• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

Heeeeeeere's Obamacare!

MattusMaximus said:
Don't forget "death panels" :rolleyes:
Click to expand...

What's interesting is that we've had "Obamacare" in place in Massachusetts for almost a decade. If all of these problems were endemic to the system, then Romneycare would have entered a death spiral by now, and people would be clamoring for its repeal. Oddly enough, even Republicans in MA don't want it repealed. Shouldn't that be a clue that Obamacare is heading in the same direction? If not, why are the conservatives so intent on lying about the provisions of the law?
 
Unabogie said:
What's interesting is that we've had "Obamacare" in place in Massachusetts for almost a decade. If all of these problems were endemic to the system, then Romneycare would have entered a death spiral by now, and people would be clamoring for its repeal. Oddly enough, even Republicans in MA don't want it repealed. Shouldn't that be a clue that Obamacare is heading in the same direction? If not, why are the conservatives so intent on lying about the provisions of the law?
Click to expand...

Because they've spent so much political capitol going "all in" against the ACA that they can't go back now. If they tried to, they'd be committing political suicide in their primaries since the more radical elements of the Republican party would have their heads.

Sadly, we're going to continue hearing this "repeal Obamacare" nonsense for quite some time to come. And then, in a few more election cycles, it'll just fade into the background because too many people will have signed up for it and to go on about repealing it will be troublesome even for a GOP candidate. It'll basically go the way of Social Security; very few, if any, GOP politicians come out and openly rant about the need to completely get rid of Social Security.
 
MattusMaximus said:
Because they've spent so much political capitol going "all in" against the ACA that they can't go back now. If they tried to, they'd be committing political suicide in their primaries since the more radical elements of the Republican party would have their heads.

Sadly, we're going to continue hearing this "repeal Obamacare" nonsense for quite some time to come. And then, in a few more election cycles, it'll just fade into the background because too many people will have signed up for it and to go on about repealing it will be troublesome even for a GOP candidate. It'll basically go the way of Social Security; very few, if any, GOP politicians come out and openly rant about the need to completely get rid of Social Security.
Click to expand...

But did you see this???

David Koch:

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2014/...-Run-Kill-Medicare-Soc-Sec-Min-Wage-Public-Ed

“We favor the repeal of the fraudulent, virtually bankrupt, and increasingly oppressive Social Security system. Pending that repeal, participation in Social Security should be made voluntary.”
Click to expand...
 
Drysdale said:
You do realize there are other shoes to drop?

Many aspects of Obamacare hasn't went into effect yet.

Think it's a little early to proclaim what a grand success it is.
Click to expand...


I agree. When the other shoe drops, there will be no question that the ACA is a success.
 
Peephole said:
I like how Republicans have shifted their arguments from "it will never work" or "there isn't really a problem" to "do people really need health care after all?"

:)
Click to expand...


I don't speak for the republicans, only myself. My argument hasn't shifted at all. ACA is nothing but feel-good legislation that won't do what it set out to do. It won't reduce costs significantly because it doesn't do anything to address the things that are causing rising costs.

It won't save a significant amount of lives just because people have insurance now. A significant percentage of those people are still obese, they still don't exercise and many of them smoke.

That's why I said earlier that even if 30 million people got covered I wouldn't consider it a win. It isn't fixing the things that are broken in our system as a whole.
 
xjx388 said:
I don't speak for the republicans, only myself. My argument hasn't shifted at all. ACA is nothing but feel-good legislation that won't do what it set out to do. It won't reduce costs significantly because it doesn't do anything to address the things that are causing rising costs.

It won't save a significant amount of lives just because people have insurance now. A significant percentage of those people are still obese, they still don't exercise and many of them smoke.

That's why I said earlier that even if 30 million people got covered I wouldn't consider it a win. It isn't fixing the things that are broken in our system as a whole.
Click to expand...

But it's Obamacare! It must be good!
 
Unabogie said:
And for five years we've been warned of the coming collapse of America if the ACA was passed. One by one, the dire warnings have fallen to the wayside. Remember just six months ago, when the broken website was going to result in a death spiral? And that no young people were signing up? And that no one had paid their premiums yet? Yeah, those sound silly to me too now.
Click to expand...

Well that's talking points... politicians love them... The website was a complete disappointment because it had three years to get set up functionally and whoever they had running that operation had zero competence with properly setting that stuff up or meeting deadlines. It did improve yes... so those who said it would be in a death spiral were clearly thinking politics over whether or not the situation could change.

I wouldn't call the 40% excise tax or any shoes that might be dropped by the full effect of the employer mandate an "end of the word" crisis either. The former has legitimate concerns because it's unlikely that the middle class will stay in the same income range in 10 or 15 years' time, so it may hit more people as time goes on if it doesn't have the flexibility to adjust with inflation. As for the the employer mandate, all I'd say is if they make changes that people complain about, then they should remember having supported the law to begin with. The law has its consequences.

But again... I like to try and be more realistic both about the "problems" that the law does or does not address, and also whether they're as scary as politicians like to make them. I still think the core issue of what brings on the costs themselves is at issue and I don't see either party paying much attention to that. We're still complaining with each other about death panels and accusing the other of wanting sick people to die quickly... :|
 
Last edited:
xjx388 said:
I don't speak for the republicans, only myself. My argument hasn't shifted at all. ACA is nothing but feel-good legislation that won't do what it set out to do. It won't reduce costs significantly because it doesn't do anything to address the things that are causing rising costs.

It won't save a significant amount of lives just because people have insurance now. A significant percentage of those people are still obese, they still don't exercise and many of them smoke.

That's why I said earlier that even if 30 million people got covered I wouldn't consider it a win. It isn't fixing the things that are broken in our system as a whole.
Click to expand...

I think it's better than being merely "feel-good legislation". No, it doesn't fix or even address any of the underlying problems in the system as a whole. But it does provide some marginal improvements. The expansion of Medicaid is worthwhile all by itself.

Within the Individual market, the introduction of classification of plans (bronze silver gold, etc.) allows consumers to compare plans that are of equal value - something that has been virtually impossible before now. Even with a knowledgeable broker helping you, it's very difficult to compare two plans with very different deductibles and copays and the same premium and decide if they're of equal value or whether one is a rip off.

And while it's costly, and will present a long term burden from a sustainability perspective, ACA also introduced financial aid to lower income people in the form of premium subsidies. It's not a great solution, and has some design flaws... but it's better than the nothing that we had before.

Personally, I still think ACA is a horrible claptrap amalgam of bad ideas rolled up in a bundle of political ennui... but it's not completely worthless. I give it credit for making baby steps at least :p
 
Emily's Cat said:
Within the Individual market, the introduction of classification of plans (bronze silver gold, etc.) allows consumers to compare plans that are of equal value - something that has been virtually impossible before now. Even with a knowledgeable broker helping you, it's very difficult to compare two plans with very different deductibles and copays and the same premium and decide if they're of equal value or whether one is a rip off.
Click to expand...

The ACA mandates an actuarial value for each class of plan, but allows a range of deductibles and OOP maximums within each class. This made comparing plans a bit tougher.

California went a step beyond other states by mandating a schedule of deductibles and copays for each class of plan. This made direct comparison of premiums within a class easy and allowed customers to balance a lower premium against the convenience of keeping a favorite doctor or being able to use a nearby clinic.
 
Kestrel said:
The ACA mandates an actuarial value for each class of plan, but allows a range of deductibles and OOP maximums within each class. This made comparing plans a bit tougher.

California went a step beyond other states by mandating a schedule of deductibles and copays for each class of plan. This made direct comparison of premiums within a class easy and allowed customers to balance a lower premium against the convenience of keeping a favorite doctor or being able to use a nearby clinic.
Click to expand...

Yes, I'm well aware that carriers are allowed to carry any number of plan design elements within the actuarial value. But at least there IS an actuarial value.

Consider it like cars: You've got economy cars and luxury cars and sports cars, all sorts of different classes of cars, with a variety of different characteristics in each class, and a variety of prices.

Now imagine if there weren't any classes - imagine if there weren't any reasonable groupings of cars that were comparable to each other in some semi-rational fashion... and whenever you tried to look at cars, you were looking at SUVs and luxury and subcompact and every variety out there all at the same time, with no way to narrow them down except the sticker price and how many doors it had. That's what it was like before ACA.

Yes, there's a lot of variety - Honda and Toyota and Ford all have different characteristics as far as horsepower and fuel efficiency and standard options and paint color goes... but they've all got economy cars. And you can look at a class of economy cars and have a rough idea of what you're getting in to, even though there's still a lot of variety. You know that all of the cars in the economy car class are comparable to each other in some important ways.

Same thing with ACA - all of the Bronze plans are comparable to each other in terms of the average portion of costs that you're expected to pay. You'll get there in different ways, depending on how each carrier built their plan. But over all, you now know that this plan's $5000 deductible with 20% coinsurance is equivalent to that other plan's $4000 deductible with a combination of copays and 25% coinsurance. You know that in an important way, they're comparable. So now you can choose the design that best fits your needs, at a price you're comfortable with. And you can make a better informed decision about whether or not the additional price for carrier A is worth what you're getting from them relative to what you're getting from carrier B.
 
xjx388 said:
I don't speak for the republicans, only myself. My argument hasn't shifted at all. ACA is nothing but feel-good legislation that won't do what it set out to do. It won't reduce costs significantly because it doesn't do anything to address the things that are causing rising costs.

It won't save a significant amount of lives just because people have insurance now. A significant percentage of those people are still obese, they still don't exercise and many of them smoke.

That's why I said earlier that even if 30 million people got covered I wouldn't consider it a win. It isn't fixing the things that are broken in our system as a whole.
Click to expand...

So you're advocating for UHC? What's your proposed solution?
 
MattusMaximus said:
So you're advocating for UHC? What's your proposed solution?
Click to expand...

Not single payer. I've advocated here for a Singapore-inspired system. I just don't think an NHS/Canada style system will fly here for a number of reasons -political and economic.
 
MattusMaximus said:
Looks like the latest CBO number-crunching reveals that the cost of the ACA is going to be even less than thought a mere two months ago, and at the same time the deficit is projected to be reduced even more: http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=303017985&ft=1&f=

Thanks, Obama! :D
Click to expand...

That's good news, if accurate.

My main concern remains what will happen to individual's and business's premiums over the next few years.

I don't see the $2,500 annual savings for the typical family as realistic, as I've said, ad nauseum. I know my family would have seen a threefold increase in premiums if we dropped our current Aetna plan and went for the cheapest plan on the gov't site, albeit for slightly better coverage. Aetna is pulling out of GA, so in August when our current policy expires I can give real numbers for how much more we'll end up paying, though with me eligible for Medicare it will complicate things.

But if we can hold premiums steady, or even have them increase at a lower rate than they had been, I'd count that as a win.

We just need a neutral group to turn all the anecdotes into real data we can use.
 
xjx388 said:
Not single payer. I've advocated here for a Singapore-inspired system. I just don't think an NHS/Canada style system will fly here for a number of reasons -political and economic.
Click to expand...


And how exactly does Singapore do it? Can you provide a link?
 
I'm sure premiums will start to increase as much as the law will allow, such is the nature of capitalism.
 
xjx388 said:
I don't speak for the republicans, only myself. My argument hasn't shifted at all. ACA is nothing but feel-good legislation that won't do what it set out to do.
Click to expand...
But it has already done a lot of what it was set out to do. :confused:

Insurers can no long use pre-existing conditions to refuse people. And insurers are required to actually provide health care to people when they become sick, instead of cancelling their policies. Plus the amount of uninsured is dropping rapidly.
xjx388 said:
It won't reduce costs significantly because it doesn't do anything to address the things that are causing rising costs.
Click to expand...
But health care costs are already slowing down, and there's a good chance Obamacare is contributing to that. :confused:
xjx388 said:
That's why I said earlier that even if 30 million people got covered I wouldn't consider it a win. It isn't fixing the things that are broken in our system as a whole.
Click to expand...
Yeah, **** those 30 million people, right?
 
xjx388 said:
Not single payer. I've advocated here for a Singapore-inspired system. I just don't think an NHS/Canada style system will fly here for a number of reasons -political and economic.
Click to expand...
Which is a heavily government regulated and subsidized system.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom