If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(Some ACA Wonk)   Despite its many flaws, at least ObamaCare protects people against medical bankruptcy...(reads fine print)... OH COME ON   (nakedcapitalism.com) divider line 265
    More: Asinine, obamacare, Families USA, America's Health Insurance Plans, HMO, anesthesiologists, HAMP  
•       •       •

2415 clicks; posted to Politics » on 19 Nov 2013 at 1:20 PM (35 weeks ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



265 Comments   (+0 »)
   
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | » | Last | Show all
 
2013-11-19 01:43:01 PM

BojanglesPaladin: MANY specialists (like anesthesiologists, some surgeons, etc.) simply don't participate in insurance networks


Be in a network or lose your license to practice medicine after two years. Boom, done.
 
2013-11-19 01:43:14 PM

bradkanus: DamnYankees: While the issue in TFA is a problem, it has absolutely nothing to do with Obamacare. It's just a general problem with the medical industry. Should we fix it? Sure. But "Obamacare failed to fix this pre-existing issue which was already broken" isn't much of an argument; Obamacare isn't a panacea.

Not a "panacea?"  Uh, then what were you so excited about when it passed?  It seems like a lot of people who cheered on the law because they are partisan before they are anything else, are now backpeddling on the law.

You guys said it was good.

It's not.

Move on.


This guy is right.  Gas prices are still above $3, so this ACA thing was a farking waste.
 
2013-11-19 01:43:33 PM
There seems to be a bit of a liberal bent to these little discussions.

And when I say liberal, I mean, of course, non-linear trust in the current regime.
 
2013-11-19 01:44:28 PM

bradkanus: Fart_Machine: bradkanus: queezyweezel: bradkanus: BKITU: bradkanus: It seems like a lot of people who cheered on the law because they are partisan before they are anything else, are now backpeddling on the law.

Today, in "Morons Seeing What They Want To See Theater"....

Feel a little guilty, don't you?  It's okay - you didn't read the bill.  You took their word for it. You were told by the people you voted for it was one thing. It turned out to be another.

Hey, that whole "weapons of mass destruction" thing really killed me. I believed it because the guys I voted for told me it was so. They were wrong.  I learned a lesson.  Will you learn yours?

I think most rational people were happy that it passed because it's a step in the right direction.  Most people knew it wasn't perfect, and in general wasn't really great in any sense of the word.  What it is, is a pivot point towards a single payer system, and serious reform of the current billing/coverage rules.

Do you really look at issues that simplistically?  derp derp derp?

And here's where you are 100 percent wrong.  It was a step away from single payer in every since of the ideal.  It put more Americans into a private system and took them out of the public system. If you think that's a step toward single payer, you're not familiar with how single payer works.

Also, the problems with the government handling the IT portion of the health exchanges has been the evidence to liberals in power that they are not ready to take on the kind of task a single payer system would be.  This system was supposed to handle 35 millino people and literally work as a pass through to insurance companies.  It was a hallway, so to speak.  They failed at that.  They now know that single payer is not an option because they can't create the infrastructure to make it succesful.

Wait what? Which "public system" did it take them out of?

Medicaid.  You assistance is now applied to your insurance premium! yeah!

Please tell me you know how Medicare and Medicaid work... please.  They are two insurance companies with clever names, FYI.


You understand that Medicade expanded under the ACA right?
 
2013-11-19 01:44:31 PM

Snapper Carr: bradkanus: DamnYankees: While the issue in TFA is a problem, it has absolutely nothing to do with Obamacare. It's just a general problem with the medical industry. Should we fix it? Sure. But "Obamacare failed to fix this pre-existing issue which was already broken" isn't much of an argument; Obamacare isn't a panacea.

Not a "panacea?"  Uh, then what were you so excited about when it passed?  It seems like a lot of people who cheered on the law because they are partisan before they are anything else, are now backpeddling on the law.

You guys said it was good.

It's not.

Move on.

No, what we said is that it's better than what we had. The general consensus among liberals once the ACA took shape was "Eh, it'll do.".

/What we want is single payer. This is a step towards that.


Putting 35 million people in the private insurance market was not a step toward single payer.  I'm sorry, but you don't seem to understand what single payers means.  Also, the failure of the federal government to execute an online exchange was enough to send even the most ardent liberal leaders away from the notion that the federal government could handle a 350 million person single payer system.  As an ideal in the party - it is dead.
 
2013-11-19 01:44:32 PM

BojanglesPaladin: I doubt you intend to support any bills coming from the House Republicans to fix what is wrong with ACA,


house republicans have ZERO desire to 'fix' the ACA. they have one goal and one goal only: destroy it.

any legislation they offer is designed as either a poison pill to trap democrats or a backdoor repeal.
 
2013-11-19 01:45:35 PM

vbob: There seems to be a bit of a liberal bent to these little discussions.

And when I say liberal, I mean, of course, non-linear trust in the current regime.


I don't immediately understand this comment, and you use the word "liberal."

My only conclusion is that you are a troll, and I must put you on ignore before you climb through the screen and rape me.

Or something.

/Screw this tab.
 
2013-11-19 01:45:54 PM

DamnYankees: BojanglesPaladin: DamnYankees: But "Obamacare failed to fix this pre-existing issue which was already broken" isn't much of an argument; Obamacare isn't a panacea.

Translation: "Hey Guys! Stop expecting this huge bill to actually fix the things it's supposed to fix OK? That's just not FAIR! Just because Obama promised people wouldn't go bankrupt from medical bills anymore is no reason to expect the ACA to protect people from going broke from medical bills!!!"

So you'll support passing a law to amend Obamacare to fix this problem? I agree with you, its an issue. I hope you'll join me in supporting a bill to fix it.


A Bill to fix it? Obama doesn't believe in working through Congress. He's already 'changed' Obamacare ~27 times on his own.
 
2013-11-19 01:46:35 PM
scontent-b.xx.fbcdn.net
 
2013-11-19 01:47:25 PM

Fart_Machine: bradkanus: Fart_Machine: bradkanus: queezyweezel: bradkanus: BKITU: bradkanus: It seems like a lot of people who cheered on the law because they are partisan before they are anything else, are now backpeddling on the law.

Today, in "Morons Seeing What They Want To See Theater"....

Feel a little guilty, don't you?  It's okay - you didn't read the bill.  You took their word for it. You were told by the people you voted for it was one thing. It turned out to be another.

Hey, that whole "weapons of mass destruction" thing really killed me. I believed it because the guys I voted for told me it was so. They were wrong.  I learned a lesson.  Will you learn yours?

I think most rational people were happy that it passed because it's a step in the right direction.  Most people knew it wasn't perfect, and in general wasn't really great in any sense of the word.  What it is, is a pivot point towards a single payer system, and serious reform of the current billing/coverage rules.

Wait what? Which "public system" did it take them out of?

Medicaid.  You assistance is now applied to your insurance premium! yeah!

Please tell me yo ...


You do understand that the expansion of those who qualify for medicaid and medicare is still just a government subsidy to their premium.  You won't "go on medicaid" you'll just be eligible for premium assistance.

Nice try.
 
2013-11-19 01:47:28 PM

FlashHarry: BojanglesPaladin: I doubt you intend to support any bills coming from the House Republicans to fix what is wrong with ACA,

house republicans have ZERO desire to 'fix' the ACA. they have one goal and one goal only: destroy it.

any legislation they offer is designed as either a poison pill to trap democrats or a backdoor repeal.


Yup. Those f*ckers are bent on keeping me and millions of others from having access to affordable health care. "Pro-life," my ass. F*ck them.

/patiently waiting until January, when I will FINALLY have health insurance again after not having it for 2 years due to pre-existing conditions
 
2013-11-19 01:47:29 PM

bradkanus: DamnYankees: While the issue in TFA is a problem, it has absolutely nothing to do with Obamacare. It's just a general problem with the medical industry. Should we fix it? Sure. But "Obamacare failed to fix this pre-existing issue which was already broken" isn't much of an argument; Obamacare isn't a panacea.

Not a "panacea?"  Uh, then what were you so excited about when it passed?  It seems like a lot of people who cheered on the law because they are partisan before they are anything else, are now backpeddling on the law.

You guys said it was good.

It's not.

Move on.


If I remember correctly, we said it was better than what was extant and that single payer is much preferable. I'm amazed at the energy that is spent tearing this down rather than making concrete suggestions on how to improve things. Given the rapid response from people like you, it rather feels like your posts are what pays your bills rather than any real conviction.
 
2013-11-19 01:48:06 PM
ITT: Conservatives who can't admit the ACA was a Republican plan chastising liberals for admitting the ACA is imperfect, which they've said from the beginning
 
2013-11-19 01:48:16 PM

way south: It's sort if like demanding your friend help you fix up that rusty old ford pinto you bought after he warned you that it was a bad idea.
He could just say "no, get rid of the damn thing".


That analogy makes no sense, since this problem existed before Obamacare.
 
2013-11-19 01:49:41 PM

bradkanus: BKITU: bradkanus: BKITU: bradkanus: It seems like a lot of people who cheered on the law because they are partisan before they are anything else, are now backpeddling on the law.

Today, in "Morons Seeing What They Want To See Theater"....

Feel a little guilty, don't you?

Once again, in "Morons Seeing What They Want To See Theater"....

Here's a hot tip: You do not live in other peoples' heads, and therefore have no idea what other people are thinking. Stop pretending like you do. It's warping your perception of reality.

So you are going to tell me that liberals were wary of this bill when it passed and made public statements saying that it would not likely work in the sense it would kick millions of americans off of their current plan and fail to entice those who didn't have insurance to get insurance.  Is that what you are claiming the left was saying in 2009-2010?  I need to know because I heard something completely different.

If you werent' partisan, you would have read the law. You would have understood what it aimed to do.  Instead, you did what you were told because you knew republicans didn't like it.  Well, when you do things out of spite...well you know what happens - ACA happens.


The ACA didn't force anyone's insurance to be canceled. It even has verbiage explicitly stating that nothing in the bill requires the cancellation of insurance plans.  Rather, the insurance companies decided that instead of updating their existing plans to meet the new requirements, they would cancel the plans that failed to meet muster.  Whether you like the ACA or not, the plan cancellations are entirely the decision of the insurance providers.
 
2013-11-19 01:50:26 PM

ferretman: Obama doesn't believe in working through Congress


It's hard to keep track of all the nonsensical talking points. This one I hadn't seen before.
 
2013-11-19 01:51:02 PM

coyo: bradkanus: DamnYankees: While the issue in TFA is a problem, it has absolutely nothing to do with Obamacare. It's just a general problem with the medical industry. Should we fix it? Sure. But "Obamacare failed to fix this pre-existing issue which was already broken" isn't much of an argument; Obamacare isn't a panacea.

Not a "panacea?"  Uh, then what were you so excited about when it passed?  It seems like a lot of people who cheered on the law because they are partisan before they are anything else, are now backpeddling on the law.

You guys said it was good.

It's not.

Move on.

If I remember correctly, we said it was better than what was extant and that single payer is much preferable. I'm amazed at the energy that is spent tearing this down rather than making concrete suggestions on how to improve things. Given the rapid response from people like you, it rather feels like your posts are what pays your bills rather than any real conviction.


But apparently it's not better.  It's more expensive and your doctor options more narrow (with good reason).  I think you should have read the bill instead of just receiving the talking points.
 
2013-11-19 01:51:12 PM

Arkanaut: Did he promise that?


You tell me.

From the 2008 Debate:
"OBAMA: Well, I think it should be a right for every American. In a country as wealthy as ours, for us to have people who are going bankrupt because they can't pay their medical bills ..."

From the 2007 Primary Debate:
"OBAMA: You know, my mother died of ovarian cancer when she was 53 years old. And I remember in the last month of her life, she wasn't thinking about how to get well, she wasn't thinking about coming to terms with her own mortality, she was thinking about whether or not insurance was going to cover the medical bills and whether our family would be bankrupt as a consequence. That is morally wrong. It's objectionable. That's why I put forward a comprehensive legislation for universal health care so that all people could get coverage. 

From the 2012 Debate:
"OBAMA: Well, four years ago, it wasn't just that small businesses were seeing costs skyrocket, but it was families who were worried about going bankrupt if they got sick."

From Take Back America Conference 2006:
"OBAMA: We know that as progressives we believe in affordable health care for all Americans, and that we're going to make sure that Americans don't have to choose between a health care plan that bankrupts the government and one that bankrupts families, the party that won't just throw a few tax breaks at families who can't afford their insurance, but will modernize our health care system and give every family a chance to buy insurance at a price they can afford.

From the Democratic Primary Debate 2007:
"Let me tell you what [my health care plan] would do. Number one, we should have a national pool that people can buy into if they don't have health insurance, similar to the ones that most of us who are in Congress enjoy right now. It doesn't make sense to me that my bosses, the taxpayers, may not have health insurance that I enjoy. And we can provide subsidies for those who can't afford the group rates that are available. The second thing is to make sure that we control costs. We spend $2 trillion on health care in this country every year, 50% more than other industrialized nations. And yet, we don't have, necessarily, better outcomes. If we make sure that we provide preventive care and medical technology that can eliminate bureaucracy and paperwork, that makes a big difference. The third thing is catastrophic insurance to help businesses and families avoid the bankruptcies that we're experiencing all across the country and reduced premiums for families."

From Michelle Obama's Convention Speech 2012:
"He did it because he believes that here in America, our grandparents should be able to afford their medicine; our kids should be able to see a doctor when they're sick; and no one in this country should ever go broke because of an accident or illness.

We could go on and on and on, but unless you intend to launch into a debate how once again Obama's words don't actually mean the things that they say, or what "promise' means, I think we can objectively say that protecting American families from medical bankruptcy was a stated goal of the ACA as articulated by Obama.
 
2013-11-19 01:51:56 PM

DamnYankees: way south: It's sort if like demanding your friend help you fix up that rusty old ford pinto you bought after he warned you that it was a bad idea.
He could just say "no, get rid of the damn thing".

That analogy makes no sense, since this problem existed before Obamacare.


It's probably more like "my rusty old ford pinto is broken down.  Then Obamacare got passed and my rusty old ford pinto is still broken down, so Obamacare is a failure."
 
2013-11-19 01:53:05 PM

bradkanus: DamnYankees: While the issue in TFA is a problem, it has absolutely nothing to do with Obamacare. It's just a general problem with the medical industry. Should we fix it? Sure. But "Obamacare failed to fix this pre-existing issue which was already broken" isn't much of an argument; Obamacare isn't a panacea.

Not a "panacea?"  Uh, then what were you so excited about when it passed?  It seems like a lot of people who cheered on the law because they are partisan before they are anything else, are now backpeddling on the law.

You guys said it was good.

It's not.

Move on.


Explain just why the ACA sucks for not explicitly preventing something it wasn't ever explicitly designed to prevent. Does the ACA also suck because it doesn't give us all Wolverine-like mutant healing factor too?
 
2013-11-19 01:54:14 PM

Ambivalence: If that is unacceptable, you are welcome to demand single payer healthcare.


"Data from countries with government-run healthcare systems suggest not.

Consider Canada. Our neighbor to the north features a government-run, single-payer healthcare system where private insurance is outlawed for
procedures covered under the law. So you'd think that Canada would have a lower rate of bankruptcy than the United States, what with one big potential
cause of bankruptcy -- the cost of health care -- absorbed by the government.

But according to researchers at the Fraser Institute, a nonpartisan Canadian think tank, bankruptcy rates are statistically the same on both sides of the
49th parallel.
In both the United States and Canada, less than one-third of 1 percent of families file for bankruptcy each year.

Further, even with a socialized healthcare system, some Canadians go bankrupt because of medical expenses. Approximately 15 percent of bankrupt
Canadian seniors -- those 55 and older -- cited medical reasons, including uninsured expenses, as the main culprit for their insolvency..."
http://thehill.com/blogs/congress-blog/economy-a-budget/263547-the-m yt h-of-medical-bankruptcy


/fwiw
 
2013-11-19 01:54:22 PM
Obamacare was a doomed to start with because it never was intended to benefit the people of the US, only insurance companies and pharma . The best fix for Obamacare is doing away with all the insurance companies involved. Just have universal basic insurance for every legal resident and citizen, people could  still buy supplemental insurance along the lines of Medicare supplements. Even using current numbers spent on health insurance and government programs it would allow around $10k per person and if the only desire is for the program to remain on budget and not a need for a profit it could do a decent job and really fix some of the problems. Universal coverage is the moral and ethical thing to do and the only way to control costs long term.
 
2013-11-19 01:54:25 PM

bradkanus: BKITU: bradkanus: BKITU: bradkanus: It seems like a lot of people who cheered on the law because they are partisan before they are anything else, are now backpeddling on the law.

Today, in "Morons Seeing What They Want To See Theater"....

Feel a little guilty, don't you?

Once again, in "Morons Seeing What They Want To See Theater"....

Here's a hot tip: You do not live in other peoples' heads, and therefore have no idea what other people are thinking. Stop pretending like you do. It's warping your perception of reality.

So you are going to tell me that liberals were wary of this bill when it passed and made public statements saying that it would not likely work in the sense it would kick millions of americans off of their current plan and fail to entice those who didn't have insurance to get insurance.  Is that what you are claiming the left was saying in 2009-2010?  I need to know because I heard something completely different.

If you werent' partisan, you would have read the law. You would have understood what it aimed to do.  Instead, you did what you were told because you knew republicans didn't like it.  Well, when you do things out of spite...well you know what happens - ACA happens.


See, this is what I'm talking about.

* Where have I indicated that I'm telling you anything about what liberals were or were not wary of?

* Where have I made any claims about what the left was saying?

* What proof do you have that I'm some partisan?

* What proof do you have that "I did what I was told" in any way, shape or form?

* What proof do you have that "I do things out of spite?"

ALL OF THESE THINGS EXIST ONLY IN YOUR HEAD. You think you know something about me, so you project all kinds of false assumptions on to me, and then start attacking those assumptions.

If you're just into doing this as some kind of perverted mental masturbatory exercise, then good for you, I guess. Wipe up when you're done.

If you're actually trying to engage in meaningful discussion, then you're hopeless because you are only attacking phantoms of your own invention, and not working within the reality the rest of us are trying to occupy.
 
2013-11-19 01:54:41 PM

way south: Assuming it can be fixed, or even deal with the problems in health care instead of the health insurance industry.

It's sort if like demanding your friend help you fix up that rusty old ford pinto you bought after he warned you that it was a bad idea.
He could just say "no, get rid of the damn thing".



The analogy is more like

You: My car sucks, the brakes are shot, it has no power steering, the AC is busted, and it won't start in the winter, I'm getting a new car, there's a rusty Ford Pinto in my neighbor's driveway that looks serviceable.

Friend: If you buy that car it'll explode and kill you and everyone you've ever loved.

You: I'm pretty sure that's not true, and I really need a new car.

*buys car*

Friend: I told you, you went and bought that new car and it *still* doesn't have power steering or AC.

You: So you'll help me fix the AC?

Friend: What? No. I told you this was a bad idea, you need a new car.
 
2013-11-19 01:54:46 PM

omnibus_necanda_sunt: Be in a network or lose your license to practice medicine after two years. Boom, done.


If by "Boom, Done" you mean "Boom, no new doctors, and droves of doctors pursuing other careers", then yes.

FlashHarry: house republicans have ZERO desire to 'fix' the ACA. they have one goal and one goal only: destroy it.


But... what if, Just WHAT IF... they are right?

The ACA may have had the best of intentions, but this just isn't actually making things better on the whole.
 
2013-11-19 01:55:05 PM
I just got the flu this week. Thanks Obama.
 
2013-11-19 01:55:11 PM

BojanglesPaladin: I think we can objectively say that protecting American families from medical bankruptcy was a stated goal of the ACA as articulated by Obama.


It absolutely was. But that does not mean that it is going to be 100% effective all the time in every situation. The stated goal of a bandage is to stop bleeding - that doesn't mean that the very idea of bleeding stopped when bandages were invented. But it'd be even dumber to see someone bleed and then say "well, bandages were a dumb idea".
 
2013-11-19 01:55:30 PM
Another day, another thread of people stating that the perfect should be the enemy of the good.
 
2013-11-19 01:56:17 PM

nmrsnr: Friend: What? No. I told you this was a bad idea, you need a new car.


You: Ok, what new car should I buy?

Friend: What, you can't walk to work, you lazy piece of crap? I'm gonna plant a pipe bomb in your car to make sure you have to walk.
 
2013-11-19 01:56:30 PM

BojanglesPaladin: omnibus_necanda_sunt: Be in a network or lose your license to practice medicine after two years. Boom, done.

If by "Boom, Done" you mean "Boom, no new doctors, and droves of doctors pursuing other careers", then yes.


Sure, if by "no new doctors and droves of doctors pursuing other careers" you mean "med schools continue to be filled to capacity and no more doctors pursue other careers than before," then yes.
 
