More Obamacare fuckups

[time4fun]

Uninsured Rate means nothing.

It is how much it costs for the insured.

As it is possible that an individual may actually be better off w/o paying insurance premiums.

"The uninsured rate means nothing"- Quite possibly the stupidest thing I've heard about Obamacare since the Death Panel BS.

The uninsured rate has dropped to 9.2%- which I believe puts it at the lowest level in the history of the US. And as much as you people love to bitch and moan about "affordability"- a recent Kaiser Foundation survey found that folks with insurance through the ACA were significantly more likely to say their insurance was affordable and to say that their health needs were being met than those who got their insurance through other means. And to be blunt- if all of suddenly insurance had become to much harder to afford **the insurance rate wouldn't have dropped**. People weren't passing up insurance before for kicks- they were doing it because they couldn't afford it.

The ACA was a huge success. You people were wrong about it bringing about some doomsday. You were so very, very, VERY wrong. And instead of looking at the fact that millions of people are now covered for life-threatening illness when they weren't before, and the fact that people are no longer being pushed out of their insurance because they hit their lifetime maximum coverage and saying "Thank GOD- lives are being saved", you're bitching and moaning and trying to find any problem you can possibly manufacture because of your inability to let go on a stupid argument that never held any weight. Admit you were wrong. Rejoice at the lives saved. Move the hell on.

[~Rocktar~]

"The uninsured rate means nothing"- Quite possibly the stupidest thing I've heard about Obamacare since the Death Panel BS.

The uninsured rate has dropped to 9.2%- which I believe puts it at the lowest level in the history of the US. And as much as you people love to bitch and moan about "affordability"- a recent Kaiser Foundation survey found that folks with insurance through the ACA were significantly more likely to say their insurance was affordable and to say that their health needs were being met than those who got their insurance through other means. And to be blunt- if all of suddenly insurance had become to much harder to afford **the insurance rate wouldn't have dropped**. People weren't passing up insurance before for kicks- they were doing it because they couldn't afford it.

The ACA was a huge success. You people were wrong about it bringing about some doomsday. You were so very, very, VERY wrong. And instead of looking at the fact that millions of people are now covered for life-threatening illness when they weren't before, and the fact that people are no longer being pushed out of their insurance because they hit their lifetime maximum coverage and saying "Thank GOD- lives are being saved", you're bitching and moaning and trying to find any problem you can possibly manufacture because of your inability to let go on a stupid argument that never held any weight. Admit you were wrong. Rejoice at the lives saved. Move the hell on.

Actually, I am not wrong. My insurance costs went up and my coverage went down on my employer plans that exactly mirrored exchange plans in my state. The employer plans were slightly less ($20-35 a month less) than the same exchange plans. Now, the issue you are simply missing is the over all cost of this in the long run in which case the OMB has already said will be many times more than originally predicted and was never going to be "revenue neutral" as stated. In addition, the SCOTUS set a precedent where if the national government decides it is in the best interest of the people, they can simply take over, mandate profit margins, require purchase or participation and tax it in any way they choose without legal recourse. So, imagine that they should chose that you buy a particular type of car and then decide there will only be 4 models and they are required to cost X amount and employees and so on can only be paid X amount.

I am pretty sure that it is not a good precedent. Lifetime limits, immediate coverage and no exclusions/guaranteed transferability, the 3 major benefits that people really wanted to get done could easily have been done without instituting a slavish requirement to buy something no matter if you want to or not and a massive tax/cost burden in a blatant attempt to cause enough issue to make people cave in to a single payer system.

[time4fun]

Actually, I am not wrong. My insurance costs went up and my coverage went down on my employer plans that exactly mirrored exchange plans in my state. The employer plans were slightly less ($20-35 a month less) than the same exchange plans. Now, the issue you are simply missing is the over all cost of this in the long run in which case the OMB has already said will be many times more than originally predicted and was never going to be "revenue neutral" as stated. In addition, the SCOTUS set a precedent where if the national government decides it is in the best interest of the people, they can simply take over, mandate profit margins, require purchase or participation and tax it in any way they choose without legal recourse. So, imagine that they should chose that you buy a particular type of car and then decide there will only be 4 models and they are required to cost X amount and employees and so on can only be paid X amount.

I am pretty sure that it is not a good precedent. Lifetime limits, immediate coverage and no exclusions/guaranteed transferability, the 3 major benefits that people really wanted to get done could easily have been done without instituting a slavish requirement to buy something no matter if you want to or not and a massive tax/cost burden in a blatant attempt to cause enough issue to make people cave in to a single payer system.

Well by all means- what's millions of people with insurance (and massive numbers of lives saved) compared to you paying $20 a month extra? Also, I'm going to guess that you're in a red state. The rates in red states aren't nearly as good because most of the Governors refused the medicaid expansion money. And they did that specifically because they knew it would drive up the cost of insurance and would make the ACA look bad to their constituents. (see below)

Which brings me to the real point- you seem to be *grossly* confused about the insurance mandate's origins. It was put into place specifically because the insurance companies screamed bloody murder and pointed out that if it weren't in place, they might suffer from adverse selection issues that would leave them covering only the highest risk pools while healthier (profitable) people opted out. That's also precisely why the medicaid expansion was included- it allowed insurance companies to exclude the these pools and price their premiums around an overall healthier population group. So this means the government is taking the financial liability and is leaving the profits to insurance companies.

i.e. The mandate was a huge handout to the insurance companies, not some dark liberal conspiracy to force you to accept a single payer system.

Of course, in a stroke of brilliant irony, it does absolutely demonstrate WHY a single payer system makes so much sense. Insurance only works under two conditions: when EVERYONE is covered, or when the highest risk pools are excluded. The latter is idiotic, but it's what we had to settle for so that folks like you didn't all die of S.I.T.S. (Socialist Insurance Takeover Syndrome)

[Tgo01]

Yes, the uninsured rate is going down. That's part of forcing people to get insurance. The question should be however, has healthcare gotten "affordable."

You know, I can see why Obama embraced the term "Obamacare." Most people seemed to have forgotten what the first A in ACA stands for by now.

[Parkbandit]

Yes, the uninsured rate is going down. That's part of forcing people to get insurance. The question should be however, has healthcare gotten "affordable."

You know, I can see why Obama embraced the term "Obamacare." Most people seemed to have forgotten what the first A in ACA stands for by now.

Mine has gone up at a higher rate since the ACA was passed than at anytime prior... and I don't have a "Cadillac plan".

[Parkbandit]

Well by all means- what's millions of people with insurance (and massive numbers of lives saved) compared to you paying $20 a month extra? Also, I'm going to guess that you're in a red state. The rates in red states aren't nearly as good because most of the Governors refused the medicaid expansion money. And they did that specifically because they knew it would drive up the cost of insurance and would make the ACA look bad to their constituents. (see below)

Which brings me to the real point- you seem to be *grossly* confused about the insurance mandate's origins. It was put into place specifically because the insurance companies screamed bloody murder and pointed out that if it weren't in place, they might suffer from adverse selection issues that would leave them covering only the highest risk pools while healthier (profitable) people opted out. That's also precisely why the medicaid expansion was included- it allowed insurance companies to exclude the these pools and price their premiums around an overall healthier population group. So this means the government is taking the financial liability and is leaving the profits to insurance companies.

i.e. The mandate was a huge handout to the insurance companies, not some dark liberal conspiracy to force you to accept a single payer system.

Of course, in a stroke of brilliant irony, it does absolutely demonstrate WHY a single payer system makes so much sense. Insurance only works under two conditions: when EVERYONE is covered, or when the highest risk pools are excluded. The latter is idiotic, but it's what we had to settle for so that folks like you didn't all die of S.I.T.S. (Socialist Insurance Takeover Syndrome)

So, exactly how many lives did Obama save?

[time4fun]

Everyone agrees it should be cheaper. The ACA has subsidies- in fact over 80% of enrollees get subsidies. We need to expand those subsidies to continue to drive down costs.

But the strangest thing- there's this entire party that's just adamantly opposed to expanding subsidies and funding for health care coverage through the ACA (including accepting the subsidies that are already there and available). It's almost like they *want* to break it or something.

[time4fun]

So, exactly how many lives did Obama save?

You're right- zero.

Sick people without insurance never die from lack of medical care.

[Tgo01]

Everyone agrees it should be cheaper. The ACA has subsidies- in fact over 80% of enrollees get subsidies. We need to expand those subsidies to continue to drive down costs.

Subsidies are driving down costs?

But the strangest thing- there's this entire party that's just adamantly opposed to expanding subsidies and funding for health care coverage through the ACA (including accepting the subsidies that are already there and available). It's almost like they *want* to break it or something.

Well, is healthcare getting cheaper?

Sick people without insurance never die from lack of medical care.

I thought they all just went to the ER and didn't pay the bill then everyone's healthcare costs went up? Wasn't that the argument?

Now people were dying in the streets because they didn't have insurance?

[Wrathbringer]

Subsidies are driving down costs?



Well, is healthcare getting cheaper?



I thought they all just went to the ER and didn't pay the bill then everyone's healthcare costs went up? Wasn't that the argument?

Now people were dying in the streets because they didn't have insurance?

Please stop making sense. I can tell you're blowing minds here. Some people just aren't ready for this yet.