Fanin, you overlooked the part of my comment "In many (but not all) cases..."
I'm fully aware there are MANY fine PCPers and I admire the expertise they
have, but I also am fully aware there are many that are not, and that's my
point...
Bermuda, if the ACA doesn't "reign in the insurance companies" then why did
they spend so much lobbying against the ACA?
It also allows the biggest insurers like Wellpointe, Aetna and Blue Cross to capture even more of the market.Originally Posted by BermudaSooner
And starting next year they will jack up premium prices even more due to the fact that
the payer mix early in the program is horrible(I.e.More of the sicker and older patients
signing up in addition to all the defined benefits required by the ACA )
Beware the man who would rule you for your own good. He will never cease. He will regulate every aspect of your life, destroy your liberty and enslave you, and sleep well convinced that he has made the world a better place.
You can hate taxes but most will still file by the April 15 deadline cuz it's law. Sure there will be "tax protestors" but they're outnumbered by those that follow the law, methinks.
Since the law said to file for Obamacare by March 31, I tend to believe that they go their 7 million signed up, because it's a tax and the tax is the law
Definitely a possibility. Also the conscientious heads of households who got kicked off their old plans do not want to leave their families uncovered despite the drawbacks toYou can hate taxes but most will still file by the April 15 deadline cuz it's law. Sure there will be "tax protestors" but they're outnumbered by those that follow the law, methinks.
Since the law said to file for Obamacare by March 31, I tend to believe that they go their 7 million signed up, becausen it's a tax and the tax is the law
the ACA plans.
Beware the man who would rule you for your own good. He will never cease. He will regulate every aspect of your life, destroy your liberty and enslave you, and sleep well convinced that he has made the world a better place.
I'm sure Chairman Issa will hold a meeting to determine the accurate number.
5-0
BOY HOWDY !!!!
Richest person in Congress will want to do SOMETHING to keep in the
limelight....
You're spot on with your premium analysis. The plan was for a mix of about 32 or
33% of young, healthy types, a third up to 60 years of age or so, mostly healthy
and then the most expensive group...older, more vulnerable makes up the rest. I
saw one report that only 24% of the young healthy types make up the sign ups
so far. I believe the mix will come into line down the road and premiums will follow,
at least that's what the planners are hoping for. Like anything, have to walk before
you can run. There will continue to be a lot of "tweaking" to get it working better.
In the meantime, all those against it now will continue to rail, just as loud or louder
than before.
I've heard so much about how bad the ACA is, all the blather over and over but I've
not heard a single opponent offer even a tiny alternative, a "better" plan or a "fix" of
any sort, just "have to repeal and start over" or "have to repeal" ...period...
I haven't really given much thought to how legitimate the numbers are, but let's say that they are on the up and up for the sake of this conversation.
So, 7 million people are enrolled and have health insurance. Of those 7 million, how many had insurance prior to the ACA? I'd love to know the answer to that.
Here's my issue with this; even if all 7 million are first time "owners" of health insurance, how many American's now pay a significantly higher premium for their plan? I bet it's far more than 7 million. I'd also love to know how many chronic ER users bought insurance and how many people (that were targets of the ACA) still don't have insurance. Again, I bet that number exceeds 7 million. Then there's the folks that don't give a **** and will neither buy insurance under the ACA nor will they pay a fee (since they don't pay taxes anyway).
Do we need a better alternative to the 'old' system, yes. Is this the answer? Absolutely not.
In this case, the 7 million that were helped, were helped at the expense of far more people.
I would have settled for not being denied insurance for pre-existing conditions.
Almost.
I think the important question is............ why do people with health insurance want to deny health insurance to those that have none? Sounds like the Death Panel thing.
5-0
BOY HOWDY !!!!
I don't wanna deny anyone health insurance. I just don't think I should have to pay for it for em!
Behold the pale horse. The man who sat on him was death, and Hell followed with him.
Olevet Posse Pistolero
Winner of the Nobel Peace Prize 2015.
Dem's having 7 of the top ten richest people in Congress isn't enough for you guys?
because it worked, apparently
WOW...so i suppose you also think that all the primary care providers that end up quitting and walking away from the profession are the sub par ones?
We are going to lose a lot of very good MD's, DO's, PA's, PRN's, etc.
Next, I don't think anyone feels that the inclusion of prohibiting insurance providers to deny clients based on pre-existing conditions is/was a bad thing.
Also, what substantial savings on medication? My insurance I have (Not obamacare) I can get many of the prescriptions that I need at a very low price, may be generic, but they do the job. There were pharmacy groups out there already that offered lower medication costs if a patient had a card, and the card cost a very minimal amount or nothing at all.
That all said, not everything in the ACA is bad. There are some very good stuff included. But IMO, when you tell citizens you can keep your private insurance, and then those that already have it get dumped. When you tell people you have to have this or you have to pay a fine. When you consistently lie about the product instead of being upfront and honest with people, then we have a problem. The US government SHOULD NEVER, EVER, EVER tell its citizens you have to do this or else! You do that, you effectively ruin the republic.
Want to know part of the reason there is a UNITED STATES of AMERICA in the first place? It is because England told the citizens of the colonies that they have to pay higher taxes or else.
There were other issues as well that go inline with what the Patriot Act does, but that is another discussion.
Skip Bayless, is that you?
I'd be the first at admit that Obamacare isn't perfect. But I'm not. Lots of people have already to beat me to it.
Just like Social Security, Medicare and Civil Rights it's a change we're gonna have to live with.
At least for awhile. Unless both the Senate and House go Repub and Hillary loses in 2016 (which I just don't see at this point, stay tuned), then we're stuck with it. By then a lot of people with be used to it and probably won't want to lose their health coverage.
In the meantime Congress could do something productive and make an effort to get it right. If it's broken, fix it.
(holding breath...........1 Mississippi, 2 Mississippi, 3 Mississippi)
5-0
BOY HOWDY !!!!
It hasn't been implemented long enough to know exactly how to fix it without outright repeal, I'm guessing.
Should we correct how much people's premiums are going up? Not till we know how much they're going up or if they're going up at all.
Should we increase the penalty for young, healthy freeloaders that continue to not get health insurance despite the Obamacare tax threats? Not till we know the extent of how many should have signed up but aren't.
Should we help hospitals so they stop laying off workers due to Obamacare losses? Not till we know that this is actually happening due to Obamacare and to what extent.
Or, we can repeal the whole thing and go back to the way things were before. I'm not sure that's the right answer, but it would arguably be a way for Congress to "get it right"
And now, to count off the worst states in the union: 1 Mississippi, 2 Mississippi, 3 Mississippi
Of course I don't think the "walking away" will be only sub pars but a good
portion will be.
As to the $$$ saved, I'm talking about the closing of the doughnut on Part D.
I saw one report that seniors have saved an average of $1209 each since 2010.
When a senior reaches the doughnut, they get a $250 rebate then they get big
discounts on name brand drugs and better pricing on generic...so far in excess of
$9 billion nationwide. Now, if you want to see gray haired rebellion, go ahead and
try to take that away from seniors...the AARP would make the NRA cringe....along
with 26 and under on parental insurance, preexisting conditions (ask my wife's boss
how he feels about it since his wife is a breast cancer survivor) etc. I asked in an
earlier post for examples of how the GOP would replace the ACA..none were offered
so I went looking for GOP alternative. Among many points, a few...eliminate the
requirement of insurance, minimum benefits and employer fines (gotta help out
businesses, after all) Eliminate preexisting condition requirement. Having older
folks pay more (up to 5 times more) in premiums to lower the cost for the younger.
Give tax credits to help pay premiums. Cut back on Medicaid expansion and so on.
Senators Tom Coburn, Orrin Hatch and Richard Burr put this forward. This is just
a few points of their proposal...
5-0 makes a GREAT point, Congress orta git off its collective arse and fix what's broken!
the sub-pars as you call them get out of actual clinical medicine early in their careers. They go into health care administration or other non-clinical settings with little or no patient contact. The 25+ year baby boomer practioners leaving even 3 to 5 years ealry is going to blow a huge hole in the supply of primary care physicians that will take a generation to overcome. The pipeline of new doctors entering the field is not keeping up with demand now. If you add a lot of early retirments to the mix the mess is going to get really ugly.
I wish everybody could have free health care with access to all the services they need. The problem is that we just don't have the resources. Either we raise taxes a lot higher or borrow even more money from future generations. The only other solution is to ration health care which will lead to a two-tier health care system like England's. Then the progressives will complain about that even though it will be their policies that led to that type of system.
Beware the man who would rule you for your own good. He will never cease. He will regulate every aspect of your life, destroy your liberty and enslave you, and sleep well convinced that he has made the world a better place.
I think you are correct.
Nobody (that I know) wants to deny health care to anyone. That isn't even the issue. The issue is that this plan is so terribly flawed. Right now, the plan benefits a (relative) few at the expense of the majority of taxpayers. It's just a broken system.
This thing was rushed into action, and the longer it goes without a real overhaul, the worse it's going to be on the majority of taxpayers.
I can't speak for every person that has insurance, but I can tell you as a small business owner my premiums have gone up so much that I had to postpone (or cancel) a planned new hire. Fortunately, I was in a position to cover the increase so my employees didn't have to, but if I wasn't able to do that there are a few that would have to drop their plan altogether.It hasn't been implemented long enough to know exactly how to fix it without outright repeal, I'm guessing.
Should we correct how much people's premiums are going up? Not till we know how much they're going up or if they're going up at all.
Should we increase the penalty for young, healthy freeloaders that continue to not get health insurance despite the Obamacare tax threats? Not till we know the extent of how many should have signed up but aren't.
Should we help hospitals so they stop laying off workers due to Obamacare losses? Not till we know that this is actually happening due to Obamacare and to what extent.
Or, we can repeal the whole thing and go back to the way things were before. I'm not sure that's the right answer, but it would arguably be a way for Congress to "get it right"
And now, to count off the worst states in the union: 1 Mississippi, 2 Mississippi, 3 Mississippi
I personally know many others (not employees) that have had increased premiums (some over 50%) and in some cases the plans are actually less comprehensive than the previous (less costly) one.
Got a question for those who may Know or even care.
This 7 Mil number.Is it the number of Families that have signed up or a total of 7 million period. Ya know say 7 million Families of 4 or a total?
Quote
If God wanted Men to look women in the eyes, He wouldnt have gave em Boobs !
Posting Permissions
