Championship Subdivision Football | FCS Football | Stadiums | Blogs | Forums

Wasn't that $1.4 Trillion the result of the stimulus bill? I'm pretty sure it was.

Also, there's fewer uninsured people. Who would've thought mandating coverage wouldn't do that?
Show me the numbers of how much premiums have actually changed overall…

My premium for Blue Cross Blue Shield Federal went up 12% for 2016.

Thanks Obama.

93henfan wrote:My premium for Blue Cross Blue Shield Federal went up 12% for 2016.

Thanks Obama.

About time you government leeches paid your fair share

dbackjon wrote:

93henfan wrote:My premium for Blue Cross Blue Shield Federal went up 12% for 2016.

Thanks Obama.

About time you government leeches paid your fair share

We always have. Don't confuse us with Congress like the rest of the uninformed.

I drop close to $4,000/yr in premium on my sons and myself. Probably another $1,000 on copays.

On a positive note, my ex got remarried and is moving to a family plan, so she's picking up the boys. I should save a couple of grand going back to self only.

Back in the 80s and 90s I sold health insurance, major medical, and we never saw less than 20% increases annually, usually around 30%.

Thanks Obama, your affordable health care bill took these huge premium policies out of my agency, and out of my pocket.

Wedgebuster wrote:Back in the 80s and 90s I sold health insurance, major medical, and we never saw less than 20% increases annually, usually around 30%.

Thanks Obama, your affordable health care bill took these huge premium policies out of my agency, and out of my pocket.

This is the highest annual premium increase I've seen in 15 years. Typical increases have been about 3%/yr. Then came Obamacare. Hey, somebody's gotta pay for the non producers I guess.

93henfan wrote:

Wedgebuster wrote:Back in the 80s and 90s I sold health insurance, major medical, and we never saw less than 20% increases annually, usually around 30%.

Thanks Obama, your affordable health care bill took these huge premium policies out of my agency, and out of my pocket.

This is the highest annual premium increase I've seen in 15 years. Typical increases have been about 3%/yr. Then came Obamacare. Hey, somebody's gotta pay for the non producers I guess.

Wedgie presumably sold private plans, you have a taxpayer-subsidized plan (as do I). Quitcherbitchin.

93henfan wrote:

Wedgebuster wrote:Back in the 80s and 90s I sold health insurance, major medical, and we never saw less than 20% increases annually, usually around 30%.

Thanks Obama, your affordable health care bill took these huge premium policies out of my agency, and out of my pocket.

This is the highest annual premium increase I've seen in 15 years. Typical increases have been about 3%/yr. Then came Obamacare. Hey, somebody's gotta pay for the non producers I guess.

Low income cases are subsidized, that leaves the rest of us to pick up the bill, I know, socialism. However, prior to Obamacare, we had the uninsured, and that is why back in the 80s and 90s major med premiums were going up 20-30% a year. Yes, malpractice and tort lawyers cost a ton too, but there was/is a hell of a lot of greed in the medical industry.

Wedgebuster wrote:

93henfan wrote:
This is the highest annual premium increase I've seen in 15 years. Typical increases have been about 3%/yr. Then came Obamacare. Hey, somebody's gotta pay for the non producers I guess.

Low income cases are subsidized, that leaves the rest of us to pick up the bill, I know, socialism. However, prior to Obamacare, we had the uninsured, and that is why back in the 80s and 90s major med premiums were going up 20-30% a year. Yes, malpractice and tort lawyers cost a ton too, but there was/is a hell of a lot of greed in the medical industry.

Last sentence we can all agree on. Well, maybe except the scumbag lawyers.

Wedgebuster wrote:

93henfan wrote:
This is the highest annual premium increase I've seen in 15 years. Typical increases have been about 3%/yr. Then came Obamacare. Hey, somebody's gotta pay for the non producers I guess.

Low income cases are subsidized, that leaves the rest of us to pick up the bill, I know, socialism. However, prior to Obamacare, we had the uninsured, and that is why back in the 80s and 90s major med premiums were going up 20-30% a year. Yes, malpractice and tort lawyers cost a ton too, but there was/is a hell of a lot of greed in the medical industry.

That being the case, why was it that Democrats would not allow any concept of tort reform to be included in the ACA?

TheDancinMonarch wrote:

Wedgebuster wrote:
Low income cases are subsidized, that leaves the rest of us to pick up the bill, I know, socialism. However, prior to Obamacare, we had the uninsured, and that is why back in the 80s and 90s major med premiums were going up 20-30% a year. Yes, malpractice and tort lawyers cost a ton too, but there was/is a hell of a lot of greed in the medical industry.

That being the case, why was it that Democrats would not allow any concept of tort reform to be included in the ACA?

BOTH parties are beholden, and led by attorneys...

http://www.nla.org/

TheDancinMonarch wrote:

Wedgebuster wrote:
Low income cases are subsidized, that leaves the rest of us to pick up the bill, I know, socialism. However, prior to Obamacare, we had the uninsured, and that is why back in the 80s and 90s major med premiums were going up 20-30% a year. Yes, malpractice and tort lawyers cost a ton too, but there was/is a hell of a lot of greed in the medical industry.

That being the case, why was it that Democrats would not allow any concept of tort reform to be included in the ACA?

I don't disagree that there should be some, but far should it go? Should it be impossible to sue a shitty doctor who actually does fuck you over?

Grizalltheway wrote:

TheDancinMonarch wrote:
That being the case, why was it that Democrats would not allow any concept of tort reform to be included in the ACA?

I don't disagree that there should be some, but far should it go? Should it be impossible to sue a shitty doctor who actually does fuck you over?

Got something to tell us?

93henfan wrote:

dbackjon wrote:

About time you government leeches paid your fair share

We always have. Don't confuse us with Congress like the rest of the uninformed.

I drop close to $4,000/yr in premium on my sons and myself. Probably another $1,000 on copays.

On a positive note, my ex got remarried and is moving to a family plan, so she's picking up the boys. I should save a couple of grand going back to self only.

$4,000 each or total? Either answer I reply quit your bitching because it's way cheaper than what I have to pay.

CAA Flagship wrote:

Grizalltheway wrote: I don't disagree that there should be some, but far should it go? Should it be impossible to sue a shitty doctor who actually does fuck you over?

Got something to tell us?

Million to one shot, doc. Million to one.

Thing I dont really get is the annual deficit. Most know we're almost to $20T. How can it be claimed to be only $400B?

andy7171 wrote:Thing I dont really get is the annual deficit. Most know we're almost to $20T. How can it be claimed to be only $400B?

You're thinking of the national debt, not the annual budget deficit.

Grizalltheway wrote:

andy7171 wrote:Thing I dont really get is the annual deficit. Most know we're almost to $20T. How can it be claimed to be only $400B?

You're thinking of the national debt, not the annual budget deficit.

But how can you have a budget deficit without a budget?

Grizalltheway wrote:

Grizalltheway wrote:

CAA Flagship wrote: Got something to tell us?

Million to one shot, doc. Million to one.

FESTIVUS!!

Wedgebuster wrote:

TheDancinMonarch wrote:
That being the case, why was it that Democrats would not allow any concept of tort reform to be included in the ACA?

BOTH parties are beholden, and led by attorneys...

http://www.nla.org/

So you're saying that Democrats are just as venal as Republicans?

TheDancinMonarch wrote:

Wedgebuster wrote:
BOTH parties are beholden, and led by attorneys...

http://www.nla.org/

So you're saying that Democrats are just as venal as Republicans?

Venal is a damn fine word.

And yes, if not more so when it comes to picking winners and losers.