Obamacare exposed as a fraud

[bozack]

Oh, please. The health issues you describe occur as a % of the population. The vast majority of people in this country are covered under employer sponsored plans. There is no reason to think that the two propositions are mutually exclusive. You somehow assert that they are, then challenge me to prove otherwise. The burden of proof is yours, not mine.

You "see" a good number of companies downsizing because of the ACA? No, you merely believe & assert faith as fact.

Liberals don't take the long view? Really? SS is obviously a long view proposition, as is spending on education, infrastructure, research & the environment.

Your propaganda driven assertions fly in the face of reality. It's a common problem for people who don't critically examine their own belief structure, who simply believe in emotionally satisfying propositions because it feels good to do so. It's not the Truth, it's just Truthiness.

Ha ha ha, you guys are a hoot, every chance you get you push the "burden of proof" on to others...pony up and show the figures buddy...heck you guys can't even get your talking points right as here you are saying that "most" are covered by employer sponsored care, but then you have eskimo below saying that we are only talking slightly over half and a good amount of those are kids under their parents and or slightly older people who don't yet qualify for medicare but will soon bounce over to govt care once they retire. Again you're the one that put out the statistic, back it up.

As for the rest of it, I really find your assertion that SS is a "long view" proposition considering how damn broken it is to be rather funny, I won't even touch the rest of your lame points as they are pretty ridiculous to suggest it is only "liberals" who are for spending on the things you mentioned...there is a difference between spending with reckless abandon as you guys are so likely to do in an effort to big up government.

What's silly is how you guys fall for this crap so easily. The employer mandate and the individual mandate are two entirely different things with wildly different purposes. The argument that because one was delayed that the other should be delayed for "fairness" is illogical.

Generally a lot of these people were priced out of the insurance market anyway, but let's not delude ourselves that this large portion of the population that didn't have access to health care meant that there were no costs involved.

About 60% of Americans overall are covered by employer subsidized insurance. In particular, these numbers skew towards children and older Americans. (after 65 of course we have medicare) The percentage of Americans with ESI is lowest amongst 19-25 year olds, at about 30-35%. That population is the least likely to have pre-existing conditions for obvious reasons.

Depending on what you count as "vast majority" (and pre-existing condition), it should be plain as day that Americans with pre-existing conditions are in large part covered by employer insurance and/or Medicare.

What? so its ok again to give businesses a pass on providing their employees insurance coverage under those coveted employer plans that Jhhn above is touting but it is ok to put the screws to taxpayers under the individual mandate to generate revenue to support a plan that does absolutely zip to control costs other than group plan everyone?...mmmm ok.

And again to suggest just because employers are covering 60% currently means no tangible increases seems rather naïve, my rates are going up next year and I am getting less in terms of benefits than I get this year under my employer sponsored plan, am I to assume I am the only one (or rather everyone in my company are the only ones) that will experience this...what happened to keeping the plan you like and or paying less?

 

[HumblePie]

Did Obama pass his idea/version of healthcare he ran on or did he have to conpromise and pass something different?

You fuckers and your crying wolf is getting really old. It used to be funny but it's moved past that now.

What compromise did obama take in regards to his original bill with the ACA? It pretty much passed whole as it was originally written.

I read a lot of the ACA. Some of the provisions are very good provisions. That I can agree with. For example upping the age of "kids" to 26 that live at home with parents being able to be on their health care still. Many college bound kids still live at home while at college. The vast can't afford additional single premium health care while at college. Allowing them to stay on their parents plan makes sense.

Same with getting rid of the "pre-existing" conditions part. There are other parts and statutes that have passed that are all great changes, if most of them are really just minor changes to reporting and regulating.

The keystone piece of the legislation is the mandate portion of making every either be on insurance or pay a fine. THAT is the offending piece. It does nothing to address the root of the whole problem of the health care system. It does nothing to make health care actually affordable. Which one would like to think is the whole point of a piece of legislation called the AFFORDABLE Care Act. What makes healthcare affordable for everyone? It is not mandating insurance for everyone. That only makes health care a bit more affordable for the unhealthy with high premiums.

A piece of legislation that was suppose to aim at "reform" does nothing of the sort when it comes to the actual costs of health care. I've used this example many times and it is the best way to explain it.

Call just about any hospital in America. Ask how much a standard knee joint replacement would cost if you were to pay out of pocket. 99.999999999% of the time you won't get an answer. The 0.00000001% a hospital will answer and you'll get a crazy range of $80K-$180K as a price.

However, call damn near any good hospital in Europe, Asia, Australia, Central America, Canada, and South America while asking for the out of pocket cost for a knee replacement surgery. 99% of the time you'll get a price quote to the dime of what it costs. Usually in the $10K-$15K range as well for most of the really good and "expensive" overseas hospitals for that procedure. They'll even provide better care in most cases.

So until the ACA can get hospitals in America to be able to answer a simple question as an out of pocket cost for a routine procedure, it does nothing to actually make health care affordable to all Americans and not just the unhealthy.

 

[fskimospy]

What? so its ok again to give businesses a pass on providing their employees insurance coverage under those coveted employer plans that Jhhn above is touting but it is ok to put the screws to taxpayers under the individual mandate to generate revenue to support a plan that does absolutely zip to control costs other than group plan everyone?...mmmm ok.

The individual mandate and the employer mandate are two entirely different mechanisms. The individual mandate is not there to generate revenue for the ACA, it is there to make community rating possible. It is fundamental to the operation of the ACA, the employer mandate is not. Pretty simple.

The idea that the ACA does nothing to control costs is simply a fantasy. Even the most basic research into it would show you what a lie that is. (tip: you can probably just type something like "affordable care act cost controls" into Google)

And again to suggest just because employers are covering 60% currently means no tangible increases seems rather naïve, my rates are going up next year and I am getting less in terms of benefits than I get this year under my employer sponsored plan, am I to assume I am the only one (or rather everyone in my company are the only ones) that will experience this...what happened to keeping the plan you like and or paying less?

If you even paid cursory attention to the ACA debate it was always about "bending the curve" of health care costs. Always. It never meant that costs in the US would suddenly plunge, it meant that if we decrease the rate of health care inflation in the end the US saves trillions.

By the way, while correlation does not indicate causation, US health care inflation has been WAY below average in the years since the ACA passed.

 

[HumblePie]

The idea that the ACA does nothing to control costs is simply a fantasy. Even the most basic research into it would show you what a lie that is. (tip: you can probably just type something like "affordable care act cost controls" into Google)

There are a few provisions, such as the places that give incentives to hospitals and doctors to push for more preventative maintenance. However, I don't think there is a hospital or doctor in this country that does otherwise. It seems a bit redundant. Practically EVERYTHING that is written into the act concerning the actual cost price of procedures for health care is to assign "committees" to review for possible recommendations at a future time.

Does Congress or the Pres really need a bill to assign committees to do that? Not the last time I checked, but it's the law now to assign them. Really isn't much mandate on how those committees are to be organized or assigned either really.

When the ACA was being proposed, links to the entire bill were posted here. I posted it a few times. I read it over and was posting quotes directly from the bill to this forum. There were NO direct mandates in the entire bill that directly assessed the actual lowering of health care costs at that time. Everything was to be assigned to committee and reviewed as part of the roll out AFTER the individual mandate went through.

So it is not a fantasy to state the ACA, as it is currently written, does nothing to actually address the affordability of health care for ALL and lowering of costs for ALL Americans. Mandating insurance lowers insurance premiums for some at the cost of increased premiums for others. That is how insurance works. The bill was not called the "Affordable for some Americans Care Act" as its current incarnation currently stands. Although that is the exact description for what it does.

 

[fskimospy]

There are a few provisions, such as the places that give incentives to hospitals and doctors to push for more preventative maintenance. However, I don't think there is a hospital or doctor in this country that does otherwise. It seems a bit redundant. Practically EVERYTHING that is written into the act concerning the actual cost price of procedures for health care is to assign "committees" to review for possible recommendations at a future time.

There's the greater implementation of ACO's, which is something that changes how hospitals are paid. It was definitely not something that was happening in as widespread a way as it is now. It was in no way redundant. Additionally, just right off the top of my head you have both the ACOs and you have the IPAB for Medicare.

Does Congress or the Pres really need a bill to assign committees to do that? Not the last time I checked, but it's the law now to assign them. Really isn't much mandate on how those committees are to be organized or assigned either really.

Of course they do. The idea that Congress or the President would be directly evaluating the health care system instead of having experts in the field do it would be absolute silliness. This is the same way most regulation works. Do you think the President and Congress directly regulate the wireless spectrum or do they assign a committee in the FCC to do it?

When the ACA was being proposed, links to the entire bill were posted here. I posted it a few times. I read it over and was posting quotes directly from the bill to this forum. There were NO direct mandates in the entire bill that directly assessed the actual lowering of health care costs at that time. Everything was to be assigned to committee and reviewed as part of the roll out AFTER the individual mandate went through.

This is not correct, as previously mentioned. Additionally, whether or not those controls go into effect before or after the individual mandate obviously is utterly irrelevant as to whether or not they are in the bill.

So it is not a fantasy to state the ACA, as it is currently written, does nothing to actually address the affordability of health care for ALL and lowering of costs for ALL Americans. Mandating insurance lowers insurance premiums for some at the cost of increased premiums for others. That is how insurance works. The bill was not called the "Affordable for some Americans Care Act" as its current incarnation currently stands. Although that is the exact description for what it does.

No, it's definitely a fantasy as already discussed. You just attempted to attach an arbitrary date as to when cost control measures count. As written the ACA indisputably addresses the affordability of health care for all Americans. Maybe you don't think it does enough, but saying it does not do this is just false. Just read the law.

 

[werepossum]

I can understand how Obamacare might make healthcare more expensive for more people, but the fact that it does so does not make it a "fraud."

Stupid partisan hacks, always using exaggerated rhetoric. Let's get real and talk about how poorly the administration rolled this out and how they deserve to be ashamed of themselves for incompetence. That should be the real issue at hand. Take your "fraud" nonsense on the road you despicable person.

Pretty much. We all know that Obamacare is going to increase per capita health care spending and therefore increase premiums for most people currently insured. We all know that Obamacare is going to make affordable health insurance available for some people who were previously uninsurable or not at affordable. What we need to look at is what we're getting and what it's costing us.

Well, that's how it was sold to the American people: premiums would be lower than 2010 levels, not that they'd be lower than 2014 projections.

True, but in fairness to Obama that's politician-speak. "Your premiums will go down" means "Your premiums will go up, but they will still be less than a number I arbitrarily calculate". "You can keep your existing health insurance plan" means "You can keep your existing health insurance plan until the bureaucracy gets around to crushing it". "Draconian cuts" means "Less of an increase than we wanted". "Only a three percent increase" means "A thirteen percent increase, but only an additional three percent on top of the 10% baseline". This is D.C. - both parties. Yes, Obama blatantly lied; so did those opposing him. This is American politics, and we get what we reward.

My whole beef with Obamacare is I do not believe it is addressing the most important aspect - efficiency.

The primary focus of Obamacare is to get everyone insured. But if it doesn't increase the supply of "health care", care provided to a newly insured individual is care not provided to another person. So what has been solved other than a block of votes for the Democratic Party?

I don't work in the health-care industry, I do not know what it takes to make them more efficient without a sizable reduction in quality. But I do know that efficiency is something all businesses strive for.

I know Obamacare deals with electronic medial records, and encouraging more preventative care - but it's not enough. We need more doctors and we need cheaper hospitals.

Increasing the consumer pool without increasing the resource supply doesn't solve anything.

And there are always new news stories about people defrauding government health services to the tune of millions, do you believe that Obamacare will reduce the amount of fraud? Or provide new opportunities for other lawless people do skim from the programs? Every case of fraud is increasing the costs and decreasing the supply.

I understand that insurance companies have treated their insurers in shitty ways and I am glad that the Democratic Party wants to put an end to that. And I like the idea of forcing young people to pay for insurance - because what is it on average like 85% of your medical expenses come in your last 5 years of life. Take me for example, I'm 32, and I am living my life on the assumption that these "entitlements" will not be there when I am 70 years old, the money I'm putting in will not be there when it is my turn to take. We're already seeing the breakdown of the pension system, it's only a matter of time before these entitlements break down unless the industry becomes more efficient.

So the big question is, can health-care be made more efficient with this legislation in place, or without? I believe without, so while the talking points are always about the legality and the expanded coverage, they always gloss over how the industry will be efficient enough to still exist when it is my turn to take.

Maybe that comes across as selfish, but I don't believe it is. Efficiency benefits everyone. Efficiency improves coverage naturally, rather than forcibly.

Well said, but arguably efficiency can be mandated with government's hammer in addition to industry's scalpel. There will be a lot more paperwork, but there's a lot of paperwork now and I'd expect some efficiency gains just from having one system rather than a system per state. In addition, this bill is primarily (short term anyway) about seizing health insurance for the federal government and expanding availability, so we can't directly judge it on efficiency even though efficiency is definitely to be encouraged.

 

[Matt1970]

Did Obama pass his idea/version of healthcare he ran on or did he have to conpromise and pass something different?

You fuckers and your crying wolf is getting really old. It used to be funny but it's moved past that now.

So what exactly was in Obama's original version that would have cut costs that was removed or changed to now increase costs?

 

[HumblePie]

There's the greater implementation of ACO's, which is something that changes how hospitals are paid. It was definitely not something that was happening in as widespread a way as it is now. It was in no way redundant. Additionally, just right off the top of my head you have both the ACOs and you have the IPAB for Medicare.

Medicare changes in payment are not affecting affordability of healthcare for every American. Just another subset. Nothing in the bill as it was written initially and how it currently stands written has anything that reduces healthcare costs for ALL Americans at once.

Of course they do. The idea that Congress or the President would be directly evaluating the health care system instead of having experts in the field do it would be absolute silliness. This is the same way most regulation works. Do you think the President and Congress directly regulate the wireless spectrum or do they assign a committee in the FCC to do it?

You are really trying to be this obtuse on purpose? I am not questioning that Congress and the President assign experts to figure out what may done to reduce healthcare costs. I was making fun of the fact that neither Congress nor the President needs an actual piece of legislation to assign committees like that. Nor would have they have had to wait to appoint such committees until the law passed. Point being, they have previously set up experts to provide them with information for the current bill as it was being written. But nice strawman argument and missing of my sarcasm.

This is not correct, as previously mentioned. Additionally, whether or not those controls go into effect before or after the individual mandate obviously is utterly irrelevant as to whether or not they are in the bill.

There are NO CONTROLS that affect 100% of Americans. That's the point! There is committees that may or may not find things to be done to reduce the health care costs. Although I know of several ways for the government to drastically reduce healthcare costs for all Americans across the board, there is nothing to say that these investigative committees will figure it out, or if they do figure it out propose the changes, or even if they propose the changes that Congress and the President agree to act upon them. The ACA does not mandate that proposes found by committees be implemented without Congressional approval.

No, it's definitely a fantasy as already discussed. You just attempted to attach an arbitrary date as to when cost control measures count. As written the ACA indisputably addresses the affordability of health care for all Americans. Maybe you don't think it does enough, but saying it does not do this is just false. Just read the law.

What arbitrary date are you speaking of?!?!!? There is NO CONTROLS IN THE BILL AS IT IS CURRENTLY WRITTEN THAT REDUCE HEALTHCARE COSTS FOR ALL AMERICANS NOW OR EVEN IN THE FUTURE AT ANY DATE. I can not make it any clearer to you than that sentence. You can be as delusional as you want and pretend there may be something that is properly proposed and implemented correctly. But I'll tell you what my grandpa told me. Take a handful of wishes and a handful of shit and tell me which weighs more.

 

[werepossum]

So what exactly was in Obama's original version that would have cut costs that was removed or changed to now increase costs?

The left's view is that single payer cuts costs by eliminating the evil profit-taking middlemen, insurance companies. If Obama could have sold single payer to 60 Democrat Senators, we'd all be on Medicaid right now. To the extent that you believe putting everyone on Medicaid would cut costs, that is something that was removed from Obama's plan which would have cut costs.

Leaving aside government's efficiency or lack thereof, it's hard to argue that putting everyone on Medicaid would not cut costs. It would absolutely destroy our medical system since currently Medicare/Medicaid are subsidized by forcing some of the costs onto health insurance, but if government is 100% in charge of everyone's health care then government could easily simply mandate levels of reimbursement that would leave doctors earning as much as government clerical workers. Obviously that level of cut isn't likely, but controlling costs by some combination of limiting payments, denying care, and establishing queues works for every single-payer system.

 

[fskimospy]

Medicare changes in payment are not affecting affordability of healthcare for every American. Just another subset. Nothing in the bill as it was written initially and how it currently stands written has anything that reduces healthcare costs for ALL Americans at once.



You are really trying to be this obtuse on purpose? I am not questioning that Congress and the President assign experts to figure out what may done to reduce healthcare costs. I was making fun of the fact that neither Congress nor the President needs an actual piece of legislation to assign committees like that. Nor would have they have had to wait to appoint such committees until the law passed. Point being, they have previously set up experts to provide them with information for the current bill as it was being written. But nice strawman argument and missing of my sarcasm.



There are NO CONTROLS that affect 100% of Americans. That's the point! There is committees that may or may not find things to be done to reduce the health care costs. Although I know of several ways for the government to drastically reduce healthcare costs for all Americans across the board, there is nothing to say that these investigative committees will figure it out, or if they do figure it out propose the changes, or even if they propose the changes that Congress and the President agree to act upon them. The ACA does not mandate that proposes found by committees be implemented without Congressional approval.



What arbitrary date are you speaking of?!?!!? There is NO CONTROLS IN THE BILL AS IT IS CURRENTLY WRITTEN THAT REDUCE HEALTHCARE COSTS FOR ALL AMERICANS NOW OR EVEN IN THE FUTURE AT ANY DATE. I can not make it any clearer to you than that sentence. You can be as delusional as you want and pretend there may be something that is properly proposed and implemented correctly. But I'll tell you what my grandpa told me. Take a handful of wishes and a handful of shit and tell me which weighs more.

Holy crap, I didn't realize you were making an argument this stupid. You acknowledge that there are multiple different cost controls that independently affect large sections of America, but are complaining that there is not one particular cost control that affects everyone at once.

I don't really have anything to add. That's simply one of the dumbest arguments I've ever heard.

 

[JEDIYoda]

Quote:
Originally Posted by DominionSeraph
Try reading sometime. You might learn how words are spelled.

*pooh-pooh

Waggy ---they will get a set of twin small yellow bears who like honey?

hahahahhahaaaaa made my day!! Thank You Waggy!!

 

[JEDIYoda]

sorry doubleeeee posteeee!!

 

[HumblePie]

Holy crap, I didn't realize you were making an argument this stupid. You acknowledge that there are multiple different cost controls that independently affect large sections of America, but are complaining that there is not one particular cost control that affects everyone at once.

I don't really have anything to add. That's simply one of the dumbest arguments I've ever heard.

No the question is how are you making an agrument this stupid? The few actual cost measures in the bill affect a few very small subset of Americans. We are talking less than a quarter of all Americans will see a decrease in costs with the current bill as it is written. The vast majority are going to see various levels of increased costs. This is a indisputable fact of how it is setup. Some will see a bigger increase than others. This is all due to how the private mandate for insurance works.

 

[werepossum]

No the question is how are you making an agrument this stupid? The few actual cost measures in the bill affect a few very small subset of Americans. We are talking less than a quarter of all Americans will see a decrease in costs with the current bill as it is written. The vast majority are going to see various levels of increased costs. This is a indisputable fact of how it is setup. Some will see a bigger increase than others. This is all due to how the private mandate for insurance works.

I think this is a reflection of our political landscape. Obamacare is aimed squarely at federalizing health insurance and expanding access to it, yet the Dems felt that their best chance to sell it was to claim that the majority would see savings even though anyone with two functional brain cells to rub together knows that cannot happen. To the degree this is true, it does not speak well of us, as not only are we likely to support something only if we are the primary beneficiaries but we also passively accept being lied to on a continual basis.

I am of course excepting the mindless and the dishonest who want to be lied to, who will continue to spout the party line long after it's been exposed as a lie. They can continue to prattle about some mystical future when way more expensive will miraculously become less expensive. Well, less expensive than it would have been, anyway. This is ever the left's line - we want to spend more money now, but if you don't let us then eventually we'll have to spend even more money. Either way the federal government becomes bigger and more powerful. And our biggest problem is that the Pubbies' biggest complaint isn't this growth in size and power, but in who gets to direct it.

 

[fskimospy]

No the question is how are you making an agrument this stupid? The few actual cost measures in the bill affect a few very small subset of Americans. We are talking less than a quarter of all Americans will see a decrease in costs with the current bill as it is written. The vast majority are going to see various levels of increased costs. This is a indisputable fact of how it is setup. Some will see a bigger increase than others. This is all due to how the private mandate for insurance works.

Ahhh, so now you've switched your argument from "there is nothing in this bill that lowers costs" to "in the aggregate I think people will see an increase". Nice try at moving the goal posts.

Anyone who has even a cursory understanding of this law knows that you're wrong. Cuts in reimbursement rates to hospitals with high infection and readmission rates will affect all Americans. IPAB recommendations will almost certainly spill over from Medicare directly to all Americans. The shift from fee-for-service to quality based medicine should provide cost benefits to all Americans, etc, etc.

 

[HumblePie]

Ahhh, so now you've switched your argument from "there is nothing in this bill that lowers costs" to "in the aggregate I think people will see an increase". Nice try at moving the goal posts.

Anyone who has even a cursory understanding of this law knows that you're wrong. Cuts in reimbursement rates to hospitals with high infection and readmission rates will affect all Americans. IPAB recommendations will almost certainly spill over from Medicare directly to all Americans. The shift from fee-for-service to quality based medicine should provide cost benefits to all Americans, etc, etc.

Lol!!!

Go read my posts again. I have stated every single time that there is nothing to reduce costs for All Americans in the bill. I have stated that plainly every single time. There is no goal post moving. I stated the problem with the ACA bill is it only helps a small subset of Americans while literally burdening the vast majority. The bill was promised as a reform measure to lower costs for all Americans. It is not that.

 

[zinfamous]

Of course the math doesnt work on ACA. Why do you think American patriot Ted Cruz is fighting so hard to do away with it?

Thanks to the nasaly twanged Dave Ramsey for helping to point it out.

he's Canadian.

 

[werepossum]

he's Canadian.

Actually he has dual citizenship, so he's both.