Started By
Message

re: Someone help me understand

Posted on 7/28/17 at 12:26 pm to
Posted by SlowFlowPro
Simple Solutions to Complex Probs
Member since Jan 2004
422409 posts
Posted on 7/28/17 at 12:26 pm to
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 by SlowFlowPro
Simple Solutions to Complex Probs
Member since Jan 2004
422409 posts
Posted on 7/28/17 at 12:26 pm to
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 by RolltidePA
North Carolina
Member since Dec 2010
3480 posts
Posted on 7/28/17 at 12:31 pm to
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 by 5thTiger
Member since Nov 2014
7996 posts
Posted on 7/28/17 at 12:31 pm to
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.
Posted by SlowFlowPro
Simple Solutions to Complex Probs
Member since Jan 2004
422409 posts
Posted on 7/28/17 at 12:32 pm to
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 by Zach
Gizmonic Institute
Member since May 2005
112460 posts
Posted on 7/28/17 at 12:35 pm to
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 by 5thTiger
Member since Nov 2014
7996 posts
Posted on 7/28/17 at 12:36 pm to
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 by Jax-Tiger
Port Saint Lucie, FL
Member since Jan 2005
24740 posts
Posted on 7/28/17 at 12:37 pm to
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 by bonhoeffer45
Member since Jul 2016
4367 posts
Posted on 7/28/17 at 12:40 pm to
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 by Lakeboy7
New Orleans
Member since Jul 2011
23965 posts
Posted on 7/28/17 at 12:41 pm to
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 by 5thTiger
Member since Nov 2014
7996 posts
Posted on 7/28/17 at 12:41 pm to
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 by Jax-Tiger
Port Saint Lucie, FL
Member since Jan 2005
24740 posts
Posted on 7/28/17 at 12:42 pm to
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.
Posted by SlowFlowPro
Simple Solutions to Complex Probs
Member since Jan 2004
422409 posts
Posted on 7/28/17 at 12:44 pm to
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 by LSUconvert
Hattiesburg, MS
Member since Aug 2007
6229 posts
Posted on 7/28/17 at 12:44 pm to
quote:

And my insurer specifically said it was due to Obamacare... in writing.


Well if they wrote it down, it MUST be true!
Posted by NC_Tigah
Carolinas
Member since Sep 2003
123887 posts
Posted on 7/28/17 at 12:47 pm to
quote:

If "health care" goes back to the way it was before Obamacare, premiums will sky rocket.
No.

quote:

I thought Obamacare is what made the premiums sky rocket
You thought correctly.
Posted by NC_Tigah
Carolinas
Member since Sep 2003
123887 posts
Posted on 7/28/17 at 12:49 pm to
quote:

if they wrote it down, it MUST be true!
It is true, whether they wrote it down or not. It is not even debatable.
Posted by LSUconvert
Hattiesburg, MS
Member since Aug 2007
6229 posts
Posted on 7/28/17 at 12:52 pm to
quote:

It is true, whether they wrote it down or not. It is not even debatable.



Wrong!
Posted by LuckyTiger
Someone's Alter
Member since Dec 2008
45200 posts
Posted on 7/28/17 at 12:53 pm to
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 by Jax-Tiger
Port Saint Lucie, FL
Member since Jan 2005
24740 posts
Posted on 7/28/17 at 12:53 pm to
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.

This post was edited on 7/28/17 at 12:56 pm
Posted by SlowFlowPro
Simple Solutions to Complex Probs
Member since Jan 2004
422409 posts
Posted on 7/28/17 at 12:55 pm to
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)
first pageprev pagePage 2 of 6Next pagelast page

Back to top
logoFollow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News
Follow us on Twitter, Facebook and Instagram to get the latest updates on LSU Football and Recruiting.

FacebookTwitterInstagram