Obamacare...(new title): GOP DEATH PLAN: Don-Ryan's Express

[Kindred]

Kinda, but not quite.

Yes, when you buy insurance, your money goes into a big pool with everybody else who bought that insurance, and then they pay out of that pool. Everybody pays in the same, but some people get paid out a lot more, some a lot less. In theory, the amount that goes into the pool, equals the amount that gets paid out.

BUT, not everybody goes into the same pool. The guy who's 25 pays into a pool that's full of other people who are 25. The guy whose 60 pays into the 60 pool. Since the average 25 year old doesn't get paid out as much as the average 60 year old, the 25 year old pays a lot less.

Obamacare alters that model, a bit. There's a mandate that says that the price they charge the 60 year old customers can't be higher than, I think, three times what they charge their youngest customer.

This means that, if the 60 year olds actually consume more than 3 times what the younguns consume, then the company will be forced to overcharge the younguns (and make a profit on them), and then use that profit to cover the fact that they're undercharging the old folks.

 

 

So you're saying insurance companies dont make a profit? It's all one big pool where the money paid in equals what is paid out?  They dont profit off those who never get in car accidents to pay for those who do get into accidents? 

Edited January 3, 2014 by Kindred

[Larry]

So you're saying insurance companies dont make a profit?

Yep, that's what I said. Right here:

 

 

 

[Kindred]

Yep, that's what I said. Right here:

 

 

Well you said 

 

 

the amount that goes into the pool, equals the amount that gets paid out

 

Which implies no profit is made.  You also mention the young being profited on to pay for the elderly as if that is unique to the ACA and in no way compares to those who dont get into accidents being profited on to pay for those who do get into accidents.   You make it sound like Insurance companies are nonprofit entities.

Edited January 3, 2014 by Kindred

[Larry]

Well you said 

 

Which implies no profit is made.  .

Or it implies that the profit is either contained in "money paid out", or not included in "money that goes into the pool".

Or it implies that I chose to express things as simplistically as possible, (I didn't include taxes, or advertising, or administrative costs, overhead, or fraud, or account for the insurance companies investing the pool's money, either.), and left out things that weren't relevant to my point.

[PleaseBlitz]

Well you said 

 

Which implies no profit is made.  You also mention the young being profited on to pay for the elderly as if that is unique to the ACA and in no way compares to those who dont get into accidents being profited on to pay for those who do get into accidents.   You make it sound like Insurance companies are nonprofit entities.

 

 

Well, while we are getting off-topic and splitting hairs, many insurance companies ARE non-profit.  They are generally referred to as mutual companies.  For example Liberty Mutual, Mutual of Omaha, Nationwide, and American Family are all mutual companies and do not retain profits.  

[twa]

Remember how having ins was supposed to reduce ER congestion?

http://www.sciencemag.org/content/early/2014/01/02/science.1246183

We find that Medicaid coverage significantly increases overall emergency use by 0.41 visits per person, or 40 percent relative to an average of 1.02 visits per person in the control group. We find increases in emergency-department visits across a broad range of types of visits, conditions, and subgroups, including increases in visits for conditions that may be most readily treatable in primary care settings.

[chipwhich]

I have not seen anything on that. Can you post a link? Everything I have read on COBRA is that you have to pay monthly. You have 60 days to accept it and once you do you are covered moving forward. You must pay the monthly premium to continue the coverage. 

 

Never seen anything about not paying until you need it. Interested in that.

 

Sorry yeah you have up to 60 days to select it from the time you get your cobra letter, you don't have to pay it for another 30-60 days from the time you select it.  So in theory you could go up to 4 months without having to make a payment.

Remember how having ins was supposed to reduce ER congestion?

http://www.sciencemag.org/content/early/2014/01/02/science.1246183

We find that Medicaid coverage significantly increases overall emergency use by 0.41 visits per person, or 40 percent relative to an average of 1.02 visits per person in the control group. We find increases in emergency-department visits across a broad range of types of visits, conditions, and subgroups, including increases in visits for conditions that may be most readily treatable in primary care settings.

 

Oh and sounds like it's going to get much worse than expected.

[twa]

http://nypost.com/2014/01/02/here-are-the-big-losers-in-obamacare/

 

New York’s small-business owners, seniors and doctors are among the big losers as President Obama’s prescription for health-insurance reform takes effect.
The National Federation of Independent Businesses, an organization that represents nearly 11,000 entrepreneurs across the state, says it has yet to find a single member whose health-care costs are going down under the ObamaCare program, whose plans took effect New Year’s Day.
Meanwhile, an “overwhelming majority” of businesses canvassed by the group has reported increases in their insurance premiums, said Mike Durant, the NFIB’s New York director.
Michael Kennedy, who runs two family-owned dog-grooming salons near Albany, said changes to his cut-rate insurance coverage mandated by ObamaCare had more than doubled the cost, from $132.99 to $325.92 a month per person

 

..

More than 2,000 doctors are currently suing Oxford’s parent company, UnitedHealthcare, for allegedly kicking them off its Medicare Advantage network in response to ObamaCare’s regulations.

The Brooklyn federal-court case also says the plaintiffs’ elderly patients will have to scramble for new doctors — or dig deep to pay for “out-of-network” treatment.

[Larry]

More than 2,000 doctors are currently suing Oxford’s parent company, UnitedHealthcare, for allegedly kicking them off its Medicare Advantage network in response to ObamaCare’s regulations

The Brooklyn federal-court case also says the plaintiffs’ elderly patients will have to scramble for new doctors — or dig deep to pay for “out-of-network” treatment.

I'll be curious to see them actually quote which ObamaCare regulation it was that mandated that an insurance company was required to not allow doctors, who were willing to treat patients at the prices which the insurance company was willing to pay them, to do so.

Course then, when they do quote whichever regulation it is that mandates that the insurance company is required to not allow them to treat patients, they will have lost their case against the insurance company, since they will have proven that the insurance company's actions were required by law.

Stupid doctors. You would think that a lawyer would have told them that suing someone for following the law was a dumb idea. Guess that's why they became doctors.

[chipwhich]

Stupid doctors. You would think that a lawyer would have told them that suing someone for following the law was a dumb idea. Guess that's why they became doctors.

 

Yeah because that's what lawyers care about, and all lawsuits are dumb. 

[Larry]

Yeah because that's what lawyers care about, and all lawsuits are dumb.

Having trouble figuring out your point.

[chipwhich]

Having trouble figuring out your point.

 

Oh I am sure.

[Larry]

Oh I am sure.

Perhaps less attitude, and instead, actually stating your point, might help?

Just a thought.

If you'd rather NOT actually state a point, despite being asked, twice, to do so, I guess it's a free country.

[chipwhich]

Perhaps less attitude, and instead, actually stating your point, might help?

Just a thought.

If you'd rather NOT actually state a point, despite being asked, twice, to do so, I guess it's a free country.

 

Well without enough information you declare the doctors as being stupid and the lawyers as just taking the case to make a dollar.  OK.

 

If you don't get it,what more can I say, it's a free country.

 

Normally you have an open mind to government overstepping....but this isn't against your agenda.

[Larry]

Well without enough information you declare the doctors as being stupid and the lawyers as just taking the case to make a dollar. OK.

If you don't get it,what more can I say, it's a free country.

Normally you have an open mind to government overstepping....but this isn't against your agenda.

Now, how did I know that, when you finally got around to responding to my request for you to state YOUR point, that you would instead respond by trying to tell me what MY point was? (Well, that and, in addition to trying to say I made two claims, neither of which I made, announcing your ability to psychically decide what I was thinking, WHEN I said what I didn't say.)

In any case, am I correct that your point was, in fact, simply an attempt to disagree with something I didn't say in the first place? Or was there some other point, which you still haven't mentioned?

[chipwhich]

Now, how did I know that, when you finally got around to responding to my request for you to state YOUR point, that you would instead respond by trying to tell me what MY point was? (Well, that and, in addition to trying to say I made two claims, neither of which I made, announcing your ability to psychically decide what I was thinking, WHEN I said what I didn't say.)

In any case, am I correct that your point was, in fact, simply an attempt to disagree with something I didn't say in the first place? Or was there some other point, which you still haven't mentioned?

 

Ok, so you aren't saying the doctors were dumb to oppose the law and the lawyers are just out to make a $?  Are you willing to clarify your post or do you just want to play semantic games?  I am open to either, but you don't usually like to be pinned down so I assume semantics is your decision??

[twa]

I'll be curious to see them actually quote which ObamaCare regulation it was that mandated that an insurance company was required to not allow doctors, who were willing to treat patients at the prices which the insurance company was willing to pay them, to do so.

Course then, when they do quote whichever regulation it is that mandates that the insurance company is required to not allow them to treat patients, they will have lost their case against the insurance company, since they will have proven that the insurance company's actions were required by law.

Stupid doctors. You would think that a lawyer would have told them that suing someone for following the law was a dumb idea. Guess that's why they became doctors.

 

 

Perhaps you don't understand "in Response" differs from mandates?....could be why you seem blind to other responses to Obamacare.

 

Well the LAW doesn't MANDATE it means little when the results are in response.

 

Obamacare doesn't operate in a vacumn, though some of it's supporters appear to.

[Larry]

Ok, so you aren't saying the doctors were dumb to oppose the law and the lawyers are just out to make a $? Are you willing to clarify your post or do you just want to play semantic games? I am open to either, but you don't usually like to be pinned down so I assume semantics is your decision??

Ah. Now we get around to, in between some more insults and the obligatory use of the word "semantics", asking me to clarify MY position?

How refreshing. And welcome. I really hate it when people ask me to more thoroughly state, and support, the points I'm making.

----------

Twa's article, (the part I posted), and twa, is trying to claim that 2,000 doctors have filed a lawsuit, claiming that an insurance company told them that the insurance company would no longer allow insured patients to see said doctors BECAUSE OF OBAMACARE.

I'll state this again: the claim is being made, by twa and his article, that:

1). There are 2,000 doctors.

2). These doctors have patients, who are insured by United.

3). These doctors have been taking United's money, to treat these patients. Both United and the doctors were happy with this relationship.

4). United is being required, BY OBAMACARE, to tell these doctors that United is no longer allowed to pay these doctors.

5). These doctors have decided to sue United, for doing what United is being required, by law, to do.

Note, the article, and twa, are trying to claim that United has chosen to tell these doctors that United will no longer permit insured people to go to these doctors, because Obamacare regulations require them to do so.

No attempt has been made to actually support this claim that United was required, by Obamacare, to do this. There is no mention of any regulation that says, for example, that insurance companies are only allowed to have a maximum of 20 doctors in their network, and if they have more doctors in their network, they're required to kick them off.

IF THERE IS SUCH A REGULATION, that forbids United and the doctors to continue doing the business they're already doing, and are willing to continue doing, then this article, whose purpose us to blame Obamacare, has chosen not to reveal what this regulation is, and to SHOW that this is being caused by Obamacare.

(In fact, IF THERE IS SUCH A REGULATION, then it appears that none of the right wing media, has mentioned it, either, in five years of attacking Obamacare. Nor have any of the ES posters who gave made a career of attacking Obamacare mentioned it, either).

Furthermore, IF THERE IS SUCH A REGULATION, then both the doctors, and their attorney(s), are such monumental idiots that they are actually suing an insurance company, for doing something which the insurance company is REQUIRED, BY LAW, to do.

In short, I see two possibilities, here.

1). Obamacare contains a regulation which requires insurance companies to not pay doctors to treat people. But not one single member of the right wing media has ever mentioned this regulation. Nor have any ES posters. AND these doctors, AND their attorney(s) are suing an insurance company for doing what this regulation (which none of them will mention), REQUIRES them to do.

2). There is no such regulation. This article is merely the 40,000th case of right wing media engaging in "find something bad, and claim it's because of Obamacare, without any attempt at even making this claim remotely believable. In fact, despite the fact that someone would have to be an idiot to believe the claim." And this post is merely the 1,000th case of twa doing the same.

Care to guess which of these possibilities I suspect is actually true?

[Larry]

Perhaps you don't understand "in Response" differs from mandates?....could be why you seem blind to other responses to Obamacare.

Well the LAW doesn't MANDATE it means little when the results are in response.

Obamacare doesn't operate in a vacumn, though some of it's supporters appear to.

Oh, now there's a good one.

Pointing out that the wording 'in response to' does not actually imply 'was forced by'. (And, therefore, does not imply 'is due to'.)

It's an interesting argument. Dare I say, a semantic one, even?

I suppose it's true.

'In response to' can mean "I got mad cause I didn't get my way, so I decided to hit somebody, and claim it's this other guys fault".

"In response to" can mean " there was a car wreck out in front of the store, so I decided to steal all the money in the cash register, cause I figured everybody would be looking at the car wreck".

Yep, you're correct. "In response to" does not actually say "was caused by".

So, is that your point, now? That you posted that article without actually trying to say that Obamacare actually caused that insurance company to chose to not allow their customers to keep their existing doctors?

Edited January 4, 2014 by Larry

[twa]

Larry , you can ask the Drs and patients what it is "due to"

in their view.

 

I do congratulate you on moving from mandated though .......but you remain mired in the same muck.

[Larry]

Larry , you can ask the Drs and patients what it is "due to"

in their view.

I do congratulate you on moving from mandated though .......but you remain mired in the same muck.

Actually, I suspect that they've already had to swear, under oath, to a motive, in their allegations.

I'm not certain that they have to allege a motive, in their suit. But I THINK they have to. I think they have to show, in court, that defendant actually did something wrong, therefore they have to assign a motive.

But I'm not certain of that.

And they aren't here.

But, THE PERSON WHO POSTED IT ON ES is here. It's a very simple matter to simply ASK HIM as to whether HE was attempting to assign BLAME for this event to Obamacare.

Which is why I did ask him.

Seemed like the logical question to ask, when he then, minutes after making a post which sure looks, to me, to be trying to assign said blame to Obamacare, then makes a point of pointing out that well, the precise wording used might assign such blame, but might not, either.

But I'm well aware how easy it is to misinterpret people's posts. Especially when, as has been pointed out, the language could be interpreted multiple ways.

Unfortunately, when I did ask said poster to clarify WHICH possible meaning he intended to convey, with his post, (the one that's laughably, obviously, untrue, or the one that's pointless to the threads subject), he chose to try to dodge the opportunity to clarify exactly what he's trying to say.

Perhaps if I ask him, again, to tell us all what he was trying to communicate, when he posted that claim, he will actually tell us what he means.

Although, somehow, I bet he'll just dodge, some more.

[Duckus]

LA Times: The quasi-final 2013 tally for the ACA: more than 9 million insured

 

Enrollment figures for insurance under the Affordable Care Act are all over the place, largely because the act has so many moving parts: the individual insurance exchanges (federal and state), Medicaid (in expansion states and otherwise), children enrolled in their parents' employer-sponsored plans.

 

Keeping track of the numbers requires an obsession. So be thankful that one Charles Gaba has taken on the responsibility. Gaba's conclusion is that the ACA has brought insurance in one form or another to more than 9 million Americans, possibly 9.5 million. 

Whether these figures are impressive, encouraging or disappointing is a philosophical question. But consider that the Obama administration set a target of 3.3 million private enrollees by year-end 2013 in order to reach 7 million by March 31, the last day to sign up for 2014 coverage and therefore for individuals to avoid a penalty for violating the individual mandate.

 

Since the federal enrollment website, healthcare.gov, was basically out of commission for the first two months of the enrollment period--Oct. 1 through Nov. 30--getting to 2.1 million, or almost two-thirds of the way to the year-end goal looks like a real achievement. Certainly the trendline is distinctly positive. Healthcare experts anticipate another big surge in enrollments, similar to what was seen in the last weeks and days of December, as the March 1 deadline nears. Gaba observes on his blog that Obamacare skeptics have shifted from questioning the raw enrollment numbers to pointing out that enrollments aren't final until the first premium bills are paid, which doesn't have to happen until Jan. 10. The suggestion is that the enrollment figures are inflated by a horde of deadbeats.

 

Gaba doubts this: "Unless there prove to be significant technical issues preventing large numbers of premium payments from going through, this is pretty weak tea in terms of being an anti-ACA talking point," he writes. 

 

 

After the disaster of a launch, impressive numbers. For those who haven't checked it out, I again highly recommend Charles Gaba's site - http://acasignups.net/spreadsheet

 

Great way to see what is happening with enrollments. Really interested to see the numbers in a few months. 

[twa]

Larry....if you cannot grasp in response to,or as a result of , it is from willful blindness.

 

 

cause I know you ain't stupid.

 

care to trot out asking where it is mandated again?....I need the laughs.

[Larry]

Larry....if you cannot grasp in response to,or as a result of , it is from willful blindness.

This now marks the fourth time I've asked you so actually state your point.

 

Yes, I made an assumption that you were trying to blame Obamacare for doctors being cancelled.  (I came to this conclusion based on the fact that you've been blaming Obamacare for everything from the tides to the Redskins special teams, for around five years now.  And the fact that you chose to post this story in the "Obamacare" thread.) 

 

You have, however, pointed out that technically, your post could, in theory, nave a second interpretation. 

 

(One which, rather than being demonstrably untrue, is simply deceptive.) 

 

I suppose it's possible that there's even a third possible interpretation, that I haven't thought of. 

 

Rather than try to put words in your mouth, therefore, I'm going to ask you, for a fourth time, to actually state your own point. 

 

 

 

 

[twa]

This now marks the fourth time I've asked you so actually state your point.

Rather than try to put words in your mouth, therefore, I'm going to ask you, for a fourth time, to actually state your own point. 

 

post 1808 rather clearly says rates are going up and choice of doctors is going down AS A RESULT OF Obamacare.

 

perhaps if you didn't distract yourself with wanting a mandate you could grasp that point.

 

add

perhaps you are unaware of how ACA changes Medicare?

http://www.medicarenewsgroup.com/context/understanding-medicare-blog/understanding-medicare-blog/2013/03/22/reducing-spending-and-rewarding-quality-a-look-at-how-the-affordable-care-act-has-impacted-medicare-advantage

Edited January 4, 2014 by twa