Jump to content

Uninsured Rate Continues To Drop Since Obamacare Took Effect.


Recommended Posts

  • Replies 594
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Choose what?

How we will spend our money as it relates to healthcare. The only solution is for government to use its position as he legal arbiter of force to coerce the citizens into buying and selling healthcare according to the determinations of the political powers of the day.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Because you can't? If you are not insured and get sick and can't pay 100,000 bill taxpayers pay it anyway. This way everyone is covered and everyone is paying their share.

Sure. That works so well, we should do it with everything. We should figure out a way to help people who can't afford homes to get mortgages as easily as those who can. Then we can package their loans together with all the others and share the risk. There is no down side. Tell those dismal scientists that their really is a free lunch.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If we could provide everyone a home that would be awesome and I'm sure the homeless would appreciate it. Financially improbable to impossible but it would be nice. Not sure why you took that and applied it to all things though. It would work well with education too, or do you think we should keep paying astronomical prices when other counties offer free education?

Do you think that government lowers the cost of the markets when it is involved? I.e. education is less expensive because of government involvement, healthcare is less expensive because of government involvement, energy is less expensive because of government involvement, construction is less expensive because of government involvement, etc..

Edited by Flip Flop
Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.

Way to ignore my entire post and write something completely unrelated instead. Your idea is to eliminate all public funding, which would destroy access for rural residents and other areas.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Sure. That works so well, we should do it with everything. We should figure out a way to help people who can't afford homes to get mortgages as easily as those who can. Then we can package their loans together with all the others and share the risk. There is no down side. Tell those dismal scientists that their really is a free lunch.

We both know there was a lot of fraud going on with the bundled sub-prime mortgages that were sold to investors. And we both know there was a lot of fraud going on during the process of giving those loans to lower income people. It might have been legal, but it was fraud.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Way to ignore my entire post and write something completely unrelated instead. Your idea is to eliminate all public funding, which would destroy access for rural residents and other areas.

No I did not ignore your entire post. I am a rural resident and I understand some of the things I give up by being one. Trying to help you develop a thought that is not a democratic talking point.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

No I did not ignore your entire post. I am a rural resident and I understand some of the things I give up by being one. Trying to help you develop a thought that is not a democratic talking point.

Access to emergency rooms and hospitals should not be something rural people have to give up. Public funding for hospitals provides an essential public service. Eliminating all government involvement with health care would be disastrous for millions of people, unnecessarily so.

Again, look at the facts. The US spends more per GDP on health care than any advanced industrial democracy in the world. And we have worse results from it in terms of infant mortality and other health measures, as well. Put simply, we're doing it wrong. We should learn from those other countries.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

One of my best friends had her life saved twice. First it was a broken arm that required surgery. During the surgery, they realized something wasn't right and were soon able to diagnose her with multiple myeloma, which typically kills you within a few years. But, due to the early diagnosis, they were able to treat it.

Her life was saved a second time when she was fired from her job but was able to get onto Obamacare and continue her treatment. She is in remission and healthy.

Do NOT tell her (or me) that Obamacare is a colossal failure.

I have no problem with making sure that all people have insurance. I have a problem with it being done in a manner that mostly benefits corporations that were already making lots of money at the expense of taxpayers.

this is going to be no better than the student loan program in the long run....channeling money from the lower and middle class into the pockets of the wealthy. we were just forced to give a crapload of money to the private medical field without doing anything to address the cost of those services

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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?

I know you love to immediately shun anecdotal evidence (see, it's evidence) but when it's BCBS, I'm pretty sure that's a little more substantial. How can I demonstrate it? Because the previous two years didn't show a doubling of premiums? It's not some magical coincidence...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Access to emergency rooms and hospitals should not be something rural people have to give up. Public funding for hospitals provides an essential public service. Eliminating all government involvement with health care would be disastrous for millions of people, unnecessarily so.

Again, look at the facts. The US spends more per GDP on health care than any advanced industrial democracy in the world. And we have worse results from it in terms of infant mortality and other health measures, as well. Put simply, we're doing it wrong. We should learn from those other countries.

Do yourself a favor and drill down on infant mortality. Don't take the headline and run with it.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Access to emergency rooms and hospitals should not be something rural people have to give up. Public funding for hospitals provides an essential public service. Eliminating all government involvement with health care would be disastrous for millions of people, unnecessarily so.

Again, look at the facts. The US spends more per GDP on health care than any advanced industrial democracy in the world. And we have worse results from it in terms of infant mortality and other health measures, as well. Put simply, we're doing it wrong. We should learn from those other countries.

Yes we spend more because of skyrocketing cost and very poor health for a industrialized nation well a once industrialized nation. It is not government's responsibility to provide everyone with everything. Government does not produce a thing all they can do is take what some one else has and give it to another.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

And we have worse results from it in terms of infant mortality and other health measures, as well. Put simply, we're doing it wrong. We should learn from those other countries.

Sorry, I won't wait for you to do the research.

Here's what you miss when you only read the headline...

The U.S. counts all live births as being "alive." The vast majority of countries, including nearly all of Europe (last I check it was all of Europe) did not consider a woman delivering a 24 week old baby, who in nearly every instance will die, a birth. They consider it a miscarriage. The CDC says that accounts for nearly 40% of the .6% infant mortality rate.

And when you factor in the number of babies that die once they're home, the U.S. is right at the top of Europe.

Google "neonatal mortality rate".

Link to comment
Share on other sites

We both know there was a lot of fraud going on with the bundled sub-prime mortgages that were sold to investors. And we both know there was a lot of fraud going on during the process of giving those loans to lower income people. It might have been legal, but it was fraud.

Of course there was. That is what happens when you take something so blatantly fit for free exchange and turn it into a political decision. My personal financial decisions should not be political. I should be able to buy healthcare without government interference.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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?

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2014/oct/28/obamacare-sends-health-premiums-skyrocketing-by-as/?page=all

http://www.politico.com/story/2015/05/how-affordable-is-the-affordable-care-act-118428.html

All the ACA did was mandate 20 million more customers, it did nothing to regulate costs or drug costs but like I said, I expected the canned "anectdotal evidence" response...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Our family plan went from $265 per month to $625 per month. Deductable went from $2000 per year to $5000 per year. This amounts to our out of pocket expense of over $11,000 per year if we used our plan. This is a disaster for our family and amounts to a crime for millions in the same boat. The worse is yet to come.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Our family plan went from $265 per month to $625 per month. Deductable went from $2000 per year to $5000 per year. This amounts to our out of pocket expense of over $11,000 per year if we used our plan. This is a disaster for our family and amounts to a crime for millions in the same boat. The worse is yet to come.

+1 because you are right

It's like that for far more of us than the handful of people it has helped. Our higher premiums.deductibles are for the ones getting the break. We would have been better off putting whatever the fictitious number of uninsured on medicaid rather than blowing up the entire healthcare system which has only begun to see the problems will be seeing explode in the future.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.

Never has been a free-market system. That is precisely one of the issues. Free-market would mean competition and transparency in pricing, and there is absolutely none of that now. And frankly, without changing it from a monopoly to a monopsony, I don't know how that changes.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

+1 because you are right

It's like that for far more of us than the handful of people it has helped. Our higher premiums.deductibles are for the ones getting the break. We would have been better off putting whatever the fictitious number of uninsured on medicaid rather than blowing up the entire healthcare system which has only begun to see the problems will be seeing explode in the future.

Obamacare was sold as a lie. "We could keep our doctors"- Nope. "We could keep our plans" - Nope. "We would save $2500 per family" - Nope. And lets be clear. The so called 15 million that were not insured before the plan, many were self employed and Not counted. The numbers of Uninsured was far less and the numbers lied about to make a headline and political point. So, by forcing Millions of us into catastrophic plans, which is what ours is and many others we know, and make us pay $11k per year for this plan it kills by a 1000 slices so many of us because we Now cannot afford our plans. The old adage that if we can save 1 life is nonsense. Obamacare has killed, economically millions of us by destroying the patient doctor relationship, our personal financial plans and its simple unaffordable for states and their medicaid budgets. Its a disaster. So, for that 1 gal a poster said was saved, there are millions who can' afford a CAT scan because its out of pocket for the 1st $5000 and our monthly premiums have sunk our personal budgets.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'd rather people feel bad for paying a little more for insurance (the majority of which can probably afford the increase) than for people to go without life-saving medical treatment. People dying because of preexisting condition bans and other flaws with the previous system versus some people paying a little more out of pocket a year.

this is total horse-hockey bullsheot.

middle class is getting squeeze into lower-middle class. your sunshine and roses above is only looking at half-the-apple. For the folks getting subsidized and the pre-existing crowd - Obamacare is awesome.

For those like me that has gone from paying $500/mo to $1,000/mo in basic health insurance coverage (not a cadillac plan) - it is MAJOR downgrade - maybe you are a rich man that can burn an extra $500/mo with a match - but it matters a lot to me with a stay-at-home wife and three kids.

Obamacare picks winners and losers - the winners are the sick that could not get insurance and the deadbeats getting another free ride......everybody else is a loser.

KEEP IN MIND.......To sell this sack of sheot, Obama said "the average family would save $2,500/yr on health insurance" - What a dayum liar.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

this is total horse-hockey bullsheot.

middle class is getting squeeze into lower-middle class. your sunshine and roses above is only looking at half-the-apple. For the folks getting subsidized and the pre-existing crowd - Obamacare is awesome.

For those like me that has gone from paying $500/mo to $1,000/mo in basic health insurance coverage (not a cadillac plan) - it is MAJOR downgrade - maybe you are a rich man that can burn an extra $500/mo with a match - but it matters a lot to me with a stay-at-home wife and three kids.

Obamacare picks winners and losers - the winners are the sick that could not get insurance and the deadbeats getting another free ride......everybody else is a loser.

KEEP IN MIND.......To sell this sack of sheot, Obama said "the average family would save $2,500/yr on health insurance" - What a dayum liar.

Thats absolutely right. Obama lied over 30 times on TV about keeping your plan, your doctor, costs to shrink $2500 and its all a lie. Its a horrible thing that half the country are takers or just couldn't care enough to do for themselves, be responsible and take care of your own life.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

 Share


×
×
  • Create New...