Thread: Heath Care Law: 6 Months In, It's Worse Than We Thought

Originally Posted by Invisible-Bob

No you shouldn't bother anymore if you can't understand the simple concept that businesses have to make a profit to stay in business. You also don't seem to understand that people don't start a business for the benefit of human kind. They don't go into business so they can create jobs or pay people bloated union wages that are ridiculously high for their skill level. People start businesses to make money. Employment is just a trickle down benefit but actually a necessary evil. A business must employ a certain number of people but ONLY because it's essential to make a profit, not because it promotes the good of the collective or some other liberal progressive feel good BS like that.

Look, genius. If you'd actually bother to read my fucking posts you'd understand that I'm not saying that businesses shouldn't make profits. I'm saying that healthcare shouldn't be a for-profit business.

If you pull your head far enough out to be able to actually read and understand this, I'll try to explain further. But, given you and your peers' behavior, I won't hold my breath.


FFS.

Originally Posted by August West

Wrong! And it didn`t kill tens of thousands.

I'm talking money, not anything else.

Here...
LINK
Educate yourself.

Well, the president's panacea turned out to be an $862 billion bottle of snake oil -- and it cost $100 billion more than the entire Iraq campaign to date.

According to the Congressional Budget Office, the total Iraq tab comes to $709 billion this month, a costly engagement in terms of treasure.

Originally Posted by MaybeNextYear

I'm talking money, not anything else.

Here...
LINK
Educate yourself.

You link to the NYPost which is the rag that Archie Bunker read. The stimulus was 787 Billion and a quarter of that was squandered on taxcuts and another quarter pissed away on worthless projects but it did create work although not enough. Educate yourself.

FactCheck: Did Dems Slip Frivolous Projects Into Stimulus? - Newsweek

Originally Posted by August West

I`m trying to see the bright side of this healthcare law. If it`s a disaster,we`ll be one step closer to universal healthcare that the civilized countries of the world enjoy. It will happen sooner or later.

Enjoy I think enjoying it would be a bit of a stretch.

Originally Posted by MaybeNextYear

Don't get me wrong... profit good.

However, there are countless non-profit organizations in the world, who are in business, and thrive. They make enough to run their programs, pay salaries, expenses, expand, etc., but show little to no 'profit' once these items are paid for.

Like I said, 'technically', profit isn't required, but in most cases, it is desired.

I agree but is a non profit considered a business?

Originally Posted by August West

You link to the NYPost which is the rag that Archie Bunker read. The stimulus was 787 Billion and a quarter of that was squandered on taxcuts and another quarter pissed away on worthless projects but it did create work although not enough. Educate yourself.

FactCheck: Did Dems Slip Frivolous Projects Into Stimulus? - Newsweek

WTF are you talking about what the crapulus did? I'm talking about the cost vs. Iraq... nothing else. Not whether or not Iraq was justified... not about deaths... not even about the contents of the crapulus bill. Just plain and simple 'The Cost of the stimulus was greater than the cost of the Iraq war'. Period.

(In case you couldn't tell by that post, I think the crapulus was crap.)

{In case you were trying to question tha validity of my saying Iraq cost less than the crapulus, the numbers were from the CBO).

LINK

According to CBO numbers in its Budget and Economic Outlook published this month, the cost of Operation Iraqi Freedom was $709 billion for military and related activities, including training of Iraqi forces and diplomatic operations.

The projected cost of the stimulus, which passed in February 2009, and is expected to have a shelf life of two years, was $862 billion.

Even if you use your 787 billion for the crapulus, that is still more than the Iraq war cost, at 709 billion.

Originally Posted by Invisible-Bob

I agree but is a non profit considered a business?

That depends on what your definition of 'is', is.

Originally Posted by dblack

That's more than a minor point... that's the whole problem.

We're finally realizing health insurance doesn't work, at least not as a means of financing regular health care expenses. It's fundamentally inflationary and the underlying logic is little more than an old fashioned Ponzi scheme. It works fine as long as there's an expanding base, but once the market is saturated we all lose. The problem is we've built our entire health care system around it.

In my opinion, the only health care reform that makes any sense is getting off the insurance treadmill. That's why it's so maddening to see a reform effort with the primary objective of pushing everyone into a losing game.

Yup, it's frustrating to see the whole paradox of it play out, but in the end, I think people will vote their interests on health care and they'll eventually get some form of single-payer/universal/medicare-for-all kinda thing.

I'm with Judy Baker though on my feelings about the bill after 6 months, which is far better than the day before it got signed into law, because it does give a lot of people options now instead of limitations. The next problem to deal with is the payment delivery system, which single-payer would effectively solve, the way it does with every other country that has adopted it as their main payment system.

Now that many seniors will have their doctor visits automatically covered, just wait and see who they begin to vote for now. Will they really want to swing towards a party that wants to take that away from them now?

Yes, there is no way to predict what the big insurers will finally do. Will they comply or will they continue to lie, cheat and steal? Many on this board who don't even like Obama admit that the insurers won't comply, but that's okay, since if that means they have to be taken down by the courts one lawsuit at a time, than so be it. It will be a harder and a longer fight, but the insurers will lose to the law of the land and the will of the people eventually.

Originally Posted by Jason Marcel

Yup, it's frustrating to see the whole paradox of it play out, but in the end, I think people will vote their interests on health care and they'll eventually get some form of single-payer/universal/medicare-for-all kinda thing.

I'm with Judy Baker though on my feelings about the bill after 6 months, which is far better than the day before it got signed into law, because it does give a lot of people options now instead of limitations. The next problem to deal with is the payment delivery system, which single-payer would effectively solve, the way it does with every other country that has adopted it as their main payment system.

I guess you missed the fact that many insurers in the US are no longer writing child-only policies now that the pre-existing conditions clause in the bill has taken effect.

Perhaps you can explain how that is "far better than the day before it got signed into law"?

Or, perhaps, you weren't aware of this huge problem?

Matt

Originally Posted by MattInFla

I guess you missed the fact that many insurers in the US are no longer writing child-only policies now that the pre-existing conditions clause in the bill has taken effect.

Perhaps you can explain how that is "far better than the day before it got signed into law"?

Or, perhaps, you weren't aware of this huge problem?

Matt

Huge problem? I've read that 6 big insurers are no longer offering child-only, but only because of the simple demographic requirements of selling family plans now because kids under 19 get covered with their parent(s).

Child-only policies represent one of the smallest demographics; AHIP's got it at 6%.

As a move to refudiate or circumvent the health care law? Maybe, but time will tell. It's a business move that was going to have to be made that the administration had to have foreseen with the rise in family plans that will be bought what with people not allowed to be discriminated by pre-existing condition clauses anymore.

Cigna was one of the companies that got rid of child-only, which represented 1% of what they were selling, so no, I don't think it's earth-shattering yet.

Originally Posted by Jason Marcel

Yes, there is no way to predict what the big insurers will finally do. Will they comply or will they continue to lie, cheat and steal?

The cheating and stealing is a done deal. They pulled that off by getting congress to mandate customers for them. We no longer have any choice as to whether insurance companies fuck us or not. We just get to choose the one with the nicest smile.

From here, they won't really need to cheat and steal. The rules are in place. All that's left is for the insurance companies to figure out how to best use them to maximize their profits. Will this eventually result in single payer? Will that be in better? I don't know. But it looks like we'll have a long shitty ride waiting to find out.

Originally Posted by Jason Marcel

Huge problem? I've read that 6 big insurers are no longer offering child-only, but only because of the simple demographic requirements of selling family plans now because kids under 19 get covered with their parent(s).

Child-only policies represent one of the smallest demographics; AHIP's got it at 6%.

As a move to refudiate or circumvent the health care law? Maybe, but time will tell. It's a business move that was going to have to be made that the administration had to have foreseen with the rise in family plans that will be bought what with people not allowed to be discriminated by pre-existing condition clauses anymore.

Cigna was one of the companies that got rid of child-only, which represented 1% of what they were selling, so no, I don't think it's earth-shattering yet.

As many as 500,000 children are potentially impacted according to this article: Big health insurers to stop selling new child-only policies

You're pretty cavalier about that.

Matt