Heeeeeeere's Obamacare!

sir drinks-a-lot said:
We get it. You don't like conservatives. You've made yourself clear about fifty dozen times.
Click to expand...

I gave a pretty good reason why. And the fact that none of you want to address that reason: that Texas is deliberately leaving one million Americans to suffer without health coverage, backs me up.
 
Unabogie said:
I gave a pretty good reason why. And the fact that none of you want to address that reason: that Texas is deliberately leaving one million Americans to suffer without health coverage, backs me up.
Click to expand...

It's not enrolling an additional 1 million people in Medicaid. But Medicaid expansion doesn't really improve people's health.

But it's always amusing how outraged people can be that I'm insufficiently generous with other people's money.
 
Unabogie said:
Washington Examiner. How typical. And thanks again for proving my point.
Click to expand...

What point? That you can't read? The actual source is the New England Journal of Medicine. The Washington Examiner article describes the paper (and links to it), but the paper is an academic one, and not from a source known for any great conservative bias either.

But thanks for demonstrating again that facts don't really matter to you once you've made up your mind about who to hate.
 
Fast Eddie B said:
That was the number given yesterday on Meet The Press.

And Nightly News said that was "total enrollment".
Click to expand...

It was the total enrollment figure, of the federal exchange, not including the 14 state exchanges which also had about 1 million enrollments. This adds up to a little over 2 million enrollments since October. I expect that the heaviest enrollments won't occur until March with the hard deadline not being until March 31.
 
Ziggurat said:
What point? That you can't read? The actual source is the New England Journal of Medicine. The Washington Examiner article describes the paper (and links to it), but the paper is an academic one, and not from a source known for any great conservative bias either.

But thanks for demonstrating again that facts don't really matter to you once you've made up your mind about who to hate.
Click to expand...

According to the conclusions reached by the study there were indeed benefits. The results that there were no significant health improvements during the first two years is explained through the understanding that most of the usage in those first few years is the preventative detection of long-term chronic issues often before they are severely symptomatic that will result in early treatment and amelioration over longer time-frames reducing harm but not necessarily demonstrating immediately noticeable health improvements. The whole idea of preventative care is that it catches and eliminates issues before they cause health problems. Despite this, the short-term study does note the following benefits from extending medicare coverage:

Medicaid coverage decreased the probability of a positive screening for depression (−9.15 percentage points; 95% confidence interval, −16.70 to −1.60; P=0.02), increased the use of many preventive services, and nearly eliminated catastrophic out-of-pocket medical expenditures.
Click to expand...
http://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJMsa1212321
 
Ziggurat said:
Since when is not providing something synonymous with not allowing that thing?
Click to expand...

That depends on the situation. In Texas, it is synonymous because it does not cost the state any revenue.

Now, do you think it's good for Texas to deny coverage for about a million people despite it not costing the state?
 
Last edited:
thaiboxerken said:
That depends on the situation. In Texas, it is synonymous because it does not cost the state any revenue.
Click to expand...

That makes no sense whatsoever. Remember, we're not talking about whether or not something is good or right. We're talking about whether two things are synonymous. And they aren't, and whether or not Texas pays for it makes no logical difference.

Now, do you think it's good for Texas to deny coverage for about a million people despite it not costing the state?
Click to expand...

Why does your concept of morality always seem to hinge upon what you decide to do with other people's money?
 
WildCat said:
Nope, I chose not to. I'm just below the Medicaid threshold, it was a bad year. I'm worried that if next year is better (and I certainly hope it is) I'll get hit with a huge bill for Medicaid I can't afford to pay. This whole thing is not designed for those of us with wildly inconsistent incomes from year to year.
Click to expand...

I've got some friends in the entertainment industry that would beg to differ. They're ecstatic over the ACA. Income can't get much more wildly inconsistent than those guys.
 
Ziggurat said:
That makes no sense whatsoever. Remember, we're not talking about whether or not something is good or right. We're talking about whether two things are synonymous. And they aren't, and whether or not Texas pays for it makes no logical difference.



Why does your concept of morality always seem to hinge upon what you decide to do with other people's money?
Click to expand...

1. Denying people coverage that the federal government will pay for synonymous with prevention from health care coverage, particularly for those that can't afford it.

2. My concept of morality hints upon the welfare of the population. Why do you think millions not having health care coverage is good?
 
thaiboxerken said:
1. Denying people coverage that the federal government will pay for synonymous with prevention from health care coverage, particularly for those that can't afford it.
Click to expand...

But not providing coverage is still synonymous with not allowing people to get coverage even for people who can afford to buy it for themselves, just not "particularly" so? Yeah, no. Not even kind of.

2. My concept of morality hints upon the welfare of the population.
Click to expand...

"hints upon"? What the hell does that even mean?

Why do you think millions not having health care coverage is good?
Click to expand...

It's not a good thing. But neither is wracking up massive debt, or taking money from people by force. The moral questions have never been as simple as what you pretend.
 
NoahFence said:
I've got some friends in the entertainment industry that would beg to differ. They're ecstatic over the ACA. Income can't get much more wildly inconsistent than those guys.
Click to expand...
Are they aware they'll get hit with a big bill if their income goes up?
 
NoahFence said:
I would assume so. They're not stupid, blindly diving into things without due diligence.
Click to expand...

I'd like to see evidence that people get hit with a big bill if they stop qualifying for Medicaid (and they did qualify at the time they signed up). I can find nothing online about this.

ETA: In fact, the best I can find is that in Illinois, they do a monthly check on each recipient and if you stop qualifying, they send you a letter informing you that you longer qualify. There's nothing there about hitting you with retroactive charges. I'd hate to think that a person would be so dumb as to pass up health coverage rather than simply verifying how a system works, but welcome to conservatism.

http://www2.illinois.gov/hfs/SiteCollectionDocuments/EEVClientFAQ.pdf
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom