Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

 Dreadclaw69 wrote:

Good, we agree on something then

The stigma isn't the same, but it is still comparable. If someone knows what college you went to (or who you worked for), or that you went to college (or worked) at all, they will often view you in a discriminatory manner regarding both social and employment matters. Given this, and the obvious acceptance of the risks associated with such disclosure, I find it strange when people consider their medical history to be uniquely private.

Of course I also find it strange when people make decisions based on irrelevant information, but I'm weird like that.

 Dreadclaw69 wrote:

By public viewing I didn't mean "OMG the ACA will mean everyone's medical history and deepest darkest secrets are published for the world to see before a death panel drags them out to be shot by UN troops/Obama's Homeland Security army!!!!one!!eleven!!". If you go back and read the exchange that I quoted (to try and avoid misunderstandings and quoting out of context) you'll see that I was saying was that just because you aren't concerned with the privacy of your medical information doesn't mean that others aren't.
Simple. Straightforward. And hard to mis-interpret.

I'm fully aware that you were representing a position that you do not, necessarily, hold. I disagree with that position because it seems irrational, as does the mentality which might justify it.

In the spirit of the OP... here's some sites for info...

Double Down: Obamacare Will Increase Avg. Individual-Market Insurance Premiums By 99% For Men, 62% For Women

Check out the interactive applet showing pre-ACA & post-ACA rates by states.

The bottom line: Obamacare makes insurance less affordable

For months, we’ve heard about how Obamacare’s trillions in health care subsidies were going to save America from rate shock. It’s not true. If you shop for coverage on your own, you’re likely to see your rates go up, even after accounting for the impact of pre-existing conditions, even after accounting for the impact of subsidies.

The Obama administration knows this, which is why its 15-page report makes no mention of premiums for insurance available on today’s market. Silence, they say, speaks louder than words. HHS’ silence on the difference between Obamacare’s insurance premiums and those available today tell you everything you need to know. Rates are going higher. And if you’re healthy, or you’re young, the Obama administration expects you to do your duty and pay up.

What a Deal! Obamacare Will Increase Health Spending By $7,450 For Typical Family of Four

In reality there may actually be lower cost plans out there, but to no surprise this means rationed and limited care.

When insurance marketplaces open on Oct. 1, most of those shopping for coverage will be low- and moderate-income people for whom price is paramount. To hold down costs, insurers say, they have created smaller networks of doctors and hospitals than are typically found in commercial insurance. And those health care providers will, in many cases, be paid less than what they have been receiving from commercial insurers.

Some consumer advocates and health care providers are increasingly concerned. Decades of experience with Medicaid, the program for low-income people, show that having an insurance card does not guarantee access to specialists or other providers.

Consumers should be prepared for “much tighter, narrower networks” of doctors and hospitals, said Adam M. Linker, a health policy analyst at the North Carolina Justice Center, a statewide advocacy group.

“That can be positive for consumers if it holds down premiums and drives people to higher-quality providers,” Mr. Linker said. “But there is also a risk because, under some health plans, consumers can end up with astronomical costs if they go to providers outside the network.”

Does anyone believe Healthcare costs would be lower now if Obamacare had not been upheld?

 Easy E wrote:
Does anyone believe Healthcare costs would be lower now if Obamacare had not been upheld?

No... of course not.

It's the "sticker shock" and the option changes because of the new law.

Maybe I'm just too dumb to understand the legislative tactics, but this whole Cruz thing just has me utterly confused.

House Republicans pass budget bill that de-funds ObamaCare, Cruz filibusters the bill passed by his own party, then votes for it anyway.

There might be wonderful legislative and long-term tactics involved for people that are trying to survive tea-party challengers or wanna become President in 2016, but I am guessing that to your average voter this just looks stupid.

Your average Voter probably doesn't even pay enough attention to make that call.

 Grey Templar wrote:
Your average Voter probably doesn't even pay enough attention to make that call.

