Obamacare Opponnents' nightmare realized in NZ

  1. You have chosen to ignore posts from skeeter20. Show skeeter20's posts

    Re: Obamacare Opponnents' nightmare realized in NZ

    In response to Beach-Spider's comment:

    RE:

    "Stick your head in a bucket of water and inhale."

    Cool  Or, as we say in Florida:

           "Take a long walk OFF a short pier"  Wink

    [/QUOTE]

    Right.  Well, you do have a point, in as much as we are arguing over details of something that shouldn't even exist.

    But, nice to see you and WDYWN are beyond having to support your contention, just sling an insult out there and leave it at that.

     

     
  2. You have chosen to ignore posts from GregoryFromMeffa. Show GregoryFromMeffa's posts

    Re: Obamacare Opponnents' nightmare realized in NZ

    Is there ANYONE who actually believes cigarette taxes are going up a buck tomorrow to get people to stop smoking???

     
  3. You have chosen to ignore posts from FortySixAndTwo. Show FortySixAndTwo's posts

    Re: Obamacare Opponnents' nightmare realized in NZ

    In response to skeeter20's comment:

    [/QUOTE]

     "Choice" is not the right metric, or at least not understood in economic terms.  Scarcity is the right metric, or at least needs to be made part of the conversaiton.

     

     

     

    Choice as used here, is the choice between thre government mandated plans:  you must choose one: between a bronze, silver, and gold plan.  This is not a restriction of choice, a government induced scarcity in choice, made for the purpose, at least by plan, of lowering costs.

    Real choice includes the choice to choose nothing.

    Why would you not want health insurance? You do realize that the cost of those who don't have health insurance gets paid for one way or the other...usually by higher insurance premuims  

    Why would you not want a gun?  We have the 2nd Ammendment.  Maybe we should make gun ownership mandatory.  After all, I don't want to pay for oyur health care as a result of not defending yourself.

    Because the chances of me getting in a life threatening car accident or getting cancer is far greater than my ever needing a gun to defend myself. In the case of a car accident I would prefer to have health insurance versus a gun. If I need cancer treatments I'd rather have health insurance instead of a gun.

    Self-insure is not only a possiblilty, but many self-employed people do just that.  Self-insuered means pay out of pocket, just in case your union bosses didn't clue you in.

    Yes, I know what self-insured means. I don't know about you but I don't have hundred's of thousands of dollars at my disposal in case I need life threatening treatments. Nor do most people.

    Real choice includes the ability to pick and choose what I want to cover.

    Which no one has ever been able to do on an employer based plan. Never.

    You have always been able to decline insurance, and pay out of pocket.  Always, until now.

    First, the issue was about picking and choosing what one wants covered. Not declining coverage. No need to move the goal posts here. Second, you can still decline insurance if you so choose.

    So, when your company offers you plans, they are not in reality the "same" plans.  Government has put restrictions and demands on the plans about what must be covered, what tests will be administered, and have lumped everyone into three catagories, that's 350 million people lumped into three categories.  What youu have is a government induced scarcity of choice.  That's going to raise prices dramatically.

    What are you talking about? My company offers different plans from different insurers. I have the option for two different BCBS plans. One from HPHC, one from NHP and there is one other I can't recall. None of which are the same plans. They all vary a bit with copays and deductibles

     From the ACA:

    (1) IN GENERAL.—A health plan not providing a bronze, silver, gold, or platinum level of coverage shall be treated as 

    meeting the requirements of subsection (d) with respect to any 

    plan year if—

    (A) the only individuals who are eligible to enroll in 

    the plan are individuals described in paragraph (2); and 

    (B) the plan provides—

    (i) except as provided in clause (ii), the essential 

    health benefits determined under subsection (b), except that the plan provides no benefits for any plan 

    year until the individual has incurred cost-sharing expenses in an amount equal to the annual limitation in 

    effect under subsection (c)(1) for the plan year (except 

    as provided for in section 2713); and 

    (ii) coverage for at least three primary care visits. 

    (2) INDIVIDUALS ELIGIBLE FOR ENROLLMENT.—An individual is described in this paragraph for any plan year if the 

    individual—

    (A) has not attained the age of 30 before the beginning 

    of the plan year; or 

    (B) has a certification in effect for any plan year under 

    this title that the individual is exempt from the requirement under section 5000A of the Internal Revenue Code of 

    1986 by reason of—

    (i) section 5000A(e)(1) of such Code (relating to individuals without affordable coverage); or 

    (ii) section 5000A(e)(5) of such Code (relating to 

    individuals with hardships).

     

    The variations you are seeing in the plans offered are in reference to the Bronze, Silver, Gold, Platnum plans.  That these plans are offered by different insurance comapnies is meaningless.  What they offer, how much they charge, all controlled by the ACA.  There is more that goes into defining this, I just grabbed one segment from the hundreds of pages.

    The broader point is that the type of coverage, what coverage contains, how much the insurance company can charge, is all covered under the bill.

    Here's a link:

    http://housedocs.house.gov/energycommerce/ppacacon.pdf

    My god....you don't know the difference between employer based health insurance plans and the exchange plans. TWO different things. Employers don't offer the exchange plans (gold, silver, bronze , etc) 

    I CLEARLY stated my EMPLOYER offered different plans with different benefits. What YOU brought up is entirely different. The exchange plans are for those people who opt out of employer based plans or who are self-employed for examples.

    Apples and oranges.

    [/QUOTE]


     

     

     

    [/QUOTE]


     

    [/QUOTE]


     
  4. You have chosen to ignore posts from FortySixAndTwo. Show FortySixAndTwo's posts

    Re: Obamacare Opponnents' nightmare realized in NZ

    In response to GregoryFromMeffa's comment:

    Is there ANYONE who actually believes cigarette taxes are going up a buck tomorrow to get people to stop smoking???



    Sadly there probably are some who do. 

     
  5. You have chosen to ignore posts from GregoryFromMeffa. Show GregoryFromMeffa's posts

    Re: Obamacare Opponnents' nightmare realized in NZ

    In response to FortySixAndTwo's comment:

    In response to GregoryFromMeffa's comment:

    [QUOTE]

     

    Is there ANYONE who actually believes cigarette taxes are going up a buck tomorrow to get people to stop smoking???

     



    Sadly there probably are some who do. 

     

    [/QUOTE]


    Indeed.  Its the last thing Duval and the dems want.  Smokers, bend over

     
  6. You have chosen to ignore posts from FortySixAndTwo. Show FortySixAndTwo's posts

    Re: Obamacare Opponnents' nightmare realized in NZ

    "Purpose aside, the fact of the matter is that increasing the cost of cigarettes does cause some people to stop smoking.

    You can back this up by looking up any number of economic studies, or even just plain personal anecdotes."

     

     

    No one is saying there won't be some people who quit as a result of having to pay more. The question was....does anyone believe the cigarette taxes are going up a buck tomorrow to GET people to stop smoking??? 

    Only an idiot would think so.

     
  7. This post has been removed.

     
  8. You have chosen to ignore posts from FortySixAndTwo. Show FortySixAndTwo's posts

    Re: Obamacare Opponnents' nightmare realized in NZ

    Kinda funny that some wingnuts don't think raising the costs of cigarettes has an effect on smoking but raising taxes will make everyone quit investing or stop working or not hire workers to meet demand.

    Hilarious!

     

    My god...no one said there wouldn't be ANY effect. 

     

    Only Gene Wilder can sum these two idiots up perfectly

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RV-nDFpOJeU

     
  9. You have chosen to ignore posts from skeeter20. Show skeeter20's posts

    Re: Obamacare Opponnents' nightmare realized in NZ

    In response to FortySixAndTwo's comment:

     

    In response to skeeter20's comment:

     



     "Choice" is not the right metric, or at least not understood in economic terms.  Scarcity is the right metric, or at least needs to be made part of the conversaiton.

     

     

     

     

    Choice as used here, is the choice between thre government mandated plans:  you must choose one: between a bronze, silver, and gold plan.  This is not a restriction of choice, a government induced scarcity in choice, made for the purpose, at least by plan, of lowering costs.

    Real choice includes the choice to choose nothing.

    Why would you not want health insurance? You do realize that the cost of those who don't have health insurance gets paid for one way or the other...usually by higher insurance premuims  

    Why would you not want a gun?  We have the 2nd Ammendment.  Maybe we should make gun ownership mandatory.  After all, I don't want to pay for oyur health care as a result of not defending yourself.

    Because the chances of me getting in a life threatening car accident or getting cancer is far greater than my ever needing a gun to defend myself. In the case of a car accident I would prefer to have health insurance versus a gun. If I need cancer treatments I'd rather have health insurance instead of a gun.

    Self-insure is not only a possiblilty, but many self-employed people do just that.  Self-insuered means pay out of pocket, just in case your union bosses didn't clue you in.

    Yes, I know what self-insured means. I don't know about you but I don't have hundred's of thousands of dollars at my disposal in case I need life threatening treatments. Nor do most people.

    Real choice includes the ability to pick and choose what I want to cover.

    Which no one has ever been able to do on an employer based plan. Never.

    You have always been able to decline insurance, and pay out of pocket.  Always, until now.

    First, the issue was about picking and choosing what one wants covered. Not declining coverage. No need to move the goal posts here. Second, you can still decline insurance if you so choose.

    So, when your company offers you plans, they are not in reality the "same" plans.  Government has put restrictions and demands on the plans about what must be covered, what tests will be administered, and have lumped everyone into three catagories, that's 350 million people lumped into three categories.  What youu have is a government induced scarcity of choice.  That's going to raise prices dramatically.

    What are you talking about? My company offers different plans from different insurers. I have the option for two different BCBS plans. One from HPHC, one from NHP and there is one other I can't recall. None of which are the same plans. They all vary a bit with copays and deductibles

     From the ACA:

    (1) IN GENERAL.—A health plan not providing a bronze, silver, gold, or platinum level of coverage shall be treated as 

    meeting the requirements of subsection (d) with respect to any 

    plan year if—

    (A) the only individuals who are eligible to enroll in 

    the plan are individuals described in paragraph (2); and 

    (B) the plan provides—

    (i) except as provided in clause (ii), the essential 

    health benefits determined under subsection (b), except that the plan provides no benefits for any plan 

    year until the individual has incurred cost-sharing expenses in an amount equal to the annual limitation in 

    effect under subsection (c)(1) for the plan year (except 

    as provided for in section 2713); and 

    (ii) coverage for at least three primary care visits. 

    (2) INDIVIDUALS ELIGIBLE FOR ENROLLMENT.—An individual is described in this paragraph for any plan year if the 

    individual—

    (A) has not attained the age of 30 before the beginning 

    of the plan year; or 

    (B) has a certification in effect for any plan year under 

    this title that the individual is exempt from the requirement under section 5000A of the Internal Revenue Code of 

    1986 by reason of—

    (i) section 5000A(e)(1) of such Code (relating to individuals without affordable coverage); or 

    (ii) section 5000A(e)(5) of such Code (relating to 

    individuals with hardships).

     

    The variations you are seeing in the plans offered are in reference to the Bronze, Silver, Gold, Platnum plans.  That these plans are offered by different insurance comapnies is meaningless.  What they offer, how much they charge, all controlled by the ACA.  There is more that goes into defining this, I just grabbed one segment from the hundreds of pages.

    The broader point is that the type of coverage, what coverage contains, how much the insurance company can charge, is all covered under the bill.

    Here's a link:

    http://housedocs.house.gov/energycommerce/ppacacon.pdf

    My god....you don't know the difference between employer based health insurance plans and the exchange plans. TWO different things. Employers don't offer the exchange plans (gold, silver, bronze , etc) 

    I CLEARLY stated my EMPLOYER offered different plans with different benefits. What YOU brought up is entirely different. The exchange plans are for those people who opt out of employer based plans or who are self-employed for examples.

    Apples and oranges.

    [/QUOTE]


     

     

     

    [/QUOTE]


     

    [/QUOTE]


    [/QUOTE]

     

    Why would you need hundreds of thousands of dollars to self-insure?  Are you spending that much now?  You can self-insure for normal health care needs and add a catastrophic plan for a couple hundred a month.  You pay for your normal doctor visits and care, and if you get hit by a truck, you are covered.  I think that kind of plan would actually cover the vast majority of people, but that owuld make too much sense, you know, taking care of yourself.  Better to let government do it.  In other words, let the rest of us pay for you to take care of yourself.

    Not moving the goal posts.  You are not keeping your plan, and not necessarily keeping your doctor.  The government has about a thousand pages in this bill defining just what is included in your healthcare plan, who gets penalized, etc.  Thinking that you still have your same plan or an actual choice outside this bill is real head in the sand activity.  In order for your statement to be true, Obamacare would have to be completely innocuous, in which case, why do we need it?

    I guess you are simply willing to give up your freedom for a little bit of security, false security at that.  Franklin warned us about people like you.

     

     

     
  10. You have chosen to ignore posts from skeeter20. Show skeeter20's posts

    Re: Obamacare Opponnents' nightmare realized in NZ

    In response to WhatDoYouWantNow's comment:

    In response to skeeter20's comment:
    [QUOTE]From McKinsey:



    I wasn't aware they had a time machine.

     

     

    Say...did anyone pay them for this "study", do they benefit in any way....or is the consulting firm just putting this out there out of the goodness of their job creator hearts?

    [/QUOTE]

    Nice.  I provide data, and you just dismiss it.

    The problem is that you are beyond listening to the fact,.  You are so in the tank on OPbamacare that nothing,and I mean nothing will open your eyes.

    But, at least your union has a waiver, right?

     
  11. You have chosen to ignore posts from skeeter20. Show skeeter20's posts

    Re: Obamacare Opponnents' nightmare realized in NZ

    In response to Beach-Spider's comment:

    In response to Hansoribrother's comment:

     

    In response to miscricket's comment:

     

    "A great part of Obamacare is the increase in preventative medicine.

    Preventing diseases and medical conditions is always going to be the least expensive option.

    Once you get into secondary and tertiary treatment..the costs go up substantially. Obamacare is not perfect..but it many cases it is a step in the right direction. There is a cost associated with it..but the cost of doing nothing would be greater for both our general health and our economic health.

    " Above all..be the heroine in your life..not the victim" Nora Ephron

     



    Do you really think there is anything in Obamacare about preventative medicine? It is not really preventative. It is early detection. Preventative medicine for breast cancer might be a prescription calling for a whole food/plant diet. A mammogram is early detection.

     

    OK, I forgot about birth control. That is definitely preventative medicine.

    For the collective, early detection is MORE expensive than doing nothing. That is because most testing produces negative results by a huge margin. So I get a PSA test every year for 40 years and never get prostate cancer, but I die from bladder cancer or heart failure at an old age. How does the PSA test save any money? It saves ME from getting a cancer that goes untreated too long. I am all for that for sure, but maybe DHHS is not. To heck with them.

    Preventative medicine is good for the individual, bad for the collective. 


    Spidey sez ...

    Preventative medicine is good for the individual and for the collective.


    Preventative Medicine has been 'alive and well' in many parts of Asia for centuries.
    However the 'AMA' accepts very little of its practices or its philosophy.

    We (the USA) are very fortunate that Obama knows its value and its worth in American Medicine.

    For more on 'Preventative Medicine' go to this site ...

       http://www.prevent.org/Reports-and-Articles/Preventive-Care.aspx




    You are sooo right.  How could I have missed it.  Not only is Obamacare the solution to all our problems, but because government is doing it, it will work, and it will be free.

    Thanks you, thank you so much, for straightening me out.  Hey, one last question:  when is the collective handing out identical grey jump suits for us to wear? 

     
  12. You have chosen to ignore posts from FortySixAndTwo. Show FortySixAndTwo's posts

    Re: Obamacare Opponnents' nightmare realized in NZ

    In response to skeeter20's comment:

     

     

     



     

    Why would you need hundreds of thousands of dollars to self-insure?  Are you spending that much now?  You can self-insure for normal health care needs and add a catastrophic plan for a couple hundred a month.  You pay for your normal doctor visits and care, and if you get hit by a truck, you are covered.  I think that kind of plan would actually cover the vast majority of people, but that owuld make too much sense, you know, taking care of yourself.  Better to let government do it.  In other words, let the rest of us pay for you to take care of yourself

    No not spending that much now but that isnt to say it couldn't happen. Accidents happen, cancer diagnosis happen. I'd prefer to be covered for such things versus losing my home.

    If what you proposed above is such a great way to do it then why aren't you doing it? You have insurance through your employer. So it seems you don't practice what you preach.

    How much do you think cancer treatments cost? Think about the people injured at Boston Marathon....their costs were enormous. self insuring wouldn't have worked for them. 

    Not moving the goal posts.  You are not keeping your plan, and not necessarily keeping your doctor.  The government has about a thousand pages in this bill defining just what is included in your healthcare plan, who gets penalized, etc.  Thinking that you still have your same plan or an actual choice outside this bill is real head in the sand activity.  In order for your statement to be true, Obamacare would have to be completely innocuous, in which case, why do we need it?

    I don't think I have the same plan...I know I have the same plan. My copays are the same as last year. I was on BCBS last year and yup....still on BCBS. I also still have my same doctor. Know how I know? I JUST SAW HIM. Oh wait....maybe he was a clone....invasion of the body snatchers????? Hahahahahahahahaha

    I guess you are simply willing to give up your freedom for a little bit of security, false security at that.  Franklin warned us about people like you.

    Having the same exact plan that I had last year and having the same doctor as last year doesn't really feel like I'm giving up any freedoms. But hey....whatever you say...weeeeeeeeeeeee

     

    [/QUOTE]


     

Share