patrick.net

Homeboy says

Yeah, back in the time before Fox News.

Obligatory:

Oh noes, Big Government!!!

freak80 says

You mean SSRI's?

Yes, they were advertised on TV as "not habit forming" until overwhelming evidence showed physical dependence, in fact some reports found them more addictive than cocaine or heroin. Hospital maternity wards report neonatal convulsions due to withdrawal from paroxetine, which is also a taratogen, but there is no easy advice for women who become pregnant on that drug because withdrawal can also cause miscarriage. Unfortunately, Homefool believes only the manufacturers' and dealers' paid verbiage, and dismisses all contrary evidence. Somehow the "not habit forming" phrase encourages prescribers, so it gets recycled a lot, from the original heroin (advertised as a non-addictive version of morphine) all the way through to Purdue's Oxycontin fraud (and notice the executives weren't imprisoned, even as teens resorted to prostitution and theft to maintain their habit and even Rush Bimbaugh got arrested).

I was put on SSRI's for anxiety disorder. The drugs only made the anxiety worse and I ended up in the hospital with a full-blown panic attack.

But I guess that's a whole new topic.

freak80 says

But I guess that's a whole new topic.

Yes, for now, but I think that with this legislation the Congress crossed the Rubicon. For the first time, they can conscript everyone into contracts with their corporate sponsors, essentially for life. The false purported rationale (if everyone is required to buy whatever their sponsors are selling, then prices will magically be lower) can apply more readily to other markets. For example, if everyone were required to buy a Toll Brothers house, or a GM car, then those corporations could reap economies of scale and reduce advertising costs, and might conceivably pass those savings along to customers. Everyone needs housing - and a car of course, mustn't walk or bicycle anywhere. If everyone were required to eat broccoli and exercise regularly, they might be healthier, so medical costs might be lower with fewer unhealthy people shifting their costs onto everyone else; it will be interesting to see if insurers begin writing those requirements into their "Affordable" policies. Worse, with insurers buying hospital corporations and corporate practice groups, I wonder what "preventive care" mandates may creep into those insurance contracts, in order to comply with the MLR requirements. (Homefool Dislikes and then Ignores the fact that the corporate parent of an insurer can also own a for-profit provider, thus shifting the profit from the insurance side to the network provider side, e.g. go get yourself irradiated so our insurance subsidiary incurs a $1k "medical loss" while our provider subsidiary incurs a $1k revenue; don't worry if you can't afford it, we'll use you as a conduit for government subsidies. The implications are limitless, and I suspect the OP headline marks only the beginning of the nightmares that may flow from this legislation.

curious2 says

Yes, for now, but I think that with this legislation the Congress crossed the Rubicon. For the first time, they can conscript everyone into contracts with
their corporate sponsors, essentially for life.

So it sounds like America's health care racket (I mean system) will be even worse than before?

Right now we seem to have the worst of "socialized medicine" (high costs) and the wrost of "free market medicine" (lack of access).

But I guess the whole notion of going to a Canadian type system is just too "socialist" for God fearin' hard workin' 'Murricans.

zzyzzx says

Obligatory:

Wow, you really believe that there's a "liberal" media bias, don't you?

Amazing.

freak80 says

So it sounds like America's health care racket (I mean system) will be even worse than before?

How so?

Before we had:

1. Double-digit yearly increases in healthcare premiums

2. Anyone could be denied health insurance simply at the whim of the insurance company

3. If the insurance company deemed you a high risk, there was no limit on how much extra they could charge you for insurance (that's if they even offered insurance to you at all)

4. Even if you worked 40 hours or more per week, your employer didn't have to even offer you health insurance.

5. For jobs that did provide health insurance, many people were stuck at their job because they couldn't afford to lose the insurance.

6. Medical costs were the number one reason for personal bankruptcy.

7. There was no standardization of what coverage was offered and therefore no way to compare policies in an informed way.

So please, explain how it's going to be worse than THAT.

Homeboy says

Wow, you really believe that there's a "liberal" media bias, don't you?

Amazing.

Wow, you really believe that there's a "Fox News" bias, don't you?

Amazing.

