Obama Care Could Be Deadly

mrsilkunderwear said:
a) Its not an assertion. This country was founded on the rights I mentioned, not right to healthcare...

b) Its a negative right. You therefore have a right to your life and I can not take it away. It does not mean that I am obligated to save you by paying for someone's medical attention.
Click to expand...
A) What do you think universal healthcare would have looked like in the Founders day? Free leeches? There is a general welfare clause and a necessary and proper clause. You fail again.

B) I never bought the positive/negative right dichotomy. Also, the constitutionality of the program was already debated and it passed. You are no more forced to pay for it then for any thing government does you personally don't like.

C) Since your arguments based on other criteria have been demolished, why not try an argument based on the merits of various healthcare systems?

 
mrsilkunderwear said:
Lets clarify something real quick, healthcare is not a right. Agreed?
Click to expand...
You are correct. Healthcare is not an expressed right under the US Constitution but congress was given the power to spend for general welfare. Furthermore, healthcare is an enumerated right under Article 25 of the U.N. Universal Declaration of Human Rights.

Apple does have to worry about who and who cannot afford their products. That is how business works, if they price it out of the range of consumers, it would lead to loss of revenue and end of the company if they do not change their ways. Health care is a little different due to the fact that you have a government which has a constant stream of revenue regardless of their financials.
Click to expand...
You totally missed my point. Apple doesn't have to cater to everyone. They don't have to price their product so it's affordable for a homeless person.

There is a flaw in your example, sick people would have a choice if young people decide not to pay for healthcare. They can stay and pay higher premiums but being covered for conditions which may affect them. Or they can pay out of pocket for expenses which would go down in a free market economy because equilibrium would be reached.
Click to expand...
Either you choose not to understand how insurance/risk allocation works or you being daft. I am done trying to explain it.

I am glad that you embrace the ideas of free markets in other cases and I hope you will see my point when it comes to healthcare. I think Milton Friedman did a study in which showed that between early and late 1990s, for-profit hospitals deacreased from 50% to 10%. During this time spending rose by about 200% and yet cost per patient rose became 15 times higher than needed. Nations like France and Canada have a nationalized health care system and look at them, they are facing many challenges which are crippling them.
Click to expand...
Friedman's views on social medicine are well know. I personally don't agree with them but that doesn't mean they are without merit. I believe that everyone is entitled to the same basic level of care. He doesn't. Again I'm not saying he is right or wrong.

That said, Friedman has been wrong before as was the case with his strong belief in Corporate Social Responsibility. Also, those stats are skewed because they fail to account for an aging baby boomer population amongst many other factors. Here's a link to a study done by the New England Journal of Medicine over that same period.

Also, Canada and France are facing major economic issues today. So it would be foolish to think that slow economic growth or recession wouldn't impact socialized healthcare.
Click to expand...
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Msut77 said:
A) What do you think universal healthcare would have looked like in the Founders day? Free leeches? There is a general welfare clause and a necessary and proper clause. You fail again.

B) I never bought the positive/negative right dichotomy. Also, the constitutionality of the program was already debated and it passed. You are no more forced to pay for it then for any thing government does you personally don't like.

C) Since your arguments based on other criteria have been demolished, why not try an argument based on the merits of various healthcare systems?
Click to expand...
a) I am pretty sure every single founding father would reject the idea of nationalized healthcare.

General Welfare Clause does not apply as healthcare is a specific welfare. National defense and managing money is general welfare.

Necessary and Proper Clause does not apply. It gives the congress the power to carry out its existing powers and healthcare is not one of them. Again it does not grant new powers.

Didn't ACA get passed because it was argued as a tax?

b) So you are saying that Supreme Court is always right and never has overturned a decision? You do also realize that many laws exist today which are being enforced by the federal government and yet should be completely illegal. Example: NSA spying on American citizens with no ties to terrorist organizations.

c) As I mentioned before, France a shining example of socialized healthcare is doing pretty poorly.

Also I would not use any more of the smart ass comments since it only diminishes your credibility considering nothing I said was refuted nor demolished.

 
mrsilkunderwear said:
a) I am pretty sure every single founding father would reject the idea of nationalized healthcare.
Click to expand...
You do know that Ben Franklin setup our nation's first hospital in Philadelphia. A venture run solely off charitable donations to take care of the needy and mentally disabled people who were roaming the streets of Philadelphia. So, I wouldn't be so quick to say what the founding fathers would reject the idea of socialized medicine.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
You are correct. Healthcare is not an expressed right under the US Constitution but congress was given the power to spend for general welfare. Furthermore, healthcare is an enumerated right under Article 25 of the U.N. Universal Declaration of Human Rights.
Click to expand...
General Welfare clause does not apply. Please response Msut77. UN is an international organization and has no real power here in US. US Constitution> UN Declaration of Human Rights. Just imagine how people would feel if they declared abortion illegal, you think Americans would give a shit what they have to say?

You totally missed my point. Apple doesn't have to cater to everyone. They don't have to price their product so it's affordable for a homeless person.
Click to expand...
Maybe I did. Explain to me again then why the government should make sure that healthcare is accessible to everyone? Is there a legal precedent or just because you think it is best for everyone?

Either you choose not to understand how insurance/risk allocation works or you being daft. I am done trying to explain it.
Click to expand...
So in a free market, prices would not go down therefore we would just need to force the young generation into the healthcare system to offset the costs. K got it.

Friedman's views on social medicine are well know. I personally don't agree with them but that doesn't mean they are without merit. I believe that everyone is entitled to the same basic level of care. He doesn't. Again I'm not saying he is right or wrong.

That said, Friedman has been wrong before as was the case with his strong belief in Corporate Social Responsibility. Also, those stats are skewed because they fail to account for an aging baby boomer population amongst many other factors. Here's a link to a study done by the New England Journal of Medicine over that same period.

Also, Canada and France are facing major economic issues today. So it would be foolish to think that slow economic growth or recession wouldn't impact socialized healthcare.
Click to expand...
Friedman has been wrong before just like many other economists. Yet I believe he is one of the best in the recent memory. Paul Krugman, Obamas BFF, actually stated that ACA will be extremely popular and will bring the costs down. He did say a "few" will be hurt which is more like millions of people. Anyways I will read the study later on.

I never said anything about recession or economic growth. The French health care system has been having major problems since the 1990s. Billion dollar deficits long before the recession of 2008. And Canada, I wonder how their economic problems have started...

 
kill3r7 said:
You do know that Ben Franklin setup our nation's first hospital in Philadelphia. A venture run solely off charitable donations to take care of the needy and mentally disabled people who were roaming the streets of Philadelphia. So, I wouldn't be so quick to say what the founding fathers would reject the idea of socialized medicine.
Click to expand...
No, I didn't. I also did not realize that charitable donations were taxes.

 
mrsilkunderwear said:
a) I am pretty sure every single founding father would reject the idea of nationalized healthcare.
Click to expand...
I am pretty sure every single person who has been dead for hundreds on years would agree with me.

Not certain if you are having a giggle, but how would a general clause not count because something is "specific",

At this point I am done with this part of the "discussion" I have asked you make an argument based on the merits of reform.

See below:

" France a shining example of socialized healthcare is doing pretty poorly."



Great, they still spend way less than us. Unless you get a little more specific I will state you are flat out wrong.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Right on, silk. Using the "general welfare" terminology with such a broad stroke is a dangerous precedent. What if the gov't decided that all households should be mandated to take in a homeless person? Eliminate homelessness and make shelter a right. Sounds good, huh? Promotes the general welfare also. Mandated nutrition via gov't law would also promote general welfare. Should we also give these powers to the gov't?
 
Msut77 said:
I am pretty sure every single person who has been dead for hundreds on years would agree with me.

Not certain if you are having a giggle, but how would a general clause not count because something is "specific",

At this point I am done with this part of the "discussion" I have asked you make an argument based on the merits of reform.

See below:

" France a shining example of socialized healthcare is doing pretty poorly."



Great, they still spend way less than us. Unless you get a little more specific I will state you are flat out wrong.
Click to expand...
I am not randomly picking it out people. Founding Fathers were very conservative and libertarian, that is just a fact.

