Forget Wikileaks...this is the real October Surprise that is going to stop Hillary

a reply to: shooterbrody

It's browser froze

originally posted by: mobiusmale

originally posted by: Greggers

originally posted by: Mr Headshot
a reply to: kruphix
Kinda going to spin off that, but isn't it funny that that is the argument being made by the left now? The poor and disaffected who don't get the insurance through their work (basically the people who were invoked to pass the bill) are going to, now, take the brunt of the hikes.

Of course they will because they're the ones on the exchanges.

One thing Hillary would like to do is provide more federal funding to get younger people signed up, to lower the risk pool and in turn lower premiums.

Of course, the Republicans won't work with her on it because "OBAMACARE," so who knows.

I guess everyone is holding out for single payer, which is the inevitable result once the insurance industry collapses under the high cost of medical treatment.

"More Federal Funding" is just code for, "we are going to increase taxes"...so Hillary's solution for high Health insurance Premiums, is to move the taxpayer drain a little farther to left and call it something else.

I mean what choice would she have, if she wants to keep some semblance of this disaster intact? The Obama/Clinton regime doubled the National Debt to over $20 trillion dollars in 8 yearts...how much deeper can that go before the whole bubble bursts?

She wants to increase the penalty for not signing up.

Besides, Insurance companies are dropping out and so are doctors that will take the govt ins.

Which will drive prices up across the board.

She doesn't even talk a good line.

People will have to go to the Philippines or Thailand for medical care that's affordable.

Hell, Cuba would be better. Moore might be prophetic.

a reply to: Mandroid7

Where did that come from.
I have Aetna and my deductible is between 50.00 for a first visit and 2000.00 for a surgery.

a reply to: lordcomac

What does any of that have to do with ACA? Your rate increases have nothing to do with Obama care. That's your insurance company.

a reply to: burgerbuddy

There's a new 30 story marble/glass building in downtown Chicago that many of the top-rated doctors are moving into. None of them accept insurance, because the reimbursement rate is declining, while the aggravation of processing claims is increasing. The offices are clean, expensively appointed, contain the very latest medical technology, with almost no wait time. It's where Hillary would be transported, if she passed-out on the curb here.

originally posted by: Sillyolme
a reply to: lordcomac

Your rate increases have nothing to do with Obama care.

WRONG.

originally posted by: carewemust
a reply to: burgerbuddy

There's a new 30 story marble/glass building in downtown Chicago that many of the top-rated doctors are moving into. None of them accept insurance, because the reimbursement rate is declining, while the aggravation of processing claims is increasing. The offices are clean, expensively appointed, contain the very latest medical technology, with almost no wait time. It's where Hillary would be transported, if she passed-out on the curb here.

Doctors who don't accept any insurance are clearly catering to the super wealthy. Kudos to them if they can corner that market. Clearly that solution will only work for a small percentage of them.

The rest of them are going to need to accept some form of insurance, public or private, or they simply will not get paid.

originally posted by: Sillyolme
a reply to: lordcomac

What does any of that have to do with ACA? Your rate increases have nothing to do with Obama care. That's your insurance company.

Perhaps that's true. It's hard to tell. Insurance rates have been increasing dramatically for years, and would continue to do so with or without the ACA. I was hopeful that if we could truly level out the risk pool, the ACA could actually lower rates, and maybe Hillary's next incarnation of the ACA will fix that, assuming she can get Congress to actually work with her on it. Perhaps not. Who knows.

It's certainly hard to pin any particular rate hike directly on the ACA given all the other variables at play.

a reply to: Greggers

Your link is stupid. Sorry you used a stupid link?

Low income earners pay an effective tax rate of 0 to 7%, middle income earners pay an effective tax rate of 5-15%. High end earners pay an effective tax rate if 20-25%.

Your problem is you are leaning on a stupid blogger for your information.

The bottom half of earners pay little to no taxes in the US. The top earners pay the majority of the taxes.

How much tax income the US gets is not the problem. How we spend our money is the problem.

a reply to: kruphix

So then your belligerence is intentional. No doubt you are also affected by the rising costs of insurance which are, and all experts agree, a direct result of the ACA. Even Hilary agrees.

originally posted by: Greggers

originally posted by: carewemust
a reply to: burgerbuddy

There's a new 30 story marble/glass building in downtown Chicago that many of the top-rated doctors are moving into. None of them accept insurance, because the reimbursement rate is declining, while the aggravation of processing claims is increasing. The offices are clean, expensively appointed, contain the very latest medical technology, with almost no wait time. It's where Hillary would be transported, if she passed-out on the curb here.

Doctors who don't accept any insurance are clearly catering to the super wealthy. Kudos to them if they can corner that market. Clearly that solution will only work for a small percentage of them.

The rest of them are going to need to accept some form of insurance, public or private, or they simply will not get paid.

A lot of people coming to these doctors are "well off", but not super wealthy. This group of people need something done that one of those doctors specializes, and has an excellent success rate with. I have a client who paid $38,000 cash for a July 2016 bladder surgery, with a specialist who had a 98% success rating. This specialist stopped taking insurance on January 1st, 2016. The $38,000 came from his retirement savings. (His Blue Cross paid for the Hospital and other Charges)

originally posted by: raymundoko
a reply to: Greggers

Your link is stupid. Sorry you used a stupid link?

I gave you a chance to discuss this like a civil adult. You failed. Go ahead and take the last word. You and I will not be conversing further. Life's too short.

a reply to: Greggers

I explained why it was stupid. Your link assumes low income earners pay their actual tax rate instead of their effective tax rate.

It's a stupid link, written by someone who doesn't understand tax brackets in the US...

As far as your edit about giving me the last word goes, it's obvious you are in over your head. You have zero knowledge of what you argue for or about. You used a stupid source and when it got pointed out you took your ball and went home.

originally posted by: Greggers

originally posted by: carewemust
a reply to: burgerbuddy

There's a new 30 story marble/glass building in downtown Chicago that many of the top-rated doctors are moving into. None of them accept insurance, because the reimbursement rate is declining, while the aggravation of processing claims is increasing. The offices are clean, expensively appointed, contain the very latest medical technology, with almost no wait time. It's where Hillary would be transported, if she passed-out on the curb here.

Doctors who don't accept any insurance are clearly catering to the super wealthy. Kudos to them if they can corner that market. Clearly that solution will only work for a small percentage of them.

The rest of them are going to need to accept some form of insurance, public or private, or they simply will not get paid.

Or may not expend the time energy and money to become a medical doctor in the first place, such as in Canada where chemo is scheduled months into the future. But so long as the porch monkeys get their reparations it's all goot.

originally posted by: Greggers

originally posted by: raymundoko
a reply to: Greggers

Your link is stupid. Sorry you used a stupid link?

I gave you a chance to discuss this like a civil adult. You failed. Go ahead and take the last word. You and I will not be conversing further. Life's too short.

You got owned and going to your safe space typical gay lib stuff.

a reply to: Sopadi

What does being gay have to do with anything?

a reply to: Greggers


ONE Wellmark Insurance customer in Iowa had $18 million dollars in claims in just one year. This one patient is responsible for 10% of Wellmark's 42.6% rate increase for 2017.

Link to Article: www.lifehealthpro.com...

If this patient needed that expensive medical care before ObamaScrew was fully implemented on 1.1.2014, he/she would have enrolled in government-subsidized, Blue Cross, high-risk-pool insurance...or died if he/she didn't.

The above is just one example of how Obamacare was designed by SMART people who thinks every citizen in America is STUPID. (Just ask ACA chief architect, Jonathan Gruber: www.youtube.com... )

a reply to: bigfatfurrytexan

AH, but THEN it becomes cheaper to withhold end of life care after 75.

originally posted by: Sopadi

originally posted by: Greggers

originally posted by: carewemust
a reply to: burgerbuddy

There's a new 30 story marble/glass building in downtown Chicago that many of the top-rated doctors are moving into. None of them accept insurance, because the reimbursement rate is declining, while the aggravation of processing claims is increasing. The offices are clean, expensively appointed, contain the very latest medical technology, with almost no wait time. It's where Hillary would be transported, if she passed-out on the curb here.

Doctors who don't accept any insurance are clearly catering to the super wealthy. Kudos to them if they can corner that market. Clearly that solution will only work for a small percentage of them.

The rest of them are going to need to accept some form of insurance, public or private, or they simply will not get paid.

Or may not expend the time energy and money to become a medical doctor in the first place, such as in Canada where chemo is scheduled months into the future. But so long as the porch monkeys get their reparations it's all goot.

Very true, on both points, Sopadi. I know a lady who came to the USA to get her cervical cancer treated, because she would have died in Canada, where the first available date for Chemotherapy was 8 months in the future.

That's what "single payer" would do here in America, unless everyone's taxes were raised by AT LEAST $4,600 a year, to start the ball rolling.