Just Got My New Rates for 2017...350% Increase! Are You Kidding?

[Andylusion]

Andy, if you weren't so ill informed on health insurance, it would not be so frustrating to see such blatant misinformation posted. Having spent my entire career in middle and upper management of health insurance companies and HMO's, i spot republican talking point BS quickly. One does not spend 55 years running health insurance companies without getting a pretty clear picture of what was happening in this country. Major employers were on the verge of killing health insurance companies because they were saddled with the cost of employee health insurance, which is now about $1,200 per month, with dependent coverage, triple that. Major companies, like Disney, and Microsoft, and GM bypassed insurance company risk charges, and went self insured, to save money. They just hired us to pay the claims with their checkbooks. That wasn't enough, so they started moving assembly plants and manufacturing plants to places like Mexico, where they don't have to pay for health insurance. Chrysler has already announced that they are going to shut down their last US plant in a year or two. The next step was to cut back on paying 100% of employee costs, down to 50% of employee cost. Next, they are going to stop contributing to employee health plans entirely. Look for employee group health plans to be dead within one more decade. From there on out, if you don't have some sort of government controlled health insurance, all policies will be individual policies, which, unlike employer group policies, require evidence of good health from every single applicant.

Good luck with that,.

Nothing you said, changed anything I said.

Are you going to address the fact that all these non-unionized companies are building manufacturing plants in the US? Or does being foreign magically make health care costs low? Same employees. Same US citizens. Same US health care system.

In fact, your own post makes my point. If the entire problem was the evil capitalist health insurance companies... then why didn't it fix the problem when they self insured?

Because that's not the problem.

The problem is government programs and regulations have driven up the cost of health care. The pathetic thing is, you look at that, and think jacking up more regulations and government programs, is the solution. It's not.

Ok, so, if you want to believe that the problem is unions, go ahead. I have no dog in that fight. But, what do you think the unions demand first from employers at contract negotiation time? They demand that employer swallow the employee health insurance cost. Take a company with 30,000 employees at $1,200 per employee per month health premiums. That comes to $446,400,000 per year (not including dependent premium costs, which would triple this figure). That translates into $446 million dollars per year that they do NOT incur in Mexico, because there is no such thing as employer paid health insurance there. As a stockholder, I would demand that they move assembly plants to Mexico.

But again................

If all that was true, then why are all the other companies, BMW, VW, Toyota, Hyundai, Honda, and dozens I didn't list..... Why are they all opening factories here in the US?

According to you, all of these companies should be moving their plants to Mexico.

If the problem was health care, then are all these other companies not paying health care? It's not health care. That's just BS crap, made up by the Unions, to explain why Union companies are going bankrupt, and non-union companies are not.

I get it that you don't care about the Unions, but you are touting their propaganda.

This narrative that it's health care costs that are the problem... is just simply not true.

You mentioned Ford for example.

Do you know how many manufacturing plants Ford has in the US? 26.

Do you know how many they have in Mexico? 4 including their newest one.

26 here in the US. 4 in Mexico.

Here you freaking out over the new Mexico plant, and claiming that it's health care costs driving all manufacturing into Mexico.... meanwhile Ford has 26 different manufacturing plants in the US, and some were recently expanded in 2009. (about three of them).

By your logic, Ford should have closed them all down and moved them to Mexico.

Why are they not doing this?

Because health care costs are not the problem. Back in 2006, Ford met with the Unions, and got concessions that allowed them to be profitable, even with the 2008 crash, which is why Ford was the only Union domestic that didn't need a bailout.

GM and Chrysler met with the Unions too, but the Unions refused to cut a deal, because they knew that Obama would be pro-Union, and back their cause... which as we now know, he did exactly what the special interests wanted.

When the Unions gave concessions, Ford expanded and created more jobs.

Did health care not affect Ford, while it destroyed GM and Chrysler? No, it did. Health care is not the problem. Unions were the problem.

There has not been a TV set manufactured in the USA since the 1980's. All fabric manufacturing has moved out. In short, all labor intensive businesses are moving out. Ford announced that they are shifting small car assembly to Mexico next year. Nothing is coming back. The labor cost in Mexico is less than 20% of the labor cost in the USA, and health care costs are a major part of the problem. No other country in the world saddles employers with this cost, so how is Chrysler supposed to compete with Toyota?Hyundai, etc., are building robotic plants in the US. The labor intensive plants that Ford used to have are gone. if your plant hires only 1/10th the number of employees that 1980 plants employed, you can afford to pay for some health care. My step-father built Fords in Atlanta and Hapeville, GA from 1922 to 1973. That plant is now permanently closed. if you walk in to a auto assembly plant that was built in the last 5 years, this is what you will see:

Nearly everything you see, is true. But again, it still doesn't apply to Health care... why?

For example, you mention that no TVs are built in the US. True.

Problem is, TV manufacturing is gone from most of Europe, which has universal 'free' health care.

In fact, Japan, which has gov-care, is now outsourcing nearly all TV production to other countries.

Leading TV Brands More Reliant on Chinese Manufacturers in 2015, IHS Says | IHS Online Newsroom

If the problem was expensive health care costs on US manufacturers, then what is up with Japan, and Europe, also manufacturing out of their respective countries?

Again, you ask how can Chrysler possibly compete with Toyota? Well Toyota is hiring US labor, and paying US health care costs. What advantage does Toyota have over Chrysler? Just one... Unions. Toyota is expanding, and growing, and creating jobs... and they are paying for the same health care costs, that Ford and Chrysler are.

And you mentioned that all these jobs are going to Mexico, and the factories here are all automated, and still want to blame health care costs.

Have you seen the factories in Mexico?

This is a manufacturing plant in Mexico. See all those people? Nope? Me neither. It is currently the worlds largest automated manufacturing plant, in the world. Not having health care costs, didn't change anything.

Automated Kia factory in Mexico.

Chrysler pickup factory Mexico.

Philips manufacturing plant for TVs in Mexico.

And lastly.... fittingly.... Ford manufacturing plant in China.

What's my point? Again.... as I have said over and over... if health care was the problem... if having government pay for it was the solution.... then why are all these other countries which have gov-care, still automating?

I'm sorry, but you are just wrong. The facts simply do not support your claims.

If health care costs, was the real issue, then why are all these other factories built in all these countries with government-care, still moving to cheaper countries, and still automating? You are just wrong on this. That's all there is to it. The facts do not support your position.

 

[Vandalshandle]

Have it your way, Andy. ACA was our way of trying to give you a chance to buy something that could save your life, instead of simply telling you, "Declined for coverage, uninsurable". If you are pissed that it is not cheap, then I don't think that we can fix that.

Basically, your choices are:
1. protect yourself from catastrophic health care costs, but it is going to cost you, (ACA), or
2. our underwriter tells me that you are uninsurable at any price (insurance before ACA). Get lost.

Unfortunately, unlike every other industrialized nation in the world, there is no third choice, which would be essentially medicare for all ages.

So, either 1, or 2. make your decision. I think you already have.

 

[Sun Devil 92]

It's universal that the child-leftwing beliefs can be summed up by "the grass is always greener elsewhere".

When the WHO published their health care ranking that said France had the best health care in the world, it was amazing how many French rolled their eyes and laughed.

I had the same experience when I went on a long trip through Europe. I got back to the US, and all these lefties were talking about how great and wonderful Europe was. Everything they claimed about Europe, didn't match what I experienced living in Europe. Tiny little homes. Itty bitty junk cars that barely fit 2 people. People riding scooters half the size of a US Moped. No one had AC, not because it wasn't hot, but because they couldn't afford it. People hanging laundry to dry inside their homes, smaller than a college apartment, because no one could afford a clothes drier.

In the exact same way, everyone in the US says Canadian health care is fantastic. And they all assume Canadians love their health care system, until they actually meet Canadians.... and then shockingly, Canadians don't think their health care system is so great, especially when a hundred thousand Canadians seek treatment outside their country. Apparently 'free' isn't so wonderful.

No Canadian or European wants our healthcare.

..and not one single industrialize nation with universal health care has ever reversed direction and tried to switch to a system like ours.

That's not true. Canada. The public in Canada sued their own government, to demand a free-market capitalist based alternative.

Originally Canada was 100% socialist. There was no such thing as a private clinic, or private doctor. It was illegal to pay for better health care.

The citizens fed up with multi-year waiting lists, and being forced to go to the US for health care.... sued their government to eliminate the laws against private health care.

Today, there is private health insurance. Private health care clinics. Private doctor practices. Even some private hospitals.

Canada has completely reversed course. Now they haven't privatized the health care system completely, no.

And the US has had socialized health care for decades. That's where most of our health care problems were. That's also where most of Canada's health care problems still are.

But what you said is completely false.

Germany is another example. Nearly the entire population has private health insurance, and uses private health care clinics.

Im so sick of Americans cons lying and exxagerating other countries healthcare problems.

Fact is for a broke ass like Andy socialized medicine is the only thing he can afford

That simply isn't true. You are lying. In 2006, I had private insurance, for $67 a month, that didn't need a government subsidy, or a corporate backer.

It was paid for by me, and I could afford it.

Now, thanks to you liars, now I can't afford it, and it's your fault.

Was buying the same kinds of policies for others.

Obamacare made inexpensive insurance illegal.

Junk plans only became the rages when the left got caught screwing people like you. They were not junk....they did what they were supposed to do.

 

[Sun Devil 92]

Have it your way, Andy. ACA was our way of trying to give you a chance to buy something that could save your life, instead of simply telling you, "Declined for coverage, uninsurable". If you are pissed that it is not cheap, then I don't think that we can fix that.

Basically, your choices are:
1. protect yourself from catastrophic health care costs, but it is going to cost you, (ACA), or
2. our underwriter tells me that you are uninsurable at any price (insurance before ACA). Get lost.

Unfortunately, unlike every other industrialized nation in the world, there is no third choice, which would be essentially medicare for all ages.

So, either 1, or 2. make your decision. I think you already have.

You missed the point completely. By a million miles.

You could protect yourself from catastrophic health care costs before the ACA for a WHOLE LOT LESS.

The ACA was designed to make people like Andy pay for others who are even less fortunate.

The insurance comapnies are getting fat and rich in the middle. So once again, government comes to the aid of the 1%ers.

Thanks Obama.

"I don't think we can fix that" ???? Seriously.

YOU BROKE IT.

 

[Sun Devil 92]

Andy, if you weren't so ill informed on health insurance, it would not be so frustrating to see such blatant misinformation posted. Having spent my entire career in middle and upper management of health insurance companies and HMO's, i spot republican talking point BS quickly. One does not spend 55 years running health insurance companies without getting a pretty clear picture of what was happening in this country. Major employers were on the verge of killing health insurance companies because they were saddled with the cost of employee health insurance, which is now about $1,200 per month, with dependent coverage, triple that. Major companies, like Disney, and Microsoft, and GM bypassed insurance company risk charges, and went self insured, to save money. They just hired us to pay the claims with their checkbooks. That wasn't enough, so they started moving assembly plants and manufacturing plants to places like Mexico, where they don't have to pay for health insurance. Chrysler has already announced that they are going to shut down their last US plant in a year or two. The next step was to cut back on paying 100% of employee costs, down to 50% of employee cost. Next, they are going to stop contributing to employee health plans entirely. Look for employee group health plans to be dead within one more decade. From there on out, if you don't have some sort of government controlled health insurance, all policies will be individual policies, which, unlike employer group policies, require evidence of good health from every single applicant.

Good luck with that,.

Nothing you said, changed anything I said.

Are you going to address the fact that all these non-unionized companies are building manufacturing plants in the US? Or does being foreign magically make health care costs low? Same employees. Same US citizens. Same US health care system.

In fact, your own post makes my point. If the entire problem was the evil capitalist health insurance companies... then why didn't it fix the problem when they self insured?

Because that's not the problem.

The problem is government programs and regulations have driven up the cost of health care. The pathetic thing is, you look at that, and think jacking up more regulations and government programs, is the solution. It's not.

Ok, so, if you want to believe that the problem is unions, go ahead. I have no dog in that fight. But, what do you think the unions demand first from employers at contract negotiation time? They demand that employer swallow the employee health insurance cost. Take a company with 30,000 employees at $1,200 per employee per month health premiums. That comes to $446,400,000 per year (not including dependent premium costs, which would triple this figure). That translates into $446 million dollars per year that they do NOT incur in Mexico, because there is no such thing as employer paid health insurance there. As a stockholder, I would demand that they move assembly plants to Mexico.

But again................

If all that was true, then why are all the other companies, BMW, VW, Toyota, Hyundai, Honda, and dozens I didn't list..... Why are they all opening factories here in the US?

According to you, all of these companies should be moving their plants to Mexico.

If the problem was health care, then are all these other companies not paying health care? It's not health care. That's just BS crap, made up by the Unions, to explain why Union companies are going bankrupt, and non-union companies are not.

I get it that you don't care about the Unions, but you are touting their propaganda.

This narrative that it's health care costs that are the problem... is just simply not true.

You mentioned Ford for example.

Do you know how many manufacturing plants Ford has in the US? 26.

Do you know how many they have in Mexico? 4 including their newest one.

26 here in the US. 4 in Mexico.

Here you freaking out over the new Mexico plant, and claiming that it's health care costs driving all manufacturing into Mexico.... meanwhile Ford has 26 different manufacturing plants in the US, and some were recently expanded in 2009. (about three of them).

By your logic, Ford should have closed them all down and moved them to Mexico.

Why are they not doing this?

Because health care costs are not the problem. Back in 2006, Ford met with the Unions, and got concessions that allowed them to be profitable, even with the 2008 crash, which is why Ford was the only Union domestic that didn't need a bailout.

GM and Chrysler met with the Unions too, but the Unions refused to cut a deal, because they knew that Obama would be pro-Union, and back their cause... which as we now know, he did exactly what the special interests wanted.

When the Unions gave concessions, Ford expanded and created more jobs.

Did health care not affect Ford, while it destroyed GM and Chrysler? No, it did. Health care is not the problem. Unions were the problem.

There has not been a TV set manufactured in the USA since the 1980's. All fabric manufacturing has moved out. In short, all labor intensive businesses are moving out. Ford announced that they are shifting small car assembly to Mexico next year. Nothing is coming back. The labor cost in Mexico is less than 20% of the labor cost in the USA, and health care costs are a major part of the problem. No other country in the world saddles employers with this cost, so how is Chrysler supposed to compete with Toyota?Hyundai, etc., are building robotic plants in the US. The labor intensive plants that Ford used to have are gone. if your plant hires only 1/10th the number of employees that 1980 plants employed, you can afford to pay for some health care. My step-father built Fords in Atlanta and Hapeville, GA from 1922 to 1973. That plant is now permanently closed. if you walk in to a auto assembly plant that was built in the last 5 years, this is what you will see:

Nearly everything you see, is true. But again, it still doesn't apply to Health care... why?

For example, you mention that no TVs are built in the US. True.

Problem is, TV manufacturing is gone from most of Europe, which has universal 'free' health care.

In fact, Japan, which has gov-care, is now outsourcing nearly all TV production to other countries.

Leading TV Brands More Reliant on Chinese Manufacturers in 2015, IHS Says | IHS Online Newsroom

If the problem was expensive health care costs on US manufacturers, then what is up with Japan, and Europe, also manufacturing out of their respective countries?

Again, you ask how can Chrysler possibly compete with Toyota? Well Toyota is hiring US labor, and paying US health care costs. What advantage does Toyota have over Chrysler? Just one... Unions. Toyota is expanding, and growing, and creating jobs... and they are paying for the same health care costs, that Ford and Chrysler are.

And you mentioned that all these jobs are going to Mexico, and the factories here are all automated, and still want to blame health care costs.

Have you seen the factories in Mexico?

View attachment 97191

This is a manufacturing plant in Mexico. See all those people? Nope? Me neither. It is currently the worlds largest automated manufacturing plant, in the world. Not having health care costs, didn't change anything.

View attachment 97192

Automated Kia factory in Mexico.

View attachment 97193
Chrysler pickup factory Mexico.

View attachment 97194
Philips manufacturing plant for TVs in Mexico.

View attachment 97195

And lastly.... fittingly.... Ford manufacturing plant in China.

What's my point? Again.... as I have said over and over... if health care was the problem... if having government pay for it was the solution.... then why are all these other countries which have gov-care, still automating?

I'm sorry, but you are just wrong. The facts simply do not support your claims.

If health care costs, was the real issue, then why are all these other factories built in all these countries with government-care, still moving to cheaper countries, and still automating? You are just wrong on this. That's all there is to it. The facts do not support your position.

Excellent post Andy.

The missing piece in all of this is that those robotic plants don't run themselves. There may be less labor in making the cars, but what about the robots. Look at those pictures and you see a great deal of technology support people who didn't used to exist. Additionally, there are a great many more support people as inventory management has become a much more intense effort.

 

[Vandalshandle]

Have it your way, Andy. ACA was our way of trying to give you a chance to buy something that could save your life, instead of simply telling you, "Declined for coverage, uninsurable". If you are pissed that it is not cheap, then I don't think that we can fix that.

Basically, your choices are:
1. protect yourself from catastrophic health care costs, but it is going to cost you, (ACA), or
2. our underwriter tells me that you are uninsurable at any price (insurance before ACA). Get lost.

Unfortunately, unlike every other industrialized nation in the world, there is no third choice, which would be essentially medicare for all ages.

So, either 1, or 2. make your decision. I think you already have.

You missed the point completely. By a million miles.

You could protect yourself from catastrophic health care costs before the ACA for a WHOLE LOT LESS.

The ACA was designed to make people like Andy pay for others who are even less fortunate.

The insurance comapnies are getting fat and rich in the middle. So once again, government comes to the aid of the 1%ers.

Thanks Obama.

"I don't think we can fix that" ???? Seriously.

YOU BROKE IT.

It wouldn't be so pathetic, if you had even the slightest idea of what you were talking about.

As VP of Underwriting, I spent 50 years giving people death sentences when they came begging for insurance. One guy even sent me a photo of his infant child in a casket who had been born with a hole in his heart, and no surgeon would repair it on credit.

I sleep just fine, at night, because of ACA.

And frankly, all the whining that I hear from people who are too cheap to take care of their families after what we did to put ACA in place, in spite of the GOP alternative, which was nothing, justs disgusts me.

 

[Sun Devil 92]

Have it your way, Andy. ACA was our way of trying to give you a chance to buy something that could save your life, instead of simply telling you, "Declined for coverage, uninsurable". If you are pissed that it is not cheap, then I don't think that we can fix that.

Basically, your choices are:
1. protect yourself from catastrophic health care costs, but it is going to cost you, (ACA), or
2. our underwriter tells me that you are uninsurable at any price (insurance before ACA). Get lost.

Unfortunately, unlike every other industrialized nation in the world, there is no third choice, which would be essentially medicare for all ages.

