**UPDATE** New Obamacare Reality Setting in: 8M in exchanges, 35% are < 35 yrs old

[Jhhnn]

How exactly have the cost been shifted?

Before Obamacare, the uninsured poor would use the ER paid for by the hospital/government, after ACA the insured poor use health care paid for by the government. Wow big difference.

You ignore the price delta between emergency room care & normal clinic care, also completely ignore the fact that preventative care can easily reduce emergency room visits & the severity of risk from lack of it. A person can find out they have high blood pressure, for example, at the clinic or when their ticker tries to explode. The first way, they have inexpensive ways to prevent heart attack. The second way, they'll die or likely require semi-corrective surgery. Much the same applies to other scenarios, particularly child bearing. Do we want more healthy babies who grow up to be able to take care of themselves, or do we just accept more birth defects, more damaged people who can't take care of themselves from lack of care in the womb & at delivery?

It's not like our previous healthcare delivery system was going anywhere other than downhill, anyway.

 

[Darwin333]

It's not "my" victory, it's a victory for common sense market solutions that require significant amounts of regulation to control bad actors i.e. those insurance companies who provide "insurance" while not actually covering anything meaningful when the bill comes due. That's why this notion that a far "simpler" or "smaller" bill should have been passed is partially laughable; health insurance is not a small or simple industry. There are 50 health commissioner and therefore 50 states with different sets of laws for healthcare.

You do realize that its not really the insurance companies that make health insurance so expensive right? For some reason that is beyond my comprehension no one wants to actually discuss the real issue, which is the absurdly high cost of health care (which in turn makes health insurance much more expensive), nor do they want to discuss potential solutions to that problem.

Go look at Fed governments expenditure pie chart and tell me that simply throwing a few million more people onto Medicare is some sort of "solution" to our healthcare problem. IMHO this is all just smoke and mirrors to keep the ignorant masses from noticing the real problems and frankly, as this thread proves, it is working great so far.

 

[ttown]

Your freedom to do what, exactly? Is this kinda like losing your freedom to fall into an open manhole when they put up barriers around it, or what?

Freedom to spend my life energy as I see fit -- which used to include buying as much insurance as I wanted... without penalty, or as little as I wanted... without penalty.

 

[Jhhnn]

Freedom to spend my life energy as I see fit -- which used to include buying as much insurance as I wanted... without penalty, or as little as I wanted... without penalty.

The second choice putting the rest of us on the hook to pay for your care if something really bad happens to you. You'd depend on the fact that we won't let you die if we can avoid it.

Under the old system, there were lots of people who thought they had good insurance, until they needed it & found out differently. There was no uniformity, and very few people can actually understand all the rules, games & exclusions there in the fine print. The ACA sets minimums, standards, so you can compare apples to apples & buy with confidence.

You can still buy as much insurance as you want. The law sets minimums, not maximums. You don't have to buy on the exchanges, at all, because any policy you buy will be ACA compliant.

Mostly, the ACA attempts to fill the coverage gaps created in this changing country. Most Americans still have employer sponsored & subsidized group coverage & simply will not participate unless they need to do so. Most of the raving, I suspect, comes from people in that situation going on about something they've never even explored for themselves- they've been astroturfed or they're just shills.

 

[berzerker60]

You do realize that its not really the insurance companies that make health insurance so expensive right? For some reason that is beyond my comprehension no one wants to actually discuss the real issue, which is the absurdly high cost of health care (which in turn makes health insurance much more expensive), nor do they want to discuss potential solutions to that problem.

Go look at Fed governments expenditure pie chart and tell me that simply throwing a few million more people onto Medicare is some sort of "solution" to our healthcare problem. IMHO this is all just smoke and mirrors to keep the ignorant masses from noticing the real problems and frankly, as this thread proves, it is working great so far.

There is no single silver bullet to solve health care cost increases. There are many smaller things that can help, including extending health care insurance coverage to a much larger set of people. That would mean hospitals don't have to pay for insurance-less people's emergency room care by jacking up prices for everyone else. It wouldn't fix everything by itself, but it can help.

Medicare saves money by putting the government in a strong position to negotiate with hospitals, the same as insurance companies never pay the actual sticker price on hospital bills. Buy in bulk, pay lower prices. Works for health care like anything else.

There are other things going on too. Preventative medicine and public health initiatives lower health care costs. So do violence prevention and policing efforts, better nutrition for kids through school lunches, soup kitchens, food stamps / WIC, etc., and lots of other stuff. Health care costs' growth has been slowing for a while now, too, so hopefully some of this mix of effort is working.

 

[ttown]

The second choice putting the rest of us on the hook to pay for your care if something really bad happens to you. You'd depend on the fact that we won't let you die if we can avoid it.

Under the old system, there were lots of people who thought they had good insurance, until they needed it & found out differently. There was no uniformity, and very few people can actually understand all the rules, games & exclusions there in the fine print. The ACA sets minimums, standards, so you can compare apples to apples & buy with confidence.

You can still buy as much insurance as you want. The law sets minimums, not maximums. You don't have to buy on the exchanges, at all, because any policy you buy will be ACA compliant.

Mostly, the ACA attempts to fill the coverage gaps created in this changing country. Most Americans still have employer sponsored & subsidized group coverage & simply will not participate unless they need to do so. Most of the raving, I suspect, comes from people in that situation going on about something they've never even explored for themselves- they've been astroturfed or they're just shills.

Something really bad did happen to me. I went to the emergency room, spent a week in the hospital -- and then I paid my bill. All of it.

I think it's a shame that when a few deadbeats don't pay their bill, the democrats response was to strip away the freedom of 300,000,000+ people.

Let's say something 10X (or more) as bad happened to me and I wasn't able to pay my bill.
Why do the democrats think me going bankrupt is so horrible? They don't seem so concerned when it comes to the nation's $17,000,000,000,000.00 debt, but stripping away the freedom of 300,000,000+ people is somehow a necessary reaction to the potential of me not paying my (hypothetical) $1,000,000.00 debt -- even though the nation hasn't had much of a problem with it till now.

That's pathetic.

 

[Matt1970]

lol, please tell me what goal posts I moved.

The ones that were firmly set at $2500/year average savings. Now in your mind the slight increase in premiums over what would have normally occurred makes it a smashing success. The real numbers seen to be even higher. And now"the focus on premiums is a terrible idea anyway" when that was one of the main selling points.

 

[Jhhnn]

Something really bad did happen to me. I went to the emergency room, spent a week in the hospital -- and then I paid my bill. All of it.

I think it's a shame that when a few deadbeats don't pay their bill, the democrats response was to strip away the freedom of 300,000,000+ people.

Let's say something 10X (or more) as bad happened to me and I wasn't able to pay my bill.
Why do the democrats think me going bankrupt is so horrible? They don't seem so concerned when it comes to the nation's $17,000,000,000,000.00 debt, but stripping away the freedom of 300,000,000+ people is somehow a necessary reaction to the potential of me not paying my (hypothetical) $1,000,000.00 debt -- even though the nation hasn't had much of a problem with it till now.

That's pathetic.

Gawd. It's not about you going bankrupt, but rather the rest of us covering the bill for you. In a group insurance situation, I pay so that I'm covered, and so do the rest. None of us suffer financial ruin. Collectively, we pay up every time. The ACA is group insurance. Previously, providers pass on costs from deadbeats to the insurance co's so that our rates go up. The ACA addresses that, if imperfectly.

Comparing personal debt to the national debt is a total non-sequiter, showing a profound ignorance of the very nature of fiat currency and where it comes from.

Nearly all of the "money" in the world was borrowed into existence. Personal debt wouldn't matter if you could print your own money to cover it. Sheesh.

 

[fskimospy]

The ones that were firmly set at $2500/year average savings. Now in your mind the slight increase in premiums over what would have normally occurred makes it a smashing success. The real numbers seen to be even higher. And now"the focus on premiums is a terrible idea anyway" when that was one of the main selling points.

lol! This is pretty bizarre. First, I don't care what Obama said, so if you mean I wasn't focusing on the arbitrary goal that you set you're right!. Second, the idea that we should focus on the total amount of spending someone does per year on health care should be obvious to everyone.

It really shows how desperate you are to find something to argue about on this.

 

[michal1980]

Gawd. It's not about you going bankrupt, but rather the rest of us covering the bill for you. In a group insurance situation, I pay so that I'm covered, and so do the rest. None of us suffer financial ruin. Collectively, we pay up every time. The ACA is group insurance. Previously, providers pass on costs from deadbeats to the insurance co's so that our rates go up. The ACA addresses that, if imperfectly.

Comparing personal debt to the national debt is a total non-sequiter, showing a profound ignorance of the very nature of fiat currency and where it comes from.

Nearly all of the "money" in the world was borrowed into existence. Personal debt wouldn't matter if you could print your own money to cover it. Sheesh.

It doesn't address the deadbeats at all.

The previously uninsured non paying deadbeats, are now insured unpaying deadbeats.

 

[Doc Savage Fan]

$1.5T unfunded...where is the outrage?

 

[Zorba]

The remainder lost their health insurance because of Obamacare and either went on Medicaid or got new, more expensive Obamacare health insurance. But hey, taking health insurance from a mere million Americans is no big deal as long as they still pay taxes to buy health insurance for someone else, right?

Or like my in-laws, lost their horrible coverage that covered nothing, and are now paying less for a good BCBS plan.

Here is the problem with all the anti-ACA rhetoric, my in-laws have voted republican their entire adult lives and even they are now believers in ACA. For the first time in 15 years (they are self employed) they can get good affordable health coverage. But all they hear from republicans is how ACA should be repelled, only a mater of time before they and people like them start voting for what is actually working for them.

 

[cubby1223]

Gawd. It's not about you going bankrupt, but rather the rest of us covering the bill for you. In a group insurance situation, I pay so that I'm covered, and so do the rest. None of us suffer financial ruin. Collectively, we pay up every time. The ACA is group insurance. Previously, providers pass on costs from deadbeats to the insurance co's so that our rates go up. The ACA addresses that, if imperfectly.

Comparing personal debt to the national debt is a total non-sequiter, showing a profound ignorance of the very nature of fiat currency and where it comes from.

Nearly all of the "money" in the world was borrowed into existence. Personal debt wouldn't matter if you could print your own money to cover it. Sheesh.

Right, governments always have the option to print its way out of debt

because printing money has always been the viable solution to benefit the country's citizens. He does have a valid point when you continually pass off the national debt problem as something that can be so easily solved through printing.

 

[cubby1223]

Let's say something 10X (or more) as bad happened to me and I wasn't able to pay my bill.
Why do the democrats think me going bankrupt is so horrible?

It's not a Republican or Democratic thing, it's bad because you're still not paying for the medical care you received, everyone else is covering your costs because of the decisions you made. And it's not fair. I should not be paying for your medical expenses when you have zero intention of chipping in for my medical expenses when mine or anyone else's bill comes due.

 

[Sea Ray]

Or like my in-laws, lost their horrible coverage that covered nothing, and are now paying less for a good BCBS plan.

Here is the problem with all the anti-ACA rhetoric, my in-laws have voted republican their entire adult lives and even they are now believers in ACA. For the first time in 15 years (they are self employed) they can get good affordable health coverage. But all they hear from republicans is how ACA should be repelled, only a mater of time before they and people like them start voting for what is actually working for them.

Are your in laws getting a subsidy?

The BC/BS in my state of Ohio sucks. They only cover health care in state and they've dropped a lot of doctors/hospitals. If I break an arm water skiing in Mich I'm screwed. If I have a serious heart condition that requires a visit to Cleveland Clinic, I'm not covered. You really gotta look at what you get for your money

I don't know what you mean by a plan that covers "nothing" but I'd say my plan now qualifies in that it has a family deductible of over $12K

 

[Sea Ray]

lol! This is pretty bizarre. First, I don't care what Obama said, so if you mean I wasn't focusing on the arbitrary goal that you set you're right!. Second, the idea that we should focus on the total amount of spending someone does per year on health care should be obvious to everyone.

It really shows how desperate you are to find something to argue about on this.

I wouldn't say premiums are something desperate to argue about. Money and how to pay for medical care is the central issue of our national prblems on this issue

 

[Jhhnn]

Right, governments always have the option to print its way out of debt

because printing money has always been the viable solution to benefit the country's citizens. He does have a valid point when you continually pass off the national debt problem as something that can be so easily solved through printing.

Yes, yes- The US today is exactly like Weimar Germany & Zimbabwe, but only in the minds of people who have no idea what they're talking about.

 

[werepossum]

Or like my in-laws, lost their horrible coverage that covered nothing, and are now paying less for a good BCBS plan.

Here is the problem with all the anti-ACA rhetoric, my in-laws have voted republican their entire adult lives and even they are now believers in ACA. For the first time in 15 years (they are self employed) they can get good affordable health coverage. But all they hear from republicans is how ACA should be repelled, only a mater of time before they and people like them start voting for what is actually working for them.

Are they actually getting "good affordable health coverage" for less money, or merely paying less after subsidies?

That does illustrate the dilemma for the GOP though. Obamacare makes winners and losers. Typically the losers weren't going to vote Democrat anyway. Some of the winners who previously would have voted Republican will now vote Democrat to keep their personal gravy train going, whereas those Democrat voters disappointed with the ACA are mostly wanting more freebies, not less. Compound that with the fact that while a majority dislike the ACA, there is not majority dislike for the individual pieces (everyone likes the parts that benefit themselves and dislike the parts that penalize themselves) and I just don't see repeal being a practical solution.

Right, governments always have the option to print its way out of debt

because printing money has always been the viable solution to benefit the country's citizens. He does have a valid point when you continually pass off the national debt problem as something that can be so easily solved through printing.

Governments have that option exactly once. After that, no one trusts your fiat money and debts must be repaid either in hard currency or in a more trusted currency not subject to manipulation by the borrower. The dollar became the world's reserve currency not only because of its strength but also because the USA was too strong for any other borrower to influence.

 

[ttown]

It's not a Republican or Democratic thing, it's bad because you're still not paying for the medical care you received, everyone else is covering your costs because of the decisions you made. And it's not fair. I should not be paying for your medical expenses when you have zero intention of chipping in for my medical expenses when mine or anyone else's bill comes due.

If you don't want to pay for it, don't. I'm not asking you to, nor did/would I. I agree it would be unfair for me to demand it of you, so I didn't/wouldn't.
And FYI -- i'm not against buying insurance, i'm against being forced to buy a specific insurance plan that I don't want -- and the government's elimination of my former freedom to buy one that I do want (or none at all).

I'll opt out of responding to the obvious freedom-hater of the other response. Sheesh.

 

[theeedude]

Bad Obamacare news just keeps on piling in, for Republicans.

 

[michal1980]

Bad Obamacare news just keeps on piling in, for Republicans.

10 years from now?

If your going to make shit up, just say that every one will be insured.

 

[dawp]

If you don't want to pay for it, don't. I'm not asking you to, nor did/would I. I agree it would be unfair for me to demand it of you, so I didn't/wouldn't.
And FYI -- i'm not against buying insurance, i'm against being forced to buy a specific insurance plan that I don't want -- and the government's elimination of my former freedom to buy one that I do want (or none at all).

I'll opt out of responding to the obvious freedom-hater of the other response. Sheesh.

but you do pay when ever someone without insurance goes to the emergency room and can't pay the bill. who do you think pays for that? the hospital raises everyone's fee to cover the ones who don't.

 

[theeedude]

When it rains it pours, on Obamacare haters.

http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2014-...onverts-as-slowing-health-costs-tame-cpi.html

While half of Americans oppose Obamacare and numerous computer issues with its online marketplaces stymied early sign-ups, about 7.5 million have enrolled for insurance under the law, surpassing the first-year goal of 7 million.

The CBO lowered it&#8217;s estimate for the cost of the law through 2024 by $104 billion from the previous estimate in February. The CBO and the Joint Committee on Taxation estimate the law will produce savings of more than $1 trillion over the next two decades.

That savings will mean less borrowing, putting downward pressure on Treasury yields, according to CRT Capital Group LLC in Stamford, Connecticut.

&#8220;The ACA is a very important driver&#8221; of lower prices and is helping create disinflationary expectations, Carlos Pro, New York-based interest-rate strategist at primary dealer Credit Suisse Group AG, said by telephone on April 9. Health-care costs and Obamacare have been one of the main themes of Pro&#8217;s discussions with clients since July.

Obamacare is keeping inflation and interest rates low.

 

[Doc Savage Fan]

When it rains it pours, on Obamacare haters.

http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2014-...onverts-as-slowing-health-costs-tame-cpi.html



Obamacare is keeping inflation and interest rates low.

...and it can get the chickweed out of your lawn too!

 

[fskimospy]

...and it can get the chickweed out of your lawn too!

What's sad is that as the article mentions at least in the short term this is probably a bad thing. We need more inflation, not less. It's funny that success in one of the law's purposes is probably a bad thing from an economics standpoint. Damned if you do and damned if you don't, eh?