IF Obamacare worked, would you support it?

I would keep working on the problem if you proposed killing people without adequate coverage. But that is not the scenario here. People are covered and premiums are the same or lower. Problem solved. Why keep working on a problem after it is solved "morally". I do not like seeing people continue to suffer because my principles were not met.

 

You want a discussion about philosophies. I do not. I know about all the deals that were made to get Obamacare. That is politics unfortunately.

 

The OP question is an oxymoron. Obamacare never could, doesn't and never will work.

 

The past few weeks have begun to suggest otherwise. (See: Premiums drop, coverage expands in Washington's exchange; Two Oregon insurers rethink 2014 premiums as state posts first-ever rate comparison; ObamaCare plans cheaper than expected in key rate filing)

The states that are actually trying to implement the ACA have attracted a number of competing plans, and the premium bids from insurers are coming in lower than expected (in some cases, lower than current premiums in the state, despite more robust benefit packages and new consumer protections).

People in those states will have lots of plans to choose from. Prices are now meaningful, since standardization has allowed for comparisons between plans, and that's generating new competition that's keeping premiums down (California's cheapest silver plan is nearly $2,000 below what the CBO thought it would be when they calculated the cost of the law). Markets are now beginning to work.

 

I see what you mean.

"Actually, no. We see the veiled sarcasm as what it is: one sycophantic lefty supporting another. I see no one who took bomac's words literally, and - if one has reason, wisdom and insight - it isn't hard to see what bomac believes and represents."

- - - Updated - - -

Good avatar picture.

 

Senate Democrats fleeing ‘Obamacare’

Aides and lawmakers in both parties fear that staffers — especially low-paid junior aides — could be hit with thousands of dollars in new health care costs, prompting them to seek jobs elsewhere.”

But where? Part-time workers across America are already having their hours cut so that their employers won’t have to cover the rising health care costs under Obamacare. “



http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2013/may/5/curl-democratic-rats-flee-sinking-uss-obamacare/

 

It depends entirely on what you think Obamacare was created to accomplish.


No, it will not provide affordable health for anyone. But then the PURPOSE of Obamacare, is not, and never was providing affordable health care.

Obamacare was designed to:

1] Provide many new, highly paid, very powerful, appointed, government administrator job slots.

2] Provide a new reason to raise new tax revenues, in the name of "health care", into an amorphous slush fund, which could be drawn upon for a host of political payback expenditures at need.

3] Grant a back door into controlling higher education, funding of higher education, and allowing only those loyal to the Leftist political causes as recipients of Advanced Degrees.

4] Creating an indirect mechanism for making a whole new Racial Preference Structure, associated and in control of Higher Education. This was an action, which if it had been made in the name of Racial Preference Expansion, in its own right, would have been rejected out of hand by both sides of the aisle.




Obamacare thus far has been very successful at what it was really designed to accomplish. Your problem in analyzing the Bill, is that you are foolish enough to think that it was really about achieving Health Care, it was not, is not, and never will be...


-

 

Are the moderators drunk? What the hell are they doing? I am finding THIS FORUM has too many moderators who have no clue as to what they are doing. Talking to them is like talking to a machine. Deleting that many posts lately shows that they do not care about discussions.

We are big boys. Modify the nasty words but forum are not for being PC. The Gurus seem to whine the most. I guess the old timers who lean right have been getting away with this for a long time.

If the forum wants only like-minded people to discuss things, go to a Fox blog.

 

You're preaching to the choir here. Most people don't realize how pervasive Obamacare will become. Already we see them teaming up with the IRS in order to 'qualify' people. The clueless idiots who think government can make anything better are in for a rude awakening if this boondoogle is allowed to grow.

 

What do you mean "IF" Obamacare worked? It will work exactly as intended...as another way to enrich the private insurance companies. Fascism at its best. And, no, I do not support it.

 

The problem is not solved, it has been traded in for larger problems, and at the cost of freedoms, more partisanship, and millions in new taxes..not to mention far poorer care for everyone and vast shortages in the availability of care to all. Not to mention poorer working conditions for those working in healthcare that is already beyond overwhelmed with trying to care for those already in the system.
Wouldn't a better use of all those millions in taxes and all the money to expand the evil arm of the IRS into our personal lives, be better spent in building medical schools, hospitals and clinics..scholarships for medical students and subsidies for students that are smart enough for med school, but cannot afford to pay the outrageous tuition?? You cannot force more people, by the MILLIONS even, onto an overcrowded, broken system and expect ANYONE to get decent care!! Its not possible. We have NO new providers, no new ways to get them and no new places to see them. Have you ever BEEN to a federally funded clinic?! Do you think it is even possible to spread the resources we DONT have any thinner?? People wait hours to see a provider for 5 mins. Providers work through lunch and stay late every night trying to keep up..Can someone PLEASE tell me exactly HOW we are going to take care of TWICE as many?! Seriously. I would like to know how you all think that will work.

 

It will be a train wreck, so the question is a moot point.

 

So discussing the practicality or lack thereof is discussing "philosophies" ? You are mistaken.

 

If it worked and the country could AFFORD IT at this time, yes I believe that I would support it.

 

Racial Preferences in Obama Care, Article #017

http://www.newsmax.com/Newsfront/obama-health-constitution/2009/10/18/id/335642

-

 

Kurmugeon

Key word is "may". One man's opinion does not make it true.

 

And Libel Laws and Jury Trials being what they are...

When someone is arrested in a Bank Lobby, holding a Gun, a Sack of Cash, and Covered in Purple Die, witnessed by dozens to have Screamed "Everbody Get Down, You! Put the money in the Bag!" .... we refer to him as an Alleged Perpetrator of a Bank Robbery.

