By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use. Close

Forums - Politics Discussion - ObamaCare just got worse! Will it ever end?

pokoko on 27 October 2016
coolbeans said:
pokoko said:

No, it's on all of them.  Republicans had their chances to fix things and they did not.  Screw the partisan bullshit, both parties need to be raked over the coals for their failure to fix our terrible health care system. 

But...during this same timeline of Obamacare (and majority Dem positions around that time), they actually had a sort of stepladder policy that showed potential but was stone-walled by ignoramuses they said they had nothing or, in the case of Alan Grayson, laughed off their plan as just saying "don't get sick or die!" plan.  

Hell, the very notion of allowing insurances across any state line would've shown results that'd improve compeition tenfold.

Tenfold?  Where are you getting that from?  Most insurance experts believe it would have little overall effect.  Nothing I've seen even hints at a dramatic impact like "tenfold".  Even if there is potential long-term, it would have to be very carefully planned and enacted or it could turn into a mess that hurts consumers.  Just saying "allowing insurances across any state line" is so vague as to be almost meaningless.



Around the Network
JWeinCom on 27 October 2016

I need medication for things like not wanting to kill myself and being able to be a generally productive member of society. With Obamacare I can afford it. I'm not poor enough for medicaid, so without that, I'd need to pay a bare minimum of 6000 dollars a year in premiums and about another 2000 for a deductable. Which I couldn't afford.

If I decided to just forego insurance and do everything out of pocket, that would be about 120 each month to see my psychiatrist, and another 120 a month for my medication. More manageable, but still a huge burden, and that wouldn't include any other form of healthcare. If I came down with an illness or serious injury, I'd be fucked for life with debt.

That's just one anecdote, but I'm sure I'm not the only one. It doesn't mean we should or should not support Obama care, but certainly something to factor in.



dharh on 27 October 2016

This was inevitable before Obama care, after Obama care, and frankly even if you opened up boarders to all insurers we would still inevitably end up in this place. You are way too naive if you think otherwise. The insurance companies relish is scamming your money from you without providing you with quality health care services.



A warrior keeps death on the mind from the moment of their first breath to the moment of their last.
pokoko on 27 October 2016
coolbeans said:
pokoko said:

Tenfold?  Where are you getting that from?  Most insurance experts believe it would have little overall effect.  Nothing I've seen even hints at a dramatic impact like "tenfold".  Even if there is potential long-term, it would have to be very carefully planned and enacted or it could turn into a mess that hurts consumers.  Just saying "allowing insurances across any state line" is so vague as to be almost meaningless.

Key word: COMPETITION.  I used that "tenfold" (not in a literal use) figure to reveal the potential of smaller health insurance companies affected by the over-regulatory nature seen across certain states, effectively locking them out.  Actually, popular health economists at University of Minnesota project a national insurance market would increase health coverage by 49% in NJ and 22% in NY for starters.  

https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=1841266&http://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=1&ved=0CG4QFjAA&url=http%3A%2F%2Fpapers.ssrn.com%2Fsol3%2FDelivery.cfm%3Fabstractid%3D1841266&ei=cyytT8ruL4GX6AHPrNjzDA&usg=AFQjCNHZ4zgiS4vZ54V5_DBzyWNNQ6cpvw&sig2=2jr64M1Y1pGZq1fT7c4ikw

Maybe it's b/c that terminology is meant to get a simplified point across to a general public?  You know that's not all such a policy entails, right?  Such a bill would have more than "allow insurances across any state line" written so I'm not sure what's your angle here.

Yes, I've read that.  I've also read all the counter arguments.  Do I really have to link them?

http://www.nytimes.com/2015/09/01/upshot/the-problem-with-gop-plans-to-sell-health-insurance-across-state-lines.html

http://www.aei.org/publication/the-pros-and-cons-of-selling-health-insurance-across-state-lines/

http://www.npr.org/sections/health-shots/2016/05/12/477784813/selling-health-insurance-across-state-lines-sounds-good-but-is-it

Seriously, I'm not going to copy/paste.  Just read it yourself.  There is an entire host of arguments against it, some of them also by popular professors.

As for my "angle", I don't even know what you're talking about.  You mean me asking why you said "tenfold"?  I asked because ... you said it?  If it's not true then don't say it.



Rab on 27 October 2016

All Medical care is essentially free in Australia regardless of who you are, it works because we all pay appropriate taxes



Around the Network
NobleTeam360 on 27 October 2016

Fairly predictable, the US needs massive reform in Criminal Justice, Health Care, Social Security, and Education. The problems just keep piling up.



WolfpackN64 on 27 October 2016

The USA really needs a good single-payer healthcare plan. Nationwide healthcare through private insurance was a bad idea to begin with.



pray4mojo on 27 October 2016

Health,dental and vision care should be human rights, not privileges.



numberwang on 27 October 2016

One thing I noticed is that everyone is calling it Obamacare now instead of the "Affordable Care Act" - even Democrats do so. I guess when you say "affordable" you start to choke on your words - but you may not afford a doctor for that.



pokoko on 27 October 2016
coolbeans said:
pokoko said:

Yes, I've read that.  I've also read all the counter arguments.  Do I really have to link them?

http://www.nytimes.com/2015/09/01/upshot/the-problem-with-gop-plans-to-sell-health-insurance-across-state-lines.html

http://www.aei.org/publication/the-pros-and-cons-of-selling-health-insurance-across-state-lines/

http://www.npr.org/sections/health-shots/2016/05/12/477784813/selling-health-insurance-across-state-lines-sounds-good-but-is-it

Seriously, I'm not going to copy/paste.  Just read it yourself.  There is an entire host of arguments against it, some of them also by popular professors.

As for my "angle", I don't even know what you're talking about.  You mean me asking why you said "tenfold"?  I asked because ... you said it?  If it's not true then don't say it.

You didn't "have" to (as I'm familiar with some of those posted), but you did anyways so that's appreciated.  It's interesting how you use the AEI article in particular as part of your "arguments against it" when it leaves off with this kind of a conclusion:

"Regulatory competition is one tool in establishing a balance between cost and consumer protection in health insurance, but it must be part of a broader reform agenda to be effective."

So...not exactly picking from people who're outright scoffing at the idea of it.  That quote's the kind of ideal I was alluding to with the market-based plan Republicans brought up to counter Obamacare back in the day.  The nationwide availabilty part was something like the first or second stepping stone in their proposal.  

1.)  The part I specifically bolded in my previous response.  It got formatted out a bit from my weird quote block but you can still see it.  As you said before:

"Just saying "allowing insurances across any state line" is so vague as to be almost meaningless."

I responded to that in kind.

2.)  I figured it was clearly understood "tenfold" was an expression to suggest the dramatic increase in competition such a policy would allow...which is true...which is why I said it.

Yeah, you're right, I did not cherry-pick because my argument was never that it should not be considered or enacted if an intelligent and effective framework is proposed that addresses all the negatives.  It's an idea that has a lot of potential drawbacks.

My argument, from that start, was countering what you said, which was implying that it would have a massive impact.  There is no data that suggests that it would.  In fact, states that allow it now have seen a zero increases in competition.  That doesn't prove anything for the long term, of course, but it certainly doesn't make your statement seem likely.  The more likely outcome is that a few of the stronger companies would begin to slowly creep across state lines and build networks gradually.