Home · Maps · About
Home > OTChat

[ Post a New Response | Return to the Index ]

First : << [11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20] >> : Last

< Previous Page  

Page 19 of 25

Next Page >  

(1166418)

view threaded

Re: Ezekiel Emanuel (ACA ''architect''): Vast majority of employers will drop healthcare coverage

Posted by Olog-hai on Fri Mar 21 18:13:52 2014, in response to Re: Ezekiel Emanuel (ACA ''architect''): Vast majority of employers will drop healthcare coverage, posted by Fred G on Fri Mar 21 18:11:18 2014.

fiogf49gjkf0d
But not from taxes? That's a heck of a lot of trust you're putting in "god-king" government.

Post a New Response

(1166421)

view threaded

Re: Almost half of Covered California callers give up (ACA/Medicaid)

Posted by italianstallion on Fri Mar 21 18:56:22 2014, in response to Re: Almost half of Covered California callers give up (ACA/Medicaid), posted by Olog-hai on Fri Mar 21 13:57:40 2014.

fiogf49gjkf0d
BS. An infinitesimal percentage of Obamacare enrollees were folks whose plans were canceled; plus, many of the so-called canceled plans were allowed to stay in force for at least another year.

Post a New Response

(1166422)

view threaded

Re: Limited doctors mean limited care under ACA (''if you like your doctor''???)

Posted by italianstallion on Fri Mar 21 18:57:34 2014, in response to Re: Limited doctors mean limited care under ACA (''if you like your doctor''???), posted by Olog-hai on Fri Mar 21 15:13:00 2014.

fiogf49gjkf0d
Many "canceled" plans were allowed to stay in force.

Post a New Response

(1166423)

view threaded

Re: Limited doctors mean limited care under ACA (''if you like your doctor''???)

Posted by italianstallion on Fri Mar 21 18:58:22 2014, in response to Re: Limited doctors mean limited care under ACA (''if you like your doctor''???), posted by Olog-hai on Fri Mar 21 13:53:32 2014.

fiogf49gjkf0d
You are right if "very few" equals 'millions."

Post a New Response

(1166425)

view threaded

Re: Ezekiel Emanuel (ACA ''architect''): Vast majority of employers will drop healthcare coverage

Posted by Fred G on Fri Mar 21 19:36:45 2014, in response to Re: Ezekiel Emanuel (ACA ''architect''): Vast majority of employers will drop healthcare coverage, posted by Olog-hai on Fri Mar 21 18:13:52 2014.

fiogf49gjkf0d
In the long run, single payer health care would spur our economy as it would keep spiking health care costs out of business expenditures.

your pal,
Fred

Post a New Response

(1166427)

view threaded

Re: Ezekiel Emanuel (ACA ''architect''): Vast majority of employers will drop healthcare coverage

Posted by RockParkMan on Fri Mar 21 19:54:14 2014, in response to Re: Ezekiel Emanuel (ACA ''architect''): Vast majority of employers will drop healthcare coverage, posted by Olog-hai on Fri Mar 21 18:13:52 2014.

fiogf49gjkf0d
I trust government a hell of a lot more than ANY private insurance company, you retarded Kool-Aid drinking cultist.

Post a New Response

(1166428)

view threaded

Re: Almost half of Covered California callers give up (ACA/Medicaid)

Posted by bingbong on Fri Mar 21 20:53:15 2014, in response to Re: Almost half of Covered California callers give up (ACA/Medicaid), posted by Olog-hai on Fri Mar 21 13:57:40 2014.

fiogf49gjkf0d
Of which there are approximtely 10,000 NATIONWIDE.

Read: barely a drop in the bucket.

Post a New Response

(1166429)

view threaded

Re: Ezekiel Emanuel (ACA ''architect''): Vast majority of employers will drop healthcare coverage

Posted by bingbong on Fri Mar 21 21:04:41 2014, in response to Re: Ezekiel Emanuel (ACA ''architect''): Vast majority of employers will drop healthcare coverage, posted by Fred G on Fri Mar 21 18:11:18 2014.

fiogf49gjkf0d
And wouldn't affect those on Medicaid/care through disability.

Post a New Response

(1166431)

view threaded

Re: Ezekiel Emanuel (ACA ''architect''): Vast majority of employers will drop healthcare coverage

Posted by Olog-hai on Fri Mar 21 21:12:14 2014, in response to Re: Ezekiel Emanuel (ACA ''architect''): Vast majority of employers will drop healthcare coverage, posted by RockParkMan on Fri Mar 21 19:54:14 2014.

fiogf49gjkf0d
LOL! Meanwhile, the media is sending us a flood of these bad-news stories. All because of government. Government caused the problem in the first place with health insurance (wage controls), and now government is "solving" it by making it worse. Are the NYT "kool-aid drinkers" now?

Post a New Response

(1166432)

view threaded

Re: Ezekiel Emanuel (ACA ''architect''): Vast majority of employers will drop healthcare coverage

Posted by bingbong on Fri Mar 21 21:13:57 2014, in response to Re: Ezekiel Emanuel (ACA ''architect''): Vast majority of employers will drop healthcare coverage, posted by Olog-hai on Fri Mar 21 21:12:14 2014.

fiogf49gjkf0d
According to you, they're communists. All of a sudden they're credible because you think they're saying what you want to hear?

Post a New Response

(1166434)

view threaded

Re: Ezekiel Emanuel (ACA ''architect''): Vast majority of employers will drop healthcare coverage

Posted by Olog-hai on Fri Mar 21 21:16:30 2014, in response to Re: Ezekiel Emanuel (ACA ''architect''): Vast majority of employers will drop healthcare coverage, posted by bingbong on Fri Mar 21 21:13:57 2014.

fiogf49gjkf0d
They are, and they're doing this to push single-payer. But it's backfiring.

The "all of a sudden they're credible" line goes both ways—because they are saying what you don't want to hear, they no longer have credibility in your view, is the real question?

Post a New Response

(1166436)

view threaded

Re: Limited doctors mean limited care under ACA (''if you like your doctor''???)

Posted by SelkirkTMO on Fri Mar 21 21:36:24 2014, in response to Re: Limited doctors mean limited care under ACA (''if you like your doctor''???), posted by Fred G on Fri Mar 21 16:22:40 2014.

fiogf49gjkf0d
I suspect he went with small frogs and a barber. :)

Post a New Response

(1166438)

view threaded

Re: Ezekiel Emanuel (ACA ''architect''): Vast majority of employers will drop healthcare coverage

Posted by bingbong on Fri Mar 21 22:03:54 2014, in response to Re: Ezekiel Emanuel (ACA ''architect''): Vast majority of employers will drop healthcare coverage, posted by Olog-hai on Fri Mar 21 21:16:30 2014.

fiogf49gjkf0d
Wrong. I'm reading those articles and seeing how SP is needed through the points they make. ACA is a starting point to sever the work-insurance conundrum which is only a first step, but an important one that needs to be made. That system was allowed to fester far too long. I don't question the NYT's credibility, they're fine with me. Our sudden admiration amuses the shit outta me. You really are proving you don't understand a thing about this. Not that you need to, your Medicaid/care isn't changing in disability.

Post a New Response

(1166441)

view threaded

Re: Limited doctors mean limited care under ACA (''if you like your doctor''???)

Posted by Fred G on Fri Mar 21 22:07:46 2014, in response to Re: Limited doctors mean limited care under ACA (''if you like your doctor''???), posted by SelkirkTMO on Fri Mar 21 21:36:24 2014.

fiogf49gjkf0d
My friend the witch doctor...

your pal,
Fred

Post a New Response

(1166446)

view threaded

Re: Ezekiel Emanuel (ACA ''architect''): Vast majority of employers will drop healthcare coverage

Posted by Fred G on Fri Mar 21 22:57:04 2014, in response to Re: Ezekiel Emanuel (ACA ''architect''): Vast majority of employers will drop healthcare coverage, posted by bingbong on Fri Mar 21 22:03:54 2014.

fiogf49gjkf0d
Why is it the guys getting free health care bitching about us getting a break?

your pal,
Fred

Post a New Response

(1166447)

view threaded

Re: Ezekiel Emanuel (ACA ''architect''): Vast majority of employers will drop healthcare coverage

Posted by SelkirkTMO on Fri Mar 21 23:18:45 2014, in response to Re: Ezekiel Emanuel (ACA ''architect''): Vast majority of employers will drop healthcare coverage, posted by Fred G on Fri Mar 21 22:57:04 2014.

fiogf49gjkf0d
Big pharma makes the best hallucinogens. I mean check out all those contraindications in the warnings during those ads. Woof. :)

Post a New Response

(1166471)

view threaded

Re: Limited doctors mean limited care under ACA (''if you like your doctor''???)

Posted by Fred G on Sat Mar 22 03:40:52 2014, in response to Re: Limited doctors mean limited care under ACA (''if you like your doctor''???), posted by Olog-hai on Fri Mar 21 18:10:54 2014.

fiogf49gjkf0d
You Didn't answer the question.

Your pal,
Fred

Post a New Response

(1166475)

view threaded

Re: Limited doctors mean limited care under ACA (''if you like your doctor''???)

Posted by Dave on Sat Mar 22 07:12:49 2014, in response to Re: Limited doctors mean limited care under ACA (''if you like your doctor''???), posted by Fred G on Fri Mar 21 22:07:46 2014.

fiogf49gjkf0d

Post a New Response

(1166479)

view threaded

Re: Limited doctors mean limited care under ACA (''if you like your doctor''???)

Posted by Fred G on Sat Mar 22 08:16:57 2014, in response to Re: Limited doctors mean limited care under ACA (''if you like your doctor''???), posted by Dave on Sat Mar 22 07:12:49 2014.

fiogf49gjkf0d
Haha good pickup Dave

Your pal,
Fred

Post a New Response

(1166498)

view threaded

"Affordable" Care Act plans bring hefty fees for certain vital drugs

Posted by Olog-hai on Sat Mar 22 12:21:16 2014, in response to Universal Health Care is HERE in these USA! Apply Now. www.healthcare.gov, posted by SMAZ on Tue Oct 1 13:19:06 2013.

fiogf49gjkf0d
The bad news keeps a-comin' in spite of the libs' cheerleading.

Associated Press

Obamacare plans bring hefty fees for certain drugs

By Kelli Kennedy
Mar. 22, 2014 11:49 AM EDT
MIAMI — Breast cancer survivor Ginny Mason was thrilled to get health coverage under the Affordable Care Act despite her pre-existing condition. But when she realized her arthritis medication fell under a particularly costly tier of her plan, she was forced to switch to another brand.

Under the plan, her Celebrex would have cost $648 a month until she met her $1,500 prescription deductible, followed by an $85 monthly co-pay.

Mason is one of the many Americans with serious illnesses — including cancer, multiple sclerosis and rheumatoid arthritis — who are indeed finding relatively low monthly premiums under President Barack Obama's law. But some have been shocked at how much their prescriptions are costing as insurers are sorting drug prices into a complex tier system and in some cases charging co-insurance rates as high as 50 percent. That can leave patients on the hook for thousands.

"I was grateful for the Affordable Care Act because it didn't turn me down but … it's like where's the affordable on this one," said Mason, a 61-year-old from West Lafayette, Indiana who currently pays an $800 monthly premium.

Before the federal health law took effect, Mason paid slightly more for her monthly premium on a plan that didn't cover her arthritis or pain medications and some routine doctor's visits.

Avalere Health, a market research and consulting firm, estimates some consumers will pay half the cost of their specialty drugs under health overhaul-related plans, while customers in the private market typically pay no more than a third. Patient advocates worry that insurers may be trying to discourage chronically ill patients from enrolling by putting high cost drugs onto specialty tiers.

Brian Rosen, senior vice president for public policy for The Leukemia & Lymphoma Society, said the group studied premiums and benefits for patients with blood cancer in seven states, including Florida, California, Texas and New York. They found 50 percent co-insurance rates for specialty drugs on several plans in Florida and Texas, while the highest co-insurance rates on California plans were 30 percent and in New York, co-pays were typically $70.

Under the law, insurers can't charge an individual more than $6,350 in out-of pocket costs a year and no more than $12,700 for a family policy. But patients advocates warn those with serious illnesses could pay their entire out-of-pocket cap before their insurance kicks in any money.

"The challenge is for the sickest patients, the ones that need access to these specialty drugs, the costs are going to come in most cases from that out of pocket cap … they are likely to hit that $6,350 ceiling and in some cases quickly," said Rosen.

Insurers say prescription drugs are one of the main reasons health care costs are rising.

"Spending on specialty drugs is growing rapidly. It's unsustainable," said Clare Krusing, spokeswoman for America's Health Insurance Plans, a trade group that represents the private insurance industry.

Only 1 percent of prescriptions written in 2012 were for specialty drugs, but they accounted for 25 percent of the total cost of prescription drugs, according to a study by America's Health Insurance Plans.

Insurers can generally choose to put whichever drugs they want into the specialty tier of a plan. Generic drugs for blood pressure or cholesterol typically fall into categories that require patients to pay less than $20 out-of-pocket. But patients can end up spending significantly more when they pay for a percentage of a specialty drug's cost. Two of the most frequently prescribed specialty drugs in recent years include the cancer drug Avastin, with an $11,000 average annual price per patient, or the hypertension drug like Letairis, which costs $32,000 per year, according to health insurers.

Even before the Affordable Care Act took effect, insurers had increasingly begun requiring patients to pay a percentage of the drug costs instead of a flat co-pay, but experts say patients often spend more for their prescriptions in plans offered under the health law because of the co-insurance.

"There's a significant percentage of plans who are using co-insurance of 50 percent or higher," said Caroline Pearson, who tracks the health care overhaul for Avalere Health, which studied plans in 19 states. "It is generally a lot higher than what we see in private insurance."

Once they pay more than several hundred dollars, Pearson says patients start to abandon their medications.

William Hurd signed up for a Cigna plan with a $616 monthly premium that covered him and his wife in December. The government kicks in about $900 a month in tax credits. Hurd, a 61-year-old diabetic who works a construction job in Orlando, was eager to fill his insulin prescription along with two other medications. But he was shocked when the pharmacy said he would have to pay $1,400 out of pocket for a 90-day supply. He was under the impression that prescriptions were part of the plan and thought he only had a $10 co-pay for prescriptions.

"I already had the plan. I was in and I was ready to cancel it. If I've got to pay a thousand more dollars for drugs … then it's not worth it," he said.

Fortunately, Hurd called his doctor and was able to switch to a cheaper brand of insulin and ended up paying only $112.

"This was an extremely expensive misunderstanding," said his insurance broker Leslie Glogau.

She ran into her own problems when she switched from a private insurance plan to one on the exchange and learned one of her prescriptions was canceled under the new plan, prompting numerous appeals.

Patient stories in the media have been seized by both political parties, who have put a sometimes misleading spin on successes and failures under the law. Advocacy groups asked about prescription costs repeatedly stressed how beneficial the law is for people with pre-existing conditions, but they still worry about affordability.

Insurers and health navigators say patients are also finding it complicated to figure out which drugs fall into which price categories.

For example, advocates say there's inconsistency on the Multiple Sclerosis drugs and treatments covered by the insurers and whether they can be altered on a per-patient basis.

"This is very much a work in progress," said Bari Talente, executive vice president advocacy at the National Multiple Sclerosis Society. The organization recently addressed the issue at a conference in Washington with more than 300 other MS advocates.

Post a New Response

(1166500)

view threaded

Re: ''Affordable'' Care Act plans bring hefty fees for certain vital drugs

Posted by bingbong on Sat Mar 22 12:45:07 2014, in response to "Affordable" Care Act plans bring hefty fees for certain vital drugs, posted by Olog-hai on Sat Mar 22 12:21:16 2014.

fiogf49gjkf0d
THis sort of thing happened all the time in the past as well, yunno.

At least now there's some recourse for those on exchange plans. Which is fair. People doing fine on basic drugs do NOT need the high priced, advertised stuff. Those who DO need them (as there is no alternative, like that hypertension medicine mentioned may be the only thing that works for some) some arrangement to bring copays into formulary is necessary. This is a longstanding issue with insurance.

Post a New Response

(1166504)

view threaded

Re: ''Affordable'' Care Act plans bring hefty fees for certain vital drugs

Posted by SelkirkTMO on Sat Mar 22 12:54:39 2014, in response to "Affordable" Care Act plans bring hefty fees for certain vital drugs, posted by Olog-hai on Sat Mar 22 12:21:16 2014.

fiogf49gjkf0d
Correction to your article: It isn't the "Affordable Care Act" that's setting those prices, it's the insurance companies. Perhaps we need some regulation?

Post a New Response

(1166531)

view threaded

Re: ''Affordable'' Care Act plans bring hefty fees for certain vital drugs

Posted by Olog-hai on Sat Mar 22 15:04:15 2014, in response to Re: ''Affordable'' Care Act plans bring hefty fees for certain vital drugs, posted by SelkirkTMO on Sat Mar 22 12:54:39 2014.

fiogf49gjkf0d
No, the insurance companies are setting those prices because of the ACA. Turnaround fail.

Post a New Response

(1166563)

view threaded

Re: ''Affordable'' Care Act plans bring hefty fees for certain vital drugs

Posted by italianstallion on Sat Mar 22 17:23:03 2014, in response to "Affordable" Care Act plans bring hefty fees for certain vital drugs, posted by Olog-hai on Sat Mar 22 12:21:16 2014.

fiogf49gjkf0d
Waaaiiittt a minute.

"Before the federal health law took effect, Mason paid slightly MORE for her monthly premium on a plan that DIDN'T COVER HER ARTHRITIS OR PAIN MEDICATIONS and some routine doctor's visits."

In other words, she NOW HAS coverage where she before had NONE. And the problem is what, now?

Post a New Response

(1166570)

view threaded

Re: ''Affordable'' Care Act plans bring hefty fees for certain vital drugs

Posted by Dan Lawrence on Sat Mar 22 18:13:18 2014, in response to Re: ''Affordable'' Care Act plans bring hefty fees for certain vital drugs, posted by Olog-hai on Sat Mar 22 15:04:15 2014.

fiogf49gjkf0d
Proff required!!!!

Post a New Response

(1166571)

view threaded

Re: ''Affordable'' Care Act plans bring hefty fees for certain vital drugs

Posted by SelkirkTMO on Sat Mar 22 18:13:34 2014, in response to Re: ''Affordable'' Care Act plans bring hefty fees for certain vital drugs, posted by Olog-hai on Sat Mar 22 15:04:15 2014.

fiogf49gjkf0d
False. They're setting those prices because of the greed of big pharma. Let's have some competition in generics ...

Post a New Response

(1166601)

view threaded

Re: ''Affordable'' Care Act plans bring hefty fees for certain vital drugs

Posted by Train Dude on Sat Mar 22 22:08:05 2014, in response to Re: ''Affordable'' Care Act plans bring hefty fees for certain vital drugs, posted by Dan Lawrence on Sat Mar 22 18:13:18 2014.

fiogf49gjkf0d
Maybe this will help you, dan lawrence. I have a friend who's wife has M.S. There is a drug that will help her but it is no longer covered and because it is so new, there are no generics.



Post a New Response

(1166603)

view threaded

Re: ''Affordable'' Care Act plans bring hefty fees for certain vital drugs

Posted by Olog-hai on Sat Mar 22 22:19:33 2014, in response to Re: ''Affordable'' Care Act plans bring hefty fees for certain vital drugs, posted by Train Dude on Sat Mar 22 22:08:05 2014.

fiogf49gjkf0d
Even stinkprogress is piling on Zerocare? That's really bad. When you've lost Soros, you've just about lost the whole left.

Post a New Response

(1166605)

view threaded

Re: ''Affordable'' Care Act plans bring hefty fees for certain vital drugs

Posted by italianstallion on Sat Mar 22 22:36:28 2014, in response to Re: ''Affordable'' Care Act plans bring hefty fees for certain vital drugs, posted by Train Dude on Sat Mar 22 22:08:05 2014.

fiogf49gjkf0d
You missed these parts of the article you posted:

First, the title:

"No, Obamacare Won’t Cover Every Drug — Just Like Every Other Insurance Policy"

Then this part:

"Insurers will continue to rely on drug formularies — as they currently do in the private market and Medicare Part D — to decide which prescriptions are covered and which are not."

And the kicker:

"“The Affordable Care Act struck a balance here,” Levitt added. “There is a wide range of plans available to people with some people providing much more coverage, but at higher premiums, and then a minimum level of coverage that is really the kind of catastrophic coverage that conservatives have long advocated.”

"And therein lies the irony of the attack: Republicans have traditionally seen high deductibles and limited coverage as a way to control individual health care spending. Now that Obamacare gives patients that choice, they’re suddenly complaining that the insurance is not generous enough."

Post a New Response

(1166607)

view threaded

Re: ''Affordable'' Care Act plans bring hefty fees for certain vital drugs

Posted by Stephen Bauman on Sat Mar 22 22:40:05 2014, in response to Re: ''Affordable'' Care Act plans bring hefty fees for certain vital drugs, posted by Olog-hai on Sat Mar 22 15:04:15 2014.

fiogf49gjkf0d
The tier structure, etc. predates both ACA and Obama. It's copied from Medicare Part D - a Bush program. The idea was that the insurance companies would get better prices for their customers by channelling drug choices into a single product. They would then have more volume to strike a better deal. That's how free enterprise is supposed to work.

However, other countries chose a different model for dealing with drug company profits. The government bargained with the drug companies. They had even more clout than the insurance companies. The result is that American drugs selling abroad are cheaper than the negotiated rates the insurance companies got. Of course, the insurance companies could have bought the same drugs abroad. That's prohibited. They did not really want to give anyone any clout when negotiating with drug companies.

In case you were wondering if the US Government could have gotten a better deal, consider the Veterans Administration. The VA negotiates with the drug companies. VA drug costs are lower than those "negotiated" by insurance companies.

Post a New Response

(1166608)

view threaded

Re: ''Affordable'' Care Act plans bring hefty fees for certain vital drugs

Posted by Train Dude on Sat Mar 22 22:42:29 2014, in response to Re: ''Affordable'' Care Act plans bring hefty fees for certain vital drugs, posted by italianstallion on Sat Mar 22 22:36:28 2014.

fiogf49gjkf0d
I didn't miss the point of the article. dan wanted proof.

Post a New Response

(1166619)

view threaded

Re: ''Affordable'' Care Act plans bring hefty fees for certain vital drugs

Posted by Fred G on Sat Mar 22 23:16:13 2014, in response to Re: ''Affordable'' Care Act plans bring hefty fees for certain vital drugs, posted by Stephen Bauman on Sat Mar 22 22:40:05 2014.

fiogf49gjkf0d
Thanks for schooling Olog.

your pal,
Fred

Post a New Response

(1166635)

view threaded

Re: ''Affordable'' Care Act plans bring hefty fees for certain vital drugs

Posted by bingbong on Sun Mar 23 08:26:19 2014, in response to Re: ''Affordable'' Care Act plans bring hefty fees for certain vital drugs, posted by Train Dude on Sat Mar 22 22:08:05 2014.

fiogf49gjkf0d
Who is your "friend"'s insurance carrier?

Post a New Response

(1166636)

view threaded

Re: ''Affordable'' Care Act plans bring hefty fees for certain vital drugs

Posted by bingbong on Sun Mar 23 08:29:49 2014, in response to Re: ''Affordable'' Care Act plans bring hefty fees for certain vital drugs, posted by Stephen Bauman on Sat Mar 22 22:40:05 2014.

fiogf49gjkf0d
Well then, we all know what the solution is. Do like the VA does. Have the government negotiate the prices. Problem solved.

Post a New Response

(1166736)

view threaded

Re: ''Affordable'' Care Act plans bring hefty fees for certain vital drugs

Posted by Train Dude on Sun Mar 23 23:19:29 2014, in response to Re: ''Affordable'' Care Act plans bring hefty fees for certain vital drugs, posted by bingbong on Sun Mar 23 08:26:19 2014.

fiogf49gjkf0d
NONE OF YOUR FUCKING BUSINESS

Post a New Response

(1166738)

view threaded

Re: ''Affordable'' Care Act plans bring hefty fees for certain vital drugs

Posted by Train Dude on Sun Mar 23 23:20:41 2014, in response to Re: ''Affordable'' Care Act plans bring hefty fees for certain vital drugs, posted by bingbong on Sun Mar 23 08:29:49 2014.

fiogf49gjkf0d
Yeah like $12,000 toilet seats and $900 hammers. Typical liberal solutions.

Post a New Response

(1166789)

view threaded

Re: ''Affordable'' Care Act plans bring hefty fees for certain vital drugs

Posted by bingbong on Mon Mar 24 08:57:16 2014, in response to Re: ''Affordable'' Care Act plans bring hefty fees for certain vital drugs, posted by Train Dude on Sun Mar 23 23:19:29 2014.

fiogf49gjkf0d
Then there's no point made. Formularies vary from carrier to carrier. The insurance company sets them, to put it simply.

Post a New Response

(1166790)

view threaded

Re: ''Affordable'' Care Act plans bring hefty fees for certain vital drugs

Posted by bingbong on Mon Mar 24 09:03:06 2014, in response to Re: ''Affordable'' Care Act plans bring hefty fees for certain vital drugs, posted by Train Dude on Sun Mar 23 23:20:41 2014.

fiogf49gjkf0d
Works for the VA. It would work for medicare, and any future expansion of it. Works for the rest of the industrialized world.

The hammers and toilet seats are vestiges of Ronnie Raygun. Nobody wants to go back to that.

Post a New Response

(1166791)

view threaded

Re: Ezekiel Emanuel (ACA ''architect''): Vast majority of employers will drop healthcare coverage

Posted by RIPTA42HopeTunnel on Mon Mar 24 09:04:47 2014, in response to Ezekiel Emanuel (ACA "architect"): Vast majority of employers will drop healthcare coverage, posted by Olog-hai on Fri Mar 21 12:25:08 2014.

fiogf49gjkf0d
Good. I was paying a lot less before my company offered health insurance and I was able to purchase my own.

Post a New Response

(1166792)

view threaded

Re: Ezekiel Emanuel (ACA ''architect''): Vast majority of employers will drop healthcare coverage

Posted by ChicagoMotorman on Mon Mar 24 09:07:23 2014, in response to Ezekiel Emanuel (ACA "architect"): Vast majority of employers will drop healthcare coverage, posted by Olog-hai on Fri Mar 21 12:25:08 2014.

fiogf49gjkf0d
The Emanuel family. A family of self hating Jews.

Post a New Response

(1166802)

view threaded

Re: Ezekiel Emanuel (ACA ''architect''): Vast majority of employers will drop healthcare coverage

Posted by Fred G on Mon Mar 24 09:56:10 2014, in response to Re: Ezekiel Emanuel (ACA ''architect''): Vast majority of employers will drop healthcare coverage, posted by Fred G on Fri Mar 21 19:36:45 2014.

fiogf49gjkf0d
No answer. I w1n.

your pal,
Fred

Post a New Response

(1166823)

view threaded

Re: Ezekiel Emanuel (ACA ''architect''): Vast majority of employers will drop healthcare coverage

Posted by mtk52983 on Mon Mar 24 13:57:49 2014, in response to Re: Ezekiel Emanuel (ACA ''architect''): Vast majority of employers will drop healthcare coverage, posted by ChicagoMotorman on Mon Mar 24 09:07:23 2014.

fiogf49gjkf0d
What does being Jewish have to do with this?

Post a New Response

(1166833)

view threaded

Re: Ezekiel Emanuel (ACA ''architect''): Vast majority of employers will drop healthcare coverage

Posted by italianstallion on Mon Mar 24 14:45:32 2014, in response to Re: Ezekiel Emanuel (ACA ''architect''): Vast majority of employers will drop healthcare coverage, posted by mtk52983 on Mon Mar 24 13:57:49 2014.

fiogf49gjkf0d
He sees everything through race and ethnicity.

Post a New Response

(1166837)

view threaded

Re: Ezekiel Emanuel (ACA ''architect''): Vast majority of employers will drop healthcare coverage

Posted by ChicagoMotorman on Mon Mar 24 15:00:32 2014, in response to Re: Ezekiel Emanuel (ACA ''architect''): Vast majority of employers will drop healthcare coverage, posted by italianstallion on Mon Mar 24 14:45:32 2014.

fiogf49gjkf0d
You know me that well huh?

Post a New Response

(1166862)

view threaded

Re: ''Affordable'' Care Act plans bring hefty fees for certain vital drugs

Posted by train dude on Mon Mar 24 16:33:57 2014, in response to Re: ''Affordable'' Care Act plans bring hefty fees for certain vital drugs, posted by bingbong on Mon Mar 24 08:57:16 2014.

fiogf49gjkf0d
For someone who claimed that she couldn't get health insurance before, you've become a fucking expert in a hurry.

Post a New Response

(1166864)

view threaded

Re: ''Affordable'' Care Act plans bring hefty fees for certain vital drugs

Posted by train dude on Mon Mar 24 16:37:59 2014, in response to Re: ''Affordable'' Care Act plans bring hefty fees for certain vital drugs, posted by Train Dude on Sun Mar 23 23:20:41 2014.

fiogf49gjkf0d
Are you trying to say that there were no such excesses under Carter or Clinton and it was just an 8 year phenomenon? Typical of your inherent dishonesty.

Post a New Response

(1166866)

view threaded

Re: ''Affordable'' Care Act plans bring hefty fees for certain vital drugs

Posted by bingbong on Mon Mar 24 16:47:38 2014, in response to Re: ''Affordable'' Care Act plans bring hefty fees for certain vital drugs, posted by train dude on Mon Mar 24 16:33:57 2014.

fiogf49gjkf0d
The situation kinda mandated it. Never gave a hang when it came from an employer since it was just plain always there. When one BECOMES the employer, or tries to navigate the individual market preACA, you learn. Fast.

Post a New Response

(1166867)

view threaded

Re: ''Affordable'' Care Act plans bring hefty fees for certain vital drugs

Posted by bingbong on Mon Mar 24 16:48:27 2014, in response to Re: ''Affordable'' Care Act plans bring hefty fees for certain vital drugs, posted by train dude on Mon Mar 24 16:37:59 2014.

fiogf49gjkf0d
Speaking of meds, check ours.

Post a New Response

(1166868)

view threaded

Re: ''Affordable'' Care Act plans bring hefty fees for certain vital drugs

Posted by bingbong on Mon Mar 24 16:49:27 2014, in response to Re: ''Affordable'' Care Act plans bring hefty fees for certain vital drugs, posted by bingbong on Mon Mar 24 16:48:27 2014.

fiogf49gjkf0d
Correction: that's YOURS.

Ours are fine.

Post a New Response

(1166869)

view threaded

Re: ''Affordable'' Care Act plans bring hefty fees for certain vital drugs

Posted by LuchAAA on Mon Mar 24 16:50:14 2014, in response to Re: ''Affordable'' Care Act plans bring hefty fees for certain vital drugs, posted by bingbong on Mon Mar 24 16:49:27 2014.

fiogf49gjkf0d
#nicewife

you're on meds?

Post a New Response

First : << [11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20] >> : Last

< Previous Page  

Page 19 of 25

Next Page >  


[ Return to the Message Index ]