Derby Trail Forums

Derby Trail Forums (http://www.derbytrail.com/forums/index.php)
-   The Steve Dellinger Discourse Den (http://www.derbytrail.com/forums/forumdisplay.php?f=4)
-   -   Obamacare Bleeding Out (http://www.derbytrail.com/forums/showthread.php?t=59940)

Pants II 05-20-2016 10:46 AM

It's funny people can defend this crippling disaster known as Obamacare.

A family member last year spent 9 days in the hospital for merely hpb. One of the highest rated hospitals in the state makes numerous mistakes for hbp.

Just a stroke of bad luck, I guess. I'm sure others have had wonderbra experiences with aca and health care in general. If they're not subsidized I'd love to hear their stories.

Or crickets chirping. Either/Or.

jms62 05-20-2016 10:50 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Pants II (Post 1064956)
It's funny people can defend this crippling disaster known as Obamacare.

A family member last year spent 9 days in the hospital for merely hpb. One of the highest rated hospitals in the state makes numerous mistakes for hbp.

Just a stroke of bad luck, I guess. I'm sure others have had wonderbra experiences with aca and health care in general. If they're not subsidized I'd love to hear their stories.

Or crickets chirping. Either/Or.

Had someone close to me get cancer last year. Paid about a grand out of pocket and still has health insurance. Treatment was basically 9 months including surgery/chemo/radiation. All on Unsubsidized policy.

Pants II 05-20-2016 11:00 AM

That's wonderful.

I would just like for you to clarify that "guaranteed renewable" and "affordable care act" don't have to co-exist.

You see the latter is all about expanding the welfare state. You know about the debt. All of the guaranteed health coverage your heart desires isn't going to save you from less access and longer lines. It's coming.

Specialists are retiring at a rate that is unprecedented. Common sense would tell you that the "working" man's standard of care is going to be lowered. If the government is going to continue to use subsidies then it's natural that cash-strapped hospitals will choose those who are fully subsidized.

Oh well. It's all about screwing the flyover states. You know...rural folks.

Gotta get them all in cities. For some odd reason.

Just keep appeasing to the socialists, jms. We'll all be extinct soon enough. But at least you'll be right in the short term.

jms62 05-20-2016 11:05 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Pants II (Post 1064961)
That's wonderful.

I would just like for you to clarify that "guaranteed renewable" and "affordable care act" don't have to co-exist.

You see the latter is all about expanding the welfare state. You know about the debt. All of the guaranteed health coverage your heart desires isn't going to save you from less access and longer lines. It's coming.

Specialists are retiring at a rate that is unprecedented. Common sense would tell you that the "working" man's standard of care is going to be lowered. If the government is going to continue to use subsidies then it's natural that cash-strapped hospitals will choose those who are fully subsidized.

Oh well. It's all about screwing the flyover states. You know...rural folks.

Gotta get them all in cities. For some odd reason.

Just keep appeasing to the socialists, jms. We'll all be extinct soon enough. But at least you'll be right in the short term.

And when it doesn't happen "long term" we will all forget these posts were never written. Can't be wrong if you kick the decision point far enough down the road. The process was broke long before ACA at least now we are truly insured for catastrophic occurrences. See ya in the selections thread coach.

Pants II 05-20-2016 11:11 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by jms62 (Post 1064963)
And when it doesn't happen "long term" we will all forget these posts were never written. Can't be wrong if you kick the decision point far enough down the road. The process was broke long before ACA at least now we are truly insured for catastrophic occurrences. See ya in the selections thread coach.



You're a better handicapper no need to subtly brag.


I think that's cowardice which is why I used cowed.

Keep shilling for more big gov.

jms62 05-20-2016 11:23 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Pants II (Post 1064964)


You're a better handicapper no need to subtly brag.


I think that's cowardice which is why I used cowed.

Keep shilling for more big gov.

Dude there is no way I would imply this to anyone.

Pants II 05-20-2016 11:32 AM

Well you are.

But this is about Obamacare not horsies.

I'm a good handicapper on this stuff.



The ACA is Wal-Mart in Hospital form.

