(08-26-2016 10:58 AM)Fitbud Wrote:  

(08-26-2016 10:56 AM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(08-26-2016 10:43 AM)Fitbud Wrote:  

(08-26-2016 10:37 AM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(08-26-2016 10:24 AM)Fitbud Wrote:  And how is that any different than before?

Before, they weren't paying insurance premiums or penalties for the privilege of not getting the care that they needed.

Perhaps but before, they also waited until they were very sick to go to the general hospital and then we would pay for their terminal illnesses that could have been prevented through preventative medicine.

Which still happens.

Of course it does. Why do conservatives constantly judge the effectiveness of a law on whether or not it is 100% effective.

Nothing is 100% effective. That's not a reason to not do something.

I mean I know you guys want to keep things they way they are and thus you are known as conservatives but sheeeeesh.

Where I am, it's actually happening more. They have insurance so they think they have care... and when they try and see a doctor for the sniffles or something minor that they would ignore before, and they can't get in for a month, so they come here... because they 'now have insurance'

ED visits for us are up 15% with out uninsured population down from about 50% to about 15%. Our compensation for those visits are down more than 10%.

Yes, anecdotal, but our population is PRECISELY the sort of population the ACA was supposedly directed at.

That's not requiring 100% effectiveness, just an improvement. The IMPROVEMENTS will be in places where there are excesses of physicians.... either by physical location or 'healthcare plan network'.... and they are offset by declines in places like mine.