Page 2 of 43 FirstFirst 123412 ... LastLast
Results 11 to 20 of 421

Thread: If Obamacare is so bad....

  1. #11
    Sage
    Visbek's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Last Seen
    Yesterday @ 05:31 PM
    Lean
    Other
    Posts
    8,940

    Re: If Obamacare is so bad....

    Quote Originally Posted by joG View Post
    In a country that spends about double the amount per capita on health care as other countries, insurance policies will cost much more than elsewhere. How much do you think the laborers in social democracies pay?


    We spend double the per capita of other nations with similar cost of living because we have this screwed-up private health care system.

    I.e. those Japanese and British and French and German workers are paying less in taxes and total costs, than we are in premiums and costs. Not that complicated.

  2. #12
    Sage

    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Last Seen
    Today @ 02:24 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Other
    Posts
    8,585

    Re: If Obamacare is so bad....

    Quote Originally Posted by Vern View Post
    Why can’t republicans come up with a better plan? How about a plan? Yea, they’ve had 6 years. We’ve had 3 full years of the exchanges. Certainly there is enough data from that alone to help come up with a plan. it doesn't even have to be a better plan. They can just lie that its better and their base wont hold them accountable. Their base just needs something to repeat over and over. I'm thinking something along the lines of “sure it covers fewer people and costs more but its better because there are no death panels”.

    Certainly even some conservatives have to start to wonder how "repeal and replace" got repealed and replaced with "repeal and delay"?
    Obamacare is not the Republicans to fix. The Democrats own it, the Democrats passed it in the dead of night without any Republican support and without reading it. The Republicans have proposed a fix. Repeal it.

    What is the Democrat plan to fix this monstrosity?

  3. #13
    Sage

    Join Date
    Jul 2013
    Last Seen
    Today @ 07:33 AM
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    39,648

    Re: If Obamacare is so bad....

    Quote Originally Posted by Visbek View Post


    We spend double the per capita of other nations with similar cost of living because we have this screwed-up private health care system.

    I.e. those Japanese and British and French and German workers are paying less in taxes and total costs, than we are in premiums and costs. Not that complicated.
    First of all, most of those countries do not have the same per capita income nor are most comparable for many reasons.
    And no. It is not necessarily the private sector system that messed up. You see, it is the probably more the public sector. The American government spends somewhat more than most of the socialist democracies. But in the private sector the people decide to buy the services on their own.

    But nota bene: the American worker would have to pay a slightly higher percentage of income than say the German. Do you know how much that is?

  4. #14
    Sage

    Join Date
    Jul 2013
    Last Seen
    Today @ 07:33 AM
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    39,648

    Re: If Obamacare is so bad....

    Quote Originally Posted by jimbo View Post
    Obamacare is not the Republicans to fix. The Democrats own it, the Democrats passed it in the dead of night without any Republican support and without reading it. The Republicans have proposed a fix. Repeal it.

    What is the Democrat plan to fix this monstrosity?
    Oh don't worry about that dishonest ploy. Trying to shift responsibilities to others is normal for liberals.

  5. #15
    Sage
    Visbek's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Last Seen
    Yesterday @ 05:31 PM
    Lean
    Other
    Posts
    8,940

    Re: If Obamacare is so bad....

    Quote Originally Posted by VanceMack View Post
    Prior to passage of the ACA, the numbers range from 11-18% uninsured, depending on who's studioes you believe. Most of those were not uninsurable...they were simply uninsured. many of those uninsured were by economic choice. They chose to invest in tattoos and video games and cheetos and tobacco and any number of convenience items rather than investing in health care insurance. Choice.
    Tattoos?

    Seriously?

    Before the ACA, denial rates for individual coverage were around 20%. This was also increasing significantly with each passing year. Plus, that individual care was incredibly expensive, and did not cover much. I know that first-hand, by paying through the nose for a plan that had a $10,000 deductible and a 20% copay.

    Plus, the people who received coverage via the Medicaid expansion? They weren't going to be able to afford coverage by giving up their "tattoos and video games." The cost of an Xbox 360 wouldn't even cover a single month's premiums for an individual on a high-deductible plan. (Xbox 360: $400. 2010 average premiums for an individual: $416)


    That means 82-99% had somehow managed to figure out how to obtain health care. And MOST were actually quite satisfied with their coverage.
    Half the US got its insurance through employers. (This was dropping over the years, btw).

    Another 25% got it through government programs (e.g. Medicare, Medicaid, VA).

    11% had individual or other coverage.

    By the way, care to prove that people were satisfied with both their coverage, and the direction of health care coverage?


    Was health care perfect? No. Some things should have been changed. Torte reform should still be imposed.
    Malpractice and "defensive medicine" only accounts for about 2% of medical costs.

    Much of the excess spending is basically trying to keep older people alive longer, a process that typically extends life while deteriorating quality of life.


    Insurance companies SHOULD be forced to not drop clients based on legitimate healthcare needs.
    Yep.

    The problem is: Imposing that kind of requirement on insurers raises their costs, which increases everyone else's premiums. It incentivizes them to deny coverage to people with pre-existing conditions, too, since they know they will be on the hook for those costs.

    That's why the ACA has the individual mandate. This distributes the costs across a larger pool of ratepayers, that includes healthier people. It also reduces the freeloader problem, as otherwise you have people only signing up for insurance when they need it, and dropping it when they think they don't.


    As for the uninsured, those that were unable to financially secure healthcare should have been placed on state/fed funded healthcare. We didnt need to blow up a system...we needed an 11-18% solution.
    Yeah, about that? Nothing actually got "blown up."

    There wasn't a huge raft of hospital closures, or doctors quitting, or pharmaceutical companies shutting down. There weren't less people getting coverage through their employers. The premium increases had slowed for many years, and most of the screaming about premiums was exaggerated -- or a result of Republicans doing everything they could to kill the law, rather than help improve it.

    Of course, this is now biting Republicans in the ass. They've spent 8 years complaining about the ACA, and characterizing it as the worst thing ever, and now they need to replace it. Unfortunately, they have cut off pretty much every option that would work. The ACA was based on conservative principles, and worked fairly well in Massachusetts; but they can't just tweak the ACA, as they promised repeal and bashed the law. They can't go with single payer or true socialized medicine, as that would never fly ideologically. And anything else they do will result in people losing care, the wide-spread abandonment of the exchanges, and big increases in premiums.


    Ive heard it suggested that whatever system congress passed/passes/omposes, that first and foremost they and their immediate families should be subject to. Id go for that.
    News flash! Congress has been on the ACA since 2014.

  6. #16
    Advisor
    Join Date
    Apr 2016
    Location
    West Coast
    Last Seen
    Yesterday @ 09:40 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Conservative
    Posts
    316

    Re: If Obamacare is so bad....

    Quote Originally Posted by Visbek View Post








    News flash! Congress has been on the ACA since 2014.
    You forgot the most important part
    Prior to the passage of the Affordable Care Act, the health care of members of Congress was entirely paid for by their employer, the federal government. The Affordable Care Act requires members of Congress to purchase their own health insurance through state exchanges, but the Office of Personnel Management issued a rule change in October 2013 that set the federal government's employer contribution for Congress members at an amount equivalent to the rate they were previously paying. This contribution is significantly more than other federal employees receive. It also extends to some members of Congressional staffs. In order to receive the subsidy, Congress members must purchase their health insurance through the DC Health Link Small Business Market.

    The Congressional health-care subsidy has faced criticism, as these subsidies are usually reserved for those whose income is below the poverty line. In July 2014, a federal judge threw out a legal challenge by Senator Ron Johnson of Wisconsin to remove this subsidy.

    djl

    Oh yea,, My source:

    https://www.reference.com/government...3f04397369c2a2
    If we as a society demand that our police be perfect,,, Why don't we demand it of ourselves?

    Sh!t washes off,, Stupidity is forever..

  7. #17
    Sage
    Visbek's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Last Seen
    Yesterday @ 05:31 PM
    Lean
    Other
    Posts
    8,940

    Re: If Obamacare is so bad....

    Quote Originally Posted by joG View Post
    First of all, most of those countries do not have the same per capita income nor are most comparable for many reasons.
    Yes, because Japan and France and the UK are 3rd world nations. lol


    And no. It is not necessarily the private sector system that messed up. You see, it is the probably more the public sector. The American government spends somewhat more than most of the socialist democracies. But in the private sector the people decide to buy the services on their own.
    *bzzt* wrong, US spends less on the public sector, as a percentage of GDP, than almost every other OECD nation.




    And again, we spend almost double the OECD average on health care:




    Unsurprisingly, the most cost-effective parts of the US health care are the government-run ones -- Medicare, Medicaid, VA. They keep costs down for the same basic reason as single-payer or universal coverage systems, namely the government has far more leverage to negotiate with providers than any insurer. The government programs are far larger than any private insurer.

    Further, health care is not a commodity like food or cars or houses. If you have a heart attack, you can't spend 30 minutes shopping around for the hospital with the cheapest emergency room. You will not do well if you tell the EMTs to take you to a hospital an extra 20 minutes away, because they charge less for X-rays. You can't get an angiogram in one hospital, then get transported to another to have a stent put in.

    Choice is critical in order to establish something as a functioning marketplace. Without that choice, providers can't compete, and patients have no leverage. The end result is a disastrous system that sends costs spiraling out of control.

  8. #18
    Sage

    Join Date
    Jul 2013
    Location
    Out West
    Last Seen
    Yesterday @ 11:49 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Centrist
    Posts
    15,270
    Blog Entries
    1

    Re: If Obamacare is so bad....

    Quote Originally Posted by Vern View Post
    Why can’t republicans come up with a better plan? How about a plan? Yea, they’ve had 6 years. We’ve had 3 full years of the exchanges. Certainly there is enough data from that alone to help come up with a plan. it doesn't even have to be a better plan. They can just lie that its better and their base wont hold them accountable. Their base just needs something to repeat over and over. I'm thinking something along the lines of “sure it covers fewer people and costs more but its better because there are no death panels”.

    Certainly even some conservatives have to start to wonder how "repeal and replace" got repealed and replaced with "repeal and delay"?
    I find the Republican response to the ACA an embarrassment. If I were a conservative I'd be outraged that the GOP wasn't able to conjour up a replacement in 6 years and now that the rubber is about to hit the road they still have nothing to show.

  9. #19
    Sage

    Join Date
    Jul 2013
    Last Seen
    Today @ 07:33 AM
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    39,648

    Re: If Obamacare is so bad....

    Quote Originally Posted by Visbek View Post
    Yes, because Japan and France and the UK are 3rd world nations. lol



    *bzzt* wrong, US spends less on the public sector, as a percentage of GDP, than almost every other OECD nation.




    And again, we spend almost double the OECD average on health care:




    Unsurprisingly, the most cost-effective parts of the US health care are the government-run ones -- Medicare, Medicaid, VA. They keep costs down for the same basic reason as single-payer or universal coverage systems, namely the government has far more leverage to negotiate with providers than any insurer. The government programs are far larger than any private insurer.

    Further, health care is not a commodity like food or cars or houses. If you have a heart attack, you can't spend 30 minutes shopping around for the hospital with the cheapest emergency room. You will not do well if you tell the EMTs to take you to a hospital an extra 20 minutes away, because they charge less for X-rays. You can't get an angiogram in one hospital, then get transported to another to have a stent put in.

    Choice is critical in order to establish something as a functioning marketplace. Without that choice, providers can't compete, and patients have no leverage. The end result is a disastrous system that sends costs spiraling out of control.
    Did I say "as a percent of GDP "? I don't think so.
    Here are 2013 numbers for per capita public spending on health care. I took these ones. They were higher in 2015, but the general picture is the same. It's just too tedious looking for statistics with an iPhone.
    https://www.statista.com/statistics/...re-by-country/

    It might also be noted that the numbers seem to be calculated over the total populations. That would mean that the actual number of beneficiaries would be lower in the US than in the other countries meaning higher coverage per beneficiary in the US. That would correspond to what I have found, when working on the statistics, so I suspect it is so here as well.

    As to shopping around, you should do so. In the US the costs of treatment differ quite a bit.

  10. #20
    Temp Suspended
    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Last Seen
    Today @ 07:41 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    51,546

    Re: If Obamacare is so bad....

    Quote Originally Posted by Visbek View Post
    Tattoos?

    Seriously?

    Before the ACA, denial rates for individual coverage were around 20%. This was also increasing significantly with each passing year. Plus, that individual care was incredibly expensive, and did not cover much. I know that first-hand, by paying through the nose for a plan that had a $10,000 deductible and a 20% copay.

    Plus, the people who received coverage via the Medicaid expansion? They weren't going to be able to afford coverage by giving up their "tattoos and video games." The cost of an Xbox 360 wouldn't even cover a single month's premiums for an individual on a high-deductible plan. (Xbox 360: $400. 2010 average premiums for an individual: $416)



    Half the US got its insurance through employers. (This was dropping over the years, btw).

    Another 25% got it through government programs (e.g. Medicare, Medicaid, VA).

    11% had individual or other coverage.

    By the way, care to prove that people were satisfied with both their coverage, and the direction of health care coverage?



    Malpractice and "defensive medicine" only accounts for about 2% of medical costs.

    Much of the excess spending is basically trying to keep older people alive longer, a process that typically extends life while deteriorating quality of life.



    Yep.

    The problem is: Imposing that kind of requirement on insurers raises their costs, which increases everyone else's premiums. It incentivizes them to deny coverage to people with pre-existing conditions, too, since they know they will be on the hook for those costs.

    That's why the ACA has the individual mandate. This distributes the costs across a larger pool of ratepayers, that includes healthier people. It also reduces the freeloader problem, as otherwise you have people only signing up for insurance when they need it, and dropping it when they think they don't.



    Yeah, about that? Nothing actually got "blown up."

    There wasn't a huge raft of hospital closures, or doctors quitting, or pharmaceutical companies shutting down. There weren't less people getting coverage through their employers. The premium increases had slowed for many years, and most of the screaming about premiums was exaggerated -- or a result of Republicans doing everything they could to kill the law, rather than help improve it.

    Of course, this is now biting Republicans in the ass. They've spent 8 years complaining about the ACA, and characterizing it as the worst thing ever, and now they need to replace it. Unfortunately, they have cut off pretty much every option that would work. The ACA was based on conservative principles, and worked fairly well in Massachusetts; but they can't just tweak the ACA, as they promised repeal and bashed the law. They can't go with single payer or true socialized medicine, as that would never fly ideologically. And anything else they do will result in people losing care, the wide-spread abandonment of the exchanges, and big increases in premiums.



    News flash! Congress has been on the ACA since 2014.
    The simple fact is that most people that purposely did not get health care made choices based on priorities. Others in similar circumstances made the choice to get health care at the sacrifice of other conveniences...often including their time because they sought second forms of income. You bleat on all you like but the fact remains...the vast majority of society has since we became a country, taken care of their health care needs. Somehow, this horrific thing that no one could possibly make happen...they made it happen.

    You are a true believer. I dont expect you to have even the capacity to see the problems the ACA is facing. The reality is...if it was such an awesome thing, they wouldnt have had to lie to get it passed. If it was working, they wouldnt have to lie to promote it. And if it was working as well as you believe it is, they would not be able to even consider repealing it.

Page 2 of 43 FirstFirst 123412 ... LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •