ccrunner609;702593 wrote:No I am paying $700 MORE.

Like I said, this is cheap. The really big problem that I see with this, is that because you wife's employer decided to drop her coverage, your employer ( the school system) has to pick up the tab. assuming that your copay (if you have one) is around 60 dollars, your premium costs would be about 130.00 a month. THIS IS CHEAP. Employers generally pay about 80% of the health care premiums, so the cost to the TAXPAYERS of your community is about 1040 a month. even more if you have procreated.

I don't feel that sorry for you, but I assume that your wife had a contribution as well. so it sound to me like it is really costing you about 20 bucks a month. Go cry somewhere else.

People are delusional to think that adding 60 million more Americans to the insurance pool would decrease costs. This ObamaCare is an absolute joke.

queencitybuckeye;702764 wrote:So the decrease they promised was a lie? Imagine.

You do know that most of the bill has not been phased in yet right? You also know that the bill was designed to save money in the future by slowing the increase of costs and covering many more people right?

Bigdogg;703103 wrote:You do know that most of the bill has not been phased in yet right? You also know that the bill was designed to save money in the future by slowing the increase of costs and covering many more people right?

That's such an oversimplified analysis. The only people that can definitively say if covering more people will decrese costs or not are the actuaries of each company that have the true pool data in front of them.

Bigdogg;703103 wrote:You do know that most of the bill has not been phased in yet right? You also know that the bill was designed to save money in the future by slowing the increase of costs and covering many more people right?

You do know that the President of the United States promised day one savings, right? You understand that if you promise day one savings knowing it can't possibly happen, it's a lie, right?

sleeper;703069 wrote:People are delusional to think that adding 60 million more Americans to the insurance pool would decrease costs. This ObamaCare is an absolute joke.

It would not be delusional if 40 million or so are children and/or in the 18-30 year old range. this grouping while large, typically are the most under/uninsured and claim cost are typically lower or non exixstant.

If everyone was insured, the Heath care industry would be assured of thier fees and the estimated bad debt of 22% (through bankrupsy an default would be eliminated. Theoretically heath care coasts would go down and competition would drive prices down, not up.

Do the math on just 105 Billion .....

do the math mofo

http://www.foxnews.com/topics/calculator/mandatory-funds-in-health-care-law.htm

queencitybuckeye;703309 wrote:You do know that the President of the United States promised day one savings, right? You understand that if you promise day one savings knowing it can't possibly happen, it's a lie, right?

No I don't know that, and neither do you or you could PROVE it.

Bigdogg;703468 wrote:No I don't know that,

There's virtually no limit to your lack of knowledge.

You made the declaration that the savings was to come over the long term, the burden of proof is yours.

Who or what the fuck is mofo?

queencitybuckeye;703491 wrote:There's virtually no limit to my lack of knowledge.

the burden of proof is yours.

Fixed it for you. Why is the burden of proof only on me when you run out of snappy comebacks?

Considering the bill was to be phased in over years, and there is no restriction, pretty much, on what exactly the insurance companies continue to charge (there is no competition nor general oversight), it makes sense that the insurance industry in the face of the bill that is proposed to lower their profits, require more enrollment and zero recidivism, would do their best to screw over any and all potential voters to try and get said bill changed.

Makes sense to me. Anger the public with higher premiums, deductibles and lesser coverage; get the bill overturned/repealed; rake in even more money once the regulations are history. Rinse and repeat.

Just like Medicare Part D (remember that, Bushites?) requiring their to be insurance companies acting as the middle man. Rather than Money --> Drug Producers, it was Money --> Insurance Companies --> Drug Producers. The least among us with business sense knows that adding middlemen to the system adds to the financial bloat. The middlemen have to get paid, after all. Meanwhile, the bureaucracy that everyone rails against in government spending is alive and well in addition to the insurance industry lopping some right off the top as profit. Nobody's arguing about Part D, just the healthcare bill. This fiscal sanity that people claim to be infected with doesn't pass the eyeball test.

The insurance companies care about themselves only. They're playing you for suckers and you're eating up their bullshit.

Sykotyk

Bigdogg;703577 wrote:Of course I've met Chris Hansen. Why is the burden of proof only on me when you run out of snappy comebacks?

It's so simple, you might even understand. You made a statement claiming a fact. Said fact is in dispute (as you made it up). The burden of proof is yours.

Thread Bomber;703345 wrote:It would not be delusional if 40 million or so are children and/or in the 18-30 year old range. this grouping while large, typically are the most under/uninsured and claim cost are typically lower or non exixstant.

If everyone was insured, the Heath care industry would be assured of thier fees and the estimated bad debt of 22% (through bankrupsy an default would be eliminated. Theoretically heath care coasts would go down and competition would drive prices down, not up.

If everyone is insured, but not everyone is paying their fair share, then the people who are paying for insurance will have their premiums increase. This is insurance basics, healthcare costs are going up, thanks Obama.

queencitybuckeye;703645 wrote:It's so simple, you might even understand. You made a statement claiming a fact. Said fact is in dispute (as you made it up). The burden of proof is yours.

Well, if you must play your little childish games, I will say that according to the GAO's projections and the Kaiser Foundation, it is a fact. Now you can try to refute.

http://www.kff.org/healthreform/upload/8149_ES.pdf

Bigdogg;703747 wrote:Well, if you must play your little childish games, I will say that according to the GAO's projections and the Kaiser Foundation, it is a fact. Now you can try to refute.

http://www.kff.org/healthreform/upload/8149_ES.pdf

Where does it disprove that the president promised first year savings?

Can anyone offer proof that the insurance companies are losing money since this bill was signed into law? We hear and see a lot about premiums going up (mine's at $1200/month for me and my wife) and coverage going down, but all we've heard from those on here who support the big insurance companies is that their costs have gone up. What about the profits?

Thread Bomber;703044 wrote:Like I said, this is cheap. The really big problem that I see with this, is that because you wife's employer decided to drop her coverage, your employer ( the school system) has to pick up the tab. assuming that your copay (if you have one) is around 60 dollars, your premium costs would be about 130.00 a month. THIS IS CHEAP. Employers generally pay about 80% of the health care premiums, so the cost to the TAXPAYERS of your community is about 1040 a month. even more if you have procreated.

I don't feel that sorry for you, but I assume that your wife had a contribution as well. so it sound to me like it is really costing you about 20 bucks a month. Go cry somewhere else.

You do realize he is a gym teacher and you are probably confusing him with all those numbers.

Yep, definitely being driven out of business. For sure.

They are saving up for when the big bad government moves to take them over.

Those profits may drop, but I doubt it. I really do. There is no way the government forces them out, their lobby is too damn strong.

queencitybuckeye;703760 wrote:Where does it disprove that the president promised first year savings?

Try to stay on topic. Where did I say that? That's right I did not. Either put up or shut up.

Bigdogg;704392 wrote:Try to stay on topic. Where did I say that? That's right I did not. Either put up or shut up.

Post #33. You just went from uninformed to a liar.

queencitybuckeye;704646 wrote:Post #33. You just went from uninformed to a liar.

Perhaps he forgot that he posted that?

One of the problems is that the fedgov=the largest astoundingly inefficient middle man on the planet. Does anyone think they have done an admirable job with social security, with medicare, with medicaid, with fannie mae, with freddie mac, with energy, with education, with cash for clunkers, with bridges to nowhere, for god sake with their own checkbooks, etc, etc, etc ... the list is nearly endless. With dozens of ponzi schemes and examples of borderline fraud why would anyone even begin to have a sanguine thought that they could somehow achieve efficacy with the largest most complex issue to date? Are political blinders really so opaque that one would follow a political ideology that is preordained for failure and play dancing music as the titanic sinks?

Make no mistake this will end as yet another vote buying slush fund for the politico elitists. They will borrow and steal from it until failure is eminent and then will make the proclamation that fedgov controlled universal healthcare is a must to save us all. Does anyone here really want to wait for 18 months to get an MRI if they are ill? Does anyone really want to wait a year for surgery that is needed? Then at the end of the failure our kids and grandkids will be rioting in the streets, like the Greeks, as the known failed model they chose to follow is once again proven unsustainable and benefits are cut.

When will some folks stop buying into 'we need the fedgov to do it for us'? Look at the world example. The US is the most powerful and one of the youngest countries on the planet. We did not get here through socialism or communism. Why would we want to follow those proven failed political practices? We have our own history as an example of how well small government works. Do we really want to be France or the Soviet Union or Greece? Or do we want to be the society that in a mere 200 years went from 13 colonies to the greatest nation on the globe? Our forefathers founded on the theory, our ancestors died to establish the theory, and we the people have proven the theory that a small government of the people by the people and for the people really does work. Do we really want to cast aside what our federal government was intended to be and in exchange follow failed logic? All of this at the behest of politicians that "know" what is best for us even if we ourselves don't?!?! Politicians that I might add have adamantly chosen not to participate themselves!

Are we the people really as dumb as they portray us to be?!?!

:steps down off of the free speech soapbox just in time for our fedgov to hide it in a warehouse in the name of protecting us from ourselves: