Uninsured Rate Continues To Drop Since Obamacare Took Effect.

[Leon Troutsky]

The free market. If you want it you pay for it. Having others pay for it under threat of force is criminal and nothing less

So poor people die because they don't have enough money for insurance. Or their insurance is so inadequate (excludes ER visits, for example) that their actual costs of getting sick means they cannot afford life-saving treatment.

Social darwinism, FTW.

[Flip Flop]

So poor people die because they don't have enough money for insurance. Or their insurance is so inadequate (excludes ER visits, for example) that their actual costs of getting sick means they cannot afford life-saving treatment.

Social darwinism, FTW.

Insurance is a financial instrument not medical care. Poor people will still have difficulty accessing expensive healthcare. We have just added a political element into the mechanism of rationing.

[WOR]

I've long thought that a lack of empathy is the cause of some very bad public policies. It's like Republicans who rail for years against LGBT members. But then suddenly, when they find out their own son is gay, they realize the harm that society has done as a consequence of that rhetoric. What is so hard about thinking (beforehand) of other people's situations for a few minutes, and trying to understand their perspective and have empathy for their situation?

I think a lack of empathy because of political party is 100% correct.

I know plenty of conservatives that love to help everyone, but once you start talking about helping the masses on a grand political scale they go into "toe the party line" mode.

[Leon Troutsky]

Insurance is a financial instrument not medical care. Poor people will still have difficulty accessing expensive healthcare. We have just added a political element into the mechanism of rationing.

Except that it's not as expensive for poor people as it once was. And your argument argues for expanding Medicare to cover those for whom the deductibles and premiums are out of reach.

Nonetheless, Sobeit's argument was that only those who could afford insurance would have insurance. In other words, poor people who get sick just die.

[Sobeit]

So poor people die because they don't have enough money for insurance. Or their insurance is so inadequate (excludes ER visits, for example) that their actual costs of getting sick means they cannot afford life-saving treatment.

Social darwinism, FTW.

Use to be but I do not know now that you could get care without insurance if you were poor. Of course they billed you for it. I have been uninsured and need emergency surgery got care and called and explained got the cost reduced and paid my bills.

Your hypocrisy while you faint outrage over the plight of the poor makes my blood boil. Never has a lack of medical treatment for the poor come close to causing the deaths of 4000 innocent people a day. As Bill Gates has asked do you give granny that surgery or do you hire some teachers. So I argue ACA will end up being used as more of a form of Social Darwinism than a free market system would.

Edited July 12, 2015 by Sobeit

[WOR]

Why does basic Healthcare have to be so expensive that it's nearly impossible for anyone to afford it without being subsidized by a third party?

Just seems ridiculous to me.

[Joremarid]

People who benefited are going to feel good. People who paid more for less are going to feel bad. Pretty simple equation.

I think a more accurate way to say it is that people whose lives were saved will feel good. People who have to pay more are going to feel bad.

[Flip Flop]

Except that it's not as expensive for poor people as it once was. And your argument argues for expanding Medicare to cover those for whom the deductibles and premiums are out of reach.

Nonetheless, Sobeit's argument was that only those who could afford insurance would have insurance. In other words, poor people who get sick just die.

This is about how we will pay for healthcare bills for people who will not pay for their own, correct?

[capologist]

So what is the solution? Deductibles and premiums were skyrocketing before the law. The premiums increases have leveled off some since the law. Not sure if the change in deductibles has altered.

What policies do you promote that would have produced less rise in premiums and deductibles while still providing insurance to people who need it?

Um, in my case, they weren't "skyrocketing". They didn't "skyrocket" until after Obamacare for me. Premiums haven't leveled off, I just got through saying mine doubled and more than likely will be increasing again!

I was happy with the system the way it was. You know, work a full-time job that provides insurance. That said, I think the German system isn't a bad idea but then again, I'm not a healthcare policy expert either. I just know that what is here isn't working and doesn't do a thing to "help" the population overall. At best, it helps a very small percentage of the population...

[capologist]

Except that it's not as expensive for poor people as it once was.

Yeah because the middle class is further burdened by picking up the tab...

[Billy Ocean]

Does anyone owe President Obama a greater debt of gratitude than the big health insurers? Since the ACA was signed into law, their earnings have skyrocketed as they've consistently outperformed the broader stock market.

[Sobeit]

Why does basic Healthcare have to be so expensive that it's nearly impossible for anyone to afford it without being subsidized by a third party?

Just seems ridiculous to me.

There are several reasons one being that Healthcare has become so politicized.

I think a more accurate way to say it is that people whose lives were saved will feel good. People who have to pay more are going to feel bad.

I think a better way of saying it is that we get to steal more money from those people who already pay taxes, donate to charities, and volunteer their time.

[WhenFalconsWin]

Does anyone owe President Obama a greater debt of gratitude than the big health insurers? Since the ACA was signed into law, their earnings have skyrocketed as they've consistently outperformed the broader stock market.

Why should insurers be any different for our POTUS. The 1%ers have thrived under him while the poor have consistently gone backwards under him. It's not hard to help the 1%ers if you're the government, which is what path this POTUS has chosen!

[Leon Troutsky]

You have a waiting period for new a diagnosis. They do it with hazard insurance in Coastal areas. No coverage if a storm has been named, until that storm passes. It keeps people from running out and getting coverage as soon as the **** is about to hit the fan.

They don't want everyone buying insurance, they planned to use the individual mandate penalty as a funding mechanism. The ACA loses money for the government. So every individual that signs up costs the taxpayer money. The ones that don't sign up pay the penalty, which helps the government, but ends up costing the health care industry money.

That would help, but it wouldn't alleviate the problem of preexisting conditions - uninsured people get sick and are unable to get life-saving treatment.

Also, do you keep the subsidies to encourage low-income people to get insurance before the waiting period takes effect?

[Leon Troutsky]

Use to be but I do not know now that you could get care without insurance if you were poor. Of course they billed you for it. I have been uninsured and need emergency surgery got care and called and explained got the cost reduced and paid my bills.

Your hypocrisy while you faint outrage over the plight of the poor makes my blood boil. Never has a lack of medical treatment for the poor come close to causing the deaths of 4000 innocent people a day. As Bill Gates has asked do you give granny that surgery or do you hire some teachers. So I argue ACA will end up being used as more of a form of Social Darwinism than a free market system would.

You could go to an ER, and any unpaid bills get passed along to taxpayers or to those with insurance. That was one contribution to the skyrocketing costs of health care. We were subsidizing them before, just in an indirect and far more expensive manner.

[Leon Troutsky]

Why does basic Healthcare have to be so expensive that it's nearly impossible for anyone to afford it without being subsidized by a third party?

Just seems ridiculous to me.

Health care spending as a percent of GDP is much lower in countries with single payer systems or without as much "free market" policies. So yes, it's ridiculous that we don't look at other countries for inspiration on how to fix our expensive system.

[Leon Troutsky]

Um, in my case, they weren't "skyrocketing". They didn't "skyrocket" until after Obamacare for me. Premiums haven't leveled off, I just got through saying mine doubled and more than likely will be increasing again!

I was happy with the system the way it was. You know, work a full-time job that provides insurance. That said, I think the German system isn't a bad idea but then again, I'm not a healthcare policy expert either. I just know that what is here isn't working and doesn't do a thing to "help" the population overall. At best, it helps a very small percentage of the population...

Anecdote is not evidence. We've been through this before. How can you demonstrate that the extra expenses would not have been even higher if the ACA had not gone into effect?

[Leon Troutsky]

Does anyone owe President Obama a greater debt of gratitude than the big health insurers? Since the ACA was signed into law, their earnings have skyrocketed as they've consistently outperformed the broader stock market.

I thought it was going to destroy insurance companies. Or is it now part of a communist plot by CEOs en route to a government takeover? Or is it already a government takeover and Obama is a Marxist communist corporate shill.

Gosh darn, I get so confused about this sometimes!

[Sobeit]

You could go to an ER, and any unpaid bills get passed along to taxpayers or to those with insurance. That was one contribution to the skyrocketing costs of health care. We were subsidizing them before, just in an indirect and far more expensive manner.

So by your own admission it was not a free market system because government was covering the losses of who? Perhaps a better question is why we are a much sicker nation with all kinds of what use to be rare illnesses are skyrocketing.

[Sobeit]

I thought it was going to destroy insurance companies. Or is it now part of a communist plot by CEOs en route to a government takeover? Or is it already a government takeover and Obama is a Marxist communist corporate shill.

Gosh darn, I get so confused about this sometimes!

Facts are facts no matter how you try to deflect them. Insurance companies helped write the legislation because we all know how the insurance companies wanted to stick it to big insurance companies. At the end of the day I am sure they just cared about the quality and quantity of care given to the poor.

[Flip Flop]

Anecdote is not evidence. We've been through this before. How can you demonstrate that the extra expenses would not have been even higher if the ACA had not gone into effect?

All this despite a plan designed to lower insurance costs. We can only imagine how high medical costs would be if the government didn't regulate how we buy, sell, and insure medical treatments.

[Leon Troutsky]

So by your own admission it was not a free market system because government was covering the losses of who? Perhaps a better question is why we are a much sicker nation with all kinds of what use to be rare illnesses are skyrocketing.

You act like public hospitals are a recent phenomenon. And your answer is to eliminate all public funding for hospitals and health care providers? Do you have any idea how far rural people would have to travel to get emergency care? As I said, Social Darwinism FTW.

The second question is a good one, but one completely unrelated to the ACA. I suspect some part of it has to do with declining worker wages and the lack of accessibility to healthy foods (e.g., food deserts).

[Sobeit]

You act like public hospitals are a recent phenomenon. And your answer is to eliminate all public funding for hospitals and health care providers? Do you have any idea how far rural people would have to travel to get emergency care? As I said, Social Darwinism FTW.

The second question is a good one, but one completely unrelated to the ACA. I suspect some part of it has to do with declining worker wages and the lack of accessibility to healthy foods (e.g., food deserts).

While officially suppose to be non-profit public hospitals have made a killing and pay out some outrageous salaries. I know me and my sister who is a hospice nurse have these conversations about the monopoly that public hospitals have. Anyway ACA is certainly not the answer to the problem the government has created with health care.

[kicker]

That would help, but it wouldn't alleviate the problem of preexisting conditions - uninsured people get sick and are unable to get life-saving treatment.

Also, do you keep the subsidies to encourage low-income people to get insurance before the waiting period takes effect?

That isn't the "problem" with respect to the vast majority of people that got screwed under the old system. The old system screwed over the people that had chronic illnesses and were simply uninsurable through no fault of their own. They typically got sick, got laid off, hit the cap in their plan, and filed for bankruptcy.

Most people that were healthy and got sick but declined to buy insurance were idiots that gambled and lost. I have no empathy for those people. Yep, greedy idiots.

That $300 for insurance was too expensive...until it wasn't.

[xskyx]

Next up: 100% employment.

If that goea like the Obamacare did..

"Work or be punished"

Man, that sounds like something America incorporated a few decades ago, doesn't it?