Affordable Care Act access

[dellinger63]

Originally Posted by Riot

Purposeful ignorance. Good luck with that

And to think I believed you when you said the government would not be providing insurance.

OK not really.

Question: Who pays when the Dept. of Health Services goes into debt treating your conditions?

[Danzig]

oh, c'mon dell. you know who pays everything the govt does. it's why i snickered to myself when riot mentioned in her post that her preventive care is free. nothing is 'free'. everything has a price, whether on the front end or hidden somewhere else.
now, preventive care might not have a copay, but it's paid for elsewhere.

[Riot]

Originally Posted by dellinger63

And to think I believed you when you said the government would not be providing insurance.

OK not really.

Question: Who pays when the Dept. of Health Services goes into debt treating your conditions?

Who will help you learn about how the ACA works, and that the Dept of Health Services has nothing to do with treating anything? That the insurance is provided by private companies, and the treatment by the same private providers you have?

Face it, Dell - you can't talk about subjects you know nothing about.

[Riot]

Originally Posted by Danzig

it's why i snickered to myself when riot mentioned in her post that her preventive care is free. nothing is 'free'. everything has a price, whether on the front end or hidden somewhere else.
now, preventive care might not have a copay, but it's paid for elsewhere.

You make a good point, the word "free" is misleading. Let's rephrase it correctly: there are no copays for preventive care. And that's a very good thing, as it reduces the cost of health care by addressing prevention. Yes. It's paid by the people who are paying the monthly premiums to the private insurance companies that are providing the services (the private companies are gaining thousands of new customers). Just like when you pay only a copay at your insurance, and your premiums pay for the rest of your care. Wouldn't it be nice if preventive care had no copay with your insurance? Screening blood tests, Pap smears, etc? That would certainly encourage better health care, wouldn't it? Certainly nothing to snicker about.

[clyde]

Originally Posted by Riot

You make a good point, the word "free" is misleading. Let's rephrase it correctly: there are no copays for preventive care. And that's a very good thing, as it reduces the cost of health care by addressing prevention. Yes. It's paid by the people who are paying the monthly premiums to the private insurance companies that are providing the services (the private companies are gaining thousands of new customers). Just like when you pay only a copay at your insurance, and your premiums pay for the rest of your care. Wouldn't it be nice if preventive care had no copay with your insurance? Screening blood tests, Pap smears, etc? That would certainly encourage better health care, wouldn't it? Certainly nothing to snicker about.

Sweetie, are lobotomy smears free of copay?




You should check into this service.

Really,really.

A species that's a cross between a Unicorn and Humanoid will cover the expenses of preventative care. It's confidential. Leave Obama alone!!!

[Danzig]

Originally Posted by Riot

You make a good point, the word "free" is misleading. Let's rephrase it correctly: there are no copays for preventive care. And that's a very good thing, as it reduces the cost of health care by addressing prevention. Yes. It's paid by the people who are paying the monthly premiums to the private insurance companies that are providing the services (the private companies are gaining thousands of new customers). Just like when you pay only a copay at your insurance, and your premiums pay for the rest of your care. Wouldn't it be nice if preventive care had no copay with your insurance? Screening blood tests, Pap smears, etc? That would certainly encourage better health care, wouldn't it? Certainly nothing to snicker about.

like i said, i snickered when you said free. as for preventive care, or coverage will encourage visits...i doubt it. many people dont go for care, don't go to doctors, they only go to the emergency room when they can't stand the pain.
there are people my husband works with who have all the coverage you could ask for-still have bad teeth, don't get physicals, etc. why? probably because they don't care about any of that. some do, most don't. having insurance won't change that-and there are going to be plenty of people who would rather pay the fine than will buy insurance, because a lot of people don't see the need-until they get sick that is. then they'll complain that they can't get taken care of, just like it's always been.

[Danzig]

Originally Posted by Coach Pants

A species that's a cross between a Unicorn and Humanoid will cover the expenses of preventative care. It's confidential. Leave Obama alone!!!

yeah, it's all so cheap and easy-that's why it's been so hard to pass all these years. when it sounds too good to be true...well, everyone knows that adage.

[Rileyoriley]

Originally Posted by clyde

Sweetie, are lobotomy smears free of copay?




You should check into this service.

Really,really.

There aren't enough 's for this one.

[clyde]

My little squeeze box....how can I evah thank you?











Don't tell me.............as you know.

[dellinger63]

Originally Posted by Riot

Who will help you learn about how the ACA works, and that the Dept of Health Services has nothing to do with treating anything? That the insurance is provided by private companies, and the treatment by the same private providers you have?

Face it, Dell - you can't talk about subjects you know nothing about.

Educate me then!

As I asked before what private company did you cancel from and what private company is now insuring you (you know, accepting all your previous conditions and no co-pays for preventitive care)?

You seem to think I have the same crystal ball you have. I don't.

And I know the Department of Health Services has no part in treatment. I simply want to make sure they or for that matter ANY government agency has no part in payment of the fat bills when cost of treatment, of the less than healthy, people with pre-existing conditions (like you), exceeds the premiums collected.

This plan is similar to private insurance companies offering DUI offenders and those with multiple accidents / tickets auto insurance at the same rate as a good driver. Guess who is more prone to use their policy?

You've been suckered again!

[Danzig]

dell, years ago my brother had to get high risk insurance because of multiple accidents. i assure you, he didn't pay the same rates as a good driver.

on the other hand, you do raise a valid point. who will pay when the bills are higher than the money from premiums? oh wait...i bet i know. the same people who pay for every other govt program that doesn't quite do what it says it will.

[clyde]

Originally Posted by Riot

You make a good point, the word "free" is misleading. Let's rephrase it correctly: there are no copays for preventive care. And that's a very good thing, as it reduces the cost of health care by addressing prevention. Yes. It's paid by the people who are paying the monthly premiums to the private insurance companies that are providing the services (the private companies are gaining thousands of new customers). Just like when you pay only a copay at your insurance, and your premiums pay for the rest of your care. Wouldn't it be nice if preventive care had no copay with your insurance? Screening blood tests, Pap smears, etc? That would certainly encourage better health care, wouldn't it? Certainly nothing to snicker about.

I llllove it when you talk dirty!

[Riot]

Originally Posted by dellinger63

Educate me then!

LOL - please. I've watched you ignore reality for the past two years on this board. You have no interest in it. Don't feign one. It's unseemly for you.

[Riot]

Originally Posted by Danzig

on the other hand, you do raise a valid point. who will pay when the bills are higher than the money from premiums? oh wait...i bet i know. the same people who pay for every other govt program that doesn't quite do what it says it will.

But strangely, insurance companies have jumped on participation in this, welcoming 30 million newly insured to their ranks. So there must be profit there, or they wouldn't want in. Normally insurance companies refuse to ever insure about 10%, decline to insure another 20% for some things, then insure the remaining 70%. And rescind every one of them they can if a hugely costly thing happens. No wonder they get a huge profit margin.

But, for every person in that 30% who has kidney failure and is on dialysis, or has uncontrolled Type II diabetes, or has had cancer cured or active, you have someone who is really rather healthy and won't have those costs (the 20%)

So they are betting the pool will break even at worse, which seems likely. The 20% will pay for the 10%. The 10%, who are uninsured and only getting expensive non-routine interventional care now, will get routine care that will bring down their costs markedly and help ameliorate the expensive disasters treated infrequently. There will be profit - not huge, but definite profit.

They will keep the very healthy 70% out of these pools, and rake in even more increased profit there.

Insurance company stocks have gone up over the past two years, and I don't expect that to change. When the pros say there will be profit there, believe them.

[dellinger63]

Originally Posted by Riot

LOL - please. I've watched you ignore reality for the past two years on this board. You have no interest in it. Don't feign one. It's unseemly for you.

I'm trying to make this real. What company did you leave and who is insuring you now? Stop answering like the former congressman from NY.

[Riot]

Originally Posted by dellinger63

I'm trying to make this real. What company did you leave and who is insuring you now? Stop answering like the former congressman from NY.

And I said, get off your lazy toush and find out yourself. It's easy. You even have the link. I refuse to do your homework. I've done it before, you just ignore it. There is no use trying to bring any facts to any debate with you regarding healthcare. You have always had zero interest in reading up on the ACA, preferring to keep repeating various nonsense about a variety of plans in discussion back during the healthcare talks.

You could debate actual provisions of the ACA, but you've always ignored them in favor of nonsensically vague right wing talking points. So your feigned interest in the reality of it is just that.

If you want to join in a discussion about the pros and cons of the ACA, I suggest you learn about it. Because your, "it sucks, prove me wrong!" is lazy beyond belief.

[dellinger63]

Originally Posted by Riot

And I said, get off your lazy toush and find out yourself. It's easy. You even have the link. I refuse to do your homework. I've done it before, you just ignore it. There is no use trying to bring any facts to any debate with you regarding healthcare. You have always had zero interest in reading up on the ACA, preferring to keep repeating various nonsense about a variety of plans in discussion back during the healthcare talks.

You could debate actual provisions of the ACA, but you've always ignored them in favor of nonsensically vague right wing talking points. So your feigned interest in the reality of it is just that.

If you want to join in a discussion about the pros and cons of the ACA, I suggest you learn about it. Because your, "it sucks, prove me wrong!" is lazy beyond belief.

your deflecting answers regarding what company you left and who your current insurer is has demonstrated, clearly, what a fantasy this is for you.

[dellinger63]

Originally Posted by Riot

You make a good point, the word "free" is misleading..

Here's a list of your contributors

here's a non-exhaustive list of ObamaCare's tax increases:

• Starting in 2013, the bill adds an additional 0.9% to the 2.9% Medicare tax for singles who earn more than $200,000 and couples making more than $250,000.

• For first time, the bill also applies Medicare's 2.9% payroll tax rate to investment income, including dividends, interest income and capital gains. Added to the 0.9% payroll surcharge, that means a 3.8-percentage point tax hike on "the rich." Oh, and these new taxes aren't indexed for inflation, so many middle-class families will soon be considered rich and pay the surcharge as their incomes rise past $250,000 due to tax-bracket creep. Remember how the Alternative Minimum Tax was supposed to apply only to a handful of millionaires?

Taxpayer cost over 10 years: $210 billion.

• Also starting in 2013 is a 2.3% excise tax on medical device manufacturers and importers. That's estimated to raise $20 billion.

• Already underway this year is the new annual fee on "branded" drug makers and importers, which will raise $27 billion.

• Another $15.2 billion will come from raising the floor on allowable medical deductions to 10% of adjusted gross income from 7.5%.

• Starting in 2018, the bill imposes a whopping 40% "excise tax" on high-cost health insurance plans. Though it only applies to two years in the 2010-2019 window of ObamaCare's original budget score, this tax would still raise $32 billion—and much more in future years.

• And don't forget a new annual fee on health insurance providers starting in 2014 and estimated to raise $60 billion. This tax, like many others on this list, will be passed along to consumers in higher health-care costs.

There are numerous other new taxes in the bill, all adding up to some $438 billion in new revenue over 10 years. But even that is understated because by 2019 the annual revenue increase is nearly $90 billion, or $900 billion in the 10 years after that.

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB1000...pinion_LEADTop

[Riot]

Originally Posted by dellinger63

your deflecting answers regarding what company you left and who your current insurer is has demonstrated, clearly, what a fantasy this is for you.

Not at all. It demonstrates that, once again, you are too lazy to click a link and learn what you are spouting off about.

Then, you wouldn't do something moronic, like post figures about Medicare changes, generalized costs, etc., and completely fail to mention the portion of the ACA we are discussing.

Do you even understand the difference? I don't think so. I suppose I could post a bunch of facts and figures about insurance companies in general, it would have as much context (none) as what you've introduced, in reference to the one portion of the ACA under discussion in this thread.

Yes, Dell. You copied a bunch of generalized one-sided figures about the ACA. Good for you!

Which, btw, doesn't even mention the other side (savings) - which makes it deficit neutral.

And not one thing of what you listed anything at all to do with the section of the ACA I was posting about. Which again, is the whole damn point. You have no understanding of the ACA, and have never made any real attempt to do so.

"The ACA sucks! Obama sucks!" - yeah, we get that's how you feel.