PDA

View Full Version : Obamacare/ACA/Republican's Alternative


bentheplayer
January 26th, 2017, 03:48 AM
Can someone please explain why Republicans are so opposed to Obamacare when all it does is to try create an inclusive society where everyone can have access to healthcare? Please keep this objective and logical as all I have seen and heard so far is that Republicans will come up with something better and terrific.

Till now and for the last 8 years they have been claiming to have something terrific but not made known any proposal. Even the Affordable Care Act was referred to as Obamacare in an attempt to polarise and sway public opinion on the premise that Obama is doing something terrible. From what I understand, Obama has been asking Republicans to show a proposal that will be demonstrably better than ACA but all they did is to say ACA is a bad idea and want to repeal it immediately without showing any form of replacement or improvements to ACA. Do they not care about the health of all Americans or only the rich? Even though Trump has started the motions of repealing ACA, there is still no replacement announced. So what is gonna happen to those while waiting for a replacement? Clearly the winners from this will be the insurance companies who no longer have to devote 80% of premiums to claims (80% is still ridiculously low imo), debt collectors for obvious reasons and high earners who will get big tax breaks from tax advantaged health saving accounts. As it is Minnesota House just passed a bill with many major exclusions (https://twitter.com/ASlavitt/status/823716321070301189)which frankly defeats the purpose of health insurance all in the guise of making insurance more affordable.

mattsmith48
January 26th, 2017, 11:28 AM
Because it as Obama's name on it. They have no other reason to hate it because it use to be their plan, If it gets replace, the Republicans will probably just make a few changes and Trump, like with all his business, will put his name on it and take the credit.

bentheplayer
January 26th, 2017, 11:58 AM
Because it as Obama's name on it. They have no other reason to hate it because it use to be their plan, If it gets replace, the Republicans will probably just make a few changes and Trump, like with all his business, will put his name on it and take the credit.

The term Obamacare was coined by the Republicans as part of their efforts to repeal ACA. Obama actually called it the Affordable Care Act so this still doesn't explain much.

In any case, apart from insurance or "socialized medicine" there hasn't really been any better solutions when quality, access and efficiency are the criteria. There are too many market failures in a free market healthcare system as seen in USA. USA has the highest % of GDP spend but one of the poorest healthcare outcomes among developed countries.

PlasmaHam
January 26th, 2017, 02:06 PM
As a result of Obamacare:

Insurance premiums have gone up
Hospitals and doctors are facing financial crisis
The health insurance business has become increasingly monopolized
Encourages employers to avoid hiring full-time.
Hurts small businesses
Requires people to buy insurance they don't need
Could result in higher drug prices

That is a simplified list. I don't know why you think Obamacare is great though, Clinton admitted that the program is flawed and Obama has challenged lawmakers to make something better. Almost everyone except for the hardcore lefties agree that Obamacare needs reform or replacement.

Uniquemind
January 26th, 2017, 02:24 PM
As a result of Obamacare:

Insurance premiums have gone up
Hospitals and doctors are facing financial crisis
The health insurance business has become increasingly monopolized
Encourages employers to avoid hiring full-time.
Hurts small businesses
Requires people to buy insurance they don't need
Could result in higher drug prices

That is a simplified list. I don't know why you think Obamacare is great though, Clinton admitted that the program is flawed and Obama has challenged lawmakers to make something better. Almost everyone except for the hardcore lefties agree that Obamacare needs reform or replacement.

The reality though was insurance premiums were going to rise when you look at the math before Obamacare.

You can't really say they went up because of X, if in absence of X, they would also have risen.

It's logically incoherent.

bentheplayer
January 26th, 2017, 03:33 PM
PlasmaHam You are only displaying your gross ignorance on the issue on healthcare funding when you make such incoherent arguments. Those statements are merely rhetoric with some truth in them at best.

Insurance premiums have gone up
With all goods, there is something called inflation. The price of everything goes up, not just healthcare. There are various solutions to this such as bigger subsidies or forcing insurance companies to have a lower profit/operating margin. Currently they are allowed 20% which is still quite high. Given the high margin, even if the government were to take over the insurance companies role, the usual federal govt inefficiencies might still be cheaper.

Hospitals and doctors are facing financial crisis Since when? We are talking about USA not UK. In the US patients who can't afford treatment are simply put on a cab/taxi and sent to some charity hospital. If you can't afford healthcare in the US you don't get treated. In fact if you have been following the healthcare sector, hospitals are in great financial standing since they are all mostly profit driven.

