Jump to content

Uninsured Rate Continues To Drop Since Obamacare Took Effect.


Recommended Posts

  • Replies 594
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Them welfare queens and thugs, amirite?

America was built on hard work, family and doing the right thing.

Lower class and particularly black families were much moreso intact prior to LBJ's great society - the welfare state. Since then, the culture shifted and there was much more of an abdication of responsibility by black fathers and a breakdown of families - in all races but moreso in black culture.

LBJ's "great society" ended up encouraging moral decay by subsidizing unwed mothers, abdication of responsibility of fathers, and resulted in children growing up without their fathers - and the crime statistics of young men raised in these circumstances speak for themself. Another failed liberal experiment.

"Good intentions don't matter, results do".

Link to comment
Share on other sites

There

America was built on hard work, family and doing the right thing.

Lower class and particularly black families were much moreso intact prior to LBJ's great society - the welfare state. Since then, the culture shifted and there was much more of an abdication of responsibility by black fathers and a breakdown of families - in all races but moreso in black culture.

LBJ's "great society" ended up encouraging moral decay by subsidizing unwed mothers, abdication of responsibility of fathers, and resulted in children growing up without their fathers - and the crime statistics of young men raised in these circumstances speak for themself. Another failed liberal experiment.

"Good intentions don't matter, results do".

There is a lot of truths in these statements, more so than either party is willing to admit!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

There

There is a lot of truths in these statements, more so than either party is willing to admit!

correct.......simply a failure of government and the unintended consequences (I guess) were worse than what the law's supposed benefits would be.

of course, no one from the left ever wants to go back and examine results of legislation - they want to have collective amnesia about "how we got here" - and offer more government to the solution to the problem that the original legislation created.

Very similiar to the housing collapse - I am in the mortgage business - there was pressure from Barney Frank and Christopher Dodd and other Dems on the Hill to relax credit standards so that more lower income people could experience "the American Dream" and buy a home and get a mortgage. I helped many people purchase homes who would go on to face foreclosure - the mortgage guidelines had been so relaxed to the point that these people legally qualified but really honestly should not have qualified - people that have not had a history of paying their small bills generally are not going to start when you give them a mortgage. In an ironic twist, there is the "Frank-Dodd" act that was legislation now being used to try and help clean up the mortgage mess that both of those Senators played a role in creating - you cannot make this stuff up!

You will end up seeing these same "fixes" proposed to Obamacare - a bad law that will be - on balance - bad for the majority of its US Citizens. While it will benefit the uninsurable and the hand-out crowd - it will blow another hole in our future deficits and continue to help tamp down our economy - which would be doing much better were there no Obamacare.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

A very telling part of the conservative mindset is the belief that there this massive army of deadbeats that are burdening in the system.

That isn't the conservative view. That is conservatism through a leftist lens.

What is the difference between these two statements: Unemployment insurance helps people who are down and out. Unemployment insurance funds unemployment.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 6 months later...

resurrecting this to prevent a new thread on the subject

https://www.yahoo.com/finance/news/obamacare-enrollment-stalls-projections-slashed-172200311.html

The Kaiser poll is just one sign that gains in coverage are slowing. The Congressional Budget Office slashed its estimate of exchange enrollment from 21 million to 13 million by 2026 in its annual Budget and Economic Outlook that was released on Tuesday. 

According to the CBO, millions of people who aren’t eligible for income-based subsidies will instead purchase coverage directly from an insurer, thereby reducing the number of people using the Obamacare exchanges. The CBO also reduced its estimates for marketplace enrollment in 2015 from 11 million to 9.5 million, with the difference being due to a smaller number of unsubsidized enrollees than anticipated.

The Gallup-Healthways Well-Being Index, released earlier this month, found stagnant growth in the nation’s uninsured rate in 2015. The survey showed that 11.9 percent of adults were not covered by insurance in the final quarter of 2015, the same level as in the first quarter.

“This validates concerns that similarly large reductions may not be possible in the future because the remaining uninsured are harder to reach or less inclined to become insured more generally,” the survey reads. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

more bad news

http://www.thefiscaltimes.com/Columns/2015/12/10/Obamacare-s-Condition-Has-Gone-Critical-Life-Support

In 2014, premiums spiked, and then in 2015 they exploded again along with deductibles so high that many decided not to be insured at all. Over half of Obamacare’s co-ops collapsed this year, most of them this fall, and now the providers who took their clients may end up stuck with the bills.

“Health care providers could get stuck with unpaid bills in a half dozen states where co-op plans have collapsed,” reports Politico Pro’s Paul Demko. “That's because there's no financial backstop in those states if the failed nonprofit startups backed by Obamacare loans run out of money before paying off all of their medical claims.” The failure of the co-op Health Republic Insurance of New York left $165 million in unpaid bills, and a survey showed 64 percent of New York providers waiting for payment. Had a private-sector insurer defaulted in a similar manner, these providers would have been compensated from a guaranty fund set up by the industry.

Obamacare co-ops had no such backstop, and more than 600,000 Americans will have to find insurance that is more expensive or do without.

Still, as bad as the news has been over the past five years, the remaining illusions were shattered by the CBO and the White House itself this week. Obamacare didn’t make much of a dent in the uninsured rate, it has forced costs to rise faster than before, and it will kill millions of jobs that otherwise would be created.

“The labor force is projected to be about 2 million full-time-equivalent workers smaller in 2025 under the ACA than it would have been otherwise,” the CBO concludes in the latest analysis of Obamacare’s impact on the economy. Much of the reason — the CBO puts it at 75 percent — comes from the net increase of effective tax rates on labor, which will incentivize potential workers to stay out of the work force. Democrats claim that this is a feature rather than a bug, as people can choose not to work. However, even with that rose-colored glasses view, it means that the rest of the taxpayers will have to subsidize the health care of those who opt out, whether happily or unhappily.

The depressing impact on job growth is not the only illusion shattered, either. The Centers for Medicare and Medicaid (CMS) published a study on Obamacare’s impact on costs and on reducing the numbers of uninsured — and it fails on both counts. The CBO estimated after the passage of Obamacare that the number of uninsured would drop 19 million by 2014 from a 2010 benchmark. Instead, it has only dropped 12.6 million. As Avik Roy points out at Forbes , the 2010 level of uninsured was artificially high due to the impact of the Great Recession. Using 2008 as a benchmark, the number of uninsured has dropped by only 6.7 million.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, lostone said:

Dago, should we go back to the old system?  Are do we push forward and fix this?

Honestly I have no idea....it's a complete mess. I don't know that this is fixable but here are a few things I do know

1) many people, including myself, said that there was no way this would work. the response was the quoting of CBO numbers (the same CBO who now predicts doom) and to tell us that we must hate poor people. yes that happened a lot in here

2) before the ACA my poor backwards state of Louisiana had a very good charity system. somehow as crappy as this state ranks nationally we were able to do a pretty good job of getting the poor the care they needed. I got treated for Guillain-Barre' and had a neck fusion following a wreck through it. Was it as quick and efficient as someone with insurance? no but I didn't pay a penny so I got no room to complain

3) a lot of people said that the ACA wasn't supposed to succeed....that it was designed to fail catastrophically so that the government could step in and take control

4) the best way to drive down medical costs is for Americans to take some responsibility for our own health. statistics show that areas where poverty is prevalent have the worst obesity rates 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On July 15, 2015 at 4:59 PM, g-dawg said:

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.

A few things.  Nothing that you said even remotely addresses the point in my post.  My post was about people who can afford it paying a little more versus a previous system where people died because they could not afford any insurance at all.  You seemed to be reiterating the point...you'd rather save money each month and let people with preexisting conditions suffer.

Obamacare hasn't addressed the cost of insurance.  But laughably, the people you support would make that situation worse.  Bernie Sanders is the only person proposing a solution that would actually lower the cost of health care - a solution that has proven effective in other countries.  The people you support would loosen what few regulations we already have and allow companies to continue charging more each year for devices, procedures, and other services in the health care industry.  The problem is a lack of government involvement with keeping costs down because that's "big gubment picking winners and losers".  In reality, what's needed is for the government to find incentives for companies to offer lower costs.  That could be in the form of negotiating the cost of services between the government, doctors, and insurance companies.  Another option would be non-profit insurance companies like what they have in Japan.  There are options out there that will lower costs, but none of the people you support have offered them and in fact they outright reject those options.

So you're basically sitting there saying, "hyuck hyuck, costs are going up, thanks Obama!  Let's vote for these other people who would do nothing about the problem I'm complaining about, and would make matters worse."

You want to whine about the supposed problems of Obamacare?  Fine, show me the candidate who has promoted ideas that would actually reverse those rising costs.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

47 minutes ago, Dago 3.0 said:

Honestly I have no idea....it's a complete mess. I don't know that this is fixable but here are a few things I do know

1) many people, including myself, said that there was no way this would work. the response was the quoting of CBO numbers (the same CBO who now predicts doom) and to tell us that we must hate poor people. yes that happened a lot in here

2) before the ACA my poor backwards state of Louisiana had a very good charity system. somehow as crappy as this state ranks nationally we were able to do a pretty good job of getting the poor the care they needed. I got treated for Guillain-Barre' and had a neck fusion following a wreck through it. Was it as quick and efficient as someone with insurance? no but I didn't pay a penny so I got no room to complain

3) a lot of people said that the ACA wasn't supposed to succeed....that it was designed to fail catastrophically so that the government could step in and take control

4) the best way to drive down medical costs is for Americans to take some responsibility for our own health. statistics show that areas where poverty is prevalent have the worst obesity rates 

 

I think you misunderstood the article that you posted.  The CBO isn't "predicting doom".  They said that the uninsured rate would decline at a lesser rate than it has the last few years.  That's testament to the success of Obamacare at getting more people covered.  The repeal crowd would throw all of those people off of their plans.  The issue isn't uninsured rates, it's the continued rise in health care costs. 

To that end, "take some responsibility for our own health"...what does that even mean?  How would that reduce medical costs, specifically?  The point about poverty and obesity is also related to the cost of healthy food and exercise options.  Poor people have to eat at McDonalds and shop at grocery stores that have a lack of healthy options (e.g., "food deserts").  "Take some responsibility" really means "poor people should become wealthier so they can afford to buy healthy food and live in areas where such food is available".  Not a solution at all.

There are solutions that would address the complaints you have.  But you reject them and those who propose them because of an ideological viewpoint that sees any and all government action as suspect.  Why can't the government regulate the industry to restrict excess greed and over-charging of products?  In other words, why not just ban price gouging in the health care market?  Why can't the government restructure the incentive structure so that competition occurs at the level of doctors/hospitals instead of insurance companies being driven by a profit margin?  Why can't the government eliminate the insurance industry altogether and pay doctors directly for the services, and negotiate the price of those services directly?  Why can't the government restructure the patent industry to allow low-cost alternatives to hit the market sooner?

These things have worked in other countries, but for some reason proposing them here is evil big government that doesn't do anything right.  So instead we get people on the right who complain about the problem of high costs while simultaneously proposing candidates (like libertarians) who would enact policies that would drive us in exactly the opposite direction.  Because profit is all that matters, or sumsht.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, Trout_Farm said:

 

I think you misunderstood the article that you posted.  The CBO isn't "predicting doom".  They said that the uninsured rate would decline at a lesser rate than it has the last few years.  That's testament to the success of Obamacare at getting more people covered.  The repeal crowd would throw all of those people off of their plans.  The issue isn't uninsured rates, it's the continued rise in health care costs. 

To that end, "take some responsibility for our own health"...what does that even mean?  How would that reduce medical costs, specifically?  The point about poverty and obesity is also related to the cost of healthy food and exercise options.  Poor people have to eat at McDonalds and shop at grocery stores that have a lack of healthy options (e.g., "food deserts").  "Take some responsibility" really means "poor people should become wealthier so they can afford to buy healthy food and live in areas where such food is available".  Not a solution at all.

There are solutions that would address the complaints you have.  But you reject them and those who propose them because of an ideological viewpoint that sees any and all government action as suspect.  Why can't the government regulate the industry to restrict excess greed and over-charging of products?  In other words, why not just ban price gouging in the health care market?  Why can't the government restructure the incentive structure so that competition occurs at the level of doctors/hospitals instead of insurance companies being driven by a profit margin?  Why can't the government eliminate the insurance industry altogether and pay doctors directly for the services, and negotiate the price of those services directly?  Why can't the government restructure the patent industry to allow low-cost alternatives to hit the market sooner?

These things have worked in other countries, but for some reason proposing them here is evil big government that doesn't do anything right.  So instead we get people on the right who complain about the problem of high costs while simultaneously proposing candidates (like libertarians) who would enact policies that would drive us in exactly the opposite direction.  Because profit is all that matters, or sumsht.  

Trout I know you are better than this

you completely ignored the points about costs. when this was originally shoved down our throats, we were told that certain levels of enrollment would equate to keeping costs down. if that isn't met, logically costs will be far higher. the CBO has literally slashed its enrollment estimates by 40% and you don't think that will have an effect on premiums and deductibles? it already has

you also conveniently ignore the effect on the labor market. 2 million workers in the next 9 years but go ahead and pretend that doesn't exist. you also ignore the point about the uninsured rate being artificially inflated due to the recession of 2010. based on the numbers before that, the rates of uninsured hasn't gone down that much. you also won't address a cost versus benefit analysis of what the ACA has done so far

and "poor people HAVE to eat at McDonald's"? go do a ******* google search for "eating healthy on a budget" and you will see it can be done. the difference is that it takes planning and effort while eating at McDonald's doesn't

you know why it's obvious that your post is crap? you couldn't cite any facts or statistics to counter what I posted which is coming straight from the CBO (you know....the organization you thought was so reliable when they were giving us the projections on the ACA). all you did was resort to the same old crap rhetoric by basically saying I don't understand poverty and you do.

my dad worked on the barges and my mom worked in a grocery store deli when I was young. we were poor as ****. I've been homeless myself and lived in my car and I work with the poor every day while you sit in your ivory tower 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Also, from Dago's article above:

 

Quote

Obamacare co-ops had no such backstop, and more than 600,000 Americans will have to find insurance that is more expensive or do without.

 

On its face, this seems like a failure of the original ACA to provide assistance to coops that might be struggling during their early years.  Dig a little deeper, and you find political shenanigans are behind this lack of a backstop for the coops.  This is a long read with some complicated ideas, but follow with it:

 

Quote

https://www.washingtonpost.com/national/health-science/financial-health-shaky-at-many-obamacare-insurance-co-ops/2015/10/08/2ab8f3ec-6c66-11e5-9bfe-e59f5e244f92_story.html

“The reality of this business is, it’s just tough,” said Kevin Counihan, CMS’s chief executive for the ACA marketplaces. “On balance, the co-ops are working. Are they working uniformly? No.”

The co-op disappearances are disrupting coverage for nearly 400,000 customers across five states, according to the most recent publicly available enrollment figures. But the ripple effects could be broader. Research has suggested that in the states in which they were created, insurance premiums were typically 9 percent lower than elsewhere in the country.

As co-ops shut down, their supporters say, the decreased competition probably will lead to higher rates in those states.

The program has been under siege from the start, including from the insurance industry. Before the law’s passage, government grants to help them get going were switched to loans. None of that money could go for advertising — a wounding rule for new insurers that needed to attract customers. Moreover, the amount available was cut from $10 billion to $6 billion and then later, as part of the administration’s budget deals with congressional Republicans, to $2.4 billion. Federal health officials abandoned plans for a co-op in every state.

At the time, some health policy experts warned that the constraints would make it difficult for some co-ops to thrive. Most of the plans predicted that they would not break even for their first few years.

...

In August, federal officials delayed another type of assistance intended to help cushion the risk of covering the previously uninsured. This temporary “risk corridor” money was cut last week to a small fraction of what many co-ops had been banking on. The Kentucky co-op blamed its demise on its cut — from an expected $77 million to less than $10 million.

 

 

To summarize, everybody knew that coops would struggle during their first year and there were some programs like the "risk corridor" in Obamacare to help these struggling companies through the first years.  But that money was cut recently and the coops only got a little bit of what they had expected.  And at least one - the Kentucky co-op - has said that this lack of funds is why they had to shut down.

So why wasn't the money there?  A flaw with Obamacare...stupid government regulation run amok?  Here's the story behind that:

http://www.politifact.com/florida/statements/2015/dec/07/marco-rubio/rubio-says-he-prevented-25-billion-obamacare-bailo/

From the article:

"The ACA upended the traditional health insurance model of selling mostly to healthy people, mandating that insurers must provide policies to everyone, regardless of health or pre-existing conditions. That presented a problem for the companies, which didn’t know how much they would need to charge in premiums in order to cover their expenses for all the new policies.  

To help companies stay solvent as they adjusted their rates to proper levels, the law provided a three-year period in which the government would spread the risk among all insurers in ACA marketplaces. This program, set to last between 2014-16, is known as risk corridors.

If some insurers are successful in setting their marketplace rates properly and make more than a certain amount, Washington gets some of that extra money, referred to as user fees. Companies that don’t do well have a portion of their losses covered by the government.

Rubio has opposed the risk corridors since 2013, introducing legislation in the Senate to repeal the program. His bill didn’t go anywhere, but Rubio continued to speak out against the provision, referring to the program as a "bailout" for unsuccessful insurance companies."

So Republicans, including Marco Rubio, wanted to repeal the risk corridors that protected against the very thing that you, Dago, are complaining about.  His bill never passed...but this is what DID pass:

"When Congress passed a spending bill in December 2014, it included a sentence, or a "rider" in legislative speak, that said the CMS’ parent agency, the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, could not move money around in its budget to pay extra risk corridor expenses. Other legislators have credited Rubio with inspiring this language. Rubio has since reintroduced his bill to repeal risk corridors.

Everyone had to wait until insurance companies turned in their results to see how the risk corridors were working. The first year didn’t go as well as CMS and the Obama administration had hoped. In October 2015, CMS announced the risk corridors program took in $362 million for 2014, while less successful insurers asked for a total of $2.87 billion.

That left a $2.5 billion shortfall CMS can’t pay.

CMS said it would pay out 12.6 percent of claims from 2014 this year, leading some insurers to leave the marketplaces or even collapse altogether. Rubio now is on the campaign trail trumpeting the move as potentially being "a big part of ending Obamacare for good."

So basically, the original Obamacare legislation had "risk corridors" that offered protection - identical to what is in the private sector now - for companies that miscalculated payouts.  Republicans in Congress disrupted that protection program to stymy the CMS's ability to payout to struggling companies.  Those companies left he marketplaces and went out of business because CMS could only pay a fraction of what they expected to get.  

Thus, the natural reaction is to blame Obama and the ACA itself and elect people who would completely undo the legislation.  That makes no sense whatsoever.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 minutes ago, Dago 3.0 said:

Trout I know you are better than this

you completely ignored the points about costs. when this was originally shoved down our throats, we were told that certain levels of enrollment would equate to keeping costs down. if that isn't met, logically costs will be far higher. the CBO has literally slashed its enrollment estimates by 40% and you don't think that will have an effect on premiums and deductibles? it already has

you also conveniently ignore the effect on the labor market. 2 million workers in the next 9 years but go ahead and pretend that doesn't exist. you also ignore the point about the uninsured rate being artificially inflated due to the recession of 2010. based on the numbers before that, the rates of uninsured hasn't gone down that much. you also won't address a cost versus benefit analysis of what the ACA has done so far

and "poor people HAVE to eat at McDonald's"? go do a ******* google search for "eating healthy on a budget" and you will see it can be done. the difference is that it takes planning and effort while eating at McDonald's doesn't

you know why it's obvious that your post is crap? you couldn't cite any facts or statistics to counter what I posted which is coming straight from the CBO (you know....the organization you thought was so reliable when they were giving us the projections on the ACA). all you did was resort to the same old crap rhetoric by basically saying I don't understand poverty and you do.

my dad worked on the barges and my mom worked in a grocery store deli when I was young. we were poor as ****. I've been homeless myself and lived in my car and I work with the poor every day while you sit in your ivory tower 

 

The CBO reduced its estimate of future enrollment, yes.  That doesn't address the millions already enrolled nor does it address the current declines in uninsured rates.  IOW, the CBO didn't say "hey guys, we didn't enroll as many people as we thought we had".  They are saying, "enrollment five years from now won't be a high as we thought it was going to be."  That's not "predicting doom", and my point is that the repeal crowd would throw the millions who got insurance through the program off the rolls entirely.  

You assume that healthy, affordable food is available in those areas.  That was my point about "food deserts".  In the suburbs, healthy food might be affordable.  It's still more expensive than junk food, but it's there.  But in a lot of inner city, poor areas, the grocery stores do not carry those things.  And when they do carry healthy options, they cost more than they do in suburbia.  So the options available to those in poverty are much more limited than the options available to those who are more affluent.  

And while you're talking about people's backgrounds and personal experiences, you might want to look into the backgrounds of other people.  My father worked in construction most of his life and my mother was a secretary for most of her career.  I don't come from upper class background, and the vast majority of my students are first generation college goers (like myself) who also don't come from affluent families.  So don't sit here and pretend like you're the only person on these boards who doesn't understand what it's like to struggle financially.  My old screen name used to be "Ramen" for a reason.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, Trout_Farm said:

The CBO reduced its estimate of future enrollment, yes.  That doesn't address the millions already enrolled nor does it address the current declines in uninsured rates.  IOW, the CBO didn't say "hey guys, we didn't enroll as many people as we thought we had".  They are saying, "enrollment five years from now won't be a high as we thought it was going to be."  That's not "predicting doom", and my point is that the repeal crowd would throw the millions who got insurance through the program off the rolls entirely.  

You assume that healthy, affordable food is available in those areas.  That was my point about "food deserts".  In the suburbs, healthy food might be affordable.  It's still more expensive than junk food, but it's there.  But in a lot of inner city, poor areas, the grocery stores do not carry those things.  And when they do carry healthy options, they cost more than they do in suburbia.  So the options available to those in poverty are much more limited than the options available to those who are more affluent.  

And while you're talking about people's backgrounds and personal experiences, you might want to look into the backgrounds of other people.  My father worked in construction most of his life and my mother was a secretary for most of her career.  I don't come from upper class background, and the vast majority of my students are first generation college goers (like myself) who also don't come from affluent families.  So don't sit here and pretend like you're the only person on these boards who doesn't understand what it's like to struggle financially.  My old screen name used to be "Ramen" for a reason.

was your family fat? did you eat at McDonalds all the time?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, Dago 3.0 said:

how does what you posted disagree with my point that this is a failure and how does that address the 40% reduction in enrollment projections or the 2 million in lost jobs?

I was making the point about alternatives to Obamacare.  You complained about coops and blamed Obamacare.  My post shows very clearly that the coops likely would not have gone out of business without Marco Rubio's rider in the budget bill that undermined the risk corridors designed in the original legislation to help these companies.  In other words, you want to complain about the coops going out of business?  The rider to the spending bill that Marco Rubio and Republicans snuck in there is the cause of that, not the original Obamacare.

The "2 million in lost jobs" is not 2 million jobs lost.  That has been a false talking point by Republicans the entire time.  Here is an article that explains this clearly:

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/fact-checker/wp/2014/02/04/no-cbo-did-not-say-obamacare-will-kill-2-million-jobs/

A lot of those lost work hours (not jobs) are from people who are only working so they can get insurance.  Workers, in other words, can get insurance through the exchanges and don't have to work longer hours or second jobs, so they are choosing to work fewer hours as a consequence.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 minutes ago, Trout_Farm said:

I was making the point about alternatives to Obamacare.  You complained about coops and blamed Obamacare.  My post shows very clearly that the coops likely would not have gone out of business without Marco Rubio's rider in the budget bill that undermined the risk corridors designed in the original legislation to help these companies.  In other words, you want to complain about the coops going out of business?  The rider to the spending bill that Marco Rubio and Republicans snuck in there is the cause of that, not the original Obamacare.

The "2 million in lost jobs" is not 2 million jobs lost.  That has been a false talking point by Republicans the entire time.  Here is an article that explains this clearly:

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/fact-checker/wp/2014/02/04/no-cbo-did-not-say-obamacare-will-kill-2-million-jobs/

A lot of those lost work hours (not jobs) are from people who are only working so they can get insurance.  Workers, in other words, can get insurance through the exchanges and don't have to work longer hours or second jobs, so they are choosing to work fewer hours as a consequence.  

Jesus dude...you think this is a good thing? From your own article...

"One big issue: the health insurance subsidies in the law. That’s a substantial benefit that decreases as people earn more money, so at a certain point, a person has to choose between earning more money or continuing to get the maximum help with health insurance payments. In other words, people might work longer and harder, but actually earn no more, or earn even less, money. That is a disincentive to work. (The same thing happens when people qualify for food stamps or other social services.)"

You think it is a good thing that our government has put a system in place that will reward people for turning down raises and working less hours? Do you really think that is a sustainable model?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

11 minutes ago, Dago 3.0 said:

was your family fat? did you eat at McDonalds all the time?

Actually, my family does struggle with obesity.  A lot of that was personal choices.  Back in the 1980s and early 1990s, you didn't have as big of a problem with food deserts that you do now.  You can find exceptions and anecdotes, but the fact is that healthy food is much harder to find and much more expensive for people living in impoverished areas than it is in more affluent ones.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, Dago 3.0 said:

Jesus dude...you think this is a good thing? From your own article...

"One big issue: the health insurance subsidies in the law. That’s a substantial benefit that decreases as people earn more money, so at a certain point, a person has to choose between earning more money or continuing to get the maximum help with health insurance payments. In other words, people might work longer and harder, but actually earn no more, or earn even less, money. That is a disincentive to work. (The same thing happens when people qualify for food stamps or other social services.)"

You think it is a good thing that our government has put a system in place that will reward people for turning down raises and working less hours? Do you really think that is a sustainable model?

That wasn't the part of the program you were complaining about.  You cited the problem with coops - which were shown to lower costs in the states that had them - as a problem with the ACA.

I showed that the problems are the direct result of Marco Rubio's rider in the budget bill.  He even gloats now about the disruptions his bill created.  So you want to take the consequences that his bill caused and blame the original Obamacare for them.  And that is supposed to persuade us to vote against Democrats and for people who have no alternative plan that would lower rates.  Had Rubio not messed with the original bill then the coop problems you cite as a failure would not be occurring.  That is according to the coops themselves who have gone out of business.  That's a reason to despise Rubio and the Republicans who put the rider into the budget bill, not a reason to despise the ACA.

Regarding the perverse incentive that you cite, that is a problem common to a lot of government programs.  A better approach would be to phase it out in a way that encourages work.  But that also doesn't address your false claim about 2 million jobs lost as a result of Obamacare.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

Can either of you provide updated numbers on how ACA has affected the poor's use of ER as general care?  This is from last year:

http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation/2015/05/04/emergency-room-visits-rise-under-affordable-care-act/26625571/

If we're speaking anecdotally, I spent Sunday night in the ER.  A look around the waiting room (which was packed) made it clear that my daughter's broken arm was the only actual emergency ... and its first come first served.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 minutes ago, Trout_Farm said:

Actually, my family does struggle with obesity.  A lot of that was personal choices.  Back in the 1980s and early 1990s, you didn't have as big of a problem with food deserts that you do now.  You can find exceptions and anecdotes, but the fact is that healthy food is much harder to find and much more expensive for people living in impoverished areas than it is in more affluent ones.  

now I didn't say it was easy but it certainly can be done and there is plenty of help out there

Trout, if you came from a disadvantaged background then somehow you and JDave avoided the absolutes you always talk about. I agree it is harder for poor people and I agree that it isn't fair. My parents didn't go to college (my father did eventually go back but that was well after he had a successful business). How easy do you think it was for my father to teach himself accounting and tax law? How easy was it for my mother to work her way into college bookstore management and regional buyer going from a grocery store deli?

My wife's family is from El Salvador, the murder capital of the world. They came here on TPS and the government didn't hand them a stack of cash at the border. They didn't have high school diplomas (my wife was the first in her family to get one) but they worked hard as a group and sacrificed till they had a successful family business. You see the same thing in people from India and Asia....families come here from backgrounds that make our poor look wealthy, sacrifice and pool resources, and make it to upper middle class

isn't it the same with teaching? no matter how good you are can you teach someone who doesn't meet you halfway? if you tell a child with a learning disability "you have a learning disability so you can't be successful" do you think they will have a chance? it becomes a self fulfilling prophesy for them. I'm not some ignorant neocon ignoring our issues with income inequality...that has got to be addressed. But on the other side of this we have got to stop turning the status of being poor into a self fulfilling prophesy of failure

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I cannot believe there are people out there that think the ACA is a good thing?  A couple provisions in it are good, like you cannot lose your insurance because of a catastrophic illness, you can get insurance with a preexisting illness, stay on your parents insurance until 26. Other than that this thing needs to be overhauled.

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...