Actual Obamacare stats and rate increases on horizon

Discussion in 'Too Hot for Swamp Gas' started by gatordowneast, May 15, 2014.

  1. dirigo
    Offline

    dirigo Premium Member

    Joined:
    Apr 3, 2007
    Messages:
    452
    Likes Received:
    7
    Trophy Points:
    18
    Ratings Received:
    +23
    So shall we add you and RealGator to those who want to go back to what we had before the ACA? Come on now, tell us where you stand.
  2. QGator2414
    Offline

    QGator2414 VIP Member

    Joined:
    Aug 24, 2009
    Messages:
    12,518
    Likes Received:
    141
    Trophy Points:
    63
    Location:
    Ocala
    Ratings Received:
    +486
    Sure? It would be better than obamacare.

    That said it appears you think that means we do not want change. Which would be a delusional/disingenuous liberal thought...
  3. reformedgator
    Online

    reformedgator VIP Member Premium Member

    Joined:
    Aug 31, 2009
    Messages:
    1,795
    Likes Received:
    42
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Ratings Received:
    +154
    I, for one, would love to go back to what I had before the ACA....a lot less money out of my pocket.
    • Like Like x 1
    • Winner Winner x 1
  4. dirigo
    Offline

    dirigo Premium Member

    Joined:
    Apr 3, 2007
    Messages:
    452
    Likes Received:
    7
    Trophy Points:
    18
    Ratings Received:
    +23
    So you're alright with insurers refusing to renew you after you become ill and then the other insurers refuse to offer you coverage due to your pre-existing condition?
  5. gatorev12
    Offline

    gatorev12 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jan 27, 2009
    Messages:
    11,511
    Likes Received:
    259
    Trophy Points:
    83
    Ratings Received:
    +1,276
    If someone serves me a giant plate of s**te, but the sides are pretty good, does that in any way take away from the fact that I had to eat sh**e?
  6. dirigo
    Offline

    dirigo Premium Member

    Joined:
    Apr 3, 2007
    Messages:
    452
    Likes Received:
    7
    Trophy Points:
    18
    Ratings Received:
    +23
    Well that was an underwhelming response. Would you feel comfortable listing the 3-4 items of the ACA that you find so distasteful?
  7. gatorev12
    Offline

    gatorev12 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jan 27, 2009
    Messages:
    11,511
    Likes Received:
    259
    Trophy Points:
    83
    Ratings Received:
    +1,276
    Why would I need to? You aren't arguing the bill itself, you're arguing small provisions of it. Ie: the side dishes, not the main course.

    Forgive me, but that tells me you have a pretty crappy main course to begin with.
  8. QGator2414
    Offline

    QGator2414 VIP Member

    Joined:
    Aug 24, 2009
    Messages:
    12,518
    Likes Received:
    141
    Trophy Points:
    63
    Location:
    Ocala
    Ratings Received:
    +486
    Why don't you ask Obama for 3-4?

    How many waivers has he approved?
  9. dirigo
    Offline

    dirigo Premium Member

    Joined:
    Apr 3, 2007
    Messages:
    452
    Likes Received:
    7
    Trophy Points:
    18
    Ratings Received:
    +23
    Well I think we'll have to end on those two profound posts.
  10. chemgator
    Offline

    chemgator Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Apr 3, 2007
    Messages:
    8,238
    Likes Received:
    186
    Trophy Points:
    63
    Ratings Received:
    +788
    The requirement for pre-existing conditions could have been mandated without Obamacare.

    Face it, Obamacare was a failure waiting to happen. It has already failed, based on the value of what they are providing versus the cost to the taxpayer. It's all well and good to say that 1-2 million people now have insurance that didn't have it before, but what good is that insurance? The high deductibles will not provide much benefit to people that can't afford the deductible. What will stop these people from returning to the emergency rooms when they get tired of paying medical bills?

    It would have been far wiser to invest the money spent on Obamacare on subsidized, low-cost clinics next to emergency rooms. Poor people could go to the clinic and be seen by a nurse practitioner, without the cost associated with emergency care. This would not have required the hiring of 16,000 IRS agents, plus whoever else in government has been working on Obamacare. I don't know if Obama is more criminally stupid, or criminally foolish. Maybe the liberals could answer that one.
    • Agree Agree x 1
    • Winner Winner x 1
  11. QGator2414
    Offline

    QGator2414 VIP Member

    Joined:
    Aug 24, 2009
    Messages:
    12,518
    Likes Received:
    141
    Trophy Points:
    63
    Location:
    Ocala
    Ratings Received:
    +486
    Appears so.
  12. surfn1080
    Offline

    surfn1080 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Sep 26, 2008
    Messages:
    1,086
    Likes Received:
    37
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Ratings Received:
    +146
    The problem with your thought is that Obamacare was supposed to make health care affordable. Yet instead we are getting record increases.... so no there is no win as the amount of uninsured that is now insured is rather disappointing and yet everyone got huge increases..
    • Winner Winner x 2
  13. gator7_5
    Offline

    gator7_5 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Apr 9, 2007
    Messages:
    12,502
    Likes Received:
    180
    Trophy Points:
    63
    Ratings Received:
    +622
    I'd like to know your history with economics in the real world. I feel confident our current president couldn't balance a checkbook. I am very confident in my ability to create and operate a thriving small businesss.
    And yeah, I do hope the ACA fails. My new garbage plan will cost me my doctors my qulity care and cost me up to an additional 12k a year. The price for living a heathy lifestyle in America I guess.
    • Agree Agree x 1
  14. dirigo
    Offline

    dirigo Premium Member

    Joined:
    Apr 3, 2007
    Messages:
    452
    Likes Received:
    7
    Trophy Points:
    18
    Ratings Received:
    +23
    At least 5 states tried mandating "pre-existing condition" coverage without the mandate that all must obtain coverage (Washington state probably the most prominent). Each experiment failed miserably and the program junked. Only Romneycare with its individual mandate has worked (actually thrived). With regard to the claim of 16,000 IRS agents, this from PolitiFact;
    "Now that the U.S. Supreme Court has let President Barack Obama’s signature health care law stand, Republicans are grousing like it’s 2009.

    The law’s foes are dusting off 3-year-old talking points they used in their unsuccessful attempt to squelch it in Congress. U.S. Rep. Tom Price, a Republican from Roswell, recently revived this retro claim about Internal Revenue Service agents as he emphasized the court’s finding that the bill is constitutional under the federal government’s taxing powers:

    "This is indeed a tax. We talked about it at the time with the 16,000 IRS -- new IRS agents -- that will be empowered to enforce this new tax," Price said during a C-SPAN call-in show June 29.

    Sixteen thousand new IRS agents? That claim sounded awfully familiar to us here at PolitiFact Georgia.

    As presidential hopefuls, Ron Paul, Jon Huntsman and Michele Bachmann used versions of this claim, as have other politicians, including Georgia’s own U.S. Sen. Saxby Chambliss.

    Even the most accurate versions of this talking point earned mediocre ratings on the Truth-O-Meter. They ranged from Pants on Fire to Half True.

    Did this claim improve with age like a fine wine? We contacted Price’s office, dug through past PolitiFact research and looked at a recent IRS budget request.

    The main reason that past claims earned low Truth-O-Meter ratings is that the number comes from a partisan estimate based on squishy assumptions.

    This is how the IRS talking point came to be:

    On Dec. 19, 2009, the Congressional Budget Office, a nonpartisan referee on budget questions, released an analysis of the Senate version of the health care bill that became the basis for the health care law.

    The CBO wrote that it had not completed cost estimates for the IRS and other federal agencies responsible for implementing the law. But it did say the IRS "would probably" need to spend "between $5 billion and $10 billion over 10 years."

    The CBO suggested nothing about how those costs would translate to jobs, PolitiFact National found.

    Republicans with the U.S. House Ways and Means Committee, which handles federal tax legislation, used the high end of the IRS’ rough budget number to estimate 16,500 employees might be hired to implement the bill.

    PolitiFact ruled that Republicans cherry-picked the high number to favor their case. Also, even Ways and Means Republicans acknowledged that the figure could be less than 16,500 new jobs. Their calculations do not take into account the possibility that some of the money would buy things such as desks and office supplies for new workers.

    In other words, it’s fair to assume the IRS will need to hire new employees. It may need thousands of them. But using such a specific figure suggests a degree of certainty that does not exist.

    Furthermore, Ways and Means Republicans did not find that the IRS would have to hire 16,000 or more new "agents," as Price and other Obama health care bill foes have said. That number was for "employees," a broader category that can include other workers such as administrative assistants, phone operators and staff attorneys.

    Now the IRS is hiring staff to implement these changes. Price spokesman Ryan Murphy told PolitiFact Georgia that current hiring numbers suggest that the 16,000 estimate is reasonable.

    We took a look at the IRS budget requests to check out this assertion.

    For the current fiscal year, the IRS requested funding for more than 1,250 employees to prepare for the health care tax changes, according to its budget proposal. Most would fill support roles in areas such as information technology or customer service. Fewer than one-quarter would be agents.

    For next fiscal year, the IRS requested funding for nearly 860 employees. Fewer than 10 percent would be agents.

    This places the agent tally for fiscal years 2012 and 2013 near 375.

    How do we rule?

    Price said that 16,000 new "agents" would be empowered to enforce the health care law. His claim carries a kernel of truth. The IRS will have to hire agents to implement these changes.

    But his statement misstated the findings of a partisan estimate. Ways and Means Republicans said that about 16,000 "employees," not "agents," may be hired to enforce the bill’s provisions. They also acknowledged that the actual number of hires may be lower.

    IRS budget requests for the 2012 and 2013 fiscal years show they asked for about 375 more agents so far -- far less than 16,000.

    And like other pols who have used versions of this talking point, Price used such a specific figure that he suggests a degree of certainty that doesn’t exist.

    Price therefore earns a Mostly False."
  15. reformedgator
    Online

    reformedgator VIP Member Premium Member

    Joined:
    Aug 31, 2009
    Messages:
    1,795
    Likes Received:
    42
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Ratings Received:
    +154
    Nice try, but neither of those things will happen w/ the plan we have.
  16. dirigo
    Offline

    dirigo Premium Member

    Joined:
    Apr 3, 2007
    Messages:
    452
    Likes Received:
    7
    Trophy Points:
    18
    Ratings Received:
    +23
    Ding ding ding, we have a winner! The plan that you "have" is a post-ACA plan. As a result you can't be dropped or refused coverage. Unfortunately for many that wasn't the case prior to the ACA.
  17. mdgator05
    Offline

    mdgator05 Premium Member

    Joined:
    Dec 9, 2010
    Messages:
    6,290
    Likes Received:
    120
    Trophy Points:
    63
    Ratings Received:
    +453
    As pointed out, the 16K claim has been debunked a bunch of times by now.

    As also pointed out, based on survey estimates from a couple of different sources (Gallup and Rand), we are looking at somewhere in the neighborhood of 9 million additional insured. This includes all those that stayed on their parent's plans longer, purchased individual insurance through the exchanges, purchased individual insurance from other sources, any changes in Medicare and Medicaid, and the net changes in employee healthcare plans.
  18. AzCatFan
    Offline

    AzCatFan Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Apr 9, 2007
    Messages:
    7,495
    Likes Received:
    187
    Trophy Points:
    63
    Ratings Received:
    +514
    Record increases? It's not like medical costs have been outpacing inflation since the mid 1980's. And by a significant margin (Obamacare's fault, right?)

    [​IMG]

    And a big reason for the increase is we have cover the costs of indigent care (those who have zero insurance and no ability whatsoever to pay), and those who have to file for bankruptcy due to medical costs. Not to mention covering any charity done by doctors/medical centers. Add it all up, and the medical industry has billions of unpaid bills every year that they have to pass the costs of onto paying customers (those of us with insurance).

    What Obamacare hopes to do is first pay upfront for a lot of the costs of indigent care. This, in theory, will be accomplished by getting more people on insurance and pay for care as it happens, instead of passing the bill onto the next year. The other thing Obamacare hopes to do is get more people paying something, even if it's just a fine, instead of nothing. 45 million uninsured Americans paying even the nominal fine of $10/month would add $540 million into the coffers.

    Will Obamacare work? In theory, yes. In practice, the rollout of healthcare.gov was bumbled beyond belief. There have been plenty of other admin errors as well, including stories of misinformation, bad quotes, and yes, some sticker shock for many. But look again at the chart above if you think going back to what we had before Obamacare was better. At least now, we have something in place that can combat the problem.
  19. chemgator
    Offline

    chemgator Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Apr 3, 2007
    Messages:
    8,238
    Likes Received:
    186
    Trophy Points:
    63
    Ratings Received:
    +788
    You still haven't answered my question. What will be done about the people who cannot afford the deductible? How do you keep them from going back to the emergency room for free medical care?
  20. mdgator05
    Offline

    mdgator05 Premium Member

    Joined:
    Dec 9, 2010
    Messages:
    6,290
    Likes Received:
    120
    Trophy Points:
    63
    Ratings Received:
    +453
    The idea would be that this should be covered by either the Medicaid expansion or by health insurance subsidies, which will lower the out of pocket cost of insurance, allowing poorer users to purchase a plan with a lower deductible than they would have without a subsidy. So I guess the question is, what income group are you talking about as not being able to afford the deductible?

Share This Page