Page 6 of 8 FirstFirst ... 45678 LastLast
Results 126 to 150 of 182
  1. #126
    RoadBikeReview Member
    Reputation: Bill2's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Posts
    10,596
    Quote Originally Posted by rajann View Post
    It seems strange that a catastrophic plan would not be able to handle a catastrophy.
    Yes, it does

  2. #127
    RoadBikeReview Member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Posts
    12,533
    Quote Originally Posted by Bluenote View Post
    What are you rambling about?

    Your OPost was 'the big mean government is taking away consumer choice.'

    But there is another side to the story - the costs we all pay bailing out consumers who are un or under insured.

    Nothing you have said above provides a convincing argument that we should just deregulate plan minimums and let others bail out people who screw up.
    That is not the argument I'm making.

    Who is rambling ?? Deregulate plan minimums ?? What does that mean ?? Who is going to pay for the health care of those families who get the bronze plans on the exchanges and are faced with unaffordable $12K deductibles (all out of pocket until the deductible and OOPM are met) and a more limited network of health care providers. Why are their choices limited for economic reasons to the choice of an unaffordable policy or paying a fine.

    The "bailout costs" are inflated. If negotiated insurance prices were subsitituted those costs would be greatly reduced - this can be seen on any medical bill by looking at the charges and then the negotiated pricing. Last spring my wife made an out of network visit to an emergency room. The bill was $700 for a couple of stitches and a bandaid - the negotiated cost was $185. Does the ACA do anything about this issue with regard to those who elect to pay the tax/fine ?? The result of ObamaCare's mandated coverages is to make health insurance unaffordable with regard to actual health care expenses due to the high deductibles. Subsidized premiums may be low but a better approach would be to offer stripped down catastrophic coverage at low premiums and much lower deductibles which are/were available from the private insurance market.

  3. #128
    Iohannes fac totum
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Posts
    3,150
    Quote Originally Posted by bahueh View Post
    I love it when newbs come in here and repeat "look it up"....
    why? because you can't produce it to support your own assertions?

    Assuming this is aimed at JeepSouth, which part of what he said do you feel is false?

    1) The system is suppose to rely on an influx of young/healthy people into the pool.

    2) He did lie about being able to keep your plan.

    3) He is an admitted fan of a single payer system.

  4. #129
    RoadBikeReview Member
    Reputation: Snakebit's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2002
    Posts
    54,300
    Quote Originally Posted by Bluenote View Post
    Work on your reading comprehension.

    There is a difference between can't pay their bill (meet the full obligation) and not spending anything. If someone who is un or underinsured can only pay half of their bill, the other half gets picked up by other sources - including inflating costs for people who do pay.

    Over 47 million nonelderly are uninsured.
    Key Facts about the Uninsured Population | The Henry J. Kaiser Family Foundation

    According to a study by the Department of Health and Human Services, uninsured people cost 49 Billion (yes B as in Billion) a year.
    Uninsured Healthcare Tab- $49 Billion Annually

    Here is the report. Note how the uninsured on average can only pay 12% of their bill. This means that everyone else winds up picking up the tab for them.
    About.com: http://www.hhs.gov/news/press/2011pres/05/20110510a.html

    People keep trying to apply simplistic models to heath care coverage in general and Obamacare specifically. Generic memes like 'consumer freedom!' get complicated when we have to face really difficult questions about life saving medical care.

    If someone chooses not to buy insurance, will we start letting ERs turn them away?
    If someone skimps on insurance and buys a plan that doesn't cover / doesn't fully cover their costs, will we start letting ERs turn them away?
    What about children? Do they suffer if their parents make bad choices?

    As long as we demand Hospitals to give life saving care, we need to be realistic about how those costs will be met. 'Consumer freedom' is great until it runs into the wall of 'skimping and needing everyone else to bail your ass out.'
    Hospitals will work with you and discount your bill. They want their money, do NOT want you to just tell them to stuff it and if you will pay you are nearly in complete control to dictate the terms. Of course, my experience was pre ACA so who knows now?

    None of the policy terms I have seen listed are what I would find to be good insurance. They all cost too much when they are put to use. When you actually look at numbers and charts posted here, it would seem that we are jumping through this ring of fire for about 20% of the population that was uninsured. That leaves 80% with no horror stories to tell to create pathos and public support for their plight. Being happy and comfortable just doesn't give the saviors much room to operate. The ACA should fix that, the saviors will be busy soon.

  5. #130
    Not Banned
    Reputation: atpjunkie's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2002
    Posts
    42,621
    Quote Originally Posted by AM999 View Post
    Irrelevance of evidence as Dr. Sowell often writes.
    kind of like ignoring the FACT that Fannie and Freddie owned very little of the toxic loans. We've been over this before so are you thick headed or just prefer to continue
    sreading lies?

    Subprime lending offered high-cost loans to the weakest borrowers during the housing boom that lasted from 2001 to 2007. Subprime lending was at its height from 2004 to 2006.

    Federal Reserve Board data show that:

    More than 84 percent of the subprime mortgages in 2006 were issued by private lending institutions.
    Private firms made nearly 83 percent of the subprime loans to low- and moderate-income borrowers that year.
    Only one of the top 25 subprime lenders in 2006 was directly subject to the housing law that's being lambasted by conservative critics.

    Read more here: Private sector loans, not Fannie or Freddie, triggered crisis | Economics | McClatchy DC

    Fannie and Freddie don't make loans they buy them and between 2004 and 2006 they went from holding 48% of them to 24% and all the majority were from the private sector
    one nation, under surveillance with liberty and justice for few

    still not figgering on biggering

  6. #131
    Not Banned
    Reputation: atpjunkie's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2002
    Posts
    42,621
    Quote Originally Posted by Snakebit View Post
    Had to to pass the bill I reckon. Quien Sabe?
    really? if it is so bad, use true stories. If you use lies no one but the stupid will buy anything you say. If ACA is such a mess the GOP shouldn't have to make up stories
    one nation, under surveillance with liberty and justice for few

    still not figgering on biggering

  7. #132
    Pencil of death
    Reputation: Bluenote's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2012
    Posts
    4,360
    Quote Originally Posted by AM999 View Post
    That is not the argument I'm making.

    Who is rambling ?? Deregulate plan minimums ?? What does that mean ?? Who is going to pay for the health care of those families who get the bronze plans on the exchanges and are faced with unaffordable $12K deductibles (all out of pocket until the deductible and OOPM are met) and a more limited network of health care providers. Why are their choices limited for economic reasons to the choice of an unaffordable policy or paying a fine.

    The "bailout costs" are inflated. If negotiated insurance prices were subsitituted those costs would be greatly reduced - this can be seen on any medical bill by looking at the charges and then the negotiated pricing. Last spring my wife made an out of network visit to an emergency room. The bill was $700 for a couple of stitches and a bandaid - the negotiated cost was $185. Does the ACA do anything about this issue with regard to those who elect to pay the tax/fine ?? The result of ObamaCare's mandated coverages is to make health insurance unaffordable with regard to actual health care expenses due to the high deductibles. Subsidized premiums may be low but a better approach would be to offer stripped down catastrophic coverage at low premiums and much lower deductibles which are/were available from the private insurance market.
    I see you are moving the goal posts here.

    You've gone from arguing that its horrible that Obamacare sets minimum standards for plans - to arguing that Obamacare isn't perfect.

    You talk vaugely about all these cheap catastrophic plans that would cover every bill from a catastrophy. How many catastrophic plans that cover everything are being cancled under Obamacare?

    Provide real numbers to back up these arguments. How many of these plans are there being cancled? How much do they cost? What, if any, are their out of pocket caps? What percentage, if any, must the insured pay? Do they cover all potential expenses like medflight rescues? Inpatient rehabilitation (think stroke recovery). Prosthetic limbs?

    Truth is, cheap carastrophic plans frequently don't cover every part of the catastrophy. Thats how they stay cheap. Many plans cap payouts, or lifetime payouts. Others shift a percent - usually 5 to 10% on to the insured. This can easily run to tens of thousands of dollars. Others cut out services that consumers don't realize are important - rehabilitation care caps are common.

    Lets look at some real numbers around this issue. In 2001, before Obamacare was a glimer in Obama's eye, Harvard did a study about Medical Banckruptcy. They found that about 2/3 of Banckruptcies were Medically related. The overwhelming majority cited the actually medical bill as part of the cost. 3/4 of these people who - had insurance at the time they became ill.

    So clearly, if we have insured people being pushed to Banckruptcy, then our current insurance system isn't working.

    The study was updated recently. Among the findings, banckruptcy filers who had insurance had an average of almost 18,000$ in debt.

    http://www.pnhp.org/new_bankruptcy_s...uptcy-2009.pdf

    As for your wife's stitches, the rest of us will pick up part of that tab? Do you really think the Hospital is going to eat that 500$? Do you think they really over billed by 500$?

    No one, particularly myself, thinks Obamacare is perfect. Once you step out of the right wing bubble, the largest criticism is that it doesn't do enough to address underlying costs.
    Ride more, whine less - HTFU.

    "1/2 of you are wrong and the other .5 are incorrect!" (FlynG)

    "Taking crazy things seriously is a serious waste of time." (Murakami)

    Ignore list: AM999 / Al Morrison.

  8. #133
    Not Banned
    Reputation: atpjunkie's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2002
    Posts
    42,621
    Quote Originally Posted by almccm View Post
    Government policy created Credit Default Swaps?? Government policy got them rated AAA?? Government policy sold them to unsuspecting suckers?? And all that just to make bankers richer??

    This seems wackier than your usual wacky drivel. Just my uninformed Stage 1 thinking opinion, no insult intended.
    yes government policy written by the financial industry and submitted through the official they dump large amounts of 'speech' upon. Phil Gramm submits bill by UBS, retires and gets great job @ UBS
    one nation, under surveillance with liberty and justice for few

    still not figgering on biggering

  9. #134
    RoadBikeReview Member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Posts
    12,533
    Quote Originally Posted by atpjunkie View Post
    kind of like ignoring the FACT that Fannie and Freddie owned very little of the toxic loans. We've been over this before so are you thick headed or just prefer to continue
    sreading lies?

    Subprime lending offered high-cost loans to the weakest borrowers during the housing boom that lasted from 2001 to 2007. Subprime lending was at its height from 2004 to 2006.

    Federal Reserve Board data show that:

    More than 84 percent of the subprime mortgages in 2006 were issued by private lending institutions.
    Private firms made nearly 83 percent of the subprime loans to low- and moderate-income borrowers that year.
    Only one of the top 25 subprime lenders in 2006 was directly subject to the housing law that's being lambasted by conservative critics.

    Read more here: Private sector loans, not Fannie or Freddie, triggered crisis | Economics | McClatchy DC

    Fannie and Freddie don't make loans they buy them and between 2004 and 2006 they went from holding 48% of them to 24% and all the majority were from the private sector
    They bought those mortgages from the private sector bundled into MBS's. HUD allowed them to do this to meet their goal of requiring 55% of their loans to go to low income borrowers.

    The housing bubble resulted from lowering lending standards and very low interest rates. The financial crisis resulted from the unintended consequences of bad gov policy. The two are related but different.

    Instead of googling around to find some article which seems to support your position why not read something that actually devotes a couple hundred pages to analyzing the entire thing in depth.

  10. #135
    Not Banned
    Reputation: atpjunkie's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2002
    Posts
    42,621
    Quote Originally Posted by AM999 View Post
    They bought those mortgages from the private sector bundled into MBS's. HUD allowed them to do this to meet their goal of requiring 55% of their loans to go to low income borrowers.

    The housing bubble resulted from lowering lending standards and very low interest rates. The financial crisis resulted from the unintended consequences of bad gov policy. The two are related but different.

    Instead of googling around to find some article which seems to support your position why not read something that actually devotes a couple hundred pages to analyzing the entire thing in depth.
    I showed the stats from the Fed. I have showed them before. Fannie and Freddie
    A) did not make the loans
    B) owned a smaller portion of toxic loans than the private sector because they did not qualify for purchase
    C) reduced the numbers they purchased from 2004-2006
    D) low income borrowers made up a small portion of the toxic loan market

    so let's see, I can search for the actual govt #s (which I thought you liked empirical data) or I can read a book with a predetermined conclusion and then writes a couple hundred pages to confirm it.

    Again, low income folks made up a sliver of the bad loans.
    The financial world made out quite well from writing them. All the way down to the commissions for the loan officers who were encouraged to push ARMs and Interest Only over Fixed rates to all segments of the population. The financial industry KNEW they were crap so the packaged them and then LIED about them giving them false AAA ratings. They AGAIN made a fortune in the sale of these MBSs and CDSs.

    The low interest rates were @ the hand of a conservative, an Ayn Rander. The bad govt policy was from allowing his type to
    A) write and maintain bad fiscal policy for decades
    B) allow financial institutions to write govt policy and regulations

    There is nothing UNINTENDED about creating toxic assets and lying about their value to dump them on the world's markets. That falls under 'intended'
    one nation, under surveillance with liberty and justice for few

    still not figgering on biggering

  11. #136
    Go Blue
    Reputation: MarkS's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2004
    Posts
    10,059
    Quote Originally Posted by Bluenote View Post
    Even if AM put up all those numbers, I wouldn't believe them.

    His track record when fact checked isn't good.
    MODERATOR'S NOTE: Please, stick to the merits of arguments rather than the perceived characteristics of another poster. Thanks.
    I try to be perfectly civil, until someone really pisses me off.

  12. #137
    RoadBikeReview Member
    Reputation: Snakebit's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2002
    Posts
    54,300
    Quote Originally Posted by atpjunkie View Post
    really? if it is so bad, use true stories. If you use lies no one but the stupid will buy anything you say. If ACA is such a mess the GOP shouldn't have to make up stories
    To the best of my knowledge the only story I have told is the one my sister told me about the change made for them. It was an extremely good ACA story but I think she may not fully understand it because I have never seen any plan that listed the numbers she quoted. The absolute truth is that we DON'T know how these policies will work for us at this point and we won't know for a couple of years into full implementation. If it ever gets fully implemented. We seem to make adjustments, exemptions and stuff, as we go along. It is also absolutely true that some people won't get to keep their old policies even if they liked them. Saying that the insurance companies made the choice does NOT take the ACA out of the equation, no ACA, no option for the companies to go to.

  13. #138
    RoadBikeReview Member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Posts
    12,533
    Quote Originally Posted by atpjunkie View Post
    I showed the stats from the Fed. I have showed them before. Fannie and Freddie
    A) did not make the loans
    B) owned a smaller portion of toxic loans than the private sector because they did not qualify for purchase
    C) reduced the numbers they purchased from 2004-2006
    D) low income borrowers made up a small portion of the toxic loan market

    so let's see, I can search for the actual govt #s (which I thought you liked empirical data) or I can read a book with a predetermined conclusion and then writes a couple hundred pages to confirm it.

    Again, low income folks made up a sliver of the bad loans.
    The financial world made out quite well from writing them. All the way down to the commissions for the loan officers who were encouraged to push ARMs and Interest Only over Fixed rates to all segments of the population. The financial industry KNEW they were crap so the packaged them and then LIED about them giving them false AAA ratings. They AGAIN made a fortune in the sale of these MBSs and CDSs.

    The low interest rates were @ the hand of a conservative, an Ayn Rander. The bad govt policy was from allowing his type to
    A) write and maintain bad fiscal policy for decades
    B) allow financial institutions to write govt policy and regulations

    There is nothing UNINTENDED about creating toxic assets and lying about their value to dump them on the world's markets. That falls under 'intended'
    The financial world made out well from the financial crisis ??

    Why would the financial industry knowingly create toxic assets that would ultimately create a world wide financial crisis ?? That makes no sense. Interest rates set by the Fed are a gov policy regardless of who is in charge. HUD policy resulted in lowering loan standards which affected the entire market. Sure their were bad guys who took advantage of this bad policy decision. The SEC mandated that AAA securities had to be used for reserves as rated by the national ratings agencies and the Recourse Rule (Basel II) rated MBS's and Gov issued bonds as zero risk.

    Again there are two related but separate events here - the collapse of the housing bubble and the financial crisis. The housing bubble did not cause the financial crisis but the financial crisis would not have occurred without the housing bubble collapse. Fannie and Freddie contributed to the housing bubble but did not cause the financial crisis.

    All I can do is recommend that you challenge your narrative and understanding.

  14. #139
    RoadBikeReview Member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Mar 2005
    Posts
    7,139
    It surprises me that conservatives need to see the words "unless insurance companies choose to no longer offer your plan."

    Disrespect the role of the private market much?

    It's as if they think ACA is some kind of government insurance and not private market insurance. Is that where their confusion begins?

    Maybe he should have said you can keep your plan if the insurance companies like it. Phrased that way, conservatives would have to be on board with the unsafe products.


    "Please note that insurance companies are electing to change grandfathered plans and thus asking Americans to choose new plans. While the law states that if a plan is changed you'll need to choose a new plan, it does not mandate that insurers change plans with grandfathered status."

  15. #140
    RoadBikeReview Member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Posts
    5,791
    Well, there you have it! Scientific liberal evidence that those who claim they will be paying more for BOcare are lying or making stuff up. There is no liberal rationale that would suggest that throwing millions of previously uninsured into the pool, without charge, should run up the cost. With young healthy people chomping at the bit to subsidize us geezers, how can conservatives doubt the success of this obviously well thought out and well executed scheme.

    The reality is that I continue to hope that liberals will one day learn the obvious--that no government program will ever work efficiently until the current (US) government employment model is sh!tcanned--that, where there is no accountability, there is no sustained worthwhile performance--that without clear objectives and a metric by which to judge progress, otherwise good employees inevitably become the ef-officy that is government employment in the US today.

    I guess we'll only have to wait about a year to see what the public thinks of BOcare. By then it should be clear that nearly everybody has been able to keep their previous insurance "if they like it" (with premium savings) and that their current doctor/patient relationship has been maintained. They will likely also see the reduced waiting times for major surgeries (I waited three weeks from my decision to go ahead and have a double hip replacement until the surgery was completed. One week to select a doctor and schedule/have a consultation and two weeks for the surgery. My insurance company has notified me and all those covered by Regence Blue Cross / Blue Shield Medicare Advantage in Washington that their policies are being terminated).

    Quote Originally Posted by Fredke View Post
    If Obamacare was as bad as all that, you would expect that the right wing would not have to keep making stuff up to try to make it look bad.

  16. #141
    RoadBikeReview Member
    Reputation: Bill2's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Posts
    10,596
    Quote Originally Posted by SwiftSolo View Post
    Well, there you have it! Scientific liberal evidence that those who claim they will be paying more for BOcare are lying or making stuff up. There is no liberal rationale that would suggest that throwing millions of previously uninsured into the pool, without charge, should run up the cost. With young healthy people chomping at the bit to subsidize us geezers, how can conservatives doubt the success of this obviously well thought out and well executed scheme.

    The reality is that I continue to hope that liberals will one day learn the obvious--that no government program will ever work efficiently until the current (US) government employment model is sh!tcanned--that, where there is no accountability, there is no sustained worthwhile performance--that without clear objectives and a metric by which to judge progress, otherwise good employees inevitably become the ef-officy that is government employment in the US today.

    I guess we'll only have to wait about a year to see what the public thinks of BOcare. By then it should be clear that nearly everybody has been able to keep their previous insurance "if they like it" (with premium savings) and that their current doctor/patient relationship has been maintained. They will likely also see the reduced waiting times for major surgeries (I waited three weeks from my decision to go ahead and have a double hip replacement until the surgery was completed. One week to select a doctor and schedule/have a consultation and two weeks for the surgery. My insurance company has notified me and all those covered by Regence Blue Cross / Blue Shield Medicare Advantage in Washington that their policies are being terminated).
    Good to have you back SwiftSolo- the second string just weren't near as good.
    Oh, found you a new avatar (first-ever photo captured of the government teat!)

    Name:  Screen+Shot+2013-11-04+at+7.51.45+PM.jpg
Views: 201
Size:  35.5 KB

  17. #142
    RoadBikeReview Member
    Reputation: Snakebit's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2002
    Posts
    54,300
    Quote Originally Posted by BadHabit View Post
    It surprises me that conservatives need to see the words "unless insurance companies choose to no longer offer your plan."

    Disrespect the role of the private market much?

    It's as if they think ACA is some kind of government insurance and not private market insurance. Is that where their confusion begins?

    Maybe he should have said you can keep your plan if the insurance companies like it. Phrased that way, conservatives would have to be on board with the unsafe products.


    "Please note that insurance companies are electing to change grandfathered plans and thus asking Americans to choose new plans. While the law states that if a plan is changed you'll need to choose a new plan, it does not mandate that insurers change plans with grandfathered status."
    Now you're being creative, Obama did not include those words when he addressed the issue.

  18. #143
    RoadBikeReview Member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Mar 2005
    Posts
    7,139
    Quote Originally Posted by Snakebit View Post
    Now you're being creative, Obama did not include those words when he addressed the issue.
    Guess he didn't think the words were needed if someone stopped to think.

    I think Obama customarily tries to see the better side of Americans, for that matter.

  19. #144
    RoadBikeReview Member
    Reputation: Snakebit's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2002
    Posts
    54,300
    Quote Originally Posted by BadHabit View Post
    Guess he didn't think the words were needed if someone stopped to think.
    He counted on people as willingly gullible as you to build him a cover story.

  20. #145
    RoadBikeReview Member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Mar 2005
    Posts
    7,139
    Quote Originally Posted by Snakebit View Post
    He counted on people as willingly gullible as you
    Rather, as sufficiently astute to put a simple premise into the context of the free market.

  21. #146
    RoadBikeReview Member
    Reputation: Snakebit's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2002
    Posts
    54,300
    Quote Originally Posted by BadHabit View Post
    Rather, as sufficiently astute to put a simple premise into the context of the free market.
    Astute, yes that's the word I was looking for. Astute.

  22. #147
    RoadBikeReview Member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Mar 2005
    Posts
    7,139
    "What this WILL do is make your insurance work better for you."—Barack Obama

    Thought-provoking?

  23. #148
    RoadBikeReview Member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Posts
    12,533
    Quote Originally Posted by Bluenote View Post
    I see you are moving the goal posts here.

    You've gone from arguing that its horrible that Obamacare sets minimum standards for plans - to arguing that Obamacare isn't perfect.

    You talk vaugely about all these cheap catastrophic plans that would cover every bill from a catastrophy. How many catastrophic plans that cover everything are being cancled under Obamacare?

    Provide real numbers to back up these arguments. How many of these plans are there being cancled? How much do they cost? What, if any, are their out of pocket caps? What percentage, if any, must the insured pay? Do they cover all potential expenses like medflight rescues? Inpatient rehabilitation (think stroke recovery). Prosthetic limbs?

    Truth is, cheap carastrophic plans frequently don't cover every part of the catastrophy. Thats how they stay cheap. Many plans cap payouts, or lifetime payouts. Others shift a percent - usually 5 to 10% on to the insured. This can easily run to tens of thousands of dollars. Others cut out services that consumers don't realize are important - rehabilitation care caps are common.

    Lets look at some real numbers around this issue. In 2001, before Obamacare was a glimer in Obama's eye, Harvard did a study about Medical Banckruptcy. They found that about 2/3 of Banckruptcies were Medically related. The overwhelming majority cited the actually medical bill as part of the cost. 3/4 of these people who - had insurance at the time they became ill.

    So clearly, if we have insured people being pushed to Banckruptcy, then our current insurance system isn't working.

    The study was updated recently. Among the findings, banckruptcy filers who had insurance had an average of almost 18,000$ in debt.

    http://www.pnhp.org/new_bankruptcy_s...uptcy-2009.pdf

    As for your wife's stitches, the rest of us will pick up part of that tab? Do you really think the Hospital is going to eat that 500$? Do you think they really over billed by 500$?

    No one, particularly myself, thinks Obamacare is perfect. Once you step out of the right wing bubble, the largest criticism is that it doesn't do enough to address underlying costs.
    I'm moving nothing.

    The policies not complying with the ACA are estimated to be ~ 10 million.

    In HHS's "regulatory impact analysis" published in the Federal Register, the department estimated that between 40% and 67% wouldn't qualify as a permitted plan, and this was the point—to prevent such policies "from being bought and sold as a commodity in commercial transactions." HHS knew that lightly regulated policies might be popular, especially compared to the restricted choices in the exchanges.
    Review & Outlook: The ObamaCare Awakening - WSJ.com

    The conclusions of the Himmelstein Report on medical bankruptcy are very misleading. Certainly medical bills can be very significant but:

    As for the causes of bankruptcy: The widely reported statistic that nearly two-thirds of personal bankruptcies are caused by medical bills deserves a more skeptical eye. The number comes from the study by Dr. David Himmelstein & Elizabeth Warren, et. al. in the American Journal of Medicine which you linked to. Yet if you read the report you'll discover only 29% of those interviewed for the study actually said their medical bills caused their bankruptcy. And while the "medically bankrupt" claimed average medical bills of $17,943, that group's total net debt averaged $44,622, or more than twice as much.

    Claire Ann Resop, a bankruptcy lawyer in Madison, Wisconsin, adds that medical debt may show up more in bankruptcy filings because it's often the last bill you pay when you get into trouble. Hospitals may be lenient on repayment and charge no interest, while the landlords demand cash and the credit card company charges 30% interest. "Medical facilities may simply be the best creditors to have," she says.
    Filing For Bankruptcy And Protecting Your Investments - WSJ.com

    Google - Rethinking Bankruptcy

    http://www.federalreserve.gov/pubs/f.../200917pap.pdf


    The negotiated amount for the stitches was the Medicare amount. The ER billed her Medicare supplemental policy which was adjusted down as the ER was a Meidcare facility.
    Last edited by AM999; 11-04-2013 at 11:33 AM.

  24. #149
    RoadBikeReview Member
    Reputation: Snakebit's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2002
    Posts
    54,300
    Quote Originally Posted by BadHabit View Post
    "What this WILL do is make your insurance work better for you."—Barack Obama

    Thought-provoking?
    Yes, I think it's another lie.

  25. #150
    waterproof*
    Reputation: Creakyknees's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2003
    Posts
    41,119
    Checking back in to find a bunch of libtard spin threads in defense of The Savior's Commandments... as even your media puppets start to abandon this sinking ship. This is hilarious and sad at the same time. The very people that this terrible law was sold "to help" are getting screwed over the worst and even the illiterates who accepted the free rides and food from the church busses to the polling stations are now going to figure out what a scam this whole (D) agenda has been.

    And now you idjucts are trying to divert attention to the insurance companies... the same insurance companies who quietly cut a deal with Obama way early on. Yeah that's a winning argument, continue down that path.
    * posted by Creakybot 2013 all rights reserved.
    * not actually waterproof.

Page 6 of 8 FirstFirst ... 45678 LastLast

Similar Threads

  1. Replies: 86
    Last Post: 06-21-2013, 02:18 AM
  2. Replies: 4
    Last Post: 09-13-2012, 05:18 AM
  3. Another garage door/roof rack horror story
    By freezin_is_the_reason in forum General Cycling Discussion
    Replies: 14
    Last Post: 10-31-2005, 06:37 PM
  4. Airport horror story. Patriot Act gone haywire?
    By 128 in forum Politics Only
    Replies: 6
    Last Post: 04-29-2005, 04:37 AM
  5. BB Horror Story? (kinda long)
    By Noel in forum General Cycling Discussion
    Replies: 2
    Last Post: 07-06-2004, 06:23 PM

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  

INTERBIKE

Contest

Hot Deals

Interbike Featured Booths

Check out the hottest road bike products from these brands!



















See All Interbike Coverage - Click Here »


Latest RoadBike Articles


Latest Videos

RoadbikeReview on Facebook