Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

The PPACA Thread Part III - Let's have a healthy debate!

Collapse
This topic is closed.
X
X
Collapse
 
  • Page of 67
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts
Previous 1 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 67 template Next
  • #721
    Re: The PPACA Thread Part III - Let's have a healthy debate!

    Originally posted by Rover View Post
    But I will say the law accomplished what it set out to. 1) More people are covered. 2) The cost curve is lower than expectations had the law not being passed. In the discussions leading up to the law's passage, that was my criteria for judging success. Done and done.
    Exactly.
    Cornell University
    National Champion 1967, 1970
    ECAC Champion 1967, 1968, 1969, 1970, 1973, 1980, 1986, 1996, 1997, 2003, 2005, 2010
    Ivy League Champion 1966, 1967, 1968, 1969, 1970, 1971, 1972, 1973, 1977, 1978, 1983, 1984, 1985, 1996, 1997, 2002, 2003, 2004, 2005, 2012, 2014, 2018, 2019, 2020

    Comment

    • #722
      Re: The PPACA Thread Part III - Let's have a healthy debate!

      So my (now retired) English teacher from high school and I are still in contact via Facebook. He just posted this morning about his insurance premiums and I was shocked. He started out in the $700s/month for a high deductible plan. The next few years these premiums have jumped to over $1,100 and just short of $1,500 for next year.

      I'm finally starting to see that this is more of a problem than I had thought. I didn't realize how good us working stiffs have it. For a $1,500/yr HD plan, I pay something like $80/mo and put another $80-$90/mo away in my HSA.
      Code:
      As of 9/21/10:         As of 9/13/10:
College Hockey 6       College Football 0
BTHC 4                 WCHA FC:  1
      Originally posted by SanTropez
      May your paint thinner run dry and the fleas of a thousand camels infest your dead deer.
      Originally posted by bigblue_dl
      I don't even know how to classify magic vagina smoke babies..
      Originally posted by Kepler
      When the giraffes start building radio telescopes they can join too.
      He's probably going to be a superstar but that man has more baggage than North West

      Comment

      • #723
        Re: The PPACA Thread Part III - Let's have a healthy debate!

        Originally posted by dxmnkd316 View Post
        So my (now retired) English teacher from high school and I are still in contact via Facebook. He just posted this morning about his insurance premiums and I was shocked. He started out in the $700s/month for a high deductible plan. The next few years these premiums have jumped to over $1,100 and just short of $1,500 for next year.

        I'm finally starting to see that this is more of a problem than I had thought. I didn't realize how good us working stiffs have it. For a $1,500/yr HD plan, I pay something like $80/mo and put another $80-$90/mo away in my HSA.
        Front page of the strib today.

        http://www.startribune.com/minnesota...mps/392058421/

        This law is a joke. And those who say employees are much better off, yeah sure, until your employer is of the smaller or non-public sector variety. Health Care in this country is a disaster. Largest Middle Class tax increase in history.
        **NOTE: The misleading post above was brought to you by Reynold's Wrap and American Steeples, makers of Crosses.

        Originally Posted by dropthatpuck-Scooby's a lost cause.
        Originally Posted by First Time, Long Time-Always knew you were nothing but a troll.

        Comment

        • #724
          Re: The PPACA Thread Part III - Let's have a healthy debate!

          Originally posted by ScoobyDoo View Post
          Front page of the strib today.

          http://www.startribune.com/minnesota...mps/392058421/

          This law is a joke. And those who say employees are much better off, yeah sure, until your employer is of the smaller or non-public sector variety. Health Care in this country is a disaster. Largest Middle Class tax increase in history.
          Weren't y'all hyping it just a few years ago? We warned you about this...

          Comment

          • #725
            Re: The PPACA Thread Part III - Let's have a healthy debate!

            Originally posted by FlagDUDE08 View Post
            Weren't y'all hyping it just a few years ago? We warned you about this...
            Yeah. You warned us. The problem is the status quo was also totally ****ed up. Fact is this country doesn't solve problems anymore. Too much big money everywhere making money off of problems. As long as problems make people rich we'll never solve anything.
            **NOTE: The misleading post above was brought to you by Reynold's Wrap and American Steeples, makers of Crosses.

            Originally Posted by dropthatpuck-Scooby's a lost cause.
            Originally Posted by First Time, Long Time-Always knew you were nothing but a troll.

            Comment

            • #726
              Re: The PPACA Thread Part III - Let's have a healthy debate!

              I wasnt...I hated it from Day 1 for a bevy of reasons. It was stupid when Dole put it forth in the 1990s and it was stupid now.
              "It's as if the Drumpf Administration is made up of the worst and unfunny parts of the Cleveland Browns, Washington Generals, and the alien Mon-Stars from Space Jam."
              -aparch

              "Scenes in "Empire Strikes Back" that take place on the tundra planet Hoth were shot on the present-day site of Ralph Engelstad Arena."
              -INCH

              Of course I'm a fan of the Vikings. A sick and demented Masochist of a fan, but a fan none the less.
              -ScoobyDoo 12/17/2007

              Comment

              • #727
                Re: The PPACA Thread Part III - Let's have a healthy debate!

                Originally posted by ScoobyDoo View Post
                Front page of the strib today.

                http://www.startribune.com/minnesota...mps/392058421/

                This law is a joke. And those who say employees are much better off, yeah sure, until your employer is of the smaller or non-public sector variety. Health Care in this country is a disaster. Largest Middle Class tax increase in history.
                5mn_major loves it, he's saving a ton by using the exchanges! Bwahahahaha! LOL, indeed.
                "The party told you to reject the evidence of your eyes and ears. It was their final, most essential command." George Orwell, 1984

                "One does not simply walk into Mordor. Its Black Gates are guarded by more than just Orcs. There is evil there that does not sleep, and the Great Eye is ever watchful. It is a barren wasteland, riddled with fire and ash and dust, the very air you breathe is a poisonous fume." Boromir

                "Good news! We have a delivery." Professor Farnsworth

                Comment

                • #728
                  Re: The PPACA Thread Part III - Let's have a healthy debate!

                  Something to look forward to when you get your single payer... http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2016...operations-by/

                  Comment

                  • #729
                    Re: The PPACA Thread Part III - Let's have a healthy debate!

                    Originally posted by St. Clown View Post
                    5mn_major loves it, he's saving a ton by using the exchanges!
                    The government does not set health insurance pricing and premiums.

                    Under the ACA, health care cost increases in 2015 were the lowest EVER MEASURED.

                    http://www.milliman.com/mmi/

                    Yet prices charged for health insurance are on their way up. Price hikes are all on the insurance companies. For the fifth time Clown, the government does NOT dictate insurance pricing.
                    Go Gophers!

                    Comment

                    • #730
                      Re: The PPACA Thread Part III - Let's have a healthy debate!

                      Originally posted by 5mn_Major View Post
                      The government does not set health insurance pricing and premiums.

                      Under the ACA, health care cost increases in 2015 were the lowest EVER MEASURED.

                      http://www.milliman.com/mmi/

                      Yet prices charged health insurance are on their way up. Price hikes are all on the insurance companies. For the fifth time Clown, the government does NOT dictate insurance pricing.
                      Pricing requests are submitted by the insurance companies to the state government. The state government then either approves or rejects those pricing requests. How is the state not complicit in pricing the product?
                      "The party told you to reject the evidence of your eyes and ears. It was their final, most essential command." George Orwell, 1984

                      "One does not simply walk into Mordor. Its Black Gates are guarded by more than just Orcs. There is evil there that does not sleep, and the Great Eye is ever watchful. It is a barren wasteland, riddled with fire and ash and dust, the very air you breathe is a poisonous fume." Boromir

                      "Good news! We have a delivery." Professor Farnsworth

                      Comment

                      • #731
                        Re: The PPACA Thread Part III - Let's have a healthy debate!

                        Originally posted by St. Clown View Post
                        Pricing requests are submitted by the insurance companies to the state government. The state government then either approves or rejects those pricing requests. How is the state not complicit in pricing the product?
                        That doesn't mean they're directly dictating pricing.

                        Comment

                        • #732
                          Re: The PPACA Thread Part III - Let's have a healthy debate!

                          Originally posted by FlagDUDE08 View Post
                          That doesn't mean they're directly dictating pricing.
                          They have the power to reject pricing requests. The state receives the data from the companies as to why those companies believe their products should be priced as such. If the state's reviewers (auditors) believe that the company(ies) in question is looking for an egregious profit or should instead expect a loss, then they are bound by law to reject the proposed pricing changes.

                          My point isn't at all that any of this should be a surprise to anyone. It's that people actually expected the product to inherently change because the Feds grabbed more control of what the product does. The only way to control price increases the way the Obama administration promised while selling the PPACA to the public and politicians alike is for the Feds to increase the direct subsidies to the end consumers. Anyone who's studied economics will tell you that then this will relieve pricing discipline press from the supplier, and prices will further rise at unsustainable rates. Or you let the consumers suffer the pricing increases.

                          In essence, we're repeating exactly what we've done with college tuition assistance plans over the past three decades, only now we're applying it to a product that people consider more serious and with fewer legal options for the consumers to use.
                          "The party told you to reject the evidence of your eyes and ears. It was their final, most essential command." George Orwell, 1984

                          "One does not simply walk into Mordor. Its Black Gates are guarded by more than just Orcs. There is evil there that does not sleep, and the Great Eye is ever watchful. It is a barren wasteland, riddled with fire and ash and dust, the very air you breathe is a poisonous fume." Boromir

                          "Good news! We have a delivery." Professor Farnsworth

                          Comment

                          • #733
                            Re: The PPACA Thread Part III - Let's have a healthy debate!

                            Originally posted by St. Clown View Post
                            Pricing requests are submitted by the insurance companies to the state government. The state government then either approves or rejects those pricing requests. How is the state not complicit in pricing the product?
                            Because all these price increases have gone through.

                            You've got this totally backwards. The government regulatory action's role would be to stop insurance prices from going up.
                            Go Gophers!

                            Comment

                            • #734
                              Re: The PPACA Thread Part III - Let's have a healthy debate!

                              Originally posted by St. Clown View Post
                              In essence, we're repeating exactly what we've done with college tuition assistance plans over the past three decades, only now we're applying it to a product that people consider more serious and with fewer legal options for the consumers to use.
                              Hmm. This is interesting. It's the first reasonable argument I've read from the anti- side.
                              Cornell University
                              National Champion 1967, 1970
                              ECAC Champion 1967, 1968, 1969, 1970, 1973, 1980, 1986, 1996, 1997, 2003, 2005, 2010
                              Ivy League Champion 1966, 1967, 1968, 1969, 1970, 1971, 1972, 1973, 1977, 1978, 1983, 1984, 1985, 1996, 1997, 2002, 2003, 2004, 2005, 2012, 2014, 2018, 2019, 2020

                              Comment

                              • #735
                                Re: The PPACA Thread Part III - Let's have a healthy debate!

                                Originally posted by St. Clown View Post
                                They have the power to reject pricing requests. The state receives the data from the companies as to why those companies believe their products should be priced as such. If the state's reviewers (auditors) believe that the company(ies) in question is looking for an egregious profit or should instead expect a loss, then they are bound by law to reject the proposed pricing changes.

                                My point isn't at all that any of this should be a surprise to anyone. It's that people actually expected the product to inherently change because the Feds grabbed more control of what the product does. The only way to control price increases the way the Obama administration promised while selling the PPACA to the public and politicians alike is for the Feds to increase the direct subsidies to the end consumers. Anyone who's studied economics will tell you that then this will relieve pricing discipline press from the supplier, and prices will further rise at unsustainable rates. Or you let the consumers suffer the pricing increases.

                                In essence, we're repeating exactly what we've done with college tuition assistance plans over the past three decades, only now we're applying it to a product that people consider more serious and with fewer legal options for the consumers to use.
                                That still doesn't mean they're dictating a specific number, which is the point 5mn_major is trying to make. I'll definitely give you that subsidies will push up prices, just like college. One thing that must also be considered, especially in cronyist economics, is that lobbying and similar relations can have a large effect. Even if a viable alternative to EpiPen were to be approved by the FDA, states could still reject it based on Mylan's lobbying.

                                Comment

                                Previous 1 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 67 template Next
                                Working...
                                X