Can we now call Øbamacare a failure?

[Pwns]

http://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/ ... sing-money

Who could've predicted this?

[89Hen]

[CAA Flagship]

[CAA Flagship]

[Ivytalk]

[ALPHAGRIZ1]

Who (that matters) hasnt called it a failure before it was even forced on us?

[GannonFan]

I think it was always designed to be a failure, it was just the necessary bridge that advocates felt had to be taken before moving to a single payer system like the NHS in the UK. I would firmly expect that would be the push going forward with the next administration.

[kalm]

I think it was always designed to be a failure, it was just the necessary bridge that advocates felt had to be taken before moving to a single payer system like the NHS in the UK. I would firmly expect that would be the push going forward with the next administration.

So spend all that money, take in all those campaign contributions, and involve big health insurance and pharma on writing the legislation to knowingly progress to single payer in the end?

[Ibanez]

I think it was always designed to be a failure, it was just the necessary bridge that advocates felt had to be taken before moving to a single payer system like the NHS in the UK. I would firmly expect that would be the push going forward with the next administration.

So spend all that money, take in all those campaign contributions, and involve big health insurance and pharma on writing the legislation to knowingly progress to single payer in the end?

It's progress.

[GannonFan]

So spend all that money, take in all those campaign contributions, and involve big health insurance and pharma on writing the legislation to knowingly progress to single payer in the end?

It's progress.

Political progress. It's how it works apparently. Government.

[Baldy]

I think it was always designed to be a failure, it was just the necessary bridge that advocates felt had to be taken before moving to a single payer system like the NHS in the UK. I would firmly expect that would be the push going forward with the next administration.

So spend all that money, take in all those campaign contributions, and involve big health insurance and pharma on writing the legislation to knowingly progress to single payer in the end?

Big Health Insurance and Big Pharma wrote the legislation that has cost them 100's of millions of dollars?

Really?
Intentionally?

How strange.

[CID1990]

What we need is another Cash for Clunkers.

[93henfan]

What we need is another Cash for Clunkers.

Yeah, that was Obama's first brilliant plan. A net loss of billions and an increased market share for foreign automakers in the US market, followed shortly by a similar program in Japan where the Japanese excluded US cars from purchase under the program.

Sounds legit.

[Ibanez]

What we need is another Cash for Clunkers.

I believe that was the name of the first Hillary Clinton for President fundraiser.

[Gil Dobie]

It's led to people having to pay over $7000 deductible, even though it wasn't suppose to affect them.

[HI54UNI]

What we need is another Cash for Clunkers.

I believe that was the name of the first Hillary Clinton for President fundraiser.

No, that was Cash for Cankles.

[Ibanez]

I believe that was the name of the first Hillary Clinton for President fundraiser.

No, that was Cash for Cankles.

You sure it wasn't Cash for Chuckles?


Wait...that was for Dubya.

[ASUG8]

Money for Mooseknuckle.

[Pwns]

I think it was always designed to be a failure, it was just the necessary bridge that advocates felt had to be taken before moving to a single payer system like the NHS in the UK. I would firmly expect that would be the push going forward with the next administration.

Not sure if I would go that far, but I do think the objective was to get people with pre-existing conditions on insurance policies while making everyone pay more for insurance in the process, and to lie to people that everyone could be insured without everyone's premiums going up.

[CAA Flagship]

Money for Mooseknuckle.

WINNER!!!!

[GannonFan]

I think it was always designed to be a failure, it was just the necessary bridge that advocates felt had to be taken before moving to a single payer system like the NHS in the UK. I would firmly expect that would be the push going forward with the next administration.

Not sure if I would go that far, but I do think the objective was to get people with pre-existing conditions on insurance policies while making everyone pay more for insurance in the process, and to lie to people that everyone could be insured without everyone's premiums going up.

Sure they lied, but no one should've ever thought that adding people to the insurance rolls that would be uber expensive would ever have resulted in lower premiums for everyone. Politicians lie all the time, it's up to voters to know what the real whoppers are, and that was one of them. (btw, I was and still am perfectly good with the idea of making sure there's a way to get people with pre-existing conditions covered by insurance so that they can get medical services, that was absolutely necessary. I just don't think we have the best plan yet on how to effectively do that).

[Pwns]

Not sure if I would go that far, but I do think the objective was to get people with pre-existing conditions on insurance policies while making everyone pay more for insurance in the process, and to lie to people that everyone could be insured without everyone's premiums going up.

Sure they lied, but no one should've ever thought that adding people to the insurance rolls that would be uber expensive would ever have resulted in lower premiums for everyone.

There's another explanation for that. John Gruber was right (which is what I've said ever since he talked about this to congress).

[Pwns]

(btw, I was and still am perfectly good with the idea of making sure there's a way to get people with pre-existing conditions covered by insurance so that they can get medical services, that was absolutely necessary. I just don't think we have the best plan yet on how to effectively do that).

Here's what I would do.

1. Increase the number of residency positions so we have more doctors. When doctors can afford to turn away patients with certain insurance policies then you know. Primary and preventative care has been a sellers market for a long time.

2. More transparency in pricing. If you're not in a small town or rural area you should have more choices for non-emergency care.

Do those things and costs will drop and premiums will go down with them.

[SDHornet]

http://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/ ... sing-money

Who could've predicted this?

This is awesome:

UnitedHealth expects to lose $850 million on Obamacare in 2016, while Aetna, Anthem, and Humana are all on track to lose at least $300 million each on their ACA plans this year, according to company reports and estimates from Bloomberg Intelligence. UnitedHealth says it’s quitting 31 of the 34 states where it sells ACA policies. Humana is exiting 8 of 19 states and reducing its presence to just 156 counties, from 1,351 a year ago. Anthem hasn’t announced plans to change its participation in the program.
O
n Aug. 15, Aetna said it will stop selling Obamacare plans in 11 of the 15 states where it had participated in the program, reversing its plan to expand into five new state exchanges in 2017. “The exchanges are a mess as they exist today,” says Aetna Chief Executive Officer Mark Bertolini. “They’re losing a lot of money for a lot of people.”

That is some serious coin lost. The penalty for not having insurance goes up this year right?

[93henfan]

So at the increases quoted in the article, premiums are going to double every four years.

Nice work donks.