Uninsured rate keeps climbing under Republicans

[MadChemist]

Did you look at the graph in the OP? Over 15 million more people got insurance because of Obamacare

Of course 15 million people got on Obamacare, they didn't have a fucking choice, it was either that or pay an astronomical tax penalty.

FALSE, FALSE AND FALSE AGAIN.

Among those 15 million most were glad to get insurance, because they were:

1. Under 26 and got insured through their parents insurance.
2. Qualified for coverage under expanded Medicaid program.
3. Could not previously get insurance due to pre-existing conditions
4. Could not previously afford insurance without ACA subsidies.

Those that DIDN'T want to get insurance faced a TINY penalty for first few years. Penalty which was subject to many exceptions, penalty which IRS could not enforce beyond withdrawing it from Federal side tax refund.

Today the penalty is more substantial but still relatively small considering the guarantee you have in this country to receive emergency care regardless of ability to pay:

For tax year 2017, the penalty is 2.5% of your total household adjusted gross income, or $695 per adult and $347.50 per child, up to a maximum of $2,085

Here’s the Penalty for Not Having Health Insurance - NerdWallet

Bottom line, if you don't want to have insurance the (POOR!) choice not to have it is 100% there, just don't expect implicit healthcare risk coverage you get in this country to be a free ride.

So, you are saying people will pay up to 2,085 dollars for not getting insurance ?

 

[Darkwind]

Thank you for the correction, you are correct the COTUS does say promote, not provide.

Of course to provide could be a GREAT way to promote, so there is no effective difference when it comes to all the government programs and their Constitutional allowance.

There is a great difference according to Google:
Promote: support or actively encourage.
Provide: make available for use; supply.
See the difference?

You don't get it - the words DO have different meaning, but one can be MEANS while the other is GOALS.

To clarify the concept lets do an example:

To promote the well being (aka welfare) of this great country US Government spends on programs that ensure everyone has access to basic needs like like food, medicine, shelter and education.

That is incorrect. To promote the general welfare, the government is tasked with providing an environment that is conducive to allowing each citizen to pursue life, liberty, and happiness in their own way. It is the general 'well being of the nation', not individuals, that is the focus.

For instance, one of the functions of the federal government is to resolve disputes between the states. If one state is treating another in an unfair or illegal manner, it is the job of the federal government to rectify the conflict. This restores the general welfare of the nation to harmony.

It most specifically does not pertain to providing anything to any specific individual, group, or organization.

Why do you believe that?

Providing for the general welfare must provide for Individuals in the federal districts.

Because then the usurpation of power is gleaned through the loophole that all the country is in the federal district.

The care for the citizenry (if indeed it can be said that government has a responsibility to care for individuals) is left to the lowest denominator. City/Borough/village, or to the county and finally to the State. In either case, none of these pertain to the US Constitution regarding the general welfare.

 

[dblack]

Maximizing insurance coverage well make the health care market worse, not better. Poor people shouldn't waste money on insurance. And people who want to help poor people shouldn't waste money buying them insurance. If you want to help people who can't afford health care, give them money for health care. There's reason to funnel it through insurance companies so they can take a cut.

 

[rightwinger]

It has always been the intent of Republicans to increase the number of uninsured

 

[deanrd]

I just don't understand why Republicans hate Americans so much.

They don't want them to just die, but to suffer first.

I think you'd be better off taking that kind of statement to the Rubber Room.

There is no basis for it.

Just like there is no basis for saying democrats hate America.

I wish I didn't mean it.

What other reason could the GOP possibly have for working to take healthcare away from millions of Americans?

Why want to cut food stamps for children and veterans?

Why want to end school lunches and day care.

Republicans don't do all these mean spirited policies because they like these people. They want these people to suffer. That's the only explanation that makes sense.

 

[MadChemist]

I just don't understand why Republicans hate Americans so much.

They don't want them to just die, but to suffer first.

I think you'd be better off taking that kind of statement to the Rubber Room.

There is no basis for it.

Just like there is no basis for saying democrats hate America.

I wish I didn't mean it.

What other reason could the GOP possibly have for working to take healthcare away from millions of Americans?

Why want to cut food stamps for children and veterans?

Why want to end school lunches and day care.

Republicans don't do all these mean spirited policies because they like these people. They want these people to suffer. That's the only explanation that makes sense.

You've already answered the question without even allowing for a response.

I might understand someone saying....."It sure seems like.....".

But you openly make draw the conclusion with no real argument.

There are plenty of explanations for doing those things that don't fit your conclusion;

Example: Right or Wrong, some people feel it is NOT within the purview of the federal government to provide healthcare. There is nothing means spirited about wanting to follow WHAT YOU THINK is the intent of the constitution.

I am not arguing that point. I am simply telling what the case might be.

So there is another explanation that "makes sense" (to use your words). You may not agree with it, but it is both legitimate (as an argument) and without vitrol of any kind.

 

[MadChemist]

Maximizing insurance coverage well make the health care market worse, not better. Poor people shouldn't waste money on insurance. And people who want to help poor people shouldn't waste money buying them insurance. If you want to help people who can't afford health care, give them money for health care. There's reason to funnel it through insurance companies so they can take a cut.

Additionally, the health care industry knows how to level the playing field. I was sent to the E.R. the other day and got a $4,000 bill (i expected a huge bill for a three hour stay, a couple of x-rays, and 1 pill...but this was beyond stupid). As I left I met someone I know who does not have insurance going into the E.R. for something more than what I had. Their bill will be higher. I have good insurance, but will still pay $500. These other folks can't afford $50.

There is no reason for an E.R. to be that expensive.....except as a vehicle to recover costs.

 

[MadChemist]

It has always been the intent of Republicans to increase the number of uninsured

It has always been the intent of the left wing to kill any legitimate conversation by making these kinds of stupid statements.

I am not a republican, but I am a conservative.

The intent of conservatives is to balance things so that we don't have huge debt. Somehow the left wing thinks that continuing to operate inefficient hospitals is good way to spend our money.

 

[Penelope]

Having initially dropped BIGLY under Obamacare uninsured rates have now been climbing back up ever since Trump won election and began messing with our healthcare:

The Uninsured Rate Is Going Up Again | HuffPost

U.S. Uninsured Rate Rises to 12.3% in Third Quarter

Or as Trumpsters would say:

So, according to the graph you supplied, the uninsured rate started to climb shortly after Q3 of 2016, right around the election time and likely before Trump even took office (looks like Q4 2016). So, what exactly did Trump do to be saddled with the blame here? Was it his mere election that caused this? If so, how? Please explain...

Come on , you have to know how every GOP in the debates said they would get rid of the ACA and when DT got in he has worked very hard on getting rid of it.

 

[MadChemist]

Having initially dropped BIGLY under Obamacare uninsured rates have now been climbing back up ever since Trump won election and began messing with our healthcare:

The Uninsured Rate Is Going Up Again | HuffPost

U.S. Uninsured Rate Rises to 12.3% in Third Quarter

Or as Trumpsters would say:

So, according to the graph you supplied, the uninsured rate started to climb shortly after Q3 of 2016, right around the election time and likely before Trump even took office (looks like Q4 2016). So, what exactly did Trump do to be saddled with the blame here? Was it his mere election that caused this? If so, how? Please explain...

Come on , you have to know how every GOP in the debates said they would get rid of the ACA and when DT got in he has worked very hard on getting rid of it.

Correlation does not explain causation.

You'd need to show how anything Trump or the GOP has done has caused there to be a higher percentage of uninsured.

I am not saying you can't. I am saying you haven't.

One answer could be that people are tired of paying for very high priced plans that amount to little more than catastrophic coverage (which used to be cheaper albeit not as comprehensive).

 

[AntonToo]

Having initially dropped BIGLY under Obamacare uninsured rates have now been climbing back up ever since Trump won election and began messing with our healthcare:

The Uninsured Rate Is Going Up Again | HuffPost

U.S. Uninsured Rate Rises to 12.3% in Third Quarter

Or as Trumpsters would say:

So, according to the graph you supplied, the uninsured rate started to climb shortly after Q3 of 2016, right around the election time and likely before Trump even took office (looks like Q4 2016). So, what exactly did Trump do to be saddled with the blame here? Was it his mere election that caused this? If so, how? Please explain...

