Jump to content

Uninsured Rate Continues To Drop Since Obamacare Took Effect.


Recommended Posts

15 hours ago, Dago 3.0 said:

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

I'm not the one talking in absolutes here.  I'm talking about general tendencies that are rooted in empirical reality.  Obesity among poor areas is strongly influenced by the presence of food deserts and the added cost of acquiring healthy food at affordable prices.  

Generational poverty is strongly influential on people's upward mobility.  Anecdotes and individual cases are fine...they show that there are exceptions.  But finding a few exceptions doesn't negate the general tendency nor does it negate the causal effect of these things.  And yes, individual motivation and work ethic are also strong influences on poverty, obesity, and other things as well.  It's a complicated phenomena and the whole "well if they just work hard they'll all succeed" attitude is simply false.

But to the point of the original discussion we were having, are we talking about the world as it was 40 years ago, the world as it was 20 years ago, the world today, or the world that you described 10-20 years from now where technology has replaced lots of jobs?  Because 40 years ago, the "bootstraps" rhetoric would have made sense, at least for working class whites.  College was extremely cheap and good-paying jobs were also available to people without a college degree.  Twenty years ago, it still made a little sense but the economy did increasingly require a college degree to get ahead.  But college was more expensive and more debt was required by most people to get a degree.  

Today, however, college is much, much more expensive compared to 40 years ago and good paying jobs that don't require a degree are a lot less numerous.  Entire industries - truck driving for example - that used to pay good middle class income without a degree have been decimated.  The whole "work hard and do well" mentality just doesn't fit today's economic model to the degree that it did when we went through school, much less during our parents' era.  People in working class jobs DO work hard...very hard.  And they get paid less and less each year.  And a college degree has a lot less value than it did in the past.  Because there are fewer of those well-paying jobs available to more people who have degrees.  And those degrees are more expensive, so you have more people with debt coupled with the fewer jobs.  

Now let's talk about the situation you described as the future.  In that reality, college tuition will have continued to rise, working and middle class pay will have continued to stagnate/decline, and technology will have replaced a lot of service-sector jobs.  What industry will replace those jobs?  Probably things like technical support and IT and other jobs to keep the technology functioning.  Those jobs are going to require what?  A college degree.  But the transition you describe probably won't be a 1-to-1 scenario.  In other words, the millions of service jobs that are eliminated by technology are probably not going to be replaced  by an equal number of technical jobs to maintain the technology.  So you'll have more people and fewer jobs.  Can't tell someone to pull themselves up by their bootstraps when they don't have any shoes.  Can't scream about the lazy poor people when there are millions more people than jobs available.  What are the people who can't get the fewer jobs going to do?  And how is society going to handle the unemployment and poverty that will result from that?  

That's what I meant about we need to start fundamentally rethinking our entire societal approach to this changing economy.  The old "bootstrap" ideologies just don't fit the emerging economy, and the old tired solutions aren't going to solve the problems that will arise from it.

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Replies 594
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Only 44% of US households have individual life insurance, yet 85% think most people should have life insurance.  Should we make the remaining 56% buy life insurance?

This is the opposite of free commerce.  It also has the opposite effect.  If I have a want a wagon and you have a wagon.  You want a cow and I have a cow.  We trade.  You, by your actions, value the cow more than the wagon and I, by my actions, value the wagon more than the cow.  We both win.  I am better off because I value the wagon more and you are better off because you value the cow more.  The total wealth of us both combined is increased.

 

Obamacare forces people who did not want to pay for health insurance to buy a product they did not want to buy.  Also, it increases the cost of this product for the people who did want the product and were already buying it.  Both people lose.  The uninsured now has to spend his income on something that he does not want and the insured has to spend more than he wants.  The total wealth of both combined is decreased.

 

The same would happen if we made people buy any number of products that they don't want to buy.

Edited by Flip Flop
Link to post
Share on other sites

The vast majority of people, I've spoken too, have been immensely harmed by Obamacare. My families healthcare went from $350 per month, $500 deductables per person, to $875 per month and $5000 deductable per person. We virtually cannot use our insurance.

The Blue cross plan we had before was affordable. This new plan is not even close. We now pay for insurance we cannot use unless a catastrophe occurs. As for the individuals who now have insurance where they didn't before, that is helpful. The lie that this change was made from should see to its demise.

Obamacare is the largest tax in American history and millions upon millions of middle class citizens are drastically paying the price.

I will hope that President Trump or Cruz will throw this historical harmful legislation in the garbage and start over.

The pre existing condition portion is it's only part to be saved.

Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, Flip Flop said:

Only 44% of US households have individual life insurance, yet 85% think most people should have life insurance.  Should we make the remaining 56% buy life insurance?

This is the opposite of free commerce.  It also has the opposite effect.  If I have a want a wagon and you have a wagon.  You want a cow and I have a cow.  We trade.  You, by your actions, value the cow more than the wagon and I, by my actions, value the wagon more than the cow.  We both win.  I am better off because I value the wagon more and you are better off because you value the cow more.  The total wealth of us both combined is increased.

 

Obamacare forces people who did not want to pay for health insurance to buy a product they did not want to buy.  Also, it increases the cost of this product for the people who did want the product and were already buying it.  Both people lose.  The uninsured now has to spend his income on something that he does not want and the insured has to spend more than he wants.  The total wealth of both combined is decreased.

 

The same would happen if we made people buy any number of products that they don't want to buy.

 

Yeah, and screw the government for forcing people to buy car insurance.  If I want to run around town uninsured without the ability to pay the costs in case of a wreck, that's my God-given right.  Murica, eff yeah!

Link to post
Share on other sites
59 minutes ago, Trout_Farm said:

Empirically false.  Costs are not increasing as fast as they were before the law.

Empirically false? How the heck do you purport to know what my healthcare plan is or was? Did you see that on facebook as well? Dude, you are desperate to shield the democrats from this outrageous law. Do us all a favor and back off a tad bit.

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Trout_Farm said:

 

Yeah, and screw the government for forcing people to buy car insurance.  If I want to run around town uninsured without the ability to pay the costs in case of a wreck, that's my God-given right.  Murica, eff yeah!

So now we are all supposed to BUY life insurance? You are too much trout. In america of old, we weren't FORCED to buy anything. How about forcing people to have a simple ID? 

Link to post
Share on other sites
13 minutes ago, dirtyhairy said:

Empirically false? How the heck do you purport to know what my healthcare plan is or was? Did you see that on facebook as well? Dude, you are desperate to shield the democrats from this outrageous law. Do us all a favor and back off a tad bit.

I thought the "we" referred to the country and "policy" referred to public policy.  I misread the post, so my bad.  

Link to post
Share on other sites
13 minutes ago, dirtyhairy said:

So now we are all supposed to BUY life insurance? You are too much trout. In america of old, we weren't FORCED to buy anything. How about forcing people to have a simple ID? 

Life insurance is different than health care and driving a car.  The latter two pose very real, large costs on the public among people who don't purchase them.  There's a risk to the public posed by people driving uninsured or getting sick without insurance.  Not the same level of threat to the public with someone not having life insurance.  

Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, lostone said:

I love it!  Hope to not get hurt.  Hope to not have to declare bankruptcy.  It's great when you have the means.  My barbers are happy for obamacare.  Anecdotes ftw!!!!

 

Quote

But at a middle school cafeteria here, a man, Mike Valde, presented him with a tragic tale. His brother-in-law Mark was a barber — “a small-business man,” he said. He had never had a paid vacation day. He received health insurance at last because of the Affordable Care Act. He began to feel sick and went to a doctor.

“He had never been to a doctor for years,” Mr. Valde, 63, of Coralville, Iowa, said. “Multiple tumors behind his heart, his liver, his pancreas. And they said, ‘We’re sorry, sir, there’s nothing we can do for you.’ ”

The room was silent.

“Mark never had health care until Obama care,” Mr. Valde continued. “What are you going to replace it with?”

http://www.nytimes.com/politics/first-draft/2016/01/30/uncomfortable-question-for-ted-cruz-on-obamacare-silences-the-room/

MORE ACEDOTES!!

 

I know Obamacare has its warts, but that is why I want someone who is going to fix it. Someone who is going to improve it and get us to universal healthcare coverage. We still have 19 states that have not expanded medicaid with around 3.1 million people in the medicaid gap. Healthcare costs are still rising rapidly. We need someone with proven experience getting healthcare cost down, which is why I support MOM FOR sectary of healthcare or something. HRC for President.

MOM has the most comprehensive plan to get healthcare cost down. 

Maryland Healthcare Dashboard

dashboard_01_2016.jpg

Under the program, Maryland hospitals receive a pre-determined amount of revenue annually regardless of the number of patients they treat or services they perform, as long as they deliver high-quality care. Adjustments may be made based on changes in market share or efficiency.

IMO, Global Budgeting would be great for rural area and low income area hospital/medical centers. Instead of focusing on get every dollar they can out of a patient to keep the lights on, they can and will focus on meeting quality care objectives to receive the revenue. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
13 hours ago, Trout_Farm said:

I'm not the one talking in absolutes here.  I'm talking about general tendencies that are rooted in empirical reality.  Obesity among poor areas is strongly influenced by the presence of food deserts and the added cost of acquiring healthy food at affordable prices.  

Generational poverty is strongly influential on people's upward mobility.  Anecdotes and individual cases are fine...they show that there are exceptions.  But finding a few exceptions doesn't negate the general tendency nor does it negate the causal effect of these things.  And yes, individual motivation and work ethic are also strong influences on poverty, obesity, and other things as well.  It's a complicated phenomena and the whole "well if they just work hard they'll all succeed" attitude is simply false.

But to the point of the original discussion we were having, are we talking about the world as it was 40 years ago, the world as it was 20 years ago, the world today, or the world that you described 10-20 years from now where technology has replaced lots of jobs?  Because 40 years ago, the "bootstraps" rhetoric would have made sense, at least for working class whites.  College was extremely cheap and good-paying jobs were also available to people without a college degree.  Twenty years ago, it still made a little sense but the economy did increasingly require a college degree to get ahead.  But college was more expensive and more debt was required by most people to get a degree.  

Today, however, college is much, much more expensive compared to 40 years ago and good paying jobs that don't require a degree are a lot less numerous.  Entire industries - truck driving for example - that used to pay good middle class income without a degree have been decimated.  The whole "work hard and do well" mentality just doesn't fit today's economic model to the degree that it did when we went through school, much less during our parents' era.  People in working class jobs DO work hard...very hard.  And they get paid less and less each year.  And a college degree has a lot less value than it did in the past.  Because there are fewer of those well-paying jobs available to more people who have degrees.  And those degrees are more expensive, so you have more people with debt coupled with the fewer jobs.  

Now let's talk about the situation you described as the future.  In that reality, college tuition will have continued to rise, working and middle class pay will have continued to stagnate/decline, and technology will have replaced a lot of service-sector jobs.  What industry will replace those jobs?  Probably things like technical support and IT and other jobs to keep the technology functioning.  Those jobs are going to require what?  A college degree.  But the transition you describe probably won't be a 1-to-1 scenario.  In other words, the millions of service jobs that are eliminated by technology are probably not going to be replaced  by an equal number of technical jobs to maintain the technology.  So you'll have more people and fewer jobs.  Can't tell someone to pull themselves up by their bootstraps when they don't have any shoes.  Can't scream about the lazy poor people when there are millions more people than jobs available.  What are the people who can't get the fewer jobs going to do?  And how is society going to handle the unemployment and poverty that will result from that?  

That's what I meant about we need to start fundamentally rethinking our entire societal approach to this changing economy.  The old "bootstrap" ideologies just don't fit the emerging economy, and the old tired solutions aren't going to solve the problems that will arise from it.

no I do agree about the future although I think as far as the present and recent past what I say still holds true. you are dismissing what I said because it is anecdotal but your statistics leave a lot to be desired. 

For example I am sure no studies exist that demonstrate the success rate of people who did the things I described

I was talking to someone about Noam Chomsky. I likened the things he believes in to be like a beautiful home built on a crappy foundation. I just don't see where humanity, especially Americans, have the sense of empathy, the work ethic, or the morals for it to be possible so my thoughts on the future are pretty bleak

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
On 1/31/2016 at 11:42 AM, Trout_Farm said:

 

Yeah, and screw the government for forcing people to buy car insurance.  If I want to run around town uninsured without the ability to pay the costs in case of a wreck, that's my God-given right.  Murica, eff yeah!

The government requires us to have car insurance even when we don't have a car?  They DO require maternity coverage for women that can't get pregnant.  

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, mdrake34 said:

So you oppose mandatory automobile liability insurance laws?

Automobile insurance is not a mandate for every citizen to purchase and it certainly never amounted to the kind of tax on the american citizen nor does it separate citizens from their health care provider like Obamacare did. We were unable to keep our doctors, our plans and the costs sky rocketed. It was built on a lie and it is destroying lives like no other legislation has before it.

Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, dirtyhairy said:

Automobile insurance is not a mandate for every citizen to purchase and it certainly never amounted to the kind of tax on the american citizen nor does it separate citizens from their health care provider like Obamacare did. We were unable to keep our doctors, our plans and the costs sky rocketed. It was built on a lie and it is destroying lives like no other legislation has before it.

A liar lying and simultaneously complaining about lies.  How precious.

Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, dirtyhairy said:

Automobile insurance is not a mandate for every citizen to purchase and it certainly never amounted to the kind of tax on the american citizen nor does it separate citizens from their health care provider like Obamacare did. We were unable to keep our doctors, our plans and the costs sky rocketed. It was built on a lie and it is destroying lives like no other legislation has before it.

I understand, but you said in the America of old, the government didn't force you to buy anything.  The State of Georgia, and many other states, force any resident that drives to purchase liability insurance.  Do you have a problem with that? 

I'm not talking about Obamacare.  I am only talking about auto liability insurance. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
12 minutes ago, Andras said:

Coming from the Hillary fanboy that was also a "hope and change" fanboy, I really don't take what you post very seriously.^_^

I wasn't a "hope and change" fanboy. I didn't even pay attention to the primary on either side beside it being on my AP Gov white board. I was actually think about supporting McCain until Palin came into the picture. I did believe that Obama could change stuff after joining team "hope and change", but now I grew up and realized that the system cannot be changed and that we must work within the system. Maybe you should grow up too. 

 

Seems like you are still butthurt about the loss andrea. 

Link to post
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.


×
×
  • Create New...