ONW
Well-known member
- Joined
- Apr 19, 2011
- Messages
- 19,177
- Reaction score
- 658
This is why you are losing. Although she's defs a one.
Last edited:
ACA Running Thread
- Thread starter Wrangor
- Start date
- Latest activity Latest activity:
This is why you are losing. Although she's defs a one.
Wait until the costs hit to start counting your chickens. This thing is just getting started and the people who were playing the rules all along are not going to like it when their premiums jump to cover somebody else's care. Mythology aside, how many voters that are going to get care weren't already in the Dem fold? Aren't we still waiting for a majority of Americans to want this thing that is being rolled out over their objection? The polls continue to think so, that that's before the costs show up.
Last edited:
ConnorEl
Well-known member
lol
This FoxNews poll is interesting.
What percentage of folks think all or part of the ACA should be repealed? Jan '11: 61, June '13: 58, now 54. And what "part" are they wishing to repeal? Who knows? Most folks like most of the parts when they're asked about them in particular. But notice the trend? It's only going to keep going down, I think, as people see it's not the end of all good but actually pretty sweet. Of course, that's what the Pubs are really afraid of. Plus they've no better alternative plan.
Top Republican Calls For Replacing Obamacare With Obamacare
The US healthcare paradox: we like the Affordable Care Act but fear Obamacare
Quote:
----------
President Obama's healthcare law is hated and loved by some so much that they are willing to shut down the government over it. I'm not sure I've ever seen so much passion over an issue about which so few (myself included) know as much as we should.
I wrote about this divide when Obamacare was in front of the US supreme court. Americans were opposed to "Obamacare", or the Affordable Care Act, yet they were in favor of many of its provisions. Not surprisingly, Americans lacked knowledge of what exactly the law did.
----------
Although the above article suggests a more negative trend, it highlights the fact that most people favor most of the provision of the ACA and are more negative wrt "Obama"care. The only provision/requirement not favored is the individual mandate, which of course is necessary for all the good stuff to work. That's how insurance works best for large groups over time, however.
Some Americans Say They Support the Affordable Care Act but Not Obamacare
The idea that ignorance is the root of much disagreement—that if Americans understood the healthcare law, more would support it—seems condescending, but not invalid.
Humorous Kimmel clip in the above link.
Quote:
----------
There are legitimate reasons one might support or oppose the healthcare law, but misunderstanding its names or basic provisions is no longer among them. We've had years to learn about the law, and good resources are widely available to do it. Just today Kaiser Family Foundation released some solid consumer-oriented explanations. The U.S. government is presently shut down over the issue. Comedians ridiculing ignorance can sometimes feel gauche, but at this point it's fine.
----------
This FoxNews poll is interesting.
What percentage of folks think all or part of the ACA should be repealed? Jan '11: 61, June '13: 58, now 54. And what "part" are they wishing to repeal? Who knows? Most folks like most of the parts when they're asked about them in particular. But notice the trend? It's only going to keep going down, I think, as people see it's not the end of all good but actually pretty sweet. Of course, that's what the Pubs are really afraid of. Plus they've no better alternative plan.
Top Republican Calls For Replacing Obamacare With Obamacare
The US healthcare paradox: we like the Affordable Care Act but fear Obamacare
Quote:
----------
President Obama's healthcare law is hated and loved by some so much that they are willing to shut down the government over it. I'm not sure I've ever seen so much passion over an issue about which so few (myself included) know as much as we should.
I wrote about this divide when Obamacare was in front of the US supreme court. Americans were opposed to "Obamacare", or the Affordable Care Act, yet they were in favor of many of its provisions. Not surprisingly, Americans lacked knowledge of what exactly the law did.
----------
Although the above article suggests a more negative trend, it highlights the fact that most people favor most of the provision of the ACA and are more negative wrt "Obama"care. The only provision/requirement not favored is the individual mandate, which of course is necessary for all the good stuff to work. That's how insurance works best for large groups over time, however.
Some Americans Say They Support the Affordable Care Act but Not Obamacare
The idea that ignorance is the root of much disagreement—that if Americans understood the healthcare law, more would support it—seems condescending, but not invalid.
Humorous Kimmel clip in the above link.
Quote:
----------
There are legitimate reasons one might support or oppose the healthcare law, but misunderstanding its names or basic provisions is no longer among them. We've had years to learn about the law, and good resources are widely available to do it. Just today Kaiser Family Foundation released some solid consumer-oriented explanations. The U.S. government is presently shut down over the issue. Comedians ridiculing ignorance can sometimes feel gauche, but at this point it's fine.
----------
Like I said, wait until this law raises a lot of people's health insurance premiums who were doing absolutely nothing wrong. Watch what happens to its already sterling popularity then.
Reminds me of the VACATION classic line, "You hate it now, but what 'till you drive it."
I still need a persuasive elevator speech about how this thing saves money. If you were explaining it to an eighth grader, how could you convince that person that masses of previously uninsurable people are suddenly going to be able to get insurance coverage for catastrophic, preexisting conditions, at an affordable cost? I mean....how? What magic button did we push? It just doesn't pass the smell test at the most basic level.
If (and FTR, I hate this idea b/c it's marginal efficacy isn't worth the tradeoff) you told me you were going to pass tort reform in a way that would keep doctors from practicing defensive medicine (and thus, reduce the amount of unnecessary coverage we have to pay for), then I could at least draw a line from "We don't have wasteful CYA procedures" to "Less aggregate costs."
Where does the line go for "Uninsurables magically get coverage they couldn't previously afford" next? Why doesn't "Less aggregate cost" seem like the right answer?
This thing is destined to fail (which was probably the intent the entire time), and by then the people who vote in elections are going to (finally) be fatigued with the Dems blaming the world's problems on the prior Admin. This turd sandwich is going to be awfully hard to put on someone else's plate in 2016. Cluck, cluck.
Last edited:
WFFaithful
Well-known member
People keep posing their premiums from BCBSNC online with comments about how much they went up, yet they forget that most of them will qualify for the subsidy.
And who pays for that?
I'll play the role of the unfrozen caveman lawyer. Your big words about health care exchanges frighten and confuse me. I don't know much, but I do know this:
1. Young, healthy people who don't think they need health insurance don't buy it.
2. The pool isn't deep enough to absorb the massive costs imposed by sick people who need coverage, forcing costs on the other people who are in the market to double-subsidize the costs of the sick people (one for their share of the risk, and again for the share of the people who have opted out of the pool).
3. So our magic (voted on, but unread) plan is to reach out of the pool and pull people into that don't want to be in, through a tax penalty (that is TOTALLY NOT A TAX,:thumbsup
4. Okay, most of those people that aren't in the pool aren't paying a federal income tax to increase as it is, and probably have sufficient credits/deductions to offset this so-called penalty, even if the penalty were anywhere calibrated to what their actual pro rata share of the risk is (and let's just say that I will believe that when I see it).
5. So either those people pay nothing through offsetting credits, or they pay less than their pro rata share, but now they can care as well. Smashcut to the system now having more takers without an offsetting amount of payment, and now the system can't (by Jeanie-esque mandate from on high) defend itself against uninsurable risk. Who pays the cost for these new added benefits? A: The people who were already shouldering the load under the current system. Brilliant!
6. Punchline: the people who have their pro rata shares covered/heavily subsidized by others elect politicians whose message is class warfare against the people paying for this system (and every system) for "not paying their fair share." Of course.
P.S. None of this should undermine how comical it is to hear the Obama-crowd championing the role of the individual mandate as a tool to keep freeloaders from sponging off the productivity of others. If it actually worked as designed, they would be catatonic. The fact that they're not against it proves either (or both) that a) they're so blinded by the picture of a shirtless Obama astride a rainbow farting unicorn on the cover of their Trapper Keepers that they haven't stopped to think this through (a distinct possibility on this and other matters since no later than 2007) and/or b) they have no intention of having the individual mandate actually administered in a way that would perform this needed, lynchpin function; neither of which are encouraging.
1. Young, healthy people who don't think they need health insurance don't buy it.
2. The pool isn't deep enough to absorb the massive costs imposed by sick people who need coverage, forcing costs on the other people who are in the market to double-subsidize the costs of the sick people (one for their share of the risk, and again for the share of the people who have opted out of the pool).
3. So our magic (voted on, but unread) plan is to reach out of the pool and pull people into that don't want to be in, through a tax penalty (that is TOTALLY NOT A TAX,:thumbsup
4. Okay, most of those people that aren't in the pool aren't paying a federal income tax to increase as it is, and probably have sufficient credits/deductions to offset this so-called penalty, even if the penalty were anywhere calibrated to what their actual pro rata share of the risk is (and let's just say that I will believe that when I see it).
5. So either those people pay nothing through offsetting credits, or they pay less than their pro rata share, but now they can care as well. Smashcut to the system now having more takers without an offsetting amount of payment, and now the system can't (by Jeanie-esque mandate from on high) defend itself against uninsurable risk. Who pays the cost for these new added benefits? A: The people who were already shouldering the load under the current system. Brilliant!
6. Punchline: the people who have their pro rata shares covered/heavily subsidized by others elect politicians whose message is class warfare against the people paying for this system (and every system) for "not paying their fair share." Of course.
P.S. None of this should undermine how comical it is to hear the Obama-crowd championing the role of the individual mandate as a tool to keep freeloaders from sponging off the productivity of others. If it actually worked as designed, they would be catatonic. The fact that they're not against it proves either (or both) that a) they're so blinded by the picture of a shirtless Obama astride a rainbow farting unicorn on the cover of their Trapper Keepers that they haven't stopped to think this through (a distinct possibility on this and other matters since no later than 2007) and/or b) they have no intention of having the individual mandate actually administered in a way that would perform this needed, lynchpin function; neither of which are encouraging.
Last edited:
Wrangor
Go Deacs
- Joined
- Mar 24, 2011
- Messages
- 12,413
- Reaction score
- 1,376
And that is the biggest problem with most pubs complaining about ACA. No feasible solution to address the uninsured people that we are already providing care for. Single payer is the solution.
Yea, it was also Howard Dean who warned that "this legislation (ACA) is worse than doing nothing at all".
Yep, that's right Bob.
ImTheCaptain
I disagree with you
assume he's refering to this from 2009?
http://sayanythingblog.com/entry/howard_dean_health_care_bill_is_bad_for_this_country_says_he_would_vote_to_/
http://sayanythingblog.com/entry/howard_dean_health_care_bill_is_bad_for_this_country_says_he_would_vote_to_/
Everybody knows my name....
WFFaithful
Well-known member
Should have said, "Say my name."
2&2 Slider To Leyritz
Well-known member
2&2 Slider To Leyritz
Well-known member
There are a few ways to do it without going the single payor route, which I've posted here in detail in the ACA discussions over the past few years. But nobody has elected me to any "czar" position within the administration yet (perhaps I need to go support a useless streetcar).
2&2 Slider To Leyritz
Well-known member
Brief recaps:
1. Tax "bad" food and similar items (fast food, soda, beer, pizza, tobacco, now e-cigs) at a rate of at least 100%. Use the tax revenue solely to (a) build clinics that are free to attend for any citizen, and (b) fund full med-school scholarships for doctors who commit to working at the clinics for ~5 years, similar to the GI Bill. If successful, it could fund program-specific med schools. This accomplishes four objectives. First, it discourages, but still permits, a large cause of our healthcare problem. Second, it creates a baseline system of care for everyone. Third, it allows people who do not want to participate to still purchase whatever insurance and healthcare they want in the normal market. Fourth, it explicitly ties the costs of healthcare to the behavior causing the need. The worst-case scenario is that it fails funding because it discourages purchases of the unhealthy items to the point that it can't support itself, which in the long run would actually be a huge victory in health care and our society.
2. Vastly expand Medicaid eligibility, with tiered co-payments based on income levels. That would also accomplish two objectives. First, it would hopefully force a corrective look at Medicaid to get the system working better for those on it, those who now be going on it, and those paying for it. Second, it would keep the negative stigma associated with the program, such that for most epople it would still be a last resort option, secondary to private insurance. Obviously, the cost of the overall program would explode, but hopefully some of that would be offset by fixing a lot of its problems; and in the long run I think it would be less costly than the ACA and with much more care arising from it.
While #1 is extremely preferable in my mind to #2, either of these plans would accomplish the goal of providing baseline health care for all Americans, while avoiding the bureaucratic nightmare that would arise if we were to go to a single payor system for everyone, when most people do not need it. In other words, help support the least common denominator without forcing the majority down to that same level.
2&2 Slider To Leyritz
Well-known member
I'm not saying I would, I'm just saying they are ways to effectively address the health care problem without resorting to single payor. What is clear is that we are not going to solve the problem in our current political climate. We are going to muddle along as the problem gets worse and worse, and then maybe in 15-20 years when the effects and emotions of the last 9 years have subsided, then maybe we can revisit the issue.