"You Might Hate Obamacare, But It's Saved These People's Lives "

reply to post by NightSkyeB4Dawn


Healthcare companies love this program, it will make them all a lot of money. As I posted earlier, it's already making me a lot of money and it hasn't even taken full effect.

reply to post by AboveBoard

Sorry you had / have health problems.

But, despite your health issues and the system you had to jump hoops through, the system as it was pre-ACA worked for you?

Seems to me that all what needed changed were the hoops then.

Onslaught2996
reply to post by solomons path

 

If they are debunked claims then it should be easy to for you to post links showing this..

I refuted your claim, as asked. The only links debunking, will be claimed by you, to be from ACA haters. I have a license in the industry and work with the companies daily.

So at this point, you are just talking in circles and repeatedly ignoring the actual content of my posts. There is a name for people like you .... But the mods don't appreciate it when I use it.

reply to post by Onslaught2996

reply to post by AboveBoard


Yes, absolutely agree. We need to take the for-profit insurance companies out of the healthcare equation altogether. There are other countries who use not-for-profit health insurance companies that are heavily regulated, to control costs. There are other countries who put profit caps on healthcare industries, to control costs. There are other countries who firmly believe that basic healthcare is a RIGHT, not a privilege. We don't need capitalism and free markets when it comes to healthcare.

reply to post by MsAphrodite


May not be relevant to the topic but it is relevant to the other posters who are in this thread spreading lies about ObamaCare.

I am simply refuting those claims.

kaylaluv
reply to post by AboveBoard

 

Yes, absolutely agree. We need to take the for-profit insurance companies out of the healthcare equation altogether. There are other countries who use not-for-profit health insurance companies that are heavily regulated, to control costs. There are other countries who put profit caps on healthcare industries, to control costs. There are other countries who firmly believe that basic healthcare is a RIGHT, not a privilege. We don't need capitalism and free markets when it comes to healthcare.

Might as well take the 'for profit' doctors out too, right?

Human nature is to get ahead, not just get by.

reply to post by solomons path


Supply them.

You have done nothing to refute anything, made some claims with no information to back them up.

Don't be afraid of the Mods, say what you want. Ugh..your fear makes you look weak.

Onslaught2996
Myth #2: Premium Prices Will Increase Due To Health Care Law

ROFLOL

The brilliant explanation for myth#2 is full of *Are Expected To Be*,
and are mainly full of biased reports from the HHS itself.
now *who* actually trusts those criminals ?

And naturally, the alleged *myth* about extremely high deductibles is not even addressed in that puny little story from MediaMatters, which is a notorious ultra Left Wing NGO.

The *myths* addressed are mainly generic.

But I guess since most *myths* are already apparent, there would be no genuine things to address.

Weak. Fail.

Onslaught2996
reply to post by solomons path

 

Supply them.

You have done nothing to refute anything, made some claims with no information to back them up.

Don't be afraid of the Mods, say what you want. Ugh..your fear makes you look weak.

It's often said one can't prove a negative, so despite the fact my situation proves ACA is a negative we'll ignore that.

Prove ACA is a positive, lowers everyone's premiums and provides for better care than the existent system.

abecedarian
reply to post by AboveBoard

 

Sorry you had / have health problems.

But, despite your health issues and the system you had to jump hoops through, the system as it was pre-ACA worked for you?

Seems to me that all what needed changed were the hoops then.

edit on 10/6/2013 by abecedarian because: (no reason given)

Thank you.

But to answer your comments, it did not work for me, which is what I'm trying to say. It did not work because I was not allowed to buy into the insurance system. I was too high of a risk for their bottom line.

I'm actually lucky to be alive. I did not have recommended follow up tests because I could not afford it and was blocked from purchasing insurance by the insurance companies for 10 years after remission.

So it was more than not liking jumping-hoops, it was putting my life at risk. I'm not joking about that.

It would do the same for my youngest son if the system had not changed.

My insurance would not cover my son's disability, forcing us to use State/Federal funds in Medicaid, costing taxpayers the money that we THOUGHT insurance would pay.

Thank you for responding.

- AB

These are fundamental issues that were pre-ACA - bad things about the insurance industry and what they did to keep their bottom line happy, so to speak.

reply to post by abecedarian


www.huffingtonpost.com...

So what can the U.S. learn from the many countries that get more bang for their health care buck? Unsurprisingly, there is no one formula for success when it comes to efficient medical care. The systems that rank highly on Bloomberg's list are as diverse as the nations to which they belong. The unifying factor seems to be tight government control over a universal system, which may take many shapes and forms -- a fact evident in the top-three most efficient health care systems in the world: Hong Kong, Singapore, and Japan.

Ranking third on Bloomberg's list, the Japanese system involves universal health care with mandatory participation funded by payroll taxes paid by both employer and employee, or income-based premiums by the self-employed. Long-term care insurance is also required for those older than 40. As Dr. John W. Traphagan notes in The Diplomat, Japan controls costs by setting flat rates for everything from medications to procedures, thus eliminating competition among insurance providers. While most of the country's hospitals are privately owned and operated, the government implements smart regulations to ensure that the system remains universal and egalitarian.

Despite being considered by some as having the freest economy in the world, Hong Kong's universal health care system involves heavy government participation; its own health secretary calls public medicine the "cornerstone" of the system. Public hospitals account for 90 percent of in-patient procedures, while the numerous private options are mostly used by the wealthy.

reply to post by Willtell


Yay for them.

Now get the hell out of my damned wallet and let ME decide what I want and need to spend my own damned money on.

This is a new era in the world. There has never, ever been forced consumership before this. No one has ever forced people to buy things they neither want nor need before this. No one has ever forced people to purchase useless corporate crap before this.

Huxley, your Brave New World is upon us.

reply to post by xuenchen


So you got nothing, coming from you it was expected.

You are one of the more outspoken liars on ATS. You create a thread, then when facts and truths are shown to counter your propaganda..you simply disappear and move on to the next thread you can create.

But hey continue the threads.. you are only reaching those that already buy into the BS. You gain no headway with anyone else..so good job..

reply to post by Willtell

But that is the point, the entire law needs to be scrapped. It is a bad law, make no mistake about it. And trying to put a band aide on it will do nothing to remedy the situation, save only make things more confusing that what it already is.
The problem with not scraping and just leaving it in place, is that it leaves too many doors opened and closed, and makes it more confusing. Point in case would be the IRS tax laws, instead of coming up with a new law and writing into it that with its passing the old is scrapped, all they do is add more and more to the law that is on the books, where no one really can understand what is in the law in the first place and it is a bad mess and confuses everyone. Too many laws are on the books right now that are exactly like that.
Getting a law passed is easy, getting one removed is a lot harder, nearly impossible.
Some of the problems with this law in particular is that is on how it is written and still keeps the system that created the problems in the first place. The government went to those who provide the funding, namely the health insurance companies and asked how to lower rates, get more people on the books. That is a good idea, however, they failed to follow through and remove the monopolistic control over such in the states. And therein lies part of the problem. The health insurance companies in their greed, and as a business that is a virtue, did not consider the ramifications of this law until recently and they are starting to go belly up, as they cannot provide the coverage that is required by law.
And it is that factor of coverage that is at the heart of the problem as well. Tell me is it fair to force someone who has no interest in children or has children or is past the child rearing age to carry insurance for children? But that is what this law does, thus the cost of the coverage goes up, and as every state has a different guidelines as to what should and should not be covered, it is starting to quickly move to all states, even if said procedure is not acceptable or liked in that state. Just imagine how many on the religious right will respond when they find out that their health insurance will now have to cover say abortion or even sex change operations. And if one cannot afford such, the government, i.e. WE the People, will pay for such.
The solution is simple and one that would make the most sense, remove the law, take it off the books. Mandate that all employers will provide health insurance to all employees, that no one person no matter what can be refused. The keep the costs low, remove the barriers that are on the health insurance companies, open it up to pure competition across the entire country and sit back and let market forces take effect. That is the one way and start for such.

Who pays for the surgeries?

Who pays for the medical care?

Who pays for the medicine?

reply to post by beezzer


I would rather pay to help people survive and stay healthy, rather than forking out money to pay for weapons to kill people and destroy a country's infrastructure overseas, government programs that spy on their own citizens, the high cost of salaries and benefits for career politicians, pork barrel projects, military bases around the world, trillions of dollars for black projects, corporate welfare, and foreign aid.

We already waste millions of tax payer's money in other areas, but I guess that's more important than saving human lives. Here's some more examples of wasted revenue that should be used on our nations healthcare...

Most Outrageous Government Waste

Has it occurred to you that those are fake?

Why do I think they are fake?

OBAMACARE does not begin covering ANYTHING until January 1st. One lady said she already had surgery.

FAKE FAKE FAKE

reply to post by abecedarian


The best I can do is show the facts and myths about ObamaCare.

Obamacare exchanges open: Facts, myths and tips

Your guide to the Affordable Care Act: separating the facts from the myths

reply to post by Onslaught2996


None of your sources points to any facts at all.

Zero Zilch.

There's not much to respond to in fact.

All opinions from biased sources with no comparisons and backup.

Complete Fail.

But they all do seem to support the Left Wing Bank/Corporatism.

k21968
Has it occurred to you that those are fake?

Why do I think they are fake?

OBAMACARE does not begin covering ANYTHING until January 1st. One lady said she already had surgery.

FAKE FAKE FAKE

We've already cleared this up. The PCIP federal insurance program was a part of the ACA, and was effective in 2010. Also effective in 2010 was being able to have an adult child under 26 kept on their parents' insurance plan. It's not false information, in that these things have been available since 2010. Is it a marketing ploy to promote the new healthcare law? Sure it is. Is it based on a lie? No it is not.