Archive

obamaKare: the destruction begins

  • QuakerOats
    BoatShoes;1609022 wrote:Where do you gather that the Affordable Care Act increased premiums 40% in the first year?

    We gather it directly from the FACTS! And it isn't 40%, it is 41%.

    I have posted this before; you continue to ignore it. This will kill the economy.

    http://www.forbes.com/sites/theapothecary/2013/11/04/49-state-analysis-obamacare-to-increase-individual-market-premiums-by-avg-of-41-subsidies-flow-to-elderly/
  • QuakerOats
    [h=1]Oregon site calls it quits, first casualty of state-run ObamaCare exchanges[/h]
  • gut
    The money spent on these exchanges is simply astounding. One can't help but wonder how much waste and inefficiency, just generally, is due to the gubmit's crappy and antiquated IT systems. But I don't want to see them spend $10T to upgrade :)
  • Manhattan Buckeye
    "We were not talking about "premiums going down and deductibles going up." You made an exaggerated claim and I rebutted it."

    Reality isn't an exaggeration. Maybe because some of us are actually employed, and are gainfully contributing to the economy we might have a different point of view...but our premiums rose, as well as the deductibles. If this was a good law, that actually lowered our costs why would be complaining. I'm not a Democrat, I like money. So why are we complaining? It is because shockingly it is costing us more to pay for those (read: you) that aren't pulling their weight.
  • BoatShoes
    Manhattan Buckeye;1609450 wrote:"We were not talking about "premiums going down and deductibles going up." You made an exaggerated claim and I rebutted it."

    Reality isn't an exaggeration. Maybe because some of us are actually employed, and are gainfully contributing to the economy we might have a different point of view...but our premiums rose, as well as the deductibles. If this was a good law, that actually lowered our costs why would be complaining. I'm not a Democrat, I like money. So why are we complaining? It is because shockingly it is costing us more to pay for those (read: you) that aren't pulling their weight.
    LOL. It is sad that you have so much delusional self-importance that you cannot even acknowledge that your exaggerated and fabricated claim is refuted by the evidence and have to resort such infantile retorts.
  • QuakerOats
    QuakerOats;1609194 wrote:We gather it directly from the FACTS! And it isn't 40%, it is 41%.

    I have posted this before; you continue to ignore it. This will kill the economy.

    http://www.forbes.com/sites/theapothecary/2013/11/04/49-state-analysis-obamacare-to-increase-individual-market-premiums-by-avg-of-41-subsidies-flow-to-elderly/



    For the benefit of BS, one last time. Read it and weep.
  • BoatShoes
    QuakerOats;1609638 wrote:For the benefit of BS, one last time. Read it and weep.
    Lol I directly referred to that analysis by the Manhattan Institute reported on in that article that was refuted by the CBO and the Society for Actuaries. In other words, a fake think tank/Conservative propaganda machine pumps out a study that honest Tea Partiers rely on to craft their view of the world and it turns out to totally fail to correspond with reality...just like 90% of your beliefs. Remember, "Romney....Big"??? Everything you believe turns out to be incorrect. It's no wonder because you are fed lies that give credence to your wishful thinking by shills who purport to have the interests of middle america in mind when really they just want your money. When are you going to stop being made a fool by these charlatans?

    Probably never. Bill Bennett will probably have some fool from the Manhattan Institute come on his show and repeat this nonsense and the good conservative Americans on their way to work will just eat it up believing that Obummercare is going to destroy the country when it simply ain't gon happen.
  • gut
    BoatShoes;1609680 wrote:Lol I directly referred to that analysis by the Manhattan Institute reported on in that article that was refuted by the CBO ..
    I don't suppose you happened to understand that the CBO analysis looked at what people actually bought while Manhattan Insitute did an apples-to-apples cost/benefit analysis that compared what identical plans WOULD have cost people (if they hadn't settled for paying more for less).
  • jmog
    gut;1609730 wrote:I don't suppose you happened to understand that the CBO analysis looked at what people actually bought while Manhattan Insitute did an apples-to-apples cost/benefit analysis that compared what identical plans WOULD have cost people (if they hadn't settled for paying more for less).
    You mean people bought worse plans because of the raised cost? No way BS would miss that tid bit of information! Sorry boat, wrong again.
  • QuakerOats
    http://www.utsandiego.com/news/2014/apr/26/obamacare-deals-blow-to-one-doctor-medicine/



    Change we can believe in ...
  • QuakerOats
    BoatShoes;1609680 wrote:Lol I directly referred to that analysis by the Manhattan Institute reported on in that article that was refuted by the CBO and the Society for Actuaries. In other words, a fake think tank/Conservative propaganda machine pumps out a study that honest Tea Partiers rely on to craft their view of the world and it turns out to totally fail to correspond with reality...just like 90% of your beliefs. Remember, "Romney....Big"??? Everything you believe turns out to be incorrect. It's no wonder because you are fed lies that give credence to your wishful thinking by shills who purport to have the interests of middle america in mind when really they just want your money. When are you going to stop being made a fool by these charlatans?

    Probably never. Bill Bennett will probably have some fool from the Manhattan Institute come on his show and repeat this nonsense and the good conservative Americans on their way to work will just eat it up believing that Obummercare is going to destroy the country when it simply ain't gon happen.

    It is all fact. As is the fact that we all know people, personally, who are getting absolutely hammered by this atrocious law. And we all know insurance brokers who handle the larger employer plans who are out delivering massive increases every day for renewals.

    You live in the liberal theoretical world; we live in the real world.
  • Dr Winston O'Boogie
    QuakerOats;1610052 wrote:It is all fact. As is the fact that we all know people, personally, who are getting absolutely hammered by this atrocious law. And we all know insurance brokers who handle the larger employer plans who are out delivering massive increases every day for renewals.

    You live in the liberal theoretical world; we live in the real world.
    If Obamacare is the reason my premiums went up this year, what is the reason they went up every single year for the past 15 before that. My risk profile hasn't changed and I haven't had any significant health issue. So Obamacare is the easy reason you point to today. But healthcare costs as a percentage of income has gone way up the past 15-20 years. How is that explained? And why are this year's increases different from all these others?
  • QuakerOats
    Dr Winston O'Boogie;1610170 wrote:If Obamacare is the reason my premiums went up this year, what is the reason they went up every single year for the past 15 before that. My risk profile hasn't changed and I haven't had any significant health issue. So Obamacare is the easy reason you point to today. But healthcare costs as a percentage of income has gone way up the past 15-20 years. How is that explained? And why are this year's increases different from all these others?

    This year's increases are different; generally 2-10 times larger than 'normal'. Next year could be worse, especially for business plans. When you force community rating upon the industry, you will get huge increases because it effectively transforms insurance into being a government-forced redistribution of wealth. There are also a plethora of obamaKare taxes and fees now hitting which is adding another few points.

    Yes, we had increases before, but they were largely based on risk pool and experience. And yes, we had some issues that needed to be addressed. But we could have dealt with it in a much better way instead of having democrats only ram this disastrous legislation down everyone's throats. We threw the baby out with the bath water.
  • IggyPride00
    House Leadership has introduced another "R" word to Obamacare.

    Reform.

    Gone are the days of repeal and replace talk. Over the weekend Cathy McMorris Rodgers (a member of House leadership) has talked about the need to start looking at Obamacare reforms instead of repeal.

    Republicans are waving the white flag and are ready for Obamacare to become the unquestioned law of the land for all times.
  • BoatShoes
    gut;1609730 wrote:I don't suppose you happened to understand that the CBO analysis looked at what people actually bought while Manhattan Insitute did an apples-to-apples cost/benefit analysis that compared what identical plans WOULD have cost people (if they hadn't settled for paying more for less).
    With subsidies taken into account many people (save mostly young men) are getting more for less and that is clearly within the CBO report...just like the fake Obamacare victim who "refused to believe" that she could get better coverage at lower, subsidized costs. The Manhattan Institute study made a prediction and it turned out wrong...just like all of your predictions. Surprise surprise.
  • BoatShoes
    jmog;1609957 wrote:You mean people bought worse plans because of the raised cost? No way BS would miss that tid bit of information! Sorry boat, wrong again.
    Earlier in this thread we were pointing out how people would be getting "better" coverage after subsidies...the usual suspects complained, "What's the gubmint know about better coverage." Obamacare is not without losers. The losers are young, healthy men. Everyone else is coming out ahead over the long haul.
  • BoatShoes
    IggyPride00;1610250 wrote:House Leadership has introduced another "R" word to Obamacare.

    Reform.

    Gone are the days of repeal and replace talk. Over the weekend Cathy McMorris Rodgers (a member of House leadership) has talked about the need to start looking at Obamacare reforms instead of repeal.

    Republicans are waving the white flag and are ready for Obamacare to become the unquestioned law of the land for all times.
    Primary the RINO.
  • HitsRus
    This year's increases are different; generally 2-10 times larger than 'normal'. Next year could be worse, especially for business plans.
    I can testify to this as I have just gone thru the renewal process for my office. For us to keep a similar plan(but not quite as good) we would have a 24.2% rate increase. To keep our premium the same we would have had to downgrade to a plan that doubled our deductible, doubled our max out of pocket, changed from 80/20 to 70/30, Dr visits changed from $20 co-pays to "30%", and doubled the cost of our medications.
    (this is AFTER) our broker "shopped the market".
    I have a letter from our Insurance carrier outlining the reasons....and it is directly related to The Unaffordable Healthcare act.
  • gut
    BoatShoes;1610257 wrote:With subsidies taken into account many people (save mostly young men) are getting more for less and that is clearly within the CBO report...
    So you're saying the overall cost has not decreased, just SOME welfare cases are paying less because other people are subsidizing payments.

    You do realize that subsidizied cost =/= actual cost?
  • gut
    BoatShoes;1610258 wrote: Everyone else is coming out ahead over the long haul.
    How can this be remotely true when an apples-to-apples cost/benefit comparison sees average increases of 40%? Ironically enough, economics calls this a net welfare loss.
  • HitsRus
    excerpts from the letter I referenced above.....
    Effective January 1,2014, the Affordable Care Act dramatically changes the method that XXX Insurance is required to use to calculate small group(2-50 employees) renewal rates. In addition the ACA mandates changes in the plan designs offered to small groups.
    Prior to January 1, 2014 XXX insurance based small group rates on age gender, family, size, location, group size, and health status. Under ACA we can no longer use helath stsatus or gender when determining rates for small groups For members of the same age, a healthy group will have the exact same rate as a group with serious medical conditions.
    Just like we tax the productive to support the unproductive, so now we tax healthy lifestyles to support the unhealthy.
    All rates are now based on ages of EACH INDIVIDUAL covered. XXX insurance cannot offer single, employee/spouse, employee/family rates
    no family rates ....a small group pays a full premium for every child/for every person.
    Prior to January 1st some underwriting discretion could be used in developing factors to calculate small group renewal rates. Under ACA, no such discretion is allowed. Rates are strictly determined based on where the group is located and the age of the individual covered.
  • jmog
    BoatShoes;1610258 wrote:Earlier in this thread we were pointing out how people would be getting "better" coverage after subsidies...the usual suspects complained, "What's the gubmint know about better coverage." Obamacare is not without losers. The losers are young, healthy men. Everyone else is coming out ahead over the long haul.
    You mean the men that are forced to carry maternity care for themselves?
  • jmog
    BoatShoes;1610258 wrote:Earlier in this thread we were pointing out how people would be getting "better" coverage after subsidies...the usual suspects complained, "What's the gubmint know about better coverage." Obamacare is not without losers. The losers are young, healthy men. Everyone else is coming out ahead over the long haul.
    The only people "winning" with the ACA is those getting help from the government with subsidies. Nearly everyone else is seeing their rates skyrocket to PAY for these subsidies. The average increase in total cost per plan has been found to be about 40% when comparing apples to apples. You just don't want to admit it could possibly be true.
  • QuakerOats
    BoatShoes;1610258 wrote:Earlier in this thread we were pointing out how people would be getting "better" coverage after subsidies...the usual suspects complained, "What's the gubmint know about better coverage." Obamacare is not without losers. The losers are young, healthy men. Everyone else is coming out ahead over the long haul.

    My God are you in absolute denial. The losers are the 90% of the Americans that liked their health care plan and could afford it. obamaKare has crushed all that, ruining an entire system while dealing a major blow to the economy. The only winners are the losers in society; just admit it.
  • QuakerOats
    HitsRus;1610263 wrote:I can testify to this as I have just gone thru the renewal process for my office. For us to keep a similar plan(but not quite as good) we would have a 24.2% rate increase. To keep our premium the same we would have had to downgrade to a plan that doubled our deductible, doubled our max out of pocket, changed from 80/20 to 70/30, Dr visits changed from $20 co-pays to "30%", and doubled the cost of our medications.
    (this is AFTER) our broker "shopped the market".
    I have a letter from our Insurance carrier outlining the reasons....and it is directly related to The Unaffordable Healthcare act.

    And this is exactly what is occurring to 90% of of the nation.

    Change we can believe in ...