Let's Talk Obamacare

[DeletedUser]

I've heard a lot of right-wing criticism of the Affordable Care Act (proper name of law) but not one alternative put forth. Health care needed to be addressed, and it was. Sticking your head in the sand and saying, "leave it to the industry to police itself" like the Republicans do is insane.

 

[Lord Lilbit]

For Democrats to say Obamacare was meant to take care of the chronically ill is a flat out lie. We have a safety net in place that took care of those individuals. Healthcare cost, especially for hospitals, started to soar when the country was seeing a huge uptick in illegal immigration that was overtaxing the hospitals to the verge of bankruptcy. For Obamacare to be forced onto the masses it took an activist judge (Roberts) to interpret that it wasn't a 'penalty', it was a 'tax', and the SC can't intervene in the governments ability to tax. Obamacare is not cheap for anyone unless they are young, and it's certainly not affordable for those of us getting up in age, and it comes with huge deductibles for these expensive policies. Meanwhile the illegals are getting FREE healthcare. I know liberals view Obamacare as being a great perk for everyone, it's so great Obama exempted all congressmen and their staff from it. That should tell you something right there, but liberals will never acknowledge that. I truly believe that the democrat purge will continue in '16 as the middle class is crushed under the cost of the "Unaffordable Care Act".

 

[lavty]

Because Right Wing (Clueless Clux Clan, Neo Nazis, Tea Party Republicans) must take every chance they can get to SLAM President Obama ...

EVZ

That is somewhat true. However, name calling is used when a side has chosen not to interject an intellectual opinion based on their own investigation into the facts, not sponsored propaganda. (ie. Smith-Mundt Modernization Act of 2012, which passed as part of the 2013 National Defense Authorization Act)

Once you realize there is no such thing as the democratic or republican party, you will begin to see the bigger picture. ie. wmd's in Iraq were based on Clinton's Directive 1998, Al Gore 1992 and in conjunction with GHWB and continuing on with GWB and now BO

 

[Mustapha00]

Conservatives opposed socialized medicine back when it was proposed by Hillary Rodham Clinton, who is just about as white a person as I've ever seen, so to claim any opposition to Obamacare is rooted in racism is indicative of a desire to avoid substantive debate on the (lack of) merits.

 

[DeletedUser13838]

Having worked as a healthcare actuary some time ago I just don't understand the government's approach to the problem (on either side). There are several problems with health care in the US but let's stick to the basics. It's expensive and nothing anyone has done has addressed that one issue. The issue isn't about health insurance. Take the law banning pre-existing exclusions as an example - imagine if you were able to buy life insurance after you died or car insurance after you wrecked your car. All that is is a wealth transfer. Insurance is not a mechanism for wealth transfer but rather risk transfer. And if someone has a pre-existing condition then the risk is small, although the expense is large. You don't address problems of cost by changing the mechanics of risk transfer since cost is unaffected. Leave wealth transfer to the tax code (which is also in need of an overhaul but that's not my area of expertise).

Personally I think heath insurance should work more like dental insurance. Everyone pays for basic health insurance up to some limit (which is means tested), remove the link with employers, while the government provides for healthcare beyond this limit. Create a government entity to act as a single point of contact that encompasses all the current health programs (medicare, medicaid, tricare, etc.). There's a lot more to it but basically, I think the government should create a means tested safety net but stop trying to force a square peg into a round hole. And above all, stop making promises that you know you won't keep.

 

[Algona]

There's a dearth of numbers in this thread. Hardly surprising, it's more fun to insult then to research. Pretty surefew if any posters in this thread have any clue about any historic trends re health insurance, costs, demands. Me neither. So I can say that due to my ignorance of the numbers I have no clue to if ACA is effective. Being a conservative (not a Republican!) sure hate the idea of the gov't trying to do anything beyond the absolute bare minimum. I'm not convinced that ACA is beyond the bare minimum. Or if the idea of affordable care is even possible.

----------

Modern medical science has and is continuing to achieve miracles.Problem is some are damned expensive right now. How can you lower medical costs? Equipment, education, supplies, drugs, training, insurance (business and medical), research are all fiendishly expensive. Throw in a capitalist mind set.

For the near future health care is going to be damned expensive.

----------

If I insure my life, car, most anything tangible there is a fixed cost. I can set a value, an insurance carrier will tell me how much to pay for that insurance. I decide whether to spend the money to mitigate the risk,

What price health care? How much is my health worth?

Let me put it this way, if you know you are going to die tomorrow, how much will you pay to get one more year of life?

Everything you have? More?

Given a moderate amount of wealth, a reasonable person can buy all the cars, houses, food, luxuries and necessities they need and want. There is a limit to the demand for most tangible goods.

What about health?

Is there any limit to how much work effort, money can be put into health?

How much will you pay for that extra year? or decade? or week?

Folk need to think that through, and then think through the implications of a third of a billion Americans all having to answer that question,

Is there a limit to the demand for health care?

----------

We're putting near 20% of GDP into health care now, and a whole lotta people are unhappy about the quality and availability.

Given near limitless demand and damned high costs how the hell do we pay for all the wanted/needed health care?

 

[DeletedUser10415]

Given near limitless demand and damned high costs how the hell do we pay for all the wanted/needed health care?

Other countries manage it, but then they don't have military bases all over the world and rarely invade other countries unless the U.S. reminds them how much they're beholden in order to persuade them to join a 'coalition' to lend an air of legitimacy to it's imperialistic (and expensive) activities.

 

[Algona]

Heh. If the US is imperialistic we're damn awful at it. Incompetent even. Me? I'm a firm believer in the friends of liberty but defender only of our own school. Washington had it right over 200 years ago about entangling alliances.

I sure wish it were as easy as bringing the boys and girls home. US GDP is about 17 trillion. Us military budget 700 billion. US health care costs about 4 times that, say 2.8 trillion.

Taking every penny from US military would maybe pay for the 10% of the population who doesn't have insurance. Where are we gonna find more money for all the neat hings people want from their doctors?

Dunno how reliable, but this was an interesting source of info:

http://data.worldbank.org/indicator/SH.XPD.TOTL.ZS

Surprising. Go look. Not surprised US is not top of GDP percentage spent on health care. Am surprised how much higher it is than all Countries folk like to point at. Sick fact: US spends more on health care than entire EU combined. I don't think we're getting our money worth...

EDIT: meanwhile back on topic, ACA seems to be working as a health care cost reducer according to this website:

http://obamacarefacts.com/costof-obamacare/

Lowest rate of health care cost increase in half a century. Good news indeed. That is a pleasant surprise.

 

[Mustapha00]

Given near limitless demand and damned high costs how the hell do we pay for all the wanted/needed health care?

To the extent that "other countries manage it", it is because they do very little original research and innovation because the government ensures there is no profit motive. Investment in research and testing is led by the United States by a very substantial margin:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_research_and_development_spending

The plain fact is that other countries benefit extraordinarily by the research and innovation done in the United States. And Democrats want to stifle research and development by forcing these companies to pay even more in taxes; the highest corporate tax rate on the planet isn't enough.

Do you know how much it takes to bring a drug to market in the United States? A mere $2.5 billion dollars:

http://www.scientificamerican.com/article/cost-to-develop-new-pharmaceutical-drug-now-exceeds-2-5b/

One has to wonder how much of the cost of that is compliance with excessive Federal regulation through the FDA, malpractice insurance premiums and lawyer's fees to deal with an overly litigious society and other costs largely unrelated to actual research. Reduce-not eliminate- regulations and implement tort reform and the price to bring new drugs to market will plummet, thus positively affecting healthcare costs. Democrats will not support either of those.

I have always thought that Obamacare was planned to be the failure it is proving to be. Obama said well before his election that he favored a single-payer healthcare system run entirely by the government. He- or his heir, should we be so foolish as to elect another Social Democrat- will say that they did not go far enough in "fundamentally (destroying) transforming" health care in the US and that the only solution will be an Americanized version of Britain's NIH. While it is true that all citizens there are covered (not so sure about coverage for illegal immigrants in England though you can bet our Social Democrats here will extend coverage to them), what they won't discuss is the incredibly long wait times for procedures we'd think of as routine here (like MRIs for example- wait time in the US: less than one day; wait time in the UK- 1.9 weeks: https://www.gov.uk/government/news/nhs-diagnostics-waiting-times-and-activity-data-november-2012) and, worse, rationing, even to the point of denying care under an increasing number of scenarios.
You asked how much your life is worth? To you, I'd imagine that it is priceless. But to a single-payer bureaucrat, he has the power to put a monetary value on your life and to decide whether the government will get a sufficient return on investment for the treatment it provides. And if he determines not....well, as Obama advised a woman's over 100 year old mother, rather than have a hip replacement, she should just "take the (pain) pill".

 

[Algona]

"I have always thought that Obamacare was planned to be the failure it is proving to be."

Couple of questions, please note, I'm not disputing, just asking for clarification.

Are you saying That President Obama and the writers of ACA intend it to fail?

By what metrics do you say ACA has failed? I can't find reliable numbers on how many uninsured folk became insured or the net gain in insured or decent year by year stats on how many Americans are uninsured or relative costs of insurance and health care. 'Twould be nice to get info back to say 1945, twenty years before President Johnson's Great Society changes started. Without hard data it is difficult to judge success or failure.

Not interested in anecdotes or opinions, given a third of a billion people, anyone can always find individual stories that support any viewpoint.

 

[Mustapha00]

"I have always thought that Obamacare was planned to be the failure it is proving to be."

Couple of questions, please note, I'm not disputing, just asking for clarification.

Are you saying That President Obama and the writers of ACA intend it to fail?

Yep.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LhEX3rHssJI
"I happen to be a proponent of a single-payer health plan...."- then state senator Barack Obama
Let's recall that Obama had a filibuster-proof majority in both houses of Congress for his first year in office. No Democrat in either chamber would have dared to oppose him if he had pushed for what he truly desired: single-payer. Yet he did not push for it because the time, like for advocating same sex marriage and other far-left programs he embraces, he knew the country was not yet ready for such a "fundamental transformation". I urge you to watch that entire video, because it features very prominent Democrats calling for single-payer and arguing that Obamacare does not go far enough.
So thus we have the ACA, which is the B** child of single-payer and semi-socialized medicine, being neither fish nor fowl but having the worst aspects of both. It was sold on a series of lies: "If you like your plan, you can keep your plan.", "If you like your doctor, you can keep your doctor.", average yearly savings of $2500 per family. None of that was true, and the people, rather than being angry at Obama for lying, are angry with the healthcare providers and insurers, holding them accountable, somehow, for Obama's failures. This is setting the table for single-payer by sowing near universal dissatisfaction with the system as it is now.

By what metrics do you say ACA has failed? I can't find reliable numbers on how many uninsured folk became insured or the net gain in insured or decent year by year stats on how many Americans are uninsured or relative costs of insurance and health care. 'Twould be nice to get info back to say 1945, twenty years before President Johnson's Great Society changes started. Without hard data it is difficult to judge success or failure.

Not interested in anecdotes or opinions, given a third of a billion people, anyone can always find individual stories that support any viewpoint.

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news...ht-obamacares-five-years-of-failure/?page=all
Five major failures of Obamacare.

http://www.forbes.com/sites/sallypipes/2014/03/24/four-years-of-obamacare-failures-is-long-enough/
More examples.

http://dailycaller.com/2015/10/16/co-op-flop-the-biggest-obamacare-disaster-youve-never-heard-about/
And maybe one you haven't heard about. I hadn't until I read the piece.

Here's a partial list of the failures:
1) in many instances, cannot keep your plan, even if you liked it and were happy with the price
2) in many instances, cannot keep your doctor, even if you were happy with him or her
3) the plans forced folks to pay for coverage for things that they would likely never use but that added to the cost of the plans; couples in their 70s are unlikely to have more children, yet Obamacare requires plans to offer prenatal care
4) failure of the co-ops to deliver on the promise of ease of enrollment and reduction in premiums
5) incredibly high deductibles that must be met out-of-pocket before the plans begin paying anything
6) inability to buy catastrophic cover to deal with illnesses such as cancer. these plans were very popular among younger folks because their premiums were so low.
7) data breaches of enrolees, which can lead to identity theft
8) driving doctors to no longer accept new Medicare/Medicaid patients due to reimbursement for services not covering costs of treatment
9) driving doctors to leave the profession entirely
All of these failures simply cannot be the result of unintended consequences. If they were not UNintended consequences, it stands to reason that they are INtended consequences. If you create such a huge mess and make enough people mad in the process but manage to somehow convince them that you were not at fault, it opens the door to arguing that the failure was not due to government involvement in the first place but rather that the government involvement did not go far enough.

 

[DeletedUser10415]

far-left programs he embraces

If you think Obama is far left, you've outed yourself as far right. The man's a little left of center.

 

[Algona]

First thought on reading those sites was more op-ed and interpretation than actual data.

But there are some leads in there, so thanks.

Your 9 points don't seem to have any raw data to back them. All 9 are vague. Any idea of the data sources?

 

[Mustapha00]

The nine points are based on data from within the articles. You will find all the relevant data you need therein.
I freely admit that my conclusion is based on conjecture, but that conjecture is based on the series of lies which the Obama Administration and its minions told in order to sell this catastrophic plan to the American people.

- - - Updated - - -

If you think Obama is far left, you've outed yourself as far right. The man's a little left of center.

Google CPUSA and read up on what the advocate for this country, and then Google Obama's statements on those same issues. They are virtually indistinguishable from each other. If your agenda matches that of the Communist Part of the United States, then yeah you might just be far left.
No, your bizarre assertion that Obama is "a little left of center" indicates just how far left YOU have outed yourself to be.

 

[DeletedUser8902]

Faux News said so.
that is enough, because rush Limburger said it was.

 

[DeletedUser13838]

I don't think one can say that the plan is catastrophic. I think that's hyperbolic. The impact of the law will take a long time to settle in. Anything that improves access to healthcare and reduces the overall cost is good for the US but it remains to be seen if the law accomplishes both rather than one goal at the expense of the other. Frankly, the law does little to impact the core issues so ultimately I expect it to be of little benefit while costing a great deal of resources. Both sides will of course skew the results to fit their agenda.

I do think the way it was passed into law is going to leave a major stain on Obama's legacy. It's pretty clear that the law signed by the president bears little resemblance to the law promised by the candidate.

 

[Algona]

Mustapha, my apologies, I dod not clarify what I mean by hard data.

Consider your points 8 and 9,

FOR ME before i could say ACA caused either I would need to know how many physicians there are, (about 950,000), how many retire each year (for the last decade at least), then see the surveys that asked those physicians why they retired.

I can't seem to find those last two.

Anyway, I am finding some interesting stuff. Like this:

http://www.physiciansfoundation.org...undation_Biennial_Physician_Survey_Report.pdf

Question 22, especiall the later age and sex breakdowns may be of interest.

EDIT:

I like this one, too:

http://kff.org/health-costs/report/2015-employer-health-benefits-survey/

 

[DeletedUser10415]

Anyway, I am finding some interesting stuff. Like this:

http://www.physiciansfoundation.org...undation_Biennial_Physician_Survey_Report.pdf

Question 22, especiall the later age and sex breakdowns may be of interest.

EDIT:

I like this one, too:

http://kff.org/health-costs/report/2015-employer-health-benefits-survey/

Thanks very much for providing actual data sources. In addition to the age and sex breakdowns in that first one, the differences of opinion between employed vs. owners was interesting.

 

[Mustapha00]

I would agree that the links you provided have some very interesting data.

For example, in the first link, the survey asked of doctors show that, more and more, they feel overburdened by the ever-increasing number of patients. Only 19% feel capable of seeing more patients, and 44% have already reduced the number of services they provide to patients in order to better manage the workload.
As for the ACA, 46% give it a D or F (amazing, really, that only about half rate it so), while 25% give it an A or B and over 50% feel somewhat or very negative about the future of their profession. None of that bodes well for Obamacare.
The second link paints a more hopeful picture, but there are two points to be made to bring it back to ground: First, the employer mandates on Obamacare for smaller companies kicks in this next year, so costs may well increase at a faster rate than they did this year; Second, employers are focusing on so-called "HDHP" (High Deductible Health Plan), which dramatically increase the out-of-pocket costs for those insured (incidentally, this is exactly the sort of plan- typically referred to as "catastrophic care coverage"- that Obamacare no longer allows private insurance providers to offer). Oh...and let's not forget the so-called "Cadillac Tax" on very generous insurance plans typically enjoyed by union employees. I wonder how they will feel if they have to pay a 38.5% income tax on the estimated value of their policies.... That kicks in in 2017.
http://www.shrm.org/hrdisciplines/benefits/articles/pages/aca-compliance-costly.aspx

 

[Algona]

I guess I'm not finding enough to decide if ACA sucks or not. Signal to noise ratio is way too low, $1.2 Trillion over the next decade. Seems like a lot, but we'll spend $30 Trillion on health in that time.

Odd signals. Lowest health costs increase in 50 years. Number of uninsured dropped a little. Insurance cost changes have stayed iin the 3-6% increase per year but benefits appear a little lower. Lots of people complaining, but no hard data on just how many.

I followed an interesting trail regarding physicians. Apparently number of new doctors is relatively capped, while the average age docs has gone way up in the last decade.

Anyway, if anyone can find more good sources of data, 'twould be much appreciated.

Top of the list would be at least 20 years of year ly numbers on insurance costs, health care costs, number of docs, number of medicare and medicaid patients, and number of uninsured.

EDIY: Found this, uninsured for 1997-2014. Source seems good.

http://205.207.175.93/HDI/TableViewer/tableView.aspx?ReportId=453

Bottom line, lowest uninsured percentage in 2014.

And in Table form:

http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/data/nhis/earlyrelease/earlyrelease201509_01.pdf