Yes, the Republican Obamacare Strategy Will Kill People

a reply to: beezzer

I'd have to look it up, but I thought reimbursements were cut??
And that whatever Medicare pays for a procedure ends up being what regular insureds pay for procedures.

originally posted by: DontTreadOnMe
a reply to: beezzer

I'd have to look it up, but I thought reimbursements were cut??
And that whatever Medicare pays for a procedure ends up being what regular insureds pay for procedures.

Yes and no.

different hospitals have different reimbursement rates. It's become a numbers game.

With Medicare, to make ends meet, Dr's offices have had to become assembly lines.

Pharma hasn't cut their prices, medical supply companies haven't cut their prices, so docs have to see more patients to make ends meet.

Obamacare has actually caused a spike in medical supply based on the new taxes (that's supposed to go back to pay for people's visits) which has hurt everyone.

Just google the number of hospitals that have either had to close, or join up into health groups to spread out the costs associated with Obamacare.

a reply to: beezzer

I know my doctor's office has begun to accept more insurers.....I am guessing that is to create the situation you mention....more patients.
I dread having to go there at some point.....and if I downgrade to an HMO, it will be inevitable to get referrals.

originally posted by: DontTreadOnMe
a reply to: beezzer

I know my doctor's office has begun to accept more insurers.....I am guessing that is to create the situation you mention....more patients.
I dread having to go there at some point.....and if I downgrade to an HMO, it will be inevitable to get referrals.

What some docs are doing (look in your area) is doing their work on a cash basis. It's much cheaper and less paperwork and they actually take the time because they do it off-hours.

If you know any in your area, ask. You might be surprised the next time you go for a visit, show them your insurance card, then ask what a cash-only visit might cost.

Other docs (even one in my area) is doing work on barter.

People do care. that's the bottom line. But they (we) have to work with the system thrown at us.

Good luck!

originally posted by: DontTreadOnMe
a reply to: Willtell

I don't have to read about it.....I live it.
I had insurance....and good insurance.
My employer was able to dump my group...and they did.

The ONLY plan I can even remotely afford is the bronze one.
With the 6350$ annual deductible.....on top of a premium that is awfully steep for me....and I don't have the money should I need to pay that deductible.

So, basically I am one of the millions of amerikans who are newly uninsured.

Are you sure it was good insurance? If you got cancer how much of your treatment would they cover? How many prescriptions? What if you needed an expensive medicine. Prior to Obamacare it was pretty common for people to think they had insurance only to find out that it wasn't all that good when they needed it the most. It just had a low deductible when they went into the doctor for routine stuff.

originally posted by: ketsuko
a reply to: tavi45

Ummm, so why didn't they just work on fixing the system we had instead of bollixing it up so badly that even more people had unworkable health care?

The short answer to your question is because Hillary Clinton has an ego. She was practically getting a coronation through the primaries and wanted to finally enact Hillarycare. Obama being a politician took a working alternative and used it as his competing plan on the campaign trail. Oddly enough he took the official Republican plan that was already enacted in one state. Obama won out and was now married to that plan. The Republicans abandoned it because it's better to disagree than grant a point, and they never really replaced that plan with anything.

Had health care not been framed as such a central debate of the 2008 election, we would probably have a pretty good system today. But, as the saying goes sh*t happens. Now we have to find some way to clean it up. In terms of national messes Obamacare is up there with the Federal Reserve, it's about as difficult to fix too.

Personally, I think we treat insurance all wrong. Insurance only increases costs for everyone. Even if they have 100% efficiency taking in/paying out money there are still administrative costs as well as a layer of profit. They can never be more effective than everyone simply paying their bills. Insurance has a purpose, it's a hedge against catastrophic events. If you get lung cancer? You need insurance to pay. If you get the flu? You don't really need insurance, and it's ridiculous that the doctors office uses insurance for this.

In my opinion we need to make doctors operate in an open and free market. Make them advertise rates, post them openly. Doctors can then compete against each other on price. When all is said and done, how much does your doctor charge for an annual physical? Most people cannot answer that and quite frankly most people don't care because all they're paying (at that moment) is a deductible. We should care about what we're paying doctors because that leads to fair prices, it's a field with a lot of competition afterall.

Insurance is just there for the big things we can't pay for, and that's what we should treat it as. It would make it a lot more affordable too.

a reply to: Aazadan

Not, it was what mos would consider gold or platinum coverage now...no pre-existing conditions were barred, great prescription coverage.....Master Medical....small deductibles, ever smaller co-pays, no referrals needed.

Had it for 30 years.
So, this is more than a shock....and thank God I am a healthy person.

ETA
My good friend had the same coverage, her husband got cancer and they covered damn near all the bills.
Good thing it was pre-Obamacare.....otherwise they would have had a $13,000 deductible.

a reply to: Willtell

Read this

And this

Just a couple I found with a cursory search. See what I did there? My opinion cancels out yours.

First of all, there are parts of obamacare that have been a long time coming, and necessary. Republicans and most other sane people would keep the part that requires insurers to cover people with pre-existing conditions. No one is against that. The rest of it is garbage, though.

But to say that Republicans want to repeal it is just sensationalistic bashing of Republicans.

Because they didn't, that's a republican lie.

originally posted by: olaru12
I like Rawstory because their headlines are more creative and elicit a better response from the ATS members when I make a thread. That bothers you? Why?

Seriously? The headlines are better? AKA ... the headlines are exaggerated partisan rhetoric. I prefer a headline that tells the truth. Raw Story doesn't do that. It's the Brietbart of the left.

That being said, Obamacare sucks. It cost billions. It is NONSUSTAINABLE. It took good insurance away from those who had it. The partisan opening post claims that republican strategy will cost lives. Guess what ... obamacare costs lives and the left lied to Americans in order to get them saddled with it. It should die.

originally posted by: tavi45
Maybe the Republicans should work on improving the system for all rather than just abolishing the ACA.

Maybe the Democrats should have not blown up a system that was working for most of the country, but instead come up with something that left that system in place and improved it. Instead, we get Obamacare which has done much more harm than good and has cost this country a fortune.

Obama lied and people lost their insurance with Obamacare. Others are being forced to buy insurance that they can't afford. Think about that for a while and let it sink in - Obama is forcing people to buy a product that they dont' want or can't afford. He took away what worked just fine for most people and blew it up instead of improved it.

originally posted by: FlyersFan

originally posted by: olaru12
I like Rawstory because their headlines are more creative and elicit a better response from the ATS members when I make a thread. That bothers you? Why?

Seriously? The headlines are better? AKA ... the headlines are exaggerated partisan rhetoric. I prefer a headline that tells the truth. Raw Story doesn't do that. It's the Brietbart of the left.

That being said, Obamacare sucks. It cost billions. It is NONSUSTAINABLE. It took good insurance away from those who had it. The partisan opening post claims that republican strategy will cost lives. Guess what ... obamacare costs lives and the left lied to Americans in order to get them saddled with it. It should die.

so I guess all those stories about people losing their homes and life savings due to medical bills are all lies too?

a reply to: jimmyx

As was previously stated, the vast majority of the country was just fine with their health insurance situation. Instead of leaving that majority alone and coming up with something for the remaining relatively few, the Democrats blew up the entire system and tens of millions lost their insurance and now have to pay outrageous sums for healthcare that isn't as good or isn't what they had previously.

The bottom line is Obamacare is unsustainable. It can't last. The math says so.
The OPs headline that the Republican strategy will kill people is woefully partisan.

originally posted by: Willtell
People Who Are Alive Today Because Of Obamacare Beg Court Not To Take Their Health Insurance Away

David Tedrow believes that Obamacare saved his life. Near the end of 2013, he was suffering from end-stage liver failure and needed a transplant or he would die. Unable to afford the transplant or the expensive follow-up care without insurance, David was able to obtain the health plan he needed to pay for his treatment through the Affordable Care Act’s insurance exchange in North Carolina, and this allowed him to remain on a transplant list he would have been taken off of if he was uninsured.

Last April, David received the transplant that saved his life. He believes that he is still here today because of Obamacare. David is one of several individuals with life-threatening health conditions that joined an amicus brief filed Monday in the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit. The brief asks the court to reject a claim brought by opponents of the Affordable Care Act seeking to cut off health subsidies to people entitled to receive them in nearly three dozen states. Other signatories to this brief include Jared Blitz, a man born with a heart condition who is able to afford life-saving heart surgery because of the Affordable Care Act, Jennifer Causor, a woman with cystic fibrosis whose story ThinkProgress told here, and Steve Orofino, a chemist and cancer patient who says that “I would have had to declare bankruptcy or I could be dead by now if it weren’t for the Act.”

The theory behind the lawsuit, known as Halbig v. Burwell, is that a passage of the Affordable Care Act should be read out of context in order to strip health insurance from millions of Americans. The Act gives each state a choice. They can either operate their own health exchange, where the state’s residents may buy subsidies health insurance, or they may allow the federal government to operate this exchange for them. The plaintiffs latch onto a provision of the law that appears to restrict subsidies to individuals who obtain insurance through “an Exchange established by the State,” though, as we explain in detail here and here, the bulk of the law contradicts the Halbig plaintiffs’ reading. Moreover, Supreme Court precedent instructs courts not to read individual passages of a law out of context. “[A] reviewing court should not confine itself to examining a particular statutory provision in isolation,” the Court explained in 2007, as the “meaning—or ambiguity—of certain words or phrases may only become evident when placed in context.” Much of the threat Halbig presents to people like David, Jared, Jennifer and Steve is obvious. If the courts agree to cut off subsidies in most of the states, the out-of-pocket cost of health insurance premiums will skyrocket for many individuals because their premium will no longer be paid in part through Obamacare. As the amicus brief points out, however, Halbig is actually considerably more dangerous than an initial look at it might suggest.

Just reporting the facts. I know people don't want to hear facts but its important to get the truth out

But thos4 are not facts, those are opinions--"that they would have died without Obamacare" and such opinions are not substantiated.

a reply to: FlyersFan

I think the problem is that people believe the majority of people were fine with their health coverage, but that is not so.

Medical debt is an especially notable phenomenon in the United States. In less developed nations those on low income in need of treatment will often avail themselves of what ever help they can from either the state or NGOs without going into debt, but in the US medical debt has been found by a 2009 study to be the primary cause of personal bankruptcy.[2][3]

A 2007 survey had found about 70 million Americans either have difficulty paying for medical treatment or have medical debt.[4] Studies have found people are most likely to accumulate large medical debts when they do not have health insurance to cover the costs of necessary medications, treatments, or procedures – in 2009 about 50 million Americans had no health coverage.[2] However, about 60% of those found to have medical debt were insured.[4] Health insurance plans rarely cover any and all health-related expenses; for insured people, the gap between insurance coverage and the affordability of health care manifests as medical debt. As with any type of debt, medical debt can lead to an array of personal and financial problems - including having to go without food and heat plus a reluctance to seek further medical treatment.[4][5] Aggressive debt collecting has been highlighted as an aggravating factor.[6] A study has found about 63% of adults with medical debt avoided further medical treatment, compared with only 19% of adults who had no such debt.[7]

According to a study conducted in 2012 by Demos that among indebted households 62% cited out-of-pocket medical expenses as a contribution to their debt.[8]

Source

The majority of the country was not fine with their coverage. We've had a problem with the system in this country for many years and we still have not found the best solution yet. They only thing we have done by passing Obamacare is funnel more money to the corporations or the government in the way of premiums and fines for not having coverage.

The old system didn't work and neither will the ACA.

What's woefully partisan is for the republicans to even attempt to act like they don't like the ACA. It was their creation, they would have been 100% on board if a Republican president had brought it to the table and this entire issue has exposed both the democrats for being corporate-lapdogs and the Republicans for being hypocrites.

" Yes, the Republican Obamacare Strategy Will Kill People "

But what about the Democrat strategy that will bankrupt millions?

Those deductibles are "murder incorporated".

originally posted by: xuenchen
" Yes, the Republican Obamacare Strategy Will Kill People "

But what about the Democrat strategy that will bankrupt millions?

Those deductibles are "murder incorporated".

What does that even mean? If you look at the link I posted above, medical bankruptcy has been a problem in this nation for quite some time. That is an issue for both the left and right.

a reply to: Willtell

Before Obama Care, I could get insurance on just me for under $200 a month. now, after Obama Care, It's $450 for the crappiest policy. You can try to sell your wagon of crap to someone else.

a reply to: sheepslayer247

The Obamacare cure for the healthcare problem is worse than the problem, though.

Things aren't better now.

Things are worse.

That's not partisan. This is not "political".

This is simple fact.

Things are worse now than they were.

originally posted by: xuenchen
" Yes, the Republican Obamacare Strategy Will Kill People "

But what about the Democrat strategy that will bankrupt millions?

Those deductibles are "murder incorporated".

originally posted by: sheepslayer247
What does that even mean? If you look at the link I posted above, medical bankruptcy has been a problem in this nation for quite some time. That is an issue for both the left and right.

Absolutely correct.

I was answering the opinionated thread title with my opinion.

A title of course that has 100% political slant in the Social forum.

The tactics are brilliant !!!