Jump to content

Uninsured Rate Continues To Drop Since Obamacare Took Effect.


Recommended Posts

3 minutes ago, WhenFalconsWin said:

Similar, but not the using policies of the ACA.   The way to get more people insured is to open up competition among insurers allowing it to be more affordable for the masses.  It is not that complicated really.  Like I said before keeping students on until their older, selling catastrophic policies, and the ability to get and keep insurance with preexisting conditions.  

So you would be in favor of setting up a marketplace online where companies compete for customers and where customers can choose among companies based on things like premiums and deductables.  That's a good idea, right?

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

Top Posters In This Topic

21 hours ago, Andras said:

Silence on the issue of fines more than doubling and 60% of subsidized healthcare recipients having to repay?

Also, so far, only 3 percent of those receiving subsidized healthcare credits saw their refunds unaffected.

So subsidies are impacting tax refunds.  Is that a bad thing?

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

So subsidies are impacting tax refunds.  Is that a bad thing?

It is when the repayments are steadily increasing. Averaging 530 last year, they are now 580.

The fines were an average of 172 for the 2014 year. It's now 383 for 2015.

Steadily bleeding that money upwards.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Failed co-ops costing taxpayers $1.2 billion.  Of the 23 established by the ACA 12 have already failed. ...senate hearing in progress on this

 

Tax increases last year alone… from Obamacare…

 

Medicare tax went from 1.45% to 2.35%  

 

Top Income tax bracket went from 35% to 39.6%   

 

Top Income payroll tax went from 37.4% to 52.2%   

 

Capital Gains tax went from 15% to 28%   

 

Dividend tax went from 15% to 39.6%   

 

Estate tax went from 0% to 55%                                    

 

A 3.5% Real Estate transaction tax was added.  

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, WhenFalconsWin said:

Failed co-ops costing taxpayers $1.2 billion.  Of the 23 established by the ACA 12 have already failed. ...senate hearing in progress on this

This was discussed at length elsewhere, but Marco Rubio has been running around bragging about how his legislation - snuck into a spending bill by Republicans in Congress - led to the failure of the co-ops.  Want to criticize the law?  Fine, but don't blame the law for Republican legislation that took away the funds to sustain these co-ops when those co-ops fail.  Again, Republicans are bragging and gloating over this, claiming credit for this very result.

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 1 month later...

Ready to acknowledge the ACA was and is a disaster?

United Health dropping out of most Obamacare exchanges after losing $1.1 billion

 

UnitedHealth Group Inc. said it now expects to lose $650 million this year on its exchange business, up from its previous projection for $525 million. The insurer lost $475 million in 2015, a spokesman said.

UnitedHealth has already decided to pull out of Arkansas, Georgia and Michigan in 2017, and Hemsley told analysts during a Tuesday morning conference call that his company will not carry financial exposure from the exchanges into 2017.

“We continue to remain an advocate for more stable and sustainable approaches to serving this market,” he said.

 

 

The real concern is that United is only a sign of things to come as other big insurers decide Obamacare is a money loser and either opt out or demand large annual premium increases. From the Washington Post:

Even if the effects of United leaving most exchanges could be relatively modest, other insurers have indicated concern over the exchanges. Last month, the Blue Cross Blue Shield Association released a report indicating that new members who enrolled in individual plans used more medical services of all kinds and accounted for health care spending 22 percent higher than people with employer-based insurance in 2015.

At Aetna’s earnings call for the fourth quarter of 2015, Aetna chief executive Mark Bertolini said the insurer was concerned about the exchanges.

“This business remained unprofitable in 2015 and we continue to have serious concerns about the sustainability of the public exchanges,” Bertolini said.

 

 

Apart from the Obamacare exchanges, United’s business is strong. The company announced better-than-expected earnings in the 1st quarter.

Link to post
Share on other sites
On March 9, 2016 at 8:46 AM, WhenFalconsWin said:

Failed co-ops costing taxpayers $1.2 billion.  Of the 23 established by the ACA 12 have already failed. ...senate hearing in progress on this

 

Tax increases last year alone… from Obamacare…

 

Medicare tax went from 1.45% to 2.35%  

 

Top Income tax bracket went from 35% to 39.6%   

 

Top Income payroll tax went from 37.4% to 52.2%   

 

Capital Gains tax went from 15% to 28%   

 

Dividend tax went from 15% to 39.6%   

 

Estate tax went from 0% to 55%                                    

 

A 3.5% Real Estate transaction tax was added.  

 

 

Republicans keep mentioning these failed co-ops without mentioning that Republicans in Congress are the ones who cut the funding that would have kept the co-ops sustainable.  You don't get to cause the problem (failed co-ops) and then blame the other side for the failures that you caused. 

Also, do you have ANY evidence to support any of the claims about taxes?

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 3 months later...
2 hours ago, kicker said:

Medicaid expansion cost went up 49% more than expected last year.  But who gives a ****, right?

 

http://www.investors.com/news/obamacare-medicaid-costs-rocket-49-past-estimates/

 

Most democrats I know (yes, including family) have admitted that the ACA is an unmitigated disaster.  You know what convinced them?  The very thing that I said would convince them.  Their wallets...

Link to post
Share on other sites

My wallet is fine.  So is my wife's.  Just anecdotal though.  I wonder what the middle ground is in these situations.  Should we remove pre-existing conditions?  How do we stop the get sick and stop coverage?  Any answer you give is going to force things to cost more outside of the government regulating prices.  And I know the response that will receive.  What regulations could be removed that would make medical lower and not have too bad of impact?  

 

I am personally annoyed with regulations at a corporate level, but I know why it is done.  Something bad happened before and some process was added to protect against a death or lawsuits and no one went back to see if it were still needed.  You have to work at big corporations that are ultra conservative (not in a political sense) to see this happen.

Link to post
Share on other sites
14 minutes ago, lostone said:

My wallet is fine.  So is my wife's.  Just anecdotal though.  I wonder what the middle ground is in these situations.  Should we remove pre-existing conditions?  How do we stop the get sick and stop coverage?  Any answer you give is going to force things to cost more outside of the government regulating prices.  And I know the response that will receive.  What regulations could be removed that would make medical lower and not have too bad of impact?  

 

I am personally annoyed with regulations at a corporate level, but I know why it is done.  Something bad happened before and some process was added to protect against a death or lawsuits and no one went back to see if it were still needed.  You have to work at big corporations that are ultra conservative (not in a political sense) to see this happen.

Medical Insurance was fine for 85 percent of the people before the ACA took effect.  Most people were happy with their insurance and the cost of it.  Yes, there are several good provisions in the ACA like pre-existing conditions, kids staying on their parents policy until 26 if they are students.  But overall the insurance companies are losing money and dropping out, costs are higher for a lot of people.  Doctor choices are limited for some.  

I think we would have been far better off if we had tackled the 15 percent that weren't happy or didn't have insurance.  I think somehow revising medicaid would've been cheaper and easier than trying to take on 85 percent of what was working, instead of the 15 percent that wasn't.  Especially when you factor in people were told it would save them money ($2500) instead of costing them more.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Healthcare costs money. I'm sorry to say it, and it sounds crass and unempathetic, but care is expensive.  Go into any hospital and you will be surrounded by professionals who spend many, many years learning a craft that deals with people's life and death. And they do this with technology that is very expensive to deliver. There is no way around that.  The costs exist and moving them from the patient to the health insurance company to the Healthcare professionals  (in the form of forcing them to take medicaid) doesn't get rid of the cost. All your doing is moving it. And sure, you can expand medicaid and move the costs to the producers of healthcare, and then it is mostly invisible to the public and thus probably wildly popular, yet that's not fair to those that dedicate a good portion of their life to learning how to care for people's health. 

 

Full disclaimer: I am one of those professionals whose income is predicated off of payer mix (private vs public). Don't tell me that caring for people is reward enough, I don't see that demanded of any other professional.

Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, WhenFalconsWin said:

Medical Insurance was fine for 85 percent of the people before the ACA took effect.  Most people were happy with their insurance and the cost of it.  Yes, there are several good provisions in the ACA like pre-existing conditions, kids staying on their parents policy until 26 if they are students.  But overall the insurance companies are losing money and dropping out, costs are higher for a lot of people.  Doctor choices are limited for some.  

I think we would have been far better off if we had tackled the 15 percent that weren't happy or didn't have insurance.  I think somehow revising medicaid would've been cheaper and easier than trying to take on 85 percent of what was working, instead of the 15 percent that wasn't.  Especially when you factor in people were told it would save them money ($2500) instead of costing them more.

No it wasn't fine for 85% and most people were NOT happy with their insurance and the cost of it!   Costs were going up every years . . . a LOT.  Deductibles were higher.  Copays were getting hire.  These are trends that were developing for DECADES.  That's why people were selecting REALLY Cryppy plans that didn't do squat except provide a false sense of security.

The "good provisions" you mention are EXACTLY the provisions that add to the expense!  Think about it . . . Will insurance costs go up if companies can't exclude people they know will be expensive to insure?  Will insurance costs go up if more people (adult children) have to be covered by a parent's plan? 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
8 hours ago, holymoses said:

No it wasn't fine for 85% and most people were NOT happy with their insurance and the cost of it!   Costs were going up every years . . . a LOT.  Deductibles were higher.  Copays were getting hire.  These are trends that were developing for DECADES.  That's why people were selecting REALLY Cryppy plans that didn't do squat except provide a false sense of security.

The "good provisions" you mention are EXACTLY the provisions that add to the expense!  Think about it . . . Will insurance costs go up if companies can't exclude people they know will be expensive to insure?  Will insurance costs go up if more people (adult children) have to be covered by a parent's plan? 

 

The ACA had no real intent to control costs.  Tort was never even addressed.  There were no incentives built in for people to lower costs by taking care of themselves (exercising, eating right, etc). They had the opportunity to do all of this, but didn't.  The penalty for noncompliance is a joke.  The ACA was front loaded with revenue to distort the actual costs.  Now that costs are starting to become clear, democrats (your comments above) are just shrugging and saying medical care costs money.

 

I think registered democrats should have to personally pay for this monumental ****-up.  

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...