Repeal it already!

[theHawk]

It's funny to see libs admit the ACA is a disaster and many are already calling for "single-payer", yet attack anyone else that calls the ACA a disaster (but isn't calling for single-payer) is a heartless "con" that wants to see people die.

 

[Old Rocks]

Now that you rubes have learned that repeal was a lie, maybe you'll think twice the next time your party cries wolf about things like Ebola, Jade Helm, Benghazi, etc.

You would think that. But that is assuming logic on the part of the 'Conservatives'. They simply cannot survive without their daily conspiracy theory, even when it contradicts the one they were believing yesterday.

 

[debbiedowner]

They tried to Repeal, it failed. Shockingly enough not many people want to see millions less people not have health insurance which in turn would raise costs for the insured. Weird huh?

How about they work on lowering costs and getting more people coverage. Novel idea huh?

Lowering costs and getting more people coverage would be exactly what repeal would do. It would lower costs because the competition would increase, and more people could by health insurance if they wanted to because they would be able to afford it, unlike what Obamacare does.

Take millions of paying people out of the market and what happens to costs? You didn't factor that into the equation did you?

You do have a point, if they deregulate than insurers can create crap plans and sell them for dirt cheap and their competitors will follow suit. That's what was happening before ocare. I'm actually fine with allowing catastrophic plans and increaseing competition but let's be honest about the cause and effects that effect costs. Shall we?

Those millions of paying people partially pay the company, and partially pay the government. If you don't want health insurance or you want your non-government plan, you have to pay a tax. That's horrible.

Taking away Obamacare allows those people who were forced to buy Obamacare to be able to choose the health insurance they want.

Deregulation doesn't necessarily mean insurance companies make crap plans. If a company does that, the consumers can punish them by not purchasing until they change the plans so they can make some money.

If you had an insurance company in your state you were free to choose what health insurance you had. Obamacare was not a health insurance plan.

You're deluded. It was ALL ABOUT Health Insurance. And having the GOVT dictate your choices and plans. They OUTLAWED my type of Professional Group insurance and tossed me and MILLIONS of self-employed folks into the pool.. There WAS no choice. My county is down to one real choice.I cannot use the hospitals and the doctors I prefer now.. It was lie after lie from Obama and the architects and Jonathan Gruber. At least Gruber had the balls to ADMIT the sham...

And the cost is so outrageous and I was so pissed, that I CUT my biz by 70% and applied for subsidies...

That's right -- You can fuck the system that way. THAT'S how ill-conceived this turdish power grab was.
Better get fixed. There is a major ass-whooping coming if they dont. Both your endangered specie parties..

What is "Your type of professional Group insurance"

 

[debbiedowner]

Repeal is dead.

 

[flacaltenn]

Currently, the working poor pushed INTO the pool would be BANKRUPT if they ever needed to USE their "Affordable O-Care".. Can you calculate 20% of a $24,000 hospital bill??? That's AFTER they meet the $3000 or $5000 deductible.

It's insane and it's crap...

Insane are you arguments.

If someone can't afford 3000-5000 deductible in case of emergency...how the fuck can they afford the annual premiums?

They couldn't until ACA, and they still have to get the care, so they went to the hospital that had to eat the cost.

You really DON'T have a f'ing clue how any of this works -- doya? The PREMIUMS are subsidized. They get those for sale at about 70 to 80% off. The formula doesn't take anything out of their pockets if it exceeds X% of their income. So the INSURANCE is cheap. But it's also crap. Because the working poor MediCaid expansion folks don't GET the Gold/Silver plans. They get crappy Bronze plans. And the DEDUCTIBLES and co-pays WILL BANKRUPT them if they get into even MODERATE medical problems.

What SHOULD HAPPEN for these folks is that their DEDUCTIBLES need be subsidized. Not the premiums. And it might be a great deal to ask them to buy just most stripped down CATASTROPHIC plan in exchange for paying all their NON-Catastrophic expenses. Would be cheap. Not so a plan that covers all the MANDATED horseshit that Govt required in ACA.

And take these welfare cases OUT of the damn pools.. Let the states experiment with combinations of subsidies and services. Their problem ain't INSURANCE. It's help with most damaging medical expense. EVERY DOLLAR of it..

Your thinking consistently excludes the alternative which was the market reality PRE ACA.

What is better - people paying in SOMETHING into the system and having cheap insurance with set max-out-of pocket expenses OR them not be able to afford insurance at all while being just one medical emergency away from bankruptcy while hospital has to eat the cost?

There is a HUUUUGE difference between having to deal with 24,000 dollar bill and a 3000-5000 dollar bill. There is a HUGE difference between hospital getting 80% of the bill and $0.

1. Nobody that qualifies for Medicaid EVER gets the $24,000 dollar bill. If you're poor -- you're covered.

2. Under the cynically named "AFFORDABLE Care Act" -- with a Bronze Plan -- you simply CANNOT AFFORD to get serious ill -- because those bills and deductibles are now YOUR problem.

The hospitals are "eating it" regardless. Because OTHER insured people pay higher premiums to make up for that $6 Medicare or Medicaid X-Ray reimbursement.

3. See the problem is -- YOUR TRIBE only cares about the statistic of HOW MANY "are covered". They don't give a bucket of spit about the "terms of coverage" or the financial impact to those "expansion" folks.

1. Medicaid - ACA increase people covered by Medicaid, that means more people fully covered.

2. It IS NOT cynical, AFFORDABILITY measures in the bill are real and effective, even if maybe not full-proof in current form. You consistently neglect the fact that the very people you say cannot afford to pay 20% of a major bill, couldn't possibly afford individual insurance before ACA.

You did not address that from hospital perspective getting 80% of the bill paid is a lot better than getting NOTHING.

3. MY TRIBE welcomes rational arguments from many perspectives on this big issue. Your problem is basic facts and letting perfect be an enemy of the better.

You didn't understand a word of what I told you.. Being COVERED with crappy insurance that will bankrupt you if you USE it -- doesnt concern cynical Dems. They are only interested in pumping up the "covered" number to LIE about the "successes" of a dying plan...

 

[flacaltenn]

Lowering costs and getting more people coverage would be exactly what repeal would do. It would lower costs because the competition would increase, and more people could by health insurance if they wanted to because they would be able to afford it, unlike what Obamacare does.

Take millions of paying people out of the market and what happens to costs? You didn't factor that into the equation did you?

You do have a point, if they deregulate than insurers can create crap plans and sell them for dirt cheap and their competitors will follow suit. That's what was happening before ocare. I'm actually fine with allowing catastrophic plans and increaseing competition but let's be honest about the cause and effects that effect costs. Shall we?

Those millions of paying people partially pay the company, and partially pay the government. If you don't want health insurance or you want your non-government plan, you have to pay a tax. That's horrible.

Taking away Obamacare allows those people who were forced to buy Obamacare to be able to choose the health insurance they want.

Deregulation doesn't necessarily mean insurance companies make crap plans. If a company does that, the consumers can punish them by not purchasing until they change the plans so they can make some money.

I understand the freedom argument. Let people buy what they want or not buy at all and let insurance companies sell what they want... that's fine and dandy but let's be honest about the numbers. Take millions out of the market place and that's less revenue for insurance companies thus they raise prices. Now those price increases can be helped by creating cheaper plans that offer less coverage and introducing more competition... but the numbers don't seem to add up to make for a better situation for Americans.

A lot of those Millions didn't WANT insurance. A lot of those Millions are the MediCaid Expansion folks that are up to 4 times the poverty level.

With a broken system you DO need to subsidize more and more people. And that's a death spiral...

Ok, you are talking about freedom again and government subsidies... both great points for discussion. But i've made the point a few times that whether it is millions being kicked off or millions opting out of health insurance that is the result of the GOP bill and when millions leave prices go up. You do recognize that right? So we have millions out of insurance and higher premiums for the insured those are the negatives. We will also save Billions on government spending and can offer cheaper plans for catastrophic care and will introduce more plans options which can be viewed as positives. I just want the people I engage with about this subject to be able to discuss both sides of the equation and be able to have an honest discussion. Repeal and Replace has never been honest it was just an over politicized phrase. Just think if all that energy that went into Repeal went into amendments that could have helped work out the problems with the ACA... Maybe we can go down that road of bipartisan cooperation after this last vote.

You DESTROYED individual insurance for nearly every SELF-EMPLOYED person in this country.. MILLIONS who had now outlawed by you -- Group Plans thru their Professional Orgs. Dentists, Vets, Engineers, Scientists, Restaurant owners, Plumbers, Acctnts --- ALL tossed into the Pool and YOU LIED when your Dear Leaders repeatedly stated "If you LIKE your plan -- You can Keep the plan. Ect and MORE LIES..

THEN in a cynical move to BOOST the number covered -- You entangled US with Millions of working poor that previously did not qualify for Medicaid. BEAT the insurance companies into "special deals" so that the Fed subsidies were less for this expansion. But the SUBSIDIES PAID by the govt failed to cover ACTUAL costs. So PREMIUMS went up for everybody.. All because the Dems thought they had the perfect plan to HIDE MediCaid expansion costs in the pool. By making me and the MILLIONS TOSSED there pay part of the freight.

Then as a final arrogant and callous kick in the groin, you bought these working poor folks NOT the Gold/Silver policies, but the crappy ass Bronze policies that force them to pay $3,000 to $5000 dollars of health care BEFORE they ever see a DIME of insurance coverage (except for annuals and some exceptions).

JUST SO -- you devious charlatans could BRAG about the "number of folks you covered"

Well let's fix it. I right now am dealing with an extended family member that RELIES on MediCaid to stay alive. I have a vested interest in keeping it healthy. First thing to do -- is to UNWIND a welfare program like Medicaid from a General Insurance Pool. If States want to buy CATASTROPHIC policies for their MediCaid programs let them. But you do NOT "subsidize insurance premiums" for a welfare program.. And NOBODY currently can buy just a CATASTROPHIC plan because of the coverage list of mandates. The working poor need their DEDUCTIBLES and CO-PAYS FULLY PAID.. Not their "insurance"..

THEN -- you restore MY RIGHT to pool with whomever I WANT to pool with and give me back my broker with 40 years of insurance experience and the Professional group Mgt Agencies who beat up the Insurers for the best prices. You find a way to declare a reasonable limit on "pre-existing". Because the Insurers abused that term to include any person over 40 taking Statin drugs or Cholesterol treatment --- even with STABLE and normal blood results.


Then you forget about insurance and start working on ways to reduce Med/Pharma inflation. NO ONE -- not patients, nor doctors, not even your Drug Store --- knows the REAL $$$$$ cost of services and supplies. Can't fix this without TRANSPARENT pricing and market pressures.

In the middle of my crisis that you caused, I had to buy my own pharma for a couple months. I refused to pay the outrageous "rack prices".. Then I discovered that NO ONE pays those "retail prices". Not Walmart, not Walgreens, not the Insurers. And I got a free GoodRx ID card with just my name and address that BOUGHT ME those drugs BELOW the cost of getting them thru O-Care insurance.

It's ALL fucked up.. The Congress morons are incapable of "designing" a "health care fix". They need to move the fucked up wreckage out of the way and have THE COUNTRY as a whole work on understanding and pricing med services and supplies.

People got lazy. Too much Employer insurance MADE them that way. Too much GOVT subsidizing MADE those recipients lazy and uninformed. This country could be a vibrant example of delivering services with the EFFICIENCY and low cost of Amazon. If the PRICING and NEGOTIATING is taken from the govt and the handful of Giant Insurers and put BACK into the hands of consumers.

 

[AntonToo]

Insane are you arguments.

If someone can't afford 3000-5000 deductible in case of emergency...how the fuck can they afford the annual premiums?

They couldn't until ACA, and they still have to get the care, so they went to the hospital that had to eat the cost.

You really DON'T have a f'ing clue how any of this works -- doya? The PREMIUMS are subsidized. They get those for sale at about 70 to 80% off. The formula doesn't take anything out of their pockets if it exceeds X% of their income. So the INSURANCE is cheap. But it's also crap. Because the working poor MediCaid expansion folks don't GET the Gold/Silver plans. They get crappy Bronze plans. And the DEDUCTIBLES and co-pays WILL BANKRUPT them if they get into even MODERATE medical problems.

What SHOULD HAPPEN for these folks is that their DEDUCTIBLES need be subsidized. Not the premiums. And it might be a great deal to ask them to buy just most stripped down CATASTROPHIC plan in exchange for paying all their NON-Catastrophic expenses. Would be cheap. Not so a plan that covers all the MANDATED horseshit that Govt required in ACA.

And take these welfare cases OUT of the damn pools.. Let the states experiment with combinations of subsidies and services. Their problem ain't INSURANCE. It's help with most damaging medical expense. EVERY DOLLAR of it..

Your thinking consistently excludes the alternative which was the market reality PRE ACA.

What is better - people paying in SOMETHING into the system and having cheap insurance with set max-out-of pocket expenses OR them not be able to afford insurance at all while being just one medical emergency away from bankruptcy while hospital has to eat the cost?

There is a HUUUUGE difference between having to deal with 24,000 dollar bill and a 3000-5000 dollar bill. There is a HUGE difference between hospital getting 80% of the bill and $0.

1. Nobody that qualifies for Medicaid EVER gets the $24,000 dollar bill. If you're poor -- you're covered.

2. Under the cynically named "AFFORDABLE Care Act" -- with a Bronze Plan -- you simply CANNOT AFFORD to get serious ill -- because those bills and deductibles are now YOUR problem.

The hospitals are "eating it" regardless. Because OTHER insured people pay higher premiums to make up for that $6 Medicare or Medicaid X-Ray reimbursement.

3. See the problem is -- YOUR TRIBE only cares about the statistic of HOW MANY "are covered". They don't give a bucket of spit about the "terms of coverage" or the financial impact to those "expansion" folks.

1. Medicaid - ACA increase people covered by Medicaid, that means more people fully covered.

2. It IS NOT cynical, AFFORDABILITY measures in the bill are real and effective, even if maybe not full-proof in current form. You consistently neglect the fact that the very people you say cannot afford to pay 20% of a major bill, couldn't possibly afford individual insurance before ACA.

You did not address that from hospital perspective getting 80% of the bill paid is a lot better than getting NOTHING.

3. MY TRIBE welcomes rational arguments from many perspectives on this big issue. Your problem is basic facts and letting perfect be an enemy of the better.

You didn't understand a word of what I told you.. Being COVERED with crappy insurance that will bankrupt you if you USE it -- doesnt concern cynical Dems. They are only interested in pumping up the "covered" number to LIE about the "successes" of a dying plan...

No, I do understand. You refuse to address what I'm saying while parroting the same, already put away argument.

Having insurance that will cover 80% of your bill is a HUGE improvement over not being able to get any insurance at all, which was the case before ACA. 3-5k max-out-of-pocket has MUCH LESS chance to bankrupt you than 24k and hospital getting paid 80% of the bill is a HUGE improvement over them getting nothing.

You consistently fail to address any of that.

 

[flacaltenn]

You really DON'T have a f'ing clue how any of this works -- doya? The PREMIUMS are subsidized. They get those for sale at about 70 to 80% off. The formula doesn't take anything out of their pockets if it exceeds X% of their income. So the INSURANCE is cheap. But it's also crap. Because the working poor MediCaid expansion folks don't GET the Gold/Silver plans. They get crappy Bronze plans. And the DEDUCTIBLES and co-pays WILL BANKRUPT them if they get into even MODERATE medical problems.

What SHOULD HAPPEN for these folks is that their DEDUCTIBLES need be subsidized. Not the premiums. And it might be a great deal to ask them to buy just most stripped down CATASTROPHIC plan in exchange for paying all their NON-Catastrophic expenses. Would be cheap. Not so a plan that covers all the MANDATED horseshit that Govt required in ACA.

And take these welfare cases OUT of the damn pools.. Let the states experiment with combinations of subsidies and services. Their problem ain't INSURANCE. It's help with most damaging medical expense. EVERY DOLLAR of it..

Your thinking consistently excludes the alternative which was the market reality PRE ACA.

What is better - people paying in SOMETHING into the system and having cheap insurance with set max-out-of pocket expenses OR them not be able to afford insurance at all while being just one medical emergency away from bankruptcy while hospital has to eat the cost?

There is a HUUUUGE difference between having to deal with 24,000 dollar bill and a 3000-5000 dollar bill. There is a HUGE difference between hospital getting 80% of the bill and $0.

1. Nobody that qualifies for Medicaid EVER gets the $24,000 dollar bill. If you're poor -- you're covered.

2. Under the cynically named "AFFORDABLE Care Act" -- with a Bronze Plan -- you simply CANNOT AFFORD to get serious ill -- because those bills and deductibles are now YOUR problem.

The hospitals are "eating it" regardless. Because OTHER insured people pay higher premiums to make up for that $6 Medicare or Medicaid X-Ray reimbursement.

3. See the problem is -- YOUR TRIBE only cares about the statistic of HOW MANY "are covered". They don't give a bucket of spit about the "terms of coverage" or the financial impact to those "expansion" folks.

1. Medicaid - ACA increase people covered by Medicaid, that means more people fully covered.

2. It IS NOT cynical, AFFORDABILITY measures in the bill are real and effective, even if maybe not full-proof in current form. You consistently neglect the fact that the very people you say cannot afford to pay 20% of a major bill, couldn't possibly afford individual insurance before ACA.

You did not address that from hospital perspective getting 80% of the bill paid is a lot better than getting NOTHING.

3. MY TRIBE welcomes rational arguments from many perspectives on this big issue. Your problem is basic facts and letting perfect be an enemy of the better.

You didn't understand a word of what I told you.. Being COVERED with crappy insurance that will bankrupt you if you USE it -- doesnt concern cynical Dems. They are only interested in pumping up the "covered" number to LIE about the "successes" of a dying plan...

No, I do understand. You refuse to address what I'm saying while parroting the same nonsensical argument.

Read my "parroted nonsensical analysis" in my LAST post above. Compare that you're woefully inadequate understanding of how to "fix" any of this and your dependence on ONLY following the phony "number of insured" that your devious political tribe is pushing out as propaganda.

 

[AntonToo]

Your thinking consistently excludes the alternative which was the market reality PRE ACA.

What is better - people paying in SOMETHING into the system and having cheap insurance with set max-out-of pocket expenses OR them not be able to afford insurance at all while being just one medical emergency away from bankruptcy while hospital has to eat the cost?

There is a HUUUUGE difference between having to deal with 24,000 dollar bill and a 3000-5000 dollar bill. There is a HUGE difference between hospital getting 80% of the bill and $0.

1. Nobody that qualifies for Medicaid EVER gets the $24,000 dollar bill. If you're poor -- you're covered.

2. Under the cynically named "AFFORDABLE Care Act" -- with a Bronze Plan -- you simply CANNOT AFFORD to get serious ill -- because those bills and deductibles are now YOUR problem.

The hospitals are "eating it" regardless. Because OTHER insured people pay higher premiums to make up for that $6 Medicare or Medicaid X-Ray reimbursement.

3. See the problem is -- YOUR TRIBE only cares about the statistic of HOW MANY "are covered". They don't give a bucket of spit about the "terms of coverage" or the financial impact to those "expansion" folks.

1. Medicaid - ACA increase people covered by Medicaid, that means more people fully covered.

2. It IS NOT cynical, AFFORDABILITY measures in the bill are real and effective, even if maybe not full-proof in current form. You consistently neglect the fact that the very people you say cannot afford to pay 20% of a major bill, couldn't possibly afford individual insurance before ACA.

You did not address that from hospital perspective getting 80% of the bill paid is a lot better than getting NOTHING.

3. MY TRIBE welcomes rational arguments from many perspectives on this big issue. Your problem is basic facts and letting perfect be an enemy of the better.

You didn't understand a word of what I told you.. Being COVERED with crappy insurance that will bankrupt you if you USE it -- doesnt concern cynical Dems. They are only interested in pumping up the "covered" number to LIE about the "successes" of a dying plan...

No, I do understand. You refuse to address what I'm saying while parroting the same nonsensical argument.

Read my "parroted nonsensical analysis" in my LAST post above. Compare that you're woefully inadequate understanding of how to "fix" any of this and your dependence on ONLY following the phony "number of insured" that your devious political tribe is pushing out as propaganda.

Reply directly to what I said.

Thx.

 

[flacaltenn]

1. Nobody that qualifies for Medicaid EVER gets the $24,000 dollar bill. If you're poor -- you're covered.

2. Under the cynically named "AFFORDABLE Care Act" -- with a Bronze Plan -- you simply CANNOT AFFORD to get serious ill -- because those bills and deductibles are now YOUR problem.

The hospitals are "eating it" regardless. Because OTHER insured people pay higher premiums to make up for that $6 Medicare or Medicaid X-Ray reimbursement.

3. See the problem is -- YOUR TRIBE only cares about the statistic of HOW MANY "are covered". They don't give a bucket of spit about the "terms of coverage" or the financial impact to those "expansion" folks.

1. Medicaid - ACA increase people covered by Medicaid, that means more people fully covered.

2. It IS NOT cynical, AFFORDABILITY measures in the bill are real and effective, even if maybe not full-proof in current form. You consistently neglect the fact that the very people you say cannot afford to pay 20% of a major bill, couldn't possibly afford individual insurance before ACA.

You did not address that from hospital perspective getting 80% of the bill paid is a lot better than getting NOTHING.

3. MY TRIBE welcomes rational arguments from many perspectives on this big issue. Your problem is basic facts and letting perfect be an enemy of the better.

You didn't understand a word of what I told you.. Being COVERED with crappy insurance that will bankrupt you if you USE it -- doesnt concern cynical Dems. They are only interested in pumping up the "covered" number to LIE about the "successes" of a dying plan...

No, I do understand. You refuse to address what I'm saying while parroting the same nonsensical argument.

Read my "parroted nonsensical analysis" in my LAST post above. Compare that you're woefully inadequate understanding of how to "fix" any of this and your dependence on ONLY following the phony "number of insured" that your devious political tribe is pushing out as propaganda.

Reply directly to what I said.

Thx.

Prove that you understand ANYTHING I said in post #126

Thank-you....

 

[AntonToo]

1. Medicaid - ACA increase people covered by Medicaid, that means more people fully covered.

2. It IS NOT cynical, AFFORDABILITY measures in the bill are real and effective, even if maybe not full-proof in current form. You consistently neglect the fact that the very people you say cannot afford to pay 20% of a major bill, couldn't possibly afford individual insurance before ACA.

You did not address that from hospital perspective getting 80% of the bill paid is a lot better than getting NOTHING.

3. MY TRIBE welcomes rational arguments from many perspectives on this big issue. Your problem is basic facts and letting perfect be an enemy of the better.

You didn't understand a word of what I told you.. Being COVERED with crappy insurance that will bankrupt you if you USE it -- doesnt concern cynical Dems. They are only interested in pumping up the "covered" number to LIE about the "successes" of a dying plan...

No, I do understand. You refuse to address what I'm saying while parroting the same nonsensical argument.

Read my "parroted nonsensical analysis" in my LAST post above. Compare that you're woefully inadequate understanding of how to "fix" any of this and your dependence on ONLY following the phony "number of insured" that your devious political tribe is pushing out as propaganda.

Reply directly to what I said.

Thx.

Prove that you understand ANYTHING I said in post #126

Thank-you....

ridiculous - I'm talking to you directly and clearly reply to what you say. Why can't you do the same?

In 126 you are talkin about all kinds of shit EXCEPT to compare pre-ACA and after-ACA situation for low income people.

Put your big boy pants on and reply in good faith.

 

[flacaltenn]

You didn't understand a word of what I told you.. Being COVERED with crappy insurance that will bankrupt you if you USE it -- doesnt concern cynical Dems. They are only interested in pumping up the "covered" number to LIE about the "successes" of a dying plan...

No, I do understand. You refuse to address what I'm saying while parroting the same nonsensical argument.

Read my "parroted nonsensical analysis" in my LAST post above. Compare that you're woefully inadequate understanding of how to "fix" any of this and your dependence on ONLY following the phony "number of insured" that your devious political tribe is pushing out as propaganda.

Reply directly to what I said.

Thx.

Prove that you understand ANYTHING I said in post #126

Thank-you....

ridiculous - I'm talking to you directly and clearly reply to what you say. Why can't you do the same?

In 126 you are talkin about all kinds of shit EXCEPT to compare pre-ACA and after-ACA situation for low income people.

Put your big boy pants on and reply in good faith.

I tell you in post #126, that low income and working poor people do not NEED "subsidized insurance".. They need FULLY FUNDED health care payments... Do you understand the DIFFERENCE??? I doubt you've even thought about it...

 

[AntonToo]

On the fixing:

NO ONE -- not patients, nor doctors, not even your Drug Store --- knows the REAL $$$$$ cost of services and supplies. Can't fix this without TRANSPARENT pricing and market pressures.

What about ACA prevents transparent pricing? Nothing, we could have had TRANSPARENT PRICING ACT bill on the books years ago if Republicans weren't so fucking busy with their repeal shtick.

