It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

REAL COST of OBAMACARE given to me by the Insurance Company!

page: 9
49
<< 6  7  8    10  11 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on May, 12 2014 @ 08:44 PM
link   

originally posted by: jrod
a reply to: WeAre0ne

And you have the writing style, blank profile, and limited number of posts that are consistent of a shill.


Right. Thanks for showing everyone your paranoia.

So shills don't ever have profile pictures, and nobody ever creates new accounts, right? You have now proven you are delusional.


originally posted by: jrod
It is pretty obvious that you have some strong personal beliefs that the ACA is good for the American people.


I can care less about the ACA. In fact, I haven't even mentioned the ACA, nor do I care to ever mention it.

I was simply arguing the fact that making health insurance mandatory will reduce healthcare costs, nothing more, nothing less.

You are so caught up in this "Us VS Them" mentality and paranoia, it's ridiculous. I can't even argue a small point without you calling me a shill and ACA supporter. You must not assume someone supports one thing or another based on one argument they are trying to make. That is called prejudice.

Why are you so prejudice?


originally posted by: jrod
You have yet to make a case of how it will help the quality of healthcare, and the argument that more people insured will lower costs really holds no weight.


I'm not discussing quality. I didn't even mention quality.

My "argument" that mandatory health insurance will reduce health care costs is simply a fact. I've already explained why.



originally posted by: jrod
Since you know so much about health care costs, then can you kindly explain why a relatively simple but lifesaving procedure like an appendectomy costs about $80,000 while elective cosmetic procedures like breast implants cost less than $5,000 out of pocket?


I already explained one of the main reasons. It's called "uncompensated care". Google it, then you will realize I was right all along.

www.google.com...

Hospitals that do appendectomies and other life threatening procedures usually have much more uncompensated care that needs to be paid for, so the price of everything is extremely high in order to compensate.

Cosmetic surgery such as breast implants are often done in places that don't have a lot of uncompensated care, because they specialize in cosmetic surgery only, not life threatening procedures that must be done with or without insurance.

abcnews.go.com...



"For some reasons that are probably quite legitimate, they pad these prices to cover what economists might call fixed costs," McBride said. These include such items as uncompensated care and staff costs, he said. Hospital prices can therefore vary depending on whether the hospital is a teaching hospital, sees more patients with chronic disease or offers only basic care.




She said hospitals often serve many patients who don't pay at all or don't pay the actual cost of treatment because they are on Medicare or Medi-Cal, California's version of Medicaid.



edit on 12-5-2014 by WeAre0ne because: (no reason given)




posted on May, 12 2014 @ 08:51 PM
link   

originally posted by: jrod
a reply to: WarminIndy

That is why I have fighter under my name.

I'm not saying that my points and concerns are perfect, but I think I have brought up some legitimate concerns about the ACA becoming law under the guise of saving money and cheaper insurance, which is similar to how mandatory car insurance was sold to the public.

I'm not trying to win a debate in this thread, however when a poster keeps taking cheap shots I do get a little rattled hence all the post I've made today. It is frustrating when someone does not like an angle I take on a topic, and instead of sticking with the topic they resort to taking shots at poster's intellect. Certainly not conducive for a productive debate.

We want solutions to problems that a good debate can sometimes bring.



Yes, which is why you approached this as a debate but he didn't. That's why I encouraged you to have a moderated debate in the debate forum.

People are already entrenched in their sides over this issue. Being a fighter to get them to acknowledge your points is not going to work. People fight on here all the time.

If you want him to see the points about car insurance and the comparison, then show us links to your points. I believe that car insurance is based upon credit ratings, will the ACA also come to that?

There was a time when medical bills were not to be reported to the credit bureaus, but they are. The reason you get higher rates for insurance is two-fold, how high risk you are and your credit rating. If your credit rating is shot because you had to pay so much for medical, which is what is going to happen now definitely, then you have to pay for high auto insurance. You are forced to take both, however, you don't have to drive or own a car. That's the difference, you are forced to take health insurance under a financial penalty? Why does it have to be that way?

And if people won't pay for their ACA premiums, it gets reported to the credit bureaus, you then get penalized with higher auto insurance. There's no such thing as any prices going down. And these are the facts you need to make with your points. Show something, even if it is random, but that you can make a connection to.



posted on May, 12 2014 @ 09:05 PM
link   
 


off-topic post removed to prevent thread-drift


 



posted on May, 12 2014 @ 09:11 PM
link   
a reply to: WeAre0ne

Not true. You are trying to spin what I have posted.

It is not a fact that more people being insured will lower costs. Facts are verifiable, that is not.

Furthermore, the same things was said about auto insurance. Insurance rates did not drop as a result of the mandatory car insurance law as promised.

You completely missed the point when I compared breast implants to an appendectomy. Since one is life saving the hospital can charge essentially what they want, since the other is voluntary a doctor must offer fair market value if he wants customers.

As a previous poster pointed out, hospitals do not pick up the tab for uncompensated care. The basis that poor uninsured people are driving up health care costs is not true, but an easy point to sell to someone with a full time job who is frustrated by the increasing health care costs.
edit on 12-5-2014 by jrod because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 12 2014 @ 09:14 PM
link   
 


off-topic post removed to prevent thread-drift


 



posted on May, 12 2014 @ 09:20 PM
link   
Why is it that none of the major news outlets ever do those investigative reports on Physicians and Hospitals that charge ungodly amounts of money for care and surgery? Is it because the news people are afraid that they (or a loved one) might need one of these medical providers one day, or because we're so afraid of sickness and dying that we dare not step on any toes? $75,000 for one 24 period of care here in America is VERY common now.
-cwm



posted on May, 12 2014 @ 09:21 PM
link   
a reply to: jrod

Read this:

apprisehealthinsights.com...

You are wrong. Everything I have said is correct.

No, appendectomies are not expensive for the reasons you state. One of the sources I posted for you proves that. Appendectomies cost from between 1,500 to 150,000 dollars. It depends on the hospital you go to, because the hospital you go to may have more uncompensated care than another hospital. You obviously didn't read the source I provided that pretty much proves you are being foolish.

Your stupid comparison with auto insurance was already debunked by me many posts ago. Not only was it an invalid argument, but your premise is completely wrong.

My argument is that when Health Insurance is mandatory, then Health Care will reduce, because there will be less "cost shift" caused by uncompensated care. This decrease in health care will decrease health insurance.

You can NOT compare this to auto insurance, because auto body shops and repair services don't suffer from this "uncompensated care". So making auto insurance mandatory will NOT reduce body shop and repair costs, and it will not reduce auto insurance costs.

If you don't understand now... holy ****



posted on May, 12 2014 @ 09:21 PM
link   
a reply to: jrod

I did provide evidence. YOU NEED TO FRIKKEN READ IT!

apprisehealthinsights.com...
abcnews.go.com...
edit on 12-5-2014 by WeAre0ne because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 12 2014 @ 09:23 PM
link   
The real cost of obamacare is FREEDOM.



posted on May, 12 2014 @ 09:23 PM
link   
Some people... they are so confused, it makes me frustrated.
edit on 12-5-2014 by WeAre0ne because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 12 2014 @ 09:39 PM
link   
a reply to: WeAre0ne

That is not proof. I'm talking actual studies not some .com health site. In order to prove or disprove the ACA aka Obamacare lowering costs due to the insurance mandate we will have to wait a few year to find out.

I think we both want what is best for the US and the health of our fellow citizens. And I personally think a bill that many agree was a gift to the health insurance industry will not help us.



posted on May, 12 2014 @ 11:47 PM
link   

originally posted by: Xeven
I am not for or against Obama care but after reading this it is obvious a majority of you did not and still do not understand Obama care and how it works or what it is suppose to do cost wise.


surely you can do better than this....falling back on the same tired "you don't like it because you don't understand it" excuse that Harry Reid uses, is kinda unoriginal....



First, it was never intended to lower health care premium costs for wealthier Americans. Wealthier Americans are to subsidize poor Americans by paying more than the poor Americans. So if your a wealthier American, (generaly anyone with a job and not taking food stamps, disability, Early Social security, Unemployment etc..) you are to subsidize those who are.


so what you're saying is that the ACA is designed to take people who's balls are THIS close to the bandsaw:



and get them the rest of the way there, thus making them as bad off as the people being helped?

well, as long at least you're being honest...i can appreciate, and even RESPECT that....i think we can talk...



The goal of Obama Care in part is to get those poor people some form health care, and to stop those poor from going to Emergency Rooms for a cold, where a trip there for a cold might cost thousands versus going to a normal doctor for their cold might cost 120.00.


thousands they're not gonna pay anyway. it's funny that people who use this argument are perfectly fine with class shifting..by that, i mean taking lower middle-class people, and making them genuinely poor, making upper middle-class into lower middle-class, and so on, and so forth...basically lowering people's standard of living, based on a pie-in-the-sky BS concept.



These poor people going to the emergency room for $1000 dollar cold causes the general cost of health care to be more expensive because the government and hospitals have to pay or lose that $1000 because the poor who went there will never pay it. This makes the hospital charge more to those who "can pay" to defray those losses cause by the poor and many illegal immigrants from abusing the system.


no, it doesn't...greed raises the cost of medical services.. there are already mechanisms in place to cover "uncompensated care"



Now Obama care goal is to bring more people into the overall health systems as payers and have the wealthier Payers pay a bit more.


and by that, you mean, force people to give their money to HMOs...who's to say that these "wealthier" people can afford it?



Once Obama care is fully implemented and most people are on it...there will be more money in the system and poor people and illegals wont have to go to the emergency room for a cold. Once everyone is in the Health care insurance system no one has to abuse the system by not paying their costs because everyone will then have insurance. Then costs will come down as everyone will be a payer of some sort. Except some % of people will be so poor they will get free insurance but then the hospitals will still get paid for their services and none will need to abuse the system by going to emergency room for a cold.

Another misunderstanding many of you have is that ACA will reduce medical costs... well medical care costs have been exploding and increasing exponentially and they will continue to do so just like everything else does. ACA is only designed to slow that increase but not likely ever retard it or reverse it. ACA is only currently designed to slow the cost rise not stop it or lower it.


hospitals are already paid for their services. and how in the world does this help illegals?

you and another poster seem to believe in this flawed theory that once we all submit to this rape, that the cost of medical services will go down, and will cause the cost of coverage to go down as a result...

this idea is flawed, mostly because of the sheer naivete required to believe it.....i mean, do you guys ACTUALLY think that the heads of the HMOs, medical device manufacturers, drug companies, and all the other companies involved in the "medical-industrial complex" are, one day in the future, suddenly(and quite magically, i might add) going to say "you know what nigel, i'm TIRED of raking in all this money....let's stop gouging people"...no, of course they're not, and if you honestly believe that will ever happen, i've got a simply delightful bridge i'd LOVE to sell you...





Now you may no know it but Emergency rooms have to evaluate everyone who come in those emergency room doors. That is why I use it as an example of one reason why ACA could help reduce costs in long run.


well, i should hope they're evaluating everyone...i'd hate to find out they're treating people for food poisoning, when their problem is a broken leg...



When you read that ACA is supposed to lower costs what they mean is without the ACA healthcare would cost a lot more 10 year from now than it will now that the ACA is here to slow that down.


so it's really a fictitious cut in costs, kinda like how a few years ago, they called cuts in CBO projected increases actual cuts?

no, the promise made by the president was that it was supposed to lower people's premiums, and make medical services affordable for everyone.....it has done neither.



So many Americans thought it would be a good idea to make sure all Americans have good healthcare insurance. What they did not get is that if they were in the working class that the ACA would consider most of you except for the poorest of the poor working poor as wealthier than others. You are in fact wealthier than some if you are working after all.


it would have been nice for them to have told us this BEFORE it was passed, so that the people could have decided it wasn't a good idea.....instead all they did was blow smoke up our asses, and smother us with platitudes, and promises of how wonderful it would be, and hit us with retarded s**t like "we hafta pass it, so we can see what's in it"....what a joke..



posted on May, 12 2014 @ 11:55 PM
link   
continued from last.


originally posted by: Xeven
Now I cannot say if the ACA will work once it matures and is all up and running. I can say it will need to be modified and changed to work and we wont be able to do that if there is a Majority of Tea Party types filling republican seats in congress and Senate. It is obvious the law must be changed on some respects to work best for us but you cant do that when one party is completely unwilling to do anything at all to modify it cause they have a total hatred for it and the sitting President.


and here comes the partisan B.S.

sure, their ONLY reason is a hatred of the president.....could i interest you in that bridge yet?



No the ACA was not meant to lower your insurance cost if you work.


that's how it was sold..



It was meant for us workers to subsidize the poor, so they could have insurance and in the long term slow the cost of the ever increasing health care costs.


it won't slow anything, it won't reduce the cost of anything...all it does is subsidize some, at the expense of others...a lot of which probably can't afford to bleed anymore...



It probably will do that by the way but it wont be something you really notice if you had health care and are a worker. In fact you will likely be paying more for your insurance if your a worker. The only solace for you is that you could decide to be proud that you live in a country that is now going to help it's poorest people get decent healthcare.


lol..

what's next, tell a rape victim to be proud that they were able to help provide a service to it's most degenerate citizens?

dude, a violation is a violation, no matter how much you try to spin it..



Will it all work? No way to know but looks good on paper. I say vote for people who are reasonable and will to improve and fix laws rather than obstruct them cause if we don't do that those who obstruct may actually end up driving your cost higher by preventing our government from making changes to that law they will likely be needed over time.


looks good on paper? forcing people to buy an overpriced product they cant use, looks good on paper?

fining them for not buying it, looks good on paper?

writing a blank check to the "medical-industrial-complex" with money they're stealing from us at financial gunpoint, looks good on paper?

wow man..that's pretty crazy....

it's a destructive law that is injurious to the financial stability, and liberty of the american people...

it's doing a lot more harm than good...but hey, who wants to hear that when we can just turn on C-SPAN, and let Harry tell us:

You're all liars.
edit on 12-5-2014 by Daedalus because: (no reason given)

edit on 13-5-2014 by intrepid because: Offensive pic deleted.



posted on May, 13 2014 @ 01:12 AM
link   

originally posted by: Daedalus
no, it doesn't...greed raises the cost of medical services.. there are already mechanisms in place to cover "uncompensated care"


The only mechanism in place to cover uncompensated care is COST-SHIFTING, where they shift the cost to payers to compensate, which is why healthcare is so expensive! That is where you are completely wrong. Uncompensated care is the #1 cause of high healthcare costs. It seems you need to do more research, and educate yourself of the billions of dollars of unpaid medical bills that end up increasing healthcare costs.



originally posted by: Daedalus
you and another poster seem to believe in this flawed theory that once we all submit to this rape, that the cost of medical services will go down, and will cause the cost of coverage to go down as a result...

this idea is flawed, mostly because of the sheer naivete required to believe it.....i mean, do you guys ACTUALLY think that the heads of the HMOs, medical device manufacturers, drug companies, and all the other companies involved in the "medical-industrial complex" are, one day in the future, suddenly(and quite magically, i might add) going to say "you know what nigel, i'm TIRED of raking in all this money....let's stop gouging people"...no, of course they're not, and if you honestly believe that will ever happen, i've got a simply delightful bridge i'd LOVE to sell you...


You obviously don't know much about competitive markets, and supply and demand. Soon all the plentiful insurance companies will be fighting for people's business, and lowering their insurance rates just so they can have a selling point.

When everyone has insurance, how are insurance companies going to get new business? They will all be fighting for people to switch insurance companies by offering lower prices and or better coverage.

When everyone has a bunch of apples, how can the store sell more apples? By lowering the price... Supply and Demand 101.

Also, the funny thing is... The Affordable Care Act actually contains laws that force insurance companies to have to justify their rate increases, and show the increases are based on solid evidence and reasonable cost assumptions. It actually includes laws that force a more competitive market.

They wont have a choice but to lower their price, or they will go out of business and make no money at all.

...of course, all of that needs time to take affect. It's not instantaneous change. The market needs to adjust to the changes.
edit on 13-5-2014 by WeAre0ne because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 13 2014 @ 01:30 AM
link   
a reply to: WeAre0ne

Do you work for the health care or health insurance industry?

Why does health care in the US cost far more than the rest of the industrialized world?

Rewarding the healthcare industry by forcing Americans to buy their product will not lower cost, if anything the hospitals will have more incident to charge the insurance companies more. I know how the hospital and insurance bidding game works, that is the primary reason for inflated health care costs.



edit on 13-5-2014 by jrod because: 1



posted on May, 13 2014 @ 09:03 AM
link   

originally posted by: WeAre0ne
The only mechanism in place to cover uncompensated care is COST-SHIFTING, where they shift the cost to payers to compensate, which is why healthcare is so expensive! That is where you are completely wrong. Uncompensated care is the #1 cause of high healthcare costs. It seems you need to do more research, and educate yourself of the billions of dollars of unpaid medical bills that end up increasing healthcare costs.


incorrect. as another poster pointed out, Hill-Burton was set up to handle that sort of thing. it's basically a hospital's "charity care" program....i've made use of the service myself. it doesn't cover everything, but it absolutely covers the hospital's part of the overall bill.



You obviously don't know much about competitive markets, and supply and demand. Soon all the plentiful insurance companies will be fighting for people's business, and lowering their insurance rates just so they can have a selling point.

When everyone has insurance, how are insurance companies going to get new business? They will all be fighting for people to switch insurance companies by offering lower prices and or better coverage.


no, that's not obvious at all...it seems obvious to you, because you seem to think you're the smartest cat in the room...

they won't NEED to lower costs....the ACA says you MUST buy insurance, or face a fine...there's no need to be competitive when the government makes your product a mandatory purchase...i'm honestly surprised you missed that.

if it were a free market, then yes, absolutely, there would NEED to be competition, or else the entire market grows stagnant, and dies...but under current conditions, it's like shooting fish in a barrel...it's not a matter of IF people will buy insurance, but when, so they really don't need to accommodate consumer demand, because the consumer base is a completely captive market..




When everyone has a bunch of apples, how can the store sell more apples? By lowering the price... Supply and Demand 101.


which only works under free market conditions, not the captive market conditions created by the ACA.



Also, the funny thing is... The Affordable Care Act actually contains laws that force insurance companies to have to justify their rate increases, and show the increases are based on solid evidence and reasonable cost assumptions. It actually includes laws that force a more competitive market.


would you mind siting citing them for us, since you seem to have read the whole thing, and know it better than most.

why would they need to lower their prices, when they're serving a captive market? price may play some part in a person's decision of which one they're gonna bend over for...but options are going to matter more, i think....so if anything, you'll see them modifying, or coming up with new PLANS, instead of lowering prices on existing ones..



They wont have a choice but to lower their price, or they will go out of business and make no money at all.


now THAT is just ridiculous...when the government guarantees you a steady stream of customers, who can't leave, you're never in danger of going out of business...



...of course, all of that needs time to take affect. It's not instantaneous change. The market needs to adjust to the changes.


"adjust to the changes"...you act as if the HMOs hafta change everything, like they're some kind of victim... you do know that they knew what was in the ACA before anyone, right?

this bill was tailor-made to benefit them....

and time is something we don't have too much of left....this piece of crap legislation is already doing a lot of financial harm to people, and it's only going to get worse....the only thing giving it time will do, is demonstrate how bad it REALLY is, and ruin more lives in the process..
edit on 13-5-2014 by Daedalus because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 13 2014 @ 10:48 AM
link   

originally posted by: WeAre0ne
So now that a very large amount of people are forced to have health insurance, healthcare costs will finally go down. It's just a matter of time. Just wait.


Was that tongue-in-cheek? Part of what constitutes "Health Care Costs" is the cost of insurance - if I paid $50K in medical insurance each year, and had no deductible or co-pays, my annual healthcare cost is now "$50K", not "free" just because I don't pay at the doctor's office counter. More people buying, premiums up (even if they appear to be lower for some with subsidies - which *are* paid for, contrary to popular belief - the government takes money from someone else to pay those subsidies.) Medicaid is not "free" either - it's paid for, by taxpayers.

No, healthcare *spending* is definitely up, up, up - it *is* possible that individual procedure costs may go down - but I wouldn't hold my breath on that one. This law really did little to control costs.

And I swear, the next person who brings up indigents in emergency rooms gets smacked in the face with a dead halibut - I guarantee you, ER visits for non-emergent conditions will go up - a *lot*.


While emergency department crowding is often attributed to the uninsured, their use of emergency departments is considerably less than privately insured people. Increases in emergency department visits by the uninsured account for only a small share of the overall
increase in emergency department volumes


hschange.org...


The study, published in the journal Science, compared thousands of low-income people in the Portland area who were randomly selected in a 2008 lottery to get Medicaid coverage with people who entered the lottery but remained uninsured. Those who gained coverage made 40 percent more visits to the emergency room than their uninsured counterparts during their first 18 months with insurance.


www.nytimes.com...

edit on 13-5-2014 by squittles because: (no reason given)

edit on 13-5-2014 by squittles because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 13 2014 @ 11:09 AM
link   
a reply to: WeAre0ne

No you have not debunked my mandatory car insurance versus mandatory health insurance law. Just like the health care law, we were promised lower car insurance rates as a result of more people being insured. Car insurance rates did not go down as promised. Only a fool who trusts what a politician say will tell you that the ACA will lower insurance cost.

It is funny who you spin that fact, to compare health care of a living person to car repair. I made almost the same argument against comparing healthcare of a person to car maintenance on a previous ObamaCare thread. One cannot compare a person's health to the maintenance of a car. You have been trying to spin my valid comparison of the auto insurance law to the health insurance law to trying to compare the human health care to car maintenance. The principle of my argument you are missing and instead you have been rambling on about you are debunking my points and how I must be intellectually inferior because I do not agree with you.

Free market economical principles do not apply to the ACA because we are now forced to purchase a defective product. That is not a free market.
edit on 13-5-2014 by jrod because: 1



posted on May, 13 2014 @ 11:38 AM
link   

originally posted by: jrod
a reply to: WeAre0ne

No you have not debunked my mandatory car insurance versus mandatory health insurance law. Just like the health care law, we were promised lower car insurance rates as a result of more people being insured. Car insurance rates did not go down as promised. Only a fool who trusts what a politician say will tell you that the ACA will lower insurance cost.

It is funny who you spin that fact, to compare health care of a living person to car repair. I made almost the same argument against comparing healthcare of a person to car maintenance on a previous ObamaCare thread. One cannot compare a person's health to the maintenance of a car. You have been trying to spin my valid comparison of the auto insurance law to the health insurance law to trying to compare the human health care to car maintenance. The principle of my argument you are missing and instead you have been rambling on about you are debunking my points and how I must be intellectually inferior because I do not agree with you.

Free market economical principles do not apply to the ACA because we are now forced to purchase a defective product. That is not a free market.


Actually, health care is considered maintenance.

That's why you get check-ups. That's why women get mammograms and men get the prostate check, maintenance. And the government tells you to keep your body in the best working condition by feeding it the right fuel...however the government also raises prices on fuel to transport the food, that is also higher cost now.

Yes, it is considered maintenance.

Car insurance is higher because of two reason, high risk AND CREDIT. Every insurance company will tell you that. And the medications that are prescribed are not cures, they are maintenance drugs. They maintain your condition to keep you having to continue seeking medical care.

Diabetes is very common now, I have Diabetes and take Metformin. Is this medication a cure? No, it is a maintenance. But why am I supposed to buy a blood sugar monitor with test strips to check it three times a day? Medicare pays for that, but did you know how much test strips cost?

Checking 3 times a day, 365 days a year means 1,095 test strips. Here is Walgreen's prices for 100. So you have to get ten boxes a year. Maintenance.

I refuse to fall for having to check it three times a day, even though they say I should. It doesn't raise or lower my blood sugar, it simply tells me to keep track of it. Not a cure though, just maintenance.



posted on May, 13 2014 @ 12:05 PM
link   
a reply to: Indigo5

That chart is what the insurance company themselves put out! I only took a screen shot of it and put it out there. The insurance company themselves are putting this out there and showing the comparisons. Ask yourself why they would do that? They must think it shows the changes from before and after.

As a male, I don't need birth control, pregnancy coverage, and the like. So, a policy that would have been what they show, is now loaded with BS I don't need and has driven costs up not down. Not to mention the things not covered now, like pain management.

So, let me get this right...the insurance company which was involved in pushing this law are now putting out propaganda? LOL! What BS!







edit on 13/5/14 by spirit_horse because: (no reason given)




top topics



 
49
<< 6  7  8    10  11 >>

log in

join