• Forums
  • Best Betting Sites
  • Sportsbook Promos
  • Best Sports Betting Apps
  • NFL Betting Forum
  • NBA Betting Forum
  • MLB Betting Forum
  • NHL Betting Forum
  • NCAAF Betting Forum
  • NCAAB Betting Forum
  • Soccer Betting Forum
  • Tennis Betting Forum
  • General Discussion
  • Help Forum
  • Guidelines
  • FAQ
  • Forum Updates
    Covers Logo
    Covers App
    Faster picks. Smarter bets.
    All in the NEW Covers App
    Download on the App Store Download on the Google Play Store
    • Sports
      • NFL
        • Back
        • NFL
        • NFL Home
        • Scores & Matchups
        • Prop Projections
        • NFL Picks
        • Weather
        • Injuries
      • NCAAF
        • Back
        • NCAAF
        • NCAAF Home
        • Scores & Matchups
        • Prop Projections
        • NCAAF Picks
        • Weather
        • Injuries
      • NBA
        • Back
        • NBA
        • NBA Home
        • Scores & Matchups
        • Prop Projections
        • NBA Picks
        • Injuries
      • NCAAB
        • Back
        • NCAAB
        • NCAAB Home
        • Scores & Matchups
        • NCAAB Picks
        • Injuries
      • MLB
        • Back
        • MLB
        • MLB Home
        • Scores & Matchups
        • Prop Projections
        • MLB Picks
        • Weather
        • Injuries
      • NHL
        • Back
        • NHL
        • NHL Home
        • Scores & Matchups
        • Prop Projections
        • NHL Picks
        • Injuries
      • Soccer
      • UFC
      • WNBA
        • Back
        • WNBA
        • WNBA Home
        • Scores & Matchups
        • WNBA Picks
        • Injuries
      • CFL
        • Back
        • CFL
        • CFL Home
        • Scores & Matchups
        • CFL Picks
      • Golf
        • Back
        • Golf
        • Golf Home
        • Golf Odds
        • Masters Odds
        • PGA Championship Odds
        • US Open Odds
        • British Open Odds
        • Ryder Cup Odds
        • Golf Picks
    • Odds
      • All Odds
      • NFL
      • NCAAF
      • NBA
      • NCAAB
      • MLB
      • NHL
      • Golf
      • Soccer Odds
        • Back
        • Soccer Odds
        • MLS Odds
        • Champions League Odds
        • Premier League Odds
      • UFC
      • WNBA
      • CFL
      • Election Odds
      • Futures
        • Back
        • Futures
        • NFL
        • NBA
        • MLB
        • NHL
        • NCAAB
        • NCAAF
      • Sports Odds History
    • Picks
      • All Picks
      • NFL
      • NBA
      • NHL
      • MLB
      • NCAAF
      • NCAAB
      • Golf
      • WNBA
      • CFL
      • User Picks
      • Team User Picks
      • Consensus Picks
        • Back
        • Consensus Picks
        • All Consensus Picks
        • NFL
        • NBA
        • NHL
        • MLB
        • NCAAF
        • NCAAB
        • CFL
        • WNBA
        • Consensus FAQ
        • Public Money
    • Prop Projections
      • NFL
      • NBA
      • MLB
      • NHL
    • Betting
      • US Betting Sites
      • Canada Betting Sites
      • Sportsbook Reviews
      • States
        • Back
        • States
        • US Legal Tracker
        • Revenue Tracker
        • Arizona
        • Arkansas
        • California
        • Colorado
        • Connecticut
        • DC
        • Florida
        • Georgia
        • Illinois
        • Indiana
        • Iowa
        • Kansas
        • Kentucky
        • Louisiana
        • Maine
        • Maryland
        • Massachusetts
        • Michigan
        • Mississippi
        • Missouri
        • Nevada
        • New Hampshire
        • New Jersey
        • New York
        • North Carolina
        • Ohio
        • Oregon
        • Pennsylvania
        • Tennessee
        • Texas
        • Vermont
        • Virginia
        • West Virginia
        • Wyoming
      • Provinces
        • Back
        • Provinces
        • Alberta
        • British Columbia
        • Manitoba
        • New Brunswick
        • Newfoundland and Labrador
        • Northwest Territories
        • Nova Scotia
        • Nunavut
        • Ontario
        • Prince Edward Island
        • Quebec (English)
        • Quebec (francais)
        • Saskatchewan
        • Yukon
      • By Sport
        • Back
        • By Sport
        • Baseball
        • Basketball
        • Boxing
        • College Football
        • F1
        • Football
        • Super Bowl
        • Golf
        • Hockey
        • Horse Racing
        • March Madness
        • Soccer
        • UFC
        • World Cup
      • Betting Apps
        • Back
        • Betting Apps
        • Best Sports Betting Apps USA
        • Ontario Sports Betting Apps
      • Rest of World
        • Back
        • Rest of World
        • UK Betting Offers
          • Back
          • UK Betting Offers
          • UK Betting Sites
          • bet365 Bonus Code UK
          • 888Sport Promo Code UK
          • William Hill Sign up Offer
          • Betway Sign up Offer
          • BetVictor Bonus Code UK
      • Betting Guides
        • Back
        • Betting Guides
        • All Guides
        • Glossary
        • Betting Calculators
          • Back
          • Betting Calculators
          • Odds Converter
          • Parlay Calculator
        • Futures Betting Guide
        • Moneyline Betting Guide
        • Over/Under Betting Guide
        • Parlay Betting Guide
        • Point Spread Betting Guide
        • Prop Betting Guide
        • Sports Betting Guides
          • Back
          • Sports Betting Guides
          • How To Bet On Sports Guide
          • NFL Betting Guide
          • NHL Betting Guide
          • NBA Betting Guide
          • MLB Betting Guide
          • NCAAB Betting Guide
          • NCAAF Betting Guide
          • Golf Betting Guide
          • Tennis Betting Guide
        • Teaser Betting Guide
      • Betting News
        • Back
        • Betting News
        • All News
        • Industry News
        • Podcasts
        • Covers Videos
        • Covers Writers
        • Offers & Boosts
    • Promos
      • Sportsbook Promos
      • Canada Sportsbook Promos
      • Bonuses By Sportsbook
        • Back
        • Bonuses By Sportsbook
        • bet365 Bonus Code
        • BET99 Promo Code
        • BetMGM Bonus Code
        • BetRivers Bonus Code
        • Caesars Sportsbook Promo
        • DraftKings Promo Code
        • Fanatics Sportsbook Promo
        • FanDuel Promo Code
        • Hard Rock Bet Promo Code
        • Sports Interaction Promo
        • Stake Promo Code
        • theScore Bet Promo Code
        • TonyBet Promo Code
      • Bonuses By Region
        • Back
        • Bonuses By Region
        • Arkansas Promos
        • Arizona Promos
        • Colorado Promos
        • Connecticut Promos
        • DC Promos
        • Illinois Promos
        • Indiana Promos
        • Iowa Promos
        • Kansas Promos
        • Kentucky Promos
        • Louisiana Promos
        • Maine Promos
        • Maryland Promos
        • Massachusetts Promos
        • Michigan Promos
        • Missouri Promos
        • New Jersey Promos
        • New York Promos
        • North Carolina Promos
        • Ohio Promos
        • Pennsylvania Promos
        • Tennessee Promos
        • Vermont Promos
        • Virginia Promos
        • West Virginia Promos
        • Wyoming Promos
    • Forum & Contests
      • All Forums
      • NFL Betting Forum
      • MLB Betting Forum
      • NCAAB Betting Forum
      • NCAAF Betting Forum
      • NBA Betting Forum
      • NHL Betting Forum
      • Soccer Betting Forum
      • Contests
        • Back
        • Contests
        • Contests Home
        • Streak Survivor
        • King of Covers
        • My Contests
    • Casino
      • Sweepstakes Casino
        • Back
        • Sweepstakes Casino
        • Sweepstakes Casino
        • Sweepstakes No-Deposit Bonuses
        • Sweepstakes Promos
          • Back
          • Sweepstakes Promos
          • Card Crush
          • Casino.click
          • Chanced Casino
          • Crown Coins Casino
          • FreeSpin Casino
          • LoneStar
          • McLuck
          • Mega Bonanza Casino
          • PlayFame
          • Pulsz
          • Stake.us
      • US Casinos
        • Back
        • US Casinos
        • US Online Casinos
        • US Online Casino Bonuses
        • Casino Promos
          • Back
          • Casino Promos
          • bet365 Casino Promo Code
          • BetRivers Casino Promo
          • Borgata Casino Bonus Code
          • Caesars Casino Bonus Code
          • DraftKings Casino Promo
          • Fanatics Casino Promo
          • FanDuel Casino Promo Code
          • Golden Nugget Casino Promo
          • Hard Rock Bet Casino Promo
          • Hollywood Casino Promo Code
      • Canada Casinos
        • Back
        • Canada Casinos
        • Canada Online Casinos
        • Provinces
          • Back
          • Provinces
          • Alberta Online Casino
          • BC Online Casino
          • Ontario Online Casinos
        • Casino Promos
          • Back
          • Casino Promos
          • BC.GAME Bonus Code
          • Cloudbet Promo Code
          • RainBet Promo Code
          • Roobet Promo Code
          • Shuffle Promo Code
          • Thrill Promo Code
    • Prediction Markets
      • Prediction Markets
      • Prediction Market Apps
      • Prediction Market Promos
      • Kalshi Promo Code
      • Polymarket Promo Code
      • DraftKings Predictions Promo Code
      • Novig Promo Code
      • ProphetX Promo Code
      • Underdog Promo Code
      • OG Promo Code
      • Fanatics Markets Promo Code
      • Plus500 Promo Code
    • NFL Week 2
      NFL Week 2
      • NFL Odds
      • NFL Picks
      • Lions-Bills Early Leans
      • Early Survivor Picks
      • NFL Prediction Markets
      • NFL Betting Sites
    Covers Account
    Log in Create account
    Join free Log in
    All Forums | Politics

    CiCi’s Pizza franchise owner: I had to sell my business because of ObamaCare

    «First Previous 12345 Next Last»
    thirdperson
    14daroad
    wallstreetcappers
    dl36
    djbrow
    Participants:
    Search model icon
    Views: 5083
    Posts: 110
    «First Previous 12345 Next Last»
     
    thirdperson
    thirdperson
    Captain
    Participation Meter
    Joined: Feb, 2005
    Posts: 9393
    Posted: Jul. 27, 2013 - 2:16 AM ET #51

    Quote Originally Posted by 14daroad:


    1. There is no evidence suggesting that having an ObamaCare insurance card will better enable you to gain access to actual medical treatment, nor is there any evidence that having insurance equals better health outcomes.
    See: 
    https://www.reuters.com/article/2013/01/02/us-healthcare-quality-idUSBRE9010NW20130102?feedType=RSS&feedface="Arial" size="2">
    and:
    https://www.amednews.com/article/20120207/business/302079997/8/

     

    14daroad is confused.  In other words, I said that someone with insurance is more likely to be treated by a doctor than someone without insurance.  This is just common sense. 

     The reuters and amednews articles are irrelevant and don't support 14daroad.  First article is about a weak link between U.S. spending and quality of healthcare while second article says employed insured is more likely to seek healthcare than unemployed insured who is worried about cost of deductibles.

    According to Congressional Budget Office, net effect of Obamacare is millions more Americans insured in the future.  Most employers who offer insurance to employees before Obamacare existed continue to do so afterwards.

    Also most doctors accept Medicaid patients despite a minority who don't..

    Reply
    Quote Post
    0
    Report User
    Quote Originally Posted by 14daroad:


    1. There is no evidence suggesting that having an ObamaCare insurance card will better enable you to gain access to actual medical treatment, nor is there any evidence that having insurance equals better health outcomes.
    See: 
    https://www.reuters.com/article/2013/01/02/us-healthcare-quality-idUSBRE9010NW20130102?feedType=RSS&feedface="Arial" size="2">
    and:
    https://www.amednews.com/article/20120207/business/302079997/8/

     

    14daroad is confused.  In other words, I said that someone with insurance is more likely to be treated by a doctor than someone without insurance.  This is just common sense. 

     The reuters and amednews articles are irrelevant and don't support 14daroad.  First article is about a weak link between U.S. spending and quality of healthcare while second article says employed insured is more likely to seek healthcare than unemployed insured who is worried about cost of deductibles.

    According to Congressional Budget Office, net effect of Obamacare is millions more Americans insured in the future.  Most employers who offer insurance to employees before Obamacare existed continue to do so afterwards.

    Also most doctors accept Medicaid patients despite a minority who don't..

     
    14daroad
    14daroad
    Captain
    Participation Meter
    Joined: Aug, 2005
    Posts: 9261
    Posted: Jul. 27, 2013 - 9:52 AM ET #52

    Quote Originally Posted by thirdperson:

    14daroad is confused.  In other words, I said that someone with insurance is more likely to be treated by a doctor than someone without insurance.  This is just common sense. 


    So in other words, there is no actual evidence to support your "common sense" assertion so you'll call studies refuting your assertion "irrelevant"

    There is no actual real world evidence to support your claim.

    But you'll keep making that claim, of course.



    Reply
    Quote Post
    0
    Report User
    Quote Originally Posted by thirdperson:

    14daroad is confused.  In other words, I said that someone with insurance is more likely to be treated by a doctor than someone without insurance.  This is just common sense. 


    So in other words, there is no actual evidence to support your "common sense" assertion so you'll call studies refuting your assertion "irrelevant"

    There is no actual real world evidence to support your claim.

    But you'll keep making that claim, of course.



     
    14daroad
    14daroad
    Captain
    Participation Meter
    Joined: Aug, 2005
    Posts: 9261
    Posted: Jul. 27, 2013 - 10:03 AM ET #53

    Quote Originally Posted by thirdperson:

    14daroad is confused.  In other words, I said that someone with insurance is more likely to be treated by a doctor than someone without insurance.  This is just common sense. 

    Well, it may be "common sense" to you, but it isn't actually true. And as the evidence I've presented shows, even if it were true, spending more money - which is all ObamaCare does - doesn't equal better health outcomes.

    Of course the mental gymnastics you have to engage in to support what you're saying unravel when you realize that just because you give someone an insurance card they aren't going to go to a doctor because they still have to pay co-pays. Not only is this "common sense" it is actually supported by research data. 

    And since you're denying this I'll add:

    Health insurance does not guarantee access to primary care: a national study of physicians' acceptance of publicly insured patients.

    https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/7562126

    And this:

    Adjusted for demographic, health status, and health behavior characteristics, the risk of subsequent mortality is no different for uninsured respondents than for those covered by employer-sponsored group insurance at baseline

    https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2739025/

    So before responding that I'm "confused" about something, you may want to respond with some actual facts. It would help the discussion.
    Reply
    Quote Post
    0
    Report User
    Quote Originally Posted by thirdperson:

    14daroad is confused.  In other words, I said that someone with insurance is more likely to be treated by a doctor than someone without insurance.  This is just common sense. 

    Well, it may be "common sense" to you, but it isn't actually true. And as the evidence I've presented shows, even if it were true, spending more money - which is all ObamaCare does - doesn't equal better health outcomes.

    Of course the mental gymnastics you have to engage in to support what you're saying unravel when you realize that just because you give someone an insurance card they aren't going to go to a doctor because they still have to pay co-pays. Not only is this "common sense" it is actually supported by research data. 

    And since you're denying this I'll add:

    Health insurance does not guarantee access to primary care: a national study of physicians' acceptance of publicly insured patients.

    https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/7562126

    And this:

    Adjusted for demographic, health status, and health behavior characteristics, the risk of subsequent mortality is no different for uninsured respondents than for those covered by employer-sponsored group insurance at baseline

    https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2739025/

    So before responding that I'm "confused" about something, you may want to respond with some actual facts. It would help the discussion.
     
    14daroad
    14daroad
    Captain
    Participation Meter
    Joined: Aug, 2005
    Posts: 9261
    Posted: Jul. 27, 2013 - 10:18 AM ET #54

    mini-burger chain White Castle told National Public Radio his restaurants may hire only part-time workers in the future to avoid the costs of the new health care insurance mandate. White Castle vice president Jamie Richardson says his company's health care costs will rise by 24% once the law is implemented.

    Unlike its fast-food and casual dining cohorts, however, White Castle refuses to cut current workers' hours, fire them or slash benefits to comply with the new health care laws. 

    https://money.msn.com/now/post--obamacare-may-force-white-castle-to-seek-part-timers

    Reply
    Quote Post
    0
    Report User
    mini-burger chain White Castle told National Public Radio his restaurants may hire only part-time workers in the future to avoid the costs of the new health care insurance mandate. White Castle vice president Jamie Richardson says his company's health care costs will rise by 24% once the law is implemented.

    Unlike its fast-food and casual dining cohorts, however, White Castle refuses to cut current workers' hours, fire them or slash benefits to comply with the new health care laws. 

    https://money.msn.com/now/post--obamacare-may-force-white-castle-to-seek-part-timers

     
    wallstreetcappers
    wallstreetcappers
    Covers Linesmen
    Participation Meter
    Joined: Feb, 2003
    Posts: 58406
    Posted: Jul. 27, 2013 - 12:26 PM ET #55

    Quote Originally Posted by 14daroad:

    mini-burger chain White Castle told National Public Radio his restaurants may hire only part-time workers in the future to avoid the costs of the new health care insurance mandate. White Castle vice president Jamie Richardson says his company's health care costs will rise by 24% once the law is implemented.

    Unlike its fast-food and casual dining cohorts, however, White Castle refuses to cut current workers' hours, fire them or slash benefits to comply with the new health care laws. 

    https://money.msn.com/now/post--obamacare-may-force-white-castle-to-seek-part-timers


    Well that is quite the obvious..healthcare costs will rise by 24%..instead of stating the obvious, compare the difference and THEN draw the conclusion.

    Does White Castles offer outstanding medical coverage to its employees currently AND THEN prices will go up 24%?

    My intuitive senses say White Castles does NOT offer high quality insurance..and with Obamacare requirements being just a tiny tiny bit higher than the obvious likely coverage WC offers, I wonder if that might explain the higher increase "hypothetically" with the change.

    How about a better question..how much would it cost for WC to offer coverage NOW that actually covers their employees and that isnt bare bone min coverage that probably many employees refuse and how much of an increase would that be?

    See employees would LIKE health care coverage and if the coverage was actually worth a crap I have to think many would choose to take advantage..my experience in similar industries is that companies offer horrid coverage with high premiums KNOWING that employees will deny it and thus they have done their "obligation" and then do not have to actually give coverage.

    As usual the headline looks so shocking, when really it is just pathetic and boring.


    Reply
    Quote Post
    0
    Report User
    Quote Originally Posted by 14daroad:

    mini-burger chain White Castle told National Public Radio his restaurants may hire only part-time workers in the future to avoid the costs of the new health care insurance mandate. White Castle vice president Jamie Richardson says his company's health care costs will rise by 24% once the law is implemented.

    Unlike its fast-food and casual dining cohorts, however, White Castle refuses to cut current workers' hours, fire them or slash benefits to comply with the new health care laws. 

    https://money.msn.com/now/post--obamacare-may-force-white-castle-to-seek-part-timers


    Well that is quite the obvious..healthcare costs will rise by 24%..instead of stating the obvious, compare the difference and THEN draw the conclusion.

    Does White Castles offer outstanding medical coverage to its employees currently AND THEN prices will go up 24%?

    My intuitive senses say White Castles does NOT offer high quality insurance..and with Obamacare requirements being just a tiny tiny bit higher than the obvious likely coverage WC offers, I wonder if that might explain the higher increase "hypothetically" with the change.

    How about a better question..how much would it cost for WC to offer coverage NOW that actually covers their employees and that isnt bare bone min coverage that probably many employees refuse and how much of an increase would that be?

    See employees would LIKE health care coverage and if the coverage was actually worth a crap I have to think many would choose to take advantage..my experience in similar industries is that companies offer horrid coverage with high premiums KNOWING that employees will deny it and thus they have done their "obligation" and then do not have to actually give coverage.

    As usual the headline looks so shocking, when really it is just pathetic and boring.


     
    14daroad
    14daroad
    Captain
    Participation Meter
    Joined: Aug, 2005
    Posts: 9261
    Posted: Jul. 27, 2013 - 1:17 PM ET #56

    Quote Originally Posted by wallstreetcappers:



    Does White Castles offer outstanding medical coverage to its employees currently AND THEN prices will go up 24%?

    My intuitive senses say White Castles does NOT offer high quality insurance..and with Obamacare requirements being just a tiny tiny bit higher than the obvious likely coverage WC offers, I wonder if that might explain the higher increase "hypothetically" with the change.



    I'm not sure I follow all of this.

    White Castle currently offers coverage to full time employees. The definition of "outstanding" is relative and certainly the coverage you're going to get from an ObamaCare exchange is not "outstanding" by any measure. It will be crappy, and you're going to have a hard time seeing an actual doctor.

    The cost change is not "hypothetical" since roughly 80 percent of White Castle's full-time employees opt in to the company's current health care plan and the company's high retention rate when it comes to participants in its health care plan is why it assigns such a large value to its increased costs due to Obamacare.


    Reply
    Quote Post
    0
    Report User
    Quote Originally Posted by wallstreetcappers:



    Does White Castles offer outstanding medical coverage to its employees currently AND THEN prices will go up 24%?

    My intuitive senses say White Castles does NOT offer high quality insurance..and with Obamacare requirements being just a tiny tiny bit higher than the obvious likely coverage WC offers, I wonder if that might explain the higher increase "hypothetically" with the change.



    I'm not sure I follow all of this.

    White Castle currently offers coverage to full time employees. The definition of "outstanding" is relative and certainly the coverage you're going to get from an ObamaCare exchange is not "outstanding" by any measure. It will be crappy, and you're going to have a hard time seeing an actual doctor.

    The cost change is not "hypothetical" since roughly 80 percent of White Castle's full-time employees opt in to the company's current health care plan and the company's high retention rate when it comes to participants in its health care plan is why it assigns such a large value to its increased costs due to Obamacare.


     
    14daroad
    14daroad
    Captain
    Participation Meter
    Joined: Aug, 2005
    Posts: 9261
    Posted: Jul. 27, 2013 - 1:21 PM ET #57

    Quote Originally Posted by wallstreetcappers:



    How about a better question..how much would it cost for WC to offer coverage NOW that actually covers their employees and that isnt bare bone min coverage that probably many employees refuse and how much of an increase would that be?



    80% of White Castle's employees opt-in. 

    The cost increase will be between 24-35% due to ObamaCare.

    https://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/07/25/white-castle-obamacare-part-time-workers_n_3651751.html

    Reply
    Quote Post
    0
    Report User
    Quote Originally Posted by wallstreetcappers:



    How about a better question..how much would it cost for WC to offer coverage NOW that actually covers their employees and that isnt bare bone min coverage that probably many employees refuse and how much of an increase would that be?



    80% of White Castle's employees opt-in. 

    The cost increase will be between 24-35% due to ObamaCare.

    https://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/07/25/white-castle-obamacare-part-time-workers_n_3651751.html

     
    dl36
    dl36
    Banned
    Participation Meter
    Joined: Jul, 2003
    Posts: 27850
    Posted: Jul. 28, 2013 - 4:56 AM ET #58

    Quote Originally Posted by thirdperson:

    14daroad is confused.  In other words, I said that someone with insurance is more likely to be treated by a doctor than someone without insurance.  This is just common sense. 

     The reuters and amednews articles are irrelevant and don't support 14daroad.  First article is about a weak link between U.S. spending and quality of healthcare while second article says employed insured is more likely to seek healthcare than unemployed insured who is worried about cost of deductibles.

    According to Congressional Budget Office, net effect of Obamacare is millions more Americans insured in the future.  Most employers who offer insurance to employees before Obamacare existed continue to do so afterwards.

    Also most doctors accept Medicaid patients despite a minority who don't..


    when you talk common sense it confuses the "cart before horse" thinkers that have to desperately do anything to defend the prescribed conclusion based on partisan rhetoric...

    with all these "cart before horse" thinkers it seems like on every thread there are more and more lies in this forum... we have gone beyond double digits and into the teens with the lies...

    its like there are thirteen or 14 Lies on Every Thread....

    Reply
    Quote Post
    0
    Report User
    Quote Originally Posted by thirdperson:

    14daroad is confused.  In other words, I said that someone with insurance is more likely to be treated by a doctor than someone without insurance.  This is just common sense. 

     The reuters and amednews articles are irrelevant and don't support 14daroad.  First article is about a weak link between U.S. spending and quality of healthcare while second article says employed insured is more likely to seek healthcare than unemployed insured who is worried about cost of deductibles.

    According to Congressional Budget Office, net effect of Obamacare is millions more Americans insured in the future.  Most employers who offer insurance to employees before Obamacare existed continue to do so afterwards.

    Also most doctors accept Medicaid patients despite a minority who don't..


    when you talk common sense it confuses the "cart before horse" thinkers that have to desperately do anything to defend the prescribed conclusion based on partisan rhetoric...

    with all these "cart before horse" thinkers it seems like on every thread there are more and more lies in this forum... we have gone beyond double digits and into the teens with the lies...

    its like there are thirteen or 14 Lies on Every Thread....

     
    wallstreetcappers
    wallstreetcappers
    Covers Linesmen
    Participation Meter
    Joined: Feb, 2003
    Posts: 58406
    Posted: Jul. 28, 2013 - 12:28 PM ET #59

    Quote Originally Posted by 14daroad:


    80% of White Castle's employees opt-in. 

    The cost increase will be between 24-35% due to ObamaCare.

    https://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/07/25/white-castle-obamacare-part-time-workers_n_3651751.html


    You answered the MINOR question, the 80% of opt-in. I would have to see if they are offering it to all full time or just management level employees, as that would effect the opt-in rate for sure..but it doesnt matter.

    What does matter is the quality of the product they offer. I disagree about your relative comment..there are well known factors that make coverage good vs average vs poor..so I am not sure what you cannot understand about it.

    Good coverage includes low deductibles, good includes script coverage, full coverage..with low co-pays. Good includes specialist coverage with low co-pays, hospital care with low co-pays, a large in network choice, low co-pays on out of network..things like this.

    So the real question is how does the coverage now stack up against what Obamacare requires, or better yet how does it compare vs what they are CLAIMING as the higher cost complaint?

    It is ULTRA rare that a QSR offers even mediocre health coverage..and if they are offering a great product then they will exceed Obamacare anyway and there wont be any cost increase. The fact they are claiming an increase tells volumes about the coverage they offer.
    Reply
    Quote Post
    0
    Report User
    Quote Originally Posted by 14daroad:


    80% of White Castle's employees opt-in. 

    The cost increase will be between 24-35% due to ObamaCare.

    https://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/07/25/white-castle-obamacare-part-time-workers_n_3651751.html


    You answered the MINOR question, the 80% of opt-in. I would have to see if they are offering it to all full time or just management level employees, as that would effect the opt-in rate for sure..but it doesnt matter.

    What does matter is the quality of the product they offer. I disagree about your relative comment..there are well known factors that make coverage good vs average vs poor..so I am not sure what you cannot understand about it.

    Good coverage includes low deductibles, good includes script coverage, full coverage..with low co-pays. Good includes specialist coverage with low co-pays, hospital care with low co-pays, a large in network choice, low co-pays on out of network..things like this.

    So the real question is how does the coverage now stack up against what Obamacare requires, or better yet how does it compare vs what they are CLAIMING as the higher cost complaint?

    It is ULTRA rare that a QSR offers even mediocre health coverage..and if they are offering a great product then they will exceed Obamacare anyway and there wont be any cost increase. The fact they are claiming an increase tells volumes about the coverage they offer.
     
    14daroad
    14daroad
    Captain
    Participation Meter
    Joined: Aug, 2005
    Posts: 9261
    Posted: Jul. 28, 2013 - 2:58 PM ET #60

    Quote Originally Posted by dl36:



    its like there are thirteen or 14 Lies on Every Thread....


    Why don't you name 1 in this thread then?

    Just one.

    Reply
    Quote Post
    0
    Report User
    Quote Originally Posted by dl36:



    its like there are thirteen or 14 Lies on Every Thread....


    Why don't you name 1 in this thread then?

    Just one.

     
    14daroad
    14daroad
    Captain
    Participation Meter
    Joined: Aug, 2005
    Posts: 9261
    Posted: Jul. 28, 2013 - 3:00 PM ET #61

    Quote Originally Posted by wallstreetcappers:



    It is ULTRA rare that a QSR offers even mediocre health coverage..and if they are offering a great product then they will exceed Obamacare anyway and there wont be any cost increase. The fact they are claiming an increase tells volumes about the coverage they offer.

    This makes no sense at all.

    Health insurance premiums are going up for everyone because of ObamaCare.

    Health Insurance premiums are going up because of ObamaCare.

    You seem to be looking for reasons to deny this fact.
    Reply
    Quote Post
    0
    Report User
    Quote Originally Posted by wallstreetcappers:



    It is ULTRA rare that a QSR offers even mediocre health coverage..and if they are offering a great product then they will exceed Obamacare anyway and there wont be any cost increase. The fact they are claiming an increase tells volumes about the coverage they offer.

    This makes no sense at all.

    Health insurance premiums are going up for everyone because of ObamaCare.

    Health Insurance premiums are going up because of ObamaCare.

    You seem to be looking for reasons to deny this fact.
     
    14daroad
    14daroad
    Captain
    Participation Meter
    Joined: Aug, 2005
    Posts: 9261
    Posted: Jul. 28, 2013 - 3:06 PM ET #62

    Quote Originally Posted by wallstreetcappers:


    You answered the MINOR question, the 80% of opt-in. I would have to see if they are offering it to all full time or just management level employees, as that would effect the opt-in rate for sure..but it doesnt matter.




    Coverage is offered to all full time employees of White Castle.

    Health insurance premiums are increasing because of ObamaCare, for everyone. That is: people in employer sponsored plans, people who buy into group plans as self-employed, or people who buy insurance in any other circumstance.

    That is why White Castle said the costs are going up for employees.
    White Castle spends four to five times more in health care than it makes in net income annually
    Reply
    Quote Post
    0
    Report User
    Quote Originally Posted by wallstreetcappers:


    You answered the MINOR question, the 80% of opt-in. I would have to see if they are offering it to all full time or just management level employees, as that would effect the opt-in rate for sure..but it doesnt matter.




    Coverage is offered to all full time employees of White Castle.

    Health insurance premiums are increasing because of ObamaCare, for everyone. That is: people in employer sponsored plans, people who buy into group plans as self-employed, or people who buy insurance in any other circumstance.

    That is why White Castle said the costs are going up for employees.
    White Castle spends four to five times more in health care than it makes in net income annually
     
    14daroad
    14daroad
    Captain
    Participation Meter
    Joined: Aug, 2005
    Posts: 9261
    Posted: Jul. 28, 2013 - 3:17 PM ET #63

    Quote Originally Posted by dl36:


    when you talk common sense it confuses the "cart before horse" thinkers that have to desperately do anything to defend the prescribed conclusion based on partisan rhetoric...

    While you're busy not citing examples of any "lies" I've ever actually told because there are none, why don't you take a stab at why the "common sense" is refuted by the 4 references I cited?

    After that, perhaps you can reconcile why you're suggesting I've come to my conclusion on some sort of "partisan" basis when in fact it is based on NIH funded, peer-reviewed research.

    Wouldn't it be fun for you to back up any of these pot shots you're taking at me?

    Reply
    Quote Post
    0
    Report User
    Quote Originally Posted by dl36:


    when you talk common sense it confuses the "cart before horse" thinkers that have to desperately do anything to defend the prescribed conclusion based on partisan rhetoric...

    While you're busy not citing examples of any "lies" I've ever actually told because there are none, why don't you take a stab at why the "common sense" is refuted by the 4 references I cited?

    After that, perhaps you can reconcile why you're suggesting I've come to my conclusion on some sort of "partisan" basis when in fact it is based on NIH funded, peer-reviewed research.

    Wouldn't it be fun for you to back up any of these pot shots you're taking at me?

     
    14daroad
    14daroad
    Captain
    Participation Meter
    Joined: Aug, 2005
    Posts: 9261
    Posted: Jul. 28, 2013 - 3:36 PM ET #64

    Here is an example from MD in the individual market. Premiums are going up 25%

    CareFirst, which provides insurance to 70 percent of Marylanders with individual policies, said the rate increase is necessary because, under the law, it can no longer refuse coverage to people with preexisting medical conditions. The company expects a huge influx of sick people that will drive up costs, according to its filings with the Maryland Insurance Administration.

    https://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/wonkblog/wp/2013/04/24/with-health-law-looming-one-large-insurer-wants-a-25-percent-premium-hike/

    Those factors apply to employer sponsored plans.
    Reply
    Quote Post
    0
    Report User
    Here is an example from MD in the individual market. Premiums are going up 25%

    CareFirst, which provides insurance to 70 percent of Marylanders with individual policies, said the rate increase is necessary because, under the law, it can no longer refuse coverage to people with preexisting medical conditions. The company expects a huge influx of sick people that will drive up costs, according to its filings with the Maryland Insurance Administration.

    https://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/wonkblog/wp/2013/04/24/with-health-law-looming-one-large-insurer-wants-a-25-percent-premium-hike/

    Those factors apply to employer sponsored plans.
     
    14daroad
    14daroad
    Captain
    Participation Meter
    Joined: Aug, 2005
    Posts: 9261
    Posted: Jul. 28, 2013 - 3:43 PM ET #65

    Wallstreet,

    ObamaCare does not require "high quality" insurance. In fact, most employers will get away with offering "bare bones" coverage, so White Castle's costs are not going up to comply with ObamaCare.

    See:

    Administration officials confirmed in interviews that the skinny plans, in concept, would be sufficient to avoid the across-the-workforce penalty. Several expressed surprise that employers would consider the approach.

    “We wouldn’t have anticipated that there’d be demand for these types of band-aid plans in 2014,” said Robert Kocher, a former White House health adviser who helped shepherd the law. “Our expectation was that employers would offer high quality insurance.”

    ...

    Benefits advisers and insurance brokers—bucking a commonly held expectation that the law would broadly enrich benefits—are pitching these low-benefit plans around the country. They cover minimal requirements such as preventive services, but often little more. Some of the plans wouldn’t cover surgery, X-rays or prenatal care at all. Others will be paired with limited packages to cover additional services, for instance, $100 a day for a hospital visit.

    Federal officials say this type of plan, in concept, would appear to qualify as acceptable minimum coverage under the law, and let most employers avoid an across-the-workforce $2,000-per-worker penalty for firms that offer nothing.

    As I said, these people are going to get crappy insurance with no guarantee they will see an actual doctor.

    Reply
    Quote Post
    0
    Report User
    Wallstreet,

    ObamaCare does not require "high quality" insurance. In fact, most employers will get away with offering "bare bones" coverage, so White Castle's costs are not going up to comply with ObamaCare.

    See:

    Administration officials confirmed in interviews that the skinny plans, in concept, would be sufficient to avoid the across-the-workforce penalty. Several expressed surprise that employers would consider the approach.

    “We wouldn’t have anticipated that there’d be demand for these types of band-aid plans in 2014,” said Robert Kocher, a former White House health adviser who helped shepherd the law. “Our expectation was that employers would offer high quality insurance.”

    ...

    Benefits advisers and insurance brokers—bucking a commonly held expectation that the law would broadly enrich benefits—are pitching these low-benefit plans around the country. They cover minimal requirements such as preventive services, but often little more. Some of the plans wouldn’t cover surgery, X-rays or prenatal care at all. Others will be paired with limited packages to cover additional services, for instance, $100 a day for a hospital visit.

    Federal officials say this type of plan, in concept, would appear to qualify as acceptable minimum coverage under the law, and let most employers avoid an across-the-workforce $2,000-per-worker penalty for firms that offer nothing.

    As I said, these people are going to get crappy insurance with no guarantee they will see an actual doctor.

     
    djbrow
    djbrow
    Covers Referee
    Participation Meter
    Joined: Feb, 2004
    Posts: 15730
    Posted: Jul. 28, 2013 - 4:50 PM ET #66

    Quote Originally Posted by 14daroad:


    So in other words, there is no actual evidence to support your "common sense" assertion so you'll call studies refuting your assertion "irrelevant"

    There is no actual real world evidence to support your claim.

    But you'll keep making that claim, of course.



    Actually, there are plenty of studies that support the assertion that those with insurance are more likely to seek normal preventive care and have regular doctors. Studies also support that those with insurance are also more likely to go to the ER for less severe ailments.

    What is unclear is how ObamaCare will change this since the core of ObamaCare is the allowance of high deductible plans that generally will not cover physicals and ER visits.

    https://www.nytimes.com/2011/07/07/health/policy/07medicaid.html?_r=0

    Reply
    Quote Post
    0
    Report User
    Quote Originally Posted by 14daroad:


    So in other words, there is no actual evidence to support your "common sense" assertion so you'll call studies refuting your assertion "irrelevant"

    There is no actual real world evidence to support your claim.

    But you'll keep making that claim, of course.



    Actually, there are plenty of studies that support the assertion that those with insurance are more likely to seek normal preventive care and have regular doctors. Studies also support that those with insurance are also more likely to go to the ER for less severe ailments.

    What is unclear is how ObamaCare will change this since the core of ObamaCare is the allowance of high deductible plans that generally will not cover physicals and ER visits.

    https://www.nytimes.com/2011/07/07/health/policy/07medicaid.html?_r=0

     
    wallstreetcappers
    wallstreetcappers
    Covers Linesmen
    Participation Meter
    Joined: Feb, 2003
    Posts: 58406
    Posted: Jul. 29, 2013 - 12:34 AM ET #67

    Quote Originally Posted by 14daroad:



    Coverage is offered to all full time employees of White Castle.

    Health insurance premiums are increasing because of ObamaCare, for everyone. That is: people in employer sponsored plans, people who buy into group plans as self-employed, or people who buy insurance in any other circumstance.

    That is why White Castle said the costs are going up for employees.
    White Castle spends four to five times more in health care than it makes in net income annually

    This is a blanket generalization..

    It reminds me of the oil market, the currency market, hell any market. The players are getting in front of the action because there is money to be made in ANTICIPATION of a future event which might or might not even have the effect you are expecting.

    Health care costs are going up up up up irregardless of Obamacare or it not existing. 

    Nothing has even happened yet and we are still seeing corporations griping about potential landmines and as usual the blame goes on to the government.

    Why are we not dissecting WHY healthcare inflation has outpaced general inflation for decades, what exactly is making this happen and try to remedy the situation?

    Nah..lets point fingers at the democrats and blame a political party as the flavor of the month and ignore the fact that healthcare inflation has been rampant for the previous 4 presidents before Obama.


    Reply
    Quote Post
    0
    Report User
    Quote Originally Posted by 14daroad:



    Coverage is offered to all full time employees of White Castle.

    Health insurance premiums are increasing because of ObamaCare, for everyone. That is: people in employer sponsored plans, people who buy into group plans as self-employed, or people who buy insurance in any other circumstance.

    That is why White Castle said the costs are going up for employees.
    White Castle spends four to five times more in health care than it makes in net income annually

    This is a blanket generalization..

    It reminds me of the oil market, the currency market, hell any market. The players are getting in front of the action because there is money to be made in ANTICIPATION of a future event which might or might not even have the effect you are expecting.

    Health care costs are going up up up up irregardless of Obamacare or it not existing. 

    Nothing has even happened yet and we are still seeing corporations griping about potential landmines and as usual the blame goes on to the government.

    Why are we not dissecting WHY healthcare inflation has outpaced general inflation for decades, what exactly is making this happen and try to remedy the situation?

    Nah..lets point fingers at the democrats and blame a political party as the flavor of the month and ignore the fact that healthcare inflation has been rampant for the previous 4 presidents before Obama.


     
    14daroad
    14daroad
    Captain
    Participation Meter
    Joined: Aug, 2005
    Posts: 9261
    Posted: Jul. 29, 2013 - 9:06 AM ET #68

    Quote Originally Posted by djbrow:

    Actually, there are plenty of studies that support the assertion that those with insurance are more likely to seek normal preventive care and have regular doctors. Studies also support that those with insurance are also more likely to go to the ER for less severe ailments.

    Well actually there are not. From your own link:

    First Study of Its Kind Shows Benefits of Providing Medical Insurance to Poor

     

    Reply
    Quote Post
    0
    Report User
    Quote Originally Posted by djbrow:

    Actually, there are plenty of studies that support the assertion that those with insurance are more likely to seek normal preventive care and have regular doctors. Studies also support that those with insurance are also more likely to go to the ER for less severe ailments.

    Well actually there are not. From your own link:

    First Study of Its Kind Shows Benefits of Providing Medical Insurance to Poor

     

     
    14daroad
    14daroad
    Captain
    Participation Meter
    Joined: Aug, 2005
    Posts: 9261
    Posted: Jul. 29, 2013 - 9:09 AM ET #69

    Quote Originally Posted by wallstreetcappers:



    Why are we not dissecting WHY healthcare inflation has outpaced general inflation for decades, what exactly is making this happen and try to remedy the situation?


     

    The increase in health care inflation has corresponded with more government intervention in the health care sector. 48% of all spending on health care now comes from government.

    Government does not control costs, nor does it ever make things more efficient.

    The remedy I would suggest would be to remove governement from health care as a much as possible.

    Reply
    Quote Post
    0
    Report User
    Quote Originally Posted by wallstreetcappers:



    Why are we not dissecting WHY healthcare inflation has outpaced general inflation for decades, what exactly is making this happen and try to remedy the situation?


     

    The increase in health care inflation has corresponded with more government intervention in the health care sector. 48% of all spending on health care now comes from government.

    Government does not control costs, nor does it ever make things more efficient.

    The remedy I would suggest would be to remove governement from health care as a much as possible.

     
    wallstreetcappers
    wallstreetcappers
    Covers Linesmen
    Participation Meter
    Joined: Feb, 2003
    Posts: 58406
    Posted: Jul. 29, 2013 - 2:42 PM ET #70

    Quote Originally Posted by 14daroad:

    The increase in health care inflation has corresponded with more government intervention in the health care sector. 48% of all spending on health care now comes from government.

    Government does not control costs, nor does it ever make things more efficient.

    The remedy I would suggest would be to remove governement from health care as a much as possible.


    That is another general comment..

    Tell me WHY government being in charge of Medicare and Medicaid increases SYSTEM WIDE costs?

    What percentage of the total healthcare "pie" is government? How does Medicare and Medicaid existing cause inflation to the private sector?

    Are you blaming ALL cost increases to the system on the government?
    Reply
    Quote Post
    0
    Report User
    Quote Originally Posted by 14daroad:

    The increase in health care inflation has corresponded with more government intervention in the health care sector. 48% of all spending on health care now comes from government.

    Government does not control costs, nor does it ever make things more efficient.

    The remedy I would suggest would be to remove governement from health care as a much as possible.


    That is another general comment..

    Tell me WHY government being in charge of Medicare and Medicaid increases SYSTEM WIDE costs?

    What percentage of the total healthcare "pie" is government? How does Medicare and Medicaid existing cause inflation to the private sector?

    Are you blaming ALL cost increases to the system on the government?
     
    14daroad
    14daroad
    Captain
    Participation Meter
    Joined: Aug, 2005
    Posts: 9261
    Posted: Jul. 29, 2013 - 3:48 PM ET #71

    Quote Originally Posted by wallstreetcappers:


    That is another general comment..

    Tell me WHY government being in charge of Medicare and Medicaid increases SYSTEM WIDE costs?

    What percentage of the total healthcare "pie" is government? How does Medicare and Medicaid existing cause inflation to the private sector?

    Are you blaming ALL cost increases to the system on the government?

    The % of the "total pie" that is government is 48%

    There is not "private sector" I think you should stop using that term because there are literally hundreds of thousand of pages of federal regulations alone as it relates to the health care sector. 
    There is no private sector when 48% of the money spent is from government. Note that Medicare spending has gone from 0.9% of GDP to a full 4% of GDP in the last 40 years.

    How do medicare & medicaid increase system wide costs?
    Easy: when those programs underpay, and they do, the costs are shifted to people having private insurance and/or paying cash. So instead of an x-ray costing $75, it comes with a lovely government premium cost added on, landing at $100.
    Which is why a 1/3rd of the doctors refuse to even see Medicaid patients. 

    I'd add: Medicare and Medicaid already lose almost four times as much money to fraud as the nation’s ten largest health insurers (combined) make in profit.

    That's how awful these programs are.

    No, I'm not saying all cost increases are due to government.

    Reply
    Quote Post
    0
    Report User
    Quote Originally Posted by wallstreetcappers:


    That is another general comment..

    Tell me WHY government being in charge of Medicare and Medicaid increases SYSTEM WIDE costs?

    What percentage of the total healthcare "pie" is government? How does Medicare and Medicaid existing cause inflation to the private sector?

    Are you blaming ALL cost increases to the system on the government?

    The % of the "total pie" that is government is 48%

    There is not "private sector" I think you should stop using that term because there are literally hundreds of thousand of pages of federal regulations alone as it relates to the health care sector. 
    There is no private sector when 48% of the money spent is from government. Note that Medicare spending has gone from 0.9% of GDP to a full 4% of GDP in the last 40 years.

    How do medicare & medicaid increase system wide costs?
    Easy: when those programs underpay, and they do, the costs are shifted to people having private insurance and/or paying cash. So instead of an x-ray costing $75, it comes with a lovely government premium cost added on, landing at $100.
    Which is why a 1/3rd of the doctors refuse to even see Medicaid patients. 

    I'd add: Medicare and Medicaid already lose almost four times as much money to fraud as the nation’s ten largest health insurers (combined) make in profit.

    That's how awful these programs are.

    No, I'm not saying all cost increases are due to government.

     
    wallstreetcappers
    wallstreetcappers
    Covers Linesmen
    Participation Meter
    Joined: Feb, 2003
    Posts: 58406
    Posted: Jul. 29, 2013 - 5:14 PM ET #72

    So you are saying that 48% of all US citizens who have healthcare have it through Medicare and Medicaid?

    A few other things-

    Why does it cost 75 bucks to make an X-ray? Why does it cost 300 bucks for a  20 minute doctor checkup? Why does it cost 400 bucks for a female to get a mammogram? 

    Medicare/Medicaid is not the only negotiator in the market, ALL private insurance carriers negotiate..we are with Cigna now and I get these statements every single time we get a script or visit a doctor and they boast about how they negotiate and have deals with doctors for a savings of X dollars.

    You are focusing on the government as usual while I am trying to focus on COST..why does it even cost 75 bucks to run an x-ray? 

    The reason for cost increases over the past multiple decades isnt because of government regulation or restrictions. There are other reasons as to why, one of the larger reasons is the expansion of profits and PE ratios for public companies..which includes drug companies, hospitals, health care firms..the reason for increases in costs are to justify stock prices, make bonuses and profits.

    I do not agree about the role of government as you are describing..I dont think there is some sinister plan for the government to trap the private sector..to me the reason for regulation and restriction is due to complaints from citizens due to ABUSES from the private sector..regulations come after complaints and abuses. There are multitudes of class action suits going on against physicians and hospitals...constantly and it never stops. I read an article on yahoo finance last week about how this hospital was the beneficiary of like 150 million dollars from the charitable trust this couple established and they pissed through it due to malpractice losses.

    I think the reason for the constant rise in expenses is due to profits, malpractice issues, script companies being allowed to hold a patent monopoly here while most other countries do not allow..the high cost of education and the cost of technology.

    I really think the government is way down on the list of reasons why cost are not stopping. With or without Obamacare costs are not going to slow down and benefits will keep dropping.

    The healthcare plan we have keeps getting worse and worse and worse with premiums going up, copays going up, maximums dropping and overall benefit dropping. 

    Doctors also do not like seeing government plan patients because the payout takes longer. I have a friend who is an office manager for a LARGE multi doctor practice and she says the payout time for government vs private is much longer. The system the government uses for processing claims and communicating with physicians is not up to date due to the COST of upgrading and training with a new system.

    If you want to cut costs to government programs they need better technology..if you want to cut costs to the system, the blame is not on the government.
    Reply
    Quote Post
    0
    Report User
    So you are saying that 48% of all US citizens who have healthcare have it through Medicare and Medicaid?

    A few other things-

    Why does it cost 75 bucks to make an X-ray? Why does it cost 300 bucks for a  20 minute doctor checkup? Why does it cost 400 bucks for a female to get a mammogram? 

    Medicare/Medicaid is not the only negotiator in the market, ALL private insurance carriers negotiate..we are with Cigna now and I get these statements every single time we get a script or visit a doctor and they boast about how they negotiate and have deals with doctors for a savings of X dollars.

    You are focusing on the government as usual while I am trying to focus on COST..why does it even cost 75 bucks to run an x-ray? 

    The reason for cost increases over the past multiple decades isnt because of government regulation or restrictions. There are other reasons as to why, one of the larger reasons is the expansion of profits and PE ratios for public companies..which includes drug companies, hospitals, health care firms..the reason for increases in costs are to justify stock prices, make bonuses and profits.

    I do not agree about the role of government as you are describing..I dont think there is some sinister plan for the government to trap the private sector..to me the reason for regulation and restriction is due to complaints from citizens due to ABUSES from the private sector..regulations come after complaints and abuses. There are multitudes of class action suits going on against physicians and hospitals...constantly and it never stops. I read an article on yahoo finance last week about how this hospital was the beneficiary of like 150 million dollars from the charitable trust this couple established and they pissed through it due to malpractice losses.

    I think the reason for the constant rise in expenses is due to profits, malpractice issues, script companies being allowed to hold a patent monopoly here while most other countries do not allow..the high cost of education and the cost of technology.

    I really think the government is way down on the list of reasons why cost are not stopping. With or without Obamacare costs are not going to slow down and benefits will keep dropping.

    The healthcare plan we have keeps getting worse and worse and worse with premiums going up, copays going up, maximums dropping and overall benefit dropping. 

    Doctors also do not like seeing government plan patients because the payout takes longer. I have a friend who is an office manager for a LARGE multi doctor practice and she says the payout time for government vs private is much longer. The system the government uses for processing claims and communicating with physicians is not up to date due to the COST of upgrading and training with a new system.

    If you want to cut costs to government programs they need better technology..if you want to cut costs to the system, the blame is not on the government.
     
    14daroad
    14daroad
    Captain
    Participation Meter
    Joined: Aug, 2005
    Posts: 9261
    Posted: Jul. 29, 2013 - 6:13 PM ET #73

    No, what I'm saying is that 48% of all US health care spending is coming from government funds. It is highly inefficient.

    Let's look at an alternative approach:

    Consider Lasik corrective eye surgery. Because most insurance providers including government programs won’t cover the procedure, the market isn’t distorted by excessive regulations. Providers operate in a free market where technology is constantly advancing, price competition is fierce, and the consumer is king. Companies rise and fall according to their ability to provide customer satisfaction.

    In the past decade, more than three million Lasik procedures have been performed. During that time, the average price of Lasik eye surgery has dropped nearly 40 percent, from $2,200 to $1,350 per eye.     

    Reply
    Quote Post
    0
    Report User
    No, what I'm saying is that 48% of all US health care spending is coming from government funds. It is highly inefficient.

    Let's look at an alternative approach:

    Consider Lasik corrective eye surgery. Because most insurance providers including government programs won’t cover the procedure, the market isn’t distorted by excessive regulations. Providers operate in a free market where technology is constantly advancing, price competition is fierce, and the consumer is king. Companies rise and fall according to their ability to provide customer satisfaction.

    In the past decade, more than three million Lasik procedures have been performed. During that time, the average price of Lasik eye surgery has dropped nearly 40 percent, from $2,200 to $1,350 per eye.     

     
    14daroad
    14daroad
    Captain
    Participation Meter
    Joined: Aug, 2005
    Posts: 9261
    Posted: Jul. 29, 2013 - 6:19 PM ET #74

    I remember when Lasik was $8,000

    Anyway, the government regulating insurance companies comes with a cost. That cost (just compliance mind you) gets passed along to consumers. So do all the costs of mandates on the companies. 

    The direct government interference in the health care market has led to higher prices and more inefficiency, waste, fraud, and abuse.

    The federal government directly spends over $1 trillion a year on Medicare and Medicaid, and controls private spending with rules and regulations. There is no "private sector" here at all.



    Reply
    Quote Post
    0
    Report User
    I remember when Lasik was $8,000

    Anyway, the government regulating insurance companies comes with a cost. That cost (just compliance mind you) gets passed along to consumers. So do all the costs of mandates on the companies. 

    The direct government interference in the health care market has led to higher prices and more inefficiency, waste, fraud, and abuse.

    The federal government directly spends over $1 trillion a year on Medicare and Medicaid, and controls private spending with rules and regulations. There is no "private sector" here at all.



     
     
    14daroad
    14daroad
    Captain
    Participation Meter
    Joined: Aug, 2005
    Posts: 9261
    Posted: Jul. 29, 2013 - 6:27 PM ET #75

    Let's compare two industries.

    1. College "higher education" - Subsidized by the federal government; costs outpace inflation by 10 fold, at a minimum; the return on investment is low; and people are basically ripped off.

    vs.

    2. Technology - largely left alone by the government; funded by private, venture capital; engine of economic growth and dynamism. 

    You can swap out #1 with "health care" and say all the same things.

    By the way, over the last 43 years, costs per Medicare beneficiary grew 2.7 percent faster than the overall economy. Also note, Medicare was established in 1965. By 1970, the program had already caused a 37% increase in hospital spending.

    Reply
    Quote Post
    0
    Report User
    Let's compare two industries.

    1. College "higher education" - Subsidized by the federal government; costs outpace inflation by 10 fold, at a minimum; the return on investment is low; and people are basically ripped off.

    vs.

    2. Technology - largely left alone by the government; funded by private, venture capital; engine of economic growth and dynamism. 

    You can swap out #1 with "health care" and say all the same things.

    By the way, over the last 43 years, costs per Medicare beneficiary grew 2.7 percent faster than the overall economy. Also note, Medicare was established in 1965. By 1970, the program had already caused a 37% increase in hospital spending.

    All Forums | Politics
    «First Previous 12345 Next Last»

    Hot Forums IconHot Forum Topics

    • Monday 9/14/2026 680 Covers arrow
    • Serious Streak Survivor Strategies 1,918,134 Covers arrow
    • Couple Beers 2,209 Covers arrow
    • I'm embarrassed for Trump supporters 57,688 Covers arrow
    • NFL LOCKED IN! 97,197 Covers arrow
    • Trump's legacy? 25,416 Covers arrow
    • Week One-Post Week One Plays Here 1,862 Covers arrow
    • DEN/KC live in game comments welcome 738 Covers arrow
    • Betting NFL isnt the same anymore Tapping out. 1,348 Covers arrow
    • PART DEUX 147 Covers arrow

    Warning - External Link

    Report User

    Thank you for reporting
    This content is abusive or harmful
    This post is spam
    An error has occurred
    This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.

    Delete Post

    Are you sure you would like to remove this post?

    Remove Thread

    Are you sure you would like to remove this thread?

    Scan Results

    Login/Register

    Happy to have you join the conversation. To do so, please login or create an account.
    Accounts are free and easy to create.

    Search


    Loading…

    Loading…

    About Us
    Contact Us
    Careers
    Our Team
    Brand
    Testimonials
    Betting Guides
    Sportsbook Reviews
    Betting News
    Podcasts
    Responsible Gambling
    Betting Sites
    US Betting Sites
    Canada Betting Sites
    Canada Casinos
    Best Betting Apps
    Contests
    Streak Survivor
    King of Covers
    Ultimate Race
    Office Pools
    The Covers community has
    810,221
    lifetime members worldwide
    Join our community today
    Covers 30 Years Logo Established in 1995,
    Covers is the world
    leader in sports
    betting information.
    21+
    Gambling problem? Call 1-800-GAMBLER
    Help Privacy Terms of Service Cookies Sitemap Forum
    YouTube logo
    Facebook logo
    Twitter logo
    Instagram logo
    LinkedIn logo
    Google News logo
    Covers is verified safe by:
    Evalon Logo Logo GPWA Logo GDPR logo Logo GeoTrust logo Logo PCI DSS logo Logo
    Copyright © 1995 - 2026 CS Media Ltd. All Rights Reserved.
    If you choose to make use of any information on this website including online sports betting services from any websites that may be featured on this website, we strongly recommend that you carefully check your local laws before doing so.It is your sole responsibility to understand your local laws and observe them strictly.Covers does not provide any advice or guidance as to the legality of online sports betting or other online gambling activities within your jurisdiction and you are responsible for complying with laws that are applicable to you in your relevant locality.Covers disclaims all liability associated with your use of this website and use of any information contained on it.As a condition of using this website, you agree to hold the owner of this website harmless from any claims arising from your use of any services on any third party website that may be featured by Covers.