ACA Bailout on the Way

What a flop!!! Our gov. at work. http://cnsnews.com/commentary/phil-k...-edge-collapse

"They shortchanged taxpayers by $3.5 billion that, contrary to law, they sent to insurance companies instead."

Makes me reminisce fondly of the days we sent $80B a month to Afghanistan.

Oblummer said from the beginning that he wanted a government run program. He knew what he was doing.

He knew that the deception of the exchanges was the only way to get it.

"We, We, We". What a poorly written article.

Regardless if the article is poorly written or not and the Afghanistan controversy was wasted money, the ACA demonstrates just how dysfunctional our Federal gov. has become as it caters to special interest. Too bad politicians will not just do the job of focusing on infrastructure, and national/international security and let the states run the rest.

Oblummer said from the beginning that he wanted a government run program. He knew what he was doing.

He knew that the deception of the exchanges was the only way to get it.

You nailed it.

My family business is employee benefits consulting. When it was all going down, that was the general consensus among our peers.

Originally Posted by Laker1234

Regardless if the article is poorly written or not and the Afghanistan controversy was wasted money, the ACA demonstrates just how dysfunctional our Federal gov. has become as it caters to special interest. Too bad politicians will not just do the job of focusing on infrastructure, and national/international security and let the states run the rest.

Because people, mainly the GOP, still believe that the poor don't need health care.

I was mainly pointing out the bias in the article.

I can't speak for the Republican party's intentions but, once again, a program with good intentions has been implemented without any concerns to the problems it may cause. IMHO, the gov. should stay out of the health care business.

Universal HC is probably the only solution, seeing as how it's the only HC system that has been proven to be cost effective at covering everyone. I like how you guys focus on the problems of the ACA and never mention the benefits of people getting insurance when they couldn't before. The biggest problem with the GOP is that's the party of "no can do". Pretty much "no can do" anything except to appeal to voters who want abortion made illegal or prayer back in school. As long as you throw in this country needs "turn to the supernatural" you've bought a good portion of the conservative vote. Waiting for the day when the GOP has a HC plan. But I won't hold my breath because the GOP is the only party focuses more on finding candidates worse than Trump (Carson and Cruz).

Why should the gov. be responsible for providing everyone with free health care? I see no evidence that health care systems are better in other countries.

Originally Posted by Laker1234

Why should the gov. be responsible for providing everyone with free health care? I see no evidence that health care systems are better in other countries.

Sweden, Australia, Germany, UK, Netherlands, France...I can keep going. I'll leave out Canada due to their wait times.

The US has ranked horribly in health care for years. Like really bad. I think they're ranked the worst among developed countries. Yet somehow people still continue to say our system is fine. It's truly baffling.

I like this quote from Henry Ford.

Based on what evidence?

Originally Posted by Laker1234

Based on what evidence?

What evidence do you want? I just told you that a world ranking has America dead last. And they have been since 2000.

Outside of Canada universal healthcare works. And works well. It doesn't have to be a single-payer system, but everybody should be absolutely forced, and be able to afford healthcare. Who do you think pays for guy in the ER with no insurance? Jesus?

“The U.S. health system spends a higher portion of its gross domestic product than any other country but ranks 37 out of 191 countries according to its performance, the report finds. The United Kingdom, which spends just six percent of GDP on health services, ranks 18 th . Several small countries San Marino, Andorra, Malta and Singapore are rated close behind second- placed Italy.” -- WHO

The WHO survey is what most refer to as rankings. Granted, the US could do a better job at providing more access to a General Practitioner or a local "free" health care clinics. However, when examining the cost structure of the ACA, roughly, and that's a conservative estimate, 600 million was spent on just making the web page. I would dare estimate that for 4 million per clinic, the USA could have built and staffed-1 GP, 2 RNs, and office staff-- at least 150 "free" clinics, similar to the French model. In addition, if our health care is so bad, then how do we manage to have 5 of the best 10 hospital located in the US? According to the WHO, France has the best system, but notice how their taxes have been raised to manage it. http://taxfoundation.org/blog/france...nue-estimating Funny how France does not have one listed. http://www.ontoplists.com/2015/04/to...-in-world.html

Originally Posted by Laker1234

The WHO survey is what most refer to as rankings. Granted, the US could do a better job at providing more access to a General Practitioner or a local "free" health care clinics. However, when examining the cost structure of the ACA, roughly, and that's a conservative estimate, 600 million was spent on just making the web page. I would dare estimate that for 4 million per clinic, the USA could have built and staffed-1 GP, 2 RNs, and office staff-- at least 150 "free" clinics, similar to the French model. In addition, if our health care is so bad, then how do we manage to have 5 of the best 10 hospital located in the US? According to the WHO, France has the best system, but notice how their taxes have been raised to manage it. http://taxfoundation.org/blog/france...nue-estimating Funny how France does not have one listed. http://www.ontoplists.com/2015/04/to...-in-world.html

Ah yes. The top hospitals that people aren't insured to go to. That's like owning a Lambo and not being able to afford to get insurance for it.

Of course taxes are raised for it. Again, who do you think pays for it? We do. The 75% tax rate made it two years and was killed off. It hasn't been some longstanding thing to pay for their health insurance. That tax rate raise had zero to do with health insurance and everything to do with trying to get their economy going.

I truly, truly do not see the argument about having top hospitals when our health care is ranked at the bottom. Baffling. If you look at other developed countries they all have universal health care. Why not us? Greed. And lots of it. As is the case with most things in this country.

It was 75% on earnings over $1M and they dumped it in 2014. Thank you for trying to dupe us into believing that link is suggesting the current French tax rate is somehow relevant to the HC discussion.

My bad it was dumped and it was for 750,000. This was the chart I was originally looking for to demonstrate the increase. However, regardless of how it's paid for, I still argue that providing actual facilities, nurses, and doctors is a much better solution than websites and watering down our health care coverage. I also am glad that some have gained insurance coverage, but what about with the people who lost coverage and the rest of us that are now stuck with unrealistic deductibles? I wish I had as much confidence in our federal government to manage our health care needs as you do. http://www.tradingeconomics.com/fran...ncome-tax-rate.

Dems had a chance to do healthcare right. They FAILED. Miserably. I pay $1000 per month for my wife and I. and have a 10K deductible. I get it, I'm supposed to pay for 20 families to go the f'ing ER when they get an damn earache, but holy chit did Obama and his bull**** ACA **** things up royally.

The tax was implemented then dropped http://www.businessinsider.com/franc...15-1?r=UK&IR=T They also wanted to implement a 90% tax on a million dollars but it did fail. The US could follow Greece, which is also ranked above us, and Costa Rica,, which has no military funding. Why don't we follow their lead? http://thepatientfactor.com/canadian...ealth-systems/

Originally Posted by denverd1

Dems had a chance to do healthcare right. They FAILED.

This post fails. The Republicans did everything possible to stop HC reform. I hardly call that a "chance to do healthcare right". If the Republicans had been cooperative that would have been a chance to get it right. Instead Obama had to negotiate from a disadvantage to get the HI industry on board because our reps on the right stonewalled. The Republicans have/had a chance to get it right because if they had gotten off their lazy a$$es and made an attempt democrats would have jumped on board.

Originally Posted by fly135

This post fails. The Republicans did everything possible to stop HC reform. I hardly call that a "chance to do healthcare right". If the Republicans had been cooperative that would have been a chance to get it right. Instead Obama had to negotiate from a disadvantage to get the HI industry on board because our reps on the right stonewalled. The Republicans have/had a chance to get it right because if they had gotten off their lazy a$$es and made an attempt democrats would have jumped on board.

That's because Republicans know that all that bull**** has to be paid for somehow. They weren't going to agree to some pie in the sky BS idea with 2000 pages of earmarked funds for all the political games that had to be played to get the thing passed.

If you think for a second HC is better off today than it was 8 years, you sir are smoking some good ****.

Why is it so hard to admit that giving away everything under the sun is a bad way to run a country?

I know that some people are better off and some are worse off. Do you deny that or are you smoking some good ****? I also know that other countries are able to provide UHC at a per capita price much lower than the the US. I also know that it should be an inalienable right to have access to HC. So if the state makes regulations and economic decisions to price HC out of the reach of much of the public then the state assumes a responsibility to assist them in getting HC. Professional regulations restrict who can provide HC and tax welfare subverts the free market. Both factors inflate HC.

It's not enough to say that you know the ACA is bad. You have to address the problem of hyperinflated HC. If anyone says the ACA is F**k'd up, my response is then tell me the right way. So far no one has the answer except countries with UHC.

If ACA was proposed and we were on a committee to either vote for it or against it, you're telling me you vote for it 100% of the time??? If its not obvious that this program is the biggest failure on a federal level in recent history, then nothing I say is going to make a bit of sense either.

John called it "reform" a few posts up. Reform is fixing a problem, not compounding it 10x and kicking the can down the road for someone else to fix (repeal) and taxpayers to keep paying for decades later. That last bit remains to be seen, but I'll entertain friendly wagers.

SS: you mean the "retirement program" that has since been robbed by Peter to pay Paul, revised 2 or 3 times and predicted by AARP, (the old folks group who might actually know something about this stuff) to be defunct by 2028?? No, I sure don't. I tell all my clients they can forget about SS and better plan on setting up their own retirement funds. My father is 70 and is prepared. Sorry for all you guys who were depending on it.. I did believe in it, until we let 80 years of politicians (mostly Dems) piss it away.

Here's what has happened to our idols http://money.cnn.com/2015/07/10/news...h-care-crisis/

Iraq was the biggest failure on the federal level in recent years. The ACA did fix a problem. The problem of people not being able to get HI. Just because you have your blinders on doesn't mean it didn't happen. I already knew that the ACA was going to raise rates when it was proposed, and I supported it because it was the only way to get people to pay attention to the problem while at the same time getting people who couldn't get insurance, insured. I never thought it was going to lower my rates and I never thought it was the right solution. But it was the only possible solution at the time. The world hasn't ended. You can still tell your representatives to come up with something better.

The ACA forces the public to buy federally mandated health care plans. People have always been able to buy insurance. They just didn't. And now that the federal government is involved, I see few positives for the working class.

John you voting for the bitch this year?

Originally Posted by denverd1

John you voting for the bitch this year?

Setting the community back one comment at a time with you.

Originally Posted by denverd1

John you voting for the bitch this year?

Who in their right mind would vote for that "bitch" Trump? Surely not you Nacho. Not the man that in the past has come out supporting Universal HC. Maybe you voted for that "bitch" Romney in 2012. The guy that was behind the HC plan in MA that ACA was modeled after. Tell me who I should vote for.

Tell me who I should vote for.[/QUOTE]



Trump. See?...... Fixed it...

Hey I was actually impressed that he mostly stuck to the script today. Wish he would have been doing that for the last few months.

Originally Posted by TheWakeIsReal

Setting the community back one comment at a time with you.

Eh, John and I have been having spirited political discussions for years. Lighten up brah

Originally Posted by denverd1

Eh, John and I have been having spirited political discussions for years. Lighten up brah

I'm sure it was racism and not sexism last time eh?

Originally Posted by denverd1

John you voting for the bitch this year?

You betcha. The republicans have made her sound so bad a$$ that even Putin is probably peeing his pants at the prospect of her winning. The only way I'd do anything to facilitate (i.e. voting 3rd party) Trump winning is if the Dems were running Carson or Cruz.

Hillary needs to impose a mandatory life sentence to people refusing to enroll to get this ACA going.
http://www.cnbc.com/2016/08/16/why-a...rkets-now.html

Originally Posted by TheWakeIsReal

Sweden, Australia, Germany, UK, Netherlands, France...I can keep going. I'll leave out Canada due to their wait times.

The US has ranked horribly in health care for years. Like really bad. I think they're ranked the worst among developed countries. Yet somehow people still continue to say our system is fine. It's truly baffling.

Funny every time liberals point to European systems they want to emulate, it is always countries that are whiter than the US.

Originally Posted by fly135

Iraq was the biggest failure on the federal level in recent years. The ACA did fix a problem. The problem of people not being able to get HI. Just because you have your blinders on doesn't mean it didn't happen. I already knew that the ACA was going to raise rates when it was proposed, and I supported it because it was the only way to get people to pay attention to the problem while at the same time getting people who couldn't get insurance, insured. I never thought it was going to lower my rates and I never thought it was the right solution. But it was the only possible solution at the time. The world hasn't ended. You can still tell your representatives to come up with something better.

People either have insurance now which they can not afford the deductible or they are like the people that I know that are just getting fined every year because they can not afford the insurance.

^ about to join the club. Is it a % or flat fine? I can throw $12K in an HSA every year and actually be able to use the cash for something

Originally Posted by deltahoosier

Funny every time liberals point to European systems they want to emulate, it is always countries that are whiter than the US.

Wow. I didn't think a thread could best the Trump thread in terms of ignorance. I was sadly mistaken.

Yes, Nacho, you will likely be required to pay a penalty. According to this article, the new fine is $695 per adult or 2.5% of income or $2085 per family or 2.5 % of income. At some point, if the insurance is still available, I may design my own catastrophic plan by paying the fine and using only various supplemental policies, such as a cancer policy, dental, vision . That strategy is still not cost effective but may be a more affordable option at some point as the penalties increase. http://www.savingtoinvest.com/penalt...der-obamacare/

John, how did the Republicans fail? Why blame them for this mess? Even though I'm not a Republican, I thought the health care industry was working fine just the way it was and should have been left alone.

point as the penalties [insurance rates] increase Guess I better call it a day

Originally Posted by deltahoosier

People either have insurance now which they can not afford the deductible or they are like the people that I know that are just getting fined every year because they can not afford the insurance.

Oh really? Are they too stupid to apply for the subsidy? Or just so deep in debt that they have nothing even though their earnings are too high for the subsidy?

Either way the fact that some insurance companies are pulling out of parts of the market proves my point. HC is hyper inflated. You can't have rules that inflate HC, not give govt asst, and still allow everyone the right to HC. Either get rid of the subsidies and remove the requirements for licensing, or... put cost controls on HC and make it universal.

Quick Poll:

How many of you advocating for European health care systems have actually USED said systems? I have (from several countries mind you).....and they suck...good luck getting access to care in a TIMELY fashion unless your arm is falling off. The WHO/other survey's tend to grossly skew their statistics solely based on ACCESS to health care at the cost of quality. It's simply quantity over quality.

There is a reason many citizen's still pay for private insurance over there.

Second...I have yet to see sustainable funding plan for said health care without grossly changing our (America's) culture. Do you have any idea how hard it is to say, start a small business over there? You think our red tape is bad? Try navigating Spain's red tape for instance......

Consider the forum you are on. I can tell you with 100% certainty that I would not be able to afford my boat (nor would most of you) if we were taxed at the rate Europe is for their social systems.

I'm not saying we don't have room for improvement (everyone does) however there is ALWAYS an opportunity cost and that is what most people who blindly scream for universal health care gloss over.

Originally Posted by Laker1234

John, how did the Republicans fail? Why blame them for this mess? Even though I'm not a Republican, I thought the health care industry was working fine just the way it was and should have been left alone.

They failed because they have done nothing but make HC worse. HC is hyper inflated by govt policy (incl before the ACA) and some people could not get it because HI companies would reject them at any price. When people are prevented from getting HC by the govt, then the govt has failed. Republicans aren't even trying to address the problem. We pay too much for HC. I'm glad to see HI companies bail because this is a problem that needs to be addressed from the viewpoint that cost have to come down.

I've used the US system and it sucks. I really don't care if it takes you a year to get non life threatening elective surgery.

Originally Posted by fly135

They failed because they have done nothing but make HC worse. HC is hyper inflated by govt policy (incl before the ACA) and some people could not get it because HI companies would reject them at any price. When people are prevented from getting HC by the govt, then the govt has failed. Republicans aren't even trying to address the problem. We pay too much for HC. I'm glad to see HI companies bail because this is a problem that needs to be addressed from the viewpoint that cost have to come down.

I'm still failing to follow your logic...

SO per your words above HC is hyperinflated by gov't...you do realize the Gov't consists of both the left and the right.....right?

It's been 8 yrs of a Democratic president and overall pretty much every financial mind and health care advocate has come to the realization that the ACA was NOT thought out thoroughly before being implemented and is on the verge of collapsing without a huge infusion of capital (that is NOT how the program was promised to work to the American people)....

