Review: HealthCare.gov a winner despite glitches

[hyperlexis]

Insurance was working for 85% of the population and things were improving rapidly.

Federal government comes with a massive program, not just for the 15%, but affecting 100%. One size fits all.

It will not be stopped and our country is being badly hurt.

OMG what country are you from? Getting better? For whom? The for-profit insurance company shareholders, or the mega companies that buy hospitals and DME suppliers? Certainly not for patients, before 2010.

Number one, you are old and are on socialized medicine, called Medicare. Want to stop? Pay back the younger taxpayers for all the money your socialized medical coverage has cost them? Didn't think so.

The ACA is not perfect and should be improved, but to say things were fine, and that 15 M Americans should just get care in ERs and dump the cost onto everyone else is just the same tired, disproven argument that we have been hearing for decades.

This is a stupid thread the OP should pull. Healthcare.gov is NOT a winner -- other than millions of people wanting insurance have tried to use it. The technical glitches on the website are ridiculous, and some of the plans offered in some states are less the value that I would have hoped. But they are the plans that the for-profit insurance companies decided to market to their customers. That's what you get when you allow private insurance companies to do this. Had we gotten Medicare-for-all, things would be vastly improved. But that just wasn't in the cards. The private insurance and drug industry was too powerful to allow it.

It's far too soon to declare 'mission accomplished' and the OP should have known that when posting such a wild claim about healthcare.gov. Not a winner -- yet.

[hyperlexis]

one could drag out a ton of miserable tales of Americans dying while sitting in overcrowded ERs, cutting pills in half or going without, dying of untreated chronic disease, infant mortality, etc., etc.

A ton? I bet you can't post just one that died because Obamacare did not exist.

Granny, Google can help you find all those on your own.

And your argument is that other countries are just plain wrong for having 'socialized medicine' because, the clear proof is that an elderly woman facing multiple serious ailments in the UK who had a surgery, subsequently died, -- yet they still don't know why she died. That's enough for an average Fox news story, but not proof of anything.

Also, you didn't say, will you now give up your socialized Medicare we all have to pay for? It's socialized and therefore inherently bad, so why would you, knowingly, now continue keep it? That would be just morally wrong to do so, right, to keep using socialized anything. Or is it ok for thee, but not for we?

And Re people dying because they lacked health insurance:

http://news.harvard.edu/gazette/story/2 ... -coverage/

[ChicagoGranny]

And Re people dying because they lacked health insurance:

http://news.harvard.edu/gazette/story/2 ... -coverage/

OK, that link you provided says,

45,000 deaths annually linked to lack of health coverage

Here is a bigger number for you,

Now comes a of the Journal of Patient Safety that says the numbers may be much higher — between 210,000 and 440,000 each year who go to the hospital for care suffer some type of preventable harm that contributes to their death.

So having medical care is killing many more than not having medical care.

[hyperlexis]

And Re people dying because they lacked health insurance:

http://news.harvard.edu/gazette/story/2 ... -coverage/

OK, that link you provided says,

45,000 deaths annually linked to lack of health coverage

Here is a bigger number for you,

Now comes a of the Journal of Patient Safety that says the numbers may be much higher — between 210,000 and 440,000 each year who go to the hospital for care suffer some type of preventable harm that contributes to their death.

So having medical care is killing many more than not having medical care.

No Granny, because those people may have been some of the uninsured -- people who went into hospital once their conditions had grown so bad, and they were so gravely ill, that they would not be able to be saved at that point, or were more vulnerable to dying from hospital acquired infection, or other malpractice, than would have been a healthier person who had insurance and was less ill as a result.

Arguing the uninsured are better off because they are less likely to get sick and die in a hospital is really an entertaining thought actually. Especially as it relates to children, don't you agree? A truly modest proposal.

[MyIdaho]

The ACA is not perfect and should be improved, but to say things were fine, and that 15 M Americans should just get care in ERs and dump the cost onto everyone else is just the same tired, disproven argument that we have been hearing for decades.

I will agree it is not perfect and should be open for improvements but will the POTUS and D's in congress allow it? Probably not. The ACA is their signature program and apparently they know best...

[DeadlySleep]

Had we gotten Medicare-for-all, things would be vastly improved. But that just wasn't in the cards.

Well let's add some economic literacy to the discussion.

Medicare is currently facing crisis because the outlays will be a multiple of the incoming money and things get much worse over the coming decades.

So now you propose taking about 100 million people (most of the active labor force) who are paying into Medicare but taking nothing out and adding them to the "outtake" side of the equation. Even liberal math should ferret that out as an outrageously horrible proposal.

But maybe it is a good idea. Let Medicare blow entirely to pieces right away and let the left defend social programs with a big mess of socialism vomitus all over their lap.

BTW, I am for universal medical care also. But I know government is not an effective or efficient way to deliver it.

[ChicagoGranny]

No Granny, because those people may have been some of the uninsured -- people who went into hospital once their conditions had grown so bad, and they were so gravely ill, that they would not be able to be saved at that point, or were more vulnerable to dying from hospital acquired infection, or other malpractice, than would have been a healthier person who had insurance and was less ill as a result.

Just making up the "facts" as you go along.

Start with the conclusion. Then fill in backwards with your imagination.

This is a stupid thread the OP should pull. Healthcare.gov is NOT a winner -- other than millions of people wanting insurance have tried to use it. The technical glitches on the website are ridiculous, and some of the plans offered in some states are less the value that I would have hoped. But they are the plans that the for-profit insurance companies decided to market to their customers. That's what you get when you allow private insurance companies to do this. Had we gotten Medicare-for-all, things would be vastly improved. But that just wasn't in the cards. The private insurance and drug industry was too powerful to allow it.

So it would seem you have reached the conclusion many of us came to two years or more back. Obamacare is an unholy disaster for our country.

I think we will begin to see more and more leftists say, "I wanted universal healthcare all along. Obamacare is failing because of the private companies. The Democrats can save us from the mess the private companies have created."

Repeat it long enough and you will believe it is true.

[ChicagoGranny]

I will agree it is not perfect and should be open for improvements but will the POTUS and D's in congress allow it? Probably not. The ACA is their signature program and apparently they know best...

And if the Republicans have half a brain (doubtful) they will keep reminding that ACA is the Democrat's baby.

[Space Oddity]

That's what you get when you allow private insurance companies to do this.

No! The Democrats own this and I will not let you forget it.

[Wulfman...]

I believe............
Everyone's focus is wrong with regard to the ACA. It's like looking/staring at one tree in a much bigger forest. It wasn't about healthcare and it wasn't about affordability. It's about "CONTROL" and is in conjunction with many other things that are going on.
You need to step back and look at the whole "forest" and see what's really going on......including the massive debt/spending issues, the (constant) lies, the "I was against it before I was for it" (take your pick of subjects on that one), the political "payoffs", etc., etc. etc.
Large portions of this damned forest is infected with "blight" and needs to be cut down. (metaphorically speaking)


Den

.

[Wulfman...]

(still) Metaphorically speaking......take your "mental" chainsaw to the ballot box.


Den

.

[Goofproof]

I believe............
Everyone's focus is wrong with regard to the ACA. It's like looking/staring at one tree in a much bigger forest. It wasn't about healthcare and it wasn't about affordability. It's about "CONTROL" and is in conjunction with many other things that are going on.
You need to step back and look at the whole "forest" and see what's really going on......including the massive debt/spending issues, the (constant) lies, the "I was against it before I was for it" (take your pick of subjects on that one), the political "payoffs", etc., etc. etc.
Large portions of this damned forest is infected with "blight" and needs to be cut down. (metaphorically speaking)


Den

.

The government stocking up on Ammo, and trying to remove guns from the population, is necessary to make envoking Martial Law sucessful. FEMA had already stocked up on disposable caskets. Internment camps arenthard to build, only one door required (In, no out needed) The most likely trigger for martial law will be a financial crisis, how's that looking for up, the interest on what the government owes, is more than we can pay and we are still printing worthless money to pay for it, the people we owe are wanting go be paid with something worth something, it's not our printed paper. All wehave left is slave labor and land. Jim

[Goofproof]

I will agree it is not perfect and should be open for improvements but will the POTUS and D's in congress allow it? Probably not. The ACA is their signature program and apparently they know best...

And if the Republicans have half a brain (doubtful) they will keep reminding that ACA is the Democrat's baby.

You have a point the Republicans have half a brain, the Democrats also have half a brain. The problem is they won't work together for the good of the country, both sides are just out to get all they can for themselves and their cohorts. The fact that most of them have never worked to produce a producd isn't helping. Their rules, arent the same ones as they make for us. Jim

[woodworkerjunkie]

OMG what country are you from? Getting better? For whom? The for-profit insurance company shareholders, or the mega companies that buy hospitals and DME suppliers? Certainly not for patients, before 2010.

You can't stand the idea of "any" company in the world wanting to make a profit except for "yours"! Since we need to regulate so many businesses and company's, maybe we need to look into regulating how much a lawyer (or law firm) can charge! Regulate what law firms are allowed to advertise on TV! Face it, with the cost of lawsuits in this country, Doctors, Pharmaceutical companies, medical device manufacturers and trucking companies have to pay out the nose for insurance because of greedy lawyers. Don't try to sell your crap about protecting clients from mean business, when lawyers usually charge 1/3rd to 1/2 of the settlement or more! That's why you want the lawsuits against companies with big insurance policies, that's where the money is! We have Police officers, Firefighters, Military soldiers and many others that put their lives on the line everyday to protect our butts, but, they don't make 20% of what a layer makes! So, why does a lawyer need to make so much money? Is it, so that you can afford those cheap knit and polyester suits with those silk neckties? We won't even discuss what role lawyers play in politics in DC! You've even been trying to scrounge up business here on this site! Which I find Disgusting!

Number one, you are old and are on socialized medicine, called Medicare. Want to stop? Pay back the younger taxpayers for all the money your socialized medical coverage has cost them? Didn't think so.

Medicare- you mean the government system that is going broke in the next 10 to 15 years? That's usually what happens when you try to subsidize anything, someone has to pay for it! You can't have people pay less than what the actual cost are and expect it to stay afloat. Should Medicare pay back the money to the taxpayers estates for all the people that have paid into it and then die before they reach the age of using the benefits? Where does all that money go? It helps fund the people that do use that system! I'll probably never reach the age myself to use any of these programs! I'm not old and using government assistance like you stated in another thread, I'm only 53.

The ACA is not perfect and should be improved, but to say things were fine, and that 15 M Americans should just get care in ERs and dump the cost onto everyone else is just the same tired, disproven argument that we have been hearing for decades.

"The ACA is not perfect and should be improved", Hey for once you actually made an "almost" intelligent statement. The ACA was never needed in the first place, we could have "improved" the system that we originally had, with some legislation passed to help the ones that needed help! Then we wouldn't have a 60 lb. stack of laws to have to read through, to try to decipher, what, when, how, and where everything is covered! We wouldn't have new taxes everywhere you look, such as tax for not buying insurance, or a tax on all new medical devices to help pay for this crap! Of course, not passing the ACA would make it impossible for the dems to implement the single payer system they really wanted!

This is a stupid thread the OP should pull. Healthcare.gov is NOT a winner -- other than millions of people wanting insurance have tried to use it. The technical glitches on the website are ridiculous, and some of the plans offered in some states are less the value that I would have hoped. But they are the plans that the for-profit insurance companies decided to market to their customers. That's what you get when you allow private insurance companies to do this. Had we gotten Medicare-for-all, things would be vastly improved. But that just wasn't in the cards. The private insurance and drug industry was too powerful to allow it.

"Healthcare.gov is NOT a winner", An actual intelligent statement, I'm proud of you. Another nearly 600 million dollars of taxpayer money spent, but "the government is so efficient in how it controls cost"! What a joke! Now, how much more are we going to have to pay someone to "fix" this mess, our efficient government has started? You don't like this thread because it shows people that the government run programs are overseen by a bunch of buffoons!
"other than millions of people wanting insurance have tried to use it." NO, WRONG! Millions of people "being forced" to have insurance whether they want it or not! Just like the Dems saying how popular the program is because of how many people have visited the site! People are checking out the site to see how much it is going to cost them, not because they are so eager to buy insurance! If they were so eager to buy insurance, the sold policy numbers would be a lot higher than they are! But, the Dems are trying to keep those numbers hid, because it is too embarrassing to publish how "bad" it is doing! Just another of the deceiving comments from the Dems!
"some of the plans offered in some states are less the value that I would have hoped." Yes, I'm sure you are disappointed, I remember the thread where you were going to post all of your great savings that this law was saving you on your affordable insurance plan. Didn't work out did it! Promises to the citizens that were nothing but lies and they knew it! Will it save some people money? Sure, but, most will find higher premiums and bigger co-pays and deductibles than on their previous plans. And now, the people that already have an acceptable plan are finding benefits cut, premiums going up, higher co-pays and more out of pocket deductibles! Exactly what people were yelling and screaming about after this disaster was forced down our throats!

It's far too soon to declare 'mission accomplished' and the OP should have known that when posting such a wild claim about healthcare.gov. Not a winner -- yet.

Not a winner --yet, It never will be! Examples of our government based programs, Education- http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/12/0 ... 93185.html, Social Security- http://www.ncpa.org/pub/ba514.

Quote from huffington post.
According to the AP,
"This is an absolute wake-up call for America," U.S. Education Secretary Arne Duncan said in an interview with The Associated Press. "The results are extraordinarily challenging to us and we have to deal with the brutal truth. We have to get much more serious about investing in education."

Dems answer for everything, throw money at it!

[ChicagoGranny]

Epic Fail!




Democrat talking points: "It's only Kentucky. It's only two data points. Apple only sold 900,000 IPhones in Kentucky the first weekend."