Post Your Obamacare Story

[quote]atypical1 wrote:
I would go as far as to say that they can’t. Insurance companies know this and they will be compensated by the government to make up for these losses. It’s one reason some insurance companies are trying to get into this. Others are opting not to because they don’t think they could do it and still make a profit.

I’m not sure that anyone really thought that the exchanges would be able to pay for this all. Well, maybe Obama and his advisers would have but I assure you that nobody else thought that would be the case. It doesn’t happen now. Insurance companies drop customers or price them away if they become too much of a liability.

james[/quote]

I think the possibility of needing to subsidize insurance companies was deemed to be an acceptable price to pay (rather than drive the insurance industry directly out of business with a more drastic approach like Single Payer). Because Obama is a Leftist (I mean Moderate! It’s pretty much the Romney plan). If you wanna get rid of insurance companies, I’m right there with you. They contribute nothing to your actual healthcare, they just shift money around and skim from the top. We don’t need them. Beyond that, Americans decided a long time ago that we don’t want to see fellow citizens dropping dead in the street, hence we have Medicare and other programs, like Obamacare now. You guys who would be fine with letting people die, you’re in the minority and nobody is listening to you on that one.

Based on Romneycare 10 years later, there are estimates that Obamacare might save as many as 24,000 American lives every year (that sucks, I know guys!)

Everybody needs healthcare coverage, and guess what - if you can afford coverage, then you gotta pay (the mandate). No more free rides at the emergency room, which will lower costs for everybody. Even if you’re 21 and you think you’re invincible, you gotta pay.

Insurance is a ripoff for most people - you might pay $500/month and only go for a yearly checkup, while somebody else gets both hips replaced and takes handfuls of prescription meds on a daily basis. Guess what - you’re paying for him. That’s how insurance works, whether you buy your policy on the exchange or through a private broker. It’s not completely fair for everybody, but that’s our system.

(News flash - life is not completely fair for everybody. Try to carry on.)

PS: Counting Beans - ‘polling’ not poling.

[quote]K2000 wrote:

PS: Counting Beans - ‘polling’ not poling. [/quote]

PS: you just spent an entire post reinforcing my original point which you argued at first was wrong…

Then toss out a grammar correction like this is supposed to mean anything…

Are you just trolling at this point?

[quote]countingbeans wrote:

[quote]K2000 wrote:

PS: Counting Beans - ‘polling’ not poling. [/quote]

PS: you just spent an entire post reinforcing my original point which you argued at first was wrong…

Then toss out a grammar correction like this is supposed to mean anything…

Are you just trolling at this point?

[/quote]

P.P.S.: I’ll take the occasional spelling mistake/typo over consistent exclamation-point overuse any day of the week.

[quote]K2000 wrote:

[quote]atypical1 wrote:
I would go as far as to say that they can’t. Insurance companies know this and they will be compensated by the government to make up for these losses. It’s one reason some insurance companies are trying to get into this. Others are opting not to because they don’t think they could do it and still make a profit.

I’m not sure that anyone really thought that the exchanges would be able to pay for this all. Well, maybe Obama and his advisers would have but I assure you that nobody else thought that would be the case. It doesn’t happen now. Insurance companies drop customers or price them away if they become too much of a liability.

james[/quote]

I think the possibility of needing to subsidize insurance companies was deemed to be an acceptable price to pay (rather than drive the insurance industry directly out of business with a more drastic approach like Single Payer). Because Obama is a Leftist (I mean Moderate! It’s pretty much the Romney plan). If you wanna get rid of insurance companies, I’m right there with you. They contribute nothing to your actual healthcare, they just shift money around and skim from the top. We don’t need them. Beyond that, Americans decided a long time ago that we don’t want to see fellow citizens dropping dead in the street, hence we have Medicare and other programs, like Obamacare now. You guys who would be fine with letting people die, you’re in the minority and nobody is listening to you on that one.

Based on Romneycare 10 years later, there are estimates that Obamacare might save as many as 24,000 American lives every year (that sucks, I know guys!)

Everybody needs healthcare coverage, and guess what - if you can afford coverage, then you gotta pay (the mandate). No more free rides at the emergency room, which will lower costs for everybody. Even if you’re 21 and you think you’re invincible, you gotta pay.

Insurance is a ripoff for most people - you might pay $500/month and only go for a yearly checkup, while somebody else gets both hips replaced and takes handfuls of prescription meds on a daily basis. Guess what - you’re paying for him. That’s how insurance works, whether you buy your policy on the exchange or through a private broker. It’s not completely fair for everybody, but that’s our system.

(News flash - life is not completely fair for everybody. Try to carry on.)

PS: Counting Beans - ‘polling’ not poling. [/quote]

This is not what Obama promised. He made claims like being able to keep your doctor and your plan, and saving $2500 on premiums. He said your plan would not go up one dime, and all of these are proven to be lies.

Obama framed this as if there would be no losers, so you can carry your pom poms down the road bruh.

You cannot bait and switch people and not think they won’t be pissed when they figure it out.

You have already proven yourself to be an Obama nut-hugger, so there is no point in getting your response. Don’t forget your pom poms when you leave.

Legal group sues saying Harry Reid violated the Constitution when passing Obamacare.

The little-noticed legal battle is being waged by a conservative public interest law group, the Pacific Legal Foundation (PLF). It seeks to enforce a constitutional command: ?All bills for raising revenue shall originate in the House of Representatives.?

Lawyers for the group charge that the Affordable Care Act (ACA) was first passed by the Senate and only later approved by the House in violation of the Constitution?s Origination Clause.

http://news.yahoo.com/bid-topple-obamacare-court-did-harry-reid-bend-120003810.html

[quote]countingbeans wrote:

[quote]K2000 wrote:

PS: you just spent an entire post reinforcing my original point which you argued at first was

[/quote]

You had a point?

As far as saving $2500 per year, I told you that prices are about 30% less in my state. So instead of paying $700, I pay $500 now. Lets see, if I save $200/month for a year, that’s only a savings of $2400. Obama lied! LOL. Seriously, I am super happy to have coverage now, like a lot of people.

Regarding somebody’s claim that because you receive your company’s health insurance benefits, that means that you are not part of a larger insurance pool… that’s absolutely wrong. The insurance company creates those large pools, diversifying the risks. You might not know that. Because you don’t know how insurance works. You guys are bitching because some people pay less for insurance and get the same coverage benefits you get. But insurance has always worked like that. Some people pay premium prices their whole lives and never collect anything.

Other people pay very little, but collect big. It’s based on risk factors and demographic projections which are imperfect guesses at best. Obamacare wasn’t intended to change how the health insurance system works, it was intended to get new coverage for as many uninsured people as possible. And it’s succeeding at that goal, big time.

Regarding the picture, keep your private photo collection to yourself. Maybe start working out, too.

[quote]K2000 wrote:
Regarding somebody’s claim that because you receive your company’s health insurance benefits, that means that you are not part of a larger insurance pool… that’s absolutely wrong. The insurance company creates those large pools, diversifying the risks. You might not know that. Because you don’t know how insurance works. [/quote]

That somebody didn’t claim this…

[quote]K2000 wrote:
Obamacare wasn’t intended to change how the health insurance system works, it was intended to get new coverage for as many uninsured people as possible. And it’s succeeding at that goal, big time.
[/quote]

Aren’t enrollment #'s still very low?

[quote]usmccds423 wrote:

That somebody didn’t claim this…

[/quote]

This dude has gone from logical fallacy to logical fallacy and ended up reinforcing every point I made the entire time.

He’s run out of talking points and has pretty much stuck to personal attacks at this point…

I wouldn’t expect anything of substance.

K2000,

You are assuming Obamacare to be a success because YOU got a good deal on it, while many others did not. If you intend to be a selfish prick like this, don’t be surprised when someone else is pissed for paying the difference on your good deal.

Interesting prospective you have, “we must all work together to make this work, but it’s YO ass that you got screwed with Obamacare while I scored a deal.” “I don’t care that you are paying more, it’s working for me because I am paying less.”

http://www.ncsl.org/research/health/high-risk-pools-for-health-coverage.aspx

“To aid uninsurable individuals, 35 states implemented high-risk health insurance pools over three decades.”

“In response to the problems of uninsurable individuals, 35 states set up high-risk health insurance pools over a 25 year span, from 1976 to 2009. Across these 35 states, the national enrollment was 226,615 by December 31, 2011. This compared to 200,047 as of December 2007. This is about 1.9 percent of the individual market enrollment, but is up to 25 percent of the individual market documented to be subject to denials or “adverse underwriting” restrictions due to pre-existing medical conditions.

FEDERAL HEALTH REFORM - THE AFFORDABLE CARE ACT INSURANCE REFORMS:

Section 1101: ESTABLISHES AN INTERIM HIGH-RISK POOL PROGRAM

Provided immediate access to insurance for Americans who are uninsured because of a pre-existing condition.

Established a temporary national high-risk pool to provide health coverage to individuals with pre-existing medical conditions.

U.S. citizens and legal immigrants who have a pre-existing medical condition and who have been uninsured for at least six months will be eligible to enroll in the high-risk pool and receive subsidized premiums.

Premiums for the pool will be established based on a standard population and may vary by no more than a 4 to 1 ratio due to age.

The law appropriates $5 billion to finance the program.

The new pools are to be administered directly by a state or a nonprofit entity under contract. States may not reduce their current high risk pool efforts.

CMS has estimated that about 375,000 people may be eligible to sign up for the federally-funded high risk pools.

74% of Obamacare enrollees already had insurance, according to a Kinsey and Co report.

The report concludes that 74% of Obamacare enrollees at the end of the first open enrollment period already had insurance; just 26% reported being previously uninsured. Of those who were previously uninsured, the figure drops to only 22% when considered alongside whether the individual has activated his plan by paying his first month’s premium.

According to the Associated Press, at least 4.7 million Americans had their health insurance plans canceled due to Obamacare. Many of those individuals simply went through the Obamacare exchanges to buy policies to replace the ones President Barack Obama’s healthcare program outlawed.

The McKinsey & Co. study also revealed that nearly half (48%) of individuals who said they do not plan to enroll in 2015 were “unaware of the penalty for lack of coverage.” The so-called “individual mandate” imposes graduated penalties on individuals who choose not to purchase care. Even after respondents were informed of the penalty, only 29% of those currently uninsured said they plan to enroll in 2015.

Obamacare remains deeply unpopular nationally. According to the latest Pew/USA Today poll, Obamacare’s approval rating now stands at a record-low 41%.

As my girlfriend is an independent health insurance broker, and I am in charge of the benefits for my company…I can say that I have never seen anybody more clueless about this topic than K200.

None.

Zip.

Nada.

Consumers enrolled in Obamacare will see an increase in their insurance premium rates next year that will “easily” outpace inflation, with every insurer in at least one state opting for rate increases, The Wall Street Journal reported.

It seems Australia is set to go in the opposite direction of America with healthcare.

CANBERRA (Reuters) - Healthcare in Australia is set for its biggest shake-up since the introduction of universal coverage in the 1970s, as part of a tough federal budget on Tuesday that critics fret is taking the country towards a U.S.-style system.

“Australia is the only country heading in the opposite direction,” Lesley Russell, an Adjunct Associate Professor at the University of Sydney’s Menzies Centre for Health Policy, who advised Obama’s administration on its healthcare reforms, told Reuters.

“I think that what we are getting is this very old-fashioned ideological view of what healthcare used to be in 1950. And everybody else has moved on from that.”

But Prime Minister Tony Abbott’s government argues that healthcare costs are unsustainable and must be reined in as part of reforms aimed at ending what Treasurer Joe Hockey calls “the age of entitlement”.

[quote]MaximusB wrote:

But Prime Minister Tony Abbott’s government argues that healthcare costs are unsustainable.

and must be reined in as part of reforms aimed at ending what Treasurer Joe Hockey calls “the age of entitlement”.

[/quote]

So much LOL here…if a fairly small, country (I believe that Pitt used them as an example of a country “booming” with a large minimum wage) cannot make it work, we…be…fucked.

Insurance company bailout HERE WE COME.

[quote]UtahLama wrote:

[quote]MaximusB wrote:

But Prime Minister Tony Abbott’s government argues that healthcare costs are unsustainable.

and must be reined in as part of reforms aimed at ending what Treasurer Joe Hockey calls “the age of entitlement”.

[/quote]

So much LOL here…if a fairly small, country (I believe that Pitt used them as an example of a country “booming” with a large minimum wage) cannot make it work, we…be…fucked.

Insurance company bailout HERE WE COME.[/quote]

Nah that was our favorite DaRealNewz poster.

[quote]usmccds423 wrote:

[quote]UtahLama wrote:

[quote]MaximusB wrote:

But Prime Minister Tony Abbott’s government argues that healthcare costs are unsustainable.

and must be reined in as part of reforms aimed at ending what Treasurer Joe Hockey calls “the age of entitlement”.

[/quote]

So much LOL here…if a fairly small, country (I believe that Pitt used them as an example of a country “booming” with a large minimum wage) cannot make it work, we…be…fucked.

Insurance company bailout HERE WE COME.[/quote]

Nah that was our favorite DaRealNewz poster.[/quote]

I stand corrected, sorry Pitt.

Consumers who purchased new health plans from Blue Shield of California have sued the insurer, claiming they were misled into thinking the insurance would cover their desired doctors and hospitals

A 436-page stack of regulations released on Friday by the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) paved the way for the Obama administration to bailout health insurers who lost money on Obamacare.