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

[Bob001]

....
The not everyone needs or wants the "essential benefits" forced upon everyone by Obamacare. Now they have to pay more for health insurance for stuff they don't want or need.
...

There's sometimes a big difference between wants and needs. Some people don't want to buy health insurance. No one is in a position to know whether he will need it, even if he doesn't happen to need it at this particular moment. The point of requiring "essential benefits," one of them anyway, is to level the market playing field and keep anyone from offering a cheap product that won't actually help people when they need it. If you're going to sell something called "insurance" it has to meet certain standards. I think you could find people who would be happy to buy a cheap car without air bags, seat belts or crush zones that can't pass minimum crash standards, but we have decided that if you're going to sell something called a "car" it has to be designed with certain characteristics. The ACA mandates minimum standards for insurance and provides financial help for people who need it.

 

[Jonnyclueless]

OK, how about this one. Doctors will have to take pay cuts:

http://www.forbes.com/sites/scottgo...-will-have-to-take-a-pay-cut-under-obamacare/

 

[marplots]

OK, how about this one. Doctors will have to take pay cuts:

http://www.forbes.com/sites/scottgo...-will-have-to-take-a-pay-cut-under-obamacare/

Could be. We are, after all, trying to reduce the cost of healthcare. That was (and is) the bigger problem - we are spending a great deal (some say too much) on healthcare in this country, and the costs keep rising at a scary rate.

So yeah, reducing costs is one key feature.

 

[gnome]

Here's the thing--if it works out, we could be cutting their expenses too.

 

[TellyKNeasuss]

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?

Now there's a fairly novel argument: not let everyone have access to health care because it will require more doctors. I highly doubt that there is a short of physicians in the US; it's more likely that there is a shortage of physicians who want to be primary care doctors.

 

[Neally]

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

All those sites? LOL It's just one site and you obviously didn't check it out. If you did you'd see that they give the option to check coverage now or 2014 under the Obamacare policy rules. Looks like you're part of the same trolling team.

Here part that you refuse to post:

Remarkably, someone from a different country was able to find the information that you so lamely claimed couldn't be found.

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.

Yet again evidence that you have no concept of what insurance is. Here's a clue, auto repairs <> auto insurance. No one has the option now of getting a cheaper policy without the "essentials" and high deductible. They are forced to buy something they don't want or need, and pay more for it. My claim that thousands will now pay more for health insurance because of Obamacare is true and has been proven.

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

Did you see anywhere that I in anyway suggested that?

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

Thousands will now be forced to pay more for insurance as a result of Obamacare.

...an additional 16 million -- who buy individual health insurance policies on the open market -- are finding out that their plans may not comply with the new law, which requires 10 essential benefits such as maternity care, mental health care and prescription drug coverage.

In California, 1.9 million people buy plans on the open market, according to officials with Covered California, the state's new health insurance exchange. And many of them are steaming mad.

"There's going to be a number of people surprised" by their bills, said Jonathan Wu, a co-founder of ValuePenguin, a consumer finance website. "The upper-middle class are the people who are essentially being asked to foot the bill, and that's true across the country."

http://www.mercurynews.com/nation-world/ci_24248486/obamacares-winners-and-losers-bay-area?IADID=Search-www.mercurynews.com-www.mercurynews.com

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.

Isn't it funny when the other side now is doing the same thing, while simultaneously either being willfully ignorant of the losers or trying to rationalize it away or attempting to justify it with various fallacies?

There's sometimes a big difference between wants and needs. Some people don't want to buy health insurance. No one is in a position to know whether he will need it, even if he doesn't happen to need it at this particular moment.

Yet another person ignorant of what insurance is and the purpose thereof. Hey, why don't we just level the playing field for motorcycle drivers. Make everyone buy it. You never know whether someone might need it, even if someone doesn't happen to need it at this particular moment. That way it will lower the costs for all those motorcycle owners right now.

The point of requiring "essential benefits," one of them anyway, is to level the market playing field and keep anyone from offering a cheap product that won't actually help people when they need it.

News flash: people in fact are in a position to decide what they, need, want and are willing to pay for.

 

[Myron Proudfoot]

...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!

yes, but you live in a socialist hellhole dictatorship, and we have FREEDOM!!!

 

[Mister Earl]

News flash: people in fact are in a position to decide what they, need, want and are willing to pay for.

And Obamacare gives people options where in many cases they had none. The publics wants it. The free market just failed to produce it.

 

[Neally]

And Obamacare gives people options where in many cases they had none. The publics wants it. The free market just failed to produce it.

There are winners and losers with Obamacare. Travis is a winner. Good for him. Screw the losers with less income and higher insurance costs.

 

[A'isha]

There are winners and losers with Obamacare. Travis is a winner. Good for him. Screw the losers with less income and higher insurance costs.

They now have better insurance too.

 

[Biscuit]

There are winners and losers with Obamacare. Travis is a winner. Good for him. Screw the losers with less income and higher insurance costs.

There are no losers. Some people will get a better product and pay more, some people will get a better product and pay less, and some people will get a product and pay. Who loses?

The real losers are the people paying higher and higher premiums for worse and worse coverage in order to cover all the people who can't get insurance but still need care.

What's your plan anyway?

 

[uke2se]

Did you see anywhere that I in anyway suggested that?

So you're not? Then why did you say "some do" when replying to my question about people below the poverty line getting increased premiums?

Thousands will now be forced to pay more for insurance as a result of Obamacare.

So you keep saying, but it turns out the source you provided is full of caca, and so, it would seem, is your argument. How do you respond to the complete takedown of your argument that Unabogie laid out?

 

[Neally]

So you're not? Then why did you say "some do" when replying to my question about people below the poverty line getting increased premiums?

I've already answered that in post 583 to which you replied in 604. Do follow the thread if you are going to chime in and quit asking the same questions repeatedly.

So you keep saying, but it turns out the source you provided is full of caca, and so, it would seem, is your argument.

The fact that thousands will be paying more for health insurance now because of Obamacare is factually correct and has been proven.

How do you respond to the complete takedown of your argument that Unabogie laid out?

Yet again asking the same thing that has already been addressed. Further indications of a troll in our midst.

 

[uke2se]

I've already answered that in post 583 to which you replied in 604. Do follow the thread if you are going to chime in and quit asking the same questions repeatedly.

No, actually I posted the question in 604. Please keep up.

Why did you say "some do" when asked if anyone below the poverty line pays more for insurance? Please don't dodge again. It makes your argument look even weaker, if that's even possible.

The fact that thousands will be paying more for health insurance now because of Obamacare is factually correct and has been proven.

No, it hasn't. You have repeatedly claimed it, but you have so far failed to provide any evidence that wasn't taken apart.

ETA: It should be noted that your duplicity has been pointed out here. Your attempt to make it seem as if people are paying more for less or more for the same has failed utterly. What has been shown (by other people than you) is that some insurance plans have been made obsolete by better plans which cover more, and those plans bring a higher premium - as one can expect from them covering more. Your argument that some people don't need these plans has been completely debunked.

Yet again asking the same thing that has already been addressed. Further indications of a troll in our midst.

You haven't answered this question. Is ad hominem attacks all you've got? I thought you disliked those.

 

[Peephole]

So, Neally, when are you going to present your alternative?

 

[Jonnyclueless]

The fact that thousands will be paying more for health insurance now because of Obamacare is factually correct and has been proven.

I can't imagine it ever being possible to change any large system without some changes negatively effecting some. I think it may come down to the better good since any route you take will have negative effects to some.

You mention thousands in a country of 100s of millions. Do you literally mean in the thousands, or do you mean a lot more?

Someone told me they are against the bill because some substitute area will have their hours cut since the school can't afford to provide the health insurance. That's a legitimate reason for that small group to be against it, but if I had to choose between a handful of substitutes, and 30 million people actually getting healthcare, I think the benefit of the 30 million is a bigger gain than the loss of those substitutes.

Some doctors have said it will make it so people have to wait longer to get care because of the greater number of people insured. But that means that they would rather a much larger of group get no care at all so richer people don't have to wait as long. They pointed out a valid reason to be worried, but overall the alternative to me is worse.

I am generally a loser no matter what since I never get sick or have to see doctors. But if the system was made to benefit me, it would harm more people than it would help. Plus the alternative to my situation is that I be sick all the time and get my moneys worth. I think I will stick to having wasted a lot of money on healthcare I will never use than be sick a lot.

 

[Neally]

No, actually I posted the question in 604. Please keep up.

Why did you say "some do" when asked if anyone below the poverty line pays more for insurance? Please don't dodge again. It makes your argument look even weaker, if that's even possible.

I won't feed trolls. Quote and cite my "some do" statement. Then quote and cite my response in 583.

ETA: It should be noted that your duplicity has been pointed out here. Your attempt to make it seem as if people are paying more for less or more for the same has failed utterly.

Lies. I never said "more for less or more for the same". Troll on brother.

Your argument that some people don't need these plans has been completely debunked.

Really? Explain to me why males and gay females need birth control. Explain to me why people strictly adhering to abstention from addictive drugs or alcohol need coverage for addiction recovery. Explain to me why people that have the funds to pay for these or any other of the "essentials" and thus don't want to lose money by paying insurance premiums, really "need" these.

You haven't answered this question. Is ad hominem attacks all you've got? I thought you disliked those.

It's a fact that someone who has his questions answered, yet repeatedly asks them over and over, either isn't paying attention or is deliberately trolling the thread. Take your pick.

So, Neally, when are you going to present your alternative?

Never in this thread. This isn't about my alternatives. It's about Travis's justification for being ticked off because of the threat of getting his goodies taken away, and his failure to recognize the many losers due to Obamacare.

I can't imagine it ever being possible to change any large system without some changes negatively effecting some.

True, yet many of the Obamacare fans don't even know about the losers or simply can't accept the fact that there are any. It's Obamacare! It's all good!

You mention thousands in a country of 100s of millions. Do you literally mean in the thousands, or do you mean a lot more?

I don't know if anyone has come up with exact numbers. The SJ Mercury article i cited said there are 1.9 million private payers in California alone. The number facing higher premiums are easily in the thousands just for California. Nationwide, it could be hundreds of thousands. I don't know.

 

[marplots]

(much snipped)

Really? Explain to me why males and gay females need birth control. Explain to me why people strictly adhering to abstention from addictive drugs or alcohol need coverage for addiction recovery. Explain to me why people that have the funds to pay for these or any other of the "essentials" and thus don't want to lose money by paying insurance premiums, really "need" these.

In the local sense, they don't need those things. But in the bigger picture, they do. It's like the national highway system. I'm in Michigan, and I don't need that highway in Idaho. But I do need the highway system - at least if I want a functioning national transportation system. So if some of my tax dollars go to Idaho, well, maybe some of theirs might come my way down the road (get it, "road??").

But perhaps you can simply subdivide it all to make your worries disappear. Since money is fungible, just lump it so that your premiums are only paying for services you could potentially use. The men's premiums aren't paying for birth control and the women aren't paying for prostate exams. It all works out in the end, and you'll feel better with this accounting trick.

 

[Neally]

In the local sense, they don't need those things. But in the bigger picture, they do. It's like the national highway system. I'm in Michigan, and I don't need that highway in Idaho. But I do need the highway system - at least if I want a functioning national transportation system. So if some of my tax dollars go to Idaho, well, maybe some of theirs might come my way down the road (get it, "road??").

...and we are back to the "we all need to help out" rationalization, so let's require everyone buy motorcycle insurance to help cut the costs for those that do need it. Hey one day, in the bigger picture, you or someone in your family might just own a motorcycle...

 

[Upchurch]

...and we are back to the "we all need to help out" rationalization, so let's require everyone buy motorcycle insurance to help cut the costs for those that do need it. Hey one day, in the bigger picture, you or someone in your family might just own a motorcycle...

The problem with your analogy is that we don't all ride motorcycles. We do, however, all have health.