Health care cost to exceed 25k in 2016

It actually doesn't. It simply subsidizes it. That's a subtle, but important, difference. ACA provides temporary relief for some, but it doesn't do anything to lower health insurance rates or, more importantly, health care prices.

A see a lot of assertions but not much of an argument.

I listed all the things Obamacare does, so when you say "it actually doesn't strive to make health insurance affordable and accessible" you have some 'splaing to do because the list directly contradicts that. And there is nothing "temporary" about any of it.

As to overall healthcare spending, while AHCA is fairly incomplete in that regard there is still much in the law that reduces spending. A lot of noise was made about the SIZE of the law, but half of the pages are filled with pilot programs that further study best ways to approach healthcare delivery (I urge you to read up on that). It puts in incentives to providers to switch away from paper and towards electronic medical records, it cuts medicare/medicaid re-reimbursement rates that drive a lot of pricing in the market, it sets an even playing field for insurance competition that with time will hopefully result in tighter price control on the provider side. And yes, to be fair it also has some provisions that increase costs a bit (insuring and caring for sick people is not free).

Since AHCA was passed we've had record slow growth in healthcare costs and premiums growth, with about a third of the slowdown attributed to AHCA effects.

kff-chart.png


Slower Premium Growth Under Obama
 
It actually doesn't. It simply subsidizes it. That's a subtle, but important, difference. ACA provides temporary relief for some, but it doesn't do anything to lower health insurance rates or, more importantly, health care prices.

A see a lot of assertions but not much of an argument.

I listed all the things Obamacare does, so when you say "it actually doesn't strive to make health insurance affordable and accessible" you have some 'splaing to do because the list directly contradicts that. And there is nothing "temporary" about any of it.

ACA doesn't do anything to reduce the price of health insurance, in fact it mandates several requirements that make health insurance more expensive. The insurance companies are charging higher premiums, for less coverage, than ever before. Government subsidies don't change that fact. They don't make health insurance or health care more affordable. They merely funnel tax-payer money to the insurance industry.
 
ACA doesn't do anything to reduce the price of health insurance, in fact it mandates several requirements that make health insurance more expensive. The insurance companies are charging higher premiums, for less coverage, than ever before. Government subsidies don't change that fact. They don't make health insurance or health care more affordable. They merely funnel tax-payer money to the insurance industry.

Again, baseless assertions, especially those I already addressed with facts are not a good argument make.

It pretty amazing that I can explain to you stuff in the detail that I do, and you turn right around and repeat very same thing with ZERO account for the case I make, acting as if what I laid out simply doesn't exist.
 
ACA doesn't do anything to reduce the price of health insurance, in fact it mandates several requirements that make health insurance more expensive. The insurance companies are charging higher premiums, for less coverage, than ever before. Government subsidies don't change that fact. They don't make health insurance or health care more affordable. They merely funnel tax-payer money to the insurance industry.

Again, baseless assertions, especially those I already addressed with facts are not a good argument make.

It pretty amazing that I can explain to you stuff in the detail that I do, and you turn right around and repeat very same thing with ZERO account for the case I make, acting as if what I laid out simply doesn't exist.

Subsidizing something doesn't make it more affordable. It just covers the costs for those who receive the subsidies.
 
Subsidizing something doesn't make it more affordable. It just covers the costs for those who receive the subsidies.

Ok and? AHCA does a whole lot more than just provide subsidies, I listed some of those things and gave you link to very interesting article on the subject, but you post as if I keep claiming that subsidies reduce healthcare costs. I never said that and you are just stawman knocking instead of addressing the arguments I make.
 
Subsidizing something doesn't make it more affordable. It just covers the costs for those who receive the subsidies.

Ok and? AHCA does a whole lot more than just provide subsidies, I listed some of those things and gave you link to very interesting article on the subject, but you post as if I keep claiming that subsidies reduce healthcare costs. I never said that and you are just stawman knocking instead of addressing the arguments I make.

ACA was sold on the idea (it's even in the name) of making health insurance 'affordable'. In fact, it was a bait and switch. ACA is about socializing health care costs and bringing it under control of corporatist government.
 
ACA was sold on the idea (it's even in the name) of making health insurance 'affordable'. In fact, it was a bait and switch. ACA is about socializing health care costs and bringing it under control of corporatist government.

You are still just mindlessly parroting same thing over and over with no account for facts presented to you.

But even worse - On one hand you admit that subsidies reduce costs to consumers (if not actual cost of healthcare), but then turn right around and claim that it doesn't make insurance more affordable. Self-contradict much?

This feels a lot like conversing with a program randomly posting righty talking points on the topic, while pretending to be a real, thinking person.
 
Last edited:
But even worse - On one hand you admit that subsidies reduce costs to consumers (if not actual cost of healthcare), but then turn right around and claim that it doesn't make insurance more affordable. Self-contradict much?

It's not a contradiction at all, it's a vital difference. Subsidizing health insurance for the poor doesn't change the fact that health insurance, and health care, are insanely overpriced. It gives some much needed help to people on the bottom rungs, but it doesn't address the broader problem.
 
But even worse - On one hand you admit that subsidies reduce costs to consumers (if not actual cost of healthcare), but then turn right around and claim that it doesn't make insurance more affordable. Self-contradict much?

It's not a contradiction at all, it's a vital difference. Subsidizing health insurance for the poor doesn't change the fact that health insurance, and health care, are insanely overpriced. It gives some much needed help to people on the bottom rungs, but it doesn't address the broader problem.

Of course it's a contradiction - it's exactly the people without high income that had problem affording insurance (plus those with pre-existing conditions) in individual market before Obamacare. People on upper rungs didn't and still don't have affordability problems.

To say that Obamacare doesn't improve affordability is straight nonsense.
 
But even worse - On one hand you admit that subsidies reduce costs to consumers (if not actual cost of healthcare), but then turn right around and claim that it doesn't make insurance more affordable. Self-contradict much?

It's not a contradiction at all, it's a vital difference. Subsidizing health insurance for the poor doesn't change the fact that health insurance, and health care, are insanely overpriced. It gives some much needed help to people on the bottom rungs, but it doesn't address the broader problem.

Of course it's a contradiction - it's exactly the people without high income that had problem affording insurance (plus those with pre-existing conditions) in individual market before Obamacare. People on upper rungs didn't and still don't have affordability problems.

To say that Obamacare doesn't improve affordability is straight nonsense.

And saying it does is, at best, equivocation. Helping the poor is an entirely different problem than dealing with a market that is clearly broken. ACA helps the poor, but it does so at the cost of ignoring (arguably exacerbating) the broken market.
 
Last edited:
And saying it does is deliberate equivocation, at best. At worst, it's a just a lie. Helping the poor is an entirely different problem than dealing with a market that is clearly broken. ACA helps the poor, but it does so at the cost of ignoring (arguably exacerbating) the broken market.

Affordability and accesibility WAS one of the components that made the market broken - to say that AHCA addressing that shortcoming doesn't address the broken system is, again, a contradiction.
 
It is amazing you can type this with a straight face. You sound as stupid as AirInHead.

Millions of people who now have insurance they can't use at the expense of many who can't afford the insurance.

Nudging....ROTFLMAO.

Can't use insurance they have? Whatever do you mean by such nonsense?

Can't afford insurance? Again, it's hard to say wtf are you talking about. Obamacare VERY SPECIFICALLY strives to make sure people can afford insurance:

It actually doesn't. It simply subsidizes it. That's a subtle, but important, difference. ACA provides temporary relief for some, but it doesn't do anything to lower health insurance rates or, more importantly, health care prices.

He's a moron.
 
It is amazing you can type this with a straight face. You sound as stupid as AirInHead.

Millions of people who now have insurance they can't use at the expense of many who can't afford the insurance.

Nudging....ROTFLMAO.

Can't use insurance they have? Whatever do you mean by such nonsense?

Can't afford insurance? Again, it's hard to say wtf are you talking about. Obamacare VERY SPECIFICALLY strives to make sure people can afford insurance:

It expands Medicaid coverage to those making 100-130% of poverty level (minus states where Republicans rejected it)
It provides income-scaled subsidies all the way up to 400%
It prevents discrimination based on pre-existing conditions
It makes sure that young adults can stay on their parent's insurance until they are 26 (or get employment)
It caps all out-of-pocket medical costs to 10% of your income.

So certainly it is not generally true that Obamacare is not helping Americans get affordable insurance and it's not clear who exactly you are talking about that still can't afford insurance given all these affordability provisions in the law, but even if you somehow fall through the cracks and end up in a position of not being able to afford insurance the law allows the waiver of mandate tax .

Garbage.

What steaming pile of crap did you get this from.

Obamacare could strive to put a man on Mars....and have as much hope of success. It can strive all it wants...it's not succeeding.

It gives "affordable" insurance to some by making it unaffordable to others (and that can mean they can pay for it...pay a lot of it...and still not use it because they can't afford the deductibles). Capping costs at 6,000 does not do much for anyone. You really think your target market has 6 grand laying round ?
 
And saying it does is deliberate equivocation, at best. At worst, it's a just a lie. Helping the poor is an entirely different problem than dealing with a market that is clearly broken. ACA helps the poor, but it does so at the cost of ignoring (arguably exacerbating) the broken market.

Affordability and accesibility WAS one of the components that made the market broken - to say that AHCA addressing that shortcoming doesn't address the broken system is, again, a contradiction.

It claims to address those things but does nothing of the sort in reality.

Just because you type out that it does....means nothing.
 
And saying it does is deliberate equivocation, at best. At worst, it's a just a lie. Helping the poor is an entirely different problem than dealing with a market that is clearly broken. ACA helps the poor, but it does so at the cost of ignoring (arguably exacerbating) the broken market.

Affordability and accesibility WAS one of the components that made the market broken - to say that AHCA addressing that shortcoming doesn't address the broken system is, again, a contradiction.

It claims to address those things but does nothing of the sort in reality.

Just because you type out that it does....means nothing.

Oh but because YOU type something it does?
 
From the Obummercare website:

Obamacare Bronze Health Insurance Plans

Age 30 Age 40 Age 50 Age 60
$257.68 $289.88 $405.28 $615.15

Bronze Plans are designed so that insurance companies will typically pay 60% of covered healthcare expenses with the remaining 40% to be paid by consumers. However, as illustrated below, this does not mean that the insurer pays 60 cents of every dollar of healthcare expense for an enrollee. The consumer’s expenses are in the form of out-of-pocket fees over and above the cost of the plan’s monthly premium. Out-of-pocket expenses in 2016 are capped at $6,850 for individual plans and $13,700 for family plans, though plans can apply lower limits if they so choose.

The 60/40 payments by insurer versus enrollee are based on projected use of healthcare services by plan members. The actual out-of-pocket expenses of any single beneficiary may work out to be more or less than this ratio. Those people whose out-of-pocket limits reach the annual maximum could see their share of covered healthcare costs discontinue until a new calendar year begins and the annual limit is reset.

Out-of-pocket expenses include fees like deductibles, copayments, or coinsurance. Different plans will approach the 60/40 split in various ways (see the table below) so it is important to research the financial details of a specific plan before deciding which one to purchase. For example, a person who has frequent medical expenses may want a Bronze Plan with a lower deductible (depending on premium) while a healthy person may want the opposite.

*********************************************

Bottom line is that you'll pay out anywhere from 3 grand to over 7.2 grand just for the luxury of paying out 7,000 more.

Yeah, that's real affordable.

Catastrophic plans were about 1,000 a year with a 7,500 deductible before.

Good job.

But you know all these costs. You lie through your electronic teeth every time you post.
 
From the Obummercare website:

Obamacare Bronze Health Insurance Plans

Age 30 Age 40 Age 50 Age 60
$257.68 $289.88 $405.28 $615.15

Bronze Plans are designed so that insurance companies will typically pay 60% of covered healthcare expenses with the remaining 40% to be paid by consumers. However, as illustrated below, this does not mean that the insurer pays 60 cents of every dollar of healthcare expense for an enrollee. The consumer’s expenses are in the form of out-of-pocket fees over and above the cost of the plan’s monthly premium. Out-of-pocket expenses in 2016 are capped at $6,850 for individual plans and $13,700 for family plans, though plans can apply lower limits if they so choose.

The 60/40 payments by insurer versus enrollee are based on projected use of healthcare services by plan members. The actual out-of-pocket expenses of any single beneficiary may work out to be more or less than this ratio. Those people whose out-of-pocket limits reach the annual maximum could see their share of covered healthcare costs discontinue until a new calendar year begins and the annual limit is reset.

Out-of-pocket expenses include fees like deductibles, copayments, or coinsurance. Different plans will approach the 60/40 split in various ways (see the table below) so it is important to research the financial details of a specific plan before deciding which one to purchase. For example, a person who has frequent medical expenses may want a Bronze Plan with a lower deductible (depending on premium) while a healthy person may want the opposite.

*********************************************

Bottom line is that you'll pay out anywhere from 3 grand to over 7.2 grand just for the luxury of paying out 7,000 more.

Yeah, that's real affordable.

Catastrophic plans were about 1,000 a year with a 7,500 deductible before.

Good job.

But you know all these costs. You lie through your electronic teeth every time you post.

No, you will pay anywhere between 0 and 7.2 grand, depending on your income and what you will get is not some mickey mouse insurance ridden with fine print. No, you will get insurance that you can be assured meets minimum standards, covers essential preventative care without a deductible and will not kick you off when you get sick.

That's a real difference and a significant change forward in meaningful affordability.
 
From the Obummercare website:

Obamacare Bronze Health Insurance Plans

Age 30 Age 40 Age 50 Age 60
$257.68 $289.88 $405.28 $615.15

Bronze Plans are designed so that insurance companies will typically pay 60% of covered healthcare expenses with the remaining 40% to be paid by consumers. However, as illustrated below, this does not mean that the insurer pays 60 cents of every dollar of healthcare expense for an enrollee. The consumer’s expenses are in the form of out-of-pocket fees over and above the cost of the plan’s monthly premium. Out-of-pocket expenses in 2016 are capped at $6,850 for individual plans and $13,700 for family plans, though plans can apply lower limits if they so choose.

