Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #1  
Old 10-06-2019, 02:46 PM
CHealy7 is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Nov 2016
Posts: 51

Obamacare


Five year on from its introduction, is it fair to say that this was a scandalous disaster?
  #2  
Old 10-06-2019, 02:49 PM
running coach's Avatar
running coach is online now
Arms of Steel, Leg of Jello
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: Riding my handcycle
Posts: 37,340
Nope.
  #3  
Old 10-06-2019, 02:51 PM
Fentoine Lum is offline
BANNED
 
Join Date: Oct 2019
Posts: 81
It worked exactly as intended, americans still do not have universal healthcare.
  #4  
Old 10-06-2019, 02:53 PM
running coach's Avatar
running coach is online now
Arms of Steel, Leg of Jello
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: Riding my handcycle
Posts: 37,340
Quote:
Originally Posted by Fentoine Lum View Post
It worked exactly as intended, americans still do not have universal healthcare.
Thanks to the GOP.
  #5  
Old 10-06-2019, 03:36 PM
Fentoine Lum is offline
BANNED
 
Join Date: Oct 2019
Posts: 81
Quote:
Originally Posted by running coach View Post
Thanks to the GOP.
Then can't you just vote Democratic? Why can't your party git-r-done?
  #6  
Old 10-06-2019, 02:53 PM
Blank Slate's Avatar
Blank Slate is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Apr 2008
Posts: 5,474
ACA insured millions of uninsured diabetics.

The only disaster is the piecemeal destruction of the Act by the coward in the White House.

Reported for forum change.
  #7  
Old 10-06-2019, 02:52 PM
JKellyMap's Avatar
JKellyMap is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: Wisconsin
Posts: 9,719
No.
  #8  
Old 10-06-2019, 03:09 PM
Fentoine Lum is offline
BANNED
 
Join Date: Oct 2019
Posts: 81
Quote:
Originally Posted by JKellyMap View Post
No.
So not rattled heh.

Yup, and the dems are doing the same thing again this time 'round. Kamala and Booker loves that big pharma $. Go see.
  #9  
Old 10-06-2019, 02:56 PM
susan's Avatar
susan is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: Coastal USA
Posts: 9,608
No.
  #10  
Old 10-06-2019, 03:00 PM
bobot's Avatar
bobot is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Location: Chicago-ish
Posts: 9,157
Well, it's not the screaming success Trumpcare would be, if that existed, that's for sure. But on the other hand, Trump's wall is gorgeous. What's that? He hasn't done that either? Shit fire.

Last edited by bobot; 10-06-2019 at 03:01 PM.
  #11  
Old 10-06-2019, 03:01 PM
CHealy7 is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Nov 2016
Posts: 51
I was under the impression that the ACA was at least on a par with the Sestak Job Offer, Fast and Furious and the Bergdahl Swap.

Last edited by CHealy7; 10-06-2019 at 03:02 PM.
  #12  
Old 10-06-2019, 03:07 PM
JKellyMap's Avatar
JKellyMap is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: Wisconsin
Posts: 9,719
Quote:
Originally Posted by CHealy7 View Post
I was under the impression that the ACA was at least on a par with the Sestak Job Offer, Fast and Furious and the Bergdahl Swap.
A historic change in the massively complex US health insurance system — a change that, despite being shrunk and shackled from the get-go (and later moreso) by the Republicans, still helped millions of Americans get insurance, plus helping millions more through pre-existing conditions, 20-something children living with parents, and more...

...you’re comparing this to a scattered handful of minor policies or decisions that one might reasonably quibble with, but few level-headed folks would say are so serious or consequential as to be called “scandals”?

ETA: You forgot the “tan suit.” And the “Marine holding the umbrella.” Now, THOSE were scandalous!

Last edited by JKellyMap; 10-06-2019 at 03:08 PM.
  #13  
Old 10-06-2019, 03:11 PM
running coach's Avatar
running coach is online now
Arms of Steel, Leg of Jello
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: Riding my handcycle
Posts: 37,340
Quote:
Originally Posted by JKellyMap View Post
ETA: You forgot the “tan suit.” And the “Marine holding the umbrella.” Now, THOSE were scandalous!
Lest we forget, Michelle was photographed with bare...arms.
  #14  
Old 10-06-2019, 03:12 PM
Fentoine Lum is offline
BANNED
 
Join Date: Oct 2019
Posts: 81
Quote:
Originally Posted by running coach View Post
Lest we forget, Michelle was photographed with bare...arms.
A black woman can sure get under some folk's skin.
  #15  
Old 10-06-2019, 03:11 PM
Fentoine Lum is offline
BANNED
 
Join Date: Oct 2019
Posts: 81
Quote:
Originally Posted by JKellyMap View Post
A historic change in the massively complex US health insurance system — a change that, despite being shrunk and shackled from the get-go (and later moreso) by the Republicans, still helped millions of Americans get insurance, plus helping millions more through pre-existing conditions, 20-something children living with parents, and more...

...you’re comparing this to a scattered handful of minor policies or decisions that one might reasonably quibble with, but few level-headed folks would say are so serious or consequential as to be called “scandals”?

ETA: You forgot the “tan suit.” And the “Marine holding the umbrella.” Now, THOSE were scandalous!
Health"care" in america is an utterly bipartisan scandal.

Ranking 37th — Measuring the Performance of the U.S. Health Care System
https://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJMp0910064

World Health Organization’s Ranking of the World’s Health Systems
Some people fancy all health care debates to be a case of Canadian Health Care vs. American. Not so. According to the World Health Organization’s ranking of the world’s health systems, neither Canada nor the USA ranks in the top 25.

Improving the Canadian Healthcare System does not mean we must emulate the American system, but it may mean that perhaps we can learn from countries that rank better than both Canada and the USA at keeping their citizens healthy.
http://thepatientfactor.com/canadian...ealth-systems/

U.S. Health Care Ranked Worst in the Developed World
The U.S. health care system has been subject to heated debate over the past decade, but one thing that has remained consistent is the level of performance, which has been ranked as the worst among industrialized nations for the fifth time, according to the 2014 Commonwealth Fund survey 2014. The U.K. ranked best with Switzerland following a close second.
The Commonwealth Fund report compares the U.S. with 10 other nations: France, Australia, Germany, Canada, Sweden, New Zealand, Norway, the Netherlands, Switzerland and the U.K. were all judged to be superior based on various factors. These include quality of care, access to doctors and equity throughout the country. Results of the study rely on data from the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development, the World Health Organization and interviews from physicians and patients.
http://time.com/2888403/u-s-health-c...veloped-world/

HOW BAD IS U.S. HEALTH CARE? AMONG HIGH-INCOME NATIONS, IT’S THE WORST, STUDY SAYS
As Republicans struggle to agree on a replacement for the Affordable Care Act, the Commonwealth Fund has rated the U.S. health care system as the worst among the 11 developed nations it analyzed as part of an evaluation conducted every three years. The think tank also rated the U.S. health care system as the worst-performing of the nations analyzed when the last evaluation was released in 2014.
https://www.newsweek.com/united-stat...d-worst-637114

How does the quality of the U.S. healthcare system compare to other countries?
Bench-marking U.S. quality measures against those of similarly large and wealthy countries is one way to assess how successful the U.S. has been at improving care for its population, and to learn from systems that often produce better outcomes. The OECD has compiled data on dozens of outcomes and process measures. Across a number of these measures, the U.S. lags behind similarly wealthy OECD countries (those that are similarly large and wealthy based on GDP and GDP per capita).In some cases, such as the rates of all-cause mortality, premature death, death amenable to healthcare, and disease burden, the U.S. is also not improving as quickly as other countries, which means the gap is growing.
https://www.healthsystemtracker.org/...es/#item-start
  #16  
Old 10-06-2019, 08:12 PM
Lance Turbo is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Aug 1999
Location: Asheville, NC
Posts: 4,262
Quote:
Originally Posted by CHealy7 View Post
I was under the impression that the ACA was at least on a par with the Sestak Job Offer, Fast and Furious and the Bergdahl Swap.
In some sense you are correct in that these things are similar in at least one way. The "scandalous" parts of each are made up bullshit.
  #17  
Old 10-07-2019, 08:53 AM
bump is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jun 2000
Location: Dallas, TX
Posts: 18,443
Quote:
Originally Posted by CHealy7 View Post
Bergdahl Swap.
FYI, that's pretty much SOP for the US POW exchanges; we let go a LOT of their guys for a few of ours. It's been that way for a long time- Bergdahl's swap wasn't remarkable or unique at all. (source- a friend of mine is a military history professor and writes books on this kind of thing, and gets interviewed on national news outlets for it)

As for the ACA... I think I'd call it a qualified success if you're looking at it from the Democrat/liberal side. It's not perfect, but it has got a lot of people insurance who wouldn't have otherwise had it, and more importantly, it mandates that a lot of preventative care stuff is at no charge to the patient (https://www.healthcare.gov/coverage/...care-benefits/).

That's a game changer in a lot of ways, if people can get basic preventative care screenings and some treatment at no cost. People don't have to make a choice between their annual physical or OB-Gyn appointments and making ends meet.
  #18  
Old 10-06-2019, 03:20 PM
JKellyMap's Avatar
JKellyMap is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: Wisconsin
Posts: 9,719
Just some friendly advice, comrade: I wouldn’t go around these parts showing off that you’re so focused on “rattling” other posters. It could be taken the wrong way.

The charitable interpretation of your posts is this: You sound like you want to revive Occupy Wall Street (and related movements), which helped to focus attention on the inequalities built into the system, and how most Democratic leaders were not going to do much, if anything, to fundamentally change the system, so we shouldn’t put too much faith in either major US party. Fine. I actually agree, basically.

But right now we need to strip one of the major parties of its power, as soon as possible, for many reasons (shorter and longer term) — and your focus on the inequities of the system itself is just a distraction (unless you want to start a thread on that, as I suggested).

How do YOU connect these two themes? Maybe you think that the fall of Trump should be accompanied by a rise — not of the Democrats (not even as just a “temporary caretaker until we’ve gotten back to normalcy”) — but rather the rise of some THIRD option, that would fundamentally change the system?

We’d all love to see the plan!

Last edited by JKellyMap; 10-06-2019 at 03:20 PM.
  #19  
Old 10-06-2019, 03:39 PM
Fentoine Lum is offline
BANNED
 
Join Date: Oct 2019
Posts: 81
Quote:
Originally Posted by JKellyMap View Post
Just some friendly advice, comrade: I wouldn’t go around these parts showing off that you’re so focused on “rattling” other posters. It could be taken the wrong way.

The charitable interpretation of your posts is this: You sound like you want to revive Occupy Wall Street (and related movements), which helped to focus attention on the inequalities built into the system, and how most Democratic leaders were not going to do much, if anything, to fundamentally change the system, so we shouldn’t put too much faith in either major US party. Fine. I actually agree, basically.

But right now we need to strip one of the major parties of its power, as soon as possible, for many reasons (shorter and longer term) — and your focus on the inequities of the system itself is just a distraction (unless you want to start a thread on that, as I suggested).

How do YOU connect these two themes? Maybe you think that the fall of Trump should be accompanied by a rise — not of the Democrats (not even as just a “temporary caretaker until we’ve gotten back to normalcy”) — but rather the rise of some THIRD option, that would fundamentally change the system?

We’d all love to see the plan!
Avoiding objective reality again to label again? Run-n-tell on me.

Health"care" in america is an utterly bipartisan scandal.

Ranking 37th — Measuring the Performance of the U.S. Health Care System
https://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJMp0910064

World Health Organization’s Ranking of the World’s Health Systems
Some people fancy all health care debates to be a case of Canadian Health Care vs. American. Not so. According to the World Health Organization’s ranking of the world’s health systems, neither Canada nor the USA ranks in the top 25.

Improving the Canadian Healthcare System does not mean we must emulate the American system, but it may mean that perhaps we can learn from countries that rank better than both Canada and the USA at keeping their citizens healthy.
http://thepatientfactor.com/canadian...ealth-systems/

U.S. Health Care Ranked Worst in the Developed World
The U.S. health care system has been subject to heated debate over the past decade, but one thing that has remained consistent is the level of performance, which has been ranked as the worst among industrialized nations for the fifth time, according to the 2014 Commonwealth Fund survey 2014. The U.K. ranked best with Switzerland following a close second.
The Commonwealth Fund report compares the U.S. with 10 other nations: France, Australia, Germany, Canada, Sweden, New Zealand, Norway, the Netherlands, Switzerland and the U.K. were all judged to be superior based on various factors. These include quality of care, access to doctors and equity throughout the country. Results of the study rely on data from the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development, the World Health Organization and interviews from physicians and patients.
http://time.com/2888403/u-s-health-c...veloped-world/

HOW BAD IS U.S. HEALTH CARE? AMONG HIGH-INCOME NATIONS, IT’S THE WORST, STUDY SAYS
As Republicans struggle to agree on a replacement for the Affordable Care Act, the Commonwealth Fund has rated the U.S. health care system as the worst among the 11 developed nations it analyzed as part of an evaluation conducted every three years. The think tank also rated the U.S. health care system as the worst-performing of the nations analyzed when the last evaluation was released in 2014.
https://www.newsweek.com/united-stat...d-worst-637114

How does the quality of the U.S. healthcare system compare to other countries?
Bench-marking U.S. quality measures against those of similarly large and wealthy countries is one way to assess how successful the U.S. has been at improving care for its population, and to learn from systems that often produce better outcomes. The OECD has compiled data on dozens of outcomes and process measures. Across a number of these measures, the U.S. lags behind similarly wealthy OECD countries (those that are similarly large and wealthy based on GDP and GDP per capita).In some cases, such as the rates of all-cause mortality, premature death, death amenable to healthcare, and disease burden, the U.S. is also not improving as quickly as other countries, which means the gap is growing.
https://www.healthsystemtracker.org/...es/#item-start
  #20  
Old 10-06-2019, 05:58 PM
Bone's Avatar
Bone is offline
Extrajudicial
Moderator
 
Join Date: Jul 2003
Posts: 10,883

Moderating


Quote:
Originally Posted by Fentoine Lum View Post
Avoiding objective reality again to label again? Run-n-tell on me.
Not sure why you felt the need to post this twice. Do not spam the boards posting the same thing multiple times.

[/moderating]
  #21  
Old 10-06-2019, 04:07 PM
Wesley Clark is offline
2018 Midterm Prediction Winner
 
Join Date: Aug 2003
Posts: 22,382
Quote:
Originally Posted by CHealy7 View Post
Five year on from its introduction, is it fair to say that this was a scandalous disaster?
Depends.

It was a tepid half measure promoted by (for lack of a nicer word) cowardly democrats who were terrified to make anyone angry. They watered it down so republicans, fox news, pharma, the insurance industry, hospitals and the AMA wouldn't be mad at them. All they accomplished was the rich and republicans were mad at them anyway, but now their base was too demoralized to bother to vote for them in 2010.

But it did help about 20 million people gain insurance. yeah for some of them, its shit insurance. Is someone spending 9% of their gross, pre tax income on a plan with a $5000 deductible, no out of network coverage and tons of exclusions and exceptions really a 'winner'? Not really.

It would be cheaper and easier to auto-enroll the uninsured into medicaid or medicare than to give them subsidies to buy private insurance. But that pisses off the medical industry (private insurance can't compete with medicaid or medicare, and these programs offer lower reimbursements so less money for pharma, hospitals and doctors).

The only true path to health reform is ballot initiatives on the state level. Even in states where democrats control 60-80% of state legislature seats and the governorship, democrats refuse to push for UHC. Even UHC based on places like switzerland which isn't single payer.
__________________
Sometimes I doubt your commitment to sparkle motion
  #22  
Old 10-07-2019, 06:18 AM
survinga is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Sep 2017
Location: In the Deep South
Posts: 507
Quote:
Originally Posted by Wesley Clark View Post
Depends.

But it did help about 20 million people gain insurance. yeah for some of them, its shit insurance. Is someone spending 9% of their gross, pre tax income on a plan with a $5000 deductible, no out of network coverage and tons of exclusions and exceptions really a 'winner'? Not really.
I agree with a lot of what you say. But a fair % (not sure the exact number) who gained coverage via the ACA did with with Medicaid expansion, which has no co-pays/deductibles and usually little to no premiums. Just a point of info.
  #23  
Old 10-06-2019, 05:48 PM
Hari Seldon is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: Trantor
Posts: 13,076
I would agree, but when VT attempted it, they discovered it would be a fiscal disaster and abandoned the effort. Excess profit is just too baked into the system to succeed piecemeal. But I see no obvious solution. Canadian medicare was put in before medical care got so expensive and has adjusted gradually. It was tried first in one province (Sask.) and was wildly successful.
  #24  
Old 10-06-2019, 07:02 PM
survinga is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Sep 2017
Location: In the Deep South
Posts: 507
Quote:
Originally Posted by CHealy7 View Post
Five year on from its introduction, is it fair to say that this was a scandalous disaster?
No, it has not been a scandalous disaster. First,it was introduced 9 years ago, not 5. Second, the exchanges have provided a chance for millions to become insured, and they have not had a death spiral/collapse. See the link for the uninsured rate movement since the exchanges fully activated. This represents people buying subsidized private insurance or medicaid. These were people who originally couldn't afford or were too sick to get coverage. There were about 25 million of them, so for them, this has been a lifeline.

https://www.healthsystemtracker.org/...rcent-insured/

But there are two problems:

1) Design: As it was originally written, it was too weak. The subsidies weren't strong enough, and the mandate was too weak. Like any big bill, there were unintended holes in the law that needed to be fixed. For it to do what was intended, there need to be improvements (big improvements). The Supreme Court ruling that made the Medicaid expansion optional for the states was a big blow, too, for millions.

2) To make improvements as mentioned in #1, it requires our congress to do a markup bill. But that won't happen. It has been the subject of withering attacks from Republicans for a full decade, and they will never change on that point. Back then, I had figured they would eventually give in and try to be constructive to improve the law. I was wrong. They'll never accept it, but they also don't want to do anything to improve the situation either. The current president has done a number of things to try to destroy the exchanges. He's cut off CSR payments. He's stopped outreach funding. He's stopped funding navigators. He's trying to put work requirements on Medicaid recipients. He's zeroed out the mandate penalty to make it a mandate in name-only. Many states don't want to run their own exchange and try outreach, especially red states...which also won't accept the Medicaid expansion, even though it's a very good deal with the federal matching funding. Republicans are dug in against the ACA at the federal and state levels.

Given #2 above, the only way anything changes for the better currently is on a state-by-state basis. I live in a red state that wants to do absolutely nothing to help people. There are blue states that are starting to take matters into their own hands.

If Democrats ever get both houses of congress and the white house again (like 2009), they will likely to some version of Medicare for All. The politics has shifted, IMO, because of #2. The Republicans aren't going to be constructive. So, I think Dems are saying "F it, we'll just go M4A".....

The main problem is politics. The ACA has worked well, but needs to be fixed. However, politics won't allow it....
  #25  
Old 10-06-2019, 07:06 PM
kanicbird is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: May 1999
Posts: 19,643
Obamacare worked well but didn't go far enough.
  #26  
Old 10-06-2019, 07:25 PM
Kent Clark's Avatar
Kent Clark is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Apr 1999
Posts: 26,799
I will be happy to introduce you to at least a dozen people whom I know personally, none of whom would have any health insurance at all were it not for the Affordable Care Act.
  #27  
Old 10-06-2019, 10:26 PM
Mr. Miskatonic's Avatar
Mr. Miskatonic is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Apr 2001
Location: Under a pile of books
Posts: 6,779
Quote:
Originally Posted by Kent Clark View Post
I will be happy to introduce you to at least a dozen people whom I know personally, none of whom would have any health insurance at all were it not for the Affordable Care Act.
Not to one up you, but I know people who would be *dead* without the ACA. They had or developed conditions that insurance companies have spent years trying to avoid paying the bills for. Nobody was going to perform their treatment without health insurance.

ACA could have been a ton better, but it was better than nothing at all.
__________________
"When you kill the Morlocks, the Eloi tend to die too"
  #28  
Old 10-06-2019, 07:33 PM
tomndebb is offline
Mod Rocker
Moderator
 
Join Date: Mar 1999
Location: N E Ohio
Posts: 40,914
Moved from Elections to Great Debates.
  #29  
Old 10-06-2019, 09:31 PM
Voyager's Avatar
Voyager is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: Deep Space
Posts: 46,561
Quote:
Originally Posted by CHealy7 View Post
Five year on from its introduction, is it fair to say that this was a scandalous disaster?
Tell us why it was a scandalous disaster, pray tell. In your own words, please, not quotes from Fox or Trump.
  #30  
Old 10-06-2019, 10:32 PM
Velocity is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jun 2014
Posts: 15,421
Not "scandalous," but it's far from "affordable." Plenty of people are still paying sky-high, crippling insurance premiums for unsatisfactory coverage. We are decades overdue for single-payer.

It was a huge blunder of the D's to not implement single-payer in 2009.
  #31  
Old 10-07-2019, 08:20 AM
septimus's Avatar
septimus is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Location: The Land of Smiles
Posts: 19,799
Quote:
Originally Posted by CHealy7 View Post
I was under the impression that the ACA was at least on a par with the Sestak Job Offer, Fast and Furious and the Bergdahl Swap.
Wow. Wow! We have another forum here where impressions like yours can be addressed frankly.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Quote:
Originally Posted by Velocity View Post
It was a huge blunder of the D's to not implement single-payer in 2009.
Remember that Obamacare had Zero (with a Z) Republican votes (despite that it was largely a Republican program! ) In early 2009 the Democrats could not break a filibuster because Moscow Mitch refused to allow Al Franken to be seated. (Ted Kennedy, key advocate of healthcare, passed away just 7 weeks after Franken was finally sworn in.)

Because Every.Single non-Republican Senator was needed to override a Republican filibuster, Joe Lieberman, Senator from the State of Insurancecticut had complete veto power over every provision of the bill. Guess what was most important to him?

Normally, after versions of a bill pass both the Senate and House there is a conference to iron out differences and fix weaknesses. However this was impossible — by the time a conference might be scheduled there were 41 Republican Senators (including Ted Kennedy's replacement), all vowing to vote No no matter what! The only ACA that could possibly be enacted, therefore, was the version the Senate had passed in the earlier autumn.
  #32  
Old 10-07-2019, 02:50 PM
septimus's Avatar
septimus is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Location: The Land of Smiles
Posts: 19,799
Quote:
Originally Posted by septimus View Post
Normally, after versions of a bill pass both the Senate and House there is a conference to iron out differences and fix weaknesses. However this was impossible — by the time a conference might be scheduled there were 41 Republican Senators (including Ted Kennedy's replacement), all vowing to vote No no matter what! The only ACA that could possibly be enacted, therefore, was the version the Senate had passed in the earlier autumn.
Let me be more clear. Since House and Senate voted on the same bill, that version of ACA, at least, was always going to become law. The GOP had the option to entertain amendments to improve the bill; each passable by the majority party or — assuminbg Moscow Mitch chose to play hardball — if there was one (1) Republican Senator willing to vote for the proposed improvement.

`Moscow' Mitch McConnell did not allow this. The intent was to deliberately retain ACA defects, hoping that its flaws would annoy the public, and thereby make Obama a one-term President.

Reread that last sentence, please, those of you who claim not to understand how heinous the modern-day Republican Party has become.
  #33  
Old 10-06-2019, 11:09 PM
DSeid's Avatar
DSeid is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Sep 2001
Location: Chicago, IL
Posts: 22,661
Yes plenty of people have care who would not have had before while substantially reducing the budget deficit from what it otherwise would have been. A pretty reasonable 2017 assessment of what it has and has not done - in the face of multiple attempts to kneecap it - here.

20 million covered who would not have otherwise been with added financial security, decreased inequality, and a decreased Federal deficit. Too soon to grade its impact on overall health but the focus is now better. Still though expensive and confusing.

Overall a very significant success despite GOP attempts to make it fail, and definite room to accomplish much more.
  #34  
Old 10-06-2019, 11:28 PM
Smapti is online now
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: Olympia, WA
Posts: 16,271
Well, the death panels still haven't kicked in yet, so we're going to have to wait and see how those turn out before we decide whether Obamacare failed.
  #35  
Old 10-07-2019, 07:07 AM
tastysandwiches is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jan 2019
Posts: 4
Quote:
It was a huge blunder of the D's to not implement single-payer in 2009.
You've forgotten how tight the margin was in passing the ACA. Even that watered down half measure was within an inch of getting derailed by right-leaning dems, single payer in 2009 was flat out impossible. If Obama had spent his political capital tilting at that windmill, we'd have neither.

Last edited by tastysandwiches; 10-07-2019 at 07:07 AM.
  #36  
Old 10-07-2019, 12:20 PM
puddleglum's Avatar
puddleglum is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: a van down by the river
Posts: 6,677
Obamacare had two objectives. 1. Expand coverage so fewer people went without insurance 2. Bend the cost curve so that healthcare spending would be cheaper. Both have failed.

The percentage of Americans without health insurance is 13.7% and when Obama was elected it was 14.6%. This is at a time of record low unemployment.

Premiums have been increasing at the same rate they were before Obamacare.

These failures are why Democrat candidates for president are running on Medicare for All, instead of Obamacare.
  #37  
Old 10-07-2019, 12:36 PM
Fentoine Lum is offline
BANNED
 
Join Date: Oct 2019
Posts: 81
Quote:
Originally Posted by puddleglum View Post
Obamacare had two objectives. 1. Expand coverage so fewer people went without insurance 2. Bend the cost curve so that healthcare spending would be cheaper. Both have failed.

The percentage of Americans without health insurance is 13.7% and when Obama was elected it was 14.6%. This is at a time of record low unemployment.

Premiums have been increasing at the same rate they were before Obamacare.

These failures are why Democrat candidates for president are running on Medicare for All, instead of Obamacare.
Yeah, because they blew it the first time, if you accept that they ever really wanted to do a better for the people. Just like Don's promises of what he would do with healthcare. Silent on healthcare since his election even though he had both houses for 2 years.

"Running on" and delivering are very different things.
  #38  
Old 10-07-2019, 03:12 PM
Voyager's Avatar
Voyager is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: Deep Space
Posts: 46,561
Quote:
Originally Posted by Fentoine Lum View Post
Yeah, because they blew it the first time, if you accept that they ever really wanted to do a better for the people. Just like Don's promises of what he would do with healthcare. Silent on healthcare since his election even though he had both houses for 2 years.

"Running on" and delivering are very different things.
Don't you remember the farce about repeal of ACA? Don and his fellow travelers couldn't come up with anything remotely plausible. They talked about it, just not rationally.
  #39  
Old 10-07-2019, 03:14 PM
RitterSport's Avatar
RitterSport is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Posts: 3,467
Quote:
Originally Posted by puddleglum View Post
Obamacare had two objectives. 1. Expand coverage so fewer people went without insurance 2. Bend the cost curve so that healthcare spending would be cheaper. Both have failed.

The percentage of Americans without health insurance is 13.7% and when Obama was elected it was 14.6%. This is at a time of record low unemployment.

Premiums have been increasing at the same rate they were before Obamacare.

These failures are why Democrat candidates for president are running on Medicare for All, instead of Obamacare.
Quote:
Originally Posted by DSeid View Post
Uninsured rates. https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.vox...care-medicaidy

16.1 as the law was signed. 18.0 just before the ACA exchanges opened. Down to 10.9 as Trump was elected.

Back up to 13.7 as GOP attempts to kneecap it got implemented.

Premiums are not all healthcare spending. You know that. https://www.ama-assn.org/about/resea...-care-spending Growth rate of spending has decreased and is at levels last seen in the ‘60s despite our aging population.
....
These two replies are so much in conflict that I'd love to get some clarification. puddleglum, you have the floor -- care to defend your statement or refute DSeid's? Because from here, your post looks (maybe) technically true but misleading to the point of false.
  #40  
Old 10-07-2019, 12:54 PM
DSeid's Avatar
DSeid is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Sep 2001
Location: Chicago, IL
Posts: 22,661
Quote:
Originally Posted by puddleglum View Post
Obamacare had two objectives. 1. Expand coverage so fewer people went without insurance 2. Bend the cost curve so that healthcare spending would be cheaper. Both have failed.

The percentage of Americans without health insurance is 13.7% and when Obama was elected it was 14.6%. This is at a time of record low unemployment.

Premiums have been increasing at the same rate they were before Obamacare.

These failures are why Democrat candidates for president are running on Medicare for All, instead of Obamacare.
Uninsured rates. https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.vox...care-medicaidy

16.1 as the law was signed. 18.0 just before the ACA exchanges opened. Down to 10.9 as Trump was elected.

Back up to 13.7 as GOP attempts to kneecap it got implemented.

Premiums are not all healthcare spending. You know that. https://www.ama-assn.org/about/resea...-care-spending Growth rate of spending has decreased and is at levels last seen in the ‘60s despite our aging population.

I call bullshit.
  #41  
Old 10-08-2019, 10:52 AM
puddleglum's Avatar
puddleglum is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: a van down by the river
Posts: 6,677
Quote:
Originally Posted by DSeid View Post
Uninsured rates. https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.vox...care-medicaidy

16.1 as the law was signed. 18.0 just before the ACA exchanges opened. Down to 10.9 as Trump was elected.

Back up to 13.7 as GOP attempts to kneecap it got implemented.

Premiums are not all healthcare spending. You know that. https://www.ama-assn.org/about/resea...-care-spending Growth rate of spending has decreased and is at levels last seen in the ‘60s despite our aging population.

I call bullshit.
In 2013 the census bureau changed the questions it asked about health insurance. They did this because of consensus that the old survey was overstating the amount of people without insurance. This resulted in an immediate change in the estimated number of people without insurance. Given that the uninsured rate stayed in a narrow range for the 20 years before the change in survey and has stayed in a narrow range since the change in survey almost all of the change in the 2013-2014 time period should be thought of as an artifact of the change in survey.

Growth rates in health care spending were down slightly for two years after being higher than normal the previous two years. As your cite says after higher growth the two years following Obamacare implementation the growth of health care spending resumed its slow growth rate that had been the norm for the decade before. No reason to give credit to Obamacare for a growth rate going back to what it was the five years before Obamacare.
  #42  
Old 10-08-2019, 12:37 PM
survinga is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Sep 2017
Location: In the Deep South
Posts: 507
Quote:
Originally Posted by puddleglum View Post
In 2013 the census bureau changed the questions it asked about health insurance. They did this because of consensus that the old survey was overstating the amount of people without insurance. This resulted in an immediate change in the estimated number of people without insurance. Given that the uninsured rate stayed in a narrow range for the 20 years before the change in survey and has stayed in a narrow range since the change in survey almost all of the change in the 2013-2014 time period should be thought of as an artifact of the change in survey.
OK, so here's the CDC estimate.

https://www.cdc.gov/nchs/data/nhis/e...nsur201902.pdf

Similar take as the census, currently estimated as 9% uninsured (different estimates can vary some, depending on sampling techniques). Uninsured rate reduced greatly in 2014, when the exchanges powered up. Anyway you look at it, the uninsured rate in the US is much lower than before, and the plummeting took place when the ACA's exchanges started.
  #43  
Old 10-09-2019, 11:07 AM
puddleglum's Avatar
puddleglum is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: a van down by the river
Posts: 6,677
Quote:
Originally Posted by survinga View Post
OK, so here's the CDC estimate.

https://www.cdc.gov/nchs/data/nhis/e...nsur201902.pdf

Similar take as the census, currently estimated as 9% uninsured (different estimates can vary some, depending on sampling techniques). Uninsured rate reduced greatly in 2014, when the exchanges powered up. Anyway you look at it, the uninsured rate in the US is much lower than before, and the plummeting took place when the ACA's exchanges started.
The census is the agency that handles the National Health Interview Survey for the CDC. It is the same information about the survey that was changed in 2013.
  #44  
Old 10-08-2019, 08:03 PM
DSeid's Avatar
DSeid is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Sep 2001
Location: Chicago, IL
Posts: 22,661
Quote:
Originally Posted by puddleglum View Post
In 2013 the census bureau changed the questions it asked about health insurance. ...
Nice factoid. I wonder what those census bureau numbers were? They were NOT the ones in my cite. Those were based on Gallup's apples to apples numbers of "Americans' answers to the question, "Do you have health insurance coverage?" Sample sizes of randomly selected adults in 2018 were around 28,000 per quarter."

To expand on the CDC cite above you can follow to their data set for the uninsured rates:

2008 16.8
2010 18.2 (law signed)
2013 16.9 (exchanges open)
2014 13.3 (Individual mandate takes effect)
2016 10.3 (end of Obama's terms)

Dayum. An over 43% drop in the number of uninsured from when the law was signed to the end of Obama's terms. Uh yeah that is fewer people going without insurance. But still a ways to go.

Their method each time samples about 35,000 households and about 87,500 individuals. Their results and Gallup's pretty much agree.

As to healthcare spending now that we've moved away from premiums as reflective of it. The goal is indeed to bend the cost curve from what it was projected to be and [URL="https://www.statnews.com/2019/03/22/affordable-care-act-controls-costs/"]
Quote:
One month after the ACA had passed, the Office of the Actuary of the Department of Health and Human Services projected its financial impact in a report entitled “Estimated Financial Effects of the ‘Patient Protections and Affordable Care Act’, as Amended.” The government’s official record-keeper estimated that health care costs under the ACA would reach $4.14 trillion per year in 2017 and constitute 20.2 percent of the gross domestic product (GDP).

Fast forward to December 2018, when that same office released the official tabulation of health care spending in 2017. The bottom line: cumulatively from 2010 to 2017 the ACA reduced health care spending a total of $2.3 trillion ... Put another way, health care spending in 2017 was $2,000 less per person than it was projected to be. And for the 176 million Americans who have private employer-sponsored insurance, their lower premiums averaged just under $1,000 per person.

Barack Obama pledged on the campaign trail and as president that he would sign a health care bill that lowered family health insurance premiums by $2,500. Conservative politicians and pundits roundly mocked him. Yet the ACA has more than delivered on that promise, saving about $4,000 per family. And these lower health care premiums probably contribute to the recent rise in workers’ wages. ...
The real question though is hinged on whether better preventative/wellness care and earlier detection and intervention will in fact over time lead to significant cost savings. That it leads to healthier lives lived longer is a pretty much sure thing, but less spent over time as more live longer, even as they live better? Not as much of a sure thing.

Indeed some of this may have happened even without the ACA as the industry was already in flux making some changes to contain costs and to incentivize value. The ACA pushed it along though for sure.

Last edited by DSeid; 10-08-2019 at 08:06 PM.
  #45  
Old 10-07-2019, 07:34 PM
survinga is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Sep 2017
Location: In the Deep South
Posts: 507
Quote:
Originally Posted by puddleglum View Post

The percentage of Americans without health insurance is 13.7% and when Obama was elected it was 14.6%. This is at a time of record low unemployment.
Below is a link to the census data from 2018 (just released in Sept 2019) on uninsured rate. Page 17 has 2008 through 2018. In 2008, just prior to the economic collapse, the uninsured rate was just over 14%, and stayed between 14-16% until 2014, when the exchanges kicked in. It's now 8.5%, according to the census. This is because of the ACA. I would note that the uninsured rate is 6.6% in states that expanded Medicaid, and over 12% in states that did not expand Medicaid.

https://www.census.gov/content/dam/C...mo/p60-267.pdf
  #46  
Old 10-07-2019, 01:17 PM
CHealy7 is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Nov 2016
Posts: 51
Could some of the negative reaction to Obamacare be attributed to the fact that - whatever his personal merits - Obama was an atrocious Chief Executive, passive and disengaged?
  #47  
Old 10-07-2019, 01:22 PM
Ravenman is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: Washington, DC
Posts: 26,736
Quote:
Originally Posted by CHealy7 View Post
I was under the impression that the ACA was at least on a par with the Sestak Job Offer, Fast and Furious and the Bergdahl Swap.
Well, whatever you think about the ACA, it's gone much better than infrastructure week.

Quote:
Originally Posted by CHealy7 View Post
Could some of the negative reaction to Obamacare be attributed to the fact that - whatever his personal merits - Obama was an atrocious Chief Executive, passive and disengaged?
The words you are looking for are "shifty and uppity." For example, "Yes, there are quite a few people who hate Obamacare for no other reason than a shifty and uppity President got credit for it."

Last edited by Ravenman; 10-07-2019 at 01:23 PM.
  #48  
Old 10-07-2019, 01:22 PM
bobot's Avatar
bobot is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Location: Chicago-ish
Posts: 9,157
Quote:
Originally Posted by CHealy7 View Post
Could some of the negative reaction to Obamacare be attributed to the fact that - whatever his personal merits - Obama was an atrocious Chief Executive, passive and disengaged?
What do you think about the ACA? C'mon, man, details.

Last edited by bobot; 10-07-2019 at 01:23 PM.
  #49  
Old 10-07-2019, 01:34 PM
Bone's Avatar
Bone is offline
Extrajudicial
Moderator
 
Join Date: Jul 2003
Posts: 10,883

Moderating


Quote:
Originally Posted by CHealy7 View Post
Could some of the negative reaction to Obamacare be attributed to the fact that - whatever his personal merits - Obama was an atrocious Chief Executive, passive and disengaged?
No more JAQing off. If you wish to make an argument, now is the time to do so. If you ask a question, then also address it yourself.

If a mindless rant is what you want, I can move this to the Pit.

[/moderating]
  #50  
Old 10-07-2019, 09:44 PM
Dewey Finn is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2003
Posts: 28,982
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bone View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by CHealy7 View Post
Could some of the negative reaction to Obamacare be attributed to the fact that - whatever his personal merits - Obama was an atrocious Chief Executive, passive and disengaged?
No more JAQing off. If you wish to make an argument, now is the time to do so. If you ask a question, then also address it yourself.

If a mindless rant is what you want, I can move this to the Pit.

[/moderating]
Wow. I just went through many of the threads you've started and they're all like this; asking a loaded question but never actually expressing an opinion of your own.
Reply

Bookmarks

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is Off
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 06:19 AM.

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2019, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.

Send questions for Cecil Adams to: cecil@straightdope.com

Send comments about this website to: webmaster@straightdope.com

Terms of Use / Privacy Policy

Advertise on the Straight Dope!
(Your direct line to thousands of the smartest, hippest people on the planet, plus a few total dipsticks.)

Copyright © 2019 STM Reader, LLC.

 
Copyright © 2017