Thank you for the 47 percent increase in my health care rate

[Synthaholic]

[

LOL Your assuming I voted for Romney?? Oh and BTW I'm not a Rep. I'm an Indi.

No one wants to admit to being a Republican these days...

Now, if you threw away your vote on a third party non-entity, that's your own business.



First, businessmen make shitty presidents because for the most part, businessmen are shitty human beings. Our "Businessmen" Presidents. Hoover and Bush-43. Nuff said.

Second, Romney would not have repealled the ACA. He invented it! He'd give a few more wet sloppy kisses to big insurance and big pharma and called it a day. Please don't imagine Romney was a small government conservative or teabagger.

[
The only reason you voted for Barry was because Romney is a Mormon. Not a goot reason in my book. Hell. I think he would have made a better POTUS than the current asshole.

Personally I could care what religion someone is. Hell. He can worship an idol in the corner for all I care. Anyone would have been a better choice that Barry boy.

Mormons are ******* evil. Period. They are a batshit crazy cult started by child molestors.

Pretty much the discussion was over when I found out he was a Mormon.

if you threw away your vote on a third party non-entity

the way i look at it Joe YOU are throwing YOUR vote away by voting for the same old shit....and getting the same old shit for it....

Ahh, but we got the beginnings of health care reform. That's new shit!

 

[Synthaholic]

Nothing will go down. News will be an "unexpected price hike" will be the reason why it will go up.

Like what oil companies and wall street speculators do?

like when Bush lift the president offshore drilling ban, and obama m,ade anothe ban?

Go be stupid somewhere else.

 

[Trajan]

Thank you for the 47 percent increase in my health care rate

Always with the 47 percent! Don't you people ever learn?

I've been waiting for this post.

This country used to have a top marginal tax rate of 90%

And the very rich did very well during those years. A great example is George Romney. H. Ross Perot. Warren Buffett. T. Boone Pickens. Lee Iaccoca. Elvis Presley.

They all had the means to live a very luxury lifestyle, from cars to houses to travel to banking money. That's the American Dream. Not making $108 million in bonuses for running a failed financial institution that has only taken from the American taxpayer. And continues to take $85 billion per year, with no return.

And I never heard any of them ***** about their tax rates. It would have been seen as ungrateful, and gauche. The rich had manners, and more importantly, perspective.

I have been waiting for this post too, this makes, what, the 3rd time I will address this red herring.

Lets see you do some homework-

first- how many people actually paid that rate?

second- why was the AMT created




answer question 1, then, if you're even remotely logical, you'll get the answer to the second......

 

[Claudette]

Thank you for the 47 percent increase in my health care rate

Always with the 47 percent! Don't you people ever learn?

I've been waiting for this post.

This country used to have a top marginal tax rate of 90%

And the very rich did very well during those years. A great example is George Romney. H. Ross Perot. Warren Buffett. T. Boone Pickens. Lee Iaccoca. Elvis Presley.

They all had the means to live a very luxury lifestyle, from cars to houses to travel to banking money. That's the American Dream. Not making $108 million in bonuses for running a failed financial institution that has only taken from the American taxpayer. And continues to take $85 billion per year, with no return.

And I never heard any of them ***** about their tax rates. It would have been seen as ungrateful, and gauche. The rich had manners, and more importantly, perspective.

So you're ok with other people paying for your treatment but you don't want to pay anyone elses bills. Hypocritical much?

This is where you say..."I never said that". But the fact that you have insurance is proof enough that you're ok with a shared pool system where other people will pay for your treatment when the bills get expensive. That's the way insurance works, people pitching in to pay for others bills when they need it the most.

Don't like paying for others, then you should drop your insurance and show how personally responsible you really are.

Your just being silly now. I have no control over how the insurance system works. Neither do you. Can't change it and neither can you. Nothing hypocritical about it. It is what it is.

I don't agree with you so I'm wrong and your're right. Got it.

I will never agree with you and you won't agree with me. No sweat. I sure as shit don't need your approval for anything.

I live a pretty good life. Have a great job that I'm damned good at.

Don't owe anyone a dime and I do as I please. That personal responsibility you seem to abhorr pays dividends down the road. It sure has for me.

Hope you can say the same.

You are extremely confident that this bolded situation will continue indefinitely. Shit happens, Claudette. You, hubby, son, daughter, could get an illness, then be dropped from your coverage. You could het blindsided in your car and be confined to a wheelchair, while being dropped from your insurance coverage. You could have a few of the common situations that are described in that Time article (HAVE YOU READ IT?) and all of a sudden be looking at an $83,900 hospital bill.

You cannot predict the future, and you cannot negotiate cost, and you can not 'shop'. As it says in the article, the medical industry is the "ultimate seller's market".

You can't predict the future there either Syn.

Your saying that Obamacare, ACA, will be cheaper and better??

I really hope your right but I also really, really doubt it.

Anytime the govt sticks its fat nose in you have problems and loads of unintended consequences. You should know that if you've been around amy length of time.

We will see come 2014. I really hope your right.

As for my situation in bolded letters?? I really don't owe anyone a dime. My house, cars, everything is payed for because hey, I watched my money, payed extra when I could and so I don't owe a dime.

Now does shit happen?? You bet it does so I hope it never happens to me but if it should I'm in a lot better place than loads of folks.

 

[bigrebnc1775]

Like what oil companies and wall street speculators do?

like when Bush lift the president offshore drilling ban, and obama m,ade anothe ban?

Go be stupid somewhere else.

Truth hurt your feelings dumb ass?

 

[Harry Dresden]

No one wants to admit to being a Republican these days...

Now, if you threw away your vote on a third party non-entity, that's your own business.



First, businessmen make shitty presidents because for the most part, businessmen are shitty human beings. Our "Businessmen" Presidents. Hoover and Bush-43. Nuff said.

Second, Romney would not have repealled the ACA. He invented it! He'd give a few more wet sloppy kisses to big insurance and big pharma and called it a day. Please don't imagine Romney was a small government conservative or teabagger.






Mormons are ******* evil. Period. They are a batshit crazy cult started by child molestors.

Pretty much the discussion was over when I found out he was a Mormon.

if you threw away your vote on a third party non-entity

the way i look at it Joe YOU are throwing YOUR vote away by voting for the same old shit....and getting the same old shit for it....

Ahh, but we got the beginnings of health care reform. That's new shit!

i said this a while back......each Election cycle the people get thrown a bone.....that was the bone this time.....and we have yet to see if it lives up to its billing.....and all in all Synth, if the same old people are there.....you are going to get basically the same old shit....you know it and i know it.....the 2 parties act like the tax dollars they control are their personal funds from their own pockets and it seems they only want to spend it if they are going to get something back....

 

[JoeB131]

if you threw away your vote on a third party non-entity

the way i look at it Joe YOU are throwing YOUR vote away by voting for the same old shit....and getting the same old shit for it....

Dude you are entitled to that opinion, but the reality is, our presidents will always be either Democrats or Republicans. This is just the reality.

Now, frankly, I liked Gary Johnson. He was a Libertarian who wasn't completely batshit out of his mind, unlike the Paul family. But he had absolutely no chance of winning a single electoral vote.

 

[Obamanation]

The expensive technology deployed on Janice S. was a bigger factor in her bill than the lab tests. An “NM MYO REST/SPEC EJCT MOT MUL” was billed at $7,997.54. That’s a stress test using a radioactive dye that is tracked by an X-ray computed tomography, or CT, scan. Medicare would have paid Stamford $554 for that test.

Janice S. was charged an additional $872.44 just for the dye used in the test. The regular stress test patients are more familiar with, in which arteries are monitored electronically with an electrocardiograph, would have cost far less — $1,200 even at the hospital’s chargemaster price. (Medicare would have paid $96 for it.) And although many doctors view the version using the CT scan as more thorough, others consider it unnecessary in most cases.


*snip*


We don’t know the particulars of Janice S.’s condition, so we cannot know why the doctors who treated her ordered the more expensive test. But the incentives are clear. On the basis of market prices, Stamford probably paid about $250,000 for the CT equipment in its operating room. It costs little to operate, so the more it can be used and billed, the quicker the hospital recovers its costs and begins profiting from its purchase. In addition, the cardiologist in the emergency room gave Janice S. a separate bill for $600 to read the test results on top of the $342 he charged for examining her.

You are starting in the middle of a process. Not sure who you are blaming for the cost in these issues, but you have to consider all of the exams that are done for free. You also do a great job of showing how doctors are forced to use the more expensive tests, rather than using clinical skills to come up with a differential diagnosis.

Most of the exams you are talking about didn't even exist 20 years ago. There is R&D that hasn't even been fully payed for with newer technology. You are paying for the research, the development, the production, and the use of the newest technology.

The "dye" you referred to is really a radio-pharmaceutical. They mix a radioactive material into a "shot" that allows the radioactive material to be scanned in a patients heart with the heart both stressed and relaxed. Typically, patients with heart trouble can't run on a treadmill, their heart must be chemically stressed -- they use another drug (adenosine) to stress the heart. As you can imagine, the patient must be monitored during this process. The next thing you need to consider - is that if the best test is not used and the patient dies - the family is going to sue the doctor and the facility --- thereby forcing all involved to use the more expensive and best tests...

The real thing you are missing is that you are talking about things that you really don;t understand and parroting people who have a vested interest in your reaction.

 

[longknife]

Someone asked me for a link to a graphic. Well, here's the article:

REPORT: Youth Healthcare Premiums to Skyrocket 145%-203%

If health insurance prices triple, do we still have to call Obamacare the "Affordable Care Act”?

Read full thing with links @ REPORT: Youth Healthcare Premiums to Skyrocket 145%-203%

 

[Obamanation]

Niacin Tablet
Patient was charged $24 per 500-mg tablet of niacin. In drugstores, the pills go for about a nickel each


CT Scans
Patient was charged $6,538 for three ct scans. Medicare would have paid a total of about $825 for all three


Chest X-Ray
Patient was charged $333. the national rate paid by Medicare is $23.83


Acetaminophen $1.50
Charge for one 325-mg tablet, the first of 344 lines in an eight-page hospital bill. You can buy 100 tablets on Amazon for $1.49


Sodium Chloride $84
Hospital charge for standard saline solution. Online, a liter bag costs $5.16

You are darn right about one thing. Medicare reimbursement is HORRIBLE!!! It's a wonder hospitals can keep their doors open only getting $24 for a chest x-ray and less than $300.00 for a CT - the ionated contrast alone for a CT costs facilities $100 per patient.

 

[Obamanation]

Nope. I just don't like being forced to pay for others people responsibilities.

Neither do I - so you should make sure you have health insurance.

Health insurance IS paying for other peoples responsibilities --- whether it's provided by the gov't or private insurers. People who won't use medical treatment buy insurance and their money is used to pay for people who do use treatment....

Do you not even understand that basic concept?

 

[Obamanation]

Medicare is the only effective cost control medical system in the USA. Why? Because the government has contracted to pay medical costs at a rate that is exactly 6% above the average cost of any device or proceedure. As a result, what Medicare pays for my hospital bill is somewhere areound 10% of what a hospital would bill someonewho had no insurance. If someone has HMO insrance, the Hospital has probably contracted to bill about 15-20% above their actual costs. The only thing that this does not apply to is RX, which the pharmacutical companies have managed to get a law passed forbidding the government from negotiating RX costs. As a result, RX in this country costs 50% more than in any other developed nation. If this country had switched to a simgle payer universal health system, trillions would have been saved over a decade.

I am not just making this stuff up. My career was negotiating HMO provider contracts. The facts are also laid out in full in Time Magazine March 4 special edition, which was solely dedicated to this issue.

As I said. I'm no fan of the current system but I don't see where the ACA is going to be better.

The CBO says this thing is going to cost up the ass.

By law, a hospital must stabilize a patient with an emergency, regardless of whether he has insurance or not. This means that your taxes are already paying for the uninsured. The only thing that ACA is going to do is to shift the cost of this care from the taxes, to the private sector. There will be some increses in costs, because under the present law, a hospital is not required to give you a heart bypass or chemo treratment, since that is not "stabilization". however, in most cases, the uninsured manage to get this done under Medicaid, or other government programs. If all else fails, they simply write it off, and mark up the cost to your insurance comapny, instead, which simply passes it on to you. So, for the most part, all ACA is doing is "cost shifting", "not cost increasing".

The only thing you are wrong about here is that unisured people without govt' programs will still get bypass surgery. If you show at the ER with chest pain and no coverage you will be sent to the cath lab for a CABG (coronary arterial bypass graft) and spend a week (miniminum) the hospital recovering. Should you contract a pneumonia you will continue to stay in the hospital... You are what we call Private Pay --- and usually the hospital will receive very little, if any, payment for ANY of your bills...

The ACA does NOTHING to address the cost of healthcare in the US. The cost problems have NOTHING to do with the gov't taking over the biggest industry in the Country. That is just socialism -- and it will not fix the cost problem!!!

 

[Harry Dresden]

if you threw away your vote on a third party non-entity

the way i look at it Joe YOU are throwing YOUR vote away by voting for the same old shit....and getting the same old shit for it....

Dude you are entitled to that opinion, but the reality is, our presidents will always be either Democrats or Republicans. This is just the reality.

Now, frankly, I liked Gary Johnson. He was a Libertarian who wasn't completely batshit out of his mind, unlike the Paul family. But he had absolutely no chance of winning a single electoral vote.

and as long as everyone has that opinion.....we will have the same old shit.....until people decide that these too trees have got to be shaken and have the balls to do some shaking....nothing is going to change...we will get a bone thrown at us every now and then.....if thats what you want.....keep voting for the so called...."lessor of two evils"....

 

[Obamanation]

"They wrote it off". LOL. Tell me what you think happens when they "write it off". They just eat the cost out of the goodness of their heart.....please tell me thats what you think happens. PLEASE.

I know exactly what happens, been involved in the business for 23 years...
(fist thing and most important to him living on a fixed income is that he never paid a cent)
Why don't you tell me what YOU THINK HAPPENS after that...

My wife is a masters level therapist (LPC) who deals with unpaid bills every year, so don't try to liberalize the truth...


go on... share with us...

You didn't actually tell me what you think happens. You asserted that you know what happens, but I'm still doubting you have any clue what "writing it off" entails. But yeah, you stating that your wife has a masters is plenty of proof

No, I was pointing that she "writes off" unpaid clients every year... I am vastly informed as to how it works... I turned it around and am suggesting that you may know the process but don't understand it's affects AT ALL!!!!!

I'm trying to get you to describe how you think "writing off" changes ANYTHING!!!! which you kind of implied that it does!!!!

 

[Obamanation]

Yet your statement that they weren't invited to the discussions was in fact, false. As I've shown. LOL.

Dumbass!! Those weren't discussion on the draft of the ACA. They were "pre"discussions. You know that you have to manipulate the truth in order to have a defense. Obama to dems, behind closed doors to draft the ACA --- prompting even the democrat, Nanci Pelosi, to tell ALL of America that we will like it ONCE WE GET A CHANCE to find out what's in it....

Your lies will not work with me!

When all else fails....move the goal posts! Good for you.

Nobody move any goal posts... When authoring the ACA there were NO MEMBERS OF THE GOPS INVOLVED!!!! It was done with ZERO TRANSPARANCY. It was done in a way that it was passed without the GOP even having a chance to fully read it --- and that what makes Obama a liar and Pelosi a moron for pointing out to the entire world that the Dems were trying to pull a sneaky trick on ALL OF US - by passing it before anyone had a chance to react!

The Demcratic Party came out and said that we had to fix the growing problem cost of health care! Went behind closed doors to draft a law that would allow the gov't to eventually take over healthcare ENTIRELY. They passed the law without allowing ANYONE outside the circle to read it --- and low and behold, IT DOES NOTHING TO FIX THE COST OF HEALTHCARE IN AMERICA!!!

They manipulated YOU too!!!

 

[Obamanation]

By law, a hospital must stabilize a patient with an emergency, regardless of whether he has insurance or not. This means that your taxes are already paying for the uninsured. The only thing that ACA is going to do is to shift the cost of this care from the taxes, to the private sector. There will be some increses in costs, because under the present law, a hospital is not required to give you a heart bypass or chemo treratment, since that is not "stabilization". however, in most cases, the uninsured manage to get this done under Medicaid, or other government programs. If all else fails, they simply write it off, and mark up the cost to your insurance comapny, instead, which simply passes it on to you. So, for the most part, all ACA is doing is "cost shifting", "not cost increasing".

I'm somewhat dubious of that happy theory.

As ACA forces the uninsured (mostly young kids) to buy insurance, it WILL be putting more money (in aggregate) into the overall HC coffers.

Now the question that I think TRULY matters is what will the HC establishment (HC insurance companies included) do with that NEW FOUND money?

Will they use it more effectively or will costs imply rise to absorb that new money?

Based on your employment you seem to have been more on board with ACA than I am.

So what cost containment measures do you feel will keep the system from inflating costs?

I don't see any, but like I say, I know that I am not up to snuff on the details of this law.

I'm hoping you can convince me that I am wrong, incidently, more than I can convince you that I am right.

I would be MUCH MUCH more convinced that ACA could do a better job if, for example, ACA did something to increase SUPPLY of HC.

But I do not see anything like that in ACA, do you?

ACA is not going to reduce costs. It is going to shift health care payments from taxes to businesses and individuals. Unfortunately, the only effective way to reduce health insurance costs is through a single payer universal health care system, whereby the government contracts provider contracts the same way it does with Medicare. Since that is not going to fly in this country, the second best way is to have universal health care with coverage provided by private companies, as is also done with Medicare. They will add a profit level to the premium. This is what is going to happen someday, which is why I own lots of stock in health insurance companies..Saddaling businesses with employee health care costs is not sustainable, in a world market where no other country ties health insurance to employment. Ford has been paying more for health insurance than they pay for steel since 1978.

I'd sure like to know why you think the ONLY way to reduce costs is to remove freedom. That is soooo totally opposite of the premise this Country was founded on. I don't believe it for a second. I believe the only FREE way to fix the cost of healhtcare is to ensure fair competition in the market. I still believe in capitalism, and that capitalism will always provide a better solution than socialism.

 

[Obamanation]

By law, a hospital must stabilize a patient with an emergency, regardless of whether he has insurance or not. This means that your taxes are already paying for the uninsured. The only thing that ACA is going to do is to shift the cost of this care from the taxes, to the private sector. There will be some increses in costs, because under the present law, a hospital is not required to give you a heart bypass or chemo treratment, since that is not "stabilization". however, in most cases, the uninsured manage to get this done under Medicaid, or other government programs. If all else fails, they simply write it off, and mark up the cost to your insurance comapny, instead, which simply passes it on to you. So, for the most part, all ACA is doing is "cost shifting", "not cost increasing".

I'm somewhat dubious of that happy theory.

As ACA forces the uninsured (mostly young kids) to buy insurance, it WILL be putting more money (in aggregate) into the overall HC coffers.

Now the question that I think TRULY matters is what will the HC establishment (HC insurance companies included) do with that NEW FOUND money?

Will they use it more effectively or will costs imply rise to absorb that new money?

Based on your employment you seem to have been more on board with ACA than I am.

So what cost containment measures do you feel will keep the system from inflating costs?

I don't see any, but like I say, I know that I am not up to snuff on the details of this law.

I'm hoping you can convince me that I am wrong, incidently, more than I can convince you that I am right.

I would be MUCH MUCH more convinced that ACA could do a better job if, for example, ACA did something to increase SUPPLY of HC.

But I do not see anything like that in ACA, do you?

ACA is not going to reduce costs. It is going to shift health care payments from taxes to businesses and individuals. Unfortunately, the only effective way to reduce health insurance costs is through a single payer universal health care system, whereby the government contracts provider contracts the same way it does with Medicare. Since that is not going to fly in this country, the second best way is to have universal health care with coverage provided by private companies, as is also done with Medicare. They will add a profit level to the premium. This is what is going to happen someday, which is why I own lots of stock in health insurance companies..Saddaling businesses with employee health care costs is not sustainable, in a world market where no other country ties health insurance to employment. Ford has been paying more for health insurance than they pay for steel since 1978.

But you are TOTALLY right that the ACA will not reduce costs. It will more than likely tear the system apart more rapidly forcing the gov't to step in and do a total takeover. Which I believe may have been Obama's strategy from the beginning.

 

[Vandalshandle]

As I said. I'm no fan of the current system but I don't see where the ACA is going to be better.

The CBO says this thing is going to cost up the ass.

By law, a hospital must stabilize a patient with an emergency, regardless of whether he has insurance or not. This means that your taxes are already paying for the uninsured. The only thing that ACA is going to do is to shift the cost of this care from the taxes, to the private sector. There will be some increses in costs, because under the present law, a hospital is not required to give you a heart bypass or chemo treratment, since that is not "stabilization". however, in most cases, the uninsured manage to get this done under Medicaid, or other government programs. If all else fails, they simply write it off, and mark up the cost to your insurance comapny, instead, which simply passes it on to you. So, for the most part, all ACA is doing is "cost shifting", "not cost increasing".

The only thing you are wrong about here is that unisured people without govt' programs will still get bypass surgery. If you show at the ER with chest pain and no coverage you will be sent to the cath lab for a CABG (coronary arterial bypass graft) and spend a week (miniminum) the hospital recovering. Should you contract a pneumonia you will continue to stay in the hospital... You are what we call Private Pay --- and usually the hospital will receive very little, if any, payment for ANY of your bills...

The ACA does NOTHING to address the cost of healthcare in the US. The cost problems have NOTHING to do with the gov't taking over the biggest industry in the Country. That is just socialism -- and it will not fix the cost problem!!!

As I said, ACA is not going to reduce costs, so we agree. A single payer Medicare like universal health care WOULD have reduced costs, and so would the alternative Universal health care through private insureds, like Medicare Advantage.

 

[Obamanation]

There is no free market sytem in the world of American health care.

Which is exactly why we are in this mess!!! If you want to restore healthcare you have to ensure that free market principals are truely the driving force in determining cost. ...and once again, you are totally right, it's not!

 

[Obamanation]

if you threw away your vote on a third party non-entity

the way i look at it Joe YOU are throwing YOUR vote away by voting for the same old shit....and getting the same old shit for it....

Dude you are entitled to that opinion, but the reality is, our presidents will always be either Democrats or Republicans. This is just the reality.

Now, frankly, I liked Gary Johnson. He was a Libertarian who wasn't completely batshit out of his mind, unlike the Paul family. But he had absolutely no chance of winning a single electoral vote.

and as long as everyone has that opinion.....we will have the same old shit.....until people decide that these too trees have got to be shaken and have the balls to do some shaking....nothing is going to change...we will get a bone thrown at us every now and then.....if thats what you want.....keep voting for the so called...."lessor of two evils"....

I like Gary Johnson too. A Libertarian who doesn't have totally wacko foreign affairs positions. That is my single big issue thith libertarians!