Obamacare Saves Consumers $2.1 Billion Since 2011

[thoughtone]

Even Drudge had to admit it.

source: Drudge Report


Regulations in Obamacare set up a program to review insurance rate increases and instituted an 80/20 rule, requiring insurance companies to spend no more than 20 percent of consumer premiums on profits and administrative costs. And since September 2011, insurance providers have had justify premium rate increase of more than 10 percent for individual and small group markets. Consumers have saved an estimated $1 billion on their insurance premiums as a result of rate review, and 13 million Americans received $1.1 billion in rebates last year from the 80/20 provision.

 

[thoughtone]

No Lamarr, AAA, Greed and other usual suspects!

 

[Lamarr]

No Lamarr, AAA, Greed and other usual suspects!

This is the "calm before the storm". They bout to turn hospitals into the DMV.

 

[sharkbait28]

This is the "calm before the storm". They bout to turn hospitals into the DMV.

Only in America is increasing accessibility to health care regarded as something undesirable. Our country is fucked.

 

[Lamarr]

Only in America is increasing accessibility to health care regarded as something undesirable. Our country is fucked.

Dont put words in my mouth. One thing that is undesirable is some bureaucrat will control / oversee my healthcare. As if I can't do this myself.

Yeah, we fucked..............we have some who lack the ability to use critical thinking to understand this 21st century Tuskegee Experiment.

What, you think it cant happen again?

 

[sharkbait28]

Dont put words in my mouth. One thing that is undesirable is some bureaucrat will control / oversee my healthcare. As if I can't do this myself.

Yeah, we fucked..............we have some who lack the ability to use critical thinking to understand this 21st century Tuskegee Experiment.

What, you think it cant happen again?

A healthy, informed cynicism about government makes sense. Delusions that a bureaucrat in Central Planning will be controlling your health care is silly..... especially when compared against reality. The "Affordable Care Act" hasn't changed our system of health care delivery at all.... the system is still the same. Accessibility has been improved somewhat, a few efficiencies have been found and insurance providers have been tasked with actually delivering patient care. The whole thing is insanely modest and doesn't even rise to the level of a Single Payer model (where I could at least understand, if not empathize with, the rambling paranoia directed at "Obamacare").

Drawing any kind of equivalence between the Tuskagee Expirements and the provisions in the Affordable Care Act is really just quite sad.

I don't know what to say to that.

 

[VegasGuy]

A healthy, informed cynicism about government makes sense. Delusions that a bureaucrat in Central Planning will be controlling your health care is silly..... especially when compared against reality. The "Affordable Care Act" hasn't changed our system of health care delivery at all.... the system is still the same. Accessibility has been improved somewhat, a few efficiencies have been found and insurance providers have been tasked with actually delivering patient care. The whole thing is insanely modest and doesn't even rise to the level of a Single Payer model (where I could at least understand, if not empathize with, the rambling paranoia directed at "Obamacare").

Drawing any kind of equivalence between the Tuskagee Expirements and the provisions in the Affordable Care Act is really just quite sad.

I don't know what to say to that.

Very sad. Seems most republicans assume they are in control when they vote wingers into office who are paid millions from insurance companies. They dictate directly to these wingers what they will and won't cover. I say its best to keep some government regs in place that protect us from both. ACA aka Obamacare is that reg.

-VG

 

[Greed]

No Lamarr, AAA, Greed and other usual suspects!

Why would I give a shit about this? Didn't I already say you deserve what you get.

Enjoy it.

 

[Lamarr]

Drawing any kind of equivalence between the Tuskagee Expirements and the provisions in the Affordable Care Act is really just quite sad.

I don't know what to say to that.

Through Executive Orders, mandates etc, bureaucrats will control your life. Some have no appreciation for the principles of freedom nor liberty

Bruh, life has taught me; if it sounds too good to be true, it probably is!

To find people so "enthused" with this ACA is still a mystery to me. If it was such a righteous document, it would be 3-4 pages instead of over 1000 pages of legalese. Cats still cant tell me what my bill gone be or what my penalty / tax (whatever you wanna call it) would be should i decline coverage.

At this point, no one can tell me how much "Obamacare" is saving me until they tell me what it is costing me. I wanna see real numbers

 

[Lamarr]

Very sad. Seems most republicans assume they are in control when they vote wingers into office who are paid millions from insurance companies.

I aint no Republican, smart guy.

Just wanna be left "the fuck" alone. Thats all

 

[thoughtone]

 

[thoughtone]

^^^^^^^^^^^^

 

[Upgrade Dave]

This is the "calm before the storm". They bout to turn hospitals into the DMV.

I've been to the DMV three times, well twice and my wife once, and we were in and out pretty quick. But to play to the stereotype, the DMV has few offices while there are usually more hospitals than DMV offices.
On top of that, if you're poor, the hospital is already like the DMV because emergency rooms stay full.

 

[Upgrade Dave]

Dont put words in my mouth. One thing that is undesirable is some bureaucrat will control / oversee my healthcare. As if I can't do this myself.

Yeah, we fucked..............we have some who lack the ability to use critical thinking to understand this 21st century Tuskegee Experiment.
What, you think it cant happen again?

Is that really what this is, Lamarr?
You're better than that, man.

Through Executive Orders, mandates etc, bureaucrats will control your life. Some have no appreciation for the principles of freedom nor liberty

Bruh, life has taught me; if it sounds too good to be true, it probably is!

To find people so "enthused" with this ACA is still a mystery to me. If it was such a righteous document, it would be 3-4 pages instead of over 1000 pages of legalese. Cats still cant tell me what my bill gone be or what my penalty / tax (whatever you wanna call it) would be should i decline coverage.

At this point, no one can tell me how much "Obamacare" is saving me until they tell me what it is costing me. I wanna see real numbers

 

[Cruise]

There was this basic principle in law that the government cannot compel anyone to enter a private contract.

First you had auto insurance. They got away with that, so the government sad, let's make them pay for health insurance too!

These are the steps toward enslavement of the population (job slave, wage slave, debt slave, insurance slave).

 

[QueEx]

There was this basic principle in law that the government cannot compel anyone to enter a private contract.

There is also a principle in the law which provides:"he who enters must have clean hands." That is, he who complains of a wrong, should have clean hands" -- i.e., not be guilty of participating in the wrong, himself.

Did you not (and maybe still if you're not yet 26), as the son of a HUD employee, receive health insurance benefits paid for by PUBLIC DOLLARS ?

 

[Upgrade Dave]

There is also a principle in the law which provides:"he who enters must have clean hands." That is, he who complains of a wrong, should have clean hands" -- i.e., not be guilty of participating in the wrong, himself.

Did you not (and maybe still if you're not yet 26), as the son of a HUD employee, receive health insurance benefits paid for by PUBLIC DOLLARS ?

 

[Cruise]

There is also a principle in the law which provides:"he who enters must have clean hands." That is, he who complains of a wrong, should have clean hands" -- i.e., not be guilty of participating in the wrong, himself.

Did you not (and maybe still if you're not yet 26), as the son of a HUD employee, receive health insurance benefits paid for by PUBLIC DOLLARS ?

Cute.

I haven't taken a public dollar in almost 20 years.

 

[Upgrade Dave]

There was this basic principle in law that the government cannot compel anyone to enter a private contract.

First you had auto insurance. They got away with that, so the government sad, let's make them pay for health insurance too!

These are the steps toward enslavement of the population (job slave, wage slave, debt slave, insurance slave).

We've been living the alternative and it's been worse and is unsustainable.

 

[Cruise]

We've been living the alternative and it's been worse and is unsustainable.

It was worse because the basic pricinciple of law had been violated.

So, instead of following the principle of law, and return to the days when doctors made house calls (before the HMO), Obama's answer is for the government to turn the whole country into an HMO.

Let's take a limited failure, and make it a national failure... yep, that sounds like the logic of a politician or government bureaucrat.

 

[thoughtone]

Dont put words in my mouth. One thing that is undesirable is some bureaucrat will control / oversee my healthcare. As if I can't do this myself.

Yeah, we fucked..............we have some who lack the ability to use critical thinking to understand this 21st century Tuskegee Experiment.

What, you think it cant happen again?

$10,000 of Romney's money that Lammar and the right blame the next earthquake on Obamacare!

 

[thoughtone]

Cute.

I haven't taken a public dollar in almost 20 years.

So Cruise hasn't "taken a public dollar in almost 20 years" (he must have boarded at the Phillips Academy), and Greed hasn't voted in 4 years (no doubt bitching and complaining about other people's efforts. They are great examples of Americans.

 

[thoughtone]

Only in America is increasing accessibility to health care regarded as something undesirable. Our country is fucked.

Only in right wing America!

 

[Upgrade Dave]

It was worse because the basic pricinciple of law had been violated.

So, instead of following the principle of law, and return to the days when doctors made house calls (before the HMO), Obama's answer is for the government to turn the whole country into an HMO.

Let's take a limited failure, and make it a national failure... yep, that sounds like the logic of a politician or government bureaucrat.

 

[QueEx]

Cute.

I haven't taken a public dollar in almost 20 years.

Did you complain when you did

 

[QueEx]

There was this basic principle in law that the government cannot compel anyone to enter a private contract.

First you had auto insurance.

Poor analogy.

Driving upon public highways and protecting the public's interest in its right-of-ways IS PUBLIC -- NOT private. You don't have to purchase automobile liability coverage -- just don't drive in the public right-of-way subjecting members of the public to injury and damage by your un-insured conduct, and you're okay.

Would you like for those who don't have health insurance and who are otherwise without means to pay for their treatment when they present at the ER to be refused treatment ???

`

 

[Cruise]

Poor analogy.

Driving upon public highways and protecting the public's interest in its right-of-ways IS PUBLIC -- NOT private. You don't have to purchase automobile liability coverage -- just don't drive in the public right-of-way subjecting members of the public to injury and damage by your un-insured conduct, and you're okay.

Would you like for those who don't have health insurance and who are otherwise without means to pay for their treatment when they present at the ER to be refused treatment ???

`

You missed my point. I was not making an analogy but showing a pattern of progression.

When your solution to handle non-payers, is violating a fundamental principle of law, you have a bad solution. But, what else would I expect from Barack Obama, the Federal government, politicians, and bureaucrats.

 

[Upgrade Dave]

You missed my point. I was not making an analogy but showing a pattern of progression.

When your solution to handle non-payers, is violating a fundamental principle of law, you have a bad solution. But, what else would I expect from Barack Obama, the Federal government, politicians, and bureaucrats.

What would be a better solution?

 

[Greed]

What would be a better solution?

Are you conceding that a "fundamental principle of law" is being violated?

 

[thoughtone]

Are you conceding that a "fundamental principle of law" is being violated?

What would be a better solution?

No answer

 

[Greed]

No answer

He wasn't asking me. I just thought it was interesting how he let the violated comment pass. It's as if the violation of a fundamental principle is ok as long as Cruise doesn't have an alternative ready.

So I wanted to give him the benefit of the doubt.

 

[QueEx]

You missed my point. I was not making an analogy but showing a pattern of progression.

When your solution to handle non-payers, is violating a fundamental principle of law, you have a bad solution. But, what else would I expect from Barack Obama, the Federal government, politicians, and bureaucrats.

And I didn't say that you were making an analogy. You stated what you contend is a basic principle of law: "the government cannot compel anyone to enter a private contract" -- and to show that there had been a violation of that principle you offered: "First you had auto insurance . . . they got away with that . . ."

I simply showed you that your "insurance" example did not support YOUR contention that a law had been violated, for reason that the supposed contract that you were alluding to was NOT IN THE PRIVATE REALM in the first instance. Of course, and so that we're clear, I am not conceding that you actually made a true statement of law. But I am saying, assuming argendo that you had, the statement you offered in support of the violation, failed.

Nevertheless, even if you were trying to show a "progression" from one violation of the legal principle to another example or case of the violation - - your first example of the so-called violation in the line of progression (regarding the insurance) would have to have been VALID in order that you move from that example to the next. Again, if the first is incorrect (which it most certainly is) then then your whole "progression argument" wholly fails.


sabe?

 

[Upgrade Dave]

Are you conceding that a "fundamental principle of law" is being violated?

Nope. I'm a brass tacks kind of guy. I'm not a big believer in "unwritten rules" or fundamental principles of law that aren't written down either by statute or in a court finding.

Seeing how the Individual Mandate in the ACA has no real enforcement mechanism, I don't see any violation at all.


Now, let me open it to the floor,

does anyone have a working alternative to the ACA? I'm a big fan of Medicare for all but I'm looking for an answer from those with a more right-leaning mentality.

 

[Greed]

Nope. I'm a brass tacks kind of guy. I'm not a big believer in "unwritten rules" or fundamental principles of law that aren't written down either by statute or in a court finding.

That's dangerous, and explains alot on why the country is where it is.

Seeing how the Individual Mandate in the ACA has no real enforcement mechanism, I don't see any violation at all.

And yet, no one doubts they will get their money associated with violating the ACA.

does anyone have a working alternative to the ACA? I'm a big fan of Medicare for all but I'm looking for an answer from those with a more right-leaning mentality.

Are you asking people to provide a right-wing plan to manipulate the health system since people have a problem with the left-wing plan to manipulate the health care system? Why is it never an option to not manipulate the health care system?

This is why right-wing people lose the argument just by engaging in it and why there are no differences between Democrats and Republicans. Both believe the health care system needs manipulating.

 

[Cruise]

And I didn't say that you were making an analogy. You stated what you contend is a basic principle of law: "the government cannot compel anyone to enter a private contract" -- and to show that there had been a violation of that principle you offered: "First you had auto insurance . . . they got away with that . . ."

I simply showed you that your "insurance" example did not support YOUR contention that a law had been violated, for reason that the supposed contract that you were alluding to was NOT IN THE PRIVATE REALM in the first instance. Of course, and so that we're clear, I am not conceding that you actually made a true statement of law. But I am saying, assuming argendo that you had, the statement you offered in support of the violation, failed.

Nevertheless, even if you were trying to show a "progression" from one violation of the legal principle to another example or case of the violation - - your first example of the so-called violation in the line of progression (regarding the insurance) would have to have been VALID in order that you move from that example to the next. Again, if the first is incorrect (which it most certainly is) then then your whole "progression argument" wholly fails.


sabe?

So, are you saying there is public auto insurance? Which states provide this?

In Michigan, there is no public auto insurance. So, Michigan invalidates your position that auto insurance is NOT in the private realm.

Your attempt to expand the argument to public right-of-way and safety is exposed as irrelevant. The issue is with the private carrier, not any pretended "benefits" claimed by the State to violate the freedom to contract.

It is amazing that someone, despite all the evidence to the contrary, can convince themselves that a clear violation of a basic right is somehow "good" for society.

Involuntary servitude was, supposedly, abolished after the Civil War. Yet, everyone in the United States must involuntarily serve the insurance companies.

The LIE is the TRUTH and the TRUTH is the LIE.