Join In On The Action "Register Here" To View The Forums

Already a Member Login Here

Board index Forum Index
User avatar
Administrator
 
Posts: 11284
Joined: 14 Feb 2000, 8:40 am

Post 28 Oct 2016, 6:25 am

The ACA fixed those issues

?????????
It fixed those issues for a very small part of the population and even for many of those people it was a bad "fix". Simply requiring people to have insurance is hardly a "fix" now is it? They still need to pay for something they do not want and still can not afford. The promise was to make health care affordable to all and that failed badly yet we still hear how wonderful this plan is as Freeman points out. Did it do SOME good things? Certainly! But did Stalin do SOME good things? Certainly! Overall the plan stinks badly.

If you are a fan of single payer, then you should be in favor of scrapping the current system as single payer requires it to be scrapped as well.
User avatar
Adjutant
 
Posts: 3647
Joined: 17 May 2013, 3:32 pm

Post 28 Oct 2016, 8:20 am

ACA indisputably helped people in each of those groups I mentioned. But of course most people are not in those groups. The question is do we not give a damn about the people in those groups because we may not be in those groups and don't think we are likely to be in them. If we don't give a damn about these other people than any inconvenience--financial or otherwise--caused by the ACA is a big deal. I think Americans are more generous than that and like the fact that the ACA has made health care coverage a lot more inclusive. That is why only 22% in that poll want to totally scrap the ACA.
User avatar
Statesman
 
Posts: 11324
Joined: 15 Aug 2000, 8:59 am

Post 28 Oct 2016, 9:39 am

freeman3
ACA indisputably helped people in each of those groups I mentioned

And would have helped more except for the refusal of most Republican governors to accept medicaid expansion.

fate
No one is suggesting merely repealing it

Indeed.

Republican presidential nominee Donald Trump said Thursday that if elected he will offer healthcare "plans that you don't even know about. It's going to be great.


There hasn't been a genuine plan on offer either prior to the coming of Dnald. . At least not one that holds up to scrutiny.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/pow ... e-unclear/

The underlying problem is that the goal of universal coverage, and affordability isn't possible without regulation. Health care provision is not unlike the provision of a utility like water. Everyone needs it and society has decided that everyone should have access to it even if they are destitute.
What the free market will do with any product or service is increase the price as much as the market will bear.
Since there is little elasticity in the market demand for health care.... demand will always force costs to rise, unless the market is somehow regulated.
The ACA ,regulated fairness in polcies,fiddled with the costs of the insurance industry but doesn't have the teeth required to attack the underlying causes of health care inflation. (Which national programs in Europe do, which is why health care costs are so much lower per capita)
And the republican "alternatives" don't recognize this reality either.
User avatar
Ambassador
 
Posts: 21062
Joined: 15 Jun 2002, 6:53 am

Post 28 Oct 2016, 2:10 pm

freeman3 wrote:ACA indisputably helped people in each of those groups I mentioned. But of course most people are not in those groups. The question is do we not give a damn about the people in those groups because we may not be in those groups and don't think we are likely to be in them. If we don't give a damn about these other people than any inconvenience--financial or otherwise--caused by the ACA is a big deal. I think Americans are more generous than that and like the fact that the ACA has made health care coverage a lot more inclusive. That is why only 22% in that poll want to totally scrap the ACA.


That poll was pretty worthless. The answers skewed the results. That is easy to see.

Here's a good poll question: Would you be willing to pay 25-50% more (in terms of deductibles, co-pays, and rates altogether) so that those less fortunate than you can have coverage they can afford?

That's at least as fair as the question in the poll you cited.

If we're going to have an honest conversation (nationally), then let's be honest. Democrats lied their butts off to get this thing passed. Instead, let's put everything on the table and discuss it.
User avatar
Ambassador
 
Posts: 21062
Joined: 15 Jun 2002, 6:53 am

Post 28 Oct 2016, 2:11 pm

rickyp wrote:There hasn't been a genuine plan on offer either prior to the coming of Dnald. . At least not one that holds up to scrutiny.


Oh, so we'll have to pass it to find out what's in it?

:laugh: :laugh: :laugh: :laugh:
User avatar
Ambassador
 
Posts: 15994
Joined: 15 Apr 2004, 6:29 am

Post 29 Oct 2016, 12:44 pm

Ray Jay wrote:
Doctor Fate wrote:Here's the really stupid part: Democrats expect Republicans to help them fix a flawed law they had nothing to do with AND is unpopular.

Good luck with that.


Another way of saying that is that Republicans are more interested in their partisan political gains than fixing a bad law even though it would help people to do so. (I'm not exonerating Democrats.) Republicans can't say this is YOUR mess, you fix it. Because no matter the cause it is OUR mess.

I'm not a fan of the ACA. But it is very hard to just gut an entire law that's been on the books for 6 years. Businesses have to plan accordingly and there has to be some orderly transition. This is almost 20% of our economy that we are talking about here.

This. Is. Exactly. The. Point.

The Republicans won the 2010 elections in part over this. They won the 2014 elections, too and control Congress. It is Congress' job to legislate. It is simply abandoning their responsibility to claim they can't because their predecessors of another party passed a bill seven years ago.
User avatar
Ambassador
 
Posts: 21062
Joined: 15 Jun 2002, 6:53 am

Post 29 Oct 2016, 2:55 pm

danivon wrote:
Ray Jay wrote:
Doctor Fate wrote:Here's the really stupid part: Democrats expect Republicans to help them fix a flawed law they had nothing to do with AND is unpopular.

Good luck with that.


Another way of saying that is that Republicans are more interested in their partisan political gains than fixing a bad law even though it would help people to do so. (I'm not exonerating Democrats.) Republicans can't say this is YOUR mess, you fix it. Because no matter the cause it is OUR mess.

I'm not a fan of the ACA. But it is very hard to just gut an entire law that's been on the books for 6 years. Businesses have to plan accordingly and there has to be some orderly transition. This is almost 20% of our economy that we are talking about here.

This. Is. Exactly. The. Point.

The Republicans won the 2010 elections in part over this. They won the 2014 elections, too and control Congress. It is Congress' job to legislate. It is simply abandoning their responsibility to claim they can't because their predecessors of another party passed a bill seven years ago.


Nonsense. The law is still unpopular.

So, the GOP should bail out Obama, who did nothing but stick his thumb in their eye, and take the political heat so that eventually the law might be worth a silver fig?

Nah.
User avatar
Ambassador
 
Posts: 4961
Joined: 08 Jun 2000, 10:26 am

Post 29 Oct 2016, 3:38 pm

Fate:
So, the GOP should bail out Obama


Perhaps they should bail out their fellow citizens who are suffering from this law.
User avatar
Ambassador
 
Posts: 21062
Joined: 15 Jun 2002, 6:53 am

Post 29 Oct 2016, 4:08 pm

Ray Jay wrote:Fate:
So, the GOP should bail out Obama


Perhaps they should bail out their fellow citizens who are suffering from this law.


And, who don't like the law. That's the thing.

Why mend it when you can end it? The GOP will take the good features and get rid of the rubbish.

Now, if Clinton is elected, who should the pressure be on? Her or them? Why shouldn't she bend instead of them?

It is remarkable how the Republicans are the side that always has to give in (see budget fights).

If the GOP caves, it will cease to exist.
User avatar
Statesman
 
Posts: 11324
Joined: 15 Aug 2000, 8:59 am

Post 30 Oct 2016, 2:33 pm

fate
The GOP will take the good features and get rid of the rubbish
.
And which are those?
And how will this help slow medical care inflation?
User avatar
Ambassador
 
Posts: 21062
Joined: 15 Jun 2002, 6:53 am

Post 30 Oct 2016, 5:30 pm

rickyp wrote:fate
The GOP will take the good features and get rid of the rubbish
.
And which are those?
And how will this help slow medical care inflation?


It's called "competition." You should look into it.

Obamacare has stifled competition.
User avatar
Administrator
 
Posts: 11284
Joined: 14 Feb 2000, 8:40 am

Post 31 Oct 2016, 11:25 am

no exceptions for pre-existing conditions was a good rule, it certainly does raise the cost so I understand why insurance companies did not want this but it was a good law. The IDEA that everyone needs healthcare is a valid one but this was a mess from the start and was only a band-aid at best. It was never an answer, it did little to possibly nothing to reduce costs (as was PROMISED), it's a mess to say the least. Starting new is almost certainly a better answer.
User avatar
Statesman
 
Posts: 11324
Joined: 15 Aug 2000, 8:59 am

Post 31 Oct 2016, 11:50 am

Fate
It's called "competition." You should look into it.

Where?

The basic problem is that there is no way for most consumers to shop for cheaper health care. Health care is not sold that way. It is not purchased that way. You don't say, I need an emergency appendectomy but lets go on Kajiji and shop around...
You can shop for insurance but insurance companies are stuck with the same problem that they have a hard time controlling suppliers costs... (And they have tried to actually shop their customer base from hospital to hospital).
In every other nation doctors, and pharmeceuticals are treated like the monopolies they are and national health systems negotiate compensation levels. What that ends up meaning is that average cost per procedure is many time less expensive in nations other than the US.
For example, the average cost in the U.S. for an MRI scan is $1,119, compared to $811 in New Zealand, $215 in Australia and $181 in Spain. However, data showed that the 95th percentile in the price of this procedure in the U.S. was $3,031, meaning some people are paying nearly $3,000 more for a standard MRI scan in the U.S. than the average person in Australia and Spain.

Or take a standard hip-replacement procedure. The average cost in the U.S. is $29,067, which is $10,000 more than the next highest-cost country, Australia. However, the data show that the 95th percentile cost in the U.S. reaches $57,225, $50,000 more than the average price in South Africa and $42,000 more than in New Zealand. The results for knee replacements are much the same. Sackville added that the study suggests that the more expensive procedures are no better than the average or cheap ones.


Read more: U.S. Healthcare Costs Compared to Other Countries | Investopedia http://www.investopedia.com/articles/pe ... z4OgrA2XiG

But maybe thats wrong Fate and you can explain where actual competition exists and where its proven to leaven price inflation...
User avatar
Administrator
 
Posts: 11284
Joined: 14 Feb 2000, 8:40 am

Post 31 Oct 2016, 12:10 pm

Thanks for agreeing with us Ricky!

The Obamacare plan was nothing more than requiring all people to buy insurance. The govt would put certain guarantees in place (like they must accept any pre-existing conditions) and they would even contribute some money to those with little money. Problem is, they also promised to make health care more affordable as well as increasing competition and that has never been realized. Hell, they recently announced a 25% premium increase as well as many markets now having but one supplier. NOTHING of what was promised.
User avatar
Statesman
 
Posts: 11324
Joined: 15 Aug 2000, 8:59 am

Post 31 Oct 2016, 1:59 pm

tom
The Obamacare plan was nothing more than requiring all people to buy insurance. The govt would put certain guarantees in place (like they must accept any pre-existing conditions) and they would even contribute some money to those with little money. Problem is, they also promised to make health care more affordable as well as increasing competition and that has never been realized. Hell, they recently announced a 25% premium increase as well as many markets now having but one supplier. NOTHING of what was promised

You have to compare to what was before, and what's on offer as an alternative.
It lowered the uninsured. And would have lowered it more except for republican governors who blocked medicaid expansion in their states.
It eliminated a lot of basically fraudulent insurance offerings that were unable to meet minimal standards.
And it probably lowered the medical inflation rate below what it was before the ACA. (Probably with help from the general inflation rate.)
Its still better than the status quo. Beter than the muddled offerings of republicans.
And still better than anything on offer other than medicare for all..
The pledge to eliminate the ACA would just cause chaos and harm millions.