(03-23-2016 08:34 PM)blunderbuss Wrote:  

(03-23-2016 07:21 PM)HarmonOliphantOberlanderDevine Wrote:  My family's rates went up.

You're a middle class white guy. Of course they did.

Sent from my VS980 4G using Tapatalk

Anglo-Saxon Protestant.

I am every liberal's nightmare.

Expanding Medicare wasn't the problem. It's a rounding error to/symptom of the problem.

The entire concept of the ACA is that by providing 'cheap' preventative care, we will reduce the need for expensive care in the future. That was the purpose in the relatively minor medicare expansion.

That sounds great in concept but in reality it isn't true. For every person who DOESN'T get sick later because they got better care earlier, I can show you people who weren't alive to get sick later... I can show you people who didn't take care of themselves/made bad choices because they now were 'insured' from their poor choices.... I can show you people whose symptoms were treated, but their issues not resolved because that is what was incentivized by the ACA... best example is the severely overweight person with joint pain and mobility issues who is given pain meds and a scooter and a home health aid to help bathe them who, now that their 'life' issues are solved, no longer feels it necessary to eat better and exercise. I'm not saying that is all or even 'most' of those people... but it doesn't have to be many to 'blow' the planned savings... and I can tell you from professional experience that it is A LOT of people. Lots of people do these crazy 'extreme' antics and video themselves doing it because they know they have insurance if they get hurt... and thus the 'risk' is less, relative to the chance of catching internet fame.

How many of you would jump off of your roof if you knew that breaking your leg doing so would cost you $10,000 out-of-pocket (or you'd be crippled for life) and likely your job while you recovered? What if it cost you a $50 copay, paid time off work and a few weeks of rehab?

I actually think mediCARE expansion was probably good for Seniors, but it won't have the desired impact because generally speaking, those people have already developed 'whatever' is coming their way in life that early care could have prevented.... osteoporosis, CHF, COPD etc. All we're doing for them is catching SOME ailments early... we aren't really preventing many.

(03-24-2016 11:01 AM)Hambone10 Wrote:  I actually think mediCARE expansion was probably good for Seniors, but it won't have the desired impact because generally speaking, those people have already developed 'whatever' is coming their way in life that early care could have prevented.... osteoporosis, CHF, COPD etc. All we're doing for them is catching SOME ailments early... we aren't really preventing many.

I agree that it was a good thing for seniors as well if for no other reason than at least on paper, it extended the solvency of Medicare. The issue I have is if the cuts to reimbursements will lead to less specialized care. The preventative services are great, but they are a akin to covering up the symptoms instead of healing the sickness in some cases. Without diving into the numbers its pratically impossible to know if the $750 billion in cuts truely came from wasteful aspects of Medicare or if they came from worthwhile aspects as well.

(03-24-2016 11:11 AM)200yrs2late Wrote:  Without diving into the numbers its pratically impossible to know if the $750 billion in cuts truely came from wasteful aspects of Medicare or if they came from worthwhile aspects as well.

That's essentially what I meant by 'symptom of the problem'.

MOST of the proposed 'cost savings' of the ACA lie in these same assumptions... that by giving a young person 'free' healthcare, that they will be healthier when they are older... and that IS true of some people, but it isn't true of many others.

Nobody, but the liberal voters thought that Obamacare would actually reduce or improve healthcare.

Mindless sheep they are.

(03-23-2016 06:46 PM)dawgitall Wrote:  

(03-23-2016 05:58 PM)firmbizzle Wrote:  They never should have expanded Medicare.

They didn't expand Medicare.

Yes...and they should have just expanded Medicaid nationally for those uninsured and left everyone else the fck alone.

(03-24-2016 08:40 PM)Fo Shizzle Wrote:  

(03-23-2016 06:46 PM)dawgitall Wrote:  

(03-23-2016 05:58 PM)firmbizzle Wrote:  They never should have expanded Medicare.

They didn't expand Medicare.

Yes...and they should have just expanded Medicaid nationally for those uninsured and left everyone else the fck alone.

This. If their real aim was to cover the uninsured - this is what they would have done...........but as we've all come to know - it was never really about the uninsured, it was always about control and expanding government power.

(03-23-2016 08:58 PM)dawgitall Wrote:  

(03-23-2016 08:35 PM)stinkfist Wrote:  

(03-23-2016 05:58 PM)firmbizzle Wrote:  They never should have expanded Medicare.

simple numbers....they call 'em "boomers"

Come on stinky. Surely you realize that Medicare wasn't expanded.

no doubt.....I'm talking about people in numbers becoming a burden....

just look at the commercials that are now airing.....so many dedicated to the folks that are now senior citizens......hence, a simple numbers game....

the amount of boomers relative to the Xers/Yers/millennials is nolo contendre in ability to support....IMO, when the boomers finally die off, the game is over.....the money will just disappear...

I hope I'm wrong....

(03-24-2016 09:01 PM)Crebman Wrote:  

(03-24-2016 08:40 PM)Fo Shizzle Wrote:  

(03-23-2016 06:46 PM)dawgitall Wrote:  

(03-23-2016 05:58 PM)firmbizzle Wrote:  They never should have expanded Medicare.

They didn't expand Medicare.

Yes...and they should have just expanded Medicaid nationally for those uninsured and left everyone else the fck alone.

This. If their real aim was to cover the uninsured - this is what they would have done...........but as we've all come to know - it was never really about the uninsured, it was always about control and expanding government power.

XACLY!

(03-24-2016 01:47 PM)GrayBeard Wrote:  Nobody, but the liberal voters thought that Obamacare would actually reduce or improve healthcare.

Mindless sheep they are.

they epitomize bahhhh humbug.....

(03-25-2016 01:15 AM)stinkfist Wrote:  

(03-24-2016 09:01 PM)Crebman Wrote:  

(03-24-2016 08:40 PM)Fo Shizzle Wrote:  Yes...and they should have just expanded Medicaid nationally for those uninsured and left everyone else the fck alone.

This. If their real aim was to cover the uninsured - this is what they would have done...........but as we've all come to know - it was never really about the uninsured, it was always about control and expanding government power.

XACLY!

I actually have a different take. I think they should have ACTUALLY expanded Medicare.... because Medicare belongs to the Feds, but Medicaid belongs to the states. IMO, it's not for the feds to determine what role the states should take (as they have done). If they want it done, they use THEIR tools... they shouldn't use 'coercion' of the states to accomplish something that they clearly have the tools to do already.

Medicare should have been expanded to include the poor and uninsurable in addition to seniors (if that is who the feds wanted to cover) and then the states would be free to cover copays, deductibles and even additional coverage or subsidies for those who fell through the cracks

The could have easily covered seniors and the poor, or even everyone (single payer) for 'free' preventative care and given 'non-seniors' a large deductible.... which would have allowed the states to pay those deductibles for 'the poor' as defined by the states as they do for Medicaid already.... and given the option for others to buy supplemental policies or go entirely off menu.

The only reason they did this was so they could reduce the APPARENT cost to 'sell' it.... In other words, to lie.

(03-25-2016 01:18 PM)Hambone10 Wrote:  

(03-25-2016 01:15 AM)stinkfist Wrote:  

(03-24-2016 09:01 PM)Crebman Wrote:  

(03-24-2016 08:40 PM)Fo Shizzle Wrote:  Yes...and they should have just expanded Medicaid nationally for those uninsured and left everyone else the fck alone.

This. If their real aim was to cover the uninsured - this is what they would have done...........but as we've all come to know - it was never really about the uninsured, it was always about control and expanding government power.

XACLY!

I actually have a different take. I think they should have ACTUALLY expanded Medicare.... because Medicare belongs to the Feds, but Medicaid belongs to the states. IMO, it's not for the feds to determine what role the states should take (as they have done). If they want it done, they use THEIR tools... they shouldn't use 'coercion' of the states to accomplish something that they clearly have the tools to do already.

Medicare should have been expanded to include the poor and uninsurable in addition to seniors (if that is who the feds wanted to cover) and then the states would be free to cover copays, deductibles and even additional coverage or subsidies for those who fell through the cracks

The could have easily covered seniors and the poor, or even everyone (single payer) for 'free' preventative care and given 'non-seniors' a large deductible.... which would have allowed the states to pay those deductibles for 'the poor' as defined by the states as they do for Medicaid already.... and given the option for others to buy supplemental policies or go entirely off menu.

The only reason they did this was so they could reduce the APPARENT cost to 'sell' it.... In other words, to lie.

The track they took with this was exactly what they wanted to do. In forcing the states to expand Medicaid they knew that the states wouldn't be able to fund it after the federal gravy train ran out in a few years and once the states were dependent on federal money to the point of going bankrupt once it goes away it would be much easier for the feds to ease into full control. What they didn't count on were the number of states that said "FU...we aren't expanding".

(03-25-2016 01:18 PM)Hambone10 Wrote:  

(03-25-2016 01:15 AM)stinkfist Wrote:  

(03-24-2016 09:01 PM)Crebman Wrote:  

(03-24-2016 08:40 PM)Fo Shizzle Wrote:  Yes...and they should have just expanded Medicaid nationally for those uninsured and left everyone else the fck alone.

This. If their real aim was to cover the uninsured - this is what they would have done...........but as we've all come to know - it was never really about the uninsured, it was always about control and expanding government power.

XACLY!

I actually have a different take. I think they should have ACTUALLY expanded Medicare.... because Medicare belongs to the Feds, but Medicaid belongs to the states. IMO, it's not for the feds to determine what role the states should take (as they have done). If they want it done, they use THEIR tools... they shouldn't use 'coercion' of the states to accomplish something that they clearly have the tools to do already.

Medicare should have been expanded to include the poor and uninsurable in addition to seniors (if that is who the feds wanted to cover) and then the states would be free to cover copays, deductibles and even additional coverage or subsidies for those who fell through the cracks

The could have easily covered seniors and the poor, or even everyone (single payer) for 'free' preventative care and given 'non-seniors' a large deductible.... which would have allowed the states to pay those deductibles for 'the poor' as defined by the states as they do for Medicaid already.... and given the option for others to buy supplemental policies or go entirely off menu.

The only reason they did this was so they could reduce the APPARENT cost to 'sell' it.... In other words, to lie.

I understand the philanthropic side of the equation....however, that wasn't an option with my response to the posit....

creb nailed it once again....that ol' boy has some common......

(03-24-2016 09:35 AM)200yrs2late Wrote:  

(03-23-2016 06:46 PM)dawgitall Wrote:  

(03-23-2016 05:58 PM)firmbizzle Wrote:  They never should have expanded Medicare.

They didn't expand Medicare.

Quote:ObamaCare Medicare reform improves and expands Medicare for seniors.

http://obamacarefacts.com/obamacare-medicare/

Better jump on stopping that mis-information they're spreading.


On second thought you might want to jump on stopping the misinformation you are spreading.

Quote:The Affordable Care Act & Medicare
Top 5 things to know about the health care law if you have Medicare:

1. Your Medicare coverage is protected.
Medicare isn’t part of the Health Insurance Marketplace established by the health care law, so you don't have to replace your Medicare coverage with Marketplace coverage. No matter how you get Medicare, whether through Original Medicare or a Medicare Advantage Plan, you’ll still have the same benefits and security you have now.

You don’t need to do anything with the Marketplace during Open Enrollment.

2. You get more preventive services, for less. Medicare now covers certain preventive services, like mammograms or colonoscopies, without charging you for the Part B coinsurance or deductible. You also can get a free yearly "Wellness" visit.

3. You can save money on brand-name drugs. If you’re in the donut hole, you'll also get a 55% discount when buying Part D-covered brand-name prescription drugs. The discount is applied automatically at the counter of your pharmacy—you don’t have to do anything to get it. The donut hole will be closed completely by 2020.

4. Your doctor gets more support. With new initiatives to support care coordination, your doctor may get additional resources to make sure that your treatments are consistent.

5. The health care law ensures the protection of Medicare for years to come. The life of the Medicare Trust fund will be extended to at least 2029—a 12-year extension due to reductions in waste, fraud and abuse, and Medicare costs, which will provide you with future savings on your premiums and coinsurance.

https://www.medicare.gov/about-us/afford...e-act.html

All those statements about "more" are examples on expansion. Now was Medicare expanded to include more people, no, but services under Medicare were expanded and those services cost money.

You know good and well he was talking about expanding as in more people.

My premiums have skyrocketed.

(03-25-2016 09:20 PM)Smaug Wrote:  My premiums have skyrocketed.

It is at least a two decade trend. They are going up on average at a slower rate over the last few years.

(03-25-2016 09:28 PM)dawgitall Wrote:  

(03-25-2016 09:20 PM)Smaug Wrote:  My premiums have skyrocketed.

It is at least a two decade trend. They are going up on average at a slower rate over the last few years.

Not for me, they haven't.

3X what it was three years ago.

(03-25-2016 09:28 PM)dawgitall Wrote:  

(03-25-2016 09:20 PM)Smaug Wrote:  My premiums have skyrocketed.

It is at least a two decade trend. They are going up on average at a slower rate over the last few years.

Look Dawg, I understand why you're in favor of the ACA, without it, you're family would likely be financially ruined. So if I'm in your shoes.......I want this law.

However, for the vast, vast majority of people that pay for their healthcare - you can't smear enough lipstick on this pig of a law to convince them to bend over and grab their ankles and like it.

I know, next you'll spout subsidies, but what good are subsidies when they can't afford the deductibles. Besides the fact that to pay for the subsidies, you have those footing the bill for their healthcare kick in taxes to pay for the subsidy crowd.

All the above - and without more doctors, healthCARE is no better.

I was unemployed for two months last year, and without health insurance. Doing my taxes this year, I find my favorite uncle had dinged me $350 for not being able to afford health insurance.

This is the epitome of kicking a man when he's down.

I hope like hell the ACA had benefited SOMEBODY, because it has been a pain in my ass.

(03-25-2016 09:28 PM)dawgitall Wrote:  

(03-25-2016 09:20 PM)Smaug Wrote:  My premiums have skyrocketed.

It is at least a two decade trend. They are going up on average at a slower rate over the last few years.

wowie zowie....law of diminishing was your novel concept?

are you shittin' me with that bs?

or do you want to continue to not have a clue?

have you given any thought about your age and other?

or those that have and those that have not.......

disclaimer: we know you have not.....