You get to keep your doctor

[Tunnelcat]

I smelled a rat 2 years ago. Never believe a politician who sugarcoats anything.

You smelled, then you voted for it anyway.

Like Romney was any better. He never kept the same stance or position on ANYTHING. Even if he was elected, yes, Obamacare would be gone, but health costs would STILL be rising at an alarming rate, with no solution in sight. What a choice.

[Will Robinson]

I smelled a rat 2 years ago. Never believe a politician who sugarcoats anything.

You smelled, then you voted for it anyway.

Like Romney was any better. He never kept the same stance or position on ANYTHING. Even if he was elected, yes, Obamacare would be gone, but health costs would STILL be rising at an alarming rate, with no solution in sight. What a choice.

Why support either one?
As long as people rationalize they have good reason to ultimately support the status quo it will never change and they have no right to complain about the 'smell'...

[woodchip]

I smelled a rat 2 years ago. Never believe a politician who sugarcoats anything.

You smelled, then you voted for it anyway.

Even if he was elected, yes, Obamacare would be gone, but health costs would STILL be rising at an alarming rate, with no solution in sight. What a choice.

And doubling or tripling the cost in one year due to Obamacare is not alarming?

[callmeslick]

how deep in your lower intestinal tract did you have to reach to pull that figure out??
no one is going to have costs doubled or tripled. No one.

[CUDA]

how deep in your lower intestinal tract did you have to reach to pull that figure out??
no one is going to have costs doubled or tripled. No one.

Really????

This squares with a recent analysis by the Manhattan Institute that found Nebraskans would be among the hardest hit in the nation, with rates more than tripling for young people.

The study says 27-year-old men in Nebraska will see a whopping 279 percent increase in premiums and 27-year-old women in Nebraska will get an also-shocking 227 percent increase in rates...............


Nebraskans also fared horribly when they analyzed the 40-year-old group. They found 40-year-old Nebraska men will pay 288 percent — the second highest increase nationwide — more under Obamacare, and women will pay 237 percent more — the biggest increase in the nation.

The analysis was based on data about Obamacare’s impact on premiums in states where the feds will partially or fully operate new insurance exchanges, released Tuesday night by the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services. People can begin shopping for insurance on the exchanges on Tuesday and get coverage beginning Jan. 1.

[callmeslick]

sure, at certain age points, we've known all along that costs rise, but overall? Not true. Once again, I am amused at the level of cherry picking. Folks losing coverage? That happens to less than 5% of policies in place, and, guess what? In prior years, nearly 3/4 of the amount of cancellations we see this year occurred anyway, on an annual basis. It's the nature of rock-bottom minimal policies. Costs skyrocketting? For 25 year olds, who, in the past didn't buy insurance, so really where is the valid comparison? Until you all start to consistently mention that middle aged people can now buy insurance, women can be guaranteed health coverage for all common gyn care, sick people can get insurance, hospitals can get reimbursed now for catastrophic injuries to young men(very common, by the way, as young men engage in risky stuff), and no one is allowed to sell people policies which really don't cover much, yet cost real money(like virtually all the 'cancelled' ones), it's really difficult to take the whining too seriously.

[CUDA]

The Affordable Care Act is designed to place health care within reach of all Americans, but the law may end up making insurance more costly for healthy people.


A review of proposed health care plans across eight states shows premiums for those in good health may double or even triple under Obamacare, while costs for people with chronic conditions will likely decrease, The Wall Street Journal reports.

[CUDA]

sure, at certain age points, we've known all along that costs rise, but overall? Not true. Once again, I am amused at the level of cherry picking. Folks losing coverage? That happens to less than 5% of policies in place, and, guess what? In prior years, nearly 3/4 of the amount of cancellations we see this year occurred anyway, on an annual basis. It's the nature of rock-bottom minimal policies. Costs skyrocketting? For 25 year olds, who, in the past didn't buy insurance, so really where is the valid comparison? Until you all start to consistently mention that middle aged people can now buy insurance, women can be guaranteed health coverage for all common gyn care, sick people can get insurance, hospitals can get reimbursed now for catastrophic injuries to young men(very common, by the way, as young men engage in risky stuff), and no one is allowed to sell people policies which really don't cover much, yet cost real money(like virtually all the 'cancelled' ones), it's really difficult to take the whining too seriously.

having trouble keeping your story straight ??????

no one is going to have costs doubled or tripled. No one.

so let me get this right..... you make a definitive comment. you get proven to not be correct. then you twist squirm and babble trying to back your way out of it.



it's really difficult to take you seriously when
1. you either have no clue what you are talking about
2. you are intentionally lying.

which is it??? there is no doubt that you have an appropriate name for this forum

[callmeslick]

oooh, more scary BS. I am middle aged and healthy, and my costs drop. Without a subsidy thrown in. Facts, stubborn facts, again. Note, the thread that was started on here for real experiences. Anyone there report a massive rise in prices? Like I say, CUDA, cherry-picked whining without noting the many merits of the law is just that: WHINING. In my view, it isn't becoming, but I'm sure that won't stop you from continuing.

[CUDA]

so the answer is you lied.......

[CUDA]

the thread that was started on here for real experiences

no one is going to have costs doubled or tripled. No one.

Funny how you could know that information since the ACA has only been open for enrollment for 30 days and the government will not give us any information on statistics in which you could base your definitive statement off of.

yep I'm going with the lie.

[callmeslick]

why the daily whine, CUDA? Seriously, what do you think you gain by this? Does it make you feel better to waste hours on end, cherry-picking your little beefs and venting on here? If so, be well, my friend, if it makes you feel that much better. But, really, you aren't changing any minds, you aren't going to will the law out of existence, and you likely are going to sit there in Oregon, bitter as hell, and watch(over the next 3 years or so) as the law becomes more and more popular. Already, in your state, the uninsured population has plummetted, thanks to the Medicaid expansion. The rest of population will find it beneficial, too, I suspect, and where will that leave this empty-headed string of complaints? Serious question to ponder, IMHO.

[woodchip]

how deep in your lower intestinal tract did you have to reach to pull that figure out??
no one is going to have costs doubled or tripled. No one.

Tell me whose anus your face is plastered to. I already broke down the cost of the 3 various plans:

Bronze 544.00
Silver 730.00
Gold 882.00

My cost right now is 273.00. Silver comes nearest to what I have right now. With no subsidies how do you get "NO ONE" is going to have their costs doubled or tripled. Oh I know...slick says so or someone slick met on the street corner says so so it must be true.

[woodchip]

Already, in your state, the uninsured population has plummetted, thanks to the Medicaid expansion. The rest of population will find it beneficial, too, I suspect, and where will that leave this empty-headed string of complaints? Serious question to ponder, IMHO.

How do you know this when even Sebelius today is saying no figures are available. Another slick says so...so it must be true?

[CUDA]

why the daily whine, CUDA? Seriously, what do you think you gain by this? Does it make you feel better to waste hours on end, cherry-picking your little beefs and venting on here? If so, be well, my friend, if it makes you feel that much better. But, really, you aren't changing any minds, you aren't going to will the law out of existence, and you likely are going to sit there in Oregon, bitter as hell, and watch(over the next 3 years or so) as the law becomes more and more popular. Already, in your state, the uninsured population has plummetted, thanks to the Medicaid expansion. The rest of population will find it beneficial, too, I suspect, and where will that leave this empty-headed string of complaints? Serious question to ponder, IMHO.

No whine here slickster. you made a comment. it was blatantly untrue. and I called you on it. trying to now deflect the issue back on to me wont work. stop being a lackey. and start telling the truth.

[callmeslick]

Already, in your state, the uninsured population has plummetted, thanks to the Medicaid expansion. The rest of population will find it beneficial, too, I suspect, and where will that leave this empty-headed string of complaints? Serious question to ponder, IMHO.

How do you know this when even Sebelius today is saying no figures are available. Another slick says so...so it must be true?

Oregon made them public two weeks ago, regarding Medicaid expansion.
http://www.oregonlive.com/health/index. ... those.html

[callmeslick]

why the daily whine, CUDA? Seriously, what do you think you gain by this? Does it make you feel better to waste hours on end, cherry-picking your little beefs and venting on here? If so, be well, my friend, if it makes you feel that much better. But, really, you aren't changing any minds, you aren't going to will the law out of existence, and you likely are going to sit there in Oregon, bitter as hell, and watch(over the next 3 years or so) as the law becomes more and more popular. Already, in your state, the uninsured population has plummetted, thanks to the Medicaid expansion. The rest of population will find it beneficial, too, I suspect, and where will that leave this empty-headed string of complaints? Serious question to ponder, IMHO.

No whine here slickster. you made a comment. it was blatantly untrue. and I called you on it. trying to now deflect the issue back on to me wont work. stop being a lackey. and start telling the truth.

you DO whine daily over the matter. Whether you see it in yourself or want to defend it by citing my comments(which have been completely in response to obvious smokescreen statements.....I don't come on here or anywhere and extoll the virtues as a post topic, ever), or for whatever reason. It just doesn't strike me as productive. YMMV, each-to-their-own, etc.

[woodchip]

Already, in your state, the uninsured population has plummetted, thanks to the Medicaid expansion. The rest of population will find it beneficial, too, I suspect, and where will that leave this empty-headed string of complaints? Serious question to ponder, IMHO.

How do you know this when even Sebelius today is saying no figures are available. Another slick says so...so it must be true?

Oregon made them public two weeks ago, regarding Medicaid expansion.
http://www.oregonlive.com/health/index. ... those.html

So let me ask you a dumb question. If all it takes is Medicaid to reduce the number of uninsured, then why do we have the dog and pony show called AHC? And you do realize that the more people in Medicaid, the less money is going into the AHC coffers. Guess what happens when the AHC doesn't take in enough monet to support itself.

[callmeslick]

if you read the article, and assuming Oregon is typical(bear in mind, a few GOP governors refused to expand Medicaid, too), the Medicaid thing reduces the number of uninsured by 10-15%, potentially up to maybe 20%. That still leaves 80% of the uninsured to cope with. It is the hope that over the next few years, the ACA will get half of those folks off the rolls of the uninsured, although in theory, it could reach to everyone.

[woodchip]

Or just as easily, the low income people will all gravitate to Medicaid. If so AHC is screwed.

[Spidey]

Medicaid is a ★■◆●ing joke, I know some people on it and that’s their opinion not mine.

[woodchip]

And we are finding out the AHC is a joke also...a horrible one at that.

[callmeslick]

in the spirit of Hallowe'en
http://www.buzzfeed.com/ofa/9-scary-thi ... x_x_eh_act

[woodchip]

Well since slick has said my existing plan sucks I went and found out why. Seems my plan had no birth control provisions, Maternity care provisions nor pediatric care. Since I am a single male I am now relieved to know under the new plan which costs 3 times as much, that:

1) I now have the means to prevent myself from getting pregnant

2) If I screw up and do get pregnant I will have my maternity needs taken care of

3) And when I give birth to the blessed bundle of joy I am comforted to know his/hers pediatric needs will be fully covered

Thanks slick for opening my eyes to how substandard my old plan was.

[callmeslick]

um, woody, what was you hospitalization coverage before? Your mental health coverage(not going to elaborate on the likelihood of need here, but such treatment, when needed, is VERY expensive)? Pharmacy coverage? Caps and limits of other types? So, you now have maternity care? Big freaking deal.

[callmeslick]

Breakdown, according to Brookings and U of Michigan of how the ACA affects people:
http://talkingpointsmemo.com/livewire/c ... -obamacare

[callmeslick]

and, with this post, it's off to Virginia for business/family get-together. You all have a fine weekend, and I'll see what transpires when I return on Monday evening.....

[woodchip]

um, woody, what was you hospitalization coverage before? Your mental health coverage(not going to elaborate on the likelihood of need here, but such treatment, when needed, is VERY expensive)? Pharmacy coverage? Caps and limits of other types? So, you now have maternity care? Big freaking deal.

Well the coverage may not be a big deal but when the cost goes from 273.00 to 730.00 then it becomes a big deal. So parse it how you want, Obamacare is now being viewed as a millstone around millions of voters necks. So when Obama gets caught in the big lie of being able to keep your plan and this happens...from the WSJ:

"My grievance is not political; all my energies are directed to enjoying life and staying alive, and I have no time for politics. For almost seven years I have fought and survived stage-4 gallbladder cancer, with a five-year survival rate of less than 2% after diagnosis. I am a determined fighter and extremely lucky. But this luck may have just run out: My affordable, lifesaving medical insurance policy has been canceled effective Dec. 31."
http://online.wsj.com/news/articles/SB1 ... 0423780446

So as more and more horror stories like this get published in mainstream news organs, guess what that does to someone who out and out lied about keeping your plan? Why the Gallup Poll shows Obama's approval dropping like a stone. Fully 53% disapprove of Obama:

http://www.gallup.com/poll/113980/Gallu ... roval.aspx.

And what does that mean in general? Well when Obama goes to support some democratic hopeful, the voters will just see more lies and be turned off from who he is supporting.

[Duper]

I thought he told us costs wouldn't go up?


...

[woodchip]

Actually he said costs would come down. I guess he meant when you lost your coverage you wouldn't have to pay anything except a penalty to the IRS.

[callmeslick]

I heard an interesting discussion of the media coverage last night, and really don't need to hear the 'media is biased toward Obama' crap after pondering this one. It is obviously great alarming news that people have to pay more for a policy. What they aren't telling you is that virtually every example presented on the major news outlets is WITHOUT the individual's subsidy. In all cases shown to date, the actual costs to the individual drop. The 'lost' policies cited in many cases are absolute garbage. One women was complaining that she couldn't have her old policy, which cost a whopping 54 bucks a month. What, really, do you get for that money?? It turns out, very little. No hospital coverage, no pharmacy coverage, nothing. Also, no mention seems to be on the airwaves of the 2.4 Million people being denied coverage by states in which governors are refusing to expand Medicaid. Most of all, no one seems to mention that the Republicans are offering exactly NOTHING to replace the ACA. They, it is clear, don't give a crap whether folks are not insured, or are paying for no-coverage policies. A study released last week(albeit by a liberal-leaning think tank) stated that a person in the US dies every 60 minutes or so due to lack of insurance coverage. This is acceptable?

[Will Robinson]

I heard an interesting discussion of the media coverage last night, and really don't need to hear the 'media is biased toward Obama' crap after pondering this one. It is obviously great alarming news that people have to pay more for a policy. What they aren't telling you is that virtually every example presented on the major news outlets is WITHOUT the individual's subsidy. In all cases shown to date, the actual costs to the individual drop.

that is bullshiz, a lot of examples I've seen factor the subsidy...or lack of qualifying for it....before reporting the NET cost to the purchaser.

The 'lost' policies cited in many cases are absolute garbage. One women was complaining that she couldn't have her old policy, which cost a whopping 54 bucks a month. What, really, do you get for that money?? It turns out, very little. No hospital coverage, no pharmacy coverage, nothing.

I'd like to see some facts on this specific persons plan since you have the details to make that claim. Show us the details of the coverage you say she had.

Also, no mention seems to be on the airwaves of the 2.4 Million people being denied coverage by states in which governors are refusing to expand Medicaid.

Do the States have an obligation to take on more expense they can't afford. Obamacare has played games with the States and Medicade money. Unlike the Fed, States can't 'print money' to cover bad decisions...

Most of all, no one seems to mention that the Republicans are offering exactly NOTHING to replace the ACA. They, it is clear, don't give a crap whether folks are not insured, or are paying for no-coverage policies.

This is the only thing in your post that is valid in my opinion. Why not just say that and leave out the spin and outright bullshiz? You seem to be hellbent on providing cover for Obama no matter how ridiculous your attempts are.

A study released last week(albeit by a liberal-leaning think tank) stated that a person in the US dies every 60 minutes or so due to lack of insurance coverage. This is acceptable?

Why post that?!? It is multi-layers of bullcrap and nothing but more smoke screen to put it in the conversation!

[callmeslick]

[

Also, no mention seems to be on the airwaves of the 2.4 Million people being denied coverage by states in which governors are refusing to expand Medicaid.

Do the States have an obligation to take on more expense they can't afford. Obamacare has played games with the States and Medicade money. Unlike the Fed, States can't 'print money' to cover bad decisions...

excuse me, but if you read the law, the Feds pick up the tab for several years and it's actually budgeted in, unlike the Medicare Part D drug plan that got through a GOP Congress.

and Will, the other part that you claimed was unnecessary is KEY to the discussion. How long are we, as the wealthiest nation on the planet, supposed to accept that our fellow citizens die, daily, due to lack of insurance for healthcare? I do appreciate that you acknowledge the fact that the Republicans seem unwilling to propose ANYTHING whatsoever to address the issue. Thanks for that. I'd link to the earlier parts, but it was a TV news account that I frankly was catching while unpacking from my trip to VA, so I don't have enough specifics to follow up. The report was citing examples in the print and TV news from around the nation that had been reported, and did the followups.

[Will Robinson]

..
excuse me, but if you read the law, the Feds pick up the tab for several years and it's actually budgeted in, unlike the Medicare Part D drug plan that got through a GOP Congress. ...

The primary objection by the states is the way the Fed, due to ACA, has played games with that money. The NET result is it is a loser for the States. The Obama administration is playing fast and loose with the numbers but the end of the equation leaves the States to pay more.
It's like when Clinton added cops to every state...sure here's the first months salary for the new hire cop on your street but then the Fed money goes away and the City/state was left with a higher payroll expense while Clinton got to say he put more cops on the street! Bullcrap!
I'll bet you were singing his praises for putting cops on the street back then too....

[callmeslick]

..
excuse me, but if you read the law, the Feds pick up the tab for several years and it's actually budgeted in, unlike the Medicare Part D drug plan that got through a GOP Congress. ...

The primary objection by the states is the way the Fed, due to ACA, has played games with that money. The NET result is it is a loser for the States. The Obama administration is playing fast and loose with the numbers but the end of the equation leaves the States to pay more.
It's like when Clinton added cops to every state...sure here's the first months salary for the new hire cop on your street but then the Fed money goes away and the City/state was left with a higher payroll expense while Clinton got to say he put more cops on the street! Bullcrap!
I'll bet you were singing his praises for putting cops on the street back then too....

I agree that there are similarities, to the cop example specifically, but this time the change stays on the Fed tab for at least 3 years. The Clinton thing was VERY obvious, as I recall. They only paid for 6 months, and then what? As I said, I am waiting for another, better plan, and am all for Universal National Health insurance myself.

[Will Robinson]

...
I agree that there are similarities, to the cop example specifically, but this time the change stays on the Fed tab for at least 3 years. ...

Well it's a good thing the need for a viable health care plan is only going to last 3 years too....oh....wait....never mind. I guess it is just a political stunt after all.

[Spidey]

Nobody has ever died from lack of insurance coverage.

This is exactly why we can't have honest debate in this country.

[callmeslick]

Nobody has ever died from lack of insurance coverage.

This is exactly why we can't have honest debate in this country.

sorry to be blunt, but that statement is bull★■◆●. Theoretically, a lot of people who don't seek care could locate free care, but for those not near major hospitals, it doesn't happen, mostly because they don't have the resources to access the free care. Further, lack of preventative, primary care leads to undiagnosed fatal illnesses with a VERY high frequency. So, either you don't care to have an honest debate, or you are simply ignorant of the realities.

[Sergeant Thorne]

So are these people dying from ignorance or a lack of insurance coverage?

EDIT: Maybe if we start air-dropping bundles of tax-payer money in large cities it will save lives!

[callmeslick]

So are these people dying from ignorance or a lack of insurance coverage?

EDIT: Maybe if we start air-dropping bundles of money in large cities it will save lives!

Christian charity from another corner.