The health insurance business has become increasingly monopolized That is also how you get economies of scale and huge bargaining power to get god quality healthcare at the lowest cost. Obviously more regular and oversight by the government would be better but Republics are the ones who prefer the free market so it is unlikely to happen.

Encourages employers to avoid hiring full-time. Business have a duty to care for the health of their employees. If the current business model can only allow for sub-optimal benefits for the employees, it is better to not have such jobs in the long run. Walmart jobs are crap and workers end up relying on the fed social programs to survive. Is this the kind of jobs people want?

Hurts small businesses
See above. If a biz isn't adding enough value, it isn't worth having.

Requires people to buy insurance they don't need
Why would people not need health insurance? This is just an open faced lie told by republicans who hate the idea of richer people cross subsidizing the poorer ones.

Could result in higher drug prices
The current drug market in America is already flawed and has nothing to do with ACA. These are 2 separate issues all together. For most part big pharma is overcharging.

As I have said, healthcare is not cheap and the only way to have universal healthcare is through cost sharing. The point of the OP was to point out that Republicans are BSing on their better alternative. It is impossible to do more with less without implementing market correcting changes that they so fervently oppose.

Porpoise101
January 26th, 2017, 05:57 PM
Obama has challenged lawmakers to make something better.
The things the Republicans have promised aren't possible without increasing debt, reducing coverage, increasing deductibles, or increasing premiums. All of these things suck.

I think that ACA is not ideal, however, it is better than going back to nothing. "Repeal and replace" is a common phrase, but no one truly knows how they will carry out this process. In my mind, the root cause of all of this is the high costs of healthcare. If we had a way to negotiate with drug companies and healthcare providers directly in the same way that other nations do, then the costs of healthcare and therefore insurance, should fall. Here's another radical idea, make healthcare costs transparent. Hospitals should have a menu that shows the costs of every procedure so that people can be informed and shop around for the best provider for the best price. This would make the market more competitive in theory.

There is a lot of hate towards the individual mandate because to Republicans it is seen as a fundamentally unfair thing. This is a fair criticism. However, it makes health insurance cheaper for all of society. This makes it worthwhile in my mind.

One thing I am an enthusiastic fan of is the rule within the ACA that allows children to stay on their parent's insurance until they are 26. With more and more people going to college, it makes sense. It is also a popular part of the law, but Republicans have said they are going to get rid of it for some reason.

Uniquemind
January 27th, 2017, 03:18 AM
One reason healthcare costs are rising and why it's such an issue is that as a populace Americans are really really unhealthy.

Too much sugar and salt are in the American pantry and that causes the baby boomer generation to have these health problems now and it seems every successive generation after them also followed or does follow the same diet, so that translates into multiple waves of generations using healthcare insurance at a high rate causing the high inflation.


Price hikes by private regional monopolies are also a thing as well, which is a separate facet of the issue, but it is part of it, and ACA did not address this issue.


My solution is that you need a federal law that actually makes healthcare a critical infrastructure issue due to it's impact on GDP and indirectly interstate-commerce and national defense regarding communicable diseases.

This would mean states lose some power regarding laws on how insurance paperwork must be filed and what doctor records are kept and what medical procedures involve Certain hoops and ladders to go through (abortion for instance, states have different opinions on it).

Also supply chain agreements regarding medical supplies need to be addressed in a free market system. (Hospital A in California might have a groundbreaking medical scanner that a Hospital B in Utah doesn't have and therefore demand on certain test and treatments isn't an equal playing field and prices and travel won't be equal).


So there are dark trade offs when one ideologically feels that "the market" will correct itself.

Surely the epipen $400 price jump demonstrates this issue of how an owner of a medical product (drug, equipment) causes this GDP and increase spending problem.

bentheplayer
January 27th, 2017, 09:46 AM
Also supply chain agreements regarding medical supplies need to be addressed in a free market system. (Hospital A in California might have a groundbreaking medical scanner that a Hospital B in Utah doesn't have and therefore demand on certain test and treatments isn't an equal playing field and prices and travel won't be equal).

In practice, things are not quite like this. The hospitals are allowed to charge as they wish in the US and there is numerous cases where fees are not even linked to quality. There is a lot of imperfect info and many for profit hospitals exploit this. That is why insurance companies usually pay only a fraction of what an uninsured person might be charged. There are so many cases of people charged thousands for a A&E visit lasting a few hours.

Sometimes having the latest costly tech may also raise cost needlessly where the test is done for the purpose of being doubly sure. There can be a lot perverse incentives for over treatment which is had to draw the line.

Surely the epipen $400 price jump demonstrates this issue of how an owner of a medical product (drug, equipment) causes this GDP and increase spending problem.

There are many different reasons for huge increases in price of such products. In the case of epipen, the main reason is cos of the fed that prevents competition. America is the only developed nation that allows drug companies to set their own prices. The fed systems allows epipen the unique position of being the only company to sell epipen even though the active drug isn't even patented. Basically Epipen is protected form substitution. Just across the pond in Europe there are at least 5 different competing products. (I can't remember the exact number its definitely more than 5.) FDA delayed Teva generic version of Epipen due to "major deficiencies" but refused to specify what they are. Sandoz tried but was sued for patent infringement. The list goes on. Epipen spend loads yearly on lobbyists to keep its position. So "free market" right? Apparently the its a matter of who having the deepest pockets and being willing to lobby these politicians.

Anyways the failure of drug pricing is one whole huge topic on its own that I don't really wanna cover. It is impossible to finish going thro cos there are just too many stuff at play.

themanconnor
January 27th, 2017, 12:04 PM
Can someone please explain why Republicans are so opposed to Obamacare when all it does is to try create an inclusive society where everyone can have access to healthcare? Please keep this objective and logical as all I have seen and heard so far is that Republicans will come up with something better and terrific.

I am a huge Obama supporter!! However, there are some issues with the ACA, some of which aren't even "Obama's" fault. He has said that if a new replacement plan is made that is truly better, then he will support it fully.

Right now, Trump has only sign an executive order to kickstart the process of improving the healthcare system, and Congress will not repeal it until they know that they have a comprable replacement. I have heard talk that the decision for healthcare is run could go to each state government, but do not take my word for that.

Our government just wants to make sure that everyone is covered with a good plan, whether that is universal health care or different providers. I believe in universal health care but other options can work. I'm sure when a plan comes out, a good judge would be listening to what Obama has to say and if he will support it to ensure that healthcare will be run well in our country. Thanks!

Uniquemind
January 27th, 2017, 12:11 PM
In practice, things are not quite like this. The hospitals are allowed to charge as they wish in the US and there is numerous cases where fees are not even linked to quality. There is a lot of imperfect info and many for profit hospitals exploit this. That is why insurance companies usually pay only a fraction of what an uninsured person might be charged. There are so many cases of people charged thousands for a A&E visit lasting a few hours.

Sometimes having the latest costly tech may also raise cost needlessly where the test is done for the purpose of being doubly sure. There can be a lot perverse incentives for over treatment which is had to draw the line.



There are many different reasons for huge increases in price of such products. In the case of epipen, the main reason is cos of the fed that prevents competition. America is the only developed nation that allows drug companies to set their own prices. The fed systems allows epipen the unique position of being the only company to sell epipen even though the active drug isn't even patented. Basically Epipen is protected form substitution. Just across the pond in Europe there are at least 5 different competing products. (I can't remember the exact number its definitely more than 5.) FDA delayed Teva generic version of Epipen due to "major deficiencies" but refused to specify what they are. Sandoz tried but was sued for patent infringement. The list goes on. Epipen spend loads yearly on lobbyists to keep its position. So "free market" right? Apparently the its a matter of who having the deepest pockets and being willing to lobby these politicians.

Anyways the failure of drug pricing is one whole huge topic on its own that I don't really wanna cover. It is impossible to finish going thro cos there are just too many stuff at play.

All true. I used an oversimplified example to get the point across.

You are correct, and in the epipen's case I believe it wasn't the drug that was patented, but rather the mechanics of drug's delivery into the body that was.

Yeah well as it stands, "free market capitalism" allows for personal control and price hikes and agreements to only exclusively make products along certain distribution lines.

Not just with medical supplies but other products as well.

bentheplayer
January 27th, 2017, 12:19 PM
Yeah well as it stands, "free market capitalism" allows for personal control and price hikes and agreements to only exclusively make products along certain distribution lines.

Not just with medical supplies but other products as well.

The thing is in a true free market capitalism, generics would be allowed in too and the monopoly would be broken. So as much as republicans harp over the free market, there are only interested in one that benefits them. Do note that IP/patent rights are very different from property rights. The former is about ideas while the later is about something physical and tangible.


Our government just wants to make sure that everyone is covered with a good plan, whether that is universal health care or different providers. I believe in universal health care but other options can work. I'm sure when a plan comes out, a good judge would be listening to what Obama has to say and if he will support it to ensure that healthcare will be run well in our country. Thanks!

That's the thing. The new administration has been trying to portray that image but not explained how they will be delivering it. There isn't any solid plan that can definitely be assured to work yet. The best argument I have heard is that Trump is a business guy so he knows how to do it. Well folks, Trump's been bankrupt 4 times. While he isn't totally liable for the blame, being a biz guy hardly guarantee anything. As all investors should know, past performance doesn't equate to future performance.

Universal healthcare will generally at least ensure a basal level of comprehensive healthcare for all while other options will generally mean that some will slip through the cracks. All I am asking is for them to be honest and stop their spin really. Healthcare provision has never been an easy topic and is always a challenge but the very least politicians can do is be candor about it.

Having a devolved healthcare system is usually political actually. It's so that the fed can claim the state failed not them and the public that usually don't fact check will readily drink that up. This also means that within country, healthcare standards become a postcode lottery based on their state. Is this what people want?

themanconnor
January 27th, 2017, 01:08 PM
That's the thing. The new administration has been trying to portray that image but not explained how they will be delivering it. There isn't any solid plan that can definitely be assured to work yet. The best argument I have heard is that Trump is a business guy so he knows how to do it. Well folks, Trump's been bankrupt 4 times. While he isn't totally liable for the blame, being a biz guy hardly guarantee anything. As all investors should know, past performance doesn't equate to future performance.

Universal healthcare will generally at least ensure a basal level of comprehensive healthcare for all while other options will generally mean that some will slip through the cracks. All I am asking is for them to be honest and stop their spin really. Healthcare provision has never been an easy topic and is always a challenge but the very least politicians can do is be candor about it.

Having a devolved healthcare system is usually political actually. It's so that the fed can claim the state failed not them and the public that usually don't fact check will readily drink that up. This also means that within country, healthcare standards become a postcode lottery based on their state. Is this what people want?

I agree. You could maybe contact some of your state reps and senators to see their opinions and hear about progress on the "repeal and replace" process.

bentheplayer
January 27th, 2017, 01:16 PM
I agree. You could maybe contact some of your state reps and senators to see their opinions and hear about progress on the "repeal and replace" process.

I am not from the states but I do have to cover global issues as part of my education unfortunately. However, I am surprised that people can be so gullible and easily swayed by emotions instead of logic. I just feel sorry for those who end up without access to good quality affordable care.

Uniquemind
January 28th, 2017, 04:11 AM
I am not from the states but I do have to cover global issues as part of my education unfortunately. However, I am surprised that people can be so gullible and easily swayed by emotions instead of logic. I just feel sorry for those who end up without access to good quality affordable care.

Well it starts because the last (4 generations now?) carry the human trait by and large of avoidance of thought.

Thinking about math and policy and debating over it isn't sexy, it ruins friendships/relationships.

So it's been neglected with only trend being power hungry personality types wanting policy jobs at government levels or lobbyist jobs.


You can even see it in average conversation among all generations now, people for fear of the nastiness of political discussion either ban by rule discussing the topic, or avoid it and remain uneducated about it.

It's the public's fault really, we deserve our pain. Sorry to the minority few.

--

The exception is when life makes you become an expert in any one issue.

Ex: only after a relative becomes sick with cancer do you understand the hardship of insurance premiums and household financial stress.

It's very hard for a large subset of people to project realistically what hypothetical scenarios they would be and feel in, unless it's a reality for them, and it's restricting their empathy and therefore policy making or in how they vote once objective facts are taken into consideration.

bentheplayer
January 28th, 2017, 04:24 AM
Well it starts because the last (4 generations now?) carry the human trait by and large of avoidance of thought.

Thinking about math and policy and debating over it isn't sexy, it ruins friendships/relationships.

So it's been neglected with only trend being power hungry personality types wanting policy jobs at government levels or lobbyist jobs.


You can even see it in average conversation among all generations now, people for fear of the nastiness of political discussion either ban by rule discussing the topic, or avoid it and remain uneducated about it.

It's the public's fault really, we deserve our pain. Sorry to the minority few.

--

The exception is when life makes you become an expert in any one issue.

Ex: only after a relative becomes sick with cancer do you understand the hardship of insurance premiums and household financial stress.

It's very hard for a large subset of people to project realistically what hypothetical scenarios they would be and feel in, unless it's a reality for them, and it's restricting their empathy and therefore policy making or in how they vote once objective facts are taken into consideration.

Then I guess all I can say is that I feel very sorry for these people, being led by their noses. It is always this NIMBY syndrome that causes them to lose out. Yet they can complain that the rich get richer and the poor get poorer. This glaring lack of foresight is scary and they can still bang on about making America great. Go figure.

While thankfully, I am not in that situation, I have seen many people who are unable to afford health care. If a section of any society is able to have access to prompt care be it in or out patient then why can't society as a whole have it? I kinda feel strongly for this issue cos I have an excellent out and in patient coverage at a reasonable cost with zero deductibles. I don't see any reason why others can't be given that "privilege" too.

Babs
January 28th, 2017, 03:51 PM
Surely there are downsides, but the uninsured rate is at an all-time low, and you can't argue with results. Heck, I'm insured for the first time in my life because of Obamacare. Thanks Obama.

NewLeafsFan
January 28th, 2017, 06:12 PM
Republicans disaprove if everything democrats do and vice versa. I dont live in the USA but my understanding is that it is very expensive so people want it changed. The truth is Republicans dont have a better idea yet.

Flapjack
January 30th, 2017, 05:33 PM
I have heard 'repeal and replace' a lot, but have they ever said what they will replace it with?...

Uniquemind
January 31st, 2017, 01:25 AM
I have heard 'repeal and replace' a lot, but have they ever said what they will replace it with?...

No that's the problem.

The fear is they will repeal and replace in name only, but once the math breaks down it ends up hurting household budgets or offering less quality care to patients.

To nutshell this there are 6 main issues:

1. The cost of insurance premiums

2. The cost of a plan's deductibles

3. Where the money from customer's premiums goes to once the insurance company has it (aka: where is the money reinvested in 1. Patient care and payout 2. employees, like business executive salaries, 3. other expenses like commercial ads).

4. The quality of care a plan offers; especially compared to competition (regional monopolies are a problem here in some cases).

5. Cost of hospital expenses (unrelated to insurance companies) part of the healthcare issue is do to hospitals just being extremely greedy in what they are charging for certain tests and medical specialists they outsource patient care too. Notice how sometimes hospital food is crazy expensive versus the same or similar product down the street from the hospital.


6. State law affecting what can or cannot be recommended or covered in an insurance plan, or what doctors can recommend as treatments. (This is where Euthanasia and abortion issues come to play).

bentheplayer
January 31st, 2017, 05:36 AM
Uniquemind At its basics, the best way to implement universal health insurance is by a competent federal civil service. As long as there is a innate desire to make profits by insurers, they are bound to act not in the interest of the insured. One just has to look at other countries to know that the only true barrier is political will and those lobbyists. Currently I am looking at Singapore's newly rolled out scheme. Actually on the healthcare front, Singapore has always been a very interesting model to study in terms of public policy. I can't think of any other healthcare system that spends as little as they do in terms of % per GDP for the kind of healthcare outcomes they get.

It isn't really that difficult. It is only about putting people, sustainability and effectiveness before profits.

mattsmith48
January 31st, 2017, 08:53 AM
I have heard 'repeal and replace' a lot, but have they ever said what they will replace it with?...

You don't remember during the campaign Trump said he would replace it with ''something terrific''

Uniquemind
January 31st, 2017, 03:50 PM
You don't remember during the campaign Trump said he would replace it with ''something terrific''

No we all heard that, we're waiting on specifics.


Why does it work? How does it work both for households, and the national debt.

Dmaxd123
February 26th, 2017, 06:54 AM
the problem is that the ACA was voted in so the current administration can't wake up tomorrow and just get rid of it 100% even though that is what SHOULD happen.

insurance should be a private matter, just like auto insurance if you are a greater risk your price goes up if you are a lower risk your price goes down. BUT since the govt says the company HAS to cover you no matter what, those that are low risk have to be charged more to cover the high risk clients.

the state of NY had a one sized fits all coverage just like the ACA, it wasn't cost effective so young people had to stay in NY without being able to afford coverage, find a job that provided the benefits, or leave the state... NY had(has?) a lot of young people leaving the state and not coming back

now those that say "hey you mentioned car insurance, that is required too so health insurance should be required too" nope, car insurance is only required if you own a car so it's an elective insurance... as any insurance should be

bentheplayer
February 26th, 2017, 07:47 AM
Dmaxd123 The main issue here really is about universal healthcare. There are only that many means of providing this universal coverage. The situation in NY is not so much about coverage but the high cost of living and lack of job opportunities.

mattsmith48
February 27th, 2017, 12:17 AM
the problem is that the ACA was voted in so the current administration can't wake up tomorrow and just get rid of it 100% even though that is what SHOULD happen.

insurance should be a private matter, just like auto insurance if you are a greater risk your price goes up if you are a lower risk your price goes down. BUT since the govt says the company HAS to cover you no matter what, those that are low risk have to be charged more to cover the high risk clients.

the state of NY had a one sized fits all coverage just like the ACA, it wasn't cost effective so young people had to stay in NY without being able to afford coverage, find a job that provided the benefits, or leave the state... NY had(has?) a lot of young people leaving the state and not coming back

now those that say "hey you mentioned car insurance, that is required too so health insurance should be required too" nope, car insurance is only required if you own a car so it's an elective insurance... as any insurance should be

Health insurance and car insurance are two completely different things, owning a car is a choice, getting sick is not. You guys are looking for complicated solutions to a problem every other developed countries easily solved.

Dmaxd123
February 27th, 2017, 06:53 AM
Dmaxd123 The main issue here really is about universal healthcare. There are only that many means of providing this universal coverage. The situation in NY is not so much about coverage but the high cost of living and lack of job opportunities.

but when a state wasn't able to figure out a way to make state wide universal coverage work, how the heck did the government think it would work on a national level is my point


as far as the auto vs health, I think insurance should be YOUR choice. If you feel you want to pay for your health care out of pocket, take the risk and dont' have insurance. I was mainly bringing up the auto saying that insurance is your choice to have or not, renters insurance is your choice, and health insurance should be too

mattsmith48
February 27th, 2017, 12:32 PM
as far as the auto vs health, I think insurance should be YOUR choice. If you feel you want to pay for your health care out of pocket, take the risk and dont' have insurance. I was mainly bringing up the auto saying that insurance is your choice to have or not, renters insurance is your choice, and health insurance should be too

Except car insurance is not a choice, owning a car is a choice. If you own a car, buying car insurance is required.

Dmaxd123
February 27th, 2017, 01:45 PM
so car insurance is a choice: don't buy a car if you don't want the insurance

the ACA made insurance for most people go from affordable to unaffordable. I know quite a few people that had the same policy but it literally went from $50-70/month to $500-700/month... how is that affordable?


if you don't want health insurance you should be able to take that risk, many hospitals used to give people a cash discount if you didn't have insurance

mattsmith48
February 27th, 2017, 02:34 PM
the ACA made insurance for most people go from affordable to unaffordable. I know quite a few people that had the same policy but it literally went from $50-70/month to $500-700/month... how is that affordable?

They are a few issues with the ACA that could easily be fixed by changing to a single payer system

if you don't want health insurance you should be able to take that risk, many hospitals used to give people a cash discount if you didn't have insurance

Why would someone not want health insurance?

Bull
February 27th, 2017, 02:49 PM
You don't remember during the campaign Trump said he would replace it with ''something terrific''

The catch is: Terrific for whom. Terrific for American people or terrific for money grabbing insurance companies and for profit medical providers?

mattsmith48
February 27th, 2017, 03:10 PM
The catch is: Terrific for whom. Terrific for American people or terrific for money grabbing insurance companies and for profit medical providers?

My guess is insurance companies, I don't know why Im saying that, for some unknown reason i feel they are the ones who will come out of this as the winner.

Dmaxd123
February 28th, 2017, 07:54 AM
insurance companies are businesses, they deserve to make money too. although right now they aren't making as much $$ because they HAVE to take anyone on.

The more that I think about it, my problem is the government can't take care of themselves so why do they think they can take care of me? If the ACA is so great why isn't congress required to carry the same policy as everyone else? Why is the government digging into private business?

In my opinion the government should be responsible for making sure laws are followed in an ethical manner, setting up laws to protect the people & our lands. A lot of the national government rulings should be on a state & local level as what works in Alaska won't be necessary in Florida, or in Maine

mattsmith48
February 28th, 2017, 08:39 AM
insurance companies are businesses, they deserve to make money too. although right now they aren't making as much $$ because they HAVE to take anyone on.

If that was true... Good, but its not, they do make alot of money. They are somethings that shouldn't be for profit health care is one.

The more that I think about it, my problem is the government can't take care of themselves so why do they think they can take care of me? If the ACA is so great why isn't congress required to carry the same policy as everyone else? Why is the government digging into private business?

your government is a mess because one party denies facts and the other is runned by corrupted politicians, and the media doesn't call them out on it.

In my opinion the government should be responsible for making sure laws are followed in an ethical manner, setting up laws to protect the people & our lands. A lot of the national government rulings should be on a state & local level as what works in Alaska won't be necessary in Florida, or in Maine

No if something works somewhere there is a pretty good chance it will work somewhere else.

Uniquemind
March 9th, 2017, 04:06 AM
The republican plan, like many of their economic plans, likes to choose the method of tax breaks/credits, to help pay for things rather than subsidizing things like how Obamacare currently works.


This is a cash flow problem partly because people really only file taxes once a year, and healthcare premiums are a monthly expense.

The poor and middle class nowadays can't maintain the cash flow needed to benefit from the plan without failing in some other life's necessary spending category within a given year. It doesn't work it's highly likely to drop many households into Bureaucratic cracks and into debt.

Recently politicians are saying well "don't buy an iphone" and take individual responsibility for your healthcare expenses and be greatful of a republican law that provides freedom and access of options.

The problem is it dangles the carrot of what someone could get if they only had the money to afford the plan.

An iphone ranges from $700-$1200, which is not enough to pay for many individuals healthcare needs in a given year.

Also many people need smartphones because it functions as a cost saver for a household, instead of buying a LAN line phone service AND a desktop PC. Ya need a phone with apps nowadays and a way to call emergency services if a health problem occurs.

bentheplayer
March 9th, 2017, 06:12 AM
Recently politicians are saying well "don't buy an iphone" and take individual responsibility for your healthcare expenses and be greatful of a republican law that provides freedom and access of options.

An iphone ranges from $700-$1200, which is not enough to pay for many individuals healthcare needs in a given year.



Lol to think that republicans are using the same argument they condemned Obama administration was using. And that was when the average annual cost was around the cost of an iphone.

According to this (http://www.investopedia.com/news/obamacare-costs-2017/), even now, 77% of consumers should be able to find a plan for less than 100usd after subsidies.

Uniquemind
March 10th, 2017, 03:59 AM
Lol to think that republicans are using the same argument they condemned Obama administration was using. And that was when the average annual cost was around the cost of an iphone.

According to this (http://www.investopedia.com/news/obamacare-costs-2017/), even now, 77% of consumers should be able to find a plan for less than 100usd after subsidies.

Well a month, $100 a month.

But it's more complex then purchasing a nice dress, meal, phone, video game console, or tank of gas for a car.

Those are fixed costs, and while the comparison of car insurance has been made, many families pragmatically need a car for commute if they expect to maintain a salary level job for a family approx 4-6 in size.

Most everyone has to work a 8-9 hour job, our culture expects that as normal, yet suddenly for debate purposes technically car insurance isn't mandated? Sorry for many people a car is a MUST HAVE, ergo car insurance isn't a choice.


Like I guess you can make a better analogy that living healthy should be expected and if you don't have insurance you should pay 100% of medical costs out of pocket, and if that can't be done go pass away to the next life.

But people can't control when they get sick or not. And it's a national health security risk, due to the fact bacteria, viruses, and bad proteins (prions) is not a health problem money can 100% insulate you from.

It's in everyone's best interest to keep your neighbor healthy so they don't spread sicknesses to you because you breathe same air.

It's really dumb.


Obamacare wasn't perfect, but we knew where it's problems were, and instead of a surgical scalpel to fix niche problems of a buearucracy they want to start over from scratch.

It's the equivalent of a kid at a game table who table flips a game he's losing yelling "start again!" Nobody likes that kid, don't be that kid, and don't support those actions.


If you like the Republican Party, then don't get sucked into their marketing sweet talk, understand the merits behind the actions they do and their affect on law, and how corporations would approach those loopholes which affect families.

This requires you to understand the tax code and math.

bentheplayer
March 10th, 2017, 05:31 AM
Uniquemind At 100usd a month is that considered as expensive? I am under the impression that 100usd is the avg monthly cost of an unlimited data mobile plan anyways.

In the US having a car is practically essential unless you live in one those super densly populated cities with an extensive public transport system.

There is just one word and its called selfishness really. If we don't care about health why provide public ambulance service then? Most of the Western World has already gone past this selfish phase and it seems that US is the only one left. Even middle income countries like Malaysia has similar healthcare outcomes despite spending so much less.

Uniquemind
March 10th, 2017, 12:38 PM
Uniquemind At 100usd a month is that considered as expensive? I am under the impression that 100usd is the avg monthly cost of an unlimited data mobile plan anyways.

In the US having a car is practically essential unless you live in one those super densly populated cities with an extensive public transport system.

There is just one word and its called selfishness really. If we don't care about health why provide public ambulance service then? Most of the Western World has already gone past this selfish phase and it seems that US is the only one left. Even middle income countries like Malaysia has similar healthcare outcomes despite spending so much less.

No I think that's true, assuming no data overages occur for a shared data plan for a family of 4.

Still though there's a failure to account for the initial activation fees per phone line and a cost of the phone itself upfront.



But compared to random medications a person might need, one must only look at the Epipen to see what families are dealing with cost wise. Even with those WITH insurance, sometimes a medication/medication device, isn't covered.

Very common to find instances where families have to pay $132 for 5 g of a medicinal paste/cream rub, on top of a $30 copay or high deductible.


I was young at the time, but back in 2007-2009, right when the healthcare debate began the first time, many dinner conversations with me present at the table with my parents were talking about how healthcare cost $2000+ a month, and that the doctor claims and insurance bureaucracy kept losing paperwork my dad would send in.


So really, no the fact that the insurance market is unique in the sense that it doesn't prorate itself towards it's purchase price to you.

People don't get that, an iphone is $799+ for ALL who meet that price tag.

Yet insurance can be $100 a month for family/individual A, but $300 for a different family/individual.

There was also no control over insurance companies price rising monthly premiums just so they could but extra profit padding to their stock shares for shareholders quarterly reports. Meaning profit from premiums didn't get reinvested fairly into patient claims care and services.


So Obamacare changed a lot of that and now the Republican Party says it's all bad.

Some Republicans feel the cost cutting measures aren't good enough and is too much like Obamacare. So it's just crazy to think so many people lack this empathy.

They have sympathy and a good sense of public relations to avoid negative labeling, but effectively their hurting cash flow/affordability for healthcare for many families.




Td;dr, No $100 is not the cost of healthcare if the law gets stripped.

Dmaxd123
March 14th, 2017, 01:02 PM
if it was 100-300/month that would be fine

a lot of people are seeing 600-700 for a family of 3-4 with a deductible of over 4,000 before the insurance kicks in. a minimum of 10K a year isn't affordable

bentheplayer
March 15th, 2017, 01:37 AM
if it was 100-300/month that would be fine

a lot of people are seeing 600-700 for a family of 3-4 with a deductible of over 4,000 before the insurance kicks in. a minimum of 10K a year isn't affordable

First off if they were paying 600-700 per month then it means that their household income should be around 80K per year right? At 400% of the federal poverty line which is 80k for family of 3 and 97k for a family of 4, is 7200 really not affordable? At that income level the premium cap is around 9.5% for a sliver plan. The idea here is ACA will prevent bankruptcy when medical bills end up being more than this premium plus max deductible of 4k. Let us say hypothetically that the father in that family gets a choked artery and needs a stent, did you know that it cost an average of 30k per procedure? It is quite common for such patients to need a repeat stent in anywhere from 6 months to a few years. Do you think that the family would be able to afford such surgery with out this insurance? Probably not.

The whole idea of ACA is that the family has to pay a max of their premium and deductible to cover all their healthcare cost for that year. Any healthcare cost beyond that will be fully covered by the insurance. So it is not a minimum of 10k but a maximum of 10k and they only pay around 9.5% of their household income for this benefit. Maybe it hurts to pay 9.5% every year but it will probably hurt more to not be able to get any healthcare at all and depend on the charity of others.

Dmaxd123
March 15th, 2017, 10:02 AM
some of those families that were 600-700/month were probably making 50-70K/year which spread over 2 earners and a kid or two really isn't THAT much

when those families were paying the same coverage at 200-300/month doubling is an issue

and who do you think pays for the "subsidies" that the government kicks in? the tax payer so really these people are getting screwed on one end or the other which isn't a good thing

bentheplayer
March 15th, 2017, 11:10 AM
some of those families that were 600-700/month were probably making 50-70K/year which spread over 2 earners and a kid or two really isn't THAT much

when those families were paying the same coverage at 200-300/month doubling is an issue

and who do you think pays for the "subsidies" that the government kicks in? the tax payer so really these people are getting screwed on one end or the other which isn't a good thing

What you are saying cannot be true cos a household of 4 earning 50k-70k will have a premium cap of 8.18 to 9.6% of their income. At 50k they will be paying a max of approx 340 per month and at 70k it is 560 monthly; not the 600 to 700 you are alleging. Your numbers don't add up. Those who have seen their premiums double are those who are making more than 400% of the federal poverty income which means they make at least 97K for a family of 4. More than 100k is considered as upper middle income by most people in the US.

Who pays for these subsidies? The rich pay for them via federal tax since ACA is funded by the fed. 45% of Americans don't pay federal income tax and the richest 20% account for 87% of all federal income tax. http://www.marketwatch.com/story/45-of-americans-pay-no-federal-income-tax-2016-02-24

These people are not getting screwed. It is the rich who are paying for the bulk of this.