keepthefaith Posted August 21, 2016 Share Posted August 21, 2016 WELL, TO BE FAIR, OBAMACARE ITSELF WAS NEVER DEFENSIBLE: Obamacare’s Public Option Is No Longer Defensible. Could a “public option” fix the problems on the exchanges? More precisely, the question is: What problem would a public option solve? Way back in 2010, when the idea of a government-run nonprofit health insurance option was hotly debated, supporters gave three answers to that question: A public option does not need profits, so it can sell insurance cheaper than an insurer that wants to mark up coverage for profit margin. A public option will have lower administrative costs than a private insurer. A public option can force providers to accept below-market reimbursements for their services. The first argument turns out to be irrelevant, because with the exception of Medicaid managed-care plans, few insurers seem to be taking sizeable profits out of the exchanges. Indeed, since the public option was conceived as self-funding (meaning it covers its costs out of premiums, with no subsidies), there’s a high risk that the public option would prove as doomed as the co-ops, because it would have neither the experience in caseload management to make money nor the other lines of business to subsidize losses on the exchanges. However, supporters argue that a public option would have competitive advantages that would allow it to break even where others are currently losing money. One of those competitive advantages is lower administrative overhead — in theory, at least. I’ve already outlined, however, why I’m skeptical of this: While Medicare does have lower administrative costs than insurers, a lot of that benefit lies either in outsourcing normal administrative costs to other parts of the government (where they are still costly, but not on Medicare’s books) or in not doing things that insurers have to do, like all the boring customer service and billing that comes with selling to the public, rather than enrolling every citizen over the age of 65. The notion that one reduces overhead by putting the government in charge of something is itself pretty indefensible. Yeah, pretty damned funny our government administering something better and cheaper than the private sector. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
reddogblitz Posted August 21, 2016 Share Posted August 21, 2016 Yeah, pretty damned funny our government administering something better and cheaper than the private sector. Yeah the private sector had this thing under control before the libs started screwing with it. LOL Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
B-Man Posted August 21, 2016 Share Posted August 21, 2016 Blue Cross Plans May Be Obamacare's Fire Wallhttp://www.forbes.com/sites/brucejapsen/2016/08/21/blue-cross-plans-may-be-obamacares-fire-wall/#a4bba955f11a Blue Cross is the answer?.............................. WE ALREADY HAD BLUE CROSS ! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
unbillievable Posted August 22, 2016 Share Posted August 22, 2016 Yeah the private sector had this thing under control before the libs started screwing with it. LOL The libs managed to exponentially accelerate the problems to show us just how broken the system would get in a few generations. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
keepthefaith Posted August 22, 2016 Share Posted August 22, 2016 Yeah the private sector had this thing under control before the libs started screwing with it. LOL The private sector health insurance market is substantially restricted by government regulation. Now some of this regulation the insurers have lobbied for like state line restrictions so the insurers aren't innocent but this is a market that is begging to be relieved of so many rules. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
IDBillzFan Posted August 22, 2016 Share Posted August 22, 2016 (edited) Yeah the private sector had this thing under control before the libs started screwing with it. LOL Thinking people know that health insurance costs, per person/family, were MUCH lower and more easily managed than the ACA ever dreamed of being. In typical liberal fashion, the dream of providing a ridiculously unsustainable universal health insurance program by making the makers pay for the takers and calling it "free" is worth all the problems the law is causing if only they can help one person. By the time Hillary gets done with us, we'll be renaming America the United States of Detroit because most of the country is going to resemble that progressive bastion of stupidity. Edited August 22, 2016 by LABillzFan Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
B-Man Posted August 23, 2016 Share Posted August 23, 2016 Warning...............before you read, please sit down. Apparently Obamacare is not all that it was promised. Here's more bad news for Obamacare http://www.msn.com/en-us/money/healthcare/heres-more-bad-news-for-obamacare/ar-BBvXWZ6?li=BBnb7Kz&ocid=HPCDHP Obamacare was supposed to save the American economy. Back in 2009, when President Obama decided to push for healthcare reform in the midst of a financial crisis, he justified the decision by arguing that healthcare reform was economic reform, stating that the Affordable Care Act would “build a new foundation for lasting and sustained growth.” One of the ways that healthcare reform was supposed to boost the economy was ending the phenomenon of “job lock,” whereby workers are scared of leaving a job for a potentially better opportunity out of fear of losing their health insurance. But according to a new study by the National Bureau of Economic Research, Obamacare isn’t actually solving that problem. Economists Pauline Leung of Cornell University and Alexandre Mas of Princeton studied states that recently expanded Medicaid under the law and found no evidence that there was a reduction in employment lock in response to these expansions. More at the link: . Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
IDBillzFan Posted August 23, 2016 Share Posted August 23, 2016 Warning...............before you read, please sit down. Apparently Obamacare is not all that it was promised. Here's more bad news for Obamacare http://www.msn.com/en-us/money/healthcare/heres-more-bad-news-for-obamacare/ar-BBvXWZ6?li=BBnb7Kz&ocid=HPCDHP Remember Nancy Pelosi: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Magox Posted August 23, 2016 Share Posted August 23, 2016 Thinking people know that health insurance costs, per person/family, were MUCH lower and more easily managed than the ACA ever dreamed of being. In typical liberal fashion, the dream of providing a ridiculously unsustainable universal health insurance program by making the makers pay for the takers and calling it "free" is worth all the problems the law is causing if only they can help one person. Unless your objective is to preach to the choir, I think you'd make a much more effective case if you eliminated the "makers" and "takers" meme. There are a lot of hard working people that qualify for subsidies, I wouldn't categorize them as"takers", it's not a fair or accurate characterization for a good portion of these folks . I don't have a problem with people that are earning less receiving assistance to help pay for their care. I personally think it's the right thing to do as a nation. What I have a problem with is just about everything else this law does and doesn't do. Having said that, this law does many things that are nonsensical Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
IDBillzFan Posted August 23, 2016 Share Posted August 23, 2016 Unless your objective is to preach to the choir, I think you'd make a much more effective case if you eliminated the "makers" and "takers" meme. There are a lot of hard working people that qualify for subsidies, I wouldn't categorize them as"takers", it's not a fair or accurate characterization for a good portion of these folks . I don't have a problem with people that are earning less receiving assistance to help pay for their care. I personally think it's the right thing to do as a nation. What I have a problem with is just about everything else this law does and doesn't do. Having said that, this law does many things that are nonsensical I understand your point, and no question I was tweaking the one or two progressives on this board who haven't gone to bunker status in embarrassment over their party lately, but in the end, the system is designed to forcibly take money from those who have it and use to pay for people who don't. I disagree with that on every level. The left loves to make things fair like this, and it drives me crazy because they increasingly make more and more people dependent upon the government because it's how they expand and control their voting base. The ACA has only one redeeming value: that it was passed and signed into law exclusively by Democrats. They own this piece of crap. Now if only there was a Republican presidential nominee who knew how to argue against it. Hell, I'd settle for a Republican presidential nominee who was just a Republican. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DC Tom Posted August 24, 2016 Share Posted August 24, 2016 I understand your point, and no question I was tweaking the one or two progressives on this board who haven't gone to bunker status in embarrassment over their party lately, but in the end, the system is designed to forcibly take money from those who have it and use to pay for people who don't. I disagree with that on every level. The left loves to make things fair like this, and it drives me crazy because they increasingly make more and more people dependent upon the government because it's how they expand and control their voting base. The ACA has only one redeeming value: that it was passed and signed into law exclusively by Democrats. They own this piece of crap. Now if only there was a Republican presidential nominee who knew how to argue against it. Hell, I'd settle for a Republican presidential nominee who was just a Republican. I'd settle for a Republican presidential nominee who wasn't orange. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
grinreaper Posted August 24, 2016 Share Posted August 24, 2016 I'd settle for a Republican presidential nominee who wasn't orange. If you're going to talk that schit you should just go back to Belfast. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chef Jim Posted August 24, 2016 Share Posted August 24, 2016 I'd settle for a Republican presidential nominee who wasn't orange. With green hair. What the !@#$ was that??? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
B-Man Posted August 24, 2016 Share Posted August 24, 2016 Texas A & M professor: ‘We may be beginning to see the death spiral…’ The Texas Tribune published a story today outlining the precarious situation of the Obamacare exchange in that state. Several insurers are pulling out and those staying in are asking for massive premium hikes. It has one professor from Texas A & M wondering if the long-discussed death spiral has finally arrived: Insurance start-up Oscar announced on Tuesday it would partially withdraw from the Texas market, joining veteran health plans Aetna, UnitedHealthcare and Scott and White on the list of companies that recently announced they would abandon the marketplace created by President Obama’s signature health law. The companies said their costs of providing coverage to middle-income Texans have been unsustainable, fueling concerns about a lack of competition and consumer choice within the health insurance market next year. The announcements come at a time of uncertainty for health insurance markets nationwide, with several major health insurers opting to abandon the exchanges in all but a handful of states. And Cigna, another health insurance company, last week told the Houston Chronicle it was “in discussions” with state regulators about exiting the Texas exchange. “I think what we should be expecting is premiums that are substantially higher, and I think there’s a real risk that other insurers pull out,” said Michael Morrisey, a professor at the Texas A&M University School of Public Health. “We may be beginning to see the death spiral of insurance plans in the exchanges.” Meanwhile, Blue Cross Blue Shield has not decided whether or not it will remain in the market for 2017. After a loss of $770 million in Texas last year alone, it is requesting a 60% premium increase for next year. Texas is not the only state facing skyrocketing premium increases and a shrinking number of insurance providers. Tuesday, the Tennessee insurance commissioner described the Obamacare exchange in her state as “very near collapse.” A spokesman for Blue Cross Blue Shield in Tennessee agreed with that assessment. BCBS in Tennessee has already been granted a 62% premium increase for next year. An analysis performed for the NY Times by the McKinsey Center for U.S. Health System Reform found that 17% of Americans will have no choice of insurer next year as only one insurer remains in their area. That includes five entire states—Alabama, Alaska, North Carolina, Oklahoma, and Wyoming. Obamacare is definitely not turning out as promised. As the NY Times reported last week, the law is less of an extension of employer-based insurance and “more like Medicaid, only with a high deductible.” Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chef Jim Posted August 24, 2016 Share Posted August 24, 2016 More proof (as if we needed any more) that this bill did pretty much nothing to control costs. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Magox Posted August 24, 2016 Share Posted August 24, 2016 Texas A & M professor: ‘We may be beginning to see the death spiral…’ The Texas Tribune published a story today outlining the precarious situation of the Obamacare exchange in that state. Several insurers are pulling out and those staying in are asking for massive premium hikes. It has one professor from Texas A & M wondering if the long-discussed death spiral has finally arrived: Meanwhile, Blue Cross Blue Shield has not decided whether or not it will remain in the market for 2017. After a loss of $770 million in Texas last year alone, it is requesting a 60% premium increase for next year. Texas is not the only state facing skyrocketing premium increases and a shrinking number of insurance providers. Tuesday, the Tennessee insurance commissioner described the Obamacare exchange in her state as “very near collapse.” A spokesman for Blue Cross Blue Shield in Tennessee agreed with that assessment. BCBS in Tennessee has already been granted a 62% premium increase for next year. An analysis performed for the NY Times by the McKinsey Center for U.S. Health System Reform found that 17% of Americans will have no choice of insurer next year as only one insurer remains in their area. That includes five entire states—Alabama, Alaska, North Carolina, Oklahoma, and Wyoming. Obamacare is definitely not turning out as promised. As the NY Times reported last week, the law is less of an extension of employer-based insurance and “more like Medicaid, only with a high deductible.” This was predicted. Some of us years ago had spoken about this in great detail. Major reforms will have to happen or else the exchanges will collapse and it is all happening even faster than I thought it would happen. They are going to have to offer the insurers backstops and bailouts in case of losses to bring them back into the fold and that still really wouldn't solve the skyrocketing premiums. I think they probably need to eliminate some of the taxes, take away some of the "essential benefits", maybe create a separate risk pool to alleviate some of the pressure of having to cover all these sicker people who are enrolling. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
boyst Posted August 24, 2016 Share Posted August 24, 2016 if when clinton gets elected the next step will be forcing insurers to participate or face fines. it will eventually, and likely, become government regulated, controlled and pwned insurance. why is anyone here still getting upset about this? it's like hillary4prez. ya ain't stopping it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nanker Posted August 25, 2016 Share Posted August 25, 2016 This was predicted. Some of us years ago had spoken about this in great detail. Major reforms will have to happen or else the exchanges will collapse and it is all happening even faster than I thought it would happen. They are going to have to offer the insurers backstops and bailouts in case of losses to bring them back into the fold and that still really wouldn't solve the skyrocketing premiums. I think they probably need to eliminate some of the taxes, take away some of the "essential benefits", maybe create a separate risk pool to alleviate some of the pressure of having to cover all these sicker people who are enrolling. You mean like Medicaid with higher deductibles. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
B-Man Posted August 26, 2016 Share Posted August 26, 2016 (edited) Health Care Is A Business, Not A Right: “The health of Americans should not be a profit center. Health care is a right. Full stop.” That comes from the Twitter feed of personal finance writer Helaine Olen. But it could have issued straight from the heart of any progressive in the land. Subjecting health care to the sordid whims of the marketplace strikes many people as simply immoral. Nor is this feeling confined to the left. Conservatives may be less enthusiastic about socialized medicine, but talk to one about the health care system, and there’s a good chance you’ll get a rant about greedy insurers nickel-and-diming hardworking consumers when they’re sick. Almost everyone feels that there is something fundamentally wrong about making money off of someone else’s illness. Why d o we feel this way? No, don’t sputter and tell me that it’s obvious, that people need health care. People need a lot of things. You’ll die without food long before you’ll die without health care, and yet few people say we need to “take the profit motive out of farming”. (There are some, to be sure, but this was never a widespread sentiment even when food was a lot scarcer and more expensive). Why is health care special? Well, in part because politicians can make hay by pretending that it is. But the evolutionary psychology point that comes next is probably valid. But it’s just another one of those aspects of paleolithic-era tribal morality that don’t really work in a modern society — but that politicians eagerly exploit. And the denial can run deep: Pointing out something the British health system can do that the American system can’t, and doing so in dryly factual tones, seemed like a good way to endear myself to the British audience. The other guest, a British health official, interrupted to basically accuse me of lying; the British health system, he said, did no such thing. Now I reiterate: I had not called NICE a death panel, or said that it was bad; I had simply described what NICE does, which is keep the NHS from blowing its budget on very expensive treatments that deliver relatively little value per pound spent. You can read NICE describing what NICE does on its website; the description is not significantly different from the one I gave. Being told that this was flat out wrong was surreal. Things got even more surreal when I began again to explain what NICE does, thinking that perhaps I had been unclear, and the host interrupted me and said something like “As you know, that’s false.” Why such a strong emotional reaction to a boring factual statement? My conclusion, having read Hanson, was that people don’t want to think their health care system might let them die because it’s too expensive to keep them alive. They don’t like it any better when the government does it than when an insurer does — and so the government is at pains to suggest that cost is not a factor in their calculations. More at the link : But, you know, it is. Give Obama credit for some honesty saying that Grandma would just have to take a pain pill. Edited August 26, 2016 by B-Man Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
IDBillzFan Posted August 26, 2016 Share Posted August 26, 2016 This CNN story kind of cracks me up. Never one to miss a click-bait opportunity, CNN runs a story about a viral photo of an old man and his wife tearing up as they say good-bye to each. The man is suffering from dementia, and was just diagnosed with lymphoma. The headline: This photo of a couple saying good-bye to each other is breaking hearts. But why are they tearing up? Because after 62 years of marriage, the Canadian health care system...you know, the one that progressives wish the US had...is so backlogged that it can't get this couple to stay in the same nursing home for the past eight months. Here is what their daughter wrote on Facebook: Friends please read! This is The saddest photo I have ever taken. This is my Omi and my Opi. As you can see they are both wiping away tears! But why? It was taken in Surrey at Yale road, a transitional facility for people waiting to get into nursing homes, that's where my Opi is! After 62 years together in marriage they have been separated for 8 months due to backlogs and delays by our health care system, whom have the power to have my grandpa moved to the same care facility as my grandmother. They cry every time they see each other, and it is heartbreaking. To make it worse, TODAY he was diagnosed with Lymphoma. Besides that limiting his time and making this more urgent, His Dementia is growing ever stronger each day, but his memory of my grandmother has not faded a inch...yet. We are afraid however that if they are living apart much longer, his memory of her won't stay. This has been a strain on our family, making the 30 minute commute to bring her to see him, every second day, so he does not forget her. Now with the news of cancer, our fight to have them in the same facility is even more urgent. He isn't even getting proper care where he is, including no physical therapy which we were promised (the only reason he is in a wheelchair is because it has been 8 months of no walking!!) They deserve this! Financially, physically and emotionally exhausted, me and my family are begging for your help my friends. We have contacted our local MLA, called Fraser Health and done in person inquiries, but none of our questions and concerns have been answered. We want justice for my grandparents who after 62 years together deserve to spend their last moments in the same building. Maybe it's not the photo that is breaking everyones' hearts. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts