DawgTalkers.net Forums DawgTalk Palus Politicus A new poll found that a majority of Americans support a radical change to the US healthcare system

My examples are pre and post

You are missing my point though.

I'm not gonna type it for the third time

I have never ever ever worked at a job that had a pre existing condition clauses. Every single one had guarantee issue policies provided you signed up at the first chance...if you waived the insurance then you were subject...but you made that choice and subjected yourself to that not the insurance company. Group health insurance and private insurance were two different entities. They are much similar now and that is why the premiums are so much similar

None of the jobs I worked at had pre existing clauses.

They dont need to do that.

Sorry but you'd be wrong again.

I have a pre-existing condition, had switched jobs multiple times pre-ACA, never was denied.

There is no treatment for that anyways.

We have people from Canada who sometimes post on an IBS board I belong to and some of them do complain about the medical care there. On occasion a few of them even come over here for their health care because they have to wait so long in Canada (like a year, as you said). I was surprised.

Eve I read all you post again...you just say that vulnerable people that dont have employer insurance and buy a policy on the private market looking for PE free policies don't drive premiums higher. Do you not understand how premiums are calculated? The risk (pre ACA) was calculated based on health history and physicals and bloodwork so the insures had an idea of what to expect claim history wise. They new that if a group (yes private market was still a quasi defined group) would have $1,000,000 in claims they would have to charge premiums high enough to cover the $1million plus about 5-6% profit. Now post ACA the the insurere cannot determine what the premium should be to cover claims because they are not allowed to assess risk. You could have stage 3 lung cancer and be ready to start treatment...sign up for insurance the day prior and bam the insurer just got hit with a $2million tag for one person. Therefore since they have no way to determine potential claim history and what they need to cover it they are forced to dole out high premiums to cover risk...the ACA says the have to spend 80% on claims so if the premium is too high to cover claims then the insured get a refund...however that rarely happens...no matter how you slice it the ACA pre existing condition clause drove premiums on the private market/exchange to employer levels...which was highly predictable.

No......you are missing my entire point.

Go read the bold part.

Canada's population density rivals that of Kenya. Access to medical technology is not as easy to get to as in America.

Another problem was BARRY convinced everyone that you r employer provided insurance only cost the weekly or bi weekly copay...Most peole have NO IDEA what employer coverage costs outside of what they have take out in witholdings...unless the get COBRA...which mirrors the exchange premiums.

Ok, let's get out of the Stupid Loop for a moment here.

How about this.

Compromise.

Those vulnerable people I listed can get Medicare.

The people with ins provided by employers can continue doing that.

AND we put in price caps and regulations to decrease costs.

Then everybody is covered and the price goes down.

And it's not a huge drastic change.

WE ARE NOT TALKING ABOUT EMPLOYER INSURANCE!! the employer market has been fairly stable for years..it was the private market that was fluctuating and people complaining...they didnt not like their $100 premiums going up 20%...they didnt like some citizens getting locked out of insurance because of PE..so they sought a .gov answer in the form of the ACA which created a program to met their desires..except you cannot have PE free policies at $100 premium levels...it was never ever gonna happen...the rates for those people were going to go up to the rates EMPLOYERS paid....Barry just hid that with his subsidy game..if you don't get a subsidy you just got raped...but it was because of the cost of insuring a PE (whether yours or someone else in the exchange). The mandate would have smoothed some of that out but when all you have is sick people paying premiums to insure sick peole the death spiral starts.

Taking millions of Americans out of the Healthcare pool.

.

Due to the loss of millions of insurers now on medicare and not in the Private healthcare pool the premiums will go much higher for employees and employers.



The GOP is cutting regulations not adding them.



Everybody will be covered only when we go single payer.

This is why you are given paper work when you leave employment stating coverage and dates and why you are given the option to COBRA....it keeps the continuous coverage element intact. Once that chain is broken the PE clause kick in....unless you get a job that provides insurance...employer provided insurance is guranteed issue and not subject to PE restrictions....willitever gets it

I think I'd prefer more of a focus on prevention and cures over the current focus on recurring treatments/"cover ups" that lead to small problems steadily worsening over time until something catastrophic happens and extreme measures are needed. I imagine things would be much more affordable for everyone.