The 60/40 payments by insurer versus enrollee are based on projected use of healthcare services by plan members. The actual out-of-pocket expenses of any single beneficiary may work out to be more or less than this ratio. Those people whose out-of-pocket limits reach the annual maximum could see their share of covered healthcare costs discontinue until a new calendar year begins and the annual limit is reset.

Out-of-pocket expenses include fees like deductibles, copayments, or coinsurance. Different plans will approach the 60/40 split in various ways (see the table below) so it is important to research the financial details of a specific plan before deciding which one to purchase. For example, a person who has frequent medical expenses may want a Bronze Plan with a lower deductible (depending on premium) while a healthy person may want the opposite.

*********************************************

Bottom line is that you'll pay out anywhere from 3 grand to over 7.2 grand just for the luxury of paying out 7,000 more.

Yeah, that's real affordable.

Catastrophic plans were about 1,000 a year with a 7,500 deductible before.

Good job.

But you know all these costs. You lie through your electronic teeth every time you post.

No, you will pay anywhere between 0 and 7.2 grand, depending on your income and what you will get is not some mickey mouse insurance ridden with fine print. No, you will get insurance that you can be assured meets minimum standards, covers essential preventative care without a deductible and will not kick you off when you get sick.

That's a real difference and a significant change forward in meaningful affordability.

Oh, yes...I forgot....the infamous "junk plans" that were never called that until the administration got it's butt handed to them.

Problem is: They were not junk. I had a couple of them and they were fine for what they did.

Your minimum standards do nothing but raise costs.

And the only way you might pay less than a whole lot is with subsidies......that isn't cutting cost.
 
We are still at 18% of GDP.

This was one of the major selling points of this POC legislation....

Another failed objective.
 
From the Obummercare website:

Obamacare Bronze Health Insurance Plans

Age 30 Age 40 Age 50 Age 60
$257.68 $289.88 $405.28 $615.15

Bronze Plans are designed so that insurance companies will typically pay 60% of covered healthcare expenses with the remaining 40% to be paid by consumers. However, as illustrated below, this does not mean that the insurer pays 60 cents of every dollar of healthcare expense for an enrollee. The consumer’s expenses are in the form of out-of-pocket fees over and above the cost of the plan’s monthly premium. Out-of-pocket expenses in 2016 are capped at $6,850 for individual plans and $13,700 for family plans, though plans can apply lower limits if they so choose.

The 60/40 payments by insurer versus enrollee are based on projected use of healthcare services by plan members. The actual out-of-pocket expenses of any single beneficiary may work out to be more or less than this ratio. Those people whose out-of-pocket limits reach the annual maximum could see their share of covered healthcare costs discontinue until a new calendar year begins and the annual limit is reset.

Out-of-pocket expenses include fees like deductibles, copayments, or coinsurance. Different plans will approach the 60/40 split in various ways (see the table below) so it is important to research the financial details of a specific plan before deciding which one to purchase. For example, a person who has frequent medical expenses may want a Bronze Plan with a lower deductible (depending on premium) while a healthy person may want the opposite.

*********************************************

Bottom line is that you'll pay out anywhere from 3 grand to over 7.2 grand just for the luxury of paying out 7,000 more.

Yeah, that's real affordable.

Catastrophic plans were about 1,000 a year with a 7,500 deductible before.

Good job.

But you know all these costs. You lie through your electronic teeth every time you post.

No, you will pay anywhere between 0 and 7.2 grand, depending on your income and what you will get is not some mickey mouse insurance ridden with fine print. No, you will get insurance that you can be assured meets minimum standards, covers essential preventative care without a deductible and will not kick you off when you get sick.

That's a real difference and a significant change forward in meaningful affordability.

Oh, yes...I forgot....the infamous "junk plans" that were never called that until the administration got it's butt handed to them.

Problem is: They were not junk. I had a couple of them and they were fine for what they did.

Your minimum standards do nothing but raise costs.

And the only way you might pay less than a whole lot is with subsidies......that isn't cutting cost.

First you say the law doesn't address affordability, then switch to claim it doesn't reduce cost when I bring up income based subsidies.

Goal post move much?

There was plenty of junk in the market, to claim otherwise is to not know the history of this topic. If there is one thing few people try to deny is that the system had some serious problems.

And just because it didn't happen to screw you over doesn't mean it didn't screw others who got coverage denials, got kicked off or couldn't get insured at sane rates due to pre-existing conditions.
 
Last edited:

Forum List

Back
Top