Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #51  
Old 10-07-2019, 08:21 PM
Annoyed is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Oct 2017
Posts: 339
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.

If you are poor, it was “ok”. You were able to get “insurance” but we’re still unable to pay the deductibles and out of pocket expenses because you are poor.

If you are rich, it sucked, but you are rich so you can still pay.

If you are middle class? You got fucked. Hard.

“Obamacare” barely ever made it over 50% “approval” since its passing. The fact of the matter is that most people didn’t like it. If you had insurance before, you most likely have a more expensive version of insurance now with an insultingly low coverage threshold.

“Obamacare” was just another fuckup by the left that contributed to Trump.
  #52  
Old 10-07-2019, 08:46 PM
Kent Clark's Avatar
Kent Clark is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Apr 1999
Posts: 26,782
Screw it, you guys. You think Obamacare sucks so bad? Fine, let's repeal it. Set the clock right back to 2008, where you couldn't get coverage if you had any of a multitude of preexisting conditions, where the fine print in your insurance policy pointed out you had a $1,000,000 lifetime maximum cap on your benefits, and your insurance company had the absolute right to cancel your policy, period, full stop. Then you try to build anything better with Donald Trump and Mitch McConnell guiding the ship of state.

Listen, and repeat after me. "The perfect is the enemy of the good."
  #53  
Old 10-07-2019, 08:51 PM
bobot's Avatar
bobot is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Location: Chicago-ish
Posts: 9,129
Obamacare was so bad.
How bad was it?
It was so bad that Republicans made sure to repeal it and replace it as soon as they had the votes!

(The above sentiment brought to you by fantasyland, the only place that the above actually happened.)

Last edited by bobot; 10-07-2019 at 08:52 PM. Reason: things
  #54  
Old 10-07-2019, 08:56 PM
Annoyed is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Oct 2017
Posts: 339
Obama & Co could have just simply mandated/passed legislation that stopped monetary lifetime caps and ended preexisting condition exclusions and no one significant would have had a reason to complain.
  #55  
Old 10-07-2019, 09:07 PM
DSeid's Avatar
DSeid is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Sep 2001
Location: Chicago, IL
Posts: 22,654
Depends.

If you are poor but not so poor that you already were on Medicaid then the expansion of Medicaid helped you out tons.

If you are a bit less poor to lower middle class and on a subsidized exchange product you went from uninsured to now having catastrophic care coverage and a host of preventative care services at no out of pocket expense. Other illness related expenses can hurt your pocketbook very significantly before the deductible kicks in though. Not to bankrupt level like before but still. Not ideal but better than having been uninsured by a long shot.

If you are more solidly middle class, likely same employer provided plan you otherwise would have had. Which most are okay with.

If you are rich? You pay some more in taxes but likely same plan you otherwise would have had.

Compared to what was and what otherwise would have been the ACA is a stunning success.

Compared to what it could have accomplished if the party of no cared more about the people of this country, including those who voted for them, than trying to make Obama look bad? Only fair.

Compared to what it could accomplish if built upon, inclusive of a public option? Only fair.

Compared to MfA, pretty good, because it is real.
  #56  
Old 10-07-2019, 09:31 PM
Kent Clark's Avatar
Kent Clark is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Apr 1999
Posts: 26,782
Quote:
Originally Posted by Annoyed View Post
Obama & Co could have just simply mandated/passed legislation that stopped monetary lifetime caps and ended preexisting condition exclusions and no one significant would have had a reason to complain.
No one except poor people, who couldn't have afforded the premiums.

But you did say "no one significant."
  #57  
Old 10-07-2019, 09:44 PM
Dewey Finn is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2003
Posts: 28,954
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.
  #58  
Old 10-07-2019, 11:36 PM
Northern Piper is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Jun 1999
Location: The snow is back, dammit!
Posts: 29,741
I think it's fair to say he is expressing an opinion with his "questions".
__________________
"I don't like to make plans for the day. If I do, that's when words like 'premeditated' start getting thrown around in the courtroom."
  #59  
Old 10-08-2019, 12:07 AM
nelliebly is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2017
Location: Washington
Posts: 1,781
Quote:
Originally Posted by Annoyed View Post
Obama & Co could have just simply mandated/passed legislation that stopped monetary lifetime caps and ended preexisting condition exclusions and no one significant would have had a reason to complain.
BS. I lived and worked in a state with a legislature that hated Obama on principle (the principle being he was a Democrat, highly intelligent, and Black) and refused to expand Medicaid coverage. I had to retire but could never have afforded health insurance. I moved here to Washington state in 2016 and was able to get affordable insurance on the exchange.

