Health Care Thread

Rescorla_sl said:

The numbers keep getting worse for Obamacare.

CBO lowers estimated ObamaCare sign-ups by 40 percent | TheHill

I really liked what the CBO predicted in the next to last paragraph.

Click to expand...

You kind of missed the earlier part where more people than expected got insurance directly from providers instead. So the losses weren't actually losses - they were just getting their insurance a different way than expected. (i.e. the insurance companies are doing better than projected at competing with the exchanges - that's a good thing)

a_skeleton_03_sl said:

Except I proved that Germany (which is touted as a bastion of healthcare) has a very similar price that people here think is horrendous and they are making no profit off that .....

Click to expand...

You have citation that says they charged you "no profit" rates? And that you didn't actually pay into their system?

Everything I can see with cursory searches implies that they try to require any foreigner living there (as you did) to pay into the system.

Cad_sl said:

Uhh the price for a single scan isn't indicative of anything, the cost of the hardware is probably similar both places as is the training for the radiologist to read it. Was that your whole point then? Ok bro, got it. Point made. Move on.

Click to expand...

That's a good point - most of the CTs are made in the US aren't they? Shipping to the EU on a giant machine like that must increase the cost astronomically.

Big Phoenix_sl said:

You got an uncle that is a longshoreman?

Click to expand...

I've dealt with shipping to the EU (or more frequently from the EU) on a number of items personally. You do realize fancy groceries import things, right?

(Technically my grandfather - the one I take the name Vaclav from in fact - was a longshoreman - but he was dead three years before I was born)

Vaclav_sl said:

You kind of missed the earlier part where more people than expected got insurance directly from providers instead. So the losses weren't actually losses - they were just getting their insurance a different way than expected. (i.e. the insurance companies are doing better than projected at competing with the exchanges - that's a good thing)

Click to expand...

You may want to reread the article because nowhere in it does it say what you think it said.

Rescorla_sl said:

You may want to reread the article because nowhere in it does it say what you think it said.

Click to expand...

Really?

Many of the uninsured people who opt out of coverage on the exchanges are now expected to purchase insurance "directly from an insurer instead," the CBO said.

Click to expand...

Is English your second language?

Sure, its not absolute - but that's how they can get those numbers for now - private health care reporting numbers are collected in October (or so) each year. (October is when I'd need to get my reports sent in for such for my career)

Heck, for individuals it probably doesn't even get collected til their taxes (and probably next year even - since if the penalty was assessed off this years taxes you'd in theory be able to pay till April 15 then cancel after filing for the rest of the year as a dodge). Since my familiarity is with reporting employee HC data its more difficult for me to be absolute - other than knowing it assuredly isn't reported yet.

Vaclav_sl said:

Really?

Is English your second language?

Click to expand...

I ask the same question of you. You resorted to some snark by implying I missed the part of the article where some people had unexpectedly already gotten insurance directly from a provider. That is past tense and implies those people already have insurance. You misunderstand that part.

In reality, the article clearly states the CBO expects those who did not purchase Obamacare to get insurance directly from a provider in the future. Understand the difference now? Good attempt trying to spin the bad news into a positive.

Vaclav_sl said:

You kind of missed the earlier part where more people than expected got insurance directly from providers instead. So the losses weren't actually losses - they were just getting their insurance a different way than expected. (i.e. the insurance companies are doing better than projected at competing with the exchanges - that's a good thing)

Click to expand...

Has more to do with the states fucking up the exchanges and the insurers giving up on the plans. We recently outsourced our exchange groups, which means they have given up on them and most likely won't be offering them next year. This is after spending hundreds of millions to get into as many states as possible leading up to ACA. Executives use to jack themselves off on conference calls about all the money they were going to make. They have completely given up on it now. Having the states run the exchanges was a huge mistake. The entire system is horribly mismanaged.

We were trying to hire hundreds of people at $18/hr with no experience and only a high school education and free healthcare premiums. The turn over was too high to make it work due to the data uploaded by the states being riddled with errors. All those jobs were outsourced after the guy handling the exchange groups had a nervous breakdown during open season and had to be hospitalized. Meanwhile we have extremely low turnover on all our other business lines. We had a full fledged mutiny when we tried to force people from other groups to work on the exchange group. Nobody wants get screamed at all day due to shitty data that they have no ability to fix or bang their head against a billing error that can't be fixed.

The provider groups are an absolute clusterfuck. Good luck finding a decent doctor on one of these plans. The pricing models have lead any decent doctor to opt out and the billing disaster, caused by the states, has forced others to drop out. For instance at one point there were zero pediatrician providers in the entire state of Florida. Don't know if that's true now, but it goes to show how big of a mess it is. Claims are a nightmare because the states can't maintain a database probably. Normal claims are paid out in less than 30 days and most less than 7. The majority going through an automated system and only being kicked out to a human when there is some error. This error is almost always due to the provider using the wrong billing code. These are normally cleared up with a phone call and less than 7mins time. With the exchange groups there are so many errors in the system it grinds the claim system to a halt. Leading doctors to say fuck it.

Not sure if the states are incompetent or just sabotaging something they don't support. Either way ACA is the worst of both worlds. I would be surprised if any of the big boys continue to offer exchange plans in the future unless some big changes are made and that seems very unlikely. It just isn't as profitable as initially expected and a nightmare to manage. Insurance companies aren't getting better at competing with exchange plans. They're abandoning exchange plans.

Rescorla_sl said:

I ask the same question of you. You resorted to some snark by implying I missed the part of the article where some people had unexpectedly already gotten insurance directly from a provider. That is past tense and implies those people already have insurance. You misunderstand that part.

In reality, the article clearly states the CBO expects those who did not purchase Obamacare to get insurance directly from a provider in the future. Understand the difference now? Good attempt trying to spin the bad news into a positive.

Click to expand...

The reason they expect that is because of the numbers of people filing that are claiming to have insurance and not paying the penalty. "They expect it" because it's what people have been claiming on their taxes that they'll have to evidence.

You decide to randomly add the word "future" in there to fit your preconceived bias. The implication of the future refers to when they'll be able to confirm that they did - not when they'd be getting insured. If you look elsewhere they've estimated LESS people paying the penalty this year.

If less people are paying the penalty (i.e.Fewer people expected to pay Obamacare penalties in 2016 | Washington Examiner), HOW THE FUCK DOES YOUR STUPID REASONING WORK?

If there's less insured people as you implied - where's the articles about MORE (drastically more to fit your implication) people paying the penalty this year. You know, the direct answer you're trying to imply instead of the tip-toeing around it you're trying to do to IMPLY something by misreading it.

If you have to make some sort of serpentine reasoning to explain a phrase rather than taking it at face value - odds are you're completely fucking wrong and trying to spin something.

Vaclav_sl said:

The reason they expect that is because of the numbers of people filing that are claiming to have insurance and not paying the penalty. "They expect it" because it's what people have been claiming on their taxes that they'll have to evidence.

You decide to randomly add the word "future" in there to fit your preconceived bias. The implication of the future refers to when they'll be able to confirm that they did - not when they'd be getting insured. If you look elsewhere they've estimated LESS people paying the penalty this year.

If less people are paying the penalty (i.e.Fewer people expected to pay Obamacare penalties in 2016 | Washington Examiner), HOW THE FUCK DOES YOUR STUPID REASONING WORK?

If there's less insured people as you implied - where's the articles about MORE (drastically more to fit your implication) people paying the penalty this year. You know, the direct answer you're trying to imply instead of the tip-toeing around it you're trying to do to IMPLY something by misreading it.

If you have to make some sort of serpentine reasoning to explain a phrase rather than taking it at face value - odds are you're completely fucking wrong and trying to spin something.

Click to expand...

I think you should have paid attention to the date of the article you linked. It was from July 2015. Now check the date of the article I linked. Guess what? The assumptions and expectations from your July 2015 didn't pan out as the article I cited pointed out.

BTW since you completely reworded that section from my article so that its new meaning supported your point of view, I think you should apply your last paragraph to yourself.

Rescorla_sl said:

I think you should have paid attention to the date of the article you linked. It was from July 2015. Now check the date of the article I linked. Guess what? The assumptions and expectations from your July 2015 didn't pan out as the article I cited pointed out.

BTW since you completely reworded that section from my article so that its new meaning supported your point of view, I think you should apply your last paragraph to yourself.

Click to expand...

This is true. This years enrollment numbers didn't live up to expectations.

Rescorla_sl said:

I think you should have paid attention to the date of the article you linked. It was from July 2015. Now check the date of the article I linked. Guess what? The assumptions and expectations from your July 2015 didn't pan out as the article I cited pointed out.

BTW since you completely reworded that section from my article so that its new meaning supported your point of view, I think you should apply your last paragraph to yourself.

Click to expand...

If that's true - please give me a single citation stating that "More people are paying the penalty in 2016". I've done a number of searches trying to find exactly that, and I haven't found ONE disputing the past estimates.

One citation shouldn't be hard to find if it actually exists - drudge, hotair, theblaze, stormfront, etc would be running it as a front page story they minute they found a whiff of it.

Hell... fucking Breitbart says that ACA enrollments are up (they complain about it though with some spin, obviously...) -Americans Pay IRS Penalty to Escape From ObamaCare - Breitbart

From within the article "For this time compared to last year, enrollments are up 29%".

Mr. KnowsSomeoneWhoKnowsItAll vs. Mr. KnowsItWrong

Draegan_sl said:

Mr. KnowsSomeoneWhoKnowsItAll vs. Mr. KnowsItWrong

Click to expand...

Verily