|
|
Post by ShivaTD on Oct 3, 2013 1:32:29 GMT
Now this is getting really absurd and reflects how unhinged some of the GOP House members really are.
So basically Rep. Issa is making a proposal that is very much like "Obamacare" with the only fundamental difference that the insurance plans cost more and that the subsidies, which are obviously required if the plan is going to cover those really in need of assistance, is going to cost the government more and there's no funding mechanism for it.
I do have to give Rep. Issa a lot of credit though because he's the first GOP House member that I've heard of making any proposal that would replace Obamacare as opposed to simply abandoning millions of Americans that can't afford the health care they need.
|
|
|
|
Post by JP5 on Oct 4, 2013 14:54:00 GMT
Now this is getting really absurd and reflects how unhinged some of the GOP House members really are.
So basically Rep. Issa is making a proposal that is very much like "Obamacare" with the only fundamental difference that the insurance plans cost more and that the subsidies, which are obviously required if the plan is going to cover those really in need of assistance, is going to cost the government more and there's no funding mechanism for it.
I do have to give Rep. Issa a lot of credit though because he's the first GOP House member that I've heard of making any proposal that would replace Obamacare as opposed to simply abandoning millions of Americans that can't afford the health care they need.
Secondly, you seem to think that Obamacare I really going to be cheaper....because that's the way it's been touted. But it's not. Have you been reading the stories about the "sticker shock" people who have looked in to it for themselves are seeing? A guy just the other day said that he went through the procedure online and discovered that his premium was going to be over $700/month and that was with a pretty large deductible. He said it was NOT better than what he has currently and he was very much disappointed.
A lot of people are just now beginning to find out that Obamcare is no better. And yes, there might be more people on it; but I seriously doubt it. When they see what they have to pay......they'll just opt out and either pay the fine or ignore it. We're already seeing the polling that backs that up. This isn't going to be "affordable" in any way, shape or form!! The healthcare problems could have been fixed without changing the entire system and putting it under federal control. That's what the Republicans argued for; but Obama and Pelosi was hell-bent on total federal control. So, you reap what you sow.
|
|
|
|
Post by ShivaTD on Oct 4, 2013 21:08:14 GMT
I've also worked for major corporations such as Boeing, Lockheed and Northrop where we were basically offer two health insurance options. A person could enroll in a HMO or in Blue Cross/Blue Shield that are 80/20 plans. There wasn't a selection based upon coverage levels (e.g. 60/40, 70/30, 80/20). I don't know what is offered exactly though the insurance exchanges but do know that they not only have different levels of coverage but also several insurance companies to choose from.
We can also note that the FEHPB isn't "cheap" insurance by any definition.
It's been reported that the mid-range "Silver" (a 70/30 plan) averages $328 (without the subsidy) across the nation. That's over $2000 less per year than the high-deductible FEHBP plan mentioned in the story. As also noted in the story the FEHBP plans receive a 75% subsidy from the government so the "insured's" premium would only be $1,250/yr. for this high deductible plan. The "Obamacare" plans also offer subsidies for many Americans so I don't know what the "insured's" premium is after the subsidy.
For poor Americans, the ones that require this health insurance the most, up to 95% of the cost of the insurance is going to subsidized from what I understand. They're likely to jump on this insurance even though they really don't have the income to pay for any insurance. Those with pre-existing conditions will also enroll in "Obamacare" even though their premiums will be three times the cost of the "average" insurance plans through the insurance exchanges. They're still better off financially and it will save many lives for those that don't have and can't get insurance today.
Are the exchanges a good deal for those that already have health insurance? Probably not as the anecdotal story reflected. Why would someone that already has insurance even be looking at the exchanges is the question. They're not affected by Obamacare at all.
But let's give credit where credit is due. Rep. Darrell Issa has proposed SOMETHING to replace "Obamacare" while other Republicans have not. We haven't seen a single "Tea Party" member of Congress offer any proposal with even the remote potential of providing health insurance or health care services to the poor in America that can't afford their health care and don't qualify for Medicaid. The FEHBP appears to be more expensive than "Obamacare" but it has virtually the same provision except for what the government subsidy would be and how that would be paid for. It does lack the employer mandate that doesn't affect most companies anyway (most small businesses don't have 50 employees and most large businesses already provide insurance) that will cover a few million people overall.
Both "Obamacare" and the FEHBP do get people out of our emergency rooms so I don't have to pay for that as a taxpayer. "Obamacare" also expands Medicaid to get people out of the emergency rooms and it's a pity that about 26 (Republican) States haven't agreed to that expansion.
|
|
|
|
Post by JP5 on Oct 5, 2013 0:58:08 GMT
Obamacare won't get people who use ER's for their healthcare out of the emergency rooms. I'll bet ya it won't. Already, 25% of people who don't have insurance say they plan to stay uninsured and just pay the fine. And that's even before seeing what they'd have to pay on Obamacare to get it. I think many of them believe it's going to be free....or close to it. That's not the case. The only plans that are really cheap are the lower plans that have high deductibles and less coverage.
The catastrophic plans for young people are cheap....but again, they are for only specific serious events. They are not going to cover everyday healthcare. AND they have high deductibles from what I'm hearing. I've tried to get on the site a time or two to see.....but still can't get in to the federal Obamacare website.
And YES, the Republicans have made offers on healthcare in the past before Obamacare. They wanted to open up insurance plans to make them more competitive and allow them to be sold across state lines.....thus increasing competition. They also wanted to have insurance plans become portable. IOW's, you get a plan and whether you change companies, move to another state or whatever, you can take your insurance with you. That would have totally eliminated the pre-existing condition problem. There were many simpler things that could have been done....or at least tried first....before having the federal gov't take on yet another massive social program and to get control of our healthcare. But Dems always fought those easier changes; they've been hell-bent on doing what they did. And it took having the presidency, the Senate, and the House majority before they could pull it off----against the wishes of at least 1/2 of the nation. I would say more.....but there's no way to prove that. They demonized anyone who dared question and refused to listen. And that's the reason for what's happening today. Anytime the gov't does something this massive without at least some bi-partisan backing, it's bound to be a huge problem.
|
|
|
|
Post by smartmouthwoman on Oct 5, 2013 1:54:23 GMT
I've also worked for major corporations such as Boeing, Lockheed and Northrop where we were basically offer two health insurance options. A person could enroll in a HMO or in Blue Cross/Blue Shield that are 80/20 plans. There wasn't a selection based upon coverage levels (e.g. 60/40, 70/30, 80/20). I don't know what is offered exactly though the insurance exchanges but do know that they not only have different levels of coverage but also several insurance companies to choose from.
We can also note that the FEHPB isn't "cheap" insurance by any definition.
It's been reported that the mid-range "Silver" (a 70/30 plan) averages $328 (without the subsidy) across the nation. That's over $2000 less per year than the high-deductible FEHBP plan mentioned in the story. As also noted in the story the FEHBP plans receive a 75% subsidy from the government so the "insured's" premium would only be $1,250/yr. for this high deductible plan. The "Obamacare" plans also offer subsidies for many Americans so I don't know what the "insured's" premium is after the subsidy.
For poor Americans, the ones that require this health insurance the most, up to 95% of the cost of the insurance is going to subsidized from what I understand. They're likely to jump on this insurance even though they really don't have the income to pay for any insurance. Those with pre-existing conditions will also enroll in "Obamacare" even though their premiums will be three times the cost of the "average" insurance plans through the insurance exchanges. They're still better off financially and it will save many lives for those that don't have and can't get insurance today.
Are the exchanges a good deal for those that already have health insurance? Probably not as the anecdotal story reflected. Why would someone that already has insurance even be looking at the exchanges is the question. They're not affected by Obamacare at all.
But let's give credit where credit is due. Rep. Darrell Issa has proposed SOMETHING to replace "Obamacare" while other Republicans have not. We haven't seen a single "Tea Party" member of Congress offer any proposal with even the remote potential of providing health insurance or health care services to the poor in America that can't afford their health care and don't qualify for Medicaid. The FEHBP appears to be more expensive than "Obamacare" but it has virtually the same provision except for what the government subsidy would be and how that would be paid for. It does lack the employer mandate that doesn't affect most companies anyway (most small businesses don't have 50 employees and most large businesses already provide insurance) that will cover a few million people overall.
Both "Obamacare" and the FEHBP do get people out of our emergency rooms so I don't have to pay for that as a taxpayer. "Obamacare" also expands Medicaid to get people out of the emergency rooms and it's a pity that about 26 (Republican) States haven't agreed to that expansion.
Please expound on this statement: Is it your contention that people without health insurance have been dying because they couldn't get medical care for their health problems in this country? |
|
|
|
Post by ShivaTD on Oct 5, 2013 3:42:56 GMT
Yes, I can expand on this statement..
That's 25,000 deaths per year but it is just among working age adults. When the total death toll related to a lack if insurance for all age groups is much higher.
Sorry but I was unable to find a Fox News story on the information from these studies so perhaps many conservatives are unaware of the fact that people are dying and will continue to die if they can't get insurance. While I don't like "Obamacare" its still better than what we had because millions of more people will have insurance and receive the necessary medical services that will save their lives.
An estimated 5 million people age 26 and below have medical insurance now based upon their family medical insurance policies.
It is estimated that at least 10 million more people will obtain insurance under the insurance exchanges.
An estimated 11 million people would have been able to receive medical services under the expansion of Medicaid. Unfortunately it appears that about 1/2, or 5 million Americans, won't receive those health services because of Republican controlled states that are refusing to accept the expansion provisions of Medicaid even though the federal government is funding it 100% for two years and the states can withdraw from that expansion at the end of that time.
So altogether we're talking about roughly 26 million people that can or should be able to receive medical services under "Obamacare" in 2014.
What are the Republicans offering that will cover 26 million uninsured Americans today?
|
|
|
|
Post by smartmouthwoman on Oct 5, 2013 5:36:17 GMT
Yes, I can expand on this statement..
That's 25,000 deaths per year but it is just among working age adults. When the total death toll related to a lack if insurance for all age groups is much higher.
Sorry but I was unable to find a Fox News story on the information from these studies so perhaps many conservatives are unaware of the fact that people are dying and will continue to die if they can't get insurance. While I don't like "Obamacare" its still better than what we had because millions of more people will have insurance and receive the necessary medical services that will save their lives.
An estimated 5 million people age 26 and below have medical insurance now based upon their family medical insurance policies.
It is estimated that at least 10 million more people will obtain insurance under the insurance exchanges.
An estimated 11 million people would have been able to receive medical services under the expansion of Medicaid. Unfortunately it appears that about 1/2, or 5 million Americans, won't receive those health services because of Republican controlled states that are refusing to accept the expansion provisions of Medicaid even though the federal government is funding it 100% for two years and the states can withdraw from that expansion at the end of that time.
So altogether we're talking about roughly 26 million people that can or should be able to receive medical services under "Obamacare" in 2014.
What are the Republicans offering that will cover 26 million uninsured Americans today?
Sorry, but I think both these 'studies' are nothing more than Obamacare propaganda pieces. (Which explains why you didn't see that BS on FN) Many people die because they refuse to seek medical attention. But the majority of those cases have absolutely nothing to do with health insurance. At least it didn't until Obamacare came along. Nobody in immediate danger of dying has ever been turned from an American medical facility because they didn't have insurance. To twist the facts to make it seem have they have is a slap in the face to the entire healthcare profession. Is there no limit of what people will lie about to further Obama's agenda? |
|
|
|
Post by ShivaTD on Oct 5, 2013 10:27:11 GMT
If there is one thing that is consistent about many conservatives it is that they refuse to believe in science if it doesn't fit with their political opinion.
Sure, a person suffering from cancer that doesn't have insurance can go to an emergency room and the emergency room doctor will do what they can for the moment. That might be the issuing of a pain prescription if the patent is in pain. They won't treat the cancer because emergency rooms are not equipped to treat cancer. If that person doesn't qualify for Medicaid then they typically won't receive treatment or they will receive it too late to save their life.
The person without insurance or the money is not going to typically go to a medical clinic for a routine physical that might reveal that they have cancer. By the time it becomes an "emergency" its too late to successfully treat the disease.
Both of these studies were by different organizations but each was conducted based upon scientific methods. Each was subjected to peer review and not a single fault was found with either. That's how science works.
Of course some idiotic Fox News program director apparently knows more than the scientific community when it comes to these types of studies. That news program director knows that reporting these facts would be damning to the Republicans that are perfectly willing to let people die to further their political agenda.
Proof was asked for and proof was provided.
Now I'll issue the same challenge that I have to conservatives related to other scientific studies. There are people dying because they don't seek or can't obtain medical services because they don't have insurance. The question is then, "How many?"
So it's time for the "conservatives" to post scientific studies that disputes the number of people dying that were reported by these two studies. Prove that these studies are erroneous.
|
|
|
|
Post by snarky on Oct 5, 2013 12:25:04 GMT
Several flaws in what is said here. First.....if you believe what the federal employees had was so great.....it's the same thing that corporations of all sizes across the nation provided THEIR employees too. Every plan my husband and I ever looked at with any corporation he worked for, we were give a choice among a menu of options. Our premiums were mostly paid for by his employer....as part of our benefits package. So, now you are saying that was "Obamacare" all along.....the only difference now is that the federal gov't has control over all of us regarding our healthcare!!
Secondly, you seem to think that Obamacare I really going to be cheaper....because that's the way it's been touted. But it's not. Have you been reading the stories about the "sticker shock" people who have looked in to it for themselves are seeing? A guy just the other day said that he went through the procedure online and discovered that his premium was going to be over $700/month and that was with a pretty large deductible. He said it was NOT better than what he has currently and he was very much disappointed.
A lot of people are just now beginning to find out that Obamcare is no better. And yes, there might be more people on it; but I seriously doubt it. When they see what they have to pay......they'll just opt out and either pay the fine or ignore it. We're already seeing the polling that backs that up. This isn't going to be "affordable" in any way, shape or form!! The healthcare problems could have been fixed without changing the entire system and putting it under federal control. That's what the Republicans argued for; but Obama and Pelosi was hell-bent on total federal control. So, you reap what you sow.
well, lol... 'that guy' needen't worry because if he has a 'better' policy...then he gets to keep it & all is still the status quo for him. course even if 'that guy' is ummm lol...'real' was that $700 premium for just himself or for a household? was it b4 or after any subsidies? did he bother to read the bennies that are no longer CONsidered a non covered expense & IS now? how about what is STILL covered but no longer is counted towards his deductible--- thus saving cashish because it's no longer an outa pocket expense for him?
yet again ..,.
1 1/2 years of debate + another 1 1/2 of repeals+ no alternative to show a better health care alternative = rhetorical teabagging neoCONic pablum bs.
|
|
|
|
Post by smartmouthwoman on Oct 5, 2013 12:47:12 GMT
If there is one thing that is consistent about many conservatives it is that they refuse to believe in science if it doesn't fit with their political opinion.
Sure, a person suffering from cancer that doesn't have insurance can go to an emergency room and the emergency room doctor will do what they can for the moment. That might be the issuing of a pain prescription if the patent is in pain. They won't treat the cancer because emergency rooms are not equipped to treat cancer. If that person doesn't qualify for Medicaid then they typically won't receive treatment or they will receive it too late to save their life.
The person without insurance or the money is not going to typically go to a medical clinic for a routine physical that might reveal that they have cancer. By the time it becomes an "emergency" its too late to successfully treat the disease.
Both of these studies were by different organizations but each was conducted based upon scientific methods. Each was subjected to peer review and not a single fault was found with either. That's how science works.
Of course some idiotic Fox News program director apparently knows more than the scientific community when it comes to these types of studies. That news program director knows that reporting these facts would be damning to the Republicans that are perfectly willing to let people die to further their political agenda.
Proof was asked for and proof was provided.
Now I'll issue the same challenge that I have to conservatives related to other scientific studies. There are people dying because they don't seek or can't obtain medical services because they don't have insurance. The question is then, "How many?"
So it's time for the "conservatives" to post scientific studies that disputes the number of people dying that were reported by these two studies. Prove that these studies are erroneous.
Sorry, thats not proof of anything and certainly not 'scientific'. Really, Shiva, you're too smart to fall for agenda-driven nonsense like this. Take all the people who die in the US, apply a percentage and claim they died from no ins. Its ridiculous. Did you see all the Obamacare marketing? Think I'll go find a study that proves buying health insurance causes cancer. I'm sure there's one out there. |
|
|
|
Post by ShivaTD on Oct 5, 2013 13:52:05 GMT
These studies are based upon statistical analysis of a sample of the population. Unless someone can dispute the mathematically accuracy of statistical analysis that has been proven then they're blowing smoke out of a rear orifice. I would challenge any Republican to challenge the math behind statistical analysis.
Please not that this analysis is based upon conditional probability statistical analysis (I'll save anyone from having to figure this out).
Conditional probability
The probability of some event A, assuming event B. Conditional probability is written P(A|B), and is read "the probability of A, given B"
A = Premature death
B = Treatment delayed or not provided because of a lack of insurance for illness where an effective treatment exists that would prevent death.
It is a rather simply mathematical calculation as it only needs to address the number of deaths in the United States and calculate how many premature deaths are due to a lack of insurance where the disease would be diagnosed and treated successfully if the person had insurance.
An even simpler method, albeit not quite as accurate, can also be calculated based upon the premature death rates of those with insurance when compared to those without insurance for treatable illness. A simple straight forward mathematical analysis but with perhaps a 5% error factor while a more in depth study of actual cases with a sample size of 1,000 cases will probably be accurate within about 2.5%.
I'm actually very well formally educated in math including statistical analysis which I use all the time in my profession and I know for a fact that statistical analysis is highly accurate. I seriously doubt that anyone on this forum is smart enough to prove it is not accurate because the greatest math minds in the world developed statistical analysis and it affects virtually everything in our lives today.
Republicans, from my experience, shouldn't engage in questions of science and math because they typically don't have the knowledge or background to support a logical argument. They're better off just dogmatically sticking to their opinions based upon ignorance and not trying to challenge the math or the science behind scientific studies and statistical analysis.
|
|
|
|
Post by JP5 on Oct 6, 2013 3:08:56 GMT
If there is one thing that is consistent about many conservatives it is that they refuse to believe in science if it doesn't fit with their political opinion.
Sure, a person suffering from cancer that doesn't have insurance can go to an emergency room and the emergency room doctor will do what they can for the moment. That might be the issuing of a pain prescription if the patent is in pain. They won't treat the cancer because emergency rooms are not equipped to treat cancer. If that person doesn't qualify for Medicaid then they typically won't receive treatment or they will receive it too late to save their life.
The person without insurance or the money is not going to typically go to a medical clinic for a routine physical that might reveal that they have cancer. By the time it becomes an "emergency" its too late to successfully treat the disease.
Both of these studies were by different organizations but each was conducted based upon scientific methods. Each was subjected to peer review and not a single fault was found with either. That's how science works.
Of course some idiotic Fox News program director apparently knows more than the scientific community when it comes to these types of studies. That news program director knows that reporting these facts would be damning to the Republicans that are perfectly willing to let people die to further their political agenda.
Proof was asked for and proof was provided.
Now I'll issue the same challenge that I have to conservatives related to other scientific studies. There are people dying because they don't seek or can't obtain medical services because they don't have insurance. The question is then, "How many?"
So it's time for the "conservatives" to post scientific studies that disputes the number of people dying that were reported by these two studies. Prove that these studies are erroneous.
So.....number 1......stop acting like having health insurance means one doesn't get cancer or is unable to get it treated. If both my mother and sister could pay for insurance, then so could many of these people nowadays who simply don't because they make the CHOICE not to.
Here ya go again with another one of your so-called "scientific" studies that makes a claim, and you call on others to prove a negative. But just as I describe above with my two personal examples....you can bet that MORE people WITH health insurance die of cancer each year than those without health insurance. And the reason I can make that claim is simply because in our country FAR MORE people have health insurance than do not. You really need to get out of your statistical haze and just use some common sense; something lacking in most liberals.
|
|
|
|
Post by ShivaTD on Oct 6, 2013 10:04:40 GMT
As I've stated far too many Republicans don't understand science. Anecdotal cases don't prove anything when addressing statistical analysis. There are always exceptions.
There is one underlying fact about scientific studies and that is that they're subjected to peer review. If they're wrong or if they are created with bias then during peer review they are discredited by another scientific study.
If the two studies I provided, that were completely unrelated to each other, reached the wrong conclusions then there are scientific studies out there that discredit them. That is how science works.
The problem for the "conservative" deniers is that there are no studies that discredit the one I provide. That's why they can't find them and refute what these studies say. They don't have an actual rebuttal and resort to irrelevance in their arguments.
Yes, many people with insurance die and many people without insurance are saved. That is irrelevant to the statistical analysis. Yes, most people have insurance in the United States which is good because if that wasn't the case then we'd be talking about a lot more than 25,000 working age adults and 45,000 people of all ages dying because they don't have insurance. There are no scientific studies that dispute these conclusions from the prior studies. NONE!
NOW, can we get back to the topic which is a proposal by Rep. Darrell Issa (R-Calif.) to let every American participate in the Federal Employee Health Benefits program. As noted that is fundamentally replacing Obamacare with "Obamacare" because the provisions of each are very similar although the FEHBP is apparently more expensive and Rep Issa didn't say how it would be funded and how subsidies would be granted.
|
|
|
|
Post by JP5 on Oct 7, 2013 14:11:57 GMT
Obamacare was a huge lie thrust on the American people. And it's only going to get worse. He's raising costs of healthcare and putting the burden of that on the middle class.
".......claims of the low costs of Obamacare have been shown blatantly false by reports, including by Medicare’s expert actuaries, who have reported again that the bill will increase health costs by $621 billion. The Government Accountability Office reports that Obamacare will increase the deficit by $6.2 trillion. The Medicaid expansion is expected to cost federal taxpayers $709 billion from 2014 to 2023. When Obama was selling his health care legislation, he declared that, “The plan I’m proposing will cost around $900 billion over 10 years.” Instead, the Congressional Budget Office report found that it would actually cost double that — $1.8 trillion (May 2013).
In the same report, the law is also expected to create $771.3 billion in tax revenue, with the burden falling on the struggling middle class, not only in taxes but also through increased cost for goods, higher insurance premiums, and lost wages. What about, “I will not sign a plan that adds one dime to our deficits — either now, or in the future?"
The 15-page report from the Dept. of Health and Human Services (HHS) released a little over a week ago makes the rosy prediction that “premiums being around 16% lower than originally expected.” However, HHS compared the projected 2016 rates to the Congressional Budget Office’s findings, instead of comparing how much the rates would be relative to this year or future years without Obamacare. Former Congressional Budget Office director Douglas Holtz-Eakin said, “There are literally no comparisons to current rates. That is, HHS has chosen to dodge the question of whose rates are going up, and how much. Instead they try to distract with a comparison to a hypothetical number that has nothing to do with the actual experience of real people.”
There are plenty of new taxes being snuck in besides just the penalty tax. Those pre-existing conditions that are so conveniently covered still have to be paid for somehow — they’re just built into higher prices."
www.policymic.com/articles/65905/obamacare-costs-wake-up-millennials-we-re-the-ones-paying-the-bill
|
|
|
|
Post by maniacalhamster on Oct 7, 2013 14:24:13 GMT
man it's getting thick in here...
i notice my facts in two threads shut the morons up in their tracks...can't deal with the truth at all...
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA
|
|
