3Rivers Archery Supply
Obamacare In 4 Sentences.......
Community
Contributors to this thread:
Woods Walker 13-Sep-17
Pi 13-Sep-17
HDE 13-Sep-17
Bownarrow 13-Sep-17
Ace 13-Sep-17
tonyo6302 13-Sep-17
Glunt@work 13-Sep-17
bad karma 13-Sep-17
Tiger-Eye 13-Sep-17
Woods Walker 13-Sep-17
bad karma 13-Sep-17
slade 20-Sep-17
Bownarrow 20-Sep-17
Woods Walker 20-Sep-17
WV Mountaineer 20-Sep-17
Woods Walker 20-Sep-17
Bownarrow 20-Sep-17
Woods Walker 20-Sep-17
bad karma 21-Sep-17
WV Mountaineer 21-Sep-17
tonyo6302 21-Sep-17
Bowbender 21-Sep-17
Woods Walker 21-Sep-17
Anony Mouse 21-Sep-17
bad karma 21-Sep-17
Spike Bull 21-Sep-17
From: Woods Walker
13-Sep-17
Is there a single soul who is surprised that an Engineer could reduce 10,535 pages into 4 sentences?

summing up : This is simply the difference between an Attorney (10,535 pages) And an Engineer (4 sentences).

I am not trying to put down Attorneys, just pointing out the obvious.

A Great summary by a Notre Dame University engineer......

Here are the 10,535 pages of Obama Care condensed to 4 simple sentences. As humorous as it sounds.....every last word is absolutely TRUE!

1. In order to insure the uninsured, we first have to un-insure the insured.

2. Next, we require the newly un-insured to be re-insured.

3. To re-insure the newly un-insured, they are required to pay extra charges to be re-insured.

4. The extra charges are required so that the original insured, who became un-insured, and then became re-insured, can pay enough extra so that the original un-insured can be insured, so it will be 'free-of-charge' to them.

This, ladies and gentlemen, is called "redistribution of wealth" or, by its more common name, SOCIALISM," or "PROGRESSIVISM ," the politically correct names for COMMUNISM!

From: Pi
13-Sep-17
Brilliant.

From: HDE
13-Sep-17
And that is why they will see a pushback like they've never seen.

From: Bownarrow
13-Sep-17
Well, you certainly can tell that was written by an engineer; ) (Just kidding engineers, a jab back at you from an attorney). On the substance of it, I think he misunderstands one of the primary drivers of Obamacare, which is to lower health cost. Some parts have worked, others have not. It needs tweaking and people need to start taking responsibility for their own health IMO. It's cheaper for the poor to go to a clinic than to the emergency rooms, which is one argument Obamacare makes for lowering cost. Another is limiting the amount of dollars that can be spent on administration (insurance) vs actual treatment of patients. Or we can stop providing care for the chronically ill, elderly and poor. That would also lower cost. I don't like that answer but you might. I agree healthcare needs some tweaking. If you have the solution for lowering health costs in a humane way in america you are going to be a very wealthy person so speak up!

From: Ace
13-Sep-17
" On the substance of it, I think he misunderstands one of the primary drivers of Obamacare, which is to lower health cost. Some parts have worked"

Spoken like an attorney. The parts that have worked were the parts that were designed to completely break the system in order to lead us to single payer.

It needs some: "Tweaking"? You must be tweaking if you think all it needs is tweaking Bown.

From: tonyo6302
13-Sep-17
"Some parts have worked"

.. ..

.. ..

Yes, the parts that worked is where my cost for health care a medicine goes up and up, and where when my 83 year old Mother fell and broke her arm just below the shoulder joint and Medicare would no longer allow a hospitalization for that.

From: Glunt@work
13-Sep-17
The details of healthcare are a mess but the big picture is simple. You can't supply more healthcare for less money so in order to cover more people, those that pay need to pay more.

Obamacare was not about lowering costs to anyone who was already paying their way. It was about increasing reliance on the government, increasing the amount of control government has over our lives and redistribution of private property.

The only way to provide healthcare for all and have it cost less is for "all" to pay their own way. Some can't and some choose not to, so we have decided to subsidize their care. I would rather that cost be separated from my healthcare costs. Let people who pay do business outside of the subsidized system instead of hiding the cost inside the prices of all healthcare. If its $60 billion to provide care for people who can't or won't pay, make the taxing and spending of that separate and let the free market healthcare system operate with more choice, less interference, less regulation and less bureaucracy costs.

From: bad karma
13-Sep-17
Lowering health care costs was not why Obamacare was passed. That is how it was sold to the gullible, but the primary purpose of Obamacare was a massive tax increase, with a small healthcare component. Ask anyone with a CPA, or LLM in taxation about the tax consequences of this horrible bill.

Lowering health care costs is not complicated. Repeal Obamacare in its entirety. And who spent 2 years as an engineer working with hospitals and medical clinics in a past life.

Permit insurance sales across state lines. Require payment up front for non-emergency work at the emergency room, which would drive people to minor emergency centers.

the fewer clerks and government employees involved in medical matters the better.

This from an engineer who is also an attorney.

From: Tiger-Eye
13-Sep-17
"If you have the solution for lowering health costs in a humane way in america you are going to be a very wealthy person so speak up! "

Lots of folks spoke up but no one listened because it was politically inexpedient and drug/insurance companies would loose money.

1. allow interstate competition. 2. provide an "a la carte" product where I as a 58 year old man do not need insurance coverage for historectomy or birth control pills and likely not a sex change operation. 3. eliminate providing for abortion. 4. eliminate the administrative costs and burdens. therein lies a lot of problems not doctors or access. How many you have issue with billing vs care. what is the cost of all that paperwork and rework. talk about waste and added expense and poor customer satisfaction. 5. cap catastrophic lawsuits so that drs practice medicine not anti lawsuit hedging 6. universal health savings accounts 7. allowing cheaper pharmaceutical drugs manufactured abroad to be sold in the United States. Pharmaceutical companies essentially sell their products to the federal government via Medicare and Medicaid without competitive bidding. In other areas of the budget, such as defense, federal laws require competitive bidding why drugs. Big Pharma????????.......................................... "I'm waiting"

From: Woods Walker
13-Sep-17
8. Keep the ****ER ****ING GOVERNMENT as FAR away from it as possible. As long as they are involved it WILL be a train wreck.

From: bad karma
13-Sep-17
What Tiger-Eye said was better than my response. Not that difficult. People know what should be done, but the entitlement mentality makes it hard to accomplish.

From: slade
20-Sep-17

From: Bownarrow
20-Sep-17
FYI I am the owner of a 150 person technology company and Obamacare has lowered our healthcare cost by 30%, depending on how you slice the numbers. So it has worked for some. Prior to Obamacare we had double digit increases every year since 2002. And our cost could have continued to go down if the 2016 "community" rates would have kicked in. But my point is that for my company Obamacare has helped. I understand for people in other industries it has not. As far as people not getting care, that has been happening all along and prior to Obamacare. If you are in favor of single payor (medicare for all or whatever you want to call it), in theory that may be an option. I think ideally we would have single payor (medicaid for all) plus additional cadillac insurance for those who can afford it. The problem with "free market" is that people still can get care at emergency rooms (under existing law and prior to Obamacare), and that cost is passed to those of us with insurance. And if we change that law and stop people getting care in emergency rooms people will die in the streets if they can't afford healthcare. If that is your ideal system, I understand that argument-you either have the money or you don't. Fair but tough. But I don't think we need to be that draconian in the richest country in the world. Don't get me wrong, I don't think it is good for able-bodied people to get handouts. But I do want to take care of the women and children who need help. As far as allowing competition across state lines, heck ya, what are we waiting for.

From: Woods Walker
20-Sep-17
Single payer? No ******g way. If you want to live in a socialist system then move to a country that has one. Like Venezuela. EVERYTHING the government touches turns to crap. And on top of that so far EVERYTHING about Obamacare has been a lie. I have ZERO faith or trust in anything they propose. It's a tax for breathing that you MUST pay and if you don't the IRS can take your home and other assets.

20-Sep-17
Bow, as the Premium cost decreased for your company, how did distribution rates for procedures, deductibles, what was covered, and prescription coverage adjust? Up or down? Stay the same?

I'm not doubting you on premium rates. But, the ACA is a ticking bomb. And, EVERYONE who made sustainable wages with insurance before the ACA, that I know, have saw premium increases. So, how is it yours got cheaper? No where does a sustainable business model suggest that is possible unless coverage decreases following the premium decreases.

FWIW, bad karma, and Glunt nailed it. Tiger eye did too except for the abroad prescription costs. We already are getting almost half of our medications from abroad. That is why so many of the common ones are so cheap once you have covered your new, higher priced deductible. Call me a prune if you must but, I don't want my cancer drugs and research done in India or China.

This was a tax on working class America. Plain and simple. It seems that no one considered that healthy, young working Americans wouldn't want to pay inflated wages to ensure those Americans that chose entitlement, gets a medicaid card worth the same or, better coverage. Who'd a thunk it?

It was a idea of liberal America to do the "right thing". But, like all liberal policy, it ignored reality just long enough to create a real mess. Economically. The government does not belong in healthcare. It does not belong controlling healthcare. Look at the VA if you question that reality. God Bless

From: Woods Walker
20-Sep-17
And like all liberal policy it's based on LIES. That's the only way they can get anything passed is to lie about it. If they told the truth they'd never get anything passed (as well as having Hell freeze over). They DAMN sure never told the truth about Obamacare.

From: Bownarrow
20-Sep-17
Stayed the same. We carry a "cadillac plan" that allows for going to any provider without referral, without a cap. Last year we implemented an HSA to go along with it for the first time and it appears our company cost will continue to go down sligthly this year. How have our costs went down? Our risk pool is educated white collar and that might have something to do with it. Part of Obamacare requires that no more than 15% (from what I recall-double check me on that) goes to administration; the rest needs to go to the patient services. Before that the US was paying 20-22% to admin (insurance). Some of you say the free market is the only way to go. Do you price shop when you have chest pain? Or your kid is sick? I don't. What does your version of the free market mean? Which risk pool are you in for insurance? Healthy 21 year olds? Great-really cheap! But if you are soon to be 51 like me, it's really expensive. And I'm healthy so why should I pay for other sick people? Is your version of the "free market" no insurance at all and every person for themsleves? If not, how do you break down the risk pools-that's a big part of this debate. The way I see it It's way more complicated than Obamacare sucks and let the free market decide. The "free market" lets poor people die in the streets and I'm not ok with that. But I don't begrudge you if that's your position-just the opposite. You have the guts to speak your peace and I think your position is understandable. But for me I think Jesus is clear we need to take care of the poor and weak. And even though I'm a tight wad I am bound by that. In reality this is an academic discussion for me. My family has great healthcare and always has. But I think we spend too much on it as a country and our results are not a good value by world standards. I think we can do better.

From: Woods Walker
20-Sep-17
I agree. WE need to, NOT the government doing it by force. We are a free people (or we were). Having the the government take from me to give to someone else against my will is NOT freedom. Especially when it's done by fraud and deceit. That's not very Christian either.

Government run healthcare is NOT the way to do it. It will not/can't work. And why should I trust anything they say about it?? Or is it that THIS time they won't lie? Riiiiiiiiiiiiiiiight..............

From: bad karma
21-Sep-17
Here's the liberal version of health insurance:

From each according to his means, to each according to his needs.

You may find that phrase originated with Karl Marx if you bother to google it.

21-Sep-17
Free market. My version is pretty simple and based on economics 101 supply and deman theories. Get the government out, which makes for a more suitable work environment, and let providers compete for business. Across state lines, let them bid on company plans, etc.... it will drive premium prices down and ensure the plans they offer stay competitive with demand.

Insurance used to be a benefit offered in an employment package. Companies and small employers bargained for the best as part of their incentives to offer employees. Not anymore.

This thing was a joke for "reducing costs". And, like Trump said, if the elected elite in congress and the senate had to live with it, it'd never passed. God Blesd

From: tonyo6302
21-Sep-17
"FYI I am the owner of a 150 person technology company and Obamacare has lowered our healthcare cost by 30%,"

What is the name of your company?

From: Bowbender
21-Sep-17
I have yet to see one, not one company, see reduced healthcare rates. My company had a relatively young work force and we saw double digit increases for the last number of years, with this years being about 35%.

From: Woods Walker
21-Sep-17

Woods Walker's embedded Photo
Woods Walker's embedded Photo
And if you like your health plan/doctor you can keep your health plan/doctor, PLUS save an average of $2400 a year!

Gruber was one of the few involved in Obamacare's implementation...and maybe the ONLY one...to actually tell the truth about Obamacare.

From: Anony Mouse
21-Sep-17
The problem with the proregressives is they equate insurance with entitlements.

From: bad karma
21-Sep-17
Obamacare in 4 words: Worst effing law ever.

21-Sep-17
^^^^^^^ HEAR!! HEAR!!!

  • Sitka Gear