The creeping chill of ObamaCare

[toubab]

http://www.nypost.com/p/news/opinio...ing_chill_of_obamacare_nwrteGSbuGsFbydKoItWTO

'I Can feel ObamaCare closing in.

It starts with small things. Consider a patient I'll call Jane, a corporate executive in her mid 40s. She's happy with her current health coverage -- a high-deductible policy paired with a Flexible Spending Account that can cover up to $3,000 a year in routine expenses, which she uses to pay for much of her medical care.

Other than her yearly screening check-up, Jane doesn't come in to see me unless she's really sick. An occasional bout of bronchitis prompts a brief visit, where I prescribe her a short course of antibiotics. Otherwise she uses her FSA to buy Tylenol and Advil over-the-counter for an occasional headache, insect repellant for summers in her backyard and Prevacid for an infrequent case of heartburn.

[Full quotation of copyrighted material reduced per our forum guidelines.]
**************************************************************************

It's almost unbelievable that Obama and the Democrats in Congress foisted this pile of shit on us.

 

[Frisco_Slug_Esq]

It's perfectly believable to those of us who understand the ultimate goal of the hard Left and Obama and how Cloward and Piven outlined the way to achieve a goal that the public would not accept under normal circumstances...
__________________
"Dear Patient: Section 1311 of the new health care legislation gives the U.S. Secretary of Health and Human Services and her appointees the power to establish care guidelines that your doctor must abide by or face penalties and fines. In making doctors answerable in the federal bureaucracy this bill effectively makes them government employees and means that you and your doctor are no longer in charge of your health care decisions. This new law politicizes medicine and in my opinion destroys the sanctity of the doctor-patient relationship that makes the American health care system the best in the world."
Dr. Hal Scherz

 

[Recidiva]

This is really the most important issue...someone needs a prescription for something?

What are the "nonprescription" drugs by the way...aspirin? Ibuprofen? Now you can get a prescription and they're paid for by insurance? Rockin'

The "warming spread" of the fact that pre-existing conditions are eliminated and kids can stay on their parents' insurance for five more years surely outweighs this...lack of issue.

Seriously, there's got to be a better rallying cry of hatred that rings louder than "We might have to fill out paperwork!" *DUN DUN DUUUUUN*

 

[toubab]

This is really the most important issue...someone needs a prescription for something?

What are the "nonprescription" drugs by the way...aspirin? Ibuprofen? Now you can get a prescription and they're paid for by insurance? Rockin'

The "warming spread" of the fact that pre-existing conditions are eliminated and kids can stay on their parents' insurance for five more years surely outweighs this...lack of issue.

Seriously, there's got to be a better rallying cry of hatred that rings louder than "We might have to fill out paperwork!" *DUN DUN DUUUUUN*

You must not have read the article very closely, or else you just simply refuse to believe that obvious lump is a tumor, and a very dangerous one.

 

[Recidiva]

You must not have read the article very closely, or else you just simply refuse to believe that obvious lump is a tumor, and a very dangerous one.

I assure you I can and did read. It would never occur to me that I should bother my doctor to write a prescription for any of that stuff.

The fact that I've been buying over the counter stuff with *gasp* my own money for my entire life and I plan to continue to do so is part and parcel of my lack of outrage.

Did you read the part about no pre-existing condition restrictions? Considering how many people will now have access to care on that basis alone...it's staggering in a very good way.

 

[tactful]

Flat fee for everyone, everyone is covered, everyone is cared for, the only thing that's gonna kill you, is the wait.
Got love the Insurance Company policies of "pre" anything, can you say "bias", where the ACLU when you need them ?

 

[toubab]

I assure you I can and did read. It would never occur to me that I should bother my doctor to write a prescription for any of that stuff.

The fact that I've been buying over the counter stuff with *gasp* my own money for my entire life and I plan to continue to do so is part and parcel of my lack of outrage.

Did you read the part about no pre-existing condition restrictions? Considering how many people will now have access to care on that basis alone...it's staggering in a very good way.

If you actually believe insurance companies are going to write policies that cover pre-existing conditions without charging extremely high rates to compensate you are dreaming. There is no free lunch.

 

[Recidiva]

If you actually believe insurance companies are going to write policies that cover pre-existing conditions without charging extremely high rates to compensate you are dreaming. There is no free lunch.

And if you think that "better care and fewer legal loopholes" is a bad thing, it just seems incredibly short-sighted and selfish.

The changes are overwhelmingly positive in light of the complete abusive shambles that the insurance industry has been.

I just don't see how your example is a "creeping chill" so much as a "Bummer, I can't deduct aspirin without a prescription" which I didn't know you could do anyway and I think is laughable.

There are actual real medical abuses that this new policy addresses.

Your example...not one of them.

 

[toubab]

And if you think that "better care and fewer legal loopholes" is a bad thing, it just seems incredibly short-sighted and selfish.

The changes are overwhelmingly positive in light of the complete abusive shambles that the insurance industry has been.

I just don't see how your example is a "creeping chill" so much as a "Bummer, I can't deduct aspirin without a prescription" which I didn't know you could do anyway and I think is laughable.

There are actual real medical abuses that this new policy addresses.

Your example...not one of them.

You really did not understand the import of the article, and you really don't understand what ObamaCare is going to mean in a few years, if not repealed. Ask yourself a question. If someone came to you and asked you to agree to pay their future medical bills out of your pocket, no matter how much it might cost, and no matter how long you might have to pay for them, would you agree to do it without knowing if they already had a serious illness such as cancer? Would you agree to no limits on the amount you had to pay for their treatment, even if it bankrupted you? How much would you charge that individual to obligate yourself to them to that degree?

 

[Recidiva]

You really did not understand the import of the article, and you really don't understand what ObamaCare is going to mean in a few years, if not repealed. Ask yourself a question. If someone came to you and asked you to agree to pay their future medical bills out of your pocket, no matter how much it might cost, and no matter how long you might have to pay for them, would you agree to do it without knowing if they already had a serious illness such as cancer? Would you agree to no limits on the amount you had to pay for their treatment, even if it bankrupted you? How much would you charge that individual to obligate yourself to them to that degree?

I think you're trying to latch on to some small inconvenience in order to predict some horrible doom, while ignoring the fact that the woman you're describing, if she is getting something OTC, is not really dealing with an issue that should require a physician.

The reform is intended to help people who do require physicians and have serious conditions. They have had no historical access to care due to the industry excluding...actual sick people.

Cancer requires an actual prescription for heavy-duty treatment issues and chemotherapy agents and an actual doctor and can't be equated to needing aspirin.

Think of all the people who can actually get their cancer treated now because it's not excluded as an "experimental" treatment or a "pre-existing" condition.

I consent to living in a society, where I share burdens and I think of the genuine needs of other people who are less fortunate than I am. I share roads and postal systems and insurance systems, trade agreements and social conscience with them.

It's not all about me. Try it.

At least give the reforms a try before deciding that your example is the end of civilization as we know it.

 

[toubab]

I think you're trying to latch on to some small inconvenience in order to predict some horrible doom, while ignoring the fact that the woman you're describing, if she is getting something OTC, is not really dealing with an issue that should require a physician.

The reform is intended to help people who do require physicians and have serious conditions. They have had no historical access to care due to the industry excluding...actual sick people.

Cancer requires an actual prescription for heavy-duty treatment issues and chemotherapy agents and an actual doctor and can't be equated to needing aspirin.

Think of all the people who can actually get their cancer treated now because it's not excluded as an "experimental" treatment or a "pre-existing" condition.

I consent to living in a society, where I share burdens and I think of the genuine needs of other people who are less fortunate than I am. I share roads and postal systems and insurance systems, trade agreements and social conscience with them.

It's not all about me. Try it.

At least give the reforms a try before deciding that your example is the end of civilization as we know it.

You failed to answer my questions, just as I thought you would.

 

[Recidiva]

You failed to answer my questions, just as I thought you would.

Let's do all the things that YOU want to do. /Ace Ventura

 

[TWB]

You really did not understand the import of the article, and you really don't understand what ObamaCare is going to mean in a few years, if not repealed. Ask yourself a question. If someone came to you and asked you to agree to pay their future medical bills out of your pocket, no matter how much it might cost, and no matter how long you might have to pay for them, would you agree to do it without knowing if they already had a serious illness such as cancer? Would you agree to no limits on the amount you had to pay for their treatment, even if it bankrupted you? How much would you charge that individual to obligate yourself to them to that degree?

Here is the fallacy with this kind of argument. I see this every day in my work.

Patient decides not to buy health insurance/does not have health insurance. Patient (insert malady here: falls, has an accident, has a stroke). Runs up $120,000 in hospital bills and $10,000 in doctor bills.

Now he owes $130,000 in care, and guess what? He has no money, or pays $5 per month towards his bill.

Who pays? Well, first the medical provider, but then who pays?

You do. I do, society does.

Higher costs, and higher premiums to cover the costs.

But that's not fair! You cry.

Perhaps not. However, its the facts.

The difference between health care and buying a television set or some other commodity is that when you need the care, you get it. Period. And if you don't you often need more care later, and you get that, at greater expense to all of us. It has to do with life or death, and people get the care now and figure out the payment later. This is unlike any other "commodity."

Because some refuse to understand this simple fact, they will continue to oppose universal health care because they believe it infringes on their rights somehow. The problem is, they will pay for it anyway, either through higher insurance premiums, or the incredible inefficiencies in the system, or through higher medical rates.

Those who say they don't believe in insurance don't really get a choice in the matter anyway, because sooner or later, society picks up the tab, and whether you like it or not, we are all in THIS boat together.

Buck up and quit yer whinin'.

 

[Liar]

You really did not understand the import of the article, and you really don't understand what ObamaCare is going to mean in a few years, if not repealed. Ask yourself a question. If someone came to you and asked you to agree to pay their future medical bills out of your pocket, no matter how much it might cost, and no matter how long you might have to pay for them, would you agree to do it without knowing if they already had a serious illness such as cancer? Would you agree to no limits on the amount you had to pay for their treatment, even if it bankrupted you? How much would you charge that individual to obligate yourself to them to that degree?

The solution is pool expansion by making sure that more healthy and low risk people share the costs. Something which you are also screaming your head off about.

How do YOU suggest the system is set up to make sure that those who need extensive medical treatment, like chemo, don't suffer and die from lack of access?

 

[toubab]

Yes, Those Shocking ObamaCare Rate Hikes Are For Real

http://news.investors.com/ibd-edito...care-premium-hikes-get-approved-by-states.htm

"Health Care: When insurers requested huge rate hikes for their 2016 ObamaCare plans, we were told not to worry because state regulators would force them down. But that's not happening. Death spiral, anyone?

In Alaska, the state regulator approved a 39.6% rate increase for Moda Health, and Premera Blue Cross Blue Shield of Alaska got a 38.7% hike.

BlueCross BlueShield of Tennessee asked for and got a 36.3% boost in premiums. Oregon's insurance commissioner approved a 25.6% increase for Moda, the biggest insurer on its ObamaCare exchange. In Kansas, ObamaCare enrollees will face increases of up to 25.4%.

In the pre-ObamaCare days, rate hikes of this magnitude, no matter how rare, would have been cited as proof positive of the need for ObamaCare-type changes. But these eye-popping jumps are showing up across the country, and ObamaCare itself is to blame.

The law's mixture of heavy-handed market regulations, mandated benefits, taxes and fees have sharply increased the cost of insurance, with no end in sight."


What a surprise.

 

[LouCfer]

actually the worst parts wont hit till NEXT yr

 

[Ulaven_Demorte]

Weird, because my insurance rates haven't gone up any more than they have every year since forever thanks to inflation with no change in coverage.

I guess I'm just lucky that way.

 

[Ulaven_Demorte]

Here is the fallacy with this kind of argument. I see this every day in my work.

Patient decides not to buy health insurance/does not have health insurance. Patient (insert malady here: falls, has an accident, has a stroke). Runs up $120,000 in hospital bills and $10,000 in doctor bills.

Now he owes $130,000 in care, and guess what? He has no money, or pays $5 per month towards his bill.

Who pays? Well, first the medical provider, but then who pays?

You do. I do, society does.

Higher costs, and higher premiums to cover the costs.

But that's not fair! You cry.

Perhaps not. However, its the facts.

The difference between health care and buying a television set or some other commodity is that when you need the care, you get it. Period. And if you don't you often need more care later, and you get that, at greater expense to all of us. It has to do with life or death, and people get the care now and figure out the payment later. This is unlike any other "commodity."

Because some refuse to understand this simple fact, they will continue to oppose universal health care because they believe it infringes on their rights somehow. The problem is, they will pay for it anyway, either through higher insurance premiums, or the incredible inefficiencies in the system, or through higher medical rates.

Those who say they don't believe in insurance don't really get a choice in the matter anyway, because sooner or later, society picks up the tab, and whether you like it or not, we are all in THIS boat together.

Buck up and quit yer whinin'.

This has been pointed out repeatedly.
The fact that spreading risk over a larger pool of people has been too.

Those who rail against the ACA will never, ever listen.

 

[LouCfer]

Those who rail against the ACA will never, ever listen.

stray voltage

 

[Ulaven_Demorte]

actually the worst parts wont hit till NEXT yr

This has been said as every phase of the ACA has come into play.
When the predictions of mass collapse fail to happen the tune changes.

Tomorrow! Tomorrow! It's always tomorrow!

 

[Sean]

http://www.nationaljournal.com/heal...are-s-double-digit-premium-increases-20150624

 

[Lancecastor]

What Americans need to fix HealthCare is more handguns.

 

[toubab]

Another ObamaCare Co-Op Bites The Dust, As Taxpayer Costs Mount

http://news.investors.com/blogs-cap...care-co-op-in-nevada-is-the-third-to-fail.htm

"On Wednesday, the Nevada Health Co-Op announced that it will go out of business at the end of the year. This is the third out of the 23 ObamaCare-created nonprofit health plans to fail, but it isn't likely to be the last.

After getting $69.5 million in government-sponsored startup loans, Nevada's co-op saw enrollment come in far lower than expected, and claims costs far higher, resulting in a $15 million loss last year.

CEO Pam Egan said the co-op was seeing the same dismal results this year, making it impossible to provide "quality care at reasonable rates."

Democrats who designed ObamaCare created these nonprofit co-ops in the belief that they could provide price competition in ObamaCare exchanges. To get them off the ground, the federal government pumped more than $2.5 billion in startup loans and $355 million in solvency loans when things started to turn sour last year.

The costly experiment has largely been a failure."

Another surprise.

 

[LouCfer]

This has been said as every phase of the ACA has come into play.
When the predictions of mass collapse fail to happen the tune changes.

Tomorrow! Tomorrow! It's always tomorrow!

stray voltage

 

[Liar]

The solution is pool expansion by making sure that more healthy and low risk people share the costs. Something which you are also screaming your head off about.

How do YOU suggest the system is set up to make sure that those who need extensive medical treatment, like chemo, don't suffer and die from lack of access?

Funny how this question killed the thread almost five years ago.

Care to answer it now or have you still got nothing?