Heeeeeeere's Obamacare!

[Marcus]

Most without insurance are like this, they would rather have a cell phone than insurance. Now they've been forced to get it, while causing everyone else's to go way up.

Most of the years I'm talking about there weren't any cell phones, but I understand the sentiment. Not many now are forced to get a policy, the penalties are low and many times not applicable. My decision to get a subsidized silver policy was driven by self interest and is indeed a burden on the taxpayers. Going bare isn't that great a deal for the taxpayers either, though, if a catastrophic event occurred they would be on the hook for a much larger bill.

 

[RandFan]

No actually it wouldn't.

With the government fully involved, forcing premiums way up, it seems there were many ways to lower the cost of insurance.

How does causing costs to rise help anyone?

A.) Do you have any evidence that these costs are rising? B.) It is a fact that people were dying for lack of healthcare insurance.

Prior to Obamacare, Americans paid the most for healthcare and got the least amount of health care. How does that help anyone?

Once again, U.S. has most expensive, least effective health care system in survey

The data for the 2014 report was collected before the Affordable Care Act (aka Obamacare) went into full effect, so that reform may eventually boost the U.S. out of last place by providing health insurance to some of the 50 million people who lacked it.

 

[bonzombiekitty]

A.) Do you have any evidence that these costs are rising?

A more appropriate question would be
"Do you have any evidence that these costs are rising, and if so that they are rising any more quickly than they have been in the past?"

AFAIK, this year saw health insurance premiums hold pretty steady overall (with some regions seeing large spikes and some actually seeing a decrease)

 

[thaiboxerken]

You can't accept the simple fact that Obama has caused premiums to go way up? So you call it lie, goody.

It is a fact that premiums did not go way up. That's why I call your assertion a lie.

 

[RandFan]

A more appropriate question would be
"Do you have any evidence that these costs are rising, and if so that they are rising any more quickly than they have been in the past?"

AFAIK, this year saw health insurance premiums hold pretty steady overall (with some regions seeing large spikes and some actually seeing a decrease)

Thank you. Agreed. America paid the most of any industrialized nation for healthcare and not everyone got healthcare.

It's amazing how tenacious such precious beliefs can be.

 

[xjx388]

I'm fortunate to be really healthy. The only interactions I've had with the health care system until now (I've gone to a doctor now that I have health insurance) were once in 1988 and once in 1983. That last one cost me 5k (woodworking accident), I worked out a payment plan with the doctor and hospital and paid it out over time.

I would say your experience with good health is the same as most people. Most people never find need to interact with the health system. Thus, they pay for insurance benefits that they will never use. You didn't (and probably don't now) need an insurance plan that has a copay, prescription benefits, preventive coverage, maternity and BC coverage, etc. You would probably be better served by a much cheaper catastrophic plan that covers major problems but leaves you to pay for the minor issues on your own. But you don't have that choice.

I guess in some sense you are indeed better off having an insurance plan that covers way more than you need than not having insurance at all. But wouldn't you be much better off having a plan that covers only exactly what you need at a lower price? Think of it this way: Your total healthcare costs over the last 30 years has been $5000. That's $166 per year. Insurance would have cost you more than 10X that amount. Would you be any healthier now had you paid into an insurance plan? I doubt it.

My original plan was to go to a doctor when I turn 65 and am eligible for medicare, this insurance thing has enabled me to start earlier.

Why didn't you go at least once a year, at an extremely low cost compared to what you are paying now in insurance, for a check up? Even if you had paid $5000/year in medical costs it would have been lower than what you are likely (or you and the taxpayers if you get subsidies) paying now in insurance costs.

In other words, getting insurance/Medicare isn't likely to make you need more healthcare only to make you utilize more healthcare.

 

[RandFan]

You can't accept the simple fact that Obama has caused premiums to go way up? So you call it lie, goody.

If you cannot provide evidence for the claim and you persist in propagating that claim, then it is fair to call it a lie.

 

[xjx388]

I agree with this. A lot of people just couldn't afford health insurance, they would wait until a problem got really serious and then go to the ER. Acute problems have to be treated, by law, but uninsured people tend to get the short end of the stick once they are beyond the acute phase.

In my case I took a calculated risk, I could have afforded catastrophic insurance but getting a policy like I have now would have been difficult.

You might say I'm a sponge on the system, cruising along until I start getting old and will inevitably start requiring healthcare. That's true in a way, but my feeling was that I simply didn't get sick (still don't) and I didn't want to spend my life paying for other peoples health problems.

But that's exactly what you are doing now. And this is the problem with Obamacare and why it will lead to higher costs in the long-run. You and the millions like you will now utilize the healthcare system at a higher rate than you did before.

 

[thaiboxerken]

Rates will continue to rise under the aca. But at a slower rate than was the case prior to the aca.

 

[RandFan]

Thus, they pay for insurance benefits that they will never use.

Kinda like paying for car insurance benefits that they will never use. Insurance is not a conspiracy. It's simply a way to mitigate risk. We are a social species so pooling our money in a way that benefits people is in our rational self interest. I don't want to live in a society where people to rely on the ER (an expensive solution) because they made poor decisions when they were young. I don't want children to have to rely on the ER because their parents are struggling to make ends meet.

Opponents of health care argue as if healthcare problems were all in our mind and that people were not suffering and dying for lack of proper health care.Daily Show Proves America Does Not Have the ‘Best Health Care System in the World’

 

[RandFan]

But that's exactly what you are doing now. And this is the problem with Obamacare and why it will lead to higher costs in the long-run. You and the millions like you will now utilize the healthcare system at a higher rate than you did before.

Why is public health care not resulting in higher healthcare costs in other nations? Why do they have better outcomes?

It would be simplistic to say it all falls on public healthcare. However, it is reasonable to say public healthcare has not caused their costs to rise higher than ours. Prior to Obamacare the US paid the most for healthcare of industrialized western nations.

 

[Marcus]

I would say your experience with good health is the same as most people. Most people never find need to interact with the health system. Thus, they pay for insurance benefits that they will never use. You didn't (and probably don't now) need an insurance plan that has a copay, prescription benefits, preventive coverage, maternity and BC coverage, etc. You would probably be better served by a much cheaper catastrophic plan that covers major problems but leaves you to pay for the minor issues on your own. But you don't have that choice.

I guess in some sense you are indeed better off having an insurance plan that covers way more than you need than not having insurance at all. But wouldn't you be much better off having a plan that covers only exactly what you need at a lower price? Think of it this way: Your total healthcare costs over the last 30 years has been $5000. That's $166 per year. Insurance would have cost you more than 10X that amount. Would you be any healthier now had you paid into an insurance plan? I doubt it.

Why didn't you go at least once a year, at an extremely low cost compared to what you are paying now in insurance, for a check up? Even if you had paid $5000/year in medical costs it would have been lower than what you are likely (or you and the taxpayers if you get subsidies) paying now in insurance costs.

In other words, getting insurance/Medicare isn't likely to make you need more healthcare only to make you utilize more healthcare.

I could have gone in for checkups, I just preferred to monitor myself, keeping an eye on parameters like blood pressure, blood sugar, vo2, heart rate, etc.

What makes me think I will need more healthcare now is not having insurance, but advancing in age, none of us last forever.

 

[Marcus]

But that's exactly what you are doing now. And this is the problem with Obamacare and why it will lead to higher costs in the long-run. You and the millions like you will now utilize the healthcare system at a higher rate than you did before.

The only way I am utilizing the healthcare system more now is going in for annual checkups.

Still, I agree that it could lead to higher costs, I just think that it is worth it to society. Most of the uninsured were not like me, making a calculated decision, they were deciding between rent and food and health insurance premiums. Basically we were telling them to just eat **** and die, we can't be bothered.

 

[xjx388]

Kinda like paying for car insurance benefits that they will never use. Insurance is not a conspiracy. It's simply a way to mitigate risk.

Car insurance is good. I have certain risks in driving that are specific to me: my needs, my driving record, the car I drive. I pay for my level of risk. Health insurance is nothing like this. I have no choice in the level of coverage I want. I want catastrophic. No copays, no preventive, no maternity, no BC. Thus, I am not paying for insurance anymore in that I am not insuring risks that I actually have.

We are a social species so pooling our money in a way that benefits people is in our rational self interest.

I don't think that necessarily follows.

I don't want to live in a society where people to rely on the ER (an expensive solution) because they made poor decisions when they were young. I don't want children to have to rely on the ER because their parents are struggling to make ends meet.

Neither do I. But ACA is overkill. We could have met those needs countless other ways. Instead, we forced everyone into cookie-cutter "insurance" plans that don't actually solve the problem.

Opponents of health care

Be careful there. I have never been against "health care." I am against the ACA and Single-Payer UHC.

argue as if healthcare problems were all in our mind and that people were not suffering and dying for lack of proper health care.Daily Show Proves America Does Not Have the ‘Best Health Care System in the World’

Gotcha entertainment "news," is great comedy but not great at presenting the facts without bias. I shudder to think how many people form their opinions based on this kind of thing. Knoxville is not equivalent to a third-world country. You could start a free clinic any place in the US and people would go. This piece does not "prove" that America does not have the best system in the world. Neither does the US' placement on a list generated by WHO. For the record, I wouldn't place the US at the top of the list either, but we are certainly one of the best when it comes to quality of care and outcomes of people who interact with the healthcare system. We can do better in making sure more people can access the system. This probably sums it up better than I can.

If I had to get treated for cancer, heart disease, etc, I would choose the US system over any other in the world. I think we have the best educated doctors who benefit from most of the medical research being done here in the States. I want every citizen to have more access to our system. However, I don't want to accomplish that by adopting a system that would hurt the things we are very good at.

 

[sunmaster14]

Surviving is hardly the mark of a good health care system. Never mind that it is a fact that Americans have died for lack of healthcare insurance, your argument is cynical in that the people who do in fact die without healthcare insurance in the US cannot respond to your query.

ETA: It's difficult to get healthcare without insurance.

You apparently didn't read to the end of your own link. The study claiming 45,000 deaths per year due to lack of health insurance is controversial. It's the usual problem that correlation is not causation. For example, people without health insurance tend to be poorer and also tend to be less concerned about their health. Both of these factors could be causes of worse health outcomes. In particular, there was a very carefully controlled Oregon Medicaid study (which the infamous Jonathan Gruber co-authored) which showed almost no benefit to physical health from the provision of health insurance (there was apparently an improvement in happiness, however, which Gruber stresses in one of his viral videos):

Richard Kronick, a University of California San Diego medical professor who now works for the Department of Health and Human Services, wrote in 2009 that estimates are "almost certainly incorrect."

His paper, published in August 2009 in HSR: Health Services Research, found that uninsured participants had no different risk of dying than those were covered by employer-sponsored group insurance. The finding was surprising coming from Kronick, who told PolitiFact then it was "not the answer I wanted."

...

Henry Aaron, a senior fellow at the centrist-to-liberal Brookings Institution, told us in an interview that he, too, thinks the number of deaths is impossible to nail down. In addition to Kronick’s skepticism, he pointed to a study of Oregon’s Medicaid experiment (which Baicker co-authored and PolitiFact looked at here) that found no significant improvement in health outcomes, including conditions like blood pressure, cholesterol and blood sugar, between a group of new Medicaid enrollees and uninsured Oregonians who could not get on the Medicaid rolls.

"Like Kronick, I am a strong advocate of measures to achieve universal insurance coverage and would rather that Kronick’s study and the Oregon project provided evidence in support of my policy preference," he said. "But, as far as mortality is concerned, they just don’t."

 

[sunmaster14]

A more appropriate question would be
"Do you have any evidence that these costs are rising, and if so that they are rising any more quickly than they have been in the past?"

AFAIK, this year saw health insurance premiums hold pretty steady overall (with some regions seeing large spikes and some actually seeing a decrease)

I think the relatively low increase in premiums which has been touted by Obamacare advocates is mostly an illusion. This NY Times article actually reports substantial increases in the premiums for people who stick with the same plans.

The increase in premiums from 2014 to 2015 for the lowest cost silver plans in most markets is rather modest, but they're not the same plan and don't have the same deductibles and networks, etc. It's a case of comparing apples to oranges. Furthermore, even if they were substantially similar plans, it's still a pain in the neck to have to switch plans. You might not even be able to keep your doctor.

 

[sunmaster14]

If you cannot provide evidence for the claim and you persist in propagating that claim, then it is fair to call it a lie.

No it's not. It's fair to call it an unproven claim. In order to call it a lie, you would first have to prove that it was false. And on top of that, you would have to prove that the person who made the claim knew it to be false.

 

[sunmaster14]

It is a fact that premiums did not go way up. That's why I call your assertion a lie.

I don't know about the data for next year's premiums, but premiums did go way up this year (the first year of Obamacare for most people) if an apples to apples comparison is done. See here:

However, a new study from the well-respected and non-partisan National Bureau of Economic Research (and published by Brookings Institution), overcomes the limitations of these prior studies by examining what happened to premiums in the entire non-group market. The bottom line? In 2014, premiums in the non-group market grew by 24.4% compared to what they would have been without Obamacare. Of equal importance, this careful state-by-state assessment showed that premiums rose in all but 6 states (including Washington DC). It’s worth unpacking this study a bit to understand the ramification of these findings.

 

[thaiboxerken]

I don't know about the data for next year's premiums, but premiums did go way up this year (the first year of Obamacare for most people) if an apples to apples comparison is done. See here:

The study asserts that costs went up in states where the aca was poorly implemented. Nice try.

 

[sunmaster14]

Why is public health care not resulting in higher healthcare costs in other nations?

Because health care is carefully rationed in those other nations. Also, to some degree, they are benefiting from the high prices paid by the US for new treatments, which incentivizes and subsidizes research and development. Ungrateful, greasy, foreign sponges hate it when I point this out, but it's true.

Why do they have better outcomes?

Well, they don't actually, except in those wonderfully circular WHO rankings which give a lot of weight to health care systems which are affordable and egalitarian.

It would be simplistic to say it all falls on public healthcare. However, it is reasonable to say public healthcare has not caused their costs to rise higher than ours. Prior to Obamacare the US paid the most for healthcare of industrialized western nations.

Just because we had an inefficient system, whose original sin of course is the tax subsidy granted to employer provided health care by the government, it doesn't follow that moving to a system with even more government involvement is the right direction to go. A more market-based approach would have been better, in my opinion.