DescentBB

Spidey wrote: Have any of you wondered why a person with my health problems and no insurance would be against the ACA or more of the same?

I would assume that you are mis-informed, but let us know your reasons as YOU see it.

Cob, please stop saying other countries have the same system and it is working for them. They don't.

Please stop suggesting we don't want affordable care. We do.

We don't want a clusterhump.
We don't appreciate dem loyalists denying the reality and telling us we are trying to kill babies because we can see the empower has no clothes!

Spidey wrote:But, what if there were an even better way…

That would be great, I would totally support going with that, too bad no such thing exists.

Just because socialism isn't perfect is not a good reason to stick with the complete piece of crap we have now. And it isn't like if someone did invent an even better system we couldn't then switch from socialized healthcare to that when it happens, unless people kept the same reasoning you are using now (which is reasonably possible, but would be their own damn fault).

No such thing exists because it would have to be created…duh.

callmeslick wrote:

Spidey wrote: Have any of you wondered why a person with my health problems and no insurance would be against the ACA or more of the same?

I would assume that you are mis-informed, but let us know your reasons as YOU see it.

Like I haven't done that a million times.

Spidey wrote:No such thing exists because it would have to be created…duh.

If it was that simple, don't you think someone would have thought of it already. You are basically talking about inventing an entirely new system of commerce from scratch. It took the entirety of human history to get where we are now with the current systems, it would be more than just a weekend long project to replace it...

No, I’m not, what I envision would be reworking the system we already have, nothing new needs to be created. But it would be drastic, and I’m sure it would get as much resistance from the capitalists as I’m getting from the socialists.

No nothing new needs to be invented…just a major overhaul.

See my main problem isn’t with socializing the system as such…but expecting “our” government to create an efficient system, as I have pointed out before…just look at the military, and imagine a health system run the same way. (you know…the big pharma expecting sweet deals just like McDonald Douglass, and no bid contracts…etc.)

I can imagine the government trying to implement such a thing in the easiest way possible, to avoid all of the tough work, simply laying the social system over the current, and as a result, we would have the most expensive social health system in the world.

Spidey wrote:I can imagine the government trying to implement such a thing in the easiest way possible, to avoid all of the tough work, simply laying the social system over the current, and as a result, we would have the most expensive social health system in the world.

I can agree completely, and unfortunately I think the system will only get better when the American zeitgeist changes. But by the look of things this might be only a decade or two away.

Will Robinson wrote:Cob, please stop saying other countries have the same system and it is working for them. They don't.

Please stop suggesting we don't want affordable care. We do.

We don't want a clusterhump.
We don't appreciate dem loyalists denying the reality and telling us we are trying to kill babies because we can see the empower has no clothes!

if 'we' want these things so much, how come 'we' don't come up with a single proposal? If the ACA has no clothes, to use that analogy, then why are you so anxious to kill it before it proves to be so, rather than prevent it from coming into full effect for a while?

callmeslick wrote:

if 'we' want these things so much, how come 'we' don't come up with a single proposal? If the ACA has no clothes, to use that analogy, then why are you so anxious to kill it before it proves to be so, rather than prevent it from coming into full effect for a while?

Slick it is already proven to be a train wreck.

First be have letters of cancellation, then because the website is so screwed up, Obama has to tell insurance co. to rescind the letters.

The employer mandate is set back until after the 2014 because if it went into effect when it should of, no Democrat would be re-elected.

The individual mandate had to be set back because team Obama hired the absolute worst web site designer possible and after 3 months the failed website designer is fired.

So I ask you slick, with all this incompetency, how long does one have to wait until it "proves" to be effective?

woodchip wrote:

callmeslick wrote:

if 'we' want these things so much, how come 'we' don't come up with a single proposal? If the ACA has no clothes, to use that analogy, then why are you so anxious to kill it before it proves to be so, rather than prevent it from coming into full effect for a while?

Slick it is already proven to be a train wreck.

not really. Several million people now have insurance who didn't. Several million more are covered who were previously denied due to pre-existing conditions. Women's health care for all women is covered now, as are a lot of young folks on family policies. Hardly a 'train wreck'. And, in fact, that is the whole beef by me: you all are quick to declare a 'disaster' when there isn't one. Like the Death Panel scare tactics, it just keeps continuing. So, there were some inital glitches. There were with Medicare, we still have that. There were lots with Part D, we still have that. Further, both of those two examples are now nearly sacred-cows or political third-rails and are seen as massively popular with the voting public.

So a couple million who had no insurance now have it? Sounds like a rousing success considering:

"About 44 million people in this country have no health insurance, and another 38 million have inadequate health insurance. This means that nearly one-third of Americans face each day without the security of knowing that, if and when they need it, medical care is available to them and their families."
http://www.pbs.org/healthcarecrisis/uninsured.html

I'd say that's a great start considering the circumstances both with the website problems and the lack of participation by a handful of governors.

So yeah woodchip, you're right, a rousing success story!!

callmeslick wrote:

Will Robinson wrote:Cob, please stop saying other countries have the same system and it is working for them. They don't.

Please stop suggesting we don't want affordable care. We do.

We don't want a clusterhump.
We don't appreciate dem loyalists denying the reality and telling us we are trying to kill babies because we can see the empower has no clothes!

if 'we' want these things so much, how come 'we' don't come up with a single proposal? If the ACA has no clothes, to use that analogy, then why are you so anxious to kill it before it proves to be so, rather than prevent it from coming into full effect for a while?

I don't want to kill it!
I have accepted the premise it is too late to stop the Fed from being in the middle of 'solving' high health care costs. And I have said as much a number of times!
Unlike you however, I have no reason to accept the complete disaster, that keeps getting worse, they have created instead of asking for a real solution and I have called out repubs and dems alike for not stepping up with a change to existing law to move us toward a better end than EITHER party is poised to accept right now!

Now it is all just a war to win on the political front from both sides. To hell with the actual health coverage we citizens are left with! It's all about public perception and damage control. That's what you are all about too!

You don't really pay attention to substance and the nuance you are so fond of pointing to when it serves you. You just classify everything that challenges anything your political team supports as the work of the enemy and you spout off crap about it regardless of reality.

Will Robinson wrote:You don't really pay attention to substance and the nuance you are so fond of pointing to when it serves you. You just classify everything that challenges anything your political team supports as the work of the enemy and you spout off crap about it regardless of reality.

You, apparently, don't rub shoulders with dyed-in-the-wool Democrats often.......First off, I don't view much of any one or any group as 'the enemy'...we are all in this crap together. Second, I live for nuance, and would love you to point out the 'nuance' I am NOT paying attention to. Feel free, go ahead, please.

Funny slick, how the only people you call loons are conservatives...never liberals. Where's the nuance in that?

callmeslick wrote:

Will Robinson wrote:You don't really pay attention to substance and the nuance you are so fond of pointing to when it serves you. You just classify everything that challenges anything your political team supports as the work of the enemy and you spout off crap about it regardless of reality.

You, apparently, don't rub shoulders with dyed-in-the-wool Democrats often.......First off, I don't view much of any one or any group as 'the enemy'...we are all in this crap together. Second, I live for nuance, and would love you to point out the 'nuance' I am NOT paying attention to. Feel free, go ahead, please.

I'm using the term nuance loosely...facetiously in fact! Because it wasn't subtle the way I have called it for what it is, a pox on both houses!
Yet you see fit to ignore everything I've said, even in text conversations here between the two of us on the very subject!

If you truly were attuned to nuance then you certainly should have remembered the blazing obvious!!

You ignore that and try to dismiss my position as one that wants to kill ACA! There is nothing nuanced to my comments that separate me from those who only want it to fail outright. Nor is there any nuance to your tactics. They are just as shallow as can be. Nothing that a first-campaign volunteer doesn't repeat verbatim.