Was it terrific? No. But neither was insurance under my old employer. Ending monetary lifetime caps and pre-existing condition denials would have helped, but I STILL wouldn't have been able to afford coverage.

And I am significant.
  #60  
Old 10-08-2019, 03:22 AM
Voyager's Avatar
Voyager is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: Deep Space
Posts: 46,548
Quote:
Originally Posted by Annoyed View Post
Depends.

If you are poor, it was “ok”. You were able to get “insurance” but we’re still unable to pay the deductibles and out of pocket expenses because you are poor.
Unless you were one of the people who now qualified for Medicaid, and were lucky enough to live in a state whose Republican rulers would rather see you die or go bankrupt than expand it.
Quote:
If you are rich, it sucked, but you are rich so you can still pay.
Rich people have traditional insurance, and see no difference.
Quote:
If you are middle class? You got fucked. Hard.
Bullshit. I had coverage from my employer, and never saw a difference, except that I didn't have to worry that our pre-existing conditions would have disqualified us from coverage if I lost my job and COBRA ran out.
In healthcare threads pre-ACA I looked at some of insurance people were stuck buying. Massive cost, massive deductibles, and only a small range of cases where you didn't get screwed. It wasn't exactly sweetness and light for the middle class then.
Or do you think the middle class liked going bankrupt?

Quote:
“Obamacare” barely ever made it over 50% “approval” since its passing. The fact of the matter is that most people didn’t like it. If you had insurance before, you most likely have a more expensive version of insurance now with an insultingly low coverage threshold.
When I retired I looked at what was available. Not great, COBRA was better, but a lot better than the stuff I saw pre-ACA. And they'd write me insurance.
Quote:
“Obamacare” was just another fuckup by the left that contributed to Trump.
Got something better? Your suggestion isn't. Yeah, Republicans are great at lying about how they had a better idea. They couldn't come up with one. Trump lied about his great plan, didn't he?

We do have a great healthcare plan in the US. It's Medicare. I'm on it and it rocks. Even better than my old high end employer partially paid insurance. Got something better? Let's hear it.
  #61  
Old 10-08-2019, 05:42 AM
RitterSport's Avatar
RitterSport is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Posts: 3,461
Quote:
Originally Posted by Annoyed View Post
Obama & Co could have just simply mandated/passed legislation that stopped monetary lifetime caps and ended preexisting condition exclusions and no one significant would have had a reason to complain.
I'm not sure it will be worth discussing insurance details in this thread, but let's give it a try. You can't end the pre-existing condition exclusion without seriously damaging or even bankrupting the insurance industry. Insurance companies depend on most people being healthy and only some being costly, and a few very costly. You can't allow people to wait until they are sick to sign up for insurance, because healthy people won't sign up until they are sick.

It's a three legged approach -- everyone has to sign up...so you can eliminate the pre-existing exclusion...requiring subsidies for people who can't afford insurance but are required to anyway.
  #62  
Old 10-08-2019, 05:58 AM
survinga is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Sep 2017
Location: In the Deep South
Posts: 504
Quote:
Originally Posted by RitterSport View Post
I'm not sure it will be worth discussing insurance details in this thread, but let's give it a try. You can't end the pre-existing condition exclusion without seriously damaging or even bankrupting the insurance industry. Insurance companies depend on most people being healthy and only some being costly, and a few very costly. You can't allow people to wait until they are sick to sign up for insurance, because healthy people won't sign up until they are sick.

It's a three legged approach -- everyone has to sign up...so you can eliminate the pre-existing exclusion...requiring subsidies for people who can't afford insurance but are required to anyway.
Obamacare has had one of those legs sawed off, the individual mandate, which has no penalty and no mechanism to enforce currently. The subsidies cut off too early. We need to beef them up. And we need to make the mandate a real thing. Only then, do we get to 3 legs. Gee, where have I heard this before?
  #63  
Old 10-08-2019, 07:25 AM
RitterSport's Avatar
RitterSport is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Posts: 3,461
Quote:
Originally Posted by survinga View Post
Obamacare has had one of those legs sawed off, the individual mandate, which has no penalty and no mechanism to enforce currently. The subsidies cut off too early. We need to beef them up. And we need to make the mandate a real thing. Only then, do we get to 3 legs. Gee, where have I heard this before?
I'm surprised as anyone that it's still going as well as it is. I guess enough people signed up when they had to and got enough benefit that inertia keeps them insured. This can't last, of course -- need to get that leg back on.

Back to the policy, one question was what was the best way to get people covered? Who will need subsidies? Well, young people tend to not have much money, but tend to be healthy, so if they're lucky enough to have parents with insurance, let them stay on until 26. Medicaid was fairly effective at covering the very poor -- expand that to cover the not-as-poor. And so on.

puddleglum, can you respond to the responses to your post? It seems to me that they could use a response from you -- either a clarification or an admission that you were in error.
  #64  
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: 6,666
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.
  #65  
Old 10-08-2019, 12:37 PM
survinga is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Sep 2017
Location: In the Deep South
Posts: 504
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.
  #66  
Old 10-08-2019, 05:14 PM
Voyager's Avatar
Voyager is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: Deep Space
Posts: 46,548
Quote:
Originally Posted by RitterSport View Post
I'm not sure it will be worth discussing insurance details in this thread, but let's give it a try. You can't end the pre-existing condition exclusion without seriously damaging or even bankrupting the insurance industry. Insurance companies depend on most people being healthy and only some being costly, and a few very costly. You can't allow people to wait until they are sick to sign up for insurance, because healthy people won't sign up until they are sick.

It's a three legged approach -- everyone has to sign up...so you can eliminate the pre-existing exclusion...requiring subsidies for people who can't afford insurance but are required to anyway.
Employer based health insurance has never had the pre-existing condition rule. The old rule did not just cover those who never had insurance, but those who might have lost insurance coverage and then had to sign up for a private plan.
However the mandate still makes sense, just because young people always will subsidize old people. I'd be fine letting the young off the hook so long as they promise to never grow old.
  #67  
Old 10-08-2019, 07:53 PM
Annoyed is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Oct 2017
Posts: 339
Quote:
Originally Posted by Kent Clark View Post
No one except poor people, who couldn't have afforded the premiums.

But you did say "no one significant."
What good is a premium/policy when your deductible and max out of pocket expense is like $10k (on the low side)? You’re still up shits creek if you have an accident but hey, your doctors visits are $25 instead of $75.

Even now, most people who had insurance before, now have a policy with premiums that are basically the same as they were paying before with much less monetary coverage.

Middle class peeps who don’t get any subsidy still need to keep on hand, every year, enough to pay the premium, the deductible, and the max out of pocket expense, plus whatever “percentage” of coverage thereafter 60/40 80/20 etc. it’s an abomination.

It used to be that a households biggest expense was a mortgage. Nowadays, insurance is often the largest expense.
  #68  
Old 10-08-2019, 08:03 PM
DSeid's Avatar
DSeid is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Sep 2001
Location: Chicago, IL
Posts: 22,654
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.
  #69  
Old 10-08-2019, 08:06 PM
Left Hand of Dorkness's Avatar
Left Hand of Dorkness is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: May 1999
Location: at the right hand of cool
Posts: 41,576
Quote:
Originally Posted by Annoyed View Post
Depends.

If you are poor, it was “ok”. You were able to get “insurance” but we’re still unable to pay the deductibles and out of pocket expenses because you are poor.

If you are rich, it sucked, but you are rich so you can still pay.

If you are middle class? You got fucked. Hard.

“Obamacare” barely ever made it over 50% “approval” since its passing. The fact of the matter is that most people didn’t like it. If you had insurance before, you most likely have a more expensive version of insurance now with an insultingly low coverage threshold.

“Obamacare” was just another fuckup by the left that contributed to Trump.
I'm torn between fighting ignorance, and appreciating when Republicans massively misread public opinion on health care.

The fact is most certainly NOT that most people didn't like it. For the past several years, approval has been mostly above 50%. A poll from last month shows folks approving of the law 53-41%.

As for thinking this issue got us Trump, Americans trust Democrats on health care issues over Republicans, 40%-23%.

So, while I encourage you to push Republican health care ideas HARD during the upcoming election season, I don't have your electoral success in mind when I do so.
  #70  
Old 10-08-2019, 09:56 PM
Kent Clark's Avatar
Kent Clark is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Apr 1999
Posts: 26,782
Quote:
Originally Posted by Voyager View Post
Employer based health insurance has never had the pre-existing condition rule.
That is categorically false, and a misunderstanding so bad that I can't let it stand. What employer-based insurance did or did not cover depended entirely on the employer and the policy. Some employer insurance plans didn't kick in for three months after employment, some didn't cover pre-existing conditions for a year, and a whole bunch of them wouldn't cover any pregnancy expenses for a year.
  #71  
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: 6,666
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.
  #72  
Old 10-09-2019, 12:13 PM
survinga is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Sep 2017
Location: In the Deep South
Posts: 504
Quote:
Originally Posted by puddleglum View Post
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.
Gallup also had a big downward spike in 2014, as you're aware.

Also, the commonwealth fund does a survey of people ages 19-64, and has seen a downtick as well.

https://www.commonwealthfund.org/pub...ears-after-aca

There's no survey that doesn't confirm that, and the way you talked about the uninsured rate was to present it in the least favorable light. I definitely think the ACA needs a lot of work, as any large bill would. Costs are still an issue, and "underinsured" is a growing problem. But the ACA has had a noticeable impact on the uninsured rate. And if it were repealed, the CBO estimated that about 17 million people would lose their insurance immediately, and 27 million within two years and 32 million within 8 years.

https://www.cbo.gov/system/files/115...8amendment.pdf
  #73  
Old 10-09-2019, 02:51 PM
DSeid's Avatar
DSeid is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Sep 2001
Location: Chicago, IL
Posts: 22,654
Accepting your premise that the CDC's data before 2013 might be invalid (which time permitting I will return to) there is the simple fact that from that first of the new census methodology year, 2013, when the exchanges opened, to the end of the Obama terms, there was a drop in the uninsured from 16.9 to 10.3, a decrease of 39%.

Gallups' numbers using a different data set went from 18.0 to 10.9 in that same time period, a same 39% decrease.

Your link on the changed census method mentions that for historical comparison one should look at the American Community Survey (ACS)
Quote:
Unlike the CPS, the ACS health insurance data for 2013 will be a part of a consistent data series back to 2008 and hence will allow analysis of changes in health coverage over recent years.
Those numbers are here, page 17 figure 7.
Quote:
As measured by the ACS, uninsured
rates remained relatively stable
between 2008 and 2013, but
decreased sharply by 2.8 percentage points between 2013
and 2014 (Figure 7). Uninsured
rates then decreased by 2.3
percentage points between 2014
and 2015 and 0.8 percentage
points between 2015 and 2017.
Uninsured rates dropped by nearly 40% by multiple different apples to apples means of measurement.

survinga is completely correct.

Last of all - it seems that while the census bureau administers the NHIS for the CDC it is NOT what had its method changed in 2013. Its methods had been last revised in 1996 and in the field 1997.
Quote:
While the NHIS has been conducted continuously since 1957, the content of the survey has been updated about every 10-15 years. In 1996, a substantially revised NHIS questionnaire began field testing. This revised questionnaire, described in detail below, was implemented in 1997 and has improved the ability of the NHIS to provide important health information. ... The revised NHIS questionnaire, implemented since 1997, has Core questions and Supplements. The Core questions remain largely unchanged from year to year ...
Of interest but of no import to the conclusions.
  #74  
Old 10-09-2019, 04:35 PM
septimus's Avatar
septimus is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Location: The Land of Smiles
Posts: 19,777
Quote:
Originally Posted by Annoyed View Post
Even now, most people who had insurance before, now have a policy with premiums that are basically the same as they were paying before with much less monetary coverage.
Rather than addressing this claim directly, I want to pose a follow-up question to you — a follow-up which often helps illuminate economic subjects.