Giving everyone the same possibly mediocre healthcare doesn't address the real issues of which there are many.

If my friends 13 year old had to wait a year to have a brain tumor removed, she would be dead.



$1.60 is quite a bit more than a penny. I'm tired of the myth that national healthcare is free.

Couple years ago, Colorado had a single payer system on the ballot(endorsed by Comrade Sanders and everything). To pay for it, it included a 10% tax increase. Colorado accounts for about 1.5% of the population in the USA. That would be quite tax hike in order to pay for the entire country. On top of that, our government doesn't do anything in an efficient or cost effective way.

8-10% offset by people NOT having to pay insurance premiums. Some people struggle with basic math.

Most low and some middle income families would save money.

We could easily pay for it with little to no tax increase by diverting the costs of occupying multiple countries and drone bombing civilian weddings.

According to the CBO, we've already wasted $2.4 trillion on the Iraq War *alone* (which is a laughable figure; it's probably closer to 5-6).

Also, your line of thinking completely negates the current cost of our terrible health care system ($10.500 per person a year, and that doesn't include employer expenditures).

This is laughably false, Eve.

I've been lucky enough to have great private insurance, and never once in my life were pre-existing conditions exempt in any plan I had.

ACA was garbage, but the pre-existing ban was the only quality thing to come out of it.

Ask anyone who got cancer or a serious illness, or a family member who did, and ask them if their employer plan protected them from pre-existing pre-ACA.

Prior to the ACA, if you tried to get health insurance if you've survived Cancer or any other serious such thing, you'd be met with NO or take a physical and if you aren't perfectly clean, maybe they'd cover you but the premium would be crazy HIGH.. I was once quoted 2400 a month to cover my wife and I.. That was BEFORE ACA..



One thing the ACA did was eliminate pre existing conditions.

Again, the premiums on the open market were pretty damn high... So were deductibles and co pays.

Conservatives keep talking about the cost of insurance being so high because of the ACA... That's BS..

Did insurance costs rise, yes they did. But they've been doing that for the last 30 years.. In 2004 I worked for a small company and the premiums were roughly $400 a month. (family coverage, me and my wife)

Just 5 years later, that same insurance was $1100.00 per month. ACA hadn't started yet. It only got worse from there. Rates continued to rise across the board.

Was the ACA a good thing, I think the idea was great, I believe the execution was horrible. Back then, all they needed to do was use the Medicare system. Apply it to everyone that wasn't covered by other insurance.

But, that would mean that the cost of procedures at hospitals would have to be at the Medicare rates...It also meant that insurance companies would be in competition with Medicare (a battle they couldn't win)..

So with PAC dollars flowing to politicians, the idea of that would never fly.. Kinda like you are seeing now.

As long as the insurance lobby and the Pharma Lobby and the medical Lobby keep buying politicians, nothing good will come of this.

Well said, but I'd argue the ACA was a terrible idea and we should've implemented Medicare-for-all instead.

That one's on Obama and the Democrats. They could've done whatever they wanted. They had a bulletproof majority. And they went with the crappy Republican Obamacare plan instead.

If they went straight up Medicare for all in one shot, mitt Romney would’ve won and the ACA would’ve been instantly repealed.

Stuff like that has to be gradually implemented. Just like weed laws. It’s being gradually legalized amongst states, and then it will be fully legalized in 2-3 years.

Medicare for all in 2010? Would’ve been a bigger disaster. The mindset of the American people was NOT the same even 9 years ago on healthcare. Facts.

If people were given Medicare-for-All and Romney tried to take it away there would be riots.

The overwhelming majority of Americans want/wanted Medicare-for-All. No one wants/wanted the ACA.

Gradual implementation was Obama's argument, and the one you're making now.

How'd that work out?

Everything Obama did or tried to do is gone. Dead.

Did the majority want that back in 2010?

You seem to be applying want the American people want now to then, when they definitrly wasn’t for Medicare for all.

Gradual implementation is the argument he and I are making, because guess what PDR? The ACA is still here.

The ACA would’ve also been better had the GOP actually worked with Dems to tweak the ACA, instead of constantly trying to repeal it.

The part you love to ignore. They tried to repeal it how many times before Trump? That repeal was 100% going through if Romney won.

