Solved

Where's my raise?

Posted on 2013-11-05
142
29 Views
Last Modified: 2013-12-19
Obama promised here if I get my insurance through work, my insurance would drop by 3000% and most people would get a raise, I haven't seen mine yet, anyone else seen there?  Maybe the teachers in Arkansas who's insurance went up 50%....from $1000/month to $1500/month...on teacher pay.  Wow.  I saw that on CNN...no maybe it was MSNBC...no maybe huffington post....no, I wonder why the media doesn't talk about 47,000 teachers in Arkansas getting the shaft.  Oh but wait, can't they just get it on the exchange. Oh, maybe not.  So my question is who has gotten a raise at work because cost have dropped by 3000%?
0
Comment
Question by:bergertime
  • 52
  • 48
  • 24
  • +3
142 Comments
 
LVL 82

Expert Comment

by:Dave Baldwin
Comment Utility
Let's see, if it drops by 100% you're down to 0.  So if it drops 3000% it must be much lower.  Like maybe you dropped into hell.
0
 
LVL 17

Expert Comment

by:Anthony Russo
Comment Utility
All these cases of insurance premiums rising are very similar. "I've been paying $500 for insurance with a $3000 deductible and now I'm paying $900 for insurance with a $5000 deductible."

Absolutely true for the 5% of Americans it has been reported to be affecting. That's still 15 million people or so and it does suck for them. This includes a few relatives of mine so I have no doubt in it being true.

On the other end is the millions who were not able to get insurance due to pre-existing conditions at all. Or the costs were astronomical and now are more reasonable. This includes a few relatives and friends of mine so I have no doubt in it being true.

What does it all mean?

Accepting these higher risk individuals costs the companies more money. To compensate they are going to raise the rates of the less risky individuals. Exactly the way insurance is structured to work. The healthy pay for the sick. That's health insurance. The good drivers pay for the bad drivers. That's car insurance.

All that happened here is the bar moved. The healthy have more to pay to cover the influx of more high risk or sick individuals. It's the same system you've been using with just new parameters.

Depending on which side of the argument you are on, this can hurt you (healthy people) or benefit you (sick people). Also depending on which side of the political argument you are on this can be stealing from those who live healthier lives or are wealthier and have insurance or finally giving the option for insurance to everyone.

Both sides are right. It's all about perspective and position in the system.
0
 

Expert Comment

by:patriotpacer
Comment Utility
Obama promised
Oxymoron


Or the costs were astronomical and now are more reasonable.
Obamacare does nothing to link doctors' fees to their performance and reduce health-care costs, the head of the Mayo Clinic told CNBC on Friday.



Absolutely true for the 5% of Americans it has been reported to be affecting. That's still 15 million people or so and it does suck for them.
Forbes: White House Predicted in 2010 That 93 Million Would Lose Their Health Plans Under ObamaCare
0
 
LVL 17

Expert Comment

by:Anthony Russo
Comment Utility
>>Obamacare does nothing to link doctors' fees to their performance and reduce health-care costs, the head of the Mayo Clinic told CNBC on Friday.

Correct. It's not about doctors fees.  It's about healthy people paying insurance premiums to cover the costs of sick people. Again, just the way insurance has worked since it's inception.

>>Forbes: White House Predicted in 2010 That 93 Million Would Lose Their Health Plans Under ObamaCare

A quarter of the entire population of the US including children and retired and etc etc. Not likely and i think the more accurate amount is around the 15-20 million mark.
0
 

Expert Comment

by:patriotpacer
Comment Utility
So we know Obama lied about Obamacare.

What about Benghazi, IRS, Fast and Furious?  When are we going to get answers?

I'm amazed at how oblivious the American people are.
0
 
LVL 17

Expert Comment

by:Anthony Russo
Comment Utility
Should we list every president and their scandals and the lies they told? I'm not sure the internet has enough room.

Benghazi sucked - people died

People dropped the ball to protect them or we don't know enough info and maybe there was reasoning behind it. Just like Bush and Iraq's WMD. He lied, or was misinformed, or we don't know enough about it and should just accept that we wont (nor should we).

IRS - abuse of power for political gain. What a surprise. Next.

Fast and Furious (I personally don't know enough about it to comment on it)

You're not going to get answers because you don't need them. We aren't in charge of the country. We elect the people we want to be in charge and then they do the work and that is with information we are not privy too because we dont need it and don't know enough to act on it correctly. Don't like the people in charge then we elect different people. This idea that every idiot in the country should know everything going on is ridiculous. So lets just assume they screwed up or are evil based on our 1% of the actual info that we do get.
0
 

Expert Comment

by:patriotpacer
Comment Utility
Benghazi sucked - people died
Cover up, Lies, deceit.  Obama for weeks blamed a video after knowing that it wasn't.  They're keeping witnesses from speaking to Congress. Obama's actions on this alone should allow an impeachment proceeding to proceed.  I guarantee, Anthony, if you knew the full truth you and I would be on the same page.


IRS - abuse of power for political gain.
Let's just shrug our shoulders and say oh well.

Another cover up here.



Obama Secret Service Agent: “It’s Worse Than People Know… and I’m Not Trying to Scare You Either”
It’s worse than people know… and I’m not trying to scare you either.
This is coming from someone who has stood next to Presidents for his entire career.
0
 
LVL 17

Expert Comment

by:Anthony Russo
Comment Utility
>>I guarantee, Anthony, if you knew the full truth you and I would be on the same page.

And you think you know the full truth about any of these things? You know the talking points your party preaches or what you discovered yourself from what the news gets out. None of us know what really went on in Benghazi...including the people that were there!

They knew only what their job entailed them to know. I don't know why my boss tells me to do certain things unless it benefits me to know. He does things that make no sense to me because he has all the information and I dont because that's not my job.

You don't know any more than FoxNews or CNN or secret service man X. Neither do I or Jon Stewart or anyone else not in the right positions within the government. We're just good at blaming based on our little knowledge.
0
 

Expert Comment

by:patriotpacer
Comment Utility
None of us know what really went on in Benghazi
Obama admin does.  That's why they're covering it up.  Not ONE person has been held accountable, including the terrorists.  And they've yet to explain why they blamed the video WEEKS after knowing it was a terrorist attack.  

You don't know any more than FoxNews or CNN or secret service man X. N
Here's what I do know - left alone to implement their policies, Democrats make things worse.
1.  Another U.S. city mulls bankruptcy due to soaring wages and pensions
2.  Calif. Insurance Commissioner: More Than 1M Californians Having Insurance Cancelled Due To ACA
0
 
LVL 17

Expert Comment

by:Anthony Russo
Comment Utility
>>Obama admin does.

Right they know and they are the only ones that know, or should know.

>> That's why they're covering it up.

Perhaps there's a good reason to cover it up that the american people wont understand with their rudimentary knowledge of world politics - perhaps Bush had a good reason for going into Iraq even through he  might have known there were no WMD there.

>>Not ONE person has been held accountable,

Because they're all top level politicians. None of them ever get held accountable in any administration.

>>including the terrorists.

I'm sure they were in on it and it was a big plot with Obama to storm the embassy. They're damn terrorists. Add them to the list of other terrorists that we are going after.

>>1.  Another U.S. city mulls bankruptcy due to soaring wages and pensions

That says nothing about democrats - that's just bad business and pensions implemented 50 years ago catching up with all the cities and states. Just like it caught up with the auto industry.

>>2.  Calif. Insurance Commissioner: More Than 1M Californians Having Insurance Cancelled Due To ACA

Considering California has 38 million people and the ACA is expecting to cause 5% of the country to receive cancellations, they are doing pretty good there at about 3%. What's your point?

>>Here's what I do know - left alone to implement their policies, Democrats make things worse.

Your links don't support your statement.
0
 

Expert Comment

by:patriotpacer
Comment Utility
Considering California has 38 million people and the ACA is expecting to cause 5% of the country to receive cancellations, they are doing pretty good there at about 3%. What's your point?

That's not ONE person per policy.  Those are families of probably 3-4 people.   So take 1 million times 3 and there's probably your real number...for now...for ONE STATE.

I'm in total disbelief how you can shrug your shoulders at the consistent, blatant lies from this administration.  

Another result of Democrat policies...
90,609,000: Americans Not in Labor Force Climbs to Another Record
October 22, 2013 - 7:43 AM
0
 
LVL 2

Author Comment

by:bergertime
Comment Utility
Here's what gets me.  Obama said "You can keep it, period."  Now he is saying he said "For the vast majority..."  

So he lied, he knew people would lose policies, or he's an idiot.  Now he is lying about what he lied about....wow.  And people are still like "Obama is so dreamy.".   It's the same mindset of people who bitch about Walmart yet rush out to buy everything from Walmart.  People just want a free handout.
0
 
LVL 17

Expert Comment

by:Anthony Russo
Comment Utility
I never once argued that Obama didn't lie about keeping policies. He lied outright and that is how he got it passed or it never would have passed. It sucks he lied and I'll be the first one to call out anyone who says he was obfuscating the truth, or from a point of view or whatever. He lied straight out!

>>That's not ONE person per policy.  Those are families of probably 3-4 people.  

I also above said the losing of insurance sucks for the people who have it. But this isn't some monumental change in the way insurance works - insurance is the good paying for the bad. Whether that means healthy/sick, good drivers/bad driver, safe/risky, or whatever.

To get more people to have insurance and especially more sick people who were shut out before, more healthy people have to pay more. Just like insurance has been, except the bar has been moved. It sucks for those getting cancelled and getting higher cost insurance but is good for the sick who finally can be covered.
0
 

Expert Comment

by:patriotpacer
Comment Utility
So he lied, he knew people would lose policies, or he's an idiot.
I think we know which one.



To get more people to have insurance and especially more sick people who were shut out before, more healthy people have to pay more.
300,000 LOSE HEALTH PLANS IN FLORIDA

Leukemia Patient To Lose Insurance Under Obamacare

Most Popular Question at Healthcare.gov: How to Get Exemption From Lack-of-Coverage Penalty Fee?

25% OF UNINSURED SAY PLAN TO STAY THAT WAY


Americans blame Obamacare already for higher costs
0
 
LVL 2

Author Comment

by:bergertime
Comment Utility
Whether that means healthy/sick, good drivers/bad driver, safe/risky, or whatever.

So lets remake car insurance the same.  Regardless of driving record, we all pay the same.  And you can buy insurance the day you wreck your car and be fully insured.  Makes no sense.

Anthony, you didn't say that Obama didn't lie.  But it's gotta make you wonder all the people defending it.
0
 
LVL 17

Expert Comment

by:Anthony Russo
Comment Utility
>>Anthony, you didn't say that Obama didn't lie.  But it's gotta make you wonder all the people defending it.

And that's why I'm Independent. No side is right all the time.

>>Regardless of driving record, we all pay the same.  And you can buy insurance the day you wreck your car and be fully insured.  Makes no sense.

You can get through life without driving. Healthcare eventually hits us all.

>>300,000 LOSE HEALTH PLANS IN FLORIDA

300,000 out of 20 million in Florida. 2% Yea, we get it. We already established people are losing insurance and he lied. Can we move on?

>>Leukemia Patient To Lose Insurance Under Obamacare

Like the usual story i see regarding this. Will lose insurance and hasnt checked to get a new plan and might pay less or might not - obviously the crappy site is preventing that but that will work out eventually - once it does than he may not be paying more - he doesnt know yet.

>>Most Popular Question at Healthcare.gov: How to Get Exemption From Lack-of-Coverage Penalty Fee?

People trying easiest way to avoid a fee - what a surprise?

>>25% OF UNINSURED SAY PLAN TO STAY THAT WAY

Just as is without ACA - thats why the fee is only $95 and goes up from there each year - for many not getting insured is the option they will go with

>>Americans blame Obamacare already for higher costs

Blaming someone for something doesn't make it true. I can blame you for causing me to not get enough work done in the day because I'm answering your outrageous questions. Doesn't mean it really is your fault when I could just ignore you.  :)
0
 

Expert Comment

by:patriotpacer
Comment Utility
So lets remake car insurance the same.  Regardless of driving record, we all pay the same.  And you can buy insurance the day you wreck your car and be fully insured.  Makes no sense.

If Democrats could drum up emotions on this issue and thought there was a vote behind it, they'd push for universal auto coverage.  

ObamaAutoCare = $5K a month for 1985 Yugo
0
 
LVL 17

Expert Comment

by:Anthony Russo
Comment Utility
and I would be against it. There goes that darn thinking for myself thing again.
0
 

Expert Comment

by:patriotpacer
Comment Utility
but is good for the sick who finally can be covered.
Forbes:  Around 100,000 Enrollees And Five Million Cancellations


So far...5 Million lose so 100K can get it.  That makes sense.
0
 
LVL 17

Expert Comment

by:Anthony Russo
Comment Utility
>>Forbes:  Around 100,000 Enrollees And Five Million Cancellations

First thing is the site dont work so that is the main reason for low enrollment.

Second is everybody doesnt run to enroll immediately. They got months to do so.

Third is cancellation doesnt mean you are going to be uninsured. It means you have to pick another policy so they didn't LOSE. They are changing. It might cost more or it might cost less. We don't know (regardless if you insist you know it will be more).

Fourth is cancellations letters go out instantly by insurance companies but  cancellations are for the future. Most aren't cancelled now.

Seriously man. Don't you try to analytically think about some of your party's talking points before you go spreading them around? Can't you recognize a clickbait headline when you see it?
0
 

Expert Comment

by:patriotpacer
Comment Utility
First thing is the site dont work so that is the main reason for low enrollment
There's a phone option.  President actually gave the number out.
Washington Times:  Obamacare enrollment by paper and phone is no better than website

So Obama lies, millions lose insurance and yet, contrary to all evidence, you're standing firm, huh?  That's dedication.
0
 
LVL 17

Expert Comment

by:Anthony Russo
Comment Utility
Actually I haven't once defended ObamaCare as a better option than the current system. It might be worse for people if you are in the under 10% that is losing your insurance. When they shop for new insurance, if it is going to cost them more then it is worse for them. It is good for the people who are getting insurance that couldn't before. The richer/healthier cover the sicker/poorer, just the way insurance has always been. Again, just the bar has been moved.

The phone option not being better than the website proves my point, not yours. It is the reason there is low enrollment. Thanks for the confirmation of my point. Even if the phone was fine, today people go to websites to do things and until they fix it the enrollment will be low.

I've agreed he lied about keeping your insurance from the beginning too, so don't see your point there.

So what is ALL evidence you are referring to. One thing. He lied about keeping insurance and people are losing it.

I stand firm in logic. The website sucks so signups are low. He lied to get it passed so 10% or less are getting cancellation letter. They aren't cancelled yet, and they can just repurchase insurance. Some will be lower, and others will be higher. That makes sense because more sicker people are coming into the system and that's how insurance works.

These are the same points I've made from the beginning. You have presented nothing to dispute these points and presented no new information so why would I be changing my mind about anything?

Your links though I have picked apart over and over again with logical thinking rather than just parroting a party talking point. If you choose to start thinking for yourself over the information, then come to the conclusion that you are in the percentage where your insurance is going up, then ACA sucks for you. It also sucks for that less than 10% that is in that boat. However saying your same party talking points over and over does not show you on that mindset.

(I missed this zone.)  :)
0
 

Expert Comment

by:patriotpacer
Comment Utility
It might be worse for people
OK - got it.  Millions losing their insurance doesn't matter to you, as long as a few thousand more are subsidized by those who actually contribute to society.  Understand.

Does your lack of compassion also extend to those losing income?

Businesses cut full-time workers to meet Obamacare mandate, study says
About 30 percent of small franchises and 12 percent of other small businesses say they are cutting work hours – or swapping full-time for part-time workers – because of the law,
A key Obamacare incentive is an “employer mandate” that asks businesses to sponsor health insurance (or pay a penalty) if they have more than 50 full-time employees. It defines a full-time worker as one serving 30 or more hours per week. So a firm can avoid the mandate by having fewer than 50 people working full-time.
0
 
LVL 17

Expert Comment

by:Anthony Russo
Comment Utility
>>OK - got it.  Millions losing their insurance doesn't matter to you, as long as a few thousand more are subsidized by those who actually contribute to society.  Understand.

You have your numbers all out of whack again man.

Nobody has lost their insurance yet. They have received cancellation letter they will lose their insurance and have time to shop for new insurance. Most will continue to have insurance. Some will pay more, and others will pay less. we don't know yet regardless of what your party tells you.

Only a few thousand have gotten coverage because the site don't work and the process all sucks. As it gets fixed more will get coverage. This is just the beginnings of it. Millions more than the millions who are getting cancel letters are now able to get covered though.

>>Businesses cut full-time workers to meet Obamacare mandate, study says

Didn't we go through this BS scenario last year with Pappa Johns? Like he is going to suddenly cut his required hours to make pizza and they will just make themselves. Good workers he will cut and rely on training and hiring new workers over and over instead because that will save him money. Every biz owner claiming they will do this is being ridiculous.

A business runs better on 50 full time 40 hour employees that know what they are doing than 75 part time 29 hour employees that are 'meh' about their part time jobs. Plus add the cost of onboarding and training those 25 extra employees and the higher turnover rate you get with part timers and it's a stupid idea.

On the flip side you got 25 more working people that have jobs. All the mom and pop shops with 20 employees this has no effect on. Big companies with a hundred employees also already offer coverage and no effect either.
0
 

Expert Comment

by:patriotpacer
Comment Utility
You have your numbers all out of whack again man.
Anthony, you know I love you like a brother.  But you're giving me flashbacks to Baghdad Bob



Big companies with a hundred employees also already offer coverage and no effect either.
Eventually the Obamacare disaster will start hitting more and more businesses  They'll stop providing health coverage.
0
 
LVL 17

Expert Comment

by:Anthony Russo
Comment Utility
>>Anthony, you know I love you like a brother.  But you're giving me flashbacks to Baghdad Bob

Sorry but didn't read your whole link thing there my brother. Can you in some way explain how my points that I laid out why your numbers are out of whack is incorrect and your numbers are right after all?

>>Eventually the Obamacare disaster will start hitting more and more businesses  They'll stop providing health coverage.

Again I fail to see your logic how big companies will suddenly stop providing healthcare, especially now that they are required to.
0
 

Expert Comment

by:patriotpacer
Comment Utility
So - what do you think, Anthony.  Does Howard Dean finally make a valid point?

Former Democratic presidential candidate Howard Dean questioned whether President Obama has the "legal authority" to carry out the Obamacare fix the White House outlined today:

This stuff flies in Cuba, North Korea, and China - I assume Obama thinks it will fly here as well.
0
 
LVL 2

Author Comment

by:bergertime
Comment Utility
So Anthony, are you telling me workplace insurance policies won't start getting canceled next year due to ACA and more expensive policies offered, further hurting the middle class.
0
 
LVL 17

Expert Comment

by:Anthony Russo
Comment Utility
So we abandoned the numbers discussion we were having without you addressing any of the points I brought up about how off you were.

Let's jump to another link on a completely difference aspect of the subject, and with no explaining of the link.

I can't watch videos at work so no idea what is in it. Perhaps you can inform me. You used to write explanations and spell out your points so well. Did the name change suck that out of you man and now it's just one liners and links?
0
 
LVL 17

Expert Comment

by:Anthony Russo
Comment Utility
I don't know about this patriotpacer guy. Where is Cars or ELW?
0
 

Expert Comment

by:patriotpacer
Comment Utility
I can't watch videos at work so no idea what is in it. Perhaps you can inform me. You used to write explanations and spell out your points so well. Did the name change suck that out of you man and now it's just one liners and links?

Nothing to really watch.  Just Howard Dean saying Obama is (in essence) acting like a dictator.



Only a few thousand have gotten coverage because the site don't work and the process all sucks.
 There's a phone number.  I already showed no one wants it, nor do the plan on signing up.  Too expensive and covers less.


Didn't we go through this BS scenario last year with Pappa Johns?
Greedy companies just needed an excuse to cut people lose, huh?  Obama finally gave it to them.


On the flip side you got 25 more working people that have jobs. All the mom and pop shops with 20 employees this has no effect on.
How many employees did Microsoft start out with?  Apple?  Look up how much it will cost a company with 49 employees to add one more.


DEMOCRATS = Phk up everything they touch.  Give them total power and they destroy the lives of millions and 20% of the economy.
0
 
LVL 17

Expert Comment

by:Anthony Russo
Comment Utility
>>So Anthony, are you telling me workplace insurance policies won't start getting canceled next year due to ACA and more expensive policies offered, further hurting the middle class.

We don't know what will happen next year with policies. Only pundits claiming their party talking points saying "It's the end of the world" if Republican and "Everyone will be covered singing Kumbaya" if Democrat. Truth is somewhere in the middle is where it will settle but nobody knows that now.

>>Nothing to really watch.  Just Howard Dean saying Obama is (in essence) acting like a dictator.

OK. Yay for Howard Dean. Whatever.

>> There's a phone number.  I already showed no one wants it, nor do the plan on signing up.  Too expensive and covers less.

People like websites. Ever call many government numbers and stay on hold for hours. What a surprise people arent running to the phone number.

>>Greedy companies just needed an excuse to cut people lose, huh?  Obama finally gave it to them.

Hardly. Either Pappa Johns and these companies are running charities employing people they don't need so they can cut the hours and get the same work done, or they dont understand business and this knee-jerk reaction of "I'll just make everyone part-time" is a boneheaded move and they will learn the hard way it costs them more money.

Will operating costs go up covering people? Sure. They also went up when child labor laws were implemented. That was a bad thing too?

>>How many employees did Microsoft start out with?  Apple?  Look up how much it will cost a company with 49 employees to add one more.

What??? How does Microsoft and Apple figure into this? Please elaborate.

It will cost as much as it cost any company to grow. From a sole proprietorship to start to hire employees, to needing a bigger space, to hiring the 100th employee and needing an HRIS system to manage it all. It's called growth. You do it if the numbers work out. Insurance is part of the numbers and you figure it in.

>>DEMOCRATS = Phk up everything they touch.  Give them total power and they destroy the lives of millions and 20% of the economy.

More Parroting of the party. I'd ask you to back that up somewhere but you'll just post some links. Repubs destroy plenty of lives too and screw up the economy with some of their policies also. They are politicians and none are all innocent, or all guilty.

Good to have you back my friend. :)
0
 

Expert Comment

by:patriotpacer
Comment Utility
OK. Yay for Howard Dean. Whatever.
Oh well...just Obama violating the Constitution again.  Nothing big.

What??? How does Microsoft and Apple figure into this? Please elaborate.
Small companies that grew large.  


It will cost as much as it cost any company to grow.
Incorrect.  For a company to go from 49 to 50 employees will cost them 1000s more than going from 48-49.  And a company with 55 employees has a huge incentive to lay off 6.
0
 
LVL 17

Expert Comment

by:Anthony Russo
Comment Utility
>>Oh well...just Obama violating the Constitution again.  Nothing big.

Luckily that document was written without all the gray area where the politicians do all their crap in.

>>Small companies that grew large.  

And I'm sure now there will never be another small company that will grow large again.

>>Incorrect.  For a company to go from 49 to 50 employees will cost them 1000s more than going from 48-49.

That growth jump where you suddenly are going to offer health insurance to your employees is going to hit somewhere. If not at the 49-50 level than at the 99-100 or 149-150 or somewhere and it is going to be a big hit wherever it hits. Again that's called crunching the numbers and making a wise business decision

>>  And a company with 55 employees has a huge incentive to lay off 6.

And they will magically get that work done by the 49 employees when they needed 55? Or where they just being 'nice' and employing 6 workers they didn't need. My friend Cars used to say business is about numbers and not about being nice to employees. That's the way the free market works.

Is PatriotPacer the kind that just thinks companies should employ people they don't need to be nice instead so they have jobs?
0
 
LVL 2

Author Comment

by:bergertime
Comment Utility
"That growth jump where you suddenly are going to offer health insurance to your employees is going to hit somewhere. If not at the 49-50 level than at the 99-100 or 149-150 or somewhere and it is going to be a big hit wherever it hits. Again that's called crunching the numbers and making a wise business decision"

Anthony, I think that's were me and you really differ.  I think it's up to the business to make that wise business decision, but this law makes Obama in charge and it happens at 50 regardless if it's wise or not.  And as an employee.  Say my wife works and has a great income with insurance, maybe I want to work at a place that has 75 workers but no insurance with great pay, cool I can, but not after Obamacare.  See how people can make wise choices based on their own situation, but you want to punish me for doing what's in my best interest.
0
 
LVL 17

Expert Comment

by:Anthony Russo
Comment Utility
If you are covered under your wife's insurance then you don't have to get insurance from your job and you get the higher pay than someone who is having insurance taken out of their check. That works just fine. I don't see your problem. You are making more money than the person that is getting insurance.
0
 
LVL 2

Author Comment

by:bergertime
Comment Utility
anthony, come on now.  You have to know that places that offer health insurance pay a portion of your insurance cost.  Where I work right now, the employer pays $600 a month for my insurance, I only have to pay 300.  Now if I forgo the insurance, I don't get the 600 my employer saves.  Understand?  A place that doesn't offer insurance can pay higher.
0
 
LVL 17

Expert Comment

by:Anthony Russo
Comment Utility
>>A place that doesn't offer insurance can pay higher.

But will they? Your employer has how many people in it. No employer of a certain size doesn't offer insurance. If you work for a large company, insurance is part of that deal. Smaller companies don't offer insurance usually.

You would be making $300 more than someone not getting insurance. Perhaps a portion of that $600 from the employer would go to you, but you wouldn't be getting $600 a month more if the market for your job does not justify it.

The market dictates the salary more than the employer offering insurance or not.
0
 

Expert Comment

by:patriotpacer
Comment Utility
For such a "good" law, not sure why Democrats are now in panic?

WASHINGTON TIMES:  White House tries to salvage Obamacare, Democrats in distress

Free this, free that, we'll pay for this, we'll pay for that...
(ie, what can I say to buy your vote?)
0
 
LVL 17

Expert Comment

by:Anthony Russo
Comment Utility
And here comes the Patriot with an article confirming his party's talking point even though the discussion is nowhere near that.  :)

>>WASHINGTON TIMES:  White House tries to salvage Obamacare, Democrats in distress

What about this is supposed to be surprising to me? The website which is the main way to get people on the program doesnt work so barely anyone signed up. The Pres lied about keeping insurance and people are receiving cancellations. The whole launch looks horrible so they are scrambling like mad.

Obama also said yesterday he delayed the insurance companies from having to send out cancels for a year. Again not a surprise since the website doesnt work and people cant sign up if cancelled. It's a cluster-f*ck of a launch due to his lie and the crappy website.

Down the line though when the website works and people can sign up it might be just fine. I personally still think signups will be low as lots of people who dont have insurance now just dont want to have the expense and will just take the $95 fine rather than pay for insurance. There will be more signups though once the process is easier because there are a lot of people that actually want insurance and will sign up once the process lets them.

Then the cancels will happen in a year from the delay and more people will sign up. Some will be better coverage for same or cheaper. Some will be paying more. We established some will be paying more to cover all the pre-existings now in the system. That's how insurance works.

All in all the ACA is crappy now but overall might work out just fine (of course those who pay more for insurance than they are now are still screwed but it will end up a minority of the people). On the other hand it might never get people signed up and there may be more issues to fix. I don't know, and neither does anyone else without time travel capability.

We'll have to see but just because the launch is crap doesn't mean the whole plan is.
0
 

Expert Comment

by:patriotpacer
Comment Utility
Down the line though when the website works and people can sign up it might be just fine.
It'll be repealed by then.  Whole thing is crumbling.  You can dress a turd in a tuxedo, but at the end of the day it's still a turd.


If I were a marketing director, I think I'd only hire Democrats.  They can make people believe anything.
0
 
LVL 1

Expert Comment

by:sbdt8631
Comment Utility
Personally I think Obamacare sucks too.  But only because I think single payer, Medicare for all, is the plan we should have.  But there was no way anyone was going to get that through congress, so what we have is the best we are going to get for now.

Speaking as a person with two preexisting conditions, I am very happy that I no longer have to fear losing my current insurance and then being told for the rest of my life that I will not be covered.  

People with no insurance, or crappy insurance that they are now forced to upgrade, have been gamboling with our money.  They are gamboling that they will not get in an accident or get a disease that they can not afford to pay for.  If they lose the gambol, they don't pay the bill and we pay it in the form of higher health costs.

Health care does not respond properly as a free market commodity.  When you are in a car accident, you are not in a position to say I don't really need new medical care this year, I will wait a while longer until I have saved more money.  Medical care is a service that we will all need eventually, and when we do, we need it now.

In my opinion health care is a societal responsibility we should provide the same way we educate our children, provide food for those that need it or care for the elderly.  We decide as a society those areas we consider important and we pool our money to provide service for all.   In my opinion, the right to basic health care for all is as important as as any other right.

Remember, you are breathing the air the other guy is sneezing into.
0
 
LVL 17

Expert Comment

by:Anthony Russo
Comment Utility
Well said sbdt. I don't think this is some rosy wonderful thing either but it is the best we were going to get and a lot better than the way the current system works.

>>It'll be repealed by then.

That would require the GOP to actually win some elections. and take over the Senate in 2014 which isn't likely. They'll likely hold the house and get a few seats from the Senate possibly but not enough to have control. Also the site will be running by then and a lot of the crap will be worked out so good luck getting public support to repeal it if it catches on.

>>Whole thing is crumbling.

Other than the site and the cancellations that he lied about, can you actually elaborate on this at all? What is actually crumbling about it?

>>You can dress a turd in a tuxedo, but at the end of the day it's still a turd.

Once again. Other than the crappy launch we all admit, what is it that makes it a turd?


[Anthony crosses fingers hoping for actual discussion and not just link drops]
0
 

Expert Comment

by:patriotpacer
Comment Utility
Other than the site and the cancellations that he lied about, can you actually elaborate on this at all?

Obamacare Architect: 'Could Be the Beginning of a Death Spiral'
Harvard professor David Cutler, architect of Obamacare, says we "could be" witnessing "the beginning of a death spiral" for the unpopular health care bill.
0
 
LVL 2

Author Comment

by:bergertime
Comment Utility
People with no insurance, or crappy insurance that they are now forced to upgrade, have been gamboling with our money.  They are gamboling that they will not get in an accident or get a disease that they can not afford to pay for.  If they lose the gambol, they don't pay the bill and we pay it in the form of higher health costs.

Ok, first the crappy insurance.  As far as I understand it, crappy insurance is = to catastrophic.  The whole reason to get catastrophic insurance is because of an accident or a bad disease.  Right?  Not to pay for my yearly mammograms.  Oh, that's right I don't have breasts, but I still have to buy the coverage just in case, right?  Better insurance.  But either way.  Johnny has a crappy policy, has a wreck and can't pay, who pays for it?  The working class does.  Now lets say he gets this great new policy, that pays 100%.  Who pays the bills, the working class.  Either way the same people pay the cost either through higher health care cost or higher insurance premiums.  

Now no insurance, Johnny is a welder and cuts his hand off, crap no insurance.  Goes to the ER, gets his hand put back on, cost 100,000.  Johnny, has nothing to take so the ER writes it off, everyone else's ER cost go up.  Now Johnny figures out he should get insurance, he cuts off his other hand, goes to the ER, cost are the same.  Now Johnny has been paying a monthly fee and now he has a deductible he can afford.  He's out more money.  Tell me what you think Johnny will do?

" When you are in a car accident, you are not in a position to say I don't really need new medical care this year"

Did you have car insurance or did you put that off too?

"In my opinion, the right to basic health care for all is as important as as any other right."

who doesn't have a right to basic health care?  Er's are always open, there are a ton of free clinics where I live.  You're a student at the the University, you have free coverage.  If your poor, you get free coverage, if your old you get free coverage.  Who are these people being denied BASIC health care?
0
 
LVL 17

Expert Comment

by:Anthony Russo
Comment Utility
A link supporting his talking point.  :(

Oh well. Rather than just jump on the headline I'll actually read the article

>>Obamacare Architect: 'Could Be the Beginning of a Death Spiral'

Sounds like a complete abandonment and that the ship is on its way down right now!

>>Harvard professor David Cutler, architect of Obamacare, says we "could be" witnessing "the beginning of a death spiral" for the unpopular health care bill.

This confirms he said we 'could be' witnessing it. Of course the words 'could be' are secret conservative code for 'definitely are'.

But wait. If we actually read what he said in the article it doesn't look so definite and right now, does it?

"We don't know yet," said Cutler. "So what the president is trying to do is to say the website is not working, the exchanges are not working. Let's try and slow the process down and delay it by a year. And if it turns out to be a delay of a year, then we can work through that. It would be uncomfortable as it has been for the past month, but it will turn out okay. If it becomes a permanent situation that people who are healthier stay away and people who are sicker go into the exchanges, that becomes a very big problem."
Notice the word IF that he used. Predicting what could happen in the future. Kind of like I mentioned above. If the healthy people stay away it could be a problem.


How about a discussion now supporting your side. Something from you rather than a link.
0
 
LVL 17

Expert Comment

by:Anthony Russo
Comment Utility
It's always the car accident that is the example. That is catastrophic and sucks. What a lot of people deal with though are the doctor visits and mammograms are preventative care. Ever hear an ounce of prevention equals a pound of cure. Paying for that $100 mammogram saves a 10,000 mastectomy. I get guys don't need it and that is stupid that part. Woman should get that only and guys should get prostate coverage or whatever.

The difference in Johnny having insurance or not is that Johnny is paying for his coverage to get his second hand sewed back on (Johnny needs a new job). The hospital gets paid by the insurance company. ER bills don't go up due to it. The higher premiums from the low risk since Johnny was high risk covers it. That's how insurance has worked since the beginning of the industry! The bar has just moved. That's all that changes.

All that free coverage leaves a good portion of not poor enough and not old enough people who aren't in a university without health insurance. That's who the ACA is for. People who can afford coverage are paying it and now they are paying more to cover the people who haven't had it the whole time but wanted it and are now able to get covered. (Should I paste the bold line above again?)
0
 
LVL 2

Author Comment

by:bergertime
Comment Utility
Anthony, here is what makes it not going to work.

1. the young won't sign up offsetting the high cost patients.  Come on man, you seem bright.  the people signing up are the ones who get more for their money.  We need the ones who get less for their money to sign up.  Won't happen.  

2. rates will rise and we'll still have people who can't afford the copays and deductibles.  So it will crumble into something else, if Ted Cruz is president then, I wonder what.  Obama and the Dems had their shot and they have been proven to be liars.  On top of spying on leaders and the drone attacks, deems will lose the Senate and the White House.

3.  This time next year, when businesses get hit with canceled policies, the shit will really hit the fan.  Our plan at work right now doesn't qualify.  Even the most blind, die had follower of Obama's will have a hard time when all the people at works have premiums go up 20, 30, 40 percent.

4.. Repubs can blame everything on Obamacare, just like Dems did on Bush.  From higher gas prices to the coke not being fizzy enough.  And they will too.  All the good stuff was rolled out too early, people have forgotten that, all the bad stuff comes now, as designed.  It will leave a bad taste, and deems can cry, "but just give it one more year" only so long.  

5. Obama is a proven lier.  In the congressional hearing in 2010, he agreed millions would lose their coverage, yet he continued to campaign on "No one will lose our policy, PERIOD.".  He's a lier.

Want more?
0
 
LVL 2

Author Comment

by:bergertime
Comment Utility
Hey, sbdt started the car thing.  :)

"The difference in Johnny having insurance or not is that Johnny is paying for his coverage to get his second hand sewed back on (Johnny needs a new job). The hospital gets paid by the insurance company. ER bills don't go up due to it. The higher premiums from the low risk since Johnny was high risk covers it. That's how insurance has worked since the beginning of the industry! The bar has just moved. That's all that changes."

End result, Johnny got his hands back and got a new job.  Problem is both times it cost 100,000.  Who pays this?  In case 1, the ER jacks up its rates, in case 2, the insurance company jacks up its rates.  At least I can go to a different ER.  But the end result is the working class, you know the people like me an maybe you who have to go to work each day get stuck with the bill.  

Now keep in mind, Johnny doesn't make much so we, taxpayers are already paying his premiums.  LOL  this makes not sense.  Now in your case of preventive mammograms driving down cost is BS.  Giving all women in the US mammograms will drive up cost.  I have friends that have died from breast cancer and some have survived, it's far cheaper to die from it.  Now, I'm all about saving breasts, but to claim it will drive down cost is just not true.
0
 
LVL 2

Author Comment

by:bergertime
Comment Utility
"People who can afford coverage are paying it and now they are paying more to cover the people who haven't had it the whole time but wanted it and are now able to get covered. (Should I paste the bold line above again?"

Boot out 10 million to get 26,000 on it,  that's why it will fail.
0
 
LVL 17

Expert Comment

by:Anthony Russo
Comment Utility
gotta drive home - reply later. good points though bergertime.
0
 
LVL 2

Author Comment

by:bergertime
Comment Utility
"All that free coverage leaves a good portion of not poor enough and not old enough people who aren't in a university without health insurance. That's who the ACA is for. People who can afford coverage are paying it and now they are paying more to cover the people who haven't had it the whole time but wanted it and are now able to get covered."

You made the best point of all why it would fail, up above, do you see it?  It's the 'wanted' in the last line.  You want it because it cost you more to not have it.  Of course sbdt is a big fan, he has two pre existing conditions.  I'm sure he would gladly pay 300/month to save 1000/month.  But how do you get healthy 30 year old invincibles to pony up?
0
 
LVL 1

Expert Comment

by:sbdt8631
Comment Utility
a bi>Of course sbdy is a big fan, he has two preexisting conditions

Cheap F'n shot. I thought there might be some intelligent exchange here but I was mistaken
0
 
LVL 2

Author Comment

by:bergertime
Comment Utility
I didn't mean any offense, you said.

"Speaking as a person with two preexisting conditions, I am very happy that I no longer have to fear losing my current insurance and then being told for the rest of my life that I will not be covered. "

How was that a cheap shot?  I just reiterated what you had said.  I think my question is still valid though, sure you can get one side to sign on, the side who saves money by buying a policy, but how do you get the other group to pay in, ones who pay 800/month for nothing?  Point being this is what will make Obamcare crumble.
0
 
LVL 17

Expert Comment

by:Anthony Russo
Comment Utility
>>Boot out 10 million to get 26,000 on it,  that's why it will fail.

Exactly it will fail with those numbers. It seems like those are the end result numbers because nobody can really sign up yet due to the crappy website, and others are just waiting until deadline time.

>> I think my question is still valid though, sure you can get one side to sign on, the side who saves money by buying a policy, but how do you get the other group to pay in, ones who pay 800/month for nothing?  Point being this is what will make Obamcare crumble.

I think you're right. The plan is just fine if they get the healthy to sign on. Eventually they will to avoid the penalty as that increases and might as well get the benefits of being covered. If they never get the healthy in, then it will not work.

The other scenario is there are healthy in the health insurance system now. All the popel who have had insurance. Their rates will go up to cover the sick. Again, this is the same way insurance has always worked, just the bar has moved.

To absorb the cost and get lower income, but healthy people in, here are subsidies from the government to help with the premiums. Yes we all pay that in taxes, but it is a democratic bill, so that's the way it works. Conservatives will of course hate the idea and liberals like the idea. I like the idea if it works. If the taxes increased is negated by the lowering of medical bills that we all pay for when someone doesn't pay their ER bill, then it is working.
0
 

Expert Comment

by:patriotpacer
Comment Utility
I like the idea if it works.
Anthony, I think you and B Hussein are the only ones still supporting Obamacare.  

Washington Times:  House votes to let Americans keep health plans; 39 Dems defy Obama

Nearly 40 House Democrats defied President Obama and helped the Republican majority pass a bill Friday that lets Americans keep, for one year, health plans that do not comply with Obamacare.
0
 
LVL 17

Expert Comment

by:Anthony Russo
Comment Utility
>>Anthony, I think you and B Hussein are the only ones still supporting Obamacare.  

Really? That's how you interpret 39 democrats voting to appease their constituents who are panicking over a cancellation letter?

>>Four Republicans voted against the bill, perhaps because it could be viewed as an attempt to smooth over Mr. Obama’s controversial reforms.

Patriot, I think you're the last one still fighting ObamaCare!

We can both play that game and both be just as accurate.
0
 
LVL 2

Author Comment

by:bergertime
Comment Utility
Anthony, tell me this then.  I'm 28, work two jobs, one part time during the day and then I wait tables.  Make to make to much to get free healthcare, so I have to pay for it.  Why would I shell out $500/month?  

My odds would be better to go to the buy 500 powerball tickets than to worry about getting some major health problem .  Plus powerball would be more fun.  But these are the people that have to sign up.  I had health coverage from my employer from 27-30, but I never used it I used walkin clinics if I got sick.  It was only 70 bucks then, if it had been anymore, I wouldn't have kept it.

But at least he did something.....Oh you thought I was talking about Obama on healthcare, no I was referring to Bush on Iraq.  Sometimes 'at least something' is worse than nothing.
0
 
LVL 17

Expert Comment

by:Anthony Russo
Comment Utility
>>Why would I shell out $500/month?  

Because you have a situation where health insurance is important a smart move. This would be that you have diabetes or some other condition where you need to go to a doctor regularly. Or you have kids that need doctor care.

Your specific situation seems like you don't need the expense. Only other reason is peace of mind that an accident isn't going to bankrupt you. If not worried about that then take the $95 fee.

A lot of other people are in the situations where they DO want healthcare though and are willing to pay for it if it is reasonable. It saves them money in the long run or they just like to know they are covered. That's not you.

Too many of you and not enough of people who want healthcare and the system doesn't work. I get that. Just like any health insurance doesn't work if only the sick are on it. Or car insurance if only the bad drivers are on it.

Don't write off the ACA though because nobody ran to sign up the first month while the website (the main way to sign up) is broken. It needs people to work. It needs a process that works. It didn't have to all happen this month.
0
 

Expert Comment

by:patriotpacer
Comment Utility
0
 
LVL 17

Expert Comment

by:Anthony Russo
Comment Utility
Thank you Mr LinkDropper. Your stance on the matter has been duly noted.
0
 

Expert Comment

by:patriotpacer
Comment Utility
Thank you Mr LinkDropper. Your stance on the matter has been duly noted.
Not my stance.  Just giving the facts so as to not draw a conclusion via emotions.  

Joe Biden to Obama: "This is a Big F**king deal
I think what he meant was "This is a Big F**king disaster"
0
 
LVL 17

Expert Comment

by:Anthony Russo
Comment Utility
>>Not my stance.  Just giving the facts so as to not draw a conclusion via emotions.  

Why would you post links that do not back your stance? I also hardly call headlines from Internet news sites facts anymore in this day and age. They are click-bait and then skewed to preach their agenda to those who choose to believe whatever they read and not think critically or check sources of information.

I welcome your conclusions through logic and thinking. Emotion is a poor way to make decisions or argue a point. Feel free to join in on the actual discussion anytime.
0
 

Expert Comment

by:patriotpacer
Comment Utility
welcome your conclusions through logic and thinking.
In every way possible, this has been a huge failure.  They knew it would be a failure, which is why they lied to pass it.  Yet you seem to ignore facts and cling to hope - with absolute nothing to base it on, other than the fact you hope the web site gets fixed.  All of this was predicted.

ID: 39646826  
until they fix it the enrollment will be low.
ID: 39647918  
As it gets fixed more will get coverage.
0
 
LVL 2

Author Comment

by:bergertime
Comment Utility
Anthony, I have insurance, I have to have it.  I have three kids and I have a preexisting condition.  Health care is very important to me.  That's why I'm so vocal on good reform, not this crap we have now that's gonna set us back 10 years.  It's funny, if you think the ACA is bad, it's either you don't need healthcare, your a die hard teapartier or your just plain raciest.  Maybe, just maybe I don't like it because it's bad policy and the negative repercussions will be felt for many years by all americans.
0
 
LVL 17

Expert Comment

by:Anthony Russo
Comment Utility
>>until they fix it the enrollment will be low.
>>As it gets fixed more will get coverage.

Both those statements are entirely true and even you would have to agree with that. Will enough people enroll and get coverage is the question. I never said they will. I said that we don't know and won't know until the website is fixed.

To say it is a failure now would be premature.

>>In every way possible, this has been a huge failure.  They knew it would be a failure,

You say this with absolutely nothing to base it on except that people will not enroll. We don't know that. Nobody has been cancelled and they can shop for insurance and in some cases it will be cheaper, but others it wont. Some go up to cover the influx of sicker people that can suddenly get coverage. That's insurance as I've been saying the whole time.

bergertime - have you shopped to see if there is a better option for you on the exchanges? I would be really interested to know in your situation if you looked into the exchanges and compared what is available with what you are paying now, if it is better for you or higher priced or what the result is.

>>It's funny, if you think the ACA is bad, it's either you don't need healthcare, your a die hard teapartier or your just plain raciest.

Unfortunately left wingers do follow this view a lot like right wingers follow that you must be a moocher to like ACA. That's why I'm Independent.
0
 

Expert Comment

by:patriotpacer
Comment Utility
To say it is a failure now would be premature.
Besides your opinion (which is based on emotion) - where can you point, specifically, showing this is working as intended/sold (overall)?

Poll numbers for Obama are falling fast and the Democrats who voted for it are in panic.  Just because they pass a law calling itself the "Affordable Care Act" doesn't make it so.  If anything, it's everything but.


ABC NEWS:  Botched ACA Rollout Hammers Obama; Job Disapproval Reaches a Career High
He’s at career lows for being a strong leader, understanding the problems of average Americans and being honest and trustworthy
0
 
LVL 27

Expert Comment

by:BigRat
Comment Utility
Health care expenditures in the United States were nearly $2.6 trillion in 2010, an average of $8,402 per person. Source: Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services

from http://www.healthpaconline.net/health-care-statistics-in-the-united-states.htm

that works out at around 700 dollars a month for EACH PERSON. That's actually the top rate which one would pay in Germany, but then an entire family would be insured.

It is quite clear that the US spends much more money than other G7 nations without a corresponding increase in quality. There are a fair number of sites showing this, here's two :-

http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?t=531849
http://machineslikeus.com/news/where-money-goes-us-healthcare-system

It is obvious that the private (for-profit) sector is not delivering the goods. A private non-profit sector with vigorous controls (France, Germany, Switzerland) would certainly do better, and even a national system (Canada, Scandanavia or even the UK) might even work. The problem is, as ever, that if the government is going to make and enforce the rules, it must get out of health care providance completely. Which means some other way of funding Medicare/Medicaid must be found. The French do this by allowing the quangos to extract contributions from corporate bodies, the Germans do this by the government adding tax monies into the "leveling out" process, since some private organisations raise more money than others. Obamacare actually gives tax payers money to private for profit organisations for those who cannot afford the contributions - which in my opinion is scandalous.

Here's the line up US versus Germany :-

US
====================================
Per capita spending: $8,508
Share of GDP spent on health care: 17.7%
Doctors per 1,000 people: 2.5
Nurses per 1,000 people: 11.1
Life expectancy: 78.7
Smoking rate: 14.8%
Obesity rate: 36.5%


Germany
====================================
Per capita spending (in U.S. dollars): $4,495
Share of GDP spent on health care: 11.3%
Doctors per 1,000 people: 3.8
Nurses per 1,000 people: 11.4
Life expectancy: 80.8 years
Smoking rate: 21.9% (2009)
Obesity rate: 14.7% (2009)


from
http://money.msn.com/health-and-life-insurance/global-medical-costs-how-the-us-stacks-up

Note that this spendiong as a portion of the US GDP has gone up from 13% to 17% in the last ten years. Considering that the GDP has grown from some 10 trillion to 17 trillion over the same period, this is a market which has exceeded all expectations. Like an idiot I never invested any money in it. Pity.
0
 

Expert Comment

by:patriotpacer
Comment Utility
BigRat, I don't think anyone would argue health care costs are expensive in the US.  Most of the issues, however, are due to lifestyle vs anything else.  I don't know of too many instances where cancer, heart, or brain patients, needing the best care possible, would choose traveling to Germany over the top US hospitals.  Absolutely absurd to argue that case.

We're arguing government involvement as a solution.  Obamacare is proof that such involvement does not work.  

If I need an MRI, I can get it here (US) in hours.  In canada, it can take up to 10 weeks.

Top Hospitals Opt Out of Obamacare
Many top hospitals are simply opting out of Obamacare.
Chances are the individual plan you purchased outside Obamacare would allow you to go to these facilities.
0
 
LVL 2

Author Comment

by:bergertime
Comment Utility
Notice the obesity rate?  Think maybe, just maybe that could be part of the problem.  I don't think anyone would argue that healthcare in the US needed to stay static.  But Obamacare care takes from the middle class and gives it to the poor.  How about higher rates for obese people, how about they take some responsibility for their own health instead of expecting someone else to foot the bill, but wouldn't that be profiling?  A dirty word to Dems.  Say my BMI is over 50, maybe I should pay more cause I'm gonna more than likely cost the system a lot more.  Punish the responsible and reward the irresponsible.  

Show me this...rank countries on obesity rate and then per capita spending.
0
 
LVL 27

Expert Comment

by:BigRat
Comment Utility
I don't know of too many instances where cancer, heart, or brain patients, needing the best care possible, would choose traveling to Germany over the top US hospitals.  Absolutely absurd to argue that case.

Nobody is arguing that case. What you are missing is not the "top care conditions" but the "average care conditions". What IS clear is that the G7 nations of western Europe offer a better average care than in the US. There are top internationally renowned hospitals in the US just as in Western Europe, but not everybody goes to them, or even can afford it.

We're arguing government involvement as a solution


Well I'm certainly not arguing that. Reread exactly what I wrote.

Obamacare is proof that such involvement does not work.  

Obamacare is proof of nothing, since it has hardly any time to work. Even before Obamacare 47% of the heath care budget came from public finances. Shoving taxpayers money into the hands of private companies has not delivered the goods - that's obvious. What Obamacare has proved is that putting additional money into the current system has virtually no effect on quality of care nor cost reduction of coverage. I could have told him that at the start.

In Canada, it can take up to 10 weeks....

So what? In Canada, just as in the US, too many people are chasing too few resources. Clearly waiting times can be reduced if more money is spent on health care. The question is how much more, what is reasonable and is there any leverage for improvement in existing services, which in fact, the link you posted is all about.

The question is : is one dollar in six a "reasonable" amount to pay for a service which is on average NOT better than say in Western Europe or even Canada?
0
How to run any project with ease

Manage projects of all sizes how you want. Great for personal to-do lists, project milestones, team priorities and launch plans.
- Combine task lists, docs, spreadsheets, and chat in one
- View and edit from mobile/offline
- Cut down on emails

 
LVL 17

Expert Comment

by:Anthony Russo
Comment Utility
>>Besides your opinion (which is based on emotion) - where can you point, specifically, showing this is working as intended/sold (overall)?

It's been a month. It isn't going to have worked yet even if the rollout was perfect, which it obviously wasn't. You act like this is supposed to alter the world in a few weeks and since it hasn't the entire thing is a failure.

With the bothced website it of course has no chance of being effective. When people are actually able to sign up then we will see if they do, until then it is not about to be able to work.

Show me where my opinions have been based on emotion rather than information and logical thinking?
0
 

Expert Comment

by:patriotpacer
Comment Utility
Shoving taxpayers money into the hands of private companies has not delivered the goods - that's obvious.
We call that letting people keep their own money.  That's a novel idea.  

But to the point I believe you were trying to make - government intervention (ie, Obamacare, medicare, medicaid) is precisely why expenses are high.  When you're not accountable for the cost, know nothing of what that service does cost, it's human nature to abuse.  Stub your toe - run to the ER.


You act like this is supposed to alter the world
Unfortunately it has.  See ID: 39657293

Democrats are going to run from their Obamacare vote exactly the way they ran from their vote to authorize war in Iraq.
0
 
LVL 27

Expert Comment

by:BigRat
Comment Utility
But to the point I believe you were trying to make - government intervention (ie, Obamacare, medicare, medicaid) is precisely why expenses are high

Actually the point I'm making is that costs are high simply because too many people are chasing a scarce resource.

The original idea behind "health care" was a form of protection for workers. Many companies in Europe ran schemes for workers and their dependants as a bonus extra, with the hidden intention that a healthy worker was a productive worker. The state turned this into a national system, with employees and employers contributions. People who were self employed or unemployed had to see for themselves. The system then got extended to cover the elderly (Johnsons Medicare is a good example) In Europe the state turned the system into a non-profit system. The US simply carried on with private insurance. In the private sector prices are related to demand. In the public sector prices are capped and/or demand destimulated. This is why the US system costs more than the European systems.

You can fiddle here and fiddle there, but the overall effect is only going to subtract a few percentage points - it's not going to make a big difference.

If you change the system you *might* achieve European like costs - although I doubt it, since these things are dynamically conservative. The best way is to reduce demand, but the only country I know which is trying that is France, who issue health warnings on food consumption. And they're not very successful.
0
 
LVL 17

Expert Comment

by:Anthony Russo
Comment Utility
>>Stub your toe - run to the ER.

Way to fill that conservative stereotype. "Everyone is just a bunch of freeloading moochers."

BTW my friend stubbed his toe once and toughed it out. It happened to be broken and dislocated and needed to be re-broken and set to keep him from walking with a limp the rest of his life.

This is the situation that happens though. You hurt yourself and decide to touch it out to avoid the bill when it is something that does require medical attention to fix. For a lot of people that is a tough decision, and if it is your kid that decision gets made pretty quickly and you take the bill.

Health coverage is a requirement in life so now it is being made into one. Almost nobody goes through life without needing the health system sometime and considering half the country is in the lower middle class to lower income bracket, they cannot 'just pay it' as it's way too expensive.
0
 
LVL 2

Author Comment

by:bergertime
Comment Utility
"sometime and considering half the country is in the lower middle class to lower income bracket, they cannot 'just pay it' as it's way too expensive."

What about healthy food, it's expensive, a good college degree?  Maybe solid transportation...(Bob Barker)  "A NEW car!!".  Where does it end. When do people start taking responsibility?  

Anthony, would you agree with this statement, Most people that are poor are poor from making poor decisions?

"Everyone is just a bunch of freeloading moochers."
Fine, you don't think they are, take several hundred dollar bills and hang them from a tree in your yard and see how hard people will work to get them.  Or better yet, give me your cell# and let me post on craigslist, free pizza to any one that calls.  Ever work with one of those guys who will work twice as hard to get out of work?  I have.
0
 
LVL 17

Expert Comment

by:Anthony Russo
Comment Utility
>>What about healthy food, it's expensive, a good college degree?
>>Anthony, would you agree with this statement, Most people that are poor are poor from making poor decisions?

I do agree. However that is half the country you're talking about. It doesn't work to have a system that ignores half the country. This is where the conservative argument always fails to me.

They just want to take care of those that are doing things right and the rest are out of luck. The problem is that doesn't just make the rest go away. They are still going to go to the ER and use the healthcare system and it is costing everyone each time they go and don't pay the bill. It doesn't matter if they are poor on their own or not, it has to be dealt with. Ignoring the problem doesn't make it go away.

The other side of the coin is the liberal argument where they should get the same treatment and services that the wealthy people get. No. You didn't accomplish what they did and get wealthy and that is what they worked for. You don't get treated equal if you don't earn it, but you also don't just get left to your own failures either in this country.

I tend to try to find something that is reasonable and workable and doesn't abandon those that made poor decisions, but also doesn't just give them whatever they want. Both extremes have the wrong view of the other side and can't see what it is really like for them it seems. Both extremes also don';t represent the majority of that class either.

A lot of the poor do work hard but make poor decisions and stay poor. A lot of the rich do give a lot of charity and earned what they have. The extreme views that poor are just lazy and rich are just lucky is a small percentage, but that's what everyone focuses on who is on the other side.
0
 

Expert Comment

by:patriotpacer
Comment Utility
It took a while but people are finally wising up.  Americans now get to see the devastation of unchecked Democrat policies.  If Obama had his way on everything, his approval would be in single digits.

George Bush was relentlessly attacked by the media - something this "president" hasn't had to worry about.  The media never holds him accountable.

CBS News: Obama at 37% approval

Obama approval
0
 
LVL 17

Expert Comment

by:Anthony Russo
Comment Utility
No kidding his approval rating is in the tank. He rolled out his biggest legislation and it's a train wreck of a rollout. People don't take much to turn on someone so he is going to be disliked now. He also lied to get this thing passed which adds to the downward spiral. I love how you act like I've been defending him the entire time or even have stated he has been doing a good job as President. I haven't mentioned that once.

I'd love to see you state two things that your party is wrong about? Are they always 100% correct in everything? Is there anything that you hear on FoxNews and you just go "Well I don't agree with that because of this reason or that reason."

I can tell you plenty I do not agree with on both sides, because nobody is right all the time. If you cannot see the error in your party, how can you hope they get better?
0
 
LVL 17

Expert Comment

by:Anthony Russo
Comment Utility
Since you're such a fan of dropping links, I'll leave this here:

Right wing cyber attacks on Healthcare.gov website confirmed

"Destroy Obama Care!", that's the advertised name given to the attack tool by "right wing patriots" who are distributing the DDoS tool through downloads on social networks, which promises to overwhelm the Healthcare.gov website.

"This program continually displays alternate page of the ObamaCare website. It has no virus, Trojans, worms, or cookies. The purpose is to overload the ObamaCare website, to deny service to users and perhaps overload and crash the system," reads the program's grammar- and spelling-challenged "about" screen. "You can open as many copies of this program as you want. Each copy opens multiple links to the site."

"ObamaCare is an affront to the Constitutional rights of the people," it adds. "We have the right to civil disobedience!"
But I'm sure they are only concerned with doing what is best for the American people.  SMH.
0
 

Expert Comment

by:patriotpacer
Comment Utility
Right wing cyber attacks on Healthcare.gov website confirmed
The site was only built to handle 6 concurrent users - a denial of service attack could be accomplished by refreshing a page 2 times.  But according to security experts NO ONE should be on the site.


TESTIMONY YESTERDAY OF 4 DIFFERENT SECURITY EXPERTS:
There’s not a lot of security built into the site
it’s one of the largest collections of personal data, social security and everything else, that we’ve ever seen,
All four cyber security experts unanimously concurred that, given the security issues, Americans should not use the site at present.
Healthcare.gov ‘may already have been compromised,’ security expert says
0
 
LVL 17

Expert Comment

by:Anthony Russo
Comment Utility
>>Right wing cyber attacks on Healthcare.gov website confirmed

Nothing that you posted addressed this quote. It addressed security of the site but nothing having to do with right-wing cyber attacks.

I suppose crashing the site on purpose is a good goal for the conservatives to have?
0
 
LVL 27

Expert Comment

by:BigRat
Comment Utility
Also from the same link :-

That’s exactly the case, said Avi Rubin, technical director of Johns Hopkins University's Information Security Institute. The healthcare industry is indeed woefully behind.

“It’s actually the most far behind in terms of security … there are even things in the operating room that surprise me. I think the healthcare it industry needs to learn a lot from some of the other industries to bring its security up to par,” Rubin said.

so it seems it's par for the course.
0
 

Expert Comment

by:patriotpacer
Comment Utility
I'm so supposed to take some nutty blog as "news," especially with the constant use of the words "Right Wing" in it?

I realize you want this thing to work and you want it badly.  That in itself is noble.  But it's time to face reality.  The "hope" part of "hope and change" is gone.  Speeches can't fix the economy or fix healthcare.  And it certainly can't fix healthcare.gov.  

SEE BELOW.  YOU CAN'T MAKE THIS STUFF UP.

CBS News:  Healthcare Site Crashes While Sebelius Tries To Sign Person Up At Media Event
0
 
LVL 17

Expert Comment

by:Anthony Russo
Comment Utility
>>I realize you want this thing to work and you want it badly.

I don't specifically want this thing to work. I want something to work rather than what we have now. This is the thing that is actually an attempt as a better system so yes, I want this thing to work. If the Republicans tried something that was an offer to a better solution and it was being implemented, I would want that thing to work.

>>The "hope" part of "hope and change" is gone.

Parrot the FoxNews talking point. Good job.

>>Speeches can't fix the economy or fix healthcare.  And it certainly can't fix healthcare.gov.

I agree. Obviously actions fix things and not speeches.

>>I'm so supposed to take some nutty blog as "news," especially with the constant use of the words "Right Wing" in it?

Agree it is a left leaning blog. That's why I check sources and it goes to this article on Information Week, which is not at all a left or right leaning anything.

http://www.informationweek.com/security/vulnerabilities-and-threats/hackers-threaten-destruction-of-obamacare-website/d/d-id/1112207?

>>YOU CAN'T MAKE THIS STUFF UP.

Sure you can. You see I was under the impression that these were click-bait headlines that the news organizations made up. Now I noticed that is not the case and it is just a click-bait headline that YOU made up!

The headline of the article is really: HHS Secretary Sebelius Visits South Florida To Meet With Healthcare Navigators

Bad form man. At least let the news organizations put the slant on things rather than doing it yourself.
0
 
LVL 2

Author Comment

by:bergertime
Comment Utility
Bush must have coded the website.  Mission accomplished.
0
 
LVL 17

Expert Comment

by:Anthony Russo
Comment Utility
Dodging shoes the whole time too.  :)
0
 
LVL 2

Author Comment

by:bergertime
Comment Utility
lol, that's funny.  I read the Director of the site I think it was said it was still 40% incomplete.  And it's currently over 500 million lines of code.    I wonder even if this thing gets and running smoothly, is it even maintainable?
0
 
LVL 27

Expert Comment

by:BigRat
Comment Utility
it's currently over 500 million lines of code.

Probably mostly comment.
0
 

Expert Comment

by:patriotpacer
Comment Utility
http://www.informationweek.com/security/vulnerabilities-and-threats/hackers-threaten-destruction-of-obamacare-website/d/d-id/1112207?
Point already made and agreed with.  Security experts brought in to congress all agreed the web site is (1) a hackers dream (2) is poorly designed (3) exposes private information and (4) should be shut down.  

Probably mostly comment.
A lot of these contractors get paid by the lines of code, not including comments.  They have an incentive to bloat.  

I wonder even if this thing gets and running smoothly
The whole site has to be rewritten.  The law will be repealed by then.  




White House email chain reveals launch fears
Top White House and health officials feared that HealthCare.gov would not work correctly and would set off a wave of bad publicity,
0
 

Expert Comment

by:patriotpacer
Comment Utility
Right wing cyber attacks on Healthcare.gov website confirmed
Yahoo News: Days before launch, Obamacare website failed to handle even 500 users

So, Anthony, all we need are 250 right wingers to twice refresh their browsers at the same and they alone could take down healthcare.gov?

Funny if it weren't so sad.  $634 million dollars wasted.
0
 
LVL 17

Expert Comment

by:Anthony Russo
Comment Utility
>>The whole site has to be rewritten.  The law will be repealed by then.  

You'll have to win the white house or the senate for that.

>>Funny if it weren't so sad.  $634 million dollars wasted.
>>Yahoo News: Days before launch, Obamacare website failed to handle even 500 users
>>White House email chain reveals launch fears

We get that the site don't work now and nobody told anyone that it wasnt going to work and it cost too much to make. You can stop posting those types of links. We agree on that.

>>So, Anthony, all we need are 250 right wingers to twice refresh their browsers at the same and they alone could take down healthcare.gov?

This is the problem. You don't seem to mind that they are even trying to crash the site or even address how terrible that is. Rather than try to fix or let it be fix they are trying to make things harder and you don't even see that as a bad thing.
0
 
LVL 27

Expert Comment

by:BigRat
Comment Utility
Anthony: They're just a bunch of sore loosers.
0
 

Expert Comment

by:patriotpacer
Comment Utility
You'll have to win the white house or the senate for that.
1.  A Democratic legislator pleads guilty to election fraud
2.  WSJ:  More Acorn Voter Fraud Comes to Light - Congressional Democrats still want the group to be eligible for federal money.
3.  WSJ Obama and Acorn - Mr. Obama, who got his start as a Chicago "community organizer" at Acorn's side


Anthony: They're just a bunch of sore loosers.
That would be the American people.

USATODAY:  Sticker shock hits health exchange shoppers
Sweeping differences in health care exchange pricing among states and counties is leading to sticker shock for some middle-class consumers and others who aren't eligible for subsidies under the Affordable Care Act
0
 
LVL 2

Author Comment

by:bergertime
Comment Utility
Sore losers?  Hardly.  I guess it's all in perspective.  I'm sure you guys blame Repubs for the gov't shutdown.  It takes two to tango, both sides didn't agree, hence the shutdown.  Obamacare has forced millions to lose their insurance, does anyone disagree with that?  Millions have lost their insurance due to the law.  The website was not ready, anybody argue with that?  It was Obama forcing it down and not willing to even consider slowing down any.  What was his quote?  I'm sure cars has that.  Yet you guys still blame Repubs for not only the gov't shutdown, but now cause Obamacare is failing.  You guys are crazy.  And we're the sore losers?  No the sore losers are the ones who's healthcare that they needed was cancelled, sure now they can pay more and get free breast exams yearly even if they are dudes or lost their breast to cancer already, but oh hell no, they still have to buy it.  And here's what's dumb.  Sure for the smaller group getting mammograms, their cost will drop, but never mind that the majority's cost will go up.  So at the end of the day mammograms get more expensive, but since the price dropped for the minority Obama will claim his plan has dropped prices.  Punish the many for the benefit of the few, the dem way...

Who said this?

"We must combat an unholy axis of new threats from terrorists, international criminals and drug traffickers. These 21st century predators feed on technology and the free flow of information and ideas and people, and they will be all the more lethal if weapons of mass destruction fall into their hands. "
"Together, we must also confront the new hazards of chemical and biological weapons and the outlaw states, terrorists, and organized criminals seeking to acquire them.
Saddam Hussein has spent the better part of this decade and much of his nation's wealth not on providing for the Iraqi people but on developing nuclear, chemical and biological weapons and the missiles to deliver them."
0
 
LVL 17

Expert Comment

by:Anthony Russo
Comment Utility
>>You'll have to win the white house or the senate for that.

I bring up this point and you drop a bunch of links about fraud but say nothing? So are we to play a guessing game that you admit you can't win the white house because democrats just cheat? That the best you got?

>>USATODAY:  Sticker shock hits health exchange shoppers

(Just a link and quote. It's like debating with Google).

The article also does nothing to show you point BTW. It just is stating that the cost of healthcare in the expensive states is double the cost in the cheaper states. That's called math and how an average works. The same can be held true about houses! What does that mean? The housing market should go away?

Since you're a fan of links, here's one for you:

Obamacare enrollments pick up steam but don't include many young people

Apparently everyone isn't running away from it. The main issue is the crappy website. Where the states have their own exchanges enrollment has doubled in November. The issue though is getting the younger healthy people to join up as well so it still has a long way to go.
0
 
LVL 17

Expert Comment

by:Anthony Russo
Comment Utility
>>I'm sure you guys blame Repubs for the gov't shutdown.  It takes two to tango, both sides didn't agree, hence the shutdown.

Agree both sides are responsible but the brunt of the blame is on Repubs. If you are trying to come into my house with a bomb and I am blocking the door about negotiating with you until you get rid of the bomb, then yes I would be part of the blame for you standing outside in the cold, but the majority of blame is because you are holding the bomb and wont let it go.

>>Obamacare has forced millions to lose their insurance, does anyone disagree with that?  Millions have lost their insurance due to the law.

Millions have received cancellation letters and are going to have to shop for new insurance before January 1. Nobody has lost their insurance as of yet. The cause is that the plans they have don't meet the new standard of ACA so yes it is the cause of it. If the site worked then this would be less of a problem, but since the site sucks, it is a major issue.


>>The website was not ready, anybody argue with that?

Absolutely.

>>Yet you guys still blame Repubs for not only the gov't shutdown, but now cause Obamacare is failing.

I explained how the repubs get most of the blame for the shutdown, but give them no blame for the failing of ObamaCare, or at least the rollout. I just stated they are making effort to make it worse which is stupid, rather than try to fix it or let it be fixed.

>>No the sore losers are the ones who's healthcare that they needed was cancelled, sure now they can pay more and get free breast exams yearly even if they are dudes or lost their breast to cancer already, but oh hell no, they still have to buy it.  And here's what's dumb.  Sure for the smaller group getting mammograms, their cost will drop, but never mind that the majority's cost will go up.  So at the end of the day mammograms get more expensive, but since the price dropped for the minority Obama will claim his plan has dropped prices.  Punish the many for the benefit of the few, the dem way...

More sick entering the system who were denied before. Rates go up on those that had insurance to help offset this. This is how insurance always works as I've been saying the whole time. The many/few argument is still unknown depending on signups. It's too soon to call. The website sucking is the main hurdle to it having a smooth loss and the issue is if that really is going to keep people away after it is fixed because the brand is so damaged from the shoddy rollout.

>>Who said this?

President Bill Clinton - January 27, 1998  (Thank you Google)

Your point on the quote?
0
 
LVL 2

Author Comment

by:bergertime
Comment Utility
"Apparently everyone isn't running away from it."

You got that right, just the young and healthy ones.  The ones who get something for free are flocking to it like a bird feeder.  Wanna know what's going to happen?  It'll reach a tipping point where it's broken.  Enough sick people will sign up, Middle class people like me who work will see our insurance go through the roof.  And then we'll be forced into a single payer system.  Here's Obama's teachable moment

"Let's see I can't pass a good law, and I don't want to look weak and work with the Repubs...Eureka!!!  I will pass a very very bad law with a poorly written website that will hurt many good people, I will call it the badong law.  This will totally ruin the current system and force them to follow me to get insurance.  Everyone knows you die a horrible death without insurance...period!".
0
 
LVL 2

Author Comment

by:bergertime
Comment Utility
"Agree both sides are responsible but the brunt of the blame is on Repubs. If you are trying to come into my house with a bomb and I am blocking the door about negotiating with you until you get rid of the bomb, then yes I would be part of the blame for you standing outside in the cold, but the majority of blame is because you are holding the bomb and wont let it go."

Who had the bomb?  Obama passed a crappy law that's backed up by a crappy website, repubs tried to do everything they could to protect the American people, Obama and the Dems refused to even consider anything, to hell with the American people, let them eat cake while they are waiting on the website.  Who was willing to sit down and talk?  Hint: It wasn't Obama.

My point on the quote was people still blame Bush for lying us into war and calling them the axis of evil, just kinda funny.  I do realize axis of evil(Bush) <> unholy axis(Clinton).
0
 
LVL 17

Expert Comment

by:Anthony Russo
Comment Utility
>>You got that right, just the young and healthy ones.  The ones who get something for free are flocking to it like a bird feeder.  Wanna know what's going to happen?  It'll reach a tipping point where it's broken.  Enough sick people will sign up, Middle class people like me who work will see our insurance go through the roof.  And then we'll be forced into a single payer system.  Here's Obama's teachable moment

I agree. We have been agreeing the whole time that the young and healthy have to join up for this to be successful. The biggest problem has been the nightmare process due to the crappy website. You are figuring it is dead and over while I think there it still can work and they will get the signups they need of healthy people.

>>"Let's see I can't pass a good law, and I don't want to look weak and work with the Repubs...Eureka!!!  I will pass a very very bad law with a poorly written website that will hurt many good people, I will call it the badong law.  This will totally ruin the current system and force them to follow me to get insurance.  Everyone knows you die a horrible death without insurance...period!".

I never like when someone is stating that the other side is purposely doing something they think is going to ruin the country. Other than the the repubs trying to crash the site that I mentioned above (which is blatant), I still think that they are doing what they feel is right, even if I don't agree with it.

Obama is not trying to ruin the country. Neither is Ted Cruz with his idiotic stances. I feel he is doing what he honestly thinks is the right thing to do (maybe Cruz is a stretch and he just wanted the attention and limelight), but they are just wrong in their views on that.
0
 

Expert Comment

by:patriotpacer
Comment Utility
0
 
LVL 17

Expert Comment

by:Anthony Russo
Comment Utility
>>Who had the bomb?  Obama passed a crappy law that's backed up by a crappy website, repubs tried to do everything they could to protect the American people, Obama and the Dems refused to even consider anything, to hell with the American people, let them eat cake while they are waiting on the website.  Who was willing to sit down and talk?  Hint: It wasn't Obama.

The law passed all three branches of the government and was LAW! To not fund the government (when that wouldn't even stop the law they didn't like) was f*n stupid! If not funding the government would have prevented the law from going into effect it would still suck but at least have made common sense.

Dems get some blame for not negotiating but there really was nothing to negotiate as the repubs never should have held the funds hostage over something unrelated and they had no end plan for it. They get the brunt of the blame from america and rightly so.
0
 
LVL 2

Author Comment

by:bergertime
Comment Utility
Anthony, I agree, just having some fun, it was a play on 'Kung Pow, the movie'  It was a joke on evil betty making a badong plan.  Nevermind.  

Do you disagree that this is a path to a single payer system?   And the repubs aren't trying to crash the system.  People are, some are repubs, some code pink, some whatever.  Tell me this, what other country in the world has a system like ours now?  Nobody, because it won't work.

Get this, if I were single, and in my 20-30's, I could cancel my insurance, save 400/month, make sure I don't get a tax refund and if I get bad sick, just go out and buy it.  And I get no fine can only be paid via a tax refund.  How crazy is that.
0
 
LVL 27

Expert Comment

by:BigRat
Comment Utility
Tell me this, what other country in the world has a system like ours now?  Nobody, because it won't work

Hmmm. It seems that the penny is dropping.

Tell me this, how much can a health insurer use from the monthly paymenst for administration, buildings, his employees salaries, profits etc? In percent? In Germany it is 4%, fixed by law.
0
 
LVL 2

Author Comment

by:bergertime
Comment Utility
Hmm...not the one we had but our new one....the Obamacare one, signed, sealed and delivered by no one other than the dems.  Fix it?  We went from a system, according to Obama that 90% of the people are happy with to a far more complicated system.  Let's see, lets take a system that 90% are happy with and make the missing 10% happy while uprooting 40%.  What country has changed their current system and gone to anything even remotely like Obamacare?  Yes the penny is dropping on a lot of people who were for this.  

It's 20%.  Hopefully the people in Germany are smart enough to know with capped profit they really need to start looking at ways to increase cost, easiest way to increase profit right?
0
 
LVL 17

Expert Comment

by:Anthony Russo
Comment Utility
>>Do you disagree that this is a path to a single payer system?

Possible end situation of it but not the intended goal or a goal at all really. The goal is that the system will work.

>>And the repubs aren't trying to crash the system.  People are, some are repubs, some code pink, some whatever.

Agree. It isn't like congress is hacking the site. They are lucky if they know how to load Google in there. The tea party zealots are the ones that would intentionally try something like this and have been. Not blaming the tea party for it directly, but i'm sure the ones doing it, are fans of the tea party.

>>Tell me this, what other country in the world has a system like ours now?  Nobody, because it won't work.

No other country needs such a change because they don't spend so much on healthcare and have so many people without access to health coverage.

I know this system is far from perfect, but the system we have now is crap. This might turn out to be crap too, but slightly better crap. Or maybe not. We don't know yet but since it's the only thing being tried, I'm hoping it will work, and it still has a chance to work. Stating the entire system sucking because the rollout was botched is short sighted and more time has to go by before we know if it worked or not.

For some 5% - 10% it will suck as their rates will go up. It also sucks he lied to get it passed. If not enough people are benefited then it is a failure, but it hasn't been given that chance yet. If the sign-ups continue to improve and can pull some healthy people into it then it can still succeed.

I'm fully open to any other idea but the repubs dont have one and arent even trying to. They just want this gone and everything to stay the same, because their base are the ones that have coverage now. As of now this is the one being tried so I'm pulling for it to make a change for the better instead of just calling it DOA when it is too soon for that.
0
 

Expert Comment

by:patriotpacer
Comment Utility
0
 
LVL 17

Expert Comment

by:Anthony Russo
Comment Utility
>>Republicans were COMPLETELY shut out from Obamacare negotiations.
Moreover, after promising to broadcast to the American people, Obamacare negotiations were behind closed doors.  Only far left nuts were allowed in.

Agree 100% the Republicans were shut out of creating ObamaCare. So what did the Republicans do to come up with their own fix?
0
 
LVL 2

Author Comment

by:bergertime
Comment Utility
So what did the Republicans do to come up with their own fix?
How many links do you want?  
Ryan's from CNN

More?

But isn't Obamacare really just a repackaged Repub idea that both parties years ago agreed sucked?  But now it rocks?  Want me to post links to what the Dems....or even Obama had to say about it before he was for it?  Come on cars, that's your queue.

I've said over and over, single payer is better than this,  Frances's system is better than this, our previous system was better than this.  Personally not a big fan of single payer myself, but I do like the way France fuses the two.  Just remember this was all Dem policy, no Repub support at all.  You can't blame repubs when it fails, but they will.  The website makes no difference, it's really sad, 3 months from now no one will care as the traffic will drop to nothing.  They should have staged the rollout.  They have a problem that's the reverse of the private sector, for say newegg they build capacity as demand grows, healthcare.gov will need the biggest capacity in the beginning then tapper off.  But the Gov't is so clueless about anything.
0
 
LVL 17

Expert Comment

by:Anthony Russo
Comment Utility
>>How many links do you want?  

As many links as you got to something that ever was more than a proposal. Any rep and their brother can draw up a proposal. Who did the work of getting it put into legislation, or even up for a vote in congress? That would be a viable plan. Proposals are easy. Implementing them is the real work and none of them have put forth a serious effort to do so.

>>They should have staged the rollout.  They have a problem that's the reverse of the private sector, for say newegg they build capacity as demand grows, healthcare.gov will need the biggest capacity in the beginning then tapper off.

Agree they should have staged it. There is an exact equivalent here. It's like the launch of a new popular online game. The first day everything crashes while the servers get overloaded with eager people wanting in. Smart players know to wait a couple of days before even trying to get in and have a decent experience. Eventually as a game dies out, servers are turned off and merged. Every gamer saw this crash coming even if the site was coded correctly. Stupid that the government didn't.

>>The website makes no difference, it's really sad, 3 months from now no one will care as the traffic will drop to nothing.

How do you think nobody will care in 3 months? In January a lot of people are going to care because it goes into effect then. Then another wave in March with the deadline. The site isn't just going to suddenly not be important. The law isn't going away unless Repubs actually get a guy in the white house and by then it will either have worked and it wont go away or failed and will go away quickly. Hopefully a decent backup is ready if that is the case.
0
 

Expert Comment

by:patriotpacer
Comment Utility
I've said over and over, single payer is better than this,  Frances's system is better than this, our previous system was better than this.  
Only if you want to wait weeks instead of hours for an MRI....or any major treatment.  Or you want the government to tell your mom she's too old for a transplant and that it must go to someone younger.


So what did the Republicans do to come up with their own fix?
I can post the links but Harry Reid and the Dems control the senate.  Won't take up ANY Republican proposals and will NOT negotiate (exact words).  And Obama said he'll veto any Republican proposals and he too will not negotiate.

Just because MSNBC tells you and the 5 other people who watch it that Republicans have no ideas doesn't make it so.
0
 
LVL 2

Author Comment

by:bergertime
Comment Utility
"How do you think nobody will care in 3 months?"

The traffic will die down, How many people will be shopping in May? like maybe 8.  That's a hyperbole, but it won't be many.  So they build this sight to handle x million people, the only time the traffic will be that high is now, after the first of the year, traffic will slow down a bunch.  

"Only if you want to waits weeks instead of hours for an MRI"

I agree, but you have to admit anything would be better.  If I wanted to pass a law to screw over the most people, it would look just like this.
0
 

Expert Comment

by:patriotpacer
Comment Utility
Anthony:  Change the law the democratic way.
Obama:  If Congress won't act, I will


Anthony: The law passed all three branches of the government and was LAW!
Democrats: 'We Have to Consider Extending the Deadline for the Mandate'

If it's the law, why are Democrats allowed to change it but Republicans are not?

0
 

Expert Comment

by:patriotpacer
Comment Utility
SOMEONE DO ME A FAVOR AND PROVE THESE STORIES INCORRECT.  I'M BEGGING.


70% of California doctors are boycotting California's Obamacare exchanges
Approximately 7 out of every 10 doctors in California have said they will not participate in California’s Obamacare health insurance exchange, according to the Washington Examiner and several other media sources on Friday.


OBAMACARE ARCHITECT:  If You Like Your Doctor, You Can Pay More
0
 
LVL 27

Expert Comment

by:BigRat
Comment Utility
Well, the answer is in the text :-

Dr. Theodore M. Mazer – an ear, nose and throat physician in San Diego – reports that doctors receive from $500 to $700 for performing a tonsillectomy in many other states, but in California, the payment allowed is $160 under the Obamacare exchanges.

The real question is, what sort of peculiar country do you live in, where charges can vary so much from state to state under what ostensibly is a federal program?

I think I'd emigrate, because it sounds far too complicated.
0
 
LVL 17

Expert Comment

by:Anthony Russo
Comment Utility
>>70% of California doctors are boycotting California's Obamacare exchanges

From the source article at http://washingtonexaminer.com/doctors-boycotting-californias-obamacare-exchange/article/2540272

Franklin said last summer she "got a letter in the mail letting me know if I wanted to participate with Blue Cross through the exchange, which is different from my regular Blue Cross practice, because they are paying less. They did not tell me how much less. You had to agree or disagree. So, of course, I said no."

..............

The exchange issued a May release making that claim before doctors could respond to a memorandum of understanding from insurers. Most didn't because the MOU lacked reimbursement rates.

“When they sent out MOU information and said, ‘Would you be willing to participate?’ earlier this year, most of us said, ‘How about sending us the rates?’ " Mazer recalled.
So the exchange sent out blank information and most doctors wisely said no. I would have said no too. The rates have to be released before anyone is going to say yes. After the rates are released and the doctors still say no, then you have an valid argument.

I'll also be the first to admit it sucks they tried to get doctors to sign on without the rates listed. Whoever thought that was a good idea and signed off on sending out the MOU that way should lose their job. They are already getting paid squat compared to the rest of the country according to the article.

>>OBAMACARE ARCHITECT:  If You Like Your Doctor, You Can Pay More

And for the umpteenth time:

The system changes to allow more high-risk or sick individuals into it. This has to be offset by the healthy people paying more to cover the influx of sick people. Just like if there are more bad drivers then the good drivers pay more to cover them in auto insurance.

Again, and again, and again...this is how insurance works. The healthy cover the sick. Nothing is changing except the bar is being moved. As the bar moves, your doctor might be out of the network and you'll have to pay more to continue to see them.

I'm not arguing this but you keep bringing it up as some valid point. Healthy people are paying more to cover the sick people who had no coverage previously. For the healthy people, ACA costs them more. How much more plainer do you need to hear it?
0
 

Expert Comment

by:patriotpacer
Comment Utility
Dr. Theodore M. Mazer – an ear, nose and throat physician in San Diego – reports that doctors receive from $500 to $700 for performing a tonsillectomy in many other states, but in California, the payment allowed is $160 under the Obamacare exchanges.
RESULT = Doctor shortage or Obamacare patients not accepted.


The real question is, what sort of peculiar country do you live in, where charges can vary so much from state to state under what ostensibly is a federal program?
So you assume government knows what services are worth?


I think I'd emigrate, because it sounds far too complicated.
We call that Obamacare



Just like if there are more bad drivers then the good drivers pay more to cover them in auto insurance.
 Bad drivers (tickets, accidents, drunk driving) have a preexisting condition.  Thus, they pay more.  


The system changes to allow more high-risk or sick individuals into it. This has to be offset by the healthy people paying more to cover the influx of sick people.
High risk and poor sign up, low risk don't sign up.  How do you pay for it?
0
 
LVL 17

Expert Comment

by:Anthony Russo
Comment Utility
>>RESULT = Doctor shortage or Obamacare patients not accepted.

Thank you for your perfect analysis as I'm sure the doctors will just forego their years of education and start flipping burgers. All the vacant medical colleges presently with the tumbleweeds blowing through them will be nicely converted into skateparks in California as well.

I'm pretty sure the medical profession will not be abandoned.

>> Bad drivers (tickets, accidents, drunk driving) have a preexisting condition.  Thus, they pay more.

Of course they pay more. But not enough to cover the expense they are to the company. That is where the good drivers pay more, in relation to how many bad drivers have to be compensated for. Do you really think the insurance premiums you pay are just to cover yourself?

>>High risk and poor sign up, low risk don't sign up.  How do you pay for it?

Sign-ups doubled last month now that the website is working for the most part. They also are increasing consistently. Some of those are not poor sick workers. They need to get enough of them to sign up. Neither I nor you know if that is going to happen which is why I have been maintaining that the system CAN work, and not that it WILL work. You of course with your crystal ball have been proclaiming that it WONT work.

It will be paid for by the healthy people with insurance through higher premiums. Sucks for them. The more other healthy people that sign up, the less it will cost the ones that already have insurance. The numbers have to be checked 6 months, 1 year, etc.  from now to be sure it isn't the train wreck with tons of the poor and sick only signed up. Your scenario very well could happen, but again, nobody knows yet.
0
 

Expert Comment

by:patriotpacer
Comment Utility
While the damage is done, this is very encouraging.  Just wish people could have seen through the speeches and realized putting in an inexperienced, liberal, community organizer was a horrible idea.

Obama's Current Approval Rating Is The Ugliest Since Nixon
President Barack Obama is ending his fifth year in office with the lowest approval ratings at this point in the presidency since President Richard Nixon, according to a new Washington Post/ABC poll released Tuesday.
(TO COMPARE OBAMA TO NIXON IS VERY INSULTING TO NIXON)

Pew: Liberal support for Obama at all-time low
Worse for Obama: Younger liberals have lost their thrill for Obama more than older liberals. Of those aged 18-49, just 46 percent strongly approve of the president, 39 percent “not so strongly,”
0
 
LVL 27

Expert Comment

by:BigRat
Comment Utility
So what?
0
 
LVL 17

Expert Comment

by:Anthony Russo
Comment Utility
Agree. So what?
0
 

Expert Comment

by:patriotpacer
Comment Utility
>>So what?

The "what" is that Obama pulled off the biggest con job in US voting history.   Speeches can only get you so far.

With no negative media coverage, he's gotten away it...until this healthcare disaster.
0
 
LVL 27

Expert Comment

by:BigRat
Comment Utility
Whether his health care is a disaster or not, only history will tell. And if you personally don't like it, there's always the next election. Meanwhile, get a life. Obama is not going to go away by you continually abusing him in here.

You, patriotpacer, don't actually discuss anything, like, for example, whether universal health care is a desirable thing or not, or at what cost. We just get a continual tirade of abuse against Barack Obama. That's just boring.
0
 

Expert Comment

by:patriotpacer
Comment Utility
0
 
LVL 27

Expert Comment

by:BigRat
Comment Utility
>>History is in the making:


No that's not history but news hype. The links will be dead in a couple of months.
0
 

Expert Comment

by:patriotpacer
Comment Utility
>>No that's not history but news hype. The links will be dead in a couple of months.

Tell that to Shannon and Josh Bruner, who had unauthorized Obamacare charges to their bank account - which put them in to the red.

Or tell that to the 1000s of applicants whose info didn't make it to insurers.

Tell that to the 6 million thus far who have lost insurance under Obamacare.
0
 

Expert Comment

by:patriotpacer
Comment Utility
I just find it interesting that after 5 years in office, a horrible economy, a disastrous healthcare roll out, impeachable lie after lie, the breathtaking ineptness...you guys still cling to the "hope and change" bumper sticker slogan.
0
 
LVL 17

Expert Comment

by:Anthony Russo
Comment Utility
Your perception really is skewed. We discuss all aspects and some of those are good and some are bad. Considering you are on the extreme bad side, then you think everything we discuss is praising Obama. If you would read what we actually say, we admit many faults just like every President has.

Economy sucked, but now is better. Healthcare roll out sucked, but that does not mean the healthcare law itself does in despite what your future-seeing party says. All Politicians lie. Nothing was impeachable though since Nixon. The ineptness had it's highs and lows, again like all Presidents.

Your problem though is you are standing at negative 10 on the scale. So when we talk at negative 4 you are thinking we are talking about something positive. You're an intelligent guy and used to argue your points and articulate yourself so well under your other pseudonyms, I don't know why everything degrades to an Obama bash now and a bunch of links and hype.
0
 
LVL 27

Expert Comment

by:BigRat
Comment Utility
I agree, Anthony, it's becomming really boring.
0
 

Expert Comment

by:patriotpacer
Comment Utility
>>Economy sucked, but now is better.

How long are you going to keep saying that with no backing?  People leaving the workforce and bringing down the unemployment rate doesn't equate to improvement.



You guys don't want to argue facts.  You guys want to argue theory.

Links are backup.  Have you ever written a research paper?  You don't just state the economy is better - you say the economy is better and then give backing.
0
 
LVL 17

Expert Comment

by:Anthony Russo
Comment Utility
>>How long are you going to keep saying that with no backing?

Who still argues that we aren't in a recovery? There is argument it isn't fast enough or big enough but the economy is recovering. That isn't debatable anymore. It was terrible 3-4 years ago and has been improving ever since it bottomed out.

>>Links are backup.

Yes they are backups to your facts, or at least your theory or point of view, but you have to add the theory and point of view and facts. You can't just keep dropping links.

The problem with links is that on the internet I can find 2 links on either side of any point. That doesn't hold much weight. I much rather argue on the merits of the logic behind the theories and facts.
0
 

Expert Comment

by:patriotpacer
Comment Utility
>>Who still argues that we aren't in a recovery?

After 5 years, you have more and more dropping out of the workforce, you have incomes going down, income GAPS going up, record debt, you have record numbers on unemployment, record number on disability - eventually you get to the conclusion that Obama has zero clue what he's doing.

My link from says that there are record numbers out of the workforce.  When they drop out, they're not counted in the unemployment rate.  So it artificially lowers it.

November 12, 2013: The percentage of American civilians 16 or older who have a job or are actively seeking one dropped to a 35-year low in October, according to the Bureau of Labor Statistics.

Suppose you show me differently?
0
 
LVL 17

Expert Comment

by:Anthony Russo
Comment Utility