So why should I not be ticked off with the GOP right now?

[marplots]

Once again ehealthinsurance.com ehealthinsurance.com ehealthinsurance.com ehealthinsurance.com ehealthinsurance.com ehealthinsurance.com. Get it?

Nope. I checked all those sites and all of them are post Obamacare.

 

[Unabogie]

Once again ehealthinsurance.com ehealthinsurance.com ehealthinsurance.com ehealthinsurance.com ehealthinsurance.com ehealthinsurance.com. Get it?

Do you even know what the "essential benefits" mandated by Obamacare are?
What part of, "1. Not everyone needs health insurance to get health care and pay for it." do you not understand?


I gave you 1, 2, & 6. The rest is on the cited website. Clearly you are trolling now. Well played. You did have me going there thinking that you really didn't know the website or the provided information.

That doesn't change the fact that some people don't want or need them, and now are forced to pay more for their insurance because they don't have a choice.

Here part that you refuse to post:

Office Visit for Primary Doctor
Find Doctors 40% Coinsurance after deductible
Office Visit for Specialist 40% Coinsurance after deductible
Coinsurance 40% after deductible
Annual Deductible Individual: $10,000
Separate Prescription Drugs Deductible Medical Plan Deductible Applies
Prescription Drugs Generic: 50% Coinsurance after deductible
Brand: 50% Coinsurance after deductible
Non-Formulary: Not Covered
Annual Out-of-Pocket Limit Individual: $15,000
Includes deductible
Lifetime Maximum Unlimited. $2 million annual max

It has a yearly out of pocket max of 15k, a deductible of 10k, and only pays HALF for doctor's visits after you hit your deductible. Next up, compare those features with the bronze plan under the new law. I dare you.

So you were clearly trying to compare premium costs only without in any way acknowledging any of the other benefits or costs. And the plan you posted is not insurance, it's "insurance" since it doesn't cover even the barest of care.

Hence, when I accused you of comparing apples do bird poop, I was right.

 

[Unabogie]

...I found the $73.00 plan:



www.ehealthinsurance.com/ehi/ifp/plan-details?planKey=97102600:241&productLine=IFP

As a New Zealander who never has to worry about these things I have no idea what any of it means. They do make it hard for you guys to stay alive and healthy don't they!

What Neally has found is what's typically called a "high deductible plan". It's basically worthless unless you get hit by a bus or need major surgery. It doesn't cover any of the basics, since the deductible, which is what you have to spend out of your own pocket before the insurance pays a dime, is so unbelievable high. Under the new law, these plans have been phased out, so when you buy insurance, it actually covers you for things like check-ups and routine visits. This saves everyone money, since high deductible plans create a disincentive for people to seek early treatment, which means they don't see a doctor until it's too late. It also, therefore, saves lives.

What Neally was trying to do was compare the premium cost of a high deductible plan to a real insurance plan, while ignoring all of the out of pocket costs and other differences in features of the two. It's highly dishonest.

 

[uke2se]

You did not specifically say "because of it". I'm not claiming that thousands are driven into poverty because of Obamacare.

Are you claiming that anyone below the poverty line will pay more for insurance that they already have?

 

[uke2se]

What Neally has found is what's typically called a "high deductible plan". It's basically worthless unless you get hit by a bus or need major surgery. It doesn't cover any of the basics, since the deductible, which is what you have to spend out of your own pocket before the insurance pays a dime, is so unbelievable high. Under the new law, these plans have been phased out, so when you buy insurance, it actually covers you for things like check-ups and routine visits. This saves everyone money, since high deductible plans create a disincentive for people to seek early treatment, which means they don't see a doctor until it's too late. It also, therefore, saves lives.

What Neally was trying to do was compare the premium cost of a high deductible plan to a real insurance plan, while ignoring all of the out of pocket costs and other differences in features of the two. It's highly dishonest.

Wow, that's pretty low. Neally, what do you have to say for yourself?

 

[Unabogie]

Wow, that's pretty low. Neally, what do you have to say for yourself?

Remember, his initial claim was that "premiums will be rising in Oregon by 300%". What that means to most people is that if you pay $265 for a $1000 deductible plan, you're about to start paying $795 for the same plan. That's what a rise of 300% in premiums means! It doesn't mean that the lower cost plan that you had is being phased out and a better plan will be available, but at a slightly higher cost. That's honest. That's the truth. But that's not what the Koch people claim. They say it the way that makes it sound like everyone's costs are going up, when they know that this is a complete lie.

 

[marplots]

Remember, his initial claim was that "premiums will be rising in Oregon by 300%". What that means to most people is that if you pay $265 for a $1000 deductible plan, you're about to start paying $795 for the same plan. That's what a rise of 300% in premiums means! It doesn't mean that the lower cost plan that you had is being phased out and a better plan will be available, but at a slightly higher cost. That's honest. That's the truth. But that's not what the Koch people claim. They say it the way that makes it sound like everyone's costs are going up, when they know that this is a complete lie.

I don't disagree, but want to add a nuance. Because the ACA requires a certain basic level of services, the lower cost policy may not be available anymore. The outcome for some will be paying more, simply because a cheaper policy no longer exists. They get more for sure, but they also have a larger portion of their budget going to health insurance (in some circumstances).

The statement, "you will pay more for health insurance" may be simultaneously disingenuous and accurate.

 

[Jonnyclueless]

Has there ever been a time when Insurance rates were going down? Were insurance rates dropping before the ACA started coming up?

 

[Unabogie]

I don't disagree, but want to add a nuance. Because the ACA requires a certain basic level of services, the lower cost policy may not be available anymore. The outcome for some will be paying more, simply because a cheaper policy no longer exists. They get more for sure, but they also have a larger portion of their budget going to health insurance (in some circumstances).

The statement, "you will pay more for health insurance" may be simultaneously disingenuous and accurate.

I thought I covered that in what I wrote:

What that means to most people is that if you pay $265 for a $1000 deductible plan, you're about to start paying $795 for the same plan. That's what a rise of 300% in premiums means! It doesn't mean that the lower cost plan that you had is being phased out and a better plan will be available, but at a slightly higher cost.

The claim isn't that high deductible plans are going away, which is true, it's that premiums are going to rise by 300%, which is a flat out lie.

 

[Regnad Kcin]

The lame argument that "many people need to pay more for insurance that they don't want or need so that some people will pay less" is analogous to saying "everyone should buy motorcycle insurance so that some people will pay less."

Oh, that's lame all right. Just not in the way you suggest.

 

[Jonnyclueless]

I am someone who has never been sick and never had to see a doctor or go to an ER. Therefore I don't know much about heathcare. But I think that seeing how low the US is ranked compared to other countries, that it makes sense to go more in the directions of the successful systems instead of sticking with the same system that doesn't seem to work well.

However, I am simply not convinced that the issue is as black and white as it appears on this forum and I think it may be because most of us already support ACA. So I will have to try and see if I can play devil's advocate and try to come up with some arguments as to why "Obamacare" could be bad any why the GOP should reject it.

One thing I noticed is the claims about it being legally passed and withstanding many attempts to repeal it. I feel this is completely true, but might not paint a complete picture. It makes it sound like most people for it except a few exceptions holding everything up. But not a single Republican voted for it. Some have said that Reid changed the voting rules so they could pass it with less votes. So I previously got the notion that many republicans and democrats were for it and just a fee Republicans are trying to end it. It seems that's not the case and no Republicans have ever supported it. I can't help but feel Democrats would do the same thing if roles were reversed (but maybe not actually shut down the government).

Also, these claims made me envision that the majority of the population supports ACA. But research I have done seems to show that most people don't support it, or at least I can't find evidence that the majority DOES support it. I have seen polls that they support it over defaulting, but who wouldn't with that choice?

There was a claim that Obama was re-elected because of it. But I could see that as him being re-elected despite it.

I have seen Republicans argue that it will increase the costs of healthcare and that polls of doctors show that more doctors are afraid of its implications than ones that have a positive outlook on it.

I can see the GOP being against it if the majority of the people are. I can see them being against it if it's possible it could raise costs. I can see them being against it if it will raise the debt.I will try to find more republican arguments in the meantime.

 

[Unabogie]

I am someone who has never been sick and never had to see a doctor or go to an ER. Therefore I don't know much about heathcare. But I think that seeing how low the US is ranked compared to other countries, that it makes sense to go more in the directions of the successful systems instead of sticking with the same system that doesn't seem to work well.

However, I am simply not convinced that the issue is as black and white as it appears on this forum and I think it may be because most of us already support ACA. So I will have to try and see if I can play devil's advocate and try to come up with some arguments as to why "Obamacare" could be bad any why the GOP should reject it.

One thing I noticed is the claims about it being legally passed and withstanding many attempts to repeal it. I feel this is completely true, but might not paint a complete picture. It makes it sound like most people for it except a few exceptions holding everything up. But not a single Republican voted for it. Some have said that Reid changed the voting rules so they could pass it with less votes. So I previously got the notion that many republicans and democrats were for it and just a fee Republicans are trying to end it. It seems that's not the case and no Republicans have ever supported it. I can't help but feel Democrats would do the same thing if roles were reversed (but maybe not actually shut down the government).

Reid did not change any rules. The ACA passed the senate with 60 votes and then a House version passed. The reconciliation of those bills only required 51 votes. This has happened countless times in the past.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/03/08/new-york-times-provides-a_n_490136.html

Also, these claims made me envision that the majority of the population supports ACA. But research I have done seems to show that most people don't support it, or at least I can't find evidence that the majority DOES support it. I have seen polls that they support it over defaulting, but who wouldn't with that choice?

People support the elements of the ACA by a large margin. Unfortunately, they don't support "Obamacare" because they seem to have no clue what's in it.

http://kff.org/health-reform/perspe...-elements-of-the-aca-popular-with-the-public/

There was a claim that Obama was re-elected because of it. But I could see that as him being re-elected despite it.

That's impossible to quantify, but it has no evidence to support it. The GOP ran on repeal and got fewer votes in the House races, Senate races, and Presidency. They lost in every metric.

I have seen Republicans argue that it will increase the costs of healthcare and that polls of doctors show that more doctors are afraid of its implications than ones that have a positive outlook on it.

And yet actual premiums came in 16% lower than the CBO predicted.

http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-250_162...-marketplaces-beat-expectations-report-shows/

I can see the GOP being against it if the majority of the people are. I can see them being against it if it's possible it could raise costs. I can see them being against it if it will raise the debt.I will try to find more republican arguments in the meantime.

The CBO says it won't raise the debt. It lowers it. Repealing the ACA raises the debt by over $100 billion.

http://www.cbo.gov/publication/43471

 

[Jonnyclueless]

Damn it Unabogie. I expected these arguments to get shot down, but not so quickly. My point though about Obama being elected is more so that it can't be argued either way and I saw at least one person use it as an argument (understandably). I will look for more, thanks!

 

[12AX7]

The important thing to Travis is that he comes out ahead. Others aren't so fortunate, but tough for them.

You know, for too long conservatives have always struck me as the "I got mine; screw you!" kind.

Sounds like some sour grapes from the other side now.

 

[Jonnyclueless]

I suspect some of the stuff I will post has already been posted on here, but it would simply take me too much time to check the thread for each one. Apologies. When talking to republican friends I could only find one person who's argument was not about standing up for our freedom and liberty. After realizing he was wrong to claim Congress is exempt (not sure why it would matter anyways), the argument was that most of the doctors he works with in his field are worried about the influx of patients and looking to retire early to voice the overload. Here are some links to similar arguments:

https://www.aamc.org/download/150584/data/physician_shortages_factsheet.pdf

Now, with the rollout of the Affordable Care Act, plus the decision by Gov. Susana Martinez to approve Medicaid expansion and creation of state health care exchanges, up to 172,000 uninsured New Mexicans are expected to receive medical coverage in the coming year. But who’s going to treat them?

https://www.aamc.org/download/150584/data/physician_shortages_factsheet.pdf
The passage of health care reform, while setting in motion long-overdue
efforts to insure an additional 32 million Americans, will increase the
need for doctors and exacerbate a physician shortage driven by the rapid
expansion of the number of Americans over age 65.
The above one also seems to address a solution to the issue a bit itself, but I thought it was worth mentioning.

http://www.nj.com/monmouth/index.ss...ician_shortage_as_obamacare_takes_effect.html

Thanks to the federal Affordable Care Act, thousands of New Jersey residents will have access to health care coverage for the first time, but they may not have access to a doctor, health care officials warn.

And forbes seems to be a library of anti ACA literature:
http://www.forbes.com/sites/sallypi...-a-20000-doctor-shortage-is-set-to-quintuple/

My understanding is that part of ACA will fund building medical centers. Will that address the problem? It seems a legitimate concern that with all the new people being insured that there will be a large increase in people going to doctors and that it may be hard to handle them all. I do see some articles saying that they are prepared for the influx, but since no one source can speak for everyone, it still means that for many it could be a problem, no?

 

[Unabogie]

I suspect some of the stuff I will post has already been posted on here, but it would simply take me too much time to check the thread for each one. Apologies. When talking to republican friends I could only find one person who's argument was not about standing up for our freedom and liberty. After realizing he was wrong to claim Congress is exempt (not sure why it would matter anyways), the argument was that most of the doctors he works with in his field are worried about the influx of patients and looking to retire early to voice the overload. Here are some links to similar arguments:

https://www.aamc.org/download/150584/data/physician_shortages_factsheet.pdf


https://www.aamc.org/download/150584/data/physician_shortages_factsheet.pdf
The passage of health care reform, while setting in motion long-overdue
efforts to insure an additional 32 million Americans, will increase the
need for doctors and exacerbate a physician shortage driven by the rapid
expansion of the number of Americans over age 65.

The above one also seems to address a solution to the issue a bit itself, but I thought it was worth mentioning.

http://www.nj.com/monmouth/index.ss...ician_shortage_as_obamacare_takes_effect.html


And forbes seems to be a library of anti ACA literature:
http://www.forbes.com/sites/sallypi...-a-20000-doctor-shortage-is-set-to-quintuple/

My understanding is that part of ACA will fund building medical centers. Will that address the problem? It seems a legitimate concern that with all the new people being insured that there will be a large increase in people going to doctors and that it may be hard to handle them all. I do see some articles saying that they are prepared for the influx, but since no one source can speak for everyone, it still means that for many it could be a problem, no?

I thought they believed in the free market? Wouldn't an influx of new patients simply mean more jobs for doctors, nurses, and support staff? Why would this be a bad thing?

 

[Jonnyclueless]

I thought they believed in the free market? Wouldn't an influx of new patients simply mean more jobs for doctors, nurses, and support staff? Why would this be a bad thing?

My argument would have to be that it takes time to get them through school and right now we have a shortage of doctors. That means that at least for now, people could have to wait to get medical attention, or maybe in a worse case scenario die because an ER is swamped.

Whether that is realistic or not, I don't know. I guess the question is whether or not we have the doctors to fill those roles and how long will it take to get them. I suppose I will have to look into the claim about there being a shortage of doctors and less people going to med school.

 

[Fudbucker]

Damn it Unabogie. I expected these arguments to get shot down, but not so quickly. My point though about Obama being elected is more so that it can't be argued either way and I saw at least one person use it as an argument (understandably). I will look for more, thanks!

The thing that DOES worry me is the mandate might not be steep enough. For only a $95 fee, you can forgo the whole insurance thing. And there are ways to get around the fee entirely. I worry that a lot of young people will do this. I hope they don't. The penalty should have been higher. It phases in, eventually, to like $600, but it's too weak to start. I guess they wanted to spare clueless people for the first year.

 

[Bob001]

The correct figure is 80. The number of Republicans who signed a letter to Speaker John Boehner back in August demanding that Affordable Care Act be defunded as a condition for passing any appropriations bill.

It works because Speaker Boehner has decided that he will not allow a vote on any bill that requires Democratic help to pass. If a bill doesn't have 218 Republican votes, no vote will be allowed.

ETA: At least 17 Republicans have said they would vote for a clean Continuing Resolution if a vote was held today. Combined with the Democrats in the House, that would be enough to pass. The impediment is Speaker Boehner.

The Washington Examiner, a generally conservative paper, claims that about 30 Repubs are the ringleaders. But 30 or 80, the issue is that Boehner won't allow a vote on a clean resolution because he fears it would cost him his job as Speaker. He's not only not a leader, he's a crass coward.
http://washingtonexaminer.com/how-3...e-forcing-the-obamacare-fight/article/2536611

 

[Jonnyclueless]

I was a bit disappointed to find out there would be no death panels. Just sounds like it would be cool to have death panels. Add a little spice into things, mix it up...