ObamaCare - Epic Fail

[ArlJim78]

From Hot Air (http://hotair.com/archives/2010/11/12/hhs-falls-short-of-pre-existing-coverage-prediction-by-97-8/)


255 million: The number of Americans with existing health insurance coverage (http://hotair.com/archives/2009/09/11/who-are-the-uninsured-2009-edition/).
20 million: The number of Americans without any health coverage at all due to economic circumstances.

375,000: The number of Americans with pre-existing conditions HHS said would apply for coverage in the first year of ObamaCare, one of the main political arguments for its implementation.

8,011: The number that actually did (http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748703805004575606891744060162.html).


That comes to a success rate for that prediction of just under 2.2%. The Wall Street Journal points out that the program operates at a loss — which means that consumers who qualify for the program in essence have partial subsidies by entering it. And yet, despite the billions of dollars committed to funding it and the efforts of 27 states to duplicate it, only eight thousand people have bothered to apply for the program.

The Obama administration and its allies in the Nancy Pelosi Congress revamped one-sixth of the American economy, created new federal mandates, and created chaos in system that worked for the vast majority of Americans, just to deal with eight thousand people? Perhaps they should have tested the issue by creating the program separately first and determining whether the demand required a complete overhaul of a health-care system that mainly worked for the rest of us, instead of arrogating to themselves the task of dictating the shape of a market they clearly don’t understand.

[Mike at A+]

I'd be very interested in knowing how many of the remaining 97.8% have money to blow on beer, cigarettes and flat screen TV's.

[boxcar]

I'd be very interested in knowing how many of the remaining 97.8% have money to blow on beer, cigarettes and flat screen TV's.

...and lotto tickets.

Boxcar

[hcap]

I think you gentlemen get more delusional by the minute. And I understand why they call it Hot Air

[DJofSD]

And dime superfectas.

[Tom]

And internet access.

[ArlJim78]

I think you gentlemen get more delusional by the minute. And I understand why they call it Hot Air
it was actually from the Wall Street Journal (http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748703805004575606891744060162.html?m od=googlenews_wsj).

[bigmack]

This thread alone will call for mosty to get extra batteries for his calculator.

[johnhannibalsmith]

This thread alone will call for mosty to get extra batteries for his calculator.

Uhhhh... I think it's safe to say that he has a solar powered calculator.

[redshift1]

From Hot Air (http://hotair.com/archives/2010/11/12/hhs-falls-short-of-pre-existing-coverage-prediction-by-97-8/)


255 million: The number of Americans with existing health insurance coverage (http://hotair.com/archives/2009/09/11/who-are-the-uninsured-2009-edition/).
20 million: The number of Americans without any health coverage at all due to economic circumstances.

375,000: The number of Americans with pre-existing conditions HHS said would apply for coverage in the first year of ObamaCare, one of the main political arguments for its implementation.

8,011: The number that actually did (http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748703805004575606891744060162.html).


Strange statistical mishmash of chronological citing.... read the label before consumption.

[hcap]

Safe to say he above is nonsenseThe US is the only industrialized country that does not have universal health care for all its citizens.

There are programs for the elderly, military service families, the disabled, children and some poor through programs such as Medicare, Medicaid and so on, but some 45 million Americans go uninsured each year while another 25 million Americans go “underinsured”. With the worsening global financial crisis hitting America hard, more are likely to lose medical insurance which is often associated with a job.

The US does, however, through Federal law provide public access to emergency services, regardless of ability to pay. However, the emergency services system has sometimes felt strain due to patients being unable to pay for emergency services and many who cannot afford regular health care either use emergency services for treatment, or let otherwise preventable conditions get worse, requiring emergency treatment.
http://www.visualeconomics.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/02/worldhealthcare.jpg

[hcap]

The most persistent myth of all: that America has "the finest health care" in the world. We don't. In terms of results, almost all advanced countries have better national health statistics than the United States does. In terms of finance, we force 700,000 Americans into bankruptcy each year because of medical bills. In France, the number of medical bankruptcies is zero. Britain: zero. Japan: zero. Germany: zero.

[boxcar]

You get what you pay for 'cappy. We do have the best health care in the world. This is why our costs aren't cut rate.

Now, here's what this yo-yo wrote:

The US does, however, through Federal law provide public access to emergency services, regardless of ability to pay. However, the emergency services system has sometimes felt strain due to patients being unable to pay for emergency services and many who cannot afford regular health care either use emergency services for treatment, or let otherwise preventable conditions get worse, requiring emergency treatment.

And what about the constant strain that will be felt by lower bracket taxpayers who will be forced to pay for care of non-taxpayers? What about that strain, Mr. 'cap? Someone has to pay for these "freebies", and it will be ALL taxpayers at all levels who will feel this strain to one degree or another. So, what about that strain? Why is it fair for even the marginally Haves be forced to pony up for the Have Nots?

Boxcar

Boxcar

[bigmack]

we force 700,000 Americans into bankruptcy each year because of medical bills.
:lol: :lol: :lol:

Prove it. And we're not talkin' about people that filed for bankruptcy and had stacks of other bills. Just medical.

More work for ya. Go get that evidence.

[Mike at A+]

Nice pretty graphs. As for "Infant Mortality" and "Life Expectancy", I'd love to see what those graphs would look like if you subtract out a "specific segment of American society" (I'm being PC here) who engages in activities like smoking crack, gang banging, armed robberies and spreading their seeds with multiple partners resulting in unwanted and improperly cared for infants. Sure this same behavior exists in all those other countries in those pretty graphs but certainly not to the same extent that they do here.

[johnhannibalsmith]

Is it just a coincidence that in the final bar graph, the lowest one is actually "UNITED KINGDOM", though is highlighted in such a way that you almost assume that it is the United States based upon the fact that the RED is used to designate the United States EVERY OTHER TIME.

Geeezz.

We do pretty well on MRI after all.

[jballscalls]

:lol: :lol: :lol:

Prove it. And we're not talkin' about people that filed for bankruptcy and had stacks of other bills. Just medical.

More work for ya. Go get that evidence.

my only debt is medical. unfortunately my insurance only covers about 66 to 70% for mental health care, so i have a really hefty medical debt.

however, the good thing about medical bills is there is generally no interest, and they are usually very flexible in payment options. i called them one month and said i couldn't afford to make my minimum payment, and they said "give us 5 bucks and start paying again in full in another month"

the hospitals take it up the backside and give "charity" care to thousands upon thousands a year. so if you try and pay them off, even if its a few bucks a month, they will work with you.

[hcap]

:lol: :lol: :lol:

Prove it. And we're not talkin' about people that filed for bankruptcy and had stacks of other bills. Just medical.

More work for ya. Go get that evidence.You are an easy mark. Would you like to apologize in advance? I guess not. Too overstuffed with yourself.

http://articles.cnn.com/2009-06-05/health/bankruptcy.medical.bills_1_medical-bills-bankruptcies-health-insurance?_s=PM:HEALTH

Medical bills prompt more than 60 percent of U.S. bankruptcies

This year, an estimated 1.5 million Americans will declare bankruptcy. Many people may chalk up that misfortune to overspending or a lavish lifestyle, but a new study suggests that more than 60 percent of people who go bankrupt are actually capsized by medical bills.

Bankruptcies due to medical bills increased by nearly 50 percent in a six-year period, from 46 percent in 2001 to 62 percent in 2007, and most of those who filed for bankruptcy were middle-class, well-educated homeowners, according to a report that will be published in the August issue of The American Journal of Medicine.

60% of 1.5 mill is how much Einstein?

[johnhannibalsmith]

I like you Jason.

[hcap]

I've already looked it up and know my position.

Cough it up, bud. Look up at my post where I asked if you would like to apologize in advance.

I added the pertinent info

[bigmack]

60% of 1.5 mill is how much Einstein?
CNN? :lol: :lol:

You know how many of those had colossal debt before the medical bills?

You come to debate with a CNN snippet?

I got the goods. Wanna see the full report? Show some evidence that man made CO2 causes climate change and voilà! :p

[hcap]

http://well.blogs.nytimes.com/2009/06/04/medical-bills-cause-most-bankruptcies/

Medical Bills Cause Most Bankruptcies
By TARA PARKER-POPE

Nearly two out of three bankruptcies stem from medical bills, and even people with health insurance face financial disaster if they experience a serious illness, a new study shows.

The study data, published online Thursday in The American Journal of Medicine, likely understate the full scope of the problem because the data were collected before the current economic crisis. In 2007, medical problems contributed to 62.1 percent of all bankruptcies. Between 2001 and 2007, the proportion of all bankruptcies attributable to medical problems rose by about 50 percent.

“The U.S. health care financing system is broken, and not only for the poor and uninsured,” the study authors wrote. “Middle-class families frequently collapse under the strain of a health care system that treats physical wounds, but often inflicts fiscal ones.”

And

http://www.businessweek.com/bwdaily/dnflash/content/jun2009/db2009064_666715.htm

[ArlJim78]

Strange statistical mishmash of chronological citing.... read the label before consumption.
we were sold a bill of goods, don't you get it?
we were told there were millions of americans with pre existing conditions that couldn't get health insurance.
the reality is a bit different.

[hcap]

CNN? :lol: :lol:

You know how many of those had colossal debt before the medical bills?

You come to debate with a CNN snippet?

I got the goods. Wanna see the full report? Show some evidence that man made CO2 causes climate change and voilà! :pYou got bupkis up the tuchas.
If you had anything you would go ahead and post it.

My suspicion is from now on when you come up short as you have been doing on a regular basis, you are going to drag out the old CO2 dodge. BTW, have your virile impulses attenuated recently?

[hcap]

http://prescriptions.blogs.nytimes.com/2009/09/07/insured-but-bankrupted-anyway/

September 7, 2009, 11:30 am
Insured, but Bankrupted Anyway
By ANNE UNDERWOOD

Dr. David Himmelstein is an associate professor of medicine at Harvard Medical School and a primary care doctor at the Cambridge Hospital in Massachusetts. Dr. Himmelstein is also a founder of Physicians for a National Health Program. In 2005 and 2009, he helped write major studies finding that medical bills were a leading contributor to personal bankruptcies in the United States. He spoke to the freelance writer Anne Underwood.
Q.

How many medical bankruptcies are there annually in this country?
A.

The forecast for this year is that there will be 1.4 million to 1.5 million total bankruptcy filings. Our data say 62 percent of those will be medical. That works out to around 900,000 cases, and each one affects about 2.7 people. That makes roughly 2.4 million people who will suffer from new medical bankruptcy filings in 2009 alone.

[bigmack]

CO2 dodge.
You mean you've been running around here for years, calling people dumb, naive, "flat earthers" and everything in between and you don't have ONE document proving man made CO2 causes climate change? What an unbelievable putz.
___________________________________

How did they get 62.1%. "Any of the above"

Income loss due to illness is part of "forcing 700,000 Americans into bankruptcy each year because of medical bills?"

http://i165.photobucket.com/albums/u70/macktime/9033220.png

[ArlJim78]

we needed government out of heathcare completely, not to take it over. you can post all the graph and worldwide statistics you want, the fact is with Obamacare we're going to spend a trillion more. so that blows away the argument about how we spend to much now. we should spend less not more.

[Let's Roll]

This is a very interesting thread. More so now that I have updated my " ignore " list.
Carry on...... :lol:

[mostpost]

Is it just a coincidence that in the final bar graph, the lowest one is actually "UNITED KINGDOM", though is highlighted in such a way that you almost assume that it is the United States based upon the fact that the RED is used to designate the United States EVERY OTHER TIME.

Geeezz.

We do pretty well on MRI after all.
You would only assume that if you weren't paying attention. The "red" does not represent the United States. It represents the country which is performing the poorest in each of the categories. Since the U.S. has the highest infant mortality rate and the lowest life expectancy it gets the red. In MRI/1000 United Kingdom gets the booby prize. The fact that we pay the most for the poorest outcomes says volumes, Boxcar. (Ref. boxcar's #13)

[redshift1]

we were sold a bill of goods, don't you get it?
we were told there were millions of americans with pre existing conditions that couldn't get health insurance.
the reality is a bit different.

Actually I was questioning the partisan source and statistical validity of the reported numbers. You wouldn't happen to have a peer review of the statistical methodology employed in the article by any chance.

[bigmack]

The fact that we pay the most for the poorest outcomes says volumes
The reality that you NEVER look past negative numbers when they suit your needs says more than volumes.

http://i165.photobucket.com/albums/u70/macktime/preem.png

[johnhannibalsmith]

You would only assume that if you weren't paying attention...

No, you would only assume that if the context was one in which we were painting America as deficient (rightfully or not) in key categories of health care. That was the context, then presumably by design, the indicators were arranged in that order for a specific reason.

The "advertisement" uses in its opening a quote from Reuters supporting my perception and essentially poses it as the thesis for the presentation, which is only punctuated by the fact that the US appears last, as the punchline, in the final comparison.

I was trying to be diplomatic about how cleverly they fail to actually specify what the red indicates and rather lets the reader "figure it out". Come on Mostpost.

[bigmack]

You got bupkis up the tuchas.
If you had anything you would go ahead and post it.
Is that some sort of gay reference? How childish of you.

Regarding the figures...

angi1vwUkQc

[boxcar]

You would only assume that if you weren't paying attention. The "red" does not represent the United States. It represents the country which is performing the poorest in each of the categories. Since the U.S. has the highest infant mortality rate and the lowest life expectancy it gets the red. In MRI/1000 United Kingdom gets the booby prize. The fact that we pay the most for the poorest outcomes says volumes, Boxcar. (Ref. boxcar's #13)

It'll speak so loud a few years from now that you'll be suing your beloved government for your deafness.

Boxcar

[hcap]

The reality that you NEVER look past negative numbers when they suit your needs says more than volumes.

http://i165.photobucket.com/albums/u70/macktime/preem.pngBiggie, please post the link to your above article. Everyone else seems to link directly. Besides my eyes are not allowing easy reading of the image of your article. How can I critique it properly? Thank you

[bigmack]

Biggie, please post the link to your above article. Everyone else seems to link directly. Besides my eyes are not allowing easy reading of the image of your article. How can I critique it properly? Thank you
Don't worry 'bout that, there ain't nothin' to critique. Besides, that addresses the complete dishonesty of mosty. Do you clowns think that people are actually going to sit and drink in WHO figures when they're as dishonest as you two? You Momo's find derogatory stats about this country and it's like Viagra to you.

Not only do we try to save every baby possible, there is no standard for recording infant mortality.

This country reports ALL babies that die, other countries use very loose standard, such as babies born less than a certain weight are considered abortions (and low birth weight babies have extremely high mortality rates).

While the US strictly adheres to the World Health Organization's definition, apparently we're about the only one who does. For example, we count stillborn deaths, while many other countries do not. We count deaths that occur within the first 24 hours; many countries do not. We count premature births under a certain weight and size; many countries do not.


Now, back to the 62.1%. Would you like a napkin for the immense amount of egg on your face?

[Pell Mell]

You would only assume that if you weren't paying attention. The "red" does not represent the United States. It represents the country which is performing the poorest in each of the categories. Since the U.S. has the highest infant mortality rate and the lowest life expectancy it gets the red. In MRI/1000 United Kingdom gets the booby prize. The fact that we pay the most for the poorest outcomes says volumes, Boxcar. (Ref. boxcar's #13)

I"m not big on research but it seems to me I have read several reports that state that if accidents and homicides were excluded the U.S. would have the highest life expectancy in the world.

I don't know the answers but a few questions pop into my mind such as; what is the tax rate, including VAT, in these other countries. What % of the population own cars or their own home?

Maybe their would be a lot more money for universal health care here if we all paid a lot more in taxes and rode bikes and lived in 2x4 hovels.

[hcap]

http://www.paceadvantage.com/forum/showthread.php?t=76799&highlight=health

One more time.

Health Systems Compared Accurately
http://theincidentaleconomist.com/w...%93-conclusion/

Detailed statistics. Yes we are among the world leaders in medical technology, but that is about it.

http://theincidentaleconomist.com/wordpress/wp-content/uploads/2010/10/Executive-Series-Post-300x245.jpg


If you haven’t read the introduction, go back and read it now.

http://theincidentaleconomist.com/w...m-introduction/

That introductory post also included links to all the posts in this series on how we can rate the quality of the US health care system. Each the pieces discussed another way to look at quality, and how the US compares to comparable countries in that domain.

I expected more arguments for this series than for the cost one did. After all, few dispute that we’re spending a lot of money on health care, but plenty of people think we’re loaded with quality. Quality is important, though, perhaps more important than cost. We can agree to spend a lot of money on health care, but you would hope that we’re getting our money’s worth.

And there’s the rub. If we’re going to spend way more than any other country on health care, then we should absolutely, positively have the best health care system in the world. We don’t. I don’t know how you could have read this series and still believe that we do:

[hcap]

Don't worry 'bout that, there ain't nothin' to critique. Besides, that addresses the complete dishonesty of mosty. Do you clowns think that people are actually going to sit and drink in WHO figures when they're as dishonest as you two? You Momo's find derogatory stats about this country and it's like Viagra to you.

Read the study I just posted

Now, back to the 62.1%. Would you like a napkin for the immense amount of egg on your face?SSo where is your study that finds otherwise, other than the conservatives that think the physicians of the Harvard School of Medicine are amateurs. Unlike themselves of course

[bigmack]

So where is your study that finds otherwise, other than the conservatives that think the physicians of the Harvard School of Medicine are amateurs. Unlike themselves of course
Post the section you'd like to make a point with. That link goes into "see introduction, bla, bla." Spell it out.

[Dave Schwartz]

Well, we will sure find out just how good this program works come January. I got a notice from my insurer that my dependents can be added to my health plan.

Beth is currently uninsurable due to a heart problem. We're going to find out what it does to the premium. It has already gone up 35% in the last year or so.

In addition, as far as I can tell the law requires me to put my under-26 year old unmarried children on my plan. At least that is what was explained to me.

If the above paragraph is true then imagine how many kids of college age will be forced to drop their cheap student coverage so that the parents can pay three times as much on their individual plans.


Dave

[slewis]

From Hot Air (http://hotair.com/archives/2010/11/12/hhs-falls-short-of-pre-existing-coverage-prediction-by-97-8/)


255 million: The number of Americans with existing health insurance coverage (http://hotair.com/archives/2009/09/11/who-are-the-uninsured-2009-edition/).
20 million: The number of Americans without any health coverage at all due to economic circumstances.

375,000: The number of Americans with pre-existing conditions HHS said would apply for coverage in the first year of ObamaCare, one of the main political arguments for its implementation.

8,011: The number that actually did (http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748703805004575606891744060162.html).

Oh this is REALLY intellectual logic.

Ok, lets see, sir... you have a congenital heart defect? Sure, we'll write you a policy. Actually we have to by law! Just sign here and here, and here and where the X is.

Your policy is effective immediately and your premium?.... well, you've just signed over your 1/2 million dollar home.

Without a public option to keep costs in line, NO carrier is going to insure pre existing conditions at a reasonable rate. Would you?

[bigmack]

Oh this is REALLY intellectual logic.

Ok, lets see, sir... you have a congenital heart defect? Sure, we'll write you a policy. Actually we have to by law! Just sign here and here, and here and where the X is.

Your policy is effective immediately and your premium?.... well, you've just signed over your 1/2 million dollar home.
So you're saying the bill was constructed using pretzel logic? Sounds like everyone is in agreement. :ThmbUp:

[Mike at A+]

Could it just be that 366,989 opted to pay the Obamacare penalty for refusal to buy insurance? :lol:

[ArlJim78]

Oh this is REALLY intellectual logic.

Ok, lets see, sir... you have a congenital heart defect? Sure, we'll write you a policy. Actually we have to by law! Just sign here and here, and here and where the X is.

Your policy is effective immediately and your premium?.... well, you've just signed over your 1/2 million dollar home.

Without a public option to keep costs in line, NO carrier is going to insure pre existing conditions at a reasonable rate. Would you?
this is the public option we're talking about here. they immediately funded what they called an affordable national plan for people with pre existing conditions, offered by HHS. this is what they were patting themselves on the back for, this was going to keep 10,000 people from dying each year. They said 375,000 would enroll this year, and after that 400,000 per year.

so far the number is 8,011.

bottomline, they have no clue what they are talking about.

[johnhannibalsmith]

...
bottomline, they have no clue what they are talking about.

Bottomerline, they really don't care what they say as long as the percentage of lapdogs that believe whatever bullshit they spew doesn't poll lower on Thursday than it did on Monday.

[lamboguy]

the best thing to do is stay healthy. from what i understand this health insurance deal is modeled like the romney plan. that means that there is no exemtion for pre-existing conditions. so if you have to pay for your own healthcare like i do, just drop it and pay the penalty to the government. if you get sick, the insurance company can't turn you down. when you get well drop the insurance again. try to workout and stay in shape, its better then seeing those quack doctors to begin with. if you operate like this you will put a sting in the insurance company's who paid to ram this stupid bill down your throat to begin with and a few of them will come tumbling down and the whole stupid healthcare bill will backfire.

[dartman51]

Well, we will sure find out just how good this program works come January. I got a notice from my insurer that my dependents can be added to my health plan.

Beth is currently uninsurable due to a heart problem. We're going to find out what it does to the premium. It has already gone up 35% in the last year or so.

In addition, as far as I can tell the law requires me to put my under-26 year old unmarried children on my plan. At least that is what was explained to me.

If the above paragraph is true then imagine how many kids of college age will be forced to drop their cheap student coverage so that the parents can pay three times as much on their individual plans.


Dave

Have no fear Dave, I'm sure Hcap and Mostie will be along shortly to explain to you why that is a good thing. :rolleyes:

[fast4522]

Have no fear Dave, I'm sure Hcap and Mostie will be along shortly to explain to you why that is a good thing. :rolleyes:

What they will have a hard time explaining is why most Blacks think BHO forgot where he came from, that it seems that he has sold Hispanics out, and most Americans really feel Nancy Pelosi is the wicked witch from the west and are mortified that Barney's house has not landed on her. They will put up all kinds of fancy graphs and pictures to bring about change Obama will never deliver for them to no avail because in two years the party of Obama will be slaughtered again.

So you think its easy, keep on dreaming.

God Bless America, a republic for which it stands.

[Tom]

Without a public option to keep costs in line, NO carrier is going to insure pre existing conditions at a reasonable rate. Would you?

You do understand the concept of insurance, don't you? It is a BET, a WAGER.

Do you expect Aqueduct to let you buy a ticket on the winning horse after the race is run.

It is the same thing.

[Mike at A+]

You do understand the concept of insurance, don't you? It is a BET, a WAGER.

Do you expect Aqueduct to let you buy a ticket on the winning horse after the race is run.

It is the same thing.
EXACTLY! And this is what really cracks me up when I hear liberals talk about insurance as it relates to pre-existing conditions. With auto insurance, the equivalent is getting 10 speeding tickets in 3 months and expecting your rates to be the same as the old lady who takes her car to church on Sunday and keeps it in the garage the rest of the week. Now liberals will come back and say that the speeding is something you choose to do while an illness is usually somewhat random. I sympathize with that line of thought and will even state that as long as someone gets the condition WHILE INSURED, their rates should not rise. But if they never had insurance and decide to buy a policy AFTER getting the illness, then it's basically ripping off the insurer.