If you liked your plan but can't keep it...

Desh ran from this thread when her feet were held to the fire...take note - this is the way to shut her down...

Any other liberal want to explain how forcing men to buy maternity coverage makes sense?
 
Big money said:
How come Deshy can't explain why a man needs to be forced to buy maternity insurance?
Click to expand...
Cost sharing. I have to pay for a prescription plan, but I don't use drugs. I'm ok with it, if it helps the system to work out the glitches.

Same reason women pay for Viagra, and men pay for birth control.
 
Althea said:
Cost sharing. I have to pay for a prescription plan, but I don't use drugs. I'm ok with it, if it helps the system to work out the glitches. Same reason women pay for Viagra, and men pay for birth control.
Click to expand...

Since you're OK with it, that's OK, then.
 
Althea said:
Cost sharing. I have to pay for a prescription plan, but I don't use drugs. I'm ok with it, if it helps the system to work out the glitches.

Same reason women pay for Viagra, and men pay for birth control.
Click to expand...


Your opinion is eminently reasonable and practical and therfore it has NO BUSINESS in this discussion.
 
fromeach-web-lg.jpg




Economists love to say “there is no such thing as a free lunch.”


Free lunches exist in the sense that somebody is getting something for free; of course, somebody else has to pay.


As the Affordable Care Act moves closer to full implementation a lot of people who expected to receive a free lunch are discovering that they are instead getting stuck with the bill.


The Affordable Care Act, commonly known as Obamacare, does little if anything to reduce total expenditures on health care.


Mostly it just shuffles around who pays for what.


Millions of people who have had trouble affording health insurance and may have gone without it will now receive a subsidy from the federal government so that they can buy health insurance at a below-market price.


In some states, people who make slightly too much money to have qualified for Medicaid previously will now be eligible for this free, government health insurance.


These people are receiving a free lunch.


These subsidies have to be paid for somehow.


The Affordable Care Act has two main mechanisms for paying the bill: taxes and higher insurance premiums for some.


There are a multitude of taxes to help pay for the subsidies.


However, the taxes have been known for a while.


What is a surprise to some people are the higher insurance premiums that ordinary, middle class Americans suddenly face so that other ordinary Americans can enjoy lower prices.


http://www.forbes.com/sites/jeffreydorfman/2013/10/31/the-high-costs-of-obamacare-hit-home-for-the-middle-class/
 
bowserb said:
Remember, this is a socialist plan, and as such it is designed for everyone who is able to help out everyone else. The prices are resource, not risk, based. If you can pay, you have to pay for everyone. As some other countries have proven, a single payer system can work and provide both quality and cost effective health care. One problem with our system has been that the financing is fragmented, resulting in a lot of duplication of administration and record keeping, not to mention billing and payment. ACA will not help that, since it does not eliminate any of the current financing systems and, in fact, adds another layer of administration for probably millions of people. Therefore, since it provides no efficiencies there is really no way for the ACA to save anyone money. Its expanded coverage in many areas will actually increase costs.

A large portion of the healthcare providers in this country are investor-owned hospitals, clinics, and specialty providers. That for-profit portion of the system came about, oddly enough, thanks to Medicare and Medicaid. Before those programs, hospitals were money losers, not just nonprofit. With the surety of payment from the government, the hospital business became a potential profit area. For profit hospitals also brought to the market new efficiencies, such that only the profit motive can produce. At the same time, they brought a new kind of customer service to health care, although in most cases, the "customers" they courted were physicians who would admit patients to their hospitals.

The problem remains, though, that there are so many payers--insurance companies, government agencies, individuals, unions--that there are thousands of administrative offices and departments, all adding cost but no efficiency to the system. Hospitals and other providers don't know what they're charging much of the time, since their posted prices are not paid by anyone. I personally had bills for a hospital, hospital-based physicians, labs, etc. that totaled around $18,000, but after all the adjustments, the actual bills were less than a third of that before any payments were applied. It's worse than buying a car! OK, maybe not worse, but almost as bad.

So, the ACA, if it were to take the place of Medicare, Medicaid, and every health insurance company in the U.S., might in fact be able to save money, by virtue of being a single payer finance system. And guess what? That is exactly the intent of the people behind the ACA. They know it won't work as is, but once in place it will never go away or even reduce in size. It will just grow and grow until it becomes the national health plan that Hillary Clinton was trying to build in the 1990's.

Of course, the other piece of the financing pie that has to suffer is the de facto subsidy of the rest of the world's prescription drugs. The newly developed drugs that cost so much here--because the R&D has to be paid by someone--cost pennies on the dollar other places where the drug companies sell the drugs. Why? Because that's all they'll pay. And if the U.S. consumers pay the R&D, then the exports have only manufacturing cost to cover. Yes, we have been getting the wrong end of that stick forever. Think of it as stealth foreign aid to the rest of the world. Well, when our new single payer steps in and says this new drug can only be reimbursed $x, then there's not enough to make it work developing new drugs...or the rest of the world will have to bear its share of the R&D cost. Imagine that. Eventually, the ACA is going to drive up health care costs in other countries.

Sorry, I ranted again. There is potential for the ACA to be long term beneficial, but we have way too many crooks in government for that to happen.
Click to expand...

There are many opportunities to lower R&D costs by farming it out to places like Cuba, India and China.
 
karl_marx_quote_2.jpg





Obamacare requires insurance companies to cover people with pre-existing conditions and forces limits on the price differentials insurance companies are allowed to charge people based on all sorts of risk factors (like smoking).


That means that insurance companies are guaranteed to lose money on lots of the people they will be insuring.


Simple economics demands that the insurance companies make up those losses somewhere.


The plan is for the insurance companies to offset those losses with profits on young and healthy people.


The whole reason that the law has a mandate for everyone to purchase health insurance is to force those people to purchase plans that they would not buy freely because they know their costs are likely to be lower than the premiums.


Again, this was known by many people, although many of these young people may just be finding out that the president they were instrumental in electing has decided to stick them with part of the bill for his health care reform.










http://www.forbes.com/sites/jeffreydorfman/2013/10/31/the-high-costs-of-obamacare-hit-home-for-the-middle-class/
 
Althea said:
Cost sharing. I have to pay for a prescription plan, but I don't use drugs. I'm ok with it, if it helps the system to work out the glitches.

Same reason women pay for Viagra, and men pay for birth control.
Click to expand...

These idiots must have missed Sex Ed 101. Or else they think babies are created through parthenogenesis.
 
AssHatZombie said:
Plans that don't serve them? So you don't even believe people should have been allowed to keep their existing plans as is? And you knew obama was lying and you don't care?
Click to expand...


dear idiot,

Il splain it slowly for you.



"If you like your plan"


now lets take just that part of the statement.

Now the poor president keeps forgetting to take into account there are self abusing people like yourself who "LIKE" to have a insurance plan that can drop them for getting sick.

Now why would they like that?


merely to spew hate on a black president because they are racist pieces of fuck.


go get the BIG list of cases where someone is getting screwed out better care and spending MORE because of the actual bill an NOT just because the isurance company is FUCKING people by lying to them about the program so they can over charge them.


Why do you smucks ALWAYS pretend the corps dishonest behavior with consumers is not at the heart of this whole mess and why we needed to fix it?
 
Maybe someone can explain why it's OK for people who don't want or need certain types of coverage to be forced to pay for those coverages anyway?

Is that like forcing people who don't own cars to buy auto insurance?

Is it like forcing people who don't own homes to buy homeowners insurance?

obamacare-logo.jpg
 
evince said:
dear idiot,

Il splain it slowly for you.



"If you like your plan"


now lets take just that part of the statement.

Now the poor president keeps forgetting to take into account there are self abusing people like yourself who "LIKE" to have a insurance plan that can drop them for getting sick.

Now why would they like that?


merely to spew hate on a black president because they are racist pieces of fuck.


go get the BIG list of cases where someone is getting screwed out better care and spending MORE because of the actual bill an NOT just because the isurance company is FUCKING people by lying to them about the program so they can over charge them.


Why do you smucks ALWAYS pretend the corps dishonest behavior with consumers is not at the heart of this whole mess and why we needed to fix it?
Click to expand...

This is funny. Even many prominent liberals have admitted he lied (or deceived) but not Desh. She'll fight to the end and she'll go down swinging playing the race card. When all else is lost resort to the race card.
 
because he didn't.

Have you ever noticed that I stick to the facts and NOT what the corporate media spews?


Tell me WHY are the corporations finding new ways to trick people out of money which is WHY we had to fix the system in the first place?


Where is the PROOF that all of this is merely caused by the law and NOT caused by the trickery of a pack of corporations that CAUSED the whole need in the FIRST PLACE????????
 
PROVE it is merely the law and NOT what the corps are doing to MAKE more money in any way they can
 
Oh so hes responsible for the duplicity of the corps because they are the reason we had to fix it in the first place?


fuck you very much
 
The coroprations are fucking people any way they can.

They had to find new ways to fuck people after this law.

so what do you clowns do?

Blame the people who tried to stop them from cheating.


and the corporate media taught you to think it
 
Now between the cheating corps and the political "please fuck me corporate world so I can keep hating Obama" you guys are being fucking liars and cheaters to claim Obama was lying.

fuck you all very much
 
Go get the cases you claim exist which prove this is ONLY happening because the law changed things.

here is what is starting to come out fool.

That the insurance cos are FUCKING lying to people in their stop policy letters.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top