Deleted
Joined: Oct 6, 2024 14:27:39 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 8, 2014 19:56:22 GMT -5
Rates are going to go UP?!?!?! (ETA: Shocked face!!!)
|
|
EVT1
Junior Associate
Joined: Dec 30, 2010 16:22:42 GMT -5
Posts: 8,596
|
Post by EVT1 on Jul 8, 2014 20:20:09 GMT -5
I hate it I hate it I hate it- BUT there are limits under the ACA on medical loss ratios-they can't just jack rates.
And if it goes up to freaking Mars- GOOD. Time to get rid of the insurance companies once and for all and have real healthcare reform. This country is a joke.
|
|
EVT1
Junior Associate
Joined: Dec 30, 2010 16:22:42 GMT -5
Posts: 8,596
|
Post by EVT1 on Jul 8, 2014 20:28:37 GMT -5
Good thing to reminisce about- back when insurance rates didn't go up every year. So what kind of rate hike was it called before an Obamacare rate hike? I think it was the 'fuck you pay it or else' rate hike that happened every year since I was a teenager.
BTW- Obama did that too.
|
|
Deleted
Joined: Oct 6, 2024 14:27:39 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 8, 2014 21:04:21 GMT -5
Good thing to reminisce about- back when insurance rates didn't go up every year. So what kind of rate hike was it called before an Obamacare rate hike? I think it was the 'fuck you pay it or else' rate hike that happened every year since I was a teenager.
BTW- Obama did that too. That was part of the point of my shocked face post. Not that they were going to go up... or even about how much they were going to go up. But that there are people out there that thought Obamacare made healthcare affordable, and some of them thought there wouldn't be rate hikes.
|
|
AgeOfEnlightenmentSCP
Distinguished Associate
Joined: Dec 21, 2010 11:59:07 GMT -5
Posts: 31,709
Favorite Drink: Sweetwater 420
|
Post by AgeOfEnlightenmentSCP on Jul 9, 2014 9:14:24 GMT -5
I hate it I hate it I hate it- BUT there are limits under the ACA on medical loss ratios-they can't just jack rates.
And if it goes up to freaking Mars- GOOD. Time to get rid of the insurance companies once and for all and have real healthcare reform. This country is a joke. That is the intention. www.breitbart.com/InstaBlog/2013/10/29/Flashback-Obama-s-Campaign-to-Transition-to-Single-Payer-Health-Care-VIDEOInterestingly, as the implementation of the Obamacare exchanges face problems and millions begin to lose coverage from their private insurers, something President Obama promised would not happen, Democrats and their liberal allies are now beginning to suggest a single payer system as a solution to the rickety exchanges. Rep. John Larson (D - CT) told Breitbart News last Wednesday that under a single payer system Americans would not be losing their private health care coverage, claiming, "You would be covered automatically. But that’s not the law. The law is that it’s a free enterprise system and they have the right not to enter into the exchange or not to provide for you in the exchange. That is their right." The video below shows clips of Obama explaining to supporters his views over the years about how he would transition a single payer system into the United States. At the same time he criticizes his detractors, saying the Affordable Care Act is not a "government take over" of American health care.
|
|
AgeOfEnlightenmentSCP
Distinguished Associate
Joined: Dec 21, 2010 11:59:07 GMT -5
Posts: 31,709
Favorite Drink: Sweetwater 420
|
Post by AgeOfEnlightenmentSCP on Jul 9, 2014 9:17:25 GMT -5
Rates are going to go UP?!?!?! (ETA: Shocked face!!!) Well, I'm not shocked- because I didn't buy this bullshit to start with:
|
|
djAdvocate
Member Emeritus
only posting when the mood strikes me.
Joined: Jun 21, 2011 12:33:54 GMT -5
Posts: 76,483
Mini-Profile Background: {"image":"","color":"000307"}
|
Post by djAdvocate on Jul 9, 2014 11:42:40 GMT -5
i am missing the link between demanding universal private health insurance coverage and interest rates. care to elaborate?
|
|
EVT1
Junior Associate
Joined: Dec 30, 2010 16:22:42 GMT -5
Posts: 8,596
|
Post by EVT1 on Jul 11, 2014 1:55:00 GMT -5
Are you suggesting no one waited in the ER before ACA? www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2014/jul/08/reince-priebus/rnc-chair-reince-priebus-thanks-barack-obama-five-/
The tweet is based on, and links to, a July 4 report aired on the Fresno, Calif.-based TV station KMPH, a Fox affiliate. "If you have to go to an emergency room get ready to wait more than five hours,"
The statistic was based on data from 2012 -- two years before the provisions of the ACA could have had any impact. Meanwhile, the five-hour figure is just one of three measurements of E.R. wait times -- and not even necessarily the best one. If you count from the time of a patient's arrival to being seen by a health care professional, the wait time was 31 minutes in California. Even the strongest support for the claim is far from solid: A survey of emergency physicians found signs that E.R. traffic had increased since the ACA took effect in January, but the results were mixed, and this documents patient volume, not wait times. We rate the claim False.
|
|
mmhmm
Administrator
It's a great pity the right of free speech isn't based on the obligation to say something sensible.
Joined: Dec 25, 2010 18:13:34 GMT -5
Posts: 31,770
Today's Mood: Saddened by Events
Location: Memory Lane
Favorite Drink: Water
|
Post by mmhmm on Jul 11, 2014 7:03:26 GMT -5
Much will also depend on why you're in the ER in the first place. If you've stubbed your toe, or have a painful hangnail, you may well wait 5 hours, or more, if there are others in the ER with true, emergency situations. As far as I'm concerned, that is as it should be. ER patients are triaged.
|
|
AgeOfEnlightenmentSCP
Distinguished Associate
Joined: Dec 21, 2010 11:59:07 GMT -5
Posts: 31,709
Favorite Drink: Sweetwater 420
|
Post by AgeOfEnlightenmentSCP on Jul 15, 2014 9:05:36 GMT -5
Much will also depend on why you're in the ER in the first place. If you've stubbed your toe, or have a painful hangnail, you may well wait 5 hours, or more, if there are others in the ER with true, emergency situations. As far as I'm concerned, that is as it should be. ER patients are triaged. Average. Wait. Time. By definition, half the people waited less than five hours- but half the people waited longer than five hours.
|
|
mmhmm
Administrator
It's a great pity the right of free speech isn't based on the obligation to say something sensible.
Joined: Dec 25, 2010 18:13:34 GMT -5
Posts: 31,770
Today's Mood: Saddened by Events
Location: Memory Lane
Favorite Drink: Water
|
Post by mmhmm on Jul 15, 2014 9:09:16 GMT -5
Much will also depend on why you're in the ER in the first place. If you've stubbed your toe, or have a painful hangnail, you may well wait 5 hours, or more, if there are others in the ER with true, emergency situations. As far as I'm concerned, that is as it should be. ER patients are triaged. Average. Wait. Time. By definition, half the people waited less than five hours- but half the people waited longer than five hours. Might it be half the people were more in need of actual emergency care than the other half?
|
|
AgeOfEnlightenmentSCP
Distinguished Associate
Joined: Dec 21, 2010 11:59:07 GMT -5
Posts: 31,709
Favorite Drink: Sweetwater 420
|
Post by AgeOfEnlightenmentSCP on Jul 15, 2014 9:16:07 GMT -5
Whatever.
Halbig v. Sebelius could unravel ObamaCare once and for all:
I don't know why the obvious is such a big fucking surprise to these idiots? The states are already in financial trouble due in large part to legacy costs associated with state government employee pension funds-- remember, the states can't just print their way out of trouble. And the federal government "incentives" eventually dry up and load these costs onto the states. So, they looked ahead, determined they couldn't afford it, and said no. Ain't tough to see why.
|
|
AgeOfEnlightenmentSCP
Distinguished Associate
Joined: Dec 21, 2010 11:59:07 GMT -5
Posts: 31,709
Favorite Drink: Sweetwater 420
|
Post by AgeOfEnlightenmentSCP on Jul 15, 2014 9:17:30 GMT -5
Average. Wait. Time. By definition, half the people waited less than five hours- but half the people waited longer than five hours. Might it be half the people were more in need of actual emergency care than the other half? No doubt. I would guess perhaps 10% were there for actual emergencies. The others are using the loophole in the law the forces ERs to treat people who do not have insurance or the means to pay.
|
|
mmhmm
Administrator
It's a great pity the right of free speech isn't based on the obligation to say something sensible.
Joined: Dec 25, 2010 18:13:34 GMT -5
Posts: 31,770
Today's Mood: Saddened by Events
Location: Memory Lane
Favorite Drink: Water
|
Post by mmhmm on Jul 15, 2014 9:19:55 GMT -5
What does the law that forces ERs to treat people who do not have insurance/means to pay have to do with Obamacare?
ETA: Crrrrrrickets ...
|
|
Opti
Community Leader
Joined: Dec 18, 2010 10:45:38 GMT -5
Posts: 42,242
Location: New Jersey
Mini-Profile Name Color: c28523
Mini-Profile Text Color: 990033
|
Post by Opti on Jul 15, 2014 9:22:12 GMT -5
Much will also depend on why you're in the ER in the first place. If you've stubbed your toe, or have a painful hangnail, you may well wait 5 hours, or more, if there are others in the ER with true, emergency situations. As far as I'm concerned, that is as it should be. ER patients are triaged. Average. Wait. Time. By definition, half the people waited less than five hours- but half the people waited longer than five hours.Bzzzzzzzzzzzzz. Incorrect. You answered for Mean. Wait. Time.
Three people walk into a Doctor's office for emergency care. One gets seen in 5 minutes, one gets seen in twenty-five minutes and one gets seen after 2.5 hours wait.
The mean wait time would be 25 minutes. The average wait time would be 1 hour.
|
|
dondub
Senior Associate
The meek shall indeed inherit the earth but only after the Visigoths are done with it.
Joined: Jan 16, 2014 19:31:06 GMT -5
Posts: 12,110
Location: Seattle
Favorite Drink: Laphroig
|
Post by dondub on Jul 15, 2014 10:45:05 GMT -5
There are lies, damn lies, and statistics.
-Disraeli
|
|
AgeOfEnlightenmentSCP
Distinguished Associate
Joined: Dec 21, 2010 11:59:07 GMT -5
Posts: 31,709
Favorite Drink: Sweetwater 420
|
Post by AgeOfEnlightenmentSCP on Jul 15, 2014 12:38:05 GMT -5
|
|
mmhmm
Administrator
It's a great pity the right of free speech isn't based on the obligation to say something sensible.
Joined: Dec 25, 2010 18:13:34 GMT -5
Posts: 31,770
Today's Mood: Saddened by Events
Location: Memory Lane
Favorite Drink: Water
|
Post by mmhmm on Jul 15, 2014 12:44:54 GMT -5
Yes, seriously. The law requiring ERs to treat patients no matter whether they can pay, or not, was in effect long before Obamacare was a glimmer in anyone's eye. The two are in no way related, paul.
|
|
AgeOfEnlightenmentSCP
Distinguished Associate
Joined: Dec 21, 2010 11:59:07 GMT -5
Posts: 31,709
Favorite Drink: Sweetwater 420
|
Post by AgeOfEnlightenmentSCP on Jul 15, 2014 12:46:38 GMT -5
Yes, seriously. The law requiring ERs to treat patients no matter whether they can pay, or not, was in effect long before Obamacare was a glimmer in anyone's eye. The two are in no way related, paul. Yes, it was- and actually you're helping to make my point. If you don't see that, I'm not sure how much clearer I can make it.
|
|
mmhmm
Administrator
It's a great pity the right of free speech isn't based on the obligation to say something sensible.
Joined: Dec 25, 2010 18:13:34 GMT -5
Posts: 31,770
Today's Mood: Saddened by Events
Location: Memory Lane
Favorite Drink: Water
|
Post by mmhmm on Jul 15, 2014 13:12:40 GMT -5
Yes, seriously. The law requiring ERs to treat patients no matter whether they can pay, or not, was in effect long before Obamacare was a glimmer in anyone's eye. The two are in no way related, paul. Yes, it was- and actually you're helping to make my point. If you don't see that, I'm not sure how much clearer I can make it. I don't give a fig about making your point, or unmaking your point, paul. I do care about misrepresentation and will correct it when I see it. Obamacare has nothing whatever to do with the law requiring ERs to treat those who cannot pay.
|
|
AgeOfEnlightenmentSCP
Distinguished Associate
Joined: Dec 21, 2010 11:59:07 GMT -5
Posts: 31,709
Favorite Drink: Sweetwater 420
|
Post by AgeOfEnlightenmentSCP on Jul 15, 2014 13:49:12 GMT -5
Yes, it was- and actually you're helping to make my point. If you don't see that, I'm not sure how much clearer I can make it. I don't give a fig about making your point, or unmaking your point, paul. I do care about misrepresentation and will correct it when I see it. Obamacare has nothing whatever to do with the law requiring ERs to treat those who cannot pay. I've misrepresented nothing. I've posted the information. You clearly believe that the information provided is unreliable / inaccurate. The next step is to refute it, and please cite your sources when you do- as I have. You cannot "correct misinformation" as you see it by saying, "No it's not". You have to actually supply reliable data to the contrary.
|
|
AgeOfEnlightenmentSCP
Distinguished Associate
Joined: Dec 21, 2010 11:59:07 GMT -5
Posts: 31,709
Favorite Drink: Sweetwater 420
|
Post by AgeOfEnlightenmentSCP on Jul 15, 2014 13:51:53 GMT -5
|
|
973beachbum
Senior Associate
Politics Admin
Joined: Dec 17, 2010 16:12:13 GMT -5
Posts: 10,501
|
Post by 973beachbum on Jul 15, 2014 14:08:23 GMT -5
I am reasonably well educated, and actually tried to read this whole thread. Other than the fact that Paul hates the president, I don't have a clue as to what it is about. How can a thread go on for 58 pages with no clear topic?
|
|
Lizard King
Senior Member
It's an anagram, you know.
Joined: Nov 6, 2013 16:22:24 GMT -5
Posts: 2,589
Favorite Drink: La Fee Verte
|
Post by Lizard King on Jul 15, 2014 14:29:02 GMT -5
Paul's point re: wait times goes to one of the "problems" that Obamacare purported to solve - admittedly a lesser "problem" than that of coverage or cost, the former of which it has made strides on at the expense of the latter (and I cheerfully acknowledge this because, unlike many supporters of the law, I understand the difference between 'coverage' and 'access' - and 'access' has NOT been improved by Obamacare; neither has quality of care, in my view, either of which would be better metrics for a genuinely people-centered healthcare reform than 'coverage'). I speak of course of the "free rider" problem created by EMTALA which - credit where it's due - did indeed provide genuinely universal healthcare of a very limited sort way back in Reagan's day.
Heritage, years back, suggested that the way to avoid the "free rider" problem would be to mandate catastrophic coverage or require a bond for those who refused such coverage. This morphed under Obamacare into comprehensive (even excessively comprehensive) coverage or a tax penalty (variously deemed a tax or a regulatory penalty depending on which Constitutional threat TPTB wished to avoid at the time) - not at all the same thing Romney failed to veto in Massachusetts.
What PPACA has done is enlarge the pool of Medicaid recipients in many states, by changing the eligibility rules for Medicaid - this is the chief means by which it has increased 'coverage.' It has not increased the pool of doctors accepting Medicaid, and it has increased market pressure on those doctors currently accepting Medicaid to opt out - because Medicaid reimbursement is dreadfully poor and doctors genuinely struggle if their Medicaid caseloads get too high. Where then can this new army of Medicaid beneficiaries get their non-emergent health needs considered? The ER, where they'll be triaged, found non-emergent, left to wait hours, handed some palliative by a nurse and sent on their way.
Studies show that gaining Medicaid coverage has no appreciable impact on health outcomes, except if you count reduced levels of depression or stress associated with bankruptcies, which Medicaid patients avoid. Providers with high Medicaid patient loads are another matter...
|
|
AgeOfEnlightenmentSCP
Distinguished Associate
Joined: Dec 21, 2010 11:59:07 GMT -5
Posts: 31,709
Favorite Drink: Sweetwater 420
|
Post by AgeOfEnlightenmentSCP on Jul 15, 2014 15:34:21 GMT -5
I am reasonably well educated, and actually tried to read this whole thread. Other than the fact that Paul hates the president, I don't have a clue as to what it is about. How can a thread go on for 58 pages with no clear topic? I'm way too lazy to read 58 pages of a thread, so kudos to you for that. But you could have just read the thread's title. Everything proponents of ObamaCare promised were lies, and though it has taken 58 pages to explain the myriad problems with ObamaCare-- the bottom line is this: the law will never be fully implemented before it is repealed, undergoes major reforms that essentially repeal it without calling it repeal, or collapses under its own weight.
|
|
djAdvocate
Member Emeritus
only posting when the mood strikes me.
Joined: Jun 21, 2011 12:33:54 GMT -5
Posts: 76,483
Mini-Profile Background: {"image":"","color":"000307"}
|
Post by djAdvocate on Jul 15, 2014 16:49:30 GMT -5
I am reasonably well educated, and actually tried to read this whole thread. Other than the fact that Paul hates the president, I don't have a clue as to what it is about. How can a thread go on for 58 pages with no clear topic? I'm way too lazy to read 58 pages of a thread, so kudos to you for that. But you could have just read the thread's title. Everything proponents of ObamaCare promised were lies, and though it has taken 58 pages to explain the myriad problems with ObamaCare-- the bottom line is this: the law will never be fully implemented before it is repealed, undergoes major reforms that essentially repeal it without calling it repeal, or collapses under its own weight. your team has been saying the same thing about social security for over 70 years.
|
|
Tennesseer
Member Emeritus
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 21:58:42 GMT -5
Posts: 64,488
|
Post by Tennesseer on Jul 15, 2014 17:09:15 GMT -5
I am reasonably well educated, and actually tried to read this whole thread. Other than the fact that Paul hates the president, I don't have a clue as to what it is about. How can a thread go on for 58 pages with no clear topic? You must be new here too.
|
|
EVT1
Junior Associate
Joined: Dec 30, 2010 16:22:42 GMT -5
Posts: 8,596
|
Post by EVT1 on Jul 15, 2014 17:36:59 GMT -5
We still on about the 5 hour bullshit that was debunked earlier on in this thread?
BTW EMTALA is not a 'loophole' in the law- it IS the law. Granted, it is a law that is taken advantage of by some people as anything else is.
|
|
AgeOfEnlightenmentSCP
Distinguished Associate
Joined: Dec 21, 2010 11:59:07 GMT -5
Posts: 31,709
Favorite Drink: Sweetwater 420
|
Post by AgeOfEnlightenmentSCP on Jul 15, 2014 18:07:00 GMT -5
|
|
AgeOfEnlightenmentSCP
Distinguished Associate
Joined: Dec 21, 2010 11:59:07 GMT -5
Posts: 31,709
Favorite Drink: Sweetwater 420
|
Post by AgeOfEnlightenmentSCP on Jul 15, 2014 18:10:34 GMT -5
I'm way too lazy to read 58 pages of a thread, so kudos to you for that. But you could have just read the thread's title. Everything proponents of ObamaCare promised were lies, and though it has taken 58 pages to explain the myriad problems with ObamaCare-- the bottom line is this: the law will never be fully implemented before it is repealed, undergoes major reforms that essentially repeal it without calling it repeal, or collapses under its own weight. your team has been saying the same thing about social security for over 70 years. Yep. And we're absolutely correct. SS is insolvent, and were it not for the national credit card and its trillions in debt, it would be gone already.
|
|