Page 2 of 3 FirstFirst 123 LastLast
Results 21 to 40 of 53

Thread: Obamacare's winners and losers

  1. #21
    Quote Originally Posted by Trades View Post
    So you are saying that this solves nothing but for some reason prices are doubling now. Sounds like something that we really need.
    No thats not what I am saying. The AHA has some nice things in it but certainly is not the solution. Everyone knows what the solution is but no politician is willing to accept it.
    We need a public health care option that will cover all, be paid for through the taxpayer and will only cover what makes medical sense. No more open heart surgeries on demented 80 year olds, no more starting dialysis on terminally ill patients you get the picture. We also need this system to be allowed to directly negotiate drug prices with the pharmaceutical industry ala VA.

  2. #22
    Quote Originally Posted by kennyo7 View Post
    Everyone knows what the solution is but no politician is willing to accept it.
    If "everyone" knew what the solution was, "everyone" would accept it.

    What you need to understand Ken, is that a very large portion of our citizenry does NOT agree that State-Run Collectivism/Communism of Health Care is the solution, nor do we all agree that the problem is as you would define it.

    No more open heart surgeries on demented 80 year olds, no more starting dialysis on terminally ill patients you get the picture.
    We get the picture Ken. Let people suffer, then let people die. As long as the Committee for Responsaible Collective Medicine says they're not worth keeping alive anymore.

    No account made for their contributions to pay for the system or their own care, just a cold Doctor like yourself from afar proclaiming "let them die". Or "let them suffer". Meanwhile, the welfare tansgender wannabe gets theri sex-reassignment fully covered, right? And women and minorities go to the front of the line for care, for social justice, right? And of course, abortion on demand, since a fetus is really just a parasite.

    How about no care for those who do not work? If anyone should suffer, it's those who do not contribute, not those who do.
    Last edited by Churchill; 10-09-2013 at 02:21 PM.

  3. #23
    Quote Originally Posted by Churchill View Post
    How about no care for those who do not work? If anyone should suffer, it's those who do not contribute, not those who do.
    No no Churchill, you're not a Doctor. You don't get a vote on whether it makes "medical sense" for people to live or not.

  4. #24
    Jets Insider VIP
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Location
    One hour. from MetLife
    Posts
    22,134
    On 60 minutes they had a program that showed a woman in her 80s hooked up to all these machines and medications. It was costing $100,000 a month to keep her in this hospital. The son didn't want to let her go and would not sign a release form to let her die. The law as explained on 60 minutes was the hospital couldn't let her go. She was living like that for years and it was costing millions to the tax payers.

    You have medical corruption with the elderly that I personally witnessed when my mom had terminal cancer. They did all these procedures after she was told it was no use. My dad got the bill for over $350,000 . He had a his lawyer from the Elks write a few letters and the thing disappeared.

    Eventually we pay the price for this kind of stuff.

  5. #25
    All League
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    Wildcat Country
    Posts
    4,933
    Quote Originally Posted by southparkcpa View Post
    FROM a frined on FB.
    You have a frined on FB?

  6. #26
    Jets Insider VIP
    Join Date
    May 2004
    Location
    New Jersey
    Posts
    6,263
    Quote Originally Posted by RMJK View Post
    On 60 minutes they had a program that showed a woman in her 80s hooked up to all these machines and medications. It was costing $100,000 a month to keep her in this hospital. The son didn't want to let her go and would not sign a release form to let her die. The law as explained on 60 minutes was the hospital couldn't let her go. She was living like that for years and it was costing millions to the tax payers.

    You have medical corruption with the elderly that I personally witnessed when my mom had terminal cancer. They did all these procedures after she was told it was no use. My dad got the bill for over $350,000 . He had a his lawyer from the Elks write a few letters and the thing disappeared.

    Eventually we pay the price for this kind of stuff.
    How does the AHA solve any of this?

  7. #27
    Jets Insider VIP
    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Location
    Van down by the river
    Posts
    22,851
    The loss of traffic on this forum is hilarious.

  8. #28
    Jets Insider VIP
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Location
    From Parts Unknown
    Posts
    10,327
    Quote Originally Posted by kennyo7 View Post
    No thats not what I am saying. The AHA has some nice things in it but certainly is not the solution. Everyone knows what the solution is but no politician is willing to accept it.
    We need a public health care option that will cover all, be paid for through the taxpayer and will only cover what makes medical sense. No more open heart surgeries on demented 80 year olds, no more starting dialysis on terminally ill patients you get the picture. We also need this system to be allowed to directly negotiate drug prices with the pharmaceutical industry ala VA.
    Because Bureaucrats can easily figure out what makes "medical sense"

  9. #29
    All League
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Location
    Farmingdale, NY
    Posts
    2,522
    Quote Originally Posted by 24 View Post
    Because Bureaucrats can easily figure out what makes "medical sense"
    Insurance companies are better?

