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.

 

Justice Department sides with court ruling Obamacare invalid

page: 9
36
<< 6  7  8    10 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Mar, 28 2019 @ 11:09 AM
link   
a reply to: Sookiechacha

Citation needed

IF this were true, then fine lets do it

Otherwise, stop expecting us to pay for your healthcare (us and your not literal)

Stop trying to force healthy folks to take part in the healthcare system

There is no need to run to a Doctor unless something is severely wrong. Yes, I realize this could result in them missing something or me dying an early death. I'm OK with that risk - have to die some day.
edit on 3/28/2019 by JBurns because: (no reason given)




posted on Mar, 28 2019 @ 03:12 PM
link   

originally posted by: AboveBoard
a reply to: burntheships


Heck, I don’t care, spiff up the ACA, do Medicare for All or whatever — steal Dems thunder and call it TrumpCare —



That was a little joke, apparently you missed.





Nope. I just don’t believe that Trump or the R’s have the policy chops to really get that done...



Well how would you know since your team has denied them the opportunity?
Not to mention some RINO's joined their efforts in keeping the failed Obamacare.

And this is not a callous response, Obamacare has utterly failed in many states.
Perhaps your living in a state where exchanges sill offer a choice, but for how long?

Yes, I understand you need healthcare for your children, really who doesn't?
But that doesn't make it feasible for everyone everywhere in the U.S.

Obamacare is crashing healthcare, and prevents many good doctors from
free enterprise, in which case they just don't continue practice.



posted on Mar, 28 2019 @ 04:03 PM
link   
a reply to: JBurns

Thanks to the Koch Brothers, We Have More Proof that Single Payer Saves Money and Cares for All of Us
A study that was intended to make the case against Medicare for All reveals that the reform could save Americans trillions of dollars.
www.thenation.com...

Koch-Funded Study Finds Medicare for All Would Save Money While Covering Everyone gritpost.com...

Even Libertarians Admit Medicare for All Would Save Trillions www.jacobinmag.com...



posted on Mar, 28 2019 @ 04:24 PM
link   
a reply to: Sookiechacha

Actually the study said it COULD (best case scenario on everything) save $2 trillion, if we paid Doctors and ALL health care professionals and reimbursed hospitals 40% less than what they are being reimbursed at now, but the actual projection is that it would increase spending. So let's not lie.


In his report, Blahous provided an alternative-scenario estimate, one that assumed instead that payments to health care providers would “remain equal on average to the current-law blend of higher private and lower public reimbursement rates.” Under that scenario, there would be a net increase in health care spending.

www.factcheck.org...

Question. How are you INCREASING demand by 10% (10% more people, procedures etc...) while paying 40% less? Sorry Doctor, we know you are expecting $160,000 a year, but now you are only going to make $96,000, enjoy those student loans!

Oh hello nurses, we know we have a SHORTAGE of over 1 million nurses, so we are going to entice you to become a nurse by cutting your salary by 40%, enjoy!



posted on Mar, 28 2019 @ 04:30 PM
link   
a reply to: OccamsRazor04


The report’s methods are pretty straightforward. Blahous starts with current projections about how much the country will spend on health care between 2022 and 2031. From there, he adds the costs associated with higher utilization of medical services and then subtracts the savings from lower administrative costs, lower reimbursements for medical services, and lower drug prices. After this bit of arithmetic, Blahous finds that health expenditures would be lower for every year during the first decade of implementation. The net change across the whole ten-year period is a savings of $2.054 trillion.
www.jacobinmag.com...





Question. How are you INCREASING demand by 10% (10% more people, procedures etc...) while paying 40% less?


By eliminating the middle man, the insurance companies, and pay doctors, clinics and hospitals directly. How much are insurance company CEOs making?


edit on 28-3-2019 by Sookiechacha because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 28 2019 @ 04:36 PM
link   
a reply to: Sookiechacha

You misunderstand. We are not talking middle man, we are talking about actual reimbursement. Sanders believes reimbursements will be lowered by 40%. What you are talking about would be same reimbursements, but savings on overhead (middle man).

You need to go back and understand what Sanders is claiming (which is NOT what the study you mention claimed).

From your source ...

lower reimbursements for medical services

So a Doctor will go from making $160,000 to making $96,000. A Nurse will go from making $90,000 down to $56,000.

Who won't want to jump into those professions!
edit on 28-3-2019 by OccamsRazor04 because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 28 2019 @ 04:38 PM
link   
a reply to: Sookiechacha

I already quoted the study author, you can post erroneous attributions all you want, his study does NOT say that. Sanders took the study, added his own formulas, and then attributed the outcome to Blahous when Blahous actually said the opposite. Are you unable to read my already sourcing that?


Sen. Bernie Sanders and Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, the Democratic nominee for New York’s 14th Congressional District seat, are pointing to a study they say shows “Medicare-for-all” would save Americans money. But the author says their comments “appear to reflect a misunderstanding of my study.”


Again, Blahous never said that, Sanders said it and claimed Blahous did. It's a lie.



posted on Mar, 28 2019 @ 05:14 PM
link   
a reply to: OccamsRazor04

A percentage what is paid out to doctors and clinics goes right to insurance companies. Cut the middle man and you cut the administrative and medical costs.




I already quoted the study author, you can post erroneous attributions all you want, his study does NOT say that.


I sourced my quotes.


Messaging strategy aside, there is room to quibble with Blahous’s positive findings. He assumes administrative costs will only drop from 13 percent to 6 percent for those currently privately insured. But, according to the Kaiser Family Foundation, Medicare’s administrative costs have consistently been below 2 percent. He assumes utilization of health services will increase by 11 percent, but aggregate health service utilization is ultimately dependent on the capacity to provide services, meaning utilization could hit a hard limit below the level he projects.

But even if you take the report’s headline figures at face value, the picture it paints is that of an enormous bargain. We get to insure every single person in the country, virtually eliminate cost-sharing, and save everyone from the hell of constantly changing health insurance all while saving money. You would have to be a fool to pass that offer up.
www.jacobinmag.com...



posted on Mar, 28 2019 @ 05:52 PM
link   
a reply to: Sookiechacha

What happens to the 600,000 insurance company employees ?

😨



posted on Mar, 28 2019 @ 06:25 PM
link   
a reply to: xuenchen

What happened to factory workers, when their jobs were automated? What happened to the coal miners when their jobs were made obsolete?

What happens to millions of Americans with pre-existing conditions that can't get the care or medication they need?



posted on Mar, 28 2019 @ 11:24 PM
link   

originally posted by: Sookiechacha
a reply to: OccamsRazor04

President Obama and his administration worked within the system that is/was in existence. He worked with Republicans and implemented their "Heritage Foundation" plan. Are you suggesting that President Obama should have bypassed the Republican plan and the private insurance industry and gone straight for single payer?


Now I know you are parroting talking points. There was no 'Heritage Plan' from the Republicans. What you are referring to was a rebuttal from the HF that basically said 'An individual mandate is a terrible idea, and unconstitutional, but if you were going to implement it here's how it would look. By the way, it's a terrible ideas and it's unconstitutional. Did we mention the terrible idea and unconstitutionality? Yeah, it's a terrible idea and unconstitutional.'

It's not the fault of conservatives and Republicans that statists and leftists (I repeat myself) have selective hearing.



posted on Mar, 29 2019 @ 03:44 AM
link   
a reply to: Sookiechacha

I don't care about you sourcing quotes. I sourced Blahous himself. You keep sourcing people making claims about the report, I sourced the actual report itself. If your sources keep being wrong, why do you keep using them?



posted on Mar, 29 2019 @ 03:49 AM
link   
a reply to: Sookiechacha

I am actually a single payer fan. The rest of what you said is pure nonsense. Obama made insurance companies rich and did bypass Republicans, your heritage plan nonsense is just that, pure nonsense. It's more lying talking points just like your "Koch brothers say medicare for all is cheaper". How many times will you read the same sources after they turn out to be wrong? Why don't you find better sources after being proven wrong so many times? They did not work within any system, they did whatever they wanted, and Obama broke all his campaign promises (such as cheap medication). Obama campaigned on cheap reimportation drugs, especially for the elderly. Then he went to Big Pharm and had back room deals made where he promised not to do it if they supported ACA. Republicans then tried to do it, and Democrats blocked it and Obama sat silent despite campaign promises. He fought Republicans who were trying to do what he claimed he wanted to do. He's a hypocrite, like you.


Republicans are slamming President Obama for his silence on drug reimportation legislation, claiming he has broken his campaign promise to allow seniors to buy cheaper medications from other countries.

thehill.com...


“There was nothing in the deal that was a structural reform of the [drug] industry,” said John McDonough, who was a top health policy adviser to the late Sen. Ted Kennedy (D-Mass.) during health law negotiations “They were first in line; they were on the winning side; they got a good deal that they could live with and they stuck to it.”

www.politico.com...

You only care when one side does it. In fact, you don't care at all about Obama doing it, and you rail against Trump for what he MAY do when he hasn't even broken the promise yet. You're a hypocrite.
edit on 29-3-2019 by OccamsRazor04 because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 29 2019 @ 07:52 AM
link   

originally posted by: Sookiechacha
Which would come to less than what their current private insurer's premiums are now.

First, this is just your opinion, there is no way to prove it.

Second, history proves you not just wrong, but woefully wrong.

Anytime government gets involved in anything, the cost/price goes way up, the quality of service goes way down.

That is a fact, whether you like it or not.



posted on Mar, 29 2019 @ 08:23 AM
link   
a reply to: Teikiatsu




There was no 'Heritage Plan' from the Republicans.


I don't know that they called it a "Heritage Plan", but RomneyCare came directly from the Heritage Foundation's think tank back in the '90s. The Republican health care plan, that the Obama Administration drew from.


Republican Sen. John Chafee of Rhode Island was the point man. The bill he introduced, Health Equity and Access Reform Today, (yes, that spells HEART) had a list of 20 co-sponsors that was a who’s who of Republican leadership. There was Minority Leader Bob Dole, R- Kan., Sens. Orrin Hatch, R-Utah, Charles Grassley, R-Iowa, Richard Lugar, R-Ind., and many others. There also were two Democratic co-sponsors.

Among other features, the Chafee bill included:
An individual mandate;
Creation of purchasing pools;
Standardized benefits;
Vouchers for the poor to buy insurance;
A ban on denying coverage based on a pre-existing condition.

"You would find a great deal of similarity to provisions in the Affordable Care Act," Sheila Burke, Dole’s chief of staff in 1993, told PunditFact via email. "The guys were way ahead of the times!! Different crowd, different time, suffice it to say."

www.politifact.com...




RomneyCare is the name given to Mitt Romney’s health care insurance reform laws passed in MA in 2006. RomneyCare aimed to reform healthcare by providing all MA residents with affordable quality health insurance. It also offered additional protections to MA residents including the retention of health coverage when switching employers or when they faced financial difficulties. The idea being that all citizens of that state should have health coverage.

As of today Romneycare is still in effect and was used as a model for the Affordable Care Act (ObamaCare) due to it’s widely recognized success and popularity within Ma. However, parts of MA healthcare reform have been replaced with rules from the Affordable Care Act.

“RomneyCare” is the nick name for MA health care reform enacted as Chapter 58 of the Acts of 2006 of the Massachusetts General Court; its long form title is An Act Providing Access to Affordable, Quality, Accountable Health Care.

obamacarefacts.com...



posted on Mar, 29 2019 @ 02:25 PM
link   
a reply to: Sookiechacha

RomneyCare is not a Republican healthcare plan, try again. It was what citizens (Democrats) in MA wanted, and Romney was elected by those people. It's hilarious that one Republican, giving Democrats what they want, turns something into a "Republican idea". I applaud Romney for working his ass off for the people of MA.



posted on Mar, 29 2019 @ 03:10 PM
link   
a reply to: Sookiechacha

That my friends is the difference between democrati group think and Republican Independent thought.

Just because one GOP'er does something doesn't mean we support it. We generally support our own, at least until they espouse values not consistent with our Constitution/Liberty/Self-Determination and then we primary their rear-ends regardless of the cost/impact to our party

That is another key difference....



posted on Mar, 29 2019 @ 03:15 PM
link   
a reply to: Sookiechacha

Coal jobs have not been made obsolete, otherwise no coal mines would be in operation

Hundreds of guys drive past my house 3 times a day to work in the mines

And as we expand our oil drilling operations into previously off-limits areas, those folks are easily retrained to work in the oil field vs. the coal mine

Tell you what though, get your precious government to stop hoarding safe/clean nuclear technology and then we'll talk. I agree there is no need to rely on fossil fuel at this point, nuclear has been the answer all along... inexhaustible fuel supply with the right reactor type. Thorium based MSRs for example have a minimal proliferation/weapon risk too, so I am waiting to hear the excuses start flowing...

*In any case, we are a good 40-50 years away from being able to transition over to any sort of alternative energy including nuclear. These things take time, they cost money and as it stands now there is no incentive for companies to put that kind of capital up. And certainly no impetus for taxpayers either (hence why your "Green new deal" BS failed so miserably)
edit on 3/29/2019 by JBurns because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 29 2019 @ 06:16 PM
link   
a reply to: JBurns




Coal jobs have not been made obsolete, otherwise no coal mines would be in operation


Soon, the jobs of private medical insurance adjusters will be right were American coal miner's job are at now.

The entire coal industry employs fewer people than Arby’s www.washingtonpost.com...


edit on 29-3-2019 by Sookiechacha because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 30 2019 @ 07:46 AM
link   
a reply to: Sookiechacha

What did I tell you about using bad sources? When your sources lie to you every single time and make you look stupid for repeating those lies, why do you keep using the same fake news sources?

Mining, transporting coal, and coal power plants, all DIRECT coal industry employees, total about 170,000. That is more than double what the Post said. Indirect employment is in the many hundreds of thousands range. Stop reading propaganda and expecting it to be news.

Here is an article by the SAME source, Washington Post, where they claim coal in 2010 employed 408,000 people and currently employs 360,000 people. See what happens when you are not a news source and you are a propaganda outlet, you can't keep your stories straight.

www.washingtonpost.com...
edit on 30-3-2019 by OccamsRazor04 because: (no reason given)




top topics



 
36
<< 6  7  8    10 >>

log in

join