The flyovers are doomed, jms. Indiana, which is a traditionally great state for health care, just signed its death wish and increased MM payouts by $400,000 per case.

ACA was never about "guaranteed renewable". It was about the expansion of the Federal government and their ongoing manipulation of the population.

And attorneys. Can't let them slide if you're gonna throw Insurance CEO's under the bus. The sharks pushed this turd with gusto.

Pants II 05-20-2016 11:40 AM

People who don't provide shouldn't reap the rewards of the working class.

It's not about wanting people to suffer simply for their situation but when they are already in that situation and you take more tax money from the middle class to provide more for the have nots after decades of the middle class being stagnant...well it's not fair.

Why give incentives to the group of the population that won't contribute? It's lunacy and long-term its suicidal.

This wasn't the only way to do it. It was an extreme way. A sadistic, slow way of implementing full blown government run health care.

Our future generations deserve better. Our best and brightest deserve to live and prosper in a society that isn't overrun with starving sociopaths who believe some invisible God told them to kill people who believe in "demons".

The ACA benefits those types more than the useful.

jms62 05-20-2016 11:54 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Pants II (Post 1064968)
People who don't provide shouldn't reap the rewards of the working class.

It's not about wanting people to suffer simply for their situation but when they are already in that situation and you take more tax money from the middle class to provide more for the have nots after decades of the middle class being stagnant...well it's not fair.

Why give incentives to the group of the population that won't contribute? It's lunacy and long-term its suicidal.

This wasn't the only way to do it. It was an extreme way. A sadistic, slow way of implementing full blown government run health care.

Our future generations deserve better. Our best and brightest deserve to live and prosper in a society that isn't overrun with starving sociopaths who believe some invisible God told them to kill people who believe in "demons".

The ACA benefits those types more than the useful.

I agree with most of what you are saying. I think you know my reasons for liking it as it has touched lots I know in the last couple years. I have seen people who got far into it much further than I could begin to help with because they were booted from insurance. There are too many parasites feeding off the system. You mention specialists leaving the field. I have several specialists I play golf with regularly and they have been complaining long before ACA that they were getting 10-20 cents on the dollar from insurance companies for procedures they used to get 100 cents for. Same for hospitals. It is only natural for them to jack up their rates so the 10% they are getting is close to what they once got. Meanwhile for profit insurance companies making record earnings year after year. In summary the process is broke and it has been broke for years. It isnt any more broke with ACA than it was.

Danzig 05-20-2016 01:07 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by OldDog (Post 1064945)
It is what it is. What do you think should be done about it? Get the government involved to regulate salaries, stock options and other forms of compensation? It does no good to bitch about what other people are paid, but if you're going to do it what's your "solution?"

I don't worry about what others are paid (unless I'm being smarmy). I am concerned with my compensation, and act accordingly. All of this talk by Bernie and other socialists about higher taxes on the rich (making them pay "their fair share") is just the politics of envy, and I have no time for it.

my solution is to roll back whatever legislation was passed that produced this back about 30-40 years ago. trickle down was a joke. it was changed, it can be changed again.
and yes, regulation is called for at times. like with the triangle shirtwaist factory, like with child labor laws, etc. unbridled capitalism is not a good thing. that's what led to us having leaded paint while other countries all banned it in the 20's, it's corporate greed that kept lead in gas, and scientists lying about it. and yes, it is a concern. if you don't care, that's fine. others do. it's not your place to tell someone else what all to care about.
and no, it's not politics of 'envy'. and I still don't get why astronomical pay for the rich gets defended, and anyone else wanting a living wage is envious. and then people wonder at the economy. it's all part and parcel of that.

Pants II 05-20-2016 01:40 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by jms62 (Post 1064972)
I agree with most of what you are saying. I think you know my reasons for liking it as it has touched lots I know in the last couple years. I have seen people who got far into it much further than I could begin to help with because they were booted from insurance. There are too many parasites feeding off the system. You mention specialists leaving the field. I have several specialists I play golf with regularly and they have been complaining long before ACA that they were getting 10-20 cents on the dollar from insurance companies for procedures they used to get 100 cents for. Same for hospitals. It is only natural for them to jack up their rates so the 10% they are getting is close to what they once got. Meanwhile for profit insurance companies making record earnings year after year. In summary the process is broke and it has been broke for years. It isnt any more broke with ACA than it was.


Better regulations. Like making able-bodied Medicaid/Subsidized non-workers volunteer 50 hours a month of their time to local charities, homeless shelters, etc.

But then again that would be racist. The media would say as much because there's a far more sinister agenda going on.

OldDog 05-20-2016 04:13 PM

More regulations. That'll work.

Regulations have surged under this administration, this congress, faster than ever before. Over 170,000 pages now, more than double what it was 40 years ago. SBA says that compliance costs $1.7-$2Trillion a year. That's a giant sucking sound. More of this is precisely what we need.

Outta here.

jms62 05-20-2016 04:19 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by OldDog (Post 1065054)
More regulations. That'll work.

Regulations have surged under this administration, this congress, faster than ever before. Over 170,000 pages now, more than double what it was 40 years ago. SBA says that compliance costs $1.7-$2Trillion a year. That's a giant sucking sound. More of this is precisely what we need.

Outta here.

Hopefully to learn some new tricks... It isn't 1976 any longer...

Danzig 05-20-2016 05:10 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by OldDog (Post 1065054)
More regulations. That'll work.

Regulations have surged under this administration, this congress, faster than ever before. Over 170,000 pages now, more than double what it was 40 years ago. SBA says that compliance costs $1.7-$2Trillion a year. That's a giant sucking sound. More of this is precisely what we need.

Outta here.

How is removing what was done a new regulation?


As for regs...
The Congressional Review Act (CRA) allows Congress 60 in-session days to review and possibly reject new federal regulations issued by the regulatory agencies.

Under the CRA, the regulatory agencies are required to submit all new rules the leaders of both the House and Senate. In addition, the General Accounting Office (GAO) provides to those congressional committees related to the new regulation, a detailed report on each new major rule.


Congressmembers probably too busy fundraising to look over such unimportant things.

Crown@club 07-07-2016 09:38 AM

They say you can keep your plan - You pay an arm and a leg.
They say you can keep your doctor - there went the other arm and leg.

Just going off, as I sign for a new plan and find a new doctor.

Pants II 07-07-2016 02:26 PM

Career military or federal employee are the best options for our youth.

Can't be repealed fast enough.

Danzig 07-09-2016 10:21 AM

Yeah, this insurance stuff....just horrible.
I mean, just my hospital bill for end of may was over 16k. Surgeon, anesthesia, etc will be separate.
After the lousy united health care payment and contractual adjustment, i have to pay $553 total. 1/32nd of the bill.
Those bastards.

bigrun 07-09-2016 01:52 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Danzig (Post 1068840)
Yeah, this insurance stuff....just horrible.
I mean, just my hospital bill for end of may was over 16k. Surgeon, anesthesia, etc will be separate.
After the lousy united health care payment and contractual adjustment, i have to pay $553 total. 1/32nd of the bill.
Those bastards.

One of my hospital bills for surgery last Nov was $42K...medicare and BCBS paid all but $1200:tro: and i am applying for medicaid on that...I want some free stuff too:)

bigrun 07-09-2016 01:52 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Danzig (Post 1068840)
Yeah, this insurance stuff....just horrible.
I mean, just my hospital bill for end of may was over 16k. Surgeon, anesthesia, etc will be separate.
After the lousy united health care payment and contractual adjustment, i have to pay $553 total. 1/32nd of the bill.
Those bastards.

One of my hospital bills for surgery last Nov was $42K...medicare and BCBS paid all but $1200:tro: and i am applying for medicaid on that...I want some free stuff too:)

Crown@club 07-11-2016 10:40 AM

For the condescending:
My monthly insurance went from $625/mo for my family to over $1100/mo with a $10,000 deductible having no claims at all!

Having to change over to a policy now costing $780 a month and I swear the only difference is slimming down the hospital/physicians in the network.

:zz:

Rudeboyelvis 07-11-2016 11:04 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Crown@club (Post 1069094)
For the condescending:
My monthly insurance went from $625/mo for my family to over $1100/mo with a $10,000 deductible having no claims at all!

Having to change over to a policy now costing $780 a month and I swear the only difference is slimming down the hospital/physicians in the network.

:zz:

The 2 posters bragging about how terrific it is are the takers that don't put anything into the system. Rather than questioning why a Hospital charged Obamacare 16K for a procedure, they smugly scoff about how they "made out" while you bear the brunt of their costs.

It will be refreshing when the Insurance Lobbies don't have the White House in their back pocket and the Insurance Companies will actually have to "compete" for business, thus lower health care costs.

Doubly refreshing when it will take an orange-skinned misogynist with no ties to, thus owing no favors to the insurance industry, to make it happen.

jms62 07-11-2016 11:27 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Rudeboyelvis (Post 1069096)
The 2 posters bragging about how terrific it is are the takers that don't put anything into the system. Rather than questioning why a Hospital charged Obamacare 16K for a procedure, they smugly scoff about how they "made out" while you bear the brunt of their costs.

It will be refreshing when the Insurance Lobbies don't have the White House in their back pocket and the Insurance Companies will actually have to "compete" for business, thus lower health care costs.

Doubly refreshing when it will take an orange-skinned misogynist with no ties to, thus owing no favors to the insurance industry, to make it happen.

What does the statement I highlighted mean?

Danzig 07-11-2016 12:20 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by jms62 (Post 1069098)
What does the statement I highlighted mean?

he seems to think I'm unemployed. that's hilarious. and my healthcare is thru UHC, for which I pay. we sure don't qualify for any subsidies. the reason I put what I did, is people like to bitch and bash on insurance....til they need it.
came back before I was supposed to, because this office is my 'baby'. we've had health insurance, tony and I, for the entire 30 years we've been married, and both were in military at the time. been paying into the system since I was a teen, worked before I graduated high school.

what is amazing to me, is when i disagree with someone, and then they paint an entire picture about me.
I'm not obese, not a taker, have been a responsible adult who raised three kids, served my country..... I own a home, on which I pay taxes, 42 acres on a lake, 2 business locations. he's an electrician. but yeah, I'm a taker. :rolleyes:

as for the other taker...so, we work, we retire, we get on medicare at 65....paid into the system, but then we're takers??? surely not!

bigrun 07-11-2016 12:41 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Danzig (Post 1069103)
he seems to think I'm unemployed. that's hilarious. and my healthcare is thru UHC, for which I pay. we sure don't qualify for any subsidies. the reason I put what I did, is people like to bitch and bash on insurance....til they need it.
came back before I was supposed to, because this office is my 'baby'. we've had health insurance, tony and I, for the entire 30 years we've been married, and both were in military at the time. been paying into the system since I was a teen, worked before I graduated high school.

what is amazing to me, is when i disagree with someone, and then they paint an entire picture about me.
I'm not obese, not a taker, have been a responsible adult who raised three kids, served my country..... I own a home, on which I pay taxes, 42 acres on a lake, 2 business locations. he's an electrician. but yeah, I'm a taker. :rolleyes:


:tro::tro:...My story is similar...been retired for some time and wife and I are on medicare...and we are both AF vets...

Rudeboyelvis 07-11-2016 01:35 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by jms62 (Post 1069098)
What does the statement I highlighted mean?

They both (one of them in particular) spends a great deal of time in this thread spreading misinformation about the benefits of ACA, yet neither has seen their premiums increase upwards of 60% as a result.

They smugly brag about how little they pay out of pocket while the small business owners and the working class of this country w/o company offered discounted health insurance have been not only forced to enroll, but now pay upwards of 1000.00 a month for crappier insurance that they used to pay 500.00 a month for.

And would rather talk down to the folks getting screwed than question why it is so absurd in the first place.

Typical socialists.

Danzig 07-11-2016 03:19 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by bigrun (Post 1069109)
:tro::tro:...My story is similar...been retired for some time and wife and I are on medicare...and we are both AF vets...

a lot of people say the best insurance they've ever gotten is once they are on medicare. that everything til that point is high, premium and then the bills. too true. we pay about 1400 a month for the two of us. but, in the last two years, I've hit my deductible both years, he has this year. my neck surgery was about 30k, and then I'm still getting bills for this. thankfully we had it.

I just hope for the day of single payer. because, altho more people than ever are insured because of the aca, the plan is untenable. it won't work in the long run. in some places, it already isn't working in the short run. it's a convoluted mess. but, it's still better than not having insurance at all....and I'm sure a lot of the people still without coverage are in that spot because they live in a state that didn't expand Medicaid. they don't make enough for a subsidy...they're screwed.

Danzig 07-13-2016 08:06 PM

http://m.huffpost.com/us/entry/us_57...b08608d332956a

Rudeboyelvis 08-16-2016 10:37 AM

In addition to UHC, Aetna now dropping out of 70% of the ACA markets:

>>>Aetna Inc. will withdraw from 11 of the 15 states where it currently offers plans through the Affordable Care Act exchanges, becoming the latest of the major national health insurers to pull back sharply from the law’s signature marketplaces after steep financial losses.

Aetna’s move will sharpen concerns about competitive options in the exchanges—and it puts at least one county, Pinal in Arizona, at risk of having no insurers offering exchange plans in 2017, a circumstance that would present a major challenge to the basic mechanics of the ACA.

The law mandates that most people acquire health coverage, and offers subsidies to lower-income consumers who don’t qualify for Medicaid. To obtain the subsidies, though, people are supposed to purchase their plans through ACA exchanges.<<<


http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2016...t-markets.html

But you can...keep.....your.......Doc........Nevermind :(

OldDog 08-16-2016 10:56 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Rudeboyelvis (Post 1073797)
In addition to UHC, Aetna now dropping out of 70% of the ACA markets:

>>>Aetna Inc. will withdraw from 11 of the 15 states where it currently offers plans through the Affordable Care Act exchanges, becoming the latest of the major national health insurers to pull back sharply from the law’s signature marketplaces after steep financial losses.

Aetna’s move will sharpen concerns about competitive options in the exchanges—and it puts at least one county, Pinal in Arizona, at risk of having no insurers offering exchange plans in 2017, a circumstance that would present a major challenge to the basic mechanics of the ACA.

The law mandates that most people acquire health coverage, and offers subsidies to lower-income consumers who don’t qualify for Medicaid. To obtain the subsidies, though, people are supposed to purchase their plans through ACA exchanges.<<<


http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2016...t-markets.html

But you can...keep.....your.......Doc........Nevermind :(

https://youtu.be/LAf0QnLFS7Q

OldDog 08-25-2016 08:31 AM

SHOT: "The Illinois Department of Insurance said Wednesday it has submitted rate increases to the federal government that for some types of plans average 43 percent to 55 percent.

The Center for Medicare and Medicaid Services will decide rates. But the numbers released Wednesday confirm the fears of consumers, who’ve already watched a number of insurance companies withdraw from the Obamacare exchange because of financial losses, limiting choices as people prepare to enroll for 2017.

Rates could increase by an average of 44 percent for the lowest-priced bronze plans, 45 percent for the lowest-priced silver plans and 55 percent for the lowest-priced gold plans, according to a preliminary analysis released by the state Wednesday."

http://www.chicagotribune.com/busine...824-story.html

CHASER: Obamacare Website No Longer Addresses 'You Can Keep Your Doctor'
http://www.weeklystandard.com/obamac...rticle/2003956

It's working.


Pants II 08-25-2016 08:39 AM

If you like your doctor well you can go f.uck yourself.

