900 billion to 1.76 trillion, white boy.......

 

[Claudette]

He doesn't want to here that.

He's right and everybody else is a fucktard. LOL

 

[Defiant1]

Four pages and growing of 'debate' generally limited to "ain't it awful" + name calling and a herd of non lawyers and non Constitutional Scholars pretending they know the truth of what is and what is not constitutional. What a ******* waste of time. I learned in these four pages that the usual idiots parrot phrases from dubious authorities and only a few offer actual evidence in support of their argument.

Doesn't anyone have an opinion on what form of health care would be best?

I do. In a nutshell I believe:

All American citizens should be covered under an expanded Medicare Program which covers preventative care and emergency treatment by private sector doctors, clinics, hospitals, etc. Payments to such providers to be determined by regional costs annually determined; co-pays to be determined by each individual provider.

In each Congressional District a Health Center would be build to provide at no cost to all citizen inoculations and education on STD's, contraceptives, medication for chronic disease including diabetes and heart conditions and treatment for minor injury's and illness (Cost-benefit keeping Emergency rooms at hospitals costs down, saving dollars for private, non profit and public hospitals and reducing the cost of private insurance to consumers).

100 Federal Hospitals would be built (one for each senator) each to include a teaching environment for any student who wishes to become a Doctor, Nurse or technician (in a medical specialty) at low or no cost, and the payment for such an education to be worked off in a health center or public hospital.

(each clinic and hospital to be named after the member of Congress who was in office when such an act was passed - since nothing will happen one needs to consider the greed and egos of those elected to Congress).

I have more ideas, but I've been accused of being Don Quixote and having Impossible Dreams (one of the niceer add hominems I must admit)

I would assume you envision federal tax dollars would pay for your plan.

Does your plan include the provisions for an individual to opt out if they don't want to be treated in one of your socialist facilities?

If one can opt out does on get a break on their taxes?

And you forgot to mention free baby-killing in your plan. I'm sure it would be part of it.