Everything obamamdid or tried is gone....except the ACA, killing Osama( dunno how you reverse that but ok) the Iranian nuclear deal, the booming economy he handed trump, and the plan he set in motion to encourage state rights on weed laws.

Yea, other than that, it’s all gone. Lmfao.

You're trying to argue that if Obama had implemented a good health care system in 2009, he would've lost to Romney in 2012.

How does that square with the fact that he implemented a bad health care system, and still kicked Romney's ass handily?

It's not like the ACA was palatable to his opposition - they invented the damn thing, and they still fought it tooth and nail.



The ACA is dead, man. Weed dispensaries are getting raided as we speak, spearheaded by an openly racist head of the DOJ who thinks weed is more of a dire crisis than opiates.

The argument that Obama had a booming economy going is as specious as the morons who try to argue that Trump has a booming economy going. 96% of all jobs created in the last decade are part-time service gigs, and the stock market provides no indication of Americans well-being; less half the country owns stock, and 86% of the market is owned by 1% of the population.

Obama did nothing to remedy the financial crisis. He poured money into band-aids for mortal wounds. The market is going to crash again within 12-24 months.

i was gonna respond, but:



you literally just answered your own damn question.

because it was Obama who implemented it, literally half the country was opposed to it.

again, you conveniently ignore the FACTS that we had people marching in the streets saying he was an illegitimate president, and as such, were opposed to anything obama did. we had so many citizens in this country, combined with the GOP leadership, who opposed the ACA simply because it was Obama who implemented it.

you also ignore the timeline. conservatives were upset because the ACA results in increased taxes, at a time when we wasn't even recovered from the horrible economy he inherited.

honestly you do this constantly and its annoying as all hell. constantly making simplistic post while ignoring multiple dynamics that goes into making major decisions like this. and im going to start calling you out on that nonsense while your cheerleaders keeping liking your post all the time, cause they do the same dumb crap too.

the ACA certainly succeeded in the main goal, which is to get the american people in support of universal healthcare. it also succeeded in at least SLOWING down the rising cost of healthcare, because again, the FACTS that you and others ignore is that healthcare cost was rising so dramatically that the ACA atleast slowed down the bleeding somewhat. healthcare cost would've been HIGHER at this point if it wasn't for the ACA.

for someone who is a pretty good writer, you sure do ignore a lot of facts that don't support whatever nonsense you're pushing. at this point, you're on par with 40 and diam for your obviousness to how things work around you.

see?

96% bro i've already fact checked you the last time you pushed that blatantly false figure.

Brusuelas found that 47% of the jobs created since January 2010 (he argues that's when you start to see the effects of Obama's policies) have been in the high-wage category.

http://money.cnn.com/2016/11/04/news/economy/jobs-under-obama/index.html

http://time.com/money/4636761/jobs-barack-obama-presidency/

yea, you're 100% getting the 40 and diam treatment now.

stop lying on the boards. that crap is annoying and you should apologize to everyone for lying.

man yall got my hyped right now.

who wants it? any topic. bring it up, im schooling yall on it.

My premiums currently cost my family of 4 about 2.4% of our gross income...Explain to me why I want to see the go up 2.5 to 4 times so other people can benefit?

I'm not lying

https://www.investing.com/news/economy-news/nearly-95-of-all-job-growth-during-obama-era-part-time,-contract-work-449057

https://www.nbcnews.com/business/consumer/most-jobs-created-2005-are-temporary-or-unsteady-n693631

http://www.ign.com/boards/threads/study-...ated.454901476/

Uber driving can be classified as a "high wage" job due to averages. Uber driving is a part-time service gig, it's not sustainable, and the averages don't reflect actual wage.

The economy wasn't booming under Obama. The middle of the country is a howling snake pit of empty factories, dying shopping malls and opiate addicts. Trump won specifically due to people touting a "booming economy" because the coasts got fat while the rest of the country withered.

Get that weak neoliberal BS outta here.

I don’t appreciate you ignoring blatant facts, yet here we are.

I’ve provided sources from very credible media outlets multiple times proving your 96% number completely false.

And IGN? I mean damn bro, I love my call of duty updates as much as a the next gamer, but I’m not gonna get my political news from the same publication that gives me strategies on how to slay dragons in game.

