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 75
    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 (39 weeks ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



Voting Results (Smartest)
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

2013-11-19 01:36:32 PM
6 votes:
Okay, maybe I'm missing something, but it looks like Obamacare, while not directly addressing the issue, does make it much less of an issue. Balance billing is where hospitals try to make up the slack in reimbursements or non-payers by heavily overcharging others, the article says Obamacare has the following provision:

"Your plan must pay the emergency providers the greatest of these three amounts:

1. The amount it pays in-network providers;
2. A payment based on the same methods the plan uses to pay for other out-of-network
services (for example, a percentage of usual and customary fees charged by other
providers in your area); or
3. The amount Medicare would pay for that service."

So it helps on two fronts, 1) your insurance can't say they don't cover emergency care in a non-network ER and stick you with the bill, they have to pay at least what they would have paid an in-network hospital, so you pay less, and 2) by paying out to ER visits more, and more often, the hospital will have fewer unpaid bills, so they won't have to balance bill as often, or at such exorbitant levels.

To sum up:
1. Problem existed before ACA.
2. ACA doesn't solve problem, but helps alleviate the problem.
3. ???
4. Clearly, this calls for outrage.
2013-11-19 01:54:25 PM
4 votes:

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 01:39:32 PM
4 votes:

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.
2013-11-19 01:30:01 PM
4 votes:
If that is unacceptable, you are welcome to demand single payer healthcare.
2013-11-19 01:13:24 PM
4 votes:

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?
2013-11-19 12:56:52 PM
4 votes:
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"....
2013-11-19 02:45:39 PM
3 votes:
Liberals: There's something wrong w/ the ACA, we should replace it w/ single payer.
Democrats: There's something wrong w/ the ACA, we should fix it.
Republicans: There's something wrong w/ the ACA, we should repeal it.
Tea Party: DANGNABBIT 0BUMMER SOSHULIS MUSLIN COMMIE *wheezing* GOOOOOD BLESS UHMERIKUH!!!!
2013-11-19 01:59:58 PM
3 votes:

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 01:48:06 PM
3 votes:
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 01:40:30 PM
3 votes:

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


No, Democrats probably won't support "fixes" that will inevitably fall somewhere between "won't actually fix anything" and "deliberate sabotage".
2013-11-19 01:33:39 PM
3 votes:

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.
2013-11-19 01:23:21 PM
3 votes:
Mandate every health care provider charge the same price to every patient regardless of their method of payment.

You're welcome.
2013-11-19 12:46:54 PM
3 votes:
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.
2013-11-19 03:29:21 PM
2 votes:

BeesNuts: 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!!!"

I REALLY genuinely hope that y'all can keep this level of intense scrutiny fixed on the president and his agenda the next time a republican's in office.

Cause that would've been really nice last time.


Could you imagine this level of scrutiny on the war in Iraq?  I was promised we would be greeted as liberators.  I was promised the mission was accomplished.  I was promised a few weeks/months TOPS.

And here we have Republicans biatching about how sure a bill fixes SOME of the things but not ALL of the things.

Goddamn.
2013-11-19 02:05:28 PM
2 votes:

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 02:04:22 PM
2 votes:
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 02:03:54 PM
2 votes:

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 01:54:22 PM
2 votes:
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 01:49:41 PM
2 votes:

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 01:47:29 PM
2 votes:

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 01:36:22 PM
2 votes:

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.
2013-11-19 01:26:44 PM
2 votes:

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?


Evasion noted.
2013-11-19 05:11:33 PM
1 votes:
That actually happened to me when my in-network doctor sent my labs to an out of network lab, and I got a bill for over $1,000 (because that's what a woman's annual exam labs cost, apparently.)

I actually got out of paying it by arguing that I do not control where my labs are sent, and that I am not responsible for enforcing the contracts between the insurance company and my doctor, but if they would like me to take that on in the future, I charge $200/hour for those sorts of services.  It's not like the doctor hands you the samples they take and you take it to the lab.  And how could anyone assume that an in-network doctor's lab of choice would somehow NOT be in network?

It's insanity, the things they get away with.
2013-11-19 04:03:17 PM
1 votes:

EWreckedSean: Is it really that healthcare doesn't have a functional market, so much that healthcare laws and practices have separated consumers from market forces? e.g. when was the last time you price compared MRIs?


Price opacity is the entire reason TFA's scenario is a problem. There is no law or regulation preventing or hindering providers from posting a price list and actually billing people those prices.

Even with pricing transparency and/or price controls, there are still plenty of market failures to go around. We don't have the stomach, as a society, to make health care excludable by ability/willingness to pay. (Nor should we IMO). We have significant supply-side barriers to entry (and most are for good reason, e.g. the FDA). Information asymmetries abound, even on the supply side - e.g. lots of doctors don't know which patients do better on low-dose aspirin than on coronary stents. Likewise there are principal-agent problems, as one would expect in an industry where consumers are almost always less informed than producers.
2013-11-19 03:56:11 PM
1 votes:

CPennypacker: dinomyar: 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.

The cap is for in-network providers. You can still get a bigger bill that you will have to pay.

Actually it depends on the plan. My health insurance plan's max out of pocket includes payments to out of network providers.


Watch out - they may say they cover out-of-network services "at 100%" when you hit that out of pocket max. But that 100% will be 100% of some "UCR" that is approximately the contracted in-network rate. They don't and can't protect you from balance-billing by out-of-network providers, because there's no limit (contractual, legal or logical) on how much those providers can bill you.

I could be wrong if it's a Goldman Sachs-style $42000/year plan or something. Maybe those cover balance-bills and just hope no provider bills them $1M for setting a broken leg...
2013-11-19 03:50:43 PM
1 votes:

BojanglesPaladin: 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. T ...


None of those quotes actually constitute a promise -- they're statements of concerns or goals at best.  Four of those six quotes are from before the ACA was even introduced to Congress, never mind being debated or amended.  The closest he gets is to say that we want to help families avoid bankruptcy, which we can say is a weasel word.
2013-11-19 03:50:09 PM
1 votes:

dinomyar: Government says I can charge X, but I want to make 2X. How is that not wage controls?


BojanglesPaladin: Can you explain how dictating what a person who provides a service can be paid for that service is not wage control? Especially when many doctors are paid per procedure performed, many doctors are independent contractors, and many doctors are sole practitioners?


Not all income from the sale of products and services go directly to wages.  The business decides what portion of their income is allocated to wages.  Limiting their income from some or all their offered products or services does not remove their ability to decide what portion is allocated to wages.  Thus a control on their income is not a control on their wages.

Short version: It's not wage control because it's not controlling wages, dipshiats.
2013-11-19 03:22:42 PM
1 votes:

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!!!"


I REALLY genuinely hope that y'all can keep this level of intense scrutiny fixed on the president and his agenda the next time a republican's in office.

Cause that would've been really nice last time.
2013-11-19 03:13:28 PM
1 votes:

BojanglesPaladin: Serious Black: 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.

Do you have any hard numbers on this? I know there have been a lot of proposed measures and additional bureaucracy and regulations that ideally might in some way produce some potential savings, but the numbers I have seen from the CBO show us paying more than if we had done nothing and predicting rising healthcare costs per capita over the next decade or more. I have not seen any hard numbers showing a net reduction in either insurance premiums or health care costs, and minimal, if any, reduction in the RATE of growth. But I may have missed some key information.

I assume you have looked into it. What have you found that convinces you otherwise?


ACOs seem to be having a positive impact. Several have reported cost reductions so far with no negative consequences on the quality of care. The Massachusetts pilot with AQCs for BCBS is showing similar results.

Nobody has been named to the IPAB, it is only legally empowered to make cost-saving suggestions when costs exceed the target growth rate of GDP+1% (by 2019, indexed to CPI-U before then), and it can only do thinks after the beginning of 2015, so it has had no impact whatsoever.

I haven't seen much from the Center for Medicare and Medicaid Innovation, but their website suggests they are pushing a ton of pilot projects for payment reforms along the lines of bundled payments and primary care transformation. I wouldn't be surprised if a pilot all-payer system came out of them at some point.

Given its nature as an agency for comparative effectiveness research, we likely won't see much out of the PCORI for a long time. What gains we do see would almost certainly just get plowed back into spending on better care.

The only news I've heard on the co-ops is that several states have established them and are selling plan with them on their exchanges. They've been competitively priced and are often the lowest cost plans available. As we've seen, the more competitors on an exchange, the lower the average premiums are.

The Cadillac excise tax won't do anything until 2018.

The MLR rules have already resulted in giving over a billion dollars in rebates back to beneficiaries. They'll continue to either push these rebates out or will push premiums down as companies adjust to only spending 15-20% of their money on administrative expenses.
2013-11-19 03:09:38 PM
1 votes:

BojanglesPaladin: But the Democrats SHOULD have a vested interest in making this thing actually work. If for no other reason than political self preservation. But for years now, they have been playing a political game of see no evil, hear no evil on ACA and doing nothing for fear of any attempts to do so being the camel's nose for the Republicans.


I just see a different reality than you. Democrats in office, and especially liberals who dominate the policy class, are all about fixing the thing. There's just nothing they can do right now while the House is controlled by the GOP. Not sure what you want them to do.

BojanglesPaladin: And the dirty little secret that Democrats can't bring themselves to face is that the ACA isn't workable, and it's only going to get worse as it unfolds. And they sold it to America with a lot of slick salesmanship and we all bought it. But it's not exactly working like it said in the brochure and now they are refusing to do the needed warranty work on it.


Oh, wait. Nevermind. I thought you were actually engaging in a policy discussion and how it intersects with the reality of Washington politics. I was mistaken.
2013-11-19 03:09:07 PM
1 votes:
You see, if he says a bunch of bullshiat then it is his "opinion" but if you reply to his BS with disdain then you "aren't contributing to the discussion"
2013-11-19 03:08:33 PM
1 votes:

Serious Black: 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.


If anyone is without healthcare for any reason then the ACA is a failure and all health insurance regulations should be scrapped.

I believe that sums up the trolls' views.
2013-11-19 03:01:38 PM
1 votes:

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.


Says the guy who keeps inserting the same thing into each of his many posts.  I'm sure you've read the bill cover to cover, and did so before forming your completely objective opinion, even though the word liberal is pejoratively multiple times, but conservative is nowhere to be found.

I'm off to update my favorites to give you a nice troll yellow color.
2013-11-19 02:49:31 PM
1 votes:

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.


Yeah it's not like they've gotten Medicare or Social Security to work at all, those aren't very big.  No one is saying things are perfect but this argument is just garbage.  The issue here <conspiracy hat on> is that the government has had to interface with hundreds or thousands of private providers who frankly don't have much incentive to be on top of their game.  I'm sure NONE of them sandbagged testing or just outright told the builders "yeah it's working fine" when it wasn't.  I mean after all, who's going to be in the news when that bug shows up in prod, Joe's discount healthcare or the big old federal government.

This is going to follow the same trajectory as gay marriage.  Right now we're in the "People will be able to marry turtles!" phase.  But mark my words, those of you that fight universal healthcare are going to find yourselves on the wrong side of history, AGAIN for many of you.

My hope is that it occurs in your lifetime so you have to live through some of it, like that girl that was screaming at the black kids trying to walk to school after desegregation.  She has to live with that every day, more so on anniversaries when she gets interview requests (just saw one last year).  Let that sink in for a minute before you regurgitate your stale talking points again.
2013-11-19 02:46:54 PM
1 votes:

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.


But it does, indirectly. Like I said above, the reasons for balance billing is that hospitals are under-compensated for some people, so they need to overcharge others. The ACA 1) reduces the number of uninsured people, meaning that there will be fewer instances of ER visits without the ability to pay at all, 2) requires insurance companies to at least pay hospitals what they would pay in-network ERs, so not only are hospitals seeing more covered patients, but being paid more on average per patient, so 3) in general the practice of balance billing should be reduced since hospitals are being more well compensated, and 4) it helps individuals since their insurance has to pay for the equivalent of in-network hospitals even at out-of-network ERs, so even emergency visits will be less expensive for individuals, which are generally the most expensive medical bills.
2013-11-19 02:41:17 PM
1 votes:

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 02:25:43 PM
1 votes:

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 02:21:42 PM
1 votes:

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 02:21:03 PM
1 votes:

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 02:18:01 PM
1 votes:

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 02:16:27 PM
1 votes:

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 02:14:09 PM
1 votes:
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 02:10:11 PM
1 votes:

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 02:09:55 PM
1 votes:
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 02:09:01 PM
1 votes:

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 02:08:15 PM
1 votes:
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.
2013-11-19 02:08:14 PM
1 votes:

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 02:07:11 PM
1 votes:

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 02:00:03 PM
1 votes:

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 01:59:21 PM
1 votes:
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 01:56:30 PM
1 votes:

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 01:55:30 PM
1 votes:
Another day, another thread of people stating that the perfect should be the enemy of the good.
2013-11-19 01:55:11 PM
1 votes:

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 01:54:41 PM
1 votes:

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 01:51:56 PM
1 votes:

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 01:51:12 PM
1 votes:

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 01:47:28 PM
1 votes:

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 01:46:35 PM
1 votes:
scontent-b.xx.fbcdn.net
2013-11-19 01:44:32 PM
1 votes:

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 01:44:28 PM
1 votes:

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 01:43:14 PM
1 votes:

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 01:40:16 PM
1 votes:

Ardilla: A whole lot of troll gray in this thread....


Once BJP appears in a thread, it has become a troll thread.  A sure sign to move on.
2013-11-19 01:40:10 PM
1 votes:

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.


And as we all know, if anyone ever fails at something once, they will always continue to fail at anything and everything that remotely resembles it.  That's why schools expel students the first time they fail a test or get an F on an assignment, all businesses fire employees the first time they fark something up, and our justice system executes anyone who's convicted of anything.

Though I suppose you could just be an idiot, but I'm thinking my other scenario is way more likely.
2013-11-19 01:38:54 PM
1 votes:

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.
2013-11-19 01:37:21 PM
1 votes:
Why the fark do we even have "networks" in the first place? To me, that seems to be the retarded part of our whole system.
2013-11-19 01:35:13 PM
1 votes:

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 have. There is no way I'm voting for Obama in 2016.
2013-11-19 01:34:15 PM
1 votes:

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.
2013-11-19 01:33:35 PM
1 votes:

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.


So you're either an obnoxious blogger or a hot redhead...choose wisely.
2013-11-19 01:32:10 PM
1 votes:

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?
2013-11-19 01:30:52 PM
1 votes:
The question I have from this article.

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?
2013-11-19 01:30:17 PM
1 votes:

bradkanus: Move on.


Man, fark off. Seriously. fark off into heavy traffic.
2013-11-19 01:23:55 PM
1 votes:
They passed Obamacare and people are still getting cancer? What was it all for then!??!!?
2013-11-19 01:22:08 PM
1 votes:

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.
2013-11-19 01:15:26 PM
1 votes:

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?

blog.jinni.com

"God, I admire you."
2013-11-19 01:11:27 PM
1 votes:

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!!!"
 
Displayed 75 of 75 comments

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report