• If you are having problems logging in please use the Contact Us in the lower right hand corner of the forum page for assistance.

republicans love their Obamacare

flounder

Well-known member
Seventy-four percent of newly insured Republicans liked their plans.

What? 74 percent?

What about those death panels and all of the other horrible things that Republicans, led by Ted Cruz, and Fox News said about Obamacare?

This was supposed to be some draconian law, part of some Machiavellian socialist plot led by President Obama and the rest of the Democrats.

How can 3 out of 4 Obamacare-using Republicans be satisfied with their plans?

Probably because once the smoke and the false negative propaganda cleared, they discovered that the plan actually works, they get better coverage, and they pay less money.

Exactly what Obamacare was supposed to do.

http://firebrandprogressives.org/bombshell-poll-republicans-love-obamacare/

Obamacare fails to fail

http://www.nytimes.com/2014/07/14/opinion/paul-krugman-obamacare-fails-to-fail.html

It turns out, republicans love their Obamacare

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2014/07/10/1312995/-New-survey-shows-why-Republicans-anti-Obamacare-campaign-keeps-getting-nbsp-harder#
 

Whitewing

Well-known member
Lemme get this straight. A gubmint plan that actually works, gives better coverage, and costs less.

Yeah, I believe that one.
 

Brad S

Well-known member
Wonderful. Let's assume the horsesh!t you posted is correct. Perfect. So obamascrew doesn't need to be mandatory. Make it optional.


In other news, social security is so wonderful, let's make participation OPTIONAL.
 

loomixguy

Well-known member
Flounder is as full of it concerning Obozocare as he is mad cow.

Had a little shower this morning. A little humid but there's a nice breeze now and quite pleasant.
 

hypocritexposer

Well-known member
So.... if costs are lower than expected, then so too is revenue, correct?

With the majority of the expense being for those, that are not tax revenue contributors, it might be a little too soon to start gloating, flounder.

Those that are fortunate enough to realize reduced costs for insurance, probably have not seen the total costs yet.
 

iwannabeacowboy

Well-known member
hypocritexposer said:
So.... if costs are lower than expected, then so too is revenue, correct?

With the majority of the expense being for those, that are not tax revenue contributors, it might be a little too soon to start gloating, flounder.

Those that are fortunate enough to realize reduced costs for insurance, probably have not seen the total costs yet.


A. Its bs statistics

B. You are correct that any person that would think it is financial beneficial, doesn't understand finances. What was paid for previously by premiums, is no where near what will be paid for now.

If flounder understood economics, he wouldn't be delusioned. Because he doesn't, no one will be able to explain to him why he is so wrong.


But my wife just signed up through blue cross and blue shield after losing her other insurance and cobra ended.

Monthly premium is 350 ish.... not horrible if you didn't have a deductible of 3,000 and then be out another potential 9000 for out of pocket expenses, and then have to pay an office fee, an emergency room fee 400, and a outpatient sx fee, plus increased costs for prescriptions.

She could pay less, but her deductible climbs astronomically. Oh yeah, she can only go in network. Out of network the out of pocket gets ridiculous.

I used to pay 400 a month and could go anywhere I chose in the US. They covered every dime with no head aches after my 1500 deductible was met.

You're right flounder, I just hated my real insurance I used to have. It just sucked being able to go to MD Anderson that was researching a genetic cancer in the family. I would hate for them to have been able to help my kids.
 

Steve

Well-known member
A. Its bs statistics

one problem is that anyone who choose not to get obamacare was not counted..

many like my son's girlfriend needs insurance,.. the liberal university she works for does not offer her any sort of coverage.. and she makes a bit to much to get a meaningful subsidy..

for her any coverage would be better.. but the coverage offered wasn't worth it..

I would say you could put her in the dissatisfied column, if you would have counted her..


so the poll was of folk who had already decided that it was better then nothing.. and did not count all those who looked at it and turned it down...



as others have said,.. if it is so great,... make it optional and see how well it works...
 

iwannabeacowboy

Well-known member
http://www.weeklystandard.com/blogs/obamacare-misses-its-target-uninsured-half_796636.html

Yeah, its so great. How many trillion did it cost, BESIDES what people will be out of pocket? Anyone know the real cost yet NO!

Then how many unisured have insurance? I promise that the 8 million number isn't even any where near right.

I bet the cost will be at least 3 trillion, and that is being conservative. I bet no more than 6 million uninsured received health care that couldn't get it through other means, and that is a very liberal guess. I bet more like me lost their insurance. I bet the wash is negative. But let's say it is 6 million.

That means it only cost us 500,000 a piece for them to get a policy.

Heck, that's cheap. What did it cost us for shovel ready jobs, green energy, Brazilian oil, GSA trips to Vegas, to arm ISIS?
 

Steve

Well-known member
one new scandal.. the Obama crew wanting to reduce or delay rate increases by promising a "bailout" of the insurance industry...



The LA Times reports that the "Obama administration has quietly adjusted key provisions of its signature healthcare law to potentially make billions of additional taxpayer dollars available to the insurance industry if companies providing coverage through the Affordable Care Act lose money." In other words, yet another taxpayer funded bailout.

More on this stunner from LA Times:

The move was buried in hundreds of pages of new regulations issued late last week. It comes as part of an intensive administration effort to hold down premium increases for next year, a top priority for the White House as the rates will be announced ahead of this fall's congressional elections.


Administration officials for months have denied charges by opponents that they plan a "bailout" for insurance companies providing coverage under the healthcare law.


They continue to argue that most insurers shouldn't need to substantially increase premiums because safeguards in the healthcare law will protect them over the next several years.


But the change in regulations essentially provides insurers with another backup: If they keep rate increases modest over the next couple of years but lose money, the administration will tap federal funds as needed to cover shortfalls.
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
Associated Press Montana News Summary
Wednesday, July 16th 2014
Latest Montana news, sports, business and entertainment
HEALTH OVERHAUL

State: Number of uninsured drops by 15 percent

HELENA, Mont. (AP) — State officials say about 30,000 more Montana residents are enrolled in a health insurance plan than before the Affordable Care Act enrollment period took place.

State Insurance Office Deputy Commissioner Adam Schafer told a legislative panel Tuesday his office surveyed the state's largest insurance companies to learn whether the number of uninsured decreased after the federal health care overhaul.

The total number of uninsured people in the state was estimated at 195,000 in 2013. With 30,000 of those people now enrolled in a health insurance plan, Schafer said that represents a 15.4 percent reduction in the total number of uninsured.

Schafer presented the preliminary findings to the Economic Affairs Interim Committee. He called the increase significant, saying people now have access to more than just emergency care.
 

Brad S

Well-known member
OT redirect. You were asked a question, and are suspiciously quiet. Answer the damn question. Certainly, if the bigot in chief and his party of lemmings make something compulsory, yes most citizens will comply with the mandate to avoid breaking the law and not be attacked by government thugs.
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
Brad S said:
OT redirect. You were asked a question, and are suspiciously quiet. Answer the damn question. Certainly, if the bigot in chief and his party of lemmings make something compulsory, yes most citizens will comply with the mandate to avoid breaking the law and not be attacked by government thugs.

What question did you ask?
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
Brad S said:
What has Obama care cost per new insured person?


I'm not sure that initial cost has been computed- but when you look at it you also have to look past that- and at how much having those folks get early diagnosis, early treatment and preventative care (instead of just emergency room treatment they stick the cost of on all of us) will save 10-15-20 years down the line..

That is the reason the Republicans/conservative Heritage Foundation sold me on the mandate plan years ago.... As they said and then later the insurance agencies testified to - lowering the costs and getting long term health benefits which will lower costs will require that ALL be covered and all have access to this preventative care and early diagnosis... But it will take a few years before we reap the benefits...

Do we keep haying the same old worn out field- or do we invest and reseed it and look toward what we can reap in the future :???:
 

hopalong

Well-known member
how much are YOU investing personally
A responsible parent does not squander what he should be giving his family You might have to quit going to the BAR :shock: :shock:

Or are you planning on using the profit on those cattle ventures you invested in when you threw your hissy fit about no respect....or was that just another one of your lies
 

iwannabeacowboy

Well-known member
Oldtimernsured person?[/quote said:
I'm not sure that initial cost has been computed- but when you look at it you also have to look past that- and at how much having those folks get early diagnosis, early treatment and preventative care (instead of just emergency room treatment they stick the cost of on all of us) will save 10-15-20 years down the line..

That is the reason the Republicans/conservative Heritage Foundation sold me on the mandate plan years ago.... As they said and then later the insurance agencies testified to - lowering the costs and getting long term health benefits which will lower costs will require that ALL be covered and all have access to this preventative care and early diagnosis... But it will take a few years before we reap the benefits...

Do we keep haying the same old worn out field- or do we invest and reseed it and look toward what we can reap in the future :???:

Wrong. Not just wrong. It couldn't be further from the truth.

More people not paying for the system, the system doing more work is not compatible. Something has to give, there are no free lunches.

I can't believe you think people can go all willy nilly to find - issues before they even occur (which is what preventative care is) and the system will be able to absorb this kind of behavior. Those with real needs will be forced to wait, as there are only so many primary care doctors. Have the flu.... We'll get you in next month. Peeing too much.... good luck until September. There goes your early diagnosis. :).

If you understood medicine at all, you would know that there is very little that is preventative. There is an oath of do no harm. Do you start someone on something that may have side effects or perform surgery that very likely can have complications for a disease/disorder that may not occur? The answer no. You might monitor for early detection. But good luck with that in a rationing and back logged system.



Look at VA for Pete's sake.



But I bet you ignore common sense and double down on some progressive nonsense to reply with. Not being able to admit to being wrong is some dangerous pride.
 
Top