So the fact that an increase of the percentage of insured from 40% to 90% results in LESS revenue for the people providing the care is not pertinent to a discussion of whether or not the ACA is 'working'? The reduction in access to emergency, life-saving care isn't pertinent to that discussion either?

You guys are beyond belief.

Nobody said the sky is falling... We're just pointing out that you're only telling a small part of the story.

The bottom line is that we've spend a couple trillion dollars already and are poised to spend a multiple of that for what appears to be +/- a 3% 'improvement' in people's opinions about their care. Not their actual care (no actual measures of this data), but their opinions about their care.

(07-30-2015 02:53 PM)Hambone10 Wrote:  So the fact that an increase of the percentage of insured from 40% to 90% results in LESS revenue for the people providing the care is not pertinent to a discussion of whether or not the ACA is 'working'? The reduction in access to emergency, life-saving care isn't pertinent to that discussion either?

You guys are beyond belief.

Nobody said the sky is falling... We're just pointing out that you're only telling a small part of the story.

The bottom line is that we've spend a couple trillion dollars already and are poised to spend a multiple of that for what appears to be +/- a 3% 'improvement' in people's opinions about their care. Not their actual care (no actual measures of this data), but their opinions about their care.

As to your last sentence...you're doing the exact same thing you're accusing us of. You're only providing part of the story.

What was the money being spent before the ACA for generally diminishing health care outcomes?

And no, the survey wasn't just about peoples "opinions about their care". It also spoke to a 3.5% increase in those now with personal physicians. Something that has been shown to directly result in overall improved health if regularly visited. A 2.4% increase in the ability to get medicine, which again will result in improved health. A 5.5% increase in just being able to afford care...meaning they will be more able to seek care, which will result in improved health.

And for someone who claims not have a sky is falling attitude, you're sure spending a lot of time out of your busy schedule to point out every minute problem with it.

(07-30-2015 03:24 PM)Redwingtom Wrote:  As to your last sentence...you're doing the exact same thing you're accusing us of. You're only providing part of the story.

Well of course. You've already provided the 'yin' and i haven't spent much time disputing it. I certainly could... but I don't care about pedantic corrections. I realize that there are some people with 'good' outcomes of the ACA, but I also realize that there are people with bad outcomes.... more significantly, I realize that we could still accomplish most of the good without creating the bad.

You don't see me starting threads on here only telling my side of the story, do you? What you see is people like you telling one side... me telling the other... and you arguing that despite my profession and links and evidence, I don't know what I'm talking about. That not only are 'your sources' the only credible sources on the issue, but that they are telling the entire picture.

Quote:What was the money being spent before the ACA for generally diminishing health care outcomes?

Not sure I understand this question. Please restate it... or let me know what statement of mine you're referring to.

Quote:And no, the survey wasn't just about peoples "opinions about their care". It also spoke to a 3.5% increase in those now with personal physicians. Something that has been shown to directly result in overall improved health if regularly visited. A 2.4% increase in the ability to get medicine, which again will result in improved health. A 5.5% increase in just being able to afford care...meaning they will be more able to seek care, which will result in improved health.

Surveys are opinions by definition. They are not facts. Facts would be measurements. Since they didn't ask those people a year ago what the spent on medicine... and then ask them again what they spent this year and measure those (that would be a fact) instead they asked if they THINK they spent more or less this year... and 2.4% said less. I doubt one of them actually pulled out their checkbook.

Let me ask you something... doesn't it seem odd (pulling numbers from memory... please correct me if you know) that if something like 30% of Americans didn't have insurance and now 20% of them do... why only 5.5% are reporting that they can now afford care? Shouldn't that number be closer to 20%?

Quote:And for someone who claims not have a sky is falling attitude, you're sure spending a lot of time out of your busy schedule to point out every minute problem with it.

Well, I am involved in this for a living so it's really easy for me to do... yet I still spend less time than some others who also presumably have other, unrelated jobs. Yes, it is important to me that people get good information, not bad... both personally and professionally.

What is your interest?

I also find it funny that you guys alternatively chastise me for focusing on just a few 'major' points of the ACA and also of 'pointing out every minute problem'.

The list of problems with the ACA is very long... and there are also some good aspects... but if you can't understand the difference between insurance and healthcare... there isn't any point getting down into that minutiae. If my only problems were the minutiae, we wouldn't be on here.

The sky isn't falling, but there are an awful lot of people/politicians trying to piss in our collective boots and tell us it's raining.