OldDog 08-25-2016 08:40 AM

Meanwhile, my GP told me during my annual that he is changing his practice to a "concierge model." I can remain his patient for $1,850 a year. I see him on average 1.5 times a year, so ~$1,233 a visit. He seemed surprised when I told him I won't be signing up. :p

OldDog 09-01-2016 08:03 AM

Quote:

More Choices, Greater Competition -- Health Insurance Exchange
The proposal creates a new insurance marketplace that lets individuals and families without coverage and small business owners pool their resources and increase their buying power to make insurance more affordable. Private insurance companies will compete for business based on cost and quality and they’ll have to follow common-sense rules of the road that rein in the worst insurance industry abuses.
https://www.whitehouse.gov/health-ca...itlei/exchange

Yeah, it STILL says that. :zz:


Quote:

In 2016, 85 percent of all Obamacare enrollees had three insurers from which to choose. In 2017, that number drops to 62 percent. This year, an estimated 300,000 enrollees had only one insurer available to them, which comprised only 2 percent of overall enrollment. Next year, 2017, that number will grow to 2.3 million – an estimated 19 percent of all enrollees, an eightfold increase. The same percentage will only have two choices, up from 12 percent in 2016.
http://www.thefiscaltimes.com/Column...onsumer-Choice

Quote:

Aetna announced that it is pulling out of eleven of the 15 states where it currently sells products on the ACA’s exchanges because of continued large financial losses from these products. The company has lost $430 million since January 2014 on insurance plans sold through Obamacare, with more losses coming through the remainder of this year.

Other major national insurers have also pulled back substantially from their participation in the ACA. United Healthcare has lost $1.3 billion so far on the exchanges and will reduce its participation in the program from 34 states to just three in 2017. Humana is reducing its participation in the program from 19 to eleven states.

Blue Cross Blue Shield of Tennessee estimates that it will have lost $500 million on the state’s exchange by the end of 2016. The insurer asked and received permission from the state’s insurance regulator to hike premiums 62 percent for 2017. The other major insurers in the state — Cigna and Humana — have received permission to raise premiums by 46 and 44 percent, respectively.
Texas Blue Cross has lost $1 billion on the ACA exchange in two years, and has asked for a 60 percent premium increase for 2017.

Blue Cross and Blue Shield of Minnesota has largely pulled out of the insurance exchange for 2017 because of $500 million in losses during the first three years. The Blues plan in North Carolina has lost $400 million on the ACA exchange and is currently evaluating whether to continue participating in the program in 2017 and beyond.

The average premium increase nationwide for plans offered on the ACA exchanges is 24 percent for 2017. In California, where premium growth for insurance plans offered on the state’s exchange was relatively modest in 2015 and 2016, the average increase for 2017 will be 13 percent.

The consulting firm McKinsey estimates that between 12 and 17 percent of exchange customers will be picking from plans offered by only one insurer in 2017.
http://www.aei.org/publication/a-pub...bly-the-point/

https://youtu.be/LAf0QnLFS7Q

Crown@club 09-29-2016 09:39 AM

Add Indiana University Health Plans to the growing list of companies leaving the ACA.

Rudeboyelvis 10-04-2016 12:08 PM

Oh boy, the rats are jumping ship.

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2016...zy-system.html

“The people … out there busting it, sometimes 60 hours a week, wind up with their premiums doubled and their coverage cut in half,” Clinton said. “It’s the craziest thing in the world.” ~ William Jefferson Clinton 10/3/2016

No sh1t, Bubba. Ya don't say?

Rupert Pupkin 10-24-2016 05:38 PM

OBAMA ADMINISTRATION CONFIRMS DOUBLE-DIGIT PREMIUM HIKES

http://hosted.ap.org/dynamic/stories...10-24-17-03-27

"In some states, the premium increases are striking. In Arizona, unsubsidized premiums for a hypothetical 27-year-old buying a benchmark "second-lowest cost silver plan" will jump by 116 percent, from $196 to $422, according to the administration report."

That's not bad. LOL

casp0555 10-25-2016 07:35 AM

https://assets.donaldjtrump.com/Healthcare_Reform.pdf

Plans to repeal this mess....

https://www.hillaryclinton.com/issues/health-care/

plans to make AHC better

This is one of the major issues I will be basing my vote on

Think about this...
By 2026 one-fourth of our population will be on Medicaid or the Children’s Health Insurance Program. [Congressional Budget Office, March 2016)


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 06:59 PM.

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.8
Copyright ©2000 - 2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.