Homeboy says

So please, explain how it's going to be worse than THAT.

I am sure that even you understand that we simply exchanged one set of problems for another set of problems.

Homeboy says

7. There was no standardization of what coverage was offered and therefore no way to compare policies in an informed way.

The standardizations were at the state level, now they might be at the national level (unless some states have requirements that exceed the federal requirements).

Homeboy says

6. Medical costs were the number one reason for personal bankruptcy.

Tell that to the people whose rates went up like the person in the article. They should be able to buy the same bare bones plan that they had before, but Obama decided differently.

Homeboy says

4. Even if you worked 40 hours or more per week, your employer didn't have to even offer you health insurance.

And they still don't under some circumstances. This will keep some small companies from expanding. Exactly how does that help?

Homeboy says

1. Double-digit yearly increases in healthcare premiums

Which will most likely occur under Obamacare as well.

EBGuy says

It's pretty clear from the article that they had some type of catastrophic care plan. In fact, if you look at articles that are critical of ACA, most compare catastrophic plans for the young and healthy to what will be available under ACA. It's somewhat sneaky, as it's not an apples to apples comparison, but it is also legitimate as many of the catastrophic care plans will no longer be offered. The ACA limits premiums for older folks to 3x those of younger folks. The younger generation does take a bit of a hit.

Also, don't forget that pre-aca, some policies had a lifetime cap. So, have an expensive ailment, hit the cap, goodbye.

And, through the magic of recission, when someone files an expensive claim, the insurance company then could look for some overlooked pre-existing condition and cancel the policy retroactively. Without returns of premiums of course. "Oh, I see that you forgot to mention that you went to the doctor for the flu on Nov 2, 2002. So of course this is a pre-existing condition, and we can't cover your cancer treatment."

And in both cases, it would be difficult to impossible to get another policy.

But yes, it did only cost $333 per month.

SiO2 says

Also, don't forget that pre-aca, some policies had a lifetime cap. So, have an expensive ailment, hit the cap, goodbye.

The lifetime cap was a good thing. Eliminating that means they we will be paying millions so that someone can live an extra few weeks.

SiO2 says

through the magic of recission, when someone files an expensive claim, the insurance company then could look for some overlooked pre-existing condition and cancel the policy retroactively.

Insurers can still do that. The ability to rescind for "fraud" was preserved specifically, so don't forget that headcold or yeast infection you had as a teenager, they can say you "defrauded" them. I lose patience with Obamadrones who drone on about "no more pre-existing conditions" as if their snake oil was going to cure everyone of everything, heal the lame, etc. All you've done is handed the same people with the same incentives more money and more money and power than ever before. As Homefool's own statistics showed, premium increases had been slowing because they were already too high; costs should have fallen, but Obamacare stepped in to push them even higher than would have occurred under prior law. Morons who know nothing about math fell for scary headlines about how premiums on their prior rates would go higher than total GDP, a mathematically impossible event, but it became somehow a rallying cry to increase spending further than had ever been possible before. This being a real estate forum, Obamacare is like requiring everyone to sign a 125% mortgage backed by Fannie & Freddie so you can overpay for your mandatory house that's badly built on a shoddy foundation and with a leaky roof but it costs triple because you have to buy it no matter what and don't worry if you can't afford it the subsidies will shift the costs onto your neighbors' kids.

zzyzzx says

Homeboy says

Wow, you really believe that there's a "liberal" media bias, don't you?

Amazing.

Wow, you really believe that there's a "Fox News" bias, don't you?

Amazing.

Ha, I see what you did there. Man, you are so fucking clever.

Homeboy says

So please, explain how it's going to be worse than THAT.

You clearly wouldn't understand, as you thought Romney would be worse than Obama. At this point, what would be the quantifier?

Eat your shit sandwich and shut the fuck up already. When shits fucked up, it's a fools task to try to assess the situation by defaulting the outcome to "The best of the current offerings".

When you're lost at sea, you would expect drinking salt water would be better than nothing, as well. But you'd be deadly mistaken.

