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.

 

Shoring-Up ObamaCare is NOT Going to Help - Lobby Groups Are Disgusting.

page: 1
19
<<   2  3  4 >>

log in

join
share:
+2 more 
posted on Sep, 5 2017 @ 09:31 AM
link   
September 4, 2017

Congress returns from its long Summer Vacation to find ObamaCare in full melt-down mode. Starting January 1, 2018, 40% of the country will have only one health insurance company. Premiums are increasing 28%. 4 out of 10 doctors will not accept ObamaCare patients.

Yet consumer, doctor, and insurance company lobbyists are demanding that Congress immediately "Shore Up" Obamacare by throwing billions of taxpayer dollars into the system.


Nearly 100 consumer, patient and provider organizations are asking lawmakers to quickly pass a bipartisan bill to stabilize the ObamaCare insurance markets, as the Senate Health Committee gears up for a series of hearings on the issue beginning Wednesday.

thehill.com...

When you look at the four key demands from these groups, they do NOTHING to address the underlying rules and regulations that made ObamaCare nothing but a crazy Ponzi scheme that was designed to fail in the first place.

"Shoring Up" the Affordable Care Act will only enrich the insurance companies, certain consumer groups, and certain medical groups that have become dependent on the ObamaCare golden goose.

What should be done, before 2018 Open Enrollment commences on 11.1.2017, to make 2018 health insurance more affordable and benefit rich?

-CareWeMust




posted on Sep, 5 2017 @ 09:44 AM
link   
It seems the people receiving the money want more money.



posted on Sep, 5 2017 @ 09:54 AM
link   
a reply to: carewemust

We need to have a single provider system and get rid of the insurance companies. There's no reason to support the exorbitant CEO pay and the graft going on with the hospitals because the hospitals are owned by the same CEOs who own the insurance company.

The healthcare companies make Pentagon procurement look cheap!!



posted on Sep, 5 2017 @ 09:57 AM
link   

originally posted by: rickymouse
It seems the people receiving the money want more money.


This is such BS. I pay for my own family's policy out of pocket. The insurance companies were raising premiums by 20% per year for 15 years before ACA and continue to raise the premium after. At some point in the very near future my insurance premium will be more than my mortgage payment.

I think the healthcare system gouges the consumer. We need to breakup the healthcare cartels and monopolies.



posted on Sep, 5 2017 @ 10:01 AM
link   
a reply to: dfnj2015

I wonder, would a person so ingrained the left right paradigm, admit that before the ACA insurance was cheaper? And after the ACA it almost doubled overnight?

I'm in the same boat, the difference is, I didn't want the ACA to begin with, but wasn't offered the choice.



posted on Sep, 5 2017 @ 11:02 AM
link   
a reply to: network dude

The reason its so high is all the lazy people and well fare recipients you are paying for now. Several million that didn't. Have it before. The same several million that will lose it if aca goes away. I'm all for it going away. Way I grew up, if you couldn't afford it you didn't need it.



posted on Sep, 5 2017 @ 11:16 AM
link   
It would be really easy to pivot to a Dutch-inspired healthcare model. Unfortunately the provisions that allow that system to work so well would never be accepted by the GOP. Namely the fact that insurance is 100% compulsory and that insurance companies can only profit off of supplemental coverage. Basic coverage must be sold at cost.



posted on Sep, 5 2017 @ 11:18 AM
link   

originally posted by: dfnj2015

originally posted by: rickymouse
It seems the people receiving the money want more money.


This is such BS. I pay for my own family's policy out of pocket. The insurance companies were raising premiums by 20% per year for 15 years before ACA and continue to raise the premium after. At some point in the very near future my insurance premium will be more than my mortgage payment.

I think the healthcare system gouges the consumer. We need to breakup the healthcare cartels and monopolies.


Where does those figures come from ? Perhaps you forgot to source them.
And , under ACA doctrine , ACA policies in some states went up 200% . Kinda puts a damper on your little unsourced 20% , huh ?



posted on Sep, 5 2017 @ 11:21 AM
link   
a reply to: luke1212

You're essentially promoting a form of soft-eugenics. Let the poor off from lack of healthcare.

However, the fantasy you seem to have never existed. You were still paying for the healthcare of the less fortunate before the ACA. Prior to the ACA when someone couldn't afford their hospital bill either the government paid for it with tax money; or the hospital would eat the bill forcing them to raise rates for everyone else.

At least with the current system all you're helping with is insurance costs. Before you were helping to cover exorbitant hospital bills. And that's not even getting in to the fact that hospitals all over the country were forced to close.



posted on Sep, 5 2017 @ 11:22 AM
link   
a reply to: carewemust

Methinks you don't know what a Ponzi Scheme actually is and are just repeating right wing talking points. At no point are exchanges trying to earn my by recruiting new exchanges below them who pay to the higher ranked exchanges in the pyramid.



posted on Sep, 5 2017 @ 11:23 AM
link   

originally posted by: network dude
a reply to: dfnj2015

I wonder, would a person so ingrained the left right paradigm, admit that before the ACA insurance was cheaper? And after the ACA it almost doubled overnight?

