Name:	architect -	Reply
Subject:	Terrible news!
Date:	10/22/2019 12:28:27 PM

For 2020 Obamacare premiums will drop on average 4% with some markets seein double digit reductions, the number of carriers is up by 20 and the percentage of Americans living in counties with only one carrier to choose from has dropped from 20% to 12%!!!

Now, guess who, in an example of supreme chutzpah, is claiming credit for the welcome changes?  Yep, none other than the same Donald J. Trump who is also claiming all credit for supporting the lawsuit seeking to destroy Obamacare!  Folks, you can't make this chit up!!

Name:	CRD -	Reply
Subject:	Terrible news!
Date:	10/22/2019 12:33:39 PM

Devil is in the details Archie.  Reference?

Name:	MrHodja -	Reply
Subject:	Good news!
Date:	10/22/2019 12:42:17 PM

Under President Donald J Trump's leadership more companies are trusting he will continue to improve a horrid Obamacare system and participating at higher levels while they anticipate his gaining success in his efforts to eliminate it and implement a less corrupt healthcare insurance system.

Name:	architect -	Reply
Subject:	Well in a strange bit of karma
Date:	10/22/2019 12:44:29 PM

it was announced by the Trump administration a couple of hours ago!!

Name:	architect -	Reply
Subject:	Uhhh, sorry Mr H
Date:	10/22/2019 12:54:08 PM

I'm not able to see how totally destroying the law in the courts is making it better or giving anybody confidence in anything,

Name:	phil -	Reply
Subject:	Uhhh, sorry Mr H
Date:	10/22/2019 12:59:03 PM

So arguing that parts of the  law is unconstitutional and the court agreeing is destroying?

Damn those pesky courts for overturning poorly written or unconstitutional laws - 

Name:	CRD -	Reply
Subject:	Terrible news!
Date:	10/22/2019 1:18:43 PM

The 4% is only for Fed Ocare exchanges.  No mention of the state exchanges

Lemme get this straight....you all on the left say that profit is a bad word when associated with healthcare, hence, Medicare for everyone.  "Docs are rigging the system", "why do they make so much money", "why do insurance execs qualify for million dollar retirement packages",   I have heard this ad nauseum from the Left.    Yet, one of the reasons that more managed care plans are entering the marketplace is, as reported because of higher premiums that create profit for these companies.  Trust me, they aren't entering them to lose money.    So what is it?  Are higher premiums for Ocare participants good or bad? And who is paying these higher premiums?  Of course, those not receiving SUBSIDIES.   

Another reason for "stabilization", a term that I use loosely,  seems to be that insurance companies are now paying for secondary insurance for themselves because of risk. WHAAT???  I bet there is tertiary insurance for those who sold secondary insurance too.   Who do you think is paying for their re-insurance?  Who enabled the ability for these companies to re-insure themselves?  I can assure you, it is not coming out of their profit margin.

The governments question regarding Ocare is whether the program is constitutional.  Trump has no say in the legalities. So to say that Trump is advocating for its demise is factually incorrect.  Trump is advocating for the Constitution and rule of law, and if that means the demise of Ocare, then so be it as far as I am concerned.  I will gladly welcome our court system's ability to eliminate the weaponization of governmental programs for partisan purposes.  This program, which Congress had to pass in order to know what was in it, may be a casualty, or it may survive. We will see, however, the administrations statement with regard to how well the program is doing is spot on.  You have to read it though, to know whats in it.    

Name:	MartiniMan -	Reply
Subject:	Uhhh, sorry Mr H
Date:	10/22/2019 2:13:41 PM

It's even worse than that.  Because of the unusual way they passed this law it did not have severability language.  Most final laws have language that essentially says if any portion of the law is deemed unconstitutional that all the other provisions remain in effect.  That language does not exist in the ACA and if any of it is invalidated it technically invalidates the entire law. 

Name:	architect -	Reply
Subject:	Waaa ,Waaa, Waaa
Date:	10/22/2019 2:23:57 PM (updated 10/22/2019 2:25:15 PM)

Blanket untrue statements as usual!  Please give one, just one, instance when I said profit was bad.  I'll be waiting!  What you right-wingers fail to realize is that those of who don't completely base how to vote on our portfolio performance don't hate profit.  It just means we believe there is more to being a patriotic American than making lots of money and, I might add, forcing our own religious beliefs (or lack thereof) down everybody's throat.

BTW: I'm sorry you are so upset by millions of Americans are getting a break.

Name:	CRD -	Reply
Subject:	Waaa ,Waaa, Waaa
Date:	10/22/2019 3:56:05 PM

Regarding healthcare profit, please note that you were not necessarily accused, however, one needs to not look much farther than Bernie to see that Progressives view healthcare profit as evil:

"I will tell you what the issue is here," Sanders continued. "The issue is whether the Democratic Party has the guts to stand up to the healthcare industry which made a $100 billion in profits; whether we have the guts to stand up to the corrupt, price-fixing pharmaceutical industry which is charging us the highest prices in the world for prescription drugs. If we don't have the guts to do that—if all we can do is take their money—we should be ashamed of ourselves."

"Our current healthcare system is dysfunctional and cruel"

Not my words Archie, your party's leadership.

Name:	phil -	Reply
Subject:	Waaa ,Waaa, Waaa
Date:	10/22/2019 4:35:58 PM

I might add, forcing our own religious beliefs (or lack thereof) down everybody's throat = BAD

I might add, forcing our own Government beliefs (or lack thereof) down everybody's throat = Good

Name:	phil -	Reply
Subject:	Uhhh, sorry Mr H
Date:	10/22/2019 4:45:16 PM

Like I said - poorly written laws.

archi thinks that the courts are only there to stop Trump/agree with dems, not rule on the merits of the case.  That is how you wind up with legislating from the bench and courts creating laws from thin air.  They just dont like it when it happens against them.  

Name:	architect -	Reply
Subject:	Bernie is not a Democrat
Date:	10/22/2019 8:52:12 PM (updated 10/22/2019 9:00:19 PM)

He is now running third.

But, tell me this, do you disagree with old Socialist Bernie that the corporate healthcare industry (Insurance, big Pharma, hospital corporations) is overcharging you and me every chance they get.  Switzerland has the 2nd highest per capita cost for healthcare in the world and it is 64% of the most expensive healthcare system right here in the good old USA!

BTW:  The Swiss get a lot better results with their 64 cents than we do with our dollar!

''You all on the left say that profit is bad word...."  Anybody that understands English would interpret that as including ME among those you imagine as abhoring profit, but you did a fairly good, if insincere, diversion to excuse not giving an example of me personally saying profit is bad.

Name:	MrHodja -	Reply
Subject:	Uhhh, sorry Mr H
Date:	10/22/2019 9:48:33 PM

"I'm not able to see..."

Because you don't want to see.  

Name:	MrHodja -	Reply
Subject:	Bernie is not a Democrat
Date:	10/22/2019 9:51:08 PM

" The Swiss get a lot better results with their 64 cents than we do with our dollar!"

Fact?  Source? 

Opinion? Probably.

Name:	wix -	Reply
Subject:	ARCH-COMMIE
Date:	10/22/2019 10:56:44 PM

Find us a country with the demographics comparable to the US, before you try to make comparisons.  Switzerland is a one race, all working, family oriented, legal citizen country.  Honduras would be a better comparison for US!

Name:	architect -	Reply
Subject:	Fact, you bet
Date:	10/22/2019 11:16:54 PM

Sources:

PER CAPITA SPENDING...PETERSON-KAISER HEALTHCARE TRACKER and WORLD HEALTH ORGANIZATION

HEALTHCARE OUTCOME...FORBES which places the US as 10 in outcome with the UK (even with their ''deplorable Socialized NHS'') is at the top of the heap.

PS:  Unlike most on this forum I will admit to an error if I discover it.  I misread the graph and was mistaken in the Swiss expenditure per capita cost...they are 2nd but spend 75 cents on the dollar.  Norway is third at 64 cents on the dollar. Of course both along with all the nations near the top in outcome have Universal Healthcare with varying degrees of (SHUDDERRRRR) ''Socialization'' included.

Name:	architect -	Reply
Subject:	Honduras is not a first world country
Date:	10/22/2019 11:21:20 PM

Try the UK.  They are about as diverse as us and spend 45 cent on every dollar we spend and, according to Forbes, have the best outcome in the world while we stand at number 10.

Name:	architect -	Reply
Subject:	And to anticipate WIX's next screed:
Date:	10/22/2019 11:48:15 PM

LARGEST ETHNIC GROUPS:

USA   White       73%

         Hispanic   16.1%*

         Black       11.8%

         Asian         4.8%

UK     White        80.5%

         Asian          7.5%

         Black          3.5%

         Mixed          2.3%

* Remember WIX, Hispanics are both black and white so the get counted twice.  Don't seen fair does it?

Name:	Buteye -	Reply
Subject:	And to anticipate WIX's next screed:
Date:	10/23/2019 2:27:42 AM (updated 10/23/2019 2:37:33 AM)

Have you ever stopped to consider that most of the countries you refer to in arriving at your conclusions are(size wise) considerably smaller in size than most of our 50 states which in turn makes it much easier for them to provide expected governmental services. For the most part, the United States is faced with having to provide a government that is functional for many times more diverse people (including illegal immigrants), compared to the countries you have referred to. Add to this the difficulty in scope of having to meet the needs of a diverse population where Democrats have done nothing the last three years but preach "resistance, investigation and impeachment". If you were given a choice of designing a functional government for either the United States or Switzerland, which would you choose? Would you prefer to design a goverment where most of the people are interested in the "well being" of its people or a country where roughly half of the people are fighting your every move? Furthermore, if you brought an "unbiasd" person into the United States and tasked them to "evaluate" the major functions of our government over the last three years, what do you think would be the resulting findings?

Name:	architect -	Reply
Subject:	Buteye, have you ever stopped to consider
Date:	10/23/2019 8:32:19 AM (updated 10/23/2019 8:33:10 AM)

how ignorant and uninformed most of your posts are.  I think WIX is just tryin to get a rise.  You, on the other hand, seem to actually believe the nonsensical BS you post.

Name:	phil -	Reply
Subject:	Fact, you bet
Date:	10/23/2019 8:37:23 AM

Specialists, nurses and primary care doctors all earn significantly more in the U.S. compared to other countries. General physicians in America made an average of $218,173 in 2016, the report notes, which was double the average of generalists in the other countries, where pay ranged from $86,607 in Sweden to $154,126 in Germany.

Administrative costs, meanwhile, accounted for 8 percent of total national health expenditures in the U.S. For the other countries, they ranged from 1 percent to 3 percent. Health care professionals in America also reported a higher level of “administrative burden.” A survey showed that a significant portion of doctors call the time they lose to issues surrounding insurance claims and reporting clinical data a major problem.

As for the drug market, the U.S. spent $1,443 per capita on pharmaceuticals. The average pharmaceutical spending of all 11 countries came to $749 per capita. Switzerland followed closest behind the U.S. at $939.

Name:	Shortbus -	Reply
Subject:	Takers 68 Makers 0 latest score
Date:	10/23/2019 10:06:40 AM

https://www.cnsnews.com/commentary/terence-p-jeffrey/322-trillion-federal-programs-transfer-income-projected-hit-record-fy20

Name:	Buteye -	Reply
Subject:	Buteye, have you ever stopped to consider
Date:	10/23/2019 1:09:35 PM

As usual you go to any exteme to avoid a response. My post to you was no differenct than all the "what ifs" you propose and then provide the answer that you think everyone else should agree with. I'll live with my ignorance compared to all the BS you spout.