California brings us a preview of Obamacare.

Started by WVUPharm2007
This forum made possible through the generous support of SDN members, donors, and sponsors. Thank you.
Get help with your application

Use all the free resources available to you from SDN: articles, guides, expert advising, forums discussions, and school research.

Browse articles Compare schools My application plan Read Interview Feedback
Practice for interviews Ask an Advisor
This will absolutely snuff out the private sector. The FPL for 2013 is $11,490. Keep that figure in mind when you peruse the California plans . The productive people will continue to leave California.
 
WVUPharm2007 said:
This is what a real, live health plan exchange will look like.

Honestly, the premiums for most people aren't bad at all. People making under like $25,000 will get coverage that is heavily subsidized. This will be a boon to us numbers wise. That CVS stock I got looks good right now.
Click to expand...

Not entirely true. Rates are lower because of restrictions (e.g., doctors, hospitals). Providers have to take a cut to be in the plan. There's an article in the LA Times about it.
 
Advertisement - Members don't see this ad
grumps said:
This will absolutely snuff out the private sector. The FPL for 2013 is $11,490. Keep that figure in mind when you peruse the California plans . The productive people will continue to leave California.
Click to expand...

:laugh:

Haha, yeah Cali is desperate for healthcare professionals.
 
Healthcare is quasi-government sector. The ACA is license for the financial vultures to pick clean the carcass of the real economy.
 
All these numbers look wonderful on paper until this actually kicks in. Ask any healthcare professional if the greater control by gov't over the last 30 years has improved patient care. This plan takes more money from those of us who are working to pay for it.
 
grumps said:
This will absolutely snuff out the private sector. The FPL for 2013 is $11,490. Keep that figure in mind when you peruse the California plans . The productive people will continue to leave California.
Click to expand...


The hispanic people that pick crops will leave California??? Oh, you mean "productive" in the ****** "Going Galt" way. Yeah, I'm sure that'll happen. 🙄
 
Sometimes I wish we were our own country so we can stop donating money to all the rest of the stupid states out there via federal taxes. Sucks to be a donor state.
 
How do you know Grumps is spewing BS:

His fingers are moving across the keyboard. People like that never ever let facts get in the way of a good story.......
 
Advertisement - Members don't see this ad
This will all be very entertaining come 2014. The states that have taken the time and effort to set up their exchanges will have cheap insurance rates. Those that didn't for political reasons (TX, The Plains, The South, and my very own PA) will have to answer for why healthcare is so cheap on the coasts and Midwest. They'll look like ill prepared idiots just they want Obamacare to fail. I'll laugh.
 
JoBreeze said:
"I'm from California and I like it better in the midwest or south," said no one ever.
Click to expand...

California native. Half of my relatives are sick of California and want to move to Texas or Florida. I'm sick of this place, too.
 
Darrka said:
California native. Half of my relatives are sick of California and want to move to Texas or Florida. I'm sick of this place, too.
Click to expand...

Don't let the door hit you on the way out.

Though I do hear good things about San Antonio.

Hell, even Z moved back to California (where is he anyway? playing with his tractor?)

Anyone read the papers recently? Apparently we're not actually broke and swimming in money again, but don't tell anyone that...might upset the townsfolk.
 
WVUPharm2007 said:
This will all be very entertaining come 2014. The states that have taken the time and effort to set up their exchanges will have cheap insurance rates. Those that didn't for political reasons (TX, The Plains, The South, and my very own PA) will have to answer for why healthcare is so cheap on the coasts and Midwest. They'll look like ill prepared idiots just they want Obamacare to fail. I'll laugh.
Click to expand...

It's funny how you still think healthcare was passed because the Obama administration cared about uninsured people. This was a giant corporate giveaway. The only ones who benefit are the big corporations like the drug companies and insurance companies. It will be paid for by all of us in the higher price of goods and higher taxes.
 
Unchained said:
It's funny how you still think healthcare was passed because the Obama administration cared about uninsured people. This was a giant corporate giveaway. The only ones who benefit are the big corporations like the drug companies and insurance companies. It will be paid for by all of us in the higher price of goods and higher taxes.
Click to expand...

It was clearly a giveaway to big pharma and (no idea why a partisan like you wouldn't mention this obvious one) a nice "hands off" approach to tort reform for the legal lobby. Not so much the insurance companies. Granted, they will have more customers, but profits are capped by how much they spend on care. Not to mention the positive new forced focus on preventative care by making so many things free by law for consumers (well, no copay, anyway). Imagine how much they could have driven down costs if a "public option" would have been offered? It's clear they really wanted to lower costs at he expense of the insurance companies at the least.

The cost of care will likely go DOWN for most. The early returns agree with this. As do the results of states that have set up healthcare exchanges. The only thing that pisses me off is that this new plan really, really screws young men. Their insurance will go up as their risk is so low that it was dirt cheap before the new law. While I'm fine with the concept of risk-sharing over an entire population, they do not enjoy the same benefit in other risk-based insurances such as vehicle insurance. Not to mention that women get free access to birth control and an annual "woman care" appointment with no free equivalent for them...even though men typically live less years and suffer more health problems. The inherent sexism of this law really frustrates me.

That said, overall, I think it could be better implemented, obviously. Cost controls on pharma would have been nice. I'm tired of subsidizing the healthcare of the rest of the world. A public option would have been fantastic. Forcing the states to actually care about the healthcare of their citizens rather than allowing them the option to use their autonomy to sabotage an attempt at keeping healthcare costs low in the future would have been nice. Tort reform would have been nice, too. But what they made is a step forward. That's what's important to me. And SO FAR, it looks like there will be improvement for the vast majority of people.
 
WVUPharm2007 said:
Not to mention that women get free access to birth control and an annual "woman care" appointment with no free equivalent for them...even though men typically live less years and suffer more health problems. The inherent sexism of this law really frustrates me.
Click to expand...
It's not just about the ladies; it's about public health, which benefits all of us.
1. Women can't get pregnant without men. Birth control doesn't solely benefit women, it benefits the men who don't want babies, too.
2. Men do benefit from women getting annual appointments -- there's the potential for less spread of STDs if women know what they're carrying. As lady genitals are more inside than outside, disease isn't as obviously noticeable as it is for males (who would be more likely to spot something weird and take care of it quickly).
 
Preventative care is a two way street. Who cares if someone else is paying for it? That subject still has the free will to live life BEFORE they started receiving this care. This is why Obamacare will fail.
 
Here's the article I had mentioned in the LA Times:

"Insurers limit doctors, hospitals in state-run exchange plans"

http://articles.latimes.com/2013/may/24/business/la-fi-health-rates-deals-20130525

Insurers can provide a lower rate in the exchange by having the providers take a cut in pay. Obamacare is almost here. No one is expanding. All you see is cuts and more cuts. You know who's expanding and thriving right now? Mail order pharmacies where one pharmacist can do the work of 5 pharmacists. It's all about doing more with less.
 
radio frequency said:
It's not just about the ladies; it's about public health, which benefits all of us.
1. Women can't get pregnant without men. Birth control doesn't solely benefit women, it benefits the men who don't want babies, too.
2. Men do benefit from women getting annual appointments -- there's the potential for less spread of STDs if women know what they're carrying. As lady genitals are more inside than outside, disease isn't as obviously noticeable as it is for males (who would be more likely to spot something weird and take care of it quickly).
Click to expand...

1) Women can pretend they are on birth control and get pregnant without the consent of a man. It happens all the time. It's called "trapping a man." It should be illegal, but the family court system is set up against men and they have no recourse. Men should be given access to free contraception themselves. Especially considering that, unlike oral contraception, condoms also include protection against STIs. If anything, condoms should be free before anything.

2) What about gay men? What about the general health of men? Men should have access to a "well man" visit as well. Should we pretend that prostate cancer and testicular cancer don't exist? Prostate cancer is the most common cancer.

Another thing in Obamacare is increased screening and counseling for domestic violence. It isn't offered to men. It isn't even a concept they seemed to want o consider. Even though men are equally affected by a violent female spouse or partner. A recently published, major sociological study affirmed this fact and presented arguments that men need much more support and relief options in the case of female-on-male domestic violence...but...like usual...men don't matter in American society.

The sexism of the president is easily what is disappointing me the most about his administration. There was ACTUALLY a piece of legislature passed called the "Violence Against Women Act" as if men and hermaphrodites aren't victims of violence and/or worthy of protection against it. It blows my mind that I'm apparently the only person that realizes this. **** disgusts me.
 
WVUPharm2007 said:
1) Women can pretend they are on birth control and get pregnant without the consent of a man. It happens all the time. It's called "trapping a man." It should be illegal, but the family court system is set up against men and they have no recourse. Men should be given access to free contraception themselves. Especially considering that, unlike oral contraception, condoms also include protection against STIs. If anything, condoms should be free before anything.

2) What about gay men? What about the general health of men? Men should have access to a "well man" visit as well. Should we pretend that prostate cancer and testicular cancer don't exist? Prostate cancer is the most common cancer.

Another thing in Obamacare is increased screening and counseling for domestic violence. It isn't offered to men. It isn't even a concept they seemed to want o consider. Even though men are equally affected by a violent female spouse or partner. A recently published, major sociological study affirmed this fact and presented arguments that men need much more support and relief options in the case of female-on-male domestic violence...but...like usual...men don't matter in American society.

The sexism of the president is easily what is disappointing me the most about his administration. There was ACTUALLY a piece of legislature passed called the "Violence Against Women Act" as if men and hermaphrodites aren't victims of violence and/or worthy of protection against it. It blows my mind that I'm apparently the only person that realizes this. **** disgusts me.
Click to expand...

I am a woman and I approve this message.

I wholeheartedly agree that men and women should receive equal access to preventative services.

The history of subjugation and discrimination of women is biting men in the ass.

I think it's fantastic that women are being given more control over their sexual lives but men deserve the same education and support services that women receive.

I think you touched on an important point regarding counseling services, too. The mental health system in this country is jacked- for everyone. Mental and behavioral health is a very important component of effective care and although the literature supports its integration into preventive care, nobody gives a rats ass until some kid shoots up a theatre or shoots a senator in the head in the safeway parking lot. And the screenings are just the tip of the iceberg.... Don't even get me started 😛
 
WVUPharm2007 said:
1) Women can pretend they are on birth control and get pregnant without the consent of a man. It happens all the time. It's called "trapping a man." It should be illegal, but the family court system is set up against men and they have no recourse. Men should be given access to free contraception themselves. Especially considering that, unlike oral contraception, condoms also include protection against STIs. If anything, condoms should be free before anything.

2) What about gay men? What about the general health of men? Men should have access to a "well man" visit as well. Should we pretend that prostate cancer and testicular cancer don't exist? Prostate cancer is the most common cancer.

Another thing in Obamacare is increased screening and counseling for domestic violence. It isn't offered to men. It isn't even a concept they seemed to want o consider. Even though men are equally affected by a violent female spouse or partner. A recently published, major sociological study affirmed this fact and presented arguments that men need much more support and relief options in the case of female-on-male domestic violence...but...like usual...men don't matter in American society.

The sexism of the president is easily what is disappointing me the most about his administration. There was ACTUALLY a piece of legislature passed called the "Violence Against Women Act" as if men and hermaphrodites aren't victims of violence and/or worthy of protection against it. It blows my mind that I'm apparently the only person that realizes this. **** disgusts me.
Click to expand...

I agree; all that should be in there, too. Condoms should definitely be free as well.

Courts siding against men is another issue entirely, but it shouldn't be happening in this day and age. Watching friends lose their kids because their wives were sleeping with another guy isn't very cool.
 
All this is moot.

USDebtMaturity.PNG
 
Advertisement - Members don't see this ad
It's the tsunami of maturing debt. This stuff has to be rolled over. As shrimps we are used to paying down our mortgages, student loans, credit cards, etc. However governments and big financial institutions do not. Their debt is refinanced in perpetuity. That's why the Fed has to keep rates down. There is no way of supporting this debt structure at normalized rates. In 2008 after Lehman, the system died. It's been on life support since with ZIRP and QE.

What keeps me up at night? It's the notion this will be the session the BOJ can no longer support JGB prices. If the number two sovereign debt market collapses what does that mean for the derivative market? 70 Trillion in sovereign debt is collateral for the 1.4 Quadrillion derivative market and that collateral is being artificially supported by Central Banks with QE. If collateral value falls then calls are made to post more collateral which further depresses the value. A viscous feedback loop.
 
grumps said:
It's the tsunami of maturing debt. This stuff has to be rolled over. As shrimps we are used to paying down our mortgages, student loans, credit cards, etc. However governments and big financial institutions do not. Their debt is refinanced in perpetuity. That's why the Fed has to keep rates down. There is no way of supporting this debt structure at normalized rates. In 2008 after Lehman, the system died. It's been on life support since with ZIRP and QE.

What keeps me up at night? It's the notion this will be the session the BOJ can no longer support JGB prices. If the number two sovereign debt market collapses what does that mean for the derivative market? 70 Trillion in sovereign debt is collateral for the 1.4 Quadrillion derivative market and that collateral is being artificially supported by Central Banks with QE. If collateral value falls then calls are made to post more collateral which further depresses the value. A viscous feedback loop.
Click to expand...

I CAN'T TAKE IT ANYMORE​

You are so full of crap it is really pathetic.

390px-Publicly_Held_Federal_Debt_1790-2009.png

There is no tipping point. The debt fluctuates and has been higher before. Put your tin foil hat on and go back to the Gold thread. Post all you want. Nobody reads it. DO NOT pollute another thread with your asinine crap.
 
Debt is independent of history, when will you guys understand that? It's like flipping a coin. If I flip a coin, what are the odds that it will land heads? 50%. If I flip it once, land on tails, then flip it again, what are the odds that it will land heads? Still 50%. The odds don't change because of a past event.
 
Your graph proves my point. What happened during the Depression? FDR devalued against gold. The debt was devalued, but that wasn't enough. WWII was a market clearing event for debt elsewhere.
 
BenJammin said:
Debt is independent of history, when will you guys understand that? It's like flipping a coin. If I flip a coin, what are the odds that it will land heads? 50%. If I flip it once, land on tails, then flip it again, what are the odds that it will land heads? Still 50%. The odds don't change because of a past event.
Click to expand...

Debt is history. It's how we are controlled on so many levels.
 
grumps said:
Your graph proves my point. What happened during the Depression? FDR devalued against gold. The debt was devalued, but that wasn't enough. WWII was a market clearing event for debt elsewhere.
Click to expand...

My graph shows WWI created debt. Our largest debt was at the end of WWI. You have consumes some much gold BS you cant even read a graph,.
 
BenJammin said:
Debt is independent of history, when will you guys understand that? It's like flipping a coin. If I flip a coin, what are the odds that it will land heads? 50%. If I flip it once, land on tails, then flip it again, what are the odds that it will land heads? Still 50%. The odds don't change because of a past event.
Click to expand...

If you look at the graph you will see debt is highest after a war. After the revolution, after the war of 1812 after the civil war,etc...

The chart is history, The history of our debt VS GDP......
 
Total+Credit+Market+Debt+vs.+GDP.png



This is a more accurate chart of debt to gdp.

As for the debt level at the end of WWII, that is when financial repression started. Real rates were negative thus eroding the debt load. They pulled it off by growing the economy. Demographics were favorable plus we had a headstart on the planet after the war. Now is totally different. Our debt is 33% foreign owned, our industrial base has been denuded, baby boomers want to cash in on social promises, young generation already loaded with debt before even starting a household, etc. Ben hopes to get private credit demand back up before a currency crisis but the foundation for a real recovery is not there. Nature wants the sytem to deflate. When it appears hopeless then the BIS will tell Ben to hit the reset button or the BRICS will do it, abandoning the mercantilist model and bringing online the gold trade settlement system thru the BRICS Development Bank. All this is posted on the "gold thread". There are many interesting interviews and videos that mainstream sites won't post.

Post%20WW2.jpg
 
JoBreeze said:
"I'm from California and I like it better in the midwest or south," said no one ever.
Click to expand...

You're exactly the kind of person people in the rest of the country dislike about California. 😍

I don't know the midwest well, but I actually like the south very much. If family and everyone I know wasn't in California I would pick up and move to the south without any reservations.

I wouldn't have to hear another person in California tell me how they live in the greatest place in the world and everyone else in the country is backwards and mentally ******ed.
 
Advertisement - Members don't see this ad
angryrx said:
You're exactly the kind of person people in the rest of the country dislike about California. 😍

I don't know the midwest well, but I actually like the south very much. If family and everyone I know wasn't in California I would pick up and move to the south without any reservations.

I wouldn't have to hear another person in California tell me how they live in the greatest place in the world and everyone else in the country is backwards and mentally ******ed.
Click to expand...

I didn't say anything was wrong with the midwest or south.

You are correct however that if you choose to move, you won't have to hear anyone claim that they live in the greatest place in the country anymore.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

Mr.Smile12
[AACP] Narrative history of US pharmacy education
Replies
0
Views
2K
Mr.Smile12
Mr.Smile12
C
California mpje prep
Replies
0
Views
336
cookiesnmirak
C
mentos
California is a strange place
Replies
25
Views
4K
owlegrad
owlegrad
Dred Pirate
California licensing requirements - 15+ out of school
Replies
26
Views
3K
njac
njac
R
TN: Four patients get surgical epidurals made with potassium instead of bupivacaine
Replies
1
Views
434
Dysic
Dysic