Faux News
- Thread starter pasotex
- Start date
ACA is not healthcare. As a blind follower of Obama and Obamacare, you have a false belief that healthcare is equal to health insurance.
ACA is simply an entitlement program where those who can afford health insurance are forced to subsidize those who can not or will not. Unfortunately, despite the democrats best intentions, 47 million still are without insurance, those who had insurance before have worse insurance and the economy will continue to suffer as a result.
ACA is simply an entitlement program where those who can afford health insurance are forced to subsidize those who can not or will not. Unfortunately, despite the democrats best intentions, 47 million still are without insurance, those who had insurance before have worse insurance and the economy will continue to suffer as a result.
Murphy'sBoy
1,000+ Posts
I am constantly amazed and amused by how easy it is for Roger to yank your chains. He enjoys it and you guys get pissed off by it.
Let me sum this up once again:
Obamacare is here to stay! There is nothing you can do about it!
Let me sum this up once again:
Obamacare is here to stay! There is nothing you can do about it!
Seattle Husker
10,000+ Posts
I'm not an ACA fan or even supporter. Though I do think the goal of healthcare for all is noble I also recognize the cost of doing so could be untenable. For me, the jury is still out on whether the business case justification of pushing the non-insured into the marketplace will truly stem the tremendous rise in healthcare costs.
With that said, I find the two statements below an interesting perspective, if a little one-sided.
With that said, I find the two statements below an interesting perspective, if a little one-sided.
CanaTigers
2,500+ Posts
Do you even know what insurance is? Obviously not and obviously you have no comprehension that there are costs associated with providing all of those services. It is an entitlement because it is providing free or subsidized insurance to a majority of those enrolled by taking from others.
H
Hu_Fan
Guest
It's hard for any of us to make sense of the numbers.
1. ACA caused many to be thrown off policies.
2. Subsequent to that, many enrolled in an ACA plan, so was a transfer of previously insured, not newly insured.
3. Others subsequently went to a form of Medicaid.
4. Among the enrollees it is undetermined how many are paid -- and by the way, I always enroll in the fall, and always have to pay, and pay in January. I do not get any excuses, pardons or Executive waiver.
5. My rates started going up the year after the ACA was passed into law -- to the point that my 2014 rates are now 50% higher than in 2010. My rates were driven up (I certainly assume so) by ACA, but was done in stages leading up to the year of full implementation... sans the 38 or so waivers and delays Obama himself has put into place.
Summary: there is no telling now many NEWLY insured are in place-- paid and locked in to their precise policy so that if attempting to use it, they are "in the system" no question (as am I and my family). Compare that to the cost that has been huge in the disruption of the healthcare industry, cancelled policies, and restrictions of doctors or other healthcare matters unaffected.
Far as I am concerned, the idea was never to insure a number of uninsured, but to expand government. An yes, that can be messy. So the messiness of ACA is simply how messy it is to gradually take over a country and put it under stronger central government control.
1. ACA caused many to be thrown off policies.
2. Subsequent to that, many enrolled in an ACA plan, so was a transfer of previously insured, not newly insured.
3. Others subsequently went to a form of Medicaid.
4. Among the enrollees it is undetermined how many are paid -- and by the way, I always enroll in the fall, and always have to pay, and pay in January. I do not get any excuses, pardons or Executive waiver.
5. My rates started going up the year after the ACA was passed into law -- to the point that my 2014 rates are now 50% higher than in 2010. My rates were driven up (I certainly assume so) by ACA, but was done in stages leading up to the year of full implementation... sans the 38 or so waivers and delays Obama himself has put into place.
Summary: there is no telling now many NEWLY insured are in place-- paid and locked in to their precise policy so that if attempting to use it, they are "in the system" no question (as am I and my family). Compare that to the cost that has been huge in the disruption of the healthcare industry, cancelled policies, and restrictions of doctors or other healthcare matters unaffected.
Far as I am concerned, the idea was never to insure a number of uninsured, but to expand government. An yes, that can be messy. So the messiness of ACA is simply how messy it is to gradually take over a country and put it under stronger central government control.
Insurance is a risked based mechanism of spreading a potentially high cost of service/casualty amongst a like group of covered people/businesses. If someone has a known cost above the average premium and deductible, it is not a risk but rather a known loss. If premiums and deductibles do not exceed the aggregated payouts, insurance companies would not exist.
Also, insurance depends upon people paying premiums and being responsible for their portion of the expense should an event occur. Having people have little to no financial skin in the game makes the system untenable. For example, if drunk drivers have no responsibility for the damages they cause, were not charged more for insurance or received no penalty associated with breaking the law, do you think DWI would go up or down? Should their auto insurance be the same price as a safe driver with no history of wrecks or tickets? Same holds true for the obese, the alcoholics, and the smokers you are so happy are being included. This is as much risk based insurance as Las Vegas guaranteeing you 21 on every hand of blackjack. Not only will they lose those margins you deplore, they simply will go out of business. I will not even speak of the cuts in reimbursement to healthcare providers which are already below their cost of providing the service.
Covering pre-existing conditions is a noble effort, but it makes no sense to put them in the pool. Just have them certified as such, pay some top limit amount for care and cover their medical issues via Medicaid. Placing them in the pool only drives everyone else’s premiums artificially high.
The newly insured enrollees is less than 1 million by anyone’s reliable estimate. Those are likely people with pre-existing conditions or minimally newly enrolled Medicaid participants. ACA is not healthcare, but is an insurance entitlement program. I do not hate the President, facts are facts.
Finally, I love how liberals attach republicans for being both dumb and rich. I guess only dumb people become rich in liberal world?
Also, insurance depends upon people paying premiums and being responsible for their portion of the expense should an event occur. Having people have little to no financial skin in the game makes the system untenable. For example, if drunk drivers have no responsibility for the damages they cause, were not charged more for insurance or received no penalty associated with breaking the law, do you think DWI would go up or down? Should their auto insurance be the same price as a safe driver with no history of wrecks or tickets? Same holds true for the obese, the alcoholics, and the smokers you are so happy are being included. This is as much risk based insurance as Las Vegas guaranteeing you 21 on every hand of blackjack. Not only will they lose those margins you deplore, they simply will go out of business. I will not even speak of the cuts in reimbursement to healthcare providers which are already below their cost of providing the service.
Covering pre-existing conditions is a noble effort, but it makes no sense to put them in the pool. Just have them certified as such, pay some top limit amount for care and cover their medical issues via Medicaid. Placing them in the pool only drives everyone else’s premiums artificially high.
The newly insured enrollees is less than 1 million by anyone’s reliable estimate. Those are likely people with pre-existing conditions or minimally newly enrolled Medicaid participants. ACA is not healthcare, but is an insurance entitlement program. I do not hate the President, facts are facts.
Finally, I love how liberals attach republicans for being both dumb and rich. I guess only dumb people become rich in liberal world?
Mr. Fiesta
1,000+ Posts
Rog, you told us to back away from Rand and then your following post included Rand. You can't have it both ways.
Mr. Fiesta
1,000+ Posts
So you are admitting only 1.6 million people have enrolled who were previously uninsured, 4.5 million enrolled in free medicaid coverage and people should not have to pay for their premiums and deductibles. And you call it a success?
And, to top it off, most everything you quoted was from sources you told me to stay away from...Too funny.
And, to top it off, most everything you quoted was from sources you told me to stay away from...Too funny.
CanaTigers
2,500+ Posts
It would seem that with a simple adjustment to medicaid and a few more insurance regulations the same outcome could have been had with far less expense and trouble.
H
Hu_Fan
Guest
I somehow did not see this in the print edition of WSJ this week, but found it online this afternoon.Not to appear overly-stating things, even by visual print as a quote, but I feel this deserves space. This summarizes fairly completely my view of the law.
I feel most of us (human nature) disregard facts (of anything) and project our bias and opinions that are generalized vis-a-vie a given topic. If we are honest with ourselves, we will take our bias and bravely try and look at something from 360 degrees. That's what I try to do.
A Catastrophe Like No Other -- Peggy Noonan, WSJ, 3-Apr-2014 (nonsubscribers can read for 7 days)
In reply to:
I feel most of us (human nature) disregard facts (of anything) and project our bias and opinions that are generalized vis-a-vie a given topic. If we are honest with ourselves, we will take our bias and bravely try and look at something from 360 degrees. That's what I try to do.
A Catastrophe Like No Other -- Peggy Noonan, WSJ, 3-Apr-2014 (nonsubscribers can read for 7 days)
In reply to:
Funny stuff from the usual suspects. They use all kinds of ginned up numbers to get to their 7 M goal.
But in typical fashion, they act like this is an indictment of the ACA's effectiveness. The bail outs to insurers will be in the billions next year and exchange rates will double and fewer providers will agree to participate. The risk pool in the exchanges is toxically bad.
But in typical fashion, they act like this is an indictment of the ACA's effectiveness. The bail outs to insurers will be in the billions next year and exchange rates will double and fewer providers will agree to participate. The risk pool in the exchanges is toxically bad.
ProdigalHorn
10,000+ Posts
Someone mentioned the idea that the goalposts seem to be moved... but what's funny is that those same people have gone from talking about how this law was going to save money, cover people who couldn't be covered before and generally improve health care to talking about enrollment numbers.
I thought the goal of this thing was to improve quality of life, not to see how many people we could enroll. We could have 100 percent enrollment... but would that mean that we'd be able to support it financially? Would it mean the private insurance companies wouldn't end up collapsing? Would it mean that the incredibly ridiculous way of lumping people of varying age and risk into the same risk categories makes any more sense than it did before? Would it change the fact that we are continuing to live under a law with no actual specifics other than whatever the executive branch happens to decide they want to enforce or change?
The victory many here are claiming has nothing to do with whether the program actually does what it's supposed to do... because at the end of the day, that wasn't what this was about. It was about wealth transfer, and it will succeed to some extent in that regard. The only victory needed is that it be enacted and that people be forced to enroll. And for some reason, forced enrollment seems to be equated with acceptance, excitement and effectiveness.
I thought the goal of this thing was to improve quality of life, not to see how many people we could enroll. We could have 100 percent enrollment... but would that mean that we'd be able to support it financially? Would it mean the private insurance companies wouldn't end up collapsing? Would it mean that the incredibly ridiculous way of lumping people of varying age and risk into the same risk categories makes any more sense than it did before? Would it change the fact that we are continuing to live under a law with no actual specifics other than whatever the executive branch happens to decide they want to enforce or change?
The victory many here are claiming has nothing to do with whether the program actually does what it's supposed to do... because at the end of the day, that wasn't what this was about. It was about wealth transfer, and it will succeed to some extent in that regard. The only victory needed is that it be enacted and that people be forced to enroll. And for some reason, forced enrollment seems to be equated with acceptance, excitement and effectiveness.
CanaTigers
2,500+ Posts
Weekly Prediction Contest
* Predict HORNS-AGGIES *
Sat, Nov 30 • 6:30 PM on ABC
Recent Threads
-
The Media Industry
- Started by texas_ex2000
- Replies: 8K
- West Mall
-
Black Lives Matter; The Cerebral Warlords of Our Time
- Started by iatrogenic
- Replies: 1K
- West Mall
-
New Jaguar TV Commercial!?
- Started by WorsterMan
- Replies: 3
- West Mall
Prediction Results Threads
