**UPDATE** New Obamacare Reality Setting in: 8M in exchanges, 35% are < 35 yrs old

[Zstream]

I find it funny that people on a forum tall about the realities of a large healthcare law when professors who study its implementation don't even have enough data to say one way or the other. I guess politics as usual?



In addition, no one has or seem to have missed the opportunity to investigate hospital acceptance and warmth of the plan. Historically, hospitals have despised all government form of healthcare because the payment process is terrible and they delay and often on purpose add additional work to the hospital for payment of services. This is coming from multiple sources who oversee the billing and cash flow of some large hospitals.



Maybe hospitals are charging much more than they should? I guess that's a possibility but more details are needed and a full implementation of aca needs to be completed before we can come to a good/bad implementation. I think we have a good idea, no care can be added without someone paying for it, that's the one true fact.

 

[Jhhnn]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=66bgpRRSDD4

There is more times on there than I can count.

"As much as $2500 per family" doesn't mean what you want it to mean.

 

[Newell Steamer]

I have a friend, that knows a guy, that spoke to a man, that overheard a woman, who was talking about someone she thought she knew, that lived next to another guy, that told someone that ACA was not good.


This is the proof that most critics have about how ACA is terrible.

The data and success stories (especially from the opposition) outweigh anecdotal "proof" like the above.

ACA is not perfection, clearly. And not everyone is benefiting from it. But, it is not destroying this country. It is not killing people (the famous death panels). And the heavens have not caught fire and rained down on all of humanity.

So, the opposition was and IS about making sure humanity suffers; keep affordable healthcare out of the reach of people, to ensure they are harmed and can't seek medical attention.

Misanthropy, under the guise of wanting to make things better. Disgusting.

 

[Matt1970]

"As much as $2500 per family" doesn't mean what you want it to mean.

at 23 seconds in "I have a healthcare plan that would save the average family $2500 on their premium"
at 29 seconds in "If you already have healthcare we're gonna reduce costs an average of $2500 per family"

There are more.

 

[HTFOff]

 

[Zstream]

I have a friend, that knows a guy, that spoke to a man, that overheard a woman, who was talking about someone she thought she knew, that lived next to another guy, that told someone that ACA was not good.


This is the proof that most critics have about how ACA is terrible.

The data and success stories (especially from the opposition) outweigh anecdotal "proof" like the above.

ACA is not perfection, clearly. And not everyone is benefiting from it. But, it is not destroying this country. It is not killing people (the famous death panels). And the heavens have not caught fire and rained down on all of humanity.

So, the opposition was and IS about making sure humanity suffers; keep affordable healthcare out of the reach of people, to ensure they are harmed and can't seek medical attention.

Misanthropy, under the guise of wanting to make things better. Disgusting.

I think most conservatives would take issue with what you just said as that is completely false. You do realize that conservatives and ones that are religious provide more donations and assistance to the poor than any other group?

By your statements, you sound really young or naive.

 

[Jhhnn]

I think most conservatives would take issue with what you just said as that is completely false. You do realize that conservatives and ones that are religious provide more donations and assistance to the poor than any other group?

By your statements, you sound really young or naive.

So what, given that their voluntary efforts are inadequate for the purpose?

http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2012/04/30/stephen-king-tax-me-for-f-s-sake.html

 

[MongGrel]

I have a friend, that knows a guy, that spoke to a man, that overheard a woman, who was talking about someone she thought she knew, that lived next to another guy, that told someone that ACA was not good.


This is the proof that most critics have about how ACA is terrible.

The data and success stories (especially from the opposition) outweigh anecdotal "proof" like the above.

ACA is not perfection, clearly. And not everyone is benefiting from it. But, it is not destroying this country. It is not killing people (the famous death panels). And the heavens have not caught fire and rained down on all of humanity.

So, the opposition was and IS about making sure humanity suffers; keep affordable healthcare out of the reach of people, to ensure they are harmed and can't seek medical attention.

Misanthropy, under the guise of wanting to make things better. Disgusting.

:thumbsup::thumbsup:

 

[Matt1970]

You agree with that? LOL.

 

[Matt1970]

So what, given that their voluntary efforts are inadequate for the purpose?

http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2012/04/30/stephen-king-tax-me-for-f-s-sake.html

Did you actually read that article? They are bitching about the donations from the rich not being able to take "care of its sick and its poor, the education of its young, the repair of its failing infrastructure, the repayment of its staggering war debts. Charity from the rich can’t fix global warming or lower the price of gasoline by one single red penny."

That is probably about the most stupid thing I have heard all year. But then again I expect no less from you. In your mind only government can decide what money goes where to fix the problems of society. Donations to charities or to things like schools or hospitals are just a waste.

 

[Zstream]

So what, given that their voluntary efforts are inadequate for the purpose?

http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2012/04/30/stephen-king-tax-me-for-f-s-sake.html

I'm not sure if you're serious or not but why don't liberals donate just as much as conservatives? I'm not talking about a case here or there with one or two rich people but as a whole, why is that?

 

[Jhhnn]

I'm not sure if you're serious or not but why don't liberals donate just as much as conservatives? I'm not talking about a case here or there with one or two rich people but as a whole, why is that?

Why does it even matter except as a duh-version wrt the subject of this thread?

 

[Engineer]

Why does it even matter except as a duh-version wrt the subject of this thread?

I was just wondering that myself. Are people now donating cancer treatments, surgeries, rehab? Homeless and poor people can now get all of those things donated to them? How about working people who cannot afford it?

I guess there are "health" banks like food banks. Who knew....

Although on the flip side, can those people get care under what we have now?

 

[Jhhnn]

I was just wondering that myself. Are people now donating cancer treatments, surgeries, rehab? Homeless and poor people can now get all of those things donated to them? How about working people who cannot afford it?

I guess there are "health" banks like food banks. Who knew....

Although on the flip side, can those people get care under what we have now?

It's just a lame excuse to do less, shame liberals into shutting up so that so-called "givers" can enjoy their tight fisted self righteousness.

Even homeless people qualify for medicaid, as do low income workers living in states that have adopted the medicaid extension.

 

[cabri]

Link

The Affordable Care Act—also known as Obamacare—is "not an affordable product" for many people and it does not fix the underlying problems causing high health-care costs, Aetna Chairman and CEO Mark Bertolini told CNBC on Wednesday.

"If we're going to fix health care, we've got to get at the delivery of care and the cost of care," Bertolini said in a "Squawk Box" interview. "The ACA does none of that. The only person who's really going to drive that is the consumer and the decisions they make."

"Getting everybody insured should probably be our goal, but you have to have a more affordable system," he added. "We have a 1950[-style] health care system in the Unites States."

 

[ivwshane]

Link

And even many more Americans couldn't afford healthcare before the ACA you stupid fuck!

So I guess you have a plan or are you now on board with socialized care? Or do you need to wait until your handlers tell you what to think?

 

[Knowing]

http://americablog.com/2013/03/health-care-costs-hospitals-america.html

At the prices hospitals charge for mundane products, I could supply all the area hospitals from the trunk of my sports car and still turn a hefty profit.

Not allowing consumers to make informed decisions based on margins is the problem with affordability of health services in our economy.

 

[werepossum]

at 23 seconds in "I have a healthcare plan that would save the average family $2500 on their premium"
at 29 seconds in "If you already have healthcare we're gonna reduce costs an average of $2500 per family"

There are more.

When he said "the average family", he obviously meant "the average family I give a crap about". Low income families that don't fall into the gaps (largely caused by Republicans' refusal to go along) are generally doing better under Obamacare. Very high government income families are generally doing better under Obamacare. The rest of us he considers the enemy, so we don't count.

 

[First]

http://thehill.com/policy/healthcare/214847-average-premium-under-obamacare-to-rise-75-percent

ObamaCare premiums slated to rise by an average of 7.5 percent

By Elise Viebeck - 08/11/14 01:32 PM EDT

Premiums on ObamaCare's health insurance exchanges will rise by an average of 7.5 percent next year, according to a new analysis.

Data compiled by the Health Research Institute (HRI) at PricewaterhouseCoopers found modest changes in premiums for 27 states and the District of Columbia, with the increases mostly falling short of dire predictions for ObamaCare&#8217;s second year.

The average national increase of 7.5 percent is "well below the double-digit increases many feared," HRI Managing Director Ceci Connolly wrote in an email.

The highest proposed rate increase so far came in Nevada, where consumers with Time Insurance Co. might see their insurance premiums rise by 36 percent. Some consumers in Arizona, on the other hand, could see rates drop by 23 percent.
Overall, the highest average price increases under ObamaCare so far have come in Indiana, where some consumers will see prices rise by 15.4 percent. The biggest average savings were found in Oregon, where premiums will drop an average of 2.5 percent in 2015.

"The average individual monthly premium for next year, before any subsidies are applied, is $384," Connolly wrote. "And insurance commissioners get a chance to weigh in on rates before fall enrollment."

Forecasts of massive "sticker shock" became a theme of last fall's debate over the healthcare law as the administration struggled to launch HealthCare.gov, which serves as the enrollment portal for people in 36 states.

The healthcare law's first enrollment period was a major test for the insurance industry, which set premium prices with little information about exactly who might sign up for coverage.

The 2015 rates shed light on how well their guesses panned out.

Companies are generally raising prices if their new customers are older, sicker or will use more medical care than projected.

Firms with a healthier pool, on the other hand, have an incentive to lower premiums.

The PWC analysis noted that "bellwether" firms such as Blue Cross Blue Shield have submitted increases that are typically above 9 percent.

"Health plans are just beginning to understand this new market and will keep experimenting with different products, different networks and running a retail-style business," Connolly wrote.

ObamaCare's second enrollment period begins Nov. 15.

Consumer advocates are urging people on the exchanges to prepare to comparison shop if they want to avoid price increases of any magnitude.

Experts are also waiting on state insurance regulators to deliver the final verdict on some of the higher proposed rate increases.

Those officials play a serious role in determining how much plans will actually cost consumers, according to a recent blog post for the journal Health Affairs.

"The business tendency will be to &#8230; err on the side of caution and to pad estimates to protect reserves," wrote Christopher Koller and Sabrina Corlette.

"Comprehensive, independent, public scrutiny of the requested rate increases and the insurers&#8217; justification for them is absolutely necessary to find a healthy balance between product affordability and insurer stability."

Note, this 7.5% increase is before subsidies (sactoking correct me if I'm reading that wrong).

In any case, as originally stated months ago, the supposed dire realities of O'care are now almost certainly mostly red herrings. How many will step up and admit this is looking disastrous for the crowd crying O'care wolf?