The ACA will benefit many who have no insurance nor a doctor now. Are you still willing to say the people that will get health care access are not a factor?
I mentioned elsewhere not just Florida or Colorado, and not just minorities, and Romney lost Florida and Colorado last time I checked.
No, the point stands, you are just making an argument from ignorance. That is ignorance of a very common figure of speech, and it does refer more to the experience one has, rather than the age one has. Showing that indeed you are ignorant of common English-language sayings, among other things like who actually lost in Florida and the factors that made many to vote as they did.
This wasn’t my claim, it was the claim of the Survey that people believed that health care was getting more expensive. Whether that was true or not (perception does not always equal reality) wasn’t addressed in the survey.
“Accessibility” is not “access”. I will rephrase it in a different way: 5% of people consider it harder in some way to get health care.
If it matters, there were only 13 people responding that there was an issue with accessibility. “Access to care/Access to Doctors” was a count of 7 and “Access to health insurance” was 6.
Not exactly a horrible situation.
You are right. I read the wrong answer set and ascribed a 3-answer set instead of a 4-answer set. (Very/Somewhat was on both sides) I apologize for misleading.
This I won’t make a value statement on, as I think it largely depends on if we can address the PCP shortage we already have in this country. If we can satiate the current (2013) demand for PCPs over the next 5 years and match the demand curve as it goes up for the next 10 years, we’ll probably be fine. If the last ten years of doom and gloom about PCP shortages come to pass, it’ll probably get much worse.
This is depending on the previous point. We may stretch both the AP/NP personnel right along with the PCPs if there is an actual PCP shortage. This may also be a Massachusetts-only cultural thing, a blip as people’s attitudes adjust, or just an artifact of the survey.
There could be several explanations: They could be waiting too long to get into a doctor/AP/NP or they could just be more young and reckless college frat parties these days (and they should stay off our lawns). Heresays that unneeded ER use nation wide was 12.7 percent in 2010. (Non urgent and no triage numbers)
Obama originally said that “upto half” of people have a pre-existing condition, but that was based on estimations and the range is 19% to 50%. Basically, if you have a heart disease, you are covered when you find it and if you switch insurances you aren’t covered (a very simplistic nutshell assessment) so if you have insurance and know about it, you’re fine until you switch. If you have or don’t have insurance and don’t know about it, you’re fine until you find out about it.
This clause, though, is something that’s been advocated for a long time before ACA and it’s one of those statistically nebulous areas (how do you prove that 100 million people, or whatever, have preexisting conditions they don’t know about?). I tend to think it’s low because about 1/4 of the people that the administration expected to enroll actually enrolled in the government’s insurance for people who couldn’t get insurance until the health exchanges actually enrolled.
I have been involved with several startup businesses. How it can be handled (in the olden times) could be that you simply carry catastrophic insurance for your employees (or yourself in a Single Proprietor setup) and pay your way, either directly for your employees or through an additional salary stipend. My catastrophic coverage kicked in at $10,000 for each incident and I paid about $250 a month for myself (450 for family, which I didn’t have at the time). Not insanely awesome, but it was available.
Also, the ACA kicks in in January. i think you can wait to stick it to the man for 4 months.
In comparison to the National elections, More people voted for Romney in Florida. 39% of Latino voters favored Romney in 2012 versus 27% of Latino voters nationwide.
Are you still ignoring the fact that I advocate for replacement of it with a system that is better?
Really? The quote I responded to was:
[QUOTE=GIGObuster]
As it turn out, in places like Florida, in the last presidential election, many voted for Obama as it was clear that health care for the working poor and many minorities was on the line.
[/QUOTE]
And the link was an opinion piece directed towards Latinos. There was no comment I was referring to that indicated anything other than Florida or maybe San Ysidro Medical Center. That’s what I went with.
Your link talks about an advocate for the ACA partying and a Republican decrying the ACA supreme court decision. I don’t see what this is supposed to prove about “English-language sayings”. Floridian elections, or anything else. The closest it comes to useful is an estimation of how many people are uninsured in Central Florida (not the whole state) but it doesn’t back that up with a data source.
I didn’t make that claim. I said that, in Florida Latinos (what you and your link mentioned independently) there was not a vast swing away from Rs. And that R was more likely in Florida among Latinos compared to the National polls. Additionally, from 2008, that number dropped by 3% for the Rs. I further opined that a swing of 3% isn’t a glowing recommendation for ACA (and that was assuming that the ACA was the ONLY reason people switched, and that there were no other possible reasons).
I already inferred that, it is indeed better, but that is not in the menu, so stop avoiding what I’m mentioning now.
So, I’m just saying that many people that have no insurance nor doctors will benefit now, and they are a factor and one big reason for the ACA to be.
That was just the set up, I wanted to see if you would show if you are aware of the data out there, but then again it is not my problem if you are ignorant of a very important item when coming to discuss it.
As it turns out we did vote more than many expected, specially what the Republicans wishfully did not expect.
Of course Florida is different than other states for having many Cuban Americans that are very conservative and usually Republicans, unfortunately for you the social issues like Health care made the usual 70% of Cuban Americans give to Republican candidates to turn into a virtual tie that benefited Obama in the state, as the Pew poll showed, Health care was (and remains) a big issue among Hispanics.
I have never said that people with no insurance or doctors won’t get insurance and doctors. The closest I have said is that there will be delays as shown by your study in Massachusetts. I have said repeatedly that the ACA will cause a burden as a whole and that it should be ripped out and replaced with Single Payer.
You made a statement you didn’t have any interest in arguing, or even made a bunch of sense about, in response to a data set I provided that showed that there wasn’t much of a flee from R in Florida to combat an assertion that a huge number of Latinos left R in Florida due to Health Care.
So I’m ignorant because I don’t know where the wandering GIGObuster train will go next? Interesting to note.
Yes, but that’s not a “Latinos in Florida” issue. Republicans have been losing minority voters for awhile because their actions and policies aren’t friendly to them, overall. Just because they didn’t expect that half of the Cubans would defect in a single election just says that the Republicans need to actually learn about their constituents.
That doesn’t really change the information I presented. 3% total of Latinos left R in Florida from 2008 to 2012. Including the Cubans.
So we have to assume you are not aware of what “I’m just saying” means.
No, what that shows is that you can not let go of the personal attack and others can see only that you will not deal with what was posted.
And that was the point, Health care is also part of those unfriendly policies.
And I’m just saying that in the big scheme of things what you are trying to press is not as important as the bottom line, most Hispanics did look at Health care as an important issue in this election.
There’s a reason they call it “fishing” and not “catching”, you know. The best fishermen in the world get skunked sometimes, and it doesn’t mean they are unprepared.
Or I’m tired of looking at pointless links and I’m not keen on continuing to see you not prove anything?
Even looking at it, now, Health Care isn’t the highest priority. It’s several points behind the topics of Jobs/Economy and Education as number two and number one, respectively. So only 1/3% of that 3% I gave you 100% of should be attributed to health care (less if you want to include everything on that list). Unless you can provide something that surveys why people voted like they did instead of trying to correlate exit polls to opinion polls taken at different times.
Yes, but it was only 1/3rd (or less of) the point, humorously enough.
So I shouldn’t advocate for a better future? I can’t say we should tear this down and replace it with something better…because why? Even if it won’t happen before they shut down the G on Monday, what if we can get it on for 2014’s midterm sessions when the Dems storm the Rs as you think will happen?
Also, your poll isn’t MOST. it’s 50% of Hispanics reported on the multiple-choice questionnaire that Health Care was of the highest importance. However, MOST Hispanics rate Education and Jobs/Economy as critical items for the 2012 election, according to that poll.
Having people say in a survey that the sky is blue in MA doesn’t imply it is green in VT. Of course they say costs are increasing. They are. They are everywhere. They are even increasing in places with single payer plans. The reasonable question is whether they are increasing faster than MA than elsewhere.
And probably in the statistical noise. At one point my high end group was short of doctors and it too forever to schedule a checkup. But my access to important care was unimpeded. I don’t know if that is the case there.
My understanding is that this is a very real shortage, especially in rural areas. It is going to need another set of initiatives to fix. Maybe a larger pool of paying patients in rural areas will attract PCPs, but giving up the big bucks surgeons get must be hard.
I’m not sticking it to anybody - my company pays me absurd amounts of money to have a good time and I get to retire fairly soon anyhow. I’ve looked into catastrophic plans. They are good if you have extreme cases - either almost no claims or massive claims. If you have just large claims you can still get into trouble, especially because I’d figure most people forced to buy those plans don’t have a lot of resources to cover large but non-catastrophic bills.
Here is an analysis of the distribution of health care spending. As expected, there is a tail, with the top 5% spending 49% of expenses. Most of that is spent by people on Medicare, which is why we need it, but the percentage goes up by age. Catastrophic coverage makes a lot of sense for someone in their 20s - it would be stupid for me, even if I didn’t have a pre-existing condition.
You basically self-insure, That is very dangerous for small risk pools, though companies with large risk pools do it all the time. Lots of startups are small businesses or restaurants, and they probably don’t have the reserves to pay for major illnesses that fall under the catastrophic level. My wife is a free lance writer, which she probably couldn’t do if she had to pay for her own insurance. Ditto for truly independent consultants.
It is a reasonable question, but I don’t have those answers. The problem with getting them is that individual plans vary greatly from employer plans. Some states have fantastic reporting tools about this, some states don’t.
Plus, health care costs would probably be a lot more in the rest of the country vs MassCare simply because they have had most of the law enacted for seven years, now. I’d be much more interested in 2014’s numbers for ACA compared to 2008’s numbers for MassCare to compare first years. That’ll tell us better than what we can surmise now how well MassCare’s history will line up with ACA’s future.
Honestly, most of that survey is highly affected by statistical noise. The sample is too small if 4 people are 1%. It’s bad enough when they use a 1,000 sample size and 10 people are 1%.
That’s fairly similar to what I hear. The PCP is hard to get into, but if you need surgery/MRI/etc then you can get in within a week (sooner if you get something nasty). I think it relates to the supply of PCPs.
Rural areas will be the hardest to accommodate, unfortunately. In a lot of spaces (Specially when you hit the middle of the country, Kansas, Nebraska, etc) you have something like 1-5 people per square mile. That’s basically one family per farm, more or less. Unless your family just loves playing with a thresher or something, you aren’t going to be able to support a full time doctor. You’d need a mobile doctor’s office or something that’ll role through half the state and high the high points once or twice a year. I’m not sure how feasible that is (or how regular your illnesses and fractured arms will be for you)
One proposal that I heard was making specialists practice as a PCP once a week at Hospitals. I’m not sure how much additional capacity that is, but it may help. Unfrotunately, the PCP business is going to get squeezed the worst because it’ll be the largest segment and thus the most competition will be bred there. I would think that PCPs will get put on salary or something at a hospital and be encouraged to work as many patients per day as possible (Time with patients is something that doctors have been complaining about for 15 years)
I meant that as a joke. I’m sorry it didn’t come across as such.
It depended on what you needed. If you were in the 20s-30s and in good health, it was viable. if you were 60 with hypertension…probably not. But there was a sliding scale of risk that most companies had. If you wanted them to pay everything over a lower or higher threshold, you could, and it would affect the premium. But SMBs were definitely the under-served portion of the pre-ACA days.
Yes, although 10 years ago only 7% didn’t know how to fish. Then arrived The Great Stupid, where, as a result of the House Boat Bubble, millions of people suddenly forgot how to fish.
They had very helpful people tell them they needed to learn how to fish, and they said to themselves “I was fishing a fucking month ago when some asshole kicked me out of my spot, and you think I need to learn how to fish?”
This of course, was misguided, since if they learned how to fish, they could apply to get a new fishing spot. Sure, there are already 50 people applying to every available spot, and the people who make fishing spots available are not increasing availability due to “uncertainty”, but I’m sure getting more people applying helps somehow.
Ten years ago, some of those folks were fishing with a stick and some string. They didn’t know about lures or sinkers. The problem now is not a lack of space on the riverbank: it’s the necessity to learn better ways of fishing.
The fishing analogy is fatally flawed anyway. Even if we had full employment, not all employers offer health insurance, and not all people work for a company anyway (many are self-employed). Before the ACA, many people were not able to get insurance at all – they weren’t allowed to fish? – due to existing conditions.
And, to those arguing with Farin, who is under the impression that single payer was possible and that most Democratic legislators are radically left of the people who vote for them, well, more power to you.
