jonessed
Footballguy
Are you trying to say he wasn't well enough informed or that it's not his fault he was bought?
Fantasy Football - Footballguys Forums
Welcome to Our Forums. Once you've registered and logged in, you're primed to talk football, among other topics, with the sharpest and most experienced fantasy players on the internet.
Obamacare: Obama just straight up lied to you, in your face (2 Viewers)
- Thread starter tommyboy
- Start date
Are you trying to say he wasn't well enough informed or that it's not his fault he was bought?
Sarnoff
Footballguy
I know this one. It was a VP at Blue Cross/Blue Shield that wrote the entire Obamacare bill.
No, I don't know what your point is unless you're just trying to start another partisan pissing match. If that's the case, I'm just going to refer to you as Tommy Jr. going forward. I don't have time for that crap.
tommyGunZ
Footballguy
That's not an accurate representation of my position. How many of those with HDHPs will be bankrupt when their medical issues arise? How many are essentially gambling with their entire net worth, as well as with my $ and your $, in the form of increased premiums to cover their gambles?
Why are 100s of thousands of people WITH insurance filing bankruptcy every year? That doesn't strike you as a problem?
The Individual Mandate, central to the ACA (and one of the provisions that Republicans have been railing against the hardest) finds its roots in the late 1980s, when Mark Pauly, a professor at the University of Pennsylvania's Wharton School of Business, proposed that it be mandatory for every American to purchase/possess at least minimal "catastrophic" insurance, an idea which was supported/adopted by the Heritage Foundation (you know, that "bastion of liberal communist/socialist policy"). To the point where the Heritage Foundation offered it up (lobbied it) as an alternative for Republicans to propose while the Clintons tried to reform health care the first time. There were even 20 Republican senators who co-sponsored a bill including the individual mandate as a part of their alternative to the Clinton plan. But when the Clinton plan ultimately did not succeed, they let the idea go quietly into the ether.
So the Heritage Foundation and all its funders/supporters are for it when it's an alternative to the Clinton plan...but are against it (and will tell you it is evil/unAmerican/socialist/communist/____________) when the Obama Administration includes it in the ACA?
That's the point. Obama could get in front of a camera this afternoon to say that his Administration wants to see us abolish Daylight Savings Time...and Republicans would be literally SCREAMING that the sky is falling. That it's yet-another example of Obama trying to change America (for the worse). But if Obama gets in front of that same camera to say that he absolutely loves daylight savings...what do you think folks on the Right would be saying? Campaigning and fundraising on? What might Rand Paul and Ted Cruz be talking about on the news cycles for the next several days?
Play innocent or deny all folks want...but it's not like folks don't know the drill. And to pretend otherwise is insulting.
So you do want to start a partisan pissing match. Got it. I'll focus on actually reforming health care in a manner that works.
jonessed
Footballguy
So Obama couldn't go with the Kaiser model because of the Heritage foundation? That makes even less sense than blaming it on the insurance companies.
Bottomfeeder Sports
Footballguy
He did! Starting with the stimulus package, continuing with the ACA. It is not a flip the switch kind of change.
START a partisan pissing match?!
I think the only way I could accomplish that is to travel back in time. 
And I don't want to start a partisan anything. I want to get the folks on the far-right AND the far-left to finally get to Step Two in their respective twelve-step programs. Step One is soooooo tired/played.
tommyGunZ
Footballguy
matttyl
Footballguy
No, it doesn't. Bankruptcy is actually a benefit for them, (if filing chapter 13) allowing them to keep their homes and not have to displace their family. So it's actually a good thing, not a problem, that these people are able to file for bankruptcy.
If you're asking, rather, if it's a problem that so many people "go broke" each year attempting to pay for medical expenses - that's not as big of a medical insurance issue as you're making it out to be, either. A huge chunk of those "100s of thousands" have medical bills as a part of their financial situation, along with other financial obligations such as a mortgage, car payment, alimony, credit card payments, or whatever. It's hard to do all of those things when you're injured/sick - and thus not able to work because of it.
The stats don't differentiate that. How many of those people would have still gone bankrupt if they had both medical AND adequate disability income insurance? Medical insurance isn't designed to prevent you from going broke if you get sick or injured, but that's exactly what disability insurance is designed to do. Medical insurance is designed to cover your medical expenses (subject to your deductible and/or co-insurance). If someone "goes broke" when unable to work without disability insurance and an "emergency fund" large enough to cover their medical deductible, how is that the fault of their medical insurance policy, or the medical insurance industry in general?
Studies show that nearly 50% of all bankruptcies are because of "disability" (the inability to work and bring in an income)
Source- http://www.protectyourincome.com/about-us/news/disability-insurance-press-releases/mortgage-foreclosures-caused-by-disability
Funny how that's roughly the same amount of people who file bankruptcy because of "medical bills", isn't it?
Carolina Hustler
Footballguy
Why even try to talk sense into this guy, he's obviously never going to relent.. Doesn't matter how wrong he is
matttyl
Footballguy
It just amazes me that he can be so off the mark so often, yet continue to portray himself as knowledgeable in the discussion. He was convinced that everyone, regardless of gender or age, needed maternity coverage when in reality he didn't even know what maternity coverage is, or really how medical insurance works at all if he thought that a woman's pregnancy would be a covered expense by the medical policy of the guy that impregnated her.
Mark Davis
Footballguy
How is it "crappy" if you were in a plan with a super high deductible because you only wanted true catastrophic coverage? From a financial perspective if I were buying my own plan that is what I'd buy because it made the most economic sense for my situation.
matttyl
Footballguy
There are also plans with low deductibles that are being canceled and replaced with plans with higher deductibles. How is that any better?!
Mark Davis
Footballguy
It's not. Just speaking of what I know I would have done. When I first started considering starting out on my own I priced those type plans. Before I made that move though I got married and we just took my wife's insurance.
tommyGunZ
Footballguy
Yeah, there is absolutely nothing to discuss if you think that hundreds of thousands of people filing bankruptcy every year due to medical issues isn't a problem.
That's ####### insane.
Last edited by a moderator:
Sand
Footballguy
Oh, no you didn't! Lay off my Daylight Savings Time, bub. In fact, I want Daylight Savings all the time. It SUCKS waking up in the dark and getting home in the dark during the winter. All freakin' day is spent looking out my office window at daylight I know I can't enjoy. It would be nice to have a bit of daytime at the end of the day.
In lieu of that, well, just stay the #### away from my DST. It rules during the summer, at least.
SacramentoBob
Footballguy
tommyGunZ
Footballguy
Actually, I'm convinced that a lot more folks need maternity coverage than you do. Prior to the ACA, very few individual health insurance policies contained maternity coverage. People were getting screwed, as most folks who are insured assume that maternity benefits are part of their plan and by the time they find out they're not, it's too late.
matttyl
Footballguy
It would be a problem if it were true that there are 100s of thousands of people filing each year for medical bills alone, but that's not the case. They file for multiple simultaneous reasons, such as loss of income, other financial obligations, and medical bills all at once. Again, if people had adequate disability insurance and a "safety fund" large enough to cover their medical insurance deductible and normal financial obligations for 2-3 months, that number wouldn't be nearly as high (likely under 100k, if that). So why is that an issue for the medical insurance industry? Can you answer me that? Why are you expecting medical insurance to perform something it wasn't designed to do? Do they not offer plans with lower deductibles and out of pockets for more premium if the person wanted (and that will still be the case with the ACA)? Why can't the people filing take the responsibility for not doing fiscally responsible things?
And if the ACA does the same job for medical bankruptcy that Massachusetts health care reform did (if that really is your issue), it won't be any better than it is now. A study published in The American Journal of Medicine, "Medical Bankruptcy in Massachusetts: Has Health Reform Made a Difference?", compared bankruptcy filers from 2007, before reforms were implemented, to those filing in the post-reform 2009 environment to see what role medical costs played. The study found that: From 2007 to 2009, the total number of medical bankruptcies (defined as due to unpaid medical bills or to loss of income due to illness, with no distinction between those causes) in Massachusetts increased by more than one third, from 7,504 to 10,093. The % of uninsured went from about 6% to about 2% in that time. So how can it be when the number of uninsured gets cut by 2/3rds, that the total number of medical bankruptcies increased by more than a third?!
Yet again you're just completely uninformed about the topic being discussed here, but still want to portray yourself as some sort of expert. I just don't get it.
matttyl
Footballguy
True, and very few
Actually, I'm convinced that a lot more folks need maternity coverage than you do. Prior to the ACA, very few individual health insurance policies contained maternity coverage. People were getting screwed, as most folks who are insured assume that maternity benefits are part of their plan and by the time they find out they're not, it's too late.
Maternity is available as an optional rider on individual policies from nearly all carriers nationwide. The application for each has to (by law) say if it has maternity or not, and how to go about obtaining it if you want. It's up to the applicant to decide if they want it or not.
Carolina Hustler
Footballguy
matttyl
Footballguy
Tau837
Footballguy
9 million people are on WIK. If these people get individual policies, is this good?
Actually, I'm convinced that a lot more folks need maternity coverage than you do. Prior to the ACA, very few individual health insurance policies contained maternity coverage. People were getting screwed, as most folks who are insured assume that maternity benefits are part of their plan and by the time they find out they're not, it's too late.
matttyl
Footballguy
49-State Analysis: Obamacare To Increase Individual-Market Premiums By Average Of 41%
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/
One of the fundamental flaws of the Affordable Care Act is that, despite its name, it makes health insurance more expensive. Today, the Manhattan Institute released the most comprehensive analysis yet conducted of premiums under Obamacare for people who shop for coverage on their own. Here’s what we learned. In the average state, Obamacare will increase underlying premiums by 41 percent. As we have long expected, the steepest hikes will be imposed on the healthy, the young, and the male.
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/
One of the fundamental flaws of the Affordable Care Act is that, despite its name, it makes health insurance more expensive. Today, the Manhattan Institute released the most comprehensive analysis yet conducted of premiums under Obamacare for people who shop for coverage on their own. Here’s what we learned. In the average state, Obamacare will increase underlying premiums by 41 percent. As we have long expected, the steepest hikes will be imposed on the healthy, the young, and the male.
The Commish
Footballguy
Sorry...I wasn't clear. I was speaking about costs for people like me (outside medicare and medicaid). I've not put my finger on the clauses in ACA that are considered "initiatives" to make those programs more affordable. In my comments I'm speaking of instances where we as consumers are "charged" $10 for a roll of toilet paper or $1000 to have stitches removed. We don't question them today because "insurance covers it". It's a major flaw in our system. I'm not aware of any part of ACA addressing those situations. I have heard rumors of some regulations that will help curb costs in medicare and medicaid. I'll believe it when I see it though.
Bottomfeeder Sports
Footballguy
And if you had doubts about whether the ACA comes from those criticizing it the most or not, here you go-
Don't believe that Tommy or anyone on the left has been out looking to replace Medicare.
Bottomfeeder Sports
Footballguy
When the hospital system is paid by your insurer to keep you healthy and is not paying for the individual service, it will reduce costs. That is the theory. But as I keep saying we've been here and failed to do that once before. But ACA, despite Strike's and Jones' disbelief is based around health care moving to some variation of the Kaiser (or Cleveland Clinic or HealthCare Partners) model. The ACA doesn't dictate that one of these will be the model, it (along with the EHR money in the stimulus) merely facilitates these evolving changes. But we are talking about change over decades, not months or years.
timschochet
Footballguy
So putting aside the issue of Obama lying, the initial rollout having trouble, etc.- the real issue is this: in order to help those who don't have health insurance get it, those of us who already have it are going to have to pay more. Is that the bottom line?
In addition to all the other issues, such as the government being able to set minimum standards for health insurance which exceed what many people require, forcing their premiums up even more.
matttyl
Footballguy
Yes, and that was the plan from the very beginning. There was no other way to do it.
tommyboy
Footballguy
and you'll still have millions of uninsured. And you can't keep your plan, period, and you can't keep your doctor, period. And costs will go up 40-60%.
but other than that, and the fact this was sold via an unending series of lies from President Obama on down the line, on a straight line Dem party vote, yeah that's pretty much all of it.
The Commish
Footballguy
I get that. And I agree that it's been attempted before (though I use the word attempt very loosely here). What I'm wanting is something more significant that forces the changes necessary, not something that COULD allow these organizations to HOPEFULLY go in the "right" direction. I just have little confidence that will happen.
The Commish
Footballguy
Why is it so hard for us to have an ala cart selection process for our insurance. I've never really thought about it until now (since the ACA has shown a glaring light on it) but why does a single male have to have maternity care in his plan? There's a long list of "forced benefits" that make no sense.
jamny
Footballguy
matttyl
Footballguy
And why can't that be done by all women, and then things that only men have (like testicular cancer or prostate cancer) be rated only on men's policies? You know, the way we've done it for the entire history of medical insurance?
Men's life insurance policies are more expensive than a woman's (as they don't live as long), but no one is crying about that. Women's disability policies are more expensive than men's (as on average women get disabled more), but no one is crying about that.
So it's OK for an older person to pay more (because they use it more), but it's not ok for a woman to pay more (who also use it more)?
Sammy3469
Footballguy
Foosball God
Foos
In general I'm not opposed to more ala carte riders and such, but pregnancy at least does take two people...
matttyl
Footballguy
Joe T
Footballguy
That and we don't know how many people will end up without health insurance when this is all over. Will we actually have a decrease in those without health insurance or is this plan so bad that the number of people without health insurance will actually increase.
matttyl
Footballguy
Yup it does, and those two people can pay for it. It's not like maternity isn't available currently, it's an "ala carte" rider available at an extra charge to cover that particular known future claim. Here in Virginia, the largest carrier has it as a rider for I believe $74 per month, and it must be attached to the policy a certain amount of time prior to conception (not prior to delivery) and continued through the delivery itself.
I'm sure the following statement will go over like a fart in church, but if paying an extra $74 a month for that addition coverage is too much, then maybe you can't afford to have a child.
matttyl
Footballguy
Been saying that for quite some time to people saying I was crazy. Looks like that idea is catching on pretty quickly now....
timschochet
Footballguy
Next question. We are told that, prior to the ACA, 17% of our gross domestic product was spent on health care, which is significantly higher than any othe industrialized country. With ACA, will this percentage go down, go up, or stay the same?
Sarnoff
Footballguy
In order to get health insurance to the last 30 million that didn't have it, 100 million had to lose theirs.
matttyl
Footballguy
That's the $7 trillion question, or whatever that number is. I'm not seeing much in the ACA reducing that figure significantly.
Similar threads
