- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
re: Someone help me understand
Posted on 7/28/17 at 12:26 pm to 5thTiger
Posted on 7/28/17 at 12:26 pm to 5thTiger
quote:
Stop what? I'm saying your individual situation (which seems to be contradictory to all the other data) is essentially irrelevant to the OP's post
no i'm talking about this "IF you're telling the truth' position
i've met over 100 people from this site and every post i make currently bears my name. there is no "secrets" or "lies" with ole SFP
quote:
Don't know where you are getting that 5% number. Pretty sure pre-existing coverage alone touches a majority of Americans.
LINK
quote:
The roughly 2.5 million people added in 2016 brings the total number of Americans who have gained access to health insurance to 16.5 million
quote:
According to Haislmaier’s congressional testimony, “Medicaid accounted for 81 percent of the incremental growth in enrollment in 2016—a ratio consistent with the experience during the previous two year’s of ACA implementation.”
even if i give you 20M, 20M is like 6% of 330M
Posted on 7/28/17 at 12:26 pm to Y.A. Tittle
quote:
You mean the policy that was initially passed by little more effort than trotting out 5-6 outlier hardluck stories before the American public to appeal to their emotions to "get something done"?
Posted on 7/28/17 at 12:31 pm to 5thTiger
quote:
Excellent non-partisan organizations like the Kaiser Foundation produce great work that says as much.
The Kaiser Foundation? As in Kaiser Permanente, the $60 billion insurance company?
Sounds very non-partisan.
Posted on 7/28/17 at 12:31 pm to Zach
I've posted multiple links with non-partisan and government data. This isn't my opinion or prognosticating.
My final point, that I've made multiple times is, using a single example that contradicts the rest of the data is a bad way to shape public policy.
My final point, that I've made multiple times is, using a single example that contradicts the rest of the data is a bad way to shape public policy.
Posted on 7/28/17 at 12:32 pm to 5thTiger
quote:
using a single example that contradicts the rest of the data is a bad way to shape public policy.
yeah i'm not disagreeing
but 5% is basically the same, especially considering the stakes (taking over 1/6 of our economy) and cost (trillions)
Posted on 7/28/17 at 12:35 pm to 5thTiger
quote:
I've posted multiple links with non-partisan and government data. This isn't my opinion or prognosticating.
Do you know who John Roberts is? Do you know what a tax is? The ACA was allowed because it's a tax on people who can afford the huge increases in premiums in order to pay for those who cannot. What do you not understand about that?
Posted on 7/28/17 at 12:36 pm to SlowFlowPro
quote:
OPINION CONTRIBUTORS
Seriously? You know better than that.
quote:
Heartland Institute
quote:
In the 1990s, the Heartland Institute worked with the tobacco company Philip Morris to question or deny the health risks of secondhand smoke and to lobby against smoking bans.[2][3]:233–34[4] In the decade after 2000, the Heartland Institute became a leading supporter of climate change denial.[5][6] It rejects the scientific consensus on global warming,[7] and says that policies to fight it would be damaging to the economy
quote:
According to the Heartland Institute, it advocates free market policies.[32] The policy orientation of Heartland has been described as conservative, libertarian, and right wing
Not even going to touch that.
Some real gymnastics there.
This post was edited on 7/28/17 at 12:38 pm
Posted on 7/28/17 at 12:37 pm to 5thTiger
quote:
I'm saying your individual situation (which seems to be contradictory to all the other data) is essentially irrelevant to the OP's post.
No, it's not. Because he's not alone. If you screw 60% of the population in order to give coverage for 5% of the population and lower premiums for an additional 20% of the population, it's not working for 60% of the population.
In the Socialists world, they need to get the percentage of people getting screwed down to 49% before they are where they want to be.
Posted on 7/28/17 at 12:40 pm to ODanMan
quote:
If "health care" goes back to the way it was before Obamacare, premiums will sky rocket. I thought Obamacare is what made the premiums sky rocket ??? for the record, my insurance is not as good as it was before Obamacare and it cost more also. I'll hang up a listen .
Its easier to blame everything on one causation then to acknowledge the actual complexity and nuance of the problem. Especially when one line of attack has such fruitful political benefits.
In the ten years prior to the ACA, insurance inflation was +131%. Based on current trends, the average employer family that had the average total policy worth 13,375 was expected to see inflation of +166% over the next ten years. Which would of amounted to roughly $9000 more a year, or 750 a month. Concurrently with that trend was a trend of employers scaling back benefits, putting more of the burden on employees, and choosing higher deductible plans. Which to the average person means their per person costs would of been even higher. All while seeing less benefits and higher deductibles.
These were all trends prior to the ACA.
The problem of the ACA is not that they caused trends that were already happening, it is that they did not do enough to stop or reverse this trend. As you pointed out they did slow cost growth, but the catch in that is especially for employer insurance, it is likely most employees did not see that since those savings did not get passed on.
The larger point though, is that rolling back the ACA or any of the Republican plans(which at their core think higher deductibles are a feature, not a bug) is not going to address the problems people are complaining about here.
This post was edited on 7/28/17 at 12:41 pm
Posted on 7/28/17 at 12:41 pm to RolltidePA
quote:
the $60 billion insurance company?
Yeah, but these multi billion dollar corporations and their lobbyist are going to allow the "free market" to level premiums.
Posted on 7/28/17 at 12:41 pm to Zach
quote:
Do you know who John Roberts is? Do you know what a tax is? The ACA was allowed because it's a tax on people who can afford the huge increases in premiums in order to pay for those who cannot.
I don't think you understand the ACA as well as you think you do.
But yes, I do know who John Roberts is, and yes, I do know what a tax is.
Posted on 7/28/17 at 12:42 pm to 5thTiger
You haven't addressed my comments about the difference between healthcare costs and premium costs.
Even though I get my premium costs subsidized by my employer, they have realized that it would be difficult for them to pass on the premium increases that they are incurring, so they opted for more modest premium increases in favor of plans that require huge increases in out-of-pocket costs.
Even though I get my premium costs subsidized by my employer, they have realized that it would be difficult for them to pass on the premium increases that they are incurring, so they opted for more modest premium increases in favor of plans that require huge increases in out-of-pocket costs.
Posted on 7/28/17 at 12:44 pm to 5thTiger
quote:
Seriously? You know better than that.
i posted the research data and testimony, not the author's opinion. seriously? you know better than that.
quote:
Not even going to touch that.
i even gave you the 20M number, which is 6% of the population
quote:
Heartland Institute
didn't even do the research in the article that i posed
Posted on 7/28/17 at 12:44 pm to Zach
quote:
And my insurer specifically said it was due to Obamacare... in writing.
Well if they wrote it down, it MUST be true!
Posted on 7/28/17 at 12:47 pm to ODanMan
quote:No.
If "health care" goes back to the way it was before Obamacare, premiums will sky rocket.
quote:You thought correctly.
I thought Obamacare is what made the premiums sky rocket
Posted on 7/28/17 at 12:49 pm to LSUconvert
quote:It is true, whether they wrote it down or not. It is not even debatable.
if they wrote it down, it MUST be true!
Posted on 7/28/17 at 12:52 pm to NC_Tigah
quote:
It is true, whether they wrote it down or not. It is not even debatable.
Wrong!
Posted on 7/28/17 at 12:53 pm to SlowFlowPro
quote:
i buy my own health insurance and i am the demographic the government decided would subsidize EVERYONE (male, economic producer, no health issues, and young-ish)
I'm right there with you.
My premium has gone from $100 when Obamacare was enacted to $400 now. It was stable before Obamacare, barely rising.
I dread to see what it will be next year. I expect to pay $700 a month in a little more than a year.
The Affordable Care Act will make health care unaffordable for me.
Posted on 7/28/17 at 12:53 pm to 5thTiger
I found the numbers, and you shouldn't object because it is from The Kaiser Foundation.
The number of people in high deductible plans has skyrocketed These plans, by nature, have lower premiums, so that is why premium rates are slowing down slowing down. Total costs, however, are not slowing down, which is why I said that you were careless in your initial posts when you used the word, "healthcare costs", instead of "premium costs".
Note: These number don't include the subsidies, which would make today's costs even higher.
The number of people in high deductible plans has skyrocketed These plans, by nature, have lower premiums, so that is why premium rates are slowing down slowing down. Total costs, however, are not slowing down, which is why I said that you were careless in your initial posts when you used the word, "healthcare costs", instead of "premium costs".
Note: These number don't include the subsidies, which would make today's costs even higher.
This post was edited on 7/28/17 at 12:56 pm
Posted on 7/28/17 at 12:55 pm to LSUconvert
quote:
Wrong!
my insurer told me that i could not keep my plan b/c the ACA ruled it was a bad plan and they weren't going to change it to fit the ACA and just bounced the frick out of LA altogether
so Obama lied with his "if you like your plan, you can keep it" bullshite
also, the ACA has limit choices in my area to TWO (and one totally sucks in terms of providers)
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News