the south gets it wrong again

[ludin]

They are not against it, their base is largely against it. You can bet they will try to push it through regardless.

you didnt do your homework yet again. http://www.cnbc.com/2016/09/07/obamacare-pushes-nations-health-uninsured-rate-to-record-low.html who went on medicaid isnt relevant.

Barack Obama jumps the gun on U.S. uninsured rate, then reverses course | PolitiFact

Sure it does. More people on the government dole makes it harder on the rest of us who are not.

Please see the Gallup chart it says that well you are wrong.

 

[katzgar]

Barack Obama jumps the gun on U.S. uninsured rate, then reverses course | PolitiFact

Sure it does. More people on the government dole makes it harder on the rest of us who are not.

Please see the Gallup chart it says that well you are wrong.

using old posts/information just is bad form, especially when it can be googled. You know about google dont you?

 

[ludin]

using old posts/information just is bad form, especially when it can be googled. You know about google dont you?

This came up on google and yet again you can't refute it.
You never actually address anything. You just deflect.
Which is basically a concession.

Gallup poll: Uninsured down since Obamacare; cost, quality still concerns - News - Holland Sentinel - Holland, MI

2 charts and you are still wrong amazing.

You evidently don't know about google.

 

[katzgar]

This came up on google and yet again you can't refute it.
You never actually address anything. You just deflect.
Which is basically a concession.

Gallup poll: Uninsured down since Obamacare; cost, quality still concerns - News - Holland Sentinel - Holland, MI

2 charts and you are still wrong amazing.

You evidently don't know about google.

um, your own post supports my numbers. you should read this stuff before you post it silly goose.

 

[iguanaman]

As long as people pay their own insurance it is not so bad. Having to force people to take insurance out is a devastating statement of the attitude of "The People".

So forcing others to pay for the uninsured is better? Strange logic but typical. Enjoy your 20% surcharge to cover the deadbeats. You really deserve it.

 

[katzgar]

What have you done in your lifetime to qualify this remark?

is there a point to this comment?

 

[ludin]

um, your own post supports my numbers. you should read this stuff before you post it silly goose.

Lol when obama came into office the rate of uninsured was 14.8%. After having spent billions of dollars
The number of uninsured is only 10.8 percent.

Again I was proven correct. You must not know how to read a chart.

 

[katzgar]

Lol when obama came into office the rate of uninsured was 14.8%. After having spent billions of dollars
The number of uninsured is only 10.8 percent.

Again I was proven correct. You must not know how to read a chart.

your chart says 17.3%. you should have read it.

 

[Mac77]

you are consistently opposed to facts arent you. Cali uses no where near the welfare texas does.

I think you are the one who is uninformed

California has 12% of the US population but 34% of the welfare receiptents.

Is California the welfare capital? - The San Diego Union-Tribune

Only new york spends more per person on welfare than california does

If we ended all federal welfare programs and returned those decisions to the states a million obama voters on welfare in Texas might leave for california where free ride is better

 

[ttwtt78640]

you are consistently opposed to facts arent you. Cali uses no where near the welfare texas does.

Can you back up that (bolded above) assertion?

This Map Shows How Much Each State Spends on Welfare [INFOGRAPHIC]

 

[ludin]

your chart says 17.3%. you should have read it.

Nope 14.8 is when obama started and took office in 2008. So yes you proved you can't
Read a chart.

 

[ludin]

Can you back up that (bolded above) assertion?

This Map Shows How Much Each State Spends on Welfare [INFOGRAPHIC]

He will just deny it or deflect that is pretty much all he can do.

 

[ttwtt78640]

Nope 14.8 is when obama started and took office in 2008. So yes you proved you can't
Read a chart.

Nope, Obama took office in 2009 and then PPACA became law in March 2010 but the bulk of PPACA did not go into effect until 2011 and the federal exchanges were not "up" until late 2013. Katzgar is closer to right than you are on this point.

https://resources.ehealthinsurance.com/affordable-care-act/history-timeline-affordable-care-act-aca

 

[ludin]

Nope, Obama took office in 2009 and then PPACA became law in March 2010 but the bulk of PPACA did not go into effect until 2011 and the federal exchanges were not "up" until late 2013. Katzgar is closer to right than you are on this point.

https://resources.ehealthinsurance.com/affordable-care-act/history-timeline-affordable-care-act-aca

A minor point. The fact is 2008 or 2009 the rate was still 14.8-15%.

It doesn't matter when the aca came into effect that is not the starting point that you judge it by.
The starting point is when he took office.

So no he isn't correct.

 

[ttwtt78640]

A minor point. The fact is 2008 or 2009 the rate was still 14.8-15%.

It doesn't matter when the aca came into effect that is not the starting point that you judge it by.
The starting point is when he took office.

So no he isn't correct.

Nonsense - do you expect Trump, by his mere presence in office, to get things done or do you expect that law/policy changes will be required?

 

[ludin]

Nonsense - do you expect Trump, by his mere presence in office, to get things done or do you expect that law/policy changes will be required?

It isn't nonsense the baseline has to be the % before the law took effect. If you want to compare apples to apples it has to compare where it was at when he took office and where it ends up.

Cherry picking when to start is nothing but confirmation bias.

That 17% didn't occur till about the height of the recession and when a million + people were kicked off their plans.
How is that comparing anything?

The fact is when he started the uninsured % was around 14-15%.
It is now at about 10%.

The fact that the recession and the aca drove a large number of people to lose their insurance should not be a factor as it is a biased one.

Also a large amount of people are on Medicaid not signing up for the exchanges.
They are now saying that it has hit a ceiling.

 

[ludin]

Nonsense - do you expect Trump, by his mere presence in office, to get things done or do you expect that law/policy changes will be required?

Trumps baseline will start with whatever it is now.
His policy good or bad will go from there.

The outcome will be what happens at the end of his term.

 

[joG]

So forcing others to pay for the uninsured is better? Strange logic but typical. Enjoy your 20% surcharge to cover the deadbeats. You really deserve it.

Why not make people liable for the costs and it fraud to take medical treatment without funds?

 

[iguanaman]

Why not make people liable for the costs and it fraud to take medical treatment without funds?

Because you can't get blood out of a stone and just letting people die is not an option in a civilized country.

 

[joG]

Because you can't get blood out of a stone and just letting people die is not an option in a civilized country.

We let people die all the time that we could save.

 

[Greenbeard]

there was a minority of people before only 17% of bankruptcies filed where due to medial expense lowering what is already a minority isn't that big of a deal.

Cutting the number of people struggling with medical bills by a net ~25% is a big deal, particularly as it runs completely counter to the (false) argument that more people are struggling to pay for their care than was the case pre-ACA.

if you think premiums going up 20-40% per year since it has been started as doing what it is supposed to then you have a difference
of the term lower costs and affordable.

Way to ignore my point, which was that we're covering roughly the number of people anticipated but at substantially lower cost than promised. But if you want to talk premiums, let's.

Clearly you're talking about the headlines about the sliver (~5%) of the population buying coverage in the individual market, though you botched it as usual. Average benchmark premiums in the exchanges went up 2% from 2014-15, 7% from 2015-16, and are going up 25% from 2016-17. The reason for the big increase next year being that insurers underpriced their premiums: this year they're 20% below what the CBO was projecting them to be back when the ACA passed.

That's why S&P put out a report just last week pointing out that 2017 represents a one-time correction to rates in the individual market.

Health insurers will do better with Obamacare results in 2016 — and even better next year, new projection says

An analysis out Thursday says that health insurers are expected in 2016 "to start reversing" financial losses on their Obamacare business after "hitting bottom" in 2015.

And 2017 "will likely see continued improvement" for those insurers selling individual health plans, "with more insurers getting close to breakeven or better," according to the report by Standard & Poor's Global Ratings.

The report also says big price increases for Obamacare plans in 2017 were likely a "one-time pricing correction."

Meanwhile, premium growth in employer-based coverage, which covers ~160 million people, has been at all-time lows for years, as everyone that looks at employee benefits has noted:

Mercer:

Average total health benefit cost per employee rose just 2.4% in 2016, one of the lowest increases in decades

ADP:

From 2014 to 2016, the average monthly premium rose 5.0% across all industries and demographic groups combined. This slow growth stands in stark contrast to the double-digit inflation experienced in health premiums of previous decades.

While the total plan cost increased by 2.8% over 2014-15 and 2.1% over 2015-16, the amount of premium paid by firms increased as well—by 3.1% and 2.5%, respectively. One explanation is that employers may be working to make plans more affordable for lower-wage workers.

EBRI:

One-half of workers with health insurance coverage report having experienced an increase in health care costs in the past year, an historical low in the survey. The percentage reporting that they did not experience a change in health care costs increased from 36 percent to 47 percent between 2014 and 2015.

KFF/HRET:

The average family premium rose 3% over the 2015 average premium while the increase in the premium for single coverage was not statistically significant. ["the fifth straight year of relatively low premium growth"]

PwC

Growth rates in employer health cost are at historic lows

And yeah, if you're in employer-based coverage (as I suspect you are), you're likely saving a lot more than $2,500/year relative to the pre-ACA premium trends.

 

[jaeger19]

quoting BS crap information just doesnt cut it except for the right wing bubble types. 643,000 Bankruptcies in the U.S. Every Year Due to Medical Bills : snopes.com

Yeah that's a fallacy. Studies have shown overwhelmingly that the reason for medical bankruptcy is the LOSS of INCOME associated with medical problems. Not the medical bills. In fact.. studies show that medical bills are a tiny percentage of the actual debt load held by people that file medical bankruptcy.

 

[jaeger19]

Cutting the number of people struggling with medical bills by a net ~25% is a big deal, particularly as it runs completely counter to the (false) argument that more people are struggling to pay for their care than was the case pre-ACA.



Way to ignore my point, which was that we're covering roughly the number of people anticipated but at substantially lower cost than promised. But if you want to talk premiums, let's.

Clearly you're talking about the headlines about the sliver (~5%) of the population buying coverage in the individual market, though you botched it as usual. Average benchmark premiums in the exchanges went up 2% from 2014-15, 7% from 2015-16, and are going up 25% from 2016-17. The reason for the big increase next year being that insurers underpriced their premiums: this year they're 20% below what the CBO was projecting them to be back when the ACA passed.

That's why S&P put out a report just last week pointing out that 2017 represents a one-time correction to rates in the individual market.

Health insurers will do better with Obamacare results in 2016 — and even better next year, new projection says


Meanwhile, premium growth in employer-based coverage, which covers ~160 million people, has been at all-time lows for years, as everyone that looks at employee benefits has noted:

Mercer:


ADP:


EBRI:


KFF/HRET:


PwC


And yeah, if you're in employer-based coverage (as I suspect you are), you're likely saving a lot more than $2,500/year relative to the pre-ACA premium trends.

Honestly.. that's all a load of BS.

the lower premiums had nothing to do with Obamacare.. the initial constraint on premiums was because of the recession and now that we are out of recession and the economy is again growing.. the premiums are once again on the rise.

meanwhile..growth in medical costs have continued to be constrained by the ACA.. (and prior legislation as well)... despite huge increases in demand.

 

[Crystal]

Well, it is now in the death spiral. Republicans should sit back, do nothing and let the implosion complete it'sself.