says FF's right hand.
The ACA/ Obamacare Website Fiasco Thread
- Thread starter AWP
- Start date
Pffttt! My ED cleared up once I learned about pregnant and lactating midgets. As the kids would say, those videos are "off the chain."
Dame
Member
- Joined
- Apr 22, 2010
- Messages
- 3,367
Get a room, you two.
Here's something I'd like to know:
How many of you are against subsidized health insurance itself (or some kind of different health insurance reform), and how many of you like the idea, but not the ACA?
How many of you are against subsidized health insurance itself (or some kind of different health insurance reform), and how many of you like the idea, but not the ACA?
I think the entire system needs some rework, the FDA specifically fucks a lot of shit up due to either governmental immunity for specific medications or making the process to get things approved absurdly expensive to go through, which stymies the ability for both innovation and classical "Free market" ability to get the same or equivalent products for a cheaper price by being able to shop around. If the majority of procedures and equipment were able to be manufactured cheaper due to not having a limited amount of actual points of entry into the market for both diagnostic and definitive care? You'd see health insurance which is a byproduct of those specific factors (since nobody here save a few could pay out of pocket for any major anything) costs, plummet.
That's where the government needs to unfuck their dickbeaters in the process. Not trying to ramrod the shit at everyone and classically governmental result of making a jeffrey dahmer long pig and chicken noodle hoagie out of the mess.
That's where the government needs to unfuck their dickbeaters in the process. Not trying to ramrod the shit at everyone and classically governmental result of making a jeffrey dahmer long pig and chicken noodle hoagie out of the mess.
I am not against subsidized healthcare; that is why we have MediCare and MedicAid.
Those programs could have been expanded.
ACA needs a post-birth abortion.
Not every state took the expansion, as FedGov was going to push the cost of the expansion onto each state after the first few years. Not every state could afford to absorb that cost once FedGov wasn't paying for it (for a similar scenario, look at states/municipalities who hired LEO's with FedGov grants and couldn't afford to pay for them after the grants ran out).
I agree with RP about traditional free market forces having been shunted out of the medical industry. That, however, is slowly changing in some locations. Example: two weeks ago, my aunt had to get an MRI, and for the life of her was floored to see that the cost of the MRI for an out of pocket payment was less than the price that was submitted for payment to her insurance company (I'd have to dig through IM logs to find the exact numbers). I have read the occasional news article talking about that phenomenon; however, this was my first time seeing it happen to someone I know.
There's a lot to be fixed within the medical industry with regards to bringing costs down (tort reform, perhaps). Even if cost of medical services were lower, there would still be some in need of subsidized care. I'm in favor of that. The ACA, however, is a botched abortion of a law that needs to be given the "Ol' Yeller" treatment.
ETA: Her copayment for the MRI was going to be $900. If she paid for it while bypassing any kind of insurance (a la carte, for lack of a better term this early), the cost of the whole procedure would've been $475.
Last edited:
JHD
Member
Agree with RP and RK. The billing issue is astounding. Has happened to me also on some chiropractic care issues, as well.
Also, I get that funding of groundbreaking drugs for AIDS, etc., is going to be a costly endeavor. But when the drugs are brought to market, the US citizen pays exorbitant fees while we basically give the drugs away to other countries. We could probably do a better job of managing this issue with our aid packages we have with those countries. We shouldn't foot the bill for the whole world.
Abort Obamacare. Passing that legislation was a disservice to the country.
Also, I get that funding of groundbreaking drugs for AIDS, etc., is going to be a costly endeavor. But when the drugs are brought to market, the US citizen pays exorbitant fees while we basically give the drugs away to other countries. We could probably do a better job of managing this issue with our aid packages we have with those countries. We shouldn't foot the bill for the whole world.
Abort Obamacare. Passing that legislation was a disservice to the country.
No, ACA should have paid for that expansion.
Most people were happy with their insurance.
ACA should have just targeted those people who didn't have insurance, get ObamaCare, get a Private Policy, qualify for MediCare/MedicAid.
Scotth
Verified Military
While Obamacare is a mess. I think it can server the purpose of getting more people insured which will minimally bring down costs. Will it ever bring down healthcare cost substantially, no.
They're reasons why the VA pays 1/2 as much for the same drug as Medicare. They're reasons why drugs can be purchased cheaper in Canada by Americans then they can buy at home.
Obamacare isn't the long term answer for reforming our healthcare system. Change will come though because it has to. We are spending nearly 18% of GDP on healthcare. The next closest comparable countries are Canada, Germany and France spending 11%. We would have budget surpluses today if we spent what they did. The worse part is we are 46th on the list for Efficient health care systems. Only Switzerland pays more per capita then the US but the higher cost per person still only amounts to 11% of Switzerland GDP. We pay $8608 to rank 46 in the world. Canada pays $5630 and they rank 17.
http://www.bloomberg.com/visual-data/best-and-worst/most-efficient-health-care-countries
They're reasons why the VA pays 1/2 as much for the same drug as Medicare. They're reasons why drugs can be purchased cheaper in Canada by Americans then they can buy at home.
Obamacare isn't the long term answer for reforming our healthcare system. Change will come though because it has to. We are spending nearly 18% of GDP on healthcare. The next closest comparable countries are Canada, Germany and France spending 11%. We would have budget surpluses today if we spent what they did. The worse part is we are 46th on the list for Efficient health care systems. Only Switzerland pays more per capita then the US but the higher cost per person still only amounts to 11% of Switzerland GDP. We pay $8608 to rank 46 in the world. Canada pays $5630 and they rank 17.
http://www.bloomberg.com/visual-data/best-and-worst/most-efficient-health-care-countries
5% of Texans have signed up. (per today's paper)
Obamacare did not include tort reform, which adds to costs.
Obamacare caps money going into the Dr, but doesn't cap any of the providers expenses.
Scotth
Verified Military
States that actively got involved in setting up health care exchanges have seen much better results then states that didn't try to make the system work.
This link has an interesting map that you can scroll around to see what different states have done.
http://talkingpointsmemo.com/dc/obamacare-enrollment-map-best-worst-states
According to the CBO tort reform would have a minimal impact.
CBO now estimates, on the basis of an analysis incorporating the results of recent research, that if a package of proposals such as those described above was enacted, it would reduce total national health care spending by about 0.5 percent (about $11 billionin 2009). That figure is the sum of the direct reduction in spending of 0.2 percent from lower medical liability premiums, as discussed earlier, and an additional indirect reduction of 0.3 percent from slightly less utilization of health care services.
http://www.cbo.gov/sites/default/files/cbofiles/ftpdocs/106xx/doc10641/10-09-tort_reform.pdf
Obamacare takes money away from the Medicare Advantage program which is the doc fix that everyone is talking about. The House Republican's have proposed and voted each year for those same exact cuts in Ryan's budget plan. They try to beat up Obama for cutting Medicare one day and the next day say he isn't doing enough to cut entitlement spending all the while they propose the same exact dollars as Obama.
That doc fix was implemented during Bush's years and came about because Republican's created the Medicare Advantage plan back in '98 when they wanted to show how the private sector could do it better and cheaper then Medicare could but by 2000 health insurers were leaving the program because they couldn't make enough money. So when the Republican's did their reform during the Bush years all they did was upped the reimbursement levels paid to the health care companies to the point it made huge money for insurance providers. The problem was we didn't get anything in return for the increased spending it simply made it profitable for insurance providers to have a Medicare Advantage program. Additionally, the cost for that increased spending was never paid for so all it did was drain the whole Medicare system faster.
Not fixing the doctor reimbursement will certainly kill the Medicare Advantage program but might help the overall Medicare system.
Last edited:
You should've put in a caveat for Oregon, dude. Their state exchange ain't working out for nothin'.
Scotth
Verified Military
Go to the link I provided. Oregon has over 16% enrollment. Certainly not nearly what their neighbors have but better then Texas 5%. Maybe they had roll out problems like the Fed but they seem to have decent numbers when compared to the majority of states?
Brill
SOF Support
ACA is not being run like insurance otherwise risk for payout would be tied to price of premiums as would incentives to reduce risk (annual check ups, gym membership, non-smoking, etc).
Scrap ACA and start over...or just delay parts of implementation to appease political donors and to win more party votes. ACA is about a legacy and zero about the American people.
So you're forgetting the part where they couldn't enroll anyone for the first month and a half? Their state exchange launch made the FedGov launch look flawless.
I would hardly call them having much better results, as their ineptitude was almost criminal.
You're looking at numbers, I'm looking at bigger picture.
Eta: I'd have phrased your premise differently if I were you.
I would hardly call them having much better results, as their ineptitude was almost criminal.
You're looking at numbers, I'm looking at bigger picture.
Eta: I'd have phrased your premise differently if I were you.
I thought about making this a second edit, but it was better served making it a separate reply. When you look at the 16% figure, the actual number of people that represents 16% is only just over 100,000. Considering the national goal by the end of March was supposed to be 7 million people?
Also, according to the Oregon Live web site, Oregon's exchange is still fraught with problems, not least of which is the inability to sign up in one visit.
Also, according to the Oregon Live web site, Oregon's exchange is still fraught with problems, not least of which is the inability to sign up in one visit.
Scotth
Verified Military
I'm sure your right. I don't know the particular's of what is happening in 49 states. I only know what's happening in my own state.
I know we had problems for the state roll out. Not as bad as the feds but far from smooth. The head of the state program ended up resigning because she decided to take a 2 week vacation to Mexico right after the roll out. So when we had issues she was out of the country. She got a pink slip when she got back from vacation.
Brill
SOF Support
Healthcare reform for a "special interest group" (those that didn't have it)?
http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2014/mar/16/curl-we-completely-overhauled-american-health-care/
"President Obama said it in August 2009: “I don’t have to explain to you that nearly 46 million Americans don’t have health insurance coverage today. In the wealthiest nation on Earth, 46 million of our fellow citizens have no coverage.”
He said it dozens more times, including in June 2013: “We are not a nation that accepts nearly 46 million uninsured men, women and children.”
So, he created Obamacare. The crux of the biscuit: The United States would completely change its entire health care system to make sure those 46 million got insured. Well, at least that’s what every rational American thought. If there are 46 million uninsured, and the president and Congress are overhauling the system, it must be to solve the whole problem — not just part of it.
But last week came word that with just 15 days left for people to enroll for federal coverage, just 4.2 million had. The math is simple: That’s just 9 percent of the supposedly 46 million uninsured."
http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2014/mar/16/curl-we-completely-overhauled-american-health-care/
"President Obama said it in August 2009: “I don’t have to explain to you that nearly 46 million Americans don’t have health insurance coverage today. In the wealthiest nation on Earth, 46 million of our fellow citizens have no coverage.”
He said it dozens more times, including in June 2013: “We are not a nation that accepts nearly 46 million uninsured men, women and children.”
So, he created Obamacare. The crux of the biscuit: The United States would completely change its entire health care system to make sure those 46 million got insured. Well, at least that’s what every rational American thought. If there are 46 million uninsured, and the president and Congress are overhauling the system, it must be to solve the whole problem — not just part of it.
But last week came word that with just 15 days left for people to enroll for federal coverage, just 4.2 million had. The math is simple: That’s just 9 percent of the supposedly 46 million uninsured."
