patrick.net

Meccos says

WTF? Where is all this money going?

Part of the money is going to subsidize for those who did not have insurance previously but now will because of the ACA. Increasing coverage comes at a cost... unfortunately we will be paying for that...

That and there is a tax on medical devices now to fund the ACA,as well as 40% tax on policies offered by companies for I think that are worth 25k-which is pretty much the cheapest policy for a family now.

Meccos says

I am not sure about what is going on with nursing unions in seattle, but I can tell you that in california, the nursing unions run the show. In the hospital that I work in, there are many nurses making over 200k a year (more than most physicians), they decide who gets hired, where they work and how much they work. They decide what hours the clinics open and close. If nurses decide they do not want to work, clinics pretty much close. They even fight to keep nurses on staff even though they have been caught using illicit drugs on the floors. They pretty much dictate how the hospital runs. Its quite ridiculous.

What is your job at that hospital?

lostand confused says

That and there is a tax on medical devices now to fund the ACA,as well as 40% tax on policies offered by companies for I think that are worth 25k-which is pretty much the cheapest policy for a family now.

The tax on devices is 2.3% starting in 2014, and the 40% tax on "Cadillac plans" with premiums over $27,500/year doesn't start till 2018.

So those things can't explain the recent giant jumps in premiums.

I want to opt out based on my personal belief. I beleive i will die and do not want to pay for it over and over again.

Meccos says

in california, the nursing unions run the show.

Baloney!

What you are seeing is over time wages because of under staffing. Nurses have no say about the system they are forced to work under.

The same trick was tried here in Seattle to make nurses look over paid, they are not.

Meccos says

Part of the money is going to subsidize for those who did not have insurance previously but now will because of the ACA

No it's not, that is another load of crap that the Insurance Industry wants you to repeat.

The money is going into future reserves. All of this "investment" in structures will be sold off to increase future revenues.

Meccos says

However I think the ACA forcing people to buy insurance to subsidize the cost of others is not right.

Now let's see a link, or some reasonable logic for this statement.

More people paying into the pool will provide more income for future services. The future isn't now, so it's all speculation from the Insurance Industry, and hospitals.

Meccos says

Yes I agree with you. However I think the ACA forcing people to buy insurance to subsidize the cost of others is not right. Hence you see premiums still rising and people like patrick and others on this forum paying more and more for their insurance...

Noone has been forced to buy insurance yet, so how could that possibly be the cause of rising premiums?

As to it being "wrong" for some policy holders to subsidize others, I disagree. That is the very definition of how insurance works. You have a pool of people, all paying into the insurance fund. When you make a claim, the money you are given comes from that fund, so others are subsidizing you. Not a new concept.

Requiring people to have insurance is not a new thing. We're required to have auto insurance in California, and so far, the world hasn't ended.

David Losh says

Meccos says

in california, the nursing unions run the show.

Baloney!

What you are seeing is over time wages because of under staffing. Nurses have no say about the system they are forced to work under.

The same trick was tried here in Seattle to make nurses look over paid, they are not.

Um BS. I have personally seen their pay check. One nurse showed me her hourly wage. It was 59 dollars + change per hour. That is about 120-130K a year without overtime...

David Losh says

Meccos says

Part of the money is going to subsidize for those who did not have insurance previously but now will because of the ACA

No it's not, that is another load of crap that the Insurance Industry wants you to repeat.

The reality is that the ACA provides a lot more services, but the reimbursement will be lower... Where do you think this money is going to come from?

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748703720004575478200948908976.html?KEYWORDS=health+care+insurance+premiums

Below are some requirements for insurance companies. More services = more costs.

1. Prohibit bans on pre-existing health conditions in children, lifetime and annual limits on expenses, and limits coverage exclusions of pre-existing health conditions in adults.

2. Requires family policies to include children up to age 26.

3. Requires direct access to obstetrical and gynecological care, which might include abortion.

4. Requires health plans to develop politically correct language services, community outreach and cultural competency trainings.

5. ObamaCare expands Medicaid (medical care for the poor) to everyone (under the Medicare age of 65) who has income less than 133% the federal poverty level. States must pay this enormous new burden, but federal government promises to reimburse costs of newly eligible patients under this program from 2014 to 2016.

Homeboy says

Noone has been forced to buy insurance yet, so how could that possibly be the cause of rising premiums?

If companies only reacted to events instead of planning ahead, then most companies would likely fail. The insurance industry knows that their costs will increase while their reimbursements fall. This is them planning ahead, knowing what they know will happen with the ACA.

Homeboy says

As to it being "wrong" for some policy holders to subsidize others, I disagree. That is the very definition of how insurance works. You have a pool of people, all paying into the insurance fund. When you make a claim, the money you are given comes from that fund, so others are subsidizing you. Not a new concept.

The problem here is that the ACA skews the number of people who will likely draw from the fund in addition to lowering the reimbursement to the insurance companies. The end result is that the previous policy holders will have to pay more now. No this is not a new concept, but if similar laws were to be passed into other areas of insurance, all insurance companies would fail and go out of business.

Homeboy says

Requiring people to have insurance is not a new thing. We're required to have auto insurance in California, and so far, the world hasn't ended.

You are actually wrong. You do not need auto insurance in california. All you need is proof that you can afford to pay out if you are at fault.

Meccos says

You are actually wrong. You do not need auto insurance in california. All you need is proof that you can afford to pay out if you are at fault.

Oh, I see - you want to be nitpicky about it, eh? O.K., then YOU are wrong. You will not be forced to buy health insurance. All you have to do is pay a tax. See, I can play that game too. :D

Meccos says

The problem here is that the ACA skews the number of people who will likely draw from the fund

No it doesn't.

in addition to lowering the reimbursement to the insurance companies.

Insurance companies were making record profits and gouging consumers. They will be fine.

The end result is that the previous policy holders will have to pay more now.

I disagree. There are about 181 million people who will be subject to the mandate. Of those, about 26 million currently uninsured people will have to get insurance. Let's say the average person pays $200/month. That would be a $5.2 billion increase in revenue for the insurance companies. How do you figure the 181 million will have to pay more? With that much more income coming in, they most likely would have to pay LESS.

Meccos says

If companies only reacted to events instead of planning ahead, then most companies would likely fail. The insurance industry knows that their costs will increase while their reimbursements fall. This is them planning ahead, knowing what they know will happen with the ACA.

If they are "planning ahead" for increased costs, then why are rates increasing at a slower rate than they did before ACA?

Meccos says

It was 59 dollars + change per hour.

What kind of nurse, and how many hours are they allowed to work?

I'm guessing Intensive Care with a limit on hours.

Now you are really changing things up to fit your opinions.

Meccos says

The reality is that the ACA provides a lot more services, but the reimbursement will be lower... Where do you think this money is going to come from?

Once again, Health Insurance has nothing to do with Health Care.

Homeboy says

Meccos says

You are actually wrong. You do not need auto insurance in california. All you need is proof that you can afford to pay out if you are at fault.

Oh, I see - you want to be nitpicky about it, eh? O.K., then YOU are wrong. You will not be forced to buy health insurance. All you have to do is pay a tax. See, I can play that game too. :D

Well if you are penalized, then you are being forced arent you? And no this is not being nitpicky. You do not need auto insurance, most people like you just do not know that. THere is no law that fines you for not having auto insurance.
You played the game and lost... :)

Homeboy says

Meccos says

The problem here is that the ACA skews the number of people who will likely draw from the fund

No it doesn't.

Um pre-exisiting conditions? insurance for the those at 133% of poverty level? Those are two groups who will for sure draw more from the fund than what they pay into it. Thus people like you, me, patrick and the rest of the people here have seen rates increase to make up for this.

Homeboy says

in addition to lowering the reimbursement to the insurance companies.

Insurance companies were making record profits and gouging consumers. They will be fine.

You really do not know what is in the ACA. there are tons of things in the ACA that will decrease reimbursements... BTW health insurance companies have some of the lowest profit margins...

Homeboy says

I disagree. There are about 181 million people who will be subject to the mandate. Of those, about 26 million currently uninsured people will have to get insurance. Let's say the average person pays $200/month. That would be a $5.2 billion increase in revenue for the insurance companies. How do you figure the 181 million will have to pay more? With that much more income coming in, they most likely would have to pay LESS.

Who do you think those people are? THey are most likely the people with pre-existing conditions or people who cant pay for insurance. Not only that ACA requires insurance to cover more and more things. These are costs that should be incurred by people using the system, but now it will be spread out to everyone.
Furthermore, just because you decide to simplify health care economics into a simple multiplication, it doesnt make it true does it? I wish the world was that simple...

David Losh says

Meccos says

It was 59 dollars + change per hour.

What kind of nurse, and how many hours are they allowed to work?

I'm guessing Intensive Care with a limit on hours.

Now you are really changing things up to fit your opinions.

A simple clinic nurse. Im serious. They are ENTITLED to 40 hours a week but works less if they want. In fact, there is one who takes off about 10 months of the year for medical leave and comes back 2 months each year so that she doesnt lose her "spot". Each time she comes back, she has to be "re-oriented" for almost a month with another nurse. Thus she is really useless. Unfortunately, nurses union wont let her be removed. Thus we have to hire someone else just for that spot. Oh... we cant even hire who we want, we have to take whoever the nurses union gives us.

This is not an opinion. I work with this every day.

David Losh says

Once again, Health Insurance has nothing to do with Health Care.

Health care laws directly affect health insurance plans which then directly affects health care given to the people... so tell us again how health insurance has nothing to do with health care...

Meccos says

so tell us again how health insurance has nothing to do with health care...

This one is simple, you are saying health insurance companies are dicating how health insurance laws are applied, and you don't see a problem with that?

Meccos says

A simple clinic nurse.

It always amazes me that in a huge multi billion industry the workers, at the lower end, who have a union, are always the cash drain on the company. It seems where ever I go, no matter what the industry, if we could just break the unions everything would be much better.

I don't buy it, and it sounds like you need some collective bargaing.

Meccos says

Um pre-exisiting conditions? insurance for the those at 133% of poverty level? Those are two groups who will for sure draw more from the fund than what they pay into it. Thus people like you, me, patrick and the rest of the people here have seen rates increase to make up for this.

No we haven't. The rate at which premiums are rising is LOWER than the rate at which premiums were rising before ACA. You simply cannot blame rising rates on ACA. Why is it I keep saying this over and over and you keep ignoring the facts?

And how do you think poor people are getting medical treatment now? Mainly, they're going to the ER. You don't think you're paying for that? If you don't think so, you're dreaming. ER treatment is much more expensive than regular treatment.

Meccos says

You really do not know what is in the ACA. there are tons of things in the ACA that will decrease reimbursements... BTW health insurance companies have some of the lowest profit margins..

Let me guess... You work for a healthcare insurance company.

Meccos says

Who do you think those people are? THey are most likely the people with pre-existing conditions or people who cant pay for insurance. Not only that ACA requires insurance to cover more and more things. These are costs that should be incurred by people using the system, but now it will be spread out to everyone.

Furthermore, just because you decide to simplify health care economics into a simple multiplication, it doesnt make it true does it? I wish the world was that simple...

Pure speculation. Several people on this forum have stated that they have no health insurance, but could afford it. In fact, many have complained about being "forced" to buy insurance. Quite obviously, these are not people who wanted insurance but couldn't afford it or were denied it. There are millions of people "gaming the system" right now, who will have to pay their fair share when the mandate kicks in. You have absolutely no proof for your contention that this will cause prices to go up.

When has more customers EVER caused prices to go UP? Doesn't work that way.

David Losh says

It always amazes me that in a huge multi billion industry the workers, at the lower end, who have a union, are always the cash drain on the company. It seems where ever I go, no matter what the industry, if we could just break the unions everything would be much better.

I don't buy it, and it sounds like you need some collective bargaing.

So basically I present facts, but you refuse to acknowledge it right? Fact is fact...

KILLERJANE says

I have thought about starting my own insurance plan. Take 2000 members each paying 5000 person for a 5 year period. This insurance applies to extreme incidents and not regual visits. Your coverage maxes out at 250,000.

Obama won't allow that! He knows much better than you do aboit what you need.

Homeboy says

No we haven't. The rate at which premiums are rising is LOWER than the rate at which premiums were rising before ACA. You simply cannot blame rising rates on ACA. Why is it I keep saying this over and over and you keep ignoring the facts?

ACA was passed with the promise of decreasing rates. we have yet to see that. In fact it continues to rise. In addition, we have provisions in the ACA will REQUIRE more services to more people, but yet will provide decreased reimbursment. WHere do you think the money to cover these people will come from? Lets see what happens in a few years...

Homeboy says

When has more customers EVER caused prices to go UP? Doesn't work that way.

If they were customers who PAY, it wouldnt be an issue. In addition to this, there are more services which were not required previously. Thus the cost of these new services will have to be absorbed somewhere.. my guess it that your premiums will absorb it.

Meccos says

Um BS. I have personally seen their pay check. One nurse showed me her hourly wage. It was 59 dollars + change per hour. That is about 120-130K a year without overtime...

You presented an anecdote that you are claiming to be a fact.

Meccos says

So basically I present facts, but you refuse to acknowledge it right? Fact is fact...

Nurses pay in San Francisco is about $70K, and tops at about $94K.

http://swz.salary.com/SalaryWizard/registered-nurse-Salary-Details-San-Francisco-CA.aspx

Let's get rid of all of them and the price of health care will go down, then we can get rid of the doctors.

Meccos says

ACA was passed with the promise of decreasing rates. we have yet to see that. In fact it continues to rise.

Earlier, you implied that ACA CAUSED the increase in rates. I showed that to be false, and now you say, "but they promised decreasing rates". Seems like you are backpedaling. First of all, it doesn't make sense to expect rates to go lower before the individual mandate kicks in. Because of the way the law is phased in, more coverage is required before we have the increased enrollment to pay for it. Why don't you wait for the law to actually be in effect before you criticize it? Second, politicians promise lots of things that don't happen. That's life. The pertinent question should be, "Are we going to be better off?", not "Did they keep all their promises?"
Meccos says

In addition, we have provisions in the ACA will REQUIRE more services to more people, but yet will provide decreased reimbursment. WHere do you think the money to cover these people will come from?

I'm not sure why you keep asking this, as we already covered it. You do understand that ACA doesn't provide free healthcare, right? The people who are required to get insurance will have to pay for the insurance. That's where the money comes from. Also from some taxes on extremely wealthy people.

Meccos says

If they were customers who PAY, it wouldnt be an issue. In addition to this, there are more services which were not required previously. Thus the cost of these new services will have to be absorbed somewhere.. my guess it that your premiums will absorb it.

Again, ACA isn't free healthcare. The customers DO have to pay. Not sure what makes you think otherwise. There are going to be subsidies for poor people, but if you think about it, we aren't refusing medical treatment to poor people now, so their care is ALREADY built into whatever insurance premium you're paying now. What exactly do you think is going to be different?

Homeboy says

Earlier, you implied that ACA CAUSED the increase in rates. I showed that to be false, and now you say, "but they promised decreasing rates". Seems like you are backpedaling.

You speak about the fact that the rate of increasing rates is decreasing. My point is that the rates are STILL increasing. ACA was passed with the promise that rates would decrease. It hasnt. It still increases. Patrick and other people on this forum are proof of this, so are stats which show that rates still increase. Your only point is that the rate of increase in the last year have not increased. SO basically if rates went up 20% last year but only increased 18% this year, the rate of increase was less. This is hardly much of an argument.

Homeboy says

Why don't you wait for the law to actually be in effect before you criticize it?

Because we know what is coming. Unlike Pelosi, if you actually read it, you dont have to sign it into law to find out whats in it and whats going to happen. As I have repeated many times, the provision will increase cost of health care as we know it. Its simple math... more services, less reimbursement... its very simple.

Homeboy says

Second, politicians promise lots of things that don't happen. That's life.

Yup.. thats no lie. how is this pertinent?

Homeboy says

The pertinent question should be, "Are we going to be better off?", not "Did they keep all their promises?"

Well the focus of this discussion was the fact that rates keep increasing. Thus if the ACA was passed on the promise of decreasing costs, I think that commenting on the fact that lied is legitimate. In addition, I would say that a minority of the people are better off. But for the majority of us who has had insurance and had been paying for insurance for years, we are not better off because our rates are higher...

Homeboy says

You do understand that ACA doesn't provide free healthcare, right? The people who are required to get insurance will have to pay for the insurance. That's where the money comes from.

The problem is that the new services mandated through the ACA will not and can not be covered. This is one reason why they are making EVERYONE get insured by law... its to partially cover the cost. HOwever even this is not enough. Pre-existing conditions will be one huge costs, but so will the low income people who will have this subsidized by people like you and me.

Homeboy says

What exactly do you think is going to be different?

To think that the cost of treating uninsured people in the ER will be equal to the cost of increased premiums is wrong. First of all the cost is now transferred to people like you and me. Secondly, I can guarantee you the treatment of the uninsured in the past to the newly insured is not equal.

David Losh says

Meccos says

Um BS. I have personally seen their pay check. One nurse showed me her hourly wage. It was 59 dollars + change per hour. That is about 120-130K a year without overtime...

You presented an anecdote that you are claiming to be a fact.

Meccos says

So basically I present facts, but you refuse to acknowledge it right? Fact is fact...

David,

I challenge you to look at nursing salaries and benefits at Kaiser Permanente, especially in northern california.

In case you have a hard time. look at the blogs about kaiser nurses and tell me if i am lying..

http://allnurses.com/california-nursing/kaisers-pay-benefits-578679.html

If you think the salaries are high... wait until you see the benefits. Its even better.

A union pipe fitter makes $77 per hour.

http://www.simplyhired.com/a/salary/search/q-union+pipe+fitter

Your fixation on the highest paid nurses you can find isn't representative of the hard work, long hours, and hazards of nursing. Without nurses there is no health care.

The system of health care needs to be fixed so these people can be paid a fair wage, and encourage more people to get the education they need to work in these fields.

Since you are looking for work, try applying at Blue Shield.

Meccos says

You speak about the fact that the rate of increasing rates is decreasing. My point is that the rates are STILL increasing. ACA was passed with the promise that rates would decrease. It hasnt. It still increases. Patrick and other people on this forum are proof of this, so are stats which show that rates still increase. Your only point is that the rate of increase in the last year have not increased. SO basically if rates went up 20% last year but only increased 18% this year, the rate of increase was less. This is hardly much of an argument.

You are just saying the same thing over and over, and not responding to any of my arguments. First of all, those aren't the numbers - you just made those up. Second, YOU claimed that ACA CAUSED the premium increases, which is a bald faced lie. Third, if rates are not rising as fast as they were, that is an improvement. I don't understand your position - do you want to go back to having premiums rise even faster? Why would you want higher premiums? Not only do you seem to be against ACA, which is arguably an improvement, you want to falsely BLAME ACA for the problem, which clearly existed (and was even worse) before ACA. Fourth, you are BACKPEDALING and now changing your argument to the extremely weak, "But they promised..." which is not what you were arguing before.

Meccos says

Because we know what is coming. Unlike Pelosi, if you actually read it, you dont have to sign it into law to find out whats in it and whats going to happen. As I have repeated many times, the provision will increase cost of health care as we know it. Its simple math... more services, less reimbursement... its very simple.

O.K., I get it - you hate Pelosi and the Democrats. Still no reason to make arbitrary assumptions based on nothing. I understand that you WANT ACA to fail so that it will validate your hatred of liberals, but you have no way of knowing what's going to happen. Your view is not "simple math". Simple math would dictate that more customers equals more income. By your reasoning, Walmart should have failed a long time ago - they have so many customers, how can they possibly make money? LOL.

Meccos says

The problem is that the new services mandated through the ACA will not and can not be covered. This is one reason why they are making EVERYONE get insured by law... its to partially cover the cost. HOwever even this is not enough. Pre-existing conditions will be one huge costs, but so will the low income people who will have this subsidized by people like you and me.

I don't know what you mean by "new services". Do you mean they have invented some treatment that didn't exist before? I doubt it. ACA says that insurance companies can't deny coverage to anyone. They can still charge more for certain people, but how much more is also limited. I don't know why you are calling this "new services". The "services" will be the same. To equalize the cost of giving insurance to people who were denied it before, EVERYONE is required to buy insurance, even healthy people. So MORE money coming in, not less.

Meccos says

To think that the cost of treating uninsured people in the ER will be equal to the cost of increased premiums is wrong. First of all the cost is now transferred to people like you and me. Secondly, I can guarantee you the treatment of the uninsured in the past to the newly insured is not equal.

I'm not sure what you're trying to say, but whatever it is, you don't appear to have any evidence to support it. I'll ask you again - who do you think is paying for the medical treatment of poor, uninsured people right now, and why do you think that's going to change?

David Losh says

Your fixation on the highest paid nurses you can find isn't representative of the hard work, long hours, and hazards of nursing. Without nurses there is no health care.

I have no fixation on highly paid nurses. You wanted fact and I presented them to you. You didnt believe me when I stated how much they made and I simply presented the facts to you. That is all.. do you believe me now?

Homeboy says

First of all, those aren't the numbers - you just made those up.

Yes, its called using an example.

Homeboy says

YOU claimed that ACA CAUSED the premium increases, which is a bald faced lie.

My claim was that premiums are likely going up IN PART to the provision in the ACA. You claim this is a "bald faced lie"... can you prove that this is not the case?

Homeboy says

if rates are not rising as fast as they were, that is an improvement.

This is such a backwards way of thinking. So rates increase, but the rate of increase slowed down so its better? The fact is that rates continue to increase. The ACA was presented with the promise it would actually decrease premiums. This has not happened, nor do I think it will happen. The provisions in it make it unlikely that will be the case.

Homeboy says

do you want to go back to having premiums rise even faster?

NO, i want it to go down. You seem content that the rate of increases have slowed down. I will be content with rates actually decrease.

Homeboy says

Not only do you seem to be against ACA, which is arguably an improvement, you want to falsely BLAME ACA for the problem, which clearly existed (and was even worse) before ACA.

Yes I do not agree with the ACA at all. Anything is arguably better. I do not deny that there were problems before the ACA, but the ACA does not make it better for the average AMerican. For the average American, the high cost of premiums is the main problem. The ACA will not address this, in fact my argument is that it will worsen it.

Homeboy says

I understand that you WANT ACA to fail so that it will validate your hatred of liberals

Is it possible to disagree with the ACA without hating liberals? I know you probably dont think so. BTW the only reason I brought up Pelosi was because what she said was quite ridiculous. Im sure even you could agree to that.

Homeboy says

Simple math would dictate that more customers equals more income.

nope. depends on how much resources those customers use versus how much they pay into the system. The problem with what you say is that you assume that all these new customers will be similar to present customers who will use the same amount of resources and have the same amount of payments. THis will not be the case with provisions such as pre-existing condition and medicaid clauses. This is the reason why I am saying that companies are likely increasing premiums in preparation for this.

Homeboy says

who do you think is paying for the medical treatment of poor, uninsured people right now, and why do you think that's going to change?

Unfortunately many people are uninsured and they simply get no care. Some go to ERs and get treated for life threatening issues, but elective nor non-life threatening issues simply do not get treated. Some have care that subsidized by either local govt or federal govt system. A lof of this will now be subsidized by us, because now insurance companies will be forced to enroll these people previously getting govt subsidized care. Unfortunately, the reimbursement for treating the indigent with govt sponsored care is often less than the cost of treatment. So where does the money come from...people like us who have increased premiums to subsidize this care. Why do you think there was a mandate for everyone to get insurance? Even you admitted that it was to subsidize.

Meccos says

You wanted fact and I presented them to you.

You did not present a fact, you presented an anecdote based on one nurse in one company, and you didn't get that right. That nurse would have topped out at $120K, but $90K is the high end for the California area, San Francisco.

Your making an assertion, I guess, that nurses are paid too much. I know that isn't the case.

Now you may be a union rep who is disappointed that those Kaiser nurses will be voting to become members of the Nurse's Union, rather than the Service Workers Union. That would give them more clout to get a decent living wage for the work they do.

Think about it, nurses are the first line of defense against every contagious disease in a hospital setting. What are the risks?

Meccos says

My claim was that premiums are likely going up IN PART to the provision in the ACA. You claim this is a "bald faced lie"... can you prove that this is not the case?

No, that was not your claim. You wrote: "So the aca passes and we see rates increase substantially..." I don't see the words "in part" there. You made the claim; you need to prove it, not me. I already posted an article showing the rate of increase is 4%, when previously it was double-digits. That's plenty of proof for my position. Where is YOUR proof that ACA caused premium increases when there were none before. That's just ludicrous.

Meccos says

NO, i want it to go down. You seem content that the rate of increases have slowed down. I will be content with rates actually decrease.

Who said I was content? Ideally, I'd like to see a single-payer system, but the republicans wouldn't let us have that. So it is what it is. It's still better than nothing. It's better than going back to what we had before. But you don't seem to get that. You keep blaming ACA for all the problems with healthcare that existed BEFORE ACA. AND I have to keep reminding you that the main part of the law ISN'T EVEN IN EFFECT YET. When guaranteed issue and the individual mandate take effect, and THEN premiums skyrocket for the middle class, then I think it will be fair to criticize. Until then, it's pure speculation. You don't have any facts to stand on.

But right now, you want lower premiums, and you hate the ACA. But getting rid of ACA would not make premiums go down, so your position is illogical.

Meccos says

Is it possible to disagree with the ACA without hating liberals? I know you probably dont think so.

Of course it is. But then YOU'RE the one who brought up Pelosi, and she seems to be the favorite target of right wingers who hate liberals.

Meccos says

nope. depends on how much resources those customers use versus how much they pay into the system. The problem with what you say is that you assume that all these new customers will be similar to present customers who will use the same amount of resources and have the same amount of payments.

Actually, that's not the case. YOU are the one making the assumptions. You are assuming none of the people who will be required to buy insurance under the individual mandate will pay for it. That's absurd. What I'm saying is that you can't know that until it happens.

Meccos says

Unfortunately many people are uninsured and they simply get no care. Some go to ERs and get treated for life threatening issues, but elective nor non-life threatening issues simply do not get treated.

Um, you do know that preventative care from a doctor's office is cheaper than going to the ER after you get a serious illness, don't you? I think you are again making an assumption. You assume it will cost more for poor people to have a health plan than for them to go to the ER, when it's quite possible the opposite will be true.

Meccos says

Some have care that subsidized by either local govt or federal govt system. A lof of this will now be subsidized by us, because now insurance companies will be forced to enroll these people previously getting govt subsidized care.

Really? Can you give me an example of government-sponsored healthcare that will cease to exist and be replaced by ACA?

Meccos says

Unfortunately, the reimbursement for treating the indigent with govt sponsored care is often less than the cost of treatment. So where does the money come from...people like us who have increased premiums to subsidize this care. Why do you think there was a mandate for everyone to get insurance? Even you admitted that it was to subsidize.

We're just going in circles. I already said some people will be subsidized, and I explained how that is paid for. This all comes down to your claim that ACA caused premiums to go up, because of your theory that they're already pricing in the future subsidies. Unfortunately for you, it's simply not true. I already proved that premiums are increasing LESS than they were before, so that completely blows your theory out of the water. The FACTS simply don't agree with your premise.

If I understand you correctly Patrick, you now have a job, right? That was fast (I think). So how is your health insurance there?