Law Supreme Court rules government must pay billions to Obamacare insurers

[Holic]

2 months is fast for sure, but they literally had years to write something and have it ready to go. It was their number one campaign issue. Right now I support Obamacare I don’t love it. I could easily be convinced to change my mind if the Republicans actually had a plan. The Republicans are quick to say we should replace Obamacare but won’t say what they want to replace it with.

Right, and my hope is that they'll remove it, promise a replacement, and then just before the vote they issue an official statement that reads "OOPS LOST IT IN A STOCK CAR RACE" and then this socialized shit is just gone forever.

 

[superpunch]

So what? We've got larger populations than most countries in that average,

So?

and a higher standard of care.

No

 

[Rational Poster]

Republicans opposed the ACA. Don't put this shit on Republicans.

Except when in full control of the government, Republicans decided to keep the ACA provisions, but just stop paying for them.

Weird.

 

[Holic]

So?

No

Behold the intellectual might of liberals.

Except when in full control of the government, Republicans decided to keep the ACA provisions, but just stop paying for them.

Weird.

Again: Obama is the one who signed off on nixing the provisions outlined in the case that was put before the supreme court.

 

[Rational Poster]

Behold the intellectual might of liberals.



Again: Obama is the one who signed off on nixing the provisions outlined in the case that was put before the supreme court.

So?

The Republicans controled the entire government for several years and did nothing to change anything, except nix more funding for it.

 

[Holic]

So?

The Republicans controled the entire government for several years and did nothing to change anything, except nix more funding for it.

I feel like we're repeatedly glossing over some key info on this specific topic, much in the same way bernie bros are glossing over facts.

The Obama admin wanted to push universal health care through and in order to make that happen, they promised private insurers billions of funding via this specific program.

When the republican congress stepped in and said "hey, you already have like a dozen other safeguards to keep Obamacare going, you don't need this slush fund." Obama said "Ok cool" and signed the bill eliminating that funding.

The government is on the hook for that funding BECAUSE Obama made that promise and then pulled the rug out. They would still be on the hook for it even if the republicans replaced Obamacare with something else every single year. This isn't even about the healthcare system itself, its about the the Obama admin inking a deal with private companies and then backing out of that deal illegally.

 

[lifelessheap]

Wasn't too big of a surprise that new Medicaid recipients were sick as hell. On the other hand, many private insurance companies are inefficient as all get out and have a high administrative overhead. If the government is contracting out the insurance there should be greater requirements for these contractors like: managed care, 98% generic formulary and no more than 6-5% administrative overhead. Cost savings should go back to the government.

Insurance is complicated. There are 50 states to deal with. All have different laws. The Federal government and states also change laws constantly. They also have to work with all private companies who pay them to administer insurance, and they have to contract with all the medical providers for every medical procedure and drug.

It's insane.

 

[James Bomb]

He steps up to the plate again, swing and a miss.

https://news.gallup.com/poll/245195/americans-rate-healthcare-quite-positively.aspx

Feeling kind of sorry for you since you're getting destroyed here, but you have a real bad problem with reading comprehension.

About nine in ten seriously ill patients (91%) have health insurance coverage. Are they being protected from serious problems paying their medical bills? The survey shows that while most people are financially protected, a substantial minority are not. About one- third (34%) report serious problems paying their hospital bills, and about three in ten (29%) report serious problems paying for their prescription drugs. In addition, 27% report having serious problems paying for dental care and 26% paying emergency room bills, (Table 1).

Among seriously ill patients who have health insurance coverage, these numbers about financial problems are still high. Thirty-one percent report serious problems paying their hospital bills, and 27% say they have problems paying for their prescription drugs.

Again, what I said: "An industry full of companies where the more people need to deal with them, the more they hate their providers."

No. They. Shouldn't. They are not the same cost. They are not the same process. You are literally lumping these two things together, then using the result of putting those things together to criticize one thing.

Of course they're not the same cost, you moron. That's the whole point of measuring two things as part of a study.

Do you understand the English language? This is not something that is hard to grasp, but you're literally drowning here. Jesus fucking christ.

Translation: "I'm a retard who only gets sources from left wing propaganda sites and I'm mad you saw through my bullshit."

Lol, you're not seeing through anything.

Oh for fucks sake, I LITERALLY CITED THE NHS YOU FUCKING RETARDED BOT.

Uh, the article that you posted was "Analyzed by Bazian", so it's written by a third party, not the NHS. And I already provided you with the article showing how the researcher's own hospital ran a large study that refuted his findings.

Uh huh. Tell Alfie Evans and Charlie Gard about all those deaths your agenda is preventing.

You hard right idiots sure seem to be obsessed over these individual cases - Alfie Evans, Terri Schiavo. Charlie Gard, which is based on a gross mischaracterization of the actual medical evidence, by the way.

Of course, the 44,000 people who die because they don't have health coverage is no big deal.

And you don't recognize the fucking NHS when you see it ahhahahha

If there's somebody who's capable of making a good argument against public healthcare, it certainly isn't you.

 

[Holic]

Feeling kind of sorry for you since you're getting destroyed here, but you have a real bad problem with reading comprehension.

About nine in ten seriously ill patients (91%) have health insurance coverage. Are they being protected from serious problems paying their medical bills? The survey shows that while most people are financially protected, a substantial minority are not. About one- third (34%) report serious problems paying their hospital bills, and about three in ten (29%) report serious problems paying for their prescription drugs. In addition, 27% report having serious problems paying for dental care and 26% paying emergency room bills, (Table 1).

Among seriously ill patients who have health insurance coverage, these numbers about financial problems are still high. Thirty-one percent report serious problems paying their hospital bills, and 27% say they have problems paying for their prescription drugs.

Again, what I said: "An industry full of companies where the more people need to deal with them, the more they hate their providers."

And what I posted proves that the majority are and have been satisfied with their healthcare coverage, so you're full of shit.

Of course they're not the same cost, you moron. That's the whole point of measuring two things as part of a study.

Do you understand the English language? This is not something that is hard to grasp, but you're literally drowning here. Jesus fucking christ.

If you don't recognize that people pay different costs between individual healthcare cases, I can't help you. You're too retarded to bother with.

Lol, you're not seeing through anything.

Right now I'm seeing you're pretty fucking upset that I've absolutely rolled you with facts and evidence whereas you've only brought weak Bernie propaganda. I'm seeing you trying to bait me into an ad hom attack so you can go cry to a lib mod and try to get me penalized so you can try and eke out a win. I'm seeing your plan is going to shit already.

Uh, the article that you posted was "Analyzed by Bazian", so it's written by a third party, not the NHS. And I already provided you with the article showing how the researcher's own hospital ran a large study that refuted his findings.

Ok Bernie bro. The article published on the NHS website wasn't published by the NHS. 32 is more than 44. Up is down. Whatever.

You hard right idiots sure seem to be obsessed over these individual cases - Alfie Evans, Terri Schiavo. Charlie Gard, which is based on a gross mischaracterization of the actual medical evidence, by the way.

Of course, the 44,000 people who die because they don't have health coverage is no big deal.

Another lie. It is illegal in the United States to refuse treatment to a patient based on insurance coverage or lack thereoff, and it has been since 1986. Nobody dies because they don't have health insurance, they die because they're darwin award nominees like you who can't find their way out of a rainstorm, much less handle a hospital bill. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Emergency_Medical_Treatment_and_Active_Labor_Act

If there's somebody who's capable of making a good argument against public healthcare, it certainly isn't you.

At this point I've already proven you're a commie bot without a soul. I don't have to argue against your shitty proposed healthcare system, reality already does that for me. I'm just watching you squirm your way into ad hom attacks (the inevitable result of attempted debate by any liberal) so I can drink your tears as the Bernie bubble falls apart around you. It's like dancing around a training dummy.

 

[James Bomb]

And what I posted proves that the majority are and have been satisfied with their healthcare coverage, so you're full of shit.

Fucking A, do you even know how to read the English language?

You're arguing against something that I never even said, and it makes you look like an even bigger idiot than before.

If you don't recognize that people pay different costs between individual healthcare cases, I can't help you. You're too retarded to bother with.

OMG, you are dense. That's the whole point, People pay different costs for the same medical services, and you compare those costs for an apples to apples price comparison of those services. This is how studies are done. I shouldn't have to spend time convincing some junior idiot in the WR that basic experiment design principles that most children learn in elementary school is not "retarded". Your teachers failed you.

Right now I'm seeing you're pretty fucking upset that I've absolutely rolled you with facts and evidence whereas you've only brought weak Bernie propaganda. I'm seeing you trying to bait me into an ad hom attack so you can go cry to a lib mod and try to get me penalized so you can try and eke out a win. I'm seeing your plan is going to shit already.

Not really, you're having quite the Trump Twitter meltdown in this thread. Tons of "Bernie Bro/TDS" garbage that you guys fill these threads up with once you realize that you're not going to be able to make any sort of effective arguments.

Ok Bernie bro. The article published on the NHS website wasn't published by the NHS. 32 is more than 44. Up is down. Whatever.

You mean the article that I already debunked? You're so shaken that you can't even seem to figure out what points you're trying to argue anymore. A literal fucking mess.

Another lie. It is illegal in the United States to refuse treatment to a patient based on insurance coverage or lack thereoff, and it has been since 1986. Nobody dies because they don't have health insurance, they die because they're darwin award nominees like you who can't find their way out of a rainstorm, much less handle a hospital bill. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Emergency_Medical_Treatment_and_Active_Labor_Act

Healthcare goes beyond just EMTALA. For example, Richard Nixon signed an expansion of Medicare in 1972 that covered people with long-term disabilities and renal failure. Should all of those chronically sick people and all the others on Medicaid or CHIP have just called an ambulance or driven to the emergency room? What about all the people with cancer, should they just camp out in the hospital lobby? Do you know how much hospital visits cost in comparison to preventative care? Do you even understand why medical bankruptcies exist?

BTW, if you want to contrast how morally corrupt your Republicans have become, read Nixon's speech on healthcare priorities and try to argue that fifty years of insurance industry lobbying hasn't distorted the debate on public health.

Here we are. I posted a peer-reviewed study that measured the effects of missing health coverage on the mortality rate of Americans. A study that links to other peer-reviewed studies on the same topic. Your response is to post some crappy debunked links that you found at the bottom of Google while trying really hard to fellate yourself. Not exactly a winning strategy there, buddy.

At this point I've already proven you're a commie bot without a soul. I don't have to argue against your shitty proposed healthcare system, reality already does that for me. I'm just watching you squirm your way into ad hom attacks (the inevitable result of attempted debate by any liberal) so I can drink your tears as the Bernie bubble falls apart around you. It's like dancing around a training dummy.

Oh no, my poor doomed soul!

I guess I'm not going to be joining Trump, Pence, and all the Conservative Prayer Warriors in Republican Heaven since I argued for health policy that's backed up by published studies, supported by a majority of Americans, and successfully implemented in other countries all over the world. Heresy!

 

[Holic]

Fucking A, do you even know how to read the English language?

You're arguing against something that I never even said, and it makes you look like an even bigger idiot than before.

There's those ad homs I mentioned. Look, I know you have a hard life being a virgin loser but don't take it out on me just cause you can't accept reality.

OMG, you are dense. That's the whole point, People pay different costs for the same medical services, and you compare those costs for an apples to apples price comparison of those services. This is how studies are done. I shouldn't have to spend time convincing some junior idiot in the WR that basic experiment design principles that most children learn in elementary school is not "retarded". Your teachers failed you.

You literally just said they pay the same cost, now you're saying they don't. You've contradicted yourself a dozen times already and you're raging quite hard over it now.

Not really, you're having quite the Trump Twitter meltdown in this thread. Tons of "Bernie Bro/TDS" garbage that you guys fill these threads up with once you realize that you're not going to be able to make any sort of effective arguments.

Keep typing in all caps and screaming insults bro. You look real calm.

You mean the article that I already debunked? You're so shaken that you can't even seem to figure out what points you're trying to argue anymore. A literal fucking mess.

You know you could just type REEEEEEEEE and you'd basically be saying the same thing while saving yourself a lot of effort.

Healthcare goes beyond just EMTALA. For example, Richard Nixon signed an expansion of Medicare in 1972 that covered people with long-term disabilities and renal failure. Should all of those chronically sick people and all the others on Medicaid or CHIP have just called an ambulance or driven to the emergency room? What about all the people with cancer, should they just camp out in the hospital lobby? Do you know how much hospital visits cost in comparison to preventative care? Do you even understand why medical bankruptcies exist?

The medicare that Nixon expanded was being paid for by citizens who actually worked and paid for those benefits (and the money was depleting even then). The medicare YOU want is already expanded to a point where it cannot sustain because you've attached every child, junkie and out of work loser onto it that you can. And you can camp out in all the lobbies you want, I'm not paying for it.

BTW, if you want to contrast how morally corrupt your Republicans have become, read Nixon's speech on healthcare priorities and try to argue that fifty years of insurance industry lobbying hasn't distorted the debate on public health.

Ah yes, Nixon. An absolute paragon of upstanding moral values. Rofl.

Here we are. I posted a peer-reviewed study that measured the effects of missing health coverage on the mortality rate of Americans. A study that links to other peer-reviewed studies on the same topic. Your response is to post some crappy debunked links that you found at the bottom of Google while trying really hard to fellate yourself. Not exactly a winning strategy there, buddy.

Curses and exclamations on the other hand are the response of the true intellectual, as we'll see in 3...2...1....

Oh no, my poor doomed soul!

I guess I'm not going to be joining Trump, Pence, and all the Conservative Prayer Warriors in Republican Heaven since I argued for health policy that's backed up by published studies, supported by a majority of Americans, and successfully implemented in other countries all over the world. Heresy!

U mad cuz u worship government

 

[James Bomb]

There's those ad homs I mentioned. Look, I know you have a hard life being a virgin loser but don't take it out on me just cause you can't accept reality.

Oh great, another spittle-flecked diatribe from the willfully ignorant.

You literally just said they pay the same cost, now you're saying they don't. You've contradicted yourself a dozen times already and you're raging quite hard over it now.

Holy shit, this is like trying to explain basic arithmetic to a koala bear. That's funny, because you really don't understand math either ($49 billion >$33 billion) Let's see exactly who wrote the study that you are trying so hard to not understand:

In the red corner, we have:
Bonnie B. Blanchfield, Sc.D.: Assistant Professor in the Department of Health Policy and Management, Harvard University
James Joseph Heffernan, M.D.: Associate Professor of Medicine, Beth Israel Hospital
Bradford Osgood, Rosemary Sheehan, Gregg S Meyer: Massachusetts General Hospital

And in the sad, lonely blue corner, we have:
Ass-Holic: Amateur Angry Person, Part Time Insurance Salesman, and Cringeworthy Fan Fiction Author

Really tough call on which side to go with here... The doctors and health professionals that published a peer-reviewed study in a prestigious journal that is called "the bible of health policy" versus some dude on the Internet that can't understand elementary school math.

Keep typing in all caps and screaming insults bro. You look real calm.
You know you could just type REEEEEEEEE and you'd basically be saying the same thing while saving yourself a lot of effort.

Your total lack of self-awareness is downright hilarious. You don't have the mental horsepower to argue any real healthcare concepts here, so you're just spamming this thread with lame insult attempts, and you even manage to suck at doing that.

The medicare that Nixon expanded was being paid for by citizens who actually worked and paid for those benefits (and the money was depleting even then). The medicare YOU want is already expanded to a point where it cannot sustain because you've attached every child, junkie and out of work loser onto it that you can. And you can camp out in all the lobbies you want, I'm not paying for it.

Let's be honest, you're not paying for much of anything by selling your shitty insurance and awful fanfics. By the way, Medicare definitely wasn't "depleting" in 1974. In fact, H1 solvency projections improved from 1972-1978. Is there anything that you're actually going to get correct?

Ah yes, Nixon. An absolute paragon of upstanding moral values. Rofl.

God, you're dense. Is there a point that isn't going to fly completely over your head?

Even Nixon, a partisan Republican for his time, still listened to his staff enough to recognize the importance of public health to America's future. Trump, an objectively worse President in almost every way, dedicates his single term to attacking programs that help the sick and the vulnerable.

Curses and exclamations on the other hand are the response of the true intellectual, as we'll see in 3...2...1....

U mad cuz u worship government

For somebody who claims to be a writer, you sure do suck at actually writing anything clever or meaningful. Don't bother worrying about anybody else stealing your material though. "U mad cuz u worship government" won't be showing up on anybody's diss tracks anytime soon.

 

[Bargey]

Neat, let's transfer more of our money to insurance giants. Thanks, Republicans.

Republicans invented Obamacare? Wow - that’s a new one.

 

[Rational Poster]

I feel like we're repeatedly glossing over some key info on this specific topic, much in the same way bernie bros are glossing over facts.

The Obama admin wanted to push universal health care through and in order to make that happen, they promised private insurers billions of funding via this specific program.

When the republican congress stepped in and said "hey, you already have like a dozen other safeguards to keep Obamacare going, you don't need this slush fund." Obama said "Ok cool" and signed the bill eliminating that funding.

The government is on the hook for that funding BECAUSE Obama made that promise and then pulled the rug out. They would still be on the hook for it even if the republicans replaced Obamacare with something else every single year. This isn't even about the healthcare system itself, its about the the Obama admin inking a deal with private companies and then backing out of that deal illegally.

And the Republican solution is to do literally nothing about any of it.

 

[skysolo]

And the Republican solution is to do literally nothing about any of it.

I really don't know why you folks keep arguing with him. He has no point other than to be against yours.

He hasn't even made a good argument.