Impeding changes to our Health Care system

[TheMercenary]

I would encourage anyone who thinks they can make it through a program to go for it. Problem is many can't and there are not enough slots to go around to meet the need. Another reason that people are going to be highly disappointed when they try to get care.

[TheMercenary]

As stated numerous times here...

Healthcare overhaul won't stop premium increases

The new law doesn't prevent rate hikes such as Anthem Blue Cross' double-digit increase last year. 'It is a very big loophole,' says Sen. Dianne Feinstein, who is pushing regulatory legislation.

Public outrage over double-digit rate hikes for health insurance may have helped push President Obama's healthcare overhaul across the finish line, but the new law does not give regulators the power to block similar increases in the future.

And now, with some major companies already moving to boost premiums and others poised to follow suit, millions of Americans may feel an unexpected jolt in the pocketbook.

Although Democrats promised greater consumer protection, the overhaul does not give the federal government broad regulatory power to prevent increases.

continues:
http://www.latimes.com/news/nationwo...,6096091.story

[SamIam]

Well, one way you don't have health insurance and don't get treated; the other way you do have health insurance and don't get treated. It is my understanding that the shortage of primary care physcians is because so many doctors opt for one of the higher paying speciality fields. I think that is a greater problem than the greatunwashed and previously uninsured stampeding through medical doors.

[Shawnee123]

Those selfish sick children will be clogging up my doc's office. Buncha fuckers.

[TheMercenary]

Originally Posted by SamIam

Well, one way you don't have health insurance and don't get treated; the other way you do have health insurance and don't get treated. It is my understanding that the shortage of primary care physcians is because so many doctors opt for one of the higher paying speciality fields. I think that is a greater problem than the greatunwashed and previously uninsured stampeding through medical doors.

I think there is a lot of truth to that, esp with the costs of the education. And there are people who just don't find family medicine all that interesting.

Originally Posted by TheMercenary

As stated numerous times here...

Healthcare overhaul won't stop premium increases

The new law doesn't prevent rate hikes such as Anthem Blue Cross' double-digit increase last year. 'It is a very big loophole,' says Sen. Dianne Feinstein, who is pushing regulatory legislation.


continues:
http://www.latimes.com/news/nationwo...,6096091.story

There are strong disincentives in the legislation (as noted in the article) to keep premiums from rising:

For the first time, all insurance companies would have to dedicate at least 75% of their premiums to paying medical claims; this would reduce the proportion of companies' revenue that could go to administrative expenses, such as executive salaries and stockholder dividends. Some analysts think that requirement could restrain premium growth.

The healthcare bill allows regulators to ban insurers from the exchanges if their rates are deemed unjustified.

There are several independent studies that conclude that these provisions will stabilize premiums. You and others disagree.

Will those disincentives be enough? The fact remains that no one knows with certainty what will happen until regs are written and the reform is fully implemented...at which time, additional regs may or may not be needed.

As you like to ask others all the time....where's the evidence that the legislation wont control premiums. It is pure speculation.

And where is the evidence that illegal immigrants will be covered as you claimed?

And where is the evidence that the CBO assumed all young adults would opt in as you claimed?

And where is the evidence that the majority of the country does not support the reform as you claimed?

Why are you the only one who does not have to provide evidence to support your opinion?

[TheMercenary]

Originally Posted by Redux

There are strong disincentives in the legislation (as noted in the article) to keep premiums from rising:

There are several independent studies that conclude that these provisions will stabilize premiums. You and others disagree.

But the fact remains that no one knows with certainty what will happen until regs are written and the reform is fully implemented...at which time, additional regs may or may not be needed.

As you like to ask others all the time....where's the evidence that the legislation wont control premiums. It is pure speculation.

And where is the evidence that illegal immigrants will be covered as you claimed?

And where is the evidence that the CBO assumed all young adults would opt in as you claimed?

And where is the evidence that the majority of the country does not support the reform?

Why are you the only one who does not have to provide evidence to support your opinion?

Where is your evidence to dispute it?

[TheMercenary]

I guess Sen. Dianne Feinstein is a lying bitch. Go figure. Not that I am surprised...

Originally Posted by TheMercenary

Where is your evidence to dispute it?

As I stated, the impact on premiums is pure speculation...there is no evidence one way or another until regs are written and full package is implemented. I agree with one set of studies and you agree with another. My opinion doesnt "failed" any more than yours does until there are facts.

The evidence regarding illegal immigrants is in the unambiguous language in the legislation .

The evidence regarding young adults optingn in to the mandate is in the CBO report, which is based on many paying the fine instead...to the tune of $2 billion in fine/tax revenue.

The evidence regarding public supporting or not supporting the legislation can be seen in polls. While some polls put the majority of opinion as opposed to the legislation, it it because a significant minority thinks it does not go far enough..not that it goes too far.

Your turn.

Originally Posted by TheMercenary

I guess Sen. Dianne Feinstein is a lying bitch. Go figure. Not that I am surprised...

Feinstein is a proponent of stronger legislation and has been from the start and she is stating her opinion, which is no more factual than yours or mine. The fact remains that there is no evidence either way until regs are written and the bill is fully implemented.

[TheMercenary]

Originally Posted by Redux

As I stated, the impact on premiums is pure speculation...there is no evidence one way or another until regs are written and full package is implemented.

That is not what was sold to the American Public. And you know it.

The evidence regarding illegal immigrants is in the unambiguous language in the legislation .

So you can't really dispute it.

The evidence regarding young adults optingn in to the mandate is in the CBO report, which is based on many paying the fine instead...to the tune of $2 billion in fine/tax revenue.

The point is the whole thing falls appart if people don't participate. You know, the healthy people you were counting on.

The evidence regarding public supporting or not supporting the legislation can be seen in polls. While some polls put the majority of opinion as opposed to the legislation, it it because a significant minority thinks it does not go far enough..not that it goes too far.

Not significant.

So you have no evidence to support any of your claims.

No surprise.

Later, dude.

[TheMercenary]

Originally Posted by Redux

So you have no evidence to support any of your claims.

No surprise.

Later, dude.

Sorry, I am just not interested in your Obamapropaganda.... The floor is yours to defend.

And this is what the whole problem with this Administration is... they sold the public on so much BS... "Millions of Shovel Ready Jobs"... "Healthcare for all!"... "We will close Gitmo!"..... and it was all smoke and mirrors...

The electorate has taken notice.

Originally Posted by TheMercenary

Sorry, I am just not interested in your Obamapropaganda.... The floor is yours to defend.

And this is what the whole problem with this Administration is... they sold the public on so much BS... "Millions of Shovel Ready Jobs"... "Healthcare for all!"... "We will close Gitmo!"..... and it was all smoke and mirrors...

The electorate has taken notice.

Your standard fallback post when you are asked to cite or provide evidence to support your "facts" and you cant or wont.

We'll see what happens in November. The Democrats will lose seats in both the House and Senate....I predicted months ago they they will lose anywhere from 20-30 in the House and 5-7 in the Senate. But it is still six month away and far too soon to tell. I might revise my prediction after Labor Day.

BTW.. yesterday in Florida..in the first election for a vacant House seat since the health reform was enacted, the Democrat beat the Republican who made the campaign all about the "socialist" bill ("government takeover") that will "hurt seniors" ("gutting Medicare").....62% to 35%. It was a Democratic district, but also a very heavy senior district and the fear and smear campaign didnt work....not even close.

In the meantime, I am still trying to understand why you think it is reasonable for you to demand cites and evidence from others but do not have to provide cities and evidence of your own when requested.

How do I get that special exemption?

Or to put it another way.

Why are your opinions any more valid than those that you declare as "failed" or "bullshit" because they are counter to yours?

[classicman]

From your link:

Lynch, a contractor, sought to make the race a statement on the health care bill ~snip~
Democrats outnumber Republicans by more than 2-to-1.

the district, voted about 65 percent for Obama in 2008.

Good for Deutch. Was this ever a contest? No.
Did anyone really think at any point in time that a contractor making a statement was going to beat an established politician?

Originally Posted by classicman

From your link:

Good for Deutch. Was this ever a contest? No.
Did anyone really think at any point in time that a contractor making a statement was going to beat an established politician?

Democrats had nearly a 3:1 voter registration in Massachusetts.

My point is that one Senate or House election is not a trend as many want to suggest from the Brown victory in Mass.

If anything came out of the Florida congressional election, it is that the Democratic base was as energized as the opposition this time around.

And it is not as simple as some here choose to believe. Many factors will come into play, including the possibility of Tea Party candidates as third parties, splitting the vote on the right. This is the greatest fear of the Republican establishment.

Hell, even Harry Reid, who is probably DOA in a two-party race, has more than a fighting chanced if there is a Tea Party candidate as is a very real possibility.

And further...."The electorate has taken notice" is not a valid response to every question in every discussion as much as it is a means of deflection.