• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!
  • Welcome to our archives. No new posts are allowed here.

Obamacare Haters Refuse to Accept Reality

Threegoofs said:
That's nonsensical.

The program took years to implement, and is specifically long term in scope.

The immediate goals were certainly achieved- millions more insured, cost inflation historically low, etc.

The longer term, really major changes, like pay for quality vs quantity, bending the cost curve for Medicare, and the gradual divorce of our healthcare system from employer based to self-based is something that will take decades to fully assess.
Click to expand...

Funny how within weeks of ACA's signing, even the slightest positive blip in health care statistics was routinely attributed to the reform, but after that evaporated and after six years of disappointment all the negatives are now waiting to be cured for "the longer term".

The counter-factuals to the ACA fantasy:

- Exchange coverage in 2016 is fell short by 27% below the planned target, and Medicaid is 24% is lower than projected. Yet projected costs only went down 17 percent. In other words, per person coverage is far more expensive than we were assured. Moreover, "The cost per enrollee is not only higher than CBO projected 6 years ago, but it is nearly 20% higher than CBO had expected just one year ago! The cost per enrollee is not only higher than CBO projected 6 years ago, but it is nearly 20% higher than CBO had expected just one year ago!" (1)

- Only 9 million have signed up for subsidized coverage, which means there is another 6 million who are eligible for exchange coverage but refuse to signup in spite of increasing fines (nearly 800 dollars). Even "free" Medicaid has only signed up 11 million, while 8.2 million uninsured who qualify for Medicaid and/or S-Chip have not. What does that say about the affordability (or desirability) of Obamacare coverage? (2)

- The expectation that exchanges would lower costs to that of the group market has not been borne out. Medical costs and payouts per enrollee are 20 percent hire than the group market (3).

- "Premiums on the Obamacare Exchanges are projected to rise substantially in 2017. The best current estimate is that gross premiums for individual health policies sold on the Exchanges will go up 21% next year using an enrollment-weighted average. In six states — Arizona, Iowa, Kansas, Nebraska, Oklahoma, and Texas — gross premiums are projected to rise more than 30% on average. And this listing counts only the 30 states that have reported information so far;" (4)

- "You can keep your plan" rates as Politfact's 2013 lie of the year.

- "2500 average yearly reduction in insurance costs to a family"...(LOL).



(1), (2), (3) Forbes Welcome
(4) Forbes Welcome
 
Threegoofs said:
Special Communication
Published online July 11, 2016
United States Health Care Reform
Progress to Date and Next Steps

Barack Obama, JD

JAMA. Published online July 11, 2016.;():. doi:10.1001/jama.2016.9797.

Findings :

The Affordable Care Act has made significant progress toward solving long-standing challenges facing the US health care system related to access, affordability, and quality of care. Since the Affordable Care Act became law, the uninsured rate has declined by 43%, from 16.0% in 2010 to 9.1% in 2015, primarily because of the law’s reforms. Research has documented accompanying improvements in access to care (for example, an estimated reduction in the share of nonelderly adults unable to afford care of 5.5 percentage points), financial security (for example, an estimated reduction in debts sent to collection of $600-$1000 per person gaining Medicaid coverage), and health (for example, an estimated reduction in the share of nonelderly adults reporting fair or poor health of 3.4 percentage points). The law has also begun the process of transforming health care payment systems, with an estimated 30% of traditional Medicare payments now flowing through alternative payment models like bundled payments or accountable care organizations. These and related reforms have contributed to a sustained period of slow growth in per-enrollee health care spending and improvements in health care quality. Despite this progress, major opportunities to improve the health care system remain.
Click to expand...



Just shows that nothing stands in the way of the implementation of the Left wing agenda.

No matter how destructive and how unsustainable ObamaCare is, its supporters will still continue to pump out misinformation and propaganda in a desperate attempt to save face.

Its why Single payer will never see the light of day in America.
 
Obama administration may use obscure fund to pay billions to ACA insurers
Officials are maneuvering to pay billions of dollars the government owes to health insurers under the Affordable Care Act, potentially resorting to a 1950s Treasury Department fund that is allowed as much money as it needs to satisfy valid claims against the government.


The Obama administration is maneuvering to pay billions of dollars the government owes to health insurers under the Affordable Care Act, potentially resorting to an obscure Treasury Department fund intended to cover federal legal claims.
Justice Department officials have told several health plans suing the government over the unpaid money that they are eager to negotiate a broad settlement, which would allow the administration to compensate about 170 other insurers selling coverage in ACA marketplaces, according to insurance executives and lawyers familiar with the talks.
The efforts in recent weeks reflect the partisan thorns that still surround the sprawling law six years after its passage. The payouts probably would be made from the Judgment Fund, a 1950s creation that is allowed as much money as it needs to satisfy valid claims against the government. Such a move would bypass congressional Republicans, who have criticized certain ACA provisions as industry “bailouts” and blocked the Health and Human Services Department from paying health plans what they are owed.
In the waning months of the Obama White House, administration officials are continuing their upbeat portrayal of all aspects of the health-care law, one of President Obama’s main domestic achievements. Behind the scenes, they think that settling these claims — $2.5 billion for 2014 and an as-yet-undisclosed sum for 2015 — is crucial to the exchanges’ well-being at a time when the high cost of covering ACA customers has driven some small insurers out of business and prompted several large ones to defect from marketplaces for the coming year. . . .
 
Threegoofs said:
That's nonsensical.

The program took years to implement, and is specifically long term in scope.

The immediate goals were certainly achieved- millions more insured, cost inflation historically low, etc.

The longer term, really major changes, like pay for quality vs quantity, bending the cost curve for Medicare, and the gradual divorce of our healthcare system from employer based to self-based is something that will take decades to fully assess.
Click to expand...

Why does the divorce of insurance from employment need to take decades? Why can't it be expedited by eliminating the employer mandate and penalty?

When people in my state have just one family member who is offered affordable coverage through employment, or the household itself earns slightly above 400% of the federal poverty level without an offer of coverage from an external employer, this is what they get to pay for premiums.

People in several states don't have time for apologist excuses in defense of this law (which is really just a partisan defense of the reputation Democratic Party).
 
Neomalthusian said:
Why does the divorce of insurance from employment need to take decades? Why can't it be expedited by eliminating the employer mandate and penalty?

When people in my state have just one family member who is offered affordable coverage through employment, or the household itself earns slightly above 400% of the federal poverty level without an offer of coverage from an external employer, this is what they get to pay for premiums.

People in several states don't have time for apologist excuses in defense of this law (which is really just a partisan defense of the reputation Democratic Party).
Click to expand...

It doesn't *need* to.

But given that changing would be a major change orders of magnitude greater than the ACA, it's not gonna happen quickly in our political system.
 
Threegoofs said:
It doesn't *need* to.

But given that changing would be a major change orders of magnitude greater than the ACA, it's not gonna happen quickly in our political system.
Click to expand...

Eliminating the ACA's employer mandate isn't orders of magnitude greater than the ACA itself.
 
Neomalthusian said:
Eliminating the ACA's employer mandate isn't orders of magnitude greater than the ACA itself.
Click to expand...

Since your stated goal is unraveling the employer-based insurance system, yes that's a lot bigger than anything the ACA did.

There was a political firestorm because ~2.6 million people had to change insurance plans when the ACA went into effect. What do you think happens when 170 million people need to do so?
 
Greenbeard said:
Since your stated goal is unraveling the employer-based insurance system
Click to expand...

Not just my stated goal. A stated goal of Vern. The guy to whom I was responding.

yes that's a lot bigger than anything the ACA did.
Click to expand...

The employer mandate and penalty didn't exist prior to the ACA. Now it exists as one of the many provisions of the ACA. So how is striking that one (newly implemented) provision from the ACA "bigger" than the ACA itself?

There was a political firestorm because ~2.6 million people had to change insurance plans when the ACA went into effect. What do you think happens when 170 million people need to do so?
Click to expand...

Compared to what? Entire states' individual markets collapsing? Potential political firestorms (often fueled by people with very poor comprehension of how insurance works and what's causing our problems) aren't my #1 concern, obviously.

I posted a link showing that people in my state ineligible for subsidies and without employer coverage would have to pay 25-50% of their 400%+ FPL household income just in premiums for a bronze plan. Potentially more than that. Those people essentially cannot start or stay in business here, maybe need to give up and try to become someone else's employee instead. Maybe they can't live here at all. Maybe they have to intentionally earn less so that they will qualify for subsidies. Maybe they need to consider divorcing and cohabitating. All because of an arbitrary subsidy cutoff written into the law.
 
Threegoofs said:
Special Communication
Published online July 11, 2016
United States Health Care Reform
Progress to Date and Next Steps

Barack Obama, JD

JAMA. Published online July 11, 2016.;():. doi:10.1001/jama.2016.9797.

Findings :

The Affordable Care Act has made significant progress toward solving long-standing challenges facing the US health care system related to access, affordability, and quality of care. Since the Affordable Care Act became law, the uninsured rate has declined by 43%, from 16.0% in 2010 to 9.1% in 2015, primarily because of the law’s reforms. Research has documented accompanying improvements in access to care (for example, an estimated reduction in the share of nonelderly adults unable to afford care of 5.5 percentage points), financial security (for example, an estimated reduction in debts sent to collection of $600-$1000 per person gaining Medicaid coverage), and health (for example, an estimated reduction in the share of nonelderly adults reporting fair or poor health of 3.4 percentage points). The law has also begun the process of transforming health care payment systems, with an estimated 30% of traditional Medicare payments now flowing through alternative payment models like bundled payments or accountable care organizations. These and related reforms have contributed to a sustained period of slow growth in per-enrollee health care spending and improvements in health care quality. Despite this progress, major opportunities to improve the health care system remain.
Click to expand...
Let's just take a minute to point......and laugh.........D0F76A58D01222109615530422272_3214f39672b.4.1.jpg
 
Premiums will go up 25% minimum in 2017. Told you so and several major insurance giants have abandoned this rape of a health policy and many more to follow. The Muslim set us up and now he is leaving office.
 
LowDown said:
Is this a graph of costs in the PPACA health exchange or in insurance overall? If the latter, then how is the PPACA controlling health insurance costs? The CMS isn't in operation yet, so it's not that. In other words, what are the provisions of the PPACA that have reduced health insurance premium inflation? All the provisions I see would increase costs to insurance companies and those would be passed on to the insured in the form of more expensive premiums.
Click to expand...

Don't forget higher deductibles and/or co-pays - they shift costs away from the insurance company too.
 
Excuse me... We have already *have* single payer in America... but in our wisdom we decided to apply it only to the oldest and poorest part of the population through Medicare and Medicaid. Meanwhile, pure socialism lives on in the Veteran's Administration.

I assume that such is the power of insurance companies, liberal democrats figured that while some form of Medicare for all would be best, the most they could get passed would be the complex program like Obamacare... From what I understand, they essentially adopted a republican plan. But as I noted elsewhere, they have changed the public debate. Conservative position used to be that nothing was wrong. It's now "repeal and replace." That's insidious liberal progress.

An the question remains, why do our European cousins spend less on health care and have better outcomes than our system has produced?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom