It is Official : ObamaCare is a Failure

[Cop]

Since you are eager to let the gov't control your health care at 65, what would be the problem before then?

I wouldn't say I'm eager.lol. I will use the shit out of it though since I paid into my whole life.

[FairWarning]

Except the welfare recipient is the insurance companies.  When you going to notice that the us gov't only exists to serve the interests of the super rich (multi national corps).  Both parties are the same.

Very true.

[Cop]

Except the welfare recipient is the insurance companies. When you going to notice that the us gov't only exists to serve the interests of the super rich (multi national corps). Both parties are the same.

Oh I agree 100%. We need a major overhaul in this Country. An outsider. Trump is the closest thing we have to that in this election.

[sports j]

If you can't afford it.... Then you don't get it

 

This goes for everything.

[sports j]

What about.when you can afford it but you have a prexisting condition?

[rito]

Oh I agree 100%. We need a major overhaul in this Country. An outsider. Trump is the closest thing we have to that in this election.

 

Yea, that was why I was considering Trump at one point.  But, just can't do it.  He's fking off his rocker.

[FairWarning]

Oh I agree 100%. We need a major overhaul in this Country. An outsider. Trump is the closest thing we have to that in this election.

I agree but do you think Trump cares about you or me? He only cares about himself.

[timetopay]

I hate health any more

 

Uses to have a few small groups, but never concentrated any effort on it

 

 

Sure as heck don't now

 

 

Med sups nice in open enrollment period. That's about it for me in the health arena outside of long term care

Luckily I have done well there as most of my business employers and that hasn't taken the hit of this individual business.

 

But the long term effect who knows. This year is scary on the individual front. First year around here we had about 9 companies writing all kinds of ppos and hmos.

 

Last year we had 1 PPo on the market and down to 4 companies with shitty hmo networks.

 

This year even worse with Aetna Humana and united all wanting out.

 

Medicare is still a nice side and you made a good choice. I just have never really went down that direction at our office.

[Cee]

For profit healthcare will always be terrible. Canada >>> USA system

[Guest boatboatboat]

Being in a rural area we were always hamstrung with a ppo or hmo that had a horrible network of drs. The hospitals would participate but most docs wouldn't

 

I'm all for a single payer national health plan

[rito]

Being in a rural area we were always hamstrung with a ppo or hmo that had a horrible network of drs. The hospitals would participate but most docs wouldn't

 

I'm all for a single payer national health plan

 

It makes the most sense and works just fine everywhere else.  Somehow the insurance industry has managed to convince enough Americans that they would be worse off, which is utter nonsense. 

[FairWarning]

Luckily I have done well there as most of my business employers and that hasn't taken the hit of this individual business.

But the long term effect who knows. This year is scary on the individual front. First year around here we had about 9 companies writing all kinds of ppos and hmos.

Last year we had 1 PPo on the market and down to 4 companies with shitty hmo networks.

This year even worse with Aetna Humana and united all wanting out.

Medicare is still a nice side and you made a good choice. I just have never really went down that direction at our office.

What would be similar to the Humana Medicare supplemental insurance if that goes away? Need something for my mother.

[Cop]

Submitted by Ron Paul via The Ron Paul Institute for Peace & Prosperity,

 

The decision of several major insurance companies to cut their losses and withdraw from the Obamacare exchanges, combined with the failure of 70 percent of Obamacare's health insurance “co-ops, ” will leave one in six Obamacare enrollees with only one health insurance option. If Obamacare continues on its current track, most of America may resemble Pinal County, Arizona, where no one can obtain private health insurance. Those lucky enough to obtain insurance will face ever-increasing premiums and a declining choice of providers.

 

Many Obamacare supporters claimed that the exchanges created a market for health insurance that would allow consumers to benefit from competition. But allowing consumers to pick from a variety of government-controlled health insurance plans is not a true market; instead it is what the great economist Ludwig von Mises called “playing market.”

 

Unfortunately, if not surprisingly, too many are drawing the wrong lessons from Obamacare’s difficulties. Instead of calling for a repeal of Obamacare and all other government interference in the health care market, many are calling for increased penalties on those who defy Obamacare’s individual mandate in order to force them onto the exchanges. Others are renewing the push for a “public option,” forcing private companies to compete with taxpayer-funded entities and easing the way for the adoption of a Canadian-style single payer system.

 

Even those working to restore individual control over health care via tax deductions, credits, and expanded health savings accounts still support government intervention in order to provide a “safety net” for the poor. Of course, everyone — including libertarians — shares the goal of creating a safety net. Libertarians just understand that a moral and effective safety net is one voluntarily provided by individuals, religious organizations, and private charities.

 

 

Government has no legitimate authority to take money from taxpayers to fund health care or any other type of welfare program. Government-run health care also does not truly serve the interest of those supposedly “benefiting” from the program. Anyone who doubts this should consider how declining reimbursements and increasing bureaucracy is causing more doctors to refuse to treat Medicaid and Medicare patients.

 

 

Medicaid patients will face increasing hardships when, not if, the US government's fiscal crisis forces Congress to make spending cuts. When the crisis comes, what is more likely to be cut first: spending benefiting large corporations and big banks that can deploy armies of high-powered lobbyists, or spending benefiting low-income Americans who cannot afford K Street representation?

 

Contrary to myth, low-income individuals did not go without care in the days before the welfare state. Private, charity-run hospitals staffed by volunteers provided a safety net for those who could not afford health care. Most doctors also willingly provided free or reduced-price care for those who needed it. The large amount of charitable giving and volunteer activity in the United States shows that the American people do not need government's help in providing an effective safety net.

 

The problems plaguing the health care system are rooted in the treatment of health care as a "right." This justifies government intervention in the health care marketplace. This intervention causes increasing prices and declining quality and supply. Ironically, those who suffer most from government intervention are the very people proponents of these programs claim to want to help. The first step in restoring a health care system that meets the needs of all people is to start treating health care as a good that can and should only be provided via voluntary actions of free people.

[barman]

I can look at my sales to date for that, the numbers don't lie.

 

 

Seems a logical sequence of thinking.

 

But I've recently been more noticing of people who see What Is and rather than forecasting Pain, they begin immediately creating smarter options. You seem like someone who would be that wise, eh?

[timetopay]

What would be similar to the Humana Medicare supplemental insurance if that goes away? Need something for my mother.

 

Fair that should be fine. Med Supps a whole different situation then under 65 plans. That should still be there and fine for your mom

[barman]

Submitted by Ron Paul via The Ron Paul Institute for Peace & Prosperity,

 

The decision of several major insurance companies to cut their losses and withdraw from the Obamacare exchanges, combined with the failure of 70 percent of Obamacare's health insurance “co-ops, ” will leave one in six Obamacare enrollees with only one health insurance option. If Obamacare continues on its current track, most of America may resemble Pinal County, Arizona, where no one can obtain private health insurance. Those lucky enough to obtain insurance will face ever-increasing premiums and a declining choice of providers.

 

Many Obamacare supporters claimed that the exchanges created a market for health insurance that would allow consumers to benefit from competition. But allowing consumers to pick from a variety of government-controlled health insurance plans is not a true market; instead it is what the great economist Ludwig von Mises called “playing market.”

 

Unfortunately, if not surprisingly, too many are drawing the wrong lessons from Obamacare’s difficulties. Instead of calling for a repeal of Obamacare and all other government interference in the health care market, many are calling for increased penalties on those who defy Obamacare’s individual mandate in order to force them onto the exchanges. Others are renewing the push for a “public option,” forcing private companies to compete with taxpayer-funded entities and easing the way for the adoption of a Canadian-style single payer system.

 

Even those working to restore individual control over health care via tax deductions, credits, and expanded health savings accounts still support government intervention in order to provide a “safety net” for the poor. Of course, everyone — including libertarians — shares the goal of creating a safety net. Libertarians just understand that a moral and effective safety net is one voluntarily provided by individuals, religious organizations, and private charities.

 

 

Government has no legitimate authority to take money from taxpayers to fund health care or any other type of welfare program. Government-run health care also does not truly serve the interest of those supposedly “benefiting” from the program. Anyone who doubts this should consider how declining reimbursements and increasing bureaucracy is causing more doctors to refuse to treat Medicaid and Medicare patients.

 

 

Medicaid patients will face increasing hardships when, not if, the US government's fiscal crisis forces Congress to make spending cuts. When the crisis comes, what is more likely to be cut first: spending benefiting large corporations and big banks that can deploy armies of high-powered lobbyists, or spending benefiting low-income Americans who cannot afford K Street representation?

 

Contrary to myth, low-income individuals did not go without care in the days before the welfare state. Private, charity-run hospitals staffed by volunteers provided a safety net for those who could not afford health care. Most doctors also willingly provided free or reduced-price care for those who needed it. The large amount of charitable giving and volunteer activity in the United States shows that the American people do not need government's help in providing an effective safety net.

 

The problems plaguing the health care system are rooted in the treatment of health care as a "right." This justifies government intervention in the health care marketplace. This intervention causes increasing prices and declining quality and supply. Ironically, those who suffer most from government intervention are the very people proponents of these programs claim to want to help. The first step in restoring a health care system that meets the needs of all people is to start treating health care as a good that can and should only be provided via voluntary actions of free people.

Imagine there were 270+ people in Congress who agreed w Ron Paul...pretty cool, eh?

 

Now let's see how many people in Congress actually helped a Ron Paul-sponsored bill be enacted into federal law. (a dozen or less)

 

NOW we can more smartly plan for our futures, knowing that Ron Paul-driven ideas are quite unlikely to be much part of the next several decades at the US federal level.

 

These plans might include (as they do for me and my wife) in relocating our primary residence to a nation where we like their federal government better.

Or they might include burning many hours/days/years of your life trying to "change Washington".

 

Choose Wisely

[barman]

The biggest thing people don't seem to realize is it's not a gov't program. You are not insured by the gov't. You are required to buy insurance from a private company. In certain income brackets you get a tax credit to do so, but the insurance company gets the whole amount.

 

Hey wait! I thought all the profits went to Barack, Michelle and Democratic Congresspeople??

 

Are you saying the profits go to publicly owned companies in which any American is free to invest if they perceive said companies are "making profits hand over fist"??

[barman]

Guys this is the majority of what I do over the auto and home.

 

This is the year the disaster really begins. The insurance carriers want no part of this anymore.

 

Many counties down to 1 or 2 carriers and they will be soon to get out.

 

No way to make this work if no insurance companies are left in.

As noted by Rito, the primary obstacle here in Florida is Gov Scott and Florida Lege taking a massive shit on the ACA as a whole, thus assuring a lower level of participation by both providers and consumers

[barman]

Except the welfare recipient is the insurance companies. When you going to notice that the us gov't only exists to serve the interests of the super rich (multi national corps). Both parties are the same.

Respectfully, this "Bernie Sanders" platform plank is weak to me because it presupposes Americans will not invest in profitable multi-national companies.

 

For upwards of 60% of Americans, simply stopping tobacco and/or alcohol use (or yes, marijuana use if you find yourself short on investment $$) would free up sufficient dollars to put $500+ monthly into a well managed stock portfolio.

 

Far too many do not and there is a lengthy list of diverse excuses, but it remains in their power.

 

Bitching about businesses - especially really big ones - making big money is financial absurdity

[barman]

Being in a rural area we were always hamstrung with a ppo or hmo that had a horrible network of drs. The hospitals would participate but most docs wouldn't

 

I'm all for a single payer national health plan

As are the strong majority of voting adults worldwide

[IAG]

Boat-you sell LTC?