That FedEx story reminds me of a story I saw back in the 1990's where the Federal Govt. started cracking down on people in the NorthEastern U.S. who were driving across to Canada to get their prescriptions filled.

Big Pharma raised hell and the Feds moved in to crack down on it.

If anyone still believes that politicians give a damn about your health...you are being very foolish.

This.

IMO the US doesn't use pharmacists correctly. It's just recently that they can give flu shots - otherwise, nothing with syringes. I've lived in Colombia - almost no need to go to a doctor; just go to the local pharmacy, tell them what's wrong and they'll take care of you. Pharmacists should be the first line of defense, IMO.

And don't give me crap about prescription abuse. Countries that have little or no prescription regulation have nowhere near the abuse/recreational use of prescription drugs as in the US.

Agreed. Yes...don't sell oxycontin over the counter if you don't want people getting addicted to it, that makes sense.

But there are tons of other drugs and things that AREN'T drugs that our govt. has made illegal without a prescription.

When I was a kid, I used to run into the drugstore and get a bag of 50 insulin syringes for my great-grandmother (she was diabetic). They were in a rack on one of the aisles.

You can't do that now. You can't buy a syringe or a needle because of the "Drug War". And that is one of the reasons that AIDS spread so fast amongst the IV recreational drug users.
Absolutely no reason for the fucking govt. to put their nose into that...but yet they did.

You also can't go to the drug store and get an IV bag of saline water. Fucking WATER in a plastic bag. You MUST get a prescription.

It's like they make sure to funnel us in to be forced to spend extra money for everything. It's fucking outrageous.
The govt. is supposed to work FOR us. But they RULE over us instead. :(

Do you understand the basic business math of limiting the percentage of profit means that insurance companies must inflate the number of insurance enrollee sand the cost of healthcare in order to raise gross profit?

Goldman Sachs is projecting 60 percent growth for the top 5 insurance companies.

You think forcing people onto welfare has no impact on social mobility?

You think increasing expenses for small- and medium-sized businesses, while exempting big business, has no impact on social mobility?

You think fining people for being poor has no impact on social mobility?

You think making financial decisions for those less fortunate than you, against their will, has no impact on social mobility?

You said here that people who agree with you make more money than people who are poorer but hopeful about the future:

I was less persistent than you, but I had a similar initial issue, plus the system kept giving me different (high) pricing for the same info and telling me to phone. I was never able to get a human on the phone.

I'm also still uninsured.

..and somehow they are completely silent in this case, no suggestions or words of wisdom to offer.

So my insurance and health are being impacted by civil servants and their "i'm important" attitudes. That's why nothing is getting done. I'll bet if I was unemployed with 5 children and a common-law wife I could get FREE insurance regardless. Isn't the goal to get everyone insured and as many paying people as possible?

I'm waiting for shit to hit the fan when I refuse to pay any tax penalties I know they will try to assess.

Dvae …. can you hear the crickets? Pretty quiet here.


.

I'm going with operator error.

I know a lot of people that have had no issues with receiving insurance from the exchanges. And the few people that have had initial problems (all Republicans who were resistant to begin with) eventually persisted (aka got their head out of their ass) and were able to get a better policy for cheaper (and are now quite happy with the ACA).

And if the website is too confusing for you, you can always just call an insurance agent and they would be glad to walk you through all of your options as they receive a commission. I already had an agent for my business account and called him up regarding my options. He met with me, compared my current policy to some new business policies. Then compared those with the exchanges. I chose a new personal policy, signed the paperwork, paid the premium, he turned it in and done.

And if you don't have insurance, the only persons at fault is you. Nothing is stopping you from just buying regular insurance outside of the exchanges. Republicans love to tell everyone else to quit making excuses, pull yourself up by your boot straps and getter done. Yet they are the first ones to make excuses when they can't accomplish something.

Oh, and the only 'shit to hit the fan' when you don't pay the small no insurance tax will be interest, fines and an eventual levy. But good luck to you.

I have pre-existing conditions that not only prevent me from being accepted for insurance but will allow insurance companies the "loophole out" to not pay claims should I have medical issues. Already happened twice in the past, to the tune of over $100,000 despite years of paying monthly premiums up front each year.

I looked forward to the chance to actually have insurance despite my skepticism of anything run by the government. In this case my personal, selfish needs were going to come first over any political beliefs.

I did everything requested, and within the given time parameters.

Anyway, you are saying I can contact an independent insurance agent and he can get me on Obamacare? If that's the case why the emphasis and expense of the government website?

As far as getting "my head out of my ass" when the day comes that I can't fill out simple forms designed for the lowest common denominator citizen please shoot me.

.

Yep the usual suspects are nowhere to be found.

But one genius pops and says ... what else, its your fault. Are you computer illiterate?
And all this time on GFY you've been faking it!:1orglaugh:1orglaugh

This is you no doubt. Stick with it, its priceless. You should want put your fist through the screen about halfway through.

Yes, as long as the agent has the necessary designation they can set you up on the exchanges, and receive a commission for doing so.

The government site was meant for ease of use. Most people who just want insurance can go to the website, pick a policy, pay the premium and are good to go. Think of it like travel. Most people just hit up Expedia, Orbitz etc to book a flight. However for those that have special circumstances or questions, they can go to a travel agency.

I'm not saying the ACA is perfect. Far from it. However it is a good start and the majority of people I know who have shopped the exchanges came out with a better, and cheaper policy. I have found the biggest complainers were the biggest opponents in the first place (Republicans) and never have given the law a chance. This is another example of people complaining, and rallying against, something that can help them.

The poor who are hopeful about hitting it big without any skills, drive or ideas are the same that play the lottery which is a tax on stupid people.

The fact at you have no insurance shows you have no responsibility at all. If you don't have the money, it shows you have poor without enough business sense or job skills to make it, or is it that you have been "forced into welfare"?

Won't even bother to comment on the rest of the drivel you wrote which clearly shows no grasp of the law, economics or political science. Bet you still think trickle down works too.

Please explain this again in English.

Do you mean inflate as in lie or are you claiming that heat care companies are conspiring to raise health care costs to raise the gross so the net is higher? Prove that conspiracy theory if that is what you are hinting and I will explain that to my father who is a retired DR that worked for Blue Shield before he went into private practice.

Apparently from what I have read from people who say this is all good...If you ever complained about ObamaCare or you are a Republican or disagreed with the Democrat Party in any way...then trying to get affordable health care is almost impossible using the Exchange.

Amazing isn't it?

If you are a Democrat...no problems. You get your insurance instantly and it's much, much lower than before with much better coverage all the way around. :)

But SOMEHOW...the system "knows" if you ever said anything "bad" about The Affordable Health Care Act or if you don't "believe" in it.
And then you end up with high prices, higher deductibles, and that's only IF you ever are actually able to get signed up.
lol

Man, I'd love to have your dad come on and explain why hospitals charge the pricegouging prices they do. Or why every medical procedure in the U.S. is 4 and 5 times more expensive than any country in the world. Or why our prescription drugs are 4 and 5 times more expensive (and tons of them that shouldn't require a prescription are forced to have one).

That was just rhetorical by the way. Your dad had nothing to do with what the heads of multibillion dollar corporations like Blue Cross/Blue Shield have done along with Big Pharama and the giant corp's that own hospitals.

But if you don't think that all of them are working together along with our Federal govt. to insure high prices...then you are being naive of what the lobbyists in Washington D.C. have been doing all these decades.

No "regular" insurance company will cover me. I tried for years to get reinsured after Blue Cross Blue Shield/Humana dropped me and wouldn't cover my claims. (keep in mind I paid insurance for 3 decades without a major claim) The fact ACA ignored pre-existing conditions is what got me to sign up.

This isn't a matter of shopping price it's a matter of having insurance that will actually pay a claim if the situation arises.

I'll check this week for an agent with the "necessary designation".

And just because I can pay my own way doesn't make me a Republican. And isn't the goal to insure everyone? There I am on the phone (numerous times, once for 4 hours) wanting to buy the best policy available and I have nothing.


.

The answer is simple about the prices, cost of insurance for Doctors is too high, too many people treated do not pay and/or have no insurance, and last but not least, it is a for profit business with a million hands getting cuts every which way.

I had medical care for an emergency on Germany in the 70s where they performed micro surgery and reattached my thumb along with followups for less that the price of the $100 aspirin.

Look at very highly developed 1st word country and I believe they all have socialized medicine. Maybe 1 or 2 other than the USA doesn't.

Don't lie! You are a "right winger" probably in the Tea Party and you are probably related to the Koch Brothers and jerk off to a pic of George W. Bush every night. :mad:

:1orglaugh
But seriously...back to my original thread title: Does this mean that I will NEVER see a savings of $2,500 a year from the cost of when Pres. Obama made that speech back in 2009? (I was paying a little over $600 a month for FOUR people when he made that speech, I now am paying $931 a month for THREE people)

I agree. I think that tort reform should have been the first order of business to bring down the costs of malpractice insurance.
It's amazing...I go to the doctor and he is FORCED to have several expensive tests done to confirm what his training and knowledge already knew.
So the costs go up.

Then there is the paperwork. Instead of a secretary to handle appointments and answer the phone...he has a STAFF of people working in his office to handle all the insurance and govt. paperwork.

This whole damn thing is a giant money machine. Problem is...WE are the ones who have to feed it in the end.

I would like to see true healthcare reform that would return us to the sanity of being able to pay for a doctor visit our of pocket because it isn't too expensive in the first place. And "insurance" would actually BE insurance...i.e.: For a catastrophic incident.

I just don't think our Federal Govt. will EVER do it. There's no money in actually fixing the system. :(

Then you have some kind of doctor etiquette problem.

...ask the other countries on socialized medicine how it was done.

Answer this, how in Gods name will the mid and lower class people be able to pay for all the life extension technology such as routine transplants, robotic implants etc that will be common place in 20 - 30 years? What about on 50 years for the young ones on this board?

The ACA is a big step forward, but we have miles to go.

Problem is...we have HUGE insurance companies involved in the U.S.
Obviously if we had socialized medicine....they are out of business.
They are going to do everything in their power to make damn sure that doesn't happen: Thus...ObamaCare instead of real healthcare reform.

On a side note...countries with socialized medicine don't have a govt. like the United States that is intent on bossing the rest of the world around with a gigantic, overbloated military.

Be nice to shut the fucker down and bring it back to being about DEFENSE (real defense, not theorizing about what MIGHT happen in some far off country) and then pay off the damn national debt over the next few years while taking a percentage of that money and using it for REAL healthcare (and not administrative bureaucracy)

Or just maybe the 'Democrats' went into it with a positive attitude and when something went wrong, they researched the problem, fixed it, moved on and ended up with a better policy at a cheaper price.

And the 'Republicans' (sorry, Libertarians now) went into it kicking and screaming with a piss poor attitude and when the slightest of obstacles hit, they quit, blamed Obama and went bitching on message boards.

Yes you're right, according to census data that definitely doesn't make you a Republican. :winkwink:

And, yes that is the goal. That is why, with the ACA, insurance companies cannot deny an applicant based on a pre-existing condition. Due to your special circumstances, and previous problems, contact an agent and they can help get you set up.

Again, not saying the law is perfect, but it's a start and better then the system we did have in place. Personally I think everyone should receive very basic healthcare from the government. Even if its high co-pays, high deductibles. Something to cover catastrophic illness. Then individuals can buy supplemental insurance or employers can provide it as a benefit. Basically if you have the means, and choose to, you can buy better insurance (lower co-pays, low deductibles, lower max out of pocket etc).

:1orglaugh:1orglaugh:1orglaugh

my heath ins went from $360 to $479 a month. my deductible doubled and the price of my prescriptions went up 490% ....other than, that same coverage

:1orglaugh:1orglaugh:1orglaugh you're really clueless aren't you?

Now that is a brilliant post :thumbsup:thumbsup

well except for congressional and union insurance BECAUSE congress won't use Obama care or the unions :) seems like that would be a warring sign to well.... anybody that Obama care if fucked up

totally dude:1orglaugh

that's what I get for reading my policy

The answer is more simple than that. Insurance companies are middlemen and anyone in business knows that the price must go up every time you add a middleman.

You are related by blood to a real life doctor? I must be mistaken then. Does the one doctor you know have an opinion about why top insurance companies are expected to go up 60% in value?

Anyone in business (or related to a businessperson) should know that any time you add a middleman, you inflate prices of the end product -- in this case, health care.

If you don't understand the difference between an economic ecosystem and a conspiracy, I really am wasting my time trying to share my perspective with you.

So you are for socialized medicine? How do you vote?

So you agree that it is your opinion that anyone less fortunate than you are must need you to force your ideas for how to live on them. If you tell someone they must buy an expensive luxury product they can't afford or be fined, but don't worry because they can get help with the payments . . . how is that not forcing someone onto welfare?

Is health insurance really the number one thing on your shopping list? How many years were you uninsured before ACA got you insurance? Was it because you had no responsibility at all or is that just what your doctor daddy told you?

Good analogy with the lottery though. The science of statistics was invented by gamblers and insurance companies.

States run a lottery because they have crunched the numbers and found that, even if they pay out millions, enough people will buy lottery tickets and get nothing that the States will make obscene profits. It is like a tax on the insecurities of people raised poor.

Insurance companies issue plans because they have crunched the numbers and found that, even if they pay out millions, enough people will buy insurance companies and get nothing that the insurance companies will make obscene profits. It is like a tax on the insecurities of people raised middle class.

Neither is a tax on stupidity, although people who can do basic math like to point fingers at whichever background is not theirs. It is a tax on groupthink and fear. People raised poor whose lives are not improving think only a thunderbolt from the lottery could improve their lives. Odds are against the lottery helping and for it costing more of a limited budget. People raised middle class who can't afford the things they were raised to believe they'd be able to think a serious illness would wipe out what little they have or that poor people healthcare does not apply to them so they'd just die. Odds are against insurance helping and for it costing more of a limited budget.

Since people are required to now have insurance and their customer based has increased, so will their value.

However please be so kind as to provide a link to: "Goldman Sachs is projecting 60 percent growth for the top 5 insurance companies"

I have stated in pretty much every single one of these threads that I would favor socialized medicine or right-priced free market medical practice and I believe the bloated insurance system is the worst of both worlds.

I am appalled that, with the problem of skyrocketing healthcare costs and lack of access to doctors, we got a supposed solution which is just a bailout for the insurance industry to go along with the taxpayers' AIG money.

I vote for candidates who seem most likely to do the right thing on the issues of the day. If you are trying to put a label on me to more easily dismiss my views, I am anti-war, pro open immigration, anti-gun control, pro-choice, pro marriage equality, anti corporate welfare, anti most personal welfare but where needed I believe people should get much more help with a focus on social mobility and getting off welfare. What are your general political stances?

If they can't afford insurance they get subsidized. Shows how much you know.

I had my own insurance since I was 18 years old paid by myself, same as rent, school and cars. I was not fortunate. I worked my ass off and was given nothing.

Maybe you should fewer luxury goods or phones in order to afford insurance. Says a lot for the company you work for (or own) too.

I am anti-war (yes)
pro open immigration (open no, reform yes)
anti-gun control (Gun owner and pro common sense gun control)
pro-choice (yes)
pro marriage equality (yes)
anti corporate welfare (yes)
anti most personal welfare (safety net yes, free school yes, lifetime no unless severe mental issues)

as for social mobility you need to look at the studies. Other than when the system is slated, most lack of mobility is cultural (including education and large family size) and attitude.

I'll say it again: So you agree that you think your bigger bank account justifies you forcing your ideas for how to live on others.

I'm sorry, are we talking about each other personally or are we discussing an issue which impacts most Americans?

Getting subsidized against one's will is being forced onto welfare. If you are being subsidized, you are on welfare. Kind of the definition: http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/welfare?s=t "financial or other assistance to an individual or family from a city, state, or national government" You paid for school yourself without Financial Aid from the government? I'm afraid I am wearing my skeptical face now.

We can do some math. How much have you spent on health insurance over the years? How much of a discount did you get because of your daddy's insurance company job? How much have you and your insurers combined spent on your healthcare? Are you ahead or did the insurance company make money on you?

No insurance discounts ever. When I was old enough to pay for insurance he had a private practice in NY and then so as not to pay for the high malpractice insurance and keep better hours, he did research for Bristol Myers.

Edit: one of the experimental cancer drugs my mother was on was 100% free since he was an employee. Would have never been paid by most insurance companies and cost more than my first house. It extended her life by almost 3 years.

I'm not getting that $2,500 less that the President promised am I?

That $2500 savings was for everyone except Robbie.

Damn it! That was what I was afraid of! :1orglaugh

http://www.forbes.com/sites/robertle...-shareholders/

"So far in 2013 the value of the S& P health insurance index has gained 43%. Thats more than double the gains made in the broad stock market index, the S & P 500. The shares of CIGNA are up 63%, Wellpoint 47% and United Healthcare 28%. And if you go back to the early 2010 passage of ObamaCare, you will find that Obama?s sellout of the public interest has allowed the public companies the ability to raise their premiums, especially on small business, dramatically multiply their profits and send the value of their common stocks up by 200%-300%."
...

"Goldman Sachs research operation estimated that the 5 giants would increase profits by 10% a year from 2010 to 2019, sending their shares up an average of 59%. In truth, the shares of CIGNA and some others are up a multiple of several times since the contest was resolved by a very tight vote in early 2010. One startling reason for this amazing performance was that Obama took off the table ?proposals to significantly reduce health care costs?

...

"One of the other downsides to the supposed reform bill was the surprisingly unfair treatment of small business owners"

10% for 9 years is not 60% unless you are referring to the share price going up 59% (which is not profits). Either way your statement was wrong.

So your direct personal experience was that the best healthcare was available outside the insurance system?

A system that gave better access to doctors (not better prices even, just better access) or made healthy food and gym memberships more affordable would cost less and extend more lives.

"sending their shares up an average of 59%" means that the insurance companies are appreciating in value by approx 60%, at least according to Goldman Sachs projections and I'm going to guess they are better than you or me or anyone else on GFY at making such projections.

Profits are a lever which moves stock value, but of course company value and gross profit are not the same thing.

What statement did I make which was wrong?

Read the opinion piece article again and look at the dates. Compare his personal predictions in 2013 to what has already happened. Looks like some fails doesn't it.

This is not a "Goldman Sacks" prediction but the biased opinion of 1 employee.

Profit and stock value (perceived future value) are not always in line. Most stock traded daily is for micro gains and not long term earnings which is eroding our financial system.