Obama care website is finaly working.

[JoseCuervo]

Not the question.

The President said they'd go down $2,500 for the average family. Let's analyze:

1) That was false
2) The President knew it was false when he said it

It meets the definition of a "Lie"

The comment you addressed was about the continuous rise in premiums during our lifetimes. If you didn't want to address the comment, and instead, wanted to make up new bogeyman to attack, you need to use a turn signal.

 

[Fearless Tower]

Yes, and to get those 15 million uninsured insured, we only had to cancel insurance or raise premiums/deductibles for 129 million.

It's all very logical.

It is perfectly logical...if you area Socialist.....except that Obama is allegedly not a Socialist....or so we have been told.

 

[Matthew]

Have your premiums ever gone down?

In my experience (employer offerred BCBS plan) - my premiums have gone up each year about 5-10%. One year they did not go up, and one year we got a refund because we had lower claims than expected. I looked on the exchange and the closest plan I could find to what I currently have has twice the deductible and around 50% higher premiums. I am expecting this time next year my company will announce our current plan is no longer legal and we'll be added to the pool that private policy holders find themselves in now.

 

[JeffDG]

The comment you addressed was about the continuous rise in premiums during our lifetimes. If you didn't want to address the comment, and instead, wanted to make up new bogeyman to attack, you need to use a turn signal.

So, was the President aware that premiums go up?

Regardless, his promise was that they would go down under his plan...his whole point was to "bend the cost curve", so why would someone take his promise to lower premiums as anything but, you know, a promise that premiums would go down...

Not my fault that the President utters so many falsehoods that I have a plethora of targets.

 

[Matthew]

So, was the President aware that premiums go up?

Remember - in the government if something goes up less than expected, it's cosidered a cut. The $2500 reduction must mean that they expected premiums would go up a lot more than that.

 

[JoseCuervo]

In my experience (employer offerred BCBS plan) - my premiums have gone up each year about 5-10%. One year they did not go up, and one year we got a refund because we had lower claims than expected. I looked on the exchange and the closest plan I could find to what I currently have has twice the deductible and around 50% higher premiums. I am expecting this time next year my company will announce our current plan is no longer legal and we'll be added to the pool that private policy holders find themselves in now.

And, likely, you were only aware of the amount of annual increase your employer passed on to you. They likely were going up more than you know.

I know with my employees, if I pass along too much premium, they will elect to drop coverage and go uninsured. Therefore, I choose to either suck up the increase or modify the plan to be worse (higher deductibles and higher co-payments).

That was, by my vantage point, a broken system.

 

[MadseasoN]

Seems like the website issue was a tool to distract us from the fact that the ACA is a bad deal.

 

[Matthew]

And, likely, you were only aware of the amount of annual increase your employer passed on to you. They likely were going up more than you know.

No, they've been pretty open about the cost of the policy premiums.

I think part if what broke the systerm was when plans became comprehensive instead of catastrophic. Once patients began saying, "I don't care how much it costs, insurance will pay for it" it started downhill.

There are many other factors, both economically and social, that led to where we are now.

 

[SCCutler]

Could you share how many employees you have?

If less than 50, you might need a new accountant as you are missing the tax benefits enacted under ACA.

Nope.

Average salary is too high; the tax credit for small business is only useful for businesses which pay very low wages; it phases out as soon as average annual pay exceeds $25k. In point of fact, I think it was placed in the law to create an almost-illusory small business benefit, one which sounds great in speeches, but serves no functional purpose in reality.

 

[Bob Noel]

Have your premiums ever gone down?

Yes - more than once. But not since 2009.

 

[Bob Noel]

Seems like the website issue was a tool to distract us from the fact that the ACA is a bad deal.

Not necessary - the state of denial is a happy place for many liberals.

 

[Kelvin]

Nope.

Average salary is too high; the tax credit for small business is only useful for businesses which pay very low wages; it phases out as soon as average annual pay exceeds $25k. In point of fact, I think it was placed in the law to create an almost-illusory small business benefit, one which sounds great in speeches, but serves no functional purpose in reality.

 

[AuntPeggy]

AcroGimp stated that his plans were not eligible for grandfathering as they were purchased after the passage of the healthcare law. Nothing in the article you linked to contradicts that, no wait, it actually confirms that.




You are employing the usual talking tactic of the plans proponents claiming that anyone who is seing untoward consequences of the laws must either be lying or uninformed or that the evil insurance companies are the ones who are making things up.

This is a well tested propaganda tool from the marxist leninist playbook. If your experience disagrees with the elites plan for the greater good, you will be labeled as a troublemaker who has obviously not been educated yet about the glorious future that expects him.

Oooh, what playbook are you running with? Godwin, after only 30 posts.

 

[ZeroPapaGolf]

Only one stays highlighted at a time.

Sure enough. Looks like the iOS version does not support multi-quote, only the Android version.

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SGH-I337 using Tapatalk

 

[AcroGimp]

Why didn't you have her on your plan to begin with? That likely would have been cheaper.

Employer plan is a self-funded plan and while exellent for employees the family coverage premiums are extreme so no, it was not less expensive - it would be competitive with the Exchange premiums, that is, it would be if I could have kept it and picked from 8 options we used to have - we have not seen the 2 plans we will now be forced, I mean 'allowed' to choose from yet, so coverage, networks and premiums remain an unknown until next week.

See this is the fundamental issue, things work best when people can make deliberate choices that best suit their own needs, from a wide array of possible coices - I know what I need and can afford better than you, or Kathleen Sebelius, however that is the antithesis to what the people pushing this program want - it is not about choice or care, it is about control and a massive transfer of wealth.

'Gimp

 

[Kiddo's Driver]

Thank you for your dedicated service as Thread Cop. This country is a better place because of people like you.

Could you show me where this button is?

I see you are on an iPad. What browser are you using? It does not look like Safari. Attached is what I see in Safari on my iPhone. The button is boxed in red with the red arrow pointing at it. Sorry about the image only taking up 1/4 of the PDF page. Just zoom in and you can see.

BTW, try not to take offense to everything that is said to you. Not everything is a fight.

Jim

 

[ZeroPapaGolf]

I see you are on an iPad. What browser are you using? It does not look like Safari. Attached is what I see in Safari on my iPhone. The button is boxed in red with the red arrow pointing at it. Sorry about the image only taking up 1/4 of the PDF page. Just zoom in and you can see.

BTW, try not to take offense to everything that is said to you. Not everything is a fight.

Jim

It's Tapatalk, and multi-quote unfortunately is not supported currently in the iOS version.

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SGH-I337 using Tapatalk

 

[Kiddo's Driver]

It's Tapatalk, and multi-quote unfortunately is not supported currently in the iOS version.

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SGH-I337 using Tapatalk

I've never seen Tapatalk on an IOS before. I always see it tagged the way yours is tagged, on a Samsung device. I'll have to look into it. It seems to be widely used so there must be something it does better than Safari.

Jim

 

[ZeroPapaGolf]

I've never seen Tapatalk on an IOS before. I always see it tagged the way yours is tagged, on a Samsung device. I'll have to look into it. It seems to be widely used so there must be something it does better than Safari.

Jim

I use it on my iPad too, it is far better than using the web browser for forums. Much easier user interface than what most forums website gives you on a touch screen device.

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SGH-I337 using Tapatalk

 

[AuntPeggy]

As a 43 yr old man I don't need coverage for prenatal care, abortion, or the pill, or pediatric dentistry - but in order to provide that additional one-size-fits-all coverage as required by the law premiums necessarily must go up.

This is a common refrain against the ACA.

Each of these items are preventative health care. As such, they decrease the amount that must be paid out by the insurance companies because they decrease the potential for even more expensive disease or disability.

Prenatal care protects against birth defects and premature birth, and protects the health of both the unborn and their mothers. The cost of care for birth defects, prematurity, and other preventable childbirth problems can become astronomical.

Abortion and the pill can prevent unwanted pregnancies. Pregnancy and its treatment is far more expensive than its prevention. This says nothing about the social cost of unwanted or unloved or impoverished children.

The pill can prevent numerous other female issues than simply pregnancy, some of which are expensive or debilitating.

Pediatric dentistry: I have a hard time believing that your insurance premium is seriously impacted by teaching youngsters to brush their teeth or quit thumb-sucking. But it probably does not impact the social order to a large degree, either.

So, what's the big deal if covering women's and children's care actually decreases the cost of medical insurance? What else could it be? Oh, I see, with the exception of dentistry, all of these have to do with human female reproduction. Female sexuality.

These women are having sex without you. You have no control over their sexual habits. The gods know this is wrong! You must do something to prevent, or at least punish, this uncontrolled sexuality. The least you can do is to refuse to include their health care in your plan -- even if doing so increases your premium.

So, complain away about preventative care for women's health issues. The gods, or at least the primitive ape brain, know that women should not be having sex without your permission.

 

[DJTorrente]

Oooh, what playbook are you running with? Godwin, after only 30 posts.

Excuse me, ma'am, but I do not think the law you cite stands for the proposition you are advancing.

The law and its corollaries would not apply ... to a discussion of other totalitarian regimes or ideologies...

...Godwin's law itself can be abused as a distraction, diversion or even as censorship...

 

[AcroGimp]

This is a common refrain against the ACA.

Each of these items are preventative health care. As such, they decrease the amount that must be paid out by the insurance companies because they decrease the potential for even more expensive disease or disability.

Prenatal care protects against birth defects and premature birth, and protects the health of both the unborn and their mothers. The cost of these can become astronomical.

Abortion and the pill can prevent unwanted pregnancies. Pregnancy and its treatment is far more expensive than its prevention. This says nothing about the social cost of unwanted or unloved or impoverished children.

The pill can prevent numerous other female issues than simply pregnancy, some of which are expensive or debilitating.

Pediatric dentistry: I have a hard time believing that your insurance premium is seriously impacted by teaching youngsters to brush their teeth or quit thumb-sucking. But it probably does not impact the social order to a large degree, either.

So, what's the big deal if covering women's and children's care actually decreases the cost of medical insurance? What else could it be? Oh, I see, with the exception of dentistry, all of these have to do with human female reproduction. Female sexuality.

These women are having sex without you. You have no control over their sexual habits. The gods know this is wrong! You must do something to prevent, or at least punish, this uncontrolled sexuality. The least you can do is to refuse to include their health care in your plan -- even if doing so increases your premium.

So, complain away about preventative care for women's health issues. The gods, or at least the primitive ape brain, know that women should not be having sex without your permission.

None of which addresses why they should be included in the actuarials for MY policy - it is pure math, not philosophy, not morality, not politics, math.

I will never use any of those coverages, ever, yet I am being FORCED to pay for it by being grouped with others from a coverage and actuarial standpoint - that is the equivalence of indentured servitude at best (my penance for being alive), slavery at worst since it confiscates ever more of the goods of my labor and transfers it to others who have not earned it (my punishment for being reasonably successful). That is theft.

And as an apparently necessary matter of clarification, my insistence on me not being forced to pay for that coverage for others is not the same as wanting to in any way deny them that coverage if they choose to purchase it for themselves - at what point did we decide it is ok to just take from one group of people and give to another? It is the people who advocate this sham who are ignoring math and inserting their own morality - if you want to pay extra to provide this coverage for people you do not know great, donate away, but do not attempt to salve your conscience or mete out your personal morality with my hard earned money - it hurts my family and is nothing more than government sanctioned theft.

'Gimp

 

[Kiddo's Driver]

...

So, what's the big deal if covering women's and children's care actually decreases the cost of medical insurance? What else could it be? Oh, I see, with the exception of dentistry, all of these have to do with human female reproduction. Female sexuality.

These women are having sex without you. You have no control over their sexual habits. The gods know this is wrong! You must do something to prevent, or at least punish, this uncontrolled sexuality. The least you can do is to refuse to include their health care in your plan -- even if doing so increases your premium.

So, complain away about preventative care for women's health issues. The gods, or at least the primitive ape brain, know that women should not be having sex without your permission.

Wow, you are projecting big time here.
Try using logical arguments alone instead of logical arguments followed by personal attacks. Most of us see right through the personal attacks and it distracts from the point you are trying to make.

Jim

 

[JoseCuervo]

Dear JoseCuervo,

Let me introduce you to the multi quote button. It is in the bottom right of each post. It looks like a sheet of paper with a double quote mark, and a plus sign. You can click on all of the posts you want to respond to and then press Quote on the final post and it will quote ALL of the them in one reply.

Jim

I see you are on an iPad. What browser are you using? It does not look like Safari. Attached is what I see in Safari on my iPhone. The button is boxed in red with the red arrow pointing at it. Sorry about the image only taking up 1/4 of the PDF page. Just zoom in and you can see.

BTW, try not to take offense to everything that is said to you. Not everything is a fight.


Jim

Your first post started off a bit snarky/condescending. If that was not the intent, then I apologise. If it was the intent, then my response about you being Thread Cop was appropriate.

I have no idea why you would care if I replied in 1 post or in 3 posts. I got lots of things in life to worry about, that ain't one of them.


Yes, the multi-quote feature works with browsers, including Safari. However, on my iPad and my iPhone, I use TapaTalk in its native form, as this forum, POA, has very few pictures and images that would make Safari mobile to be a more useful tool.

 

[denverpilot]

And all along I thought this was about getting uninsured people insured.

30 million were uninsured. Out of those, 27 million were young, healthy, wealthy, or a number of things too long to list but weren't interested in having health insurance at all.

The while debacle is over giving 3 million an option they can't afford.

3 million took 300 million hostage. And forced 27 million to pay a penalty for not playing.

 

[MAKG1]

As a 43 yr old man I don't need coverage for prenatal care, abortion, or the pill, or pediatric dentistry - but in order to provide that additional one-size-fits-all coverage as required by the law premiums necessarily must go up.

...

That's $8K I won't have for my daughters's college expenses

....

With a college age daughter, you might not want to think about it, but you might need those benefits in less than a year. And at 43, you can still have kids....

The POINT of insurance is spreading risk, especially the unlikely but catastrophic risks.

 

[denverpilot]

With a college age daughter, you might not want to think about it, but you might need those benefits in less than a year. And at 43, you can still have kids....

The POINT of insurance is spreading risk, especially the unlikely but catastrophic risks.

Is dying unlikely in your world?

 

[Derek Zeanah]

These women are having sex without you. You have no control over their sexual habits. The gods know this is wrong! You must do something to prevent, or at least punish, this uncontrolled sexuality. The least you can do is to refuse to include their health care in your plan -- even if doing so increases your premium.

So, complain away about preventative care for women's health issues. The gods, or at least the primitive ape brain, know that women should not be having sex without your permission.

And this is why it's hard to have a discussion about these issues. It's not that people over 30 who know from personal experience that the chunk of their medical bills that they are responsible for is approximately equal to the cash price those services would have cost without involving insurance are no longer allowed to buy catastrophic coverage. It's not that folks who eat well and exercise an hour a day are now paying more so the non-compliant type-two diabetic can pay less while continuing to sit on the couch and eat ice cream. It's not that the medical insurance for many is now more expensive and set up in a way that they can no longer use their long-term physician because he's in the wrong county/state.

No, it's none of that. It's just the worst kind of misogyny. It can't possibly be that people think this was a give-away to insurance companies that got in the way of real reform, and that we're stuck with a system that's both worse than what we had before and worse than any rational form of single payer. It's certainly not that people felt lied to by the President of the United States on a bill that was passed with zero votes from ~ half of the country and now doesn't appear to be working.

I'm sure you're right, Aunt Peggy. It's just folks upset that they don't control someone else's sex organs...

 

[AcroGimp]

With a college age daughter, you might not want to think about it, but you might need those benefits in less than a year. And at 43, you can still have kids....

The POINT of insurance is spreading risk, especially the unlikely but catastrophic risks.

With respect to my soon-to-be college age daughter, I have no problem paying for her insurance, and for it including prenatal, or any other women's health care coverage (which it already did), she is my daughter and I fund the coverage. I expect to take care of my own.

My issue is that MY coverage, as a 43 year old male will now be forced to include prenatal, birth-control and abortion coverage even though I can not technically access those services since I am biologically ineligible.

I am also opposed to paying a signficantly higher premium because I have moved out of the level of coverage and actuarial table I chose for myself (as well as those for my wife and daughter), and I am now lumped in with essentially 330 million others, roughly half of whom are, as women, statistically more expensive to provide health care for. Not moraility, not religion, not philosophy, not politics, just plain old actuarial math and statistics.

I of course was laready paying higher premiums for my wife and daughter than I would have for myself (except for my pre-existing condition which I have always been able to find coverage for) due to the above, only now everyone's premiums go up, mine especially so (if I use the Exchange).

While true that my wife and I could conceivably conceive again, that was ALREADY covered on HER plan which I already paid for (happily). again, the issue is that I, me, the 43 yr old man, will NEVER need prenatal care, abortion care, birth control pills, mammograms, HPV shots, or pediatric dental coverage - but as a result of Obamacare my plan, as a male, must include it and as a result my premiums must necessarily go up.

The only people who are actually inserting their own personal morality into the situation are those who assume to know better how to spend MY money. If an individual wants to donate their own money to make better coverage available for people they don't know, and their circumstances allow it, then by all means they should go for it. But to insist that their morality and sense of what is fair and right be forced upon me, at cost to me, with no benefit (or worse less value) to me is unjust, unfair and unAmerican.

'Gimp

 

[pilot_dude]

Shall I tell you about the diabetic in my family who must decide whether to keep the unreliable insulin pump she has or to pay for a new one by not letting her child continue playing in the soccer league. She is hoping that the child's native talent in soccer will get her a scholarship and enable her to go to college someday.

Vials of insulin and syringes are very reasonable alternatives, as are the insulin pens. The overwhelming majority of type1 diabetics manage their chronic condition in that fashion.
If her pump is unreliable, I strongly suggest she discuss the above options with her treating endocrinologist.

 

[Matthew]

Does an insulin pump fall into the DME category that requires an additional 2.3% tax?

 

[JeffDG]

Does an insulin pump fall into the DME category that requires an additional 2.3% tax?

I would presume so. Good thing they're raising the costs of those medical devices...that'll be sure to "bend the cost curve", just not in the direction that the sheeple thought he meant.

Heck, they're trying to make smartphones a medical device, because you can get first-aid apps that tell you how to do CPR!

 

[AuntPeggy]

None of which addresses why they should be included in the actuarials for MY policy - it is pure math, not philosophy, not morality, not politics, math.

I will never use any of those coverages, ever, yet I am being FORCED to pay for it by being grouped with others from a coverage and actuarial standpoint - that is the equivalence of indentured servitude at best (my penance for being alive), slavery at worst since it confiscates ever more of the goods of my labor and transfers it to others who have not earned it (my punishment for being reasonably successful). That is theft.

And as an apparently necessary matter of clarification, my insistence on me not being forced to pay for that coverage for others is not the same as wanting to in any way deny them that coverage if they choose to purchase it for themselves - at what point did we decide it is ok to just take from one group of people and give to another? It is the people who advocate this sham who are ignoring math and inserting their own morality - if you want to pay extra to provide this coverage for people you do not know great, donate away, but do not attempt to salve your conscience or mete out your personal morality with my hard earned money - it hurts my family and is nothing more than government sanctioned theft.

'Gimp

The fact is that including coverage for those items DECREASES the cost of insurance to you. Math. It is simply far more cost effective to provide preventative care than restorative care. Since the members of the same policy you take out get the same benefits as you get, providing them with preventative care costs you less. Math.

[Edit] Oops. I just read further. What you really want is a policy that excludes women altogether. Who was it that asked me to support my claim of discrimination against women. That is what you really want.

 

[AuntPeggy]

Wow, you are projecting big time here.
Try using logical arguments alone instead of logical arguments followed by personal attacks. Most of us see right through the personal attacks and it distracts from the point you are trying to make.

Jim

I understand what you are saying. I just cannot figure out any other reason for standing against providing women with the preventative health care that they (we) need.

 

[AuntPeggy]

Vials of insulin and syringes are very reasonable alternatives, as are the insulin pens. The overwhelming majority of type1 diabetics manage their chronic condition in that fashion.
If her pump is unreliable, I strongly suggest she discuss the above options with her treating endocrinologist.

Only if you are not a brittle diabetic for whom vials of insulin and syringes led almost yearly to the emergency room. She does speak to her endocrinologist. He has been helping by GIVING her additional supplies whenever possible.

 

[AuntPeggy]

Does an insulin pump fall into the DME category that requires an additional 2.3% tax?

I think it does.

 

[AuntPeggy]

I would presume so. Good thing they're raising the costs of those medical devices...that'll be sure to "bend the cost curve", just not in the direction that the sheeple thought he meant.

Heck, they're trying to make smartphones a medical device, because you can get first-aid apps that tell you how to do CPR!

Could you please provide a link to confirm that?

 

[JeffDG]

Could you please provide a link to confirm that?

http://www.americanbar.org/newslett...home/aba_health_law_esource_0212_barrett.html

 

[pilot_dude]

Only if you are not a brittle diabetic for whom vials of insulin and syringes led almost yearly to the emergency room. She does speak to her endocrinologist. He has been helping by GIVING her additional supplies whenever possible.

See PM

 

[Geico266]

Originally Posted by AuntPeggy
Shall I tell you about the diabetic in my family who must decide whether to keep the unreliable insulin pump she has or to pay for a new one by not letting her child continue playing in the soccer league. She is hoping that the child's native talent in soccer will get her a scholarship and enable her to go to college someday.

Why don't you as a family member sell your plane and buy her the new pump? If buying their own pump means no soccer fine... how is that a problem? Why do I have to pay for it when clearly your family has the means to pay for it them selves?

Vials of insulin and syringes are very reasonable alternatives, as are the insulin pens. The overwhelming majority of type1 diabetics manage their chronic condition in that fashion.
If her pump is unreliable, I strongly suggest she discuss the above options with her treating endocrinologist.

This is exactly what is wrong with medicine today. Everyone wants the very best, but they want someone else to pay for it. Syringes work just fine.