Democrats Run Away From Obamacare

[dogs4thewin]

That's not what you said in your previous post with the four situations when it should be. Which includes anyone over seven, military personnel and veterans (although that's redundant unless there are a lot of soldiers under the age of seven out there), the disabled who work/worked (so screw the disabled kids under seven), and people in prison (again redundant until we start imprisoning toddlers).

Why under seven? In order to GET in prison you ( usually) have to DO something or either at least be suspected of doing something. In order to join the armed forces you have to one be qualfied and two sign a contract. You cannot just walk in and be shipped to basic. To turn 70 you have to well live 70 years that does not happen over night. I should have been clearer those groups are the only ones the government should mandate treatment on No matter the issue.

 

[Ishraqiyun]

If Democrats were truly running away from Obama care wouldn't that be a good thing? Personally I think it could be but only if they are running in the direction of single payer. Otherwise it's neither good nor bad but rather irrelevant to me.

Obamacare is a modestly disappointing program. It has a few positive elements and numerous not so positive aspects. The amount of time, focus, and money put on this stupid bill just seems like a major waste. It's not good enough to support but not so horrible as to justify the level of opposition it has received. Much ado about nothing.

If the next election focuses too much on this one issue alone that doesn't bid well for us. All the other important issue will be forgotten. I really tire of the whole thing.

 

[Skaloop]

Why under seven?.

Because you said one group that the government should cover is anyone who's celebrated their seventh birthday. Which would by definition exclude anyone under seven. Unless they were military, disabled but working, or in prison. Which very few kids under seven are.

 

[dogs4thewin]

Because you said one group that the government should cover is anyone who's celebrated their seventh birthday. Which would by definition exclude anyone under seven. Unless they were military, disabled but working, or in prison. Which very few kids under seven are.

oh I do need to fix that the 70th.

 

[A2SG]

that is ACCESS.

Only in the broadest range of the term. Emergency room treatment is the least effective form of treatment given in the most expensive manner possible. It serves to treat one's immediate symptoms ONLY, and does nothing to help prevent those conditions before they become immediate and emergent.

In short, it's the worst way to administer health care one can imagine. Can't we imagine better?

If you are not bleeding out then they should not HAVE to treat you. Plus people always have the option of going bankrupt or prison and people HAVE taken that option before.

Thank you, Ebenezer.

I like to think we, as a nation, are more civilized than that. Of course, your mileage may vary.

I believe that the government owes healthcare to the following groups.

1. People who have had their SEVENTH birthday not their 62nd not their 65th but SEVENTH birthday.
2. Members of the armed services current and retired; because one they served us and two that is in the contract.
3, Those who become disabled (keep in mind I AM disabled, BUT have never worked so I would not fit in this group.
and 4 inmates because once the state CHOOSES to take customery of someone they CHOOSE to take on their care per the 8th amendment.

Other than those four groups no one has the right to expect ANY healthcare from the government (unless without it they would die like right then.

Perhaps everyone else should just die, and decrease the surplus population, huh?

-- A2SG, Jacob Marley says Hi!, perhaps you'll hear from him soon....

 

[Jeffwhosoever]

Is anyone on Obamacare? How much is your out of pocket maximum? I'm hearing horror stories about this, and even through employer insurance, our costs have skyrocketed.

 

[A2SG]

Is anyone on Obamacare? How much is your out of pocket maximum? I'm hearing horror stories about this, and even through employer insurance, our costs have skyrocketed.

You do realize no one is "ON" Obamacare, right? They may get private health insurance through the ACA exchange, but it's still private insurance.

For my part, I have insurance through my employer, and it's remained virtually unchanged through Obamacare, and even through Romneycare before it. I believe premiums have gone up here and there (I don't pay out of pocket, but through my employer), but not exorbitantly; though since the ACA passed, my copays are higher in some areas, lower in others. But my coverage was good before, and remains so.

-- A2SG, but to be fair, I have a particularly good plan because I work within the health care industry....

 

[Jeffwhosoever]

You do realize no one is "ON" Obamacare, right? They may get private health insurance through the ACA exchange, but it's still private insurance.

For my part, I have insurance through my employer, and it's remained virtually unchanged through Obamacare, and even through Romneycare before it. I believe premiums have gone up here and there (I don't pay out of pocket, but through my employer), but not exorbitantly; though since the ACA passed, my copays are higher in some areas, lower in others. But my coverage was good before, and remains so.

-- A2SG, but to be fair, I have a particularly good plan because I work within the health care industry....

You lucky dog. Yes, I was speaking metaphorically.

If you had to have a colonoscopy, what would it cost you? For me, 10 years ago, zero. 2 Years ago, $50. This year, $750. Looks like I've had my last one. I'll just have to die from colon cancer. This cannot be a good development for health care in the United States.

 

[A2SG]

You lucky dog. Yes, I was speaking metaphorically.

Sure, but it's a common misconception, and I wanted to make it clear. Kinda like the people who still think "Obamacare" is socialized medicine when it's clearly nothing even remotely close to it.

If you had to have a colonoscopy, what would it cost you? For me, 10 years ago, zero. 2 Years ago, $50. This year, $750.

I had one less than a year ago. I paid nothing out of pocket. It was my first, so I can't compare it to anything.

Looks like I've had my last one. I'll just have to die from colon cancer. This cannot be a good development for health care in the United States.

That's a damn shame. Colonoscopies may not be pleasant, but they are very effective at anticipating, and even preventing future serious illnesses, and they should be free or at very low cost on any health plan.

-- A2SG, another reason I dislike the private for-profit health insurance industry....

 

[Jeffwhosoever]

Sure, but it's a common misconception, and I wanted to make it clear. Kinda like the people who still think "Obamacare" is socialized medicine when it's clearly nothing even remotely close to it.



I had one less than a year ago. I paid nothing out of pocket. It was my first, so I can't compare it to anything.



That's a damn shame. Colonoscopies may not be pleasant, but they are very effective at anticipating, and even preventing future serious illnesses, and they should be free or at very low cost on any health plan.

-- A2SG, another reason I dislike the private for-profit health insurance industry....

I can't disagree with you on that. Having to drink stuff that makes you want to vomit, after starving all day is enough of a deterrent. Now you tell people they gotta pay hundreds of dollars, and that affects a hundred million people, and we have a big problem on our hands. And, I'm starting to think more like you about insurance companies. Not sure on the solution, but this isn't going to work.

 

[A2SG]

I can't disagree with you on that. Having to drink stuff that makes you want to vomit, after starving all day is enough of a deterrent. Now you tell people they gotta pay hundreds of dollars, and that affects a hundred million people, and we have a big problem on our hands. And, I'm starting to think more like you about insurance companies. Not sure on the solution, but this isn't going to work.

Here's the thing: the insurance company has to make a profit, that's how it stays in business. But what do they provide in return for those billions a year they make? They pool risk, sure...but if we did that on a national scale, rather than limited ones, the risk would be spread out more, and it would provide the means for EVERYONE to have access to health care. And the more access to health care individuals have, the better the care they get. ERs are not effective health care, not by a long shot.

How is this NOT better than the current state, before or after Obamacare?

This is the biggest argument for single payer, it's cost effective. Fiscal conservatives should go for that...so why don't they?

-- A2SG, I can po$it a gue$$....

 

[Jeffwhosoever]

Here's the thing: the insurance company has to make a profit, that's how it stays in business. But what do they provide in return for those billions a year they make? They pool risk, sure...but if we did that on a national scale, rather than limited ones, the risk would be spread out more, and it would provide the means for EVERYONE to have access to health care. And the more access to health care individuals have, the better the care they get. ERs are not effective health care, not by a long shot.

How is this NOT better than the current state, before or after Obamacare?

This is the biggest argument for single payer, it's cost effective. Fiscal conservatives should go for that...so why don't they?

-- A2SG, I can po$it a gue$$....

I don't own any stock or bonds in insurance companies, so that isn't my reason (if I ever did have a reason to like them).

 

[A2SG]

I don't own any stock or bonds in insurance companies, so that isn't my reason (if I ever did have a reason to like them).

Many of the staunchest protectors of the private insurance industry aren't stockholders either, they are the politicians who receive billions from the industry in campaign contributions.

-- A2SG, was gonna post a link about that, but forgot to include it....

 

[Joykins]

Is anyone on Obamacare? How much is your out of pocket maximum? I'm hearing horror stories about this, and even through employer insurance, our costs have skyrocketed.

My employer insurance is pretty much the same as last year.

 

[Joykins]

You lucky dog. Yes, I was speaking metaphorically.

If you had to have a colonoscopy, what would it cost you? For me, 10 years ago, zero. 2 Years ago, $50. This year, $750. Looks like I've had my last one. I'll just have to die from colon cancer. This cannot be a good development for health care in the United States.

From what I can tell with our current insurance, cost of procedures is going to vary wildly depending on why you get them (if it's routine preventative care, for example), who the provider is, what the facility is, whether you've met the deductible or out of pocket maximum already, etc. So the cost of my son's endoscopy to monitor his esophageal disorder with his current pediatric GI will vary from about $800 to $2800. Luckily I'm socking away nearly the maximum amount in the HSA.

 

[dogs4thewin]

Sure, but it's a common misconception, and I wanted to make it clear. Kinda like the people who still think "Obamacare" is socialized medicine when it's clearly nothing even remotely close to it.



I had one less than a year ago. I paid nothing out of pocket. It was my first, so I can't compare it to anything.



That's a damn shame. Colonoscopies may not be pleasant, but they are very effective at anticipating, and even preventing future serious illnesses, and they should be free or at very low cost on any health plan.

-- A2SG, another reason I dislike the private for-profit health insurance industry....

Dad had one they fond cancer he has relapsed and still hates the bill. Look, here is the ONLY way people have as you say more access ( Which they had to begin with bankruptery prison many places do payment plans is if they WANT it. I was unwilling to accept a liver transplant ( Should I EVER need one) before the bill passed. Guess what I am STILL unwilling to accept a liver transplant a law did not and I could have told you would not have changed my mind on that decision.

 

[HonestTruth]

Democrats running away from ACA?

On the contrary,

Administration officials and advocacy groups have increased their enrollment drives, particularly looking to attract young adults and minorities.

Obamacare enrollment hits 4 million, push underway to hit revised goal – CNN Political Ticker - CNN.com Blogs



And if the Republican states hadn't balked at expanding Medicaid, the signup numbers would be FAR higher today.

 

[Jeffwhosoever]

The fact they are having "enrollment drives" to attract young adults and minorities is a good indication that they are having trouble getting these low expense people into the exchanges. Even if they hit the 38% of those under 30 goal, we don't know the percentage of that group that doesn't have major health issues. I read in the news yesterday that BC/BS of North Carolina is offering $50 gift cards for anyone who has enrolled via the exchanges to fill out demographic information so they can figure out next year's costs.

And yes, they are running from it. This "enrollment drive" is confirmation of panic among Democrats up for re-election.

 

[Jeffwhosoever]

Check this out:

Restaurants charging Obamacare fee - Feb. 27, 2014

 

[Vylo]

Democrats running away from ACA?

On the contrary,

Administration officials and advocacy groups have increased their enrollment drives, particularly looking to attract young adults and minorities.

Obamacare enrollment hits 4 million, push underway to hit revised goal – CNN Political Ticker - CNN.com Blogs



And if the Republican states hadn't balked at expanding Medicaid, the signup numbers would be FAR higher today.

Smart ones are, because between republican obstruction, democrat zealots, and Obama having his head firmly up his behind, the odds of fixing the ACA are slim.

Jeff is a victim of his employer using Obamacare as a scapegoat for something they have wanted to do anyway. Many employers and insurers are doing this. They can just say "Dat Obamacurrrr", and many people lap it up to fill their preconceived notions. But all that clouds the real issues looming, which people on the other side are ignoring, because their preconceived notions of Obamacare being some kind of cure-all have blinded them.

The reason behind Jeff's employer making that move is real. It is just 4 years away, so they had no reason to do so other than they had a cop out. But what about in 4 years? Do you think companies will just absorb a sudden 40% excise tax dropped on them like a bomb? If I was an employer with such a plan, I would drop it too.

There are tons of issues with Obamacare, and pretending they don't exist won't fix them. And who will? Some conservatives would repeal it. Great, let's go back to our old spiraling out of control costs. And will democrats fix it? Just like they fixed SS retirement, welfare, etc.?