2019 Holiday Exchange!
 
A New and Exciting Beginning
 
The End of an Era
  • posted a message on goodbye
    I just wanted to say goodbye. This will be my last post on this forum. i will not respond to this although i might see if there are any responses.

    This has been a long time coming and i have just put it off hoping for some kind of change. i do not see that change coming any time soon unless certain people are removed from where they are but that will never happen.

    There are those that i wish to say thank you to. while we might not have always agreed there are things that we did agree on and we both did with respect. Those are the people that made this board a great place to be.

    if you wish to contact me in any way my email address is still there. i will miss discussing topics with a good lot of you. it was always fun and lively.

    anyway i hope you all have a merry christmas.
    Posted in: Special Occasions
  • posted a message on Obamacare - For or Against?
    that doesn't contradict what i said that people are seeing increases from 20-60%. the article clearly states that the average increase from all 41 states is 40%.

    i am sure that places like NY and CA will see lower premiums they have large urban populations that will receive a ton of subsidies.

    anyway i am done with this discussion. i have proven my point with articles and backed up sources. you not so much.

    obamacare is a disaster the whole law is causing people to lose their insurance pay higher premiums for coverage they don't need and get less coverage in return. all backed up by articles.

    People are losing access to doctors and hospitals as doctors reject the exchange plans due to poor payment plans.

    most of the plans on the healthcare site are EPO or HMO plans that means unless you have to go to an out of network doctor/hospital insurance will not cover it.

    again backed up by websites and sources.

    Obama lied in order to get this passed to the american people otherwise they would have revolted on the bill. again backed up by sources.

    the only way to get anything done to change the situation is to replace the current democratis congress with enough republican senators.

    by the end of his 100m americans will lose their insurance and be forced onto the exchange.

    sure they can try and buy non-exchange policies but they don't get a subsidy. millions of americans have been forced onto medicaid whether they want to be or not.

    given that doctors are dropping medicaid patients like a bad habit again backed up by sources these people are forced to go to the emergancy room. this is sending costs through the roof.

    everything that people said would happen to our medical system if this passed is happening. there is no defense to this bill at all. in fact everyone in the democratic party are trying to get as far away as they can. unfortuantly for them they voted for it, and americans need to be reminded that they are the ones that caused this malfunction.
    Posted in: Debate
  • posted a message on Obamacare - For or Against?
    Quote from Vaclav
    20% jump in premium AFTER employer contribution is not the same thing as a 20% hike.


    yes it is a 20% jump on my part i have no idea how much more the company had to pay. so it was more than a 20% hike (which i get less coverage on). my part was a 20% hike. i figure my company suffered a total of a 30-40% hike. i just had to pay 20% more.

    so yes it was a 20% increase. you are wrong again.


    If my employer is paying 80% and opts to start paying 40% instead while the actualized policy stays at the same rate the policy cost did not go up 40% - it went up 0%.
    wrong


    You've already stated your employer cut their contribution amount. You already know what I'm saying just still try to keep misrepresenting it. There's public numbers showing the average to be 13% as a whole for the past 3 years together (which most nonPEC people are seeing this year) vs 6% a year projected.
    i stated no such thing wrong.


    A few outliers are really getting close to 20% but even those outliers are barely paying over what they would've been projected to pay if the ACA never happened - 18% was the projected figure for them over the past 3 years!
    wrong read the articles.

    still waiting on you to post sources. still haven't as usual.

    http://www.forbes.com/sites/theapothecary/2013/11/04/49-state-analysis-obamacare-to-increase-individual-market-premiums-by-avg-of-41-subsidies-flow-to-elderly/

    Infraction for stonewalling. - Blinking Spirit
    Posted in: Debate
  • posted a message on Obamacare - For or Against?
    Rate hikes that, incidentally, mean greater service. edit: suppose it depends on what you mean. Either way, prices have been raising anyway and the prices that actually spiked was because of terrible healthcare insurance that no longer fits the system

    A partially disabled dude with an improper amount of soap isn't actually a threat to the airplane. If your friend works airport security he knows how much of it is simply security theatre.


    yes prices have gone up it is the natural way of things. however never in one year alone have they spike 60% in some cases.

    i have never seen a 20% jump in my premium ever. yet this year i got exactly that. at most my insurance increased maybe 10% and i might have had to pay 2 or 3% of that. which is no big deal.

    20% jump is just insane. i stand to lose about 1000+ dollars this year due to that jump.

    i wrote my senator and got the same BS response i expect to get from a democrat.
    Posted in: Debate
  • posted a message on Obamacare - For or Against?
    Quote from Vaclav
    You still can't read your own links. First sentence of the Newsmax article contradicts you and asserts exactly what I said.

    They're dropping ALL of some insurances, ACA or not.


    i read the links and nothing i said was wrong. so far everything you have said has been wrong thanks for finally admitting it now we can move on.

    so now that people have EPO or HMO insurance plans that aren't being accepted by hospitals or doctors.

    what good is insurance if no one takes it again?

    so much for obamacare.
    Posted in: Debate
  • posted a message on Obamacare - For or Against?
    Just quoting this whole trainwreck just to make sure more people read the foolishness...



    the only foolishness if your refusal to read any article that says you are incorrect and wrong and you refuse to post any information to back yourself up with.

    "3 Guys in CA made it work in a few days", except "HealthSherpa" doesn't actually do anything, it's a cost estimator. It's ONE part of hundreds of parts involved in the ACA website.



    wrong. healthsherpa actually allows you to search for actual health plans and they even included a signup button so that you can get that plan it is more than a cost estimator. it lists actual plans on their site, and how to buy it.

    "Losing doctors" - 60% of doctor's take Medicaid, 80% take normal insurances - that means that 75% of the people that are using regular insurance and fall onto Medicaid will already be with a doctor that accepts it. Some people will lose their doctors, not all - not even most. That's just basic math. And even switching from BC/BS to Aetna or some other standard insurance switch involves some doctors falling out of your coverage - it's normal insurance issues that has nothing to do with Medicaid, the ACA or anything else - just insurance 101


    the articles again say you are wrong. most of the plans on the healthcare website are EPO plans.

    both of which do not cover out of network costs. they only cover in network costs. so God help you if something happens and you can't get to an in-network doctor.

    warrantless wiretaps and drones and TSA annoyances and the like clearly aren't worse than having to spend a couple hours redoing your insurance policy as an option. You spend a few hours picking out your new policy, you spend a few hours researching new doctors


    most people don't do this as most people had policies through major insurance companies and were ppo plans which were taken almost everywhere.

    i had to make changes to my insurance this year and it took me all of 10 minutes.

    "Refusing Obamacare Exchange plans" - Completely incorrect, the only way to refuse an "Exchange Plan" is to refuse all plans from a given provider and all providers are required by law to provide an exchange plan, so if that was true - those providers are either: a) lying/misinformed or b) refusing literally ALL insurance besides Medicare/VA (since those aren't tied to exchanges in any of their forms).



    Read the articles they say you are wrong again.

    There is no LEGAL MEANS to refuse specific insurances within a provider under the healthcare discrimination laws that have existed since at least 1985. If they take "BC/BS Excellus" they must take "BC/BS Exchange Policy01" as well - there's no legal way to distinguish between. [And likely won't be on the cards as well, since there's no real reason to distinguish them - but we won't know that till January or so]


    http://www.newsmax.com/Newsfront/Obamacare-hospitals-plans-coverage/2013/11/01/id/534327

    http://nypost.com/2013/10/17/hospitals-reject-six-obamacare-plans/

    again wrong.

    you will ignore these just as you have ignored all the other articles in this thread.

    also please back your information with something. just as i have done. it takes about 5 min if that to do a google search.
    Posted in: Debate
  • posted a message on Obamacare - For or Against?
    Quote from bocephus
    I have been hearing of a type of boycott and a good group of people refusing to sign up for insurance. What effect will this have? Could it destroy the plan all together since there will not be the cash flow to make it work?


    That doesn't surprise me. Americans in general don't like being told we have to buy something unless we can see a reason for it.

    what we hate even more is being forced to by something that is more expensive and getting less in return.

    The effect that this will have if it is done is that insurance companies will go broke. obamacare is setup as another ponzi scheme. it depends on more peope paying in than paying out.

    what will happen then is that the government will be forced to make up the difference. we will then see a call that since the government is being forced to pay for it anyway then all people should just be on a single payer system.

    of course that is what obamacare was designed to do. make it impossible for private insurance companies to compete in the system.

    my plan would save our healthcare system, make it more affordable and take a good deal of burden off the government.
    Posted in: Debate
  • posted a message on Obamacare - For or Against?
    If the cost difference isn't worth it to them then they have to live with 20-25% fewer doctors to choose from.


    the cost difference is 20-60+% more than what they were paying. instead it has to go to some insurance policy that gives them worse coverage and is more expensive.

    plus they lose the doctors that they had in most cases and have to search for other ones.

    this doesn't deal with anything that was said.

    This not getting less as you pay less thing seems to be a point of confusion for you, when its normal capitalism at work.



    They are not paying less they get less and pay more unless they qualify for medicaid then they get less and even more less.

    It would frankly lean a bit socialist to expect people paying more to get equal coverage to those paying nothing.


    actually they are getting about the same amount.

    if you would have read the articles doctors across the nation along with hospitals are rejecting and not taking obamacare exchange plans.

    PS Patriot Act was much worse, and that's just looking at the past 15 years. Citizens United was as well.. Again in the past few years.


    no because that did nothing to screw with people's healthcare ACA does screw with peoples healthcare and so far there is little positive being reporting.

    But what they have under the new system will be WORSE then what they had before.

    The ACA act was supposedly about improving health care


    you are wasting your time. he has defended this piece of trash bill for 2 years now. he can't back out of it or admit that he was wrong.

    even though all the evidence is there exactly how people said it would turn out.

    PS: Looks like they missed the deadline for having a 80% functional web site. I wonder what they bill is up to with all the experts and overtime?


    it will cost another billion or so dollars more. that will get funneled to obama's friends that own the tech company that is suppose to be fixing it.

    lol 3 guys in CA made it work in a few days.
    Posted in: Debate
  • posted a message on Obamacare - For or Against?
    Quote from Vaclav
    They can opt to buy a nonexchange plan under your theoretical example.

    Or take Medicaid for no cost (or low cost if on the edge in expansion states).


    umm they can't afford to buy a non-exchange plan. they had been able to afford a non-exchange plan but it got canceled.

    Also if you qualify for medicaid then you have to take medicaid and you get no subsidy.

    also if you try to buy a non-exchange policy you get no subsidy.

    all insurance plans now much meet the ACA minimum coverages regardless if you need have that much coverage.

    this has sent premiums skyrocketing 20-60% higher than they were.

    obama (costs and premiums will go down). really? when where? next year they are suppose to increase more which is why they have delayed open enrollment.

    so that all the costs go up after the election and dem's won't have to fight that battle as well.

    worst bill ever past.
    Posted in: Debate
  • posted a message on Obamacare - For or Against?
    Quote from Vaclav
    I didn't say they're not accepting them less, just trying to point out its not drastic. PreMedicare, with BCBS, I couldn't see around a third of the doctors around here myself either from them being 'full' entirely or not accepting BCBS.

    You try to make it sound like 'OMG 60% won't take them its awful' when its slightly below average. (75%)

    Hell, you say the same about the less taking Medicare memes, when Medicare is STILL the most accepted insurance in the US. 85% vs 82% for the next best with the worst private insurer being 70% (Non-HMO, that is HMOs would be close to 10-15%) no insurance in the US has 100% coverage, which your assertions keep implying.

    Its sub par for its network size, but its quite manageable to find a Medicaid doctor if you need one.


    60% of doctors not taking people that are being enrolled in medicaid is massive.

    it is so massive that some law makers (dems) are thinking of forcing doctors to take them.

    which will be challenged in court.

    you are looking at millions of people being enrolled in a program in which will cost states billions of dollars and the only place they are fiding the ability to get help is the emergancy room at hospitals since they have to take people and it costs 2 to 3x more.

    you attempt to try and minimize what is happening is poor.
    doctors have started to drop medicare patients just not in the numbers that we are seeing for medicare.

    that doesn't count the number of doctors and hospitals all of which has been documented in this thread that are not taking exchange policies.

    so again i ask what good is coverage if no one takes it? 0. that or you end up having to take more expensive out of network coverage.
    Posted in: Debate
  • posted a message on Obamacare - For or Against?
    Quote from Vaclav
    57% - 3% lower than I quoted, and that's for accepting NEW Medicaid patients, which is changing the goalposts. I was talking about those that accept period, not discluding those that do "but have enough already".

    And again, it's only about 15-20% lower than major standard medical plans because of networks.

    Hell, only 85% of doctor's are accepting new patients PERIOD on a national level.


    why is it that everytime someone shows you information you constantly deny that information or better you claim something else more so without proof to back that up with.

    you do this constantly and have done this constantly in this thread.
    it is all over the news that doctors are dropping both new and existing medicaid patients.

    it is all over the news that doctors and hospials are refusing to except exchange plans.
    this is the same thing as the evidence that obama lied. you stonewalled that just as you are stonewalling this.

    you can't defend what is indefensible.

    today the administration paid a firm 1m dollars to try and spread more propaganda about obamacare.

    80m people are getting ready to lose their work insurance. to date 1/3rd of the country will have lost their insurance
    being replaced with high premiums worse coverage plans.

    worse those that would rather pay out of pocket for general doctor visits and only have insurance that covers major hospital visits.
    Posted in: Debate
  • posted a message on Obamacare - For or Against?
    Not exactly. What usually ends up happening is that the school will shift their offered financial aid from gift aid to student loans. This exact scenario happened to me.


    Federal student loans depend. if you are a dependant on your parents IE they pay 50% of your bills they can claim you as a dependant.

    if they do this then you have to list your parents income on your federal student loans.

    I know when first attended college i didn't qualify for loans because my parents made to much money, and i was still living at home.

    Worst states I'm seeing on accepting Medicaid 'only' have a 60% acceptance rate for Medicaid. And usually from the data I see its very weighted against specialists, which aren't going to be a common need for kids.



    http://www.newsmax.com/Newsfront/doctor-shortage-obamacare-medicaid/2013/11/28/id/539137

    The same is holding true through out the country. what is even worse is that obamacare is dumping millions of people into medicaid which the states (those that took the money others didn't) thank God Fl wasn't one that did.

    are going to have a hard time finding a doctor combine that with the lack of interest in doctors and hospitals taking exchange plans it is going to generate massive health crisis worse than before.
    Posted in: Debate
  • posted a message on Obamacare - For or Against?
    my schools plan was around 1300... a semester [quote]

    hmm mine was like 100 it didn't cover much but could help if you needed a quick doctors visit.

    [quote]case that's not that common, and likely can get Medicaid, would even need it anymore.


    please see the article i posted medicaid is basically useless at this point. most doctors have opted out of it and there are only very few that accept it.

    Exactly how much it costs is dependent on the school, but it is used as a selling point and an easy way to get people to take more student loans.


    actually most college require students to have insurance.

    if parents can keep their kids on their insurance it might require them to be dependant on their parents. now the problem is that most kids will lose their student loans if their parents claim them as a dependant.
    Posted in: Debate
  • posted a message on Obamacare - For or Against?
    Quote from Vaclav
    On kids qualifying under their parents... Until the ACA that wasn't mandated, and didn't exist in MANY policies.

    And the age cap is now much higher - before 22 in college or 18 otherwise was the cap.


    This gets a bit hairy.

    if you would have read one of the articles i posted college have stopped issuing insurance to students.

    in order to go to college you have to have some kind of health insurance. since most kids are independant from their parents (in order to get loans most of the time) they use to pay about 100 bucks a year for this insurance.

    now the cost to offering them insurance has jumped into the 1000's of dollars a year. so college's have quit offering them policies.

    which means a lot of students might not be able to get insurance to attend college.

    this is a mess and a disaster and it doesn't look like it is getting any better. they have delayed the small business again.

    they are giving unions special breaks that they shouldn't get.

    they spent billions of dollars on something that it took 3 guys in CA to make in 3 days.

    over 100m people will lose their insurance policies.
    premiums are goign through the roof and they have delayed 2014 open enrollement till after the election because according to news sources premiums are going to go up even more.
    Posted in: Debate
  • posted a message on Obamacare - For or Against?
    It's not about how much time the government had to prepare for it. It's how much time it takes for the market to find a new equilibrium. It's the insurance companies and businesses that had 2 years to prepare and are just now making drastic changes.


    I guess you didn't read the articlei posted. why?
    they tell you exactly the reason that it is happening.

    People are losing their insurance and getting slammed on high premiums for coverage they don't need.

    the cost to young people are even worse to the point they are not signing up.

    First of all, the group of people without insurance is not a small minority. As of 2012, it's 15% of the overall population. 25% of those between 19 and 25 years old. 10% of those younger than 19. In addition to that, the people who don't have insurance are those who are most economically at risk. This is one of the things directly affecting upward mobility for certain socio-economic classes.


    Most of them qualified for their parents insurance if they had it.
    most of them are still in college and or working on a degree.

    so by the time they get out of college and find a job they will have health benefits. i don't consider that a crisis.

    yes 15% is a minority of people.
    and i believe it was less than that.

    Just because a majority of people are happy with their healthcare doesn't mean the government shouldn't do something to try and fix a market shortcoming. One classic example of this is car safety regulation. In the 50s and 60s, people were happy with their cars, but there were many accidents and deaths that could have been mitigated through simple regulations. This happened, and it sets a precedent for healthcare as another market the government should regulate if there is compelling state interest in doing so. You can argue that the way they're going about it is wrong, but to say that there wasn't a reason for the government to get involved in the first place is just ignorant.



    one has nothing to do with the other.

    we have seen the government fix.

    100m+ americans losing their health insurance.
    premiums skyrocketing out of control 20-60% higher than they were the previous year.

    the reason they delayed open enrollment next year till after the 2014 election is because premiums are going to surge even higher than they are now.

    they don't want the fall out to happen before the election. since after the election there is nothing that can be done about it.

    Again, this is a market adjusting to a new equilibrium. Prices are going to fluctuate at first and then stabilize. There's nothing to worry about in the hockey stick department.


    actually they are going to increase again by a large margin as insurance companies have no way to manage risk.

    so they are going to have to increase premiums in order to continue to pay out for all of these sick people.

    attempting to minimize what is happening is not an argument.
    tons of people are being enrolled in medicaid yet the number of doctors taking medicaid patients is dropping to an all time low.

    same with doctors taking exchange plans. please read the articles. they will give you real information that is going on. since obama has no clue.
    Posted in: Debate
  • To post a comment, please or register a new account.