Did ANYONE on this board see a savings from Obamacare?

[Sun Devil 92]

Exactly. It's still Medicare for the elderly, Medicaid for the poor, employer-based insurance for most of the rest, and individually purchased coverage for the smattering that remains. The ACA just makes improvements to each.

I think insurance providers would agree with you.

Many of us don't.

 

[Yarddog]

Anyone? Anyone at all? Our costs are up 12% since Obumblecare took effect.

i got a 30% increase

 

[Greenbeard]

I think insurance providers would agree with you.

Many of us don't.

That's an artifact of unfamiliarity with the American health system.

"I don't like my premium or deductible" does not mean we have a new system. Quite the contrary.

 

[Sun Devil 92]

I think insurance providers would agree with you.

Many of us don't.

That's an artifact of unfamiliarity with the American health system.

"I don't like my premium or deductible" does not mean we have a new system. Quite the contrary.

That does not make any sense.

I think I bolded your claim about "imrpovements".

 

[dblack]

Yes, Obamacare is the old system upgraded.......

Exactly. It's still Medicare for the elderly, Medicaid for the poor, employer-based insurance for most of the rest, and individually purchased coverage for the smattering that remains. The ACA just makes improvements to each.

You forgot the mandate to funnel all our health care spending through the insurance industry.

 

[dblack]

Exactly. It's still Medicare for the elderly, Medicaid for the poor, employer-based insurance for most of the rest, and individually purchased coverage for the smattering that remains. The ACA just makes improvements to each.

I think insurance providers would agree with you.

Many of us don't.

Anyone who's in on it probably agrees. All of the "major players invited to the table" made sure they got a cut. It's classic corporatism, with government divvying up the spoils amongst the competing interests.

 

[Arianrhod]

Having asked the question "Did ANYONE on this board see a savings from Obamacare?" and been told yes, some had, when he was expecting a universal "Oh, HELL no!" Sunny Boy is now derailing his own thread into some very entertaining directions in an effort to make sure that he has the final post in every thread in this forum.

 

[Andylusion]

Exactly. It's still Medicare for the elderly, Medicaid for the poor, employer-based insurance for most of the rest, and individually purchased coverage for the smattering that remains. The ACA just makes improvements to each.

I think insurance providers would agree with you.

Many of us don't.

Anyone who's in on it probably agrees. All of the "major players invited to the table" made sure they got a cut. It's classic corporatism, with government divvying up the spoils amongst the competing interests.

Then why are all the insurance companies warning of losses that can't continue?

 

[Andylusion]

Having asked the question "Did ANYONE on this board see a savings from Obamacare?" and been told yes, some had, when he was expecting a universal "Oh, HELL no!" Sunny Boy is now derailing his own thread into some very entertaining directions in an effort to make sure that he has the final post in every thread in this forum.

I don't think he expected a universal no. I certainly didn't.

With every Socialist policy, every single policy of government control, there are almost always two key attributes.

First, the short term gain for specific favored groups, and typically at the expense of all other groups.

For example, eliminating pre-existing condition clauses. This is fantastic for the small group of people who have pre-existing conditions obviously. Their expenses will go down, because they can force insurance companies to cover pre-existing conditions.

Of course in doing that, it forces all the people who are paying insurance, to pay higher premiums to cover those new costs that the insurance company has to pay.

So, in every policy there is usually a select group of people who benefit, at the expense of everyone else. When the question was asked, I fully expected there to be dozens saying no, they are worse off, and a small select few that said they were better off.

In short, exactly what we see in this thread.

Second, the benefits even to those groups, is always in the short term, but in the long term, it's a disaster.

One of the reasons Hugo Chavez in Venezuela had such a massive following, and Nicolás Maduro does not, is because in the short term, price controls and subsidized food was a huge benefit for the lower-class under Hugo Chavez. But when the money runs out, and the food shortage start, Maduro who has done absolutely nothing but continue the exact same policies as Chavez, is blamed for it.

Eventually in every socialized system, the money runs out. There is no exception to this, anywhere in the world. The money eventually, runs out. When that happens, the shortages show up.

Finland, the New 'Sick Man of Europe,' Agonizes Over Austerity
Junior doctors will betray patients and the NHS by striking more. They should listen to the grown-ups
France in 'economic emergency' as strikes threaten to ruin economic recovery and eurozone

Finland has been rocked by massive protests over cutting of socialized services. The UK is cutting back on NHS health care, and doctors have walked off the job in protest. Greece of course is in ruins. France declared an "economic emergency". Italy is worse.

And why? Because the money ran out. Socialism never works. In the short term some people benefit at the expense of everyone else, but in the long term everyone suffers.

 

[Sun Devil 92]

Exactly. It's still Medicare for the elderly, Medicaid for the poor, employer-based insurance for most of the rest, and individually purchased coverage for the smattering that remains. The ACA just makes improvements to each.

I think insurance providers would agree with you.

Many of us don't.

Anyone who's in on it probably agrees. All of the "major players invited to the table" made sure they got a cut. It's classic corporatism, with government divvying up the spoils amongst the competing interests.

And still people like JoeB131 still worship at the feet of government.

 

[Luddly Neddite]

Obama are has certainly made it easier to live with bee allergies...

koshergrl is an excellent example of the RWNJs who blame President Obama for things he has no control over. She's knows this is BS but she will never admit it.

 

[Luddly Neddite]

Yes, Obamacare is the old system upgraded.......

Exactly. It's still Medicare for the elderly, Medicaid for the poor, employer-based insurance for most of the rest, and individually purchased coverage for the smattering that remains. The ACA just makes improvements to each.

Governors refuse to pass on savings to their constituents and the RWs blame Obama.
Insurance companies find ways to cheat people and the RWs blame Obama.

Amazing to me is that so many RWs now side with big businesses that gouged them in the past and want to be able to continue doing that.

As to the OP - I've posted it before but yes, we've seen savings as well as refunds.

I just hope Hillary is elected. Otherwise, we'll all be stuck with the Repub's answer to health care - shut up and die.

 

[Sun Devil 92]

Obama are has certainly made it easier to live with bee allergies...

koshergrl is an excellent example of the RWNJs who blame President Obama for things he has no control over. She's knows this is BS but she will never admit it.

It seems everyone indulges in it.

We constantly give credit to those in charge for the economy and other issues that are far to complex for even a third world country much less a country like ours.

Cable news leads the way.

Hence the frustration with the shows of Fox and CNBC.

 

[Sun Devil 92]

Yes, Obamacare is the old system upgraded.......

Exactly. It's still Medicare for the elderly, Medicaid for the poor, employer-based insurance for most of the rest, and individually purchased coverage for the smattering that remains. The ACA just makes improvements to each.

Governors refuse to pass on savings to their constituents and the RWs blame Obama.
Insurance companies find ways to cheat people and the RWs blame Obama.

Amazing to me is that so many RWs now side with big businesses that gouged them in the past and want to be able to continue doing that.

As to the OP - I've posted it before but yes, we've seen savings as well as refunds.

I just hope Hillary is elected. Otherwise, we'll all be stuck with the Repub's answer to health care - shut up and die.

How do you think that will happen when the democrats will own the senate ?

 

[Sun Devil 92]

Yes, Obamacare is the old system upgraded.......

Exactly. It's still Medicare for the elderly, Medicaid for the poor, employer-based insurance for most of the rest, and individually purchased coverage for the smattering that remains. The ACA just makes improvements to each.

Governors refuse to pass on savings to their constituents and the RWs blame Obama.
Insurance companies find ways to cheat people and the RWs blame Obama.

Amazing to me is that so many RWs now side with big businesses that gouged them in the past and want to be able to continue doing that.

As to the OP - I've posted it before but yes, we've seen savings as well as refunds.

I just hope Hillary is elected. Otherwise, we'll all be stuck with the Repub's answer to health care - shut up and die.

Agreed that big business is really screwing us and Obamacare has provided the Vasaline.

People just don't get it.

We spend 8,500 per person per year. Until that number changes, we are in deep trouble.

 

[dblack]

Yes, Obamacare is the old system upgraded.......

Exactly. It's still Medicare for the elderly, Medicaid for the poor, employer-based insurance for most of the rest, and individually purchased coverage for the smattering that remains. The ACA just makes improvements to each.

Governors refuse to pass on savings to their constituents and the RWs blame Obama.
Insurance companies find ways to cheat people and the RWs blame Obama.

Amazing to me is that so many RWs now side with big businesses that gouged them in the past and want to be able to continue doing that.

As to the OP - I've posted it before but yes, we've seen savings as well as refunds.

I just hope Hillary is elected. Otherwise, we'll all be stuck with the Repub's answer to health care - shut up and die.

Agreed that big business is really screwing us and Obamacare has provided the Vasaline.

People just don't get it.

We spend 8,500 per person per year. Until that number changes, we are in deep trouble.

Big business is just feeding at the trough. Government is slopping them. Along with everyone else standing in line.

This is corporatism (nothing to do with business or capitalism), where government ceases to be about protecting universal, equal rights and instead becomes the broker of special deals for special interests.

 

[Andylusion]

Yes, Obamacare is the old system upgraded.......

Exactly. It's still Medicare for the elderly, Medicaid for the poor, employer-based insurance for most of the rest, and individually purchased coverage for the smattering that remains. The ACA just makes improvements to each.

Governors refuse to pass on savings to their constituents and the RWs blame Obama.
Insurance companies find ways to cheat people and the RWs blame Obama.

Amazing to me is that so many RWs now side with big businesses that gouged them in the past and want to be able to continue doing that.

As to the OP - I've posted it before but yes, we've seen savings as well as refunds.

I just hope Hillary is elected. Otherwise, we'll all be stuck with the Repub's answer to health care - shut up and die.

Agreed that big business is really screwing us and Obamacare has provided the Vasaline.

People just don't get it.

We spend 8,500 per person per year. Until that number changes, we are in deep trouble.

The only way to change that, is to increase the cost on patients, or put in place price controls, which will result in shortages.

Which solution would you like?

 

[dblack]

Yes, Obamacare is the old system upgraded.......

Exactly. It's still Medicare for the elderly, Medicaid for the poor, employer-based insurance for most of the rest, and individually purchased coverage for the smattering that remains. The ACA just makes improvements to each.

Governors refuse to pass on savings to their constituents and the RWs blame Obama.
Insurance companies find ways to cheat people and the RWs blame Obama.

Amazing to me is that so many RWs now side with big businesses that gouged them in the past and want to be able to continue doing that.

As to the OP - I've posted it before but yes, we've seen savings as well as refunds.

I just hope Hillary is elected. Otherwise, we'll all be stuck with the Repub's answer to health care - shut up and die.

Agreed that big business is really screwing us and Obamacare has provided the Vasaline.

People just don't get it.

We spend 8,500 per person per year. Until that number changes, we are in deep trouble.

The only way to change that, is to increase the cost on patients, or put in place price controls, which will result in shortages.

Which solution would you like?

There are many regulatory and tax policies that influence the heatlhcare market. Isn't it worth re-examining them and repealing those doing the most damage?

 

[Andylusion]

Yes, Obamacare is the old system upgraded.......

Exactly. It's still Medicare for the elderly, Medicaid for the poor, employer-based insurance for most of the rest, and individually purchased coverage for the smattering that remains. The ACA just makes improvements to each.

Governors refuse to pass on savings to their constituents and the RWs blame Obama.
Insurance companies find ways to cheat people and the RWs blame Obama.

Amazing to me is that so many RWs now side with big businesses that gouged them in the past and want to be able to continue doing that.

As to the OP - I've posted it before but yes, we've seen savings as well as refunds.

I just hope Hillary is elected. Otherwise, we'll all be stuck with the Repub's answer to health care - shut up and die.

Agreed that big business is really screwing us and Obamacare has provided the Vasaline.

People just don't get it.

We spend 8,500 per person per year. Until that number changes, we are in deep trouble.

The only way to change that, is to increase the cost on patients, or put in place price controls, which will result in shortages.

Which solution would you like?

There are many regulatory and tax policies that influence the heatlhcare market. Isn't it worth re-examining them and repealing those doing the most damage?

Sure, but whatever limited impact of minor regulations and taxes have, the ultimate problem is going to boil down to either imposing price controls, or increasing the cost on consumers.

See the problem is, the only way to get the market to start competing on price, is to force the consumers to pay that price.

Under any system, anywhere in the world, that has government, or some non-customer entity paying the cost, the result is naturally that consumers are going to get the best possible care they can, regardless of price.

If a patient is given two options, this generic brand 5-year-old medicine that is 93% effective, for $5, or this newly released medication from Mega-Pharma Corp, that is 95% effective for $50.... which does the consumer buy?

Well in a free-market capitalist system, the customer would determine that 2% effectiveness is not worth an additional $45.

This would in turn force Mega-Pharma Corp to compete with cheaper alternatives on price.

This is where the left-wing usually makes the mistake. They assume that Mega-Pharma can just make up any price they want. That normally isn't the case. You have to invest money into methods of production that lower cost.

However, under any kind of thrid-party payer, whether or it is government, or the insurance company, that system is ruined.

Instead the customer has the medication from Mega-Pharma Corp subsidized by either the insurance company, or the government, to $10.

The result is Mega-Pharma has no incentive to find ways of producing the pills at a cheaper cost. If they successfully upgrade their production facilities to reduce the cost by half, they would simply earn less money. There would be no more additional sales, because the price to the consumer is the same price.... $10. So for spending millions to invest in cheaper production, they would earn a return on that investment of zero.

And this goes across the board, throughout the entire health care system. As long as the customers are not paying the cost of care, as long as either government, or insurance, are paying the price instead of consumers, no one has any motivation or incentive to find cheaper ways of providing service.

This is why if you go to hospitals throughout the world that are capitalist free-market 'pay-for-service' hospitals, where the customers are paying the full price of care, they are a fraction of the cost. Heart By-Pass surgery, $120k in the US, and only $10K abroad. How? Because they have incentives for finding the cheapest way to get the surgery done. They have to compete on price and quality with thousands of other medical tourism hospitals around the world.

Our hospitals don't. You walk in with Medicare, and you pay very little, so what reason does the hospital have to find cheaper ways of providing surgery?

So by all means, find and eliminate all those costly regulations. But ultimately, we either start shifting more and more of the cost onto consumers, or we engage in price controls and deal with shortages.

 

[dblack]

The only way to change that, is to increase the cost on patients, or put in place price controls, which will result in shortages.

Which solution would you like?

There are many regulatory and tax policies that influence the heatlhcare market. Isn't it worth re-examining them and repealing those doing the most damage?

Sure, but whatever limited impact of minor regulations and taxes have, the ultimate problem is going to boil down to either imposing price controls, or increasing the cost on consumers.

See the problem is, the only way to get the market to start competing on price, is to force the consumers to pay that price.

Why does force need to be applied? I agree with you that the root of the problem is the fact that most consumers aren't paying for their own health care. But that situation is created by the regulations and tax policies I'm talking about and it's most directly addressed by repealing those laws.