• 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.

Repealing Obamacare affects everyone

Even if not comprehensive care, can we reach consensus on public policy including some basic levels of accessible, affordable, quality healthcare for all Americans regardless of preexisting conditions? I have no objections to calling it Trumpcare or GOPcare. After all, let's acknowledge Team Trump and the GOP have the superior power. They can probably change the motto on currency from "In GOD We Trust" to "In GOP We Trust".
 
So you're part of that 18% that its helps. I never said it didn't help anyone. Just that it is hurting more people than it is helping. That was backed up by Gallup in their survey. So are you saying it is perfectly alright to hurt more people just because it helps some?

As to your first point:

MOST PEOPLE LIKED THEIR HEALTHCARE PLANS
Return to top

* Prior to Obamacare, polls showed that most Americans were personally satisfied with their own healthcare coverage—refuting the notion that they were spending “too much” on healthcare. [TTM: p. 7]

* A 2009 Gallup poll found that 87% of Americans with private health-insurance plans were satisfied with the quality of the care they received, and 62% were satisfied with the cost of that care.

* In September 2012, the Employee Benefit Research Institute surveyed American workers and found that 88% were somewhat to extremely satisfied with their health insurance.

Obamacare: Before and After - Discover the Networks

Which sounds great until one realizes that 38% that were unhappy happy with the costs and with their overall care were among those that actually had insurance. The problem was that many people could not afford to get affordable health insurance on their own, many people do not get insurance through a company program, and for them the costs were often out of range. It is what many were hoping for when ACA was first discussed, and that is not what we got. Should be interesting what does come out of Congress, let's hope it will be something better than what has been suggested so far.
 
This law was one the majority of Americans didn't want to begin with and the majority still don't want it. It was forced upon, those in favor will say passed with roughly 38% of Americans for it, 53% against it.
Oh? So why is it now 45.7% favor, 49.3% against on RCP? Why did approval jump 5 points after the election?

RCP_ACA.jpg

Approval ratings for the ACA are not static. Equally important is that over 20 million people have gained coverage because of it, and as soon as people realized the ACA was in jeopardy, they signed up in droves -- 2.7 million people added in 2016, if I'm reading the reports correctly.

By the way, Medicare wasn't particularly popular when it started. Now, it's one of the most popular programs in the US. Go figure.


Below are the polls thanks to RCP....
You cherry-picked two old dates. Not impressive.


Today, Gallup shows this forced/passed law is helping 18% of Americans, hurting 29% of all Americans and no effect on 51% of Americans.
Gallup also well aware that this is largely a partisan issue, including on that particular measure:

"Because Republicans are much more likely (46%) than Democrats (9%) to say the new law has hurt their family, it is possible that some of those who say "hurt" are giving a political response rather than an actual report on the law's effect on their lives."


Meanwhile, the point of the CNN article is that the ACA does more than just provide health insurance for over 20 million people, and reverses over a decade of increases in the ranks of the uninsured. It reduces Medicare costs, by about $800 million a year; it incentivizes hotels to treat Medicare patients more thoroughly, to avoid readmissions; it forces insurers to cover preventative care and screening tests (colonoscopies, mammograms) and contraceptives; it is slowly closing the Medicare Part D "Donut Hole," and it will be gone in 2020; extending coverage to children that are up to 26 will be removed; the exchanges will likely get shut down; Medicaid expansions will be gone.

Ironically, the ACA allows insurers to sell across state lines, as long as the states agree to it. No one took them up on it, because there's no benefit to it. A Texas insurer isn't going to benefit by offering coverage in Georgia, where the insurer doesn't have a network. Nor will its Georgia customers.

And for what? What, exactly, will replace the ACA? Republicans have had 8 years to propose an alternative. What do we get? Health savings accounts? How will that help, when most people can't put money away in the first place? State high risk pools? Those don't work. So tell us, what do you have to offer that will work better than the ACA? Keep guaranteed issue? Keep the exchanges? Keep saving Medicare $800 million a year?
 
Nonsense. The donut hole is still here. It hasn't gone away. And do you mean to tell me that my deductible will go up from $225 for the year??? Jesus Christ!!!
The ACA is, in fact, closing the Medicare Donut Hole.

The Hole gets smaller every year, and will be completely closed by 2020. In the interim, the government is subsidizing seniors for those Part D costs.

Closing the Medicare Part D Donut Hole

https://www.medicare.gov/part-d/costs/coverage-gap/more-drug-savings-in-2020.html

You may now say "Thanks, Obama"
 
Thank you,TopCat. My supplement is $149 a month. I pay nothing. The BCBS supplement pays for any shortfall. IMO, one can't afford not to buy that supplement.

In light of what you have gone through a supplement is a blessing for sure. My guess is that you are on Plan N, G, or F.

I'm assuming then you have a separate drug plan. FWIW, I have seen statistics that suggest 80% of Medicare recipients with separate drug plans are on the wrong plan. In my experience I believe that's accurate.

In WA there are typically about 24 plans to choose from in the larger ciunties, less in the smaller ones.

If you have never had anyone run plans for you, you should. You can run your meds against against the plans in your county on the Medicare.Gov website. If you want more info PM me.
 
Last edited:
No problem, most people do, you would be surprised how many that are going onto Medicare have no idea that Medicare is not all there is that is needed if you actually want good coverage.

The average senior is baffled by Medicare
 
So Medicare(the government run program) is going to be even more **** than it is now if we repeal Obamacare? Isn't this just more proof that our government can't currently run much of anything efficiently?

For all its warts, Medicare is a wonderful program.
 
The average senior is baffled by Medicare

True, we have several friends that just got on it and some that are getting close, we had to have a "talk" with all of them except one, the one that had been an insurance saleswoman most of her life. Heck even Medicare tells them when they sign up that they need supplemental coverage to be properly covered.
 
Nonsense. The donut hole is still here. It hasn't gone away. And do you mean to tell me that my deductible will go up from $225 for the year??? Jesus Christ!!!

If a doctor or hospital Agrees to accept Medicare, it's game over. They can't bill you or they can't accept Medicare. They know hospitals are going to stop accepting Zmedicare? Keep dreaming.

Quote me from your link. Let me refute the nonsense without reading 2000 words...

I feel you are going to end up eating some of your claims the same way Obama ate "you can keep your plan."
 
Even if not comprehensive care, can we reach consensus on public policy including some basic levels of accessible, affordable, quality healthcare for all Americans regardless of preexisting conditions? I have no objections to calling it Trumpcare or GOPcare. After all, let's acknowledge Team Trump and the GOP have the superior power. They can probably change the motto on currency from "In GOD We Trust" to "In GOP We Trust".

Slippery slope ahead. **** with Medicare at your own peril. The senior vote is huge and growing.
 
The ACA is, in fact, closing the Medicare Donut Hole.

The Hole gets smaller every year, and will be completely closed by 2020. In the interim, the government is subsidizing seniors for those Part D costs.

Closing the Medicare Part D Donut Hole

https://www.medicare.gov/part-d/costs/coverage-gap/more-drug-savings-in-2020.html

You may now say "Thanks, Obama"

I feel you are going to end up eating some of your claims the same way Obama ate "you can keep your plan."

In light of what you have gone through a supplement is a blessing for sure. My guess is that you are on Plan N, G, or F.

I'm assuming then you have a separate drug plan. FWIW, I have seen statistics that suggest 80% of Medicare recipients with separate drug plans are on the wrong plan. In my experience I believe that's accurate.

In WA there are typically about 24 plans to choose from in the larger ciunties, less in the smaller ones.

If you have never had anyone run plans for you, you should. You can run your meds against against the plans in your county on the Medicare.Gov website. If you want more info PM me.

I was at the doc yesterday and asked for samples. "Happy New Year," the P.A. said. She handed me $750 worth of inhalers...a three-month supply. Symbicort is the gold standard. Expensive. And docs hold the key. ;)

Now the donut hole. I didn't realize it was closing. It's unfortunate that I'd bet MOST people don't know that. Can we agree that the ACA didn't do a very good job explaining that? If there's a perk, it should be shouted from the rooftops. A shame it wasn't.

I will also say that, imo, this perk should be means tested. I shouldn't get it. John, if you remember him... mom's friend... shouldn't get it. Neither should mom have gotten it.

Do you think an 87-year-old with $2.5 million in the bank ought to ask YOU to pay for his donut hole meds? That's John. I don't. But, as you say, "Thanks, Obama."
 
I was at the doc yesterday and asked for samples. "Happy New Year," the P.A. said. She handed me $750 worth of inhalers...a three-month supply. Symbicort is the gold standard. Expensive. And docs hold the key. ;)

Now the donut hole. I didn't realize it was closing. It's unfortunate that I'd bet MOST people don't know that. Can we agree that the ACA didn't do a very good job explaining that? If there's a perk, it should be shouted from the rooftops. A shame it wasn't.

I will also say that, imo, this perk should be means tested. I shouldn't get it. John, if you remember him... mom's friend... shouldn't get it. Neither should mom have gotten it.

Do you think an 87-year-old with $2.5 million in the bank ought to ask YOU to pay for his donut hole meds? That's John. I don't. But, as you say, "Thanks, Obama."

Those are fair comments. Those are also far fewer than those in dire need.

The average senior's income is about 22k annualy. In WA, the threshold for Medicaid is a little over 15k. Those above the threshold get no extra help on meds.

I run into folks like this every week. Just last week I met a man whose meds cost him 800.00 a month. His income was 1700.00. I was able to get him assistance and reduce his med costs to less than 40.00 a month.

You can get assistance even if you earn as much as 60k. You just need to know where to look.

The average senior hasn't clue one on how or where to look. Sadly they continue to get hosed.
 
Those are fair comments. Those are also far fewer than those in dire need.

The average senior's income is about 22k annualy. In WA, the threshold for Medicaid is a little over 15k. Those above the threshold get no extra help on meds.

I run into folks like this every week. Just last week I met a man whose meds cost him 800.00 a month. His income was 1700.00. I was able to get him assistance and reduce his med costs to less than 40.00 a month.

The average senior hasn't clue one on how or where to look. Sadly they continue to get hosed.

I agree with you. Unless a 70-something senior has kids or agencies willing to get involved, they ARE hosed. How many people even know to ask their docs for samples? It's the only reason I'm going to several of them right now. I've learned more about medicine in my journey than I care to admit. It's a labyrinth of confusion. Major lesson being, "You'd better know WTF you're doing, or you're going to get lost."
 
Basically, yes.




Price loves the idea.


Please.

So.. supposedly.. I am going to bill my clients and force them into bankruptcy so that I don't get any money at all. Yeah that makes no sense.

OR what it actually means is that I can offer services.. and levels of care that I CANNOT do under the current Medicare reimbursement schedule.

And example is that a patient could now.. request that he see the physician every time.. rather than the PA or nurse practitioner.. and pay a nominal fee above medicare reimbursement in order to see the physician... rather than have to see a PA because its not financially viable for the physician due to reimbursement constraints.

Or perhaps a client would want the option of getting more time per visit with the physician rather than have to come back multiple times because the reimbursement schedule for medicare..
 
Thank you,TopCat. My supplement is $149 a month. I pay nothing. The BCBS supplement pays for any shortfall. IMO, one can't afford not to buy that supplement.

Yeah.. I am not sure of that. For most people.. they would be better off without the supplement. The only reason that insurance companies offer supplements is because ITS PROFITABLE... which means they take in more than they pay out.

My mother would pay for my Grandfathers supplement. Which was an HMO.. and had all sorts of restrictions.. and pay hundreds of dollars a month.

So that my 96 year old grandfather could be told what physicians he could see.

All so he could avoid a 20% copay on his outpatient physician visit... and his outpatient therapy visit. Which basically saved him 20 DOLLARS A VISIT. And he could only go to those providers that accepted the supplement.

so he was spending thousand of dollars a year.. to save maybe 1200...and in some years.. he saved only 80 bucks. To pay thousands to the insurance company.
 
Yeah.. I am not sure of that. For most people.. they would be better off without the supplement. The only reason that insurance companies offer supplements is because ITS PROFITABLE... which means they take in more than they pay out.

My mother would pay for my Grandfathers supplement. Which was an HMO.. and had all sorts of restrictions.. and pay hundreds of dollars a month.

So that my 96 year old grandfather could be told what physicians he could see.

All so he could avoid a 20% copay on his outpatient physician visit... and his outpatient therapy visit. Which basically saved him 20 DOLLARS A VISIT. And he could only go to those providers that accepted the supplement.

so he was spending thousand of dollars a year.. to save maybe 1200...and in some years.. he saved only 80 bucks. To pay thousands to the insurance company.

If that's all your grandad used his supplement for, he was a very healthy 96 year old. I'm guessing my supplement has paid tens of thousands of dollars in the last few years including home health care, rehabilitation, outpatient tests (most of them are), etc.

Nonetheless, insurance isn't for everyone.
 
If that's all your grandad used his supplement for, he was a very healthy 96 year old. I'm guessing my supplement has paid tens of thousands of dollars in the last few years including home health care, rehabilitation, outpatient tests (most of them are), etc.

Nonetheless, insurance isn't for everyone.


home health its paid at 100% and is part of Part A. And its under PPS guidelines.

Rehabilitation in an inpatient setting is paid 100% if in a rehab hospital. the first 20 days of rehab are paid at 100% in a SNF. And the next 80 days are paid at 80%.

Outpatient tests are paid at 80% as well.

I would bet.. that your insurance probably still made a very good profit off of you. Otherwise... why would they be in business Maggie? I mean.. why would it be profitable to insure OLD PEOPLE on medicare with a supplement? Or do you think insurance companies offer supplemental insurance altruistically?
 
Now the donut hole. I didn't realize it was closing. It's unfortunate that I'd bet MOST people don't know that. Can we agree that the ACA didn't do a very good job explaining that? If there's a perk, it should be shouted from the rooftops. A shame it wasn't.
Yep, messaging was a big problem with the ACA.

Unfortunately, it was much easier for the critics to scream about death panels, than to explain the two dozen benefits of the ACA.


Do you think an 87-year-old with $2.5 million in the bank ought to ask YOU to pay for his donut hole meds? That's John. I don't. But, as you say, "Thanks, Obama."
I don't think Medicare should be means-tested.

The Donut Hole is a crappy way to means test a drug benefit, nor was that really the purpose. It's just a deductible with a really weird design.

Medicare in general it's a very popular program. If we phase out benefits for the wealthy, they will be less inclined to defend it. That's not good.

Adding an income requirement makes it more complex, and increases administrative costs. That's not good either.

$2.5 million is, by many standards, a lot of money. If it's invested properly, said 87 year old is living off of a healthy income. However, in an era where an assisted living facility can cost $70,000 a year? Not so much.
 
home health its paid at 100% and is part of Part A. And its under PPS guidelines.

Rehabilitation in an inpatient setting is paid 100% if in a rehab hospital. the first 20 days of rehab are paid at 100% in a SNF. And the next 80 days are paid at 80%.

Outpatient tests are paid at 80% as well.

I would bet.. that your insurance probably still made a very good profit off of you. Otherwise... why would they be in business Maggie? I mean.. why would it be profitable to insure OLD PEOPLE on medicare with a supplement? Or do you think insurance companies offer supplemental insurance altruistically?

My medical expenses are limited to around $100 a month for Part B, $150 a month for my BCBS supplement and meds for which I think I pay $50 month. I am delighted that my expenses are limited to that approx $300 a month. Absolutely delighted.

We live in a wonderful country, Jaeger. And if you don't think it's worth it for you? Wonder of wonders! You are free to skip it.

Do you also try to discredit homeowners insurance? Car insurance? Term life insurance for a young father of three because the insurance company makes a profit on it?
 
So you're part of that 18% that its helps. I never said it didn't help anyone. Just that it is hurting more people than it is helping. That was backed up by Gallup in their survey. So are you saying it is perfectly alright to hurt more people just because it helps some?

As to your first point:

MOST PEOPLE LIKED THEIR HEALTHCARE PLANS
Return to top

* Prior to Obamacare, polls showed that most Americans were personally satisfied with their own healthcare coverage—refuting the notion that they were spending “too much” on healthcare. [TTM: p. 7]

* A 2009 Gallup poll found that 87% of Americans with private health-insurance plans were satisfied with the quality of the care they received, and 62% were satisfied with the cost of that care.

* In September 2012, the Employee Benefit Research Institute surveyed American workers and found that 88% were somewhat to extremely satisfied with their health insurance.

Obamacare: Before and After - Discover the Networks

Is it hurting more people than it's helping? Or is it hurting more people's bank accounts than it's helping people's health? Did it help millions of Americans and cost twice as many extra money? Are those things that are easy to judge the right and wrong of?

You also completely ignored that the vast majority of Americans approve of a lot of things that Obamacare did. You cherry pick to keep the dialogue to "do you want Obamacare or do you not want Obamacare." Why don't you post the numbers for "should health insurance companies be able to deny people for preexisting conditions?" Because I couldn't walk more than a few blocks for years because of that policy and Americans hate it. But toss it all out as part of "Obamacare" and big pharm is having a very long, expensive party.

I don't care if Obamacare is repealed and IMMEDIATELY replaced with a program that prevents outrageous policies like the ones that would have killed or bankrupt me (that would be a good game show for people who work in board rooms at Merck - die or debt?). How do you feel about telling a disabled person that they can no longer work because people need money to pay for their iPhones, brand new cars, dinner out three times a week, and a television and computer in every room? Cause that's pretty much how it's affecting most people complaining about the law that gave me a life. Not help. Life.
 
Is it hurting more people than it's helping? Or is it hurting more people's bank accounts than it's helping people's health? Did it help millions of Americans and cost twice as many extra money? Are those things that are easy to judge the right and wrong of?

You also completely ignored that the vast majority of Americans approve of a lot of things that Obamacare did. You cherry pick to keep the dialogue to "do you want Obamacare or do you not want Obamacare." Why don't you post the numbers for "should health insurance companies be able to deny people for preexisting conditions?" Because I couldn't walk more than a few blocks for years because of that policy and Americans hate it. But toss it all out as part of "Obamacare" and big pharm is having a very long, expensive party.

I don't care if Obamacare is repealed and IMMEDIATELY replaced with a program that prevents outrageous policies like the ones that would have killed or bankrupt me (that would be a good game show for people who work in board rooms at Merck - die or debt?). How do you feel about telling a disabled person that they can no longer work because people need money to pay for their iPhones, brand new cars, dinner out three times a week, and a television and computer in every room? Cause that's pretty much how it's affecting most people complaining about the law that gave me a life. Not help. Life.


Here's something that might interest you.

Health Care Law - Rasmussen Reports™
 
Here's something that might interest you.

Health Care Law - Rasmussen Reportsâ„¢

I'm among the group that wants reform. So it does interest me and I hope that congress (Trump I don't think understands about or cares about health care policy) will listen to their constituents. It might surprise you or other conservatives, but I'm concerned the bureaucratic process will stall a new health care reform law long enough that I'll be down about 70K (my health care cost each year).
 
I'm among the group that wants reform. So it does interest me and I hope that congress (Trump I don't think understands about or cares about health care policy) will listen to their constituents. It might surprise you or other conservatives, but I'm concerned the bureaucratic process will stall a new health care reform law long enough that I'll be down about 70K (my health care cost each year).

I don't know what Trump or the GOP congress will do. That is anybody's guess. There is a segment that want to repeal the whole thing and date the repeal a year from the day they pass the repeal giving them a year to come up with a replacement. Another segment that wants the replacement in place when the repeal is done. Another segment that wants to do it piecemeal, repeal, change, amend, replace it line by line while keeping the good and tossing the bad.

I don't think the Republicans themselves know what they want to do and how they will go about doing. There are also a smaller fifth segment that want to leave it as is and let it die of its own accord. They say with premium hikes, increased deductibles, insurance companies pulling out of Obamacare, among with several other things, that it will die on its own. That Obamacare is not sustainable as is. Then they could place all the blame on the Democrats for rushing this through congress and not taking the time to get it right. After all not a single republican voted for this thing.

The GOP needs to decide how they are going to tackle this. Until they do, no one knows what will happen.
 
My medical expenses are limited to around $100 a month for Part B, $150 a month for my BCBS supplement and meds for which I think I pay $50 month. I am delighted that my expenses are limited to that approx $300 a month. Absolutely delighted.

We live in a wonderful country, Jaeger. And if you don't think it's worth it for you? Wonder of wonders! You are free to skip it.

Do you also try to discredit homeowners insurance? Car insurance? Term life insurance for a young father of three because the insurance company makes a profit on it?

To answer your question...Maggie... yes... I would discredit homeowners insurance if it was charging people for insurance that they did not need. The same with term life insurance.. I mean do you need term life insurance on a baby?

The point is.. if there is a profit on it.. it means that people are not using the insurance. Which means that if that's the case...you need to question whether its really useful or not.

Do you carry comp and collision on a car that's worth 700 dollars? Would you pay an extra 1000 a year... to insure a car that's worth 700 dollars?

I hope you would not. And I don't think there is anything wrong in pointing that out to people.

Particularly since I understand medical needs and medical insurance.
 
Back
Top Bottom