The PPACA Thread Part III - Let's have a healthy debate!

[Rover]

Re: The PPACA Thread Part III - Let's have a healthy debate!

Look, the great myth of Obamacare is that it was going to have two great results we were going to get everyone covered by health insurance and we were going to lower the cost of health insurance/health care (revisionist history later changed this to "we're going to slow the rate of growth of health insurance/health care costs).

Here is the problem. A huge portion of the American public was already covered, either through Medicare/Medicaid or through employer sponsored policies. That really hasn't changed as a result of Obamacare.

In the short term did we add more people to the coverage lists. No question. Did we reduce health insurance/health care costs in the short term? There is an argument that we slowed the cost increases in the first year or so, but I think we all see now that is primarily a result of insurance companies guessing at what the rates should be based upon unknown factors created by Obamacare. Once they realized they guessed wrong, the slowed growth victory is going the way of the dildo bird. These 50% annual increases are going to quickly drive those newly covered individuals back off the insurance rolls, and probably take a few more people with them. Which is great. Now, they're not only uninsured but they're breaking the law on top of it.

The next argument perpetrated by the sheeple goes something like, "if the GOP can't come up with a solution for fixing Obamacare, they need to stop whining about it."

Except, the problem is that Obamacare is precisely like the Iraq/Afghan war problem. It his a huge s h ! t pie, and it's not something we can just say, "nevermind" and pretend like we never created it. Pulling all of our troops out of the middle east and simply repealing Obamacare are both incredibly stupid ideas. But the fact that we can't do those things certainly doesn't minimize or relieve responsibility for the lies and misinformation that got us into both messes.

I've highlighted 3 blatant lies in your post, but I'm sorta curious about what a "dildo bird" is and why they went extinct.

Most complaints about repealing the ACA at this point are confined to frustrated older conservative males who haven't been laid in 30 years and blame the ACA for that. I don't want to name names here (cough..Fishy...cough) but that's pretty much it. But, I'll make it simple. The last two Gooper Presidential candidates ran explicitly on a repeal and go back to the pre-ACA set up platform. One guy (Mittens) lost handily. The other (Trump) is about to get crushed! If people truly felt the way the serial whiners do, why won't the public elect these men President? Dealing with anti-Obamacare people is like dealing with the Flat Earthed Society. Eventually when it turns out you're not looking for solutions but just want to complain, you just set yourselves up as objects of ridicule. That works for me, but I'm not sure what you get out of it.

 

[FlagDUDE08]

Re: The PPACA Thread Part III - Let's have a healthy debate!

I've highlighted 3 blatant lies in your post, but I'm sorta curious about what a "dildo bird" is and why they went extinct.

If they're such lies, then what, pray tell, was the goal of the PPACA? While you "enlighten" us with your spoon-fed White House drivel, we're more than happy to look back at what you said 6-7 years ago, when this was first jammed through Congress, to see if it's consistent.

 

[Kepler]

Re: The PPACA Thread Part III - Let's have a healthy debate!

Most of the boards of directors for those companies are "shared". Conflict of interest will keep the oligarchy from competing with each other. Instead, they will "compete".

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Interlocking_directorate

http://www2.ucsc.edu/whorulesamerica/power/corporate_community.html

 

[Rover]

Re: The PPACA Thread Part III - Let's have a healthy debate!

If they're such lies, then what, pray tell, was the goal of the PPACA? While you "enlighten" us with your spoon-fed White House drivel, we're more than happy to look back at what you said 6-7 years ago, when this was first jammed through Congress, to see if it's consistent.

The goal of the PPACA was to increase health care coverage, not cover everybody. For example, illegal immigrants were specifically left out of the equation by the law. Plus, you didn't have to get coverage. You could simply pay the fine.

Also, the goal was to slow down cost increases in total on health care vs the expectations at the time. Again, success on this point but I'm still not sure what a dildo bird is as hovey mentioned so I can't assess if the ACA has gone the way of one....

 

[SJHovey]

Re: The PPACA Thread Part III - Let's have a healthy debate!

Look, the great myth of Obamacare is that it was going to have two great results -- we were going to get everyone covered by health insurance and we were going to lower the cost of health insurance/health care (revisionist history later changed this to "we're going to slow the rate of growth of health insurance/health care costs).

I've highlighted 3 blatant lies in your post,

As advocates said before, during, and after the law passed - any tweaks to make it work better are totally welcome. But, I wrote out here during the discussion that there's two ways to judge the law's success. 1) Do more people have insurance, 2) did the cost curve bend, as in total payouts are less than expected payouts. Check and check.

.

 

[The Sicatoka]

Re: The PPACA Thread Part III - Let's have a healthy debate!

Shouldn't any health care initiative also be judged on how long its users are living?

Americans Are Dying Faster. Millennials, Too

 

[SJHovey]

Re: The PPACA Thread Part III - Let's have a healthy debate!

The goal of the PPACA was to increase health care coverage, not cover everybody. For example, illegal immigrants were specifically left out of the equation by the law. Plus, you didn't have to get coverage. You could simply pay the fine.

Also, the goal was to slow down cost increases in total on health care vs the expectations at the time. Again, success on this point but I'm still not sure what a dildo bird is as hovey mentioned so I can't assess if the ACA has gone the way of one....

The point is even the Admin is admitting this isn't working. Getting a load of new people into insurance, only to drive them off (and a bunch of people who were already insured before the law) because of premium costs that dwarf anything we ever saw before the law is passed is a great success.

Go ahead and just admit it Rover. It'll be cathartic for you. Right now the ACA is a giant turd in the White House restroom that Obama is leaving there for your girl to find in January. We'll see if she can figure it out.

 

[Rover]

Re: The PPACA Thread Part III - Let's have a healthy debate!

Shouldn't any health care initiative also be judged on how long its users are living?

Americans Are Dying Faster. Millennials, Too

That could be the stupidest thing you've ever posted, and that's saying something.

 

[St. Clown]

Re: The PPACA Thread Part III - Let's have a healthy debate!

Look, the great myth of Obamacare is that it was going to have two great results -- we were going to get everyone covered by health insurance and we were going to lower the cost of health insurance/health care (revisionist history later changed this to "we're going to slow the rate of growth of health insurance/health care costs).

Here is the problem. A huge portion of the American public was already covered, either through Medicare/Medicaid or through employer sponsored policies. That really hasn't changed as a result of Obamacare.

In the short term did we add more people to the coverage lists. No question. Did we reduce health insurance/health care costs in the short term? There is an argument that we slowed the cost increases in the first year or so, but I think we all see now that is primarily a result of insurance companies guessing at what the rates should be based upon unknown factors created by Obamacare. Once they realized they guessed wrong, the slowed growth victory is going the way of the dildo bird. These 50% annual increases are going to quickly drive those newly covered individuals back off the insurance rolls, and probably take a few more people with them. Which is great. Now, they're not only uninsured but they're breaking the law on top of it.

The next argument perpetrated by the sheeple goes something like, "if the GOP can't come up with a solution for fixing Obamacare, they need to stop whining about it."

Except, the problem is that Obamacare is precisely like the Iraq/Afghan war problem. It his a huge s h ! t pie, and it's not something we can just say, "nevermind" and pretend like we never created it. Pulling all of our troops out of the middle east and simply repealing Obamacare are both incredibly stupid ideas. But the fact that we can't do those things certainly doesn't minimize or relieve responsibility for the lies and misinformation that got us into both messes.

The dildo bird?

 

[Rover]

Re: The PPACA Thread Part III - Let's have a healthy debate!

The point is even the Admin is admitting this isn't working. Getting a load of new people into insurance, only to drive them off (and a bunch of people who were already insured before the law) because of premium costs that dwarf anything we ever saw before the law is passed is a great success.

Go ahead and just admit it Rover. It'll be cathartic for you. Right now the ACA is a giant turd in the White House restroom that Obama is leaving there for your girl to find in January. We'll see if she can figure it out.

Still waiting about the "dildo bird" question.

Are more people covered now than before the law was passed? Did you just say "yes"? You did if you were honest. So, how is it driving people off of insurance if more are covered? That...doesn't...make....sense....

Regarding premiums, given that we had a 2% and 7% jump up in the previous 2 years that mitigates the total increase over time. The part the law needs to fix is people getting insurance during the special enrollment periods in order to cover known health problems that they decided to address. Were the GOP Congress not in a permanent state of constipation that's not too hard to do.

Lastly, I'll remind you once again that the ACA was never meant to get older conservative males laid for the first time in decades, so any frustrations of that nature really need to be directed elsewhere.

 

[The Sicatoka]

Re: The PPACA Thread Part III - Let's have a healthy debate!

That could be the stupidest thing you've ever posted, and that's saying something.

And that ranks as yours.

Isn't health care about keeping people alive and healthy, improving lives?
Or was this health care initiative strictly a cold fiscal measure, with no care or concern about peoples' health, actual health care services, or coverage.

 

[The Sicatoka]

Re: The PPACA Thread Part III - Let's have a healthy debate!

The dildo bird?

Not really my call as it's not my post, but I'm not sure if I should say, "People, it was just a typo" or ... "Shove it."

 

[Rover]

Re: The PPACA Thread Part III - Let's have a healthy debate!

And that ranks as yours.

Isn't health care about keeping people alive and healthy, improving lives?
Or was this health care initiative strictly a cold fiscal measure, with no care or concern about peoples' health, actual health care services, or coverage.

Its a bit more than that. You can offer drug users health care for example but I doubt its going to stop them from overdosing simply because they may not seek treatment. Likewise, if certain Republican states have made a conscious effort to not extend Medicaid to their most vulnerable citizens (TX and FL for example), how is that the ACA's fault? Isn't that the fault of the Republicans running those states???

 

[SJHovey]

Re: The PPACA Thread Part III - Let's have a healthy debate!

Still waiting about the "dildo bird" question.

Are more people covered now than before the law was passed? Did you just say "yes"? You did if you were honest. So, how is it driving people off of insurance if more are covered? That...doesn't...make....sense....

Regarding premiums, given that we had a 2% and 7% jump up in the previous 2 years that mitigates the total increase over time. The part the law needs to fix is people getting insurance during the special enrollment periods in order to cover known health problems that they decided to address. Were the GOP Congress not in a permanent state of constipation that's not too hard to do.

Lastly, I'll remind you once again that the ACA was never meant to get older conservative males laid for the first time in decades, so any frustrations of that nature really need to be directed elsewhere.

This post really just generally summarizes why the left ultimately fails at governing. It's like if they can create some sort of superficial fix for something, even though in very short order it blows up in everyone's face, hey, look at us, we fixed it.

Yep, you succeeded in getting what, maybe 10 million more people on insurance. They were lead to believe these reduced premiums and subsidies were going to make it all "affordable" care because of some sort of accounting magic guys like you believed in.

And the first year or two, it worked, primarily because those who are actually in the industry didn't know how it was going to work so they guessed, apropos given everything else.

Now, a couple of years later after the insurance companies have had a chance to sort it out, surprise, you 10 million newly insured, your premium is now $30,000 a year. Congrats.

You think people are actually going to continue as insureds under that scenario? Dude, if they could afford 30 grand for insurance they wouldn't have been uninsured in the first place.

But that's alright. We'll let Hillary figure it out.

 

[Rover]

Re: The PPACA Thread Part III - Let's have a healthy debate!

This post really just generally summarizes why the left ultimately fails at governing. It's like if they can create some sort of superficial fix for something, even though in very short order it blows up in everyone's face, hey, look at us, we fixed it.

Yep, you succeeded in getting what, maybe 10 million more people on insurance. They were lead to believe these reduced premiums and subsidies were going to make it all "affordable" care because of some sort of accounting magic guys like you believed in.

And the first year or two, it worked, primarily because those who are actually in the industry didn't know how it was going to work so they guessed, apropos given everything else.

Now, a couple of years later after the insurance companies have had a chance to sort it out, surprise, you 10 million newly insured, your premium is now $30,000 a year. Congrats.

You think people are actually going to continue as insureds under that scenario? Dude, if they could afford 30 grand for insurance they wouldn't have been uninsured in the first place.

But that's alright. We'll let Hillary figure it out.

You're free to live in your own reality if you'd like. Just don't expect us to join you. Its a lot more than 10M people who've gained insurance under the ACA as you seem to be conveniently not including either the Medicaid expansion or the kids under 26 on their parents insurance. This is why conservatism is a sh it ideology. It lives in its own world where it has its own facts no matter how absurd they may be.

The vast majority of the people getting insurance through the ACA marketplaces are subsidized due to low income. So, they aren't being asked to shell out 30K a year themselves. This is being funded by a surcharge on high earners and hospital and pharma givebacks amongst other things. Which is why repealing the ACA actually increases the deficit. Another point that you, mysteriously, failed to mention....

 

[SJHovey]

Re: The PPACA Thread Part III - Let's have a healthy debate!

You're free to live in your own reality if you'd like. Just don't expect us to join you. Its a lot more than 10M people who've gained insurance under the ACA as you seem to be conveniently not including either the Medicaid expansion or the kids under 26 on their parents insurance. This is why conservatism is a sh it ideology. It lives in its own world where it has its own facts no matter how absurd they may be.

The vast majority of the people getting insurance through the ACA marketplaces are subsidized due to low income. So, they aren't being asked to shell out 30K a year themselves. This is being funded by a surcharge on high earners and hospital and pharma givebacks amongst other things. Which is why repealing the ACA actually increases the deficit. Another point that you, mysteriously, failed to mention....

We'll see. Think of the ACA as a little E. Coli germinating in your belly. You just never see the mess coming.

 

[FreshFish]

Re: The PPACA Thread Part III - Let's have a healthy debate!

whether there's regulations to stop insurance companies from cherry picking their customers..

Hmm... can we use auto insurance for an analogy for a moment?

I'd like to understand your distinction between "cherry picking customers" and "prudent risk assessment."

Suppose you are a prudent driver with a spotless driving record. Your neighbor has been in a few accidents and has several speeding tickets. How would you feel if each of you were charged the same for auto insurance? you'd be paying higher premiums than warranted by your record in order to subsidize the greater chances that he'd incur a claim.

Now, in today's auto insurance market, your neighbor can still get auto insurance, because there are plenty of other people with driving records just like his. All of those people are pooled together for pricing purposes (also known as a "risk pool"). They merely pay a higher premium than you do, because the only thing the insurance company cares about is one simple thing: do premiums plus investment earnings exceed overhead plus claims?

Insurance is still available, it is just that the premium is proportionate to the risk.


Now, if your state government insisted that the auto insurance company had to accept all applicants, regardless of their driving record, and also insisted that they had to set premiums such that the riskiest drivers would pay no more than xx% higher than the safest drivers, what do you think would happen to the auto insurance market in your state?

 

[FreshFish]

Re: The PPACA Thread Part III - Let's have a healthy debate!

We'll see. Think of the ACA as a little E. Coli germinating in your belly. You just never see the mess coming.

You are witnessing one of the best examples of cognitive dissonance ever. The reality is in conflict with the ideal, and so, in order to preserve the ideal, reality must be denied. The more you try to say, hey, look at reality, the more strident and insistent the denial becomes.

 

[Rover]

Re: The PPACA Thread Part III - Let's have a healthy debate!

You are witnessing one of the best examples of cognitive dissonance ever. The reality is in conflict with the ideal, and so, in order to preserve the ideal, reality must be denied. The more you try to say, hey, look at reality, the more strident and insistent the denial becomes.

Most complaints about repealing the ACA at this point are confined to frustrated older conservative males who haven't been laid in 30 years and blame the ACA for that. I don't want to name names here (cough..Fishy...cough) but that's pretty much it. But, I'll make it simple. The last two Gooper Presidential candidates ran explicitly on a repeal and go back to the pre-ACA set up platform. One guy (Mittens) lost handily. The other (Trump) is about to get crushed! If people truly felt the way the serial whiners do, why won't the public elect these men President? Dealing with anti-Obamacare people is like dealing with the Flat Earthed Society. Eventually when it turns out you're not looking for solutions but just want to complain, you just set yourselves up as objects of ridicule. That works for me, but I'm not sure what you get out of it.

No more explanation necessary.

 

[dxmnkd316]

Re: The PPACA Thread Part III - Let's have a healthy debate!

Obamacare solved one of the two biggest problems with healthcare. Ok, really two of three.

One, it mandated pre-existing conditions be covered. This was crucial. To be cast out because you drew a short straw in the genetic lottery is unfair.


Two, it solved the coverage gap. Sort of. We need to provide health care to everyone. It's beginning to fail on this account because of other problems. Not enough people choosing the exchanges, not enough young healthy people sharing the burden (baby boomers 2.0?), and because it doesn't fix the third and most important problem.

Of course that is the cost of health care. This needs to come down. Starting with hospitals and the big pharmaceutical companies. Hospitals are charging far too much for the care they provide. I know that's complex and it's a result of many, many other issues, but it needs to be fixed. Pharmaceuticals are raping the public. I'm a very firm believer in charging to cover the costs of R&D, but the marketing, executive pay, lobbying, and profits at the cost of affordability have got to go or be regulated.