Books balance; equations equate. If an organization takes in $1 million over a year, then $1 million in combined payouts or cash accrual will occur over the same time-frame. The payouts may be to suppliers, stockholders, corrupt politicians, or whoever, but money doesn't disappear.

In your scenario where you allege someone receives less healthcare for the same money, where do you think that extra money ends up?
  #75  
Old 10-10-2019, 10:29 AM
2ManyTacos is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Apr 2011
Posts: 952
Obamacare has been a quite successful policy overall, with the obvious caveat that its "success" has so much geographic variability that any discussion of the policy can be selectively skewed to adhere to negative Republican biases. I.e., Obamacare has been a smashing success in my state of CA - which created its own state-based marketplace (Covered CA), aggressively marketed it, and expanded Medicaid (Medi-Cal in CA) - while it has been less successful in states like TX and FL, mostly due to those states' refusal to expand Medicaid.

Still, a couple of things about the ACA's design stick out now for being spectacularly foolish policy decisions. First off, for all the hoopla over the individual mandate - massive political opposition, enduring unpopularity, and the 2012 SCOTUS case - the bottom line is that the ACA is totally functional without that penalty because it's the subsidies that keep consumers enrolled rather than the government's inducement to acquire a policy. It would be the largest of ironies now that the insurance market has mostly stabilized without the mandate if the Fifth Circuit were to toss the entire law because of a cockamamie Republican argument that the mandate is actually inseverable.

Secondly, and this is the element that makes the initial ACA drafters look the most foolish in hindsight, lawmakers really, *really* underestimated the ability of Medicaid expansion to be as successful as it turned out to be in bringing insurance to people. Expanding Medicaid was, if anything, an afterthought in the ACA formulation phase, and yet that's been the most successful and popular part of the entire program. It's why you see so much renewed interest in Medicare-for-all - that's the easiest and most politically safe way to expand coverage to people!
  #76  
Old 10-10-2019, 11:18 AM
slash2k is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Feb 2014
Posts: 2,436
Quote:
Originally Posted by Annoyed View Post
What good is a premium/policy when your deductible and max out of pocket expense is like $10k (on the low side)? You’re still up shits creek if you have an accident but hey, your doctors visits are $25 instead of $75.
No, you're not.

If I as a provider see that your accident bill is likely to be $50K or $100K, but you have insurance, then I know that I'm going to get paid for most of the bills, even if I have to work with you or struggle to collect or even write off that last $10K that is your responsibility.

If I as a provider see that your accident bill is likely to be $50K or $100K and you have no insurance, then I know that I'm going to struggle to get paid any significant part of your bills, and may end up having to write off that entire amount. What is my motivation to provide you anything more than the barest minimum treatment consistent with my obligations under EMTALA or other laws?

The hospital ER is obligated to provide some level of emergency treatment at least to stabilize your condition. The physical therapy office, to name one example, has no such obligation, and is free to tell you to go away, even if PT would benefit your recovery. They do not have to accept you as a patient until and unless you can prepay the entire amount of your expected bill, and it is not at all uncommon that they do tell uninsured patients exactly that. With insurance, even with high and perhaps unpayable deductibles, you can get in the door; without insurance, that door is firmly closed.

Last edited by slash2k; 10-10-2019 at 11:18 AM. Reason: fixed quoting
  #77  
Old 10-10-2019, 11:54 AM
survinga is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Sep 2017
Location: In the Deep South
Posts: 504
Quote:
Originally Posted by 2ManyTacos View Post
First off, for all the hoopla over the individual mandate - massive political opposition, enduring unpopularity, and the 2012 SCOTUS case - the bottom line is that the ACA is totally functional without that penalty because it's the subsidies that keep consumers enrolled rather than the government's inducement to acquire a policy. It would be the largest of ironies now that the insurance market has mostly stabilized without the mandate if the Fifth Circuit were to toss the entire law because of a cockamamie Republican argument that the mandate is actually inseverable.

Secondly, and this is the element that makes the initial ACA drafters look the most foolish in hindsight, lawmakers really, *really* underestimated the ability of Medicaid expansion to be as successful as it turned out to be in bringing insurance to people. Expanding Medicaid was, if anything, an afterthought in the ACA formulation phase, and yet that's been the most successful and popular part of the entire program. It's why you see so much renewed interest in Medicare-for-all - that's the easiest and most politically safe way to expand coverage to people!
On your first point, I agree that the exchanges have largely stabilized. However, there was an initial surge in premiums to take the dropping of the mandate into account. And for middle-class people who make too much to get subsidies, they have now essentially been priced out of the market. The main problem with the ACA, aside from political sabotage, was that the original scale of subsidies was too weak, and people in that middle-class category who don't get employer-based insurance can't afford a decent policy. So, the exchanges still stand, but the customer-base is mostly people making near-Medicaid-eligible wages (poor people, and sick people). Obviously, the ACA targeted this group. But we need to beef up the subsidies so that a broader group of the population is attracted to the exchanges.

On your second point, I agree 1000%. As an aside, I think about 35 or 36 states have adopted the expansion. The holdouts are almost all red states (and some purple states). Getting all 50 states into the expansion would be good for the country as a whole, and it would also be good for rural hospitals, which would then get more funding....

Last edited by survinga; 10-10-2019 at 11:55 AM.
  #78  
Old 10-16-2019, 02:50 PM
control-z is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Mar 2003
Location: Virginia
Posts: 12,966
I didn't appreciate being required to buy insurance that started off expensive and got multiples worse each year. But as flawed as the ACA was, at least it was an effort. Now that it's been neutered I hope we can learn from it and move on with something better.
  #79  
Old 10-16-2019, 02:55 PM
bobot's Avatar
bobot is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Location: Chicago-ish
Posts: 9,129
It has been neutered from the start and Republicans have no clue how to institute a better plan. If you want it improved, you should vote for Democrats.
  #80  
Old 10-17-2019, 09:50 AM
DrCube is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: Caseyville, IL
Posts: 7,460
Quote:
Originally Posted by RitterSport View Post
You can't end the pre-existing condition exclusion without seriously damaging or even bankrupting the insurance industry.
Good riddance. Why are we keeping these dinosaurs around anyway? And worse, why are we acting like they are the only stakeholders in this debate? Why should I care about them when they never cared about me, and did everything in their power to avoid paying my bills despite that being the only "service" they ostensibly offer? They're nothing but parasites, pure and simple. Gross, low, reprehensible parasites.

Fuck 'em. That's what I think about the insurance industry. And I'm far from the only one.

Last edited by DrCube; 10-17-2019 at 09:50 AM.
  #81  
Old 10-17-2019, 10:25 AM
survinga is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Sep 2017
Location: In the Deep South
Posts: 504
Quote:
Originally Posted by control-z View Post
I didn't appreciate being required to buy insurance that started off expensive and got multiples worse each year. But as flawed as the ACA was, at least it was an effort. Now that it's been neutered I hope we can learn from it and move on with something better.
Usually, large bills like the ACA get markups and updates to improve them. It's always been understood that the first iteration isn't perfect, and needs edits to remove unforeseen problems. That's always been the case with any transformative legislation. But this bill never got that, due to scorched-Earth political opposition, unlike any bill previously.

I say all this, because the "move on to something better" in the past meant to improve the existing framework of the aca.
  #82  
Old 10-17-2019, 12:45 PM
RitterSport's Avatar
RitterSport is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Posts: 3,461
Quote:
Originally Posted by DrCube View Post
Good riddance. Why are we keeping these dinosaurs around anyway? And worse, why are we acting like they are the only stakeholders in this debate? Why should I care about them when they never cared about me, and did everything in their power to avoid paying my bills despite that being the only "service" they ostensibly offer? They're nothing but parasites, pure and simple. Gross, low, reprehensible parasites.

Fuck 'em. That's what I think about the insurance industry. And I'm far from the only one.
Well, that's all well and good, but right now, there's no real alternative. So, if we force them to take people with existing conditions and some of them go under, rates will go up and competition will go down. It's not like MFA is already in place or anything -- right now, without insurance companies, most people wouldn't have insurance.
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 01:59 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