obamaKare: the destruction begins
-
QuakerOatshttp://www.weeklystandard.com/blogs/houston-doctors-close-doors-because-obamacare_738562.html
Doctors closing their doors .............
Here we go --- less care / higher costs / more bureaucrats / more losers on the dole.
Change we can believe in ... -
WebFireI don't like Obamacare, but let me know when there is an article about doctors closing BECAUSE of Obamacare, not because of speculation.
-
HitsRus
^^^I can appreciate the desire to see cold hard evidence, but it also sounds so 'Pelosi-esque' to imply that we need to implement it to see what the effects are. -
BoatShoes
Massachussetts has had pretty good results thus far.HitsRus;1467114 wrote:^^^I can appreciate the desire to see cold hard evidence, but it also sounds so 'Pelosi-esque' to imply that we need to implement it to see what the effects are.
http://www.nber.org/papers/w17893?ntw
Doesn't appear to be too many problems with "Doctors Closing their Doors...More Losers on the Dole...higher costs...more bureaucrats"...etc. -
QuakerOatsBreaking --- employer mandate delayed until 2015
Sen. John Barrasso, R-Wyo., a critic of the law, seized on the delay as a "clear admission" that the law is "unaffordable, unworkable and unpopular."
"It's also a cynical political ploy to delay the coming train wreck associated with ObamaCare until after the 2014 elections," he said.
[LEFT]
Read more: http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2013/07/02/administration-delays-key-obamacare-insurance-mandate/#ixzz2Xvrqn0Gl
[/LEFT] -
majorspark
Massachusetts has a population of less than 7 million. The vast majority concentrated on the eastern side in large urban population centers. Its one of our smallest states in area. The bureaucracy needed to implement such policy nationally over 300+ million people over the vast area coast to coast will be much larger and far more complex. Encompassing large amounts of people with vastly different political ideologies on the matter. Not the case in Massachusetts. Simply put its not comparable nationally.BoatShoes;1467122 wrote:Massachussetts has had pretty good results thus far.
http://www.nber.org/papers/w17893?ntw
Doesn't appear to be too many problems with "Doctors Closing their Doors...More Losers on the Dole...higher costs...more bureaucrats"...etc. -
believer
Gotta live the hell first to see if it's really hell, eh?WebFire;1467106 wrote:I don't like Obamacare, but let me know when there is an article about doctors closing BECAUSE of Obamacare, not because of speculation. -
BGFalcons82
Was Barry elected President or Supreme Leader? To wit:
1. Declares the EPA will enforce coal regulations such that tens of thousands of jobs are lost, prices will necessarily skyrocket and Congress has zero input. One man made this all happen.
2. Turns his IRS onto his detractors such that they are hamstrung in raising cash in order to oust him. As of today, taking the 5th is the way out for his disciples. No one has been fired and no one is in jail.
3. Has multiple court rulings telling him his "recess appointments" are illegal and they must be withdrawn. As of today, people such as Richard Cordray, are still employed and still providing services as Barry's "recess appointment".
4. Rules that HIS legislation, the Affordable (excuse me...hahahahahahahaha) Care Act, will not be enforced on employers until 2015. He is in clear violation of his own law. And yet...he's allowed because he's our Supreme Leader.
Since his disciples approve of all of this, I hope they enjoy it as much when the worm turns and they are in the crosshairs of a dictator that despises them. -
WebFire
No, but people tend to exaggerate these types of things a lot. Like all the businesses that would close if Obama was re-elected. Haven't heard of any.believer;1467278 wrote:Gotta live the hell first to see if it's really hell, eh? -
Manhattan BuckeyeOne of the most odious moves by the administration is trying to get young people on board in a system that ultimately screws them.
The propaganda encouraging young people to buy insurance they don't need is nothing more than a ploy to offset the insane costs involved in insuring everyone, including those with pre-existing conditions and people that have been on disability for decades.
To use a real insurance analogy - auto insurance. This would be like ObamaAutoProtection telling people that are 45 years old, with clean driving records that drive a Buick that their auto premium needs to double or triple just so Crazy Harry that drives a Corvette with multiple violations gets a more reasonable rate for his insurance.
