Bliz Posted October 23, 2013 Share Posted October 23, 2013 (edited) (Been watchin that gif for waaaayyy too long, lol)...good post, Wrong Direction. We need to hear the good, too...especially after Fox brought out their fakes on Hanniteabag's show. The shame is that even debunked, most of the "Obamacare is Evil" believers will never know that their "news" organization flat out lies, because they're stuck in the bubble. Here's an opinion piece that cuts against a few themes from this thread. It's a pro-obamacare article on FoxNews in which the writer ended up with a low deductible--a much lower deductible than they could previously afford--thanks to the ACA. However, this person is in New York. And it certainly seems like New York is an outlier, with people there getting a lot more out of the deal than people in any other states. Still, for what it's worth: http://www.foxnews.com/opinion/2013/10/21/was-obamacare-guinea-pig/ I signed up. I saved. And so will millions of Americans. Honestly, I couldn’t wait to sign up for ObamaCare — not because I talk about it on television, but because I’m tired of being ripped off by my insurance company. I live in New York State — which for several decades has had the highest individual insurance premiums in the nation. ... Currently, I pay $965 per month for family coverage that includes: • a whopping $7,000 deductible; • $36,000 out-of-pocket max per year; • an annual coverage limit of $2,000,000; • a $35 co-pay for doctor’s visits ($55 for specialists); and • a $15 co-pay for generic prescriptions. I’m not going to tell you who my current provider is, though I’m inclined to purely out of loathing and spite. But for the record, for over a year I paid for their version of “gold” coverage that had a $3,000 deductible, only a $25 doctor’s co-pay and a $6,000 out-of-pocket max. But that plan didn’t process any of my reimbursements either and cost a whopping $1,687 per month. That’s over $20,000 per year! You can see why, regardless of what party I vote for, I was excited to have some more affordable options. So I logged onto the New York State health insurance exchange website. Yeah, I had a few false starts — the website was down a lot early on either because of service glitches or overwhelming traffic. For a few days, I couldn’t do anything at all on the website. Then for a day or so I could “log-in” but not complete registration. And then for a day, I could answer the questions to complete my registration but not actually complete the process. On one occasion, I got so frustrated at the stalled exchange website that I actually shook my computer. Not pleasant. ... Within a week, I had settled on a “gold” plan offered by Empire Blue Cross Blue Shield. The plan includes: • a $2,000 total deductible; • an out-of-pocket max of $12,500 for the year; • a $30 co-pay for visits to our primary care doctor; • a $15 co-pay for generic prescriptions; • NO annual coverage limit — because that’s now prohibited thanks to the Affordable Care Act; plus • an added bonus: the plan I selected includes child dental. This option will cost my family $931 per month — $408 per year less than my previous crappy plan and a $5,000 savings in deductibles. A big win for me and my family financially and in terms of what’s covered. Plus in the past, I spent several days looking for and comparing insurance options. Under ObamaCare, even with the slow and sticky website, I spent a total of four hours — to save over $5,400. That kind of return on investment would make Warren Buffett drool. Edited October 23, 2013 by Bliz Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
chipwhich Posted October 23, 2013 Share Posted October 23, 2013 Chip, I knew when you responded, you would make up something I didn't say, and claim I said it. I apologize. Since the majority of your posts are anti GOP, and never negative towards the Dems it was inferred. Anyways, we all get to pay the price for this great ACA. Let's rejoice. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TradeTheBeal! Posted October 23, 2013 Share Posted October 23, 2013 I apologize. Since the majority of your posts are anti GOP, and never negative towards the Dems it was inferred. Anyways, we all get to pay the price for this great ACA. Let's rejoice. Reasons I'm against national health care... 1. It's not perfect 2. We're all in it together. 3. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jumbo Posted October 23, 2013 Share Posted October 23, 2013 Killing time waiting for matters out of my hands at work and prompted by a post I didn't quote, I'm dropping this stream of thought---it's way long, self-indulgent (some OT, but not to me)--so don't read unless you're really bored. Another foolish hope I have is that someday we will drop the pretense (whether stated or inferred) that somehow private enterprise and corporations in this culture voluntarily display only economically, socially, or ethically positive behaviors. "They" are more efficient with money then the government. It rolls off the tongue or keyboard easily enough, but if you consider how you'd prove that and support it in a logical debate, it's like doable, but what a task. But I certainly think it's a useful and fair enough generalization anyway. Government waste is beyond abominable---I just don't play the game of focusing on all defense, or all social services, or all corporate greed/abuse, as my real annoyance and apply lip-service to the others (a popular pastime). It is easy to find huge incompetence (and worse) in the government, just as it is to find rapacious larceny (and worse) in the private sector, no doubt. It is all an issue to me. "They" also have a long history of being happy to rob you blind (uber-greed well and truly enabled by legislation). "They" have had the collusion of their regional and national government (which appears at times to be a wholly owned subsidiary) over the centuries, and enjoy(ed) huge access to taxpayer dollars in various ways, along with a very demonstrated willingness to commit any other deeds (environmentally, legally, morally, etc) necessary to accumulate maximum wealth. From tobacco to railroads to land grabs to newspapers to present day manifestations, private enterprise has as much had their foot on people's necks as their partners in profit---those who govern. I have long found Texas a great example (just an example) of a single state whose economic base was largely built on favoritism, graft, corruption, and murder, with regional and government support (rich white males in cattle, land, minerals, and later oil). Now some Texans crow about their "independence and wealth" economically, much of which was bought for them via legislation or more secretive collusion. None of these comments ignore all the positives of those who "built Texas", or any other state. But it's an impressive level of hypocrisy, as well as just the general level of cognitive gymnastics, that some of their elected officials display on their "status." But many of us laud "private enterprise" without putting much condition on the statements while universally lambasting all things government (especially social service related more than defense---BOTH should get equal scrutiny beyond phony lip-service). The SAME species (humans) rule each. Big bulletin to all ideologues: if you objectively examine the private sector intelligently, then the government, then the population at large (most major demographics), and thus the culture at large(include history), you may start to get the picture. Think "Redskins" the first four games and then go way lower. It ain't just Danny Smith, or the play-calling, or the owner, or the passing game, or the running game, or ST coverage, or injuries, or the salary cap, or Haslett, or players x & y, or the secondary, or the trade, etc. etc. It's a lot of ****. It all needs addressing to make us what we want to be. When discussing things needing to be corrected, cherry picking/prioritizing your pet stuff and ignoring the other guy is just as ineffective as that family-arguing scenario. It's a hamster wheel. It keeps us busy and occupied and as long as some food water and cleaning is done to the cage, it's life. The other relevant parallel of course is that most of us are just as brilliant about national/international economics, regional and global affairs/history in general, and all matters of science, just as we are about NFL football in all aspects of the game. When you have multiple serious issues in a family, or a business, or a corporation, or a legislative body, or a nation, or in anything involving multiple humans in conflict over matters with huge emotional content (which for most humans can be anything/everything at any time), the best way to handle it (I refrain from dark humor here) is not our favorite way. Our favorite way (and a time-honored, proven, excellent diversionary tactic very much in the awareness of those able to deploy it) is to engage in endless arguing that it IS Danny Smith mainly, or it IS the whackjob GOP mainly, or it IS the loony liberal PC left, or it IS all of congress being bought off, or it IS that damn secret Muslim Atheist Negro or his predecessor---the Illuminati/Trilateral legacy-reject (and the crazies choice as Hitler Jr.) GWII and his tax cuts/rich pals, or Cheney/Rummy/Haliburton, or Wall Street, or those Cadillac driving welfare frauds, or the illegal unlawfulness foreigners immigrunts, or FEMA shock troops, or.......wait, have to dab up the spittle. Our ego (wayyyyyyyy more often than our "conscience" or our commitment to whatever ideals and principles we say we hold) needs us to prove we're right. Even if we have successfully sold ourselves the illusion that we really are that confident in our broadly distributed brilliance---i.e. a veneer of confidence consistently projected (often with snark--a red flag), but usually pretty damn insecure when you dig, and that piece runs a lot of stuff)---we still like to display our feathers. Mine are awesome. Point is, rather than recognize and honestly note it's ALL a problem and address ALL of it--not just giving that idea at least lip service and not really backing it up with actions/continuing comments that stick to that admission---we do way too much the dance of arguing for our own personal needs and not to solve the actual problem. As long as mom argues dad, and dad argues sis, and brother argues mom, and all of them have few priorities equal to "being right", which is "successfully" reinforced just by arguing (and oh the party in the very rare instance of converting someone on their opinion), instead of sitting down to communicate and compromise on competing individual interests and overall group-benefit, using the parts of the brain best suited for it, then even incremental change is very daunting. And the more people with a voice in the matter, the more challenging it can be. But then when the group is large enough, it gets easier again (especially subject to manipulation). "They" have it easy with "us" (conspiracy dudes get your freak on). I can fantasize about a governing body where accurate information, reason (i.e. caring combined with pragmatism), justice (fairness/equability in governing), and logic hold far more sway, and religiosity, greed, ego, bigotry, nationalism, and ignorance + arrogance hold far less sway. But our government is not that one, and at any time and with any admin, it does accurately reflect many of us---we do elect them, however manipulated many of us may be, and you'd think this would be as clear as 2 + 2. We want them (whichever "they") to change, but we don't want to talk as much (let alone take action) about what we need to change in our self to remedy things. If you look at what seems to be offered by most of the "one side v the other" in these threads most days, it's a fair microcosm of what's out there (minus the serious freak-show or just-too-stupid **** we don't allow), and it seems obvious: we are they. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TheGoodBits Posted October 23, 2013 Share Posted October 23, 2013 I was bored, read the whole thing. Great post Jumbo, appreciated. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jumbo Posted October 23, 2013 Share Posted October 23, 2013 I was bored, read the whole thing. Great post Jumbo, appreciated. Now I'm worried about you. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TradeTheBeal! Posted October 23, 2013 Share Posted October 23, 2013 Jumbo with the strong sauce. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
twa Posted October 23, 2013 Share Posted October 23, 2013 I liked the family analogy,naturally I think a strong leader eliminates a lot of conflict there though.. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wrong Direction Posted October 23, 2013 Share Posted October 23, 2013 Wowza. So they picked the cheapest a plan could possibly be in those two age groups and are promoting that as the estimate. This is all going so well. http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-505269_162-57608843/healthcare.gov-pricing-feature-can-be-off-the-mark/ HealthCare.gov pricing feature can be off the mark CBS News has uncovered a serious pricing problem with HealthCare.gov. It stems from the Obama administration's efforts to improve its health care website. A new online feature can dramatically underestimate the cost of insurance. The administration announced it would provide a new "shop and browse" feature Sunday, but it's not giving consumers the real picture. In some cases, people could end up paying double of what they see on the website, CBS News' Jan Crawford reported Wednesday on "CBS This Morning." ... Industry analysts, such as Jonathan Wu, point to how the website lumps people only into two broad categories: "49 or under" and "50 or older." Wu said it's "incredibly misleading for people that are trying to get a sense of what they're paying." Prices for everyone in the 49-or-under group are based on what a 27-year-old would pay. In the 50-or-older group, prices are based on what a 50-year-old would pay. CBS News ran the numbers for a 48-year-old in Charlotte, N.C., ineligible for subsidies. According to HealthCare.gov, she would pay $231 a month, but the actual plan on Blue Cross and Blue Shield of North Carolina's website costs $360, more than 50 percent higher. The difference: Blue Cross and Blue Shield requests your birthday before providing more accurate estimates. The numbers for older Americans are even more striking. A 62-year-old in Charlotte looking for the same basic plan would get a price estimate on the government website of $394. The actual price is $634. More at link. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wrong Direction Posted October 23, 2013 Share Posted October 23, 2013 http://www.kaiserhealthnews.org/Stories/2013/October/21/cancellation-notices-health-insurance.aspx Thousands Of Consumers Get Insurance Cancellation Notices Due To Health Law Changes Health plans are sending hundreds of thousands of cancellation letters to people who buy their own coverage, frustrating some consumers who want to keep what they have and forcing others to buy more costly policies. The main reason insurers offer is that the policies fall short of what the Affordable Care Act requires starting Jan. 1. Most are ending policies sold after the law passed in March 2010. At least a few are cancelling plans sold to people with pre-existing medical conditions. By all accounts, the new policies will offer consumers better coverage, in some cases, for comparable cost -- especially after the inclusion of federal subsidies for those who qualify. The law requires policies sold in the individual market to cover 10 “essential” benefits, such as prescription drugs, mental health treatment and maternity care. In addition, insurers cannot reject people with medical problems or charge them higher prices. The policies must also cap consumers’ annual expenses at levels lower than many plans sold before the new rules. But the cancellation notices, which began arriving in August, have shocked many consumers in light of President Barack Obama’s promise that people could keep their plans if they liked them. ... Florida Blue, for example, is terminating about 300,000 policies, about 80 percent of its individual policies in the state. Kaiser Permanente in California has sent notices to 160,000 people – about half of its individual business in the state. Insurer Highmark in Pittsburgh is dropping about 20 percent of its individual market customers, while Independence Blue Cross, the major insurer in Philadelphia, is dropping about 45 percent. ... More at link. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Corcaigh Posted October 23, 2013 Share Posted October 23, 2013 (edited) I'm sure there is plenty of blame to go around. My understanding is that CGI was initially awarded a contract for $94million, competing with 30 other companies. The question is when anyone gave them a requirements definition they could use given all the political shenanigans, both Federal and State, about what was to be actually supported by the system, when work was authorized given the presidential election and the SC challenge etc. It was known by anyone closely associated with the technical side of the project in the weeks before October 1 that the capacity simply wasn't adequate. But whomever is on the government side of project management and said it was OK for the healthcare.gov site to go live on October 1 shouldn't have a job. Edited October 23, 2013 by Corcaigh Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jumbo Posted October 23, 2013 Share Posted October 23, 2013 I liked the family analogy,naturally I think a strong leader eliminates a lot of conflict there though.. Absolutely*, and I left a lot of other points of similar relevant meat dangling (though not in any attempt to provoke specific replies). BTW, I also trusted you to know the Texas comments were also made without presentation of "another side to it" though I gave an open nod to their valid existence, and that none of that was about you or anyone here specifically in the writing of it...really. It was actually about Perry, Cruz et al and chip's posts (which I am often in a fair amount of agreement with, though I sometimes have to consider if he's about to sit on the bench for a few plays). You know me. I love the ideal monarchy or the ideal oligarchy. Hell, I'd probably be ok with you as dictator, believe it or not. Or Larry. Or Kilmer17. Or Henry. Or techboy. Or Corcaigh. Or Yusuf. You guys are not just smart enough, I believe if given that mantle, you would all be the kind to more acknowledge your limitations when so many other people would be affected by you, (if not necessarily otherwise ), and take the responsibility seriously, and reach out to others for honest and competent guidance via competing viewpoints. I think you guys would be more into service (greater good for most folks as much as possible) then ruling (projecting your persona onto everyone else). Not that any of you would want that task. *note---while a family can have one (or two) "traditional", regular, identified, leaders and do awesome (yes, even when it's just the one), there is also a lot to note about families where leadership involves, or even shifts from (with circumstance and capability), member to member, and can make the unit more effective, versatile, and adaptive as a whole and individually. A coordinated group is always more powerful than any individual as it already contains everything that person has to offer plus a lot more---if there's successful coordination. Beyond "sufficient" the sky is the limit and that is usually determined by attitude and habit more than capability. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lombardi's_kid_brother Posted October 23, 2013 Share Posted October 23, 2013 I'm not sure the loss of individual insurance policies is any kind of tragedy. These are usually expensive plans with huge deductibles and limited coverage. In my experience, it's generally coverage in name only. These policies are also a pain in the ass for healthcare providers who register patients as "BlueCross" without realizing that these are not BlueCross group plans. Moving these people into a standardized system will ultimately help everyone in the long term, I suspect. Unless you like paying several hundred a month for a plan that doesn't cover anything. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
twa Posted October 23, 2013 Share Posted October 23, 2013 I'm not sure the loss of individual insurance policies is any kind of tragedy. Which is why I don't want someone else limiting my options or choosing what is best for me.....or the greater good 'If you like your plan you can keep it' joins the the trash heap. Not a tragedy,but rather a imposition and irritant......boil the frog slowly Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CurseReversed Posted October 23, 2013 Share Posted October 23, 2013 Which is why I don't want someone else limiting my options or choosing what is best for me.....or the greater good 'If you like your plan you can keep it' joins the the trash heap. Not a tragedy,but rather a imposition and irritant......boil the frog slowly Exactly. One can talk about the comparable lack of ethics between the private and public sector, and be correct. But the real difference is choice. When the govt acts corrupt, there are no alternatives. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jumbo Posted October 23, 2013 Share Posted October 23, 2013 Exactly. One can talk about the comparable lack of ethics between the private and public sector, and be correct. But the real difference is choice. When the govt acts corrupt, there are no alternatives. Yet the problem, again, is giving a bit of acceptance to that reality (if not its importance in addressing these problems) and then kind of "taking it back." Your last comment carries what seemingly really matters to you (in this post)--the focus on "government worse = no choice." Many many people are deprived/restricted, many quite seriously, via available choices in private sector handling, too. One bad (government) is often (not always) more club-footed then the other bad (private), but this simply demonstrates again the inevitable continuance of what I addressed earlier in these conversations. Here's how it seems it should be to me: "bad (not big/small) government is "bad" and "bad" private sector is "bad" (not "excusable because its free market choice" or "irrelevant" to the topic" because it is relevant, logically) and both have created the mess and regularly seem to do their best to obfuscate solutions that weaken their power. Many "arguers" are their ally in this game. The whole "theory" that private sector is consistently far more "competent" (leaving aside inferences of how "business success" is more important than the total nature of that agenda and the tools used to achieve it) than government because it's more Darwin-like (and there's some other interesting cultural inferences there, but no way lol) is a commonly celebrated one (and thus should be instantly suspect?), but it does not hold up all that well to truly critical scrutiny---especially where a broad societal health for a diverse society (in every possible way--not just medically) is the goal. And it needs reminding that the private sector's efficacy has long benefited enormously from legislative largess from the same government that, when it start to close the purse-strings, or send more $$-favors to the "wrong people", becomes the hated enemy. The private sector is full of fail in competency, too--insurance companies, hospitals, doctors, etc all on their own end (many of them) fully partnered in creating this greed/incompetence stew. As usual, whatever long-held-biases rule each opinionator (when this is the case) they see what they want to see where they want to see it, more than not. I have little faith in either competence or non-ego, non-greed, motivation from the "leaders" of either camp, nor am I encouraged by most of what I see in the social discourse. I am now, officially, just pervasively grumpy on sociopolitical topics, as befitting my age and where I decided to move to a couple years ago.. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
nonniey Posted October 23, 2013 Share Posted October 23, 2013 I'm sure there is plenty of blame to go around. My understanding is that CGI was initially awarded a contract for $94million, competing with 30 other companies. The question is when anyone gave them a requirements definition they could use given all the political shenanigans, both Federal and State, about what was to be actually supported by the system, when work was authorized given the presidential election and the SC challenge etc. It was known by anyone closely associated with the technical side of the project in the weeks before October 1 that the capacity simply wasn't adequate. But whomever is on the government side of project management and said it was OK for the healthcare.gov site to go live on October 1 shouldn't have a job. I think that is almost certainly the President. You giving up on him? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Corcaigh Posted October 23, 2013 Share Posted October 23, 2013 I think that is almost certainly the President. You giving up on him? What? Are you saying that the POTUS reviewed the test failures for the website and said go ahead and launch the site anyway? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
China Posted October 23, 2013 Share Posted October 23, 2013 Forget about Obamacare. In Colorado, it's 'Brosurance' (CNN) – Keg stands. That's one way to promote Obamacare, it seems. "Brosurance," reads a new web ad that shows a few bros having a good time. "Keg stands are crazy. Not having health insurance is crazier. Don't tap into your beer money to cover those medical bills. We got it covered." The Colorado Consumer Health Initiative and ProgressNow Colorado Education launched the web ad, along with a series of other meme-like images that target young residents in Colorado, as well as Latino families–two demographics that tend to lack health insurance. The ads are modeled after the successful "Got Milk?" campaign, with each image saying, "Got Insurance?" Click on the link for the full article Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Larry Posted October 23, 2013 Share Posted October 23, 2013 Uh, . . . . . Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
twa Posted October 23, 2013 Share Posted October 23, 2013 I'm convinced Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jumbo Posted October 23, 2013 Share Posted October 23, 2013 I popped the top off of countless health plans in my time, domestic and foreign. It is a choice and I love a diverse and free marketplace. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
twa Posted October 23, 2013 Share Posted October 23, 2013 We should stand up an ACA clock, kind of like the federal deficit clock and watch it tick upwards. on that note http://nypost.com/2013/10/23/obamacares-other-tech-disaster/ ObamaCare’s other tech disaster More than $4 billion in “incentives” has been doled out to force doctors and hospitals to convert and upgrade by 2015. But favored EMR vendors, including Obama bundler Judy Faulkner’s Epic Systems, have undermined rather than enhanced interoperability. Oversight remains lax. And, after hyping the alleged benefits for nearly a decade, the RAND Corporation finally ’fessed up that its cost-savings predictions of $81 billion a year — used repeatedly to support the Obama EMR mandate — were (like every other ObamaCare promise) vastly overstated. In June, the Annals of Emergency Medicine published a study warning that the “rush to capitalize on the huge federal investment of $30 billion for the adoption of electronic medical records led to some unfortunate and unintended consequences” tied to “communication failure, poor data display, wrong order/wrong patient errors and alert fatigue.” Also this summer, Massachusetts reported that 60 percent of doctors could not meet the EMR mandate and face potential loss of their licenses in 2015. And a few weeks ago, the American College of Physicians pleaded with the feds to delay the mandate’s data-collection, certification and reporting requirements. . . . “I actually refused to take the $10K-plus this year. I have even accepted that I would rather be penalized in the future. What is worth the most to me is AUTONOMY.” Let me underscore that again: Doctors face steep penalties if they can’t meet the radical technology goals imposed by the very same glitch-plagued ObamaCare bureaucrats who now need an emergency “tech surge” to fix their own failed info-tech Titanic. The ObamaCare wrecking ball has only just begun. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GoSkins0721 Posted October 24, 2013 Share Posted October 24, 2013 (edited) NVM Edited October 24, 2013 by GoSkins0721 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
chipwhich Posted October 24, 2013 Share Posted October 24, 2013 GoSkins, personally speaking, I had no idea nor did I have any way of knowing what a mess this was until recently.When the rubber hits the road..... Up until recently it was a bunch of legal documents. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now