Ted Cruz has to go on "Obamacare"

[Michchamp]

Heh.

We haven't really talked about this guy yet, but I think he'll be an awesome candidate.... for comedic purposes.

I don't know why attacking the ACA continues to be a viable political angle to play, but like H.L. Mencken said?No one ever went broke underestimating the intelligence of the American public.?

 

[tinselwolverine]

I wonder why this is news. The freshman Senator first came into the national spotlight with this catheter/diaper aided (technically not a) "filibuster" in protest of the ACA a year and a half ago, when he recited Dr. Seuss's Green Eggs and Ham.

NEWSFLASH: TED CRUZ STILL OPPOSES THE ACA.

 

[turok]

The ACA really mainly benefits healthcare (hospitals) insurance and Big Pharma. I wanted to apply to obtain coverage to supplement Medicare but the very cheapest premium that I could find was $367.00 per month even AFTER being reduced by $150 by factoring in my annual income from disability. That doesn't even include the huge deductible and co-pays. The premium alone is more than I pay for my monthly Rx and office visit.

Most people who need coverage STILL have to pay lots of $$$ to go to clinics and medical facilities before the annual deductible is even met.

But hey the hospitals like it b/c it prevents covered patients from running up huge bills that they can't ever pay off.

Fucking ridiculous.

 

[TheVictors]

The Donald is going Birther on Cruz the Canadian now, too ....

Lol

 

[tinselwolverine]

Michigan's own George Romney sought the Republican Presidential nomination after having been born to U.S. Citizen missionaries in Mexico.

John McCain was born on a U.S. Naval base in the Panama Canal Zone.

McCain and Peter King, both considered to be in the more moderate, sometimes referred to the "establishment" wing of the Republican party, were particularly critical of Cruz's tactics regarding his not really a filibuster.

 

[turok]

I find Jimmy Fallon, who now hosts the Tonight Show to go waay too overboard in how adoringly he treats his guests (most of whom are pushing something that they are selling such as a new album, book, or movie, which is why they are appearing on most other daytime talk shows as well).

But anyway, last night he made light of Cruz during his monologue, with out-takes of Ted saying "Imagine its 1776" "Imagine its 1933" "Imagine its 1875"...then Fallon said that Cruz probably will still have to "imagine the Oval Office"...haha!!

 

[tinselwolverine]

I find Jimmy Fallon, who now hosts the Tonight Show to go waay too overboard in how adoringly he treats his guests (most of whom are pushing something that they are selling such as a new album, book, or movie, which is why they are appearing on most other daytime talk shows as well).

But anyway, last night he made light of Cruz during his monologue, with out-takes of Ted saying "Imagine its 1776" "Imagine its 1933" "Imagine its 1875"...then Fallon said that Cruz probably will still have to "imagine the Oval Office"...haha!!

Ha ha.

But probably; the Republican party tends to end up nominating Establishment types, once all is said and done.

 

[Michchamp]

it shouldn't be that complicated to come up with an objective judgment of the ACA so far.

you'd have to rule out states that intentionally mangled it's implementation or lack thereof, for political reasons.

My understanding is that although it has increased costs, marginally, for a number of people, the number of new enrollees will eventually pay for itself in the long run, as these people become healthier, and emergency room visits (which are relatively more expensive than going to a primary care physician) are reduced.

 

[turok]

it shouldn't be that complicated to come up with an objective judgment of the ACA so far.

you'd have to rule out states that intentionally mangled it's implementation or lack thereof, for political reasons.

My understanding is that although it has increased costs, marginally, for a number of people, the number of new enrollees will eventually pay for itself in the long run, as these people become healthier, and emergency room visits (which are relatively more expensive than going to a primary care physician) are reduced.

It is my opinion that NO health insurer should be able to profit from the illnesses, injuries, and/or diseases suffered or contracted by US citizens. All should be non-profit, although their execs and top level managers likely are being paid beaucoup bucks in salaries to begin with, and regardless of status.


Single-payer FTW.

 

[Gulo Blue]

it shouldn't be that complicated to come up with an objective judgment of the ACA so far.

you'd have to rule out states that intentionally mangled it's implementation or lack thereof, for political reasons.

My understanding is that although it has increased costs, marginally, for a number of people, the number of new enrollees will eventually pay for itself in the long run, as these people become healthier, and emergency room visits (which are relatively more expensive than going to a primary care physician) are reduced.

I disagree. I think it is complicated. I don't think there's simple evidence yet that it helped or hurt. In terms of cost, mine went up 21% this year, but that seems to be atypical. It's getting more people insured. That's good. But I also think it's put insurance companies in a more powerful position and made it tougher for us to make more significant changes in the future.

 

[turok]

That graph charts only premium increases, not deductibles and co-pays. What hasn't changed much since the ACA was implemented, is that many employed and self-employed still cannot afford to go to see a primary physician, b/c after paying the monthly premium, they don't have enough left in their budgets to also pay for the deductibles and co-pays required immediately before or prior to office visits/appointments and any resulting treatment, exams, and medications. So many will still avoid seeking treatment, until their condition(s) become unbearably painful or worsen. Then its off to the ER instead in many cases.

 

[Gulo Blue]

That graph charts only premium increases, not deductibles and co-pays. What hasn't changed much since the ACA was implemented, is that many employed and self-employed still cannot afford to go to see a primary physician, b/c after paying the monthly premium, they don't have enough left in their budgets to also pay for the deductibles and co-pays required immediately before or prior to office visits/appointments and any resulting treatment, exams, and medications. So many will still avoid seeking treatment, until their condition(s) become unbearably painful or worsen. Then its off to the ER instead in many cases.

Agreed. The point of my posting it was that it doesn't show things getting better or worse, but you're right that it's not the entire picture either. It's a tough thing to quantify...is it better or worse? There's also the issue of doctor availability. If more people are getting care, are doctors working longer hours or did we suddenly graduate a whole bunch of doctors...or maybe, people aren't getting more care, and people that had access before are finding new roadblocks.

We're paying more to the insurance companies all together, because more people are enrolled, but how are we getting more health care in return?

 

[zyxt9]

its all part of the game. Rs and Ds pander to their big money backers for campaign funds and upon election those big money backers are the one's who benefit. both sides will tell you their plans are with you and me in mind, but really it is about increasing the income stream for those big money backers.

who stood to profit from ACA? you? me??? HA! the campaign was that it would save us money, but SURPRISE!!!...the only ones getting extra money in their pocket are...those who gave campaign money.

it's the Potomac Polka, only thing that changes are the artists and individual songs, but all of it is brought to us by DJ PIMP (Powerful Influential Money Players) is spinning the music while we dance mindlessly along to it, with some of us screaming about how much we hate this song while the others scream about how it's their favorite.

And the beat goes on...

 

[turok]

Well I don't think that the Republicans (read McCain's solution), being that the "grass is greener on the other side of the fence" or shopping across state borders for more "inexpensive" coverage is at all viable either.

It won't work with HMOs and PPOs located in other states, b/c they have a network of healthcare providers who most likely have no physical locations in most, much less many states. The same likely goes for every health insurer, since a "low cost" health insurance provider located in, for example, more rural Minot, ND would seem to be kinda loathe to accept a potential insured living in very urban Albany, NY...even IF he/she and perhaps their family is found to be relatively hale/hearty/healthy.

 

[TheVictors]

Insurance companies suck the big dong and always have.


There is a moral component that Turok touches on that makes profiting off illness and pain seem corrupt. And it's not as simple as R's and D's taking campaign contributions, the Insurance Lobby is the single biggest contributor to the GOP and not that far behind for the DEMs.

The idea that the ACA would make healthcare "accessible" to more "average Americans" is true but only because the Insurance companies themselves created that barrier to begin with.

 

[Gulo Blue]

The solution should have been to split medicine into two tiers. The government provided tier would cover older medical technologies where there isn't a lot of innovation along with primary care physicians time. The program could be smaller or bigger covering more or less depending on what we think we can afford as a nation. For example, if it covered only vaccines, it would be a tiny program. If it covered everything not developed in the last 5 years it would be gargantuan. The answer is somewhere in between and there would be a board and lobbyists and appropriations and the whole shebang figuring out what's the right level of coverage for the government to pay for. It would be crappy compared to current insurance, but awesome compared to having nothing.

The second tier would cover everything else and insurance companies would operate there just as they've always operated. Profits would work the way they do now, R&D wouldn't be impacted. I think there would be a big need for insurance. After figuring out how much the government could cover, there would be a lot left. We could still lead in technology development.

Then we'd only have to argue politically about the degree to which we provide free health care, not should we or shouldn't we. We could even ease into it gradually and prioritize preventative care and maternity care or whatever we think is the most important or cost effective.

 

[tinselwolverine]

What hasn't changed much since the ACA was implemented, is that many employed and self-employed still cannot afford to go to see a primary physician, b/c after paying the monthly premium, they don't have enough left in their budgets to also pay for the deductibles and co-pays required immediately before or prior to office visits/appointments and any resulting treatment, exams, and medications.

Except for maybe a $20 or $25 co-pay, I've never been asked for a penny at a medical facility where I've presented an insurance card before service was rendered.

Afterward, anytime I've ever gotten a bill that seemed unreasonable to me for whatever insurance wouldn't cover, I've always just called the doctor's biller and said "hey - I ain't got the money - I'll settle with you for 10% (or maybe 20%)."

Billers do negotiated workouts all the time - the facility and the doctor is getting paid something by insurance; they realize they're not getting stiffed; beyond that, if you get a bill for a substantial amount of money beyond that which insurance covered, then the doctor and the medical operation is putting you together just the same way a car dealer would - they know most people just will pony up no questions asked; the few who do ask questions? - hey; just the cost of doing business to them.

 

[tinselwolverine]

Then we'd only have to argue politically about the degree to which we provide free health care, not should we or shouldn't we. We could even ease into it gradually and prioritize preventative care and maternity care or whatever we think is the most important or cost effective.

Dude, we already provide free health care; and collectively we think we should, and we have done so for a long time.

We've just always done it in a monumentally inefficient - and what I also think has been an extremely unfair way; at least until elements of the ACA finally addressed the matter of "uninsurables" who were simply uninsurable because they weren't already as poor as dirt.

When medical bills finally rendered them poor as dirt, then they were eligible for free or next to free health care through Medicaid.

 

[biggunsbob]

You would think Parties of both would want to get together an help all Americans so we could be the best and have all their citizens were covered. It probably is going to take a revolution in the way we do politics. Probably won't happen in our lifetime with the amount of political hate we see on both sides. Probable have to start with reforming Campaign financing as corporations should not have the amount of power they do.
This two party system is just a detriment to advancing mankind. There has to be a better way then the hate I see in politics where nothing gets done. Rinse, dry repeat every 4 to 8 years.. Its tiring to watch.. The talking points on both sides are just getting old..


U.S. Healthcare Ranked Dead Last Compared To 10 Other Countries


http://www.forbes.com/sites/danmunr...ked-dead-last-compared-to-10-other-countries/


http://www.commonwealthfund.org/publications/fund-reports/2014/jun/mirror-mirror


---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Most Efficient Health Care Systems In The World (INFOGRAPHICS)

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/08/29/most-efficient-healthcare_n_3825477.html
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
New Health Rankings: Of 17 Nations, U.S. Is Dead Last

http://www.theatlantic.com/health/a...ankings-of-17-nations-us-is-dead-last/267045/
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

 

[turok]

d

You would think Parties of both would want to get together an help all Americans so we could be the best and have all their citizens were covered. It probably is going to take a revolution in the way we do politics. Probably won't happen in our lifetime with the amount of political hate we see on both sides. Probable have to start with reforming Campaign financing as corporations should not have the amount of power they do.
This two party system is just a detriment to advancing mankind. There has to be a better way then the hate I see in politics where nothing gets done. Rinse, dry repeat every 4 to 8 years.. Its tiring to watch.. The talking points on both sides are just getting old.

Do away with lobbys? That is where many former legislators go to die once they lose their seats...not gonna happen. Neither will campaign contributions, since these puppets can't dance without strings.

The ACA is supposed to prohibit health insurers from rejecting applicants b/c of pre-existing conditions, but w/o reading the entirety of the Act, I don't know if that also means that they can't redline insureds, refuse to cover certain treatments or procedures related to a pre-existing condition, and/or raise their rates/deductible/co-pays.

Obtaining affordable healthcare should never have been tied to anyone's employment, since no one is assured of working for or in the same business until retirement (except for Supreme Court justices).