DebateGate
General Category => 3DHS => Topic started by: Xavier_Onassis on October 01, 2014, 02:33:14 PM
-
http://www.forbes.com/sites/theapothecary/2014/09/27/can-republicans-repeal-obamacare-without-disrupting-coverage-for-tens-of-millions/ (http://www.forbes.com/sites/theapothecary/2014/09/27/can-republicans-repeal-obamacare-without-disrupting-coverage-for-tens-of-millions/)
-
i agree with him...the Republican Party has too many wussies to repeal Obamanation Medical Care.
-
Obamacare is AN IMPROVEMENT, people LIKE IT better than no health insurance at all.
Obama has been a GOOD PRESIDENT because he finally managed to get this passed.
-
This is a lot of fuss and expense for a questionable improvement .
If indeed it can be considered an improvement at all.
How many are without insurance still?
How many pay a lot more for the same coverage they already had?
For this much trouble and expense one might expect full coverage and better circumstance for most, rather than a 5% improvement in the number covered , millions still not covered at all and an increase in expense for the most of us .
-
How many still lack insurance? Fewer.
How many pay more? Some, particularly those who had crappy insurance full of clauses about what it did not cover.
There will be no going back to telling over half the country that they are uninsurable because of previous conditions.
-
I can tell you first hand the effects Obama-care is having on middle class folks.
It is HURTING them.
Sure the small fraction of the overall population that didn't have insurance (many of them freeloaders)
love the "freebie" insurance/leftist subsidy "bribery for votes" program.
We are going thru the process of yearly renewal....and it is not pretty.
Worse than it's ever been.
And it will only get much, much worse.
You mandate all kinds of crap like sex change operations, etc...etc....etc....
and it is going to all cost more....
reality is what it is....
you can't force lots of new coverage's
and subsidize a bunch of people that were not subsidized
and think the new mandates are not gonna cost more.....
We looked at possibly not offering insurance
and just giving the employees cash to go buy their own in the private market
But what we saw was terrible.....less care more money!
Those private policies are now under Obama-care mandates.
and our employees make too much for a subsidy.
so if they went private and bought their own...
it was as much as 40% higher costs for them!
40%!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! higher for middle class workers.
Middle class cant afford it...mgt can
so who does it really hurt?
soccer Moms....people that get up everyday and work....middle class people!
Plus our HR guy had a complete cluster-phuck experience
on the Obama-care website and 1-800 number....
Mostly he could not get through at all.....
other times he would get through only to be
disconnected once he made it into a 2nd or 3rd level.....
He told me "we just cant turn our employees over into that nightmare". (Obamacare)
I agreed.....but he says with the Obama-care mandates coming down the pipe
soon....like next year...we may have no other choice...because our "Grandfathered
current policy" will not longer be allowed under the "Unaffordable Healthcare Act".
This trash leftist policy is only "Affordable" for the freeloaders used to not paying shit,
while middle class workers get up everyday and work their ass off are going to pay more for less care!
-
I can tell you 1st hand the effects Obama-care is having in the medical field.....we're getting reimbursed less, we're being required to see more patients, with less staff, and the folks that support this mess think the quality of care is going to improve??
It's a little like the whole minimum wage argument...the idea that by increasing it is going to help so many, without actually thinking out the repercussions of it all. It'll help a few, that are already employed, while so many more get screwed out of a job, that a company can no longer afford to provide.
Then again, they have.....they don't care.....it's all about power and control. The more Government intervenes, the more control they have. The more people who are beholden to Government services, the more control they have
It's as simple as that, and has squat to do with trying to "cover everyone with insurance"
-
How many still lack insurance? Fewer.
How many pay more? Some, particularly those who had crappy insurance full of clauses about what it did not cover.
There will be no going back to telling over half the country that they are uninsurable because of previous conditions.
It is just opinion until there are numbers attached to "fewer" and "more".
-
So attach all the numbers you wish.
-
They're your claims......you back them up (if you want your mere opinion to include some credibility to the claim ::) If you don't, then don't obviously)
-
How many still lack insurance? Fewer.
How many pay more? Some, particularly those who had crappy insurance full of clauses about what it did not cover.
There will be no going back to telling over half the country that they are uninsurable because of previous conditions.
So attach all the numbers you wish.
That only makes it my opinion rather than yours, where are numbers we can call reliable?
It is just opinion until there are numbers attached to "fewer" and "more".
-
Then this is nothing but a waste of time, isn't it?
-
No opinion is a waste of time. It's a waste of potential credibility perhaps, if you decide not to back it up, but not a waste of time
-
Then this is nothing but a waste of time, isn't it?
Depends on how you want to use it.
This could turn into a philosophical examination of perception and the difficulty of understanding truth and illusion. I could go for that , it really is hard to overcome a preconceived notion and evaluate data fairly . It is also hard to find data being offered by unprejudiced sources.
If we can manage to be scientifically rigorous , and can find real data, we can talk about hard facts .
I would like to talk hard facts , but where and I going to get them , and will I really recognize them?
There is another way to go. We can learn each others thoughts. I can trust your thoughts to be the real thing from the real source, I will attempt to be frank and honest right back for you.
What to you would be the minimum for satisfaction and what would make you call the Affordable health care act a success?
I expect your expectation of the AHCA to be a lot lower bar than mine, but I am not certain of this before you confirm.
