• Welcome to OGBoards 10.0, keep in mind that we will be making LOTS of changes to smooth out the experience here and make it as close as possible functionally to the old software, but feel free to drop suggestions or requests in the Tech Support subforum!

ACA Running Thread

I love that in this whole discussion of the ACA we just have a bunch of people bitching about their plans having been changed. Any thoughts on the millions of previously uninsured people who now have health insurance?

Generalize much? I'd bet rj, by himself, has noted the millions of new insured at least 50 times in this thread.

I'd like to think everyone who has commented believes insuring more citizens is a good thing. That doesn't mean the ACA is beyond criticism. It was poorly designed, poorly rolled out and the American public was repeatedly lied to about some aspects of it.
 
Generalize much? I'd bet rj, by himself, has noted the millions of new insured at least 50 times in this thread.

I'd like to think everyone who has commented believes insuring more citizens is a good thing. That doesn't mean the ACA is beyond criticism. It was poorly designed, poorly rolled out and the American public was repeatedly lied to about some aspects of it.

Correct. A bunch of the despised rich people are now paying a pretty hefty Obamacare tax as part of their income tax that is theoretically going to subsidize Obamacare. If the objective was just to tax the rich to subsidize insurance for a bunch of people, no reason they couldn't have just taken that tax coupled with the individual mandate to establish the additional coverage. There was no legitimate reason to fuck with people's existing health care who didn't have a problem with it.
 
A lot of people were happy with health insurance that was not particularly helpful to the rest of society.
 
Who cares? You got the money without much complaining relative to the other aspects of the ACA, so do something useful with it. Instead, it gets pissed down the black hole with everything else instead of addressing the actual concern the ACA is attempting to address, while fucking up existing health insurance in the process. Great job.
 
A lot of people were happy with health insurance that was not particularly helpful to the rest of society.

So, least common denominator theory strikes again. Instead of targeting the specific problem, fuck up the entire system for everyone. That is a fantastic way to succeed.
 
So, least common denominator theory strikes again. Instead of targeting the specific problem, fuck up the entire system for everyone. That is a fantastic way to succeed.

What? A lot of the insurance that is not currently available were eliminated for a reason and it wasn't to attack the rich who were happy with their programs. And the program did not "get fucked up for everyone" as you continue to rely upon your #anecdotes. Again, I'm not going to shed any tears for people who have to deal with a little bit more administrative work while running a small business when millions of people now have health insurance that could not afford it before because they made too much to qualify for Medicaid but not enough to get insurance on the market.

Just selfishness on display.
 
So, least common denominator theory strikes again. Instead of targeting the specific problem, fuck up the entire system for everyone. That is a fantastic way to succeed.

Except that's a lie. It hasn't fucked it up for everyone. Over 10M people who didn't have insurance now have it. Over 2M people from 21-26 were able to stay on their parents' insurance. Millions of seniors have saved billions upon billions of dollars by closing the doughnut hole. Millions of women have seen their premiums go down. In states that have fully implemented ACA, millions of people have seen either lower premiums or less rise in their premiums while getting more complete coverage.

The biggest problems with ACA was CJ Roberts empowering states to nullify a federal law. In those states, most of the problems exist.

ACA would have been much stronger had the GOP not put destroying this POTUS over the welfare of the country. under no circumstances would they negotiate. Under no circumstances would they allow this POTUS create anything.

Obama had horrific messaging. He had a weak COS (which is Obama's fault).

Had the GOP been will act like the Dems did with Reagan or Bush 41 or even W many times, this would have been an epic change in America. The problem was today's GOP hates Obama more than they love America and have proven it over and over again.
 
What? A lot of the insurance that is not currently available were eliminated for a reason and it wasn't to attack the rich who were happy with their programs. And the program did not "get fucked up for everyone" as you continue to rely upon your #anecdotes. Again, I'm not going to shed any tears for people who have to deal with a little bit more administrative work while running a small business when millions of people now have health insurance that could not afford it before because they made too much to qualify for Medicaid but not enough to get insurance on the market.

Just selfishness on display.

It takes a lot of hubris to claim that these insurance plans weren't good enough for the people that were quite happy with what they had.
 
I didn't say they weren't good for the people who had them, I said they weren't good in general for the insurance market economically and therefore were not good long-term for the country as a whole.

If there was a bill passed that taxed the top 1% at 100% and taxed the bottom 99% at 0% then it would be great for the people who weren't happy with their taxes in the bottom 99% but it wouldn't be so great for the top 1% and it wouldn't be great for the economy as a whole.
 
From a purely utilitarian point of view I wonder if it helped or hurt more people.

It's helped many millions in NY,CA, KY, MD, IL and other states. By not implementing it in TX, they have maintained the highest uninsured rate in the country.

It's helped tens of millions of seniors and over 10M who didn't have insurance.
 
From April from FactCheck:

"It’s true that insurance companies discontinued health plans that had covered millions of people who had bought them directly rather than through an employer. That’s because those plans didn’t meet the coverage standards of the new law.

But those policyholders didn’t lose the ability to have insurance. In most cases, insurers offered them an alternative plan, though there were some instances of companies exiting the individual market altogether."

"Critics of the law now say millions lost their health insurance. But that’s misleading. Those individual market plans were discontinued, but policyholders weren’t denied coverage. And the question is, how many millions of insured Americans had plans canceled, and how does that compare with the millions of uninsured Americans who gained coverage under the law.

There is evidence that far more have gained coverage than had their policies canceled."

"The authors, as noted, picked an estimate that fell in the middle of this range to arrive at their figure of 2.6 million discontinued policies. Until and unless better evidence comes along, that’s the most solidly based figure available."

" The RAND numbers are extrapolated from a survey, and one with sizable margins of error. The estimate of 9.3 million newly insured has a margin of error of 3.5 million people, meaning researchers have a high degree of confidence that the true number would be between 5.8 million and 12.8 million. And the estimate of 700,000 uninsured who previously had individual market plans carries a margin of error of 900,000, putting the likely real number somewhere between zero and 1.6 million people.

Millions more are expected to gain insurance because of the law nationwide in the coming years. The nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office estimates that there will be 25 million fewer uninsured due to the ACA as early as 2016."

http://www.factcheck.org/2014/04/millions-lost-insurance/
 
It takes a lot of hubris to claim that these insurance plans weren't good enough for the people that were quite happy with what they had.

Fortunately the supply on that side of the argument is in abundance. Dems trusted taxpayers with the bill for the ACA, but not the facts.
 
It takes a lot of hubris to claim that these insurance plans weren't good enough for the people that were quite happy with what they had.

I'm curious how many people really knew what they had in the first place.
 
I'm curious how many people really knew what they had in the first place.

Fortune strikes again! Not only do we not know what's good for us, we don't even have to know what we want. We get to be told! This is awesome. Thanks, Dems!
 
Fortune strikes again! Not only do we not know what's good for us, we don't even have to know what we want. We get to be told! This is awesome. Thanks, Dems!

This is definitely true when it comes to health care.
 
What? A lot of the insurance that is not currently available were eliminated for a reason and it wasn't to attack the rich who were happy with their programs. And the program did not "get fucked up for everyone" as you continue to rely upon your #anecdotes. Again, I'm not going to shed any tears for people who have to deal with a little bit more administrative work while running a small business when millions of people now have health insurance that could not afford it before because they made too much to qualify for Medicaid but not enough to get insurance on the market.

Just selfishness on display.

So what is the reason? Back to my #anecdote, the primary reason my prior plan was not compliant was that it did not offer childhood dental coverage (again, we offered free full family dental outside of the health insurance so did not need to pay for that component). But here is the ACA's stance on childhood dental, as per the American Dental Association:

Must the dental EHB benefit be purchased?
Not within exchanges run by the federal government. A federal agency interpretation of the ACA has determined that within the exchange the dental EHB need only be offered. However, in the individual and small group markets outside the exchange, the dental EHB must be purchased. The ADA strongly disagrees with this interpretation, but at this time it appears that all exchanges run by the federal government will be operating within these parameters. On the other hand, states have the authority to mandate the purchase of the dental EHB. Few states have chosen to mandate purchase or are considering doing so.
http://www.ada.org/en/publications/.../affordable-care-act-dental-benefits-examined

So let me get this straight. I had a plan that I was happy with. My plan is now non-compliant because it doesn't have children's dental, so in order for me to not get raped on the non-compliant plan penalties, I have to convert to a compliant plan which requires that I buy that coverage (which, again, I do not want or need). But the plans through the federal exchange do not require that coverage be included. So please explain to me the reason why my prior plan was eliminated for not including that coverage, when the goddamn exchange plans that the system was primarily designed to create do not even have to include that coverage? What the holy fuck is going on? How on earth can our government be so illogical in its own creations?
 
Fortune strikes again! Not only do we not know what's good for us, we don't even have to know what we want. We get to be told! This is awesome. Thanks, Dems!

And we get to be told by a bunch of people who didn't know what was in the law they passed in the first place.
 
Back
Top