# What is your ongoing opinion of the Affordable Care Act? (Title Edited) **URL:** \ **Category:** Politics & Elections\ **Created:** [January 17, 2013, 11:21pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-is-your-ongoing-opinion-of-the-affordable-care-act-title-edited/647561 "2013-01-17T23:21:39Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 107
**Author:** ![Lobohan](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/lobohan/32/79_2.png) [@Lobohan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Lobohan)\ **Post date:** [April 19, 2014, 7:02pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-is-your-ongoing-opinion-of-the-affordable-care-act-title-edited/647561/2122 "2014-04-19T19:02:14Z")
> [@DJ\_Motorbike](#): > > _raises hand_ > > Prior to Obamacare I opted out of my employer provided insurance in order to work myself out of debt faster. In general I’m healthy and rarely use healthcare. When the occasion came about that I needed services I paid out of pocket. My expenses never came to more than I would have paid in premiums and deductibles. At the beginning of this year - the first year Obamacare went into effect premiums and deductible doubled. I thought it was too expensive before Obamacare. > > I was going to opt in this year. But prices doubled. I would have to spend almost $6000 in premiums and deductibles before seeing any benefits. It was half that before. > [Here’s a video of Obama flat-out lying that his stupid plan will decrease premiums by 3000%. Yes, three-thousand! percent.](http://youtu.be/lUd-slJc-GY?t=1m6s) I can’t tell you how angry I feel when he says that. It is a betrayal. > > Now I’m going to have to pay a fine for not having insurance. What a farce. The fact that there are still so many drooling sycophants for this liar and his treasonous lies is just beyond me. > > Adaher, I’ve been following this thread for a long time now. I don’t know how you summon the patience. It was a slip of the tongue. He clarified it to $3000 dollars. Also, you were freeloading off our healthcare system. If your motorbike crashes and you can’t afford your healthcare, it’s me and the rest of the country that will have to pay for all the kings horses and men to put you back together again. ---
**Author:** ![Stratocaster](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/stratocaster/32/16393_2.png) [@Stratocaster](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Stratocaster)\ **Post date:** [April 19, 2014, 7:23pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-is-your-ongoing-opinion-of-the-affordable-care-act-title-edited/647561/2123 "2014-04-19T19:23:52Z")
> [@Lobohan](#): > > Also, you were freeloading off our healthcare system. If your motorbike crashes and you can’t afford your healthcare, it’s me and the rest of the country that will have to pay for all the kings horses and men to put you back together again. Unlike all the people receiving ACA subsidies, since that money was found in the back of a drawer somewhere in the Capitol building and won’t cost the rest of us a dime. ---
**Author:** ![Lobohan](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/lobohan/32/79_2.png) [@Lobohan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Lobohan)\ **Post date:** [April 19, 2014, 7:36pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-is-your-ongoing-opinion-of-the-affordable-care-act-title-edited/647561/2124 "2014-04-19T19:36:22Z")
> [@Stratocaster](#): > > Unlike all the people receiving ACA subsidies, since that money was found in the back of a drawer somewhere in the Capitol building and won’t cost the rest of us a dime. They are contributing a portion of it, if they’re only getting a subsidy. Those that can afford to pay, pay. Those that need government assistance to afford it, are assisted. It’s a simple concept. DJ wanted to take his chances on catastrophic care when he could in fact pay for insurance. I wouldn’t consider a person who can’t afford it a freeloader. I’d consider them a person in need of help. Also, the ACA lowers the deficit considerably. So much so that Paul Ryan uses the savings while eliminating the benefits in his budgets. ---
**Author:** ![Iggy](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/iggy/32/3364_2.png) [@Iggy](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Iggy)\ **Post date:** [April 20, 2014, 1:01am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-is-your-ongoing-opinion-of-the-affordable-care-act-title-edited/647561/2125 "2014-04-20T01:01:11Z")
> [@Fear\_Itself](#): > > Two questions about these unfortunate wretches: 1) Do they still not have insurance, or \*\*did they get a better plan on Obamacare \*\*that they are now happy with? 2) Did they vote Republican before? Because if they vote Republican again, it’s not going to move the needle. The problem, of course, is that _better_ is in the eye of the beholder. If you are healthy and rarely use your coverage, then your idea of _better_ might be a plan with the lowest possible premium and a high deductible to pair with a health savings account. For a young family with kids perhaps _better_ is a plan with low co-pays and deductibles to minimize the shock of a high upfront out-of-pocket expense and provide for a more regularly predictable monthly budget. For others with chronic conditions and high medical expenses then _better_ might simply mean they can get coverage at any price, much less a price lower than their expected medical costs. That Democrats decided what they think is _better_ for all was a bad move, IMHO. The limits places on coverage for PPACA compliant plans are too stringent with too few choices of deductible and co-pays. ---
**Author:** ![Stratocaster](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/stratocaster/32/16393_2.png) [@Stratocaster](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Stratocaster)\ **Post date:** [April 20, 2014, 11:31am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-is-your-ongoing-opinion-of-the-affordable-care-act-title-edited/647561/2126 "2014-04-20T11:31:13Z")
> [@Lobohan](#): > > DJ wanted to take his chances on catastrophic care when he could in fact pay for insurance. He was paying his way out of debt. How does that squarely land him in the “he can afford this” camp? By that logic, there is an extremely low number of people who can’t afford it, so long as they have salary enough to cover health care. Other expenses just take the hit. > [@](#): > > Also, the ACA lowers the deficit considerably. So much so that Paul Ryan uses the savings while eliminating the benefits in his budgets. Because the savings are largely disconnected from the meat of the law, which was presumably intended to get more people insurance coverage. One could realize these savings without the coverage provisions of the ACA, and the coverage provisions, per the CBO, add to the debt. The “lowering the debt / budget neutral” jive is tiresome. You don’t insure previously uninsured people with enormous subsidies, expansions of Medicaid, etc., and save money. The only way to obscure this fact is to bundle the coverage with unrelated cost cuts (e.g., Medicare), cost cuts we could have realized without any ACA insurance coverage. It’s like saying you’re in enormous debt, but you’re going to buy a huge flat-screen TV. “You can’t afford that,” we might counsel. “I can’t afford _not to_,” you counter. “Because you’ll see that my ‘_Affordable Flat-screen Super Goodness Money Saving_’ Plan includes the fact that I will decrease my monthly grocery and entertainment expenditures by 50%. Check the math, within 10 years, I will have reduced my overall expenditures.” “Why not just do the expense reduction part? You’re in enormous debt, you know.” “Because it’s a package! Granted, I’m the guy that created this bundle of activity. But we’d all agree, I’m sure, that it’s fiscal insanity not to pursue a package that simultaneously increases our general well-being while reducing our debt.” If you don’t like the analogy because televisions pale in comparison to providing health care, fine. Then say it’s worth the expense for the social benefit, even if it costs a lot of money. Enough with the “how can we afford _not to_ have ACA” nonsense. ACA thus far largely insures people who were already insured, at great expense, an expense that’s offset by reductions that we could have pursued without the additional ACA expense. It’s an enormously disruptive piece of legislation. But at least we showed those deadbeats they don’t have us taxpayers to take advantage of any more! ---
**Author:** ![adaher](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/dec6dc/32.png) [@adaher](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/adaher)\ **Post date:** [April 20, 2014, 11:48am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-is-your-ongoing-opinion-of-the-affordable-care-act-title-edited/647561/2127 "2014-04-20T11:48:53Z")
Yup. If the Medicare cuts were easy and would have no effect on care, why not do them 10 years ago? ---
