Obama care is a pain in the ass

[normiss 905]

What about states that voted to not expand Medicare?
Poor people, once again, are getting screwed.

[DrewEckhardt 0]

normiss

What about states that voted to not expand Medicare?
Poor people, once again, are getting screwed.

People ineligible for both Medicaid because they make over $100/month and ACA subsidies because they earn less than 100% of Federal Poverty Level can form a PAC, buy some congress creatures, and get that changed in a future congress.

[lawrocket 3]

GeorgiaDon

Isn't that an argument to never treat anybody for anything? It's also predicated on the assumption that the only value people have is economic.

We'd have a pretty bleak world if it ran on your values.

Don

The "Affordable Care Act" wasn't created with a recognition of the value of human life. Rather, it's to keep the costs down. It was created because those who drafted and passed it think we're spending too much money on people's health and keeping them alive.

[Url]http://m.whitehouse.gov/the-press-office/2013/03/23/statement-president-anniversary-affordable-care-act[/url]

[Quote]Most importantly, for the sake of our fiscal future, the growth of health care costs is beginning to slow.

So what's the most important thing? "Cutting costs." Not sanctity of human life. Cutting costs. Cutting SHORT TERM costs. It's not the "Patient Protection and Sanctity of Human Life Act." It's not the "High Quality and Easy Access to Healthcare Act." "Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act."

The MOST IMPORTANT thing is cutting costs - the Presidsent said so. And here I am thinking, "Gee. That's fucked up to say we need to do something about how much we're spending as a society on healthcare. I disagree that the admirable goal is to spend LESS on healthcare, because I don't think that's the key to a long-living and healthy populace."

Yep. I've got the bleak view because I think that "Cadillac care" is a good thing. I've got the bleak view because when I point out, "the fatal disease will develop eventually, and money will be spent on that, thus the costs will lessen in short-term but be greater in the long-term, which is contrary to the Act's whole goddamned purpose."

And I'm the bleak one for pointing out exactly what this means? Here's an example: say you've been gifted a car. Let's say you spend $250 per month in preventative maintenance because it's cheaper than fixing a blown engine. At 150k miles (and after 72 months, say) the engine has lost compression, as will happen with pretty much any engine. With all the problems, you get a new car.

Have you saved money? Short-term, perhaps. But in the long run, have you saved money? Maybe you have because you've gotten a lot of use out of the car. But we are dealing with a universe where we are dealing with "most importantly" cutting costs.

The bleakness is in the values that the ACA codifies. I'm pointing it out, and I'm the bleak one?!?!

My wife is hotter than your wife.

[GeorgiaDon 385]

Hmmm.

Kelpdiver wrote:
"if that colonoscopy results in someone not getting terminal cancer that costs hundreds of thousands to not cure, then that soup may end up being free after all.

Preventative medicine generally has a high ROI, not to mention keeping the patients in better health, which is the point of health care in the first place."

To which you responded:
"That's a good short term picture. But what if that person ends up with Alzheimers in 10 years and now costs more? It sucks to say this, but aren't costs merely being defrayed? Everybody eventually dies of some incurable condition. "

Your words. Nothing there to indicate that you're channeling the intentions of the authors of the ACA. It's perfectly reasonable to assume that your words reflect your opinion, especially considering your often stated opposition to the notion that poor people should have access to health care, even in life-threatening situations (repeal EMTALA, etc).

Anyway, I disagree with your whole thesis about the ACA (not surprisingly). In an environment where escalating costs ensure that fewer and fewer people can afford access to health care, it's not unreasonable to postulate that reducing costs is a necessary condition to increasing the number of people who can get care when they need it. It seems pretty twisted (to me) to argue that making access to health care affordable to more people is somehow the same as not valuing human life.

I would not say that the ACA is perfect, by any means, but it takes a considerable feat of "logic" to argue that the intent of the law is to make people die sooner by making health care less accessible.

I would also point out that people are not cars. Using such an example only reinforces the impression that you advocate valuing people as objects to be discarded when they are no longer cost effective. I doubt you would apply such logic to yourself or your loved ones. In fact, I doubt you'd apply it to anyone in the real world (as opposed to these hypothetical cyberdebates).

Don

_____________________________________
Tolerance is the cost we must pay for our adventure in liberty. (Dworkin, 1996)
“Education is not filling a bucket, but lighting a fire.” (Yeats)

[lawrocket 3]

Quote

It's perfectly reasonable to assume that your words reflect your opinion, especially considering your often stated opposition to the notion that poor people should have access to health care, even in life-threatening situations (repeal EMTALA, etc).

Indeed. I value high-quality health care available on demand and place lesser value on low cost. I've written for the last decade about this. Others disagree. But there has yet to be a way figured out to provide high-quality, unrationed health care at a low price. And the ACA doesn't' do that, either. It won't. It cannot. It can only offer lower PRICES to some, and tell those people it costs less.

Quote

In an environment where escalating costs ensure that fewer and fewer people can afford access to health care, it's not unreasonable to postulate that reducing costs is a necessary condition to increasing the number of people who can get care when they need it.

My point all along is that you don't reduce the cost of health care by getting more people to use it more often. The ACA merely reduces the price for a large number of people. So reduce the price of healthcare, get more to use it, and the cost necessarily increases.

The ACA controls prices. Not costs. The costs are eaten by taxes and higher prices for many.

Quote

It seems pretty twisted (to me) to argue that making access to health care affordable to more people is somehow the same as not valuing human life.

They have ALWAYS had access. It's the "affordability" you are talking about. Affordability. SO here are two questions: Is your life worth more to you than I would value it?; and (2) when was the last time putting price controls on a product actually increased its availability and quality? As much as health care is an exception to normal economics, if you limit the price then either quality or availability will suffer. And, do you want me saying how much your life is worth? Medicare does it - it's even got a formulary saying which meds it won't pay for.

Like it or not, there is already a business of deciding what's worth paying for. Look at this list: https://seniorbluehmo.capbluecross.com/NR/rdonlyres/AF7D9AA9-D0A3-44E9-87C1-AEDDA71B5106/0/2013NonPreferredNonFormularyDrugsSeniorBlueHMOPPO.pdf

Too expensive. SO if you want more time between relapses of ulcerative colitis, too bad. You get Asacol instead of Dipentum. It's what happens when someone beside the individual is doing the cost/benefit analysis.

Quote

it takes a considerable feat of "logic" to argue that the intent of the law is to make people die sooner by making health care less accessible

It's not what I'm saying. I'm saying that if the intent of the law is to lower costs, you let people die quickly. You lower the quality and lower the access. The ACA doesn't' do that. Instead, the ACA increases utilization of health care assets, which increases costs in the long term.

So costs increase, access and quality remain the same. The price changes is all. The law is not going to do what it said it would. It'll lower prices and maybe even costs in the short-term.

I predict that the costs will increase and it'll cost a lot more than predicted. Because it's a government program and never come in priced as advertised and it's healthcare.

Quote

I would also point out that people are not cars.

No. They aren't. What the ACA does, though, is tell people that we're spending too much on their health and we need to spend less.

What's weird is that you are not challenging my core point that health care under the ACA will cost more. Which is the opposite of what was advertised and stated by the President as the most important goal.

My wife is hotter than your wife.

[muff528 3]

kallend

*********

The difference is that before the ACA, these decisions were made by insurance companies, doctors and patients/families with some consideration for the patient. After ACA, they will be made by government bureaucrats .

WRONG. INCORRECT. FALSE.

You should check your facts BEFORE making an ass of yourself.

I can't be right or wrong yet. I'm only making a prediction.

Sure you can - you're WRONG.

Well, I hope you're right. But, I haven't yet seen anything to suggest this will not end with some form of rationing. ...even more so if "single-payer" is eventually forced on us.

...and now, this

[melch 1]

jclalor

***Is it truly a product of Obama Care or is it simply a product of your new insurance plan?

My father's insurance would have covered this prior to ACA when he was paying ~$300/mo instead of now when he is paying ~$475/mo. The details of his plan have not changed extensively but he was unable to keep his insurance plan that he had prior to ACA despite all of Mr. Obama's promises.

Just goes to show that some people actually enjoy having Obama shove shit up their ass and then turn around and thank him for it. I'm sorry, ACA is still one of the stupidiest pieces of legislation since the Patriot Act.

Preventative care such as colonoscopies and mammograms are now free under any insurance policy, it's part of the ACA. I've had the same insurance for 10 years, and like the vast majority of the previously insured, my plan has only changed in my favor.

The reason your father could not keep his prior plan was due to it being garbage, and Obama feels that people should carry a minimum level of insurance so they do not become a burden to society.

Thinking that perhaps the procedure was a component of my "new" insurance, and not knowing that preventive care is free for everyone who is insured, disqualifies you from talking shit, like most opponents of the ACA, you appear to know very little about the ACA.

The BCBS plan that my father carried as a small business owner was far from garbage and covered our family well. The $400,000 spine reconstruction surgery that my brother underwent cost him 6K out of pocket. One example of numerous vastly expensive medical procedures made possible by a damn good insurance plan. However, BCBS no longer offers this plan it because it did not meet certain provisions of the ACA (someone else made a previous posting about this on page 3 perhaps so I won't rehash it).

After using the Exchange and re-applying for health care (since he was no longer covered as a result of ACA) he has acquired virtually the exact same plan and coverage with the exception of a $500 increase to his deductible under a different carrier. The primary difference is the ~$175 increase to his premium. Make any argument you wish regarding ACA but the result for some end users are increased premiums with little or no change in coverage.

Preventative care may NOW be free under ANY insurance policy but there were plenty of plans PRIOR to ACA that had similar coverage if you were willing to pay for it. I'm happy that your plan has changed in your favor but that has not been the case for everyone.

Know little about ACA you say?...smh...I don't claim to be as well versed as LawRocket or some of the others that have made outstanding arguments (both for and against) but I know enough to have formulated my own opinions and will continue to watch this thing implode upon itself or become an unmanageable financial burden (whichever happens first). But I'm glad you're content with the short term effects and the immediate gratification of what is in front of you rather than be concerned with the long term as indicated by your earlier post.

Quote

...
Who knows what the hell may happen in a year, as for right now, it's covered.

[DanG 1]

Quote

However, BCBS no longer offers this plan it because it did not meet certain provisions of the ACA...

Do you know what provisions were not met?

- Dan G

[kallend 2,175]

lawrocket

***Isn't that an argument to never treat anybody for anything? It's also predicated on the assumption that the only value people have is economic.

We'd have a pretty bleak world if it ran on your values.

Don

The "Affordable Care Act" wasn't created with a recognition of the value of human life. Rather, it's to keep the costs down. It was created because those who drafted and passed it think we're spending too much money on people's health and keeping them alive.

[Url]http://m.whitehouse.gov/the-press-office/2013/03/23/statement-president-anniversary-affordable-care-act[/url]

[Quote]Most importantly, for the sake of our fiscal future, the growth of health care costs is beginning to slow.

So what's the most important thing? "Cutting costs." Not sanctity of human life. Cutting costs. Cutting SHORT TERM costs. It's not the "Patient Protection and Sanctity of Human Life Act." It's not the "High Quality and Easy Access to Healthcare Act." "Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act."

The MOST IMPORTANT thing is cutting costs - the Presidsent said so. And here I am thinking, "Gee. That's fucked up to say we need to do something about how much we're spending as a society on healthcare. I disagree that the admirable goal is to spend LESS on healthcare, because I don't think that's the key to a long-living and healthy populace."

Yep. I've got the bleak view because I think that "Cadillac care" is a good thing. I've got the bleak view because when I point out, "the fatal disease will develop eventually, and money will be spent on that, thus the costs will lessen in short-term but be greater in the long-term, which is contrary to the Act's whole goddamned purpose."



The USA spends more per capita on healthcare than any other nation yet gets poorer outcomes than many. There is NO REASON TO SUPPOSE that costs can't be cut while improving outcomes. Other nations can do it.

My wife is medical director for a medical insurance company. I get to see some of the ridiculous costs it has to pay out.

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[kallend 2,175]

muff528

************

The difference is that before the ACA, these decisions were made by insurance companies, doctors and patients/families with some consideration for the patient. After ACA, they will be made by government bureaucrats .

WRONG. INCORRECT. FALSE.

You should check your facts BEFORE making an ass of yourself.

I can't be right or wrong yet. I'm only making a prediction.

Sure you can - you're WRONG.

Well, I hope you're right. But, I haven't yet seen anything to suggest this will not end with some form of rationing. ...even more so if "single-payer" is eventually forced on us.



Yes, you ARE wrong.

Under ACA the government has no say in the treatment for any individual. It has delegated all those decisions to the medical directors of private insurance companies. I know this because my wife is one such medical director, and she is most certainly not a government bureaucrat.

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[rushmc 23]

kallend

The USA spends more per capita on healthcare than any other nation yet gets poorer outcomes than many. There is NO REASON TO SUPPOSE that costs can't be cut while improving outcomes. Other nations can do it.

My wife is medical director for a medical insurance company. I get to see some of the ridiculous costs it has to pay out.

and yet the ACA was never intended to control costs (that we now know was and is a lie) the ACA is about control

So, your responce does not mean anything

"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln