or Connect
Styleforum › Forums › General › Current Events, Power and Money › Insurance Costs Under Obamacare
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Insurance Costs Under Obamacare - Page 7

post #91 of 739
I'm too drunk to look for it now but everytime you click through one of those "terms of service" you don't read you're bound to the terms anyway. When you get a credit card and don't read the fine print your bound to arbitration in some far away state anyway. The same Congress that is apparently now claiming they didn't read Obamacare close enough wants to exempt themselves but still wants to force you to fight fraudulent charges on your BOA Visa in North Dakota.

Problem?

They should all be exsanguinated.
post #92 of 739
Quote:
Originally Posted by harvey_birdman View Post

Or, you know, maybe they fucking should have fucking read the fucking thing before they voted on it.

Not expecting an answer tonight on account of the drunkenness, but I'm still interested in what portion you think they ought to have read that should be forcing them to put all their staffers onto the exchanges instead of their employer based coverage.
post #93 of 739
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gibonius View Post

Not expecting an answer tonight on account of the drunkenness, but I'm still interested in what portion you think they ought to have read that should be forcing them to put all their staffers onto the exchanges instead of their employer based coverage.

Maybe the section of the law that requires them to be put on the exchanges instead of their "employer based coverage" would have been a good start.
post #94 of 739
post #95 of 739
Quote:
Originally Posted by harvey_birdman View Post

Maybe the section of the law that requires them to be put on the exchanges instead of their "employer based coverage" would have been a good start.

Talking about the Grassley Amendment, which only and specifically applies to Congressional employees?

I mean, if you want to spin this as "you put it in the bill deal with it assholes", uh....I guess? But that doesn't really gel with "they're fucking us with this clause but are trying to exempt themselves." It only targets them.
post #96 of 739
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gibonius View Post

Talking about the Grassley Amendment, which only and specifically applies to Congressional employees?

I mean, if you want to spin this as "you put it in the bill deal with it assholes", uh....I guess? But that doesn't really gel with "they're fucking us with this clause but are trying to exempt themselves." It only targets them.

Except for the rest of the law absent the amendment, which only targets us.
post #97 of 739
You are seriously not making any sense. All of the rest of the bill applies to them too.
post #98 of 739
Quote:
Originally Posted by harvey_birdman View Post

Or, you know, maybe they fucking should have fucking read the fucking thing before they voted on it.

They are all members of Club Joffrey...unfortunately.patch[1].gif
post #99 of 739
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gibonius View Post

You are seriously not making any sense. All of the rest of the bill applies to them too.

They are trying to exempt themselves from having to participate in these ridiculous health care exchanges the rest of us are going to be forced into by having their own taxpayer funded health insurance program. What do you not understand about this?
post #100 of 739
As most anyone that has been following this policy debate knows part of the Obamacare plan is to greatly expand the state run Medicaid programs with federal dollars thus giving the poor "affordable" healthcare. Well, there's a problem with that. All data seems to show aggregate health outcomes for folks in Medicaid are equal to or worse than being uninsured. Numbers vary about how many more people will end up on Medicaid roles thanks to Obamacare but I have yet to find an estimate of lower than 10 million people. To put that number in perspective that's about 3% of the entire US population. Add that to the approximately 60 million people already on the program and we have about 23% of the entire US population on Medicaid, or put another way, 23% of the US population has billions in tax dollars buying their healthcare, healthcare that has been repeatedly demonstrated to give aggregate results equal to or worse than being uninsured.

Big win for Obama!
post #101 of 739
Quote:
Originally Posted by Piobaire View Post

As most anyone that has been following this policy debate knows part of the Obamacare plan is to greatly expand the state run Medicaid programs with federal dollars thus giving the poor "affordable" healthcare. Well, there's a problem with that. All data seems to show aggregate health outcomes for folks in Medicaid are equal to or worse than being uninsured. Numbers vary about how many more people will end up on Medicaid roles thanks to Obamacare but I have yet to find an estimate of lower than 10 million people. To put that number in perspective that's about 3% of the entire US population. Add that to the approximately 60 million people already on the program and we have about 23% of the entire US population on Medicaid, or put another way, 23% of the US population has billions in tax dollars buying their healthcare, healthcare that has been repeatedly demonstrated to give aggregate results equal to or worse than being uninsured.

Big win for Obama!

Pio, how can this be?

Granted, Medicaid is second rate poorly administered health care ( rife with fraud too ).

But how can it be worse than no access to health care at all?

Are your cited studies comparing Medicaid recipients to all uninsured, which would include those that are not near or even close to the poverty line but choose not to purchase insurance ( like many healthy young self employed people ).

Put simply, are you comparing broke dicks ( of the Medicaid variety ) to broke dicks of the overall variety ( like homeless people who do not have Medicaid for whatever reason ).

Or are you comparing Medicaid recipients to all uninsured ( which includes dirt poor people unable to afford anything all the way up to relatively affluent people who choose not to have insurance, but have access to medical care ).?
post #102 of 739
Quote:
Originally Posted by rnoldh View Post

Pio, how can this be?

Granted, Medicaid is second rate poorly administered health care ( rife with fraud too ).

But how can it be worse than no access to health care at all?

Are your cited studies comparing Medicaid recipients to all uninsured, which would include those that are not near or even close to the poverty line but choose not to purchase insurance ( like many healthy young self employed people ).

Put simply, are you comparing broke dicks ( of the Medicaid variety ) to broke dicks of the overall variety ( like homeless people who do not have Medicaid for whatever reason ).

Or are you comparing Medicaid recipients to all uninsured ( which includes dirt poor people unable to afford anything all the way up to relatively affluent people who choose not to have insurance, but have access to medical care ).?

To start off with I am not comparing anyone to anyone else. I have not taken part in, caused to have been performed, or in any way worked on these studies. You can read here though for a decent analysis of the Oregon study, which was the only study to show a superior outcome for Medicaid recipients. Turns out it didn't really. http://www.forbes.com/sites/theapothecary/2013/05/02/oregon-study-medicaid-had-no-significant-effect-on-health-outcomes-vs-being-uninsured/

Also, affluent people without insurance but that have access to medical care are not really uninsured; they are self-insured.
post #103 of 739
Quote:
Originally Posted by rnoldh View Post

Pio, how can this be?

Granted, Medicaid is second rate poorly administered health care ( rife with fraud too ).

But how can it be worse than no access to health care at all?

Are your cited studies comparing Medicaid recipients to all uninsured, which would include those that are not near or even close to the poverty line but choose not to purchase insurance ( like many healthy young self employed people ).

Put simply, are you comparing broke dicks ( of the Medicaid variety ) to broke dicks of the overall variety ( like homeless people who do not have Medicaid for whatever reason ).

Or are you comparing Medicaid recipients to all uninsured ( which includes dirt poor people unable to afford anything all the way up to relatively affluent people who choose not to have insurance, but have access to medical care ).?

Uninsured is not the same as "no access to health care"
post #104 of 739
Quote:
Originally Posted by ChicagoRon View Post

Uninsured is not the same as "no access to health care"

That is exactly what I meant.

Is he saying that the outcomes cited are for all uninsured, including the uninsured with access to health care?

Or only for those that are both uninsured and have no access to any health care.

Big difference.

PS:I just saw this by PIO, " Also, affluent people without insurance but that have access to medical care are not really uninsured; they are self-insured."

I agree 100% and it explains and impacts my question a lot.

I'll also read his link, Thanks
post #105 of 739
Quote:
Originally Posted by rnoldh View Post

That is exactly what I meant.

Is he saying that the outcomes cited are for all uninsured, including the uninsured with access to health care?

Or only for those that are both uninsured and have no access to any health care.

Big difference.

Why not read the link I have so handily provided?

And pretty much no one in the US "have no access to any health care." That statement is pretty much without meaning.
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: Current Events, Power and Money
Styleforum › Forums › General › Current Events, Power and Money › Insurance Costs Under Obamacare