View Mobile Site
 

Ask the Expert

Signal Photos

 

Gary Horton: American medicine has become a joke

Posted: April 30, 2014 2:00 a.m.
Updated: April 30, 2014 2:00 a.m.
 

Let me let you in on a joke I recently experienced.

My daughter, Katie, was recently struck by a motorcycle while on a trip to India and suffered a very serious traumatic brain injury.

We were able to get Katie to a private hospital, where she was quickly attended to without delay. She spent four hours in the emergency room and subsequently underwent brain surgery at the hands of two experienced brain surgeons.

She spent six days in ICU attended to by a private nurse, 24/7. After coming to from a coma and gaining strength, Katie was moved to a private room attended to two nurses, 24/7, for 19 more days.

Our family also had a private room next door so as to assist Katie with the nurses and to help with translation.

During her 25 days in the hospital, Katie received six CT brain scans, physical therapy, ENT care, a cornucopia of drugs, and abundant visits from a variety of specialists.

The total bill for these 25 days – all inclusive at this non-subsidized, for-profit hospital - was $17,000. (Yes, that’s seventeen thousand U.S. dollars.)

Yes, we know the cost of living in India is one-tenth that of the U.S. Still, my doctor here at home estimates the same procedure and care here in California might have easily topped $1 million.

That’s not 10 times more, as per cost of living – rather, the American bill would have been 59 times higher.
Higher wages and real estate aside, is the U.S. really that much less efficient, or is there something more sinister at play?

Here’s the punch line. Two weeks back I had a 10-minute procedure for steroid shots at a private hospital in Los Angeles. I was prepped in a common staging area, was rolled into an operating room and spent 10 minutes getting my shots.

I recovered for roughly one hour and zoom, was out the door. Two weeks later I got a bill for some $14,000 from the hospital, some $1,300 for the anesthesiologist, and another $1,200 from my doctor.

Somehow, the insurance company thereafter knocked the bills down to where I’m actually myself paying $1,300 for the hospital, another $300 for the pain guy, and $400 for the doctor.

So I’m in for $2,000, my insurance company is in for something similar, and there’s a one-inch-thick file on my kitchen counter demonstrating the ridiculous paper chase and bureaucracy behind my getting four simple shots in my back.

Stories like this are making the United States the medical joke of the world each and every day. Little doubt, those with money and access receive great care in America. But we pay through the nose via the most arcane system possibly ever invented by man.

Conversely, our hospital experience in India was easy and transparent. We had upfront pricing on everything.

Brain surgery? Three thousand dollars, and please pay a $500 deposit first. Private hospital rooms? $100 per day, each. CT scans? $300 apiece. You get the drift. Everything disclosed and no surprises.

In America, for some reason we’re told price of facelifts, boob jobs and dental work ahead of time, but pretty much beyond elective anything, all medical pricing is hidden from view until the bill is presented to the unwary - after the fact. Who could have created such a smoke-and-mirrors show?

I had to renew my blood pressure meds during our extended Indian stay. It cost me 50 U.S. cents for what costs me $10 here - plus whatever my insurance pays after my co-pay. Meanwhile, the generic pills you and I get here are often the very same generics folks get there, as many U.S. generics are actually made in India!

“Obamacare” didn’t create this mess – but it also didn’t fix it, either. It just pretty much tweaked the most egregious aspects of medical insurance while enrolling even more people into our long-running mess.

With America now paying 18 percent of GDP on health care – double the next country, Switzerland - obviously something’s got to give before the entire medical house of cards crashes in on every working man and woman in the country.

We can literally fail under our own weight if we don’t correct this morass.

Why, in the “free competition,” capitalist, “Land of the Free” America, can’t you and I purchase basic non-narcotic pharmaceuticals from competitive international sources as we do so many other products?

Why has our own government created an entire price-protected pharmaceutical industry against the interests of its own working people? We pay five, 10, 20 times more for drugs than all other nations because of this government mandated, forced non-competition.

Why are our surgeons and specialists paid as rock stars, driving prices through medical roofs? Why not a national policy to produce more doctors and specialists – or at least openly recruit them from outside countries for the benefit of our people?

Why aren’t prices posted at hospitals and clinics? Why do cash payers actually pay more than those beating heads inside the insurance system?

Ultimately, as with so many other things, we can look to an American government deeply distorted in its priorities by nearly unlimited lobbyist money.

The AMA and Big Pharm lobbies are among the largest and best funded in our country. Folks, the NRA lobbies for the interests of gun makers. AARP lobbies for seniors. It should not be shocking that the AMA lobbies for the financial interests of doctors and Big Pharm lobbies for the enrichment of drug manufactures.

Who is looking out for you and me?

It seems we can vote and vote and vote, but so far, you and I still pay five to 20 times more for drugs than any other country, and quite remarkably, it’s 59 times cheaper to fly all the way to India for brain surgery than to attempt the same right here in the land of “capitalist, free competition.”

This is a literal joke and outrage.

Gary Horton is a Santa Clarita resident. “Full Speed to Port!” appears Wednesdays in The Signal.

 

Comments

BrianBaker: Posted: April 30, 2014 6:41 a.m.

Horton, as usual, leaves out a whole heckuva lot that would dilute or discredit the point he's trying to make.

Most people aren't aware of it, but you certainly CAN negotiate your price with your provider ahead of time, and it will probably be significantly lower than the cost billed through insurance.

If you tell them you're going to pay directly yourself, no insurance claim involved, you'll usually be presented with a VERY different price structure than if you go through insurance. That's very normal.

Another thing that Horton failed to mention is that EVERYTHING is a lot cheaper in India. For what you'd pay for a 2,000 square foot house in Valencia, you could buy a palace in India.

Those "cheap" Indian prices Horton's bleating about aren't so "cheap" if you happen to an average Indian who actually lives and works there.


ricketzz: Posted: April 30, 2014 7:09 a.m.

There is an effort underway to streamline medical billing and compensation as part of a larger group of laws known as the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act. It addresses the incentives doctors now have to perform needless procedures because the more they do the better they get paid. Under PPACA doctors get rewarded for keeping patients off the table and away from the scalpels, like Kaiser has been doing for a while.

There is nothing to envy about India, they are in for a tough ride.


17trillion: Posted: April 30, 2014 8:33 a.m.

He also mentions he went to a private hospital which is not the hospital for the masses in India. That being said, I give him credit for saying Obama didn't cause this nor did he fix it. All I know is that my rates are skyrocketing and I'm paying for coverage for things I don't want or will never need.


therightstuff: Posted: April 30, 2014 8:58 a.m.

India also probably doesn't have the legion of trial lawyers as we do in the U.S. which adds billions each year to healthcare costs. Medical liability is a huge issue for physicians in our country.

"""A common strategy physicians employ to avoid malpractice suits is to practice defensive medicine, something that adds between $200 to $650 billion annually to the nation’s healthcare price tag. Defensive medicine occurs when doctors order unnecessary tests or procedures to avoid being sued."""
http://finance.townhall.com/columnists/halscherz/2012/04/24/trail_lawyers_and_insurance_cos_are_true_beneficiaries_of_medical_system

Why doesn't the ACA address this overwhelming problem? Could it be that trial lawyers are such good Democratic donors?

BTW,...even after Obama said 8-million have signed up (which has yet to be verified), Obamacare is still losing ground in the polls. According to the latest ABC News/Washington Post poll, 59% of registered voters disapprove of the president's implementation of the Affordable Care Act, while only 36% of voters approve.


tech: Posted: April 30, 2014 9:14 a.m.

Third party payer disconnects the consumer of medical services from the provider. This is the root cause of the market distortion. Single payer wouldn't resolve the issue either.

Mr. Horton touches on the solution when noting the up front fee service schedule provided for elective medical procedures. His experience in India with a private hospital has provided him with valuable insight.

Medical services are services, period. The solution is patient directed medical care, with tax policy benefits shifting from employer to the individual. Routine medical care, i.e. doctor office visits, generic prescriptions, etc. are paid for via a medical savings account (MSA is akin to a health 401k) and health insurance reverts to a reality based insurance product for major/catastrophic medical expenses.

Here's an example of how a consumer market driven approach would work:

http://reason.com/reasontv/2012/11/15/the-obamacare-revolt-oklahoma-doctors-fi


Lotus8: Posted: April 30, 2014 10:17 a.m.

I will let you in on a little secret, as I spent a decade working in the medical insurance industry for one of the very large insurers in their corporate office. The reason you don't see pricing related to hospital procedures is not because the data doesn't exist. The insurance companies have all the necessary data to help their members make these kinds of choices, which would also introduce price competition and lower prices all around.

When the insurance companies worked to gather the information and publish it for their members as a way to lower claims costs, the large hospital chains threatened to drop from the insurance networks. Due to the large amount of consolidation on the hospital side, there are networks of hospitals that hold insurance companies over a barrel. If the insurance company doesn't have certain highly rated and popular hospitals in the neighborhoods where corporate executives reside, the insurance carrier isn't going to be able to sell their corporate customers insurance.

So what was the solution? The insurance companies either had to pull back and go with a simple affordability rating (think 1 to 5 dollar signs/stars) and artificially list all of the large hospital chains as affordable, or drop the provision of the information altogether. Well, after some hemming and hawing the decision was made to squash the info altogether by the insurers.

Also remember that insurance companies have been attacked by politicians and now have a mandate in place to keep their cost ratio (amount of premium dollars spent on claims expense) at or above 85%. So with this newer mandate in place, after administrative costs to process the claims, there are very thin profit margins for the insurers. Ever wonder why your claims are mostly processed in India or Vietnam and it is really hard to get someone to help you at the insurance company? But that story is for another time. The point I am trying to make here is that when premiums go up because hospitals and drugs cost more, the insurance companies make more money because they are allowed a percentage. So 15% of $1 billion is less than 15% of $1.2 billion when processing the same amount of claims (costs remain steady). So there was also no tear shed at the insurers over not providing the cost data.

Neither of the two large players, insurers and providers, wants you to have the information. They both pay a ton of money to lobbyists and actually welcomed Obama Care with open arms as their government pawns get to protect them above board.

And now you know...the rest of the story.


chefgirl358: Posted: April 30, 2014 11:31 a.m.

Maybe Mr Horton should move to India where he can live like a king.


Indy: Posted: April 30, 2014 2:29 p.m.

17trillion wrote: He also mentions he went to a private hospital which is not the hospital for the masses in India. That being said, I give him credit for saying Obama didn't cause this nor did he fix it. All I know is that my rates are skyrocketing and I'm paying for coverage for things I don't want or will never need.

Indy: Can you be more specific versus just a generalized statement that addresses nothing of consequence.


Indy: Posted: April 30, 2014 2:33 p.m.

BrianBaker wrote: Most people aren't aware of it, but you certainly CAN negotiate your price with your provider ahead of time, and it will probably be significantly lower than the cost billed through insurance.

If you tell them you're going to pay directly yourself, no insurance claim involved, you'll usually be presented with a VERY different price structure than if you go through insurance. That's very normal.

Indy: I went through this process recently with a hospital that simply told me that ‘I WAS REPONSIBLE FOR ALL COSTS’ incurred.

When I asked for a detailed listing of my cost, nothing was ‘discounted’.

I also found this issue locally with HMH where their billing system was archaic.

Finally, most Americans who are facing a crisis like Gary did aren’t in the ‘mood’ per se to be ‘negotiating’ anything during a severe trauma event.

Perhaps this poster can come back to ‘planet earth’ and realize that the world works a bit differently than his conservative ideology based ‘ worldview’.


AlwaysRight: Posted: April 30, 2014 2:57 p.m.

Lotus8- please contact Lila Littlejohn at the Signal immediately and have your post made into an opinion column. This is excellent information and shuold be made more public. If you need help, LMK and let's take this offline.


Lotus8: Posted: April 30, 2014 3:36 p.m.

By the way, the company used to use its large group of employees as a test group for new product designs. We had CDHP (consumer directed health plans) before the general public. As part of that, we were provided with an early, not fully complete version of the 1-5 star affordability rating system so that, theoretically, we could choose which facilities to go to for elective procedures. If you are going to ask people to pay a few thousand bucks out of their own pocket after the first thousand dollars covered under a plan, they thought it only right to provide some kind of tool to help make a member's dollar go farther. That is when the really negative feedback reached a crescendo from the providers. The info never widely saw the light of day as it was basically bogus and useless anyway, so why incite the ire of the providers by continuing to furnish it to members?

Didn't it seem odd to any of the general public that the insurance companies didn't really put up a fight when Obama Care was a whisper in the wind? There was no all out assault from the industry like one would have expected, as they were faced with simply becoming processing arms of the federal and state governments. Alas, it is always easier to control things from inside the castle walls, especially when the court is being run by the jester.


hopeful: Posted: April 30, 2014 3:45 p.m.

Indy said: "Perhaps this poster can come back to ‘planet earth’ and realize that the world works a bit differently than his conservative ideology based ‘ worldview’."

Indy, just because you weren't able to negotiate a lower rate doesn't mean it can't happen. When my son was hospitalized at Henry Mayo years ago, we did indeed negotiate a lower rate. Granted, we had to agree to pay one payment to pay off the entire amount right then, but they gave us about a 35% discount on our portion of the balance (not the portion the insurance paid).

And regarding what 17trillion said, I too am paying more now than before the ACA forced me to get a different individual insurance policy. I used to have an Anthem Blue Cross PPO, which I CAN'T get anymore. The only choices for a PPO in L.A. County were Blue Shield or Health Net. After choosing Blue Shield PPO, I am paying about the same for my policy, but my 22 year old child is paying significantly more, so my family is paying more for our premiums this year.

Although I am not happy about paying more a month for my premiums, I am madder that I have to pay my entire deductible BEFORE insurance pays any portion of my fees. For my Blue Shield PPO Silver plan, I am paying $690.39 a month for me and my child. I have a $2,000 deductible individual deductible and a $4,000 family deductible, which means that I have to pay the first $2,000 to $4,000 BEFORE insurance will pay for any doctor's visits, unless it is for that one well-visit a year. Prior to being forced to purchase the new ACA insurance, my insurance company paid all but my doctor co-pay, but now they pay NOTHING until I reach my deductible.

The only people that truly believe that the ACA is affordable are those getting subsidies, those who have pre-existing conditions, or those, who are clueless because they are affected!


BrianBaker: Posted: April 30, 2014 3:50 p.m.

"Indy: I went through this process recently with a hospital that simply told me that ‘I WAS REPONSIBLE FOR ALL COSTS’ incurred."

Of course you are. Everyone's responsible for their own costs.

"When I asked for a detailed listing of my cost, nothing was ‘discounted’."

Sounds to me like you're a lousy negotiator. Did you even ASK for a "cash price"? Which is something completely different from a "detailed listing". You can get THAT from your insurance company's Explanation Of Benefits.

And, like anything in the free market, you can shop around. Ever think of that?

I'm sure not...


I'd like to be your car salesman the next time you're looking for a new set of wheels. Cha-ching!



therightstuff: Posted: April 30, 2014 4:43 p.m.

Speaking of healthcare, Indy, you wrote a fascinating comment earlier on another thread which I quote:

Indy: """Yep, we saw the same ‘play’ if you will by conservatives back in the day when it was determined that tobacco smoke was killing people . . . yet conservatives fought that for 20+ years! Why? Well, the ‘scientist’ hired by them provided the ‘evidence’ that smoking didn’t harm you . . . all the while people were ‘dying’ from same."""

Can you show the evidence that conservatives hired scientists to provide misleading information that smoking didn't harm you?


tech: Posted: April 30, 2014 8:44 p.m.

Last Week Tonight With John Oliver: "Oregon Spirit" by Lisa Loeb (HBO)

Hilarious! (Language warning for sensitive ears. NSFW and discretion advised due to language & possibly hurt feelings.)

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Dh9munYYoqQ#t=142


ricketzz: Posted: May 1, 2014 7:47 a.m.

hopeful: did you compare to Gold and Platinum before you bought? The numbers are all still settling. The insurers are reporting good upside surprises. Doctors are forming groups and getting on board. So far so good. The people in the Cruelty Belt are getting murdered, literally. Must've had a bad past life or something.

That reminds me, they only had from when John Roberts said states could opt out of Expanded Medicaid until last October to build the national web site. That was necessitated by the SCOTUS. Not 4 years.


philellis: Posted: May 1, 2014 8:03 a.m.

TRS, what have you been smoking? Asking WIndy for an answer - what were you thinking?


hopeful: Posted: May 1, 2014 8:44 a.m.

ricketzz - yes, I did compare the Gold and Platinum plans, and they would have cost me much, much more a month. My point, was that prior to the ACA, I was paying less a month, AND if I got sick, I only had to pay my co-pay. Now, with the Silver plan (which is far less expensive than the gold or platinum), I pay MORE a month, AND I have to pay 100% of my doctor bill until I reach my $2,000 deductible!

For you, Ricketzz, with your diabetes, other health issues, coupled with your age (and possibly a subsidy), I am sure the ACA is a great deal, but for me and especially the non-subsidized younger generation, we are getting screwed.

However, whenever we mention our situations, we get little to no sympathy, or are told we are lying, and are considered heartless because we supposedly don't care about others.

I have always cared about others, and I have always thought our health insurance system was rigged and terribly unfair to those with pre-existing conditions, such as yourself. But where is the sympathy for our young people, who now have to pay so much more to subsidize people like you, me, and all other older people?

The young people are the ones getting totally screwed! They have to pay more for car insurance because they are young, yet now, they also have to pay more for health insurance than before because they have to subsidize the old? Do you honestly think the young (18-30 year olds) will get the same benefits of social security and medicare for the price that you and I have paid into the system? The young are getting screwed in every which way, and the ACA magnifies their problems, yet supporters of the ACA seem to think it is perfectly okay to screw them because of the "I got mine, screw them attitude."

Our system is completely broken, and the ACA was NEVER set up to fix it (other than to take from one group to give to another).


17trillion: Posted: May 1, 2014 8:45 a.m.

"Indy: Can you be more specific versus just a generalized statement that addresses nothing of consequence."

For you? No!


AlwaysRight: Posted: May 1, 2014 3:08 p.m.

Very similar to the California Earthquake Authority. When I moved here from chicago, my insurance provider, Allstate, extended e-quake insurance to me for $300/yr. The deductibles were reasonable (like, $5K) and I happily accepted. Shortly after, the CEA was activated, I lost my insurance and was forced to take the pooled option from the State. My premiums went up 5x and the deductible was raised to $35K. I figured, any damage done in a minor quake would never hit the deductible and if the quake was major and the house flattened, what did I care anyway? I'd either be dead or I'd line up with FEMA to get the free federal money....


hopeful: Posted: May 1, 2014 3:50 p.m.

AlwaysRight - I totally get why you and so many others don't have earthquake insurance anymore, but with a maximum FEMA grant of $31,400, that won't be much help if you have to rebuild your home. In a large earthquake, which is bound to happen in the not-to-distant future, the uninsured may lose their home, but they will STILL be responsible to pay their mortgage payments.

Yes, earthquake insurance is super expensive, and there are high deductibles, but if you can afford to pay the insurance, it might be a good bet. I know when the 1994 Earthquake hit, we were very thankful that we had insurance, and although I am not happy about paying the higher price, with a much higher deductible, I believe one day, I will be again thankful that I have earthquake insurance.


Indy: Posted: May 1, 2014 4:51 p.m.

hopeful wrote: Indy said: "Perhaps this poster can come back to ‘planet earth’ and realize that the world works a bit differently than his conservative ideology based ‘ worldview’."

Indy, just because you weren't able to negotiate a lower rate doesn't mean it can't happen. When my son was hospitalized at Henry Mayo years ago, we did indeed negotiate a lower rate. Granted, we had to agree to pay one payment to pay off the entire amount right then, but they gave us about a 35% discount on our portion of the balance (not the portion the insurance paid).

Indy: My point is that in Gary’s case, when your daughter is severely injured, you’re not in the frame of mind to be negotiating medical services. If you have a procedure that is upcoming, then that’s a different reality. But even more real is that many people don’t realize you can negotiate such services.

In any event, if a hospital negotiates a procedure downward, who makes up the difference?

And if their costs are that uncertain, I’m not sure this ability is helping the big picture.

hopeful wrote: And regarding what 17trillion said, I too am paying more now than before the ACA forced me to get a different individual insurance policy. I used to have an Anthem Blue Cross PPO, which I CAN'T get anymore. The only choices for a PPO in L.A. County were Blue Shield or Health Net. After choosing Blue Shield PPO, I am paying about the same for my policy, but my 22 year old child is paying significantly more, so my family is paying more for our premiums this year.

Indy: What specific services are you now paying for that you didn’t before?

Does the ACA law allowing children up to 26 years of age make you pay more for the policy you now have?

hopeful wrote: Although I am not happy about paying more a month for my premiums, I am madder that I have to pay my entire deductible BEFORE insurance pays any portion of my fees. For my Blue Shield PPO Silver plan, I am paying $690.39 a month for me and my child. I have a $2,000 deductible individual deductible and a $4,000 family deductible, which means that I have to pay the first $2,000 to $4,000 BEFORE insurance will pay for any doctor's visits, unless it is for that one well-visit a year. Prior to being forced to purchase the new ACA insurance, my insurance company paid all but my doctor co-pay, but now they pay NOTHING until I reach my deductible.

Indy: Why didn’t you make use of the change that allows you to keep your existing policy?

And yes, the process of truing up the health care insurance market was not going to be ‘pain free’ for ‘all’ people. We knew that going in.

We need to see changes in the ‘big picture’ since a lot of folks, as many as ten million Americans now have insurance where they had none before.

And the blockage of expanded Medicaid services for the poor in republicans held states puts as many as 5 million people at risk with NO INSURANCE.


Indy: Posted: May 1, 2014 4:52 p.m.

hopeful wrote: The only people that truly believe that the ACA is affordable are those getting subsidies, those who have pre-existing conditions, or those, who are clueless because they are affected!

Indy: The ACA only effected the ‘private insurance’ markets for individuals where the vast majority of Americans receiving health care through their employers saw no changes other than increases that have been occurring prior to the ACA.

And I’m sure the people like me that have paid into the health insurance ‘pools’ for decades can no longer be left ‘high and dry’ due to preexisting conditions.

And indeed those poorer Americans that needed subsidies to have health insurance benefited in the reality that without such subsidies, they would have no insurance and those of us ‘insured’ would see higher premiums to cover the losses from those folks.


Indy: Posted: May 1, 2014 5:08 p.m.

Lotus8 wrote: I will let you in on a little secret, as I spent a decade working in the medical insurance industry for one of the very large insurers in their corporate office. The reason you don't see pricing related to hospital procedures is not because the data doesn't exist. The insurance companies have all the necessary data to help their members make these kinds of choices, which would also introduce price competition and lower prices all around.

Indy: Yes, thanks for this post and informing the folks here that indeed the insurance companies know exactly the cost issues which is required to assess profitability.

But as you correctly noted, that information is ‘confidential’ between ‘for profit’ companies and would be very useful if more competition is being put forth in the new ACA exchanges for the ‘standard policies’.

Lotus8 wrote: When the insurance companies worked to gather the information and publish it for their members as a way to lower claims costs, the large hospital chains threatened to drop from the insurance networks. Due to the large amount of consolidation on the hospital side, there are networks of hospitals that hold insurance companies over a barrel. If the insurance company doesn't have certain highly rated and popular hospitals in the neighborhoods where corporate executives reside, the insurance carrier isn't going to be able to sell their corporate customers insurance.

Indy: I’m not surprised that ‘for profit’ hospitals do everything in their power to be as profitable as they can . . .

Do you see any Medicare statistics that would be used ‘above’ the individual health insurance companies that might be helpful for the public?

Lotus8 wrote: So what was the solution? The insurance companies either had to pull back and go with a simple affordability rating (think 1 to 5 dollar signs/stars) and artificially list all of the large hospital chains as affordable, or drop the provision of the information altogether. Well, after some hemming and hawing the decision was made to squash the info altogether by the insurers.

Indy: Yes, profitability reigns supreme.


Indy: Posted: May 1, 2014 5:14 p.m.

Lotus8 wrote: Also remember that insurance companies have been attacked by politicians and now have a mandate in place to keep their cost ratio (amount of premium dollars spent on claims expense) at or above 85%. So with this newer mandate in place, after administrative costs to process the claims, there are very thin profit margins for the insurers. Ever wonder why your claims are mostly processed in India or Vietnam and it is really hard to get someone to help you at the insurance company? But that story is for another time. The point I am trying to make here is that when premiums go up because hospitals and drugs cost more, the insurance companies make more money because they are allowed a percentage. So 15% of $1 billion is less than 15% of $1.2 billion when processing the same amount of claims (costs remain steady). So there was also no tear shed at the insurers over not providing the cost data.

Indy: Yes, let’s hope the media takes a bigger picture look at the US health insurance industry and compares the cost and outcomes with other nations.

That can be a ‘competitive’ pressure as well . . .

Lotus8 wrote: Neither of the two large players, insurers and providers, wants you to have the information. They both pay a ton of money to lobbyists and actually welcomed Obama Care with open arms as their government pawns get to protect them above board. And now you know...the rest of the story.

Indy: Any competitive industry keeps their cost and profit margins highly confidential so it’s no surprise the health care industry does that as well.

Hopefully, you can shed your insights on ‘single payer’ and see if that’s where we really should be going . . .


Indy: Posted: May 1, 2014 5:21 p.m.

BrianBaker wrote: "Indy: I went through this process recently with a hospital that simply told me that ‘I WAS REPONSIBLE FOR ALL COSTS’ incurred."

Of course you are. Everyone's responsible for their own costs.

Indy: Yes, and they weren’t in the negotiation reality at all . . . interestingly, I had insurance but the hospital simply couldn’t run the numbers until ‘after’ the deeds were done if you will.

BrianBaker wrote: "When I asked for a detailed listing of my cost, nothing was ‘discounted’."

Sounds to me like you're a lousy negotiator. Did you even ASK for a "cash price"? Which is something completely different from a "detailed listing". You can get THAT from your insurance company's Explanation Of Benefits.

Indy: Again most of the public aren’t the negotiated ‘masters’ you infer them to be . . . and as I noted to the other poster, how does the hospital reconcile individual ‘discounts’ to their larger profit picture?

Money lost on one customer has to be regained on other . . .

BrianBaker wrote: And, like anything in the free market, you can shop around. Ever think of that? I'm sure not... I'd like to be your car salesman the next time you're looking for a new set of wheels. Cha-ching!

Indy: Free markets are great for ‘homogenous’ products like cars, most food stuffs, housing to a lesser degree . . . but medical care due to the ‘uniqueness’ of the individual is something far different.

This is one reason no doubt the health care industry is in the plight it’s in . . . since in many cases, no one knows, not even the doctor, as to what they’ll find once they ‘open you up’.

Thus, standardized procedural billings will expose the hospitals to a more statistical approach to profit maximization where they ‘win some, lose some’ but overall they remain profitable.


jdebree: Posted: May 1, 2014 5:21 p.m.

Very interesting topic with lots of good comments. I wanted to correct one thing that Mr. Horton said. I think the cost of living in India is more like 5% of what it is here (rather than 10%). A large protion of my firm's professional staff reside in India and we pay them about 5% of what we pay our people in the US.

Also, medical providers in India don't face the same amount of litigation that US medical providers face.

I have a dighter who has Cystic Fibrosis, and over the past 28 years I have paid over $50K per year in medical costs that are not covered by insurance. The amount has increased significantly in the past couple of years. The doctors aren't making any more, so the money is going somewhere else.

While on the subject of Cystic Fibrosis, I want to put in a plug for Saturday's Great Strides for Cystic Fibrosis walk at the Valencia Town Cetner Mall on Saturday at 9:00 AM. We would love to see you there.


Indy: Posted: May 1, 2014 5:37 p.m.

Therightstuff wrote: Speaking of healthcare, Indy, you wrote a fascinating comment earlier on another thread which I quote:

Indy: """Yep, we saw the same ‘play’ if you will by conservatives back in the day when it was determined that tobacco smoke was killing people . . . yet conservatives fought that for 20+ years! Why? Well, the ‘scientist’ hired by them provided the ‘evidence’ that smoking didn’t harm you . . . all the while people were ‘dying’ from same."""

Can you show the evidence that conservatives hired scientists to provide misleading information that smoking didn't harm you?

Indy: Most of the political debate these days recognizes that conservative republicans dominate the interest of the private sector.

Thus the tobacco companies that were promoting smoking didn’t get any conservative republican blockage if you will to the consequences the tobacco industry were creating for the general public.

But feel free to post any conservative republican who did attack the tobacco industry during that time and why they were able for so long to sell a product that harmed the buyer without disclosing the danger.

And PS: conservatives fight against regulations of all types . . . including any that reduce the sales of tobacco

And check out these links and see what you discover . . .

http://www.medicalnewstoday.com/releases/17726.php
http://www.cnn.com/ALLPOLITICS/1996/news/9606/18/smoke.jackson/index.shtml
http://www.opensecrets.org/industries/indus.php?ind=A02


hopeful: Posted: May 1, 2014 6:15 p.m.

Indy wrote: "Indy: Why didn’t you make use of the change that allows you to keep your existing policy?"

This was another lie from President Obama...in California, we were NOT given the option to keep our insurance. But of course, you wouldn't know that because you buy into all the lies...


Indy: Posted: May 1, 2014 7:13 p.m.

Hopeful wrote: Indy wrote: "Indy: Why didn’t you make use of the change that allows you to keep your existing policy?"

This was another lie from President Obama...in California, we were NOT given the option to keep our insurance. But of course, you wouldn't know that because you buy into all the lies...

Indy: How were you notified that you couldn’t keep your existing policy?

Was this from the existing insurance company?

If so what was the reason they gave that they could overstep a ‘federal’ decision?


Indy: Posted: May 1, 2014 7:16 p.m.

Jdebree wrote: Also, medical providers in India don't face the same amount of litigation that US medical providers face.

Indy: Why do you suppose so many Americans go to the courts?

Do you have links to statistics?

If so, do they pertain to:

- Unexpected death
- Procedure not done properly
- Procedure didn’t produce the desired result?
- Complications not stated?

I’m curious why so many Americans go to court over medical care . . . are these Americans just doing it for the money or justice? Is there evidence to support that?


hopeful: Posted: May 1, 2014 8:00 p.m.

March 5, 2014:
"The Obama administration will let people with health insurance plans that don't comply with Affordable Care Act standards keep them through October 2017 if their states allow it, officials said Wednesday in announcing a series of final Obamacare rules." Link to article: http://www.cnbc.com/id/101469265

President Obama knew full well that California, along with other states, would not allow us to keep our insurance, but by saying what he did, it made him look like a hero to people, who don't know any better. His statements were all for political posturing, and not for anything else.

November 21, 2013:
"The board of the Covered California health exchange voted unanimously to break with the president and keep its requirement that insurers terminate most individual policies Dec. 31 because the policies don't meet all the requirements of the Affordable Care Act." Link to article: http://articles.latimes.com/2013/nov/21/business/la-fi-health-exchange-20131122

And another link: http://losangeles.cbslocal.com/2013/11/21/covered-california-rejects-obama-plea-to-keep-canceled-policies-active-for-1-year/


tech: Posted: May 2, 2014 9:01 p.m.

"I’m curious why so many Americans go to court over medical care . . . are these Americans just doing it for the money or justice? Is there evidence to support that?" - Indy

I suggest you remedy your lack of medical practice knowledge with research. OB/GYN malpractice lawsuits and insurance would be an excellent start.


therightstuff: Posted: May 2, 2014 9:58 p.m.

Indy: """Thus the tobacco companies that were promoting smoking didn’t get any conservative republican blockage if you will to the consequences the tobacco industry were creating for the general public."""

THIS is your evidence that conservatives ***hired*** scientists to tell the public that smoking is not harmful? Geez....talk about innuendo and conspiracy theories. You got any hard evidence for your claim or is this just more liberal gibberish that cannot be backed up with facts?


therightstuff: Posted: May 2, 2014 10:03 p.m.

I just noticed that Indy is asking Jdebree for links to statistics and evidence to support his claim. Amazing....where does the hyprocrisy end for this poster?

Indy, what are your links and what is your evidence that conservatives hired scientists to tell the public that smoking is not harmful?

What are you waiting for?


BrianBaker: Posted: May 2, 2014 6:12 a.m.

"BrianBaker wrote: And, like anything in the free market, you can shop around. Ever think of that? I'm sure not... I'd like to be your car salesman the next time you're looking for a new set of wheels. Cha-ching!

"Indy: Free markets are great for ‘homogenous’ products like cars, most food stuffs, housing to a lesser degree . . . but medical care due to the ‘uniqueness’ of the individual is something far different."


Meaningless blather. Every individual is "unique" in their desire or need for any and every product or service. Medical service is no different from bankruptcy service or hunger (need for food) or housing (which you mentioned) or anything else.

You just either didn't know you could do this, or are a lousy negotiator. Whose problem is that?

Yours.


ricketzz: Posted: May 2, 2014 7:19 a.m.

We do have the best trauma care in the world.


17trillion: Posted: May 2, 2014 8:00 a.m.

Had to see a cardiac specialist recently. I have Blue Shield, however none of the doctors I called would take the Blue Shield plan under Covered California. Fortunately I was grandfathered into my crappy policy and wasn't cancelled.

So Obama, tell me again why my crappy grandfathered plan isn't better than an Obamacare plan?


Lotus8: Posted: May 2, 2014 11:19 a.m.

Indy: I wrote the following to some friends of mine when they asked me what a single payer system would do to healthcare in America back in 2009.

A public option will make private options disappear, although not magically. One aspect that doesn't get much attention is something called cost shifting. We already have public options called Medicare which services the old and state Medicaid plans that assist the poor and disabled. By holding the annual cost increases to a minimum for these plans, the government gradually underpays providers more and more every year. What do the providers do? They turn around and push up their rates to folks with private insurance to cover the difference created by this gap as well as to cover those patients who simply don't pay them. We, as people with private insurance plans, are already covering part of the government's cost in the form of increased insurance premiums (a hidden tax of sorts).

"Well why don't we let everyone just join the government plan since they are keeping costs down?" If private insurers are not around to pick up the slack by charging higher rates to their members (and also remitting premium taxes on these higher rates), who is going to make up the gap for the providers? Do we simply tell all doctors and nurses to take a big pay cut and allow hospitals to close their doors?

What's more, drug company profits, medical device company profits and research funds would all shrink instantly. Less young people would pursue a career in the medical field due to the lowered payoff for their decades of intense work (perhaps more than any other professional field).

Medical technology research would dry up due to the disappearance of the pot of gold at the end of the rainbow. The quality of our healthcare would diminish steadily throughout the following decade (can you imagine unionized surgeons working 9 to 5 and picketing any performance measurement the way public school teachers currently do?).

Utilization would go up with millions and millions of people now seeking care (don't forget illegals are in the 50 million uninsured number that the president kept harping on), the number of providers would shrink exacerbating the supply and demand disparity, quality of care would go down due to lack of incentives to innovate, and costs would soar due to those shifted costs coming back home to roost along with the massive increase in utilization. Rationing care the way that Canada and Britain do would become necessary to stem the tide of these cost increases, which is why you hear folks fretting about so called "death panels."

In response to what may be a final contention, that we should be willing to pay higher taxes, I would pose to you this question. Why would you be willing to pay more for less of an inferior product? It is as if you were leasing a '13 BMW 7 Series today and I told you that I could get you an '85 Yugo for $200 more per month.


Indy: Posted: May 2, 2014 1:21 p.m.

Therightstuff wrote: Indy: """Thus the tobacco companies that were promoting smoking didn’t get any conservative republican blockage if you will to the consequences the tobacco industry were creating for the general public."""

THIS is your evidence that conservatives ***hired*** scientists to tell the public that smoking is not harmful? Geez....talk about innuendo and conspiracy theories. You got any hard evidence for your claim or is this just more liberal gibberish that cannot be backed up with facts?

Indy: You need to remove yourself from the conservative media bubble you live in . . . conservative fight regulations as if it's their 'lifeblood' . . .

But did you find any republicans that were fighting against the tobacco lobby that was putting forth this ‘misinformation’ based on their ‘studies’?

Ignoring the reality isn’t helpful . . .


Indy: Posted: May 2, 2014 1:24 p.m.

Hopeful wrote: March 5, 2014:
"The Obama administration will let people with health insurance plans that don't comply with Affordable Care Act standards keep them through October 2017 if their states allow it, officials said Wednesday in announcing a series of final Obamacare rules." Link to article: http://www.cnbc.com/id/101469265

President Obama knew full well that California, along with other states, would not allow us to keep our insurance, but by saying what he did, it made him look like a hero to people, who don't know any better. His statements were all for political posturing, and not for anything else.

Indy: Thanks for the links . . . but how we he know? And what control does the President have over our state’s insurance commissioner?

Hopeful wrote: November 21, 2013:
"The board of the Covered California health exchange voted unanimously to break with the president and keep its requirement that insurers terminate most individual policies Dec. 31 because the policies don't meet all the requirements of the Affordable Care Act." Link to article: http://articles.latimes.com/2013/nov/21/business/la-fi-health-exchange-20131122

Indy: I guess the options are to move to ‘red’ states like Texas that I guess don’t mind having the insurance industry not abide by the ‘standardized’ requirements of the ACA . . .

But if you find any statistics about people in your position here in CA I’d like to see how many people are in your situation . . .


Indy: Posted: May 2, 2014 1:26 p.m.

Tech wrote: "I’m curious why so many Americans go to court over medical care . . . are these Americans just doing it for the money or justice? Is there evidence to support that?" - Indy

I suggest you remedy your lack of medical practice knowledge with research. OB/GYN malpractice lawsuits and insurance would be an excellent start.

Indy: So you can’t provide any evidence statistics to support why so many Americans sue?


Indy: Posted: May 2, 2014 1:28 p.m.

Therightstuff wrote: I just noticed that Indy is asking Jdebree for links to statistics and evidence to support his claim. Amazing....where does the hyprocrisy end for this poster?

Indy: We know that we can’t rely on anything from Fox . . . so the challenge for you and other conservatives to support your positions other than from ‘conservative think tanks’ that ‘pay for the policy positions’ is indeed difficult. . .

Therightstuff wrote: Indy, what are your links and what is your evidence that conservatives hired scientists to tell the public that smoking is not harmful? What are you waiting for?

Indy: I’ll have to go back since this was several decades ago but the ‘news’ of that time clearly indicated that conservative backed tobacco companies were putting ‘misinformation’ out that killed thousands of Americans from smoking . . . something you appear to be ‘ignoring’ . . .

Why is that?


Indy: Posted: May 2, 2014 1:29 p.m.

17trillion wrote: Had to see a cardiac specialist recently. I have Blue Shield, however none of the doctors I called would take the Blue Shield plan under Covered California. Fortunately I was grandfathered into my crappy policy and wasn't cancelled.

Indy: Just more nonsense . . .


17trillion: Posted: May 2, 2014 2:45 p.m.

It is my sincere hope that you experience such nonsense in the future Indy and may you have a really great covered CA plan instead of a old crappy one. Then perhaps you wont be able to see a doctor for a month or two or never and then, well, Indy is no more and the natives will rejoice.


BrianBaker: Posted: May 2, 2014 5:53 p.m.

Hahahahaha.


therightstuff: Posted: May 2, 2014 6:36 p.m.

Indy: """I’ll have to go back since this was several decades ago but the ‘news’ of that time clearly indicated that conservative backed tobacco companies were putting ‘misinformation’ out that killed thousands of Americans from smoking . . . something you appear to be ‘ignoring’ . . ."""

OMG....THIS is your evidence that conservatives hired scientists to tell the public that smoking is not harmful??? Can the internet not go back to the news from several decades ago? If it was so "clearly indicated", why would it be so hard to find this evidence?

Indy, I'm not ignoring anything as you accuse...I'm asking you for the evidence. Where did you get this information? Why is it so impossible for you to prove the things you say? What purpose is served by lying like this other than to further diminish your credibility?

pssst.....attacking me is not evidence. What are you waiting for?


ricketzz: Posted: May 3, 2014 6:59 a.m.

Most if not all of you are clueless regarding how the current structure of employer based insurance works. You lose your plan once a year if your boss wants. You stay in a crappy job because you need to be in a group plan due to a pre-existing condition. You have no liberty to be self employed. And they can cancel you any time they want on a whim. You can get sick, go past your lifetime cap and lose your house over a transient medical event. Y'all defend this mediocrity like it was the flag on Iwo Jima.


tech: Posted: May 3, 2014 2:20 p.m.

"Most if not all of you are clueless regarding how the current structure of employer based insurance works." - ricketzz

Not in my case. I have extensive experience in that industry. It's incredibly arrogant to assume that those who disagree with you are ignorant and unintelligent.

No one is arguing that improvements weren't required in coverage for preexisting conditions, guaranteed issue, portability, removal of lifetime benefit caps, etc.

What you're implying is that only Federalization of the healthcare system via Obamacare or zero reform were the options. False choice fallacy. --edited.


Indy: Posted: May 3, 2014 3:49 p.m.

17trillion wrote: It is my sincere hope that you experience such nonsense in the future Indy and may you have a really great covered CA plan instead of a old crappy one. Then perhaps you wont be able to see a doctor for a month or two or never and then, well, Indy is no more and the natives will rejoice.

Indy: Even more nonsense . . .


ricketzz: Posted: May 4, 2014 6:42 a.m.

I didn't say ignorant and unintelligent, I said "clueless". You can be the master of facts and figures and still be dumb as a rock in the real world. "Street smarts" it's called. You may have "extensive experience" but I doubt you have spent years wondering if the lump in your neck is going to kill you.

The PPACA is the only attempt made during my lifetime to ensure the right to life via universal medical care. How can there be a "false choice fallacy" when there is only a choice between "status quo" and "try something else"? Mrs. Clinton started this in 1993 and the best the GOP could counter with is Medical Savings Accounts and moving all the insurance companies to Rhode Island or Maryland. That does little good to a worker who lives paycheck to paycheck.

I am convinced that at least 50% of the pushback against the ACA is from mean bullies who enjoy watching poor people struggle. They are heartless.


tech: Posted: May 4, 2014 7:45 a.m.

Your emotion based hyperbole makes my point, ricketzz.


ricketzz: Posted: May 5, 2014 6:18 a.m.

You have no point of your own; you parrot what you have been taught by the carefully constructed parallel universe you call "reality". I don't do emotion, but I am glad I'm getting through. What hyperbole? How are you in any position to tell?


tech: Posted: May 5, 2014 9:22 a.m.

This is buffoonish trolling emotion based hyperbole:

"I am convinced that at least 50% of the pushback against the ACA is from mean bullies who enjoy watching poor people struggle. They are heartless." - ricketzz

Reality? Prove your assertion.

"No one is arguing that improvements weren't required in coverage for preexisting conditions, guaranteed issue, portability, removal of lifetime benefit caps, etc.

What you're implying is that only Federalization of the healthcare system via Obamacare or zero reform were the options. False choice fallacy." - tech

How is this not a point? Your responding post is absurd. --edited.


Indy: Posted: May 5, 2014 4:26 p.m.

Therightstuff wrote: Indy: """I’ll have to go back since this was several decades ago but the ‘news’ of that time clearly indicated that conservative backed tobacco companies were putting ‘misinformation’ out that killed thousands of Americans from smoking . . . something you appear to be ‘ignoring’ . . ."""

OMG....THIS is your evidence that conservatives hired scientists to tell the public that smoking is not harmful??? Can the internet not go back to the news from several decades ago? If it was so "clearly indicated", why would it be so hard to find this evidence?

Indy: Yes, the amount of information is intense from the last 30 years or so . . . but you can go here with some links: http://www.signalscv.com/section/33/article/119074/


Indy: Posted: May 5, 2014 4:29 p.m.

Therightstuff wrote: Indy, I'm not ignoring anything as you accuse...I'm asking you for the evidence. Where did you get this information? Why is it so impossible for you to prove the things you say? What purpose is served by lying like this other than to further diminish your credibility?

Indy: Yes, I get the religious conservative position of accusing anyone that disrupts your beliefs as being a ‘liar’. But did you check the links I noted above:

http://www.medicalnewstoday.com/releases/17726.php
“While Republicans get more money from pro-tobacco interests, Democrats seem to be more influenced by the contributions they receive.

Luke examined pro-tobacco political action committee campaign contributions and votes between 1993 and 2000. He found that 220 Republicans and 140 Democrats legislators accepted more than $6.8 million in contributions. The relationship between contributions and pro-tobacco votes was three times stronger for Democrats than Republicans.

"Although Democrats, on average, vote pro-tobacco much less than Republicans, the percentage increase in pro-tobacco voting for every $1000 contribution for Democrats is nearly three times that of Republicans," Luke says. "The tobacco industry may get more bang for their buck by contributing money to Democrats."”

http://www.cnn.com/ALLPOLITICS/1996/news/9606/18/smoke.jackson/index.shtml
“In an attack this week, Gore accused Dole of being addicted to contributions from tobacco companies. "Kick the habit, Senator Dole," Gore admonished him. "It's not worth stinking up your reputation with the smoky stench of special-interest politics and the dangerous din of dishonesty."

Dole was already on the defensive about tobacco after making a comment comparing cigarettes to milk. Dole said, "We know it (cigarette smoking) is not good for kids, but a lot of other things aren't good. Drinking is not good. Some would say milk is not good."

Dole's milk comment seemed to refer to a tobacco industry advertisement running in British papers. In the ad, Phillip Morris claims that the fat content in milk makes it as dangerous as tobacco. The ad urges consumers to keep the tobacco debate in perspective.”

http://www.opensecrets.org/industries/indus.php?ind=A02
Here, you can see for yourself where the tobacco money is going . . .


Indy: Posted: May 5, 2014 4:32 p.m.

BrianBaker wrote: "BrianBaker wrote: And, like anything in the free market, you can shop around. Ever think of that? I'm sure not... I'd like to be your car salesman the next time you're looking for a new set of wheels. Cha-ching!

"Indy: Free markets are great for ‘homogenous’ products like cars, most food stuffs, housing to a lesser degree . . . but medical care due to the ‘uniqueness’ of the individual is something far different."


Meaningless blather. Every individual is "unique" in their desire or need for any and every product or service. Medical service is no different from bankruptcy service or hunger (need for food) or housing (which you mentioned) or anything else.

Indy: In one statement, the poster discredit marketing in every facet of the ‘market’!

But it’s consistent with libertarian market fundamentalism where the individual is supposed to know ‘everything’ which is obviously nonsense. If it weren’t why go to the ‘dentist’ when the bagger at the market who bags your groceries can do the job . . .

BrianBaker wrote: You just either didn't know you could do this, or are a lousy negotiator. Whose problem is that? Yours.

Indy: Again, most Americans don’t negotiate their medical treatments and to assume otherwise is naïve . . .


Indy: Posted: May 5, 2014 4:39 p.m.

Tech wrote: "Most if not all of you are clueless regarding how the current structure of employer based insurance works." - ricketzz

Not in my case. I have extensive experience in that industry. It's incredibly arrogant to assume that those who disagree with you are ignorant and unintelligent.

Indy: I just judge your remarks on exactly what you write . . . . but sill fascinated that you are afraid to disclose your educational background or lack there of . . .

Tech wrote: No one is arguing that improvements weren't required in coverage for preexisting conditions, guaranteed issue, portability, removal of lifetime benefit caps, etc.

Indy: I guess you don’t either read a daily newspaper or even watch TV news here republicans in the House have voted against ‘TOTAL REPEAL’ of the ACA 50+ times!

Tech wrote: What you're implying is that only Federalization of the healthcare system via Obamacare or zero reform were the options. False choice fallacy. --edited.

Indy: Here’s where the libertarian market fundamentalist truly drops the ball so to speak in thinking that regulations that govern our industries are ‘federalization’ of the free market.

This distortion is made evident in the ACA since the health insurers are ‘competing’ in ‘exchanges’ based on ‘specifications’ as outlined by the ACA as approved in congress by 'majority' vote.

Some good examples are putting seatbelts in every car or even ‘child labor laws’. Did these ‘federalize’ the companies in play? No. They merely added what we as a civilized society decided would work best in an economy that includes all Americans not just those that can lobby their self interest for themselves.


tech: Posted: May 5, 2014 5:06 p.m.

"But it’s consistent with libertarian market fundamentalism where the individual is supposed to know ‘everything’ which is obviously nonsense. If it weren’t why go to the ‘dentist’ when the bagger at the market who bags your groceries can do the job . . . " - Indy

LOL at this repeated straw man of yours! When anyone challenges your flacking for rule by a technocratic elite that limits choice you respond as if they oppose specialization and division of labor. Risible!

How is a consumer of medical care services "unique" from say, an individual who wishes legal counsel to generation skip in a trust with disparate distributions to 5 grandchildren by name and perceived aptitudes? Or someone who purchases a bespoke Bentley Mulsanne with the hides they grew up with on their Scottish family estate with their initials and clan crest embossed on the headrests?

As Brian stated, medical services are services subject to market forces, just like any other product or service.

Speaking of dental, at my wife's office, unique treatment plans are drawn up for patients that are no doubt used for comparison shopping!

It's unfortunate you're so inexperienced in how real markets for products and services work, Indy. Sad for someone at your age.


tech: Posted: May 5, 2014 5:44 p.m.

"Indy: I guess you don’t either read a daily newspaper or even watch TV news here republicans in the House have voted against ‘TOTAL REPEAL’ of the ACA 50+ times!" - Indy

Really, now? You apparently use those methodologies and still expose your ignorance and misrepresentation of fact? Did you mean Republicans voting FOR "Total Repeal"? Are you confused again?

What's your source for 50+ for "TOTAL REPEAL"? Here's mine: http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/fact-checker/post/harry-reids-claim-that-house-gop-efforts-to-repeal-obamacare-all-ended-in-failure/2013/07/15/403e0330-ed95-11e2-9008-61e94a7ea20d_blog.html

"This distortion is made evident in the ACA since the health insurers are ‘competing’ in ‘exchanges’ based on ‘specifications’ as outlined by the ACA" - Indy

"Some good examples are putting seatbelts in every car…" - Indy

Subsequently call it a marketplace when you can only buy cars in the colors of bronze, silver, gold and platinum? Somewhere, a Trabant is awaiting you as a proud owner!

Exchanges are marketplaces established in each state that allow consumers to buy health insurance from various companies through a website. Wisconsin is among the over two thirds of states that have exchanges paid for and run by the federal government.

Only 15 states have opted to create and fund their own exchanges, which are controlled by federal regulations and standards.

In 13 counties, only one insurance provider is set to offer insurance to individuals through the exchange. Another 17 counties have only two insurance providers using the exchange to reach the individual market. Eighteen counties have either one or no company offering health insurance plans to small groups through the federally-run online marketplace.

During the debate over ObamaCare, advocates touted the exchanges as the wave of the future, with consumers using the websites to compare prices and select a federally compliant insurance plan that best fit their needs. But if the exchanges don’t offer more than one option in certain markets, consumers won’t have the promised flexibility.

How is a state or county with only one insurer and/or provider network a competitive marketplace?

You need to sharpen your game, Indy. Repeating propaganda points ≠ informed debate.


Indy: Posted: May 5, 2014 6:43 p.m.

Tech wrote: "But it’s consistent with libertarian market fundamentalism where the individual is supposed to know ‘everything’ which is obviously nonsense. If it weren’t why go to the ‘dentist’ when the bagger at the market who bags your groceries can do the job . . . " - Indy

LOL at this repeated straw man of yours! When anyone challenges your flacking for rule by a technocratic elite that limits choice you respond as if they oppose specialization and division of labor. Risible!

Indy: Again, I’m here to help you understand the consequences and indeed the ‘meaning’ of the ideology your constantly recite . . . and to explain why it doesn’t work.

Tech wrote: How is a consumer of medical care services "unique" from say, an individual who wishes legal counsel to generation skip in a trust with disparate distributions to 5 grandchildren by name and perceived aptitudes? Or someone who purchases a bespoke Bentley Mulsanne with the hides they grew up with on their Scottish family estate with their initials and clan crest embossed on the headrests?

Indy: Again, you struggle with context . . . and ‘assume’ that you somehow can understand basic market behavior that exists beyond your ‘libertarian’ market fundamentalism that ‘assumes’ all individuals can make the same decisions when obvsiouly, they can’t.

Even Adam Smith knew that . . . as he argued and correctly so for ‘specialization’.

Tech wrote: As Brian stated, medical services are services subject to market forces, just like any other product or service.

Indy: Not really so . . . as we see with the varying prices that hospital give people . . . or that their insurance companies decide ‘what to pay’.

Tech wrote: Speaking of dental, at my wife's office, unique treatment plans are drawn up for patients that are no doubt used for comparison shopping!

Indy: I think it’s great when a given medical provider is ‘upfront’ with the patients ‘provided’ they know that negotiation is available.

Thus, why aren’t our ‘leaders’ talking about that and helping the public understand this?

Well, they are . . . that's the premise of the ACA exchanges!

Tech wrote: It's unfortunate you're so inexperienced in how real markets for products and services work, Indy. Sad for someone at your age.

Indy: I can see from lack of any business, economic, or management background how you make such a uninformed and meaningless statement . . . no doubt influenced by a failed libertarian ideology that only the ‘few’ can benefit in a ‘free market’ dominated by those with income advantages that 99% of the public hasn’t got access to . . . 0ne reason wealth is concentrating in America where the 1% now take 20%+ of all income!

But again, I’m here to help you . . . and it’s all free!

And if you disclose your educational background, I can better focus on the discrepancies you display and guide you through the shortcomings of capitalism that you seem to ignore here regularly.


Indy: Posted: May 5, 2014 6:54 p.m.

Tech wrote: "Indy: I guess you don’t either read a daily newspaper or even watch TV news here republicans in the House have voted against ‘TOTAL REPEAL’ of the ACA 50+ times!" - Indy

Really, now? You apparently use those methodologies and still expose your ignorance and misrepresentation of fact? Did you mean Republicans voting FOR "Total Repeal"? Are you confused again?

Indy: Just listening to the House ‘speaker’ from his direct quotes!!!! Why would he lie and misrepresent the House votes?

Tech wrote: What's your source for 50+ for "TOTAL REPEAL"? Here's mine: http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/fact-checker/post/harry-reids-claim-that-house-gop-efforts-to-repeal-obamacare-all-ended-in-failure/2013/07/15/403e0330-ed95-11e2-9008-61e94a7ea20d_blog.html

Indy: Just read the daily newspapers . . . anyway, take it with Boehner and asking him why he continues to insist that he wants ‘TOTAL REPEAL’!

Tech wrote: "This distortion is made evident in the ACA since the health insurers are ‘competing’ in ‘exchanges’ based on ‘specifications’ as outlined by the ACA" - Indy

"Some good examples are putting seatbelts in every car…" - Indy

Subsequently call it a marketplace when you can only buy cars in the colors of bronze, silver, gold and platinum? Somewhere, a Trabant is awaiting you as a proud owner!

Indy: Yes, most cars have four wheels and an engine . . . yet the additional of safety devices like seatbelts help all car buyers, regardless of color or make.

Same with the ACA . . . buyers now have a guide to getting ‘uniform’ coverage and don’t have to read lengthy contracts that are mainly focused on legal ‘loopholes’ and in the interest of the insurance provider.

Tech wrote: Exchanges are marketplaces established in each state that allow consumers to buy health insurance from various companies through a website. Wisconsin is among the over two thirds of states that have exchanges paid for and run by the federal government.

Indy: Yes, republicans decided that in states where they hold majorities in their respective state houses or led by a republican governor, they decided to ‘abstain’ from setting up exchanges creating more work for the federal government that they then refuse to fund!

And let’s not forget the republican led states that are putting some 5 million poor people at risk by denying them the Medicaid expansion.

11/4/14


Indy: Posted: May 5, 2014 6:55 p.m.

Tech wrote: Only 15 states have opted to create and fund their own exchanges, which are controlled by federal regulations and standards.

In 13 counties, only one insurance provider is set to offer insurance to individuals through the exchange. Another 17 counties have only two insurance providers using the exchange to reach the individual market. Eighteen counties have either one or no company offering health insurance plans to small groups through the federally-run online marketplace.

Indy: Yes, the ‘marketplaces’ in several areas are devoid of competition based on the coverage of the existing health insurance providers.

Tech wrote: During the debate over ObamaCare, advocates touted the exchanges as the wave of the future, with consumers using the websites to compare prices and select a federally compliant insurance plan that best fit their needs. But if the exchanges don’t offer more than one option in certain markets, consumers won’t have the promised flexibility.

Indy: You’ll have to take that up with the for profit health insurance providers that don’t want to help residents in those areas . . .

Tech wrote: How is a state or county with only one insurer and/or provider network a competitive marketplace?

Indy: Here again, the ACA set up the exchanges but didn’t ‘force’ any company to attend them.

Tech wrote: You need to sharpen your game, Indy. Repeating propaganda points ≠ informed debate.

Indy: Again just here to help you as I’ve done above . . .


tech: Posted: May 5, 2014 7:37 p.m.

Let's recap concisely, shall we?

You acknowledge the following in your loquacious posts above:

• Prices for medical services should be exposed by market forces. PPACA doesn't do so. Medical services are indeed services.
• PPACA exchanges don't equate to a free market and impose a rigid regulatory model of Bronze, Silver, Gold & Platinum.
• PPACA exchanges with single or limited carriers/providers aren't a competitive marketplace for medical insurance coverage.
• You have no support for your assertion that "Republicans voted for TOTAL REPEAL 50+ times" of PPACA.

11/4/14®


ricketzz: Posted: May 6, 2014 7:42 a.m.

My "mean bullies" OPINION is not provable as it came from my brain.

The reason your ideas regarding universal coverage are no good is that you never offered them in any concrete way. People got tired of your BS. The US government has been the largest consumer of health care services for decades. The system was "federalized" (?) a long time ago. What the ACA does is "harmonize" insurance payments both from patients and to facilities and ensures the bulk of the money goes to providing services. It also lets everyone enroll (during open enrollment) regardless of group status or pre-existing conditions. As I said before, many work provided policies change every year. I have Kaiser records, Wellpoint Facey records, Pacificare (I think this may be Wellpoint today), etc. The system you defend is gawdawful. It brings grown men to tears.

You must really live an insulated sheltered life.

https://duckduckgo.com/?t=lm&q=repeal+aca+us+house


tech: Posted: May 6, 2014 8:59 a.m.

Straw man. I'm not defending the "system". I'm pointing out that Federalization wasn't required to address flaws.

Obamacare creates more problems than it solves and is a coercive erosion of individual freedom. It forces you to purchase a product because you exist on U.S. soil. No amount of excuses or propaganda corrects that wrong.


tech: Posted: May 6, 2014 9:07 a.m.

"You must really live an insulated sheltered life." - ricketzz

With regard to my life, you have no idea what you're talking about. Another area where you err.


ricketzz: Posted: May 8, 2014 6:15 a.m.

"Obamacare creates more problems than it solves and is a coercive erosion of individual freedom."

Do you have any idea of how insane that sounds? People that can't afford medical care are enjoying "freedom"? The freedom to die of preventable disease? I said you were clueless because you insisted that there was no way the HOR voted to repeal the ACA 50 times.

I grew up with a reactionary know it all for a father.


tech: Posted: May 9, 2014 9:42 a.m.

An individual should retain the right to not purchase a product or service based on their individual choice. That's freedom and a perfectly sane position. People being able to afford medical insurance is a separate issue, so you're erecting a straw man. Again. Plus another ad hominem.

Provide proof the House voted for and passed full repeal of PPACA 50 times. I'm not sympathetic to your daddy issues.

Harry Reid’s claim that House GOP efforts to repeal ‘Obamacare’ all ended in failure

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/fact-checker/post/harry-reids-claim-that-house-gop-efforts-to-repeal-obamacare-all-ended-in-failure/2013/07/15/403e0330-ed95-11e2-9008-61e94a7ea20d_blog.html

By the way, before you embarrass yourself on this Obama whopper, read up here:

Four Pinocchios for Obama’s claim that Republicans have ‘filibustered about 500 pieces of legislation’

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/fact-checker/wp/2014/05/09/four-pinocchios-for-obamas-claim-that-republicans-have-filibustered-about-500-pieces-of-legislation/


ricketzz: Posted: May 10, 2014 6:23 a.m.

Happy 50th! You're the one who said "Daddy", not I. A round number like "500", when used with the qualifier "about", would tell a reasonable person he was pulling a number out of his butt. If y'all had any good ideas you wouldn't need to lie so much.

http://talkingpointsmemo.com/dc/republicans-50th-vote-obamacare


therightstuff: Posted: May 10, 2014 7:10 a.m.

ricketzz: """If y'all had any good ideas you wouldn't need to lie so much."""

You mean like when your president lied 37 times to push through Obamacare? If it was such a good idea, why did he have to lie so much?


therightstuff: Posted: May 10, 2014 7:18 a.m.

"""By the way, before you embarrass yourself on this Obama whopper, read up here:
Four Pinocchios for Obama’s claim that Republicans have ‘filibustered about 500 pieces of legislation’ http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/fact-checker/wp/2014/05/09/four-pinocchios-for-obamas-claim-that-republicans-have-filibustered-about-500-pieces-of-legislation/"""

Tragically, most Americans will not see this link that proves Obama is lying yet again. He will just spout it, his subservient wh0res in the mainstream media will circulate it, and the low-information voter will buy it.

Same way when Obama claimed over 8-million people enrolled for Obamacare. The media isn't even 'curious' how many millions of these already had health insurance but it got canceled and they were forced to sign up.

The mainstream media just sits there like trained seals, slapping their fins together, and begging with their mouths wide open for more fish from Obama. Remember when journalism used to be an honorable profession?


Indy: Posted: May 10, 2014 5:19 p.m.

Tech wrote: Straw man. I'm not defending the "system". I'm pointing out that Federalization wasn't required to address flaws.

Indy: Called by Republicans, Health Insurers Deliver Unexpected Testimony
By ROBERT PEARMAY 7, 2014
http://www.nytimes.com/2014/05/08/us/politics/called-by-republicans-health-insurers-deliver-unexpected-testimony.html?action=click&module=Search&region=searchResults&mabReward=relbias%3Aw&url=http%3A%2F%2Fquery.nytimes.com%2Fsearch%2Fsitesearch%2F%3Faction%3Dclick%26region%3DMasthead%26pgtype%3DHomepage%26module%3DSearchSubmit%26contentCollection%3DHomepage%26t%3Dqry877%23%2Finsurers%252520energy%252520and%252520commerce%252520committee%2F&_r=0

“WASHINGTON — House Republicans summoned a half-dozen health insurance executives to a hearing Wednesday envisioned as another forum for criticism of the Affordable Care Act. But insurers refused to go along with the plan, and surprised Republican critics of the law by undercutting some of their arguments against it.

Insurers, appearing before a panel of the Energy and Commerce Committee, testified that the law had not led to a government takeover of their industry, as some Republicans had predicted. Indeed, several insurers said their stock prices had increased in the last few years.”

Indy: Interestingly, the resident libertarian market fundamentalist that keeps asserting the ACA had the result of ‘federalization’ of the health care system is ‘REJECTED’ by the health care executives of the company’s in play!!!!

This demonstrates again the danger of ideology based libertarians that simply write their own narrative to support their ideology even if it isn’t true . . .

Tech wrote: Obamacare creates more problems than it solves and is a coercive erosion of individual freedom. It forces you to purchase a product because you exist on U.S. soil. No amount of excuses or propaganda corrects that wrong.

Indy: Here you can see the ‘me first’ strategy of libertarians where helping the poor get medical coverage is seen as ‘coercive erosion of individual freedom’.

Are these the type of people you want leading our nation into the future that simply ‘dismiss’ the poor as if they didn’t exist?


Indy: Posted: May 10, 2014 5:26 p.m.

Tech wrote: An individual should retain the right to not purchase a product or service based on their individual choice. That's freedom and a perfectly sane position. People being able to afford medical insurance is a separate issue, so you're erecting a straw man. Again. Plus another ad hominem.

Indy: Notice how the libertarian tries to confuse the issue and argues that helping the poor is inhibiting others from having the ‘right to not purchase a product or service based on their individual choice’.

And consider this guy’s ideology is currently ‘running the House of Representatives that have voted to rescind or restrict provisions ACA over 50+ times!

And notice the poster ‘NEVER’ addresses helping the poor . . . and dismisses this by writing “People being able to afford medical insurance is a separate issue, so you're erecting a straw man”.

How’d you like living with a guy like this 24/7?

Tech wrote: Provide proof the House voted for and passed full repeal of PPACA 50 times. I'm not sympathetic to your daddy issues.

Indy: https://duckduckgo.com/?t=lm&q=repeal+aca+us+house

Tech wrote: By the way, before you embarrass yourself on this Obama whopper, read up here:

Four Pinocchios for Obama’s claim that Republicans have ‘filibustered about 500 pieces of legislation’

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/fact-checker/wp/2014/05/09/four-pinocchios-for-obamas-claim-that-republicans-have-filibustered-about-500-pieces-of-legislation/

Indy: And look how the libertarian tries to hide the ‘obstruction’ by republicans in the Senate who are ‘forcing’ ‘super majority’ votes knowing they can block them with 40%+ members who have literally ‘shut down’ the Senate for their own partisan ideology.

Time to vote on 11/4/14 and give the republicans an idea of how they are doing . . . I can’t wait.


Indy: Posted: May 10, 2014 5:33 p.m.

Therightstuff wrote: ricketzz: """If y'all had any good ideas you wouldn't need to lie so much."""

You mean like when your president lied 37 times to push through Obamacare? If it was such a good idea, why did he have to lie so much?

Indy: Notice how the religious conservative conflates the goal of the ACA to help Americans get a better choice of standardized health care plans and overall has these advantages:

Coverage
• Ends Pre-Existing Condition Exclusions for Children: Health plans can no longer limit or deny benefits to children under 19 due to a pre-existing condition.
• Keeps Young Adults Covered: If you are under 26, you may be eligible to be covered under your parent’s health plan.
• Ends Arbitrary Withdrawals of Insurance Coverage: Insurers can no longer cancel your coverage just because you made an honest mistake.
• Guarantees Your Right to Appeal: You now have the right to ask that your plan reconsider its denial of payment.

Costs
• Ends Lifetime Limits on Coverage: Lifetime limits on most benefits are banned for all new health insurance plans.
• Reviews Premium Increases: Insurance companies must now publicly justify any unreasonable rate hikes.
• Helps You Get the Most from Your Premium Dollars: Your premium dollars must be spent primarily on health care – not administrative costs.

Care
• Covers Preventive Care at No Cost to You: You may be eligible for recommended preventive health services. No copayment.
• Protects Your Choice of Doctors: Choose the primary care doctor you want from your plan’s network.
• Removes Insurance Company Barriers to Emergency Services: You can seek emergency care at a hospital outside of your health plan’s network.

Indy: And notice the poster is ‘fixated’ on Obama being a ‘liar’ since he doesn’t support the ACA . . .


Indy: Posted: May 10, 2014 5:39 p.m.

Therightstuff wrote: """By the way, before you embarrass yourself on this Obama whopper, read up here:
Four Pinocchios for Obama’s claim that Republicans have ‘filibustered about 500 pieces of legislation’ http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/fact-checker/wp/2014/05/09/four-pinocchios-for-obamas-claim-that-republicans-have-filibustered-about-500-pieces-of-legislation/"""

Tragically, most Americans will not see this link that proves Obama is lying yet again. He will just spout it, his subservient wh0res in the mainstream media will circulate it, and the low-information voter will buy it.

Indy: Sadly, this guy is ‘so’ concerned with the ability of our government to work that he left out of his remarks the ‘nature’ of Senate republcians to obstruct almost anything by just ‘threatening’ a filibuster on every bill.

We see this in the daily news that sits apart from the RNC positions that are displayed daily on Fox that simply doesn’t report on this type of activity for reasons you can probably guess.

In any event, from the link:

“There is one further wrinkle. The counting of cloture motions does not include the many times senators agree to have a 60-vote threshold for the passage of legislation — in other words, the equivalent of a threatened filibuster. Just this week, Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.) sought unanimous consent for a 60-vote threshold for a Republican-backed bill to approve the Keystone pipeline, as part of an agreement to set up a vote for an energy efficiency bill that also would have required 60 votes for passage. Republicans might argue that Reid’s demand for a 60-vote threshold on Keystone is akin to a filibuster.”


Indy: Posted: May 10, 2014 5:47 p.m.

Therightstuff wrote: Same way when Obama claimed over 8-million people enrolled for Obamacare. The media isn't even 'curious' how many millions of these already had health insurance but it got canceled and they were forced to sign up.

Indy: You’ve got to be somewhat concerned that conservatives are ‘biting the big one’ on the ACA enrollments that have now gone over 8+ million sign ups!

And why did people sign up? To again the advantages of the ACA law that creates better standardized health insurance policies that address the old industry practice of ‘junk insurance’ that left many people who thought they were insured open to bankruptcy.

And notice the poster ‘forget’ (a typical behavior of a religious conservative that ‘IGNORES’ everything that contradicts their failing conservative ideology . . . ) to indicate that Obama did address the issue with existing policies by letting the ‘insurance industry’ ‘decide’ to keep policies that no longer met the ACA requirements.

Therightstuff wrote: The mainstream media just sits there like trained seals, slapping their fins together, and begging with their mouths wide open for more fish from Obama. Remember when journalism used to be an honorable profession?

Indy: When you are constantly ‘bathed’ in the Fox ‘innuendo and speculation’, you find yourself wanting for actual ‘factual’ information. We see here the poster suffering from actually ‘believing’ Fox claims that the so called ‘mainstream’ media isn’t reporting the facts correctly . . . when in ‘fact’ Fox is hiding their distortions of the news pretending it is they that are factual. LOL.


tech: Posted: May 10, 2014 8:06 p.m.

"Happy 50th!" - ricketzz

You count as well as TPM. Read my link and try again. --edited.


tech: Posted: May 10, 2014 8:21 p.m.

Indy: "Sadly, this guy is ‘so’ concerned with the ability of our government to work that he left out of his remarks the ‘nature’ of Senate republcians (sic) to obstruct almost anything by just ‘threatening’ a filibuster on every bill."

When Obama earns another "Four Pinocchio" rating for his latest lie from Glenn Kessler of the Washington Post, you still attempt to provide covering fire by substituting imaginary filibusters. And you still manage to mention Fox. Hilariously deranged postings, Indy!

No doubt you'll go down with the ship while your captain enjoys a taxpayer funded retirement and multimillion dollar speaker fees where saps listen to more narcissistic whinging.

11/4/14®


therightstuff: Posted: May 11, 2014 10:13 p.m.

Indy: """You’ve got to be somewhat concerned that conservatives are ‘biting the big one’ on the ACA enrollments that have now gone over 8+ million sign ups!"""

Still waiting for that verification. All we have so far is the word of the guy who lied 37 times about the ACA. It would take one stroke of a computer key to verify these numbers. What are they waiting for?



More Indy: """And why did people sign up? To again the advantages of the ACA law that creates better standardized health insurance policies that address the old industry practice of ‘junk insurance’ that left many people who thought they were insured open to bankruptcy"""

Well, we know millions had to sign up when their current policies got cancelled, contrary to what Obama promised. And Obama reversed himself after calling the old policies "junk". Now he says they can keep these old "junk" policies...until after he gets out of office. The next president will have to clean up the mess of Obamacare.

And Indy, remind us again who had to apologize for giving out misleading information about the ACA. Was it Fox News of Barack Obama?


ricketzz: Posted: May 12, 2014 6:52 a.m.

Technologist: I have no time to extract the hidden meaning from your posts. If you must resort to trickery and innuendo I must put you in the same category as lawyers and used car salesman.

American medicine has always been a joke, suddenly Republicans are becoming aware of the problem. And they throw blame everywhere but with the religious people who want to kill off the poor, where it really belongs.


tech: Posted: May 12, 2014 5:10 p.m.

Technologist: I have no time to extract the hidden meaning from your posts." - ricketzz

This seems to be an issue unique to you, ricketzz. I don't recall anyone complaining about the clarity of my posts.


Indy: Posted: May 12, 2014 7:13 p.m.

Tech wrote: Technologist: I have no time to extract the hidden meaning from your posts." - ricketzz

This seems to be an issue unique to you, ricketzz. I don't recall anyone complaining about the clarity of my posts.

Indy: LOL


Indy: Posted: May 12, 2014 7:19 p.m.

Tech wrote: Indy: "Sadly, this guy is ‘so’ concerned with the ability of our government to work that he left out of his remarks the ‘nature’ of Senate republcians (sic) to obstruct almost anything by just ‘threatening’ a filibuster on every bill."

When Obama earns another "Four Pinocchio" rating for his latest lie from Glenn Kessler of the Washington Post, you still attempt to provide covering fire by substituting imaginary filibusters. And you still manage to mention Fox. Hilariously deranged postings, Indy!

Indy: Yes, your duty to support the ‘for profit’ media is interesting considering your libertarian background . . . but suffice it to say that the House republicans that did vote over 50 times to ruin the ACA act is there for all Americans to see . . . whether Obama got “4 or 400 Pinocchios’.

And you completely ‘ignore’ as did the WP the ‘threat’ of filibusters which has literally ‘shut down’ the Senate.

But please, go ahead in live in the ‘libertarian’ dream world . . . that can’t see the reality right in front of them . . .

And PS - please provide the 'business name' that is registered for the 11/4/14 . . . date . . . just want to look it up . . .


Indy: Posted: May 12, 2014 7:26 p.m.

Therightstuff wrote: Indy: """You’ve got to be somewhat concerned that conservatives are ‘biting the big one’ on the ACA enrollments that have now gone over 8+ million sign ups!"""

Still waiting for that verification. All we have so far is the word of the guy who lied 37 times about the ACA. It would take one stroke of a computer key to verify these numbers. What are they waiting for?

Indy: It is coming . . . and it would be appropriate to not use Fox based ‘innuendo and speculation’ without recognizing how inappropriate that is . . . especially since the health insurance companies are finding the ‘paying’ for premiums to be consistent with their historical records. But you ignore that as well . . .

And of course, you keep forgetting that Obama did come to grips about the doctor issue but that didn’t stop the ‘for profit’ health insurance providing from limiting the doctor pools . . . apart from the ACA.

Therightstuff wrote: More Indy: """And why did people sign up? To again the advantages of the ACA law that creates better standardized health insurance policies that address the old industry practice of ‘junk insurance’ that left many people who thought they were insured open to bankruptcy"""

Well, we know millions had to sign up when their current policies got cancelled, contrary to what Obama promised. And Obama reversed himself after calling the old policies "junk". Now he says they can keep these old "junk" policies...until after he gets out of office. The next president will have to clean up the mess of Obamacare.

Indy: Yes, the policies that the health insurance companies cancelled was consistent with their normal cancellations of individual policies that was occurring prior to the ACA but you ignore that . . .

But indeed Obama did recant and permitted people to keep their ‘junk policies’ . . . for now.

Therightstuff wrote: And Indy, remind us again who had to apologize for giving out misleading information about the ACA. Was it Fox News of Barack Obama?

Indy: Based on Fox’s ‘daily’ distortions on just about everything using their ‘innuendo and speculation’ strategy as a ‘proxy’ for real news, I don’t think it’s even close . . . no one looking for basic 'news' would watch Fox . . .


tech: Posted: May 12, 2014 7:36 p.m.

"And PS - please provide the 'business name' that is registered for the 11/4/14 . . . date . . . just want to look it up . . ." - Indy

We can add density to your deficits for the inability to grasp the sarcasm in response to your plagiarism of my intellectual property. Why can't you create anything on your own?

11/4/14®


Indy: Posted: May 13, 2014 6:00 p.m.

Tech wrote: "And PS - please provide the 'business name' that is registered for the 11/4/14 . . . date . . . just want to look it up . . ." - Indy

We can add density to your deficits for the inability to grasp the sarcasm in response to your plagiarism of my intellectual property. Why can't you create anything on your own?

11/4/14®

Indy: Yes, I guess we’ll have to wait till 11/4/14 to see if Americans buy into your fantasy based ‘future’ or not . . . but sadly, the democrats are just as clueless on the long term issues facing us.

And I wish ‘sarcasm’ had enough value to be worthwhile in our political discourse but usually its used as you did to provide some ‘personal congratulatory’ (think patting yourself on the back . . . ) feeling that solves nothing . . .

But I do find your remark about ‘plagiarism of my intellectual property’ to be laughable but indeed consistent with the ideology bound mental framework you surround yourself with founded in libertarian market fundamentalism.

Please, let me lift that burden from you . . . so you can begin to see reality and stop misleading people.


ricketzz: Posted: May 15, 2014 7:21 a.m.

I don't get it...


tech: Posted: May 15, 2014 9:58 a.m.

No one does, ricketzz.

Reading Indy's posts have that effect. Considering them performance art is perhaps the key.


ricketzz: Posted: May 16, 2014 6:26 a.m.

I was replying to the initial premise of the thread. I am not picking faves in flame wars.



You need to be a registered user to post a comment. Please click here to register.

The Signal encourages readers to interact with one another, following the guidelines outlined in our Comment/Moderation Policy. Click here to read it.

To report offensive or inappropriate comments, e-mail abuse@signalscv.com. The content posted from readers of signalscv.com does not necessarily represent the views of The Signal or Morris Multimedia. By submitting this form you agree to the terms and conditions listed above. Thank you in advance for your cooperation.

 
 

Powered By
Morris Technology
Please wait ...