Predictable results

[TheBlueVue 177]

This, or something like this, happens every time the federal govt tries to do whats best left to the private sector. O-care is the biggest boondoggle in American history and the waste will negatively impact healthcare for years. I realize that is just my opinion but Im pretty sure it'll be proven correct in due time.

http://www.politico.com/story/2014/05/obamacare-cost-failed-exchanges-106535.html

[Tigermike 4,082]

I hate to say I told you so, but,,, .

[AFTiger 282]

If you thinks failed exchanges are expenses, wait for the full effect of Obamacare.

[Proud Tiger 4,261]

Another little fact......only 26% of those enrolled were insured before. So much for insuring 30 million uninsured

[AFTiger 282]

[Tigermike 4,082]

It appears that what the law has done was to rearrange the burden of payment among those enrolled while not really doing much at all in terms of reaching those for whom it was supposedly designed to help:

What the exchanges appear to be doing is mainly helping people who were previously insured. If you’re 62 years old, say, and your income is $30,000, and you were paying for your own coverage before, you’re now eligible for plans that are much cheaper for you, thanks to

taxpayer-funded subsidies and higher premiums for young people.

Of course that means that

other people are paying more

. “My old plan was canceled under Obamacare,” an exasperated Californian told me last week. “The new Obamacare plan costs twice as much, and the deductibles are higher. And yet Obama is counting me as one of his 8 million people!” But hey—

at least he has maternity coverage

.

link

Success! Success?

[TheBlueVue 177]

It appears that what the law has done was to rearrange the burden of payment among those enrolled while not really doing much at all in terms of reaching those for whom it was supposedly designed to help:

What the exchanges appear to be doing is mainly helping people who were previously insured. If you’re 62 years old, say, and your income is $30,000, and you were paying for your own coverage before, you’re now eligible for plans that are much cheaper for you, thanks to

taxpayer-funded subsidies and higher premiums for young people.

Of course that means that

other people are paying more

. “My old plan was canceled under Obamacare,” an exasperated Californian told me last week. “The new Obamacare plan costs twice as much, and the deductibles are higher. And yet Obama is counting me as one of his 8 million people!” But hey—

at least he has maternity coverage

.

link

Success! Success?

Its called reshuffling the deck and thats ALL it did.

[AFTiger 282]

and raise the cost to the card holders.

[homersapien 12,676]

Yeah, you'd think the government could at least emulate the private economy and institute a major system overhaul that at least breaks even from time zero.

[TheBlueVue 177]

Yeah, you'd think the government could at least emulate the private economy and institute a major system overhaul that at least breaks even from time zero.

Really? Who thinks that? Every time I read or hear the govt is trying to perform private sector functions the very 1st thought that occurs to me is..how any $billions will they lose before they give up trying? The govt lacks the one thing that drives the private sector and that is the profit motive which I have gathered you think is an evil proposition. Govt employees virtually cannot be fired no matter how poor their performance and they have an established record of acting as if they have endless streams of capital at their disposal which pretty much kills any sense of urgency. No profit motive + no sense of urgency = HUGE losses

[homersapien 12,676]

Yeah, you'd think the government could at least emulate the private economy and institute a major system overhaul that at least breaks even from time zero.

.....the profit motive which I have gathered you think is an evil proposition.

That's pretty funny considering I am capitalist in the purest sense. But then it's hardly surprising what you might "gather".

[TheBlueVue 177]

Yeah, you'd think the government could at least emulate the private economy and institute a major system overhaul that at least breaks even from time zero.

.....the profit motive which I have gathered you think is an evil proposition.

That's pretty funny considering I am capitalist in the purest sense. But then it's hardly surprising what you might "gather".

My conclusion was drawn from your posts. You have stated the explicit opinion that the govt run health insurance is better than private sector because it removes the profit motive. That's hardly an opinion of a capitalist in the purest sense. Also your single payer preference is hardly a preference of a capiltalist in the purest sense.,. just sayin homeboy. In fact, trying to pretend that now represents one of the largest crawfish moves I've seen in this forum.

[homersapien 12,676]

Yeah, you'd think the government could at least emulate the private economy and institute a major system overhaul that at least breaks even from time zero.

.....the profit motive which I have gathered you think is an evil proposition.

That's pretty funny considering I am capitalist in the purest sense. But then it's hardly surprising what you might "gather".

My conclusion was drawn from your posts. You have stated the explicit opinion that the govt run health insurance is better than private sector because it removes the profit motive. That's hardly an opinion of a capitalist in the purest sense. Also your single payer preference is hardly a preference of a capiltalist in the purest sense.,. just sayin homeboy. In fact, trying to pretend that now represents one of the largest crawfish moves I've seen in this forum.

Actually, you are misrepresenting my position. (Surprise, surprise!)

I have said private insurance profits obviously increase costs (compare MPR's) and do nothing - actually counter - the humanitarian goal of universal coverage.

In other words, there are some societal requirements - such as a national healthcare system - that are best handled by our government instead of for-profit entities. Now if you want to propose a way in which an insurance CEO can survive while taking on the needs of anyone in society, I am all ears. If you want to argue we shouldn't have universal coverage as a goal, that's a different argument.

That's not inconsistent with being a pure - or true capitalist as evidenced by the fact I generate 100% of my income from capital invested in the financial markets.

[TheBlueVue 177]

Yeah, you'd think the government could at least emulate the private economy and institute a major system overhaul that at least breaks even from time zero.

.....the profit motive which I have gathered you think is an evil proposition.

That's pretty funny considering I am capitalist in the purest sense. But then it's hardly surprising what you might "gather".

My conclusion was drawn from your posts. You have stated the explicit opinion that the govt run health insurance is better than private sector because it removes the profit motive. That's hardly an opinion of a capitalist in the purest sense. Also your single payer preference is hardly a preference of a capiltalist in the purest sense.,. just sayin homeboy. In fact, trying to pretend that now represents one of the largest crawfish moves I've seen in this forum.

Actually, you are misrepresenting my position. (Surprise, surprise!)

I have said private insurance profits obviously increase costs (compare MPR's) and do nothing - actually counter - the humanitarian goal of universal coverage.

In other words, there are some societal requirements - such as a national healthcare system - that are best handled by our government instead of for-profit entities. Now if you want to propose a way in which an insurance CEO can survive while taking on the needs of anyone in society, I am all ears. If you want to argue we shouldn't have universal coverage as a goal, that's a different argument.

That's not inconsistent with being a pure - or true capitalist as evidenced by the fact I generate 100% of my income from capital invested in the financial markets.

What is interesting and contradictory to your thesis "that profits drive up costs", premium increases have sky rocketed since O-Care's inception. Whose costs are you referring to? Your position is based on a false premise because costs have not gone down and will continue to go up as insurance companies embrace larger risk pools. Insurers are being forced, by the law, to provide welfare for those with pre-existing conditions. That, my progressive friend is what will drive up costs! Add to that the govt bail out that provides insurance companies protection as they try to operate at a profit in a govt run ":free market" will also increase costs to the taxpayer. Where do you think bail out money comes from? So you're all for those govt run free markets, huh? Yeah buddy, sounds like a capiltalist in the purest sense to me, all right. I DGAS how you make your living...the words and the music obviously dont match!

[homersapien 12,676]

Yeah, you'd think the government could at least emulate the private economy and institute a major system overhaul that at least breaks even from time zero.

.....the profit motive which I have gathered you think is an evil proposition.

That's pretty funny considering I am capitalist in the purest sense. But then it's hardly surprising what you might "gather".

My conclusion was drawn from your posts. You have stated the explicit opinion that the govt run health insurance is better than private sector because it removes the profit motive. That's hardly an opinion of a capitalist in the purest sense. Also your single payer preference is hardly a preference of a capiltalist in the purest sense.,. just sayin homeboy. In fact, trying to pretend that now represents one of the largest crawfish moves I've seen in this forum.

Actually, you are misrepresenting my position. (Surprise, surprise!)

I have said private insurance profits obviously increase costs (compare MPR's) and do nothing - actually counter - the humanitarian goal of universal coverage.

In other words, there are some societal requirements - such as a national healthcare system - that are best handled by our government instead of for-profit entities. Now if you want to propose a way in which an insurance CEO can survive while taking on the needs of anyone in society, I am all ears. If you want to argue we shouldn't have universal coverage as a goal, that's a different argument.

That's not inconsistent with being a pure - or true capitalist as evidenced by the fact I generate 100% of my income from capital invested in the financial markets.

What is interesting and contradictory to your thesis "that profits drive up costs", premium increases have sky rocketed since O-Care's inception. Whose costs are you referring to? Your position is based on a false premise because costs have not gone down and will continue to go up as insurance companies embrace larger risk pools. Insurers are being forced, by the law, to provide welfare for those with pre-existing conditions. That, my progressive friend is what will drive up costs! Add to that the govt bail out that provides insurance companies protection as they try to operate at a profit in a govt run ":free market" will also increase costs to the taxpayer. Where do you think bail out money comes from? So you're all for those govt run free markets, huh? Yeah buddy, sounds like a capiltalist in the purest sense to me, all right. I DGAS how you make your living...the words and the music obviously dont match!

You did take your meds this morning, didn't you?

[TheBlueVue 177]

Yeah, you'd think the government could at least emulate the private economy and institute a major system overhaul that at least breaks even from time zero.

.....the profit motive which I have gathered you think is an evil proposition.

That's pretty funny considering I am capitalist in the purest sense. But then it's hardly surprising what you might "gather".

My conclusion was drawn from your posts. You have stated the explicit opinion that the govt run health insurance is better than private sector because it removes the profit motive. That's hardly an opinion of a capitalist in the purest sense. Also your single payer preference is hardly a preference of a capiltalist in the purest sense.,. just sayin homeboy. In fact, trying to pretend that now represents one of the largest crawfish moves I've seen in this forum.

Actually, you are misrepresenting my position. (Surprise, surprise!)

I have said private insurance profits obviously increase costs (compare MPR's) and do nothing - actually counter - the humanitarian goal of universal coverage.

In other words, there are some societal requirements - such as a national healthcare system - that are best handled by our government instead of for-profit entities. Now if you want to propose a way in which an insurance CEO can survive while taking on the needs of anyone in society, I am all ears. If you want to argue we shouldn't have universal coverage as a goal, that's a different argument.

That's not inconsistent with being a pure - or true capitalist as evidenced by the fact I generate 100% of my income from capital invested in the financial markets.

What is interesting and contradictory to your thesis "that profits drive up costs", premium increases have sky rocketed since O-Care's inception. Whose costs are you referring to? Your position is based on a false premise because costs have not gone down and will continue to go up as insurance companies embrace larger risk pools. Insurers are being forced, by the law, to provide welfare for those with pre-existing conditions. That, my progressive friend is what will drive up costs! Add to that the govt bail out that provides insurance companies protection as they try to operate at a profit in a govt run ":free market" will also increase costs to the taxpayer. Where do you think bail out money comes from? So you're all for those govt run free markets, huh? Yeah buddy, sounds like a capiltalist in the purest sense to me, all right. I DGAS how you make your living...the words and the music obviously dont match!

You did take your meds this morning, didn't you?

I expected a Huff-Po LONG copy and paste. I know you can hardly operate without them in the ole hip pocket. Your support of "govt run free markets" (sorry that s*** is just funny, i dont care who you are)doesn't really fit your self description of a capitalist in the purest sense .