Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

tommyGunZ

Individual Insurance Rates in NY to fall 50% in 2014 - Obamacare works

382 posts in this topic

I didn't say their healthcare is perfect and ours is awful. I didn't even say it's better. All I asked is why we live shorter lives if our healthcare is so much better than theirs. That's the goal of healthcare, right? Stay alive?

My post addressed this. If we adjust for homicide, auto accident deaths, and suicides, the U.S. is first in life expectancy. Do you think that our high homicide rate and high rate of auto accident deaths should be viewed to reflect poorly on the quality of our healthcare system?

You don't think teen births are a healthcare issue? Do you subscribe to the weird Republican mindset going around that prenatal care isn't healthcare?

I agree prenatal care is healthcare. My point was that the fact that the U.S. has the highest teen birth rate is not reflective of the quality of our healthcare system. It is a cultural and socio-economic issue. But it doesn't matter. The rest of my post on infant mortality rate showed that when comparing apples to apples, the U.S. rate is very good, with only a very few countries with a rate that is substantially better.

Given your questions, I have to ask if you read the articles I posted.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I didn't say their healthcare is perfect and ours is awful. I didn't even say it's better. All I asked is why we live shorter lives if our healthcare is so much better than theirs. That's the goal of healthcare, right? Stay alive?

My post addressed this. If we adjust for homicide, auto accident deaths, and suicides, the U.S. is first in life expectancy. Do you think that our high homicide rate and high rate of auto accident deaths should be viewed to reflect poorly on the quality of our healthcare system?

You don't think teen births are a healthcare issue? Do you subscribe to the weird Republican mindset going around that prenatal care isn't healthcare?

I agree prenatal care is healthcare. My point was that the fact that the U.S. has the highest teen birth rate is not reflective of the quality of our healthcare system. It is a cultural and socio-economic issue. But it doesn't matter. The rest of my post on infant mortality rate showed that when comparing apples to apples, the U.S. rate is very good, with only a very few countries with a rate that is substantially better.

Given your questions, I have to ask if you read the articles I posted.

18% of GDP vs. 8-12 for most. And the 18% is in one of the world's richest countries. Huge portions of our country lack health care at all. An argument can be made that we have the best available health care for those who have decent insurance or tons of money, and that the statistics can be interpreted as a wash based on parameters like life expectancy or infant death rates.

But how do we justify spending 6-10% more of GDP when they cover everybody and we don't? Consider relative productivities and the gap is even wider. I'm amazed and flabbergasted that ANYONE could defend this. Attack the ACA as the piece of meat it is all you want to, but the truth is that Americans in general are absolutely delusional about health care in general. Our system as it has been is a disaster. Obamacare deserves harsh criticism, but at least he had the nuts to recognize the issue and push something through.

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I didn't say their healthcare is perfect and ours is awful. I didn't even say it's better. All I asked is why we live shorter lives if our healthcare is so much better than theirs. That's the goal of healthcare, right? Stay alive?

My post addressed this. If we adjust for homicide, auto accident deaths, and suicides, the U.S. is first in life expectancy. Do you think that our high homicide rate and high rate of auto accident deaths should be viewed to reflect poorly on the quality of our healthcare system?

You don't think teen births are a healthcare issue? Do you subscribe to the weird Republican mindset going around that prenatal care isn't healthcare?

I agree prenatal care is healthcare. My point was that the fact that the U.S. has the highest teen birth rate is not reflective of the quality of our healthcare system. It is a cultural and socio-economic issue. But it doesn't matter. The rest of my post on infant mortality rate showed that when comparing apples to apples, the U.S. rate is very good, with only a very few countries with a rate that is substantially better.

Given your questions, I have to ask if you read the articles I posted.

18% of GDP vs. 8-12 for most. And the 18% is in one of the world's richest countries. Huge portions of our country lack health care at all. An argument can be made that we have the best available health care for those who have decent insurance or tons of money, and that the statistics can be interpreted as a wash based on parameters like life expectancy or infant death rates.

But how do we justify spending 6-10% more of GDP when they cover everybody and we don't? Consider relative productivities and the gap is even wider. I'm amazed and flabbergasted that ANYONE could defend this. Attack the ACA as the piece of meat it is all you want to, but the truth is that Americans in general are absolutely delusional about health care in general. Our system as it has been is a disaster. Obamacare deserves harsh criticism, but at least he had the nuts to recognize the issue and push something through.

I don't know why you quoted my post with this response. It has absolutely nothing to do with my post you quoted or any of my other posts in this thread.

I agree that we need to contain healthcare costs. And I agree that our healthcare system needed significant other improvements.

But I disagree that the ACA will do it. Sorry, but I give no credit to a sweeping entitlement program that will ultimately prove to be unaffordable simply because those who pushed it through recognized we have a problem. If it doesn't effectively deal with the problem, it only makes it worse. And that's what I think we've ended up with.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The reason healthcare reform wasn't as good as it could have been was because of partisan bull#### the conservatives were pulling. We could have had much better healthcare reform, but instead we got this. Its still much better than the alternative.

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The reason healthcare reform wasn't as good as it could have been was because of partisan bull#### the conservatives were pulling. We could have had much better healthcare reform, but instead we got this. Its still much better than the alternative.

:bs:

You think maybe if the Democrats had read if first before voting on it there might have been a different outcome? NOT reading the bill (deliberately or trying to force it thru so fast you can't) you are passing is just as much partisan bull##### as trying to prevent it from passing in the first place.

Maybe the GOP tried to put up roadblocks because they recognized it as a stinker and bad for America, which it's turning out to be.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The reason healthcare reform wasn't as good as it could have been was because of partisan bull#### the conservatives were pulling. We could have had much better healthcare reform, but instead we got this. Its still much better than the alternative.

It wasn't written by the democrats any more than it was written by the republicans. It was written by the insurance industry.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The reason healthcare reform wasn't as good as it could have been was because of partisan bull#### the conservatives were pulling. We could have had much better healthcare reform, but instead we got this. Its still much better than the alternative.

It wasn't written by the democrats any more than it was written by the republicans. It was written by the insurance industry.

It's a mixed bag of ideas from both sides and with enough incentives in place for the insurance industry and healthcare provides to mostly come along willingly. The principle mechanics of mandated coverage as a trade off for ensuring reasonably priced coverage for those with pre-existing conditions is mainly a conservative and industry driven one. Most Democrats would have greatly preferred a Public option to guarantee coverage and provide price competition, but as soon as it became clear that wasn't going to pass the mandate and exchanges became the only way to make the basic principle of providing something in the realm of universal coverage happen.

The law is and always has been primarily a coverage law. The big question that no one knows right now is how much the provisions in the law will help bend the cost curve? My guess from having studied this stuff over the years is that it will help some, but as with everything else related to the way our healthcare system has evolved it's another run at treating the symptoms as opposed to an actual cure.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The reason healthcare reform wasn't as good as it could have been was because of partisan bull#### the conservatives were pulling. We could have had much better healthcare reform, but instead we got this. Its still much better than the alternative.

:bs:

You think maybe if the Democrats had read if first before voting on it there might have been a different outcome? NOT reading the bill (deliberately or trying to force it thru so fast you can't) you are passing is just as much partisan bull##### as trying to prevent it from passing in the first place.

Maybe the GOP tried to put up roadblocks because they recognized it as a stinker and bad for America, which it's turning out to be.

Of course they read it... they passed it because something was better than nothing - but it could have been better than this. This was one of the situations where passing a flawed bill was better than passing nothing.

Most people I know have some sort of health issue, but cannot get proper healthcare, including myself and half of my immediate family, my mother just had to declare bankruptcy because her spouses insurance provider doesn't recognize their marriage. I'm literally counting the days until January 1st 2014.

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It doesn't seem fair that I, the responsible one am not allowed to make irresponsible choices because enough of the masses have made too many irresponsible choices that I have to pay for.

Why can't I roll the dice? If I am lucky and stay healthy I keep my money. If I am not lucky or one of my choices catches up with me then I'll just take the responsibility for passing my healthcare costs to taxpayer and other health care customers. The American way!

Because America is now a land for for whoring for profit and little else.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The reason healthcare reform wasn't as good as it could have been was because of partisan bull#### the conservatives were pulling. We could have had much better healthcare reform, but instead we got this. Its still much better than the alternative.

:bs:

You think maybe if the Democrats had read if first before voting on it there might have been a different outcome? NOT reading the bill (deliberately or trying to force it thru so fast you can't) you are passing is just as much partisan bull##### as trying to prevent it from passing in the first place.

Maybe the GOP tried to put up roadblocks because they recognized it as a stinker and bad for America, which it's turning out to be.

Of course they read it... they passed it because something was better than nothing - but it could have been better than this. This was one of the situations where passing a flawed bill was better than passing nothing.

Most people I know have some sort of health issue, but cannot get proper healthcare, including myself and half of my immediate family, my mother just had to declare bankruptcy because her spouses insurance provider doesn't recognize their marriage. I'm literally counting the days until January 1st 2014.

Maybe you missed the part where Pelosi said we have to pass it to find out what's in it? And that's EXACTLY what happened.

So passing a bill that's going to make the situation WORSE is better than doing nothing? Again, more lefty, feel good :bs: that hurts everyone else but makes you feel better about yourself.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The reason healthcare reform wasn't as good as it could have been was because of partisan bull#### the conservatives were pulling. We could have had much better healthcare reform, but instead we got this. Its still much better than the alternative.

:bs:

You think maybe if the Democrats had read if first before voting on it there might have been a different outcome? NOT reading the bill (deliberately or trying to force it thru so fast you can't) you are passing is just as much partisan bull##### as trying to prevent it from passing in the first place.

Maybe the GOP tried to put up roadblocks because they recognized it as a stinker and bad for America, which it's turning out to be.

Of course they read it... they passed it because something was better than nothing - but it could have been better than this. This was one of the situations where passing a flawed bill was better than passing nothing.

Most people I know have some sort of health issue, but cannot get proper healthcare, including myself and half of my immediate family, my mother just had to declare bankruptcy because her spouses insurance provider doesn't recognize their marriage. I'm literally counting the days until January 1st 2014.

Maybe you missed the part where Pelosi said we have to pass it to find out what's in it? And that's EXACTLY what happened.

So passing a bill that's going to make the situation WORSE is better than doing nothing? Again, more lefty, feel good :bs: that hurts everyone else but makes you feel better about yourself.

In what universe does this bill make it worse for the people that need healthcare but can't afford it?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The reason healthcare reform wasn't as good as it could have been was because of partisan bull#### the conservatives were pulling. We could have had much better healthcare reform, but instead we got this. Its still much better than the alternative.

:bs:

You think maybe if the Democrats had read if first before voting on it there might have been a different outcome? NOT reading the bill (deliberately or trying to force it thru so fast you can't) you are passing is just as much partisan bull##### as trying to prevent it from passing in the first place.

Maybe the GOP tried to put up roadblocks because they recognized it as a stinker and bad for America, which it's turning out to be.

Of course they read it... they passed it because something was better than nothing - but it could have been better than this. This was one of the situations where passing a flawed bill was better than passing nothing.

Most people I know have some sort of health issue, but cannot get proper healthcare, including myself and half of my immediate family, my mother just had to declare bankruptcy because her spouses insurance provider doesn't recognize their marriage. I'm literally counting the days until January 1st 2014.

Maybe you missed the part where Pelosi said we have to pass it to find out what's in it? And that's EXACTLY what happened.

So passing a bill that's going to make the situation WORSE is better than doing nothing? Again, more lefty, feel good :bs: that hurts everyone else but makes you feel better about yourself.

In what universe does this bill make it worse for the people that need healthcare but can't afford it?

Because they're forced to pay for something they can't afford.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The reason healthcare reform wasn't as good as it could have been was because of partisan bull#### the conservatives were pulling. We could have had much better healthcare reform, but instead we got this. Its still much better than the alternative.

:bs:

You think maybe if the Democrats had read if first before voting on it there might have been a different outcome? NOT reading the bill (deliberately or trying to force it thru so fast you can't) you are passing is just as much partisan bull##### as trying to prevent it from passing in the first place.

Maybe the GOP tried to put up roadblocks because they recognized it as a stinker and bad for America, which it's turning out to be.

Of course they read it... they passed it because something was better than nothing - but it could have been better than this. This was one of the situations where passing a flawed bill was better than passing nothing.

Most people I know have some sort of health issue, but cannot get proper healthcare, including myself and half of my immediate family, my mother just had to declare bankruptcy because her spouses insurance provider doesn't recognize their marriage. I'm literally counting the days until January 1st 2014.

Maybe you missed the part where Pelosi said we have to pass it to find out what's in it? And that's EXACTLY what happened.

So passing a bill that's going to make the situation WORSE is better than doing nothing? Again, more lefty, feel good :bs: that hurts everyone else but makes you feel better about yourself.

In what universe does this bill make it worse for the people that need healthcare but can't afford it?

Because they're forced to pay for something they can't afford.

Need being the operative word in that sentence. There will be plenty of insurance plans that will be affordable.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

What about people not able to make the responsible decision of keeping their existing health insurance that they responsibly purchased because the government won't allow them to. Instead, they now have to purchase new/different health insurance that will cost them 2-3 times as much. Is that fair?

If these people were being responsible they would keep the plans that offered the minimal coverage. Obviously based on your posts that doesn't apply to your substandard plan. So you will no longer be able to roll the dice that you will be able to get by with inadequate coverage on the taxpayer's dime. Maybe you are correct and that it wasn't much of a gamble for most of us. Same for tens or hundreds or even thousands of others. But all it takes is the few of you that will be wrong to screw over everyone else - including you. So of course it is fair! Even for you!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The reason healthcare reform wasn't as good as it could have been was because of partisan bull#### the conservatives were pulling. We could have had much better healthcare reform, but instead we got this. Its still much better than the alternative.

:bs:

You think maybe if the Democrats had read if first before voting on it there might have been a different outcome? NOT reading the bill (deliberately or trying to force it thru so fast you can't) you are passing is just as much partisan bull##### as trying to prevent it from passing in the first place.

Maybe the GOP tried to put up roadblocks because they recognized it as a stinker and bad for America, which it's turning out to be.

Of course they read it... they passed it because something was better than nothing - but it could have been better than this. This was one of the situations where passing a flawed bill was better than passing nothing.

Most people I know have some sort of health issue, but cannot get proper healthcare, including myself and half of my immediate family, my mother just had to declare bankruptcy because her spouses insurance provider doesn't recognize their marriage. I'm literally counting the days until January 1st 2014.

Maybe you missed the part where Pelosi said we have to pass it to find out what's in it? And that's EXACTLY what happened.

So passing a bill that's going to make the situation WORSE is better than doing nothing? Again, more lefty, feel good :bs: that hurts everyone else but makes you feel better about yourself.

In what universe does this bill make it worse for the people that need healthcare but can't afford it?

Because they're forced to pay for something they can't afford.

and jacks up everyone else's rates anywhere from 70 to 150 percent - for less quality care - from what we've seen so far. What part of the Affordable Care Act is affordable? None of it. This is one of the biggest lies/scams ever perpetuated upon the American people. Affordable my ###.

But hey, if it makes a few lefties feel good about themselves then I guess it was worth it, right? Even though it's ineffective. Now they can move on to the next Cause célèbre.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The reason healthcare reform wasn't as good as it could have been was because of partisan bull#### the conservatives were pulling. We could have had much better healthcare reform, but instead we got this. Its still much better than the alternative.

:bs:

You think maybe if the Democrats had read if first before voting on it there might have been a different outcome? NOT reading the bill (deliberately or trying to force it thru so fast you can't) you are passing is just as much partisan bull##### as trying to prevent it from passing in the first place.

Maybe the GOP tried to put up roadblocks because they recognized it as a stinker and bad for America, which it's turning out to be.

Of course they read it... they passed it because something was better than nothing - but it could have been better than this. This was one of the situations where passing a flawed bill was better than passing nothing.

Most people I know have some sort of health issue, but cannot get proper healthcare, including myself and half of my immediate family, my mother just had to declare bankruptcy because her spouses insurance provider doesn't recognize their marriage. I'm literally counting the days until January 1st 2014.

Maybe you missed the part where Pelosi said we have to pass it to find out what's in it? And that's EXACTLY what happened.

So passing a bill that's going to make the situation WORSE is better than doing nothing? Again, more lefty, feel good :bs: that hurts everyone else but makes you feel better about yourself.

Why do you hate that Obama passed the healthcare policy that the GOP and conservatives had been pushing as their market driven healthcare plan for two decades?

Your KooKiness knows no bounds.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I didn't say their healthcare is perfect and ours is awful. I didn't even say it's better. All I asked is why we live shorter lives if our healthcare is so much better than theirs. That's the goal of healthcare, right? Stay alive?

Right. Overall health in the U.S., including life expectancy, is not great. There are a lot of reasons for this, some related to problems with our health care system, and some unrelated. Either way, though, it's an argument against dumping more money into the health care system.

To the extent that our low life expectancies are caused by deficiencies in our health care system, it's an argument that we shouldn't spend more on health care because it's not working.

To the extent that our low life expectancies are caused by other factors (e.g., car accidents), it's at least prima facie evidence that we shouldn't spend more on health care when we could get higher returns by spending it elsewhere instead (e.g., highway safety measures).

We're spending something like 17% of our GDP on health care. I think that's absurd, especially when considering how narrowly "health care" is defined. JustWinBaby quoted an article above that says: "However, two economists have argued in a recent book that life expectancy is a lousy way to compare two countries. Murders, suicides and accidents can have a big effect on life-expectancy stats because their victims die younger, on average, than victims of disease. And, they argue, the health-care system can’t do much to prevent those kinds of deaths." I disagree that health care can do little to prevent those deaths. I think both murder (violent tendencies) and suicides have an awful lot to do with general mental health. Stuff like a healthy diet and a healthy overall lifestyle might play a big part in those things -- but they don't count as being part of the "health care system." Fine. But given how many health-related things are excluded from being part of the "health-care system," it's all the more egregious that the health care system is costing 17% of our GDP. And rising.

(And yeah, nobody should have ever thought that Obamacare would reduce overall health care costs. It has some good things going for it, but reducing costs was never realistically among them.)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I disagree with your assertion that teenagers not receiving as much prenatal care as older mothers due to socioeconomic reasons is "not a healthcare issue".

The fact that the U.S. has the highest teen birth rate, which contributes to a lower infant mortality rate, is not a healthcare issue. We can agree to disagree on that if you like. That issue has nothing to do with the other information I posted about infant mortality rate, which IMO shows that the U.S. ranks near the top of all countries, as it should.

And I can't believe you're linking analysis from an AEI guy as evidence of anything. You know better than that JWB.

I don't care what the source is. I don't even know which link you are referring to. I Googled for the information and followed the links. If you are suggesting it is biased and thus inaccurate or misleading, why don't you explain what you disagree with? Why don't you cite some facts that back your viewpoint? This is not unlike your "oof, big fail" comment earlier in the thread; it doesn't contribute to the discussion.

Everything I linked cites numbers and facts backed by analysis. Moreover, the premise of these articles is that it is appropriate to dig deeper into the standard metrics to ensure we are making apples to apples comparisons when citing them as outcomes reflective of the quality of our healthcare system. I agree with that premise.

There are enormous and powerful forces/companies that make billions in health care done for profit. If you don't think this affects how information is presented to the American public, you're nuts.

The ACA is a dog...it isn't the answer. But at least it's a long overdue acknowledgement that our system is not working. Its a step.

The ACA largely just opened our current system to more people. How can that be considered an acknowledgement of a system that isn't working?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The reason healthcare reform wasn't as good as it could have been was because of partisan bull#### the conservatives were pulling. We could have had much better healthcare reform, but instead we got this. Its still much better than the alternative.

The bill was passed by a supermajority. The Democrats had complete control over what went into the bill.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The reason healthcare reform wasn't as good as it could have been was because of partisan bull#### the conservatives were pulling. We could have had much better healthcare reform, but instead we got this. Its still much better than the alternative.

:bs:

You think maybe if the Democrats had read if first before voting on it there might have been a different outcome? NOT reading the bill (deliberately or trying to force it thru so fast you can't) you are passing is just as much partisan bull##### as trying to prevent it from passing in the first place.

Maybe the GOP tried to put up roadblocks because they recognized it as a stinker and bad for America, which it's turning out to be.

Of course they read it... they passed it because something was better than nothing - but it could have been better than this. This was one of the situations where passing a flawed bill was better than passing nothing.

Most people I know have some sort of health issue, but cannot get proper healthcare, including myself and half of my immediate family, my mother just had to declare bankruptcy because her spouses insurance provider doesn't recognize their marriage. I'm literally counting the days until January 1st 2014.

Maybe you missed the part where Pelosi said we have to pass it to find out what's in it? And that's EXACTLY what happened.

So passing a bill that's going to make the situation WORSE is better than doing nothing? Again, more lefty, feel good :bs: that hurts everyone else but makes you feel better about yourself.

In what universe does this bill make it worse for the people that need healthcare but can't afford it?
Because they're forced to pay for something they can't afford.

Need being the operative word in that sentence. There will be plenty of insurance plans that will be affordable.

For those currently paying $1000+ a month because of their health situation, you're right. They will get a more affordable plan because the costs of their Heath issues are spread out amongst everyone. That's good or them, and to be honest, I don't have issue with that.

But there are people that can not only afford $1000+ a month, they can't afford $100 a month, or even $10 a month. The only way to deal with this issue is a single payer system. To me, the ACA seems setup to fail, so that a single payer system can soon follow. I haven't seen anyone make a good argument that ACA is sustainable as a long term solution.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The reason healthcare reform wasn't as good as it could have been was because of partisan bull#### the conservatives were pulling. We could have had much better healthcare reform, but instead we got this. Its still much better than the alternative.

:bs:

You think maybe if the Democrats had read if first before voting on it there might have been a different outcome? NOT reading the bill (deliberately or trying to force it thru so fast you can't) you are passing is just as much partisan bull##### as trying to prevent it from passing in the first place.

Maybe the GOP tried to put up roadblocks because they recognized it as a stinker and bad for America, which it's turning out to be.

Of course they read it... they passed it because something was better than nothing - but it could have been better than this. This was one of the situations where passing a flawed bill was better than passing nothing.

Most people I know have some sort of health issue, but cannot get proper healthcare, including myself and half of my immediate family, my mother just had to declare bankruptcy because her spouses insurance provider doesn't recognize their marriage. I'm literally counting the days until January 1st 2014.

Maybe you missed the part where Pelosi said we have to pass it to find out what's in it? And that's EXACTLY what happened.

So passing a bill that's going to make the situation WORSE is better than doing nothing? Again, more lefty, feel good :bs: that hurts everyone else but makes you feel better about yourself.

Why do you hate that Obama passed the healthcare policy that the GOP and conservatives had been pushing as their market driven healthcare plan for two decades?

Your KooKiness knows no bounds.

:bs:

However, I see you've gone in on this myth, balls deep. Your masters at HuffPo and DailyKos have trained you well.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The reason healthcare reform wasn't as good as it could have been was because of partisan bull#### the conservatives were pulling. We could have had much better healthcare reform, but instead we got this. Its still much better than the alternative.

:bs:

You think maybe if the Democrats had read if first before voting on it there might have been a different outcome? NOT reading the bill (deliberately or trying to force it thru so fast you can't) you are passing is just as much partisan bull##### as trying to prevent it from passing in the first place.

Maybe the GOP tried to put up roadblocks because they recognized it as a stinker and bad for America, which it's turning out to be.

Of course they read it... they passed it because something was better than nothing - but it could have been better than this. This was one of the situations where passing a flawed bill was better than passing nothing.

Most people I know have some sort of health issue, but cannot get proper healthcare, including myself and half of my immediate family, my mother just had to declare bankruptcy because her spouses insurance provider doesn't recognize their marriage. I'm literally counting the days until January 1st 2014.

Maybe you missed the part where Pelosi said we have to pass it to find out what's in it? And that's EXACTLY what happened.

So passing a bill that's going to make the situation WORSE is better than doing nothing? Again, more lefty, feel good :bs: that hurts everyone else but makes you feel better about yourself.

Why do you hate that Obama passed the healthcare policy that the GOP and conservatives had been pushing as their market driven healthcare plan for two decades?

Your KooKiness knows no bounds.

:bs:

However, I see you've gone in on this myth, balls deep. Your masters at HuffPo and DailyKos have trained you well.

Ahem...

In November 2004, political leaders began advocating major reforms of the Massachusetts health care insurance system to expand coverage. First, the Senate President Robert Travaglini called for a plan to reduce the number of uninsured by half. A few days later, the Governor, Mitt Romney, announced that he would propose a plan to cover virtually all of the uninsured.

The Massachusetts health care insurance reform law, St. 2006, c.58,%5B1%5D%5B2%5D informally referred to as Romneycare, and officially entitled 'An Act Providing Access to Affordable, Quality, Accountable Health Care,' is a state law enacted in 2006, signed into law by then-governor Mitt Romney. The law mandates that nearly every resident of Massachusetts obtain a state-government-regulated minimum level of healthcare insurance coverage and provides free health care insurance for residents earning less than 150% of the federal poverty level (FPL).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The reason healthcare reform wasn't as good as it could have been was because of partisan bull#### the conservatives were pulling. We could have had much better healthcare reform, but instead we got this. Its still much better than the alternative.

:bs:

You think maybe if the Democrats had read if first before voting on it there might have been a different outcome? NOT reading the bill (deliberately or trying to force it thru so fast you can't) you are passing is just as much partisan bull##### as trying to prevent it from passing in the first place.

Maybe the GOP tried to put up roadblocks because they recognized it as a stinker and bad for America, which it's turning out to be.

Of course they read it... they passed it because something was better than nothing - but it could have been better than this. This was one of the situations where passing a flawed bill was better than passing nothing.

Most people I know have some sort of health issue, but cannot get proper healthcare, including myself and half of my immediate family, my mother just had to declare bankruptcy because her spouses insurance provider doesn't recognize their marriage. I'm literally counting the days until January 1st 2014.

Maybe you missed the part where Pelosi said we have to pass it to find out what's in it? And that's EXACTLY what happened.

So passing a bill that's going to make the situation WORSE is better than doing nothing? Again, more lefty, feel good :bs: that hurts everyone else but makes you feel better about yourself.

Why do you hate that Obama passed the healthcare policy that the GOP and conservatives had been pushing as their market driven healthcare plan for two decades?

Your KooKiness knows no bounds.

:bs:

However, I see you've gone in on this myth, balls deep. Your masters at HuffPo and DailyKos have trained you well.

Ahem...

In November 2004, political leaders began advocating major reforms of the Massachusetts health care insurance system to expand coverage. First, the Senate President Robert Travaglini called for a plan to reduce the number of uninsured by half. A few days later, the Governor, Mitt Romney, announced that he would propose a plan to cover virtually all of the uninsured.

The Massachusetts health care insurance reform law, St. 2006, c.58,%5B1%5D%5B2%5D informally referred to as Romneycare, and officially entitled 'An Act Providing Access to Affordable, Quality, Accountable Health Care,' is a state law enacted in 2006, signed into law by then-governor Mitt Romney. The law mandates that nearly every resident of Massachusetts obtain a state-government-regulated minimum level of healthcare insurance coverage and provides free health care insurance for residents earning less than 150% of the federal poverty level (FPL).

Uhmm....Not really. RomneyCare was only for MA, so it's not an apples to apples comparison. I know the left likes to fallback on this, but it's not the same especially in response to the "...market driven health plan for two decades" by the FFA's resident weirdo, TA.

Maybe this will help.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Uhmm....Not really. RomneyCare was only for MA, so it's not an apples to apples comparison. I know the left likes to fallback on this, but it's not the same especially in response to the "...market driven health plan for two decades" by the FFA's resident weirdo, TA.

I agree with that this isn't what conservatives have been pushing for, but it is true that they have been trying to pass some form of health care reform (not as extensive as Obamacare) for a long time. Some Republicans, like Romney, could also see the merits off state regulated health insurance which requires everyone to participate.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The reason healthcare reform wasn't as good as it could have been was because of partisan bull#### the conservatives were pulling. We could have had much better healthcare reform, but instead we got this. Its still much better than the alternative.

:bs:

You think maybe if the Democrats had read if first before voting on it there might have been a different outcome? NOT reading the bill (deliberately or trying to force it thru so fast you can't) you are passing is just as much partisan bull##### as trying to prevent it from passing in the first place.

Maybe the GOP tried to put up roadblocks because they recognized it as a stinker and bad for America, which it's turning out to be.

Of course they read it... they passed it because something was better than nothing - but it could have been better than this. This was one of the situations where passing a flawed bill was better than passing nothing.

Most people I know have some sort of health issue, but cannot get proper healthcare, including myself and half of my immediate family, my mother just had to declare bankruptcy because her spouses insurance provider doesn't recognize their marriage. I'm literally counting the days until January 1st 2014.

Maybe you missed the part where Pelosi said we have to pass it to find out what's in it? And that's EXACTLY what happened.

So passing a bill that's going to make the situation WORSE is better than doing nothing? Again, more lefty, feel good :bs: that hurts everyone else but makes you feel better about yourself.

Why do you hate that Obama passed the healthcare policy that the GOP and conservatives had been pushing as their market driven healthcare plan for two decades?

Your KooKiness knows no bounds.

:bs:

However, I see you've gone in on this myth, balls deep. Your masters at HuffPo and DailyKos have trained you well.

Ahem...

In November 2004, political leaders began advocating major reforms of the Massachusetts health care insurance system to expand coverage. First, the Senate President Robert Travaglini called for a plan to reduce the number of uninsured by half. A few days later, the Governor, Mitt Romney, announced that he would propose a plan to cover virtually all of the uninsured.

The Massachusetts health care insurance reform law, St. 2006, c.58,%5B1%5D%5B2%5D informally referred to as Romneycare, and officially entitled 'An Act Providing Access to Affordable, Quality, Accountable Health Care,' is a state law enacted in 2006, signed into law by then-governor Mitt Romney. The law mandates that nearly every resident of Massachusetts obtain a state-government-regulated minimum level of healthcare insurance coverage and provides free health care insurance for residents earning less than 150% of the federal poverty level (FPL).

Uhmm....Not really. RomneyCare was only for MA, so it's not an apples to apples comparison. I know the left likes to fallback on this, but it's not the same especially in response to the "...market driven health plan for two decades" by the FFA's resident weirdo, TA.

Maybe this will help.

I love it when an article tries to point out a logical fallacy in someone elses argument, and then the author proceeds to wade neck deep into a fallacy of their own.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I disagree with your assertion that teenagers not receiving as much prenatal care as older mothers due to socioeconomic reasons is "not a healthcare issue".

The fact that the U.S. has the highest teen birth rate, which contributes to a lower infant mortality rate, is not a healthcare issue. We can agree to disagree on that if you like. That issue has nothing to do with the other information I posted about infant mortality rate, which IMO shows that the U.S. ranks near the top of all countries, as it should.

And I can't believe you're linking analysis from an AEI guy as evidence of anything. You know better than that JWB.

I don't care what the source is. I don't even know which link you are referring to. I Googled for the information and followed the links. If you are suggesting it is biased and thus inaccurate or misleading, why don't you explain what you disagree with? Why don't you cite some facts that back your viewpoint? This is not unlike your "oof, big fail" comment earlier in the thread; it doesn't contribute to the discussion.

Everything I linked cites numbers and facts backed by analysis. Moreover, the premise of these articles is that it is appropriate to dig deeper into the standard metrics to ensure we are making apples to apples comparisons when citing them as outcomes reflective of the quality of our healthcare system. I agree with that premise.

There are enormous and powerful forces/companies that make billions in health care done for profit. If you don't think this affects how information is presented to the American public, you're nuts.

The ACA is a dog...it isn't the answer. But at least it's a long overdue acknowledgement that our system is not working. Its a step.

The ACA largely just opened our current system to more people. How can that be considered an acknowledgement of a system that isn't working?

Because the greatest failure of the system as it was the failure to cover large swaths of people. What so many people fail to grasp is that even when uncovered, people with life threatening illness would still go to the ER, where they WOULD be treated. When they couldn't pay, their credit was further trashed, and costs rose for everyone else. YOU WERE ALREADY PAYING FOR THEIR LIFE THREATENING STUFF. The funny thing is, many of these visits could have been prevented or the causes treated both more effectively and more economically if these folks had had basic coverage to begin with. Minor illnesses which could have easily been treated with a course of antibiotics turn into dangerous infections requiring significant inpatient stays all the time for lack of basic coverage.

Don't underestimate the importance of getting everybody covered.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I disagree with your assertion that teenagers not receiving as much prenatal care as older mothers due to socioeconomic reasons is "not a healthcare issue".

The fact that the U.S. has the highest teen birth rate, which contributes to a lower infant mortality rate, is not a healthcare issue. We can agree to disagree on that if you like. That issue has nothing to do with the other information I posted about infant mortality rate, which IMO shows that the U.S. ranks near the top of all countries, as it should.

And I can't believe you're linking analysis from an AEI guy as evidence of anything. You know better than that JWB.

I don't care what the source is. I don't even know which link you are referring to. I Googled for the information and followed the links. If you are suggesting it is biased and thus inaccurate or misleading, why don't you explain what you disagree with? Why don't you cite some facts that back your viewpoint? This is not unlike your "oof, big fail" comment earlier in the thread; it doesn't contribute to the discussion.

Everything I linked cites numbers and facts backed by analysis. Moreover, the premise of these articles is that it is appropriate to dig deeper into the standard metrics to ensure we are making apples to apples comparisons when citing them as outcomes reflective of the quality of our healthcare system. I agree with that premise.

There are enormous and powerful forces/companies that make billions in health care done for profit. If you don't think this affects how information is presented to the American public, you're nuts.

The ACA is a dog...it isn't the answer. But at least it's a long overdue acknowledgement that our system is not working. Its a step.

The ACA largely just opened our current system to more people. How can that be considered an acknowledgement of a system that isn't working?

Because the greatest failure of the system as it was the failure to cover large swaths of people. What so many people fail to grasp is that even when uncovered, people with life threatening illness would still go to the ER, where they WOULD be treated. When they couldn't pay, their credit was further trashed, and costs rose for everyone else. YOU WERE ALREADY PAYING FOR THEIR LIFE THREATENING STUFF. The funny thing is, many of these visits could have been prevented or the causes treated both more effectively and more economically if these folks had had basic coverage to begin with. Minor illnesses which could have easily been treated with a course of antibiotics turn into dangerous infections requiring significant inpatient stays all the time for lack of basic coverage.

Don't underestimate the importance of getting everybody covered.

You are describing a system that should theoretically be significantly cheaper. Why isn't it?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

What about people not able to make the responsible decision of keeping their existing health insurance that they responsibly purchased because the government won't allow them to. Instead, they now have to purchase new/different health insurance that will cost them 2-3 times as much. Is that fair?

If these people were being responsible they would keep the plans that offered the minimal coverage. Obviously based on your posts that doesn't apply to your substandard plan. So you will no longer be able to roll the dice that you will be able to get by with inadequate coverage on the taxpayer's dime. Maybe you are correct and that it wasn't much of a gamble for most of us. Same for tens or hundreds or even thousands of others. But all it takes is the few of you that will be wrong to screw over everyone else - including you. So of course it is fair! Even for you!

I'm not sure what you're saying at all. Are you directing your comments to me directly?

What I'm saying is that I thought I was the responsible one. I purchased individual health insurance for myself. Sure it has a high deductible (over $2,000), but I can afford that if I need to. I purchased it when I was young and healthy (and frankly, I feel I'm still both). It's very reasonably priced. I won't be able to keep that plan that I purchased responsibly because it doesn't comply with something I don't need and don't want anyway.

Thousands of people (likely millions) are in the same situation where they will not be able to keep the coverage they already have and like and will be forced to pay more for things they won't need and likely don't want.

So much for having choice and having already been responsible with your choices.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Sitting in oncology right now. Waiting for tests ill never pay for.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Sitting in oncology right now. Waiting for tests ill never pay for.

You'll pay. We're all going to pay.

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Indiana has chimed in (and their math is wrong)....

In Indiana, Individual Health Insurance to Cost 72% More Due to Obamacare

Obamacare will be costly for Hoosiers who already have health insurance, according to a report from Indystar.com.

"Insurance rates in Indiana will increase 72 percent for those with individual plans and 8 percent for small group plans under President Barack Obama's healthcare overhaul, according to the state’s insurance department," reads the report.

"The spike in costs is due primarily to new mandates under the law, which requires insurers to cover those with pre-existing conditions and to offer a minimum level of benefits, said Logan Harrison, chief deputy commissioner with the Indiana Department of Insurance under Republican Gov. Mike Pence. New taxes and fees under the law also contributed, Harrison said.

The Indiana governor tells the paper: “This new data regrettably confirms the negative impact of the Affordable Care Act on the insurance market in Indiana. ... The Affordable Care Act requires many Hoosiers to purchase more comprehensive and more expensive health insurance than they may want or need. These rates call into question just how affordable health insurance will really be for many Hoosiers.”

Costs for individual plans is expected to increase from an average of $255 per member per month in 2012 to $570 in 2014, when the most aspects of the law go into effect.

I'm no math major, but that last sentence shows that it will be an average increase of 123.5%, not 72%.

No surprisingly, Indiana Republicans didn't reveal many details with the press release you are citing here.

When you dig a little deeper, Indiana's rates are likely to be just like the rest of the country, anywhere from $280 to $440 a month.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Indiana has chimed in (and their math is wrong)....

In Indiana, Individual Health Insurance to Cost 72% More Due to Obamacare

Obamacare will be costly for Hoosiers who already have health insurance, according to a report from Indystar.com.

"Insurance rates in Indiana will increase 72 percent for those with individual plans and 8 percent for small group plans under President Barack Obama's healthcare overhaul, according to the state’s insurance department," reads the report.

"The spike in costs is due primarily to new mandates under the law, which requires insurers to cover those with pre-existing conditions and to offer a minimum level of benefits, said Logan Harrison, chief deputy commissioner with the Indiana Department of Insurance under Republican Gov. Mike Pence. New taxes and fees under the law also contributed, Harrison said.

The Indiana governor tells the paper: “This new data regrettably confirms the negative impact of the Affordable Care Act on the insurance market in Indiana. ... The Affordable Care Act requires many Hoosiers to purchase more comprehensive and more expensive health insurance than they may want or need. These rates call into question just how affordable health insurance will really be for many Hoosiers.”

Costs for individual plans is expected to increase from an average of $255 per member per month in 2012 to $570 in 2014, when the most aspects of the law go into effect.

I'm no math major, but that last sentence shows that it will be an average increase of 123.5%, not 72%.

No surprisingly, Indiana Republicans didn't reveal many details with the press release you are citing here.

When you dig a little deeper, Indiana's rates are likely to be just like the rest of the country, anywhere from $280 to $440 a month.

:lmao:

All of the sudden digging deeper is important to you.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I didn't say their healthcare is perfect and ours is awful. I didn't even say it's better. All I asked is why we live shorter lives if our healthcare is so much better than theirs. That's the goal of healthcare, right? Stay alive?

My post addressed this. If we adjust for homicide, auto accident deaths, and suicides, the U.S. is first in life expectancy. Do you think that our high homicide rate and high rate of auto accident deaths should be viewed to reflect poorly on the quality of our healthcare system?

You don't think teen births are a healthcare issue? Do you subscribe to the weird Republican mindset going around that prenatal care isn't healthcare?

I agree prenatal care is healthcare. My point was that the fact that the U.S. has the highest teen birth rate is not reflective of the quality of our healthcare system. It is a cultural and socio-economic issue. But it doesn't matter. The rest of my post on infant mortality rate showed that when comparing apples to apples, the U.S. rate is very good, with only a very few countries with a rate that is substantially better.

Given your questions, I have to ask if you read the articles I posted.

Funny how you took suicides out when you then asked if we should consider it a healthcare issue.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I didn't say their healthcare is perfect and ours is awful. I didn't even say it's better. All I asked is why we live shorter lives if our healthcare is so much better than theirs. That's the goal of healthcare, right? Stay alive?

You don't think teen births are a healthcare issue? Do you subscribe to the weird Republican mindset going around that prenatal care isn't healthcare?

1. Becaue by in large we live far worse lifestyles than others and that leads to a shorter lifespan. As posted above as well, when you take away suicide, murder and accidents (not health care issues), you can't make the "shorter lives" comment at all.

2. No, that's not the goal of healthcare. It may be a goal, but it wouldn't be my #1. What good is it to be alive if your quality of life is horrible?

3. No, it's a social issue.

Suicide isn't a health care issue. Gotcha.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I didn't say their healthcare is perfect and ours is awful. I didn't even say it's better. All I asked is why we live shorter lives if our healthcare is so much better than theirs. That's the goal of healthcare, right? Stay alive?

You don't think teen births are a healthcare issue? Do you subscribe to the weird Republican mindset going around that prenatal care isn't healthcare?

1. Becaue by in large we live far worse lifestyles than others and that leads to a shorter lifespan. As posted above as well, when you take away suicide, murder and accidents (not health care issues), you can't make the "shorter lives" comment at all.

2. No, that's not the goal of healthcare. It may be a goal, but it wouldn't be my #1. What good is it to be alive if your quality of life is horrible?

3. No, it's a social issue.

Suicide isn't a health care issue. Gotcha.

Not in all cases, no.

No comment on accidents (roughly four times as many per year as suicides, and the 5th leading cause of death in America), or murders (roughly half the number of suicides each year and the 15th leading cause of death in America)? How are they a health care issue?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Indiana has chimed in (and their math is wrong)....

In Indiana, Individual Health Insurance to Cost 72% More Due to Obamacare

Obamacare will be costly for Hoosiers who already have health insurance, according to a report from Indystar.com.

"Insurance rates in Indiana will increase 72 percent for those with individual plans and 8 percent for small group plans under President Barack Obama's healthcare overhaul, according to the state’s insurance department," reads the report.

"The spike in costs is due primarily to new mandates under the law, which requires insurers to cover those with pre-existing conditions and to offer a minimum level of benefits, said Logan Harrison, chief deputy commissioner with the Indiana Department of Insurance under Republican Gov. Mike Pence. New taxes and fees under the law also contributed, Harrison said.

The Indiana governor tells the paper: “This new data regrettably confirms the negative impact of the Affordable Care Act on the insurance market in Indiana. ... The Affordable Care Act requires many Hoosiers to purchase more comprehensive and more expensive health insurance than they may want or need. These rates call into question just how affordable health insurance will really be for many Hoosiers.”

Costs for individual plans is expected to increase from an average of $255 per member per month in 2012 to $570 in 2014, when the most aspects of the law go into effect.

I'm no math major, but that last sentence shows that it will be an average increase of 123.5%, not 72%.

No surprisingly, Indiana Republicans didn't reveal many details with the press release you are citing here.

When you dig a little deeper, Indiana's rates are likely to be just like the rest of the country, anywhere from $280 to $440 a month.

First sentence - The average health insurance plan in Indiana will increase by 72 to percent next year and hit $570 under the 2010 health-care law.

Even if that is the median and not the mean, there is still a very hefty increase in average premium in Indiana no matter how you slice it. And how is "anywhere from $280 to $440 a month" a "win for the consumer" when many of them are paying less than half that right now?!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Indiana has chimed in (and their math is wrong)....

In Indiana, Individual Health Insurance to Cost 72% More Due to Obamacare

Obamacare will be costly for Hoosiers who already have health insurance, according to a report from Indystar.com.

"Insurance rates in Indiana will increase 72 percent for those with individual plans and 8 percent for small group plans under President Barack Obama's healthcare overhaul, according to the state’s insurance department," reads the report.

"The spike in costs is due primarily to new mandates under the law, which requires insurers to cover those with pre-existing conditions and to offer a minimum level of benefits, said Logan Harrison, chief deputy commissioner with the Indiana Department of Insurance under Republican Gov. Mike Pence. New taxes and fees under the law also contributed, Harrison said.

The Indiana governor tells the paper: “This new data regrettably confirms the negative impact of the Affordable Care Act on the insurance market in Indiana. ... The Affordable Care Act requires many Hoosiers to purchase more comprehensive and more expensive health insurance than they may want or need. These rates call into question just how affordable health insurance will really be for many Hoosiers.”

Costs for individual plans is expected to increase from an average of $255 per member per month in 2012 to $570 in 2014, when the most aspects of the law go into effect.

I'm no math major, but that last sentence shows that it will be an average increase of 123.5%, not 72%.

No surprisingly, Indiana Republicans didn't reveal many details with the press release you are citing here.

When you dig a little deeper, Indiana's rates are likely to be just like the rest of the country, anywhere from $280 to $440 a month.

First sentence - The average health insurance plan in Indiana will increase by 72 to percent next year and hit $570 under the 2010 health-care law.

Even if that is the median and not the mean, there is still a very hefty increase in average premium in Indiana no matter how you slice it. And how is "anywhere from $280 to $440 a month" a "win for the consumer" when many of them are paying less than half that right now?!

As has been pointed out to you numerous times in this thread, the insurance they are getting is far better than it was prior to the ACA.

And those numbers don't include the federal subsidies that many will be receiving, make it cheaper.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Indiana has chimed in (and their math is wrong)....

In Indiana, Individual Health Insurance to Cost 72% More Due to Obamacare

Obamacare will be costly for Hoosiers who already have health insurance, according to a report from Indystar.com.

"Insurance rates in Indiana will increase 72 percent for those with individual plans and 8 percent for small group plans under President Barack Obama's healthcare overhaul, according to the state’s insurance department," reads the report.

"The spike in costs is due primarily to new mandates under the law, which requires insurers to cover those with pre-existing conditions and to offer a minimum level of benefits, said Logan Harrison, chief deputy commissioner with the Indiana Department of Insurance under Republican Gov. Mike Pence. New taxes and fees under the law also contributed, Harrison said.

The Indiana governor tells the paper: “This new data regrettably confirms the negative impact of the Affordable Care Act on the insurance market in Indiana. ... The Affordable Care Act requires many Hoosiers to purchase more comprehensive and more expensive health insurance than they may want or need. These rates call into question just how affordable health insurance will really be for many Hoosiers.”

Costs for individual plans is expected to increase from an average of $255 per member per month in 2012 to $570 in 2014, when the most aspects of the law go into effect.

I'm no math major, but that last sentence shows that it will be an average increase of 123.5%, not 72%.

No surprisingly, Indiana Republicans didn't reveal many details with the press release you are citing here.

When you dig a little deeper, Indiana's rates are likely to be just like the rest of the country, anywhere from $280 to $440 a month.

First sentence - The average health insurance plan in Indiana will increase by 72 to percent next year and hit $570 under the 2010 health-care law.

Even if that is the median and not the mean, there is still a very hefty increase in average premium in Indiana no matter how you slice it. And how is "anywhere from $280 to $440 a month" a "win for the consumer" when many of them are paying less than half that right now?!

As has been pointed out to you numerous times in this thread, the insurance they are getting is far better than it was prior to the ACA.

And those numbers don't include the federal subsidies that many will be receiving, make it cheaper.

I don't know that blanket statements can be made about the quality of insurance being higher under ACA. In some states more things will be covered as standard, but whether those things are viewed as a cost-weighted benefit will be highly variable by individual.

That really gets to the heart of the health care dilemma -- what’s good for individuals, even the majority of individuals, isn’t necessarily the best thing when you consider our national health care in the aggregate.

One thing should be clear though, anyone claiming that individual costs will be higher or lower under ACA right now is pushing an agenda. Even once people are actually purchasing through the exchanges, it’s going to take time for rates to settle in. It will probably be a decade running under the ACA rules before we really understand how the laws are affecting long-term usage and cost.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

As has been pointed out to you numerous times in this thread, the insurance they are getting is far better than it was prior to the ACA.

And those numbers don't include the federal subsidies that many will be receiving, make it cheaper.

As we've seen no actual plans sent to the market by any carrier, you can not make that first statement. In fact, I've seen evidence to show that the upcoming bronze and silver plans will actually be weaker for many people than the coverage currently available (possibly much weaker). The bronze plan, after all, is only "built" to cover 60% of the average person's claims, and the silver plan only 70%. What about a plan today that covers 100% after a $1,000 deductible?! My own current plan covers me at 100$ after a $2,250 deductible. Who's got "better coverage" with a $50k medical bill?! Who cares if the ACA plan covered maternity or drug rehab when you're sitting in a hospital bed recovering from heart surgery?!

Federal subsidies just mean that the cost to that one person is cheaper, but more expensive to all tax payers. The cost is the same, it's just being shifted to another person.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Everyone's insurance is better moving fwd. the pre-existing conditions ban, the lifetime limits cap gone, etc all make each of better off.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.