• 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

myDeaconmyhand said:
I understood your words, i'm asking why the hell you're speaking like a fool? You know damn well that the purpose of the ACA isnt to lower the deficit. Why do you feel the need to be a troll on this thread?
Click to expand...

There's no shortage of liberal opinions on these Tunnels. While it's probably hard to decipher since occasionally or even often I do troll in my Pro-Trump tweets (which are really more just me bragging about being right 2 years ago he was going to win and no one here believing me). Often time my right leaning posts are designed to get the group-think to articulate their beliefs.

Yes, the goal of the ACA isn't the reduce the deficit. But are we getting a good return on our investment? Are we spending $100 a person and getting $500 worth of benefits, or vice versa? I don't know the answer, so often I ask questions. I don't have firm convictions, so I hope you have the answers given that most people here do. Oftentimes most don't.
 
It's fair and reasonable to wonder how much health care Americans are receiving for their money, but how do we even measure healthcare? Health results? I've seen many articles citing research that America spends far more on healthcare per capita than any other nation, with much worse results, yet defenders of our system are certain we have the best system in the world.
I'm quite confident that our system is great for wealthy educated Americans who live healthy lives and receive preventative care, but based on my experience and research, poor and indigent Americans receive health care comparative to 2nd world nations. The current lifestyle and healthcare infrastructure available to poor Americans just isn't capable of creating a "return on investment", and certainly not producing a profit for Insurance companies in poor areas.
 
Good post. It's clear many Americans measure healthcare by how much money they spent on it.
 
PhDeac said:
Good post. It's clear many Americans measure healthcare by how much money they spent on it.
Click to expand...

Probably because our last President focused the discussion and resulting legislation on how we pay for health insurance, as opposed to addressing actual healthcare.
 
Because Americans measure healthcare by how much money they spend on it.
 
2&2 Slider To Leyritz said:
Probably because our last President focused the discussion and resulting legislation on how we pay for health insurance, as opposed to addressing actual healthcare.
Click to expand...

So let's just take insurance away from millions of people to show Obama. And of course all of the ingrates who have used 2&2 for health insurance and then quit working for him.
 
palmab03 said:
Ranger does it! Curious why the deficit goes up instead of down?
Click to expand...

The deficit goes up because this will jack up premiums pretty dramatically in the exchanges, and most of the patients on the exchanges are getting subsidies that cap the amount they have to pay. So they won't pay any more, but the government will. Chances Trump understands this are pretty low.
 
If Trump blows up subsidies today, won't that totally destabilize the market?

Isn't healthcare about 1/6 of our economy? If it's destabilized won't equity markets be impacted?
 
2&2 Slider To Leyritz said:
Not really. Health insurance is an artificial necessity solely because of poorly run healthcare. There are plenty of healthcare scenarios under which there would be no need for health insurance whatsoever.
Click to expand...

like when you cut your finger and suck on it for a second or two b/c it kinda stings ?
 
Yeah can wait to see how things get paid for in the 2&2 utopia of only needing to fix healthcare and not healthcare insurance.
 
PhDeac said:
Such as...
Click to expand...

I've said it before on here dozens of time. If the government is going to be involved in the healthcare industry, its role should be as facilitator, not impediment. We could build healthcare costs into food taxes. We could build it into consumption taxes for goods that lead to unhealthy results. If we wanted to spread it out a little more we could build healthcare costs into property taxes like we do for schools to be managed community by community or state by state or even at a national level. We have a death tax, we could have a "birth tax" scalable by income that pays into the system to cover escalating costs. There are hundreds of ways to do it. But whatever the collection structure, the key is that the gross receipts go directly to fund the healthcare itself, whether that healthcare is publicly run or privately managed. Health insurance is an unnecessary distraction that only exists because the government got in the industry in a half-assed way with respect to Medicare and Medicaid; they either need to be wholly in or wholly out. The half-in half-out involvement just fucks it up for everyone. I'm fine if they are wholly in it, but if so then they need to address healthcare directly and not focus on the insurance distraction.
 
Health insurance is a private section solution to health care costs.

Your plan is to raise taxes to fund healthcare for all so people won't need insurance.

Are you sure that's what you want to do?
 
Elimination of the Cost-Share-Reduction is a big deal, but the headlines all seem to say 'Trump is eliminating subsidies' which leads low-income consumers to think they are going to have pay full price for their plans in 2018. I wish the articles would be a little more clear on the issue.
 
WakeForestRanger said:
Click to expand...

Spending more taxpayer money and increasing premiums. And he's betting that he won't be blamed despite the televised executive order signing and the celebration in the rose garden. All because he has a need to destroy everything Obama did.

Again, Trump shoots the hostage.
 
LCDeacon said:
Elimination of the Cost-Share-Reduction is a big deal, but the headlines all seem to say 'Trump is eliminating subsidies' which leads low-income consumers to think they are going to have pay full price for their plans in 2018. I wish the articles would be a little more clear on the issue.
Click to expand...

For a while it was looking like we weren't going to have any insurance company issuing individual policies in VA because of Trump. I'm a solo practitioner with 1 assistant. It now looks like between Anthem and Optima we will have coverage next year, but it sounds like I'm getting an 80% rate hike. Not sure past next year. It's getting so that you can't be self-employed or run a very small business any longer. I'm now looking for alternative employment just so I know I will continue to be able to have insurance. Normally, presidents have little to no effect on me personally. Trump is now the 1st president we've had who is directly affecting my life.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top