Re: The PPACA Thread Part III - Let's have a healthy debate!
No, we don't. That story feels rather incomplete...
No, we don't. That story feels rather incomplete...
USCHO Fan Forum
This is a sample guest message. Register a free account today to become a member! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!
-
The USCHO Fan Forum has migrated to a new plaform, xenForo. Most of the function of the forum should work in familiar ways. Please note that you can switch between light and dark modes by clicking on the gear icon in the upper right of the main menu bar. We are hoping that this new platform will prove to be faster and more reliable. Please feel free to explore its features.
The PPACA Thread Part III - Let's have a healthy debate!
- Thread starter joecct
- Start date
- Status
unofan
Well-known member
I'm callous because your position is absurd. You're acting like private insurance companies haven't been making such life and death calls for decades. But now that you can blame the government too, it's all of a sudden bad.
Hell, there was a mediocre Denzel Washington movie made about this kind of scenario back in the 90s, I think.
Last edited:
FlagDUDE08
Banned
Re: The PPACA Thread Part III - Let's have a healthy debate!
It's not incomplete at all. Health insurers, the FDA, and pharmaceuticals are all in co-hoots. Pharma wants the recurring revenue from treatment that doesn't really work over a one-time remedy that is a cure. So they've lobbied government to appoint FD administrators that will ban the NRR and fast-track the RR, and at the same time, work with insurers for the same fast-tracks, perhaps also paying for some sponsorships.
It's not incomplete at all. Health insurers, the FDA, and pharmaceuticals are all in co-hoots. Pharma wants the recurring revenue from treatment that doesn't really work over a one-time remedy that is a cure. So they've lobbied government to appoint FD administrators that will ban the NRR and fast-track the RR, and at the same time, work with insurers for the same fast-tracks, perhaps also paying for some sponsorships.
Re: The PPACA Thread Part III - Let's have a healthy debate!
I've survived cancer, but if I'm ever in a terminal condition, I hope to Parise I will have a choice to end it on my terms (with assisted suicide). Being able to insure against that cost makes sense to me. I understand now that if I become terminal, spending big money to extend my life by weeks or months with chemo/radiation will not save me but will run up costs for others who do have lives to live. Of course insurance companies will be better off paying for assisted suicide than for chemo for a terminal patient, but given the big picture, I don't have a problem with that.
I've survived cancer, but if I'm ever in a terminal condition, I hope to Parise I will have a choice to end it on my terms (with assisted suicide). Being able to insure against that cost makes sense to me. I understand now that if I become terminal, spending big money to extend my life by weeks or months with chemo/radiation will not save me but will run up costs for others who do have lives to live. Of course insurance companies will be better off paying for assisted suicide than for chemo for a terminal patient, but given the big picture, I don't have a problem with that.
FlagDUDE08
Banned
Re: The PPACA Thread Part III - Let's have a healthy debate!
Maybe that's why they've re-introduced the death tax...
Maybe that's why they've re-introduced the death tax...
Re: The PPACA Thread Part III - Let's have a healthy debate!
That's not going to affect you though Flaggy. Once Hillary is in office and we send you to that gulag of our choice, all of your assets will be confiscated at the time of your incarceration. So, no death tax!!!
That's not going to affect you though Flaggy. Once Hillary is in office and we send you to that gulag of our choice, all of your assets will be confiscated at the time of your incarceration. So, no death tax!!!
ScoobyDoo
NPC
Re: The PPACA Thread Part III - Let's have a healthy debate!
Just an Incarceration Tax.
That's not going to affect you though Flaggy. Once Hillary is in office and we send you to that gulag of our choice, all of your assets will be confiscated at the time of your incarceration. So, no death tax!!!
Just an Incarceration Tax.
Kepler
Si certus es dubita
Re: The PPACA Thread Part III - Let's have a healthy debate!
100 lbs Sugar ... check
500 mg Epinephrine and Auto-injector ... check
75,000 rds hollow-point bullets ... check
1 cmplt set back issues of Jugs Magazine ... check
100 lbs Sugar ... check
500 mg Epinephrine and Auto-injector ... check
75,000 rds hollow-point bullets ... check
1 cmplt set back issues of Jugs Magazine ... check
FlagDUDE08
Banned
Re: The PPACA Thread Part III - Let's have a healthy debate!
Just remember that the "friends" are the most dangerous. They're usually the first to go.
That's not going to affect you though Flaggy. Once Hillary is in office and we send you to that gulag of our choice, all of your assets will be confiscated at the time of your incarceration. So, no death tax!!!
Just remember that the "friends" are the most dangerous. They're usually the first to go.
Wisko McBadgerton
Teaching you how to Bucky.
Re: The PPACA Thread Part III - Let's have a healthy debate!
Good News!
Everybody's probably heard today that ObamaCare premiums are going up dramatically next year.
But no worries! I just heard on the way home that they'll probably just increase something they call subsidies!
So the increase will just all be FREE! Yay!
Good News!
Everybody's probably heard today that ObamaCare premiums are going up dramatically next year.
But no worries! I just heard on the way home that they'll probably just increase something they call subsidies!
So the increase will just all be FREE! Yay!
walrus
Wind up workin' in a gas station
Re: The PPACA Thread Part III - Let's have a healthy debate!
Its only 116% in Arizona.
Its only 116% in Arizona.
Re: The PPACA Thread Part III - Let's have a healthy debate!
Some guy earlier in the thread but still on point:
Some guy earlier in the thread but still on point:
Most complaints about repealing the ACA at this point are confined to frustrated older conservative males who haven't been laid in 30 years and blame the ACA for that. I don't want to name names here (cough..Fishy...cough) but that's pretty much it. But, I'll make it simple. The last two Gooper Presidential candidates ran explicitly on a repeal and go back to the pre-ACA set up platform. One guy (Mittens) lost handily. The other (Trump) is about to get crushed! If people truly felt the way the serial whiners do, why won't the public elect these men President? Dealing with anti-Obamacare people is like dealing with the Flat Earthed Society. Eventually when it turns out you're not looking for solutions but just want to complain, you just set yourselves up as objects of ridicule. That works for me, but I'm not sure what you get out of it.
mookie1995
there's a good buck in that racket.
Re: The PPACA Thread Part III - Let's have a healthy debate!
Mookie's premiums are going up 12% in 2017
Mookie's premiums are going up 12% in 2017
Re: The PPACA Thread Part III - Let's have a healthy debate!
Come work down the street. 5% for me.
Come work down the street. 5% for me.
Handyman
Hug someone you care about...
Re: The PPACA Thread Part III - Let's have a healthy debate!
You are making him give up his tin foil?
You are making him give up his tin foil?
Re: The PPACA Thread Part III - Let's have a healthy debate!
There are only two decisions to make on this. 1. do you everyone covered? If so, folks are paying no matter what. Its either through subsidies or its through more expensive premiums. It really doesn't matter which way. 2. are we going to make health insurance providers compete on price? If not, we'll continue to get the same healthcare but pay ridiculously high prices. That's the decision on whether the markets succeed and whether there's regulations to stop insurance companies from cherry picking their customers.
The two questions will drive the future of our quality and cost of healthcare.
There are only two decisions to make on this. 1. do you everyone covered? If so, folks are paying no matter what. Its either through subsidies or its through more expensive premiums. It really doesn't matter which way. 2. are we going to make health insurance providers compete on price? If not, we'll continue to get the same healthcare but pay ridiculously high prices. That's the decision on whether the markets succeed and whether there's regulations to stop insurance companies from cherry picking their customers.
The two questions will drive the future of our quality and cost of healthcare.
FlagDUDE08
Banned
Re: The PPACA Thread Part III - Let's have a healthy debate!
Most of the boards of directors for those companies are "shared". Conflict of interest will keep the oligarchy from competing with each other. Instead, they will "compete".
Most of the boards of directors for those companies are "shared". Conflict of interest will keep the oligarchy from competing with each other. Instead, they will "compete".
Re: The PPACA Thread Part III - Let's have a healthy debate!
Look, the great myth of Obamacare is that it was going to have two great results -- we were going to get everyone covered by health insurance and we were going to lower the cost of health insurance/health care (revisionist history later changed this to "we're going to slow the rate of growth of health insurance/health care costs).
Here is the problem. A huge portion of the American public was already covered, either through Medicare/Medicaid or through employer sponsored policies. That really hasn't changed as a result of Obamacare.
In the short term did we add more people to the coverage lists. No question. Did we reduce health insurance/health care costs in the short term? There is an argument that we slowed the cost increases in the first year or so, but I think we all see now that is primarily a result of insurance companies guessing at what the rates should be based upon unknown factors created by Obamacare. Once they realized they guessed wrong, the slowed growth victory is going the way of the dildo bird. These 50% annual increases are going to quickly drive those newly covered individuals back off the insurance rolls, and probably take a few more people with them. Which is great. Now, they're not only uninsured but they're breaking the law on top of it.
The next argument perpetrated by the sheeple goes something like, "if the GOP can't come up with a solution for fixing Obamacare, they need to stop whining about it."
Except, the problem is that Obamacare is precisely like the Iraq/Afghan war problem. It his a huge s h ! t pie, and it's not something we can just say, "nevermind" and pretend like we never created it. Pulling all of our troops out of the middle east and simply repealing Obamacare are both incredibly stupid ideas. But the fact that we can't do those things certainly doesn't minimize or relieve responsibility for the lies and misinformation that got us into both messes.
Look, the great myth of Obamacare is that it was going to have two great results -- we were going to get everyone covered by health insurance and we were going to lower the cost of health insurance/health care (revisionist history later changed this to "we're going to slow the rate of growth of health insurance/health care costs).
Here is the problem. A huge portion of the American public was already covered, either through Medicare/Medicaid or through employer sponsored policies. That really hasn't changed as a result of Obamacare.
In the short term did we add more people to the coverage lists. No question. Did we reduce health insurance/health care costs in the short term? There is an argument that we slowed the cost increases in the first year or so, but I think we all see now that is primarily a result of insurance companies guessing at what the rates should be based upon unknown factors created by Obamacare. Once they realized they guessed wrong, the slowed growth victory is going the way of the dildo bird. These 50% annual increases are going to quickly drive those newly covered individuals back off the insurance rolls, and probably take a few more people with them. Which is great. Now, they're not only uninsured but they're breaking the law on top of it.
The next argument perpetrated by the sheeple goes something like, "if the GOP can't come up with a solution for fixing Obamacare, they need to stop whining about it."
Except, the problem is that Obamacare is precisely like the Iraq/Afghan war problem. It his a huge s h ! t pie, and it's not something we can just say, "nevermind" and pretend like we never created it. Pulling all of our troops out of the middle east and simply repealing Obamacare are both incredibly stupid ideas. But the fact that we can't do those things certainly doesn't minimize or relieve responsibility for the lies and misinformation that got us into both messes.
- Status