• 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!

The ACA will be a disaster, they said. Costs will skyrocket, they said.

Redress said:
So you admit that Obamacare did some good, reducing the growth of health care costs? Then why are you whining?
Click to expand...

You know, I haven't actually read you with enough regularity of late to know whether this kind of nonsense is typical for you these days or not. Time was, it wasn't, but . . .
 
Fletch said:
I was able to keep my annual premium increases in check by raising my deductible through the roof to the point where having insurance at all was pointless.
Click to expand...

Then you should be glad the Dems killed the GOP HC plan. It would have raised deductibles considerably.

deductibles.png.CROP.original-original.png
 
Fletch said:
If you are not covered by your employer and make too much to qualify for subsidies, your cost have soared out of control.
Click to expand...
Before the ACA, if you weren't covered by your employer:

• Insurers routinely refused to cover individuals at all

• Insurers routinely tried not to pay for conditions, claiming they were "pre-existing"

• Costs were incredibly high

• Deductibles were incredibly high

• There were no subsidies, period

• Fewer people qualified for Medicaid

• Figuring out who offered what coverage, and at what prices, was very difficult

I might add, I was a freelancer before the ACA, and I was getting socked. While the ACA is not perfect, it is still an improvement -- which is why the rate of the uninsured has dropped significantly, and stayed low, after the ACA went into full effect.
 
iguanaman said:
Then you should be glad the Dems killed the GOP HC plan. It would have raised deductibles considerably.

deductibles.png.CROP.original-original.png
Click to expand...

Not sure where you get those numbers but my deductibles were higher than your $2550 Obamacare numbers by about $4000
 
Visbek said:
Before the ACA, if you weren't covered by your employer:

• Insurers routinely refused to cover individuals at all

• Insurers routinely tried not to pay for conditions, claiming they were "pre-existing"

• Costs were incredibly high

• Deductibles were incredibly high

• There were no subsidies, period

• Fewer people qualified for Medicaid

• Figuring out who offered what coverage, and at what prices, was very difficult

I might add, I was a freelancer before the ACA, and I was getting socked. While the ACA is not perfect, it is still an improvement -- which is why the rate of the uninsured has dropped significantly, and stayed low, after the ACA went into full effect.
Click to expand...

Before the ACA I was not covered by my employer--which is me--and I had nowhere near the difficulty in affording health insurance for a family of 4.
 
Fletch said:
Not sure where you get those numbers but my deductibles were higher than your $2550 Obamacare numbers by about $4000
Click to expand...

So add $1550 to that. Those are the average 2017 numbers from Kaiser.
 
Harshaw said:
:rofl

Even if you buy that, which no one intelligent should, it doesn't explain the other times she said it. Doesn't explain Schumer. Doesn't explain the CMS report, which gave actual dollar amounts.

According to you, "no one." "Ever."
Click to expand...

So now I’ve got to go through your link blizzard to show they’re all wrong?

I believe the CMS report is discussing savings to the projected amounts, because any idiot knows that you don’t project savings on a growing program in today’s dollars.
 
holbritter said:
https://www.washingtonpost.com/blog...15067bb31849_blog.html?utm_term=.a33e37872227

Obama said health care reform will reduce the cost of health care | PolitiFact

https://www.forbes.com/sites/theapothecary/2015/09/28/dispelling-obamacare-cost-saving-myths/2/
Click to expand...

Again, from your middle link:

“So when Obama says reforms will lower the cost of health care, what he means is that they will eventually slow the rate of growth of health care expenses.

This can be pretty confusing stuff. “
 
Fletch said:
Before the ACA I was not covered by my employer--which is me--and I had nowhere near the difficulty in affording health insurance for a family of 4.
Click to expand...
Before the ACA I was on the individual market -- and as an individual, my insurance was expensive, the deductibles were high, the insurer routinely tried to weasel out of covering any issues, and required me to prove that I had constant coverage before they'd even consider letting me apply.

My doctors still have to occasionally fight with the insurers, but AFAIK that's less of a problem than before.

I also knew people who were in their 40s and looking for coverage on the individual market, and were refused outright because of minor medical issues (like ulcers).

Insurance premiums were also climbing by double digits for at least a decade before the ACA. After the ACA, that growth slowed significantly. Most of the headline-grabbing "zomg triple digit growth!" ignored how that was only in a handful of states, while premium increases in many markets were below the pre-ACA average.

Not to mention we are really talking about growth in costs, not just premiums. Given changes in systems like Medicare, it's not surprising that costs have slowed.
 
Threegoofs said:
So now I’ve got to go through your link blizzard to show they’re all wrong?
Click to expand...

Only if you want to show you're right. Other than that, no, you don't have to do anything.

I believe the CMS report is discussing savings to the projected amounts, because any idiot knows that you don’t project savings on a growing program in today’s dollars.
Click to expand...

Doesn't matter what you choose to believe, especially without bothering to read it.
 
Threegoofs said:
Again, from your middle link:

“So when Obama says reforms will lower the cost of health care, what he means is that they will eventually slow the rate of growth of health care expenses.

This can be pretty confusing stuff. “
Click to expand...

That's Politifact's spin on it. What he actually said is:

"We agree on reforms that will finally reduce the costs of health care," Obama said. "Families will save on their premiums; businesses that will see their costs rise if we do nothing will save money now and in the future. This plan will strengthen Medicare and extend the life of that program. And because it gets rid of the waste and inefficiencies in our health care system, this will be the largest deficit reduction plan in over a decade.
Click to expand...

It's funny how you cling to this idea that when all these people said "reduce costs" or "lower costs" or "cut costs," multiple times in various venues, they actually somehow meant "slow the rate of growth." Just so you can be right.
 
iguanaman said:
Then you should be glad the Dems killed the GOP HC plan. It would have raised deductibles considerably.

deductibles.png.CROP.original-original.png
Click to expand...


Interesting. That $1.6K increase is about the average cost of the individual mandate for a family. So the Reps were just planning on hiding the cost in the deductible.
 
Harshaw said:
That's Politifact's spin on it. What he actually said is:



It's funny how you cling to this idea that when all these people said "reduce costs" or "lower costs" or "cut costs," multiple times in various venues, they actually somehow meant "slow the rate of growth." Just so you can be right.
Click to expand...

So I guess all this terrible law did was substantially reduce the costs of projected future expenditures by hundreds of billions of dollars.

Gosh. What a tragedy. [emoji849]


Of course, for those of us who followed and follow these things in the real world, and not just to generate political spin, we all understood that reduction of costs meant reduction in projected future costs. Because we aren’t stupid and uninformed.
 
iguanaman said:
So add $1550 to that. Those are the average 2017 numbers from Kaiser.
Click to expand...

You don't get it. That doesn't matter. Its not affordable already. I dropped my coverage, so if it goes up more it makes no difference at this point. Ive already been priced out of the market.
 
Fletch said:
You don't get it. That doesn't matter. Its not affordable already. I dropped my coverage, so if it goes up more it makes no difference at this point. Ive already been priced out of the market.
Click to expand...

So now the even higher deductibles in the GOP plan don't matter? How partisan of you. You had no idea how good you had it.
 
Threegoofs said:
But the data is in. And costs seem to be quite under control.

Thanks, Obama!

evonne-s-cow-121817-slide.png
Click to expand...

I don't understand that chart.

Does that chart include the subsidies the government pays to the insurance companies?
 
iguanaman said:
So now the even higher deductibles in the GOP plan don't matter? How partisan of you. You had no idea how good you had it.
Click to expand...

You mean deductibles weren't going to rise this year under Obamacare? How ignorant and partisan of you. :roll: You don't get it. I was already priced out of the market under Obamacare. It makes no difference what happens to them now.
 
Barnacle said:
I don't understand that chart.

Does that chart include the subsidies the government pays to the insurance companies?
Click to expand...

It’s a chart of health care costs. Total costs spent on the delivery of health care.

Nothing to do with insurance premiums or subsidies.
 
Fletch said:
You mean deductibles weren't going to rise this year under Obamacare? How ignorant and partisan of you. :roll: You don't get it. I was already priced out of the market under Obamacare. It makes no difference what happens to them now.
Click to expand...

20 million people were priced INTO the market by the ACA so I guess it was a fair trade. I wager that you can afford coverage but don't want to pay because you do not qualify for subsidies and hate Obama.
 
iguanaman said:
20 million people were priced INTO the market by the ACA so I guess it was a fair trade. I wager that you can afford coverage but don't want to pay because you do not qualify for subsidies and hate Obama.
Click to expand...

And like much of everything else you write, you would be wrong.
 
Barnacle said:
I don't understand that chart.

Does that chart include the subsidies the government pays to the insurance companies?
Click to expand...

You don't understand it because it shows significant HC cost savings and that just can't be true because....Obama.
 
Fletch said:
And like much of everything else you write, you would be wrong.
Click to expand...

So you do qualify for subsidies and still cannot afford the cost? If so you are in a very small minority.
 
Threegoofs said:
Again, from your middle link:

“So when Obama says reforms will lower the cost of health care, what he means is that they will eventually slow the rate of growth of health care expenses.

This can be pretty confusing stuff. “
Click to expand...

He should have said what he means then. The fact is he said what he said.
 
iguanaman said:
20 million people were priced INTO the market by the ACA so I guess it was a fair trade. I wager that you can afford coverage but don't want to pay because you do not qualify for subsidies and hate Obama.
Click to expand...

Do you realize how little you have to make to be eligible for subsidies? Again the middle class gets screwed. Can't afford the premiums but make too much to get help.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom