Obamacare overcharged healthy & young people that needed insurance to help fund the cost of insurance for sick people

[Greenbeard]

Obamacare has wrecked the health care of Americans because it is masked socialism.
It gave coverage to some by raising costs on most other people.

I agree that the GOP should run on increasing premiums for older people. "Premium hikes on anyone over 40" should be an easy sell.

 

[Billiejeens]

Obamacare premiums just went I by hundreds of dollars a month under Trump.

Back to the pre-covid price as the Democrats planned for it to?

 

[Billiejeens]

It is indeed very obvious. How did Americans become so stupid?

Department of Education?

 

[CowboyTed]

I agree that socialized medicine countries put a lot more emphasis on prevention and wellness over treatment, which is important.

I am not sure that would work in this country. Look how many people absolutely lost their shit over Covid Vaccine Mandates. Now imagine if these same people heard the government telling them to exercise and diet.

I have no problem with banning pharma commercials. Although I love making fun of some of them.

The COVID thing wasn't as much as a concern, there was a lot of misinformation going around from conspiracy theorists. Europe has back jobs too, as well as people with genuine concern. Probably difference is, the largest organisation in the country is the health system (UK NHS is the largest employer in the world)... They have the people and the information to go to bat for the truth...
But what we really found really concerning was the opposition too healthy school meals from Michelle Obama.. This is a real European style way of making people healthy. First start on the kids and generate health habits and let them bring that into older life. Europe wants kids to cycle to school and will to plough billions into that, knowing that if could be the real winner in 10 - 15 years time (projects have to take a generational view, US is very much, we want it now!)...

I think the big thing about Pharma is this in Europe. Europe has a simple law, everyone has to be treated the same. US has similar but the corporations have lobbied to create a huge amount of loopholes...
In Europe the government systems agree a price on a drug. That price is negotiated between the Country and the Pharma... Pharma doesn't play ball there is no price set and the government won't allow your drug for sale. This price is set and everybody in the country can walk into a drug store and pay the same price, no discounts, no sales price, no bulk buying... Price is the price...
This makes everything cheaper immediately... This is government working for you... EU is now taking about having some drugs have on EU price for the EU... This would mean lower prices again..

On top of that look at Ozempic, in IrelandDiabete Type 2 people get free Ozempic (not Mounjaro yet, but there is a price)... Irish Heath service crunched the numbers and they found that if they give out Ozempic at about $160 a month it is cheaper than dealing with the consequences

 

[CowboyTed]

Department of Education?

Nope...

The US Media especially News Media is driven by commercialism, this is a terrible idea... Other countries loose money on Journalism, US has created a monstrosity that allow anyone with any bias to have that bias reaffirmed...

Dept of Education has no chance against that..

 

[Billiejeens]

Nope...

The US Media especially News Media is driven by commercialism, this is a terrible idea... Other countries loose money on Journalism, US has created a monstrosity that allow anyone with any bias to have that bias reaffirmed...

Dept of Education has no chance against that..

"loose"

hmm

 

[CowboyTed]

"loose"

hmm

News Media in US was a loss leader for decades...

US obsession with profit over what is good started down the road of News for Profit... This led initially to 'if it bleed, it leads' but now has developed into fight for our entertainment (Jon Stewart warned about this on Crossfire decades back)...
This is why US is in a constant state of election... The news organisations need eyeballs.. Other counties 3 - 6 week elections races and at the end, they very happy to go back to normal...

 

[22lcidw]

The COVID thing wasn't as much as a concern, there was a lot of misinformation going around from conspiracy theorists. Europe has back jobs too, as well as people with genuine concern. Probably difference is, the largest organisation in the country is the health system (UK NHS is the largest employer in the world)... They have the people and the information to go to bat for the truth...
But what we really found really concerning was the opposition too healthy school meals from Michelle Obama.. This is a real European style way of making people healthy. First start on the kids and generate health habits and let them bring that into older life. Europe wants kids to cycle to school and will to plough billions into that, knowing that if could be the real winner in 10 - 15 years time (projects have to take a generational view, US is very much, we want it now!)...

I think the big thing about Pharma is this in Europe. Europe has a simple law, everyone has to be treated the same. US has similar but the corporations have lobbied to create a huge amount of loopholes...
In Europe the government systems agree a price on a drug. That price is negotiated between the Country and the Pharma... Pharma doesn't play ball there is no price set and the government won't allow your drug for sale. This price is set and everybody in the country can walk into a drug store and pay the same price, no discounts, no sales price, no bulk buying... Price is the price...
This makes everything cheaper immediately... This is government working for you... EU is now taking about having some drugs have on EU price for the EU... This would mean lower prices again..

View attachment 1183744
On top of that look at Ozempic, in IrelandDiabete Type 2 people get free Ozempic (not Mounjaro yet, but there is a price)... Irish Heath service crunched the numbers and they found that if they give out Ozempic at about $160 a month it is cheaper than dealing with the consequences

The improvement of meals in schools from Michelle Obama was a good idea. Putting it into practice was an issue. I would think some school districts or part of them has success. Here is reality. School district employees and School contractors can screw it up. Employees who do not care that much and do not practice FIFO with corrupted contractors pushing their nearly expired fresh food because they can, doomed this movement from the start. And most of them are progressive Socialist Communist voters.

 

[DonGlock26]

I agree that the GOP should run on increasing premiums for older people. "Premium hikes on anyone over 40" should be an easy sell.

Hell,Obama raised healthcare costs for everyone.

 

[Billiejeens]

Hell,Obama raised healthcare costs for everyone.

It was designed to fail.

 

[DonGlock26]

No, I'm a pragmatist.

Capitalism is fine when you are selling corn chips.

The model doesn't work with health care.

I can always choose not to eat chips if they are too expensive. I can't decide to leave health issues untreated. In an unregulated market, that means the Hospitals can charge whatever the hell they want, which is why a visit to the ER for what I thought might be a heart attack (thankfully it wasn't) costs $6300.00.

I would have liked to not go to the ER, but my GP wasn't able to squeeze me in for another two weeks, and I called the urgent care, and they told me to go to the ER with the symptoms I was having.

Here's the reality- PRIVATE INSURANCE IS A FORM OF SOCIALISM.

Everyone is paying into a pool.

If you pay into the pool of 10% of your salary, and you don't have any medical issues that year, you are subsidizing everyone else's health care.

If you even have a minor incident like I had last week, other people are subsidizing your care.

Now insurance works fine for cars or houses, because statistically, you just aren't going to have that many catastrophic events.

It doesn't work so well for people because, everyone gets sick and everyone dies, eventually.

Do insurance companies use the power of the state to force you to pay their premiums?

 

[JoeB131]

Do insurance companies use the power of the state to force you to pay their premiums?

Again, if you are going to be dishonest, there's no point talking to you.

 

[DonGlock26]

Again, if you are going to be dishonest, there's no point talking to you.

Again, you are running, socialist.

 

[JoeB131]

Again, you are running, socialist.

No, I'm not wasting my time on dishonest debate. Your answer had nothing to do with the points I was making.

 

[DGS49]

Apparently, few of our correspondents lived through the generation of ACA.

The problem was (and remains) people who have expensive pre-existing conditions. Under the old regime - before Obamacare - health insurers would simply turn these people down for insurance. Nobody liked that.

So ACA said to insurers that they had to accept these clients, and they could not charge them higher rates to cover their expected higher costs. Indeed, they had to include those poor "risks" with everybody else, thus jacking up the premiums for everyone else. To compensate for these known losses, ACA demanded that young, healthy people who generally did not bother with health insurance would be required to purchase health insurance, thus flooding the mix with profitable new customers. ACA presumed that the new young, healthy clients would offset the losses from those with pre-existing conditions. (The numbers didn't work).

Unfortunately, no constraints were put on the insurers on raising their rates, which they did with reckless abandon...which leads us to where we are today.

The Republican "solution" is to repeal ACA and allow insurers to again REJECT people with pre-existing conditions, thus causing rates to float down to where they should be. But at the same time, they will have to make an alternative plan for those unfortunate people, and that alternative will have to have backing from the Federal government.

This is ALL UNCONSTITUTIONAL, which is why Republicans have been so reluctant to do what is necessary. Congress has no Article I power to (a) demand that anyone buy insurance, or (b) to get into the health insurance business in any event (Medicare is also unconstitutional).

Our Beloved President, being one who plays fast and loose with the Constitution on a GOOD day, might be the one who has to get the Republicans to do what is necessary, holding their figurative noses in the process.

Parenthetically, the ACA subsidies play the worthy political role of CONCEALING THE FACT THAT THE ACA HAS BEEN A COMPLETE FAILURE(!), which is why the Democrats have been FRANTIC to see that they are funded at least through next November. The last thing they want is to have Republicans campaigning on the high premiums resulting from ACA.

 

[Billiejeens]

Apparently, few of our correspondents lived through the generation of ACA.

The problem was (and remains) people who have expensive pre-existing conditions. Under the old regime - before Obamacare - health insurers would simply turn these people down for insurance. Nobody liked that.

So ACA said to insurers that they had to accept these clients, and they could not charge them higher rates to cover their expected higher costs. Indeed, they had to include those poor "risks" with everybody else, thus jacking up the premiums for everyone else. To compensate for these known losses, ACA demanded that young, healthy people who generally did not bother with health insurance would be required to purchase health insurance, thus flooding the mix with profitable new customers. ACA presumed that the new young, healthy clients would offset the losses from those with pre-existing conditions. (The numbers didn't work).

Unfortunately, no constraints were put on the insurers on raising their rates, which they did with reckless abandon...which leads us to where we are today.

The Republican "solution" is to repeal ACA and allow insurers to again REJECT people with pre-existing conditions, thus causing rates to float down to where they should be. But at the same time, they will have to make an alternative plan for those unfortunate people, and that alternative will have to have backing from the Federal government.

This is ALL UNCONSTITUTIONAL, which is why Republicans have been so reluctant to do what is necessary. Congress has no Article I power to (a) demand that anyone buy insurance, or (b) to get into the health insurance business in any event (Medicare is also unconstitutional).

Our Beloved President, being one who plays fast and loose with the Constitution on a GOOD day, might be the one who has to get the Republicans to do what is necessary, holding their figurative noses in the process.

Parenthetically, the ACA subsidies play the worthy political role of CONCEALING THE FACT THAT THE ACA HAS BEEN A COMPLETE FAILURE(!), which is why the Democrats have been FRANTIC to see that they are funded at least through next November. The last thing they want is to have Republicans campaigning on the high premiums resulting from ACA.

Pre-existing conditions never was an exclusion.
That's just propaganda.

 

[initforme]

Healthcare is becoming a crisis. Case closed.

 

[initforme]

Pre existing conditions do nothing to increase costs.

 

[Lisa558]

Apparently, few of our correspondents lived through the generation of ACA.

The problem was (and remains) people who have expensive pre-existing conditions. Under the old regime - before Obamacare - health insurers would simply turn these people down for insurance. Nobody liked that.

So ACA said to insurers that they had to accept these clients, and they could not charge them higher rates to cover their expected higher costs. Indeed, they had to include those poor "risks" with everybody else, thus jacking up the premiums for everyone else. To compensate for these known losses, ACA demanded that young, healthy people who generally did not bother with health insurance would be required to purchase health insurance, thus flooding the mix with profitable new customers. ACA presumed that the new young, healthy clients would offset the losses from those with pre-existing conditions. (The numbers didn't work).

Unfortunately, no constraints were put on the insurers on raising their rates, which they did with reckless abandon...which leads us to where we are today.

The Republican "solution" is to repeal ACA and allow insurers to again REJECT people with pre-existing conditions, thus causing rates to float down to where they should be. But at the same time, they will have to make an alternative plan for those unfortunate people, and that alternative will have to have backing from the Federal government.

This is ALL UNCONSTITUTIONAL, which is why Republicans have been so reluctant to do what is necessary. Congress has no Article I power to (a) demand that anyone buy insurance, or (b) to get into the health insurance business in any event (Medicare is also unconstitutional).

Our Beloved President, being one who plays fast and loose with the Constitution on a GOOD day, might be the one who has to get the Republicans to do what is necessary, holding their figurative noses in the process.

Parenthetically, the ACA subsidies play the worthy political role of CONCEALING THE FACT THAT THE ACA HAS BEEN A COMPLETE FAILURE(!), which is why the Democrats have been FRANTIC to see that they are funded at least through next November. The last thing they want is to have Republicans campaigning on the high premiums resulting from ACA.

Also, the percent of people unable to acquire health insurance was small. Slightly more than half got their insurance from work. Another 20% were on Medicaid. Then another 10% were earning an upper-middle class salary but chose not to buy.

So, we are talking about only 20% of Americans who were unable to afford it. Obama should have just put that minority onto Medicaid, paying in a small premium, and left alone the system that was working for the majority of Americans.

But that would not have advanced Obama’s plan - to be completed by Hillary, who he was sure would win - to bring about socialized medicine.

 

[initforme]

I'm agnostic at best but it's what our founders would have wanted.

Also, the percent of people unable to acquire health insurance was small. Slightly more than half got their insurance from work. Another 20% were on Medicaid. Then another 10% were earning an upper-middle class salary but chose not to buy.

So, we are talking about only 20% of Americans who were unable to afford it. Obama should have just put that minority onto Medicaid, paying in a small premium, and left alone the system that was working for the majority of Americans.

But that would not have advanced Obama’s plan - to be completed by Hillary, who he was sure would win - to bring about socialized medicine.

Its time to send out checks as president trump has said. Instead of 2000 make them 5000. An econimically astute move.