DescentBB

Just wait until the employer mandate kicks in and we'll see how many companies give their employee's raises. It is said one of the reasons the economy is not doing better is the employer mandate and thus companies are not hiring much in the way of new employee's.

how often do we really have to hear, "sure, we were blowing smoke up your ass on THIS one, but just wait until(fill in the blank with the next supposed 'debacle')" ? Do you really feel you've earned credibility?

Perfect illustration.

Ah yes, one business means all the other businesses are going to give wage increases also. Where's my cartoon that shows the land of milk and honey is nigh .

It's NOT doing anything to control costs. That will be what kills it, eventually.

ummm, TC, hospital cost rises are the smallest in decades, insurance rates barely moved upward, on average over the past two years(for equivalent policy). So, yes, to some extent, costs have been controlled. Single payer would cost everyone far less, but, dammit, that's socialist!

True, the ACA is certainly not socialistic with all that capitalism running through it.

http://www.wsj.com/articles/obamacares- ... 1413758684

http://www.pnhp.org/news/2014/may/why-o ... ower-costs

that was the grand 'compromise' by which they were able to overcome filibuster(which would have left the status quo in place). No public option to further pressure prices down, and demonstrate that government group plans would be cheaper and more efficient. Welcome, once again, to American politics.

because you know it's gonna happen.

right click, save.

Obama DID sign this abomination into law, didn't he? He now owns it, warts and all.

tunnelcat wrote:Obama DID sign this abomination into law, didn't he? He now owns it, warts and all.

proudly, because as MILLIONS of your fellow citizens are finding out, it's WAY better than the status quo. I hope, still, it proves a gateway to Single Payer, but at least Obama did something, when 40 years of prior Presidents had failed completely to do anything. Moving the ball forward, and making healthcare coverage a matter for national discourse is, as my old pal Joe was quoted saying, 'a big f-ing deal'.

Yea, he did something, but it was only by putting an infected band-aid on an artery puncture. The patient will either eventually hemorrhage out, or die from sepsis.

apparently, TC, you miss the whole point of starting the process moving forward, or the significance thereof.

I don't think the process was moved forward, but backwards. We've sold our medical care to an uncaring capitalist system under the guise of everyone being required to have insurance. Insurance IS the problem, not the solution.

The crime is the idea that you need insurance to get health care services in the first place.

tunnelcat wrote:I don't think the process was moved forward, but backwards. We've sold our medical care to an uncaring capitalist system under the guise of everyone being required to have insurance. Insurance IS the problem, not the solution.

who the hell do you imagine was running it before? Seriously, you cannot be THAT unaware of reality, can you? All that happened to that dynamic with the ACA was certain restrictions being placed upon the insurers around denial of service and limitations upon price hikes. Both of which have worked, and worked pretty well. Hell, before the ACA, I couldn't have retired, as I wouldn't have been able to cover my wife with any sort of decent coverage, at any price, and I was willing to pay ANY price.

Spidey wrote:The crime is the idea that you need insurance to get health care services in the first place.

enter Single Payer. The government IS the insurer.

the devil by any other name...

your solution? I haven't caught you proposing one, unless you are trying to propose that medical care go only to those who can afford to pay out of pocket at the time of need.

Just how many time must I state my position, I’ve only been doing it for 2 decades…I can’t help it if you have chosen to ignore countless posts I have made on this subject.

Well I actually do remember you saying some of my solutions would be too complex for our government…so I will leave it at that.

so unless your set of solutions are adopted, attempting to move the ball forward, or trying ANYTHING different than the prior status quo is bad, Spidey?

Again, just wait until the employer mandate kicks in. Then lets see how exciting Obamacare is.

the employer mandate shouldn't change a damned thing for 95% of all American businesses. Once again, Woody, you assail us with the 'I've been wrong about the rest, but just wait until my next expected horror kicks in' defense. That is extraordinarily weak, at this point. Sorry.

Right...the employer mandate has repeatedly been set back because it's implementation was such a positive thing. Obamacare in general is so wonderful that all you Dems lined up solidly behind it during the last election. GA. and the program is so wonderfully inexpensive that:

"It will cost the federal government – taxpayers, that is – $50,000 for every person who gets health insurance under the Obamacare law, the Congressional Budget Office revealed on Monday."

And such a good program that:

"The best-case scenario described by the CBO would result in ‘between 24 million and 27 million’ fewer Americans being uninsured in 2025, compared to the year before the Affordable Care Act took effect."

Now tell me again where I've been wrong...again.

you have no credibility, Woody. You've been wrong too many times on the subject of the ACA. Sorry, again.

I'm wrong because I cite the CBO. Do you even know how to debate properly?

No, he doesn’t…all he knows how to do is paint someone in the worse possible light…then attack that.

the CBO is in the business of estimates. Conservative ones, too, which is good(don't wish long-range predictions to be overly optimistic). However, the same folks have claimed the entire bill(employee mandate and all) to be revenue neutral through 2024, so cherry picking one prediction carries no weight. Let's face it, you loons have been yelling 'the sky is falling!!' over the ACA for years now, and at every milestone you have not only been incorrect, but mainly so far off as to be laughable. What credibility do you imagine you have after that set of past performances?

Spidey wrote:the devil by any other name...

Yep. One shouldn't NEED insurance for ALL things common and medical. It should work the same as any other purchase, like food, housing or buying a car. Then one could actually shop based on price OR quality, and the market might actually function for once as it's supposed to and be self-correcting with costs. Major Health Insurance should ONLY be needed for catastrophic illnesses or major accidents. If one can't afford it, one needs to do what comes naturally, suffer, or die. I mean, that's the result we essentially have now anyway, because not everyone can even afford the expensive insurance under the ACA, and the even more expensive care after that, which is going to get even more expensive as time goes on. There are no costs controls with the hybrid Capital-Socialist compromise system also known as Obamacare.

the main purpose of medical insurance is for major events, such as surgical procedures, cancer treatments and the like. If you suggest that it would be better to have the sick out shopping for bargains, you are both cruel and delusional.

woodchip wrote:Right...the employer mandate has repeatedly been set back because it's implementation was such a positive thing. Obamacare in general is so wonderful that all you Dems lined up solidly behind it during the last election. GA. and the program is so wonderfully inexpensive that:

"It will cost the federal government – taxpayers, that is – $50,000 for every person who gets health insurance under the Obamacare law, the Congressional Budget Office revealed on Monday."

And such a good program that:

"The best-case scenario described by the CBO would result in ‘between 24 million and 27 million’ fewer Americans being uninsured in 2025, compared to the year before the Affordable Care Act took effect."

Now tell me again where I've been wrong...again.

callmeslick wrote:the main purpose of medical insurance is for major events, such as surgical procedures, cancer treatments and the like. If you suggest that it would be better to have the sick out shopping for bargains, you are both cruel and delusional.

Yes, it is. That's the point. That's why it's so stupid to require it for everyday, run of the mill health care. That chunk of money it takes from everyone's pocket could be better spent on personal healthcare and prevention, especially if the costs were at least transparent. That $240 dollars a month I spend on insurance would be better spent on my usual health care needs. In fact, I would be more inclined to seek out my doctor for everyday ailments and improve my health if I DIDN'T have to go through the insurance hoops to do it and hope and pray the bills with their unknown costs that roll in months after any doctor visit don't bankrupt me. Right now, I'm too tired to deal with an uncaring, costly and expensive medical system. Let ME decide if I want to buy insurance for major health issues or events and not REQUIRE it, because maybe I don't want medical heroics at the end of my life. I'm an adult, let me make my own life decisions.

most people in this country couldn't afford serious cancer care, let alone stuff like organ transplants and prosthetic plastic surgery. Let's get real, TC.

You know slick, you don't get my point. We don't have house or car insurance for required everyday maintenance. It's only for fire or disaster. We don't even have food insurance, which we need to survive. So why do we NEED insurance for simple and preventative everyday medical care if the majority of it's use is really not for catastrophic illness care? My premiums alone could go towards quite a bit of doctor care every year and I'd probably be better off because I'd be more likely to go. Right now, I avoid the doctor as much as possible because the payments, billing and costs just aren't worth the hassle of going through it. Right now, it's like having your toenails pulled out and then being charged for the privilege.

Yea, and now the government wants to take even more of my resources with a fine, so I have even less to pay for those everyday costs.

The government is about as bright as those evil bulbs I use in my Lava Lamp collection.

Ferno wrote:

woodchip wrote:Right...the employer mandate has repeatedly been set back because it's implementation was such a positive thing. Obamacare in general is so wonderful that all you Dems lined up solidly behind it during the last election. GA. and the program is so wonderfully inexpensive that:

"It will cost the federal government – taxpayers, that is – $50,000 for every person who gets health insurance under the Obamacare law, the Congressional Budget Office revealed on Monday."

And such a good program that:

"The best-case scenario described by the CBO would result in ‘between 24 million and 27 million’ fewer Americans being uninsured in 2025, compared to the year before the Affordable Care Act took effect."

Now tell me again where I've been wrong...again.

Picture is not appropriate...no matter how much you want it to be.

Just noticed this:

woodchip wrote:And [Obamacare is] such a good program that:

"The best-case scenario described by the CBO would result in ‘between 24 million and 27 million’ fewer Americans being uninsured in 2025, compared to the year before the Affordable Care Act took effect."

I'm not following your sarcasm here. How is millions fewer uninsured (24-27 million over ~10 years) not a good result?