|
Read the rules in the OP before posting, please.In order to ensure that this thread continues to meet TL standards and follows the proper guidelines, we will be enforcing the rules in the OP more strictly. Be sure to give them a re-read to refresh your memory! The vast majority of you are contributing in a healthy way, keep it up! NOTE: When providing a source, explain why you feel it is relevant and what purpose it adds to the discussion if it's not obvious. Also take note that unsubstantiated tweets/posts meant only to rekindle old arguments can result in a mod action. |
On April 13 2015 08:47 [UoN]Sentinel wrote:Show nested quote +On April 13 2015 08:29 Reaper9 wrote:On April 13 2015 08:13 [UoN]Sentinel wrote:
Still waiting on Christie to throw his hat into the ring. With the email scandal being more recent than the one about the bridge, he definitely has a very good chance, especially among moderates. Groans quietly*, anyone but that thug who runs my state. Seriously. He's the least thuggy guy we've had running NJ in a while. Doesn't even try to silver-tongue anything.
When your 'least thuggy' guy is closing down major traffic location to advance his personal gain I would say that he still doesn't qualify as someone who has a snowball's chance in hell of winning an election.
|
On April 13 2015 08:02 Millitron wrote:Show nested quote +On April 13 2015 07:39 Simberto wrote:
Not that it would be hard to come up with a better solution. Single Payer or any of the nearly-single-payer systems that exist in europe. Just steal the solution wholesale from pretty much any EU country.
The problem is that the republican party doesn't actually WANT a solution, from a republican standpoint the status quo before Obamacare was perfectly fine. Who cares about poor people when your insurance and healthcare companies make giant profits and keep lobbying you with that dough. Now, they of course can't really say that, thus they just say "Yeah no this is not good and doesn't solve any problems" Without actually proposing a different solution, because this is not a problem they actually want to solve. To be totally fair, it doesn't actually solve any problems. Costs are still insane. Most people who have insurance thanks to the ACA have shitty plans that aren't really any better than no plan at all. Worst of all, to me anyways, is that it just entrenches the problem. If the problem is insurance companies allowing artificially inflated prices, why would you force everyone to pay those same insurance companies? I am really skeptical of Single Payer because I've seen how poorly the government does practically anything. We can't even keep the bridges in the highway system from falling apart. But I also don't like the idea of trusting for-profit companies with healthcare. I've seen how much of a mess that's caused in the prison-industrial system. So I dunno, I guess I'm torn.
I mean, then the ball's right back in your court: what would you do?
Obamacare is far from a perfect fix-- I wish that Ted Kennedy had managed to live for a few more months and maybe shoved single-payer through the Senate-- but it does mitigate a lot of problems. I'm still not sure where you're getting your info about how lousy the new ACA plans are though.
|
On April 13 2015 08:53 zlefin wrote:
I doubt Christie will make it far, he might not even run. I recall a time article about him, mentioning how when he was being vetted as a possible running mate for ?mccain, that he wouldn't hand over a lot of documents and such to verify that there weren't any more skeletons in his closet. And it mentioned some possible skeletons I think.
Also, the email scandal is of FAAAR less significance than the bridge thing.
Which was of far less significance than Benghazi. What matters is what's fresh in people's minds.
|
Even with his 'bad' ACA plans which are not a thing they are still better then the old situation where pre-existing conditions was a reason to deny you and insurance companies could deny you to the insurance you paid for because you got more sick then they were willing to cover.
|
On April 13 2015 09:04 [UoN]Sentinel wrote:Show nested quote +On April 13 2015 08:53 zlefin wrote:
I doubt Christie will make it far, he might not even run. I recall a time article about him, mentioning how when he was being vetted as a possible running mate for ?mccain, that he wouldn't hand over a lot of documents and such to verify that there weren't any more skeletons in his closet. And it mentioned some possible skeletons I think.
Also, the email scandal is of FAAAR less significance than the bridge thing. Which was of far less significance than Benghazi. What matters is what's fresh in people's minds.
Benghazi is only a thing in the mind of far right Republicans. To the rest of the world it stopped being a thing years ago.
And everything will be fresh in people's mind when it gets thrown in their face with attack ads.
|
On April 13 2015 09:05 Gorsameth wrote:
Even with his 'bad' ACA plans which are not a thing they are still better then the old situation where pre-existing conditions was a reason to deny you and insurance companies could deny you to the insurance you paid for because you got more sick then they were willing to cover.
There definitely are garbage plans. People still pay huge co-pays. People still have huge deductibles. Insurance companies still can deny you treatment because they don't want to pay.
My dad's got cancer. He had some outpatient endoscopy done shortly after he was diagnosed. When he came out of anesthesia, he couldn't urinate, some kind of muscle spasm or something that's fairly common when older men are put under anesthesia. They still shipped him home, knowing full well how stupid it was, because his insurance refused to cover a night of observation. So he ended up in the emergency room around 6 hours after he got home because he still couldn't piss. He ended up needing a catheter and has to take some kind of bladder medicine.
So don't tell me insurance companies can no longer refuse to pay, because that's a bold-faced lie.
|
On April 13 2015 09:06 Gorsameth wrote:Show nested quote +On April 13 2015 09:04 [UoN]Sentinel wrote:On April 13 2015 08:53 zlefin wrote:
I doubt Christie will make it far, he might not even run. I recall a time article about him, mentioning how when he was being vetted as a possible running mate for ?mccain, that he wouldn't hand over a lot of documents and such to verify that there weren't any more skeletons in his closet. And it mentioned some possible skeletons I think.
Also, the email scandal is of FAAAR less significance than the bridge thing. Which was of far less significance than Benghazi. What matters is what's fresh in people's minds. Benghazi is only a thing in the mind of far right Republicans. To the rest of the world it stopped being a thing years ago.
Ya know, that's kinda what I thought until Clinton deleted all her emails from the week. I mean, I still don't have a credible guess as to what she's hiding, but she's certainly not being up-front about it.
|
On April 13 2015 09:59 Yoav wrote:Show nested quote +On April 13 2015 09:06 Gorsameth wrote:On April 13 2015 09:04 [UoN]Sentinel wrote:On April 13 2015 08:53 zlefin wrote:
I doubt Christie will make it far, he might not even run. I recall a time article about him, mentioning how when he was being vetted as a possible running mate for ?mccain, that he wouldn't hand over a lot of documents and such to verify that there weren't any more skeletons in his closet. And it mentioned some possible skeletons I think.
Also, the email scandal is of FAAAR less significance than the bridge thing. Which was of far less significance than Benghazi. What matters is what's fresh in people's minds. Benghazi is only a thing in the mind of far right Republicans. To the rest of the world it stopped being a thing years ago. Ya know, that's kinda what I thought until Clinton deleted all her emails from the week. I mean, I still don't have a credible guess as to what she's hiding, but she's certainly not being up-front about it.
This is why its a big deal she used her personal email, not a .gov account. Even if she isn't hiding anything, it's still really suspicious.
|
The establishment was not as unified in 2008 as they had been in previous years. There was a void and they did not know who it is they wanted and were unusually not unified like they had been for the past 20 years.
|
On April 13 2015 09:49 Millitron wrote:Show nested quote +On April 13 2015 09:05 Gorsameth wrote:
Even with his 'bad' ACA plans which are not a thing they are still better then the old situation where pre-existing conditions was a reason to deny you and insurance companies could deny you to the insurance you paid for because you got more sick then they were willing to cover. There definitely are garbage plans. People still pay huge co-pays. People still have huge deductibles. Insurance companies still can deny you treatment because they don't want to pay. My dad's got cancer. He had some outpatient endoscopy done shortly after he was diagnosed. When he came out of anesthesia, he couldn't urinate, some kind of muscle spasm or something that's fairly common when older men are put under anesthesia. They still shipped him home, knowing full well how stupid it was, because his insurance refused to cover a night of observation. So he ended up in the emergency room around 6 hours after he got home because he still couldn't piss. He ended up needing a catheter and has to take some kind of bladder medicine. So don't tell me insurance companies can no longer refuse to pay, because that's a bold-faced lie.
I think what's he's talking about and what you're talking abotu are different.
One is about denying access to a policy at all and/or cancelling it. The other is not about the issue of an insurance policy in general, but about how it handled a specific coverage case.
|
On April 13 2015 10:11 zlefin wrote:Show nested quote +On April 13 2015 09:49 Millitron wrote:On April 13 2015 09:05 Gorsameth wrote:
Even with his 'bad' ACA plans which are not a thing they are still better then the old situation where pre-existing conditions was a reason to deny you and insurance companies could deny you to the insurance you paid for because you got more sick then they were willing to cover. There definitely are garbage plans. People still pay huge co-pays. People still have huge deductibles. Insurance companies still can deny you treatment because they don't want to pay. My dad's got cancer. He had some outpatient endoscopy done shortly after he was diagnosed. When he came out of anesthesia, he couldn't urinate, some kind of muscle spasm or something that's fairly common when older men are put under anesthesia. They still shipped him home, knowing full well how stupid it was, because his insurance refused to cover a night of observation. So he ended up in the emergency room around 6 hours after he got home because he still couldn't piss. He ended up needing a catheter and has to take some kind of bladder medicine. So don't tell me insurance companies can no longer refuse to pay, because that's a bold-faced lie. I think what's he's talking about and what you're talking abotu are different. One is about denying access to a policy at all and/or cancelling it. The other is not about the issue of an insurance policy in general, but about how it handled a specific coverage case.
These are his exact words:
"...insurance companies could deny you to the insurance you paid for because you got more sick then they were willing to cover."
The fact that he uses "could" instead of "can" implies that he believes that that's no longer the case. Clearly though, insurance companies still can deny you treatment because they didn't want to cover it. That's exactly what happened, even though Gorsameth said it no longer could.
And sure, this is just one case. But it still happened. Gorsameth did not say it would happen less, he said it wouldn't happen, full stop.
|
And the meaning of what he's saying and what you're talking about are still different, but I don't know how to explain it better.
|
On April 13 2015 10:36 Millitron wrote:Show nested quote +On April 13 2015 10:11 zlefin wrote:On April 13 2015 09:49 Millitron wrote:On April 13 2015 09:05 Gorsameth wrote:
Even with his 'bad' ACA plans which are not a thing they are still better then the old situation where pre-existing conditions was a reason to deny you and insurance companies could deny you to the insurance you paid for because you got more sick then they were willing to cover. There definitely are garbage plans. People still pay huge co-pays. People still have huge deductibles. Insurance companies still can deny you treatment because they don't want to pay. My dad's got cancer. He had some outpatient endoscopy done shortly after he was diagnosed. When he came out of anesthesia, he couldn't urinate, some kind of muscle spasm or something that's fairly common when older men are put under anesthesia. They still shipped him home, knowing full well how stupid it was, because his insurance refused to cover a night of observation. So he ended up in the emergency room around 6 hours after he got home because he still couldn't piss. He ended up needing a catheter and has to take some kind of bladder medicine. So don't tell me insurance companies can no longer refuse to pay, because that's a bold-faced lie. I think what's he's talking about and what you're talking abotu are different. One is about denying access to a policy at all and/or cancelling it. The other is not about the issue of an insurance policy in general, but about how it handled a specific coverage case. These are his exact words: "...insurance companies could deny you to the insurance you paid for because you got more sick then they were willing to cover." The fact that he uses "could" instead of "can" implies that he believes that that's no longer the case. Clearly though, insurance companies still can deny you treatment because they didn't want to cover it. That's exactly what happened, even though Gorsameth said it no longer could. And sure, this is just one case. But it still happened. Gorsameth did not say it would happen less, he said it wouldn't happen, full stop.
The larger point is "healthcare still sucks" is not a tenable position. It's long passed time for Republicans to shit or get off the pot on healthcare.
|
On April 13 2015 10:36 Millitron wrote:Show nested quote +On April 13 2015 10:11 zlefin wrote:On April 13 2015 09:49 Millitron wrote:On April 13 2015 09:05 Gorsameth wrote:
Even with his 'bad' ACA plans which are not a thing they are still better then the old situation where pre-existing conditions was a reason to deny you and insurance companies could deny you to the insurance you paid for because you got more sick then they were willing to cover. There definitely are garbage plans. People still pay huge co-pays. People still have huge deductibles. Insurance companies still can deny you treatment because they don't want to pay. My dad's got cancer. He had some outpatient endoscopy done shortly after he was diagnosed. When he came out of anesthesia, he couldn't urinate, some kind of muscle spasm or something that's fairly common when older men are put under anesthesia. They still shipped him home, knowing full well how stupid it was, because his insurance refused to cover a night of observation. So he ended up in the emergency room around 6 hours after he got home because he still couldn't piss. He ended up needing a catheter and has to take some kind of bladder medicine. So don't tell me insurance companies can no longer refuse to pay, because that's a bold-faced lie. I think what's he's talking about and what you're talking abotu are different. One is about denying access to a policy at all and/or cancelling it. The other is not about the issue of an insurance policy in general, but about how it handled a specific coverage case. These are his exact words: "...insurance companies could deny you to the insurance you paid for because you got more sick then they were willing to cover." The fact that he uses "could" instead of "can" implies that he believes that that's no longer the case. Clearly though, insurance companies still can deny you treatment because they didn't want to cover it. That's exactly what happened, even though Gorsameth said it no longer could. And sure, this is just one case. But it still happened. Gorsameth did not say it would happen less, he said it wouldn't happen, full stop.
That's not them refusing to pay because of a pre-existing condition or because you're sicker than they're willing to cover. That's them refusing to pay because the negotiated policy doesn't cover a product (in this case, a night of observation) that is not deemed essential by the ACA.
Unfortunately, because of the incredibly opaque healthcare market, the price they (and the patient) end up paying in the cases where the observation is important is about as reliable as throwing darts while blindfolded after riding in a teacup ride for an hour.
Edit: I mean, I'd love to have actual good healthcare that doesn't rely on actuarial tables and arcane black box negotiations to determine what's covered, but unfortunately that's not possible while having private insurance.
|
On April 13 2015 11:45 GreenHorizons wrote:Show nested quote +On April 13 2015 10:36 Millitron wrote:On April 13 2015 10:11 zlefin wrote:On April 13 2015 09:49 Millitron wrote:On April 13 2015 09:05 Gorsameth wrote:
Even with his 'bad' ACA plans which are not a thing they are still better then the old situation where pre-existing conditions was a reason to deny you and insurance companies could deny you to the insurance you paid for because you got more sick then they were willing to cover. There definitely are garbage plans. People still pay huge co-pays. People still have huge deductibles. Insurance companies still can deny you treatment because they don't want to pay. My dad's got cancer. He had some outpatient endoscopy done shortly after he was diagnosed. When he came out of anesthesia, he couldn't urinate, some kind of muscle spasm or something that's fairly common when older men are put under anesthesia. They still shipped him home, knowing full well how stupid it was, because his insurance refused to cover a night of observation. So he ended up in the emergency room around 6 hours after he got home because he still couldn't piss. He ended up needing a catheter and has to take some kind of bladder medicine. So don't tell me insurance companies can no longer refuse to pay, because that's a bold-faced lie. I think what's he's talking about and what you're talking abotu are different. One is about denying access to a policy at all and/or cancelling it. The other is not about the issue of an insurance policy in general, but about how it handled a specific coverage case. These are his exact words: "...insurance companies could deny you to the insurance you paid for because you got more sick then they were willing to cover." The fact that he uses "could" instead of "can" implies that he believes that that's no longer the case. Clearly though, insurance companies still can deny you treatment because they didn't want to cover it. That's exactly what happened, even though Gorsameth said it no longer could. And sure, this is just one case. But it still happened. Gorsameth did not say it would happen less, he said it wouldn't happen, full stop. The larger point is "healthcare still sucks" is not a tenable position. It's long passed time for Republicans to shit or get off the pot on healthcare.
That's fine. I'd be cool with Single Payer, assuming it's managed better than the VA.
but Gorsameth doesn't seem to think healthcare still sucks.
"Even with his 'bad' ACA plans which are not a thing"
I don't know how a plan that denies routine treatment of a pretty common problem is not bad.
I don't really like talking around Gorsameth without him responding. I'd rather not discuss Gorsameth's position any more without hearing from him first. Don't wanna put words in his mouth any more than I might already have.
On April 13 2015 11:53 TheTenthDoc wrote:Show nested quote +On April 13 2015 10:36 Millitron wrote:On April 13 2015 10:11 zlefin wrote:On April 13 2015 09:49 Millitron wrote:On April 13 2015 09:05 Gorsameth wrote:
Even with his 'bad' ACA plans which are not a thing they are still better then the old situation where pre-existing conditions was a reason to deny you and insurance companies could deny you to the insurance you paid for because you got more sick then they were willing to cover. There definitely are garbage plans. People still pay huge co-pays. People still have huge deductibles. Insurance companies still can deny you treatment because they don't want to pay. My dad's got cancer. He had some outpatient endoscopy done shortly after he was diagnosed. When he came out of anesthesia, he couldn't urinate, some kind of muscle spasm or something that's fairly common when older men are put under anesthesia. They still shipped him home, knowing full well how stupid it was, because his insurance refused to cover a night of observation. So he ended up in the emergency room around 6 hours after he got home because he still couldn't piss. He ended up needing a catheter and has to take some kind of bladder medicine. So don't tell me insurance companies can no longer refuse to pay, because that's a bold-faced lie. I think what's he's talking about and what you're talking abotu are different. One is about denying access to a policy at all and/or cancelling it. The other is not about the issue of an insurance policy in general, but about how it handled a specific coverage case. These are his exact words: "...insurance companies could deny you to the insurance you paid for because you got more sick then they were willing to cover." The fact that he uses "could" instead of "can" implies that he believes that that's no longer the case. Clearly though, insurance companies still can deny you treatment because they didn't want to cover it. That's exactly what happened, even though Gorsameth said it no longer could. And sure, this is just one case. But it still happened. Gorsameth did not say it would happen less, he said it wouldn't happen, full stop. That's not them refusing to pay because of a pre-existing condition or because you're sicker than they're willing to cover. That's them refusing to pay because the negotiated policy doesn't cover a product (in this case, a night of observation) that is not deemed essential by the ACA. Unfortunately, because of the incredibly opaque healthcare market, the price they (and the patient) end up paying in the cases where the observation is important is about as reliable as throwing darts while blindfolded after riding in a teacup ride for an hour. Edit: I mean, I'd love to have actual good healthcare that doesn't rely on actuarial tables and arcane black box negotiations to determine what's covered, but unfortunately that's not possible while having private insurance.
Follow me here.
I think a plan that does not cover basic, obvious things is a bad plan regardless of why the plan will not cover them.
Gorsameth said bad plans no longer exist thanks to the ACA.
Still, my dad's plan would not cover his basic, obvious treatment, meaning it's a bad plan.
Ergo, Gorsameth is wrong, and bad plans do still exist.
|
On April 13 2015 08:47 [UoN]Sentinel wrote:Show nested quote +On April 13 2015 08:29 Reaper9 wrote:On April 13 2015 08:13 [UoN]Sentinel wrote:
Still waiting on Christie to throw his hat into the ring. With the email scandal being more recent than the one about the bridge, he definitely has a very good chance, especially among moderates. Groans quietly*, anyone but that thug who runs my state. Seriously. He's the least thuggy guy we've had running NJ in a while. Doesn't even try to silver-tongue anything.
Instead of silver tongue he just lies and name calls. Incredibly bad for the middle class.
|
On April 13 2015 11:56 Millitron wrote:Show nested quote +On April 13 2015 11:45 GreenHorizons wrote:On April 13 2015 10:36 Millitron wrote:On April 13 2015 10:11 zlefin wrote:On April 13 2015 09:49 Millitron wrote:On April 13 2015 09:05 Gorsameth wrote:
Even with his 'bad' ACA plans which are not a thing they are still better then the old situation where pre-existing conditions was a reason to deny you and insurance companies could deny you to the insurance you paid for because you got more sick then they were willing to cover. There definitely are garbage plans. People still pay huge co-pays. People still have huge deductibles. Insurance companies still can deny you treatment because they don't want to pay. My dad's got cancer. He had some outpatient endoscopy done shortly after he was diagnosed. When he came out of anesthesia, he couldn't urinate, some kind of muscle spasm or something that's fairly common when older men are put under anesthesia. They still shipped him home, knowing full well how stupid it was, because his insurance refused to cover a night of observation. So he ended up in the emergency room around 6 hours after he got home because he still couldn't piss. He ended up needing a catheter and has to take some kind of bladder medicine. So don't tell me insurance companies can no longer refuse to pay, because that's a bold-faced lie. I think what's he's talking about and what you're talking abotu are different. One is about denying access to a policy at all and/or cancelling it. The other is not about the issue of an insurance policy in general, but about how it handled a specific coverage case. These are his exact words: "...insurance companies could deny you to the insurance you paid for because you got more sick then they were willing to cover." The fact that he uses "could" instead of "can" implies that he believes that that's no longer the case. Clearly though, insurance companies still can deny you treatment because they didn't want to cover it. That's exactly what happened, even though Gorsameth said it no longer could. And sure, this is just one case. But it still happened. Gorsameth did not say it would happen less, he said it wouldn't happen, full stop. The larger point is "healthcare still sucks" is not a tenable position. It's long passed time for Republicans to shit or get off the pot on healthcare. That's fine. I'd be cool with Single Payer, assuming it's managed better than the VA. but Gorsameth doesn't seem to think healthcare still sucks. "Even with his 'bad' ACA plans which are not a thing" I don't know how a plan that denies routine treatment of a pretty common problem is not bad. I don't really like talking around Gorsameth without him responding. I'd rather not discuss Gorsameth's position any more without hearing from him first. Don't wanna put words in his mouth any more than I might already have. Show nested quote +On April 13 2015 11:53 TheTenthDoc wrote:On April 13 2015 10:36 Millitron wrote:On April 13 2015 10:11 zlefin wrote:On April 13 2015 09:49 Millitron wrote:On April 13 2015 09:05 Gorsameth wrote:
Even with his 'bad' ACA plans which are not a thing they are still better then the old situation where pre-existing conditions was a reason to deny you and insurance companies could deny you to the insurance you paid for because you got more sick then they were willing to cover. There definitely are garbage plans. People still pay huge co-pays. People still have huge deductibles. Insurance companies still can deny you treatment because they don't want to pay. My dad's got cancer. He had some outpatient endoscopy done shortly after he was diagnosed. When he came out of anesthesia, he couldn't urinate, some kind of muscle spasm or something that's fairly common when older men are put under anesthesia. They still shipped him home, knowing full well how stupid it was, because his insurance refused to cover a night of observation. So he ended up in the emergency room around 6 hours after he got home because he still couldn't piss. He ended up needing a catheter and has to take some kind of bladder medicine. So don't tell me insurance companies can no longer refuse to pay, because that's a bold-faced lie. I think what's he's talking about and what you're talking abotu are different. One is about denying access to a policy at all and/or cancelling it. The other is not about the issue of an insurance policy in general, but about how it handled a specific coverage case. These are his exact words: "...insurance companies could deny you to the insurance you paid for because you got more sick then they were willing to cover." The fact that he uses "could" instead of "can" implies that he believes that that's no longer the case. Clearly though, insurance companies still can deny you treatment because they didn't want to cover it. That's exactly what happened, even though Gorsameth said it no longer could. And sure, this is just one case. But it still happened. Gorsameth did not say it would happen less, he said it wouldn't happen, full stop. That's not them refusing to pay because of a pre-existing condition or because you're sicker than they're willing to cover. That's them refusing to pay because the negotiated policy doesn't cover a product (in this case, a night of observation) that is not deemed essential by the ACA. Unfortunately, because of the incredibly opaque healthcare market, the price they (and the patient) end up paying in the cases where the observation is important is about as reliable as throwing darts while blindfolded after riding in a teacup ride for an hour. Edit: I mean, I'd love to have actual good healthcare that doesn't rely on actuarial tables and arcane black box negotiations to determine what's covered, but unfortunately that's not possible while having private insurance. Follow me here. I think a plan that does not cover basic, obvious things is a bad plan regardless of why the plan will not cover them. Gorsameth said bad plans no longer exist thanks to the ACA. Still, my dad's plan would not cover his basic, obvious treatment, meaning it's a bad plan. Ergo, Gorsameth is wrong, and bad plans do still exist.
I think what you are missing is that the ACA doesn't have plans, insurers do. Your dad's insurance (may) meets the minimum requirements for his insurer to sell it to him. The ACA made it less likely for those types of scenarios to occur but most of the whining from the right was about having any mandates at all.
Of course we don't know when your dad got his insurance so it's also possible the reason that happened is because his plan was grandfathered in (doesn't meet current requirements), and that a current ACA compliant plan would of handled it?
An obvious question would be did he get new insurance after the ACA or was it the same insurance he had before the ACA?
|
On April 13 2015 12:14 GreenHorizons wrote:Show nested quote +On April 13 2015 11:56 Millitron wrote:On April 13 2015 11:45 GreenHorizons wrote:On April 13 2015 10:36 Millitron wrote:On April 13 2015 10:11 zlefin wrote:On April 13 2015 09:49 Millitron wrote:On April 13 2015 09:05 Gorsameth wrote:
Even with his 'bad' ACA plans which are not a thing they are still better then the old situation where pre-existing conditions was a reason to deny you and insurance companies could deny you to the insurance you paid for because you got more sick then they were willing to cover. There definitely are garbage plans. People still pay huge co-pays. People still have huge deductibles. Insurance companies still can deny you treatment because they don't want to pay. My dad's got cancer. He had some outpatient endoscopy done shortly after he was diagnosed. When he came out of anesthesia, he couldn't urinate, some kind of muscle spasm or something that's fairly common when older men are put under anesthesia. They still shipped him home, knowing full well how stupid it was, because his insurance refused to cover a night of observation. So he ended up in the emergency room around 6 hours after he got home because he still couldn't piss. He ended up needing a catheter and has to take some kind of bladder medicine. So don't tell me insurance companies can no longer refuse to pay, because that's a bold-faced lie. I think what's he's talking about and what you're talking abotu are different. One is about denying access to a policy at all and/or cancelling it. The other is not about the issue of an insurance policy in general, but about how it handled a specific coverage case. These are his exact words: "...insurance companies could deny you to the insurance you paid for because you got more sick then they were willing to cover." The fact that he uses "could" instead of "can" implies that he believes that that's no longer the case. Clearly though, insurance companies still can deny you treatment because they didn't want to cover it. That's exactly what happened, even though Gorsameth said it no longer could. And sure, this is just one case. But it still happened. Gorsameth did not say it would happen less, he said it wouldn't happen, full stop. The larger point is "healthcare still sucks" is not a tenable position. It's long passed time for Republicans to shit or get off the pot on healthcare. That's fine. I'd be cool with Single Payer, assuming it's managed better than the VA. but Gorsameth doesn't seem to think healthcare still sucks. "Even with his 'bad' ACA plans which are not a thing" I don't know how a plan that denies routine treatment of a pretty common problem is not bad. I don't really like talking around Gorsameth without him responding. I'd rather not discuss Gorsameth's position any more without hearing from him first. Don't wanna put words in his mouth any more than I might already have. On April 13 2015 11:53 TheTenthDoc wrote:On April 13 2015 10:36 Millitron wrote:On April 13 2015 10:11 zlefin wrote:On April 13 2015 09:49 Millitron wrote:On April 13 2015 09:05 Gorsameth wrote:
Even with his 'bad' ACA plans which are not a thing they are still better then the old situation where pre-existing conditions was a reason to deny you and insurance companies could deny you to the insurance you paid for because you got more sick then they were willing to cover. There definitely are garbage plans. People still pay huge co-pays. People still have huge deductibles. Insurance companies still can deny you treatment because they don't want to pay. My dad's got cancer. He had some outpatient endoscopy done shortly after he was diagnosed. When he came out of anesthesia, he couldn't urinate, some kind of muscle spasm or something that's fairly common when older men are put under anesthesia. They still shipped him home, knowing full well how stupid it was, because his insurance refused to cover a night of observation. So he ended up in the emergency room around 6 hours after he got home because he still couldn't piss. He ended up needing a catheter and has to take some kind of bladder medicine. So don't tell me insurance companies can no longer refuse to pay, because that's a bold-faced lie. I think what's he's talking about and what you're talking abotu are different. One is about denying access to a policy at all and/or cancelling it. The other is not about the issue of an insurance policy in general, but about how it handled a specific coverage case. These are his exact words: "...insurance companies could deny you to the insurance you paid for because you got more sick then they were willing to cover." The fact that he uses "could" instead of "can" implies that he believes that that's no longer the case. Clearly though, insurance companies still can deny you treatment because they didn't want to cover it. That's exactly what happened, even though Gorsameth said it no longer could. And sure, this is just one case. But it still happened. Gorsameth did not say it would happen less, he said it wouldn't happen, full stop. That's not them refusing to pay because of a pre-existing condition or because you're sicker than they're willing to cover. That's them refusing to pay because the negotiated policy doesn't cover a product (in this case, a night of observation) that is not deemed essential by the ACA. Unfortunately, because of the incredibly opaque healthcare market, the price they (and the patient) end up paying in the cases where the observation is important is about as reliable as throwing darts while blindfolded after riding in a teacup ride for an hour. Edit: I mean, I'd love to have actual good healthcare that doesn't rely on actuarial tables and arcane black box negotiations to determine what's covered, but unfortunately that's not possible while having private insurance. Follow me here. I think a plan that does not cover basic, obvious things is a bad plan regardless of why the plan will not cover them. Gorsameth said bad plans no longer exist thanks to the ACA. Still, my dad's plan would not cover his basic, obvious treatment, meaning it's a bad plan. Ergo, Gorsameth is wrong, and bad plans do still exist. I think what you are missing is that the ACA doesn't have plans, insurers do. Your dad's insurance (may) meets the minimum requirements for his insurer to sell it to him. The ACA made it less likely for those types of scenarios to occur but most of the whining from the right was about having any mandates at all. Of course we don't know when your dad got his insurance so it's also possible the reason that happened is because his plan was grandfathered in (doesn't meet current requirements), and that a current ACA compliant plan would of handled it? An obvious question would be did he get new insurance after the ACA or was it the same insurance he had before the ACA?
Same insurance he had before the ACA, as far as I know.
The whole "bad plans still exist thing" isn't really disproven though. Gorsameth said bad plans don't exist anymore. He didn't make any qualifying statements like "bad plans don't exist unless they're grandfathered in."
Anyways, I think we agree that the ACA is a shitty half-measure that doesn't really satisfy anyone, except maybe the insurance companies who now have millions of new customers. It probably has helped some people, but it's not the amazing success the White House press conferences would have you believe.
|
On April 13 2015 13:07 Millitron wrote:Show nested quote +On April 13 2015 12:14 GreenHorizons wrote:On April 13 2015 11:56 Millitron wrote:On April 13 2015 11:45 GreenHorizons wrote:On April 13 2015 10:36 Millitron wrote:On April 13 2015 10:11 zlefin wrote:On April 13 2015 09:49 Millitron wrote:On April 13 2015 09:05 Gorsameth wrote:
Even with his 'bad' ACA plans which are not a thing they are still better then the old situation where pre-existing conditions was a reason to deny you and insurance companies could deny you to the insurance you paid for because you got more sick then they were willing to cover. There definitely are garbage plans. People still pay huge co-pays. People still have huge deductibles. Insurance companies still can deny you treatment because they don't want to pay. My dad's got cancer. He had some outpatient endoscopy done shortly after he was diagnosed. When he came out of anesthesia, he couldn't urinate, some kind of muscle spasm or something that's fairly common when older men are put under anesthesia. They still shipped him home, knowing full well how stupid it was, because his insurance refused to cover a night of observation. So he ended up in the emergency room around 6 hours after he got home because he still couldn't piss. He ended up needing a catheter and has to take some kind of bladder medicine. So don't tell me insurance companies can no longer refuse to pay, because that's a bold-faced lie. I think what's he's talking about and what you're talking abotu are different. One is about denying access to a policy at all and/or cancelling it. The other is not about the issue of an insurance policy in general, but about how it handled a specific coverage case. These are his exact words: "...insurance companies could deny you to the insurance you paid for because you got more sick then they were willing to cover." The fact that he uses "could" instead of "can" implies that he believes that that's no longer the case. Clearly though, insurance companies still can deny you treatment because they didn't want to cover it. That's exactly what happened, even though Gorsameth said it no longer could. And sure, this is just one case. But it still happened. Gorsameth did not say it would happen less, he said it wouldn't happen, full stop. The larger point is "healthcare still sucks" is not a tenable position. It's long passed time for Republicans to shit or get off the pot on healthcare. That's fine. I'd be cool with Single Payer, assuming it's managed better than the VA. but Gorsameth doesn't seem to think healthcare still sucks. "Even with his 'bad' ACA plans which are not a thing" I don't know how a plan that denies routine treatment of a pretty common problem is not bad. I don't really like talking around Gorsameth without him responding. I'd rather not discuss Gorsameth's position any more without hearing from him first. Don't wanna put words in his mouth any more than I might already have. On April 13 2015 11:53 TheTenthDoc wrote:On April 13 2015 10:36 Millitron wrote:On April 13 2015 10:11 zlefin wrote:On April 13 2015 09:49 Millitron wrote:On April 13 2015 09:05 Gorsameth wrote:
Even with his 'bad' ACA plans which are not a thing they are still better then the old situation where pre-existing conditions was a reason to deny you and insurance companies could deny you to the insurance you paid for because you got more sick then they were willing to cover. There definitely are garbage plans. People still pay huge co-pays. People still have huge deductibles. Insurance companies still can deny you treatment because they don't want to pay. My dad's got cancer. He had some outpatient endoscopy done shortly after he was diagnosed. When he came out of anesthesia, he couldn't urinate, some kind of muscle spasm or something that's fairly common when older men are put under anesthesia. They still shipped him home, knowing full well how stupid it was, because his insurance refused to cover a night of observation. So he ended up in the emergency room around 6 hours after he got home because he still couldn't piss. He ended up needing a catheter and has to take some kind of bladder medicine. So don't tell me insurance companies can no longer refuse to pay, because that's a bold-faced lie. I think what's he's talking about and what you're talking abotu are different. One is about denying access to a policy at all and/or cancelling it. The other is not about the issue of an insurance policy in general, but about how it handled a specific coverage case. These are his exact words: "...insurance companies could deny you to the insurance you paid for because you got more sick then they were willing to cover." The fact that he uses "could" instead of "can" implies that he believes that that's no longer the case. Clearly though, insurance companies still can deny you treatment because they didn't want to cover it. That's exactly what happened, even though Gorsameth said it no longer could. And sure, this is just one case. But it still happened. Gorsameth did not say it would happen less, he said it wouldn't happen, full stop. That's not them refusing to pay because of a pre-existing condition or because you're sicker than they're willing to cover. That's them refusing to pay because the negotiated policy doesn't cover a product (in this case, a night of observation) that is not deemed essential by the ACA. Unfortunately, because of the incredibly opaque healthcare market, the price they (and the patient) end up paying in the cases where the observation is important is about as reliable as throwing darts while blindfolded after riding in a teacup ride for an hour. Edit: I mean, I'd love to have actual good healthcare that doesn't rely on actuarial tables and arcane black box negotiations to determine what's covered, but unfortunately that's not possible while having private insurance. Follow me here. I think a plan that does not cover basic, obvious things is a bad plan regardless of why the plan will not cover them. Gorsameth said bad plans no longer exist thanks to the ACA. Still, my dad's plan would not cover his basic, obvious treatment, meaning it's a bad plan. Ergo, Gorsameth is wrong, and bad plans do still exist. I think what you are missing is that the ACA doesn't have plans, insurers do. Your dad's insurance (may) meets the minimum requirements for his insurer to sell it to him. The ACA made it less likely for those types of scenarios to occur but most of the whining from the right was about having any mandates at all. Of course we don't know when your dad got his insurance so it's also possible the reason that happened is because his plan was grandfathered in (doesn't meet current requirements), and that a current ACA compliant plan would of handled it? An obvious question would be did he get new insurance after the ACA or was it the same insurance he had before the ACA? Same insurance he had before the ACA, as far as I know. The whole "bad plans still exist thing" isn't really disproven though. Gorsameth said bad plans don't exist anymore. He didn't make any qualifying statements like "bad plans don't exist unless they're grandfathered in." Anyways, I think we agree that the ACA is a shitty half-measure that doesn't really satisfy anyone, except maybe the insurance companies who now have millions of new customers. It probably has helped some people, but it's not the amazing success the White House press conferences would have you believe.
Well obviously the ACA has 0 to do with your fathers case regardless. It doesn't really matter what you think Gor said as the point of "insurers still offer bad plans" would be opposed by no one. But he said "Even with his 'bad' ACA plans which are not a thing they are still better then the old situation"
Seems pretty clear he was saying there is no such thing as an "ACA plan" just insurance plans that meet standards or don't.
Yeah the ACA isn't perfect but it's a hell of a lot better than nothing. Not to mention the people who have literally had their life saved as a result of legislation (those who Republicans would have/simply have in essence done nothing for) would probably agree with the White House assessment.
|
This healthcare debate is silly. Healthcare was quite good and quite cheap at the turn of the century (read the NYT times editorial whining about the cheap rates doctors were getting paid in Mutual Aid societies and in general...), when there was little government interference. Was it perfect? No. Is anything perfect? No. So, please keep your nirvana fallacies far away. Is it eminently better than what we have now, and better than giving Government even more power via nationalization (let's call single payer for what it is...)...yes! First we got the ADA and licensing which did what they wanted - limited supply and drove up prices. Then we got the New Deal and all the medical interference that brought. Then we got Medicare, Medicaid, FDA, HMO's, SCHIP, and a million and one regulatory schemes that all served the purpose of continuously increasing costs and associated profits for Government cronies and the medical licensing/union duopoly.
The 'Republicans' that is, non-Establishmentarians, have a plan, but hey, HSA's, repealing licensure and the FDA, etc. is I suppose...not a plan. After-all, after all this government you're still bitching and whining about prices so your solution is even more Government in the form of nationalization. We all ready have enough problems with psuedo-nationalized home insurance in flood and hurricane prone areas (don't get me started as a Floridian...).
As for Hillary...wow, that couldn't have been a worse way to announce. Talk about lethargy. I hope the dems nominate anyone else than Clinton...Warren, Sanders, whoever. Aren't you guys sick of this pseudo-Monarchy we have with the Bush's and Clintons?
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
