Too bad that costs more than the garnishment would.Quote:
Originally Posted by Wrathbringer
Printable View
Too bad that costs more than the garnishment would.Quote:
Originally Posted by Wrathbringer
I've compared it to the market plans and it's still cheaper. You might be right about the grandfathered plan though, I've carried this same insurance since 2006.Quote:
Originally Posted by Archigeek
Thanks for the link.
I fucking hate insurance.
Me too. It is a bizarre industry when bad customer service is not just normal, it's part of the business plan. To me this is particularly reprehensible when many people who are being asked to fight it out with insurance plans are also dealing with difficult health situations. It's a shitty double whammy.Quote:
Originally Posted by Parkbandit
It's almost like they don't really have the citizens' best interest at heart, huh. Weird.Quote:
Originally Posted by Archigeek
http://www.npr.org/2014/12/19/371202...e-long-pay-cutQuote:
Originally Posted by Tgo01
http://www.npr.org/2015/01/22/378884...orest-patients
My guess is 6 months to a year. It would depend on how aggressive the hospital is.
Quote:
Fine. You caught me in a good mood.
Yes, it does. If premium increases were 10% every year before the ACA went into full effect, and now are much lower, your insurance is cheaper than it otherwise would be.Quote:
Which has nothing to do with making healthcare "affordable."
You're weaseling. The ACA was never intended to make insurance dirt-cheap for every American. It was intended to bring those without insurance into the insurance system, in part by making insurance cheaper for them to purchase. The subsidies achieve that.Quote:
Not everyone is entitled to subsidies. Some people receiving pitiful amount in subsidies. And even WITH subsidies that is no guarantee that it is "affordable" to someone.
You'd get pwned by a high school debater with that type of logic.
http://www.bloomberg.com/news/articl...petition-growsQuote:
HAHA!
You may need to come up with a better response than "HAHA".
Obviously you've not been reading Archigeek's recent posts in this thread. Pre-existing condition coverage denials = no insurance = very expensive healthcare or an inability to access healthcare until conditions got dire. Health insurance coverage = cheaper healthcare = health issues taken care of before conditions got dire. I'm not sure you understand what the word "affordable" means at this point.Quote:
Which again has nothing to do with making healthcare "affordable."
That sentence is worded incorrectly. let's put it this way:Quote:
HAHA.
This sentence doesn't even make sense.
Before ACA:
1. People couldn't get insurance
2. They went to ER as only option for health care, couldn't pay bill
3. Hospitals either chased after them for the money (discussed elsewhere) or took those unpaid costs and raised their prices to those who could pay (i.e. those covered with insurance, since the insurance company pays) to cover those aforementioned unpaid costs
After ACA:
1. People have insurance
2. Conditions get taken care of by PCP, no need to go to ER
3. Hospitals have no unpaid costs that cause them to raise their prices
4. Insurers pay less than what they would have before ACA
5. Healthcare premiums increase at much lower rates than they otherwise would have
1. Indirectly, yes, see expanded response to point 5 above.Quote:
Did you even read this sentence before you typed it out? What about the person who already had healthcare coverage? Does this lower the cost for him?
2. On a direct basis, it should have no effect on those who get coverage from an employer. Those who have high incomes and buy individual insurance (a rare combination, but I believe PB falls in this bucket, unfortunately) will probably see no benefit until their grandfathered plan gets too expensive. The point of the ACA was not to change insurance for these groups of people. It was for low to middle income people as well as others with preexisting conditions to be able to access the insurance market in an affordable manner, be it via either Medicaid or the exchanges. (there's another group of people, discussed below) That is working as intended. See graph:
http://acasignups.net/sites/default/...tal_150413.jpg
In some sense, yes! There are essentially three groups of people that this affected:Quote:
Seriously, I'm trying desperately to see what you're trying to say. So just the act of having health insurance = healthcare is more affordable? Well shit, why didn't everyone have health insurance before then if it's such a simple concept? You are literally saying the government knows what's best for each and every 300+ million people living in the US and they were just too stupid before to realize that being forced to buy healthcare insurance = more affordable healthcare.
1. People who couldn't get health insurance due to price (i.e. income was too low)
2. People who couldn't get health insurance due to coverage exclusions
3. People who thought they didn't need health insurance
Group 1 is being helped by either the subsidies or the expansion of Medicaid (in the states that elected to expand). Group 2 should be obvious to as you as to how ACA benefits them.
There are definitely a significant amount of people in 3. Not just people ideologically opposed for whatever reason, but people in their 20s and early 30s who think they can get by without health insurance, right until they have some catastrophic accident or illness and realize "oh, I should have have had health insurance". It's called the "Young Invincibles" problem, and it's pretty much the reason for the individual mandate.
Offhand, I know the Congressional Budget Office just released a report that if we repealed the ACA now, the government would have to spend $353 billion more on healthcare in the next decade. Does that work for you?Quote:
I can't help but notice you didn't list one thing that actually results in lower healthcare costs...I mean like...lowers how much money we as a nation spend on healthcare. Wasn't it always Obama's and other Democrats' big thing to say "We pay the most for healthcare and get the least out of it!"
Well, great! So that means Obamacare has lowered how much we as a nation spend on healthcare, right? That was the goal, right? Right?
https://www.cbo.gov/publication/50252
Before ACA: People couldn't afford healthcare because of the ridiculous prices.
If people didn't want health insurance, they had that right.
Obama sucked and lied constantly to sell ACA.
Illegal Mexicans ran up hospital costs.
After ACA: People still can't afford healthcare because of the ridiculous prices, but now we fine them for being unable to afford it.
People are forced to join and pay into the system (unless they just change their withholdings so the irs has no refund to garnish, since that's the only way they can enforce the penalty).
Obama still sucks and lies constantly.
Illegal Mexicans still run up hospital costs.
Do you really still believe what the government is telling you? Or only when it agrees with your narrative?
I can't even take you seriously right now.Quote:
Originally Posted by Kembal
And like I said before, if insurance premiums were already oh so unaffordable before then how does them being even more expensive now make healthcare affordable?Quote:
Originally Posted by Kembal
Wait, I thought it was called the AFFORDABLE Health Care Act, that's what the first A you quoted in the ACA there stands for. It's not called the "Let's give insurance to everyone who currently doesn't have insurance act." If that was the only goal couldn't they have just expanded medicaid and medicare?Quote:
Originally Posted by Kembal
You're not sure I understand what affordable means at this point? Are you really this fucking dense? Seriously.Quote:
Originally Posted by Kembal
Hi Mr. 35k a year salary person. How much can you afford to pay in monthly health premiums? Nothing? Well don't worry! Kembal here insists that by removing pre existing conditions denial from health insurance that will suddenly make it affordable to you! Now get out there and find a way to pay for this insurance!
What a joke you are, Kembal. Telling people what they can and cannot afford and having the fucking audacity to tell me I don't know what "affordable" means.
"Helped" does not necessarily == "made affordable." Why can't you fucking understand this?Quote:
Originally Posted by Kembal
It's like you're arguing against yourself. Seriously. I should have just quoted this one quote here and laughed at you and said nothing else. "Yes, health care is more affordable now for this group of people who really had little to no need for health insurance to begin with but we are now forcing them to get health insurance to make it 'affordable' for other people."Quote:
Originally Posted by Kembal
Did you go to the Latrin school of posting a link, lying about what's in the link and hoping no one actually clicks the link to see if you're telling the truth?Quote:
Originally Posted by Kembal
What the article says about the 353 billion dollar figure you quoted is:
That says absolutely jack shit about healthcare costs. What it says is federal deficits would increase by 353 billion dollars. You do know the ACA is chock full of tax increases and shit, right?Quote:
Excluding the effects of macroeconomic feedback—as has been done for previous estimates related to the ACA (and most other CBO cost estimates)—CBO and JCT estimate that federal deficits would increase by $353 billion over the 2016–2025 period if the ACA was repealed.
I also can't help but notice you ignored this part:
And this part:Quote:
Repeal of the ACA would raise economic output, mainly by boosting the supply of labor; the resulting increase in GDP is projected to average about 0.7 percent over the 2021–2025 period. Alone, those effects would reduce federal deficits by $216 billion over the 2016–2025 period, CBO and JCT estimate, mostly because of increased federal revenues.
Quote:
For many reasons, the budgetary and economic effects of repealing the ACA could differ substantially in either direction from the central estimates presented in this report. The uncertainty is sufficiently great that repealing the ACA could reduce deficits over the 2016–2025 period—or could increase deficits by a substantially larger margin than the agencies have estimated. However, CBO and JCT’s best estimate is that repealing the ACA would increase federal budget deficits by $137 billion over that 10-year period.
Yes. I wanted actual affordable healthcare reform, not this bullshit we got.Quote:
Originally Posted by Warriorbird
Taken in combination with subsidies, it's then cheaper than previous. Not hard, but apparently you can't do math.Quote:
Originally Posted by Tgo01
That'd be the point of going to single payer (basically expand Medicare and Medicaid, and it's done). It'd achieve the intended outcomes much better than the ACA. It also has no chance of passing Congress at this point in time, nor did it back in 2010.Quote:
Wait, I thought it was called the AFFORDABLE Health Care Act, that's what the first A you quoted in the ACA there stands for. It's not called the "Let's give insurance to everyone who currently doesn't have insurance act." If that was the only goal couldn't they have just expanded medicaid and medicare?
You're a fucking idiot that doesn't know economics. That's been obvious to anyone that engages in discussion with you, whether it be on Simu's business plans or any type of political discussion. At this point, you conflate arguments and think you're a serious debater, whereas you look like a genuine clueless idiot.Quote:
You're not sure I understand what affordable means at this point? Are you really this fucking dense? Seriously.
Hi Mr. 35k a year salary person. How much can you afford to pay in monthly health premiums? Nothing? Well don't worry! Kembal here insists that by removing pre existing conditions denial from health insurance that will suddenly make it affordable to you! Now get out there and find a way to pay for this insurance!
What a joke you are, Kembal. Telling people what they can and cannot afford and having the fucking audacity to tell me I don't know what "affordable" means.
If people really couldn't afford to pay for insurance under ACA, then we wouldn't be seeing such a dramatic decline in the uninsured rate. Or we wouldn't have 12 million signups via the Exchanges.
The ACA made healthcare affordable for many people who had pre-existing condition coverage denials. Full stop. That says nothing in regards to people who previously couldn't afford insurance due to income.
Again, your definition of affordable is some whacked out definition that I don't understand. Is getting a chronic condition treated cheaper with insurance or without insurance? If you develop a serious illness, will it be cheaper to treat it if you have insurance or without insurance? In all cases, it is cheaper if you have insurance. You're possibly the only person that could think otherwise.Quote:
"Helped" does not necessarily == "made affordable." Why can't you fucking understand this?
Welcome to the concept of insurance risk pools. This is again why I state you don't understand economics. And again, if they have a serious health issue that they didn't anticipate, it'll be cheaper for them now to get it treated than if they didn't have insurance.Quote:
It's like you're arguing against yourself. Seriously. I should have just quoted this one quote here and laughed at you and said nothing else. "Yes, health care is more affordable now for this group of people who really had little to no need for health insurance to begin with but we are now forcing them to get health insurance to make it 'affordable' for other people."
I didn't ignore those parts. You asked whether healthcare spending was lower, not about net federal spending. That was my best offhand shot at it, since labor supply increases increasing federal revenue don't have an effect on federal healthcare spending. I don't see better numbers available. Looking at the research available right now, until the economy's back at full strength, no one's going to know whether overall health care spending is lower than it would be without the ACA. Health care spending has grown much more slowly in the past 5 years, but how much of that is due to the economic recession and how much is due to the changes from the ACA isn't known yet.Quote:
Did you go to the Latrin school of posting a link, lying about what's in the link and hoping no one actually clicks the link to see if you're telling the truth?
What the article says about the 353 billion dollar figure you quoted is:
That says absolutely jack shit about healthcare costs. What it says is federal deficits would increase by 353 billion dollars. You do know the ACA is chock full of tax increases and shit, right?
I also can't help but notice you ignored this part:
And this part:
So you're voting for Bernie Sanders then?Quote:
Originally Posted by Tgo01