Uninsured rate keeps climbing under Republicans

oldsoul

Gold Member
Joined
Oct 12, 2015
Messages
2,763
Reaction score
415
Points
140
Location
Standing with Covington Kids
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.
Sure, so what? Are you suggesting that the American public is so stupid as to believe campaign promises? Oh, wait, yea, far too many are. Still so what? Are you arguing that Trump's election is all it took? If so, why not just say that?
 
OP
antontoo

antontoo

Gold Member
Joined
Jun 13, 2016
Messages
17,061
Reaction score
2,238
Points
290
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.
Your rhetoric is delusional and totally detached from the reality.

You aren't talking about some "insurance" abstract dying, you are talking about a collapse that will cause FINANCIAL RUIN TO PEOPLE and big damage to State and Federal budgets.

Even if you don't like ACA and thought that our system was great before ( :rolleyes: ) there is a RESPONSIBLE way to phase it out. Simply getting rid of the mandate while keeping the rest of it is like throwing a lit lighter into a basement full of straw and hoping the house will get cozier.
 
Last edited:

MadChemist

VIP Member
Joined
Sep 11, 2017
Messages
641
Reaction score
60
Points
75
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.
Your rhetoric is delusional and totally detached from the reality.

You aren't talking about some "insurance" abstract dying, you are talking about a collapse that will cause FINANCIAL RUIN TO PEOPLE and big damage to State and Federal budgets.

Even if you don't like ACA and thought that our system was great before ( :rolleyes: ) there is a RESPONSIBLE way to phase it out. Simply getting rid of the mandate while keeping the rest of it is like throwing a lit lighter into a basement full of straw and hoping the house will get cozier.
His statement about that kind of insurance is worth noting and certainly is not delusional.

"Sooner" can be a relative term and he makes no statements about a collapse.

I would agree that there is a good (vs a not-so-good) way to do this.

The system we have now is still pretty much the same system.....isn't it ? The only people affected are those who didn't have insurance and can now get it subsidized or those who are now fined for not having it.

A transition for most of us is pretty much business as usual....

What I don't get is the claim that this is going to hurt state and federal budgets.

Money to back that insurance comes from somewhere. What is going to be paid for by that states and federal budget that wasn't being paid for before ? I honestly would like to hear what the logic is here.

I know what the answers could be (people getting care and avoiding more expensive treatments later), but I want to know if there is some "math" that says things are not as expensive under Obamacare as they will be without Obamacare.
 
OP
antontoo

antontoo

Gold Member
Joined
Jun 13, 2016
Messages
17,061
Reaction score
2,238
Points
290
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.
Your rhetoric is delusional and totally detached from the reality.

You aren't talking about some "insurance" abstract dying, you are talking about a collapse that will cause FINANCIAL RUIN TO PEOPLE and big damage to State and Federal budgets.

Even if you don't like ACA and thought that our system was great before ( :rolleyes: ) there is a RESPONSIBLE way to phase it out. Simply getting rid of the mandate while keeping the rest of it is like throwing a lit lighter into a basement full of straw and hoping the house will get cozier.
His statement about that kind of insurance is worth noting and certainly is not delusional.

"Sooner" can be a relative term and he makes no statements about a collapse.

I would agree that there is a good (vs a not-so-good) way to do this.

The system we have now is still pretty much the same system.....isn't it ? The only people affected are those who didn't have insurance and can now get it subsidized or those who are now fined for not having it.

A transition for most of us is pretty much business as usual....

What I don't get is the claim that this is going to hurt state and federal budgets.

Money to back that insurance comes from somewhere. What is going to be paid for by that states and federal budget that wasn't being paid for before ? I honestly would like to hear what the logic is here.

I know what the answers could be (people getting care and avoiding more expensive treatments later), but I want to know if there is some "math" that says things are not as expensive under Obamacare as they will be without Obamacare.
If it was same this 8 year long discussion would be moot. It's not same.

ACA guarantees affordability - meaning government has to cover the costs beyond a certain % of your income. When healthy people drop out, premiums and out-of-pocket costs shoot up and government has to pick up a lot of that difference.


Here is a sample avg insurance premium cost increase vs cost increase to consumer.

 

dblack

Platinum Member
Joined
May 21, 2011
Messages
33,641
Reaction score
3,107
Points
1,130
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.
Your rhetoric is delusional and totally detached from the reality.

You aren't talking about some "insurance" abstract dying, you are talking about a collapse that will cause FINANCIAL RUIN TO PEOPLE and big damage to State and Federal budgets.

Even if you don't like ACA and thought that our system was great before ( :rolleyes: ) there is a RESPONSIBLE way to phase it out. Simply getting rid of the mandate while keeping the rest of it is like throwing a lit lighter into a basement full of straw and hoping the house will get cozier.
His statement about that kind of insurance is worth noting and certainly is not delusional.
And no one seems to want to talk about it. I can see why the insurance industry shills don't want people to wake up, but it's crucial that we do.
 

MadChemist

VIP Member
Joined
Sep 11, 2017
Messages
641
Reaction score
60
Points
75
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.
Your rhetoric is delusional and totally detached from the reality.

You aren't talking about some "insurance" abstract dying, you are talking about a collapse that will cause FINANCIAL RUIN TO PEOPLE and big damage to State and Federal budgets.

Even if you don't like ACA and thought that our system was great before ( :rolleyes: ) there is a RESPONSIBLE way to phase it out. Simply getting rid of the mandate while keeping the rest of it is like throwing a lit lighter into a basement full of straw and hoping the house will get cozier.
His statement about that kind of insurance is worth noting and certainly is not delusional.

"Sooner" can be a relative term and he makes no statements about a collapse.

I would agree that there is a good (vs a not-so-good) way to do this.

The system we have now is still pretty much the same system.....isn't it ? The only people affected are those who didn't have insurance and can now get it subsidized or those who are now fined for not having it.

A transition for most of us is pretty much business as usual....

What I don't get is the claim that this is going to hurt state and federal budgets.

Money to back that insurance comes from somewhere. What is going to be paid for by that states and federal budget that wasn't being paid for before ? I honestly would like to hear what the logic is here.

I know what the answers could be (people getting care and avoiding more expensive treatments later), but I want to know if there is some "math" that says things are not as expensive under Obamacare as they will be without Obamacare.
If it was same this 8 year long discussion would be moot. It's not same.

ACA guarantees affordability - meaning government has to cover the costs beyond a certain % of your income. When healthy people drop out, premiums and out-of-pocket costs shoot up and government has to pick up a lot of that difference.


Here is a sample avg insurance premium cost increase vs cost increase to consumer.

O.K. so if the government picks up the costs, nobody experiences ruin.....correct ?
 
OP
antontoo

antontoo

Gold Member
Joined
Jun 13, 2016
Messages
17,061
Reaction score
2,238
Points
290
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.
Your rhetoric is delusional and totally detached from the reality.

You aren't talking about some "insurance" abstract dying, you are talking about a collapse that will cause FINANCIAL RUIN TO PEOPLE and big damage to State and Federal budgets.

Even if you don't like ACA and thought that our system was great before ( :rolleyes: ) there is a RESPONSIBLE way to phase it out. Simply getting rid of the mandate while keeping the rest of it is like throwing a lit lighter into a basement full of straw and hoping the house will get cozier.
His statement about that kind of insurance is worth noting and certainly is not delusional.

"Sooner" can be a relative term and he makes no statements about a collapse.

I would agree that there is a good (vs a not-so-good) way to do this.

The system we have now is still pretty much the same system.....isn't it ? The only people affected are those who didn't have insurance and can now get it subsidized or those who are now fined for not having it.

A transition for most of us is pretty much business as usual....

What I don't get is the claim that this is going to hurt state and federal budgets.

Money to back that insurance comes from somewhere. What is going to be paid for by that states and federal budget that wasn't being paid for before ? I honestly would like to hear what the logic is here.

I know what the answers could be (people getting care and avoiding more expensive treatments later), but I want to know if there is some "math" that says things are not as expensive under Obamacare as they will be without Obamacare.
If it was same this 8 year long discussion would be moot. It's not same.

ACA guarantees affordability - meaning government has to cover the costs beyond a certain % of your income. When healthy people drop out, premiums and out-of-pocket costs shoot up and government has to pick up a lot of that difference.


Here is a sample avg insurance premium cost increase vs cost increase to consumer.

O.K. so if the government picks up the costs, nobody experiences ruin.....correct ?
You are falsely thinking of it in exclusive terms, just because government pays more doesn't mean no one else is.

Subsidies are income based, so they would cover increased costs to low income people, but those that make more and are in the market have to pay more.
 

dblack

Platinum Member
Joined
May 21, 2011
Messages
33,641
Reaction score
3,107
Points
1,130
The simplest, most effective thing the federal government could do to alleviate the problems plaguing the healthcare market would be to eliminate the tax exemption on employer provided health insurance.
 

MadChemist

VIP Member
Joined
Sep 11, 2017
Messages
641
Reaction score
60
Points
75
This kind of "insurance" is delusional. The sooner it dies, the better.
Your rhetoric is delusional and totally detached from the reality.

You aren't talking about some "insurance" abstract dying, you are talking about a collapse that will cause FINANCIAL RUIN TO PEOPLE and big damage to State and Federal budgets.

Even if you don't like ACA and thought that our system was great before ( :rolleyes: ) there is a RESPONSIBLE way to phase it out. Simply getting rid of the mandate while keeping the rest of it is like throwing a lit lighter into a basement full of straw and hoping the house will get cozier.
His statement about that kind of insurance is worth noting and certainly is not delusional.

"Sooner" can be a relative term and he makes no statements about a collapse.

I would agree that there is a good (vs a not-so-good) way to do this.

The system we have now is still pretty much the same system.....isn't it ? The only people affected are those who didn't have insurance and can now get it subsidized or those who are now fined for not having it.

A transition for most of us is pretty much business as usual....

What I don't get is the claim that this is going to hurt state and federal budgets.

Money to back that insurance comes from somewhere. What is going to be paid for by that states and federal budget that wasn't being paid for before ? I honestly would like to hear what the logic is here.

I know what the answers could be (people getting care and avoiding more expensive treatments later), but I want to know if there is some "math" that says things are not as expensive under Obamacare as they will be without Obamacare.
If it was same this 8 year long discussion would be moot. It's not same.

ACA guarantees affordability - meaning government has to cover the costs beyond a certain % of your income. When healthy people drop out, premiums and out-of-pocket costs shoot up and government has to pick up a lot of that difference.


Here is a sample avg insurance premium cost increase vs cost increase to consumer.

O.K. so if the government picks up the costs, nobody experiences ruin.....correct ?
You are falsely thinking of it in exclusive terms, just because government pays more doesn't mean no one else is.

Subsidies are income based, so they would cover increased costs to low income people, but those that make more and are in the market have to pay more.
I was referencing those who were getting subsidies.

I should have clarrified that.
 

New Topics

Most reactions - Past 7 days

Forum List

Top