More Obamacare fuckups

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Atlanteax

http://fivethirtyeight.com/datalab/i...nks-obamacare/

Apparently our 1Q14 GDP figure may be overstated due to Obamacare, as...

FUZZY MATH !!!

(so if the 1Q14 ends up being barely positive, we will know that it actually shrunk, outside of the Obamacare 'activity')

---

This is a weird criticism. The inclusion of healthcare spending in consumer spending was not a ploy invented for this quarter. It has been common practice since at least 1959.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Parkbandit

Well, that and we're obviously all racists and sexist xenophones.

---

I can't remember when, but I remember posting apprehension about R-teamers playing the race card card. Boy was I ever right. Also, xenophone is a much better word than multilingual, I hope it catches on.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Tgo01

Gee I'm sure the people already struggling are going to love hearing this. So when can we expect Obamacare to finally do what it was supposed to do and stop doing the opposite of what it's supposed to do? 5 years? 10 years? Maybe our grandchildren will see the benefit of Obamacare.

---

Black people didn't have it too great in 1965, 1966, 1967... but I doubt you'd find many who would decry the Civil Rights Act of 1964 today. :)

I am curious about something:

All the commercials aimed at the below 35 crowd, say they are getting health insurance for 28 to the highest of 47 a month;this is what I have seen on TV. One of the guys in the commercial was a very fit guy playing basketball saying it was his first time getting health insurance. I think it's awesome he is getting health insurance but at 28.00 a month how much is he offsetting the insurance cost of the old and pre existing maladies that have to be paid for? It looks like the group that is supposed to support the rest of the group is getting huge subsidies which wipes out the benefit them being in the pool.

I would also like to know how much of OUR tax dollars are paying for this media blitz.

~Zz

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Latrinsorm

Black people didn't have it too great in 1965, 1966, 1967... but I doubt you'd find many who would decry the Civil Rights Act of 1964 today. :)

---

Apples and oranges. Apples and oranges.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Tgo01

Sure. 9.5 supposedly previously uninsured people are now insured (half of whom are so poor they are now on Medicaid), meanwhile tens of millions of people who already had healthcare will most likely see their premiums go up.



Healthcare costs not going down.



Don't you think they only had catastrophic coverage for a reason? How are you defining "better"? They had "worse" coverage but are now forced to buy "better" coverage and pay more?

---

It's good to get the poor insured especially if the cost is defrayed across 10s of millions of people.

That sounds like any social safety net program. We'll have to see how this affects overall health care costs. It could take years to know and it's a complex system and the end results are not clear. I agree that if ACA ends up just costing a shit ton of money and not lowering health care costs or getting people insured then it will be a real problem.

People wouldn't have car insurance if we let them. Many still don't. There can be a debate about how much personal responsibility each citizen can have in these areas and I'm sure it will continue to be debated. Right now, catastrophic coverage only is not permissible. Maybe it will be in the future.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by cwolff

It's good to get the poor insured especially if the cost is defrayed across 10s of millions of people.

---

So you're assuming costs will only go up for the rich? You're also assuming the only increased costs will be the costs of insuring more people?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by cwolff

That sounds like any social safety net program. We'll have to see how this affects overall health care costs. It could take years to know and it's a complex system and the end results are not clear. I agree that if ACA ends up just costing a shit ton of money and not lowering health care costs or getting people insured then it will be a real problem.

---

I love watching pro Obamacare talking points evolve over the years. I remember when Obamacare was first being discussed. "Dude! Our healthcare, like, sucks because we have like, the worst life expectancy rate of any developed country. Obamacare will fix this!"

Now that Obamacare is finally here and costs are going up now we're seeing "Well you see the system is very complex and it might take years, perhaps decades to understand it all."

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Tgo01

So you're assuming costs will only go up for the rich? You're also assuming the only increased costs will be the costs of insuring more people?



I love watching pro Obamacare talking points evolve over the years. I remember when Obamacare was first being discussed. "Dude! Our healthcare, like, sucks because we have like, the worst life expectancy rate of any developed country. Obamacare will fix this!"

Now that Obamacare is finally here and costs are going up now we're seeing "Well you see the system is very complex and it might take years, perhaps decades to understand it all."

---

I'm making no assumptions about the rich. I mentioned defrayed costs, you assumed I was making a point about rich people. Not sure why because it's just not there. Our health care system definitely needs work. It's a lot like our legal system. The more money a person has the better it works.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by cwolff

It's good to get the poor insured especially if the cost is defrayed across 10s of millions of people.

That sounds like any social safety net program. We'll have to see how this affects overall health care costs. It could take years to know and it's a complex system and the end results are not clear. I agree that if ACA ends up just costing a shit ton of money and not lowering health care costs or getting people insured then it will be a real problem.

People wouldn't have car insurance if we let them. Many still don't. There can be a debate about how much personal responsibility each citizen can have in these areas and I'm sure it will continue to be debated. Right now, catastrophic coverage only is not permissible. Maybe it will be in the future.

---

In CA, super low and zero income people are put on MediCal. They're aren't allowed to sign up for a subsidized ACA approved health plan through a private insurance company. I find this hilarious because those numbers are counted for Obamacare but they could have signed up for MediCal anyway.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by NinjasLeadTheWay

In CA, super low and zero income people are put on MediCal. They're aren't allowed to sign up for a subsidized ACA approved health plan through a private insurance company. I find this hilarious because those numbers are counted for Obamacare but they could have signed up for MediCal anyway.

---

What's the difference between MediCal and an "ACA approved Health Plan through a private company"?
Isn't MediCal just the one that California picked that fits the latter's description?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by NinjasLeadTheWay

In CA, super low and zero income people are put on MediCal. They're aren't allowed to sign up for a subsidized ACA approved health plan through a private insurance company. I find this hilarious because those numbers are counted for Obamacare but they could have signed up for MediCal anyway.

---

Medicaid was expanded under the ACA. Medical is California's medicaid. It sounds like you still don't actually know what the ACA is, what it does etc... What you find hilarious is exactly how it's supposed to work. The people with very low income were never supposed to be part of the exchanges which are are just a place for those who are not insured through work to buy private plans.

Quote:

---

Medi-Cal, the Medicaid program in California, provides health coverage to people with low-income and asset levels who meet certain eligibility requirements.

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by cwolff

I'm making no assumptions about the rich. I mentioned defrayed costs, you assumed I was making a point about rich people. Not sure why because it's just not there.

---

You said it's good to get poor covered if the costs are "defrayed over tens of millions of people." Is it really good to get the "poor" covered if it means making life worse for other poor people? That makes no sense. You were making more sense when it seemed like you were thinking costs would only go up for rich people.