You see, the 9th and the 10th amendments restrict the general welfare to the few functions such as providing a national defense. If the federal power is not listed in the constitution then it goes to state. If the state decides to have a single payer health system then it will be constitutional as far I know. As Egofed mentioned, if you definition prevailed then it would be used for anything that can be deemed general welfare which could be ban of fast food or electric cars. You might think that is crazy but remember times change and anything can happen. Also if you definition prevailed then it would violate the entire constitution and thus voiding it.

If you wish to stop talking about the constitutional aspect then no problem, we can focus on the operational side of it. Is France spending less money? Yeah and I always agreed with you that we spend more money and yet cover less people. What you propose though is not a solution but merely merely applying duct tape. As I mentioned before, their system has been seeing billion dollar deficits for years. In a single payer system, wait times increase. I know in Canada it can be months for a surgery of almost any type. This is why many travel here to US or seek a private clinic. I assume you would agree that this is an unfortunate effect?

That is as specific I can get for the moment until you tell me which parts you want me to talk about.

 
:rofl:

Holy fuck balls, I've seen some crazy shit in this subforum, but you take the fucking cake, junior underoos. Well done.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
dohdough said:
:rofl:

Holy fuck balls, I've seen some crazy shit in this subforum, but you take the fucking cake, junior underoos. Well done.
Click to expand...
KiguIjo.gif


Hope you didn't have a hard time following it through.

 
Dr Mario Kart said:
ACA has tangibly slowed single payer down and further entrenches us in a private system thats going to fail anyway but it keeps it alive longer. If ACA's intent is to get us to single payer, its a shitty way of doing it.
Click to expand...
Yeah you're right. I wasn't being serious but this is not going well for team Obama.

 
Those poor doctors in the EU.  First we force them into the profession, then we force them to take payment from the government for services rendered.  At least in America, we only enslave public defenders.

Even in England, they have private healthcare and private insurance options for the rich and/or foolish.  Occasionally NHS doctors escape their hospital camps and set up shop there.

 
Sorry, I must've missed your in-depth analysis about how the "Founding Fathers" was a monolithic group that agreed on everything like voting rights and slavery.

Oh right, it's a FACT because it conforms to your flavor of libertarian ideology and because you say it is. Your level of delusion is over 9000, my friend. :rofl:
 
Dr Mario Kart said:
ACA has tangibly slowed single payer down and further entrenches us in a private system thats going to fail anyway but it keeps it alive longer. If ACA's intent is to get us to single payer, its a shitty way of doing it.
Click to expand...
Correct me if I'm wrong, but wasn't single-payer what Obama originally proposed for reforming healthcare? And then the current ACA is the result of conservatives basically pulling the teeth out of it, saying government couldn't handle healthcare, only private providers could?

It seems unreasonable to blame someone who wanted to help, had a plan to help, and then was basically shot in the knees so he couldn't follow through.

Here's a not-perfect analogy, under the assumption that single-payer works well, and that the current system had serious problems (I'm not going to claim either is the case, but this is basically the position you advocated):

You're stuck in quicksand (current system), and a man (Obama) shows up to help pull you out. He says he'll use his car and a rope to help pull you out (single-payer). Then someone else shows (Republicans) up, clubs the man on the back of the head and carjacks him. Now the man still wants to help you, but all he's got left is a twig (ACA). And your response is to blame the man and the twig. Curse you twig, for being too frail! And curse you, well-meaning stranger, for not having a gun and shooting that someone else!

 
Last edited by a moderator:
Rasen said:
Correct me if I'm wrong, but wasn't single-payer what Obama originally proposed for reforming healthcare? And then the current ACA is the result of conservatives basically pulling the teeth out of it, saying government couldn't handle healthcare, only private providers could?

It seems unreasonable to blame someone who wanted to help, had a plan to help, and then was basically shot in the knees so he couldn't follow through.

Here's a not-perfect analogy, under the assumption that single-payer works well, and that the current system had serious problems (I'm not going to claim either is the case, but this is basically the position you advocated):

You're stuck in quicksand (current system), and a man (Obama) shows up to help pull you out. He says he'll use his car and a rope to help pull you out (single-payer). Then someone else shows (Republicans) up, clubs the man on the back of the head and carjacks him. Now the man still wants to help you, but all he's got left is a twig (ACA). And your response is to blame the man and the twig. Curse you twig, for being too frail! And curse you, well-meaning stranger, for not having a gun and shooting that someone else!
Click to expand...
Obama might personally be in favor of single payer, but is forever the pragmatist. The closest he got to it was proposing a public option, which died by a quick but painful drowning in an above-ground pool of tea.
 
Rasen said:
Correct me if I'm wrong, but wasn't single-payer what Obama originally proposed for reforming healthcare? And then the current ACA is the result of conservatives basically pulling the teeth out of it, saying government couldn't handle healthcare, only private providers could?
Click to expand...
This is such a complete cop-out.

The number of "conservatives" in favor of the ACA was, at the time, so miniscule anyone looking at the numbers would consider it nothing more than an outlier. The number of voting "conservative" congresscritters in favor of it could be counted on the hands of a pirate with two hooks.

To say "conservatives" killed the idea of a single-payer system is a very narrow view of what happened. Truth be told, most "liberal" voting congresscritters wouldn't touch that with a ten-foot pole. They pushed the "Affordable Care Act" through without a single "conservative" vote. If they had wanted to create a single-payer system (or, at least, a system that wasn't a giant gift to private health insurance companies), then they could have and could have pushed it through without a single "conservative" vote as well. Simply, it never would have stood a chance.

On one hand, that's a good thing, since I don't think our current Federal Government would be able to create and control a single-payer system of any effectiveness. And looking at how many of the state governments are ran right now, I'm not sure they'd do much better.

In spite of the misleading name of the bill, this was never about affordable "health care". It was about insurance all along. No one *needs* health insurance - they need health care. Yet, so little in this bill is actually designed to focus on making actual health care more affordable and, instead, focuses on ways to get more people paying for health insurance (either directly or via tax-funded subsidies).

Here's a thought though - what if an individual, wealthy state, was to create a wholly-government ran health care system (without the need for any kind of health insurance). Which state would be the most likely to implement it and be able to support it? And would the citizens of this state still be required to pay for health insurance under the "Affordable Care Act"?
 
dohdough said:
Sorry, I must've missed your in-depth analysis about how the "Founding Fathers" was a monolithic group that agreed on everything like voting rights and slavery.

Oh right, it's a FACT because it conforms to your flavor of libertarian ideology and because you say it is. Your level of delusion is over 9000, my friend. :rofl:
Click to expand...
Obama-Deal-With-It.jpg


 
The guys who compromised on the ratio of how many black people almost equaled a white person, the guys who wrote the federalist AND the anti federalist papers all agreed with me QED.
 
It's downright scary how dead on I was about how Obamacare would crash and burn. If you look at my posts as far back as four years ago, I pretty much predicted this would all happen.

So here's another bold claim. Obamacare was deliberately created as a faulty plan so the only way to "fix" in the end is to fold everyone into a single payer government run system. Within a few years, as more unrest erupts over skyrocketing premiums at rates faster than before and grumbling about rising penalties for being uninsured, there will be a push to expand Medicare to cover everyone.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Way before ACA collapses, we'll see the disaster happen first in Massachusetts, since they passed it in 2006 and we're just now beginning implementation in 2014.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
Msut77 said:
The guys who compromised on the ratio of how many black people almost equaled a white person, the guys who wrote the federalist AND the anti federalist papers all agreed with me QED.
Click to expand...
Yeah.. so you still wanna argue or we taking a break now.

Edit: A buddy of mine posted a letter from his insurance company on facebook. His rate used to be $88/month but was changed to $280.12. They specifically mentioned ACA as the reason. "Affordable" Care Act indeed.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
dopa345 said:
Obama is really getting desparate. This is just sad.

http://www.nbcnews.com/health/hollywood-targeted-give-health-care-law-boost-8C11519751

Well, at least it finally removes all doubt about the political bias of networks and media.
Click to expand...
1. Assuming California Endowment follows Obama's orders. (They may, I don't know. There's clearly an agenda behind it, but you can't conclude it's Obama who's forcing this through. It's just as likely it's done at the behest of the Democratic Party in general. Their political livelihoods are kinda tied up with Obamacare as well. Actually, since Obama can't get re-elected a third time, it may actually be more important to them.)

2. Everyone knows Hollywood is liberal. But just from this article, you can't conclude whether the networks are liberal until you see whether they run the episodes, and if the episodes portray it in a positive or negative light.

3. This story is reported by the "liberal" media. Those evil geniuses! They're so biased they reveal their crafty plans and who's behind them!

 
Last edited by a moderator:
So is the solution to go back to a system where pre-existing conditions result in denied coverage? Or a 24 yo cannot be on his/her parents coverage?

Or tens of millions of children lack health insurance?

I'm not sure how celebrating any flaws, failures or oversights of the ACA is a productive use of time when there is so much more positive results from fixing the issues. Put more money into Navigators, shame those governors that refuse to expand coverage to the neediest segments, hold those contractors directly responsible for failure of implementation. And maybe also highlight the success stories of the state run exchanges, or the millions who are and have been already benefitting from the law's enactment.

If you are 5 years old, and you won the genetic lottery so your parents can afford healthcare or enough food to eat, that's fantastic. But the greatest country in the world is failing at providing basic life needs to the very weakest of its citizens.

 
vherub said:
So is the solution to go back to a system where pre-existing conditions result in denied coverage? Or a 24 yo cannot be on his/her parents coverage?

Or tens of millions of children lack health insurance?

I'm not sure how celebrating any flaws, failures or oversights of the ACA is a productive use of time when there is so much more positive results from fixing the issues. Put more money into Navigators, shame those governors that refuse to expand coverage to the neediest segments, hold those contractors directly responsible for failure of implementation. And maybe also highlight the success stories of the state run exchanges, or the millions who are and have been already benefitting from the law's enactment.

If you are 5 years old, and you won the genetic lottery so your parents can afford healthcare or enough food to eat, that's fantastic. But the greatest country in the world is failing at providing basic life needs to the very weakest of its citizens.
Click to expand...
lololololololololololololololololololololololol

 
kill3r7 said:
And yet premium rates are plummeting ~50% in NY. The reality is that rates will go up for some and down for others. Hopefully it'll be a wash.
Click to expand...
http://www.forbes.com/sites/theapothecary/2013/11/04/49-state-analysis-obamacare-to-increase-individual-market-premiums-by-avg-of-41-subsidies-flow-to-elderly/

Eight states will enjoy average premium reductions under Obamacare: New York (-40%), Colorado (-22%), Ohio (-21%), Massachusetts (-20%), New Jersey (-19%), New Hampshire (-18%), Rhode Island (-10%), and Indiana (-3%). Most, but not all, of these states had heavily-regulated individual insurance markets prior to Obamacare, and will therefore benefit from Obamacare’s subsidies, and especially its requirement that everyone purchase health insurance or pay a fine.

The eight states that will face the biggest increases in underlying premiums are largely southern and western states: Nevada (+179%), New Mexico (+142%), Arkansas (+138%), North Carolina (+136%), Vermont (+117%), Georgia (+92%), South Dakota (+77%), and Nebraska (+74%).
Click to expand...
Granted, the analysis of data in this article comes from a libertarian think-tank... ;)
 
UncleBob said:
http://www.forbes.com/sites/theapothecary/2013/11/04/49-state-analysis-obamacare-to-increase-individual-market-premiums-by-avg-of-41-subsidies-flow-to-elderly/


Granted, the analysis of data in this article comes from a libertarian think-tank... ;)
Click to expand...
The data appears to be similar to other articles/sources I've seen online. So you won't hear me knocking it.

The data still doesn't change the fact that the difference in actual monetary insurance costs between NY and Arkansas is so great that basically Arkansas' insurance rates would have to go up by 300% to equal NY's insurance rates post ACA. Prior to that individuals in NY were paying about 5x as much as individuals in Arkansas. That was my point.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
ACA doesnt directly cancel plans.  They grandfather plans prior to its passage.  However, since almost no one in the individual market actually keeps the same coverage for 2 consecutive years, the grandfather clause is useless.  They either get canceled or the customer cant keep up with the massive year over year increases (ACA is so vicious, it goes back in time to raise people's rates).  

Most of the people losing their plans were going to anyway, and most of those plans were also sold this year.  Now, I'm all for the strong arm of the government forcing the insurance companies to not have offered those plans in 2013 knowing full well that they werent renewable, but I suspect thats not going to happen.  Then of course theres the matter of junk plans.

There isnt a number of persons losing their plans that would make me go anything other than, "good".  If every single insurance policy in America were canceled, that would be good.  The more these private companies fuck around, the shorter the existence of their entire industry will be.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
Insurance companies sell plans that they know won't meet minimum requirements for insurance coverage and it's Obama's fault. That's some serious crossed-eyed reasoning there. I mean fuck, why don't we just go back to not having any kind of food regulations at all so we can enjoy poisoned food again. It's not like we have to eat it because it should be our choice to buy poisoned food.
 
dohdough said:
Insurance companies sell plans that they know won't meet minimum requirements for insurance coverage and it's Obama's fault. That's some serious crossed-eyed reasoning there. I mean fuck, why don't we just go back to not having any kind of food regulations at all so we can enjoy poisoned food again. It's not like we have to eat it because it should be our choice to buy poisoned food.
Click to expand...
Hhahahahahahahahah...defend a liar till the end. The ends justify the means, eh? If he knew the law, then he knew people would indeed lose their plans because of it. He lied, almost all politicians do it. Accept it and move on, but deluding yourself is just sad....

 
Insurance plans change for almost everyone, every year.  Very few people think that what he meant was literally what he said.  Thats impossible.  Any change or no change to industry regulation would result in plans being lost or changed.  He also said you could keep your doctor.  Is he preventing doctors from retiring or dying?  

I guess it doesnt matter too much.  Come Jan 1, I'll be getting a lot of healthcare subsidized by higher rates from conservatives in shitty red states.

 
egofed said:
Hhahahahahahahahah...defend a liar till the end. The ends justify the means, eh? If he knew the law, then he knew people would indeed lose their plans because of it. He lied, almost all politicians do it. Accept it and move on, but deluding yourself is just sad....
Click to expand...
Yeah, the President deserves all the blame as opposed to those insurance companies that scammed millions of people to the tune hundreds of millions of dollars knowing that the products that they sell wouldn't be able to be continued and would just drop those patients.

mrsilkunderwear said:
So no food regulations means automatic poison. Shit how did humanity get this far without the government.
Click to expand...
The reason why government agencies like the FDA were established were specifically because business were putting poison in their products and killing people. But hey, if you want to live somewhere that doesn't have any regulating bodies for their food, more power to ya.

Government has ALWAYS existed in one form or another. Just because we didn't call it "government" doesn't mean that there was never a governing body that you know...governs and enforces standards...like a government.
 
dohdough said:
The reason why government agencies like the FDA were established were specifically because business were putting poison in their products and killing people. But hey, if you want to live somewhere that doesn't have any regulating bodies for their food, more power to ya.

Government has ALWAYS existed in one form or another. Just because we didn't call it "government" doesn't mean that there was never a governing body that you know...governs and enforces standards...like a government.
Click to expand...
I have no problem with having a government, I am not an anarchist. I have a problem with over regulation and government overreach. FDA has been created with good intentions but even you must agree that they have caused great harm to consumers due to lobbying by large corporations.

 
vherub said:
Plans are grandfathered in, it's in the law, and explained here:

https://www.healthcare.gov/what-if-i-have-a-grandfathered-health-plan/

For example, if someone purchased a healthcare plan with a rescission policy, they didn't have a plan in the first place. They purchased a hole in the ground they can stick their head in and all the security and comfort that hole provides.
Click to expand...
It's the free market in a nutshell if you can trick people into buying the Nigerian scam e-mail insurance plan who are to stop them

 
I have a problem with a gov't that lies to us. No accountability....if its good enough for welfare moochers, corporations, and wall street, then its good enough for our president.

 
Msut77 said:
It's the free market in a nutshell if you can trick people into buying the Nigerian scam e-mail insurance plan who are to stop them
Click to expand...
Punctuation and grammar, man! How am I to feel superior when the people I am debating against prove themselves lacking in basic writing skills. Please try harder....for me. ;)

 
It would be nice to have an alternate reality episode of Futurama where they show what a Republican administration would replace ACA with.  Watching them try to sell tort reform and buying across state lines as a legit plan would be hilarious (we'll get a glimpse of it in January when the new Ryan plan hits).

I dont consider the President to have lied, so there is no problem here for me.

 
It's really hard to exaggerate how big a debacle Obamacare has been right out of the gate.  While it's fun to indugle in a little schadenfreude, the reality is that whether you are Republican or Democratic, this is no laughing matter. 

By the administration's own admission, only 27,000 people have enrolled so far (I was kind enough to round up).  And this is even when the government spins it to count an enrollee as anyone that has picked a health plan, regardless if they paid a premium or not (this would be like Amazon counting anything you have in your shopping cart as a sale even if you haven't paid for it).  If you include enrollees in state run exchanges, then the number is 106,000.  Still far, far short of their target 500,000 enrollees.  Considering that 14 million people have now lost their health care plans which didn't meet Obamacare's requirements, so far the only tangible result so far is an net increase of 13,900,000 being uninsured.  Oops.

What's perhaps more important is the breakdown of the demographics of who is enrolling.  While the administration has not yet released that information, other sources are suggesting that enrollees are older and sicker while younger, healthier patients are not enrolling.  That is extremely problematic since the sicker the member pool, the higher the premiums will be further driving out healthier members in a vicious cycle and will accelerate, not decrease costs. 

I won't bring up the laughable marketing attempts to encourage young people to enroll, or after demonizing health insurers, the adminstration is begging them to bail it out of this mess, or just the basic fact that the cheaper plans are just crappy high deductible plans that are useless to most folks if they couldn't originally afford health insurance before.  But to be fair, I will criticize the Republicans since this would be a golden opportunity to present a real, workable health care reform plan on their own, yet they seem content to revel in the "I told you so" game which in the end is not constructive to coming with a practical solution.  The website woes are immaterial in the long run and shifts the focus away from the deeper flaws in Obama's plan.

if you're an Obama supporter, it's okay to be absolutely livid about the whole affair rather than playing the apologist.  Considering this was to be his political legacy, it's mindblowing that he would handle this so badly.  This is why a small part of me even thinks it's possible that this mess is actually a backdoor to imposing a nationalized single payor system as the only way to fix the problem.  But that's just crazy talk..... 

 
Last edited by a moderator:
120 people signed up the first month of Romneycare in MA.  I'm not concerned about enrollment in the slightest.  If the enrollment, was zero, that would be ok.  As many people can pay the fine as want to.

A lot of the cancelation letters include automatically being rolled over into a new plan that their provider choose because its way more expensive without telling the customer that they would get a better deal in the exchange.

Lastly, there is no one that is currently uninsured.  They dont lose their plan until Jan 1.  So its not 13 million.  Its fucking zero.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
Dr Mario Kart said:
120 people signed up the first month of Romneycare in MA. I'm not concerned about enrollment in the slightest. If the enrollment, was zero, that would be ok. As many people can pay the fine as want to.

A lot of the cancelation letters include automatically being rolled over into a new plan that their provider choose because its way more expensive without telling the customer that they would get a better deal in the exchange.

Lastly, there is no one that is currently uninsured. They dont lose their plan until Jan 1. So its not 13 million. Its fucking zero.
Click to expand...
Summary: Prices going up but its ok.

 
If rates had trended downward...oh lets say.;.EVER, you might have a point.

ACA: So vicious that it goes back in time and raises rates prior to its passage:

HealthPremiumsRiseChart.jpg


 
Dr Mario Kart said:
If rates had trended downward...oh lets say.;.EVER, you might have a point.

ACA: So vicious that it goes back in time and raises rates prior to its passage:

HealthPremiumsRiseChart.jpg
Click to expand...
They have been going up because the government keep getting more involved in the healthcare industry. I have already stressed this a few times. So thank you for backing up my point.

 
You must log in or register to reply here.
bread's done
Back
Top