So why has Obamacare failed to live up to it's hype of cheap insurace?

[lotus503]

At 20 years old I would hope they are in
College
Military
Union job\Apprenticeship.

Otherwise they would be under parents policy.
If they lack parents and works a shit job then they have bigger issues. Might be a good time to hit a recruiter for one of the above.

You actually touch on something.

Check this out http://www.ted.com/talks/mike_rowe_celebrates_dirty_jobs.html

 

[Hayabusa Rider]

Most other developed countries have had universal healthcare coverage for decades now as they've realised that it's to everyone's benefit.

It takes a special kind of idiot to think that it fucks them over.

Israel has fantastic airport security which means the TSA is great.

 

[Lithium381]

Along with tight reigns on the costs of medical procedures and drug companies, not the monopoly like the pharmaceutical companies have here,

that's why obamacare is a feel good farce, pointing at Europeans healthcare as an example but refusing to fix the runaway costs bought by the lobbying of the pharmaceutical industry.
http://www.nytimes.com/2013/10/13/us/the-soaring-cost-of-a-simple-breath.html

another good point easily forgotten! why aren't we allowed to get our pills from anywhere we want? *gasp* the pharma lobby!

 

[Moonbeam]

Join Date: Jun 2005
Posts: 3,717



Quote:
Originally Posted by rach3l
Everyone (who is conservative and selfish) thinks this until they or a loved one comes down with a pre-existing condition. You don't care about that slice of the pie until it's time to reach your own hand out. Then you're all for it. What would you say to a 20 year old who contracts breast cancer while working two jobs, neither of which provides insurance? She didn't fail to take care of herself. Cancer is random.

If by 20 you still don't have an excellent job with great health coverage then you deserve to die.

Not to mention there's nothing random about cancer. It's God's punishment for unworthiness. All worthy people only need faith and God will provide.

He has a special hell prepared for them. It's called a brain defect that produces a constant state of fear and in which there lies a tiny genetic switch that gets thrown by the weight of ones ego.

 

[Vic]

Not to mention there's nothing random about cancer. It's God's punishment for unworthiness. All worthy people only need faith and God will provide.

He has a special hell prepared for them. It's called a brain defect that produces a constant state of fear and in which there lies a tiny genetic switch that gets thrown by the weight of ones ego.

Be kind, Moonie, that particular brain defect is the result of poor parenting in early childhood.

 

[shortylickens]

Incidentally, Barack Obama went to Harvard.

 

[Veliko]

Israel has fantastic airport security which means the TSA is great.

I bet you thought you were making a really intelligent point here.

 

[Hayabusa Rider]

I bet you thought you were making a really intelligent point here.

I'd hoped you were intelligent enough to understand that because a thing was done elsewhere it does not follow the same would happen here. Obviously I was mistaken about you. My apologies.

 

[Veliko]

I'd hoped you were intelligent enough to understand that because a thing was done elsewhere it does not follow the same would happen here. Obviously I was mistaken about you. My apologies.

I was right; you really did think you were making an intelligent point.

 

[Hayabusa Rider]

I was right; you really did think you were making an intelligent point.

And I was correct. Tell me why it is a good thing to keep seniors from having their diabetic supplies brought to them free of charge under penalty of law?

 

[Fern]

"cheaper insurance for all"

I have insurance from my company. doesn't affect me what-so-ever.
$150 yearly deductible

but from what I've seen, Obamacare has HIGH deductibles/co-pays alongside HIGH premiums.

wasn't it suppose to be high deductibles OR high premiums?
ie: high deducdutible plan would have low premiums

so why did it fail to live up to that hype?


edit:
and obamacare caps theprofits insurance companies can have to 15%.
so wheres the extra $ going to? bigger bonuses to the execs?

Obamacare was never designed to make HC insurance less expensive. That's been a lie (one of several). It couldn't because:

1. It artificially shifts the cost for those with preexisting conditions to others.

2. It requires policies to have unlimited annual and lifetime caps. I think for everyone to to 'go all the way' to unlimited is unnecessary. Low caps? No, that's a bad idea, but unlimited will be unnecessary for all but the very rare cases.

3. The large number of new 'benefits' now required. The more stuff you insure (even if completely unnecessary) the more you pay.

There are tens of thousands of new regulations under Obamacare. Regulations are costly, there is no way around it.

So, I don't see how Obamacare could have ever truthfully been about making insurance coverage less expensive. Instead, its purpose appears to have been:

1. Subsidize insurance for lower income people. This has been in two ways: (1) expansion of Medicaid and, (2) subsidizing HC insurance for other lower income people. This is, in large part, more 'wealth redistribution', one of the Dems' favorite policy objectives. They were having no luck pursuing wealth distribution any further using income taxation as the vehicle, so they've turned the HI industry upside in using it for that purpose. With all the lies and initial confusion over Obamacare initially this wasn't evident, particularly with the original CBO cost estimates. I really think those estimates need to be re-done but this time but with realistic parameters. I'm afraid this is going to end up being another big govt 'give-away' program (certainly the expansion of Medicaid alone is going to be expensive).

2. Social engineering. The so-called Ten Essential Benefits are many more than 10. While this does drive up the cost of HI, it also appears to have been added to 'encourage' people to use more HC. There is also considerable cost shifting of women's HI costs to men. I'm not sure of the correct terminology, but women's 'risk' has been adjusted downward and onto men. And there is straight subsidizing, e.g., single men must pay for birth control etc in their policies.

Much has been made of helping those with preexisting conditions, but there is little data to suggest that this is anything but a small problem. In any case, the vast majority of people were covered under govt HI programs and employer group plans where preexisting conditions are not a problem. Otherwise, many with such conditions are elderly and covered by Medicare. Also, many with serious preexisting conditions may not be able to work due to illness. They'll probably be on Medicaid if not old enough for Medicare. Moreover, Obamacare's big 'benefit' for those with preexisting conditions is to limit their HI cost to 300% of those without. Given how expensive Obamacare is I question just how much of a benefit that really is.

I'd guess that there was a much better way to help those folks.

Edit: Forgot to mention that the 15% you refer to is not profit, but, if I understand correctly, that 85% of HI companies revenue (billings for policies) must expended for medical care of the insured. I.e., paying bigger salaries/bonuses to execs won't work.

Fern

 

[Veliko]

And I was correct. Tell me why it is a good thing to keep seniors from having their diabetic supplies brought to them free of charge under penalty of law?

lolwut

 

[Fern]

Because people losing their houses for health care costs is an extreme problem that required an equally extreme solution.

Please explain how Obamacare significantly helps with this.

You get seriously ill, you cannot work. You cannot work, you cannot pay your mortgage. You also can't keep paying the premiums for your Obamacare. Now, you're homeless and uninsured even under Obamacare.

Medicaid and SSI require you to have no assets to qualify. i.e., if you have assets like a house you've got to sell them and pay the proceeds to Medicaid.

The only effective way to deal with a serious illness is disability insurance, and Obamacare does not include that.

I.e., it appears to be a myth that Obamacare solves this problem.

Fern

 

[Fern]

The real question is: why do the Republicans hate their own health plan so much?

Seriously?

This concept was 'thought up' by a Washington think tank (The Heritage Foundation IIRC), not the repub party.

Yes a few Repubs drafted a bill on it but it was so unpopular among Repubs it never made it to the floor even though they controlled Congress.

So, calling it a Repub plan is more than a stretch. We all heard McCain sing "Bomb, bomb, Iran" when the mike was hot. Might just as well try to claim bombing Iran was an official Repub plan.

Fern

 

[shortylickens]

Please explain how Obamacare significantly helps with this.

You get seriously ill, you cannot work. You cannot work, you cannot pay your mortgage. You also can't keep paying the premiums for your Obamacare. Now, you're homeless and uninsured even under Obamacare.

Medicaid and SSI require you to have no assets to qualify. i.e., if you have assets like a house you've got to sell them and pay the proceeds to Medicaid.

The only effective way to deal with a serious illness is disability insurance, and Obamacare does not include that.

I.e., it appears to be a myth that Obamacare solves this problem.

Fern

Thats the biggest problem with the plan right there. It doesnt actually GIVE you health insurance. It just makes the insurance companies take you regardless of CONDITION. Theres nothing in there about being able to pay for it.

If insurance companies have to insure everyone including folks with serious health problems, then they are going to have to raise everybody's rates. Now the folks who were previously just barely able to afford it are fucked. In fact based on that logic and your logic about being out of work, I suspect we will see significantly MORE lost homes over the next few years.

Is Obama gonna force everyone to get a mortgage regardless of whether they can actually afford it?

 

[TerryMathews]

Seriously?

This concept was 'thought up' by a Washington think tank (The Heritage Foundation IIRC), not the repub party.

Yes a few Repubs drafted a bill on it but it was so unpopular among Repubs it never made it to the floor even though they controlled Congress.

So, calling it a Repub plan is more than a stretch. We all heard McCain sing "Bomb, bomb, Iran" when the mike was hot. Might just as well try to claim bombing Iran was an official Repub plan.

Fern

You would think the liberals would be proud of their King's crowning achievement and embrace it.

Instead they expend all this effort telling us how it was really a Republican idea and the Republican evil thoughts are making it fail (as though this is Neverland). It's almost like they know this plan is going to fail and are trying to pre-lay the blame.

 

[lotus503]

You would think the liberals would be proud of their King's crowning achievement and embrace it.

Instead they expend all this effort telling us how it was really a Republican idea and the Republican evil thoughts are making it fail (as though this is Neverland). It's almost like they know this plan is going to fail and are trying to pre-lay the blame.

Even my liberal half knows this Bill was a shit sandwich, the only good that will come of it is when it doesn't resole anything we will have to consider national Healthcare.

 

[theeedude]

It's cheaper if you have a pre-existing condition or qualify for a subsidy.
Which is the way it should be. Pay more when you are young and healthy, not when you are sick and old.

 

[theeedude]

Please explain how Obamacare significantly helps with this.

You get seriously ill, you cannot work. You cannot work, you cannot pay your mortgage. You also can't keep paying the premiums for your Obamacare. Now, you're homeless and uninsured even under Obamacare.

Medicaid and SSI require you to have no assets to qualify. i.e., if you have assets like a house you've got to sell them and pay the proceeds to Medicaid.

The only effective way to deal with a serious illness is disability insurance, and Obamacare does not include that.

I.e., it appears to be a myth that Obamacare solves this problem.

Fern

That's why there is Medicaid expansion and subsidies, for people who can't afford to buy coverage in the private market.

 

[bradly1101]

So why has Obamacare failed to live up to it's hype of cheap insurace?

Because they left profit with its requisite high overhead in the system.

 

[Moonbeam]

Be kind, Moonie, that particular brain defect is the result of poor parenting in early childhood.

Sorry, I've learned that if you don't treat them with a certain degree of contempt they'll have no respect for you and start with measuring you behind their backs for the cross. I like to get that out front.

 

[Moonbeam]

Obamacare is young and I have no idea where it will go or what it will become but so far it looks like I keep the insurance I had and get for free the insurance I was paying for personally for a less well off family member to the tune of about 425 a month savings for me.

 

[Fern]

That's why there is Medicaid expansion and subsidies, for people who can't afford to buy coverage in the private market.

The point is that you cannot get that (expanded) Medicaid until after you lose your house.

I.e., it's of no help with this problem.

Fern

 

[theeedude]

Obamacare was never designed to make HC insurance less expensive. That's been a lie (one of several). It couldn't because:

1. It artificially shifts the cost for those with preexisting conditions to others.

All insurance artificially shifts cost from the unlucky to the lucky.

2. It requires policies to have unlimited annual and lifetime caps. I think for everyone to to 'go all the way' to unlimited is unnecessary. Low caps? No, that's a bad idea, but unlimited will be unnecessary for all but the very rare cases.

And what do you propose we do in those rare cases? Let people go bankrupt and stick the rest of us with their medical bills?

3. The large number of new 'benefits' now required. The more stuff you insure (even if completely unnecessary) the more you pay.

This is debatable. I do generally agree that insurance should be for unexpected expenses, not routine care. On the other hand, there are high deductibles in place to discourage people from overusing care, aside from the preventative one which is good.

There are tens of thousands of new regulations under Obamacare. Regulations are costly, there is no way around it.

Lack of regulations can be costly too. Mandatory insurance payout ratios are going to contain overhead costs.

So, I don't see how Obamacare could have ever truthfully been about making insurance coverage less expensive.
Instead, its purpose appears to have been:

1. Subsidize insurance for lower income people. This has been in two ways: (1) expansion of Medicaid and, (2) subsidizing HC insurance for other lower income people. This is, in large part, more 'wealth redistribution', one of the Dems' favorite policy objectives. They were having no luck pursuing wealth distribution any further using income taxation as the vehicle, so they've turned the HI industry upside in using it for that purpose. With all the lies and initial confusion over Obamacare initially this wasn't evident, particularly with the original CBO cost estimates. I really think those estimates need to be re-done but this time but with realistic parameters. I'm afraid this is going to end up being another big govt 'give-away' program (certainly the expansion of Medicaid alone is going to be expensive).

2. Social engineering. The so-called Ten Essential Benefits are many more than 10. While this does drive up the cost of HI, it also appears to have been added to 'encourage' people to use more HC. There is also considerable cost shifting of women's HI costs to men. I'm not sure of the correct terminology, but women's 'risk' has been adjusted downward and onto men. And there is straight subsidizing, e.g., single men must pay for birth control etc in their policies.

Much has been made of helping those with preexisting conditions, but there is little data to suggest that this is anything but a small problem. In any case, the vast majority of people were covered under govt HI programs and employer group plans where preexisting conditions are not a problem. Otherwise, many with such conditions are elderly and covered by Medicare. Also, many with serious preexisting conditions may not be able to work due to illness. They'll probably be on Medicaid if not old enough for Medicare. Moreover, Obamacare's big 'benefit' for those with preexisting conditions is to limit their HI cost to 300% of those without. Given how expensive Obamacare is I question just how much of a benefit that really is.

I'd guess that there was a much better way to help those folks.

Fern

You are looking at the world through red colored glasses, so all you see is socialism and wealth redistribution. There is wealth redistribution going on in this country, but it's not in the direction you think it's happening. If you think pre-existing conditions are a small problem, you are simply in denial. But you tout government health insurance programs and Medicare as a solution to that problem, which is something we can agree on. I am surprised a conservative would prefer government programs to individual responsibility mandate, but if the GOP wants to go that route for Obamacare replacement, I will support them.

 

[theeedude]

The point is that you cannot get that (expanded) Medicaid until after you lose your house.

I.e., it's of no help with this problem.

Fern

If I were to point you to relevant information that INCOME and NOT ASSETS determine eligibility for subsidies under Obamacare and Medicaid expansion, would you be man enough to concede that you pulled that argument out of thin air? Or you are just throwing stuff at the wall and seeing what sticks without taking ownership of your words?