More Obamacare fuckups

[Parkbandit]

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.

You're right- zero.

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

x 2

Stop. This forum already has a Backlash. We don't require 2.

[time4fun]

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?

Yes subsidies drive down costs *for the people getting the subsidies*. You...are aware of what a subsidy is, correct?

Also, apparently you're largely unfamiliar with the concept of preventative care and what happens to people who wait until they're on death's door to go to the hospital because they don't have insurance. Never fear, I've got you covered: http://lmgtfy.com/?q=Impact+of+preve...ealth+outcomes

But, by all means, let's keep pretending like having insurance doesn't have anything to do with your likelihood of dying from illness. I mean, really, why even bother with insurance? It's not like it's related to medical care of anything.

[Tgo01]

Yes subsidies drive down costs *for the people getting the subsidies*.

Oh okay. So we're not making healthcare affordable, we're just making people pay more in taxes so we can give the insurance companies more money so it's cheaper for some people.

You...are aware of what a subsidy is, correct?

Yes. Are you aware of what "driving down costs" means?

Also, apparently you're largely unfamiliar with the concept of preventative care and what happens to people who wait until they're on death's door to go to the hospital because they don't have insurance. Never fear, I've got you covered: http://lmgtfy.com/?q=Impact+of+preve...ealth+outcomes

Awesome. Thanks for that. So while you're believing people literally wait until they're on death's door before they seek medical help why don't you peruse this article:

http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-me...als-uninsured/

But, by all means, let's keep pretending like having insurance doesn't have anything to do with your likelihood of dying from illness. I mean, really, why even bother with insurance? It's not like it's related to medical care of anything.

I think you're confusing terminology here.

Health insurance != access to healthcare.

There are free clinics, emergency room visits, state and local governments helping poor/uninsured with their healthcare bills, non-profit hospitals/organizations providing free treatment as part of their deal to be, y'know, non-profit. Then there's always, GASP! People without insurance paying their bills out of pocket. Insane, I know. But it happens(ed).

But yes, you are 100% correct. Lack of access to medical care can certainly be tied to someone dying prematurely. Tell me, does the "Affordable" Care Act help to ensure that people have access to medical care?

[time4fun]

Oh okay. So we're not making healthcare affordable, we're just making people pay more in taxes so we can give the insurance companies more money so it's cheaper for some people.



Yes. Are you aware of what "driving down costs" means?



Awesome. Thanks for that. So while you're believing people literally wait until they're on death's door before they seek medical help why don't you peruse this article:

http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-me...als-uninsured/



I think you're confusing terminology here.

Health insurance != access to healthcare.

There are free clinics, emergency room visits, state and local governments helping poor/uninsured with their healthcare bills, non-profit hospitals/organizations providing free treatment as part of their deal to be, y'know, non-profit. Then there's always, GASP! People without insurance paying their bills out of pocket. Insane, I know. But it happens(ed).

But yes, you are 100% correct. Lack of access to medical care can certainly be tied to someone dying prematurely. Tell me, does the "Affordable" Care Act help to ensure that people have access to medical care?

Yeah I know very well what "driving down costs" means, and given we were talking about health insurance premiums it's pretty clear I was talking about people. They have costs too it turns out.

Nice 5 year-old study, whose findings haven't really been replicated btw, but here's one that's 2.5 years old: http://familiesusa.org/sites/default...r-Coverage.pdf

And if you don't think that insurance = access, you've lived a charmed life. Access is when a hospital doesn't say to you "I'm sorry, you can't pay for this procedure so we won't do it because we're not legally obligated to do so". Access is "The doctor's appointment normally costs me $150, but now it's only $10". Access is also the >1 million new healthcare jobs that have resulted from the ACA producing new demand for medical services- creating a stronger infrastructure for care. And it goes far beyond simple mortality- it' about quality of life for people with serious and/or chronic illness. It' about understanding the gravity of the reality that medical bills are the #1 cause of personal bankruptcy filings.

If you cannot wrap your head around the concept that insurance is about access to health care, then it's no small wonder why you're having such a hard time understanding the significance of our country's uninsured rate dropping below 10% for the first time in history. Insurance may not be sufficient to ensure 100% access, but for people with significant illnesses it is necessary.

It's astounding to me how committed some people are to finding some way to say the ACA has been a disaster. First it was- this won't lower the rate of uninsured, and it will cause massive unemployment and blow up our debt!" Then, of course, it turned out that it created jobs, DRAMATICALLY lowered the rate of the uninsured, and slowed down the rate of increase in health costs. Now it's "But it's not cheap enough!" Hey, guess what- liberals and you agree 100% that it should be cheaper. So let's all hold hands and fight for a single payer system and to expand Federal funding for health care coverage.

[Tgo01]

Yeah I know very well what "driving down costs" means, and given we were talking about health insurance premiums it's pretty clear I was talking about people. They have costs too it turns out.

