Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
8% of all visits to the ER were later rated as non- urgent.
Just for the record, what does that really mean?
For example, I've gone to the ER for chest pains 4 times. 3 of the 4 times it turned out to be acid reflux-related. They wanted me checked out immediately, but then I suppose decided it was "non-urgent". Even though I was told to never take a chance.
Also, now the uninsured will no longer stiff hospitals causing them to increase prices for the rest of us, kind of like how stores increase prices to offset the loss from shoplifters.
Good for you. Mine has gone up 80% the last 2 years. You must have someone paying for your coverage. I have to pay for mine.
So the uninsured rate was LOWER without adding individuals onto Medicaid and $1.5trillion dollar deficits
It was only slightly lower in 1980, and higher for the duration of Reagan's presidency. This is Year 2 of Obamacare, by the time that $1.5 trillion estimate has been spent, the uninsured rate will be in single digits.
Deficit spending went to defense contractors under Reagan btw.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rakin
Good for you. Mine has gone up 80% the last 2 years. You must have someone paying for your coverage. I have to pay for mine.
You and every other right-winger. Amazing how you all tell the same horror story even though, compared to Bush, premiums have gone up at a slower rate under Obama.
It was only slightly lower in 1980, and higher for the duration of Reagan's presidency. This is Year 2 of Obamacare, by the time that $1.5 trillion estimate has been spent, the uninsured rate will be in single digits.
Actually no, the CBO reports are predicting we NEVER get below 30 million uninsured, which is about where we started..
And even at $1.5 trillion being spent, did you even begin to do the math on the cost per individual?
Quote:
Originally Posted by RaymondChandlerLives
Deficit spending went to defense contractors under Reagan btw.
meaningless to the discussion at hand
Quote:
Originally Posted by RaymondChandlerLives
You and every other right-winger. Amazing how you all tell the same horror story, even though premiums have gone up at a slower rate under Obama.
Um, premiums are tied to the economy, if your plan is to keep the economy in the toilet, you better rethink that strategy. The subsidies are expected to climb at least 60-80% over the next decade..
Actually no, the CBO reports are predicting we NEVER get below 30 million uninsured, which is about where we started..
And even at $1.5 trillion being spent, did you even begin to do the math on the cost per individual?
meaningless to the discussion at hand
Um, premiums are tied to the economy, if your plan is to keep the economy in the toilet, you better rethink that strategy. The subsidies are expected to climb at least 60-80% over the next decade..
That doesnt happen if the rate remains low.
You better try a different talking point..
Your entire post is predictions and projections. Got anything current? I'm not interested in arguing the future with you.
On this board it seems right-wingers now have crap, expensive insurance and left-wingers have good, cheap insurance.
Where is the truth?
Most people have employer provided insurance and as a result of the ACA so far are paying a few percent more or lost a bit of benefits, but nothing huge. No one is really talking about that either way because it's boring and they might not have noticed either because the effect was small or because their employer absorbed the hit. It's just not really interesting.
Healthy people with individual or small-business insurance and some medicare beneficiaries took it on the chin. Those are the loudly complaining conservatives. People getting newly subsidized care from the government or who were previously locked out of the individual market due to pre-existing conditions or who work at a small company where people are much sicker than average did very well out of the law. Those are the loudly gleeful liberals.
If it isn't repealed first the sucker punch to the stomach for people with employer provided insurance will come in 2018 when the "cadillac tax" comes into effect, or earlier if companies cut benefits in 16 or 17 to get in front of it. Hopefully it will be repealed before it comes into effect.
If it isn't repealed first the sucker punch to the stomach for people with employer provided insurance will come in 2018 when the "cadillac tax" comes into effect, or earlier if companies cut benefits in 16 or 17 to get in front of it. Hopefully it will be repealed before it comes into effect.
First it was "death panels", the "layoffs" and now its "cadillac tax" fear mongering...when will the right-wing dishonesty end? Why can't you folks be a bit compassionate and be happy for people who are finally getting health insurance that may well keep them alive?
In California, an incredibly modest 4% increase in premiums for 2016, with 20% of the plans due for a rate decrease.
Right-wingers = wrong, as always.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
