• We’re currently investigating an issue related to the forum theme and styling that is impacting page layout and visual formatting. The problem has been identified, and we are actively working on a resolution. There is no impact to user data or functionality, this is strictly a front-end display issue. We’ll post an update once the fix has been deployed. Thanks for your patience while we get this sorted.

Six Groups of Americans and How They Are Faring - ACA

Page 2 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.
rudeguy said:
I think we all knew that ACA was a "just the tip" move. We either need to fix this steaming pile of goat ass or just nationalize it and deal with shitty health care. We for sure can't leave it where it is.
Click to expand...

Healthcare in the US was fucked long before the ACA came along.
 
s0me0nesmind1 said:
ACA is a large chunk of people that weren't able to get insurance because of their unhealthiness, that are now able to get insurance even while unhealthy. Congrats, you have an insurance pool of nothing but bad apples that are already sick, all of the time.

This is sure to work well. Much like last year when plenty of the initial ACA plans dropped this year due to... not making jack shit.


All the poor people? Yeah, goodjob convincing some that those $6,500 deductibles in addition to $400 monthly costs are worthwhile. You know they are screwed the moment they actually have a medical issue.

Nothing against already sick/dying/fatasses/mentally ill, but you can't have a pool of largely one-sided and expect a smart outcome while most of the healthy people are in an entirely different pool.
Click to expand...

Remarkable what Righties actually believe.

The ACA doesn't just cover sick people but rather everybody who doesn't have an employer sponsored plan or Medicare. It's extremely useful for people between jobs, for example, because it's less expensive than Cobra.

Actual poor people receive Medicaid & marginally poor people do too, but only in states adopting the Medicaid expansion. They pay nothing.

If you knew what you're talking about, you'd be dangerous.
 
Now that so many people see the real cost of health insurance maybe we will see more movement to lower that cost.
 
Paul98 said:
Now that so many people see the real cost of health insurance maybe we will see more movement to lower that cost.
Click to expand...

When will that happen? Right after the employers (self insured) that provide great coverage for their employees are taxed for doing so?
 
postmortemIA said:
that is the fear of well insured prior to ACA -all countries with socialized health care also have waiting lists.
Click to expand...

My country was like america before but then they made getting the basic insurance package compulsory for everybody (it was never provided through employers btw, it's a personal thing you buy), with of course welfare to make sure people who cannot afford it (but aren't poor enough to be on the dole) have it too.

I think they also banned refusing the basic coverage to anyone who asks for it or something, there's LOTS of regulation in the sector and weird and complicated stuff.

There are e.g. compensation mechanisms to prevent companies from gaining an advantage over the others by hunting for healthy people.


There are no waiting lists and you choose your doctor, unlike in the UK.

So if waiting lists happen, it's not because of compulsory healthcare insurance, but because of other reasons.

I have yet to see the perfect healthcare system, the one in my country is good but costs a lot of money and there's lot of arguing about what to do about it. The socialized system leaves you with no free choice and long waiting lists. The american system is not solidal enough and does not support preventive care since people who aren't insured will probably skip out on it.
 
Last edited:
us_health_spending.png

US Health Care spending exceeds all other high-wealth countries yet ranks 19th or last place in quality of health care provided.

Of course Obama care is good for you.

Why do you think that the democrats wouldn't let you read the bill before they voted on it?

Why do you think Obama had to lie to get the bill passed?

And why do you think that the politicians that voted for Obamacare exempted themselves from it?

Uno
 
Last edited:
unokitty said:
us_health_spending.png

US Health Care spending exceeds all other high-wealth countries yet ranks 19th or last place in quality of health care provided.

Of course Obama care is good for you.

Why do you think that the democrats wouldn't let you read the bill before they voted on it?

Why do you think Obama had to lie to get the bill passed?

Uno
Click to expand...
Again, this was true long before the ACA...
 
rudeguy said:
You figured out how to use Google!

The democrats will surely appoint you king for your great accomplishment.
Click to expand...

Overpowering need to duh-vert into derision, huh?

Of course. When reality & belief diverge, Righties just believe harder.
 
Jhhnn said:
Maybe you can explain this-

https://www.google.com/search?q=ACA+exchange+satisfaction&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8
Click to expand...

rudeguy said:
https://www.google.com/webhp?source...1&espv=2&ie=UTF-8#q=obamacare dissatisfaction
Click to expand...

Gotta love it. When I post a link about satisfaction among plan participants, you post one pertaining to Americans at large, the vast majority of whom are not participants & who depend on the media for their information rather than personal experience.

You merely prove that propaganda works.
 
DCal430 said:
There are people who were denied treatment due to lack of insurance, many of them died.

WTF do you think happens when someone gets cancer is poor and uninsured.
Click to expand...

They would go to a place like this http://saintlouise.dochs.org/ a local catholic hospital that never turned anyone anyway. Theyd do their best to try and get the pt on Medi-cal or something, but if they couldnt they ate the cost. Of course, the hospital system is operating at an annual loss of $145 million and wants to get sold but the liberals in CA wont allow it because the SEIU would lose jobs, but thats a different topic.
 
GarfieldtheCat said:
Hate to break up the Obama-hate, but you do realize that costs have been increasing, and reimbursement decreasing for many years, way before the ACA was suggested, let alone enacted.

photos%2F2012%2F10%2F22%2FPreviewScreenSnapz004.png


Please let us know how the ACA affected costs back in the 1960's please.
Click to expand...

Woosh.


The newly insured are the ones who rack up the most expenses and have the lowest reimbursement rates. Thus making it unprofitable to be seem, thus making the insurance they have, relatively useless.
 
Slew Foot said:
Woosh.


The newly insured are the ones who rack up the most expenses and have the lowest reimbursement rates. Thus making it unprofitable to be seem, thus making the insurance they have, relatively useless.
Click to expand...

Mere assertion presented as fact, independent of any substantiation, just like your post on page 1.

You merely recite the catechisms of right wing belief.
 
Slew Foot said:
They would go to a place like this http://saintlouise.dochs.org/ a local catholic hospital that never turned anyone anyway. Theyd do their best to try and get the pt on Medi-cal or something, but if they couldnt they ate the cost. Of course, the hospital system is operating at an annual loss of $145 million and wants to get sold but the liberals in CA wont allow it because the SEIU would lose jobs, but thats a different topic.
Click to expand...

Not turning them away doesn't mean giving them months of free chemo and radiation. Before the ACA these people didn't qualify for medicaid (medi-cal) in California, or any other state.
 
Slew Foot said:
They would go to a place like this http://saintlouise.dochs.org/ a local catholic hospital that never turned anyone anyway. Theyd do their best to try and get the pt on Medi-cal or something, but if they couldnt they ate the cost. Of course, the hospital system is operating at an annual loss of $145 million and wants to get sold but the liberals in CA wont allow it because the SEIU would lose jobs, but thats a different topic.
Click to expand...

The misrepresentations in that are just standard right-raving. From the SEIU-

http://www.seiu-uhw.org/archives/category/holding-prime-healthcare-accountable

Their previous objections never were what you represent them to be.

But later on today, tomorrow, next week you'll still believe it because it dovetails with all the other lies you believe in.
 
rudeguy said:
Again, please post evidence of this.
Click to expand...

WTF are you talking about medicaid without ACA is limited to people on SSI who are deemed permanently disabled, over 65, and in some cases pregnant. It does not include people with illnesses such as cancers. Even those who are permanently and totally disabled it takes at at least to qualify for SSI, and longer to start medicaid.
 
DCal430 said:
WTF are you talking about medicaid without ACA is limited to people on SSI who are deemed permanently disabled, over 65, and in some cases pregnant. It does not include people with illnesses such as cancers. Even those who are permanently and totally disabled it takes at at least to qualify for SSI, and longer to start medicaid.
Click to expand...

You stated that prior to the ACA, poor people with cancer and no insurance just died.

I'm asking for evidence of that.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

TRENDING THREADS

Back
Top