Yes, you did.

Maybe you didn't mean to, but now I think you're just mad that you got bitchslapped down, so you're backing up. I find it hard to believe you would say:

And not mean that EYESCREW's opposition to obamacare was based only that anecdote. Hell, you're still demanding more of EYESCREW's position.

You just can't help yourself can you?

Cliff's: lol ikes

See, this is really the only thing you're good at. I mean, it's not exactly complicated but it's something you can do. Stick to it. Don't actually talk about issues.

What ****ing issues am I avoiding? That EYESCREW knows somebody who might be cheating on their taxes?

You're not avoiding issues, and that's the problem, because you fall flat on your face when you actually get into them. Ironically, this time it's about whether or not you avoid issues.

I request the last 30 posts be deleted.

I can confirm this. 8.5% was the minimum and when I was a waiter and bartender in college that's what we reported.

Of course, you could actually get away with that in those days because so many more people paid in cash. Just about everything is paid via debit or credit card now, though, so that **** doesn't fly anymore as they know exactly how much you got (and you're right, it's always > 8.5%).

Given these thread has driven off a mountainside all must be good in the world of the Affordable Care Act.

Was only a matter of time. Only six/seven days into 2014 though, that is quite impressive. I thought it might take a bit longer but not much.

I guess it is just counting ridiculous ad claims made during the elections as they relate to the ACA. Will be interesting to see if republican candidates are silly enough to make it an issue.

Very well could be in the short term. For many people moving over to insurance they may have relied on the emergency room for a long time. It is an educational issue.

If anything this condemns the previous system. You had millions of people who only used the ER for services. Plus when you go on insurance you may not have a doctor. So you have to find one. Depending on the doctor and the illness this could be daunting. If you are sick but our told you have to wait two days (when other doctors could see you quicker) or you have to fill out the initial paperwork it might just be more than someone who is sick wants to deal with. With actual insurance these people know they will get care in the ER.

What it shows is that people who are not paying for insurance are more hesitant to go to the ER, or any doctor, when ill. We will see how it pans out but I doubt it is anything other than short term. In fact hospitals could be useful in educating patients, especially if they own relevant gp offices.

To me this is another thing like the website. Clearly temporary issues that will be resolved and horrible reasons to talk about repealing the ACA. Yet a lot of the reasons are of that variety. None of these are fundamental program issues and are instead just the by product of change.

This will be the number one issue in 2014. It may be a losing one (I doubt it opinions are pretty set) but I unless the economy tanks this is it imo. The Dems will certainly try to make income inequality the main focus but I don't see it. Of course my crystal ball has been wrong before

http://www.businessweek.com/articles...ance-companies

The insurance model doesn't work.

http://www.bing.com/search?q=michael...logo=CT3210127

Michael Moore is against Obamacare. Moore says Obamacare is awful. He wants single payer.
John Stossel says no third party payer model works. People need financial skin in the game.
Republicans have offer healthcare accounts. Think that only works for the top 20%.

They need to develop a model like a computer game. Everyone can buy(or is given) 100 credits per month. Each person would to able to use his credits as he pleases.

Yeah, I know how this game works.

I understand he wants single payer, but Obamacare isn't far off. Everyone poor or old is basically on single payer and the rest can afford insurance. Does he really say that is awful?

Yes he did. Because something something insurance companies something something drug companies are bad mmmmkaaay?

Lets get the back end of the website up and running and make sure bills are actually being paid by insurers before we declare victory on implementation.

Where do you think the bulk of non-prescription medical costs lie? Something like 60% of people admitted to hospitals come in through the E/R. Very expensive costs with very little time to "shop". I believe people significantly overestimate how different things would be if consumers directly paid for everything. Not to mention the massive stress you burden people with of making huge financial decisions when they are criticially ill.

Everyone who thinks this would matter should consider their healthcare costs for 2013 and pinpoint the areas where this would affect change. Shopping Primary Care Physicians to save $15 a visit is not going to do it. Yet they are the ones who would likely suffer the most from this direct interaction, yet they are the one area of care that likely needs to be paid more.

Medical areas not covered by insurance, ie many elective procedures, are still often expensive even with the consumer directly paying for the service. There is only so much give.

So I have a stroke and a family member calls 911. An ambulance is dispatched.

*STOP*

Do we ask for quotes and etas and yelp ratings or take first available?

So we get the first available ambulance. The EMT determines I had a stroke. My family asks me to be taking to Neglie Memorial Hospital because we pre-shopped emergency room care there and got a great family plan.

EMT says, "No go. Neglie does not have a stroke center, you have to go to Ike Presbyterian, as they have seen more strokes than all the other hospitals combined."

Get to the hospital and they are going to want to run some tests. Is my family going to haggle over every test? Will we have our certified medicine advocate come in and argue the cost and selection of what is to be done?

While all this is going on the timer for the stroke treatment protocol is ticking. Should we haggle some more?

The reality is these kinds of monetary issues should not be an issue for the patient or doctors during emergency care.

Not to mention you have no bargaining power because you are already at the hospital. On the other hand doctors are not going to be negligent and let patients die. So where is the big cost savings going to come? Sure we have emergency room visits by people not having emergencies but that eventually goes away with third party payer covering everyone.

Show me the money. We all know the hospital is the centerpiece for expense. I do think the medical device industry is one that could use reform, but that reform does not have to be direct pay.

Consumers need to use their collective leverage to fight health care costs. There is no leverage to be had by the individual.

Why? Did your insurance company have to build all new facilities to handle your 2014 insurance? Why would their paying bills be any different from 2013 for a customer of theirs?

What are you expecting to happen that is an insurmountable obstacle?

I am not claiming a victory on implementation as their was nothing to be victorious over... Unless.... Unless some people thought the website might never ever ever work. That would be pretty illogical thinking though. I am sure nobody out there thought the sign up server would be down until 2016 did they?

The ACA changes some things massively and other things very little. The infrastructure of the health insurance companies had to change some but most of that is upfront and one time while managing actually insured members is pretty much the same as it has been.

There will be plenty of issues as things are changed and implemented and changed again. Let's see if fundamental problems raise their head at some point. Simply way to early to know on that front.

Another big driver of costs is end of life care.

http://www.thirteen.org/bid/sb-howmuch.html

Death panels FTW! All kidding aside something will need to be done about this. Especially since the Boomers are going to make HC costs explode once they start getting sicker and die off. This will come sooner than later.

brosurance vs. OptOut

http://www.thedailyshow.com/watch/we...014/brosurance

OMFG

lol, yep

Rather than using the volume of posts over the holidays as a gauge why don't we wait to see:

1) If people actually pay their premiums in january
2) how many people are still paying in July and then again in December
3) the demographics of the enrollees - the sicker and older will far outweigh the younger healthier, and the younger are needed in order to pay for obamacare
4) How many people have their hours cut back from 40 to 30 so their employers don't have to pay for health insurance
5) How many companies stop offering health care at all towards the end of 2014
6) How far democrats distance themselves from Obamacare in the upcoming elections. This is already happening.

But hey, your down 35-0 in the first quarter but you do have the ball. Plenty of time left...

This is one of the more interesting articles I've seen on healthcare in the US:
http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2014-0...gle-payer.html

Before liberals ITT see the article title and refuse to read, it's written by Ezra Klein. It seems like a pretty reasonable argument to me, but I'm not as well versed in healthcare as others here.

"The dirty truth about American health care is that it costs more not because insurers are so powerful, but because they’re so weak."

If I'm reading it correctly, Klein's argument is basically that it's the other side of the negotiation that is the source of the cost problem in the US -- pharma companies, medical device companies, and hospitals/doctors. They win the price negotiation in the US because (a) government doesn't set rates and (b) the insurance companies have weak negotiating power because they are fragmented and can't negotiate together.

According to Klein, "we simultaneously miss out on the efficiency of a purely private system and on the savings of a purely public one."

Thoughts?

Is this news? I mean, that Time article a while back said basically the same thing, and the vast majority of liberals ITT agree that high costs have much more to do with providers overcharging, not insurance largess. That's why Medicare is most efficient, and why single payer is the best option.

You're accidentally misusing providers here right? Typically that means doctors, which lol if you think that's the driver. The articles quick swipe was nonetheless pretty tame.

Apparently I can't refer to people at hospitals as providers?