**Author:** ![Lobohan](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/lobohan/32/79_2.png) [@Lobohan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Lobohan)\ **Post date:** [April 20, 2014, 5:47pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-is-your-ongoing-opinion-of-the-affordable-care-act-title-edited/647561/2128 "2014-04-20T17:47:51Z")
> [@Stratocaster](#): > > He was paying his way out of debt. How does that squarely land him in the “he can afford this” camp? By that logic, there is an extremely low number of people who can’t afford it, so long as they have salary enough to cover health care. Other expenses just take the hit. Then maybe he shouldn’t have accrued all that debt? If his lifestyle is such that he can’t afford healthcare, he needs to modify it. Again, if he spills his bike without health insurance, you and I are the ones that will pay to stitch him back together. > [@](#): > > Because the savings are largely disconnected from the meat of the law, which was presumably intended to get more people insurance coverage. One could realize these savings without the coverage provisions of the ACA, and the coverage provisions, per the CBO, add to the debt. The “lowering the debt / budget neutral” jive is tiresome. You don’t insure previously uninsured people with enormous subsidies, expansions of Medicaid, etc., and save money. The only way to obscure this fact is to bundle the coverage with unrelated cost cuts (e.g., Medicare), cost cuts we could have realized without any ACA insurance coverage. Yes. It pays for itself. What Ryan is suggesting is keeping the pay mechanisms and getting nothing for it. That doesn’t strike you as dishonest? > [@](#): > > It’s like saying you’re in enormous debt, but you’re going to buy a huge flat-screen TV. “You can’t afford that,” we might counsel. > > “I can’t afford _not to_,” you counter. “Because you’ll see that my ‘_Affordable Flat-screen Super Goodness Money Saving_’ Plan includes the fact that I will decrease my monthly grocery and entertainment expenditures by 50%. Check the math, within 10 years, I will have reduced my overall expenditures.” > > “Why not just do the expense reduction part? You’re in enormous debt, you know.” > > “Because it’s a package! Granted, I’m the guy that created this bundle of activity. But we’d all agree, I’m sure, that it’s fiscal insanity not to pursue a package that simultaneously increases our general well-being while reducing our debt.” It’s absurd that you think the ACA should not have been paid for. :dubious: > [@](#): > > If you don’t like the analogy because televisions pale in comparison to providing health care, fine. Then say it’s worth the expense for the social benefit, even if it costs a lot of money. Enough with the “how can we afford _not to_ have ACA” nonsense. The cuts that were made to serve the ACA could theoretically exist in a vacuum, sure. But they probably wouldn’t have passed. So I have no trouble suggesting that it’s the package, the ACA plus cuts, is a net negative to our costs. > [@](#): > > ACA thus far largely insures people who were already insured, Give or take 12 million. [Cite](http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/04/14/cbo-obamacare-report_n_5146896.html). > [@](#): > > at great expense, an expense that’s offset by reductions that we could have pursued without the additional ACA expense. Those cuts wouldn’t have passed by themselves, so they only exist as a result of the ACA. > [@](#): > > It’s an enormously disruptive piece of legislation. But at least we showed those deadbeats they don’t have us taxpayers to take advantage of any more! You really have no idea what you’re talking about. I understand you dislike the law for ideological reasons, but millions of Americans having access to healthcare is a good thing. Other nations do it better than us for half the cost. It’s absurd that the rallying cry of the American Conservative™ is, “Let’s keep being terrible at this, spending twice the money for 37th place!” I’d rather we have single payer, but since the conservatives in this country want us to waste money on a for-profit layer between people and doctors, we need to have this, for now. And DJ can afford to pay his own way, so he probably should, or just pay the penalty. ---
**Author:** ![adaher](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/dec6dc/32.png) [@adaher](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/adaher)\ **Post date:** [April 20, 2014, 9:04pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-is-your-ongoing-opinion-of-the-affordable-care-act-title-edited/647561/2129 "2014-04-20T21:04:17Z")
> [@Lobohan](#): > > Yes. It pays for itself. What Ryan is suggesting is keeping the pay mechanisms and getting nothing for it. It only pays for itself if it actually cuts Medicare in ways that are hard. If it does it in ways that are easy, it should have been done a long time ago. Otherwise, Democrats just tolerate waste because they can use it to pay for new programs down the road. ---
**Author:** ![Fear\_Itself](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/fear_itself/32/19637_2.png) [@Fear\_Itself](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Fear_Itself)\ **Post date:** [April 20, 2014, 9:27pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-is-your-ongoing-opinion-of-the-affordable-care-act-title-edited/647561/2130 "2014-04-20T21:27:19Z")
> [@adaher](#): > > It only pays for itself if it actually cuts Medicare in ways that are hard. If it does it in ways that are easy, it should have been done a long time ago. Why? More tax cuts for the rich? ---
**Author:** ![adaher](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/dec6dc/32.png) [@adaher](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/adaher)\ **Post date:** [April 20, 2014, 9:33pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-is-your-ongoing-opinion-of-the-affordable-care-act-title-edited/647561/2131 "2014-04-20T21:33:07Z")
No, reducing the cost of government. Believe it or not, waste should be cut from the budget, not held onto year after year until Democrats have a new program they want that they can use waste to pay for. ACA-Paid for by years of Medicare waste. ---
**Author:** ![Lobohan](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/lobohan/32/79_2.png) [@Lobohan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Lobohan)\ **Post date:** [April 21, 2014, 2:25am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-is-your-ongoing-opinion-of-the-affordable-care-act-title-edited/647561/2132 "2014-04-21T02:25:06Z")
> [@adaher](#): > > No, reducing the cost of government. Believe it or not, waste should be cut from the budget, not held onto year after year until Democrats have a new program they want that they can use waste to pay for. > > ACA-Paid for by years of Medicare waste. Aren’t all of the GOP against cutting this? So where do you think, exactly the political will for the cuts would have come years before? ---
**Author:** ![adaher](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/dec6dc/32.png) [@adaher](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/adaher)\ **Post date:** [April 21, 2014, 2:46am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-is-your-ongoing-opinion-of-the-affordable-care-act-title-edited/647561/2133 "2014-04-21T02:46:38Z")
Political will is unnecessary to cut pure waste. However, if you’re admitting that the Medicare cuts do indeed cut benefits, then yes, it takes political will. ---
**Author:** ![bengangmo](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/50afbb/32.png) [@bengangmo](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/bengangmo)\ **Post date:** [April 21, 2014, 4:07am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-is-your-ongoing-opinion-of-the-affordable-care-act-title-edited/647561/2134 "2014-04-21T04:07:45Z")
I’m curious **Adaher** - as the ACA starts to gain ground, the numbers enrolling keep going up and up, the numbers on how much it will save from the deficit keep getting better and better, at what point will it be considered “good law”? As quoted up thread - the numbers that have come out of the Whitehouse are quite startling - and to note that more than 5 million aren’t getting coverage because of, what comes down to, Republican obstinancy (refusal to expand Medicaid) is also a sad indictment. I now note you’re trying to attack on the front of “they didn’t make savings early enough” - as if it matters! The point is, savings are being made NOW - so are you suggesting we shouldn’t be making savings now? Just so that we can be consistent? Or that it’s wrong to fund insurance by realising savings in within the system? Just what is your position there? ---
**Author:** ![adaher](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/dec6dc/32.png) [@adaher](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/adaher)\ **Post date:** [April 21, 2014, 4:16am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-is-your-ongoing-opinion-of-the-affordable-care-act-title-edited/647561/2135 "2014-04-21T04:16:51Z")
I was just reinforcing what stratocaster said, that the law isn’t really paid for if you consider the Medicare savings to be just waste. My own view is that the Medicare cuts are quite real, and justified, and do in fact pay for the law. It’s good policy, except the Democrats felt the need to lie to the public about it and haven’t given up on the lie. And that’s what makes the law so hard to judge. How do you judge a law when there are such shifting reasons for its existence? Is the law meant to cover the uninsured while leaving those with insurance unharmed? Judging by the criteria the Democrats used to sell the law, the law has already failed. ---
**Author:** ![iiandyiiii](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/iiandyiiii/32/7924_2.png) [@iiandyiiii](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/iiandyiiii)\ **Post date:** [April 21, 2014, 9:12am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-is-your-ongoing-opinion-of-the-affordable-care-act-title-edited/647561/2136 "2014-04-21T09:12:03Z")
> [@adaher](#): > > I was just reinforcing what stratocaster said, that the law isn’t really paid for if you consider the Medicare savings to be just waste. > > My own view is that the Medicare cuts are quite real, and justified, and do in fact pay for the law. It’s good policy, except the Democrats felt the need to lie to the public about it and haven’t given up on the lie. > > And that’s what makes the law so hard to judge. How do you judge a law when there are such shifting reasons for its existence? Is the law meant to cover the uninsured while leaving those with insurance unharmed? Judging by the criteria the Democrats used to sell the law, the law has already failed. Your nonsense is getting desperate. Judging the law _now_ is only useful if you want to condemn it, as you clearly do. ---
**Author:** ![Stratocaster](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/stratocaster/32/16393_2.png) [@Stratocaster](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Stratocaster)\ **Post date:** [April 21, 2014, 9:51am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-is-your-ongoing-opinion-of-the-affordable-care-act-title-edited/647561/2137 "2014-04-21T09:51:37Z")
> [@Lobohan](#): > > It’s absurd that you think the ACA should not have been paid for. :dubious: What’s absurd is that you came to this conclusion. I had forgotten how you debated, thanks for the reminder. ---
**Author:** ![Lobohan](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/lobohan/32/79_2.png) [@Lobohan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Lobohan)\ **Post date:** [April 21, 2014, 10:20am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-is-your-ongoing-opinion-of-the-affordable-care-act-title-edited/647561/2138 "2014-04-21T10:20:13Z")
> [@Stratocaster](#): > > What’s absurd is that you came to this conclusion. I had forgotten how you debated, thanks for the reminder. So you’re for the ACA being paid for, just not these particular cuts? What cuts would you rather have paid for it? Were they politically feasible? Are you just against the concept of Dems saying _it’s paid for_? How do you expect them to pay for costly legislation without cutting something or raising taxes? ---
**Author:** ![adaher](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/dec6dc/32.png) [@adaher](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/adaher)\ **Post date:** [April 21, 2014, 8:05pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-is-your-ongoing-opinion-of-the-affordable-care-act-title-edited/647561/2139 "2014-04-21T20:05:42Z")
> [@iiandyiiii](#): > > Your nonsense is getting desperate. Judging the law _now_ is only useful if you want to condemn it, as you clearly do. People lost their insurance and their doctors. That’s a failure. If Bush had promised that not a single soldier would die in Iraq, then by his own selling of the war, it would have been a failure within the first hour. He did promise that the war would pay for itself, which meant it failed by the standards he set for it pretty quickly. ---
**Author:** ![Lobohan](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/lobohan/32/79_2.png) [@Lobohan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Lobohan)\ **Post date:** [April 21, 2014, 8:10pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-is-your-ongoing-opinion-of-the-affordable-care-act-title-edited/647561/2140 "2014-04-21T20:10:22Z")
> [@adaher](#): > > People lost their insurance and their doctors. That’s a failure. How many? > [@](#): > > If Bush had promised that not a single soldier would die in Iraq, then by his own selling of the war, it would have been a failure within the first hour. > > He did promise that the war would pay for itself, which meant it failed by the standards he set for it pretty quickly. This right here, is goofy. ---
**Author:** ![elucidator](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/8edcca/32.png) [@elucidator](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/elucidator)\ **Post date:** [April 21, 2014, 9:16pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-is-your-ongoing-opinion-of-the-affordable-care-act-title-edited/647561/2141 "2014-04-21T21:16:51Z")
Well, sure, but he promised that when the war was over, Saddam would not be a threat to America. Damn sure right on that one! One hundred thousand innocent men, women and children, **adaher**. _At least_! that many. And the sternest words you have for it are about the price? May the blessed Baby Jesus shut your mouth and open your heart. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-is-your-ongoing-opinion-of-the-affordable-care-act-title-edited/647561.md?page=106) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-is-your-ongoing-opinion-of-the-affordable-care-act-title-edited/647561.md?page=108)