So, either 1, or 2. make your decision. I think you already have.

You missed the point completely. By a million miles.

You could protect yourself from catastrophic health care costs before the ACA for a WHOLE LOT LESS.

The ACA was designed to make people like Andy pay for others who are even less fortunate.

The insurance comapnies are getting fat and rich in the middle. So once again, government comes to the aid of the 1%ers.

Thanks Obama.

"I don't think we can fix that" ???? Seriously.

YOU BROKE IT.

It wouldn't be so pathetic, if you had even the slightest idea of what you were talking about.

As VP of Underwriting, I spent 50 years giving people death sentences when they came begging for insurance. One guy even sent me a photo of his infant child in a casket who had been born with a hole in his heart, and no surgeon would repair it on credit.

I sleep just fine, at night, because of ACA.

And frankly, all the whining that I hear from people who are too cheap to take care of their families after what we did to put ACA in place, in spite of the GOP alternative, which was nothing, justs disgusts me.

It's hysterical you think this a reasonable response.

The ACA made inexpensive insurance illegal. That's on you.

That you have a guilty conscience is not really justification for taking a marginal system and turning it to total crap.

 

[Vandalshandle]

Have it your way, Andy. ACA was our way of trying to give you a chance to buy something that could save your life, instead of simply telling you, "Declined for coverage, uninsurable". If you are pissed that it is not cheap, then I don't think that we can fix that.

Basically, your choices are:
1. protect yourself from catastrophic health care costs, but it is going to cost you, (ACA), or
2. our underwriter tells me that you are uninsurable at any price (insurance before ACA). Get lost.

Unfortunately, unlike every other industrialized nation in the world, there is no third choice, which would be essentially medicare for all ages.

So, either 1, or 2. make your decision. I think you already have.

You missed the point completely. By a million miles.

You could protect yourself from catastrophic health care costs before the ACA for a WHOLE LOT LESS.

The ACA was designed to make people like Andy pay for others who are even less fortunate.

The insurance comapnies are getting fat and rich in the middle. So once again, government comes to the aid of the 1%ers.

Thanks Obama.

"I don't think we can fix that" ???? Seriously.

YOU BROKE IT.

It wouldn't be so pathetic, if you had even the slightest idea of what you were talking about.

As VP of Underwriting, I spent 50 years giving people death sentences when they came begging for insurance. One guy even sent me a photo of his infant child in a casket who had been born with a hole in his heart, and no surgeon would repair it on credit.

I sleep just fine, at night, because of ACA.

And frankly, all the whining that I hear from people who are too cheap to take care of their families after what we did to put ACA in place, in spite of the GOP alternative, which was nothing, justs disgusts me.

It's hysterical you think this a reasonable response.

The ACA made inexpensive insurance illegal. That's on you.

That you have a guilty conscience is not really justification for taking a marginal system and turning it to total crap.

By, by, Sun. Can't talk now. Out rigging the election.....

 

[Sun Devil 92]

Have it your way, Andy. ACA was our way of trying to give you a chance to buy something that could save your life, instead of simply telling you, "Declined for coverage, uninsurable". If you are pissed that it is not cheap, then I don't think that we can fix that.

Basically, your choices are:
1. protect yourself from catastrophic health care costs, but it is going to cost you, (ACA), or
2. our underwriter tells me that you are uninsurable at any price (insurance before ACA). Get lost.

Unfortunately, unlike every other industrialized nation in the world, there is no third choice, which would be essentially medicare for all ages.

So, either 1, or 2. make your decision. I think you already have.

You missed the point completely. By a million miles.

You could protect yourself from catastrophic health care costs before the ACA for a WHOLE LOT LESS.

The ACA was designed to make people like Andy pay for others who are even less fortunate.

The insurance comapnies are getting fat and rich in the middle. So once again, government comes to the aid of the 1%ers.

Thanks Obama.

"I don't think we can fix that" ???? Seriously.

YOU BROKE IT.

It wouldn't be so pathetic, if you had even the slightest idea of what you were talking about.

As VP of Underwriting, I spent 50 years giving people death sentences when they came begging for insurance. One guy even sent me a photo of his infant child in a casket who had been born with a hole in his heart, and no surgeon would repair it on credit.

I sleep just fine, at night, because of ACA.

And frankly, all the whining that I hear from people who are too cheap to take care of their families after what we did to put ACA in place, in spite of the GOP alternative, which was nothing, justs disgusts me.

It's hysterical you think this a reasonable response.

The ACA made inexpensive insurance illegal. That's on you.

That you have a guilty conscience is not really justification for taking a marginal system and turning it to total crap.

By, by, Sun. Can't talk now. Out rigging the election.....

Not that I've ever said anything about Trump's idiocy.

I am really starting to doubt you were anything more than a mail boy.

Even a VP in the bloosucker industry has to have some analytical skills.

 

[Andylusion]

Have it your way, Andy. ACA was our way of trying to give you a chance to buy something that could save your life, instead of simply telling you, "Declined for coverage, uninsurable". If you are pissed that it is not cheap, then I don't think that we can fix that.

Basically, your choices are:
1. protect yourself from catastrophic health care costs, but it is going to cost you, (ACA), or
2. our underwriter tells me that you are uninsurable at any price (insurance before ACA). Get lost.

Unfortunately, unlike every other industrialized nation in the world, there is no third choice, which would be essentially medicare for all ages.

So, either 1, or 2. make your decision. I think you already have.

It doesn't matter what your intentions were. What matters is the results. If a doctor killed every single patient he saw, but his intentions were to help... would you be sitting there saying "well his intentions were...."?

Again, you keep acting like insurance that covered people, never existed before Obamacare. It did. I had it. You eliminated that insurance.

So I don't really give a crap that "ACA was our way of trying..." Doesn't matter. The fact is, I can't afford health insurance at all now.

Was I better off before the ACA, or after the ACA? Answer... Before.

Medicare is going broke. If you apply a system that is failing to more people, you have Greece, Venezuela, and Cuba.

Doctors Refuse To Accept Medicare Patients

Why the Mayo Clinic is refusing to see Medicare patients

http://health.usnews.com/health-new...2013/10/30/top-hospitals-opt-out-of-obamacare

Doctors refusing Medicare. Mayo Clinic refusing medicare. Cleveland Clinic opting-out of ACA.

Yeah, what a great system. Let's have Medicare for everyone. That way we can all be on waiting lists like the VA until we die before getting treatment.

 

[Ravi]

You are comparing employee coverage that you got from your employer to an individual policy on the exchange. Why is that?

Who said I was comparing employer to an individual policy?

All three that I mentioned were private insurance policies.

If you've read my posts about my life, you know I rarely ever stay long at any job. I constantly had to chance insurance over and over, and finally realize it was better to just have private insurance.... or at least it was better to have private insurance.

You used to be able to get basic coverage for a very low price until Obama Care screwed it all up.

One of your comparative MemeIts listed the cost for an employee.

So I looked up the screen shot, and you are correct it does say that. I have absolutely not idea why. It's not an employee plan. I've never had an employee plan with Aetna. Here's another screen shot of the same plan, but this time it's my bill pay screen.

View attachment 96930

Type Individual List Bill. Same Premium $80. Again, I have no clue why the other screen says "employee". And if I click on "details", the other screen says employee. But it simply isn't. I got this policy through the health exchange last year. Plan effective date is 1/1/16.

That also appears to be a policy purchased through an employer, where you are reimbursed tax free for your coverage (socialism omfg!).

Here's how that works:

How List-Billing Works with HRAs

So your employer either stopped offering this program or you are no longer with the same employer. Therefore your comparison is invalid.

Actually, the comparison is still valid regardless of this.

Whether the policy is one way, or the other way, or whichever way.... Both policies were through the Health Insurance market place.

It doesn't matter if the employer is paying for a portion of it or not. The premium to me is higher.

These were the only options I was giving. That $80 policy, was the only policy option I had. The $125 policy is the only option I have.

Even if you can't compare the two on their own merits, when *YOU* set me up so that I only have an Apple to buy before, and only have an Orange to buy now, then I have to compare Apple's and Orange's.

You did this, not me. You told me that I could get affordable Health Care through the insurance market place. So I went last year, the price was high. I went this year and the price is higher.

Now your telling me, I can't complain because the two insurance policies are not comparable? Whose fault is that? Yours. You setup this BS system.

So typical of left-wingers. Setup a system that fails people, and then blame the victims for their system failing.

The link from your first policy was not from healthcare.gov. It was from an insurance broker or company. So yeah, you are comparing totally different things.

 

[Andylusion]

Who said I was comparing employer to an individual policy?

All three that I mentioned were private insurance policies.

If you've read my posts about my life, you know I rarely ever stay long at any job. I constantly had to chance insurance over and over, and finally realize it was better to just have private insurance.... or at least it was better to have private insurance.

You used to be able to get basic coverage for a very low price until Obama Care screwed it all up.

One of your comparative MemeIts listed the cost for an employee.

So I looked up the screen shot, and you are correct it does say that. I have absolutely not idea why. It's not an employee plan. I've never had an employee plan with Aetna. Here's another screen shot of the same plan, but this time it's my bill pay screen.

View attachment 96930

Type Individual List Bill. Same Premium $80. Again, I have no clue why the other screen says "employee". And if I click on "details", the other screen says employee. But it simply isn't. I got this policy through the health exchange last year. Plan effective date is 1/1/16.

That also appears to be a policy purchased through an employer, where you are reimbursed tax free for your coverage (socialism omfg!).

Here's how that works:

How List-Billing Works with HRAs

So your employer either stopped offering this program or you are no longer with the same employer. Therefore your comparison is invalid.

Actually, the comparison is still valid regardless of this.

Whether the policy is one way, or the other way, or whichever way.... Both policies were through the Health Insurance market place.

It doesn't matter if the employer is paying for a portion of it or not. The premium to me is higher.

These were the only options I was giving. That $80 policy, was the only policy option I had. The $125 policy is the only option I have.

Even if you can't compare the two on their own merits, when *YOU* set me up so that I only have an Apple to buy before, and only have an Orange to buy now, then I have to compare Apple's and Orange's.

You did this, not me. You told me that I could get affordable Health Care through the insurance market place. So I went last year, the price was high. I went this year and the price is higher.

Now your telling me, I can't complain because the two insurance policies are not comparable? Whose fault is that? Yours. You setup this BS system.

So typical of left-wingers. Setup a system that fails people, and then blame the victims for their system failing.

The link from your first policy was not from healthcare.gov. It was from an insurance broker or company. So yeah, you are comparing totally different things.

I am beginning to think you are looking for any excuse to avoid facing the facts.

There is the health insurance policy on the Healthcare.gov website, posted 2016.

Here you can see, the Aetna company, the massive premium, subsidized by .... well you... and my $80.20 a month premium. Further you can see the policy ID from the first pict, matches the policy ID on the second pict.

I will say it again. This is an Obamacare policy, that is now terminated thanks to Aetna leaving the market because it's all screwed up.

And the next cheapest policy is 50% higher, at $125, as shown from the prior pictures.

Now.... at this point, you either admit you are wrong, or you admit by default, that you are too stupid to talk to.

Either one I'm good with. Make your choice.

 

[Maryland Patriot]

Andy, if you weren't so ill informed on health insurance, it would not be so frustrating to see such blatant misinformation posted. Having spent my entire career in middle and upper management of health insurance companies and HMO's, i spot republican talking point BS quickly. One does not spend 55 years running health insurance companies without getting a pretty clear picture of what was happening in this country. Major employers were on the verge of killing health insurance companies because they were saddled with the cost of employee health insurance, which is now about $1,200 per month, with dependent coverage, triple that. Major companies, like Disney, and Microsoft, and GM bypassed insurance company risk charges, and went self insured, to save money. They just hired us to pay the claims with their checkbooks. That wasn't enough, so they started moving assembly plants and manufacturing plants to places like Mexico, where they don't have to pay for health insurance. Chrysler has already announced that they are going to shut down their last US plant in a year or two. The next step was to cut back on paying 100% of employee costs, down to 50% of employee cost. Next, they are going to stop contributing to employee health plans entirely. Look for employee group health plans to be dead within one more decade. From there on out, if you don't have some sort of government controlled health insurance, all policies will be individual policies, which, unlike employer group policies, require evidence of good health from every single applicant.

Good luck with that,.

Nothing you said, changed anything I said.

Are you going to address the fact that all these non-unionized companies are building manufacturing plants in the US? Or does being foreign magically make health care costs low? Same employees. Same US citizens. Same US health care system.

In fact, your own post makes my point. If the entire problem was the evil capitalist health insurance companies... then why didn't it fix the problem when they self insured?

Because that's not the problem.