-
I have no real personal stake in Obamacare, being as I am retired and I have Medicare.
Medicare, incidentally, is the BEST insurance I have ever had. I have a Medicare Advantage policy, managed by Humana, but rigorously supervised by the government. I say this because each quarter I get a clear and thorough summary of everything. No insurance policy I have ever had did this.
I didn't think that any Congress would reach perfection on the first bill passed. I was for this, because the people of this country need decent health care more than insurance execs need multimillion dollar salaries. the Republicans refused to propose anything and to participate in designing Obamacare, so it is right and just and fair that they were left to stew in their own greedy juices. To Hell with them.
-
I have had Blue Cross for years , and I was happy with it .
The Affordable health care act has driven up its cost and driven down its payout.
Health Care insurance is not a government invention, Blue Cross is the original article .
The government taking it over is not necessarily going to be any improvement at all, the failure can be total.
But right now it is only a partial failure , there are about 5% more people covered than were before.
But the unemployed are not affected , and the employed are paying more for their insurance than 5% more.
I understand that the idea was to take control and refine later, but this is a wrong notion too. The smashing style of taking over has broken what has evolved over 70 years or so into a system that had 80% satisfied customers, and put in control a loose committee of hundreds of inexpert legislators , more motivated for preserving incumbency than service to customers. The later refinement will have the same problems of poor focus and improper motive that the original act has had.
Last I heard the public is nearly evenly divided , but the side unhappy with the AHCA is growing .
The adjustment that the AHCA needs is such severe pruning that perhaps repeal and starting over would be less wasted effort?
-
Brilliant response, Master Yoda. 8)
-
right now it is only a partial failure , there are about 5% more people covered than were before.
But the unemployed are not affected , and the employed are paying more for their insurance than 5% more.
I understand that the idea was to take control and refine later, but this is a wrong notion too. The smashing style of taking over has broken what has evolved over 70 years or so into a system that had 80% satisfied customers, and put in control a loose committee of hundreds of inexpert legislators , more motivated for preserving incumbency than service to customers. The later refinement will have the same problems of poor focus and improper motive that the original act has had.
The adjustment that the AHCA needs is such severe pruning that perhaps repeal and starting over would be less wasted effort?
Just wanted to refresh what was such a great response to begin with
-
NO, THEY WILL NOT ABOLISH THE WHOLE THING AND START OVER, THAT WOULD BE DUMB.
-
Politically dumb....for Democrats perhaps. But IF the goal were to help facilitate coverage for folks who were largely uninsured because of prexisting conditions, it should absolutely be dismantled, with the refocus on making that happen, without destroying the healthcare coverage that 80+% of the rest of the population was ok with....you know, the promise that if you liked your insurance, and you liked your Doctor, you could keep them.....PERIOD....no other qualifiers or parameters.
Of course, that was never the goal now, was it
-
Who cares?
I would have been able to keep my doctor.
-
Of course you don't care.
And you would be of a small minority, which explains why Obamination care is so widely dispised by a majority of the country
-
NO, THEY WILL NOT ABOLISH THE WHOLE THING AND START OVER, THAT WOULD BE DUMB.
Why?
It was not dumb to knock over three quarters of a century of evolution ?
Nipping this now will be easier than later , and if we need something new perhaps this is not it.
-
Who knocked over three centuries of evolution?
What the Hell are you talking about?
-
3/4 of a century is a scant 75-years, "professor". Not 300
-
http://www.bcbs.com/blog/health-insurance.html
History of the Blue Cross and Blue Shield Companies
Posted by MARC LICHTENSTEIN
Health insurance didn’t always exist.
..................
1910: Early forerunners of Blue health insurance plans appeared as pre-paid group practices. Plan members paid a monthly premium and received a wide range of medical services through an exclusive group of providers.
1929: Blue Cross Plans are established to provide pre-paid hospital care, based on a prototype developed at Baylor University in Dallas, Texas by Justin Ford Kimball. In just 10 years, enrollment in these plans will grow from just more than 1,300 covered lives to 3 million. E.A. van Steenwyk, executive secretary with the forerunner to Blue Cross and Blue Shield of Minnesota, identified his hospital care program with a solid blue Greek cross design. The symbol began to show up in other parts of the country and soon, as one historian has written, the Blue Cross “perpetuated itself as a unifying force” among the newly emerging Plans.
1930: Blue Shield Plans begin providing reimbursement for physician services. The Blue Shield symbol was devised in Buffalo, New York. Carl Metzger, an early pioneer in the Blue movement, wanted a company brand logo that would distinguish the new medical service plan. He also wanted to make sure that there was an obvious link to the companion hospital plan. It soon flourished among the growing number of Blue Shield Plans.
1935: The National Labor Relations Act was the catalyst for employer-based health insurance, as it was now seen as an effective and valuable benefit to workers. Blue Cross and Blue Shield companies begin to empower more working Americans to access the healthcare system, some for the first time in their lives.
....................
The whole article is pretty good.
Looks like I was wrong about the time , more like one century rather than three quarters of one.
-
No matter what you say, Obamacare will NOT be entirely repealed. Most of it will remain, some will be modified.
-
No matter what you say, Obamacare will NOT be entirely repealed. Most of it will remain, some will be modified.
Shure , there are about ten features that everyone likes, this popular part could be written on a post card.
Lets save that bit, and save the trees from all that useless part.