2013-11-19 01:56:30 PM

BojanglesPaladin: omnibus_necanda_sunt: Be in a network or lose your license to practice medicine after two years. Boom, done.

If by "Boom, Done" you mean "Boom, no new doctors, and droves of doctors pursuing other careers", then yes.

FlashHarry: house republicans have ZERO desire to 'fix' the ACA. they have one goal and one goal only: destroy it.

But... what if, Just WHAT IF... they are right?

The ACA may have had the best of intentions, but this just isn't actually making things better on the whole.



You keep saying that as if it were true
 
2013-11-19 01:57:02 PM

Teufelaffe: bradkanus: BKITU: bradkanus: BKITU: bradkanus: It seems like a lot of people who cheered on the law because they are partisan before they are anything else, are now backpeddling on the law.

Today, in "Morons Seeing What They Want To See Theater"....

Feel a little guilty, don't you?

Once again, in "Morons Seeing What They Want To See Theater"....

Here's a hot tip: You do not live in other peoples' heads, and therefore have no idea what other people are thinking. Stop pretending like you do. It's warping your perception of reality.

So you are going to tell me that liberals were wary of this bill when it passed and made public statements saying that it would not likely work in the sense it would kick millions of americans off of their current plan and fail to entice those who didn't have insurance to get insurance.  Is that what you are claiming the left was saying in 2009-2010?  I need to know because I heard something completely different.

If you werent' partisan, you would have read the law. You would have understood what it aimed to do.  Instead, you did what you were told because you knew republicans didn't like it.  Well, when you do things out of spite...well you know what happens - ACA happens.

The ACA didn't force anyone's insurance to be canceled. It even has verbiage explicitly stating that nothing in the bill requires the cancellation of insurance plans.  Rather, the insurance companies decided that instead of updating their existing plans to meet the new requirements, they would cancel the plans that failed to meet muster.  Whether you like the ACA or not, the plan cancellations are entirely the decision of the insurance providers.


Ummm... yeah - the president already tried that talking point and he had to back off of it.

The insurance companies did update their insurance plans. Every single letter stating they can not BY LAW renew their previous plan came with new plan options that adhered to ACA regulations.  The problem is that those new plans offer new benefits (that one may, or may not need) at a higher cost.

You do know that an Insurance companies can't just offer any insurance product they want, right?  Every product they offer has to get the state insurance department's seal of approval.  Their old plans were not approved for use because the ACA's new rules.
 
2013-11-19 01:58:34 PM

DamnYankees: It absolutely was. But that does not mean that it is going to be 100% effective all the time in every situation.


I think you are missing the point here. It not only failed to address the issue at all, with smaller networks, it makes the problem WORSE.

DamnYankees: But it'd be even dumber to see someone bleed and then say "well, bandages were a dumb idea".


Not as dumb as seeing that the "new" sandpaper bandage opens the would and now there is even more bleeding.
 
2013-11-19 01:59:02 PM

BojanglesPaladin: But... what if, Just WHAT IF... they are right?


Then they should start offering alternative proposals and concrete criticism instead of their current "back to the bad old days" plan and vague whining about socialism.
 
2013-11-19 01:59:21 PM
bradkanus:
Also, the problems with the government handling the IT portion of the health exchanges has been the evidence to liberals in power that they are not ready to take on the kind of task a single payer system would be.  This system was supposed to handle 35 millino people and literally work as a pass through to insurance companies.  It was a hallway, so to speak.  They failed at that.  They now know that single payer is not an option because they can't create the infrastructure to make it succesful.

Nice jump to conclusions with that last sentence.  Because a website temporarily doesn't perform as expected, there is no way that single payer health care will work.

Wow. Absolute wow.
 
2013-11-19 01:59:58 PM

DamnYankees: BojanglesPaladin: I think we can objectively say that protecting American families from medical bankruptcy was a stated goal of the ACA as articulated by Obama.

It absolutely was. But that does not mean that it is going to be 100% effective all the time in every situation. The stated goal of a bandage is to stop bleeding - that doesn't mean that the very idea of bleeding stopped when bandages were invented. But it'd be even dumber to see someone bleed and then say "well, bandages were a dumb idea".


People are really stupid if they can't see a system that is designed to reduce the number of medical bankruptcies isn't the same as something designed to (or at least promising to) eliminate all medical bankruptcies.

And lets not forget which side wanted most consumer protections pulled from the ACA... it wasn't the political party that really that  BradKAnus seems to support.
 
2013-11-19 02:00:03 PM

BojanglesPaladin: 12349876: Are hospitals purposefully duping people into thinking all of their care will be in network for some extra cash or do they just not want to anger patients or have patients go elsewhere when no other option is available?

MANY specialists (like anesthesiologists, some surgeons, etc.) simply don't participate in insurance networks. Meaning they don't agree ahead of time to do work for patients of certain insurance companies at a significantly reduced rate. They bill the hospital, the hospital bills you or the insurance company. Then they all fight about it, and at some point, YOU have to pay the difference. The challenge is that for scheduled surgery you sign a piece of paperwork that acknowledges this, and that you accept responsibility for all the bills, but no one actually reads it. And if you are in an accident, or unconscious, you don't have any real say in it.

If you ever get service from someone who hasn't already negotiated a reduced rate with your insurance company, then you have to manually submit that bill to the insurance company, and they get to refuse to pay it and you can all fight for a while, and YOU have to get directly involved, and you will probably end up paying a ton more.

THAT's what "in-network" is about and why it matters when people complain that the ACA networks are smaller. Last I saw, about 40% of providers polled hadn't even decided whether they would be signing on to ACA networks because it wasn't clear yet what the compensation rates would be. And we are a month and a half out.


Aca is an insurance provider with its own networks?

Interesting.

Go do some googling, ask all your doctor friends or whatever, and clarify what you mean by aca networks.

Does the existence of an exchange and minimum coverage requirements force insurers to shrink networks?

Wtf are you trying to say?
 
2013-11-19 02:00:47 PM

BojanglesPaladin: I think you are missing the point here. It not only failed to address the issue at all, with smaller networks, it makes the problem WORSE.


Yes, it might. I already said I agree with you this is a problem. But again, its not an ACA-specific problem, and it can and should be fixed independent of the ACA. In what sense is that not true?
 
2013-11-19 02:02:40 PM

CPennypacker: You keep saying that as if it were true


I do, because I believe it is true. And every day, and week and month, we see more hard facts, and more statistics, and more real world consequences of ACA that support my assessment. I acknowledge readily and always have that ACA has a few good reforms in it. I have never objected to reforming a system in desperate need of reforming. I object to doing it badly, and I think ACA is doing very badly indeed.

I accept that others may weight and prioritize aspect of ACA differently than me, and that not everyone is exposed or even interested in many of the consequences because they are not directly affected by them.

As they say, your mileage may vary. It is possible for people to have the same set of facts and arrive at different conclusions.
 
2013-11-19 02:03:09 PM

BojanglesPaladin: The ACA may have had the best of intentions, but this just isn't actually making things better on the whole.


[citation needed]
 
2013-11-19 02:03:54 PM

omnibus_necanda_sunt: BojanglesPaladin: MANY specialists (like anesthesiologists, some surgeons, etc.) simply don't participate in insurance networks

Be in a network or lose your license to practice medicine after two years. Boom, done.


The solution is price controls (insurance networks are a privately-run, partial approximation of this). It's the only thing that works to contain health care costs.

People freak out when you mention price controls because they don't work nearly as well as a free market. But there is no free market in health care, nor will there ever be in the US. Not least because of pricing opacity, the problem under discussion!

 Single-payer systems implement price controls by setting their reimbursement rates (taking the "insurance network" concept to its logical conclusion). NHS-type systems just set the prices. Singapore, often held up as a "market" health care system, has pure-fiat price controls.
 
2013-11-19 02:04:20 PM

BojanglesPaladin: CPennypacker: You keep saying that as if it were true

I do, because I believe it is true. And every day, and week and month, we see more hard facts, and more statistics, and more real world consequences of ACA that support my assessment. I acknowledge readily and always have that ACA has a few good reforms in it. I have never objected to reforming a system in desperate need of reforming. I object to doing it badly, and I think ACA is doing very badly indeed.

I accept that others may weight and prioritize aspect of ACA differently than me, and that not everyone is exposed or even interested in many of the consequences because they are not directly affected by them.

As they say, your mileage may vary. It is possible for people to have the same set of facts and arrive at different conclusions.


This is rich
 
2013-11-19 02:04:21 PM

Crotchrocket Slim: Explain just why the ACA sucks for not explicitly preventing something it wasn't ever explicitly designed to prevent. Does the ACA also suck because it doesn't give us all Wolverine-like mutant healing factor too?


Wait, was that an option?!?

s2.quickmeme.com
 
2013-11-19 02:04:22 PM
NEWSFLASH!

People STILL don't know how to read their insurance plan!

Seriously, this has been the same for every insurance plan since the invention of 'networks'.  It has nothing to do with the ACA.  But yanno, gobble gobble little right wing nutjobs, it's almost Thanksgiving.
 
2013-11-19 02:05:25 PM

bradkanus: DamnYankees: While the issue in TFA is a problem, it has absolutely nothing to do with Obamacare. It's just a general problem with the medical industry. Should we fix it? Sure. But "Obamacare failed to fix this pre-existing issue which was already broken" isn't much of an argument; Obamacare isn't a panacea.

Not a "panacea?"  Uh, then what were you so excited about when it passed?  It seems like a lot of people who cheered on the law because they are partisan before they are anything else, are now backpeddling on the law.

You guys said it was good.

It's not.

Move on.


Good not perfect perhaps?
 
2013-11-19 02:05:28 PM

Gaseous Anomaly: The solution is price controls (insurance networks are a privately-run, partial approximation of this).


You don't even need that. What you basically need is a public option or a Medicare opt-in. The government has sufficient bargaining power that it can bring prices down that way; if you can't compete with the price the government is offering, you won't get any business. You don't need to put a firm price control in place.
 
2013-11-19 02:07:11 PM

dave2198: Tricky Chicken: The My Little Pony Killer: bradkanus: Move on.

Man, fark off. Seriously. fark off into heavy traffic.

I love how the left can't deal with their failure.  It just goes straight into wishes for the death of the people that warned them they were screwing up.  Good times.

You guys own it, you deal with it.

Can you please point me to the last law that was perfect upon implementation?

I'll wait.


Probably Public Law 113-27 (Aug 2013).  But it is a minor law directing accomodation for wounded veterans flying commercial air.  So far it hasn't been challenged or ammended.

It has nothing to do with it being perfect.  It has to do with the ACA being a train wreck and forced through with single party support.  Now the Democrats own everything good in the act, but also everything that has made it a huge embarassment so far.
 
2013-11-19 02:07:34 PM

MarshHawk: bradkanus:
Also, the problems with the government handling the IT portion of the health exchanges has been the evidence to liberals in power that they are not ready to take on the kind of task a single payer system would be.  This system was supposed to handle 35 millino people and literally work as a pass through to insurance companies.  It was a hallway, so to speak.  They failed at that.  They now know that single payer is not an option because they can't create the infrastructure to make it succesful.

Nice jump to conclusions with that last sentence.  Because a website temporarily doesn't perform as expected, there is no way that single payer health care will work.

Wow. Absolute wow.


You do realize that the website is simply a portal that sends folks off to private insurers, right?  You do know that it's the most basic function of pass through purchasing the internet has to offer and the federal government can't even get that right.  Now imagine if they had to actually function as a giant insurance provider handling everything from sign ups to pay outs to secure data storage...  yeah - not possible.
 
2013-11-19 02:08:14 PM

bradkanus: Ummm... yeah - the president already tried that talking point and he had to back off of it.

The insurance companies did update their insurance plans. Every single letter stating they can not BY LAW renew their previous plan came with new plan options that adhered to ACA regulations.  The problem is that those new plans offer new benefits (that one may, or may not need) at a higher cost.

You do know that an Insurance companies can't just offer any insurance product they want, right?  Every product they offer has to get the state insurance department's seal of approval.  Their old plans were not approved for use because the ACA's new rules.


Most of the "sticker shock" people were seeing was because of community rating, not because of the minimum benefits.

In the former individual market, only healthy people had coverage - anyone else was outright refused, or priced out. Healthy people are cheap to cover (by definition) so their premiums weren't bad. Now that they share a risk pool with sick people, their premiums are going up. This was, by design, the entire point of Obamacare.
 
2013-11-19 02:08:15 PM
I want to hear more about these Medicaid premiums that low income people pay to be a part of a state Medicaid program.

Since these premiums only exist in the imaginations of Fark Right Wing talking point generators, I'll wait for one of them to explain it to me.
 
Displayed 50 of 265 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | » | Last | Show all

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report