• 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

EatLeadCommie said:
Perhaps it isn't mentioned because it was already conceded. Before implementation, it was well known that the vast majority of newly insured would come from the expansion of Medicaid. I think the focus is appropriately on all the stupid government mandates, general incompetence in attempting to wrangle the health care industry, and what that means for people who were already perfectly content with their level of coverage and now are paying more or having to shop around..
Click to expand...

The mandate was a GOP idea.
 
Deacon923 said:
I'm all for choice and individual freedom and letting markets work - in contexts where they work well. Health care is not such a market. Health care is supposed to be evidence-based and scientific. Instead, we have people in this country who refuse to vaccinate their kids (putting all of the rest of us at risk) because Jenny freaking McCarthy told them it causes autism. We have a pharma industry that spends billions on advertisements to convince us that THEIR medicine is the one we need, so we will badger our doctors to prescribe it, while at the same time marketing those medicines to doctors, all without regard to whether the drug flavor of the month is any better than a generic or OTC remedy. We give 93 year old men with dementia hip replacement surgery, because the doctors convinced the family that if they didn't do "everything possible" to help Dad they were bad people, then act surprised when that results in hundreds of thousands of dollars of extra procedures and treatment to deal with the totally predictable adverse health impacts (in case you can't guess, this happened to someone I know). The list of this crap goes on and on. Free market medicine is bankrupting this country.
Click to expand...

Sounds like a stupid population is bankrupting this country.
 
2&2 Slider To Leyritz said:
Sounds like a stupid population is bankrupting this country.
Click to expand...

2&2 Slider To Leyritz said:
Sure. It is not an identical law and there was a compeling dissent in the 4th Circuit decision to try to frame this law under and with no Supreme Court guidance. That defense is clearly not frivilous. Furthermore, the law was enacted so the burden is on whoever wants to challenge it to assert the challenge and then his job is to defend. For Cooper to come out and proactively state that he is not defending is simply political.
Click to expand...

2&2 Slider To Leyritz said:
Roy Cooper is such a piece of shit. Hey asshole, your job is to enforce the laws as enacted/written, not play wannabe politican-judge and determine what you think is or is not correct. Your "clients" in this case are the citizens that (rightly or wrongly) decided the law, and your job is to advocate for your clients, not yourself. I greatly support gay marriage, but this is just yet another example of Cooper pushing his own personal political agenda instead of doing his actual job. That stupid fuck symbolizes everything that is wrong about our current government.
Click to expand...

Hmm you don't say.
 
Wakeforest22890 said:
And yet even though this was "well known" most southern states still chose not to expand Medicaid yet chose to bitch about the parts which were actually contentious while doing absolutely nothing to address what most knew. Interesting choice. Blame the bad parts of the law while simultaneously failing to implementing the good parts. Damn that's a winning strategy!
Click to expand...

That part had to be litigated in the Supreme Court. It was not well known that they would even be allowed to opt out.
 
EatLeadCommie said:
That part had to be litigated in the Supreme Court. It was not well known that they would even be allowed to opt out.
Click to expand...

They shouldn't have been. What if they were allowed out of housing integration or bathrooms or water fountains?

This Supreme Court wants to justify nullification. Five of them would have been right at home before Brown.
 
Cool check out this map from September of states who haven't expanded Medicaid who now know about the SCOTUS litigation:

http://abco.advisory.com/email/web/...-stand.htm?iframe=true&width=100%&height=100%

If you'll notice, no southern states have except for Arkansas. Similarly very few midwest states have. If it's so obvious that expanding Medicaid would increase the number of insured, why have these states not done it? Are they against more people having insurance (seems like it), are they undermining the ACA on purpose (almost certainly), are they using it as political capital against Obama and the Democrats (very clearly), why would they do this at all if they were really looking out for the population?

Just food for thought since it was "well known" ahead of time that the expansion would help, now we can see clearly that even things that are well known and seemingly pretty straight forward - providing people who need help with help - pretty much still don't get done in the south and midwest.
 
Last edited:
myDeaconmyhand said:
If that point is truly conceded, how do we put the genie back in the bottle if the ACA is repealed? Aren't all those complaining about it on this thread also supporting politicians who wish to repeal it? I can't think of any politicians who are campaigning on the premise of just "fixing" Obamacare. I don't have my head in the sand, I know people have lost coverage or had their OOP and rates go up - my moms advantage plan was canceled. My support for the ACA stems from the unlikelyhood of anything better being passed. It may be unfair to define the argument as for or against, but those are really the only two options in this political climate.
Click to expand...

Well that's why people didn't want the genie out of the bottle in the first place. Because when you expand a government program, there's no rolling it back. I think that, realistically speaking, you have to keep the Medicaid expansion. And since it is optional anyway and is supposed to cost states more in the long term (or at least some states), that should be fine in theory. You also can't go back on the preexisting conditions. But yeah, kill most everything else, particularly the dumb regulations that mandate what level of coverage is acceptable, and see what other ideas will work better within the resulting framework.
 
Deacon923 said:
I'm all for choice and individual freedom and letting markets work - in contexts where they work well. Health care is not such a market. Health care is supposed to be evidence-based and scientific. Instead, we have people in this country who refuse to vaccinate their kids (putting all of the rest of us at risk) because Jenny freaking McCarthy told them it causes autism. We have a pharma industry that spends billions on advertisements to convince us that THEIR medicine is the one we need, so we will badger our doctors to prescribe it, while at the same time marketing those medicines to doctors, all without regard to whether the drug flavor of the month is any better than a generic or OTC remedy. We give 93 year old men with dementia hip replacement surgery, because the doctors convinced the family that if they didn't do "everything possible" to help Dad they were bad people, then act surprised when that results in hundreds of thousands of dollars of extra procedures and treatment to deal with the totally predictable adverse health impacts (in case you can't guess, this happened to someone I know). The list of this crap goes on and on. Free market medicine is bankrupting this country.
Click to expand...

Bump
 
TuffaloDeac10 said:
States were always able to opt out. It's just that they would have had to opt out of the entirety of Medicaid prior to the ruling
Click to expand...

Ah yes...the non-optional opt out, as defined by your federal government. Reminds me of them giving states the option to determine their drinking age, but at the risk of losing federal highway funds.
 
Who was it that didn't want the genie out of the bottle (health insurance for the uninsured)?
 
EatLeadCommie said:
Ah yes...the non-optional opt out, as defined by your federal government. Reminds me of them giving states the option to determine their drinking age, but at the risk of losing federal highway funds.
Click to expand...

So what's your response to southern and midwest states choosing not to expand Medicaid thus leaving a gap in insurance?
 
Wakeforest22890 said:
Cool check out this map from September of states who haven't expanded Medicaid who now know about the SCOTUS litigation:

http://abco.advisory.com/email/web/...-stand.htm?iframe=true&width=100%&height=100%

If you'll notice, no southern states have except for Arkansas. Similarly very few midwest states have. If it's so obvious that expanding Medicaid would increase the number of insured, why have these states not done it? Are they against more people having insurance (seems like it), are they undermining the ACA on purpose (almost certainly), are they using it as political capital against Obama and the Democrats (very clearly), why would they do this at all if they were really looking out for the population?

Just food for thought since it was "well known" ahead of time that the expansion would help, now we can see clearly that even things that are well known and seemingly pretty straight forward - providing people who need help with help - pretty much still don't get done in the south and midwest.
Click to expand...

I think it's a bit more complicated than Republicans just being meanies. It has to do with expanding yet another government program at great long-term expense.
 
http://www.newrepublic.com/article/119011/map-how-much-24-states-lost-refusing-expand-medicaid

"Conservatives who oppose the Medicaid expansion make other arguments, of course. They say they don’t want to increase federal spending, they think Medicaid is a lousy insurance program, and, more generally, they don’t like big government. Those are fine arguments to have. But the idea that expanding Medicaid is a poor financial decision for states is not just wrong. It appears to be the opposite of the truth."
 
It would cost over $3 billion for North Carolina over ten years to expand Medicaid. A failure to do this means the state misses out on nearly $40 billion in Medicaid funding over the same 10 year period and over $11 billion in hospital reimbursements over the same 10 year period.
 
Wakeforest22890 said:
It would cost over $3 billion for North Carolina over ten years to expand Medicaid. A failure to do this means the state misses out on nearly $40 billion in Medicaid funding over the same 10 year period and over $11 billion in hospital reimbursements over the same 10 year period.
Click to expand...

When you understand there's only issue. It's not about spending. It's not about covering or not covering the poor. It has always been about destroying Obama.

There are books about the meetings and the planning of it. This is very simple.
 
EatLeadCommie said:
I think it's a bit more complicated than Republicans just being meanies. It has to do with expanding yet another government program at great long-term expense.
Click to expand...

But the previously uninsured were a cost too, were they not? Maybe I am misreading this but it implies that without the ACA there was no cost at all.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top