 

[AntonToo]

I tell you in post #126, that low income and working poor people do not NEED "subsidized insurance".. They need FULLY FUNDED health care payments... Do you understand the DIFFERENCE??? I doubt you've even thought about it...

But what you don't tell is ANSWER TO MY QUESTION:

How does pre-ACA compare to after-ACA situation? I show that after-ACA is a big improvement for both low income people and healthcare providers.

You deflect, because you don't seem to have any dispute to that point.


ACA expanded Medicaid coverage to 125% poverty level and EVEN THAT is barely surviving Republican onslaught, while you are saying they didn't expand it NEARLY enough. Democrats are not the problem on this and would no doubt support further expansion.

 

[flacaltenn]

On the fixing:

NO ONE -- not patients, nor doctors, not even your Drug Store --- knows the REAL $$$$$ cost of services and supplies. Can't fix this without TRANSPARENT pricing and market pressures.

What about ACA prevents transparent pricing? Nothing, we could have had TRANSPARENT PRICING ACT bill on the books years ago if Republicans weren't so fucking busy with their repeal shtick.

So you want to be educated? That's a good thing. There IS NO "transparent pricing" when Insurance Companies are in the way.. The price that doctors ASK --- is an artifact of "negotiating with the insurers". It is NOT the real cost of services. The Insurers beat doctors up every year -- threaten them with taking them off their preferred provider lists. Have them by the crotch. So -- doctors and pharma raise their phony "List Prices". Because the insurers negotiate on DISCOUNTS from the "list price".

That's why on any insurance statement you see 2 or MORE prices for the service. And NEITHER one is the actual cost..

 

[AntonToo]

On the fixing:

NO ONE -- not patients, nor doctors, not even your Drug Store --- knows the REAL $$$$$ cost of services and supplies. Can't fix this without TRANSPARENT pricing and market pressures.

What about ACA prevents transparent pricing? Nothing, we could have had TRANSPARENT PRICING ACT bill on the books years ago if Republicans weren't so fucking busy with their repeal shtick.

So you want to be educated? That's a good thing. There IS NO "transparent pricing" when Insurance Companies are in the way.. The price that doctors ASK --- is an artifact of "negotiating with the insurers". It is NOT the real cost of services. The Insurers beat doctors up every year -- threaten them with taking them off their preferred provider lists. Have them by the crotch. So -- doctors and pharma raise their phony "List Prices". Because the insurers negotiate on DISCOUNTS from the "list price".

That's why on any insurance statement you see 2 or MORE prices for the service. And NEITHER one is the actual cost..

...and the solution is?

Bitter Pill articles published in Time talked about this issue in depth but couldn't narrow down the answer. You got one?

 

[flacaltenn]

I tell you in post #126, that low income and working poor people do not NEED "subsidized insurance".. They need FULLY FUNDED health care payments... Do you understand the DIFFERENCE??? I doubt you've even thought about it...

But what you don't tell is ANSWER TO MY QUESTION:

How does pre-ACA compare to after-ACA situation? I show that after-ACA is a big improvement for both low income people and healthcare providers.

You deflect, because you don't seem to have any dispute to that point.


ACA expanded Medicaid coverage to 125% poverty level and EVEN THAT is barely surviving Republican onslaught, while you are saying they didn't expand it NEARLY enough. Democrats are not the problem on this and would no doubt support further expansion.

And the eligibility for the expansion, because of the income exemptions and other math you'd never follow turns out to be closer to 140% of the fake "poverty level". There IS NO national "poverty level". Because cost of living in various areas varies by as much as 3 to 1.. That's why "Red States are poor" and have more qualifiers.

Blows your little mind --- don't it???

 

[AntonToo]

I tell you in post #126, that low income and working poor people do not NEED "subsidized insurance".. They need FULLY FUNDED health care payments... Do you understand the DIFFERENCE??? I doubt you've even thought about it...

But what you don't tell is ANSWER TO MY QUESTION:

How does pre-ACA compare to after-ACA situation? I show that after-ACA is a big improvement for both low income people and healthcare providers.

You deflect, because you don't seem to have any dispute to that point.


ACA expanded Medicaid coverage to 125% poverty level and EVEN THAT is barely surviving Republican onslaught, while you are saying they didn't expand it NEARLY enough. Democrats are not the problem on this and would no doubt support further expansion.

And the eligibility for the expansion, because of the income exemptions and other math you'd never follow turns out to be closer to 140% of the fake "poverty level". There IS NO national "poverty level". Because cost of living in various areas varies by as much as 3 to 1.. That's why "Red States are poor" and have more qualifiers.

Blows your little mind --- don't it???

What blows my mind is how you think you can keep not replying to a simple point and think that no one will notice your deflections.

Here it is again, please answer:

How does pre-ACA compare to after-ACA situation? I show that after-ACA is a big improvement for both low income people and healthcare providers.

 

[flacaltenn]

I tell you in post #126, that low income and working poor people do not NEED "subsidized insurance".. They need FULLY FUNDED health care payments... Do you understand the DIFFERENCE??? I doubt you've even thought about it...

But what you don't tell is ANSWER TO MY QUESTION:

How does pre-ACA compare to after-ACA situation? I show that after-ACA is a big improvement for both low income people and healthcare providers.

You deflect, because you don't seem to have any dispute to that point.


ACA expanded Medicaid coverage to 125% poverty level and EVEN THAT is barely surviving Republican onslaught, while you are saying they didn't expand it NEARLY enough. Democrats are not the problem on this and would no doubt support further expansion.

And the eligibility for the expansion, because of the income exemptions and other math you'd never follow turns out to be closer to 140% of the fake "poverty level". There IS NO national "poverty level". Because cost of living in various areas varies by as much as 3 to 1.. That's why "Red States are poor" and have more qualifiers.

Blows your little mind --- don't it???

What blows my mind is how you think you can keep not replying to a simple point and think that no one will notice your deflections.

Here it is again, please answer:

How does pre-ACA compare to after-ACA situation? I show that after-ACA is a big improvement for both low income people and healthcare providers.

Bullshit. I covered it. Counting the number of insured --- when you STUCK THEM with shitty policies that will bankrupt them if they get sick is nothing to celebrate. This EXPANSION needs to be surgically CUT from a General Insurance pool and brought BACK under fully funded welfare...

That's the 3rd time today ---- I've told you that working poor people don't NEED subsidized CRAPPY insurance just so that you and your lying deceitful party can celebrate the number of insured. They NEED their first $$$ DEDUCTIBLES fully paid.. Do you understand this assertion? Do you agree or don't you???

 

[AntonToo]

I tell you in post #126, that low income and working poor people do not NEED "subsidized insurance".. They need FULLY FUNDED health care payments... Do you understand the DIFFERENCE??? I doubt you've even thought about it...

But what you don't tell is ANSWER TO MY QUESTION:

How does pre-ACA compare to after-ACA situation? I show that after-ACA is a big improvement for both low income people and healthcare providers.

You deflect, because you don't seem to have any dispute to that point.


ACA expanded Medicaid coverage to 125% poverty level and EVEN THAT is barely surviving Republican onslaught, while you are saying they didn't expand it NEARLY enough. Democrats are not the problem on this and would no doubt support further expansion.

And the eligibility for the expansion, because of the income exemptions and other math you'd never follow turns out to be closer to 140% of the fake "poverty level". There IS NO national "poverty level". Because cost of living in various areas varies by as much as 3 to 1.. That's why "Red States are poor" and have more qualifiers.

Blows your little mind --- don't it???

What blows my mind is how you think you can keep not replying to a simple point and think that no one will notice your deflections.

Here it is again, please answer:

How does pre-ACA compare to after-ACA situation? I show that after-ACA is a big improvement for both low income people and healthcare providers.

Bullshit. I covered it. Counting the number of insured --- when you STUCK THEM with shitty policies that will bankrupt them if they get sick is nothing to celebrate. This EXPANSION needs to be surgically CUT from a General Insurance pool and brought BACK under fully funded welfare...

That's the 3rd time today ---- I've told you that working poor people don't NEED subsidized CRAPPY insurance just so that you and your lying deceitful party can celebrate the number of insured. They NEED their first $$$ DEDUCTIBLES fully paid.. Do you understand this assertion? Do you agree or don't you???

How does pre-ACA compare to after-ACA situation? I show that after-ACA is a big improvement for both low income people and healthcare providers.

I'll just keep posting this until you get honest and address this directly.

You argument is that some people are still not totally immune from big unexpected healthcare expenses and what I'm saying it still is a lot better than how it was.


So go ahead and tell us what you think about - is it better or is it not?