(01-11-2018 04:30 PM)Fitbud Wrote:  

(01-11-2018 03:57 PM)Hambone10 Wrote:  

(01-11-2018 12:28 PM)Fitbud Wrote:  Obamacare may not have made healthcare cheaper for most Americans but doing nothing would have brought about the same result except people with preexisting conditions would still be left out, 26 year olds would still be out of insurance along with another 20 million people.

PLEASE stop returning to this misrepresentation every time the subject comes up.
The ability to keep a 26 yr old on their parent's policy doesn't make them any more insurable than they were before when they could have purchased their own policy. I actually put myself IN that position in 2008 and the cost of keeping a 26yr old on my policy vs taking them off and then buying their own policy was 'nothing'... and had i paid the premiums for them, it would have been the exact same thing.
Insurance is simple math, not magic. It doesn't cost any more or less to deliver healthcare to a 26 yr old than before.
As to the PECs... well yes... THEY are clearly better off because HEALTHY people are subsidizing their insurance.
You realize that SOME of those people with PECs are quite wealthy, and many of those subsidizing them are not. In fact, the overwhelming number of them are middle class... and they pay just as big a subsidy for those people as healthy millionaires do.
Does that even SOUND fair to you?

We've go over this a million times. It fair because it's an investment. Yes, those people who got health insurance were subsidized but those people also likely got healthier because of it. This means that they didn't end up in general hospital sicker than before where the tax payers would have paid anyway.
Look, I didn't get this from the top of my head. I watched a documentary about it. It was about a Duke graduate student who couldn't get health insurance before Obamacare. She was diagnosed with lupus and later died. Her doctors said it could have been prevented if it was discovered earlier.
If she was under Obamacare, she would have still been on her parents insurance. If she had lived, she would have given the country years and years of production.
For Christ Sake why cant conservatives forget about the cost to their pocketbooks and consider the human beings. We are talking about lives here.

FFS, why can't liberals remember that you've hurt just as many people as you've helped with this monstrosity? It's a zero sum game, and that means you can't help someone without hurting somebody else. Are the people who can no longer afford insurance, or who now have insurance with such high deductibles that its value to them is essentially zero, not human beings too? Are they not worthy of consideration too?

The problem is not that people are putting pocketbooks above people, it's about not doing stupid stuff.

(01-11-2018 04:30 PM)Fitbud Wrote:  We've go over this a million times. It fair because it's an investment. Yes, those people who got health insurance were subsidized but those people also likely got healthier because of it. This means that they didn't end up in general hospital sicker than before where the tax payers would have paid anyway.

You're not following (again). Is it intentional?

It's entirely NOT fair because you're allocating costs based on health. The costs of insurance are now 'flat'... therefore the HEALTHIER you are, the more you're subsidizing those who aren't. The less of your allocation of care you use, the more is left for them. Is this not clear?

That's not fair. It's a tax on 'health'. Tax the wealthy and I might agree.... AT LEAST WHEN THEY GO TO THE HOSPITAL AND TAXPAYERS PAY, THAT WAS A TAX ON WEALTH!!!

but the REAL problem is that your assumption is based on facts not in evidence. There is no evidence to suggest that 'the population' is accessing healthcare any differently/better than before. For every person like this that MIGHT have been saved, there is now someone who had insurance before, has it now, but doesn't go to the doctor anyway because the wait is now too long.

Quote:Look, I didn't get this from the top of my head. I watched a documentary about it. It was about a Duke graduate student who couldn't get health insurance before Obamacare. She was diagnosed with lupus and later died. Her doctors said it could have been prevented if it was discovered earlier.

If she was under Obamacare, she would have still been on her parents insurance. If she had lived, she would have given the country years and years of production.

WTF does this have to do with the conversation? All that means is the person who made the documentary had an agenda. It doesn't mean they're right. I live this every day.

First, while there are exceptions to every rule, I'm calling BS on the situation. If she had been covered under her parents policy, she would have qualified for her own policy even if she had PECs. Her parents could have paid her premiums and it wouldn't have cost them (cumulatively) one penny more. Insurance is math, meaning the premiums for two 50yr olds and a 26 yr old on one policy are the same as two 50 yr olds on one policy and a 26yr old on another. If the parents had a corporate subsidized policy and the student now wouldn't have, THAT would make the cost to the family different... but it doesn't make the total cost different.

What you describe still happens to 27yr olds. Why do we stop at 26? There will still be an example like yours now.

Quote:For Christ Sake why cant conservatives forget about the cost to their pocketbooks and consider the human beings. We are talking about lives here.

For Christ Sake, why can't liberals remember the laws of supply and demand and that the biggest reason this woman wasn't diagnosed is because she didn't go see a doctor, not because she didn't have insurance. The cost to treat Lupis is high, but the cost to diagnose it isn't. The main way it is diagnosed is regular visits to a PCP (which costs FAR less than any insurance premiums per year) and some relatively inexpensive tests.

but again...

Why can't liberals understand that it was DEMOCRATS who decided to tax the young and healthy and NOT the wealthy. I'd have been perfectly fine with (and have suggested hundreds of times) that Democrats should have paid for an expansion of Medicare to cover people like on that documentary through the general fund.

My PROBLEM is the 'health tax'.... mostly because in direct conflict with the meme, by taxing health and subsidizing unhealthy choices, you're discouraging healthy living and encouraging unhealthy living. No, that's not the majority of the people we're talking about, but it's the only portion in any control of their health.... and your entire premise of 'common good' is based on these people making better choices.

Why would or should they? When in the history of man has 'indemnity from most consequences' discouraged risky behavior and 'responsibility' encouraged it?

(01-11-2018 04:30 PM)Fitbud Wrote:  

(01-11-2018 03:57 PM)Hambone10 Wrote:  

(01-11-2018 12:28 PM)Fitbud Wrote:  Obamacare may not have made healthcare cheaper for most Americans but doing nothing would have brought about the same result except people with preexisting conditions would still be left out, 26 year olds would still be out of insurance along with another 20 million people.

PLEASE stop returning to this misrepresentation every time the subject comes up.

The ability to keep a 26 yr old on their parent's policy doesn't make them any more insurable than they were before when they could have purchased their own policy. I actually put myself IN that position in 2008 and the cost of keeping a 26yr old on my policy vs taking them off and then buying their own policy was 'nothing'... and had i paid the premiums for them, it would have been the exact same thing.

Insurance is simple math, not magic. It doesn't cost any more or less to deliver healthcare to a 26 yr old than before.

As to the PECs... well yes... THEY are clearly better off because HEALTHY people are subsidizing their insurance.

You realize that SOME of those people with PECs are quite wealthy, and many of those subsidizing them are not. In fact, the overwhelming number of them are middle class... and they pay just as big a subsidy for those people as healthy millionaires do.

Does that even SOUND fair to you?

We've go over this a million times. It fair because it's an investment. Yes, those people who got health insurance were subsidized but those people also likely got healthier because of it. This means that they didn't end up in general hospital sicker than before where the tax payers would have paid anyway.

Look, I didn't get this from the top of my head. I watched a documentary about it. It was about a Duke graduate student who couldn't get health insurance before Obamacare. She was diagnosed with lupus and later died. Her doctors said it could have been prevented if it was discovered earlier.

If she was under Obamacare, she would have still been on her parents insurance. If she had lived, she would have given the country years and years of production.

For Christ Sake why cant conservatives forget about the cost to their pocketbooks and consider the human beings. We are talking about lives here.

So it's good because people who didn't have health insurance before now have better health care even though other effectively lost their health care (or their level of care decreased.)

You admonish conservatives because we're "not thinking about human beings" yet you're holier-than-thou by not thinking about the other group of human beings worse off from this debacle.

The left is not morally superior on this issue. Regardless of what you tell yourself.

(01-10-2018 08:56 AM)Machiavelli Wrote:  The right has thrown the kitchen sink to destabilize the ACA then has the audacity to ***** when they were successful. You can’t make this stuff up. And it obviously works!!!!! You voted for this. You cheered. You own it! It’s not the ACA anymore. Deal with it. It’s Trumpcare. Own it. The GOP controls all three branches and have dismantled it. Remember Trump touting they repealed Obamacare. Anyone?

I dont blame you or the democrats for running as quickly as possible from the burning bard of Obamacare. I would certainly find any excuse I could to disown it if I were a Dem.

(01-11-2018 12:39 PM)Fitbud Wrote:  

(01-11-2018 12:35 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(01-11-2018 12:28 PM)Fitbud Wrote:  

(01-10-2018 06:22 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(01-10-2018 05:10 PM)Fitbud Wrote:  I'm simply asking you to acknowledge that it was an attempt a better system and it was compared to what we had before.

I am not willing to acknowledge that because I do not believe that was either the intent or the result.
I believe it was designed to create a crisis which democrats could then not allow to go to waste, by passing single-payer. And I don't think anybody involved gave a **** about making anything better.

That's quite a cynical view point considering that 20 million people obtained health insurance because of it. Including people with pre existing conditions and children up to age 26.
That's quite an accomplishment for a law that was only suppose to create a crisis.

