Obamacare: Even Better Than We Thought.

[AndyC]

Originally Posted by mostpost

The report that I cited does not breakdown the uninsured as to citizenship. Therefore there is no way you can tell what % are non citizens. Nine million people who were uninsured in 2010 are now insured in 2015. Make that nine million more people. No matter how you try to cook the books, that is a fact that you can not get around.

I am happy 9 million more people got health insurance. That's good. But what isn't good is the many millions more who now face either higher premiums or higher deductibles or both. Higher deductibles effectively limits a persons healthcare coverage. So not exactly a win-win.

[Clocker]

Originally Posted by AndyC

I am happy 9 million more people got health insurance. That's good. But what isn't good is the many millions more who now face either higher premiums or higher deductibles or both. Higher deductibles effectively limits a persons healthcare coverage. So not exactly a win-win.

The Dems think they have found a winner for them in the coming elections.

A different health care issue has emerged for Democrats, in sync with the party’s pitch to workers and middle-class voters ahead of next year’s elections. It’s not the uninsured, but rather the problem of high out-of-pocket costs for people already covered. Democrats call it “underinsurance.”

After paying premiums, many low- and middle-income patients still face high costs when trying to use their coverage. There’s growing concern that the value of a health insurance card is being eaten away by rising deductibles, the amount of actual medical costs that patients pay each year before coverage kicks in. ”I think it’s going to be the next big problem,” said Rep. Jim McDermott, D-Wash., a congressional leader on health care.

http://pjmedia.com/michaelwalsh/2015...-never-quit-2/

[horses4courses]

Originally Posted by Clocker

The Dems think they have found a winner for them in the coming elections.



http://pjmedia.com/michaelwalsh/2015...-never-quit-2/

A good number of Democrats would see that as a problem to be solved,
rather than an election issue. More than can be said for the other side......

[dartman51]

Originally Posted by horses4courses

A good number of Democrats would see that as a problem to be solved,
rather than an election issue. More than can be said for the other side......

NEWS FLASH!!!! NO politician, whether Repub or Dem, makes a decision without considering politics and elections. Politicians only TALK about solving problems when it's in THEIR best interest, not the public's. If you believe otherwise, then that makes you one of the low information voters, because you haven't been paying attention.

[Tom]

For democrats, everything is an election issue.
There is no other reason to do anything.
Solving problems and helping people is not on the democrat agenda.

And they don't do it so well!

[AndyC]

Originally Posted by horses4courses

A good number of Democrats would see that as a problem to be solved,
rather than an election issue. More than can be said for the other side......

What could the possible solutions be?

Limit the pay of doctors and pass along savings to patients?

Tax the rich, the fallback solution for every problem?

[mostpost]

Originally Posted by Clocker

How many of those were people that were eligible for Medicaid but never bother to sign up? Obama proudly claims those as newly insured.
The ACA made it easier to sign up for medicaid. It also made a lot more people eligible. (In states that agreed to the expansion) Those people are insured just like someone who has private insurance.

How many of those were people that could afford insurance but didn't want to buy it before the individual mandate?
How many people are stupid? Which is what you are if you can afford insurance and don't have it.

How many of those are seriously "underinsured", to the point of being virtually uninsured? How many of those can't find a doctor outside of an ER that will take them as patients because their network is tiny? How many of them put off using their insurance because they can't afford the out of pocket expenses?
A lot less than were underinsured or uninsured prior to Obamacare. NJ Stinks referenced a poll that showed 74% of those obtaining coverage through the exchanges felt they had good or excellent coverage. All you have is a few outliers to point to.

Prior to the ACA how many put off seeking treatment because they could not afford and treatment. A helluva lot more; that's how many.

Those numbers are head counts of people moved from one governmental statistical category to another. They say nothing about reality, about whether or not those people are actually getting better health care.

Ask Dave Schwartz if he is getting better care.

[mostpost]

Originally Posted by davew

What was the population change during those years...
You do understand percentages, right. Percentages take into account changes in population. In 2010 16.7% of the population was uninsured. In 2015 the number is down to 12.9%.

How many illegal foreigners that were allowed to enter and stay in this country are included....
The Affordable Care Act forbids illegals from buying insurance on the exchanges. Also, studies have shown that illegals account for less than 10% of the uninsured.

How many now are insured that are incarcerated and the premiums being paid by the city, county, state, federal that are holding them...
I don't know how that works. I know that jails and prisons have medical staff that is paid by the government entity. If outside medical procedures are required I would guess they are paid through insurance held by that government entity. I doubt if the prisoner is involved financially.



What has this done to help the homeless and hungry?
and why the insurance war on women?

Do you mean the war on women whereby women can no longer be charged higher premiums just because they are women? Or the war on women whereby they must be covered for pre and post natal care.? Or do you mean the war on women whereby regular mammograms and Pap smears are covered without deductibles or copays?

[Clocker]

Originally Posted by mostpost

Do you mean the war on women whereby women can no longer be charged higher premiums just because they are women? Or the war on women whereby they must be covered for pre and post natal care.? Or do you mean the war on women whereby regular mammograms and Pap smears are covered without deductibles or copays?

Another dead horse still getting the crap kicked out of it. Insurance is based on actuarial risk. Statistically, women collect more benefits than men, so on an actuarial basis, they should pay more. There is not a lick of common sense in making a man buy a policy with rates designed to cover the cost of natal care.

Men, on the other hand, have more auto accidents than women, and thus pay higher rates. I don't hear any libs screaming about this gender-based discrimination.

If you take the risk factor out of health insurance, it is not insurance any more, it is a welfare program with men subsidizing women. But no ACA fan boy is man enough to stand up and admit it, so they keep spewing the party line about the war on women, and that reality based rates aren't fair.

[Tom]

ACA was NEVER about health care.
It is only about re-distribution of wealth and government control over people.

There is nothing good about ACA.

[dartman51]

Originally Posted by Clocker

Another dead horse still getting the crap kicked out of it. Insurance is based on actuarial risk. Statistically, women collect more benefits than men, so on an actuarial basis, they should pay more. There is not a lick of common sense in making a man buy a policy with rates designed to cover the cost of natal care.

Men, on the other hand, have more auto accidents than women, and thus pay higher rates. I don't hear any libs screaming about this gender-based discrimination.

If you take the risk factor out of health insurance, it is not insurance any more, it is a welfare program with men subsidizing women. But no ACA fan boy is man enough to stand up and admit it, so they keep spewing the party line about the war on women, and that reality based rates aren't fair.

And, by the same token, men pay more for life insurance, than women. Always have.

[dartman51]

Originally Posted by Tom

ACA was NEVER about health care.
It is only about re-distribution of wealth and government control over people.

There is nothing good about ACA.

You are ABSOLUTELY right.

[mostpost]

Any time I hear someone talk about redistribution of wealth, I know that person is intellectually challenged. The only redistribution of wealth going on is from the poor and middle class to the very wealthy. It is not being done by the government, it is being done by the big banks and financial institutions and by the largest corporations.

[JustRalph]

Originally Posted by mostpost

Any time I hear someone talk about redistribution of wealth, I know that person is intellectually challenged. The only redistribution of wealth going on is from the poor and middle class to the very wealthy. It is not being done by the government, it is being done by the big banks and financial institutions and by the largest corporations.

once again flaunting your 80% smarter brains?

you're a joke

[sammy the sage]

[QUOTE=mostpost]Any time I hear someone talk about redistribution of wealth, I know that person is intellectually challenged. The only redistribution of wealth going on is from the poor and middle class to the very wealthy. It is not being done by the government, it is being done by the big banks and financial institutions and by the largest corporations.[/QUOTE

you write THE TRUTH...sorta...

Government IS IN bed w/ the BIG corps. banks. Fed.....so you're WRONG there...and Obama HAS protected better than ANY righty...