Yes. Do you think there’s going to be 80 million people helped over 10 years or is there another point you’re trying to make. I posted the lower estimate for it for discussion purposes. It’s really expected to be 2 trillion.
None. The people who signed up are generally older people in need of the insurance so right now the cost is in deficit. Anybody who bought insurance before/after it went into effect saw it go up.
Yep. I’m paying them now. I was suppose to see a savings but they never materialized.
The cost is as stated.
That 1.36 trillion figure is highly misleading.
[/QUOTE]
mmmm, no. It’s real debt that’s not going away. And like any other government expenditure it matters greatly if it’s done efficiently because it adds debt which in turn takes away from future government expenditures.
And I will never get Sickle Cell anemia. The whole point of “insurance” is that you are spreading the risk across a group. When people pay for what they individually use, that’s called “not having insurance.”
But traditional underwriting standards always take into account the individual who is covered by the policy. If I have 8 DUIs and you have a squeaky clean driving record, you will get a better rate on your auto insurance. Because you are female, you will get a better rate. If I am a smoker and you are a non-smoker you get a better rate for health insurance, even under the ACA.
Yes, we spread risk across a group, but through underwriting standards we determine which group a policy holder belongs to. If we say that the group is defined as “everyone” then there is a good cost-cutting measure by eliminating underwriting departments in all insurance companies.
In any event, though, my point was to respond to the idea that since the pre-ACA policy was cancelled and replaced with an ACA compliant policy with the ten “consumer protection” measures that it is no problem because each individual is getting a “better” policy.
That’s simply not true for the reasons I’ve described. It may be arguably better for society as a whole, but you can’t tell a guy that is one paycheck away from bankruptcy that his premium increase because he is being charged for maternity coverage is somehow “better” for him.
38 year old male: Why did my premium go from $242.11 per month to $384.14? I’m struggling to pay the electric bill as it is!
ACA Rep: No worries, the old policy you had was a crap one and it didn’t cover you for ACA necessary things.
38 year old male: Like what?
ACA Rep: For example, the old policy didn’t provide you necessary, consumer protection coverage in the event that you give birth or need an emergency contraception device.
38 year old male: So I am paying $150 per month extra to insure against my possible child birth or unexpected pregnancy? Mine. As a male. Children which I may give birth to? And the risk of that is $150 per month extra?
ACA Rep: Yes.
38 year old male: Get off of my property.
“You mean I do not have to die or go into bankruptcy because now I have health care and I can see a doctor after 6 years of not seeing one?” (Workplaces that did not offer insurance, it turned to part time, had to continue as other job opportunities are not appearing)
Sign me in! (And I’m now BTW)
The problem I see in your tale is people who are behaving like everything in the USA is like a 1st world problem, when in reality the health care issue is like a 3rd world one for millions of Americans.
“Of all the forms of inequality, injustice in health care is the most shocking and inhumane.” – Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr.
Let’s also remember that “Obamacare” hasn’t been fully implemented yet. One of the key provisions, the Employer Mandate, doesn’t kick in until next year. And the [del]fine[/del] tax for not having insurance is still low, going up substantially over the next few years.
My previous cite was also the CBO, and it was the one you used early. In essence the point stands, the costs would had been worse if we follow the “business as usual” model of the past.
I don’t have a problem with legislation that bans pre-existing conditions from consideration (although there should be safeguards to prohibit waiting until conditions arise before purchasing insurance). I also don’t have a problem with real consumer protection safeguards to prevent truly crappy insurance that doesn’t cover anything.
My bitching is only related to the implementation of these provisions as it applies to politically charged issues like contraception. In no sane and rational world should that have been mandated. Contraception is a regular need for all women. To place it under the guise of insurance is as foolhardy as mandating coverage for gasoline under an auto policy or light bulb replacement under a home owners policy. Pay normal costs out of pocket without running it through a bureaucracy which tacks on handling costs.
As a small business owner, I appreciate the aspects of the ACA which allow me to purchase health care insurance for my family that I might not have been able to do before. But sound public policy does not depend on what’s best for me or for you.
I mean, if instead of the ACA, we had a “let’s give all of the posters in this thread a million dollars” bill, we would all have wonderful stories to tell. That doesn’t make it an overall good law.
And the reason you’re part time is because of the cost of insurance to businesses. The government instituted a policy that encourages businesses to limit working hours in order to stay competitive. And now the government pays for your insurance with a grossly mismanaged/overpriced service. It was suppose to be paid for by healthy young adults who would rush to buy insurance.
What really happened is that the older adults who lost their good paying jobs ended up with part time temp jobs because of obama care because older workers cost more money to hire. It was a self generating welfare program and it was predicted ahead of time.
BTW I do think that we should keep that idea of disliking the insurance companies, as I pointed years before the political realities required that a giant needed to be confronted by another giant to make this a reality, but in the future that item of the rising costs (that are anomalous in comparison with all industrialized nations of the earth) has to eventually be confronted, perhaps it will be finally the power of the people with conservatives and liberals agreeing on finally controlling costs that while Obamacare is lowering the increase it is still too high, what I have to observe is that currently I do not see any serious effort from the Republicans to sincerely deal with the costs, so far their proposals are jokes.
I’m glad you can get coverage now where before you could not. That is not responsive to jtgain’s point though. That being that the change in rules created winners and losers. It’s not better for the losers.
AFAIK, this is just a “wishful” talking point from the Republicans, Most of them were lost in the recession (before Obamacare) and as pointed before the “business as usual” is a system that only a feudal lord (and Republican politicians for that matter) would be proud to have as thanks to Job Lock many big companies are preventing many of those to start their own business as health care premiums for people that would be willing to start a new company were/are sky high.
I love it when people ask a GENERAL question, it gets answered, then they move the goal post to make it personal. I have NO IDEA the particulars of whatever policy you had that was cancelled, so there’s no way to rebut a statement like your new policy (if you have one) is something you “can’t use”. Which sounds more like an emotional assessment than a logical one.
I can say, in general, insurance companies discontinued policies that FELL SHORT of ACA standards, and any new policies would’ve included coverage the person didn’t have before. And people who didn’t qualify for subsidies could afford the increases.
Tying health care insurance and employment is a huge problem. The ACA cemented that instead of getting rid of it.
Imagine a scenario where you get terminated from your job, or you resign, and therefore you lose your house, your car, your homeowners insurance, or your auto insurance. Absurd, right? So why do we continue to tie health insurance, to the exclusion of everything else in life, to employment with a particular company? It’s an antiquated relic of the 1940s and needs to be done away with.
In a way, the ACA does help with that. If I want to start my own business (like I did) I can purchase a policy on the exchange that is like a typical group policy previously only offered to established employers. I support that part of the reform.
But, the ACA also keeps employees who work in a company with more than 50 employees into this type of trap. Of course Wal-Mart can negotiate a better deal with an insurance company than I can. If the government mandated it, Wal-Mart (as my hypothetical employer) could also get me a better deal on my home, my car, and pretty much all of my daily transactions. Do we want the shackles that come with that which may ensure our continued employment and devotion to Wal-Mart?
I hope that the unanimous answer is “hell no we don’t want that.” If so, why do we continue to allow, well not allow but mandate through the ACA, such continued devotion?
You’re barking. My insurance went UP and my job opportunities went DOWN because of it. It’s a financial failure any way you measure it. It’s a trillion dollar boondoggle.
This is usual liberal nonsense. As mentioned above men cannot possibly use maternal or contraception benefits. Those over age 40 who have not developed mental health problems will likely not need such coverage in the future. These people don’t need such coverage but are forced to pay for it.
Your second paragraph highlights the liberal thought. Since a person doesn’t qualify for the subsidies, he can pay the increased cost through taking gold coin from his Scrooge McDuck-like vault that he has on his vast estate.
Let’s assume for the purposes of argument that posters like John Mace have these vast amounts of wealth that the loss of the increased premiums won’t make them bat an eye or lose a moment of sleep over. The increase in the premium may keep them from buying another car or a new boat for their vacation home on the lake. Who suffers from that? Like you said, it’s not John, it’s the working class person who is on the chopping block at the car dealership or the boat shop. By your cavalier attitude and disdain for those who make a decent living, you have cost a working class person their job.
And again, it was done for no benefit. John didn’t get anything for his maternity coverage. There is no plan to hit the rich people hard that doesn’t affect working people. You all don’t seem to appreciate that.
Not what I see, I read several reports from small businesses groups that pointed at the ACA as an opportunity to allow many to start business on their own that was not present before.
Lets remember here that the mantra of Republicans of the Tea party is to throw away the baby with the bath water.
This is not clear, seems that you are describing the problem again. As pointed before small companies are one big part of our economy and they do give employment to millions of Americans, but big corporations and companies had a very unfair advantage thanks to their size. Having more competition and new small companies pop up is beneficial.
Again, I do not understand what you are talking about, unless you are declaring that indeed the insurance deal will be cheaper to the people at Wall-mart, and isn’t that the point the right **does not **want to make here?
Are you calling me a dog? Or it is because I’m not supposed to be human so you can continue to ignore how inhuman many Republican ideas are regarding this?
As I pointed before not all are on the losing side, and even there the “loss” is very relative, as pointed before without Obamacare the economical disaster the “business as usual” was headed was unsustainable, and with the Obamacare frame or the one that will come out of sincere reforms we will be better prepared to deflate the health care bubble costs.
And repeating your number is really silly when taking into account what the CBO actually mentions, the costs would be worse if Obamacare was not there. It could be much better if it wasn’t thanks to the Republican and conservative democrats that prevented more cost cuttings or control measures.