And a comparable number saw their previously affordable insurance and care become unaffordable. And it is proving to be economically unaffordable in the long run.

As CBO noted in their famous letter saying that it would not increase the budget deficit, absent reductions in overhead (not really possible with all the regulatory hoops it added for providers to jump through), those projections could only be achieved by reducing access or quality. If you want to reduce the price of health care to consumers, you have to reduce the cost to providers of providing it. Obamacare does nothing in that regard, when steps to do so were available.

This is true but healthcare was going to become unaffordable anyway. Obamacare may not have made healthcare cheaper for most Americans but doing nothing would have brought about the same result except people with preexisting conditions would still be left out, 26 year olds would still be out of insurance along with another 20 million people.

If you don't like Obamacare that's find. But to suggest that it was diliberately created to cause a crisis is a bit much don't you think? You aren't one to believe in conpsiracy theories.

Not to derail the conversation---but this is part of the insurance industry I have never understood. Kids in their 20's require little care and their premiums are largely used to care for older people--who access healthcare more. These young people tend to not have much money, which is why they often simply dont buy healthcare.

So, if thier parents are willing to pay the higher family rate have them on their policies--why the hell wouldn't the insurance companies be for that?

(01-11-2018 12:39 PM)Fitbud Wrote:  

(01-11-2018 12:35 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(01-11-2018 12:28 PM)Fitbud Wrote:  

(01-10-2018 06:22 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(01-10-2018 05:10 PM)Fitbud Wrote:  I'm simply asking you to acknowledge that it was an attempt a better system and it was compared to what we had before.

I am not willing to acknowledge that because I do not believe that was either the intent or the result.
I believe it was designed to create a crisis which democrats could then not allow to go to waste, by passing single-payer. And I don't think anybody involved gave a **** about making anything better.

That's quite a cynical view point considering that 20 million people obtained health insurance because of it. Including people with pre existing conditions and children up to age 26.
That's quite an accomplishment for a law that was only suppose to create a crisis.

And a comparable number saw their previously affordable insurance and care become unaffordable. And it is proving to be economically unaffordable in the long run.

As CBO noted in their famous letter saying that it would not increase the budget deficit, absent reductions in overhead (not really possible with all the regulatory hoops it added for providers to jump through), those projections could only be achieved by reducing access or quality. If you want to reduce the price of health care to consumers, you have to reduce the cost to providers of providing it. Obamacare does nothing in that regard, when steps to do so were available.

This is true but healthcare was going to become unaffordable anyway. Obamacare may not have made healthcare cheaper for most Americans but doing nothing would have brought about the same result except people with preexisting conditions would still be left out, 26 year olds would still be out of insurance along with another 20 million people.
If you don't like Obamacare that's find. But to suggest that it was diliberately created to cause a crisis is a bit much don't you think? You aren't one to believe in conpsiracy theories.

Number one, a great many people with preexisting conditions, probably most but I don't have the data, were not "left out" under the old system. If you were covered under a previous policy, then your preexisting condition was covered under a new group policy. And IIRC most Americans had group coverage through employers.

And 26 year olds were never out of insurance. The parent could cover them under a plan very easily, pretty much comparable to adding them to the parent's plan.

And I've seen numbers, I think I saw 13 million out of that 20 million who you say would be out of insurance are basically people who bought crappy policies to avoid the mandate penalty. I'm not certain how removing the mandate penalty makes them worse off. That being said, I think killing the mandate is a stupid idea and have said so repeatedly. But removing the mandate is not throwing these people out into the streets with no insurance, it's simply altering the economics of their decision-making process.

And as far as well, they were going to go up anyway, that strikes at the rationale for Obama. It was supposed to provide insurance for everyone (which it didn't) and reverse the rising cost trend (which it didn't). So why did they pass it?

Well, to screw the system up so they could impose single-payer as a crisis solution emerges as a very likely possibility. They're idiots is another.

(01-11-2018 06:47 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:  Not to derail the conversation---but this is part of the insurance industry I have never understood. Kids in their 20's require little care and their premiums are largely used to care for older people--who access healthcare more. These young people tend to not have much money, which is why they often simply dont buy healthcare.

So, if thier parents are willing to pay the higher family rate have them on their policies--why the hell wouldn't the insurance companies be for that?

They are... Which demonstrates the fallacy of the 'great deal' it is to keep kids on your policy

The only difference is that a 'family' plan is only more expensive because it is priced for 2.4 kids per family over 35 or whatever while a plan for a single 22 year old is priced for a single 22 year old. Family plans are expensive if you have one kid, but cheap if you have 5.