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 02:08:51 PM

Tricky Chicken: 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.


What law isn't "forced through" with single party support nowadays when one party just votes against anything the other one wants?
 
2013-11-19 02:09:01 PM

Tricky Chicken: Now the Democrats own everything good in the act, but also everything that has made it a huge embarassment so far.


This is 100% true. The Democrats own the ACA. I don't think that's a bad thing though.
 
2013-11-19 02:09:55 PM
All the plans I am looking at have an absolute cap on out of pocket expenses, in my case around $6k. That would sting but wouldn't lead to bankruptcy.
 
2013-11-19 02:10:11 PM

bradkanus: 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.


Uh, they already are a giant insurance provider
 
2013-11-19 02:11:32 PM

Crotchrocket Slim: 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.


I don't think anyone here is expecting an elimination of all medical bankruptcies. But again you are overlooking that not only does the ACA do nothing to reduce the likelihood, leaving one of the primary reasons why even people with insurance ho bankrupt untouched, when combined with the predicted smaller networks under ACA plans, it actually make it more likely.

BEST Case seems to be that ACA did absolutely nothing to fix a problem it was purported to address,

DamnYankees: 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?


If you are placing your goal-posts on "The problem did not originate with ACA", that's fine. But it's not really what we are talking about is it? We agree this is a long standing issue. We know this because it was one of the main things that Obama and others cited as a reason why we NEEDED drastic reform.

The discussion here (for me at least) is why the ACA didn't fix THIS problem either.
 
2013-11-19 02:12:04 PM

BojanglesPaladin: DamnYankees: So you'll support passing a law to amend Obamacare to fix this problem? I hope you'll join me in supporting a bill to fix it.

I suppose that would depend greatly on what was in the bill, don't you? There IS no such bill, and it seems unlikely that there will be one.

I doubt you intend to support any bills coming from the House Republicans to fix what is wrong with ACA, and I have no idea what bills you anticipate coming from the Senate Democrats, given that the last effort to tweak it did nothing to fix this flaw when they passed The Health Care and Education Reconciliation Act of 2010. Perhaps they need multiple tries? Or perhaps they aren't actually interested in any substantive changes.

So would I support a hypothetical non-existent bill to fix just one of the myriad and pervasive failure points of a deeply flawed and ineffective garbage pile of bad legislation? Perhaps.

But something tells me you wouldn't, if it meant actually changing ACA.


You don't have to make a radical change to ObamaCare to resolve this problem. All-payer regulations like what I suggested earlier are pretty simple and could be overlaid on top of the Frankenstein's monster of a coverage scheme we have today.
 
2013-11-19 02:12:17 PM

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

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.


And you have a wonderful point about price controls and people generally not understanding that the health care market already has a huge price control compenent in the medicare and medicaid reimbursement rates.  With one part of the system regulated by price controls and an entire other part not regulated, you get exactly what we have here - insanity.  The docs and hospitals made their deal early in the process so that they wouldn't have to face price controls put in place by the government outside of the existing medicare and medicaid system (which is actually giving way to insurance in the form of subsidies).

I think Docs and Hospitals have to be regulated on what they can charege across the entire market - not just the government backed part.
 
2013-11-19 02:13:11 PM

Satan's Bunny Slippers: 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.


I think ACA will make the problem a little worse, because of two things:

1) The newly insured that don't know to watch for this
2) Insurers shrinking their networks to keep utilization (and therefore costs) down

Neither of those reflect poorly on the ACA itself.

If ACA's implementation and outreach budgets hadn't been gutted, there could be a PSA blitz reminding people to never, ever go out of network for anything. Thanks, Tea Party!
 
2013-11-19 02:13:48 PM
My stapler ran out of staples. Thanks, Obamacare.
 
2013-11-19 02:13:52 PM

KellyX: [scontent-b.xx.fbcdn.net image 400x352]


Yes please!  Scrap ACA and do this!  ACA is nothing but a bad Idea that will screw us all.
 
2013-11-19 02:14:09 PM
bradkanus:

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.

Yep, I do realize that.  I also realize that other countries somehow managed single care health care well before the Internet of today existed.
 
2013-11-19 02:15:08 PM

Serious Black: Mandate every health care provider charge the same price to every patient regardless of their method of payment.

You're welcome.


Have a complete single-payer system, so no patient ever has to pay anything (or more than a nominal copay) for medical services, like they do in every other civilized country in the world.

You're welcome
 
2013-11-19 02:15:30 PM

Gaseous Anomaly: 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.


You are a 100 percent right.  New benefits new costs make up some of the increase.  However,  with age bands being limited to 3 to 1, the young healthy folks had to see an increase to cover the old sick people.  Now, if young healthy people aren't mandated to participate, shiat is going to hit the fan.  The market is going to be overloaded with very sick people and no healthy people and insurance companies are going to have to adjust rates accordingly.  It turns into one huge high risk pool!
 
2013-11-19 02:15:43 PM

FlashHarry: [citation needed]


Start with the article linked to this thread.

Gaseous Anomaly: 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.


I disagree (strongly). I am of the opinion that the problems with out current system were birthed with the HMO legislation of the early 70s under Nixon and Ted Kennedy, and I think it has been demonstrated throughout the 79s that government price controls are generally a terrible idea. Not everyone agrees on this, and that's fine.

But even if you are right, you highlight another fundamental flaw of the ACA - it doesn't really do much to prevent rising costs of healthcare and rising costs of insurance by means of direct price controls or other.
 
2013-11-19 02:16:06 PM
Dear fellow hippy liberal types,

It is time to nut up and admit you got suckered in by this piece of shiat legislation under the guise of "doing something" and "it might not be perfect but its a start" happy feelgood support of Our Guy.  I will remind you now, as I did then, that "do something" is exactly the same mentality that got us into Iraq and was parroted about those supporting *that* particular bad bit of policy by those supporting Their Guy.

Much like Iraq, we are going to suffer the ill effects of this bill, primarily uncontrolled costs, for another 20 years.  Hopefully at that time  we will decide that hey, maybe next time when Our Guy comes up with a bad idea, we call him on it and demand single payer.

Sincerely,

Rent Party
 
2013-11-19 02:16:27 PM

BojanglesPaladin: We know this because it was one of the main things that Obama and others cited as a reason why we NEEDED drastic reform.


It was? I don't remember that. In fact, I can't remember Obama ever talking about this particular issue - can you cite something? A single time he talked about people with insurance going bankrtupt because a non-network medical bill was snuck in without their knowledge? I mean, I suppose its possible that this was one of the main tentpoles of the ACA push, but I'm pretty politically aware and I'd never heard of this issue until today.

You need to stop conflating the general idea of medical bankruptcy with the very specific issue in TFA. They aren't the same thing.
 
2013-11-19 02:16:45 PM

MarshHawk: bradkanus:

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.

Yep, I do realize that.  I also realize that other countries somehow managed single care health care well before the Internet of today existed.


Do those countries have 300 million people?
 
2013-11-19 02:17:03 PM
Ummm... yeah... Because balance billing (healthcare providers aren't supposed to do it but they do it anyway) and doctors not being in networks didn't exist before Obamacare. The problem can't possibly be providers and insurance companies, noooooope. Gotta be the blah guy and his socialist health care. ::eyeroll::
 
2013-11-19 02:18:01 PM

revrendjim: All the plans I am looking at have an absolute cap on out of pocket expenses, in my case around $6k. That would sting but wouldn't lead to bankruptcy.


Not if you ever go out-of-network for anything, knowingly or not, because of balance billing. That's the point of TFA.

Anaesthesiologists are in general known for this. You can go to an in-network hospital, see an in-network surgeon for a surgery, and the anaesthesiologist will be out-of-network. Therefore that practice can literally bill you for any arbitrarily large amount and you're on the hook. Your insurer will pay them some percentage of the contracted rate they'd pay someone in-network. The practice can and will bill you much more, and there's nothing you can do but threaten and/or implement bankruptcy. The insurer can't help because they can't control what that practice charges.

Five-fold markups are reasonably common (I've experienced one, with hospital charges).
 
2013-11-19 02:19:41 PM

Serious Black: You don't have to make a radical change to ObamaCare to resolve this problem.


Good. Let's all hold our breath waiting for Harry Reid and Nancy Pelosi to offer up a bill to fix even this one issue. It's not a surprise, and been there since before day one. They didn't tackle in 2010 when they last revised it, but I'm sure they are just about to.

bradkanus: And you have a wonderful point about price controls and people generally not understanding that the health care market already has a huge price control compenent in the medicare and medicaid reimbursement rates. With one part of the system regulated by price controls and an entire other part not regulated, you get exactly what we have here...


You also get fewer and fewer providers participating. Especially when the promised and much delayed 30% reimbursement rates finally go into effect.
 
2013-11-19 02:19:49 PM

Tax Boy: Serious Black: Mandate every health care provider charge the same price to every patient regardless of their method of payment.

You're welcome.

Have a complete single-payer system, so no patient ever has to pay anything (or more than a nominal copay) for medical services, like they do in every other civilized country in the world.

You're welcome


You'd be surprised by how many countries don't actually have a single-payer health insurance system. France, Switzerland, Japan, the Netherlands, Germany...
 
2013-11-19 02:21:02 PM

Gaseous Anomaly: Satan's Bunny Slippers: 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.

I think ACA will make the problem a little worse, because of two things:

1) The newly insured that don't know to watch for this
2) Insurers shrinking their networks to keep utilization (and therefore costs) down

Neither of those reflect poorly on the ACA itself.

If ACA's implementation and outreach budgets hadn't been gutted, there could be a PSA blitz reminding people to never, ever go out of network for anything. Thanks, Tea Party!


Exactly.  But the nutjobs are incapable of dealing with that.

Just like the ACA will end up being a bit more expensive for a very few, and a bit of a hassle due to trolling insurance companies cancelling policies that didn't need cancelled and blaming the ACA.

But it will all work out eventually.

/single payer
 
2013-11-19 02:21:03 PM

bradkanus: MarshHawk: bradkanus:

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.

Yep, I do realize that.  I also realize that other countries somehow managed single care health care well before the Internet of today existed.

Do those countries have 300 million people?


www.operationworld.org
 
2013-11-19 02:21:42 PM

bradkanus: with age bands being limited to 3 to 1, the young healthy folks had to see an increase to cover the old sick people.  Now, if young healthy people aren't mandated to participate, shiat is going to hit the fan.  The market is going to be overloaded with very sick people and no healthy people and insurance companies are going to have to adjust rates accordingly.  It turns into one huge high risk pool!


At first I was concerned that some of the "fixes" being bandied about (keep-your-plan, mandate delays, website problems etc.) might bring about such an adverse selection death spiral. But the first couple years of Obamacare have some features to limit that possibility. There's risk corridors (which I don't understand), and a reinsurance fund (for bailing out insurers that get too many high-risk enrollees).

Also, since the silver premium is always the same at the same level of income, there's some protection against increasing premiums driving people out of the risk pool. (At the cost of more subsidy expenses).
 
2013-11-19 02:22:22 PM

Gaseous Anomaly: revrendjim: All the plans I am looking at have an absolute cap on out of pocket expenses, in my case around $6k. That would sting but wouldn't lead to bankruptcy.

Not if you ever go out-of-network for anything, knowingly or not, because of balance billing. That's the point of TFA.

Anaesthesiologists are in general known for this. You can go to an in-network hospital, see an in-network surgeon for a surgery, and the anaesthesiologist will be out-of-network. Therefore that practice can literally bill you for any arbitrarily large amount and you're on the hook. Your insurer will pay them some percentage of the contracted rate they'd pay someone in-network. The practice can and will bill you much more, and there's nothing you can do but threaten and/or implement bankruptcy. The insurer can't help because they can't control what that practice charges.

Five-fold markups are reasonably common (I've experienced one, with hospital charges).


Man, it's almost like some bureaucrat insurance accountant is picking your doctor for you.

/ Gubbermint BAD
// MARKETZ GOOOD
/// derp
 
2013-11-19 02:22:34 PM

BojanglesPaladin: Crotchrocket Slim: 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.

I don't think anyone here is expecting an elimination of all medical bankruptcies. But again you are overlooking that not only does the ACA do nothing to reduce the likelihood, leaving one of the primary reasons why even people with insurance ho bankrupt untouched, when combined with the predicted smaller networks under ACA plans, it actually make it more likely.

BEST Case seems to be that ACA did absolutely nothing to fix a problem it was purported to address,


It remains to be seen whether Obamacare will fix this issue. The reason these charges are so high is that the doctors have to recoup money they will never be paid for other services they rendered (partially to the uninsured). If they don't have to recoup those costs (because more people are paying because they have insurance) then they don't HAVE TO charge the huge amounts. But, you have to have more people paying before the Doctors will drop their prices. Since Obamacare hasn't really gone into affect yet, this obviously hasn't happened.

Whether it will happen is very much up for debate and largely determines the success of the bill.
 
2013-11-19 02:23:06 PM

Serious Black: Tax Boy: Serious Black: Mandate every health care provider charge the same price to every patient regardless of their method of payment.

You're welcome.

Have a complete single-payer system, so no patient ever has to pay anything (or more than a nominal copay) for medical services, like they do in every other civilized country in the world.

You're welcome

You'd be surprised by how many countries don't actually have a single-payer health insurance system. France, Switzerland, Japan, the Netherlands, Germany...


Japan doesn't?  Whatever they have sure seemed like it, but I didn't understand how everything works exactly.  I think if you are a citizen and pay taxes or something, you are basically covered by national insurance.  How does it really work there?
 
2013-11-19 02:23:51 PM

bradkanus: coyo


bradkanus: 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.


It's more expensive in edge cases, I suppose, but not the average cases.
 
2013-11-19 02:24:18 PM

MarshHawk: bradkanus:

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.

Yep, I do realize that.  I also realize that other countries somehow managed single care health care well before the Internet of today existed.


Including the USA, though I hear that today Medicare has a pretty good website.

/single payer wouldn't need exchanges, subsidies, or means-testing
 
2013-11-19 02:25:23 PM

DamnYankees: You need to stop conflating the general idea of medical bankruptcy with the very specific issue in TFA. They aren't the same thing


Ah. So THAT's where you wish to move your goalposts to. When Obama was talking about people with insurance still going bankrupt (like his oft-cited story of his mother dying of cancer) because many things weren't covered, he wasn't really talking about people going bankrupt because many things weren't covered.

So just to be clear, Obama and the ACA advocates and proxies, when discussing the ways that ACA was needed top protect Americans from bankruptcy, they meant "except for when the crippling bankruptcy inducing bills are a result of out-of-network billing".

Got it.
 
2013-11-19 02:25:43 PM

bradkanus: MarshHawk: bradkanus:

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.

Yep, I do realize that.  I also realize that other countries somehow managed single care health care well before the Internet of today existed.

Do those countries have 300 million people?


Ah, so population size is what is preventing us from successfully implementing single payer health care!  That's interesting, since the federal government is somehow able to manage 300 million Americans' income tax returns every year, and is also able to collect communication and metadata from 300 million Americans.

The website is but a temporary problem.  It will be fixed given time.  It has nothing to do with the ability to manage a health care system.  In fact, I would argue that ceteris paribus, the infrastructure required for a single-payer system would be much simpler than what is currently being dealt with.
 
2013-11-19 02:26:10 PM

Tricky Chicken: Serious Black: Tax Boy: Serious Black: Mandate every health care provider charge the same price to every patient regardless of their method of payment.

You're welcome.

Have a complete single-payer system, so no patient ever has to pay anything (or more than a nominal copay) for medical services, like they do in every other civilized country in the world.

You're welcome

You'd be surprised by how many countries don't actually have a single-payer health insurance system. France, Switzerland, Japan, the Netherlands, Germany...

Japan doesn't?  Whatever they have sure seemed like it, but I didn't understand how everything works exactly.  I think if you are a citizen and pay taxes or something, you are basically covered by national insurance.  How does it really work there?


You have a 30% co-pay, access to supplemental insurance, universal care selection, a public insurance option, and the government picks up the rest.

All of which was taken off the table by "liberal" Obama when trying to get this clusterfark bill passed.
 
2013-11-19 02:26:12 PM

netcentric: the Fraser Institute, a nonpartisan Canadian think tank


Hahahaha!

ohwaityoureserious.jpg
 
2013-11-19 02:27:22 PM

BojanglesPaladin: Serious Black: You don't have to make a radical change to ObamaCare to resolve this problem.

Good. Let's all hold our breath waiting for Harry Reid and Nancy Pelosi to offer up a bill to fix even this one issue. It's not a surprise, and been there since before day one. They didn't tackle in 2010 when they last revised it, but I'm sure they are just about to.


And clearly I suck Harry Reid's cock and want to eat Nancy Pelosi's pink fish taco.

Nobody is trying to solve this problem really on the federal level. The only movement on these issues is from Massachusetts with their global budget targeting and Maryland with continued reform efforts to their cost-setting commission that has been around since the 70s. It's frustrating, not the least because I think the lack of movement is because of narrow interests arguing against a policy that would benefit the general welfare of the nation.
 
2013-11-19 02:27:43 PM

Rosecitybeaver: The reason these charges are so high is that the doctors have to recoup money they will never be paid for other services they rendered (partially to the uninsured).


You should know that uncompensated health care in America is about 2% of the total healthcare provided (look it up, 6% if you include charity). Does that change your assessment? That getting 2-6% of that money will change pricing significantly?
 
2013-11-19 02:27:55 PM
csb: i got my Open Enrollment package for my health insurance through my employer. I grabbed my calculator, crunched the numbers (vision and dental are now paid for seperately rather than included) and discovered that I will pay exactly the same amount for the same coverage next year as I have been this year.

Truly, this is history's greatest blunder.
 
2013-11-19 02:28:30 PM

BojanglesPaladin: DamnYankees: You need to stop conflating the general idea of medical bankruptcy with the very specific issue in TFA. They aren't the same thing

Ah. So THAT's where you wish to move your goalposts to. When Obama was talking about people with insurance still going bankrupt (like his oft-cited story of his mother dying of cancer) because many things weren't covered, he wasn't really talking about people going bankrupt because many things weren't covered.

So just to be clear, Obama and the ACA advocates and proxies, when discussing the ways that ACA was needed top protect Americans from bankruptcy, they meant "except for when the crippling bankruptcy inducing bills are a result of out-of-network billing".

Got it.


So you would support amending the ACA to close this loophole?

Got it.
 
2013-11-19 02:28:30 PM

Serious Black: And clearly I suck Harry Reid's cock and want to eat Nancy Pelosi's pink fish taco.


Who said that? I don't think that is clear at all, but you would know better than I.

Serious Black: Nobody is trying to solve this problem really on the federal level.


Exactly. But ACA was supposed to.
 
2013-11-19 02:31:10 PM

BojanglesPaladin: So just to be clear, Obama and the ACA advocates and proxies, when discussing the ways that ACA was needed top protect Americans from bankruptcy, they meant "except for when the crippling bankruptcy inducing bills are a result of out-of-network billing".

Got it.


I'm not sure what you want me to say to this. It's a hole that needs to be fixed. Let's fix it. Do you want me to rend my garments over the fact that ACA is not a perfect bill, and that the people that drafted and supported it couldn't imagine every future scenario which might escape its coverage?
 
2013-11-19 02:32:52 PM
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.


Why on earth would it be more expensive?  The total insurance paid in America = the total medical costs + insurance company profits. Obamacare reduces company profits (it was like 25% and is not capped at...I think 20%). How do you imagine that the bill will increase medical costs? By having more people get procedures they needed but couldn't get?  How is that possibly bad?

All Obamacare really does is redistribute the costs of medical treatment more evenly over the population.
 
2013-11-19 02:34:43 PM

Uranus Is Huge!: So you would support amending the ACA to close this loophole?


Asked and answered above.
 
2013-11-19 02:35:45 PM

BojanglesPaladin: Rosecitybeaver: The reason these charges are so high is that the doctors have to recoup money they will never be paid for other services they rendered (partially to the uninsured).

You should know that uncompensated health care in America is about 2% of the total healthcare provided (look it up, 6% if you include charity). Does that change your assessment? That getting 2-6% of that money will change pricing significantly?


Apparently true, but that does happen to equal 40 Billion a year...  which someone pays for.
 
2013-11-19 02:36:28 PM

DamnYankees: Do you want me to rend my garments over the fact that ACA is not a perfect bill, and that the people that drafted and supported it couldn't imagine every future scenario which might escape its coverage?


I think that you could go the last step and just acknowledge that in this issue, the ACA did not address one of the principle issues it was supposed to address.
 
2013-11-19 02:38:05 PM

BojanglesPaladin: I think that you could go the last step and just acknowledge that in this issue, the ACA did not address one of the principle issues it was supposed to address.


I've acknowledged that - I'll do it again here: it appears the ACA does not protect people against this particular aspect of medical costs.

What's next? Should I lash myself? At what point do we stop pretending like this is anything but a routine policy issue which we should fix?
 
2013-11-19 02:38:48 PM

PanicMan: JerseyTim: They passed Obamacare and people are still getting cancer? What was it all for then!??!!?

That's not all. They Passed Obamacare and I still have to put gas in my car every week. Clearly the law is broken.


They Passed Obamacare and I still have to clean the kitty litter.  Clearly the law is broken.
 
2013-11-19 02:39:25 PM

Rosecitybeaver: 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.


Why on earth would it be more expensive?  The total insurance paid in America = the total medical costs + insurance company profits. Obamacare reduces company profits (it was like 25% and is not capped at...I think 20%). How do you imagine that the bill will increase medical costs? By having more people get procedures they needed but couldn't get?  How is that possibly bad?

All Obamacare really does is redistribute the costs of medical treatment more evenly over the population.


Fifth grade math quiz time!

If I am an insurance company CEO and I am told by the fed that I must spend 80% of my revenue on paying claims, but I am not limited in any way in how much I can charge for a plan, what is a very simple way to make up the net loss?

Show your work.
 
2013-11-19 02:39:30 PM

Rosecitybeaver: Apparently true, but that does happen to equal 40 Billion a year... which someone pays for


To be sure. However, it does kind of kill your "free rider fallacy" explanation that health care providers are charging so very much to offset that loss, and that therefore with it "gone" (which isn't actually going to happen, but let's skip that) health care costs would therefore be reduced.

Or am I misunderstanding your point?
 
2013-11-19 02:41:17 PM

BojanglesPaladin: Serious Black: And clearly I suck Harry Reid's cock and want to eat Nancy Pelosi's pink fish taco.

Who said that? I don't think that is clear at all, but you would know better than I.

Serious Black: Nobody is trying to solve this problem really on the federal level.

Exactly. But ACA was supposed to.


ObamaCare did do a lot on the cost control front. ACOs, the IPAB, the Center for Medicare/Medicaid Innovation, the PCORI, the co-op insurance program, the Cadillac excise tax, the minimum medical loss ratio rules...these all will have some impact on costs. It's not perfect, but then no system is.
 
2013-11-19 02:42:16 PM

DamnYankees: I've acknowledged that - I'll do it again here: it appears the ACA does not protect people against this particular aspect of medical costs. What's next? Should I lash myself? At what point do we stop pretending like this is anything but a routine policy issue which we should fix?


You keep asking me if I want you to do damage to yourself. I do not.

I think the next question is if this is a "routine policy issue" that was known well before they even started drafting the ACA, and that it was not addressed in the ACA, nor was it addressed in the 2010 revision of the ACA, and there are currently no bills on the table to address it even today... but the policy makers are surely aware of it (or SHOULD be)...

Is anyone in congress even interested in addressing it?
 
2013-11-19 02:44:27 PM

BojanglesPaladin: Is anyone in congress even interested in addressing it?


Good question. I have no idea. I find it highly unlikely any such fix could pass the House, but hey, maybe the House GOP will surprise us. Obviously Democrats should be in favor of somehow fixing this, and those who are not would, in my opinion, be wrong to oppose it.
 
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