What's new
By:

Obamacare

LogGrad98 said:
Again showing you're out of touch. For many making that 30k they can't afford the premiums either. Many are scraping by. My son is in that category and is trying to take care is a family on that amount. Luckily his exemption application was accepted. But my daughter's wasn't. She will pay a fine she can't afford. And auto enrolment us substandard plans doesn't help anyone, other than subsidizing other plans. The plan my son could have had was a purely catastrophic plan that still would have cost more than his car insurance and payment every month and had no coverage for prescriptions, which is his biggest medical cost. My penalty for being unemployed for 4 months is over $400 per month during that time frame when I had no income, but since my annual was higher I didn't qualify for any assistance either. It is a deeply flawed system and needs to be reversed or better replaced. But I don't ever see that happening. Too much political skin in this game. So much for our elected representatives making decisions based on what's best for the constituency.
Click to expand...

And yet, one can easily find other anecdotes in which people can now find health insurance at a lower cost than they could before, while some who could not get health insurance at all can now get it.

There are very few, and probably no, policies that offer Pareto Optimal solutions (nobody is worse off while some are better off). Instead of offering pro and con anecdotes supporting either/or solutions, I'd like to see some rational discourse about costs/benefits and tradeoffs. For example, what is an acceptable tradeoff in terms of higher premiums vs. increased access? Republicans tend to focus on the premiums and ignore access while Democrats are more likely to focus on access and pay less attention to premiums. Personally, I'm willing to trade off premium or penalty costs for greater access. I'm pretty certain, for example, that the incremantal cost to Lograd's children from the penalty/tax is far less that the incremental cost to the child of someone else who can't get insurance to cover a pre-existing, expensive, and possibly deadly illness. I'm inclined in this case to think that the cost borne by the latter is higher and more socially relevant than the cost born by the former.
 
jimmy eat jazz said:
And yet, one can easily find other anecdotes in which people can now find health insurance at a lower cost than they could before, while some who could not get health insurance at all can now get it.

There are very few, and probably no, policies that offer Pareto Optimal solutions (nobody is worse off while some are better off). Instead of offering pro and con anecdotes supporting either/or solutions, I'd like to see some rational discourse about costs/benefits and tradeoffs. For example, what is an acceptable tradeoff in terms of higher premiums vs. increased access? Republicans tend to focus on the premiums and ignore access while Democrats are more likely to focus on access and pay less attention to premiums. Personally, I'm willing to trade off premium or penalty costs for greater access. I'm pretty certain, for example, that the incremantal cost to Lograd's children from the penalty/tax is far less that the incremental cost to the child of someone else who can't get insurance to cover a pre-existing, expensive, and possibly deadly illness. I'm inclined in this case to think that the cost borne by the latter is higher and more socially relevant than the cost born by the former.
Click to expand...


but yet people who want freedom are forced to not be free and buy something!
 
jimmy eat jazz said:
And yet, one can easily find other anecdotes in which people can now find health insurance at a lower cost than they could before, while some who could not get health insurance at all can now get it.

There are very few, and probably no, policies that offer Pareto Optimal solutions (nobody is worse off while some are better off). Instead of offering pro and con anecdotes supporting either/or solutions, I'd like to see some rational discourse about costs/benefits and tradeoffs. For example, what is an acceptable tradeoff in terms of higher premiums vs. increased access? Republicans tend to focus on the premiums and ignore access while Democrats are more likely to focus on access and pay less attention to premiums. Personally, I'm willing to trade off premium or penalty costs for greater access. I'm pretty certain, for example, that the incremantal cost to Lograd's children from the penalty/tax is far less that the incremental cost to the child of someone else who can't get insurance to cover a pre-existing, expensive, and possibly deadly illness. I'm inclined in this case to think that the cost borne by the latter is higher and more socially relevant than the cost born by the former.
Click to expand...

I think you missed the part about my son not having coverage and choosing to pay the penalty for a year while we were out of the country because it was cheaper than any plan available, and due to the requirements placed on businesses his company decided to cut everyone's hours to avoid paying anything for benefits. They're are a lot of problems with the ACA as now constituted that need to be addressed. And idgaf what side of the road you're on. Everyone always takes a problem that affects us all and tries to turn it into a dem vs repub debate. Yes that dynamic is what makes it nearly impossible to come up with a viable solution. However to answer your point about pre-existing conditions. That part can easily be kept as a regulation while literally scrapping ALL of the rest of the ACA. It isn't an all or nothing proposition.
 
LogGrad98 said:
I think you missed the part about my son not having coverage and choosing to pay the penalty for a year while we were out of the country because it was cheaper than any plan available, and due to the requirements placed on businesses his company decided to cut everyone's hours to avoid paying anything for benefits. They're are a lot of problems with the ACA as now constituted that need to be addressed. And idgaf what side of the road you're on. Everyone always takes a problem that affects us all and tries to turn it into a dem vs repub debate. Yes that dynamic is what makes it nearly impossible to come up with a viable solution. However to answer your point about pre-existing conditions. That part can easily be kept as a regulation while literally scrapping ALL of the rest of the ACA. It isn't an all or nothing proposition.
Click to expand...

Sounds to me like you should be a huge fan of single payer systems. Why should businesses waste so much time and energy worrying about paying for health care?

But in our system, they must. And if they cut hrs to provide their workers health care, how is that obamacare's fault?

Businesses cutting hrs because they don't want to provide benefits isn't obamacare's fault. Maybe your son shouldn't be such a Lazy *** and work for such a ****ty company? Why doesn't he go to school and make himself more marketable? Why doesn't he join a union? Why didn't employees band together and go on strike to get their benefits back?

I see so many people, like LG, who promote conservative ideas and bitch about obama. Yet the problems they encounter are due to their voting against their own interest/being too lazy to fight for their rights and services.

If you lose your benefits because you work at a ****ty company, how is that obamacare's fault?

Ultimately, If you don't want benefits tied to employment then you should be calling for a single payer system. So what do you say LG? Here's your chance buddy! Want a single payer? If not, don't bitch when businesses don't not want to provide health care benefits. Businesses aren't going to view their workers as investments, but fears that they should quickly use and dispose of. Unless a union forces them to change their way of thinking... but if your son is too lazy to fight for his benefits, why complain?

Freedom and prosperity were fought for in decades past. Now it seems like young people here feel entitled to them.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
LogGrad98 said:
I think you missed the part about my son not having coverage and choosing to pay the penalty for a year while we were out of the country because it was cheaper than any plan available, and due to the requirements placed on businesses his company decided to cut everyone's hours to avoid paying anything for benefits. They're are a lot of problems with the ACA as now constituted that need to be addressed. And idgaf what side of the road you're on. Everyone always takes a problem that affects us all and tries to turn it into a dem vs repub debate. Yes that dynamic is what makes it nearly impossible to come up with a viable solution. However to answer your point about pre-existing conditions. That part can easily be kept as a regulation while literally scrapping ALL of the rest of the ACA. It isn't an all or nothing proposition.
Click to expand...

The last part of your post is not correct. Requiring insurance companies to cover pre-existing conditions can only work IF the inurance pool is large enough to spread the risks and keep the cost to the insurer reasonable. If, however, people are allowed to opt out, and the healthy do so at a large rate, the insurance pool is not large enough, and insurers face losses having to cover pre-existing conditions. That's the basic reason for the ACA penalty. While it's not an all or nothing proposition, it is more complicated that you presume.
 
jimmy eat jazz said:
The last part of your post is not correct. Requiring insurance companies to cover pre-existing conditions can only work IF the inurance pool is large enough to spread the risks and keep the cost to the insurer reasonable. If, however, people are allowed to opt out, and the healthy do so at a large rate, the insurance pool is not large enough, and insurers face losses having to cover pre-existing conditions. That's the basic reason for the ACA penalty. While it's not an all or nothing proposition, it is more complicated that you presume.
Click to expand...

Precisely.

All other industrialized nations provide universal coverage. All of them require individual mandates and strict price controls to keep costs down. After all the research I've done, I'm quite convinced that if we want universal coverage but keep insurance companies then we need to make them nonprofit entities and enact strict price controls.

People like LG act like the individual mandate is some socialist idea or outrage of freedom. The truth is, it's the only way to create pools large enough to pay for those who need health care the most.
 
The Thriller said:
Precisely.

All other industrialized nations provide universal coverage. All of them require individual mandates and strict price controls to keep costs down. After all the research I've done, I'm quite convinced that if we want universal coverage but keep insurance companies then we need to make them nonprofit entities and enact strict price controls.

People like LG act like the individual mandate is some socialist idea or outrage of freedom. The truth is, it's the only way to create pools large enough to pay for those who need health care the most.
Click to expand...


i am mandated to get healthinsurance.


I DON'T WANT IT!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
 
2016
United States
US Tax Dollars spent on Healthcare: $938 Billion (Medicaid, Medicare, ACA Subsidies, etc.)
Total US Population: $319 Million
Tax Dollars spent on healthcare per capita: $2,940

United Kingdom
UK Tax Dollars spent on Healthcare: $171 Billion (142 Billion Pounds)
Total UK Population: 64 Million
Tax Dollars spent on healthcare per capita: $2,671

The data above looks pretty comparable between tax spending on healthcare between the US and the UK. The difference is that the UK manages to provide UNIVERSAL CARE to it's constituents while in the US we have no such coverage. How this is even possible, I don't know. Arguing about Obamacare is meaningless. Everyone needs to focus on getting our system more in line with the rest of the world. Insurance companies may go under. Doctors may make a little less. Pharmaceutical companies may be less profitable. I DON'T CARE!!!

Any reasonable mind would look at the data above and conclude that our healthcare system needs a complete overhaul. Repealing Obamacare will not change this. Whatever plan Trump comes up with won't change it either. We need a single-payer system or at the least a government option.
 
executive order signed!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

that directs agency within government to ease the regulatory burden of Obamacare as they transition from repeal to replace

;m pharaphraising



SO BYE FELICIA!!!!!!!!!!!!
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Share this page
Back
Top