But, none of that was honest.
I don’t have a doctor now, the ACA will be an improvement even with restrictions.
Again, it is the Republicans who are fighting for an irrational system that keeps most of the American people in a virtual feudalistic environment of Job Lock, Discourages the creation of Jobs thanks to the costs and the same Job Lock. Also limits the opportunities for small companies and health care costs make companies to look outside the USA to set shop.
That particular claim, that you might not be able to keep your doctor, was honest.
For people without insurance, yes. For people with workplace insurance, no. Again, the question is, will there be more winners than losers?
Massachusetts and many countries that decided to become more rational, human and economic already answered that question.
Well if you consider that in 2010 there were 195.9 million Americans with private health insurance - 64% of the total population, this is a remarkable statistic that you are quoting
And here is Hans Rosling explaining the economical nonsense we are doing right now in the USA.
We are all paying for more expensive health care for less results than other developed nations, currently it is even more now than that 15% of GDP from 2006; as it was pointed before, companies look at the expense and it is impossible that that does not translate on less jobs being created right now.
On several states that are supporting the change the costs are dropping from the insane levels, I do not think that it will be a lot for a few, but even Forbes reported how the people looking for individual coverage (usually people that work on their own) are seeing huge drops on the insurance costs, there is more work to be done regarding the expense, but lowering the costs for people who are starting to go on businesses of their own is an important part of a better recovery than the one we have seen so far.
The Republicans should stop protecting the feudal lords in places like Texas.
Thus the need to promise that people could keep their current insurance. And if that promise is broken, there will be consequences.
Good to see Politifact reinstated, so yeah, you were wrong about the $500 billion cut point.
And while it is true that the satisfaction is there, the point of **bengangmo **is that the poll George Will refers to it is indeed only for the ones currently insured, it is mostly true because there a misleading element by not mentioning how satisfied are the people with no insurance or health care access.
When many more are included, like in Massachusetts, the polls, that were already mentioned to you before, reveal that a majority approves of the care they have now.
Everyone’s favorite RINO Andrew Sullivan points out the cost of the sequester and other cost-cutting measures: What Austerity Has Wrought
And why?
Insurers have already been doing that for decades, hence terms like “in network” and “out of network” common to ALL health insurance policies in this nation.
Again, nothing new. Insurers have been restricting choices for years. They have been negotiating lower prices for their customers for decades. This is business as usual in the healthcare industry.
People on private insurance face the same problem. There have been a couple instances in the past 20 years of Blue Cross Blue Shield dropping a contract with one or another hospital network in the city, meaning lots of people on private insurance had to either change doctors or be charged out of network prices. I know about them mostly because I used to work for BCBS. The same plays out for every other health insurer in the nation. If your doctor is dropped from their approved list you either pay retail price or change doctors. This is nothing new.
So, if it’s wrong for the ACA insurance why is it OK for the legacy policies people have had for decades?
Because Obama!
And Profit!
And 2014!
YEAH GOP!
From the Washington Post
The article contains lots of information on how most of Cruz’s Republican colleagues dislike him intensely. Including this gem:
Outside the GOP, he’s not the one to win the Hispanic vote in Texan–most of whom are not Cuban/Canadian. Proportionally, more Texans lack health insurance than any other Americans…
The Teabaggers love him. Otherwise, he’s losing.
How can you say this sort of thing with a straight face? The sequester makes actual cuts to spending.
Okay, adaher. Let’s try it this way:
Increase the Deficit (Spending and the Debt increase)
[ol]
[li]Senator Dewey files a bill to create a new program - The Give Away Money Act (GAM).[/li][li]The CBO scores the bill and estimates that GAM will require $600M in spending in year 1, with a 10% annual increase anticipated based on current criteria in the bill. Since GAM includes no revenue source, it will contribute $9.5B to the deficit.[/li][li]GAM passes and is funded at $600M for year 1 (the only year that CAN be funded since budgets are passed annually).[/li][/ol]
Reduce Deficit Spending (but Spending and the Debt will keep going up)
[ol]
[li]When the year 2 budget comes up, GAM requires $660M in funding based on the original bill. [/li][li]However, Senator Cheatem files a bill that changes the eligibility criteria reducing the criteria that were causing the anticipated 10% increase limiting it to 5%. The CBO scores the new bill and states that it results in a deficit spending reduction of $2B ($9.5B original score minus $7.5B new score). Note that we are still spending $30M more than last year. [/li][li]Senator Cheatem’s bill passes and GAM is budgeted for $630M in year 2.[/li][/ol]
Balance New Spending with New Revenue (Spending is increased, but not the Debt)
[ol]
[li]When the year 3 budget comes up, GAM requires $661M in funding based on the amendment that passed last year.[/li][li]Senator A. Howe files a bill that restores the criteria for the 10% annual increases in needed GAM funding, but also creates a new tax on red-haired tax accountants (The GINGER Act) with the money earmarked to pay for that increase. The CBO scores this bill and estimates that the new tax will raise enough money to cover all of the anticipated increases (i.e. roughly $2B over years 3-10), but not the now expected $7.5B. The GINGER Act is considered deficit neutral, but increases spending.[/li][/ol]
Reduce Spending (Spending is lessened as is the Deficit, but the Debt may continue to go up unless ALL spending is cut)
[ol]
[li]Senator A. Howe’s bill fails. No new tax, no increase in spending. [/li][li]In fact, Senator Screwem files a bill that eliminates people from being eligible for GAM, but for this year only - after that GAM reverts. The CBO scores the bill and estimates that GAM now only requires $535M this year. This results in $130M in reduced spending and deficit savings, but then it ends and things go back to ‘normal’.[/li][/ol]
Does that help?
The $500M in Medicaid “savings” fails under the 2nd Category (Reduce Deficit Spending (but Spending and the Debt will keep going up)). The Sequester falls under the last one.
I’ve got quite good insurance where I work. And the new laws aren’t going to hurt me at all.
Some years ago, BCBS dropped the clinic I’d been using. I was able to find good alternatives; thankfully, my health care needs have been quite routine. But I had to change.
Some insurers limiting covered options to providers that are willing to be reimbursed at lower rates? Thus lower the premiums required and overall costs? Particularly for services that are largely fungible? Ultimately increasing competition in compensation amongst providers in order to have access to patients on exchange plans?
Sounds like a functional, regulated free market to me.
As the article mentioned, the networks are much SMALLER. That’s how they save money. If you lose your workplace insurance, with it’s BIG network, and go to an exchange policy, with a SMALL network, chances are, you lost not only your insurance that you liked, but also your doctor.
Again, this is not to slam Obamacare. We just need to be honest about the fact that there is no free lunch. Last I checked, SDMB was supposed to be above campaigning and all about getting the facts. If the facts lead you to conclude there is a free lunch, then your facts are wrong.
A lot of these ideas actually have been supported by Republicans. The difference is that Republicans never promised you could keep your doctor or your insurance. They simply stated the policy they favored and let people draw their own conclusions. That was unacceptable for the free lunch Democratic Party. Not only did they deny the existence of any downsides whatsoever, but called anyone who pointed them out liars and scaremongers.
As a matter of fact, McCain’s proposal was to end the employer subsidy. Obama correctly pointed out the flaws in that idea, and McCain did not respond that Obama was a liar. But when someone points out the costs of Obamacare, well, we’ve seen what happens. The Democrats can’t concede an inch given the political situation.