All of those links cite this Harvard and Princeton study, if you want source material.

https://dataspace.princeton.edu/jspui/bitstream/88435/dsp01zs25xb933/3/603.pdf

Read it, then come back and call me a liar again.

And again - if the economy was booming under Obama, then why was the middle of the country a rotting cesspool of empty factories and people who turned to opiates because they couldn't find work?

Explain to me how a booming economy resulted in the largest drug-use spike since crack, suddenly chewing up once-employed suburbanites?

If the economy was booming, how, exactly, did a drooling, barely sentient game show host who thinks health insurance costs $12 a month get elected?

How long your mirror been broke ... ...

The Bureau of Labor Statistics each month reports the number of people who usually work full time and the number who usually work part time. It defines part-time employees as people who usually work less than 35 hours a week -- an even broader definition of part time than Cuccinelli cited.

In March 2010, seasonally adjusted BLS figures show the U.S. had 111.2 million full-time workers. That rose to 116.2 million in August 2013, the latest month for which figures were available when Cuccinelli made his statement. That’s an increase of about 5 million.

The number of part-time jobs went from 27.5 million in March 2010 to just under 28 million in August 2013, an increase of about 500,000.

So, contrary to Cuccinelli’s claim, full-time jobs have grown 10 times faster than part-time employment since Obamacare was signed into law.

http://www.politifact.com/virginia/state...een-part-time-/

Ooo, look at this:

http://www.politifact.com/arizona/statem...e-more-part-ti/

I’m glad you’re parroting the same nonsense trump is.

You know what’s crazy? The same questions you’re asking is the same questions GM asked.

The reason why is because if you would’ve even bothered at the links I posted, you would see exactly WHERE those jobs were going.

Tech, healthcare, etc. jobs that you need an education to qualify for. So sure, manufacturing jobs hasn’t grown much, but that wasn’t your argument.

Your pathetic argument was that 96% of jobs under obama were part time. That’s blatantly false and I have proved that over and over again. No matter how many times you close your ears and go “lalalalallala” it doesn’t make your claim any more true.

So obviously people who low skills weren’t gonna see the impact of the job growth.

Ooooooooh wait!!!!

Hadsnt arch and plenty others stated that there are in fact plenty of jobs out there, but people can’t pass a drug test?

Economy Needs Workers, but Drug Tests Take a Toll

https://mobile.nytimes.com/2017/07/24/business/economy/drug-test-labor-hiring.html

Well well well, arch was 100% correct.

So let’s recap:

I’ve proven your nonsense false about the ACA

Ive proven your nonsense false about the 96% bs figures

I’ve proven your nonsense wrong about the economy and drug use.

Take this L and kick rocks.

Never been broke cause I don’t have to lie about anything.

You still haven’t got yours replaced, though.

Was that $400 the portion you paid or the entire premium? What has gotten lost in this employer premium discussion is how much of the premium the employer pays..At my current job I pay $80 a month through payroll while the employer picks up the rest...which is $500...for single coverage...My wife pays about $250 a month to cover her and my two daughters...her employer picks up the rest which is just under $1100 a month

Once you add the employee and the employer potions together wether it be single or family, those premiums mirror most of the prices I see quoted for plans on the ACA exchanges....like I said the private market premiums that I paid of $90 a month single and $300 for a family of four prior to the ACA skyrocketed to the costs of guaranteed issue employer plan.

You absolutely did not. You merely said you did.

Once again, please explain to me - simply or in detail - what you find false or BS in this study. It's pretty heavily cited and backed up by data.

https://dataspace.princeton.edu/jspui/bitstream/88435/dsp01zs25xb933/3/603.pdf



The fact that you're saying this in regards to the laughable claim that the economy was "booming" at the end of Obama's tenure is absurd.

I absolutely did.

I’m not gonna respond to your links when you clearly didn’t read mine.

At all.

I posted exactly where those jobs went. You didn’t even bother looking at them.

Well, I’m returning the favor.

Do you understand - and I'm not being facetious or combative - that the term "full-time" and "high wage" are being stretched within an inch of their life in the articles you cited?

Someone driving for Uber is considered a full-time, high-wage job. It absolutely is not high wage, and often isn't full-time.

These terms are thrown around very similarly to when someone gives up looking for work, they are no longer considered "unemployed".