that evil Obamacare.....

[callmeslick]

....gee, this doesn't jive with the BS that's been slung on here by some:
http://www.msn.com/en-us/news/us/obamac ... li=BBnbcA1

[Spidey]

I refuse to accept any of these “surveys” until people stop using “insurance coverage” and “health care” interchangeably.

Ask 1000 people if they are satisfied with their “coverage” and most all say yes…but how many have had to use it?

How many are still not getting “care” due to a huge deductible?

[Tunnelcat]

Oh, they're getting care alright, but only the really poor, who can get subsidies, obtain it for something that doesn't break a person's bank account. Since I'm now over 60, it's going to cost me at least 4, 5 or 6 hundred dollars A MONTH next year, and it's only going up from there until I reach Medicare age. Even my doctor was cheering that he had reached Medicare age and could finally get on it. Obamacare is going to eventually melt down, because the Republicans put in a bunch of time bombs to piss off people when they helped create the law and costs are still rising for everyone. Soon, we will all reach a breaking point at which most people will no longer be able to afford it. An employer just wrote a letter in our local paper lamenting that he may soon NOT be able to afford to pay for his employee's health care plans either. He was also pushing for Medicare for all.

https://www.thestreet.com/story/1332719 ... -2016.html

[callmeslick]

that simply is NOT TRUE, TC. Most people in the age range of 45 to 65 get coverage that:
1. they wouldn't have even had a chance to purchase at any price, if they have the slightest precondition
2. has been held in check price wise better than before the ACA(at least the last decade before it
and
3. have coverage for things that were not covered before.

[vision]

Obamacare is going to eventually melt down, because the Republicans put in a bunch of time bombs to piss off people when they helped create the law and costs are still rising for everyone.

Doubtful. The people having problems are, unfortunately, a minority. It's easy to think the world is crashing down around you when you have problems, but honestly, the only place I hear people complaining about the ACA is on this forum. I have a wide variety of friends across many income brackets and only one of them ever complains about "Obamacare," but he is a hardcore libertarian in Oklahoma, and personality wise, he brings a lot of problems on himself because of pride.

Soon, we will all reach a breaking point at which most people will no longer be able to afford it.

If it does we will switch to national heath care, so that's a win.

[woodchip]

Soon, we will all reach a breaking point at which most people will no longer be able to afford it.

If it does we will switch to national heath care, so that's a win.

Well lets get a idea of what your idea of win means vision. The indicator is the VA system...you know the medical system that takes care of our vets. So lets see what stellar examples are exhibited:

The Department of Veterans Affairs has mistakenly declared thousands of veterans to be deceased and canceled their benefits over the past five years, a new snafu to emerge at the embattled department.

Veterans living at a long-term care facility in a Chicago-area VA hospital are pleading for congressional intervention over being forced to live the past 10 months with black mold growing in their housing complex.

U.S. veterans are dying because of delays in diagnosis and treatment at VA hospitals.
At least 19 veterans have died because of delays in simple medical screenings like colonoscopies or endoscopies, at various VA hospitals or clinics, CNN has learned.

So vision, be careful about what you deem to be a win.

[Spidey]

National health care…now there is a truly scary thought…in this country at least, I would prefer single payer over that any day.

Thing is…all this country ever needed was a publicly funded system that worked along side the private system to fill in the voids.

But noooo…..

[Sergeant Thorne]

That or stop actively destroying everyone's health... it's a little bigger-picture, but that would work too...

[callmeslick]

National health care…now there is a truly scary thought…in this country at least, I would prefer single payer over that any day.

Thing is…all this country ever needed was a publicly funded system that worked along side the private system to fill in the voids.

But noooo…..

call me crazy...I'm certain you already do. Isn't the above have been what you would already have if the GOP hadn't filibustered away the so called 'public option'?

[woodchip]

I almost answered this without first checking slicks statement. Good thing I did as slick once again suffers the vapors:

Remember the public option? It was, for many Democrats, their absolute top priority during the health-care reform debate. But they didn't get it. A handful of conservative Democrats, led by Sen. Ben Nelson of Nebraska, made clear that if there was a public option, they would filibuster the final bill. And so it died.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/won ... ic-option/

Slick, why do you persist in the false narrative dept? Or are you so mind trained by your liberal handlers that you still cannot do a simple google search?

[callmeslick]

it was those few, along with nearly all the Reps, and you know it. Who, other than Specter, didn't threaten a filibuster?

[woodchip]

Gist of the article lays it at the Dems feet, unless you can show something contrary.

[callmeslick]

sure, the article does, because the article MEANS to, but reality is reality. 45 GOP senators plus 4 Dems. Spin away from there.

[woodchip]

Slick, you should really stop before you have a aneurysm.

[callmeslick]

stop what? I'm just killing time in between fishing trips.

[woodchip]

You're also killing reality. Stick to fishing as I'm sure you are better at that.

[Spidey]

call me crazy...I'm certain you already do. Isn't the above have been what you would already have if the GOP hadn't filibustered away the so called 'public option'?

No, I’m not referring to the “public option” that would have been a government run “insurance” program.

I’m talking about a publicly funded “health care” system, and one of the main benefits of such a system would be the market pressure that it would place on the private system. (which has none)

[woodchip]

More on the brave new world of the public option:

A newly released study hammered the Department of Veterans Affairs for spending a fraction of its budget on new doctors while devoting millions to lawyers and public affairs officials – as thousands of veterans were waiting for care.

Do you honestly believe the govt handling of our health care would be any different from how they handle our veterans health care?

[vision]

Do you honestly believe the govt handling of our health care would be any different from how they handle our veterans health care?

Yes, because they also handle the enormously successful Medicare program whom millions of people depend on.

[woodchip]

Do you honestly believe the govt handling of our health care would be any different from how they handle our veterans health care?

Yes, because they also handle the enormously successful Medicare program whom millions of people depend on.

Not exactly apples to apples. Medicare you have paid a percentage of your income along with matching amounts from your employer. After working and paying for 40 plus years, you should have something good. Still, do you realize you have to keep paying into medicare once you retire? And that you have to pick up a "gap" policy from a private insurer to pick up the costs that medicare doesn't?

[Spidey]

The Medicare system is just a matter of writing checks in its simplest form, a huge difference from “National Health Care”.

Perhaps vision you meant to say “National Health Insurance” or “National Health Coverage” where the system is in fact not a “National Health Care” system but in fact relies on the private sector to do all of the real work.

Perhaps that is what you meant to say.

Personally I believe we should have a public health care system (note I didn’t say national, as per the implications) as this would be the most efficient way to get health care to all that need it and have other benefits to the overall marketplace.

Problem is...most all, if not all government programs seem to be rife with corruption.

[vision]

Do you honestly believe the govt handling of our health care would be any different from how they handle our veterans health care?

Yes, because they also handle the enormously successful Medicare program whom millions of people depend on.

Not exactly apples to apples. Medicare you have paid a percentage of your income along with matching amounts from your employer. After working and paying for 40 plus years, you should have something good. Still, do you realize you have to keep paying into medicare once you retire? And that you have to pick up a "gap" policy from a private insurer to pick up the costs that medicare doesn't?

And your point is? This is a well run government program and is enough proof that it is possible to craft a workable heath care system with the government in charge. I mean, you can keep trying to throw the VA red herring around some more, but it doesn't change the success of other government programs.

Personally I believe we should have a public health care system (note I didn’t say national, as per the implications) as this would be the most efficient way to get health care to all that need it and have other benefits to the overall marketplace.

Problem is...most all, if not all government programs seem to be rife with corruption.

Nah. Considering "the marketplace" is why we have these problems in the first place I don't think that's a good solution. Also, heath isn't something that should be treated as a marketplace commodity. It's essential to a well-functioning society. And corruption is everywhere so it makes no sense to single out government corruption. It least with the government you can vote it out, change the laws, or have a revolution. Once big business gets corrupt the only thing you can do is use the judicial system to fix it. I don't believe that "use your dollar" to change the world bull★■◆●. An impenetrable corporate oligarchy already runs this country and is the source of most of our problems with corruption. The US is fucked up today because of the free market. People are treated like commodities.

[Tunnelcat]

that simply is NOT TRUE, TC. Most people in the age range of 45 to 65 get coverage that:
1. they wouldn't have even had a chance to purchase at any price, if they have the slightest precondition
2. has been held in check price wise better than before the ACA(at least the last decade before it
and
3. have coverage for things that were not covered before.

Oh, I can get coverage, but it's going way up for me. I WAS currently paying $241 a month. Since they dumped me, I started checking into 2016 prices, even though it won't be until 2017 that I can get a more realistic price. As of 2016, a Bronze Plan with a $5000 deductible would have cost me $460 a month, more than double what I'm paying now. By next year, I'm guessing that it will go up even more, probably into the $500 a month range or more since I'm now 60. That's $6000 a year just for insurance! That doesn't even include my out of pocket expenses. That's a pretty good chunk of cash to be doling out for the privilege of having insurance. What an effing ripoff!

You know what slick? Even though I'm solidly liberal and loathe the idea, I'm so pissed off at this whole screwy system I just might vote for Trump this November, hoping he'll keep his promise and dump this piece of crap of a system the first day he gets in office. Nothing like a little pain for the masses to foment a revolution in order to bring about what's really needed, Medicare for all.

[callmeslick]

at your age, with your(stated here) history, you will NEVER SEE insurance without the ACA. Think 500 bucks per month is too much to pay for your own economic security(because that is what we're talking about here)? Try seeing what it costs you, uninsured, when they sue you for the unpaid bill. And, thanks for your lack of concern for your fellow citizens who would either suffer the same economic threat from your goofy Trump voting idea, or worse, like me, have to foot the bill when the uninsured welsh on their debts. Let's face it, were there that many close to a 'revolution' in healthcare insurance, Sanders would be running away with the election.

[Tunnelcat]

at your age, with your(stated here) history, you will NEVER SEE insurance without the ACA. Think 500 bucks per month is too much to pay for your own economic security(because that is what we're talking about here)? Try seeing what it costs you, uninsured, when they sue you for the unpaid bill. And, thanks for your lack of concern for your fellow citizens who would either suffer the same economic threat from your goofy Trump voting idea, or worse, like me, have to foot the bill when the uninsured welsh on their debts. Let's face it, were there that many close to a 'revolution' in healthcare insurance, Sanders would be running away with the election.

Give me a break. Lack of concern for my fellow citizens my rear end. What I have is a strong dislike for my money going towards the profits of the health care insurance companies and drug companies and not towards any actual health care. I'm also against all the non-transparent costs this industry heaps upon us without any accountability at all. It's like buying a car, then getting an unknown number of big expensive bills for who knows how long. It's not even a free market system. Face it, paying for expensive private insurance for every little boo boo is absolutely insane. Insurance should ONLY be for catastrophic illness and it should be OPTIONAL. I'm perfectly willing to pay a low monthly premium in exchange for a high detectable plan and I'm perfectly willing to use any savings that I get from those lower premiums to pay for my out of pocket expenses for everyday health issues. Obamacare does NOT allow that. Obama was crazy to compromise with the Republicans. He unwillingly created a for-profit pig of a nightmare. He should have stuck to his guns and pushed for single payer, but he wussed out. I don't mind paying more taxes that helps fund a single payer system either, since that would go towards the care of every single person in this country and not straight into the pockets of a bunch of greedy insurance CEO's.

[woodchip]

Ah yes, "If you like your plan you can keep your plan". slick, still trying to do the colossal cover-up and convince TC she is really getting a good deal? I had a good BCBCN plan for 230.00 a month. Then Obama's big lie kicked in and I was like TC and going to have to pay 2.5 as much with double the deductible. Since you are supposedly wealthy, it is easy for you to sit back and tell people how wonderful they got it. You should just use Marie Antoinette tag line to show how little you really care. And you wonder why Trump will win in November.

[Spidey]

at your age, with your(stated here) history, you will NEVER SEE insurance without the ACA.

Except she only got “dumped” because of the ACA….duh!

In fact she is a victim of the “if you have a plan you like, you can keep it” lie.

At least that is what I have gathered, reading her posts over the years.

[callmeslick]

Give me a break. Lack of concern for my fellow citizens my rear end. What I have is a strong dislike for my money going towards the profits of the health care insurance companies and drug companies and not towards any actual health care. I'm also against all the non-transparent costs this industry heaps upon us without any accountability at all. It's like buying a car,

I want to give you a break, TC, I really do, but then you post drivel like this. NO, it isn't like buying a car, and moreover, dropping the ACA wouldn't make your situation and reality any better. It would be far worse, that was why some changes were implemented. You suggest that catastrophic care should be optional? How generous you are with the money of all the rest of us, paying for your catastrophic illness, trauma or the like, because that is exactly what happens. Nothing save single payer is ever going to make the insurers get out of the chain, and they are among the prime drivers of cost hikes by providers.

[Tunnelcat]

I want to give you a break, TC, I really do, but then you post drivel like this. NO, it isn't like buying a car, and moreover, dropping the ACA wouldn't make your situation and reality any better. It would be far worse, that was why some changes were implemented. You suggest that catastrophic care should be optional? How generous you are with the money of all the rest of us, paying for your catastrophic illness, trauma or the like, because that is exactly what happens. Nothing save single payer is ever going to make the insurers get out of the chain, and they are among the prime drivers of cost hikes by providers.

At this moment, what I want is the ability and choice to obtain a plan with a $7500 or $10,000 deductible in exchange for a lower monthly premium, period. The ACA does not give a person that choice. Fix that, along with implimenting a new provision to the law that would require all healthcare costs to be transparent to the consumer and you just might make me somewhat happy until I reach Medicare age. Otherwise, the ACA needs to go.

Woody, this has got to be one of the biggest lies any president has ever repeated over and over to the public.

[youtube]qpa-5JdCnmo[/youtube]

[Tunnelcat]

The handwriting is on the wall slick. Premiums are skyrocketing in many states and insurers are dropping out of the marketplace like dead flies. Choices of plans will soon be non-existent and premiums will skyrocket for most people, so tell me how well Obamacare is working now?

http://www.businessinsider.com/obamacar ... -us-2016-5

http://www.forbes.com/sites/sallypipes/ ... e9ea773edd

http://thehill.com/policy/healthcare/28 ... re-problem

[vision]

The handwriting is on the wall slick....
http://thehill.com/policy/healthcare/28 ... re-problem

Did you actually read that article or are you just posting inflammatory nonsense as usual? The article from The Hill paints a generally positive view of the ACA, not the doom and gloom you are spouting.

Get over yourself. You sound like woodchip.

[Tunnelcat]

Then if more people want to see it improved, let's see some improvements, SOON. I'm all for that too, if it were possible, and I'm getting tired of Republicans only trying to nuke the law as their idea of a fix, because their "solution" is to return to the status quo we had before. I'm almost to that point myself, so yeah, I'm starting to sound like woody because I'm getting royally pissed off at getting ripped off. But I see getting any improvements to an already cobbled together Frankenstein of a law as akin to patching up the holes in the Titanic while it's still moving forward in the ice cold Atlantic. It's probably impossible and I don't think Hillary will be able to do much about it even if she's our future president. Republicans seem to hate her more than Obama, so there's only a snowball's chance in Hell of getting the law fixed even under a Hillary presidency (even less of a chance for Sanders). Meanwhile, we all get taken for a ride by the healthcare insurance companies. I also don't see premiums leveling off anytime soon either. Also, what happens if every insurance company leaves the exchange? Will we be left with no insurance choices at all? I can't wait to see what's offered in 2017.

[Nightshade]

An IRS ruling from 2013, based on Obamacare and now going into effect, will force small businesses that offer alternatives to health insurances to drop those alternatives, or face hefty fines.

This ruling applies to businesses with fewer than 50 employees, who supposedly were going to be unaffected by Obamacare. Previously, they could offer their employees stipends to buy insurance themselves, as individuals. Obamacare bans this, requiring the business to either join Obamacare, which is too expensive, or face fines if they provide the stipends. So, the wonderful law that Obama and the Democrats passed instead leaves these workers with less than they had before.

http://behindtheblack.com/behind-the-bl ... -benefits/

[vision]

Blah, blah, blah, Obama, blah, blah...

Hey, there is a doctor who has done some exhaustive research on the beast that is our heath care system. While I haven't had time to read through the hundreds of pages he provides (I have bookmarked it for later) he does provide a summary of his conclusions and the historical perspective is very interesting. Some of it is self-evident, but other parts surprised me.

Check it out. He also did an interesting and insightful reddit AMA. He really knows his stuff. I did a little research on him to find out if he is a crackpot, but he's gold.

[Spidey]

From the doctors blog…

“Seriously though, I think one way to improve our system is to cap how much hospitals can bill. It's been done in Maryland since 1977 and works fin there. It won't fix all of our problems but I like to approach problems one step at a time.”

HA! When I said something like that I was called stupid.

[Tunnelcat]

And I've said it repeatedly as well. The last 3 paragraphs in vision's first link state the problem best and the ACA never addressed this particular issue. Now the only other issue is the inelastic demand of the consumer. With inelastic demand on the consumer side, we may have to resort to some form of rationing to keep costs down. Otherwise, there will be NO market-based reason for companies to keep costs in check. Profits feed profits, even if it is blood money. If consumers wants to live at all costs, they'll want care at any price. If you think I'm crazy, think again. Right now we already have a form of rationing. It's called high costs. If you can afford it, you can obtain it. If you can't afford it, then the insurance companies will take that money from everyone else to pay for yours.

So, what can we do?

Clearly we need more legislation that will both mandate transparency in our healthcare system and protect consumers from over-billing. Insurance companies need to be more transparent in their financial statements. Pharmacies need to be more transparent with prescription drug prices and the bills from all healthcare providers should reflect the cost of the services provided.

Without increased transparency and protection from over-billing, no reform will effectively reduce our healthcare costs or even slow the rate in which they’re increasing. Increased transparency in health care costs would make it very difficult for health care providers and insurance companies to continue operating the way in which they do now.

Most of all, remember: All healthcare reform in this Country will be met with strong opposition from inside the healthcare industry. They’ll say anything to prevent it simply because they’re protecting their own bottom line. If you’ve learned anything from this website, you should know, you can’t always believe what the health industry “experts” are saying.

I'd like to put in an added suggestion. Get rid of insurance for everyday health care. Insurance should only be for catastrophic or life endangering illnesses that require hospitalization. In fact, I'm old enough to remember that it used to be called hospital insurance. Right now, people don't have food insurance do they? House insurance only pays for catastrophic damage, not everyday or common maintenance issues as well. We've all been slowly suckered into the all inclusive health insurance model and it's picking everyone clean.

It's also the reason our state has it's PERS problem with state employees, those high health care costs. Those health care benefits were negotiated way back when in exchange for lower wages when health insurance was cheap. It was also negotiated by union-hating Republicans who didn't want any state worker wage increases and since health insurance was cheap back then, they gave them that to make them happy. So now we're paying the piper and the courts have said that a contract is a contract and we're stuck. Now that it's so expensive, state workers don't want it dropped, even in exchange for higher wages.

[Tunnelcat]

If the "rich" can't afford health care, I mean "health insurance" slick, we have a problem. I'm not even super rich, but it's going to be a sizable hit for me next year and for the next 5 years until I reach Medicare age because I'm essentially on a fixed income for the rest of my retired life. However, health care premiums keep on rising. I'm heading into diminishing return territory. The whole country is. Too high for subsidies and too low to be comfortable with shelling out that much cash per month. Therein lies the problem.

http://www.fool.com/investing/2016/07/1 ... yptr=yahoo

[woodchip]

Yes TC, remember that if you like your plan you can keep your plan. Still feeling the power of hope and change? Don't worry, Hillary will make it better.

[Vander]

http://www.wsj.com/articles/drugmakers- ... 1468488601

Prices received by manufacturers of U.S.-made pharmaceuticals rose 9.8% from May 2015 through May 2016, the second-highest increase among the 20 largest products and services tracked by the Bureau of Labor Statistics’ Producer Price Index. Investment services ranked first.

“You can’t take the price of the iPhone...up 10% a year,” said Geoffrey Porges, a Leerink Partners LLC biotech analyst.

A fragmented U.S. health-care market, combined with a complex system of drug discounts and rebates, makes it difficult to accurately track U.S. drug prices. But companies often describe in regulatory filings the factors behind product sales growth or declines, including the impact of net pricing, after all the rebates and discounts they give insurers and pharmacy-benefit managers are taken into account.

Drugmakers often tout these discounts off their list prices as evidence of a competitive marketplace where powerful health insurers check their pricing power. But drug companies’ financial disclosures show that net prices in many cases continue to rise, and boost revenue, despite these discounts.

“Companies are very fond of saying, ‘No, no, don’t pay any attention to list price increases,’” Mr. Porges said. “The industry sort of hiding behind that is really a diversionary tactic.”

[Ferno]

Did that article just compare medications that people need to survive... to a luxury item?

JFC.