The Descent Bulletin Board
https://descentbb.net/
tell me about the 'everybody following God's word' part, again. Let's focus a bit closer to home, Flip......flip wrote:Back to the ACA. It seems there is some way to add credits throughout the year and earn money. Kinda feels like an extra job so that some other sonofagun doesn't have to work at all. I've been down 5 years and still refuse disability so I can say this. I have no problem supporting someone weak and unable to do so themselves. If your able bodied and you won't work, I'd let you starve until you begged for food. Ask my children.
Ah, so now you are a backer of big profits for so CEO's can have rich salaries and perks.. How facile. Pharmeceuticals is a prime reason why the AHC is a dumb idea. The clarion cry for those supporting AHC was because all of the people who could not afford health insurance, yet one of the reasons for the high cost was the high cost of medicine. Preventing people from buying out of country is called "Protectionism" and is not conducive to a world economy. You excuse this but have no problem with all those millions of other items being manufactured out of our country to the detriment of all our lost jobs.callmeslick wrote: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.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.
Really? And you have the facts to back this up. Weren't you also saying my health insurance was a trash policy because it didn't have maternity coverage and birth control in it even though I'm single?callmeslick wrote: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!
After 2 divorces and at age 65, the last thing I want is "Dem Bitches".CobGobbler wrote:Was everyone as amazed as I was when woodchip said he was single? I figured he be fighting off dem bitches!
links? Also, Aetna has avoided the exchanges altogether. They tried to give me a quote for the same(essentially) policy that Highmark Blue Cross offered me on the exchage. Aetna was $400 per month more expensive. Let's face it, some companies(especially Aetna and Cigna) want a really high profit margin. Let them suck wind.CUDA wrote:So apparently Aetna say Obamacare sign ups of new patients has been so poor that they will probably have to triple its rates or pull out of the plan entirely
not at all. Read the law(you all should try this sometime.....I realize fortitude is required, and trying to remember where you read what is tough too). There is a cap on annual price hikes for comparable plans, but even that can be overcome via arbitration hearing. Profit margins are not mentioned. It is such a shame that co-ops and other public options were not allowed or encouraged in the initial version of the ACA. I have a guess that if the law is worked upon to better(not kill) it, there will be something done to address that. Those co-ops and public options would keep a lid on profit margins through sheer competition.Spidey wrote:But, I thought profits were now capped.
callmeslick wrote:first off, the number presenting to ERs will drop, because of the mandatory insurance. The covered persons will owe the ER for the tab, and thus will not be inclined to use the ER when covered options are available. Second, the nonsense about insurance coverage costing more is just that, nonsense. Part of the act is to put profit margin caps on the insurers, and frankly, the insurers are far tougher negotiators of rates than private individuals ever would be. And, finally, to address this dreadful(estimated) $80 billion in taxation, the offset is far more than that in government spending that currently goes to prop up ERs around the nation. My comments re: Tax definition, of what are clearly Fees, and Justice Roberts is this. The argument was made thusly(and I agree it is specious, they are not Taxes) to appease Justice Roberts. The so-called 'Liberal' justices would have been just fine with any definition of the ACA. However, Roberts used the Taxation issue as his means of justification for letting the law stand.Spidey wrote:For anyone who believes that using the ER for primary care is going to stop…I have a bridge for sale.
Also the shift from direct reimbursement to paying for care thru insurance is going to cost more for the simple fact that paying for care thru insurance has a built in profit margin.