Because that is your mission.
Not to engage in any conversation that includes an honest assessment of Obama's pet project and how it is spiralling out of control with all of us living in the target zone of the debris!
Yes repubs are trying to let it fail, but that is in no way an excuse for the rest of the players to pretend it is working fine as they cross their fingers in hopes it doesn't crash before their mid term elections!

You are only interested in stifling debate and trying to prop up the ACA spinning some deluded fantasy that it really is only going to cost what he said....that if you don't get to keep your plan or doctor then you will get a better one...that young people are just wowed by those ads and flocking to buy in any moment!
Lol! And you probably think Michelle doesn't fart and only pees Ginger Ale too!

All I can say and it was what I expected all along. They got everybody to cheer for new healthcare, then hoisted the burden right on their backs. That sounds to me like capitalists starting to think like socialists. That's why we are screwed not to evolve and adapt the circumstances. It goes against the laws of nature.

CobGobbler wrote:I'd say that's a great start considering the circumstances both with the website problems and the lack of participation by a handful of governors.

So yeah woodchip, you're right, a rousing success story!!

The failure Cob, was at the very beginning, when Dems controlled everything and trotted out their health plan that was probably sitting on their shelf from when Hillary tried to pass it back in the 90's. No debate, no input from the public....just 3000 pages of confusion. If there would of been honest debate I suspect something far better would of been enacted than the clusterfuck we see now. Govt agency's are never efficient nor cost effective. In the end the Obamacare program will see ever more debt piling onto what this country has already.

And if you still think it is a rousing success you might want to do a little google search and see how many people lost their insurance because of AHC and cannot get on medicaid nor are entitled to subsidies because they make a bit over to qualify.

Oh and read here about how wonderful Obamacare is:

http://dailycaller.com/2014/01/14/this- ... res-fault/

woodchip wrote:Funny slick, how the only people you call loons are conservatives...never liberals. Where's the nuance in that?

maybe in your reading here(I don't know, and couldn't be bothered to go back and check everything I've written), but trust me, Progressive sites have seen that word used A LOT for various wacky far-left idealists.

Will Robinson wrote:You are only interested in stifling debate and trying to prop up the ACA spinning some deluded fantasy that it really is only going to cost what he said....that if you don't get to keep your plan or doctor then you will get a better one...that young people are just wowed by those ads and flocking to buy in any moment!
Lol! And you probably think Michelle doesn't fart and only pees Ginger Ale too!

Well, nice of you to show disrespect for the First Lady in making your feeble point, but no, my 'mission' is nothing of the sort you describe. The moment you, or anyone self-described as 'Conservative' comes up with a real flesh-and-bones plan to address the costs of healthcare and the lack of coverage that impoverishes a few million of my fellow citizens, I'm all ears. Until then, I just get tired of the whining and complaining, especially when it consists of as much guesswork and forward predictions as it does hard facts. Let's face it, I've had(on here) to slog through a couple years of made up horror stories, that didn't come to pass, along with some flagrantly bogus tax threats that were posted and on and on. The track record from our more right-wing members here just isn't too good in the truth and accuracy department. I'm still waiting for something a bit more constructive.

Why bother…you would just trash the plan with one of your absolute denials.

callmeslick wrote:

Will Robinson wrote:You are only interested in stifling debate and trying to prop up the ACA spinning some deluded fantasy that it really is only going to cost what he said....that if you don't get to keep your plan or doctor then you will get a better one...that young people are just wowed by those ads and flocking to buy in any moment!
Lol! And you probably think Michelle doesn't fart and only pees Ginger Ale too!

Well, nice of you to show disrespect for the First Lady in making your feeble point,

I'm not sure how you can draw disrespect for her from my comments. They clearly were assigning judgement to you...not her. But I understand your kind never pass on any opportunity to play one of your race cards or sexist cards etc., no matter how ridiculously conceived the application is.
Lets make it real clear. I was talking about how your propping up the ACA rhetoric is deluded. It is your state of mind. Your disingenuousness. Your ridiculous partisan nature that I'm calling out. Not the chemical content of the First Lady's urine or flatulence....I'm confident she farts and pees just like the rest of us.

callmeslick wrote:but no, my 'mission' is nothing of the sort you describe. The moment you, or anyone self-described as 'Conservative' comes up with a real flesh-and-bones plan to address the costs of healthcare

Been there, done that. Your lack of memory or comprehension doesn't give you license to rewrite history.

callmeslick wrote:... Let's face it, I've had(on here) to slog through a couple years of made up horror stories, that didn't come to pass, along with some flagrantly bogus tax threats that were posted and on and on.

And you have completely denied many of those kind of failures in the ACA and our Presidents statements that absolutely deserve the criticism. Those failures DID come to pass! You are just trying more of your mis-direction. Bad magician...we all see whats in your other hand.

callmeslick wrote:I'm still waiting for something a bit more constructive.

Yea? So what! So are all the rest of us who aren't afraid to call it like it is.
I would have thought such a connoisseur of nuance as yourself would have no problem recognizing the difference between a glitch and a train wreck! Maybe it just wasn't subtle enough for your highly tuned sensibilities.

Spidey wrote:Why bother…you would just trash the plan with one of your absolute denials.

still waiting, and have been for a year or more here.....nice dodge, though.

callmeslick wrote:

Spidey wrote:Why bother…you would just trash the plan with one of your absolute denials.

still waiting, and have been for a year or more here.....nice dodge, though.

That's it. You are officially notified that your certification for working with nuance has been revoked.

Slick there is a better plan, one that showed conclusively that it works. I believe Fla was an example where the Govt. only allowed a few health insurers in to do business. As a result the premiums were high. At some point Fla decided to let a lot more insurers in and guess what? Premiums went down dramatically. Doesn't take rocket science slick. Just let more competition into the market and perhaps things will get better. Instead of our govt. telling us we can't buy our drugs in Canada because they are cheaper, perhaps they should be allowing us to buy where the market is indeed more competitive.

Woody has the most valid point. You mean after hearing about Universal Healthcare from the time I was a child, It's finally passed at a time when neither side can agree on what time it is and without any debate or discussion prior. Just that tells me all I need to know about the nature of the ACA.

flip wrote:You mean after hearing about Universal Healthcare from the time I was a child, It's finally passed at a time when neither side can agree on what time it is and without any debate or discussion prior. Just that tells me all I need to know about the nature of the ACA.

Wait, did we pass universal healthcare? When did this happen? I guess since there was no debate I wouldn't have heard about it...

Exactly I bet you don't remember the reason cigarettes went from 50 cents a pack to 4 bucks over night was so that smokers could be covered also.

woodchip wrote:Slick there is a better plan, one that showed conclusively that it works. I believe Fla was an example where the Govt. only allowed a few health insurers in to do business. As a result the premiums were high. At some point Fla decided to let a lot more insurers in and guess what? Premiums went down dramatically. Doesn't take rocket science slick. Just let more competition into the market and perhaps things will get better. Instead of our govt. telling us we can't buy our drugs in Canada because they are cheaper, perhaps they should be allowing us to buy where the market is indeed more competitive.

Pharmaceutical example is terrible, Woody. First off, Canadian pharmacies are subsidized by their government, second, US pharmacy prices are inflated not due to competition, but due to Big Pharma lobbies getting extra research dollars out of our set prices.
Oh, and it is no accident, whatsoever, that Florida had the highest per-capita number of cancelled substandard policies. Their prices dropped less due to competition than what they did to get all those insurers to participate. They allowed licensure for companies selling dirt cheap coverage that amounted to essentially NO COVERAGE. In other words, they allowed their citizens to get fleeced. Very responsible governance........yeesh!

well, that didn't work out too well. Got the tax, but didn't get the healthcare plan passed.

Well, Cover Oregon has done a mega faceplant. We're either the worst, or the third worst, depending on where you read the information, in the whole country, for state run exchanges failing to enroll the required number of people for the ACA to work. What an epic fail.

http://www.statesmanjournal.com/article ... worst-U-S-

http://sacramento.cbslocal.com/2014/01/ ... ird-worst/

TC, your state is considering dropping the state website altogether:

"SALEM, Ore. (AP) — State lawmakers grilled the leader of Oregon's troubled health insurance exchange about whether Cover Oregon's technology and reputation can ever recover from widespread problems with its online enrollment system.

Several Republican lawmakers asked if it's time to drop Cover Oregon and have the federal government run Oregon's exchange instead, as it does for 36 other states."

http://m.ktvz.com/news/conger-urges-gov ... index.html

Like that's going to fix things.

despite that, it seems to me that I read that Oregon has gotten more people(per capital) who previously didn't have insurance, into coverage. Much of that was likely expansion of Medicaid, but that beats nothing for those thousands of people.

Slick, when are people going to realize that making sure people have "insurance coverage" isn't the same as getting good, affordable "health care"? The ACA is a bastard marriage of convenience for the health insurance companies, a windfall for them and a ripoff for us, the patients. We won't get cheaper health care out of this mess of a law one little bit. It will not control our costs, ever. I'm already paying higher premiums because of it. It will eventually fail, just you wait. The failures of many of the websites will pale in comparison to either the collapse of the ACA because not enough young people sign up, or the Republicans get in office in the future and gut it, or the eventual backlash against it by most people because of continuing high costs. Our current health care system is an bloated, overpriced and non-transparent mess that's just waiting to implode.

tunnelcat wrote:Slick, when are people going to realize that making sure people have "insurance coverage" isn't the same as getting good, affordable "health care"?

obviously, there are differences, but given the health care provider status quo, the ONLY way to get close is via insurance coverage. Sure, I'd love to revolutionize the delivery of critical care and preventative care, and the intelligent merger of diagnostic testing with those, but that isn't happening overnight.

The ACA is a bastard marriage of convenience for the health insurance companies, a windfall for them and a ripoff for us, the patients. We won't get cheaper health care out of this mess of a law one little bit. It will not control our costs, ever. I'm already paying higher premiums because of it. It will eventually fail, just you wait. The failures of many of the websites will pale in comparison to either the collapse of the ACA because not enough young people sign up, or the Republicans get in office in the future and gut it, or the eventual backlash against it by most people because of continuing high costs. Our current health care system is an bloated, overpriced and non-transparent mess that's just waiting to implode.

admittedly, the ACA is but a band aid, and it is what we got because around 40% of the population still thinks that healthcare should be a profit center and not a public service. Until that changes, nothing else will, so accept that the ACA has brought incremental positives without adding any significant negatives to the mix.

Health care only became a “profit center” with the introduction of insurance…Medicare and employer based.

Before that doctors made house calls and charged based on means. And that is the key to why health care is so damn expensive, and won’t change much under single payer.

Sure the administrative costs may come down, and we may see slight a decrease in costs due to insurance profits, but the industry as a whole won’t have to change much, because they will be billing big rich Uncle Sam, instead of you.

As long as it’s some large faceless company or government getting billed, I don’t see the culture changing very much.

And don’t start saying price controls and such, because these things don’t need single payer.

Spidey wrote:Health care only became a “profit center” with the introduction of insurance…Medicare and employer based.

so, before that, doctors didn't make a lot of money, and nobody made a profit off of pharmaceuticals and diagnostic testing? Who knew?

Before that doctors made house calls and charged based on means. And that is the key to why health care is so damn expensive, and won’t change much under single payer.

no, they didn't. Maybe in some bucolic rustic settings, but in larger urban areas, that wasn't the case(except for the house calls), and the doctors who made 'house calls' to treat me when I was young were both wealthy men when they retired.