Only if you admit that before the ACA, the rate of change (derivative) of increasing premiums was multiple factors higher than it was post-ACA. This of course means that if the ACA wasn't passed the premiums would have increased by something like quadruple or something much more than the amount it did increase by. But I won't hold my breath.
edit on 5-9-2017 by Krazysh0t because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 5 2017 @ 11:26 AM
link   
I guess it's time for single payer...medicare for all.


Almost like that was the plan!!!



posted on Sep, 5 2017 @ 11:58 AM
link   
a reply to: kruphix

Yup, 55% tax rate here we come.

To think we'll be able to tell our grandkids when Americans only paid 30% of our income in taxes.

Oh wait, universal health care is FREE. What was I thinking.



posted on Sep, 5 2017 @ 12:09 PM
link   

originally posted by: Krazysh0t

originally posted by: network dude
a reply to: dfnj2015

I wonder, would a person so ingrained the left right paradigm, admit that before the ACA insurance was cheaper? And after the ACA it almost doubled overnight?

Only if you admit that before the ACA, the rate of change (derivative) of increasing premiums was multiple factors higher than it was post-ACA. This of course means that if the ACA wasn't passed the premiums would have increased by something like quadruple or something much more than the amount it did increase by. But I won't hold my breath.


I'm not sure what you want me to "admit" other than the true cold hard facts. Prior to ACA, I could get insurance for me, all by myself, for less than $200 a month. Sure it was much less 10 years before that, but only like $150. After the ACA, I cannot find a plan for less than $400 with any good or even decent coverage. This is fact, not up for discussion, and I can prove it to you all #ing day long. So while you enjoy the smell of Obamas ass crack, I don't.



posted on Sep, 5 2017 @ 12:23 PM
link   

originally posted by: Xcalibur254
It would be really easy to pivot to a Dutch-inspired healthcare model. Unfortunately the provisions that allow that system to work so well would never be accepted by the GOP. Namely the fact that insurance is 100% compulsory and that insurance companies can only profit off of supplemental coverage. Basic coverage must be sold at cost.

It won't work here because "at cost" would be defined by the culprits. Seven figure salaries would be put into that cost.



posted on Sep, 5 2017 @ 12:39 PM
link   
a reply to: network dude

Then why aren't you admitting to the fact that I am talking about? Do you not know what a derivative is? I mean yes costs still went up, but they didn't go up by as much as they were projected to go up pre-ACA. In fact the reduction (in the derivative) is rather significant.
The truth about healthcare premiums: They'd be a lot higher without Obamacare
edit on 5-9-2017 by Krazysh0t because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 5 2017 @ 12:40 PM
link   
a reply to: LogicalGraphitti

But that's going to be the case with every other possible alternative as well. With the notable exception of going to state-run. But even if you could get that past the healthcare lobby it's not really worth it at this point. I mean toy would be destroying millions of jobs.

At least with the Dutch model it keeps those people employed. To keep the insurance companies in check they could always put together any oversight committee. Have it composed of independent actuaries, academics, etc. Then have their findings readily available to the public. This way it makes it easier to keep the insurance companies honest.



posted on Sep, 5 2017 @ 01:00 PM
link   

originally posted by: Krazysh0t
a reply to: network dude

Then why aren't you admitting to the fact that I am talking about? Do you not know what a derivative is? I mean yes costs still went up, but they didn't go up by as much as they were projected to go up pre-ACA. In fact the reduction (in the derivative) is rather significant.
The truth about healthcare premiums: They'd be a lot higher without Obamacare


LOL, I don't think you live in the same place I reside. I live in "the real world" where one day, I had insurance for about $180 a month, and just after the ACA, I mean like the day my policy was terminated, due to the ACA becoming a thing, my rates doubled, and I could no longer afford health insurance. So I paid the $75 a month it costs when you can't afford health insurance.

Bull# stories about "what would have happened" are nice if you are that boneheaded to believe fantasy. So in conclusion, myself, and every other person I have ever spoke with about this topic seems to have the same things to say and experienced the exact same situations. I do realize that things in Obama's ass are completely different and submit that your experiences may vary due to your location.



posted on Sep, 5 2017 @ 01:04 PM
link   
a reply to: Xcalibur254
I wouldn't want to see state run programs. The best way is to make this business more competitive. There are too many regulations around health insurance. I'd like to see the same battle that goes on between car insurers. Look at GEICO. They changed the model transportation and drove down the cost of policies.



posted on Sep, 5 2017 @ 01:09 PM
link   

originally posted by: dfnj2015
a reply to: carewemust

We need to have a single provider system and get rid of the insurance companies. There's no reason to support the exorbitant CEO pay and the graft going on with the hospitals because the hospitals are owned by the same CEOs who own the insurance company.

The healthcare companies make Pentagon procurement look cheap!!


Can't you see that if we leave things as they are, we are dead on track for a single payer system. Its not a good thing.



new topics

top topics



 
19
<<   2  3  4 >>

log in

join