It isn't a perfect analogy since some believe that we should provide "free" health coverage for all, even though some have lived the life of Keith Richards and managed to survive...like Keith Richards. But the ultimate point is ObamaCare relies on young people paying more in premiums (even though they certainly have less assets and income to pay them) than they would otherwise for reasonable insurance coverage, to offset the massive costs in insuring those that require far more healthcare but can't pay for it. Obama wants a single-payer system, Obama realizes that a single-payer system would be shockingly expensive and inefficient (to the point the public would never go for it) so they've opted for this middle ground where they shame the young into paying for the old, as if they don't have to deal enough already with the deficits inherited. -
QuakerOats
As if the Left-stream media would tell you.WebFire;1467324 wrote:No, but people tend to exaggerate these types of things a lot. Like all the businesses that would close if Obama was re-elected. Haven't heard of any. -
BoatShoes
More complex bureaucratic implementation is a different problem than the problems QuakerOats is predicting. Economics, Public Policy, Social Science doesn't have controls so you take your economies where you find them. Milton Friedman made the case for the type of Free-Floating Exchange rates the United States now employs by pointing to the example of....Tangier...when it was an international zone with 60,000 people prior to joining fully with Morrocco.majorspark;1467255 wrote:Massachusetts has a population of less than 7 million. The vast majority concentrated on the eastern side in large urban population centers. Its one of our smallest states in area. The bureaucracy needed to implement such policy nationally over 300+ million people over the vast area coast to coast will be much larger and far more complex. Encompassing large amounts of people with vastly different political ideologies on the matter. Not the case in Massachusetts. Simply put its not comparable nationally. -
cruiser_96
Is congress included in this plan? If so, I still don't like it. If not, [EXPLETIVE] them all! -
BoatShoes
This is why these memes created by Republicans and Conservative talk radio are so effective. Even as the evidence has been brought to bear that this type of thing did not take place the meme perpetuates. The "scandal" has been revealed to be a non-scandal but that don't matter...the scandle-mania whipped up has been effective.BGFalcons82;1467302 wrote:2. Turns his IRS onto his detractors such that they are hamstrung in raising cash in order to oust him.As of today, taking the 5th is the way out for his disciples. No one has been fired and no one is in jail. -
BoatShoes
Single-payer healthcare systems are more efficient and less expensive everywhere in the world. Medicare is more efficient than private insurance. If we had the healthcare costs of countries with single-payer healthcare we would be looking at federal budget surpluses into perpetuity.Manhattan Buckeye;1467335 wrote:One of the most odious moves by the administration is trying to get young people on board in a system that ultimately screws them.
The propaganda encouraging young people to buy insurance they don't need is nothing more than a ploy to offset the insane costs involved in insuring everyone, including those with pre-existing conditions and people that have been on disability for decades.
To use a real insurance analogy - auto insurance. This would be like ObamaAutoProtection telling people that are 45 years old, with clean driving records that drive a Buick that their auto premium needs to double or triple just so Crazy Harry that drives a Corvette with multiple violations gets a more reasonable rate for his insurance.
It isn't a perfect analogy since some believe that we should provide "free" health coverage for all, even though some have lived the life of Keith Richards and managed to survive...like Keith Richards. But the ultimate point is ObamaCare relies on young people paying more in premiums (even though they certainly have less assets and income to pay them) than they would otherwise for reasonable insurance coverage, to offset the massive costs in insuring those that require far more healthcare but can't pay for it. Obama wants a single-payer system, Obama realizes that a single-payer system would be shockingly expensive and inefficient (to the point the public would never go for it) so they've opted for this middle ground where they shame the young into paying for the old, as if they don't have to deal enough already with the deficits inherited.
The only argument against it is that, because Medicare becomes the monopolistic price setter (instead of monopolistic providers like Hospitals gouging insurance providers and patients in our current system) it can drive out providers or refuse to pay for things....i.e "rationing"
We went with Obamacare because Obama thought he thought trying to go for single-payer when we've evolved as an employer based system was unnecessary. He has said as much regularly dismissing single-payer promoters as being unrealistically idealistic. He shut down Anthony Weiner's Medicare for All Act.
And like I've said before...under Obamacare...high deductible catastrophic coverage should be available in the state insurance markets. And, if it is not, it is because young people don't want to buy it enough so that Insurers won't offer it...Or, because Insurers choose not to offer it. There is nothing in the affordable Care Act that stops employers from offering high-deductible catastrophic insurance to healthy, young workers or from insurance companies from doing it.
All the coverage over California's Exchange "Cover California" has even discussed how the "cheapest plan available" is the non-comprehensive, catastrophic plan with an average price across the region of $184 per month for a 25 year-old non-smoker...not bad for California!
So Conservatives have this boner for catastrophic coverage and here it is being offered by teh librulz in Cover California
And yes, even young healthy men, who for example are at the highest risk for testicular cancer, need at least catastrophic coverage...and they often refuse to buy it. If they do not buy it and pass those costs onto others, they ought to pay for their negligence with a pigovian tax to internalize this cost as well as to discourage this behavior. -
BGFalcons82
Deny deny deny deny...Slick Willlie taught y'all well.BoatShoes;1467353 wrote:This is why these memes created by Republicans and Conservative talk radio are so effective. Even as the evidence has been brought to bear that this type of thing did not take place the meme perpetuates. The "scandal" has been revealed to be a non-scandal but that don't matter...the scandle-mania whipped up has been effective.
Interesting that you didn't select any of my other 3. You approve of 1 man becoming emporer and ignoring the other branches of government? Regarding the thread topic, he has no power to over-write law...and yet...he has done so. Do you approve of this dictatorial approach? -
Manhattan Buckeye"Single-payer healthcare systems are more efficient and less expensive everywhere in the world"
And they suck (not my bold).
UK medical care is awful. If you want to wait 6 months for a doctor's appointment, be my guest. If you can be declined because your doctor doesn't take the NHS card, again be my guest.
We live in a town of 12,000 people. There are two dentist's offices. We can't even schedule an appointment. I grew up in a town in the U.S. of 5,000. and we had no fewer than a dozen dentists and orthopedic surgeons. I had braces and it didn't bankrupt my father.
Insert British joke here.
At any rate, just saying something is, doesn't make it so. I can attest that other countries are more efficient, but they are more expensive (Singapore). I can also attest other countries are supposedly cheaper, but the healthcare is slow to the point of being worthless (UK). -
BoatShoes
The UK is not a really "single-payer healthcare" for most things as they provide publicly, monopolized providers or privately contracted/publicly funded monopolies for much of it...they monopolize the provider as opposed to monopolizing they payer....Singapore in large part monopolizes the payment system so Singapore would be more like Medicare for All.Manhattan Buckeye;1467369 wrote:"Single-payer healthcare systems are more efficient and less expensive everywhere in the world"
And they suck (not my bold).
UK medical care is awful. If you want to wait 6 months for a doctor's appointment, be my guest. If you can be declined because your doctor doesn't take the NHS card, again be my guest.
We live in a town of 12,000 people. There are two dentist's offices. We can't even schedule an appointment. I grew up in a town in the U.S. of 5,000. and we had no fewer than a dozen dentists and orthopedic surgeons. I had braces and it didn't bankrupt my father.
Insert British joke here.
At any rate, just saying something is, doesn't make it so. I can attest that other countries are more efficient, but they are more expensive (Singapore). I can also attest other countries are supposedly cheaper, but the healthcare is slow to the point of being worthless (UK).
The NHS is more like if we were to institute the VA healthcare system nationwide.
Either way, the all spend more efficiently on healthcare than we do in 'Murica -
BoatShoes
Ironic post is ironic.ccrunner609;1467380 wrote:I love reading posts from Boatshoes. He really believes what he writes. Any educated person knows that rates are climbing and care will decline. Obamacare will destroy the infrastructure of the medical profession. Regulations on the capitalism of being a doctor will decrease the amount of doctors we have.
In actuality, plenty of educated people have reasonable disagreements on the issue. Instead of assuming you've got it all figured out you should go review your predictive capacity on this site and JJ's and cope with the reality that your beliefs and predictions about the world have a tenuous grasp with what has gone down, in reality, at best. But, here you are more confident than ever that you know what's going on. It is fascinating. -
Manhattan BuckeyeI'm glad you know so much about these countries, since I'm sure you've lived there.
So you think that in Singapore there is health coverage for the Indian/Bangladesh workers that work on the MRT extensions? I'm sure Sunnil working on the downtown line would love to have the health coverage that the Westerners that need a $150,000+ salary just for the VISA enjoy. It doesn't happen.
Do you just make up stuff in general? -
WebFire
The right-stream sure would.QuakerOats;1467343 wrote:As if the Left-stream media would tell you. -
Manhattan Buckeye"But, here you are more confident than ever that you know what's going on."
I'm confident you have no idea what you're talking about, yet still do. -
tk421
Obamacare so good they have to delay it by 1 year. Notice how it the provision won't go into effect until after midterms, they don't want Democrats to be slammed in the elections when employees cut hours and lay people off because of the law.
I also think it's bullshit how single white healthy men are going to get slammed by this law, we shouldn't have to subsidize anyone else insurance. Fuck that. -
BoatShoes
Well you're getting very bad info then (which is not surprising). The U.S. spends way more per person than countries with monopolistic price setters keeping prices low with single-payer healthcare...and this should seem obvious. It's just like the Federal Reserve, as the price setter, being able to hit its target rate of interest anytime it wants.ccrunner609;1467392 wrote:link? All the info that I have ever seen is that they pay more. THe "average" is more and with that more you get less care.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_total_health_expenditure_(PPP)_per_capita -
BoatShoes
You're not going to get slammed. Even teh librulz in Kalifornia have an offer out to white healthy males for relatively cheap catastrophic coverage. Matter of fact, there may be an initial rate shock but the rise in healthcare costs has actually started to slow. So, we were already on a path to catastrophe with healthcare costs spiraling upward every year so an initial rate shock with control over growth in costs will make us better off in the long run.tk421;1467405 wrote:Obamacare so good they have to delay it by 1 year. Notice how it the provision won't go into effect until after midterms, they don't want Democrats to be slammed in the elections when employees cut hours and lay people off because of the law.
I also think it's bullshit how single white healthy men are going to get slammed by this law, we shouldn't have to subsidize anyone else insurance. Fuck that.