The problem is government programs and regulations have driven up the cost of health care. The pathetic thing is, you look at that, and think jacking up more regulations and government programs, is the solution. It's not.

Ok, so, if you want to believe that the problem is unions, go ahead. I have no dog in that fight. But, what do you think the unions demand first from employers at contract negotiation time? They demand that employer swallow the employee health insurance cost. Take a company with 30,000 employees at $1,200 per employee per month health premiums. That comes to $446,400,000 per year (not including dependent premium costs, which would triple this figure). That translates into $446 million dollars per year that they do NOT incur in Mexico, because there is no such thing as employer paid health insurance there. As a stockholder, I would demand that they move assembly plants to Mexico.

But again................

If all that was true, then why are all the other companies, BMW, VW, Toyota, Hyundai, Honda, and dozens I didn't list..... Why are they all opening factories here in the US?

According to you, all of these companies should be moving their plants to Mexico.

If the problem was health care, then are all these other companies not paying health care? It's not health care. That's just BS crap, made up by the Unions, to explain why Union companies are going bankrupt, and non-union companies are not.

I get it that you don't care about the Unions, but you are touting their propaganda.

This narrative that it's health care costs that are the problem... is just simply not true.

You mentioned Ford for example.

Do you know how many manufacturing plants Ford has in the US? 26.

Do you know how many they have in Mexico? 4 including their newest one.

26 here in the US. 4 in Mexico.

Here you freaking out over the new Mexico plant, and claiming that it's health care costs driving all manufacturing into Mexico.... meanwhile Ford has 26 different manufacturing plants in the US, and some were recently expanded in 2009. (about three of them).

By your logic, Ford should have closed them all down and moved them to Mexico.

Why are they not doing this?

Because health care costs are not the problem. Back in 2006, Ford met with the Unions, and got concessions that allowed them to be profitable, even with the 2008 crash, which is why Ford was the only Union domestic that didn't need a bailout.

GM and Chrysler met with the Unions too, but the Unions refused to cut a deal, because they knew that Obama would be pro-Union, and back their cause... which as we now know, he did exactly what the special interests wanted.

When the Unions gave concessions, Ford expanded and created more jobs.

Did health care not affect Ford, while it destroyed GM and Chrysler? No, it did. Health care is not the problem. Unions were the problem.

There has not been a TV set manufactured in the USA since the 1980's. All fabric manufacturing has moved out. In short, all labor intensive businesses are moving out. Ford announced that they are shifting small car assembly to Mexico next year. Nothing is coming back. The labor cost in Mexico is less than 20% of the labor cost in the USA, and health care costs are a major part of the problem. No other country in the world saddles employers with this cost, so how is Chrysler supposed to compete with Toyota?Hyundai, etc., are building robotic plants in the US. The labor intensive plants that Ford used to have are gone. if your plant hires only 1/10th the number of employees that 1980 plants employed, you can afford to pay for some health care. My step-father built Fords in Atlanta and Hapeville, GA from 1922 to 1973. That plant is now permanently closed. if you walk in to a auto assembly plant that was built in the last 5 years, this is what you will see:

Nearly everything you see, is true. But again, it still doesn't apply to Health care... why?

For example, you mention that no TVs are built in the US. True.

Problem is, TV manufacturing is gone from most of Europe, which has universal 'free' health care.

In fact, Japan, which has gov-care, is now outsourcing nearly all TV production to other countries.

Leading TV Brands More Reliant on Chinese Manufacturers in 2015, IHS Says | IHS Online Newsroom

If the problem was expensive health care costs on US manufacturers, then what is up with Japan, and Europe, also manufacturing out of their respective countries?

Again, you ask how can Chrysler possibly compete with Toyota? Well Toyota is hiring US labor, and paying US health care costs. What advantage does Toyota have over Chrysler? Just one... Unions. Toyota is expanding, and growing, and creating jobs... and they are paying for the same health care costs, that Ford and Chrysler are.

And you mentioned that all these jobs are going to Mexico, and the factories here are all automated, and still want to blame health care costs.

Have you seen the factories in Mexico?

View attachment 97191

This is a manufacturing plant in Mexico. See all those people? Nope? Me neither. It is currently the worlds largest automated manufacturing plant, in the world. Not having health care costs, didn't change anything.

View attachment 97192

Automated Kia factory in Mexico.

View attachment 97193
Chrysler pickup factory Mexico.

View attachment 97194
Philips manufacturing plant for TVs in Mexico.

View attachment 97195

And lastly.... fittingly.... Ford manufacturing plant in China.

What's my point? Again.... as I have said over and over... if health care was the problem... if having government pay for it was the solution.... then why are all these other countries which have gov-care, still automating?

I'm sorry, but you are just wrong. The facts simply do not support your claims.

If health care costs, was the real issue, then why are all these other factories built in all these countries with government-care, still moving to cheaper countries, and still automating? You are just wrong on this. That's all there is to it. The facts do not support your position.

why are all these other countries able to do it and the U.S companies are claiming that the new fees for health care will chase them out business?
Those companies, as well as the citizens in those countries with the social health care were built with that as a cost to be considered from day one, the citizens have worked the cost into their household budget.
If you suddenly throw such a huge cost on a business that has not been built with that in mind, or you suddenly put that expense on an individual, the resources are not there. Business will close, employees will be let go, people will lose their homes when they cant make the mortgage anymore, they will stop spending on many different products and activities that were once part of their natural daily routine. And as people stop taking vacations, or they stop going out to eat or to the movies etc... secondary companies are going to start to feel the drain even more.
Putting the type of financial burden on workers or business this rapidly can only cause a failure in the economy.

 

[Greenbeard]

And the next cheapest policy is 50% higher, at $125, as shown from the prior pictures.

If you're talking about the MedMetual plan you posted pages ago, that has virtually the exact same premium.

That 2016 Aetna plan has a premium of $241.20. The 2017 MedMetual plan you posted on p.23 of the thread has a premium of $241.24.

A four-cent higher premium on a base of $241 is not 50%. It's actually a 0.02% premium increase. Sounds like a real death spiral!

Now if you mean the value of your federal subsidy decreased, that seems to be true. But that means either 1) your income went up, or 2) silver plans in your area got a lot cheaper in 2017.

 

[Andylusion]

And the next cheapest policy is 50% higher, at $125, as shown from the prior pictures.

If you're talking about the MedMetual plan you posted pages ago, that has virtually the exact same premium.

That 2016 Aetna plan has a premium of $241.20. The 2017 MedMetual plan you posted on p.23 of the thread has a premium of $241.24.

A four-cent higher premium on a base of $241 is not 50%. It's actually a 0.02% premium increase. Sounds like a real death spiral!

Now if you mean the value of your federal subsidy decreased, that seems to be true. But that means either 1) your income went up, or 2) silver plans in your area got a lot cheaper in 2017.

Again everything you said could be true.... doesn't matter.

In 2006, I had an insurance policy that was $67 a month flat. I didn't have to pray to the Obama-gods for a subsidy. I didn't have to keep a job. I didn't have to do anything but pay the premium.

If you are correct, and the base premium is $240 for both the old policy and the new policy, it doesn't matter.

My bill.... the amount I have to pay... went from $80 to $125. I can't afford that. That's a 50% increase in one year. I don't have the money.

You people dance around like fools. First it was we don't believe you at all. So I posted picts, and you people said I was comparing different policies. So I posted more picts, and it was well that one policy isn't an ObamaCare policy. So I posted more picts, and now it's yeah well the base premium isn't any different.

You people are like the Soviets. The soviets came up with endless excuses. When Nikita Khrushchev came to the US in 1959, he toured around in an average super market, and was shocked by all the goods. Instead of admiting socialism doesn't work, he claimed that it was a show store, that it wasn't like that in the rest of America.

Similarly Cuba has blamed the 'embargo' for all their problems for decades. When Obama indicated he wanted to end the embargo, the Cuban government immediately told it's people that the end of the embargo may not fix everything.

It's always excuses with you people. Always. No matter how much evidence I post, you just find some other lame excuse for your BS belief system.

 

[Arianrhod]

If you are correct, and the base premium is $240 for both the old policy and the new policy, it doesn't matter.

You mean it didn't matter as long as someone else was paying for you. But you're the first one to complain about "takers" if it's someone else.

My bill.... the amount I have to pay... went from $80 to $125. I can't afford that. That's a 50% increase in one year. I don't have the money.

If you're that poor, you're eligible for Medicaid. You should look into that.

 

[Andylusion]

Nothing you said, changed anything I said.

Are you going to address the fact that all these non-unionized companies are building manufacturing plants in the US? Or does being foreign magically make health care costs low? Same employees. Same US citizens. Same US health care system.

In fact, your own post makes my point. If the entire problem was the evil capitalist health insurance companies... then why didn't it fix the problem when they self insured?

Because that's not the problem.

The problem is government programs and regulations have driven up the cost of health care. The pathetic thing is, you look at that, and think jacking up more regulations and government programs, is the solution. It's not.

Ok, so, if you want to believe that the problem is unions, go ahead. I have no dog in that fight. But, what do you think the unions demand first from employers at contract negotiation time? They demand that employer swallow the employee health insurance cost. Take a company with 30,000 employees at $1,200 per employee per month health premiums. That comes to $446,400,000 per year (not including dependent premium costs, which would triple this figure). That translates into $446 million dollars per year that they do NOT incur in Mexico, because there is no such thing as employer paid health insurance there. As a stockholder, I would demand that they move assembly plants to Mexico.

But again................

If all that was true, then why are all the other companies, BMW, VW, Toyota, Hyundai, Honda, and dozens I didn't list..... Why are they all opening factories here in the US?

According to you, all of these companies should be moving their plants to Mexico.

If the problem was health care, then are all these other companies not paying health care? It's not health care. That's just BS crap, made up by the Unions, to explain why Union companies are going bankrupt, and non-union companies are not.

I get it that you don't care about the Unions, but you are touting their propaganda.

This narrative that it's health care costs that are the problem... is just simply not true.

You mentioned Ford for example.

Do you know how many manufacturing plants Ford has in the US? 26.

Do you know how many they have in Mexico? 4 including their newest one.

26 here in the US. 4 in Mexico.

Here you freaking out over the new Mexico plant, and claiming that it's health care costs driving all manufacturing into Mexico.... meanwhile Ford has 26 different manufacturing plants in the US, and some were recently expanded in 2009. (about three of them).

By your logic, Ford should have closed them all down and moved them to Mexico.

Why are they not doing this?

Because health care costs are not the problem. Back in 2006, Ford met with the Unions, and got concessions that allowed them to be profitable, even with the 2008 crash, which is why Ford was the only Union domestic that didn't need a bailout.

GM and Chrysler met with the Unions too, but the Unions refused to cut a deal, because they knew that Obama would be pro-Union, and back their cause... which as we now know, he did exactly what the special interests wanted.

When the Unions gave concessions, Ford expanded and created more jobs.

Did health care not affect Ford, while it destroyed GM and Chrysler? No, it did. Health care is not the problem. Unions were the problem.

There has not been a TV set manufactured in the USA since the 1980's. All fabric manufacturing has moved out. In short, all labor intensive businesses are moving out. Ford announced that they are shifting small car assembly to Mexico next year. Nothing is coming back. The labor cost in Mexico is less than 20% of the labor cost in the USA, and health care costs are a major part of the problem. No other country in the world saddles employers with this cost, so how is Chrysler supposed to compete with Toyota?Hyundai, etc., are building robotic plants in the US. The labor intensive plants that Ford used to have are gone. if your plant hires only 1/10th the number of employees that 1980 plants employed, you can afford to pay for some health care. My step-father built Fords in Atlanta and Hapeville, GA from 1922 to 1973. That plant is now permanently closed. if you walk in to a auto assembly plant that was built in the last 5 years, this is what you will see:

Nearly everything you see, is true. But again, it still doesn't apply to Health care... why?

For example, you mention that no TVs are built in the US. True.

Problem is, TV manufacturing is gone from most of Europe, which has universal 'free' health care.

In fact, Japan, which has gov-care, is now outsourcing nearly all TV production to other countries.

Leading TV Brands More Reliant on Chinese Manufacturers in 2015, IHS Says | IHS Online Newsroom

If the problem was expensive health care costs on US manufacturers, then what is up with Japan, and Europe, also manufacturing out of their respective countries?

Again, you ask how can Chrysler possibly compete with Toyota? Well Toyota is hiring US labor, and paying US health care costs. What advantage does Toyota have over Chrysler? Just one... Unions. Toyota is expanding, and growing, and creating jobs... and they are paying for the same health care costs, that Ford and Chrysler are.

And you mentioned that all these jobs are going to Mexico, and the factories here are all automated, and still want to blame health care costs.

Have you seen the factories in Mexico?

View attachment 97191

This is a manufacturing plant in Mexico. See all those people? Nope? Me neither. It is currently the worlds largest automated manufacturing plant, in the world. Not having health care costs, didn't change anything.

View attachment 97192

Automated Kia factory in Mexico.

View attachment 97193
Chrysler pickup factory Mexico.

View attachment 97194
Philips manufacturing plant for TVs in Mexico.

View attachment 97195

And lastly.... fittingly.... Ford manufacturing plant in China.

What's my point? Again.... as I have said over and over... if health care was the problem... if having government pay for it was the solution.... then why are all these other countries which have gov-care, still automating?

I'm sorry, but you are just wrong. The facts simply do not support your claims.

If health care costs, was the real issue, then why are all these other factories built in all these countries with government-care, still moving to cheaper countries, and still automating? You are just wrong on this. That's all there is to it. The facts do not support your position.

why are all these other countries able to do it and the U.S companies are claiming that the new fees for health care will chase them out business?
Those companies, as well as the citizens in those countries with the social health care were built with that as a cost to be considered from day one, the citizens have worked the cost into their household budget.
If you suddenly throw such a huge cost on a business that has not been built with that in mind, or you suddenly put that expense on an individual, the resources are not there. Business will close, employees will be let go, people will lose their homes when they cant make the mortgage anymore, they will stop spending on many different products and activities that were once part of their natural daily routine. And as people stop taking vacations, or they stop going out to eat or to the movies etc... secondary companies are going to start to feel the drain even more.
Putting the type of financial burden on workers or business this rapidly can only cause a failure in the economy.

When you say they are able to "do it", that's an broad statement.

For example, in Singapore, they are able to "do it", by cramming 20 sick patients in a single room.

That's one way we can reduce cost. Rent a basketball court, and cram dozens of beds in there.

Now of course if someone is contagious, then you risk spreading the sickness. But it is cheaper.

That's how Singapore is able to 'do it'.

England trauma services 'not good enough'

Or we could simply not have surgeons on standby at Emergency rooms, like in the UK. 20% higher death rate at UK Emergency rooms, than in the US, because they don't have surgeons on standby.

That's how the UK is able to 'do it'.

Or we can simply ration care. Where people wait months on end to see anyone. We could do that.

That's how most countries do it.

We can cut costs here in the US very easily. Just cut treatments, cut services, reduce availability. Cram 30 people in a room.

The reason we pay the most for care, is because we get the best care.

 

[Andylusion]

If you are correct, and the base premium is $240 for both the old policy and the new policy, it doesn't matter.

You mean it didn't matter as long as someone else was paying for you. But you're the first one to complain about "takers" if it's someone else.

My bill.... the amount I have to pay... went from $80 to $125. I can't afford that. That's a 50% increase in one year. I don't have the money.

If you're that poor, you're eligible for Medicaid. You should look into that.

Actually I don't complain about takers. I complain about givers. I'll take everything you are dumb enough to give me. That's on you stupid.

Again..... I had a policy in 2006 that was $67 a month, and it didn't require a subsidy.

You caused this problem. You eliminated all those plans. So now I have no choice but to get a subsidized plan, and now you removed the subsidy..... and you want to blame me, for your incompetence? I didn't vote for this train wreck stupid.... you did.

I have looked into Medicaid. Medicaid patient get worse care than people without any insurance at all. I'll go to the hospital with zero insurance, rather than with Medicaid.

Is Being on Medicaid Worse Than Having No Insurance at All?

You'd be better off going to the hospital with nothing, than with Medicaid.

By the way....... for extra credit.... I wonder if you, or anyone can figure out why. Can you figure out this riddle?

 

[Arianrhod]

If you are correct, and the base premium is $240 for both the old policy and the new policy, it doesn't matter.

You mean it didn't matter as long as someone else was paying for you. But you're the first one to complain about "takers" if it's someone else.

My bill.... the amount I have to pay... went from $80 to $125. I can't afford that. That's a 50% increase in one year. I don't have the money.

If you're that poor, you're eligible for Medicaid. You should look into that.

Actually I don't complain about takers. I complain about givers. I'll take everything you are dumb enough to give me. That's on you stupid.

Again..... I had a policy in 2006 that was $67 a month, and it didn't require a subsidy.

You caused this problem. You eliminated all those plans. So now I have no choice but to get a subsidized plan, and now you removed the subsidy..... and you want to blame me, for your incompetence? I didn't vote for this train wreck stupid.... you did.

I have looked into Medicaid. Medicaid patient get worse care than people without any insurance at all. I'll go to the hospital with zero insurance, rather than with Medicaid.

Is Being on Medicaid Worse Than Having No Insurance at All?

You'd be better off going to the hospital with nothing, than with Medicaid.

By the way....... for extra credit.... I wonder if you, or anyone can figure out why. Can you figure out this riddle?

I'm puzzled by who you seem to think I am. If it were up to me, America would join the rest of the civilized world and provide affordable health care to all of its citizens.

 

[Vandalshandle]

If you are correct, and the base premium is $240 for both the old policy and the new policy, it doesn't matter.

You mean it didn't matter as long as someone else was paying for you. But you're the first one to complain about "takers" if it's someone else.

My bill.... the amount I have to pay... went from $80 to $125. I can't afford that. That's a 50% increase in one year. I don't have the money.

If you're that poor, you're eligible for Medicaid. You should look into that.

Actually I don't complain about takers. I complain about givers. I'll take everything you are dumb enough to give me. That's on you stupid.

Again..... I had a policy in 2006 that was $67 a month, and it didn't require a subsidy.

You caused this problem. You eliminated all those plans. So now I have no choice but to get a subsidized plan, and now you removed the subsidy..... and you want to blame me, for your incompetence? I didn't vote for this train wreck stupid.... you did.

I have looked into Medicaid. Medicaid patient get worse care than people without any insurance at all. I'll go to the hospital with zero insurance, rather than with Medicaid.

Is Being on Medicaid Worse Than Having No Insurance at All?

You'd be better off going to the hospital with nothing, than with Medicaid.

By the way....... for extra credit.... I wonder if you, or anyone can figure out why. Can you figure out this riddle?

I'm puzzled by who you seem to think I am. If it were up to me, America would join the rest of the civilized world and provide affordable health care to all of its citizens.

Andy is pissed because his health care isn't free.