    Either way you're at the mercy of whoever is providing you the policy to decide what makes "medical sense".

  10. #30
    All League
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Location
    Farmingdale, NY
    Posts
    2,522
    Quote Originally Posted by Churchill View Post
    If "everyone" knew what the solution was, "everyone" would accept it.

    What you need to understand Ken, is that a very large portion of our citizenry does NOT agree that State-Run Collectivism/Communism of Health Care is the solution, nor do we all agree that the problem is as you would define it.
    That's because half of the house and the senate are being lobbied hard by the insurance industry. They make speeches about Obamacare being the "most insidious law ever created by man" LOL!

    Your half of the country has no ideas on healthcare - they apparently like the status quo. It's not like the GOP has any clear proposal or platform about the rising cost and inefficiency of our system.

    That's why they have to resort to the most devastating propaganda campaign since the Iraq invasion. It's working.

    Quote Originally Posted by Churchill View Post
    We get the picture Ken. Let people suffer, then let people die. As long as the Committee for Responsaible Collective Medicine says they're not worth keeping alive anymore.

    No account made for their contributions to pay for the system or their own care, just a cold Doctor like yourself from afar proclaiming "let them die". Or "let them suffer". Meanwhile, the welfare tansgender wannabe gets theri sex-reassignment fully covered, right? And women and minorities go to the front of the line for care, for social justice, right? And of course, abortion on demand, since a fetus is really just a parasite.

    How about no care for those who do not work? If anyone should suffer, it's those who do not contribute, not those who do.
    The government will provide several health insurance plans for the public gets morphed into - now we're all paying for every welfare moochin' sex change operation!

    How about what really happens in a socialized medicine - the government provides a health care coverage to all at different levels based on income - i.e. if you make over X you get more coverage - but everybody pays into the same system. Those who want to opt out, can - but they must have private insurance.

    Literally dozens of countries around the world do this, are not communist, have market economies and successful democratic governments.

  11. #31
    Jets Insider VIP
    Join Date
    May 2004
    Location
    New Jersey
    Posts
    6,263
    Quote Originally Posted by SafetyBlitz View Post
    That's because half of the house and the senate are being lobbied hard by the insurance industry. They make speeches about Obamacare being the "most insidious law ever created by man" LOL!

    Your half of the country has no ideas on healthcare - they apparently like the status quo. It's not like the GOP has any clear proposal or platform about the rising cost and inefficiency of our system.

    That's why they have to resort to the most devastating propaganda campaign since the Iraq invasion. It's working.



    The government will provide several health insurance plans for the public gets morphed into - now we're all paying for every welfare moochin' sex change operation!

    How about what really happens in a socialized medicine - the government provides a health care coverage to all at different levels based on income - i.e. if you make over X you get more coverage - but everybody pays into the same system. Those who want to opt out, can - but they must have private insurance.

    Literally dozens of countries around the world do this, are not communist, have market economies and successful democratic governments.
    and a 80% top tax bracket and not much better for everyone else. If you like fewer choices and the threat of fines and jail for not complying then you and I are totally different. How is this system any better than what we had, what does it solve at what cost?

  12. #32
    All League
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Location
    Farmingdale, NY
    Posts
    2,522
    Quote Originally Posted by Trades View Post
    and a 80% top tax bracket and not much better for everyone else.
    You literally just made that up

    Quote Originally Posted by Trades View Post
    If you like fewer choices and the threat of fines and jail for not complying then you and I are totally different. How is this system any better than what we had, what does it solve at what cost?
    What does it solve? Lowers costs, near universal coverage, removes employers responsibility to pay for employees. What is your plan and what are the results of that plan when it has been put into practice?

  13. #33
    Jets Insider VIP
    Join Date
    May 2004
    Location
    New Jersey
    Posts
    6,263
    Quote Originally Posted by SafetyBlitz View Post
    You literally just made that up



    What does it solve? Lowers costs, near universal coverage, removes employers responsibility to pay for employees. What is your plan and what are the results of that plan when it has been put into practice?
    Lowers whose costs? It is raising the costs of earners to give to the non-earners. AHA will not lower costs. No chance. Employers being "responsible" for paying for health care insurance came as a result of previous government social engineering and it caused problems due to unintended consequences just like AHA will. The best plan I have heard is to allow policies to be sold across state lines, let people buy the provisions they want such as only a catastrophic policy for the young and healthy, tort reform, etc.

  14. #34
    Jets Insider VIP
    Join Date
    Sep 2005
    Location
    New York, NY
    Posts
    13,559
    Quote Originally Posted by Trades View Post
    Lowers whose costs? It is raising the costs of earners to give to the non-earners. AHA will not lower costs. No chance. Employers being "responsible" for paying for health care insurance came as a result of previous government social engineering and it caused problems due to unintended consequences just like AHA will. The best plan I have heard is to allow policies to be sold across state lines, let people buy the provisions they want such as only a catastrophic policy for the young and healthy, tort reform, etc.
    It's still mind boggling that anyone of even moderate intelligence still believes that this could lower costs for a majority of people. It isn't even logical. Throwing new requirements at policies and a pool of higher than average risk customers into insurance plans, combined with sudsidies and new taxes. Should be simple to get.

  15. #35
    Quote Originally Posted by SafetyBlitz View Post
    You literally just made that up



    What does it solve? Lowers costs, near universal coverage, removes employers responsibility to pay for employees. What is your plan and what are the results of that plan when it has been put into practice?
    Did you sign up yet?

    How much did you save?

    How many of your previously uninsured family and friends also signed up?

    Has your employer stopped offering coverage?

    Whats your opinion of the signup process and the options available, overall?

    Thanks is advance for answers to the questions above.

  16. #36
    Jets Insider VIP
    Join Date
    Sep 2005
    Location
    New York, NY
    Posts
    13,559
    Quote Originally Posted by Churchill View Post
    Did you sign up yet?

    How much did you save?

    How many of your previously uninsured family and friends also signed up?

    Has your employer stopped offering coverage?

    Whats your opinion of the signup process and the options available, overall?

    Thanks is advance for answers to the questions above.
    Not that this was asked of me, but...

    Had open enrollment on health benefits yesterday. My 2013 policy no longer exists. My choices for 2014 are two identical plans in coverage and price offered by Aetna and Horizon. Only difference is the network.

    Bottom line: for a 25% increase in my premium, I'm getting less coverage. All of my deductibles are exactly twice what they were before. All in all, I estimate I will spend an additional $5000 out of pocket from 2013. More than 2x what I spent this year (including the birth of our 2nd last week).

    Looks like I only have to do it part of the year though. Just found out I'm laid off. My wife got the ax 2 months ago. Lucky us. Subsidies....yay!
    Last edited by JetPotato; 10-15-2013 at 06:24 PM.

  17. #37
    Hall Of Fame
    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Location
    New York
    Posts
    19,844
    Quote Originally Posted by JetPotato View Post
    Not that this was asked of me, but...

    Had open enrollment on health benefits yesterday. My 2013 policy no longer exists. My choices for 2014 are two identical plans in coverage and price offered by Aetna and Horizon. Only difference is the network.

    Bottom line: for a 25% increase in my premium, I'm getting less coverage. All of my deductibles are exactly twice what they were before. All in all, I estimate I will spend an additional $5000 out of pocket from 2013. More than 2x what I spent this year (including the birth of our 2nd last week).

    Looks like I only have to do it part of the year though. Just found out I'm laid off. My wife got the ax 2 months ago. Lucky us. Subsidies....yay!
    Yikes. Sorry to hear that man. It is just criminal what is going on in this country.

  18. #38
    Jets Insider VIP
    Join Date
    Sep 2005
    Location
    New York, NY
    Posts
    13,559
    Quote Originally Posted by DDNYjets View Post
    Yikes. Sorry to hear that man. It is just criminal what is going on in this country.
    I work(ed) in Big Pharma. Two weeks ago Merck announced 16,000 layoffs. That's 20%.

    The cited reasons:
    1) Delays in key approvals by the FDA (meaning they had not been sufficiently greased)
    2) Increased employee costs (meaning health care)
    3) Key patent losses (short exclusivity time to recover massive discovery and trial investment)

    All directly attributable to the federal government.

    You've taken your last shot at me, former free nation.

  19. #39
    All League
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Location
    Farmingdale, NY
    Posts
    2,522
    Quote Originally Posted by Trades View Post
    Lowers whose costs? It is raising the costs of earners to give to the non-earners. AHA will not lower costs. No chance. Employers being "responsible" for paying for health care insurance came as a result of previous government social engineering and it caused problems due to unintended consequences just like AHA will. The best plan I have heard is to allow policies to be sold across state lines, let people buy the provisions they want such as only a catastrophic policy for the young and healthy, tort reform, etc.
    First off, are talking Obamacare or Universal Healthcare? You were talking about 80% tax rates if we went to a public system, no you seem to be talking about the AHA.

  20. #40
    All League
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Location
    Farmingdale, NY
    Posts
    2,522
    Quote Originally Posted by Churchill View Post
    Did you sign up yet?

    How much did you save?

    How many of your previously uninsured family and friends also signed up?

    Has your employer stopped offering coverage?

    Whats your opinion of the signup process and the options available, overall?

    Thanks is advance for answers to the questions above.
    I'm a full time employee and receive healthcare from my job. Nothing has changed for me.

    I don't know about the signup process - reports are it has been sloppy. Friends haven't spoken about it, mostly don't talk with politics/personal finances with them - but it's not like I'm hearing negative impacts yet either.

    My parents are both retired and I'm the youngest of four, none of us have been affected - although I was able to stay on parents plan for a bit after college.

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  

Follow Us