Heath Care isn't solely hyperinflated due to Gov't policy. Litigation and basic economics are driving it as well.

People suing because the scar on their pinky toe is larger than they expected doesn't help.

The basic economic side of things is EVERYTHING is a finite resource, HC included. We only have so many doctors, nurses, machines, etc, etc and when you DEMAND that EVERYONE has access to ALL of it then yes, that creates a scarcity which then drives cost up. Throw in the fact that by forcing insurance companies to insure even the highest risk patients without being allowed to charge more then they have to account for that risk (risk=cost) so that gets passed on to everyone else in the pool.

Step back from the whole Democratic vs Republican scope and look at the ACA through the lens of trying to actually sustain it and you will realize it was not thought out well.......

Your literally making the argument that "well I would rather have a terrible plan that is on the verge of collapsing because my political party came up with it" than just admitting...hey, we probably should have taken a few more minutes in the planning phase of things...

Originally Posted by fly135

I've used the US system and it sucks. I really don't care if it takes you a year to get non life threatening elective surgery.

Comparatively speaking no it doesn't and I'm going to go on a limb here based on your thorough lack of comparison between the two systems and say you are solely basing your opinion because of your political tendencies and not on actually improving the system.

You like many others are anti- Republican just to be anti-Republican....Hell the right could cure Cancer and you would vehemently be against it because your party didn't do it.....

Alas, don't feel bad though, both sides are just as guilty of this type of closed minded thinking and it's what has our political landscape so often gridlocked now preventing any real work from being done (on both sides of the aisle)

Did it ever occur to you that you have no credibility on this. I can go online and the WHO tells me you're wrong. Just like your opinion on the next sentence you posted. If the Republicans would do something right, I'd support it. That's because I am about the issues. It just so happens that the Republicans are on the wrong side of most of the issues.

"Heath Care isn't solely hyperinflated due to Gov't policy. Litigation and basic economics are driving it as well."

So exactly how much is hyper inflated due to govt? See, I'm probably the first person to get you to admit that govt is part of it (excl ACA). I know exactly what the ACA was before it was passed. I agreed with the right that it would raise costs. I knew that it was the consequence of people being excluded because a free market HC system that is getting govt welfare isn't sustainable. You cannot have the govt pushing people into a market with cash subsidies, socializing it in the workplace, then ship employment overseas, and expect that to not force people into a situation where they have to get HC through charity.

You are mistaken that I view HC through the eyes of politics. I see it for what it is. The point here is that Democrats are trying to find ways to get all people HC and Republicans aren't. That is the political point that you see me making. You did make a valid point about me wanting to force the public into addressing the issue. Getting all insured then making the dumb f**ks scream for mercy is part of it. Americans only respond to crisis.

But why is it the government's responsibility to provide health care?

Originally Posted by fly135

Did it ever occur to you that you have no credibility on this. I can go online and the WHO tells me you're wrong. Just like your opinion on the next sentence you posted. If the Republicans would do something right, I'd support it. That's because I am about the issues. It just so happens that the Republicans are on the wrong side of most of the issues.

"Heath Care isn't solely hyperinflated due to Gov't policy. Litigation and basic economics are driving it as well."

So exactly how much is hyper inflated due to govt? See, I'm probably the first person to get you to admit that govt is part of it (excl ACA). I know exactly what the ACA was before it was passed. I agreed with the right that it would raise costs. I knew that it was the consequence of people being excluded because a free market HC system that is getting govt welfare isn't sustainable. You cannot have the govt pushing people into a market with cash subsidies, socializing it in the workplace, then ship employment overseas, and expect that to not force people into a situation where they have to get HC through charity.

You are mistaken that I view HC through the eyes of politics. I see it for what it is. The point here is that Democrats are trying to find ways to get all people HC and Republicans aren't. That is the political point that you see me making. You did make a valid point about me wanting to force the public into addressing the issue. Getting all insured then making the dumb f**ks scream for mercy is part of it. Americans only respond to crisis.

So I'm actually bored today so I'll bite...

1. You have just about the same credibility as I do...0 lol...your just a guy on the internet too....still waiting on your real world comparison from using both systems though....or are you internet experienced?

2. "So exactly how much is hyper inflated due to govt? See, I'm probably the first person to get you to admit that govt is part of it (excl ACA). "

So gov't is causing the hyperinflation so.......I KNOW! we will fix it with more government!!!

Noted

3. The Republicans goals are not to deny people health care and your smoking crack if you remotely think the Democrats genuinely care about providing health care...nice strawman argument though.

The republicans saying the ACA is a bad idea does not equal they hate poor people and don't want to provide healthcare...I've got a sweet jump to conclusions mat for ya....

The Democrats don't give a $hit about providing HC for the people...they want votes..that is it. FYI if all major HC providers pull out of the ACA how effective do you think it will be at providing HC?

It's a flawed program dude that was ramrodded into law instead of being properly vetted. Step back off the ledge man and recognize that just because people are saying it should be recalled does not automatically mean they don't want to provide HC at an affordable rate. It just means the ACA was a crap plan to begin with and we should probably hit the drawing boards again.

And since we are being internet tough guys here are a few articles showing ::shocking:: that the WHO is not the end all be all, unbiased resource (statistically speaking)

"A number of various criteria go into how the WHO ranks healthcare systems around the world. Granted, some of these criteria are essential to evaluate in order to determine the direct effectiveness of any nation’s healthcare system. However, it is also true that many of the WHO’s criteria are not only irrelevant to the actual quality or effectiveness of a nation’s healthcare system, but also contribute to bias, and particularly, a bias against more free-market healthcare systems. Specifically, a criterion such as how much patients pay out of pocket, and even a criterion as subjective as “fairness” (in which the United States ranks no. 54 worldwide according to the WHO).

When the WHO reduces the ranking of the United States due to a poor performance in criteria such as those stated above, it effectively assumes for its audience that they would be okay with the actual quality of their medical care being reduced, so long as it was less costly for them. While this may be the case for certain people, it is not the case that all, or even most people would be willing to make this trade. In fact, a somewhat less cited bit of information from the WHO is that even the WHO itself ranks the United States as no. 1 in the world in the areas of responsiveness to patients’ needs in choice of provider, dignity, autonomy, confidentiality, and the very important area of timely care"

https://mises.org/library/who%E2%80%...ket-healthcare

"The WHO rankings are based on a constructed index of five factors. One factor is “health level,” defined as a country’s disability-adjusted life expectancy. Another is “health responsiveness,” which includes desirable characteristics of healthcare like speed of service, protection of privacy, and quality of amenities.

Both of these are sensible indicators of health quality, but they constitute only 37.5 percent of each country’s score. The other 62.5 percent encompasses factors only tenuously connected to the quality of care — and that can actually punish a country’s ranking for superior performance."

http://www.cato.org/publications/com...e-they-kidding

Bottom line anyone who has taken even a basic college level of statistics knows you can skew the data to tell whatever story you want. The WHO is subject to just as much political bias as any other WORLD organization.

Originally Posted by Laker1234

But why is it the government's responsibility to provide health care?

Because the govt controls it.

One part of inflation may be the "spoiled" and "no-consequences, I-have-my-rights attitude of most Americans. For example, 15 years ago, the company I worked for covered 100% everything--medical, dental ,vision-I mean everything. This young man's wife, he was working for us, had a baby, The total bill was $6000. The insurance company wrote him a check to give the hospital and, you guessed it, he blew the money and eventually moved to another state. I doubt the hospital ever received any money and as far as I know he was never prosecuted. To make up for those types of losses, I'm sure the hospital was forced to raise rates and that's just one example. Most of the problem is not the government, IMHO, it's a large part of our population act like irresponsible spoiled children.

The industry is controlled by regulation, true, but has never been managed the way ACA dictates.

"jump to conclusions mat." So dang funny! I love that movie.

Originally Posted by fly135

Because the govt controls it.

lol and you think the gov't will control costs? Reference the health care system they already 100%control (Tricare) and those costs are spiraling out of control.

We spend more money on health care than we do on actually breaking $hit and killing people...

FYI since you like credibility I do know a thing or two about DoD spending as it's what I do day to day...

I'm curious...what's your background that makes you so knowledgeable on the topic?

Originally Posted by BurnMac42

1. You have just about the same credibility as I do...0 lol...your just a guy on the internet too....still waiting on your real world comparison from using both systems though....or are you internet experienced?

Exactly. Which is why I referred the the WHO for information about HC. Where you as indicated in your post refer to a right wing polical organization for information. Then you accuse me of being blinded by politics.

Originally Posted by BurnMac42

So gov't is causing the hyperinflation so.......I KNOW! we will fix it with more government!!!

No, we need a more intelligent public like myself who understands the effects of policy.

Originally Posted by BurnMac42

3. The Republicans goals are not to deny people health care and your smoking crack if you remotely think the Democrats genuinely care about providing health care...nice strawman argument though.

Please be more specific about this "strawman" argument I'm making. Trying to figure out if you even know the meaning of the word.

Originally Posted by BurnMac42

The republicans saying the ACA is a bad idea does not equal they hate poor people and don't want to provide healthcare...I've got a sweet jump to conclusions mat for ya....

Better use that mat yourself. I've made it clear that the ACA isn't the solution many times. The problem with the Republicans is their lack of desire to do anything to work towards a solution. I.E. I agree with the statement that the ACA is not the correct solution. Said it many times here.

Originally Posted by BurnMac42

The Democrats don't give a $hit about providing HC for the people...they want votes..that is it. FYI if all major HC providers pull out of the ACA how effective do you think it will be at providing HC?

Making more use of that mat? Of course both parties want votes. I would hope that the party actually works towards getting votes by doing what their voters want them to do. The argument that it's undesirable for the parties to do what they voters want is absurd. Are you voting against your own interests because you don't believe that you party should represent them?

The problem with your statement that the Democrats don't give a s**t about HC is that you just pulled it out of your a$$.

Originally Posted by BurnMac42

It's a flawed program dude that was ramrodded into law instead of being properly vetted. Step back off the ledge man and recognize that just because people are saying it should be recalled does not automatically mean they don't want to provide HC at an affordable rate. It just means the ACA was a crap plan to begin with and we should probably hit the drawing boards again.

I'm guessing you are newb on this forum. The purpose of the ACA was to get as many as possible into the HC system. I've always said that it's the wrong approach and promotes the same problems that have caused hyper inflation. I've always expected the ACA to be a painful pill to swallow so that the public will be finally motivated to focus on the issue. But you probably wouldn't know that because it appears that you just stepped into the conversations and started exercised the hell out of your mat.

Originally Posted by BurnMac42

Bottom line anyone who has taken even a basic college level of statistics knows you can skew the data to tell whatever story you want. The WHO is subject to just as much political bias as any other WORLD organization.

Anyone can skew data. But quoting a political organization to support your views on HC is a huge red flag.

Originally Posted by BurnMac42

lol and you think the gov't will control costs? Reference the health care system they already 100%control (Tricare) and those costs are spiraling out of control.

Well if you want govt out of the picture then you need to advocate removing both IRS rules on HC revenue and professional regulations on who is allowed to provide services.

Originally Posted by BurnMac42

We spend more money on health care than we do on actually breaking $hit and killing people...

Yes, but from the view point of a rational intelligent person, that's how it should be.

Originally Posted by BurnMac42

FYI since you like credibility I do know a thing or two about DoD spending as it's what I do day to day...

Good for you. I personally saved the US taxpayer $5M on a military simulator contract in 1985. But this is the first time I've mentioned it in a forum.

Originally Posted by BurnMac42

I'm curious...what's your background that makes you so knowledgeable on the topic?

Being intellectually honest. Versus being a tool that gets their info from partisan political web sites.

Originally Posted by fly135

Yes, but from the view point of a rational intelligent person, that's how it should be.

No it's not when that is the DoD budget. The DoD spends more on medicare/caid than they do on what is suppose to be their primary function.

Try again

Originally Posted by fly135

I personally saved the US taxpayer $5M on a military simulator contract in 1985. But this is the first time I've mentioned it in a forum.
.

Lol I'm sure you did...I know how awards packages and annual reviews are written...but good for you if you believe that you personally achieved that.

Originally Posted by fly135

Being intellectually honest. Versus being a tool that gets their info from partisan political web sites.

And...there's your true colors coming out again. Stop name calling and how about you intellectually show those articles are factually wrong. They dispute your political leanings so now we resort to name calling and muddying the waters vs coming back with an intellectual counter argument.

Standard

Originally Posted by BurnMac42

So I'm actually bored today so I'll bite...

1. You have just about the same credibility as I do...0 lol...your just a guy on the internet too....still waiting on your real world comparison from using both systems though....or are you internet experienced?

2. "So exactly how much is hyper inflated due to govt? See, I'm probably the first person to get you to admit that govt is part of it (excl ACA). "

So gov't is causing the hyperinflation so.......I KNOW! we will fix it with more government!!!

Noted

3. The Republicans goals are not to deny people health care and your smoking crack if you remotely think the Democrats genuinely care about providing health care...nice strawman argument though.

The republicans saying the ACA is a bad idea does not equal they hate poor people and don't want to provide healthcare...I've got a sweet jump to conclusions mat for ya....

The Democrats don't give a $hit about providing HC for the people...they want votes..that is it. FYI if all major HC providers pull out of the ACA how effective do you think it will be at providing HC?

It's a flawed program dude that was ramrodded into law instead of being properly vetted. Step back off the ledge man and recognize that just because people are saying it should be recalled does not automatically mean they don't want to provide HC at an affordable rate. It just means the ACA was a crap plan to begin with and we should probably hit the drawing boards again.

And since we are being internet tough guys here are a few articles showing ::shocking:: that the WHO is not the end all be all, unbiased resource (statistically speaking)

"A number of various criteria go into how the WHO ranks healthcare systems around the world. Granted, some of these criteria are essential to evaluate in order to determine the direct effectiveness of any nation’s healthcare system. However, it is also true that many of the WHO’s criteria are not only irrelevant to the actual quality or effectiveness of a nation’s healthcare system, but also contribute to bias, and particularly, a bias against more free-market healthcare systems. Specifically, a criterion such as how much patients pay out of pocket, and even a criterion as subjective as “fairness” (in which the United States ranks no. 54 worldwide according to the WHO).

When the WHO reduces the ranking of the United States due to a poor performance in criteria such as those stated above, it effectively assumes for its audience that they would be okay with the actual quality of their medical care being reduced, so long as it was less costly for them. While this may be the case for certain people, it is not the case that all, or even most people would be willing to make this trade. In fact, a somewhat less cited bit of information from the WHO is that even the WHO itself ranks the United States as no. 1 in the world in the areas of responsiveness to patients’ needs in choice of provider, dignity, autonomy, confidentiality, and the very important area of timely care"

https://mises.org/library/who%E2%80%...ket-healthcare

"The WHO rankings are based on a constructed index of five factors. One factor is “health level,” defined as a country’s disability-adjusted life expectancy. Another is “health responsiveness,” which includes desirable characteristics of healthcare like speed of service, protection of privacy, and quality of amenities.

Both of these are sensible indicators of health quality, but they constitute only 37.5 percent of each country’s score. The other 62.5 percent encompasses factors only tenuously connected to the quality of care — and that can actually punish a country’s ranking for superior performance."

http://www.cato.org/publications/com...e-they-kidding

Bottom line anyone who has taken even a basic college level of statistics knows you can skew the data to tell whatever story you want. The WHO is subject to just as much political bias as any other WORLD organization.

No. The system isn't perfect. But if some people can have access to health care and you don't get to ride as much this summer then it is better than what we had. If the GOP could pull their head out of their ass and actually have a plan on how to make it better instead of just trying to destroy universal health care who knows. They threw the same fit about social security and medicare as well. Maybe they support those things so much now just to keep their dying voter base alive though.

The links you provided are also .ORG organizations. Just as much of a bias to be biased against what you're talking about lol.

Originally Posted by TheWakeIsReal

No. The system isn't perfect. But if some people can have access to health care and you don't get to ride as much this summer then it is better than what we had. If the GOP could pull their head out of their ass and actually have a plan on how to make it better instead of just trying to destroy universal health care who knows. They threw the same fit about social security and medicare as well. Maybe they support those things so much now just to keep their dying voter base alive though.

The boat was just a simple example. It's not nearly as simple as "just a few less rides" and you know it. The level of taxes in Europe to maintain (which most of those countries programs are not solvent either) would GREATLY impede American's QoL in regards to discretionary income.

Originally Posted by TheWakeIsReal

The links you provided are also .ORG organizations. Just as much of a bias to be biased against what you're talking about lol.

That was my point exactly so your going where with this again? Hence why I said you can skew the numbers to tell any story you want. He mentioned the WHO, I provided counter arguments analyzing the WHO numbers from equally "reliable" sources.....

Serious question do you honestly think the wakeboard/towboat industry would remotely be able to sustain itself if we raised taxes to the levels that Fly would want them to be to support the level of HC he is advocating for? I know I can ask you that question and receive an actual response back to further the discussion vice being called a tool because we disagree

Originally Posted by BurnMac42

The boat was just a simple example. It's not nearly as simple as "just a few less rides" and you know it. The level of taxes in Europe to maintain (which most of those countries programs are not solvent either) would GREATLY impede American's QoL in regards to discretionary income.




That was my point exactly so your going where with this again? Hence why I said you can skew the numbers to tell any story you want. He mentioned the WHO, I provided counter arguments analyzing the WHO numbers from equally "reliable" sources.....

You can't quite put Cato on the equally reliable sources list. That would be like me quoting The Huffington Post.

How would you have it? The way it was? Where insurance providers can decide who and who not to insure? If you do, then you are indeed part of the problem of the GOP where people truly don't think everybody should at least have access to healthcare.

I've already said Obamacare is nowhere near perfect. But this is the issue I have with you guys, you aren't offering any alternatives. I don't think Harley Clifford had any problems riding a bunch down there with his free health care? You act like Obamacare has came in and decimated your pockets.

Originally Posted by BurnMac42

No it's not when that is the DoD budget. The DoD spends more on medicare/caid than they do on what is suppose to be their primary function.

Try again

They wouldn't have to spend a dime on HC if we had UHC.

Originally Posted by BurnMac42

Lol I'm sure you did...I know how awards packages and annual reviews are written...but good for you if you believe that you personally achieved that.

Hope your mat is soft. Because you and I both know you have no f**k'n idea what I'm talking about.

Originally Posted by BurnMac42

And...there's your true colors coming out again. Stop name calling and how about you intellectually show those articles are factually wrong. They dispute your political leanings so now we resort to name calling and muddying the waters vs coming back with an intellectual counter argument.

You cannot dispute the fact that when people can't afford HC they show up at ERs, which are the most expensive places to get HC. Did you actually read that Cato article? It was fluff. It was actually based on the premise that economics should not be considered. Economics is central to the whole HC issue.

You always have to give respect to the guy who says "This is what I do for a living. I've experienced it".

About as good as the guy talking sports that says he played Pop Warner football, "My opinion matters now".

Originally Posted by fly135

They wouldn't have to spend a dime on HC if we had UHC..

So we rob peter to pay Paul....awesome...you do know that HC will still COST money whether it's Government controlled or not...right?

Originally Posted by fly135

Hope your mat is soft. Because you and I both know you have no f**k'n idea what I'm talking about.

Really awesome...school me then....

Right now I work in the one of the sim program offices for the USAF as a contracting officer. I am also a C-17 pilot in the USAFR. I have written OPRs, EPRs, 1206's, and Civilian Annual reports IN the acquisitions career field (and not in 1985).

SO.....I do in fact explicitly know what the F*** I am talking about...

Is my mat soft enough?

Originally Posted by fly135

You cannot dispute the fact that when people can't afford HC they show up at ERs, which are the most expensive places to get HC. Did you actually read that Cato article? It was fluff. It was actually based on the premise that economics should not be considered. Economics is central to the whole HC issue.

So you actually think the Government taking over ER HC will LOWER the cost without lowering quality? Seriously?

Originally Posted by BurnMac42

Serious question do you honestly think the wakeboard/towboat industry would remotely be able to sustain itself if we raised taxes to the levels that Fly would want them to be to support the level of HC he is advocating for? I know I can ask you that question and receive an actual response back to further the discussion vice being called a tool because we disagree

How exactly is the boat industry going to have a problem? I advocate completely removing any connection between HC and employer. Any UHC solution should be funded by taxes on individual earnings. We should also be focused on cost controls and reducing costs from their current level. It's not as simple as raising taxes and paying whatever is charged.

Originally Posted by fly135

How exactly is the boat industry going to have a problem? I advocate completely removing any connection between HC and employer. Any UHC solution should be funded by taxes on individual earnings. We should also be focused on cost controls and reducing costs from their current level. It's not as simple as raising taxes and paying whatever is charged.

Dude I cannot help you if you can't see the opportunity cost linked between these two statements let alone the fact that you actually believe the costs will be reduced in ANY program that is spear headed by the USG.....

Also standing by for softening my mat(sts)....

Originally Posted by BurnMac42

Really awesome...school me then....

Right now I work in the one of the sim program offices for the USAF as a contracting officer. I am also a C-17 pilot in the USAFR. I have written OPRs, EPRs, 1206's, and Civilian Annual reports IN the acquisitions career field (and not in 1985).

SO.....I do in fact explicitly know what the F*** I am talking about...

Is my mat soft enough?

OK I'm almost convinced. Now just tell me what is wrong about my claim since you know exactly what I'm talking about. You obviously have all the data at your fingertips.

Originally Posted by BurnMac42

Dude I cannot help you if you can't see the opportunity cost linked between these two statements let alone the fact that you actually believe the costs will be reduced in ANY program that is spear headed by the USG.....

OK, so we now know your position is that the govt shouldn't have programs. Oh, let me guess... Since you work for the DOD that's the one program it should have.

Originally Posted by fly135

OK I'm almost convinced. Now just tell me what is wrong about my claim since you know exactly what I'm talking about. You obviously have all the data at your fingertips.

Everyone's annual report both on the military side and award dec packages on the civilian side read like they single handedly saved the USAF and won OIF/OEF. You claim you "saved" $5M...great...one of my last bullet points read I saved $9.7M because I told the program office "hey, we don't need XX right now so don't submit the PR"...

Just because office X doesn't spend the money doesn't mean Office Y didn't just get a raise in FY fallout money....

Still waiting on you to soften my mat

OK, I get it. Since you actually don't know what I'm talking about, you are going to go with stereotyping. I'm down with that because stereotyping conservatives works too.

BTW, just because I saved the tax payer $5M doesn't mean I'm not claiming that some guy like you working for the govt didn't squander it elsewhere.

Originally Posted by fly135

OK, so we now know your position is that the govt shouldn't have programs. Oh, let me guess... Since you work for the DOD that's the one program it should have.

Geeze dude again with the jumping to conclusions and putting words in peoples mouths. Seriously....debating with you is like debating with a teenager....another great strawman fallacy good lord...

The DoD is definitely not exempt from waste...it absolutely has fat to trim (F-35 debacle being a great modern example). Jumping straight to assumptions and extremes (IE. I don't want any programs/it's an all or nothing viewpoint) isn't a realistic platform.

The DoD has already taken a $1T cut in expenditures to help fund the ACA all while fighting 2.5 wars and being funded at the lowest % per GDP in it's history of existence.

Now, along with that $1T cut SUPPOSEDLY social programs were also suppose to be trimmed back yet that all of a sudden went on the back burner once the DoD was cut...interesting eh?

Anyway, unlike you, I recognize that even programs I support should always be open to cuts/changes/improvements.

Originally Posted by fly135

OK, I get it. Since you actually don't know what I'm talking about, you are going to go with stereotyping. I'm down with that because stereotyping conservatives works too.

BTW, just because I saved the tax payer $5M doesn't mean I'm not claiming that some guy like you working for the govt didn't squander it elsewhere.

Ok you win man...I must not know how either a contractor or PK/PM "saved" money in 1985. I'll go back to my modern acq. world, you know...actually working in Government acquisitions and hacking the real mish that gave you a job in 1985

OK I admit that reading "...let alone the fact that you actually believe the costs will be reduced in ANY program that is spear headed by the USG" led me to believe that you were saying that the govt shouldn't have programs. Your capitalizing "ANY" should be in my defense. Especially since you followed up with claiming I'm the one jumping to extremes.

Maybe the DOD could save some money if our govt would change it's mind about fighting 2.5 wars. That would be my position.

Originally Posted by BurnMac42

Ok you win man...I must not know how either a contractor or PK/PM "saved" money in 1985. I'll go back to my modern acq. world, you know...actually working in Government acquisitions and hacking the real mish that gave you a job in 1985

Your argument against what I said is that the govt gave me a job? OK, I'll go with that. You do know who you work for right?

Ok, the war may have been a mistake. That's in the past. Look at the present. I know it's not CNN but finally some truth about the ACA may be surfacing. It's a job killer. http://www.cnbc.com/2016/08/17/obama...ve-survey.html

Originally Posted by fly135

OK I admit that reading "...let alone the fact that you actually believe the costs will be reduced in ANY program that is spear headed by the USG" led me to believe that you were saying that the govt shouldn't have programs. Your capitalizing "ANY" should be in my defense. Especially since you followed up with claiming I'm the one jumping to extremes.

Maybe the DOD could save some money if our govt would change it's mind about fighting 2.5 wars. That would be my position.

It would "save" OCO money for sure but again if you think it won't be spent else where you have another thing coming..Congress changes the color of money all the time to suit their pet projects...

Originally Posted by Laker1234

I know it's not CNN but finally some truth about the ACA may be surfacing. It's a job killer. http://www.cnbc.com/2016/08/17/obama...ve-survey.html

Yep. It isn't the only job killer. It's part of a bigger picture of a time when the model was to tie HC to employment for the benefit of a large part of the population. Back when the burden of giving HC to the poor was smaller. Then when we decided to export the jobs to other countries. The jobs that we previously had that could support HI benefits went away, and so did access to HC for a large part of the population. Two things significantly contributed to the problem. 1) the economics of the govt pushing people into a market, and 2) the diminishing number of people who benefited from the employment/HI policy because those jobs disappeared.

Originally Posted by fly135

Your argument against what I said is that the govt gave me a job? OK, I'll go with that. You do know who you work for right?

I do but guess what...I'm not a 100% sunk cost unlike social programs. I actually pay taxes, the contractors who's jobs build stuff for us pay taxes, the businesses that we buy stuff from pay taxes, etc, etc....

Again, the DoD absolutely has fat to trim (always will no organization that large private or public is perfect) however the DoD does create jobs via contractors which in turn create more jobs and everyone in that chain pays taxes vs social welfare programs which by and large do not CREATE anything...

And before your panties get too wadded up I am NOT advocating to cut all social programs. There are genuinely good people who need and deserve help that the USG can provide however those programs are grossly bloated as much if not more than the DoD (when considering the DoD at least gets SOME money back in the form of tax payers)...