Obamacare Is Now on Life Support

[jon_berzerk]

other folks have lives

That wasn't the topic of discussion.

fuck you

 

[Arianrhod]

the figures are from the government

That's correct.

and they claim 8 of 10 in the market place get assistance in paying the premium

They state that 1 in 6 Americans went to a marketplace site to apply for health insurance.

Of that 1 in 6, 70% renewed their coverage for 2015.

Of that 70%, 8 out of 10 were eligible for a premium of <$100.

It's right there in the links you cited.

 

[dblack]

Typically, if you are going to charge what he states as propaganda then you would have challenged one or more of the statements he made.

And I've done so, repeatedly, in thread after thread.

I haven't noticed that. But let's try again, with the post you were responding to:

ACA essentially ensures that we get more of the same. Higher and higher premiums, for less and less coverage. We get guaranteed issue, and additional subsidies for the poor, in exchange for a mandate to keep the insurance industry afloat.

What we don't get is meaningful change to the health care market. Just a bunch of rules to make sure we keep giving the insurance companies our money.

I was agreeing with a point you made, so I'm not sure which claim you feel requires 'substantiation'.

 

[jon_berzerk]

the figures are from the government

dimwit you left the part out that 8 of 10 received a subsidy

 

[Arianrhod]

the figures are from the government

dimwit you left the part out that 8 of 10 received a subsidy

To the dimwit who messed up his tags and still doesn't understand what the numbers from the links he posted mean, let's run it again:

First link says that 1 in 6 Americans used the marketplace sites to apply for health insurance. So if you take 100 people looking for health insurance, 16.6% will have gone to a health exchange website, either federal or, if they're fortunate, their state site. 16.6% of 100 is 16.6. We'll round that up to 17, because we haven't considered fractions of people since the Emancipation Proclamation.

The second stat you provided indicates that, of those 17 people, 7 out of 10 returned to the health exchange sites to renew their policies with the insurer. So 70% of 17 people = 11.9, rounded up to 12.

What the links you provided say is that 12 out of 100 Americans got their health insurance through a health exchange website.

The link also states that, of those 12 people, 8 out of 10 (or 80%) were eligible for subsidies and paid less than $100 a month in premiums. 80% of 12 = 9.6. Rounding up again, 10 people out of 100 were eligible for a <$100 a month premium.

Any questions so far? You can take out your calculator and get the same results. Try it.

Or do you need me to 'splain what you posted again?

 

[Arianrhod]

Typically, if you are going to charge what he states as propaganda then you would have challenged one or more of the statements he made.

And I've done so, repeatedly, in thread after thread.

I haven't noticed that. But let's try again, with the post you were responding to:

ACA essentially ensures that we get more of the same. Higher and higher premiums, for less and less coverage. We get guaranteed issue, and additional subsidies for the poor, in exchange for a mandate to keep the insurance industry afloat.

What we don't get is meaningful change to the health care market. Just a bunch of rules to make sure we keep giving the insurance companies our money.

I was agreeing with a point you made, so I'm not sure which claim you feel requires 'substantiation'.

It was that last sentence I took issue with:

"What we don't get is meaningful change to the health care market. Just a bunch of rules to make sure we keep giving the insurance companies our money."

That depends on who "we" are. Healthy people might not notice the change, but those who've been denied coverage for a preexisting condition and those with chronic or life-threatening illnesses will no longer hit that lifetime "fuck you" coverage cap.

I saw a stat this morning indicating that 140,000+ Americans are diagnosed with colon cancer annually - some of them under 40 years of age. A course of chemo can cost up to $40,000. If the cancer comes back, rinse, repeat. Not many <40 have that kind of money.

I can give you dozens more examples, but the point is: the change in coverage is a beginning toward lowering the costs of care.

Insurers are realizing that they're going to have to put pressure on doctors, hospitals, and especially pharma companies to lower costs. That's not going to happen instantly, but it's a good example of market forces at work.

Now, if Congress would just stop wasting taxpayer money on Attempt #50+ to "kill Obamacare," that would show real progress.

 

[dblack]

ACA essentially ensures that we get more of the same. Higher and higher premiums, for less and less coverage. We get guaranteed issue, and additional subsidies for the poor, in exchange for a mandate to keep the insurance industry afloat.

What we don't get is meaningful change to the health care market. Just a bunch of rules to make sure we keep giving the insurance companies our money.

I was agreeing with a point you made, so I'm not sure which claim you feel requires 'substantiation'.

It was that last sentence I took issue with:

"What we don't get is meaningful change to the health care market. Just a bunch of rules to make sure we keep giving the insurance companies our money."

That depends on who "we" are. Healthy people might not notice the change, but those who've been denied coverage for a preexisting condition and those with chronic or life-threatening illnesses will no longer hit that lifetime "fuck you" coverage cap.

I saw a stat this morning indicating that 140,000+ Americans are diagnosed with colon cancer annually - some of them under 40 years of age. A course of chemo can cost up to $40,000. If the cancer comes back, rinse, repeat. Not many <40 have that kind of money.

I can give you dozens more examples, but the point is: the change in coverage is a beginning toward lowering the costs of care.

Insurers are realizing that they're going to have to put pressure on doctors, hospitals, and especially pharma companies to lower costs. That's not going to happen instantly, but it's a good example of market forces at work.

Now, if Congress would just stop wasting taxpayer money on Attempt #50+ to "kill Obamacare," that would show real progress.

First off, thanks for the thoughtful response. It really is appreciated.

I've acknowledged that the ACA achieves more coverage for the poor. But we could have done that by simply beefing up Medicare. We could have done that without the insurance industry sell-out.

But more help for the poor doesn't change the health care market. It doesn't address the existing inflationary pressures. By providing even more "free money" for medical services it, arguably, accelerates them.

Your contention that ACA will prompt insurers to put pressure on the health care industry to lower prices doesn't hold water. They've always had the incentive to do that. Why would they have more incentive now that their customers have no choice but to buy their policies? Wouldn't they have even more incentive if people were able to refuse? How does preventing their customers from saying "no - I won't buy your insurance, it's too expensive" give the insurers more incentive to cut costs? Wouldn't it do the opposite? This doesn't make sense to me.

 

[Arianrhod]

^As long as they could refuse or cap coverage, the insurers had no motivation to exert pressure on the doctors, hospitals, and pharma to cut waste and lower costs. They could just tell their customers "Sorry, not covering that. Sucks to be you. But we'll send a nice form letter to your family expressing our condolences after you die."

Insurance companies' first "loyalty" is to their shareholders. Not that that differentiates them from any corporation following the capitalist blueprint, but the difference is in the "commodity" they're selling.

Again, the better solution would have been, as you say, to expand Medicare/Medicaid coverage or, to use the word that has GOOPers shitting their pants, "single-payer," but the GOOPers are the problem. They're frightened by words and can't be reasoned with.

For the record, it's not just poor working people who've been helped by the change in the law, but plenty of middle-class people who'd be bankrupted by a catastrophic or chronic degenerative illness if the insurers were allowed to kick them off the cliff as they had been doing for decades.

 

[jon_berzerk]

the figures are from the government

dimwit you left the part out that 8 of 10 received a subsidy

To the dimwit who messed up his tags and still doesn't understand what the numbers from the links he posted mean, let's run it again:

First link says that 1 in 6 Americans used the marketplace sites to apply for health insurance. So if you take 100 people looking for health insurance, 16.6% will have gone to a health exchange website, either federal or, if they're fortunate, their state site. 16.6% of 100 is 16.6. We'll round that up to 17, because we haven't considered fractions of people since the Emancipation Proclamation.

The second stat you provided indicates that, of those 17 people, 7 out of 10 returned to the health exchange sites to renew their policies with the insurer. So 70% of 17 people = 11.9, rounded up to 12.

What the links you provided say is that 12 out of 100 Americans got their health insurance through a health exchange website.

The link also states that, of those 12 people, 8 out of 10 (or 80%) were eligible for subsidies and paid less than $100 a month in premiums. 80% of 12 = 9.6. Rounding up again, 10 people out of 100 were eligible for a <$100 a month premium.

Any questions so far? You can take out your calculator and get the same results. Try it.

Or do you need me to 'splain what you posted again?

you are the fucking stupid one

as i posted originally of the people who used the market place 8 or 10 received a subsidy

the government is proud of that fact

you lost this long ago

when you tried to make claims i never made

 

[jon_berzerk]

http://www.nytimes.com/2015/03/11/u...ans-have-insurance-under-health-act.html?_r=0

 

[Arianrhod]

as i posted originally of the people who used the market place 8 or 10 received a subsidy

That's not what you originally posted, and it's not what your links say.

http://www.nytimes.com/2015/03/11/u...ans-have-insurance-under-health-act.html?_r=0

And -?

 

[dblack]

^As long as they could refuse or cap coverage, the insurers had no motivation to exert pressure on the doctors, hospitals, and pharma to cut waste and lower costs. They could just tell their customers "Sorry, not covering that. Sucks to be you. But we'll send a nice form letter to your family expressing our condolences after you die."

Alright. That might help some. I still don't see how it compensates for removing themselves from the need to actually satisfy customers to make a profit. With a captive customer base, and product fixed by law, their ability to make money now depends, first and foremost, on their ability to lobby regulators - something they're quite good at.

Insurance companies' first "loyalty" is to their shareholders. Not that that differentiates them from any corporation following the capitalist blueprint, but the difference is in the "commodity" they're selling.

This is exactly why I find ACA so detestable. It's just another corporate scheme to convert public funds into private profits.

Again, the better solution would have been, as you say, to expand Medicare/Medicaid coverage or, to use the word that has GOOPers shitting their pants, "single-payer," but the GOOPers are the problem. They're frightened by words and can't be reasoned with.

I'm not the slightest bit interested in the partisan pissing matches. Congress passed ACA. It just so happens that this time it was controlled by the Democrats, but I have no delusions that Republicans would have done anything differently.

For the record, it's not just poor working people who've been helped by the change in the law, but plenty of middle-class people who'd be bankrupted by a catastrophic or chronic degenerative illness if the insurers were allowed to kick them off the cliff as they had been doing for decades.

If you're bankrupted, you're poor. If you can't afford what you need to live, you're poor. While, ideally, I don't think it's a proper concern of government, a state run safety net isn't an entirely unreasonable proposition. Most societies have enough excess that they can afford to support those who fall through the cracks. The problem with ACA is that attempts to push everyone into the safety net, and that's simply not sustainable. Further, it sets up private, for-profit companies to run it. It's an incredible conflict of interest. It will erode our rights and squander our wealth.

 

[jon_berzerk]

as i posted originally of the people who used the market place 8 or 10 received a subsidy

That's not what you originally posted, and it's not what your links say.

http://www.nytimes.com/2015/03/11/u...ans-have-insurance-under-health-act.html?_r=0

And -?

and you are a nutjob

 

[Arianrhod]

as i posted originally of the people who used the market place 8 or 10 received a subsidy

That's not what you originally posted, and it's not what your links say.

http://www.nytimes.com/2015/03/11/u...ans-have-insurance-under-health-act.html?_r=0

And -?

and you are a nutjob

If by "nutjob" you mean "someone who can do math," you're correct.

 

[Arianrhod]

^As long as they could refuse or cap coverage, the insurers had no motivation to exert pressure on the doctors, hospitals, and pharma to cut waste and lower costs. They could just tell their customers "Sorry, not covering that. Sucks to be you. But we'll send a nice form letter to your family expressing our condolences after you die."

Alright. That might help some. I still don't see how it compensates for removing themselves from the need to actually satisfy customers to make a profit. With a captive customer base, and product fixed by law, their ability to make money now depends, first and foremost, on their ability to lobby regulators - something they're quite good at.

The thing is, satisfying customers was not their priority – making profit was. The captive audience was a result of people needing healthcare and costs being prohibitive. Costs were allowed to go up because the insurers knew they could gouge their customers or ditch them altogether. This began with for-profit insurers entering the market to compete with the Blues.

Insurance companies' first "loyalty" is to their shareholders. Not that that differentiates them from any corporation following the capitalist blueprint, but the difference is in the "commodity" they're selling.

This is exactly why I find ACA so detestable. It's just another corporate scheme to convert public funds into private profits.

Again, the PPACA was a compromise between “Let’s try to get coverage for every American” and “NO, NO, NO, NO, NO! Socialism!111!!”

It will need to be revised and repaired or else replaced, the question is: With what?

“Just go back to the way it was before” is not the answer. Not only would it abandon millions of Americans who have been paying premiums for coverage, but it would cost billions to discard, and if you think insurance companies were gouging customers before, just imagine what they’d do in this eventuality.

Again, the better solution would have been, as you say, to expand Medicare/Medicaid coverage or, to use the word that has GOOPers shitting their pants, "single-payer," but the GOOPers are the problem. They're frightened by words and can't be reasoned with.

I'm not the slightest bit interested in the partisan pissing matches. Congress passed ACA. It just so happens that this time it was controlled by the Democrats, but I have no delusions that Republicans would have done anything differently.

For the record, it's not just poor working people who've been helped by the change in the law, but plenty of middle-class people who'd be bankrupted by a catastrophic or chronic degenerative illness if the insurers were allowed to kick them off the cliff as they had been doing for decades.

If you're bankrupted, you're poor. If you can't afford what you need to live, you're poor. While, ideally, I don't think it's a proper concern of government, a state run safety net isn't an entirely unreasonable proposition. Most societies have enough excess that they can afford to support those who fall through the cracks. The problem with ACA is that attempts to push everyone into the safety net, and that's simply not sustainable. Further, it sets up private, for-profit companies to run it. It's an incredible conflict of interest. It will erode our rights and squander our wealth.

Middle-class people who file for bankruptcy are for the most part given a fresh start. When I say “poor,” I mean working-class people who have no savings, can’t afford to own a house, live from one paycheck to the next.

That aside, you’ve suggested expanding Medicare (even as the GOP wants to gut or “privatize” it), but at the same time you say you don’t want everyone pushed into the safety net, so I’m a little confused about the differences.

 

[dblack]

The thing is, satisfying customers was not their priority – making profit was.

Maybe not. But in the end, the couldn't sell people something they didn't want. Now, we can't refuse.

Insurance companies' first "loyalty" is to their shareholders. Not that that differentiates them from any corporation following the capitalist blueprint, but the difference is in the "commodity" they're selling.

This is exactly why I find ACA so detestable. It's just another corporate scheme to convert public funds into private profits.

Again, the PPACA was a compromise between “Let’s try to get coverage for every American” and “NO, NO, NO, NO, NO! Socialism!111!!”

It will need to be revised and repaired or else replaced, the question is: With what?

I have lots of ideas, but let's be clear - a straight repeal would be better than letting it stand. If ACA is a compromise, it's the worst kind of compromise. It's quite literally the worst of both extremes. It serves corporate profits with coercive state mandates.

That aside, you’ve suggested expanding Medicare (even as the GOP wants to gut or “privatize” it), but at the same time you say you don’t want everyone pushed into the safety net, so I’m a little confused about the differences.

The difference is that reasonably expanding Medicare - and I'm NOT talking about 'Medicare for all' - would still be a safety net, an "insurer of last resort", for people who can't afford to pay for their own health care. As I said, I still think it would be a mistake, as I don't believe taking care of people is the job of government. But it wouldn't be a sellout, it wouldn't be a corporate power grab - which is the heart and soul of ACA.

My point of my suggestion is that, if what you really want to achieve is coverage for people who are currently getting screwed, we could do it without shit like ACA. But I don't think that's what ACA supporters really want. I think what they really want is government supplying us with health care (ie socialized medicine) and they've convinced themselves that colluding with the insurance corporations will achieve that.

 

[Greenbeard]

The difference is that reasonably expanding Medicare - and I'm NOT talking about 'Medicare for all' - would still be a safety net, an "insurer of last resort", for people who can't afford to pay for their own health care. As I said, I still think it would be a mistake, as I don't believe taking care of people is the job of government. But it wouldn't be a sellout, it wouldn't be a corporate power grab - which is the heart and soul of ACA.

These are numbers for the first three quarters of this year from UnitedHealthCare, the nation's largest health insurer:

They pull in more revenue from their Medicare line of business than they do from their employer and individual commercial insurance business (even under the ACA).

 

[dblack]

The difference is that reasonably expanding Medicare - and I'm NOT talking about 'Medicare for all' - would still be a safety net, an "insurer of last resort", for people who can't afford to pay for their own health care. As I said, I still think it would be a mistake, as I don't believe taking care of people is the job of government. But it wouldn't be a sellout, it wouldn't be a corporate power grab - which is the heart and soul of ACA.

These are numbers for the first three quarters of this year from UnitedHealthCare, the nation's largest health insurer:

They pull in more revenue from their Medicare line of business than they do from their employer and individual commercial insurance business (even under the ACA).

Fascinating. So you're saying Medicare is a scam too? If that's true, then we should eliminate that as well.

 

[Greenbeard]

Fascinating. So you're saying Medicare is a scam too? If that's true, then we should eliminate that as well.

I'm saying that health insurance doesn't generally exist independent of health insurers, regardless of whether they take risk. That's true in the commercial space, and it's also true in the Medicare and Medicaid spaces.

 

[dblack]

Fascinating. So you're saying Medicare is a scam too? If that's true, then we should eliminate that as well.

I'm saying that health insurance doesn't generally exist independent of health insurers, regardless of whether they take risk. That's true in the commercial space, and it's also true in the Medicare and Medicaid spaces.

Right. Medicare and Medicaid suffer from the same flaws as ACA. The attempt to implement socialism via capitalism. They're fundamentally conflicted. If we want to help people with government, we should just give them money to pay for health care - or whatever they want to spend it on. There's no need to funnel it through corporate interests. Other than to solicit political support, which is how Congress uses these programs.