APP - Obamacare Is A Republican Nightmare

Big money said:
Isn't it a little early to predict lower costs, since the law isn't fully implemented yet?

And I don't want "grater" access. Sounds painful.
Click to expand...
Not really. It doesn't take a rocket scientist to figure out how the exchanges and universal mandate affect cost. I'm already considering switching from my employer based insurance cause I think I can get better coverage at a comparable cost.
 
All the wankers on here are going to be so disappointed when we finish implementing ACA and it ends up working just fine.

Would I prefer "medicare for all"? sure. But ACA is better than what we had before.
 
Mott the Hoople said:
Not really. It doesn't take a rocket scientist to figure out how the exchanges and universal mandate affect cost. I'm already considering switching from my employer based insurance cause I think I can get better coverage at a comparable cost.
Click to expand...

Let me know how that works for you.

Interesting that you'll abandon private coverage, which is one of the things Obama said wouldn't happen, wasn't it?
 
PostmodernProphet said:
so is your employer.....
Click to expand...
LOL Look this isn't rocket science. We have 30 to 40 years of experience of the other industrialized nations of the world implementing these reforms. Guess what? We're last! The track record on how these reforms work are out there. Guess what people? This has been done before and they work. Why the hell do you think we're finally doing them? We simply can't continue to permit healthcare to chew up nearly 20% of GNP.

The obstructionism on ACA is purely that. Political obstructionism intended for no other reason that to discredit a politician. Many of those people doing so are motivated in part or wholly by racism. That fact that many of the ideas implemented by the ACA are Republican ideas is proof that political obstructionism is their motivation. The fact that Republicans refuse to commit to any alternate plans to the ACA is also indicative of their obstructionism and their being owned by special interest.

What truly funny to me is that this is just the beginning of reform. As the current articles of the ACA become fully implemented, cost will go down, access will improve and further reforms will occur. The next big argument will be to create either a public option or to require health insurance companies operate as non-profits. My guess is that with insurance companies currently being required to spend 85% of revenue on services, that the insurance companies would chose to operate as non-profits as opposed to accept a public option.
 
Big money said:
Let me know how that works for you.

Interesting that you'll abandon private coverage, which is one of the things Obama said wouldn't happen, wasn't it?
Click to expand...
Do you even know what the hell you are talking about? Health care exchanges are private, market driven companies. Exchanges, for the first time, permit consumers to shop for specific types of coverage based on benefits and cost. It increases competition, it ends the near monopoly of health insurance companies and it's completely market driven.

I mean do you even have that first clue what a health care exchange even is? By your comment it sound like you don't have that first clue of what you're talking about.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Health_insurance_marketplace#Private_health_insurance_exchanges
 
Mott the Hoople said:
LOL Look this isn't rocket science. We have 30 to 40 years of experience of the other industrialized nations of the world implementing these reforms. Guess what? We're last! The track record on how these reforms work are out there. Guess what people? This has been done before and they work. Why the hell do you think we're finally doing them? We simply can't continue to permit healthcare to chew up nearly 20% of GNP.
.
Click to expand...

Had a guy stop by our fair booth this weekend. He had problems with the ACA - but mainly because he was from France, where they have single payer healthcare that works.

He's in oncology; been here for 30 years; he was saying that there are three ways to treat cancer- surgery, radiation, chemotherapy. Of the three, chemo has the worst results and costs the most. And he said - what is pushed on patients in the US? chemotherapy -because of the involvement of the companies that make the chemotherrapy treatments.

I couldn't disagree with what he said - French system would be better; yes we have to get big bucks out of medicine; but where I disagreed with him was that still, ACA is better than what we had before.

I would love to move to the French system. Any conservatives willing to push it through congress? last time, the answer was "hell no"
 
tekkychick said:
Had a guy stop by our fair booth this weekend. He had problems with the ACA - but mainly because he was from France, where they have single payer healthcare that works.

He's in oncology; been here for 30 years; he was saying that there are three ways to treat cancer- surgery, radiation, chemotherapy. Of the three, chemo has the worst results and costs the most. And he said - what is pushed on patients in the US? chemotherapy -because of the involvement of the companies that make the chemotherrapy treatments.

I couldn't disagree with what he said - French system would be better; yes we have to get big bucks out of medicine; but where I disagreed with him was that still, ACA is better than what we had before.

I would love to move to the French system. Any conservatives willing to push it through congress? last time, the answer was "hell no"
Click to expand...
A single payer system would be the most efficient way to eliminate waste from our health care system and reduce cost. That reform by itself would cut our nations health care cost by an estimated 30%. That's another one of those reforms that's going to come.
 
Mott the Hoople said:
Than there's the issue of credibility. Hmmmm whom should I believe? A French Oncologist with a postdoctoral education or you with your GED from Mississippi? Hmmmm wow....that's a tough decision, isn't it? [/sarcasm]
Click to expand...

except that isn't the option....who do we believe, tekky or ILA?....
 
Mott the Hoople said:
Than there's the issue of credibility. Hmmmm whom should I believe? A French Oncologist with a postdoctoral education or you with your GED from Mississippi? Hmmmm wow....that's a tough decision, isn't it? [/sarcasm]
Click to expand...

There is that. Also - I said nothing about cancer survival rates in my post. I said he talked about the efficacy of different treatments and how the one with the worst survival rate was the most expensive and the one most pushed on people.

He also mentioned that while most cancer treatments look at 5 yrs to declare cancer gone, with chemo it's six months.

He may have been wrong ... but he has lived in both systems, the French and the US, and he prefers the French.
 
Rule 2. No insults directed at specific individuals

Additionally:

"DO NOT QUOTE POSTS THAT BREAK THE RULES. In the course of modding this subforum you'll get someone throwing a personal insult and then 2 responses to the personal insult. Which doesn't add to the conversation. APP is above petty fighting, and even if you don't start it, responding/paying attention to the stuff still defeats the purpose of this subforum. Look at the rules listed, if you see a rule being broken, report the post and we will get to it ASAP. Posts that respond to the insults will also be deleted because there is no point to them; if a problem post is deleted then your post would be responding to thin air. Report, don't Respond."

http://www.justplainpolitics.com/showthread.php?20045-APP-Rules-for-this-Forum-(Read-before-Posting)
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top