QFT. Your average voter is a close-minded idgit that watches CNN or Fox and believes everything either outlet dishes out to a point of logic-defying insanity. My super-intelligent state (huge sarcasm here) decided it was a good idea to allow party-line voting which meant a few years ago getting a Dentist with a minimum of exposure (notice I didn't say experience or knowledge) elected to be in charge of education for the state because she had an "R" next to her name.

Oklahoma!

Washington DC Politicians. Just another name for Romper Room Antics.

 d-usa wrote:
House Republicans pass budget bill that de-funds ObamaCare, Cruz filibusters the bill passed by his own party, then votes for it anyway. .

The Aristocrats!

 d-usa wrote:
Oklahoma!

Yep.

 d-usa wrote:
Maybe I'm just too dumb to understand the legislative tactics, but this whole Cruz thing just has me utterly confused.

Yeah... me too.

The idea is two-fold:
1) Shine the spotlight on it again.
2) Tells the Republican establishment the he ain't taking gak from them.

House Republicans pass budget bill that de-funds ObamaCare, Cruz filibusters the bill passed by his own party, then votes for it anyway.

A) It wasn't a filibuster as no one could stop the closure vote, per Senate rules.
B) He vote it to move the procedural chains... the real vote is Friday (I think)

There might be wonderful legislative and long-term tactics involved for people that are trying to survive tea-party challengers or wanna become President in 2016, but I am guessing that to your average voter this just looks stupid.

Yeah.. it's strange. He's trying to use this time as a "rallying call". It remains to be seen if it was effective.

ALso... please no on Cruz for Prez... he's a 1 term freshman Senator. The last time a 1 term Senator was elected president isn't turning out so well...

HHS has released a report indicating that, as of now, most of the people who will be enrolled in Obamacare will being seeing lower premiums than were projected when the bill was signed into law.



Because... reasons. Read it here, if you like.

Well...the Food Stamp was taking out of one bill that passed so it could handle as a different "monster" solely by itself, which IMO, it should be handle as a separate issue. Since the ACA/Obamacare is a huge monster in itself I strongly believe it needs to be handled in a totally separate Bill by itself. They're going to pass this version of the Bill. Like I said before. Only ones that seem to be listening to their district "voice" is the Tea Party Republicans.

Edit

I really really REALLY hate the word "estimate"

 Ouze wrote:
HHS has released a report indicating that, as of now, most of the people who will be enrolled in Obamacare will being seeing lower premiums than were projected when the bill was signed into law.



Because... reasons. Read it here, if you like.

With fewer access to physicians and facilities.

Listen, Eeyore, this wasn't supposed to be a beatstick .

Whembly listen to Ouze.....if not I'm holding up Ouze for 5 minutes so I can gather a crowd before I hand him the "Whiffleball Bat of Anti Derailment"

 Easy E wrote:
Does anyone believe Healthcare costs would be lower now if Obamacare had not been upheld?

Yes, they would be. Simple economics, laws of supply and demand.

By giving and making everyone get insurance, and by forcing insurance companies to take on people with pre-existing conditions, you raise the demand for healthcare. Since its covered by insurance, we are are already seeing people going to the hospital and seeing doctors for minor things that used to be tolerated.

Since insurance companies now have to "supply" more healthcare (ie make more payments), they have to raise premiums to cover the costs. Since doctors now have less time to spend per patient, and make "less" money per hour, you'll see their rates go up to make the difference.

You'll also see a lowering of quality and services, like any and every "free" or mandated service.

Now, open up the free markets to insurance and make them compete for dollars via good service, quality care etc and you'll see companies undercut each other, lowering costs for the consumers.

 Grey Templar wrote:
Your average Voter probably doesn't even pay enough attention to make that call.

The only people paying attention right now are the political junkies, and they committed to one side or the other a long time ago.

 Ouze wrote:
Listen, Eeyore, this wasn't supposed to be a beatstick .

Well... I'm telling ya that's what's happening in state of Missouri.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 sebster wrote:

 Grey Templar wrote:
Your average Voter probably doesn't even pay enough attention to make that call.

The only people paying attention right now are the political junkies, and they committed to one side or the other a long time ago.

Yup... 100% accurate.

Still wadding through your recently election in the AU... whoa-momma...

 Ouze wrote:
Because... reasons. Read it here, if you like.

So the market place actually delivers a better product for the consumer through competition? Wow. No wonder this whole thing completely blindsided the right wing, who have shown nothing but absolute commitment to their intellectual positions in insisting that a market based mechanism could never work to keep healthcare premiums down.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Jihadin wrote:
Well...the Food Stamp was taking out of one bill that passed so it could handle as a different "monster" solely by itself, which IMO, it should be handle as a separate issue.

Yeah, food stamps as a 'monster'.



A recession larger than any in the last three generations hits, and SNAP spikes to 0.47% of GDP before beginning to decline again. It must be brought under control!

 sebster wrote:

 Ouze wrote:
Because... reasons. Read it here, if you like.

So the market place actually delivers a better product for the consumer through competition? Wow. No wonder this whole thing completely blindsided the right wing, who have shown nothing but absolute commitment to their intellectual positions in insisting that a market based mechanism could never work to keep healthcare premiums down.

I got a bone to pick with you right there... it's not a better product.

 whembly wrote:
Still wadding through your recently election in the AU... whoa-momma...

Did you read my summary earlier in the thread?

 sebster wrote:

 whembly wrote:
Still wadding through your recently election in the AU... whoa-momma...

Did you read my summary earlier in the thread?

Yeah... made me go search out some more AU publications....

I thought we were the whackadoos of the world. o.O

 whembly wrote:
I got a bone to pick with you right there... it's not a better product.

Who said it was a better product? The item Ouze posted was a comparison of pre-bill cost estimates to their actual price in the market. Why on earth would it be a better product - it's the same product...

And it's a bit rich to suddenly switch to 'okay maybe its cheaper but it isn't as good as current insurance'... when up until now the conservative noise machine has been spending all its time comparing the old, cheapest, all but useless insurance products to the new base level insurance products, that offer a hell of a lot more coverage.

 sebster wrote:

 whembly wrote:
I got a bone to pick with you right there... it's not a better product.

Who said it was a better product? The item Ouze posted was a comparison of pre-bill cost estimates to their actual price in the market. Why on earth would it be a better product - it's the same product...

And it's a bit rich to suddenly switch to 'okay maybe its cheaper but it isn't as good as current insurance'... when up until now the conservative noise machine has been spending all its time comparing the old, cheapest, all but useless insurance products to the new base level insurance products, that offer a hell of a lot more coverage.[

You're pulling that out of your ass there Seb. Just saying...

 whembly wrote:
Yeah... made me go search out some more AU publications....

I thought we were the whackadoos of the world. o.O

Every country has whackadoos. The US is only different in that one of its major political party directly panders to the whackadoos, and has done so for so long that somehow the whackadoos have gotten real power in that party.

I read an interesting piece the other day trying to explain why the market hadn't, at that point, really freaked out about this latest round of debt ceiling chicken - the argument is that Boehner, Cantor, Ryan and the rest of the leadership might be hardliners, but they're not crazy, and so the major finance managers talk to them and don't get panicked. But they don't realise that those guys aren't really in control of the party, and a sizable portion of the party really are pretty much nuts, and what's more those guys have a lot of power because it's nutty faction that gets out and votes in the primaries (where all too many seats are decided these days).

Australia has at least as many deeply crazy people as your country, but right now we're lucky enough that none of them are in either of our two major parties - Clive Palmer's insane run for office happened because the Liberal party had been happy to take his money for years, but had no interest in letting him run for office as one of them.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 whembly wrote:
You're pulling that out of your ass there Seb. Just saying...

Dude, I've made that argument in like five of these threads. I've seen pieces that dismantled maybe a dozen conservative noise machine articles claiming 'insurance has skyrocketed under ACA' by pointing out that was the exact trick used. Do you not remember me pointing this out so many times before?

 sebster wrote:

 whembly wrote:
Yeah... made me go search out some more AU publications....

I thought we were the whackadoos of the world. o.O

Every country has whackadoos. The US is only different in that one of its major political party directly panders to the whackadoos, and has done so for so long that somehow the whackadoos have gotten real power in that party.

Can't argue about that!

I read an interesting piece the other day trying to explain why the market hadn't, at that point, really freaked out about this latest round of debt ceiling chicken - the argument is that Boehner, Cantor, Ryan and the rest of the leadership might be hardliners, but they're not crazy, and so the major finance managers talk to them and don't get panicked. But they don't realise that those guys aren't really in control of the party, and a sizable portion of the party really are pretty much nuts, and what's more those guys have a lot of power because it's nutty faction that gets out and votes in the primaries (where all too many seats are decided these days).

Nah... debt ceiling will be lifted again. *shrugs* it's reaching to that "Crying Wolf" status.

At least... if somehow the hardliners hold the line... Obama could just simply order the Treasury to strike a few platinum coins. Just use Obama in a pimping poise...

Australia has at least as many deeply crazy people as your country, but right now we're lucky enough that none of them are in either of our two major parties - Clive Palmer's insane run for office happened because the Liberal party had been happy to take his money for years, but had no interest in letting him run for office as one of them.

Yeah... everyone has crazies... It's sorta a new thing for me to by nosing around at other countries politics.

Automatically Appended Next Post:

 whembly wrote:
You're pulling that out of your ass there Seb. Just saying...

Dude, I've made that argument in like five of these threads. I've seen pieces that dismantled maybe a dozen conservative noise machine articles claiming 'insurance has skyrocketed under ACA' by pointing out that was the exact trick used. Do you not remember me pointing this out so many times before?

PM'ed ya.

 dogma wrote:
The stigma isn't the same, but it is still comparable. If someone knows what college you went to (or who you worked for), or that you went to college (or worked) at all, they will often view you in a discriminatory manner regarding both social and employment matters. Given this, and the obvious acceptance of the risks associated with such disclosure, I find it strange when people consider their medical history to be uniquely private.

Of course I also find it strange when people make decisions based on irrelevant information, but I'm weird like that.

For someone railing against irrationality the irony of your comparison is hilarious

 dogma wrote:
I'm fully aware that you were representing a position that you do not, necessarily, hold. I disagree with that position because it seems irrational, as does the mentality which might justify it.

No. You're aware that you are projecting your argument onto my plain and ordinary words to continue whatever point you are trying to make. Yeah, this is why I stopped paying any heed to you

Let me know how Coventry is

 Ouze wrote:
HHS has released a report indicating that, as of now, most of the people who will be enrolled in Obamacare will being seeing lower premiums than were projected when the bill was signed into law.



Because... reasons. Read it here, if you like.

Ouze... that's actually misleading (I did post this earlier ):

“Premiums nationwide will also be around 16 percent lower than originally expected,” HHS cheerfully announces in its press release. But that’s a ruse. HHS compared what the Congressional Budget Office projected rates might look like—in 2016—to its own findings. Neither of those numbers tells you the stat that really matters: how much rates will go up next year, under Obamacare, relative to this year, prior to the law taking effect. …

Based on a Manhattan Institute analysis of the HHS numbers, Obamacare will increase underlying insurance rates for younger men by an average of 97 to 99 percent, and for younger women by an average of 55 to 62 percent. Worst off is North Carolina, which will see individual-market rates triple for women, andquadruple for men.

NOW you can label me as a: