Making a Case for the Affordable Care Act

[rivergator]

Originally Posted by gatorev12

No--Obama very clearly spoke of finding a way to insure the uninsured in his campaign.

But you're once again trying to conflate two separate issues. The impetus for Obamacare and how it was sold to the American people was as a means to "do something about rising healthcare costs."

Read any of Obama's support for the bill and you will see there was always discussion of getting people insured. It's simply ridiculous to claim it wasn't always a part of it.

[gatorev12]

Originally Posted by fredsanford

The CBO differs with your Limbaugh-esque analysis.

...spoken like a person who has precious little idea of what the CBO does and does not do.

Let me give you a simple hypo here to de-bunk your complete faith in the CBO report: say your salary is 50K right now. You've already figured out this year's taxes and expect to get an $1K refund. Now, based on your employer promising a $1K a year raise for the next decade...AND keeping the tax rates the same as they are over the next decade...you budget yourself $12K in tax refunds over the course of the next decade.

Of course, practical realities mean that your employer could fire you at any time; the company may force you to take a paycut--a new job could result in a low salary, etc.

BUT...using those metrics and assuming nothing changes, sure, you can claim that over the course of the next decade, you'll get $12K in refunds.

Again, you will have to wait a few years until all aspects of the law are in place to judge its cost effectiveness.

Sounds like Pelosi's "we have to pass the bill to see what's in it." Which has rightly been lampooned for its utter ridiculousness. You saying it, reworded, is no less ridiculous.

[rivergator]

Here's some excerpts from Obama's speech to Congress in support of the bill. Still want t claim insurance for the uninsured had nothing to do with it?

Everyone understands the extraordinary hardships that are placed on the uninsured, who live every day just one accident or illness away from bankruptcy. These are not primarily people on welfare. These are middle-class Americans. Some can’t get insurance on the job.

Others are self-employed, and can’t afford it, since buying insurance on your own costs you three times as much as the coverage you get from your employer. Many other Americans who are willing and able to pay are still denied insurance due to previous illnesses or conditions that insurance companies decide are too risky or expensive to cover.

There are now more than 30 million American citizens who cannot get coverage. In just a two-year period, one in every three Americans goes without healthcare coverage at some point. And every day, 14,000 Americans lose their coverage. In other words, it can happen to anyone.

More and more Americans worry that if you move, lose your job, or change your job, you’ll lose your health insurance too. More and more Americans pay their premiums, only to discover that their insurance company has dropped their coverage when they get sick, or won’t pay the full cost of care. It happens every day.

link

[108]

the big elephant in the room is that nothing short of Single Payer or extreme cost controls is going to bring down the cost of insured health care

so you guys can bitch about the ACA, but your elected officials really don't have a plan B for what used to be their plan A....premiums have been skyrocketing for years

[gatorman_07732]

Originally Posted by 108

the big elephant in the room is that nothing short of Single Payer or extreme cost controls is going to bring down the cost of insured health care

so you guys can bitch about the ACA, but your elected officials really don't have a plan B for what used to be their plan A....premiums have been skyrocketing for years

In your Amerika. We won't get any healthcare with a single payer system

[gatorev12]

Originally Posted by rivergator

Here's some excerpts from Obama's speech to Congress in support of the bill. Still want t claim insurance for the uninsured had nothing to do with it?

In addition to moving the goalposts, now you're trying to put words in my mouth.

Again, I'm not claiming Obama was never wanting to insure the uninsured. He said that was a priority in the campaign--and also while he was selling the legislation.

But to sit here and pretend that was the impetus for "getting something done" on healthcare is more than a bit dishonest considering the parts of the speech you're leaving out is Obama's diatribe on "rising healthcare costs crippling our economy and American families."

It's almost as dishonest as Obama's claims to have the entire congressional hearings placed on C-Span...and the reality of Obamacare being passed on midnight after closed-door backroom negotiations between a few holdouts.

[GatorAbe7]

Originally Posted by rivergator

why is that?

Because ACA passes the buck of rising healthcare costs to business. Business, in turn, will keep employee hours below 30 hours to stay in business. Who then pays for the mild heart attack of all the employees working less than 30 hours?

[108]

Originally Posted by GatorAbe7

Because ACA passes the buck of rising healthcare costs to business. Business, in turn, will keep employee hours below 30 hours to stay in business. Who then pays for the mild heart attack of all the employees working less than 30 hours?

the overwhelming majority (90%) of small businesses are under 50 people, which is the max they can have before having to fork over some money if they are not going to provide health care to their employees....they make up 57% of the employed

after that, over 90% of businesses that employ more than 50 people, give health insurance to their employees

[g8orbill]

we still have to pay for you people who do not have coverage whether or not we have 50 employees

[fredsanford]

Originally Posted by g8orbill

we still have to pay for you people who do not have coverage whether or not we have 50 employees

You've been paying--in the most expensive way there is.

[rivergator]

Originally Posted by gatorev12

In addition to moving the goalposts, now you're trying to put words in my mouth.

Again, I'm not claiming Obama was never wanting to insure the uninsured. He said that was a priority in the campaign--and also while he was selling the legislation.

But to sit here and pretend that was the impetus for "getting something done" on healthcare is more than a bit dishonest considering the parts of the speech you're leaving out is Obama's diatribe on "rising healthcare costs crippling our economy and American families."

It's almost as dishonest as Obama's claims to have the entire congressional hearings placed on C-Span...and the reality of Obamacare being passed on midnight after closed-door backroom negotiations between a few holdouts.

So make up your mind. You started this particular conversation by claiming that by saying "we needed some system to get people insurance" was moving the goalposts. I pointed out that insuring the uninsured was part of the discussion from the beginning. You disagreed and said it was all about cutting costs. I provided quotes from Obama's speech to Congress in support of ACA in which he referred over and over to the need to get insurance for the uninsured.
And now you're saying exactly what? That part of the reason was getting insurance, that it wasn't it?
I mean, damn, guy.

[mocgator]

Originally Posted by Pablo

Saw this on Twitter, thought I'd pass it on...

"I love Obama because now I can get health care even though I'm unemployed."

"why are you unemployed?"

"I got laid off because my employer can't afford to pay for Obamacare."

Wait until they discover that Universal Coverage doesn't mean Universal Treatment...

It will be a laugh riot...

[gatorev12]

Originally Posted by rivergator

So make up your mind. You started this particular conversation by claiming that by saying "we needed some system to get people insurance" was moving the goalposts. I pointed out that insuring the uninsured was part of the discussion from the beginning. You disagreed and said it was all about cutting costs. I provided quotes from Obama's speech to Congress in support of ACA in which he referred over and over to the need to get insurance for the uninsured.
And now you're saying exactly what? That part of the reason was getting insurance, that it wasn't it?
I mean, damn, guy.

I'll make this simple: at any point in time, was Obamacare sold to the public as a means of cutting "rising healthcare costs?"

Yes or no.

Since no reasonable person could argue "no"--then it's a valid critique to observe that continued supporters of Obamacare are trying to ignore the obvious and focus on what, initially, was a very small part of the impetus to "do something" about healthcare reform.

And let's not forget--in order to be upheld by the SC, the Obama Administration claimed in hours of oral arguments that this was a valid exercise of the Commerce Clause..and spent about 10 minutes saying "well, even if it's not valid under the Commerce Clause, it's also valid use of the taxing/spending provisions..." ---and, in the end, that's the only reason it wasn't overturned: the SC ruled it was a tax.

[rivergator]

Originally Posted by gatorev12

I'll make this simple: at any point in time, was Obamacare sold to the public as a means of cutting "rising healthcare costs?"

Yes or no.

Since no reasonable person could argue "no"--then it's a valid critique to observe that continued supporters of Obamacare are trying to ignore the obvious and focus on what, initially, was a very small part of the impetus to "do something" about healthcare reform.

And let's not forget--in order to be upheld by the SC, the Obama Administration claimed in hours of oral arguments that this was a valid exercise of the Commerce Clause..and spent about 10 minutes saying "well, even if it's not valid under the Commerce Clause, it's also valid use of the taxing/spending provisions..." ---and, in the end, that's the only reason it wasn't overturned: the SC ruled it was a tax.

When I said that part of the reason for the bill was to get insurance for the uninsured, you disagreed. Now, you're going back and claiming "Gosh, I never said that ...."
Like I said, make up your mind and get back to me.

[ArtDeco]

The only real way to lower healthcare costs is to limit utilization to cases that are necessary.
There's posters on here that mention single-payer as the solution. Bull. All single payer accomplishes is (1) paying less to doctors and professionals b/c single payer is a monopoly and (2)putting decisions in the hands of bureaucrats who can sit back and selectively cut out what they consider to be "costly" procedures without regard to case or medical necessity.
Item (1) is a product of envy. Paying less to struggling doctors who are already cutting back services may make the left feel better, but it does not lower costs. Doctor fees do not drive this engine, utilization does. Single payer does nothing to address overutilization for non-urgent problems. Item (2) addresses utilization, but not from a medical necessity point. I'd rather my insurance not pay for the million hypochondriacs that flood doctors' offices than not pay for someone's organ transplant.
We as Americans have to be honest to each other and admit that we run to the doctor too much, and the guiltiest are those with little or no cost share involved.
I already see single payer in my practice, it's called Tricare, the military insurance. Active duty personnel and their young wives and kids have no cost share or copays to worry about, i.e. literal, free healthcare. They are the biggest abusers of the system. They demand to see GI doctors for a tummyache, strep tests for kids who barely complain, vascular surgeons for the wife's spider vein. There is actually a reimbursement code in the system used by Medicare and all insurances called a "Well Worried" exam. It basically is a way of charging an insurance for a person who thought they had an issue, but realy didn't. I would wager that a third of all doctor visits, whether GI or Family Practice or Ortho or what have you, are needless and unnecessary. But if you give a person free and unfettered access to the system, overuse inevitably will happen.
THIS is what is costing the system. Ask Mastoid the anestesiologist how many of his surgeries are "elective", in other words, not entirely necessary. Gallbladders, knee replacements, tonsillectomies. I'm not advocating doing away with these, just make the patient have some skin in the game i.e. cost shares, significant co-pays. That's how you lower the overall cost of healthcare, not by adding more consumers, but by making consumers smarter about their utilization and actually paying a percentage of their own income to see if a visit or a lab is truly worth it to them.

[gatordowneast]

Originally Posted by fredsanford

You've been paying--in the most expensive way there is.

And Massachusetts passed Romney care and the proponents claimed that hospital emergency rooms would no longer be overrun with those seeking "primary care" and costs would go down. I just saw a gentleman on the news from Massachusetts say their emergency rooms are more packed than before, the wait for docs is much longer and health care costs have sky rocketed...in Massachusetts who only had approximately 8% of their citizens uninsured prior to Romney care.

Cluster___k.

[GatorAbe7]

Originally Posted by 108

so you guys can bitch about the ACA, but your elected officials really don't have a plan B for what used to be their plan A....premiums have been skyrocketing for years

108, the ACA absolutely wont lower healthcare costs...http://www.gatorcountry.com/swampgas...d.php?t=255851

[G8trGr8t]

Originally Posted by ArtDeco

The only real way to lower healthcare costs is to limit utilization to cases that are necessary.
There's posters on here that mention single-payer as the solution. Bull. All single payer accomplishes is (1) paying less to doctors and professionals b/c single payer is a monopoly and (2)putting decisions in the hands of bureaucrats who can sit back and selectively cut out what they consider to be "costly" procedures without regard to case or medical necessity.
Item (1) is a product of envy. Paying less to struggling doctors who are already cutting back services may make the left feel better, but it does not lower costs. Doctor fees do not drive this engine, utilization does. Single payer does nothing to address overutilization for non-urgent problems. Item (2) addresses utilization, but not from a medical necessity point. I'd rather my insurance not pay for the million hypochondriacs that flood doctors' offices than not pay for someone's organ transplant.
We as Americans have to be honest to each other and admit that we run to the doctor too much, and the guiltiest are those with little or no cost share involved.
I already see single payer in my practice, it's called Tricare, the military insurance. Active duty personnel and their young wives and kids have no cost share or copays to worry about, i.e. literal, free healthcare. They are the biggest abusers of the system. They demand to see GI doctors for a tummyache, strep tests for kids who barely complain, vascular surgeons for the wife's spider vein. There is actually a reimbursement code in the system used by Medicare and all insurances called a "Well Worried" exam. It basically is a way of charging an insurance for a person who thought they had an issue, but realy didn't. I would wager that a third of all doctor visits, whether GI or Family Practice or Ortho or what have you, are needless and unnecessary. But if you give a person free and unfettered access to the system, overuse inevitably will happen.
THIS is what is costing the system. Ask Mastoid the anestesiologist how many of his surgeries are "elective", in other words, not entirely necessary. Gallbladders, knee replacements, tonsillectomies. I'm not advocating doing away with these, just make the patient have some skin in the game i.e. cost shares, significant co-pays. That's how you lower the overall cost of healthcare, not by adding more consumers, but by making consumers smarter about their utilization and actually paying a percentage of their own income to see if a visit or a lab is truly worth it to them.

Agree

[The_Graygator]

Obamacare is the biggest fraud ever passed over on the American People, or, in better terms, forced down their throats.

In a few years after this abomination of a bill is officially enacted, you're going to hear and see the millions of Americans wailing and crying to the govt. about all the high costs of this system when they thought it was going to be free.

I for one have already lost my health insurance because of what Obama has done to this economy which has directly affected my livliehood, and I sure as hell wouldn't be able to afford an Obamacare policy which will cost consdierably more than the priovate sector policy I had, not to mention it won't cover near as much as my previous one did either.

Wait until all the welfare leeches and bums who've never held a job all their lives because they've sponged off the govt. have to actually pay for a HC policy. That's going to be a sight!

[MastaG8r]

Originally Posted by gatorev12

In addition to moving the goalposts, now you're trying to put words in my mouth.

LOL. That's his trademark M.O.


...a journey to absurdity.