There you go conservatives: Obamacare is failing


Quote

Originally posted by: DonDiego
...The Good News: Everyone in the State will have the same pharmaceuticals covered by their Obamacare Healthcare Plan.
The Bad News: Not everyone in the State has the same diseases or medical conditions.
Yup. The same criticism could be leveled against Medicare, couldn't it?
Quote

Originally posted by: hoops2

Just leave a copy at the Wynn. They will put it in my suite for when I arrive


I'm pretty sure these come complimentary at the Wynn.
Quote

Originally posted by: pjstroh
You know what the chart doesn't show? Don Diego's earlier assessment of the new plans which he described this way:

"iii. Citizens who preferred their old plans would not be forced to choose new, improved plans which likely offer higher premiums, higher deductibles, and less choice in physicians, medical facilities, and pharmaceuticals."

I am also struggling with links on the board today. I cant seem to find the one Don Diego used to back up this claim.

Holy-Moly does poor old DonDiego have to do everything?

DonDiego suggests pjstroh just Google things like :"Obamacare Premiums", or "Obamacare Hospitals", or as DonDiego just did: "Obamacare Limits Choice."
And this popped up, . . . The Wall Street Journal.
From which:
"The reason this furor will continue even if the website is fixed is that the public is learning that ObamaCare's insurance costs more in return for worse coverage.
Mr. Obama and his liberal allies call the old plans "substandard," but he doesn't mean from the perspective of the consumers who bought them. He means people were free to choose insurance that wasn't designed to serve his social equity and income redistribution goals. In his view, many people must pay first-class fares for coach seats so others can pay less and receive extra benefits."

DonDiego fully expects pjstroh to suggest the Wall Street Journal is not a legitimate source for such information. When pjstroh does so, . . . poor old DonDiego will shit a brick; this is not as entertaining as it reads online.
Quote

Originally posted by: DonDiego
Quote

Originally posted by: pjstroh
You know what the chart doesn't show? Don Diego's earlier assessment of the new plans which he described this way:

"iii. Citizens who preferred their old plans would not be forced to choose new, improved plans which likely offer higher premiums, higher deductibles, and less choice in physicians, medical facilities, and pharmaceuticals."

I am also struggling with links on the board today. I cant seem to find the one Don Diego used to back up this claim.

Holy-Moly does poor old DonDiego have to do everything?

DonDiego suggests pjstroh just Google things like :"Obamacare Premiums", or "Obamacare Hospitals", or as DonDiego just did: "Obamacare Limits Choice."
And this popped up, . . . The Wall Street Journal
When DonDiego cites unsigned opinion pieces from the WSJ, he should disclose that they are editorials from the Rupert Murdoch gang.


When I Google actual results and data of the ACA I find this:
CBS: Nationwide premiums lower than forecasted

Premiums to drop by 50% for New York Residents

Consumer Reports: Young Invincibles save $7200


But its Don Diego's perogative to choose Right Wing speculation over actual data.
Since some folks didn't find the Forbes magazine article credible here is an article from the Washington Post where AIDS advocates and other advocates for the chronically ill are alarmed because of Obamacare's weak prescription drug coverage.
Quote

Some plans sold on the online insurance exchanges, for instance, don’t cover key medications for HIV, or they require patients to pay as much as 50 percent of the cost per prescription in co-insurance — sometimes more than $1,000 a month.

Quote

A new analysis of health plans sold in the federal exchange — which covers 36 states — and 14 state exchanges found that the benefits tend to be skimpier than in most other private insurance in the United States, with drug benefits a particular weak spot. The analysis, by Avalere Health, a health-care consulting company, was based on a sample of 600 insurance plans.

Quote

2014 is going to be a scary year. People are going to have to stop taking medicines they are already stable on because of this,” said Kantor, the immediate past president of the Southern MS Consortium, a group of doctors, social workers and advocates who work with patients with the condition.



Link
Quote

Originally posted by: malibber2
Since some folks didn't find the Forbes magazine article credible here is an article from the Washington Post where AIDS advocates and other advocates for the chronically ill are alarmed because of Obamacare's weak prescription drug coverage.

Hmm, . . . DonDiego is not sure he understands.

If The Washington Post, The Wall Street Journal, and Forbes Magazine all write the same thing about Obamacare limitations and costs to participants, . . . who is to be believed? Three national news organizations or forkushV and pjstroh?

It's a puzzlement.



Quote

Originally posted by: DonDiego
Hmm, . . . DonDiego is not sure he understands.

If The Washington Post, The Wall Street Journal, and Forbes Magazine all write the same thing about Obamacare limitations and costs to participants, . . . who is to be believed? Three national news organizations or forkushV and pjstroh?...
DonDiego is dishonest. More than usual even. Two out of three of those were not products of any "news organization;" one was an opinion pieces from Rupert Murdoch's editorialists and the other was pure opinion written by a "scholar" from ultra-right wing American Enterprise Institute.

So let's look at the actual news in the WaPo. With Obamacare, in some states, possibly, certain MS and AIDS drugs may be very expensive. And appealing to lower those costs may or may not work; no one is sure. But without Obamacare, those same patients with pre-existing MS and AIDS couldn't buy health insurance with a gun.

I think that about covers it.
What good is insurance if you can't afford to use it?



So let's look at the actual news in the WaPo. With Obamacare, in some states, possibly, certain MS and AIDS drugs may be very expensive. And appealing to lower those costs may or may not work; no one is sure. But without Obamacare, those same patients with pre-existing MS and AIDS couldn't buy health insurance with a gun.



Quote

Originally posted by: malibber2
What good is insurance if you can't afford to use it?
Let's take a similar situation to what your wife experienced. Let's say the hospital checks you out, and it's looking like $100,000 for the procedure and treatment.

1. With no insurance: When they ask you how you are going to pay, you have a case of the giggles - like you did with your wife's situation - and tell them they will be stiffed.

2. With Obamacare: You tell them you are broke, but that insurance will come up with about $94,000, and you will make arrangements to pay the rest.

Under which scenario do you think that the hospital will provide better treatment? Silly me, but I think that hospitals and other providers respond to financial incentives and disincentives. And no insurance sounds like a way to get substandard care, and is a stupid bet.

Already a LVA subscriber?
To continue reading, choose an option below:
Diamond Membership
$3 per month
Unlimited access to LVA website
Exclusive subscriber-only content
Limited Member Rewards Online
Join Now
or
Platinum Membership
$50 per year
Unlimited access to LVA website
Exclusive subscriber-only content
Exclusive Member Rewards Book
Join Now