ObamaCare - exchanges ,report your states options!

[Phatscotty]

Scotty, I can personally point to several threads where, on several issues, you have been forced to do the same or in other cases simply didn't reply. Especially on this issue. So if you have info, present it. Don't use this as a cop-out for a lack of it.

You once again called this socialized healthcare yet have no way to prove it is.

Please point me to them. A few always fall through the cracks. I will respond to all of them.

Yes, point to all of those places where Scotty just didn't respond. Those should be easy to pull up on a search, right? <rolling eyes>

He had only one response in mind, of which I certainly did reply. He just exaggerated it into plural form like most people around here do. I totally like greece, and you too Woody. I'll just say you guys do not understand me. Woody a lil but Greece no he's a big meanie to me.

[Phatscotty]

Upthread at various points.

One time I put a chart showing how other countries spending as a % of GDP and made the assertion that a fully public health system would be cheaper. Your response? Something to the extent that, because I'm Greek and Greece's economic condition isn't good, my point was invalid. Nice.

After tossing you aside on that subject which was totally unrelated, there was no response.

And that's not the first time you resorted to the Greek defense.

Yeah I remember that. I only used Greece as one example, and it had nothing to do with your username

In all seriousness, I will try harder. Just understand back then you were a noob at least in here and I alwyas keep it short with noobs.

[spurgistan]

Thanks for typo-ing this week's misleading headline. It really forces people to take you seriously. Or at least post pointing that out. And wonder where the hope of repeal went?

[Phatscotty]

Thanks for typo-ing this week's misleading headline. It really forces people to take you seriously. Or at least post pointing that out. And wonder where the hope of repeal went?

Ouch! Spurg spell checked me! I would much rather be slimed

[GreecePwns]

Spurgistan, you just don't understand Scotty okay? Bring up all the points you want, but it won't matter because you don't understand. Gosh.

[Phatscotty]

Spurgistan, you just don't understand Scotty okay? Bring up all the points you want, but it won't matter because you don't understand. Gosh.

Greece, I will concede that you have the answer to fix social security.

[PLAYER57832]

I remember bringing up charts, data showing how much other countries pay versus how much we pay. You claimed it all was "not valid", then launched into how poor medical care in those countries is. Person after person with experience in those countries responded you were wrong.. you called them ALL biased, with worthless information. you brought up some worst case scenarios from those countries, and wanted to pretend they were typical of those countries, but when presented with ever worse situations here, respond "that's just an unusual, extreme example".

I brought up scientific surveys showing overall satisfaction rates in various countries.. again, you ignore it, offer insults and go on with your blather.

To contrast, yes, I do say you ignore data, do dispute your beliefs, and offer backing when asked for the most part.

[Phatscotty]

I remember bringing up charts, data showing how much other countries pay versus how much we pay. You claimed it all was "not valid", then launched into how poor medical care in those countries is. Person after person with experience in those countries responded you were wrong.. you called them ALL biased, with worthless information. you brought up some worst case scenarios from those countries, and wanted to pretend they were typical of those countries, but when presented with ever worse situations here, respond "that's just an unusual, extreme example".

I brought up scientific surveys showing overall satisfaction rates in various countries.. again, you ignore it, offer insults and go on with your blather.

To contrast, yes, I do say you ignore data, do dispute your beliefs, and offer backing when asked for the most part.

I really hope you aren't talking to me.....oh...hi Player.....

Yeah I see what you are talking about, like 2 days ago, like....oh right here... http://www.conquerclub.com/forum/viewto ... m#p3043724

[PLAYER57832]

I just have a problem getting into you perspective, since, in my state, there is no such thing as an insurer that operates for a profit. Only non-profits can provide insurance here.

So you are under the impression that Blue Cross does not operate in your state?

You operate under a serious illusion.

[Phatscotty]

I just have a problem getting into you perspective, since, in my state, there is no such thing as an insurer that operates for a profit. Only non-profits can provide insurance here.

So you are under the impression that Blue Cross does not operate in your state?

You operate under a serious illusion.

Yes, BlueCross AND SHIELD is here. As you apparently do not know, the BCS does not tell the state how it's going to operate. The state tells BCS how it operates, and in Minnesota, you have to operate as a non-profit.
You thinking that you know my state laws, or even how the sector works in general is the only illusion

Watch the education flash before your eyes...

In Minnesota HMOs operate as non-profits, and Blue Cross Blue Shield of Minnesota's CEO Pat Geraghty says even a partial fee means premiums will go up.

"We had hoped that Minnesota, being a not-for profit state, that the insurers would be exempted from that fee," Geraghty said. Because the only place a not-for-profit insurance company can go with that fee is into their premium and charge that on to the member."

http://minnesota.publicradio.org/displa ... orm-stake/

[PLAYER57832]

I just have a problem getting into you perspective, since, in my state, there is no such thing as an insurer that operates for a profit. Only non-profits can provide insurance here.

So you are under the impression that Blue Cross does not operate in your state?

You operate under a serious illusion.

Yes, Blue Cross is here. As you apparently do not know, the Blue Cross does not tell the state how it's going to operate. The state tells Blue Cross how it operates, and in Minnesota, you have to be a non-profit company.

You thinking that you know my state laws, or even how the sector works in general is the only illusion

I know an illusion, apparently you don't.
EVERY state tells Blue Cross (and any other state) how they may operate, except where federal law interferes. Even so, Blue Cross is about the most profitable company in the WORLD (OK, group of companies combined under one umbrella).

[Phatscotty]

blue cross's overall standing in the world doesn't have anything to do with Minnesota law being only non-profits.

[Woodruff]

blue cross's overall standing in the world doesn't have anything to do with Minnesota law being only non-profits.

What?

[PLAYER57832]

Watch the education flash before your eyes...

In Minnesota HMOs operate as non-profits, and Blue Cross Blue Shield of Minnesota's CEO Pat Geraghty says even a partial fee means premiums will go up.

"We had hoped that Minnesota, being a not-for profit state, that the insurers would be exempted from that fee," Geraghty said. Because the only place a not-for-profit insurance company can go with that fee is into their premium and charge that on to the member."

http://minnesota.publicradio.org/displa ... orm-stake/

EXACTLY! Your OWN POST rather agrees with my statement. Blue cross, blue shield, highmark (all one company, no matter what pretense for tax, etc purposes) will get their money, one way or another.
Not only are charges, but imposed limits to care provided are partially based on shortfalls in other states, not just your own.

However, here is the REAL irony. A not-for-profit insurance system was one of those ideas I touted early on.. and you were prompt to declare "SOCIALISM! BAD!" Now, you seem to say you think that is a good system! Yor hypocrisy is astounding!

[Phatscotty]

waivers climbs above 1,000

http://thehill.com/blogs/healthwatch/he ... above-1000

The number of temporary healthcare reform waivers granted by the Obama administration to organizations climbed to more than 1,000, according to new numbers disclosed by the Department of Health and Human Services.

HHS posted 126 new waivers on Friday, bringing the total to 1,040 organizations that have been granted a one-year exemption from a new coverage requirement included in the healthcare reform law enacted almost a year ago. Waivers have become a hot-button issue for Republicans, eager to expose any vulnerabilities in the reform law.

In order to avoid disruption in the insurance market, the healthcare overhaul gives HHS the power to grant waivers to firms that cannot meet new annual coverage limits in 2011.

Unnafordable! why Obamacare now? When we are already crushed by deficits. Heck let's make it a 2-fer.

Obama rings up more debt in February than Bush did in all of 2007.

2007 deficit 161 billion http://blogs.wsj.com/economics/2007/10/ ... 07-slides/

feb 2011 deficict 223 billion http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/201 ... icit-ever/

[PLAYER57832]

waivers climbs above 1,000

http://thehill.com/blogs/healthwatch/he ... above-1000

The number of temporary healthcare reform waivers granted by the Obama administration to organizations climbed to more than 1,000, according to new numbers disclosed by the Department of Health and Human Services.

HHS posted 126 new waivers on Friday, bringing the total to 1,040 organizations that have been granted a one-year exemption from a new coverage requirement included in the healthcare reform law enacted almost a year ago. Waivers have become a hot-button issue for Republicans, eager to expose any vulnerabilities in the reform law.

In order to avoid disruption in the insurance market, the healthcare overhaul gives HHS the power to grant waivers to firms that cannot meet new annual coverage limits in 2011.

Unnafordable! why Obamacare now? When we are already crushed by deficits. Heck let's make it a 2-fer.

What does the deficit have to do with COMPANIES saying they cannot pay insurance costs.. and what does it have to do with the insurance industry continuing to insure the healthy and to push off the rest.

Obama rings up more debt in February than Bush did in all of 2007.

And Bush did more than his predecessors. Tends to happen when politicians are happy to just push off costs to the next administration.

[Phatscotty]

Player, the deficit has more to do with how much the gov't CAN NOT PAY for ALL it's bills, and less about how much companies are charged for health insurance. You failure comes in refusing to plug in the results of the reality w/waivers. Reality is, because of all these waivers, the gov't is going to have to pay more than it would without all the waivers, which demands more money for Obamacare, which makes our deficit bigger.

Unaffordable on both levels. gov't and corporation.

[PLAYER57832]

Player, the deficit has more to do with how much the gov't CAN NOT PAY for ALL it's bills, and less about how much companies are charged for health insurance. You failure comes in refusing to plug in the results of the reality w/waivers. Reality is, because of all these waivers, the gov't is going to have to pay more than it would without all the waivers, which demands more money for Obamacare, which makes our deficit bigger.

Unaffordable on both levels. gov't and corporation.

LOL.

Recent time you speak of, only. The REAL story is that as long as we allow Blue Cross and Blue shield, plus a few others to dictate insurance in our country, health care costs will never be controlled. It just is not in their interest.

[Phatscotty]

Player, the deficit has more to do with how much the gov't CAN NOT PAY for ALL it's bills, and less about how much companies are charged for health insurance. You failure comes in refusing to plug in the results of the reality w/waivers. Reality is, because of all these waivers, the gov't is going to have to pay more than it would without all the waivers, which demands more money for Obamacare, which makes our deficit bigger.

Unaffordable on both levels. gov't and corporation.

LOL.

Recent time you speak of, only. The REAL story is that as long as we allow Blue Cross and Blue shield, plus a few others to dictate insurance in our country, health care costs will never be controlled. It just is not in their interest.

subject change aside....

[PLAYER57832]

Player, the deficit has more to do with how much the gov't CAN NOT PAY for ALL it's bills, and less about how much companies are charged for health insurance. You failure comes in refusing to plug in the results of the reality w/waivers. Reality is, because of all these waivers, the gov't is going to have to pay more than it would without all the waivers, which demands more money for Obamacare, which makes our deficit bigger.

Unaffordable on both levels. gov't and corporation.

LOL.

Recent time you speak of, only. The REAL story is that as long as we allow Blue Cross and Blue shield, plus a few others to dictate insurance in our country, health care costs will never be controlled. It just is not in their interest.

subject change aside....

ah and here I thought this was the thread about HEALTHCARE.... my mistake

[Night Strike]

Recent time you speak of, only. The REAL story is that as long as we allow Blue Cross and Blue shield, plus a few others to dictate insurance in our country, health care costs will never be controlled. It just is not in their interest.

The "few others" being the state and federal governments that make people pay for options that they would never even use, usually because the procedure/disease is sex-specific, under the guise of "minimum requirements". Drop those fake requirements and allow companies to sell the policies people want across state lines and prices will fall.

[AndyDufresne]

Recent time you speak of, only. The REAL story is that as long as we allow Blue Cross and Blue shield, plus a few others to dictate insurance in our country, health care costs will never be controlled. It just is not in their interest.

The "few others" being the state and federal governments that make people pay for options that they would never even use, usually because the procedure/disease is sex-specific, under the guise of "minimum requirements". Drop those fake requirements and allow companies to sell the policies people want across state lines and prices will fall.

Witch! Prognosticator.


--Andy

[Night Strike]

By the way, here's Sebelius admitting they are double-counting the $500 billion of Medicare cuts in trying to fund health care.

http://hotair.com/archives/2011/03/04/s ... e-savings/

[PLAYER57832]

Recent time you speak of, only. The REAL story is that as long as we allow Blue Cross and Blue shield, plus a few others to dictate insurance in our country, health care costs will never be controlled. It just is not in their interest.

The "few others" being the state and federal governments that make people pay for options that they would never even use, usually because the procedure/disease is sex-specific, under the guise of "minimum requirements".
Drop those fake requirements and allow companies to sell the policies people want across state lines and prices will fall.

Yes, pregnancy is sex-specific. However, covering women is not why the cost of healthcare is so high.

The cost of healthcare is high because we have, in the course of about 50 years, gone from a time when even things like appendectomies were pretty serious to a time when heart transplants are almost routine, when advanced brain surgary and non-invasive testing is possible. And, too many people want all that care without facing any responsibility for real and true limits based on evidence (as opposed to some moral judgements pretended to be about fiscal responsibility).

Health care INSURANCE, however, is out of hand because the primary purchasers are employers and they do not use the insurance, along with a heavy desire for .. yep, you guessed it, profit. This has been less noticeable to many people up until recently because the actual healthcare available has increased so much. It is only now, when so many, many people finally realize that they have been paying for what they thought was insurance, but which they find really fails when they actually need it... or when they lose their jobs or ... any other excuse the companies can use to get rid of all but the healthy. Now, so many people KNOW they are not covered or are realizing that the coverage they have is minimal.. folks ahve been crying for change.

Drop those fake requirements and allow companies to sell the policies people want across state lines and prices will fall.

I see, it worked so well for credit card companies, now didn't it???? .. OOOPS NO!! It did not!

[Night Strike]

Recent time you speak of, only. The REAL story is that as long as we allow Blue Cross and Blue shield, plus a few others to dictate insurance in our country, health care costs will never be controlled. It just is not in their interest.

The "few others" being the state and federal governments that make people pay for options that they would never even use, usually because the procedure/disease is sex-specific, under the guise of "minimum requirements".
Drop those fake requirements and allow companies to sell the policies people want across state lines and prices will fall.

Yes, pregnancy is sex-specific. However, covering women is not why the cost of healthcare is so high.

Colonoscopies, ovarian cancer, prostate cancer, etc. are all sex-linked issues that obviously members of the other sex shouldn't have to pay for. If a man has his tubes tied or a woman has her eggs removed, then they shouldn't be forced to pay for pregnancy coverage, etc. Policies need to adapt to the people buying them and not one bill fits all as is currently forced upon providers.

The cost of healthcare is high because we have, in the course of about 50 years, gone from a time when even things like appendectomies were pretty serious to a time when heart transplants are almost routine, when advanced brain surgary and non-invasive testing is possible. And, too many people want all that care without facing any responsibility for real and true limits based on evidence (as opposed to some moral judgements pretended to be about fiscal responsibility).

You're right, that's why we have to do things like cut the amount of frivolous lawsuits that cause doctors to run every test under the sun just to avoid being sued. The costs for procedures have increased, which is why the doctors should be allowed to run only necessary procedures and not all possible ones.

Health care INSURANCE, however, is out of hand because the primary purchasers are employers and they do not use the insurance, along with a heavy desire for .. yep, you guessed it, profit. This has been less noticeable to many people up until recently because the actual healthcare available has increased so much. It is only now, when so many, many people finally realize that they have been paying for what they thought was insurance, but which they find really fails when they actually need it... or when they lose their jobs or ... any other excuse the companies can use to get rid of all but the healthy. Now, so many people KNOW they are not covered or are realizing that the coverage they have is minimal.. folks ahve been crying for change.

Why should a company provide something for free? I guess no more car insurance, fire insurance, flood insurance, life insurance, etc. Make everyone pay for everything out of pocket and those 2-3% profit rates for insurance companies won't be so bad. Insurance companies found a need in the market and have fulfilled that need. You're just upset that they are successful.

Drop those fake requirements and allow companies to sell the policies people want across state lines and prices will fall.

I see, it worked so well for credit card companies, now didn't it???? .. OOOPS NO!! It did not!

You mean how credit card companies were vilified simply because their clients were too stupid to read the fine print and missed payments?? Sounds those companies really are the ones at fault.

By the way, you don't have to use a credit card just like you don't have to buy insurance (well, until the government butts their ugly head into the situation).