"I thought it would be easier"

• CenterBHSFan

  

  BR1986FB;1850603 wrote:No doubt but, watch out, you're going to be accused of being a "Fox News" follower.

  It's alright. He's also accused me of being a bigot and a sexist lol
• sleeper

  

  BR1986FB;1850604 wrote:Short answer...." I have nothing."

  It's not that. I know healthcare markets because I've consulted with insurers and providers better than most people. It's a really complex topic and I quite frankly I don't think anyone on here who doesn't agree with me is smart enough to understand and interact in a constructive manner. Why waste energy on uncurable ignorance? It's much easier just to post articles and spam talking points from Fox News than to actually engage in meaningful and motivated debate.
• CenterBHSFan

  

  sleeper;1850602 wrote:I honestly don't know if I have the mental energy today to expend effort to explain to you why you are absolutely clueless on reality.
  
  I will say this, I do agree that Obamacare has its flaws and is not perfect. The best option is Single Payer insurance like every other industrialized country in the world that produces higher quality results at a significantly lower cost. But that's "socialism" and we can't have that!

  Of course you have the time. Please proceed!
• CenterBHSFan

  

  btw, I am dropping this link here so that we don't continue derailing this topic:
  www.ohiochatter.com/forum/showthread.php?41095-obamaKare-the-destruction-begins
• Heretic

  

  BR1986FB;1850550 wrote:Seems pretty obvious that he underestimated the size of the mess that the previous turd (Obama) left for him to clean up.

  Wait a minute! I thought blaming the previous president for your problems was a bad, bad thing to do! I AM CONFUSED!!!!
• BR1986FB

  Heretic;1850623 wrote:Wait a minute! I thought blaming the previous president for your problems was a bad, bad thing to do! I AM CONFUSED!!!!

  Assuming you're talking about Bush? Wasn't a fan.
• Heretic

  

  BR1986FB;1850593 wrote:He created what ISIS is today by turning the cheek so his "brothers" could flourish.
  
  Really? NK is not doing anything today that they haven't been doing for the past 50 years? NK was building up their technology to be able to create weapons of mass destruction 50 years ago?
  
  Frankly, at this point, doing "anything" would be more than the "nothing" Obama did.
  
  Face it, Obama was a wimp. Dude let people walk all over him and had no issues with it.

  Lol, Bush is the one who attacked one of the only secular regimes in the region to open the doors for all sorts of new terrorists to be recruited with the whole power vacuum and all, but yeah, Obame = ISIS!!!! Good job, Bannon!
• FatHobbit

  

  BR1986FB;1850580 wrote: And Obamacare? "Success?" Get your head out of the sand. The program is terrible. The "Unaffordable Care Act."

  I hesitate to defend Obamakare (it's not a tax, you can keep your Dr, etc...) But healthcare prices have been increasing for some time and they will continue to go up.
  
  

  sleeper;1850607 wrote:I know healthcare markets because I've consulted with insurers and providers better than most people.

  I don't think the govt stepping in to pay for anything does anything to control costs. Once there is more (govt) money available the price only goes up. The same thing happens with education. The govt provides student loans, so schools raise prices because there is more money available. Single payer would definitely control costs but i wonder about what unintended consequences will that have?
  
  The issue with education to me is that there are state schools that are supposed to be affordable. That would help keep the cost down. Unfortunately they raise their prices just as frequently as public schools.
  
  This is an anecdotal example but i think it fits. I recently had elective eye surgery that was not covered by insurance. I was supposed to pay the surgery center $2400 per eye. They screwed up the billing and billed my insurance $5000 per eye. It was a giant hassle getting the billing all sorted out. Why did they bill my insurance $5200 more than they were billing me personally? Because insurance companies have lots of money and the hospitals are trying to get as much as they can.
  
  Another example. I used to work for an insurance company and we had multiple clients that were with different ppo networks. We had a Dr bill us $500 for a procedure. After we had paid the bill, the Dr realized they had submitted it incorrectly and through the wrong network so they resubmitted the bill for $3500. How does that make any sense?
  
  Why, under normal circumstances, do you have no idea how much a procedure is going to cost before you have it? You can call 5 different hospitals, get 5 different estimates and those are just estimates. When you have the procedure they will bill you a completely different amount. We would never accept that for something else. Imagine if you were buying tires for your car and the tire stores could not tell you how much it would cost? If you know what you want to have done, you should be able to easily compare hospitals based on success rates and know exactly how much it's going to cost before you go.
  
  I used to work on a software project for a large insurer and that ability (compare outcomes and know cost beforehand) was one of their long term goals but they are not there yet.
• ernest_t_bass

  

  FatHobbit;1850635 wrote:Why, under normal circumstances, do you have no idea how much a procedure is going to cost before you have it? You can call 5 different hospitals, get 5 different estimates and those are just estimates. When you have the procedure they will bill you a completely different amount. We would never accept that for something else. Imagine if you were buying tires for your car and the tire stores could not tell you how much it would cost? If you know what you want to have done, you should be able to easily compare hospitals based on success rates and know exactly how much it's going to cost before you go.

  Brings me so much rage.
• fish82

  

  FatHobbit;1850635 wrote:I hesitate to defend Obamakare (it's not a tax, you can keep your Dr, etc...) But healthcare prices have been increasing for some time and they will continue to go up.

  As long as the US continues to lead the world in R&D, innovation and malpractice insurance/defensive medicine...yes, they will.
• Dr Winston O'Boogie

  

  sleeper;1850584 wrote:There's no character so grow up.
  
  So Obama created ISIS/North Korea and also a program that is so bad that a GOP congress and President can't get a repeal/replace bill passed? Please. This isn't Fox News.

  It sure seems like a new character. What happened to the guy who made lots of cash, banged chicks all day and hated poor people? That character gone?
• Spock

  

  When the government entered the healthcare market the market responded by driving up prices.
• SportsAndLady

  

  FatHobbit;1850635 wrote:I hesitate to defend Obamakare (it's not a tax, you can keep your Dr, etc...) But healthcare prices have been increasing for some time and they will continue to go up.
  
  
  
  
  I don't think the govt stepping in to pay for anything does anything to control costs. Once there is more (govt) money available the price only goes up. The same thing happens with education. The govt provides student loans, so schools raise prices because there is more money available. Single payer would definitely control costs but i wonder about what unintended consequences will that have?
  
  The issue with education to me is that there are state schools that are supposed to be affordable. That would help keep the cost down. Unfortunately they raise their prices just as frequently as public schools.
  
  This is an anecdotal example but i think it fits. I recently had elective eye surgery that was not covered by insurance. I was supposed to pay the surgery center $2400 per eye. They screwed up the billing and billed my insurance $5000 per eye. It was a giant hassle getting the billing all sorted out. Why did they bill my insurance $5200 more than they were billing me personally? Because insurance companies have lots of money and the hospitals are trying to get as much as they can.
  
  Another example. I used to work for an insurance company and we had multiple clients that were with different ppo networks. We had a Dr bill us $500 for a procedure. After we had paid the bill, the Dr realized they had submitted it incorrectly and through the wrong network so they resubmitted the bill for $3500. How does that make any sense?
  
  Why, under normal circumstances, do you have no idea how much a procedure is going to cost before you have it? You can call 5 different hospitals, get 5 different estimates and those are just estimates. When you have the procedure they will bill you a completely different amount. We would never accept that for something else. Imagine if you were buying tires for your car and the tire stores could not tell you how much it would cost? If you know what you want to have done, you should be able to easily compare hospitals based on success rates and know exactly how much it's going to cost before you go.
  
  I used to work on a software project for a large insurer and that ability (compare outcomes and know cost beforehand) was one of their long term goals but they are not there yet.

  No no no. Sleeper consults for the healthcare industry! He's right and you're wrong. He just doesn't have the time to tell you why!
• dwccrew

  

  BR1986FB;1850593 wrote:He created what ISIS is today by turning the cheek so his "brothers" could flourish..

  You lose all credibility with this statement alone. So his "brothers" can flourish? Are you really that dense?
  

  BR1986FB;1850593 wrote:Really? NK is not doing anything today that they haven't been doing for the past 50 years? NK was building up their technology to be able to create weapons of mass destruction 50 years ago?

  In an earlier post by you in this thread you stated that NK is a threat and it had nothing to do with their Nuclear program, now all of a sudden it is a talking point for you?
  

  BR1986FB;1850593 wrote: Frankly, at this point, doing "anything" would be more than the "nothing" Obama did.
  
  Face it, Obama was a wimp. Dude let people walk all over him and had no issues with it.

  Obama authorized many, many drone strikes. He authorized the operation that ended up killing Bin Laden. I am not sure you can credit Obama for the creation of ISIS. US foreign policy in the middle east over the last 50-60 years and de-stabilizing Iraq were the catalysts that led to ISIS. Not really anything Obama did, but if you can actually list reasons that you believe Obama is responsible for the rise of ISIS and not statements like "he's a wimp" or "he let people walk all over him", I would be willing to listen.
  

  CenterBHSFan;1850599 wrote:Obama actually did let other countries "walk all over him". That is not just an opinion, that is a fact.

  Please state how these are facts by using actual facts and not stating it in an opinion post.
• CenterBHSFan

  

  dwccrew;1850822 wrote:Please state how these are facts by using actual facts and not stating it in an opinion post.

  Do you mean when Iran stared him down, or when Syria smirked or when Russia giggled?
  
  There was nothing strategic about President Obama's "strategic patience". Unless it's a euphemism for attending a meeting with Susan Rice, Lois Lerner or Bowe Bergdahl. Perhaps all three.
• CenterBHSFan

  

  Look, I don't think it was easy for Obama, or any other President who stepped foot into the Oval Office for the first time. Trump saying this doesn't surprise me in the least, nor should it come as a shock to anyone else. They don't just sit there in their chairs barking orders around. You will have people inspecting and deconstructing your every move, opposing you, propagandizing you.
  Trump is certainly an easy target, simply because he's a jackass.
• fish82

  

  Many past Presidents have made similar comments about certain aspects of the job being more challenging than they expected.
  
  Just more proof that you people will mindlessly lose your shit every single time Trump speaks.
• dwccrew

  

  CenterBHSFan;1850862 wrote:Do you mean when Iran stared him down, or when Syria smirked or when Russia giggled?
  
  There was nothing strategic about President Obama's "strategic patience". Unless it's a euphemism for attending a meeting with Susan Rice, Lois Lerner or Bowe Bergdahl. Perhaps all three.

  Again, this is just rhetoric. Please explain how these are facts. You stating Iran stared him down, Syria smirked, Russia giggled is not any type of fact.
• Spock

  

  dwccrew;1850887 wrote:Again, this is just rhetoric. Please explain how these are facts. You stating Iran stared him down, Syria smirked, Russia giggled is not any type of fact.

  The common intelligent person understand what he meant about those situations. Its common knowledge Obama flinched a lot.
• CenterBHSFan

  

  fish82;1850886 wrote:Many past Presidents have made similar comments about certain aspects of the job being more challenging than they expected.
  Just more proof that you people will mindlessly lose your shit every single time Trump speaks.

  I agree with this, wholeheartedly. But I also have to say that people have the right to be distrustful of Trump. I know I am. Not that I think he's setting out to do anything sinister. But because 1.) He can't keep his mouth shut about anything, which I don't think is wise. 2.) He needs to mentally and emotionally toughen up. Not everything needs to be hashed out on Twitter. 3.) While I agree with some of his policies, I do not like how he goes about implementing them.
  
  Of course, I'm also highly critical of him, so I'm certainly leery. Or at the very least, I'm still trying to figure him out, no success so far.
• CenterBHSFan

  

  dwccrew;1850887 wrote:Again, this is just rhetoric. Please explain how these are facts. You stating Iran stared him down, Syria smirked, Russia giggled is not any type of fact.

  1.) Iran deal. I think Ptown described this as (paraphrasing here, of course) "Iran was going to do what they wanted anyway, so we went along with it so that they could keep an eye on things."
  2.) Obama drew the red line and Syria gave him the stink-eye and skipped right over that red line in a jolly fashion.
  3.) The Russian Reset did nothing tangible of any historical importants. It was empty. The US was effectively hoodwinked with it. Putin and the Russians agreed, smiled for the camera and then went along with whatever business they were already in the process of doing. It was nothing to do. Seriously, the symbolic button Clinton gave the Russian FM a button with the wrong translation on it. Clinton didn't even want to do it. What does that say about the whole affair? If anybody, including President Obama, took Putin seriously, they were intellectual fools. Signed papers mean nothing - refer to Chamberlain for historical evidence.
  In short, I would say that those countries acted in a manner that suited their interests (played the best game of charades of their collective lives) best because they had a good idea that there would be no serious consequences as long as he was in office.
  Those are just the three biggest foreign policy issues that came immediately to my mind. Within those three it can definitely be said that he was walked on. I concede that you may or may not agree. But if you disagree with me, I invite you to tell me why.
  
  Now, do you need links from opposing political viewpoints that show the very conclusion that I've said (perhaps in a much more polished manner) all found by doing a quick Google search or would you rather look up these events on your own?
  
  It doesn't matter if you voted for Obama or not, liked him or not, honored him or not, whatever. He bumbled. He dropped the ball, whatever you want to call it. But he was no paragon of firmness. He had weaknesses and getting riled up that anybody, including me, points those out doesn't change that.
  
  I didn't even get into his bumbling concerning domestic issues. That has all be hashed and rehashed in other threads and quite frankly doesn't even matter at this point. He's gone. Goodbye. Adios.
• CenterBHSFan

  

  Spock;1850890 wrote:The common intelligent person understand what he meant about those situations. Its common knowledge Obama flinched a lot.

  She.
• sleeper

  

  FatHobbit;1850635 wrote: I don't think the govt stepping in to pay for anything does anything to control costs. Once there is more (govt) money available the price only goes up. The same thing happens with education. The govt provides student loans, so schools raise prices because there is more money available. Single payer would definitely control costs but i wonder about what unintended consequences will that have?
  
  The issue with education to me is that there are state schools that are supposed to be affordable. That would help keep the cost down. Unfortunately they raise their prices just as frequently as public schools.
  
  This is an anecdotal example but i think it fits. I recently had elective eye surgery that was not covered by insurance. I was supposed to pay the surgery center $2400 per eye. They screwed up the billing and billed my insurance $5000 per eye. It was a giant hassle getting the billing all sorted out. Why did they bill my insurance $5200 more than they were billing me personally? Because insurance companies have lots of money and the hospitals are trying to get as much as they can.
  
  Another example. I used to work for an insurance company and we had multiple clients that were with different ppo networks. We had a Dr bill us $500 for a procedure. After we had paid the bill, the Dr realized they had submitted it incorrectly and through the wrong network so they resubmitted the bill for $3500. How does that make any sense?
  
  Why, under normal circumstances, do you have no idea how much a procedure is going to cost before you have it? You can call 5 different hospitals, get 5 different estimates and those are just estimates. When you have the procedure they will bill you a completely different amount. We would never accept that for something else. Imagine if you were buying tires for your car and the tire stores could not tell you how much it would cost? If you know what you want to have done, you should be able to easily compare hospitals based on success rates and know exactly how much it's going to cost before you go.
  
  I used to work on a software project for a large insurer and that ability (compare outcomes and know cost beforehand) was one of their long term goals but they are not there yet.

  I think the first thing is to understand the difference between government involvement in College education and that of healthcare as they are two different methods of intervention. For the education market, government interferes by allowing students to take out relatively cheap loans given their risk history as an incentive to further educate the citizens of the country. This allows more available capital into those markets which forces colleges to increase their prices in order to keep supply and demand in equilibrium. If you remove the loan programs, prices would decrease but then you may have an issue with access, particularly for the nation's poor since they may not decrease enough to allow for most students to afford.
  
  Government involvement in healthcare is entirely different and we see that given the current system of Medicare and its effect on the market. Medicare/Medicaid pay the lowest reimbursement rates for any medical service and they go negotiate the lowest drug prices on the market. The idea of Single Payer is to let the government, with the leverage of the entire country, dictate a fair price for the services delivered. Currently, you have every insurance company negotiating rates for every service provider but they have an incentive to give higher prices for services because A) They get a profit % built on top of that price and B) They want the provider to join their network so they can give their customers access to those providers. There really isn't a focus on lowering costs because they can be spread out over multiple customers and most people with health insurance through work don't see the impact as much thanks to employer subsidies.
  
  Given the scenarios you listed above in regards to no one knowing costs, Single Payer would solve this problem and cut out this patient/doctor financial battle for medical procedures. Single Payer, like Medicaid, would set the rate for EVERY service provided. The current system allows for individual insurance companies to set their prices and because your doctor/medical office doesn't know off the top of their head your entire service request, your medical history, and the current rates negotiated with your insurance provider they can't give you a final price until after the procedure is complete and insurance is billed.
  
  There's a lot more depth here that I've skipped over mostly because I've already posted numerous times on where the free market fails with private health insurance and the numerous benefits of a Single Payer system. I appreciate the sincere effort in constructive dialogue vs. the normal ebb and flow troll trash comments that others bring to the table.
• sleeper

  

  Dr Winston O'Boogie;1850763 wrote:It sure seems like a new character. What happened to the guy who made lots of cash, banged chicks all day and hated poor people? That character gone?

  No differences. I just have more sympathy and care for poor people unlike previous times.
• ptown_trojans_1

  

  CenterBHSFan;1850895 wrote:1.) Iran deal. I think Ptown described this as (paraphrasing here, of course) "Iran was going to do what they wanted anyway, so we went along with it so that they could keep an eye on things."
  2.) Obama drew the red line and Syria gave him the stink-eye and skipped right over that red line in a jolly fashion.
  3.) The Russian Reset did nothing tangible of any historical importants. It was empty. The US was effectively hoodwinked with it. Putin and the Russians agreed, smiled for the camera and then went along with whatever business they were already in the process of doing. It was nothing to do. Seriously, the symbolic button Clinton gave the Russian FM a button with the wrong translation on it. Clinton didn't even want to do it. What does that say about the whole affair? If anybody, including President Obama, took Putin seriously, they were intellectual fools. Signed papers mean nothing - refer to Chamberlain for historical evidence.
  In short, I would say that those countries acted in a manner that suited their interests (played the best game of charades of their collective lives) best because they had a good idea that there would be no serious consequences as long as he was in office.
  Those are just the three biggest foreign policy issues that came immediately to my mind. Within those three it can definitely be said that he was walked on. I concede that you may or may not agree. But if you disagree with me, I invite you to tell me why.
  
  Now, do you need links from opposing political viewpoints that show the very conclusion that I've said (perhaps in a much more polished manner) all found by doing a quick Google search or would you rather look up these events on your own?
  
  It doesn't matter if you voted for Obama or not, liked him or not, honored him or not, whatever. He bumbled. He dropped the ball, whatever you want to call it. But he was no paragon of firmness. He had weaknesses and getting riled up that anybody, including me, points those out doesn't change that.
  
  I didn't even get into his bumbling concerning domestic issues. That has all be hashed and rehashed in other threads and quite frankly doesn't even matter at this point. He's gone. Goodbye. Adios.

  1. Close. Iran was never going to give up the ability to enrich uranium. Therefore, we had to put limit on it. They also did not want to sign the IAEA Additional Protocol and allow mine to enrichment verification. The deal does that. It also eliminated the heavy water facility at Arak and capped enrichment at 10%, so no high enrichment for them. Even after the 10 years is up, Iran is still bound by the IAEA Additional Protocol and the inspection regime.
  2. The red line comment was bad, but then again, there are no good options in Syria. Trump is finding that out. (I'm still waiting for his ISIS plan....)
  3. The reset gave us New START. New START is key as it allows us to verify and lower the limit on the Ruskies nukes. If there was no New START, the old treaty would have expired and we would have no limit and no ability to inspect the Russians. So, the reset, accomplished that.
  It also allowed us to use overflight rights through the Russian airspace in Afghanistan, thereby eliminating the need to use Pakistan in some cases.