What I don't get is how people defend Obamacare, by citing the rash of shit that Homeboy so dimly outlined above.
I mean yeah, we had pre-exsiting clauses, but NO premiums weren't raising every year until the Liberals did a number on it.
And yes one would go bankrupt if they are caught with a major catastrophic ailment with out insurance.

But let me put it to you like this. What good is an insurance if paying the premiums requires your last budgeted dollar, when in the event you might need major medical care, but you haven't met your yearly deductible, copay and co insurance payment.

Most clinics, hospitals, and doctors are going to want any portion you are required to pay upfront.

So basically Obamacare already bankrupts people long before they ever get fucking sick. It's going to be Obamacare its self that is going to make people the sickest the most.

zzyzzx says

I am sure that even you understand that we simply exchanged one set of problems for another set of problems.

The question was, how does Obamacare make those specific problems I itemized WORSE? I see you are unable to answer the question.

zzyzzx says

The standardizations were at the state level, now they might be at the national level (unless some states have requirements that exceed the federal requirements).

Wrong. There WAS no standardization "at the state level". Insurance companies offered 15 or 20 different plans, each with different amounts of coverage and different premiums. There was no way to compare different companies' insurance plans side by side. You can pretend to yourself and try to revise history, but everyone with a brain and a memory knows what you're saying is complete bullshit.

zzyzzx says

Tell that to the people whose rates went up like the person in the article. They should be able to buy the same bare bones plan that they had before, but Obama decided differently.

If they can't afford insurance, they will get a subsidy. A family has to make over $90,000 before they are ineligible for the subsidy. Sorry, but I've got no sympathy for people making six figures complaining they can't afford stuff. You can afford it; you're just being pussies.

Nobody should have to have a "bare bones" health insurance policy. That's ridiculous. We have an inalienable right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness, and those 3 things require good health. We all have a basic human right to receive quality health care, not "bare bones" healthcare.

zzyzzx says

And they still don't under some circumstances. This will keep some small companies from expanding. Exactly how does that help?

That is your claim, but you have not proven it. I have seen no statistical evidence that business growth has been impaired by Obamacare. You do understand that anecdotes are not data, right? God, please tell me you understand that.zzyzzx says

Which will most likely occur under Obamacare as well.

That is your claim, but you have not even a scintilla of evidence to support it.

Homeboy says

The question was, how does Obamacare make those specific problems I itemized WORSE? I see you are unable to answer the question.

When someone goes from paying $333 a month to $965 a month, don't you think that's worse???

Homeboy says

That is your claim, but you have not proven it. I have seen no statistical evidence that business growth has been impaired by Obamacare

I have seen on TV small business owners saying that they will not expend beyond the limit where Obamacars kicks in.

Homeboy says

Nobody should have to have a "bare bones" health insurance policy.

Why do you hate freedom???

CaptainShuddup says

What I don't get is how people defend Obamacare, by citing the rash of shit that Homeboy so dimly outlined above.

Why I don't get is how mouth-breathing Fox News junkies just outright MAKE SHIT UP THAT ISN'T TRUE.

CaptainShuddup says

I mean yeah, we had pre-exsiting clauses, but NO premiums weren't raising every year until the Liberals did a number on it.

That is just a complete, utter fabrication. It amazes me that you have no qualms whatsoever about simply lying to our faces. I know you are aware of the truth, because I have posted the data on this forum many times. I can only conclude that you have no morals and that making up complete bullshit doesn't bother you in the least.

And it's "rising", not "raising".

CaptainShuddup says

But let me put it to you like this. What good is an insurance if paying the premiums requires your last budgeted dollar, when in the event you might need major medical care, but you haven't met your yearly deductible, copay and co insurance payment.

More crap. The coverage will be BETTER, not worse. There will now be limits on deductibles, co-pays, and out of pocket expenses.

You know what this is REALLY about? Rich fuckers being afraid they aren't going to have the upper hand on everything anymore.

zzyzzx says

I have seen on TV small business owners saying that they will not expend beyond the limit where Obamacars kicks in.

Yup - I seen it on the TV.

The plural of anecdote is not data.

zzyzzx says

When someone goes from paying $333 a month to $965 a month, don't you think that's worse???

I think that article is bullshit propaganda, and I already explained why. Nobody is getting insurance for their whole family for $333 a month. If they really are getting that price, it's some catastrophic plan that essentially isn't any better than no insurance at all. How is that "better"? How is paying for so-called "insurance" that doesn't actually cover anything better than getting real insurance that DOES cover your healthcare? Lakermania thought insurance was that cheap in Arkansas, until I pointed out that insurance is actually MORE expensive there. This is the level of ignorance I'm dealing with here.

Really, Fox News should be the Goliath in that cartoon, because they obviously are succeeding in making a lot of people believe their propaganda.

Homeboy says

Nobody is getting insurance for their whole family for $333 a month

Those people were.

Homeboy says

Yup - I seen it on the TV.

The plural of anecdote is not data.

Also read it in several newspapers.

zzyzzx, you are an idiot. And stop "liking" all your own posts. You're gonna go blind.

zzyzzx says

Homeboy says

Nobody is getting insurance for their whole family for $333 a month

Those people were.

O.K., well they can get insurance for $280 a month under Obamacare, and it's much better insurance. Since Fox Noise conveniently failed to mention their income in the article, I will assume they make $50,000 a year, which is well above the median income in Kentucky. So that's what their premium will be:

http://kff.org/interactive/subsidy-calculator/#state=&zip=&income-type=dollars&income=50000&employer-coverage=0&people=4&adult-count=2&adults[0][age]=21&adults[0][tobacco]=0&adults[1][age]=21&adults[1][tobacco]=0&child-count=2&child-tobacco=0

Obamacare win!

So I'm guessing this is more about rich people whining than it is about the middle class being unable to afford insurance.

zzyzzx said: When someone goes from paying $333 a month to $965 a month, don't you think that's worse???
As I already pointed out, unless they make more than $94.2k per year they'll get a subsidy. Median household income in Kentucky is $42.2k. For a Silver plan, a median household would pay less than $252 per month. YMMV.

EBGuy says

get a subsidy.

This comment surprised me. I've grown so accustomed to Homefool's enthusiasm for subsidies and dependence that I tune it out, but to hear it from EBGuy too, reminded me of - to my amazement - the 2012 Gingrich campaign. He kept calling Obama "the food stamp President." It seemed ridiculous at the time, but there you are, telling everyone to go on welfare. BTW, have you read the 60-page instructions and questionnaire to determine eligibility for subsidies? To go on welfare, you may need to answer a lot of questions. Is anyone in your house pregnant? Was anyone ever in foster care? How many hours do you work each week? The IRS would like to know. It wasn't enough for you that the NSA was vacuuming up your e-mails, now you want them to have all your medical and family information too? Why can't you leave people alone who weren't even bothering you?

Guess I'm gonna have to take the amazingly assholish curious2 off ignore for a minute to school him.

curious2 says

This comment surprised me. I've grown so accustomed to Homefool's enthusiasm for subsidies and dependence that I tune it out, but to hear it from EBGuy too, reminded me of - to my amazement - the 2012 Gingrich campaign. He kept calling Obama "the food stamp President." It seemed ridiculous at the time, but there you are, telling everyone to go on welfare.

I don't have enthusiasm for subsidies; I have enthusiasm for healthcare that is affordable and that everyone can have. I believe healthcare should be a basic human right, not a luxury that only the wealthy receive. I think a lot of people agree with me.

I only mention subsidies a lot because you mouth-breathing righttards keep lying and claiming that so-and-so member of the middle class won't be able to afford Obamacare. This is simply false. It is pure bullshit from the Republican/Fox News propaganda machine. If you want me to stop mentioning subsidies, stop lying and pretending they don't exist.

You believe Obama has done too much to help the middle class, while I believe he hasn't done ENOUGH. Wealth inequality continues to grow under his tenure, as do handouts to the super-rich elite on Wall Street. Yeah, it would be great if the playing field were level, and the elite didn't gobble up all the wealth by getting interest-free loans from the Fed and somehow making millions of dollars by computer-trading on info they got a few nanoseconds before everyone else did, in a way that the common man doesn't even UNDERSTAND, let alone have an opportunity to participate in. But sadly, that is how the economy is run. You may prefer a system where the middle class doesn't get health insurance and have to die in the street, but I do not. If you had a realistic alternative to this "dependence" of tax credits, that would be great. But you do not. Going back to the old system where only the wealthy can get decent healthcare is NOT an option, in my opinion. Doing nothing is not an option. And pretending that everything was o.k. before is DEFINITELY not an option.

I don't know why curious2 insults you so much, homeboy. You two seem to have similar views.

Homeboy says

Wow, you really believe that there's a "liberal" media bias, don't you?

Amazing.

Science, facts and truth have a well documented liberal bias.

No really,... this is true, and only when you understand this well will you understand what liberal bias really means.

Homeboy says

I don't have enthusiasm for subsidies; I have enthusiasm for healthcare that is affordable and that everyone can have.

Then instead of advocating relentlessly for a system that raises costs artificially and puts people on subsidies for the benefit of the revenue recipients, look at cheaper systems. Americans pay the lowest prices in the world for OTC drugs, where they can buy whatever they want, but Americans pay the highest prices in the world for the Rx sector where costs are shifted through insurance and subsidies. You refuse to acknowledge that Obamacare was written by the same people who created the problem, and for the same reasons. The only priority that you seem to acknowledge is that you can continue on SSRIs and now shift the costs onto other people.

freak80 says

I don't know why....

We're old enough that I won't simply say "he started it;" that is actually true but insufficient. I get exasperated with Homeboy's trolling for the reasons I explained in my earlier comments: the insistence on mandatory dependence, the dishonest disregard for others' opinions, projecting onto them things they never said, etc. Different people come to internet fora for different reasons, and Homeboy's pattern is to troll for fights, it's almost all he does. Also, he illustrates perfectly the reasons behind the legislation: physically dependent on toxic placebos, he is raising the costs to levels that he cannot afford, and taking subsidies from wherever he can; he doesn't even benefit from them, his pushers do. If you can think of a way to express that more gently, without insulting him, without blaming him (even though he's an adult and ought to see the consequences of his own actions), I would appreciate it. I did resolve to be nicer and I did try unilaterally to improve the dialog with homeboy, but it does take two, and eventually I gave up. Also, if I may observe, while I respect that you maintain a high standard of civility, you have also a low threshhold for perceiving insults; accurate and legitimate criticisms are not insults.

SO Obamacare hasn't even kicked in yet, and there are stories of how terrible it is for the common man. Why am I not surprised ?

If that turns out to be true, and the insurance companies can't figure out how to make it work, well go to single payer, and then we'll be able to deal the true drivers of cost increases.

Everyone selling health care will have one and only one payer to deal with, and they can negotiate. But ultimately medicare or whatever they call that entity will say, "this is what we pay for that procedure, or test, or surgery. Period. "

This is how most the rest of the developed world does it.

The people wanting to go to doctors who charge more can get their special policies that pay for amounts above what medicare pays.

This isn't rocket science people.

I don't believe it... I'm sure he can shop around and find cheaper insurance. The insurance company will go out of business that charges obscene rates.

zzyzzx says

Homeboy says

The question was, how does Obamacare make those specific problems I itemized WORSE? I see you are unable to answer the question.

When someone goes from paying $333 a month to $965 a month, don't you think that's worse???

www.coveredca.com

If this website is accurate.... It is fairly straight forward insurance. I make too much to get any subsidy.. But i could insure my wife and child for about $440 via a Platnium plan from HealthNet with no deductible. Considering my work plan charges me just under $1000 a month to add a spouse and dependant... (I know ... Outrageous) I will be switching them to affordable care as soon as it is available.

curious2 says

Americans pay the lowest prices in the world for OTC drugs, where they can buy whatever they want, but Americans pay the highest prices in the world for the Rx sector where costs are shifted through insurance and subsidies.

You keep repeating this, but haven't put out any proof it's true much less establish causation. I don't see any OTC meds being any more expensive overseas than anything else in places I've travelled. America has the cheapest gas, clothes, and food in the world too. There's nothing special about OTC meds prices.

Americans pay the highest cost for Rx because of abuse of the patent system, advertising directly to consumers, and other countries negotiate drug prices on a national basis after carefully evaluating cost vs benefit. In other countries many expensive new drugs don't provide enough new benefit to justify the addition expanse and aren't available to prescribe. In the US they are advertised heavily and patients demand them. Many expensive on patent drugs are dropped altogether for generics as soon as the patent expires and aren't available to prescribe either.

Most universal health care countries have subsidized drug prices. The consumer doesn't see the true cost any more than than US patients do. Don't bother to point out your old friend Mexico either. The government regulates drug prices there also, something you never seem to mention.

curious2 says

Then instead of advocating relentlessly for a system that raises costs artificially and puts people on subsidies for the benefit of the revenue recipients, look at cheaper systems.

So you advocate a national federal drug buying program that negotiates costs and decides availability based on cost benefit studies like most of the rest of the world uses to keep costs down? I would be fine with that if there was campaign reform so the lobbiests weren't writing the laws. Otherwise it won't be any better than what we have right now. America is screwed, plain and simple. The political system doesn't work now that corporations own all the politicians.

bob2356 says

You keep repeating this, but haven't put out any proof it's true much less establish causation.

I provided links for you, maybe your narcotic addled memory forgot. As for causation, it's a fact, you can fight with yourself about what causes it. I don't share your toxoplasmotic need to fight, so your attempts to bait me are not appreciated. Go fight with Homeboy about Obamacare.

bob2356 says

America has the cheapest gas, clothes, and food in the world too. There's nothing special about OTC meds prices.

It's funny how you deny something but then acknowledge it - maybe you forgot again. Anyway America does not have the cheapest gasoline or food, for example Mexico has cheaper prices for food and other countries have cheaper prices for gasoline. America does have the cheapest OTC drug prices, which you now seem to acknowledge.

There was a guy who tried to implement healthcare reform WITH mandated cost controls. His name was Bill Clinton. The republicans would not allow the law to pass. Great idea in theory, but you have to consider what you have the political will to accomplish.

curious2 says

I provided links for you, maybe your narcotic addled memory forgot.

curious2 says

It's funny how you deny something but then acknowledge it - maybe you forgot again.

curious2 says

, you have also a low threshhold for perceiving insults; accurate and legitimate criticisms are not insults.

So do you have hemorriods or are you a perfect asshole? I certainly do perceive insult in your stupid bullshit that taking 2 days worth of oxicontin 10 years ago is drug addled. But you are far and away the most juvenile poster on patnet so it's to be expected.

Where in your link did I deny and then acknowledge anything? Your reading comprehension sucks. I didn't forget. Your link didn't say jack shit the first time and still doesn't. Check prices of otc meds relative to the prices of other items, not with the exchange rates, subsidies, and taxes. Nothing special in the US. In shitholes where everything is dirt cheap otc is dirt cheap. Places were everything is expensive otc is expensive. So you saying otc is more expensive in Mexico than in the US? Not last time I was there. Neither is pretty much anything else. But the average Mexican earns something like $5.00 a day and finds it all very expensive. BTW I continue to love all your links that say something is true because someone says it's true.

Yes the US does have the lowest prices by far in the first world (oversight in my original post, my bad) and lower than a lot of the other better off non first world countries out there also. Not lower than the countries in poverty. Not every item in every country, but overall yes. If you want to talk relative to income then no contest, the gap is huge even compared to the poor countries. Last I read in the US 6% of income goes to food, nobody else is even close. Energy and most retail is also cheap compared to income. Yes I know you can buy heavily subsidized gas in Venezaula for 10 cents a gallon or the middle east for 50 cents so don't bother getting a hard on about that bullshit.

I will suitably modify my original statement so it may come within your grasp (doubtful). I don't find the cost of otc meds relative to other items lower in the US than any other country I travel to.

The problem here seems to be you can't grasp the difference between relative and absolute. Try to educate yourself on the concept.

I notice that you choose to be insulting and exhibit the maturity of an 11 year old but ignored my question. Other countries control drug prices by the government buying the drugs in bulk and making choices on what's available and what's not based on cost/benefit. Is this what you are advocating or are you just complaining to complain as usual?