Come on , you have to know how every GOP in the debates said they would get rid of the ACA and when DT got in he has worked very hard on getting rid of it.

Correlation does not explain causation.

You'd need to show how anything Trump or the GOP has done has caused there to be a higher percentage of uninsured.

I am not saying you can't. I am saying you haven't.

One answer could be that people are tired of paying for very high priced plans that amount to little more than catastrophic coverage (which used to be cheaper albeit not as comprehensive).

Trump's policy directly raised premium prices:

Insurance companies have made it crystal clear how Trump could send Americans' healthcare costs soaring

Premiums To Spike 30 Percent In PA After Trump Cuts O'Care Subsidies

 

[MadChemist]

Having initially dropped BIGLY under Obamacare uninsured rates have now been climbing back up ever since Trump won election and began messing with our healthcare:

The Uninsured Rate Is Going Up Again | HuffPost

U.S. Uninsured Rate Rises to 12.3% in Third Quarter

Or as Trumpsters would say:

So, according to the graph you supplied, the uninsured rate started to climb shortly after Q3 of 2016, right around the election time and likely before Trump even took office (looks like Q4 2016). So, what exactly did Trump do to be saddled with the blame here? Was it his mere election that caused this? If so, how? Please explain...

Come on , you have to know how every GOP in the debates said they would get rid of the ACA and when DT got in he has worked very hard on getting rid of it.

Correlation does not explain causation.

You'd need to show how anything Trump or the GOP has done has caused there to be a higher percentage of uninsured.

I am not saying you can't. I am saying you haven't.

One answer could be that people are tired of paying for very high priced plans that amount to little more than catastrophic coverage (which used to be cheaper albeit not as comprehensive).

Trump's policy directly raised premium prices:

Insurance companies have made it crystal clear how Trump could send Americans' healthcare costs soaring

O.K.

This statement says "could" meaning it hasn't happened yet.

The article points to statements made about 2018. What happened in 2017 ?

And....are there not other factors affecting the decision to obtain insurance (as in, companies pulling out of markets and raising prices) ?

We could go further and say that the article cites cost sharing payments being stopped. That isn't an increase, it's a cost shift. Currently, those who can afford insurance through subsidies can't otherwise.

 

[MadChemist]

This was quoted from an article from a different thread:

That’s a lesson tens of thousands of Iowans have learned over the past four years as the state’s individual health insurance market has imploded, with insurers fleeing the market because of big losses. With Obamacare’s fifth open-enrollment season kicking off on Nov. 1, the consequences are playing out across one of America’s most politically influential states as residents struggle to maintain coverage.

Just one insurer, Medica, is willing to sell Obamacare plans in Iowa for next year—and it plans to raise premiums by an average of more than 50 percent. Thousands of Iowans, particularly those who make too much money to qualify for financial assistance, are likely to find that monthly premiums for 2018 are less comparable to a cellphone bill and more like a mortgage payment. The Iowa Insurance Division predicts that the number of individuals enrolled in coverage will decrease by at least 25 percent next year.

“I think you’ll have a lot of people who just give up and fall out of the market,” said Tom Bowman, CEO of Davenport’s Community Health Care, a clinic that serves roughly 30,000 predominantly low-income individuals each year.

How Iowa Became An Obamacare Horror Story

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

Ouch !!!

 

[AntonToo]

Having initially dropped BIGLY under Obamacare uninsured rates have now been climbing back up ever since Trump won election and began messing with our healthcare:

The Uninsured Rate Is Going Up Again | HuffPost

U.S. Uninsured Rate Rises to 12.3% in Third Quarter

Or as Trumpsters would say:

So, according to the graph you supplied, the uninsured rate started to climb shortly after Q3 of 2016, right around the election time and likely before Trump even took office (looks like Q4 2016). So, what exactly did Trump do to be saddled with the blame here? Was it his mere election that caused this? If so, how? Please explain...

Come on , you have to know how every GOP in the debates said they would get rid of the ACA and when DT got in he has worked very hard on getting rid of it.

Correlation does not explain causation.

You'd need to show how anything Trump or the GOP has done has caused there to be a higher percentage of uninsured.

I am not saying you can't. I am saying you haven't.

One answer could be that people are tired of paying for very high priced plans that amount to little more than catastrophic coverage (which used to be cheaper albeit not as comprehensive).

Trump's policy directly raised premium prices:

Insurance companies have made it crystal clear how Trump could send Americans' healthcare costs soaring

O.K.

This statement says "could" meaning it hasn't happened yet.

The article points to statements made about 2018. What happened in 2017 ?

And....are there not other factors affecting the decision to obtain insurance (as in, companies pulling out of markets and raising prices) ?

We could go further and say that the article cites cost sharing payments being stopped. That isn't an increase, it's a cost shift. Currently, those who can afford insurance through subsidies can't otherwise.

It happened. Trump killed CSRs, prices went up in PA by 28% instead of 8% scheduled.

 

[MadChemist]

So, according to the graph you supplied, the uninsured rate started to climb shortly after Q3 of 2016, right around the election time and likely before Trump even took office (looks like Q4 2016). So, what exactly did Trump do to be saddled with the blame here? Was it his mere election that caused this? If so, how? Please explain...

Come on , you have to know how every GOP in the debates said they would get rid of the ACA and when DT got in he has worked very hard on getting rid of it.

Correlation does not explain causation.

You'd need to show how anything Trump or the GOP has done has caused there to be a higher percentage of uninsured.

I am not saying you can't. I am saying you haven't.

One answer could be that people are tired of paying for very high priced plans that amount to little more than catastrophic coverage (which used to be cheaper albeit not as comprehensive).

Trump's policy directly raised premium prices:

Insurance companies have made it crystal clear how Trump could send Americans' healthcare costs soaring

O.K.

This statement says "could" meaning it hasn't happened yet.

The article points to statements made about 2018. What happened in 2017 ?

And....are there not other factors affecting the decision to obtain insurance (as in, companies pulling out of markets and raising prices) ?

We could go further and say that the article cites cost sharing payments being stopped. That isn't an increase, it's a cost shift. Currently, those who can afford insurance through subsidies can't otherwise.

It happened. Trump killed CSRs, prices went up in PA by 28% instead of 8% scheduled.

So, according to the graph you supplied, the uninsured rate started to climb shortly after Q3 of 2016, right around the election time and likely before Trump even took office (looks like Q4 2016). So, what exactly did Trump do to be saddled with the blame here? Was it his mere election that caused this? If so, how? Please explain...

Come on , you have to know how every GOP in the debates said they would get rid of the ACA and when DT got in he has worked very hard on getting rid of it.

Correlation does not explain causation.

You'd need to show how anything Trump or the GOP has done has caused there to be a higher percentage of uninsured.

I am not saying you can't. I am saying you haven't.

One answer could be that people are tired of paying for very high priced plans that amount to little more than catastrophic coverage (which used to be cheaper albeit not as comprehensive).

Trump's policy directly raised premium prices:

Insurance companies have made it crystal clear how Trump could send Americans' healthcare costs soaring

O.K.

This statement says "could" meaning it hasn't happened yet.

The article points to statements made about 2018. What happened in 2017 ?

And....are there not other factors affecting the decision to obtain insurance (as in, companies pulling out of markets and raising prices) ?

We could go further and say that the article cites cost sharing payments being stopped. That isn't an increase, it's a cost shift. Currently, those who can afford insurance through subsidies can't otherwise.

It happened. Trump killed CSRs, prices went up in PA by 28% instead of 8% scheduled.

He removed subsidies.

So the full brunt of the cost goes to the consumer.

The cost is the same. Who is bearing it changed.

I don't necessarily agree with it, but that's how I read it.

 

[AntonToo]

Come on , you have to know how every GOP in the debates said they would get rid of the ACA and when DT got in he has worked very hard on getting rid of it.

Correlation does not explain causation.

You'd need to show how anything Trump or the GOP has done has caused there to be a higher percentage of uninsured.

I am not saying you can't. I am saying you haven't.

One answer could be that people are tired of paying for very high priced plans that amount to little more than catastrophic coverage (which used to be cheaper albeit not as comprehensive).

Trump's policy directly raised premium prices:

Insurance companies have made it crystal clear how Trump could send Americans' healthcare costs soaring

O.K.

This statement says "could" meaning it hasn't happened yet.

The article points to statements made about 2018. What happened in 2017 ?

And....are there not other factors affecting the decision to obtain insurance (as in, companies pulling out of markets and raising prices) ?

We could go further and say that the article cites cost sharing payments being stopped. That isn't an increase, it's a cost shift. Currently, those who can afford insurance through subsidies can't otherwise.

It happened. Trump killed CSRs, prices went up in PA by 28% instead of 8% scheduled.

Come on , you have to know how every GOP in the debates said they would get rid of the ACA and when DT got in he has worked very hard on getting rid of it.

Correlation does not explain causation.

You'd need to show how anything Trump or the GOP has done has caused there to be a higher percentage of uninsured.

I am not saying you can't. I am saying you haven't.

One answer could be that people are tired of paying for very high priced plans that amount to little more than catastrophic coverage (which used to be cheaper albeit not as comprehensive).

Trump's policy directly raised premium prices:

Insurance companies have made it crystal clear how Trump could send Americans' healthcare costs soaring

O.K.

This statement says "could" meaning it hasn't happened yet.

The article points to statements made about 2018. What happened in 2017 ?

And....are there not other factors affecting the decision to obtain insurance (as in, companies pulling out of markets and raising prices) ?

We could go further and say that the article cites cost sharing payments being stopped. That isn't an increase, it's a cost shift. Currently, those who can afford insurance through subsidies can't otherwise.

It happened. Trump killed CSRs, prices went up in PA by 28% instead of 8% scheduled.

He removed subsidies.

So the full brunt of the cost goes to the consumer.

The cost is the same. Who is bearing it changed.

I don't necessarily agree with it, but that's how I read it.

1. NOPE. Not a zero sum game.

CSR's actually increased systemic efficiency. CBO scored their removal as EXPESE, not savings, to federal government.

The Effects of Terminating Payments for Cost-Sharing Reductions

Terminating Payments for Cost-Sharing Reductions would increase the federal deficit, on net, by $194 billion from 2017 through 2026, CBO and JCT estimate.

2. It did raise prices to consumers and did put downward pressure on demand - so yes, because of this policy we would expect less people getting insurance.



And just to talk about the second part of increased costs, the mandate repeal part - it may sound good to "GIVE PEOPLE CHOICE!", but it's a red herring. The choice you are effectively giving to people by repealing mandate while keeping the guarantee of coverage under ACA is:

"Don't get insured, save the money and if you ever get sick you know insurance company has to take you in anyway". This system is prime for abuse and CAN'T WORK.

It begs a death spiral - more healthy people electing to not get insured, making risk pool sicker and leading to increased premiums, which in turn makes more healthy people elect to not get insurance, which in turn raises prices yet again...

Anatomy of a true health insurance death spiral

 

[dblack]

It begs a death spiral - more healthy people electing to not get insured, making risk pool sicker and leading to increased premiums, which in turn makes more healthy people elect to not get insurance, which in turn raises prices yet again...

This kind of "insurance" is delusional. The sooner it dies, the better.

 

[danielpalos]

It has always been the intent of Republicans to increase the number of uninsured

It has always been the intent of the left wing to kill any legitimate conversation by making these kinds of stupid statements.

I am not a republican, but I am a conservative.

The intent of conservatives is to balance things so that we don't have huge debt. Somehow the left wing thinks that continuing to operate inefficient hospitals is good way to spend our money.

by lowering taxes?

 

[Natural Citizen]

Aaaaand this goes here....

Dr. Ron Paul nails it.

 

[Marion Morrison]

For those people in here who are derp: Health Insurance companies do not provide medical services.

That's what doctors do. Furthermore, Health insurance companies are wanting to set themselves up as a legally mandated barrier, that you have to pay in order to get access to a doctor. No sane person would advocate for that.

I recently came across paid doctor bills from when I was a kid.

$23 here

$26 there.

My last doctor bill was $90.

Why should I have to pay an insurance company to go see a doctor? Hmm?