Other Resources The Political Joe » Defending Obamacare Rss Feed  
Moderators: k9car363, alicefoeller Reply
Show Per page
 
 
of 5
 
 
2013-05-14 11:27 AM
in reply to: #4741887

User image

Expert
3126
2000100010025
Boise, ID
Subject: RE: Defending Obamacare
rkreuser - 2013-05-14 10:22 AM
DanielG - 2013-05-14 12:00 PM
TriToy - 2013-05-14 11:52 AM 9. Insurance companies have a new limit on profits. Insurance companies have to spend at least 80% of premium dollars on health care. In the large-group market (big employers), they must spend at least 85% on health care -- so more of our premium dollars go to health instead of administration and executive salaries. In the summer of 2012, 12.8 million individuals will be receiving rebates from insurance companies who have failed to meet these minimum spending requirements. (so the increases you are quoting will end up being refunded)


YAY! Insurance companies will no longer have any incentive to expand their business. They have zero reason to look for ways to cut costs and drop premiums either. What a bargain!

Not commenting on Obamacare, per se, but if you wonder why the discourse around controversial topics has turned most threads into a right-wing, conservative boys club, look no further: 

  • We have a post asking anyone to defend Obamacare. 
  • Then we have 15+ posts that essentially ridicule Obamacare and other non-conservative policies, same people, same discourse.
  • Then one person (a doctor, nonetheless) steps in and gives it a shot, with essentially some valid points.
  • And in response, sarcasm and criticism, not dialogue. (ETA: this was posted before Tony's response, which was on topic and respectful). 

It's creating a conservative mob mentality in many COJ threads, where fewer and fewer people will want to have a dialogue as when they try, they get overwhelmed, and over time, tired. Then they stop, as it's like trying to have a discussion with the tide or the sunrise.  It's not against forum rules, per se, it's just not very respectful or conducive to what the OP hoped, which was for someone to bring forward another point of view.   

My opinions only, not as a mod, but as someone that used to enjoy COJ. Carry on. 

 

This is not a conservative vs. liberal issue. This is a we all are screwed issue which is why the vast majority of people do not approve of the law and why even less are going to approve if it when it is fully implemented next year. 

And posting bullet points from an Obama speech is not exactly defending it. I saw nothing to defend the massive costs of this legislation. 



2013-05-14 11:28 AM
in reply to: #4741887

User image

Subject: RE: Defending Obamacare
rkreuser - 2013-05-14 12:22 PM

DanielG - 2013-05-14 12:00 PM
TriToy - 2013-05-14 11:52 AM 9. Insurance companies have a new limit on profits. Insurance companies have to spend at least 80% of premium dollars on health care. In the large-group market (big employers), they must spend at least 85% on health care -- so more of our premium dollars go to health instead of administration and executive salaries. In the summer of 2012, 12.8 million individuals will be receiving rebates from insurance companies who have failed to meet these minimum spending requirements. (so the increases you are quoting will end up being refunded)


YAY! Insurance companies will no longer have any incentive to expand their business. They have zero reason to look for ways to cut costs and drop premiums either. What a bargain!

Not commenting on Obamacare, per se, but if you wonder why the discourse around controversial topics has turned most threads into a right-wing, conservative boys club, look no further: 

  • We have a post asking anyone to defend Obamacare. 
  • Then we have 15+ posts that essentially ridicule Obamacare and other non-conservative policies, same people, same discourse.


No one ridiculed Obamacare at all until the Doc wrote in, even then it wasn't a ridicule of why it was passed, just sections of the law that are not within the country's best interest as part of the discussion. We were discussing the reasoning behind passing the law, which is exactly what the OP asked, "Defending Obamacare" In other words why was Obamacare passed. Well, there are a handful of posts that state exactly why Obamacare was passed. If that's not a discussion within the OP's original intent, I have no idea what is.

2013-05-14 11:34 AM
in reply to: #4741858

User image

Champion
6046
5000100025
New York, NY
Subject: RE: Defending Obamacare
tuwood - 2013-05-14 12:06 PM

I don't think anyone denies that there aren't good things in Obamacare, but the problem is they all cost money and people have to pay for that.  There's no way to do all the things you just mentioned without increasing costs to insurance.

Lets just say Obamacare as an insurance option wasn't part of this law and they just made it law to cover all the things you mentioned.  Even with the mandated percentage of premiums going towards healthcare the costs would go through the roof on insurance.  Insurance companies make money, but my understanding is they only run something like 3% profit margins so they'd have to cut a lot of staff/expense to absorb much.

 

Obamacare IS the whole thing - you cannot get the rest without it.

the statistic quoted about it not being a favorable bill is misleading because if you look at the Kaiser study people DO like all the things I listed.  ONLY the mandate gets an unfavorable rating. the mandate was a GIMME to the insurance lobby.

2013-05-14 11:34 AM
in reply to: #4741887

User image

Master
1584
1000500252525
Fulton, MD
Subject: RE: Defending Obamacare
rkreuser - 2013-05-14 12:22 PM

Not commenting on Obamacare, per se, but if you wonder why the discourse around controversial topics has turned most threads into a right-wing, conservative boys club, look no further: 

  • We have a post asking anyone to defend Obamacare. 
  • Then we have 15+ posts that essentially ridicule Obamacare and other non-conservative policies, same people, same discourse.
  • Then one person (a doctor, nonetheless) steps in and gives it a shot, with essentially some valid points.
  • And in response, sarcasm and criticism, not dialogue. (ETA: this was posted before Tony's response, which was on topic and respectful). 

It's creating a conservative mob mentality in many COJ threads, where fewer and fewer people will want to have a dialogue as when they try, they get overwhelmed, and over time, tired. Then they stop, as it's like trying to have a discussion with the tide or the sunrise.  It's not against forum rules, per se, it's just not very respectful or conducive to what the OP hoped, which was for someone to bring forward another point of view.   

My opinions only, not as a mod, but as someone that used to enjoy COJ. Carry on. 

 

Well said, and thank you.  I read the start of this thread, and the only thing that comes to my mind is amazement that the same 10-15 people can post thread after thread where they agree with each other over and over.

2013-05-14 11:38 AM
in reply to: #4741907

User image

Expert
3126
2000100010025
Boise, ID
Subject: RE: Defending Obamacare
TriToy - 2013-05-14 10:34 AM
tuwood - 2013-05-14 12:06 PM

I don't think anyone denies that there aren't good things in Obamacare, but the problem is they all cost money and people have to pay for that.  There's no way to do all the things you just mentioned without increasing costs to insurance.

Lets just say Obamacare as an insurance option wasn't part of this law and they just made it law to cover all the things you mentioned.  Even with the mandated percentage of premiums going towards healthcare the costs would go through the roof on insurance.  Insurance companies make money, but my understanding is they only run something like 3% profit margins so they'd have to cut a lot of staff/expense to absorb much.

 

Obamacare IS the whole thing - you cannot get the rest without it.

the statistic quoted about it not being a favorable bill is misleading because if you look at the Kaiser study people DO like all the things I listed.  ONLY the mandate gets an unfavorable rating. the mandate was a GIMME to the insurance lobby.

No, the mandate is the only way they could hope to even begin paying for it.

How in your opinion is all this going to be paid for? And without the mandate forcing young healthy people to buy in at the 3 to 1 ratio how would they pay for it?

2013-05-14 11:39 AM
in reply to: #4741908

User image

Expert
3126
2000100010025
Boise, ID
Subject: RE: Defending Obamacare
jcnipper - 2013-05-14 10:34 AM
rkreuser - 2013-05-14 12:22 PM

Not commenting on Obamacare, per se, but if you wonder why the discourse around controversial topics has turned most threads into a right-wing, conservative boys club, look no further: 

  • We have a post asking anyone to defend Obamacare. 
  • Then we have 15+ posts that essentially ridicule Obamacare and other non-conservative policies, same people, same discourse.
  • Then one person (a doctor, nonetheless) steps in and gives it a shot, with essentially some valid points.
  • And in response, sarcasm and criticism, not dialogue. (ETA: this was posted before Tony's response, which was on topic and respectful). 

It's creating a conservative mob mentality in many COJ threads, where fewer and fewer people will want to have a dialogue as when they try, they get overwhelmed, and over time, tired. Then they stop, as it's like trying to have a discussion with the tide or the sunrise.  It's not against forum rules, per se, it's just not very respectful or conducive to what the OP hoped, which was for someone to bring forward another point of view.   

My opinions only, not as a mod, but as someone that used to enjoy COJ. Carry on. 

 

Well said, and thank you.  I read the start of this thread, and the only thing that comes to my mind is amazement that the same 10-15 people can post thread after thread where they agree with each other over and over.

Sorry but offer a counter argument if you have one. I bet someone will agree with you. 



2013-05-14 11:40 AM
in reply to: #4741915

User image

Champion
6046
5000100025
New York, NY
Subject: RE: Defending Obamacare
Aarondb4 - 2013-05-14 12:38 PM
TriToy - 2013-05-14 10:34 AM
tuwood - 2013-05-14 12:06 PM

I don't think anyone denies that there aren't good things in Obamacare, but the problem is they all cost money and people have to pay for that.  There's no way to do all the things you just mentioned without increasing costs to insurance.

Lets just say Obamacare as an insurance option wasn't part of this law and they just made it law to cover all the things you mentioned.  Even with the mandated percentage of premiums going towards healthcare the costs would go through the roof on insurance.  Insurance companies make money, but my understanding is they only run something like 3% profit margins so they'd have to cut a lot of staff/expense to absorb much.

 

Obamacare IS the whole thing - you cannot get the rest without it.

the statistic quoted about it not being a favorable bill is misleading because if you look at the Kaiser study people DO like all the things I listed.  ONLY the mandate gets an unfavorable rating. the mandate was a GIMME to the insurance lobby.

No, the mandate is the only way they could hope to even begin paying for it.

How in your opinion is all this going to be paid for? And without the mandate forcing young healthy people to buy in at the 3 to 1 ratio how would they pay for it?

 

No the mandate was the insurance company saying we cannot accept all comers without it our risk pool will be skewed. And they lobbied to have the public option removed.

Medicare runs with 3-6% overhead - FAR less than private insurers  and that is without even counting the frankly disgusting salaries the CEOs make.

2013-05-14 11:42 AM
in reply to: #4741907

User image

Champion
18680
50005000500020001000500100252525
Lost in the Luminiferous Aether
Subject: RE: Defending Obamacare
TriToy - 2013-05-14 12:34 PM
tuwood - 2013-05-14 12:06 PM

I don't think anyone denies that there aren't good things in Obamacare, but the problem is they all cost money and people have to pay for that.  There's no way to do all the things you just mentioned without increasing costs to insurance.

Lets just say Obamacare as an insurance option wasn't part of this law and they just made it law to cover all the things you mentioned.  Even with the mandated percentage of premiums going towards healthcare the costs would go through the roof on insurance.  Insurance companies make money, but my understanding is they only run something like 3% profit margins so they'd have to cut a lot of staff/expense to absorb much.

 

Obamacare IS the whole thing - you cannot get the rest without it.

the statistic quoted about it not being a favorable bill is misleading because if you look at the Kaiser study people DO like all the things I listed.  ONLY the mandate gets an unfavorable rating. the mandate was a GIMME to the insurance lobby.

I am sorry but the mandate was not a gimmy to the insurance lobby it is the only hope you have of making Ocare come even close to economically viable.  You cannot mandate the insurance companies take preexisting conditions without a coverage mandate or the only people you will have on insurance are those who are already sick.  As for the whole "rating" thing, well Duh, when you bill something as "you get all this for free or on somebody elses dime", who isn't going to be in favor of that... besides the somebody's who's dime you are using of course.

There is no free lunch, a lesson some have steadfastly refused to learn.

2013-05-14 11:44 AM
in reply to: #4741920

User image

Champion
18680
50005000500020001000500100252525
Lost in the Luminiferous Aether
Subject: RE: Defending Obamacare
TriToy - 2013-05-14 12:40 PM
Aarondb4 - 2013-05-14 12:38 PM
TriToy - 2013-05-14 10:34 AM
tuwood - 2013-05-14 12:06 PM

I don't think anyone denies that there aren't good things in Obamacare, but the problem is they all cost money and people have to pay for that.  There's no way to do all the things you just mentioned without increasing costs to insurance.

Lets just say Obamacare as an insurance option wasn't part of this law and they just made it law to cover all the things you mentioned.  Even with the mandated percentage of premiums going towards healthcare the costs would go through the roof on insurance.  Insurance companies make money, but my understanding is they only run something like 3% profit margins so they'd have to cut a lot of staff/expense to absorb much.

 

Obamacare IS the whole thing - you cannot get the rest without it.

the statistic quoted about it not being a favorable bill is misleading because if you look at the Kaiser study people DO like all the things I listed.  ONLY the mandate gets an unfavorable rating. the mandate was a GIMME to the insurance lobby.

No, the mandate is the only way they could hope to even begin paying for it.

How in your opinion is all this going to be paid for? And without the mandate forcing young healthy people to buy in at the 3 to 1 ratio how would they pay for it?

 

No the mandate was the insurance company saying we cannot accept all comers without it our risk pool will be skewed. And they lobbied to have the public option removed.

Medicare runs with 3-6% overhead - FAR less than private insurers  and that is without even counting the frankly disgusting salaries the CEOs make.

And you as a Dr. should know that the only reason medicare can operate the way it does is due to cost shifting.  You know perfectly well medicare does not even come close to covering the cost of care!

 

2013-05-14 11:44 AM
in reply to: #4741420

User image

Champion
5117
5000100
Brandon, MS
Subject: RE: Defending Obamacare

Good points about the Affordable Care Act, doc.  

I'll add that in Mississippi, our government hasn't even voted to fund Medicaid for next year because the Republican controlled house won't call a special session unless the Democrats promise not to bring up expansion.  Yep.  They are playing chicken with the funding of the entire program because they are so adamant about not expanding Medicaid, even though nearly every medical association in the state supports it and it would mean health insurance for 300,000 of our citizens.  Yet we somehow keep finding room for tax incentives for private businesses.

2013-05-14 11:46 AM
in reply to: #4741420

User image

Austin, Texas or Jupiter, Florida
Subject: RE: Defending Obamacare

Rick,

What you're seeing is blood in the water and the sharks circling.  Some folks have been saying a lot of things about this administration and people on here laughed and called people Tin Foil Hat wearers.  Now, you have 4 major incidents in a week; Sebelius, Benghazi, IRS, and the DOJ/AP; all of which point to exactly what the tin foil hat crowd was saying.

If you go back to the week after the election and look at all the dancing in COJ threads, you'd see that it was at least as bad from the other side of the fence. 

Maybe we should create a thread just like the one that was created the week of the election and call it "Thread for people who are happy about what has happened this week!"

Just sayin.



2013-05-14 11:46 AM
in reply to: #4741920

User image

Expert
3126
2000100010025
Boise, ID
Subject: RE: Defending Obamacare
TriToy - 2013-05-14 10:40 AM
Aarondb4 - 2013-05-14 12:38 PM
TriToy - 2013-05-14 10:34 AM
tuwood - 2013-05-14 12:06 PM

I don't think anyone denies that there aren't good things in Obamacare, but the problem is they all cost money and people have to pay for that.  There's no way to do all the things you just mentioned without increasing costs to insurance.

Lets just say Obamacare as an insurance option wasn't part of this law and they just made it law to cover all the things you mentioned.  Even with the mandated percentage of premiums going towards healthcare the costs would go through the roof on insurance.  Insurance companies make money, but my understanding is they only run something like 3% profit margins so they'd have to cut a lot of staff/expense to absorb much.

 

Obamacare IS the whole thing - you cannot get the rest without it.

the statistic quoted about it not being a favorable bill is misleading because if you look at the Kaiser study people DO like all the things I listed.  ONLY the mandate gets an unfavorable rating. the mandate was a GIMME to the insurance lobby.

No, the mandate is the only way they could hope to even begin paying for it.

How in your opinion is all this going to be paid for? And without the mandate forcing young healthy people to buy in at the 3 to 1 ratio how would they pay for it?

 

No the mandate was the insurance company saying we cannot accept all comers without it our risk pool will be skewed. And they lobbied to have the public option removed.

Medicare runs with 3-6% overhead - FAR less than private insurers  and that is without even counting the frankly disgusting salaries the CEOs make.

So you are contending your list will be paid for by taking away profits from the private insurance companies?

Here is the first article that comes up when searching for this. Obama's lawyers argued in the Supreme Court case that the law cannot work (specifically all the give aways you listed) without the individual mandate. They are counting on young healthy people to foot the bill for all the give aways. Which I think will backfire (which was probably intended) as the enforcement is weak. A $95 penalty in the first year going to a $700 by year 3. That is still far less than insurance will cost.

All of this forces a meltdown or a single payer system which is what they wanted.

 

ETA: Link http://www.governing.com/topics/health-human-services/gov-universal-health-care-without-individual-mandate.html



Edited by Aarondb4 2013-05-14 11:53 AM
2013-05-14 11:55 AM
in reply to: #4741907

User image

Pro
9391
500020002000100100100252525
Omaha, NE
Subject: RE: Defending Obamacare
TriToy - 2013-05-14 11:34 AM
tuwood - 2013-05-14 12:06 PM

I don't think anyone denies that there aren't good things in Obamacare, but the problem is they all cost money and people have to pay for that.  There's no way to do all the things you just mentioned without increasing costs to insurance.

Lets just say Obamacare as an insurance option wasn't part of this law and they just made it law to cover all the things you mentioned.  Even with the mandated percentage of premiums going towards healthcare the costs would go through the roof on insurance.  Insurance companies make money, but my understanding is they only run something like 3% profit margins so they'd have to cut a lot of staff/expense to absorb much.

 

Obamacare IS the whole thing - you cannot get the rest without it.

the statistic quoted about it not being a favorable bill is misleading because if you look at the Kaiser study people DO like all the things I listed.  ONLY the mandate gets an unfavorable rating. the mandate was a GIMME to the insurance lobby.

Good point, and I agree it's kind of an all or none.

I certainly agree that people want the changes that are in the law.  Heck, I like the changes and I'm a pretty conservative guy.  However, my issue is the costs of those changes.

With Obamacare and the exchanges they can absorb those costs through the mandate and or using additional tax dollars from elsewhere if the numbers don't pan out the way they thought.
Unfortunately though, for the insurance companies they only have two choices; cut expenses, or raise premiums because they can't run in a deficit like the Government.  I'm not going to argue that there's no bloat in insurance companies because I'm sure there is, but we've already seen premiums increase and all signs point to significant premium increases in the next few years. 
This is very counter to what was pitched to the American people about keeping their own insurance if they want it.  If my premiums go up 300%-400% then I really don't have a choice.

I'm also a business owner and I provide 100% free healthcare to my single employees and then pay 50% of their family coverage with the employee paying the other 50% out of pocket.  If my premiums go up 100% it will cost me as a business approximately $4000/mo. and my employees with family coverage will each have to pay an additional $300 or so a month for our current plan.  I haven't seen any of the true premium numbers for next year so this is all conjecture, but $4000 a month is close to a full time salaried employee that I will either have to let go, or not hire in the future as a direct result of the Obamacare mandates.  I do have the option of passing all the increases on to my employees, but either way it's not a good thing for my business and employees IMHO.

2013-05-14 12:02 PM
in reply to: #4741927

User image

Pro
9391
500020002000100100100252525
Omaha, NE
Subject: RE: Defending Obamacare
sesh - 2013-05-14 11:44 AM

Good points about the Affordable Care Act, doc.  

I'll add that in Mississippi, our government hasn't even voted to fund Medicaid for next year because the Republican controlled house won't call a special session unless the Democrats promise not to bring up expansion.  Yep.  They are playing chicken with the funding of the entire program because they are so adamant about not expanding Medicaid, even though nearly every medical association in the state supports it and it would mean health insurance for 300,000 of our citizens.  Yet we somehow keep finding room for tax incentives for private businesses.

However, why should the states have to increase spending on medicare if Obamacare is cost neutral?

Of course expanding medicare would give increased coverage, but the taxpayers have to pay for it.  That's the one argument that frustrates me with the whole healthcare discussion.  Everyone wants everybody to be covered for everything (myself included) but I also recognize that it's not possible because of the costs involved so we have to find a balance.  The balance before was skewed due to a lot of unnecessary government regulation so therefore the solution was to put even more government regulation in place to skew it even further IMHO

2013-05-14 12:06 PM
in reply to: #4741825

User image

Pro
4277
20002000100100252525
Parker, CO
Subject: RE: Defending Obamacare
TriToy - 2013-05-14 9:52 AM

1. Patients are no longer threatened with lifetime caps on coverage. Families no longer have to make the hard choices of delaying care or facing bankruptcy.


2. Children with pre-existing conditions are no longer being denied coverage. Insurance companies can no longer deny coverage to children under the age of 19 because of a pre-existing condition or disability.


3. Young adults are getting covered on their parents’ insurance. Many medical students in Doctors for America are now covered thanks to this provision. Over 6.6 million people age 19-26 have gotten insured so far!


4. We are shifting toward prevention. Preventive services are now free for Medicare and new insurance plans. For the first time, we have a National Prevention Strategy. And the Prevention and Public Health Fund is helping communities launch new programs to improve healthy living.


5. People and communities are focusing efforts on preventing disease. $750 million in 2010 and $500 million in 2011 have already gone to programs in tobacco cessation, obesity prevention, care coordination, behavioral health, and more in all 50 states.


6. Seniors are getting help with prescription drugs. 4 million seniors in every state got rebate checks in 2010. In 2011, they started getting a 50% discount on brand-name drugs in the Medicare prescription coverage gap.


7. Hospitals are gearing up to improve quality and safety. Medicare reimbursement changes in 2012 are getting hospitals around the country to step up efforts to prevent hospital-acquired infections and to keep people from landing back in the hospital within 30 days of going home.


8. Small businesses are getting help covering employees. Up to 4 million small businesses that employ 16 million people are eligible for 35% tax credits on health insurance premiums right now. Note: small businesses will not be required to buy insurance under the law.


9. Insurance companies have a new limit on profits. Insurance companies have to spend at least 80% of premium dollars on health care. In the large-group market (big employers), they must spend at least 85% on health care -- so more of our premium dollars go to health instead of administration and executive salaries. In the summer of 2012, 12.8 million individuals will be receiving rebates from insurance companies who have failed to meet these minimum spending requirements. (so the increases you are quoting will end up being refunded)


10. We are training thousands more health care providers to take care of people. Over $320 million in grants is already boosting primary care residency programs, training physician assistants, and helping states create innovative plans for their unique health care workforce needs.

you bring up some good ponts tritoy.  I think you are the first MD I know of that supports it.  My SIL is an MD and she's not happy with it all!  I don't know all the details why she iss against it but I know she believes it is going to cost her money.  No one wants to be working for less $$. 

Again, you make some good points but #9, you do realize that admin and executive slaries don't come from the profits.  It's a cost of doing business.  No matter how poorly the organization is operated.

2013-05-14 12:34 PM
in reply to: #4741420

User image

Elite
4564
200020005002525
Boise
Subject: RE: Defending Obamacare
Everyone says it will cost more. Just look at our current system. My mom works in the ER as an RN. She is all for it because the sheer number of people who come in with no coverage who have no ability to pay and don't ever plan on paying. They can't be turned away obviously, so who pays for that?


2013-05-14 12:38 PM
in reply to: #4741887

User image

Expert
1951
10005001001001001002525
Subject: RE: Defending Obamacare
rkreuser - 2013-05-14 12:22 PM
DanielG - 2013-05-14 12:00 PM
TriToy - 2013-05-14 11:52 AM 9. Insurance companies have a new limit on profits. Insurance companies have to spend at least 80% of premium dollars on health care. In the large-group market (big employers), they must spend at least 85% on health care -- so more of our premium dollars go to health instead of administration and executive salaries. In the summer of 2012, 12.8 million individuals will be receiving rebates from insurance companies who have failed to meet these minimum spending requirements. (so the increases you are quoting will end up being refunded)


YAY! Insurance companies will no longer have any incentive to expand their business. They have zero reason to look for ways to cut costs and drop premiums either. What a bargain!

Not commenting on Obamacare, per se, but if you wonder why the discourse around controversial topics has turned most threads into a right-wing, conservative boys club, look no further: 

  • We have a post asking anyone to defend Obamacare. 
  • Then we have 15+ posts that essentially ridicule Obamacare and other non-conservative policies, same people, same discourse.
  • Then one person (a doctor, nonetheless) steps in and gives it a shot, with essentially some valid points.
  • And in response, sarcasm and criticism, not dialogue. (ETA: this was posted before Tony's response, which was on topic and respectful). 

It's creating a conservative mob mentality in many COJ threads, where fewer and fewer people will want to have a dialogue as when they try, they get overwhelmed, and over time, tired. Then they stop, as it's like trying to have a discussion with the tide or the sunrise.  It's not against forum rules, per se, it's just not very respectful or conducive to what the OP hoped, which was for someone to bring forward another point of view.   

My opinions only, not as a mod, but as someone that used to enjoy COJ. Carry on. 

 

Yes. I liked COJ. Now.. meh. 

2013-05-14 12:39 PM
in reply to: #4742026

User image

Expert
3126
2000100010025
Boise, ID
Subject: RE: Defending Obamacare

JoshR - 2013-05-14 11:34 AM Everyone says it will cost more. Just look at our current system. My mom works in the ER as an RN. She is all for it because the sheer number of people who come in with no coverage who have no ability to pay and don't ever plan on paying. They can't be turned away obviously, so who pays for that?

Those same people aren't going to pay any premium so the taxpayer will get to foot the bill as we do now.

This will add people who don't go for everything little thing, now they will because "they are covered" heavily subsidized, but covered. 

2013-05-14 12:51 PM
in reply to: #4742033

User image

Champion
5117
5000100
Brandon, MS
Subject: RE: Defending Obamacare
Aarondb4 - 2013-05-14 12:39 PM

JoshR - 2013-05-14 11:34 AM Everyone says it will cost more. Just look at our current system. My mom works in the ER as an RN. She is all for it because the sheer number of people who come in with no coverage who have no ability to pay and don't ever plan on paying. They can't be turned away obviously, so who pays for that?

Those same people aren't going to pay any premium so the taxpayer will get to foot the bill as we do now.

This will add people who don't go for everything little thing, now they will because "they are covered" heavily subsidized, but covered. 

That's what the move to more preventative health care is supposed to do.  Get the care early to avoid something like a triple bypass and extended hospital stay later.  It's not that we don't pay for them.  It's that we ideally end up paying less for them.  If someone can go get cancer screenings, heart checkups, prescriptions, etc. that might save their life and prevent us from paying future sky high costs, then I can roll with it.  

I actually hope it turns into a single payer system.  Our current situation with healthcare so closely tied to your employment is a screwed up system to begin with.

2013-05-14 1:18 PM
in reply to: #4741420

Veteran
244
10010025
Ohio
Subject: RE: Defending Obamacare
I am hopeful of the new health care exchanges.  I am shopping for individual coverage for my wife and I; leaving a group plan.  The process has been a nightmare.  I can get coverage for myself, at a reasonable cost, but they have denied coverage for my wife.  She has had a few medical issues, but nothing serious.  I guess I will find out Jan 1 if it works or not. 

Edited by buck1400 2013-05-14 1:20 PM
2013-05-14 1:19 PM
in reply to: #4742091

User image

Champion
6046
5000100025
New York, NY
Subject: RE: Defending Obamacare

buck1400 - 2013-05-14 2:18 PM I am hopeful of the new health care exchanges.  I am shopping for individual coverage for my wife and I; leaving a group plan.  The process has been a nightmare.  I can coverage for myself, at a reasonable cost, but they have denied coverage for my wife.  She has had a few medical issues, but nothing serious.  I guess I will find out Jan 1 if it works or not. 

 

signups start in October



2013-05-14 1:21 PM
in reply to: #4742031

User image

Champion
7347
5000200010010010025
SRQ, FL
Subject: RE: Defending Obamacare
KateTri1 - 2013-05-14 1:38 PM
rkreuser - 2013-05-14 12:22 PM
DanielG - 2013-05-14 12:00 PM
TriToy - 2013-05-14 11:52 AM 9. Insurance companies have a new limit on profits. Insurance companies have to spend at least 80% of premium dollars on health care. In the large-group market (big employers), they must spend at least 85% on health care -- so more of our premium dollars go to health instead of administration and executive salaries. In the summer of 2012, 12.8 million individuals will be receiving rebates from insurance companies who have failed to meet these minimum spending requirements. (so the increases you are quoting will end up being refunded)


YAY! Insurance companies will no longer have any incentive to expand their business. They have zero reason to look for ways to cut costs and drop premiums either. What a bargain!

Not commenting on Obamacare, per se, but if you wonder why the discourse around controversial topics has turned most threads into a right-wing, conservative boys club, look no further: 

  • We have a post asking anyone to defend Obamacare. 
  • Then we have 15+ posts that essentially ridicule Obamacare and other non-conservative policies, same people, same discourse.
  • Then one person (a doctor, nonetheless) steps in and gives it a shot, with essentially some valid points.
  • And in response, sarcasm and criticism, not dialogue. (ETA: this was posted before Tony's response, which was on topic and respectful). 

It's creating a conservative mob mentality in many COJ threads, where fewer and fewer people will want to have a dialogue as when they try, they get overwhelmed, and over time, tired. Then they stop, as it's like trying to have a discussion with the tide or the sunrise.  It's not against forum rules, per se, it's just not very respectful or conducive to what the OP hoped, which was for someone to bring forward another point of view.   

My opinions only, not as a mod, but as someone that used to enjoy COJ. Carry on. 

Yes. I liked COJ. Now.. meh. 

I recall a time, not too long ago, when the right leaning folks were in the minority here in COJ.  So where did the other side go?  Perhaps disenfranchised?

2013-05-14 1:22 PM
in reply to: #4742092

Veteran
244
10010025
Ohio
Subject: RE: Defending Obamacare
TriToy - 2013-05-14 2:19 PM

buck1400 - 2013-05-14 2:18 PM I am hopeful of the new health care exchanges.  I am shopping for individual coverage for my wife and I; leaving a group plan.  The process has been a nightmare.  I can coverage for myself, at a reasonable cost, but they have denied coverage for my wife.  She has had a few medical issues, but nothing serious.  I guess I will find out Jan 1 if it works or not. 

 

signups start in October

Yep, I plan to be checking it out right away.  I have had group coverage for 25 years.  Even though my wife and I are generally health, being in our late 40's and without coverage is pretty scary.

2013-05-14 1:42 PM
in reply to: #4742096

User image

Champion
5376
5000100100100252525
PA
Subject: RE: Defending Obamacare
TriRSquared - 2013-05-14 2:21 PM

I recall a time, not too long ago, when the right leaning folks were in the minority here in COJ.  So where did the other side go?  Perhaps disenfranchised?

I wouldn't be surprised.  There are certainly some friends of mine on the left who now say they understand my feelings about G.W.  They dislike Obama, Pelosi et. al. so we all get along much better now.  The D's won big not because they did something right.  They won because they were not R's.  I hope that the inverse is not true in the future.  I hope that soon a party can collectively aspire to actually do something right.  Or even better, I hope the people can aspire to go an alternate route to send a strong message.

Just my .02

2013-05-14 1:46 PM
in reply to: #4742096

User image

Pro
15650
5000500050005001002525
Subject: RE: Defending Obamacare
TriRSquared - 2013-05-14 1:21 PM
KateTri1 - 2013-05-14 1:38 PM
rkreuser - 2013-05-14 12:22 PM
DanielG - 2013-05-14 12:00 PM
TriToy - 2013-05-14 11:52 AM 9. Insurance companies have a new limit on profits. Insurance companies have to spend at least 80% of premium dollars on health care. In the large-group market (big employers), they must spend at least 85% on health care -- so more of our premium dollars go to health instead of administration and executive salaries. In the summer of 2012, 12.8 million individuals will be receiving rebates from insurance companies who have failed to meet these minimum spending requirements. (so the increases you are quoting will end up being refunded)


YAY! Insurance companies will no longer have any incentive to expand their business. They have zero reason to look for ways to cut costs and drop premiums either. What a bargain!

Not commenting on Obamacare, per se, but if you wonder why the discourse around controversial topics has turned most threads into a right-wing, conservative boys club, look no further: 

  • We have a post asking anyone to defend Obamacare. 
  • Then we have 15+ posts that essentially ridicule Obamacare and other non-conservative policies, same people, same discourse.
  • Then one person (a doctor, nonetheless) steps in and gives it a shot, with essentially some valid points.
  • And in response, sarcasm and criticism, not dialogue. (ETA: this was posted before Tony's response, which was on topic and respectful). 

It's creating a conservative mob mentality in many COJ threads, where fewer and fewer people will want to have a dialogue as when they try, they get overwhelmed, and over time, tired. Then they stop, as it's like trying to have a discussion with the tide or the sunrise.  It's not against forum rules, per se, it's just not very respectful or conducive to what the OP hoped, which was for someone to bring forward another point of view.   

My opinions only, not as a mod, but as someone that used to enjoy COJ. Carry on. 

Yes. I liked COJ. Now.. meh. 

I recall a time, not too long ago, when the right leaning folks were in the minority here in COJ.  So where did the other side go?  Perhaps disenfranchised?

Except for the gun rights issue I generally stay out of political discussions because I just don't care......but your comment got me laughing. 

Outside my office window in the last months of Bush's Presidency there was a constant presence of anti-war protestors.....usually anywhere from 20-50 people blowing an air horn, asking motorists to honk if they were against the war, the usual good stuff.  President Obama got elected and they disappeared overnight.  The war raged on, even escalated in Afghanistan, and still no protestors to this day.  Funny stuff.



Edited by Left Brain 2013-05-14 1:52 PM
New Thread
Other Resources The Political Joe » Defending Obamacare Rss Feed  
Show Per page
 
 
of 5