"Driving down costs" for people via subsidies is about the worst way to reign in the soaring cost of healthcare in this country. Wasn't this a popular slogan during the ACA debate? America spends more for healthcare than any other nation yet we supposedly get fewer results?

Nice 5 year-old study, whose findings haven't really been replicated btw, but here's one that's 2.5 years old: http://familiesusa.org/sites/default...r-Coverage.pdf

You're hilarious. You decry my study being a whole 5 years old then you link an article with citations that are 10 years old, 22 years old, 21 years old, 6 years old, 6 years old, 7 years old, and 6 years old.

What's also funny is the article I linked specifically talks about what shoddy work IOM and the Urban Institute did and much of the study you link talks about IOM's and Urban Institute's findings.

And if you don't think that insurance = access, you've lived a charmed life. Access is when a hospital doesn't say to you "I'm sorry, you can't pay for this procedure so we won't do it because we're not legally obligated to do so". Access is "The doctor's appointment normally costs me $150, but now it's only $10".

No, apparently you're the one who has lived a charmed life. Access is having the means to travel to your primary care physician who might be 50+ miles away. Access is having the means to travel to a specialist who might be even further away and being able to afford the trip and find time off of work. Access is a working and stable local ambulance system for emergencies. Access is not having to travel 40+ miles to the nearest emergency room. Access is not having the only local hospital being so understaffed that you might have to wait weeks or even months just to make an appointment.

Do you have any idea at all about rural areas in this country?

Access is also the >1 million new healthcare jobs that have resulted from the ACA producing new demand for medical services- creating a stronger infrastructure for care.

Almost 1.5 million healthcare jobs were created during the 5 years prior to the ACA.

And it goes far beyond simple mortality- it' about quality of life for people with serious and/or chronic illness.

You're the one saying people were dying in the streets. I was just responding to your post.

It' about understanding the gravity of the reality that medical bills are the #1 cause of personal bankruptcy filings.

Has this changed since ACA was implemented?

If you cannot wrap your head around the concept that insurance is about access to health care

I agree it's about access to health care, but as I said before health insurance != access to healthcare. Insurance/affordability is but just one ingredient of access to healthcare, they are not synonymous. Stop that.

then it's no small wonder why you're having such a hard time understanding the significance of our country's uninsured rate dropping below 10% for the first time in history.

I never questioned the significance. I merely stated the question we should be asking is if healthcare has gotten more affordable. Has healthcare costs gone down in this country? Do you have an answer for these questions?

Insurance may not be sufficient to ensure 100% access

Thank you.

but for people with significant illnesses it is necessary.

You suck.

[Atlanteax]

For the Obamacare diehard supporters...

Subsidies would not be necessary if healthcare insurance/costs were affordable.
(as a reminder, subsidies are a form of wealth transfer)

A significant part of why Obamacare is 'unaffordable' for many is its 'comprehensive' nature, which includes coverage far and beyond what is necessary and padded with electives,
Which ironically inflates healthcare costs by instilling artificial profit margins (charging people for coverage that they will rarely if ever actually utilize).

Genuinely affordable healthcare would be restricted to basic preventative care, and basic emergency care.
Anything beyond that should be separate additional coverage *purchased* by those wanting semi-regular elective services (eyes, dental, etc).

[Archigeek]

There are basic standards for coverage. I am not sure what you mean by "basic" coverage, if not a standard minimum coverage. What specific things do you think shouldn't be included in the minimum standard but currently are?

Also, we had subsidized forms of healthcare before the ACA.

There are areas that could use improvement. For example, there's no question that our healthcare system remains inefficient. I also think we need to do something about absurdly high drug prices.

[Latrinsorm]

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.

Your recourse for this and all other laws you disagree with is to elect different politicians, as it has been since 1789.

[~Rocktar~]

Your recourse for this and all other laws you disagree with is to elect different politicians, as it has been since 1789.

And just who on the SCOTUS is elected? What districts to I need to be in to vote for or against them?

Seriously?!!?!

[Kembal]

For the Obamacare diehard supporters...

Subsidies would not be necessary if healthcare insurance/costs were affordable.
(as a reminder, subsidies are a form of wealth transfer)

A significant part of why Obamacare is 'unaffordable' for many is its 'comprehensive' nature, which includes coverage far and beyond what is necessary and padded with electives,
Which ironically inflates healthcare costs by instilling artificial profit margins (charging people for coverage that they will rarely if ever actually utilize).

Genuinely affordable healthcare would be restricted to basic preventative care, and basic emergency care.
Anything beyond that should be separate additional coverage *purchased* by those wanting semi-regular elective services (eyes, dental, etc).

What does basic emergency care mean? What about a cancer diagnosis? No private health insurance company would want to insure someone after it was found out that they have cancer. Are you seriously arguing that people should buy separate cancer insurance?

I get where Tgo is coming from (though I don't know why the heck he even comes close to supporting any Republican, because they'll never enact what he wants), but I don't get your idea at all.