Obamacare: Say goodnight, Gracie...

[Alpo]

Sending it to the states is less big government then the current program.

Costs can go down if the states do away with all of the coverage mandates.

If family A moves from Iowa to Georgia, are all the medical conditions that arose in Iowa "pre-existing" in Georgia and possibly ineligible for Georgia state regulated insurance?

State insurance regulators are only one step above a school board.

 

[hoosierdoc]

This bill maintains massive taxes and forced preexisting coverage mandates. It's not a repeal of Obamacare in any way

 

[Ericpwp]

That's what you get for compromising.

 

[Ericpwp]

Looks like "jobs" is a good start

 

[hoosierdoc]

Wait... 9% uninsured of 330 million people is... 30 million! Isn't that how many were uninsured before Obamacare

 

[Alpo]

Wait... 9% uninsured of 330 million people is... 30 million! Isn't that how many were uninsured before Obamacare

 

[hoosierdoc]

(Your chart shows only non-elderly. That's not fair. I assumed it was of total population for the following math. IF we're talking a smaller population it makes my point even more profound)

any word on how many of those 18% could afford coverage and chose not to? Or were eligible for Medicaid and hadn't signed up?from what I recall it was well over half. Kaiser said there were 44 million uninsured before ACA. They claim 28 million now.

https://www.google.com/amp/www.kff....key-facts-about-the-uninsured-population/amp/

that's a difference of 16 million. 14 million people are now covered under expanded Medicaid. So ACA enabled two million out of 44 million to get coverage? We blew up a system for 2 million?

and really the two million probably got coverage because they got jobs and unemployment rate went down. Of note, BLS shows 14 million more working now than in 2010. Let's say 10 million insured thanks to that (that's conservative since many of them would cover spouses and dependents too). So by my math the only benefit ACA had on coverage was expanded medicaid. Our population grew by 13 million over the period of your graph. Doesn't make a dent in my math.

Golf clap.

 

[bwframe]

This bill maintains massive taxes and forced preexisting coverage mandates. It's not a repeal of Obamacare in any way

Agreed.
Still we need to be at least as smart as the enemy. They passed Obamacare, full well knowing it was not the end goal. Obamacare was not sustainable. Their plan was it failing and Hillary, Pelosi, Schumer bringing in single payer.

I don't like this either, but we need to get the ball rolling. We need to get our process started. We need the momentum and a reminder to the Dems that they are losers. This will take us into better standing, getting more stuff done and lead us positively into our 2018 congressional gains. Those gains will net us the numbers to get what we want.

 

[Alpo]

(Your chart shows only non-elderly. That's not fair. I assumed it was of total population for the following math. IF we're talking a smaller population it makes my point even more profound)

any word on how many of those 18% could afford coverage and chose not to? Or were eligible for Medicaid and hadn't signed up?from what I recall it was well over half. Kaiser said there were 44 million uninsured before ACA. They claim 28 million now.

https://www.google.com/amp/www.kff....key-facts-about-the-uninsured-population/amp/

that's a difference of 16 million. 14 million people are now covered under expanded Medicaid. So ACA enabled two million out of 44 million to get coverage? We blew up a system for 2 million?

and really the two million probably got coverage because they got jobs and unemployment rate went down. Of note, BLS shows 14 million more working now than in 2010. Let's say 10 million insured thanks to that (that's conservative since many of them would cover spouses and dependents too). So by my math the only benefit ACA had on coverage was expanded medicaid. Our population grew by 13 million over the period of your graph. Doesn't make a dent in my math.

Golf clap.

I'm not all that interested in debating the topic or doing further work. I think you may be wrapping yourself around the metric axle at this point. Look at the Kaiser research and go from there. It may or may not solve your accounting issue.

 

[jamil]

So, where do you start? No Surgeon General. No FDA?

I wonder what the "free market" would look like. Unless you get rid of patent protection...which is also a government program...you don't have a free market and we get $1000 epi-pen and $89,000/annual deflazacort pharma barons increasing your med prices across the board.

9% of Americans are diabetics. Are they all democrats?

I seriously doubt anyone could accurately determine Obamacare participation by political party. It's a silly point to try to make.

 

[Alpo]

I assume you have inside knowledge of how that information was obtained...or am I to seriously doubt that I should give serious thought to your serious doubt?

 

[jamil]

I assume you have inside knowledge of how that information was obtained...or am I to seriously doubt that I should give serious thought to your serious doubt?

You're a smart guy. Can you conceive a way to link every user of Obamacare to their political affiliation with sufficient accuracy to even be relevant? Or does it say the thing you want said and so you accept it without appropriate skepticism.

 

[jamil]

Let's assume the graph is accurate. At whose expense?

 

[bwframe]

Illinois submits big Obamacare rate increases to the feds - Chicago Tribune

 

[Alpo]

You're a smart guy. Can you conceive a way to link every user of Obamacare to their political affiliation with sufficient accuracy to even be relevant? Or does it say the thing you want said and so you accept it without appropriate skepticism.

You'd have to ask Kaiser or look at their detailed study and report. I'm not all that interested. I do suspect that republicans get just as sick as democrats, particularly when you weed out Medicaid.

 

[churchmouse]

Illinois submits big Obamacare rate increases to the feds - Chicago Tribune

No surprise here.

 

[jamil]

You'd have to ask Kaiser or look at their detailed study and report. I'm not all that interested. I do suspect that republicans get just as sick as democrats, particularly when you weed out Medicaid.

It seems you were interested enough in it to try to make a point. But what point does that really make?

First, not all Republicans are against it. Second, it seems the obvious point of posting it is to imply some kind of hypocrisy.

But the charts you posted doesn't prove the point that it is. The change in law affected many people's healthcare, including people whose employers' plans had to change for the worse because of the law. If the new law creates new economic realities which necessitates people moving onto the exchanges, that's not hypocrisy. It's not either way, but it's especially not in that case.

 

[Alpo]

Your own hypocrisy is showing. These threads generally devolve down rather rapidly with many picking the fly specks out of the pepper.

I posted to respond to bwframe's point

Healthcare has no business being a govt program. Hopefully this is a foot in the door to start to get us back out of that moras. At the very least we need a win to shut up the other side.

I raise a point on a more macroscopic level. It isn't solely socialists, democratic marxists and sheeple that will be affected by the withdrawal of the current programs. Republicans will be harmed too. That should create a bit of heartburn among the republican legislators as they consider the effects on their constituencies.

I also think it is a mistake to believe that eliminating Obamacare will improve the situation for most, whether you buy insurance yourself or your company subsidizes health care on your behalf. Prices are going up. We have the worst possible economic model for the delivery of cost-efficient healthcare in this country whether Obamacare is eliminated or it continues.

And I say what is obvious to most around here: There is not, never has been and probably will never be a free-market approach to healthcare in this country. The vested interests have us by the short hairs and will not let things become more efficient until healthcare absorbs more of our economy than anything else. The only real solution is single payer, in the long run, and many of us recognize that.

But, I'm not going to argue with the student body here. I'm not going to split fine hairs either. I do, however, hope that some of you recognize the errors in your perception of the likelihood of near-term fixes and reductions in the cost of health care for you and your family.

Otherwise, I don't care. I'm on medicare and have a VA disability that I paid for the hard way. The rest of you can figure it out.

 

[Kutnupe14]

It seems you were interested enough in it to try to make a point. But what point does that really make?

First, not all Republicans are against it. Second, it seems the obvious point of posting it is to imply some kind of hypocrisy.

But the charts you posted doesn't prove the point that it is. The change in law affected many people's healthcare, including people whose employers' plans had to change for the worse because of the law. If the new law creates new economic realities which necessitates people moving onto the exchanges, that's not hypocrisy. It's not either way, but it's especially not in that case.

You don't believe there's massive amounts of hypocrisy concerning Obamacare? I actually do, mostly because a lot of people are ignorant, and simply see "Obamacare," and immediately oppose it due to the name, but unknowingly used it thinking ACA is something different. Then you have those like Tomi, who complained about it, but come to find out she uses it herself.

 

[Ericpwp]

I think you give Obama too much credit. It would have been met with the same resistance if Hillary put it through, or anyone else.