Jump to content

Uninsured Rate Continues To Drop Since Obamacare Took Effect.


Recommended Posts

  • Replies 594
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

5 minutes ago, Andras said:

Don't play Georgiaban. That hope and change avatar and "woohoo Obama!" rhetoric was quite funny. Juvenile and trendy but still funny.

I have only had 1 Obama avatar, which was him as the joker. 

 

Also Hope and change avatar, you mean this one?

compute-moss-IT-crowd.jpg

 

So Hope and Change is juvenile, but POLITICAL REVOLUTION is not? You should really be more consistent. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
8 minutes ago, GEORGIAfan said:

I have only had 1 Obama avatar, which was him as the joker. 

 

Also Hope and change avatar, you mean this one?

compute-moss-IT-crowd.jpg

 

So Hope and Change is juvenile, but POLITICAL REVOLUTION is not? You should really be more consistent. 

Bahahahahaha. That wasn't the only one, though.

Yes, political revolution is cheesy. I don't repeat it.

Feel the bern is cheesy, as well. I don't repeat that either.

Point is, son...... you regurgitate whatever is either popular, trendy or what the Hillary machine has been preaching to you.

It started with, as you say, "joining team hope and change"(nerd) and you now you think you have become more wise yet cannot see that you are supporting a candidate that has been spoonfed to you for over a decade 4 years after the "war on women" prop was set up and now use those same sources that attack her opposition as some sort of gospel. All for one reason and one reason only...."Clinton." How funny it is that you're one that thinks Hillary is some champion of diversity yet have forgotten some of the racist garbage she has spouted before in her runs along with the policies she has supported that have particularly hurt those same communities she now depends on.

You're still a fool as a fool would trust every piece of information given to them.

tl;dr do you know what a political attack is? If so, you should recognize one when you see it. If not, you can learn the mistakes of your appealing to authority fallacies.

Please, copy and paste some more political attack pieces that influence your mind so much. Let someone else think for ya!

Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Trout_Farm said:

A liar lying and simultaneously complaining about lies.  How precious.

Wait, Ok. Now I understand. This is coming from our resident poll vaulter. Since his polls proved worthless and bias, our polnut is now having a tantrum. Again, Mr. trout, if americans are forced to buy health insurance why not have an ID? Don't you need an ID to check into a hospital, prove who you are? 

Edited by dirtyhairy
Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, mdrake34 said:

I understand, but you said in the America of old, the government didn't force you to buy anything.  The State of Georgia, and many other states, force any resident that drives to purchase liability insurance.  Do you have a problem with that? 

I'm not talking about Obamacare.  I am only talking about auto liability insurance. 

Not exactly. You don't have to have insurance to drive on your own farm or land. So that's not exactly right. We also have many americans and illegals driving without insurance. We still have the issue with obamacare being the largest tax increase in american history and it's killing the middle income groups. If you also force the barely above poverty line folks to purchase these expensive policy's, what do you think the net effect to them is?

Link to post
Share on other sites
21 minutes ago, Andras said:

Bahahahahaha. That wasn't the only one, though.

Yes, political revolution is cheesy. I don't repeat it.

Feel the bern is cheesy, as well. I don't repeat that either.

Point is, son...... you regurgitate whatever is either popular, trendy or what the Hillary machine has been preaching to you.

It started with, as you say, "joining team hope and change"(nerd) and you now you think you have become more wise yet cannot see that you are supporting a candidate that has been spoonfed to you for over a decade 4 years after the "war on women" prop was set up and now use those same sources that attack her opposition as some sort of gospel. All for one reason and one reason only...."Clinton." How funny it is that you're one that thinks Hillary is some champion of diversity yet have forgotten some of the racist garbage she has spouted before in her runs along with the policies she has supported that have particularly hurt those same communities she now depends on.

You're still a fool as a fool would trust every piece of information given to them.

tl;dr do you know what a political attack is? If so, you should recognize one when you see it. If not, you can learn the mistakes of your appealing to authority fallacies.

Please, copy and paste some more political attack pieces that influence your mind so much. Let someone else think for ya!

Says the guy who buys into a puppies and rainbows healthcare plan. You still have not responded to my post in that thread refuting any of those claims.

 

The only person buying the ******** fed to them is you. All bernie has to tell you is the evil 1% will pay for everything and you buy it. 

Link to post
Share on other sites

You have no idea what I buy, son. I'm only in this and your case because you and another softie try to generalize people everywhere because of **** you read on facebook or reddit.

Let's really call out the BS though. The opponents of the plan are completely ignoring the increased saving to the people, the extra taxes AND the the increase of the minimum wage. I know you purely depend on copy pasta but tell me, is 2% of $7.25 larger or smaller than 2% of $15.00?

Keep telling everyone how Hillary is someone that gets things done. It's feeding you nicely. WHAT has she done? WHAT is her policy to improve the underwhelming ACA? Oh, that's right.... a freakin cap on meds!:lol: And she keeps calling the ACA universal healthcare. That goes to show just how pathetic liberals are these days. Because they have no balls, they get pulled so far right that Bob Dole's plan is labeled universal healthcare. Dem buzzwords, though.

The same woman that showed support for the TPP bill when it had ZERO inclusions for what she now says she wanted. But now that everyone says they hate it, she hates it, too. BTW, I notice that you avoid this question.. HAVE YOU EDUCATED YOURSELF ON THAT BILL YET? Do you maybe need a Hillary imitator to read it to you for beddie bye time?

Link to post
Share on other sites
45 minutes ago, dirtyhairy said:

Wait, Ok. Now I understand. This is coming from our resident poll vaulter. Since his polls proved worthless and bias, our polnut is now having a tantrum. 

Yeah, I remember the last time we had a presidential election and you and your ilk were talking trash about his polls. 

The echo of this board's collective laughter at your expense shortly after will be picked up by alien civilizations eons from now. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
17 minutes ago, Andras said:

Let's really call out the BS though. The opponents of the plan are completely ignoring the increased saving to the people, the extra taxes AND the the increase of the minimum wage. I know you purely depend on copy pasta but tell me, is 2% of $7.25 larger or smaller than 2% of $15.00?

 

Dispute the numbers then. 

Sanders assumes $324 billion more per year in prescription drug savings than Thorpe does. Thorpe argues that this is wildly implausible. "In 2014 private health plans paid a TOTAL of $132 billion on prescription drugs and nationally we spent $305 billion," he writes in an email. "With their savings drug spending nationally would be negative." (Emphasis mine.) The Sanders camp revised the number down to $241 billion when I pointed this out.

Sanders assumes $160 billion per year in savings relative to Thorpe because, they argue, he includes elective procedures like plastic surgery, which single-payer wouldn't cover. Thorpe disputes this: "Cosmetic surgery, really? That's $12 billion a year and in the second decimal of rounding." In other words: There's no way excluding plastic surgery can give you $160 billion of savings.

How can you save 324 billion when we spend 305. How do you save more money than we spend? How do we save 160 billion by not covering a 12 billion dollar industry?  Oh I know, because it is a PUPPIES and RAINBOWS plan. And you bought it like the rest of the ******** he feeds. 

Cmon Andreas just say it with me. puppies and rainbows. 

 

lol @ crying about copy pasta when you throw random numbers out of your ***.( which explains why you support bernie sanders, since that is all he does) The only reason you complain is because the facts do not agree with your puppies and rainbows plan. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
55 minutes ago, dirtyhairy said:

Wait, Ok. Now I understand. This is coming from our resident poll vaulter. Since his polls proved worthless and bias, our polnut is now having a tantrum. Again, Mr. trout, if americans are forced to buy health insurance why not have an ID? Don't you need an ID to check into a hospital, prove who you are? 

Considering how tough it is to poll caucuses, they were pretty accurate with the exception of Cruz/Trump.  And again, Cruz's over performance can be easily explained by his superior ground game there.

Just pointing out that you whining about lying while simultaneously lying in your post (costs didn't skyrocket and actually the rate of growth slowed) is funny.  

No, you don't need an ID to check into a hospital.  That's stupid.  But I don't mind requiring people to have an ID to vote as long as the ID's are free and easy to obtain.  The laws being debated made it very hard and expensive for many people.  So those laws are dumb on their merits, not on principle.

Link to post
Share on other sites
9 minutes ago, Free Radical said:

Yeah, I remember the last time we had a presidential election and you and your ilk were talking trash about his polls. 

The echo of this board's collective laughter at your expense shortly after will be picked up by alien civilizations eons from now. 

 

4 minutes ago, dirtyhairy said:

Someone let radical know he's on ignore and although I am sure he posted a beautiful ballad worthy of shakespearian stanza, he non the less is on perpetual ignore.

Quoted so you can respond to it.  And he's right, your "skewed polls" nonsense in 2012 was hilarious to watch.  Sad and pathetic, but also hilarious.  We all had a good laugh at your expense (as well as SB's).

Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, dirtyhairy said:

Not exactly. You don't have to have insurance to drive on your own farm or land. So that's not exactly right. We also have many americans and illegals driving without insurance. We still have the issue with obamacare being the largest tax increase in american history and it's killing the middle income groups. If you also force the barely above poverty line folks to purchase these expensive policy's, what do you think the net effect to them is?

Ugh. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
13 hours ago, Trout_Farm said:

 

Quoted so you can respond to it.  And he's right, your "skewed polls" nonsense in 2012 was hilarious to watch.  Sad and pathetic, but also hilarious.  We all had a good laugh at your expense (as well as SB's).

Trout, are you still hunting snakes? Or, can you be real and deal with the polls that were wrong, not sure of 2012's, but the Iowa polls and the mass media were all wrong. Answer the simple stuff. As for ID's. I wonder what's easier to get. Healthcare or an ID? Obamacare has been a disaster for years. It's roll out saw mass complications and we see many of it still today. Give me a break on the cost and complications. An ID is less than $20. If you don't have 1 you cannot buy a beer. Tell me the poor you so much care about aren't buying booze and cigs? 

Link to post
Share on other sites
On July 12, 2015 at 0:09 PM, Trout_Farm said:

I've long thought that a lack of empathy is the cause of some very bad public policies. It's like Republicans who rail for years against LGBT members. But then suddenly, when they find out their own son is gay, they realize the harm that society has done as a consequence of that rhetoric. What is so hard about thinking (beforehand) of other people's situations for a few minutes, and trying to understand their perspective and have empathy for their situation?

There's nothing wrong with having empathy. But people have to separate their emotions from passing bad policies justified by their empathy.

Personally, I think this is terrible. It has made it even harder to grow out of the middle class into the upper class. The middle class is more dependent on their employers than ever before. My taxes increased. My deductible increased. And my bi-weekly payments increased. I hate it.

That being said, I have family memebers that love it because they are broke and it gives them very very cheap benefits. Cheap is not an option for me. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
22 minutes ago, pzummo said:

There's nothing wrong with having empathy. But people have to separate their emotions from passing bad policies justified by their empathy.

Personally, I think this is terrible. It has made it even harder to grow out of the middle class into the upper class. The middle class is more dependent on their employers than ever before. My taxes increased. My deductible increased. And my bi-weekly payments increased. I hate it.

That being said, I have family memebers that love it because they are broke and it gives them very very cheap benefits. Cheap is not an option for me. 

It's not about basing policy on emotions.  It's about having some foresight and understanding the issue from the perspectives of others before making policy based on negative stereotypes and emotional reactions to those other people.  

Link to post
Share on other sites
9 hours ago, Trout_Farm said:

It's not about basing policy on emotions.  It's about having some foresight and understanding the issue from the perspectives of others before making policy based on negative stereotypes and emotional reactions to those other people.  

This entire policy played to people's emotions.  Changes were needed, and I experienced that perspective first hand.  I grew up without medical insurance, and I got in a number of accidents where we couldn't afford treatment.  But the ACA went way beyond what was necessary.  

Every problem should have been addressed with regulation.  Setting up the exchange was ridiculous.  That had nothing to do with improving patient care, as every person I've talked to that moved to a plan from the exchange has complained about it.  Every person I know that does not qualify for subsidies has cancelled their policy from the exchange.  And the policy hasn't fixed some of the very significant problems that still exist.

The following could have easily been accomplished through regulation:

  1. Remove denial for pre-existing conditions.
  2. Cap premium increases for higher risk patients.  This would allow the providers to charge a little bit more, and they would likely still increase the costs to their other participants to make up the rest.  Higher risk drivers pay more, as should higher risk people that don't take care of their health.  But I agree with regulating it so that it cannot be extreme or unaffordable.
  3. Offer subsidies based on income bracket.  If you can't afford health insurance but desire it, the government can help by supplementing some of the costs.  The government wouldn't subsidize the premium increases for high risk lifestyles.  If you are a smoker, and that is a 20% increase, you pay it.
  4. Expand Medicaid coverage.  

The following could have been accomplished through regulation, instead of the debate and associated costs of building that dumb*** exchange and defining the policy inclusions:

  1. Cap medical malpractice claims.   Medical malpractice lawsuits and their corresponding premiums to doctors are an enormous driving force of the increased cost of medicine.  Capping them doesn't mean providing an unfairly low cap that would see a victim suffer.  It would just provide a limit on what liability the insurance company would be responsible for.  
  2. Cap drug prices.  The problem with drug pricing did not get addressed.  At all.  
  3. Send subsidy money towards important drugs, not elective one's.  If this was about patient care or public health, the government could have put the subsidies towards buying down the price of pharmaceuticals that are related to sustaining life.  Blood pressure medications.  AIDS medication.  Nah, we'll let the free market determine drug prices, we just want to make sure the public has insurance, even if they can't afford some of the medications they need.
  4. How about the claims process?  At the emergency room, you pay the copay tied to your insurance coverage.  Then you receive a letter in the mail from the hospital with a bill saying your insurance company denied their claim and late fees will be incurred on a certain date.  You follow-up with your insurance and come to find out you have to fill out a claim form online with a questionnaire about why you went to the ER.  Now you think it's all handled and you receive a new bill from the hospital for a remaining balance since the insurance only covers X%.  It takes a freaking accountant to figure out whether or not you are getting screwed.
Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, pzummo said:

This entire policy played to people's emotions.  Changes were needed, and I experienced that perspective first hand.  I grew up without medical insurance, and I got in a number of accidents where we couldn't afford treatment.  But the ACA went way beyond what was necessary.  

Every problem should have been addressed with regulation.  Setting up the exchange was ridiculous.  That had nothing to do with improving patient care, as every person I've talked to that moved to a plan from the exchange has complained about it.  Every person I know that does not qualify for subsidies has cancelled their policy from the exchange.  And the policy hasn't fixed some of the very significant problems that still exist.

The following could have easily been accomplished through regulation:

  1. Remove denial for pre-existing conditions.
  2. Cap premium increases for higher risk patients.  This would allow the providers to charge a little bit more, and they would likely still increase the costs to their other participants to make up the rest.  Higher risk drivers pay more, as should higher risk people that don't take care of their health.  But I agree with regulating it so that it cannot be extreme or unaffordable.
  3. Offer subsidies based on income bracket.  If you can't afford health insurance but desire it, the government can help by supplementing some of the costs.  The government wouldn't subsidize the premium increases for high risk lifestyles.  If you are a smoker, and that is a 20% increase, you pay it.
  4. Expand Medicaid coverage.  

The following could have been accomplished through regulation, instead of the debate and associated costs of building that dumb*** exchange and defining the policy inclusions:

  1. Cap medical malpractice claims.   Medical malpractice lawsuits and their corresponding premiums to doctors are an enormous driving force of the increased cost of medicine.  Capping them doesn't mean providing an unfairly low cap that would see a victim suffer.  It would just provide a limit on what liability the insurance company would be responsible for.  
  2. Cap drug prices.  The problem with drug pricing did not get addressed.  At all.  
  3. Send subsidy money towards important drugs, not elective one's.  If this was about patient care or public health, the government could have put the subsidies towards buying down the price of pharmaceuticals that are related to sustaining life.  Blood pressure medications.  AIDS medication.  Nah, we'll let the free market determine drug prices, we just want to make sure the public has insurance, even if they can't afford some of the medications they need.
  4. How about the claims process?  At the emergency room, you pay the copay tied to your insurance coverage.  Then you receive a letter in the mail from the hospital with a bill saying your insurance company denied their claim and late fees will be incurred on a certain date.  You follow-up with your insurance and come to find out you have to fill out a claim form online with a questionnaire about why you went to the ER.  Now you think it's all handled and you receive a new bill from the hospital for a remaining balance since the insurance only covers X%.  It takes a freaking accountant to figure out whether or not you are getting screwed.

 

 

One of the better posts I've seen regarding the failures of the ACA. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
14 hours ago, lostone said:

Man... how could any republican get behind regulations...  Only deregulation and tax cuts help.

 

 

#beingIntentiallyObtuse

This is a very common misconception, and I fully admit a lot of that misconception comes from Republican representatives with loud voices that don't actually stand for Republican values.  Like most politicians, they stand for the value of the dollars lining their pockets.  I won't speak for all Republicans, but I believe in regulations that are necessary to protect the American public.  I do not believe in regulations that unnecessarily get in the way of economic growth or freedom.  I also don't believe in Federal "programs" that go beyond the scope of protecting the people.  There is a very clear line between regulation that is meant to protect citizens and bloated regulation with policies or programs meant to micromanage people while hiding behind the guise of emotional justification.  

For example, how does the exchange protect citizens?  How does requiring maternity coverage for men protect citizens?  It is a bloated program wasting a lot of our tax dollars with the intention of micromanaging personal choice, hidden behind the guise of solving the existing problems.  We needed a lot of changes, and those changes have still not been made.  A lot of other changes were made that we did not need the Federal government being responsible for.

If you look throughout history, Republicans have been behind many regulatory decisions that were meant to protect the American public.  The Antitrust Act was a Republican-led change, meant to protect American people from big business using unfair practices that hurt the public.  The only reason I use this one example is because of the perception of Republicans trying to fight for big business over the public.  There might be individuals in the Republican party that abuse their influence with their own motives, but that is the exact opposite of Republican ideology.  Republican ideology is about passing legislation that is necessary to protect the people, and not pass legislation that is unnecessary or unjustly impedes on people's freedom.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.


×
×
  • Create New...