-

 

Are you saying all these articles are the damning evidence or is all this stuff still just allegation?

 

The problem with the OP is the fact that just because something "works" doesn't imply it's the best solution to the problem. There were ligitimate problems addressed related to health care in America by Congress but was the ACA the best solution for them?

We can, by analogy, point to Social Security where it has averaged providing basically poverty level income for seniors since the mid-1930's. Many like to say Social Security works because a poverty level income for an old person is better than no income at all. That is hard to dispute but the problem is that it's financially unsustainable. Republicans and some Democrats today are advocating future cuts that will take a poverty level welfare program and reduce the benefits even further and that makes no sense. Social Security doesn't have a spending problem, it has a revenue problem in the future, and the problem is that workers can't afford to fund the expendatures with increases in the FICA/Payroll taxes.

The problem with the ACA is it creates unnecessary costs. For example we can all care about the uninsured with pre-existing condtions but they only accounted for about 3 million people in the entire US. That's actually less than 1% of all Americans and it would have been far less expensive to just cover them under Medicaid than the mandates of the ACA. Under the ACA about 30 million people are expected to pay for the costs of the "uninsured with pre-existing conditions" as opposed to all Americans carrying the burden of this expense. We could also have addressed the wrongful termination of benefits because of pre-existing conditions where insurance companies dropped coverage that would have reduced the 3 million identified by studies. Many things could have been done that would have been more cost effective in dealing with the uninsured with pre-existing condtions but instead the most costly means of dealing with them was incorporated in the ACA legislation. It might "work" but it wasn't the best solution.

 

Well, you can set up a thread to discuss that. The problem here is that too many avoid the OP. People give reasons why they have been opposing Obamacare but they seldom explain why they would be against something that works. I know that Obamacare was not the best solution (Single Payer would have been) but I supported Obamacare. Now people are being asked "if Obamacare works, would you support it?" With the all the complaints by the right about government not working, why would people be against something that is working?

but the problem is that it's (SS) financially unsustainable

It is solvent now. We see what it has accomplished over those 80 years. Some want to go back to a country without SS for future generations. Why wouldn't we end up with the same problems in the future that caused SS in the first place? We have made adjustments to SS before to prolong the solvency. Why? Because it was working. We can make adjustments now to prolong the solvency but the longer we wait, the impact will hurt more. We have been kicking the problem down the road since 2000. There are solutions out there that will prolong the solvency and, maybe, correct the problem permanently. The sooner we start, the more chance that it will be permanent.

The problem with the ACA is it creates unnecessary costs.

I do not see unnecessary costs. Why shouldn't those who stayed out of the system and caused the increase in premiums for others by not paying their share and by increasing our share when they need healthcare - pay into the system? We are tired of their selfishness. We did address the pre-existing conditions by expanding the insurers' pool.

 

Once again I question what the term "working" implies. As noted many things can "work" but are cost prohibitive. For example we could ban all gasoline cars and only allow electric cars to end automotive air pollution but the people can't typically afford electric cars with price tags in the $40,000 to $80,000 range.

Single-payer systems have, to my knowledge, fundamentally failed and the UK is an example. They tried a single-payer system but it only "works" if a person also has private insurance today. Canada has tried it but try getting elective surgery in Canada today. Canadians that want elective surgery typically come to the US because it can take forever in Canada.

In the US we've had Medicare and Medicaid since the mid-1960's and most private clinics won't accept new patients that have Medicare/Medicaid insurance. In WA where I live a study a couple of years ago reported that only 4% of private clinics would accept a Medicare/Medicaid patient. "Insurance" is worthless if no one accepts it or if it results in substandard care.

And, dispite opinions to the contrary, SS is still going to fail in the future just as it was projected to fail in 1985 when Congress raised the FICA/Payroll taxes that built the surplus that is being used today. I would also argue that a welfare program that only averages $15K/yr and requires about 1/2 of all recepients to also receive welfare is a failure. The problem identified in 1935 was that 1/2 of the people didn't invest so that they would accumulate enough in assets to generate income during retirement. Congress didn't address the "problem" of a lack of personal asset accumulation but instead addressed the symptom which was a lack of income. The same amount of money collected in FICA/Payroll taxes and invested by the individual would provide a minimum of 5-times the retirement income for the person based upon the history of diversified and age-adjusted investments over the last 45 years. The problem with Social Security is that it didn't address the problem and we can't afford even a poverty level retirement welfare program based upon the current financial projections for Social Security. By 2085 there will only be enough revenue to pay 75% of the benefits paid today so either FICA/Payroll taxes need to be increased by 33% or benefits will be decreased by 25%. That would be like the half of those on SS receiving less than $11,000 per year today.

Since the ACA isn't a cost effective solution I don't see how it can ever be determined to be "working" as there were far more cost effective solutions to the few problems it addressed. In fact, in many cases, it resulted in a dramatic rise in costs such as those related to prescription drugs where the Democrats sold their souls to the drug companies.

 

Your knowledge would be wrong. I do believe that every Single Payer system would allow private insurance for anything not considered "necessary medical care". If you have the money, you can pay for the frills that you want. Elective surgery (surgery that is not essential, especially surgery to correct a condition that is not life-threatening; surgery that is not required for survival. See also cosmetic surgery) does not affect survival rates and is not necessary medical care. Single Payer systems have drastically reduced paperwork and eliminate wasteful procedures. That is why these countries pay LESS for their healthcare but they do not stop people from paying for their unnecessary care.

In the US we've had Medicare and Medicaid since the mid-1960's and most private clinics won't accept new patients that have Medicare/Medicaid insurance

If private clinics want to charge more, why should the taxpayer pay for that?

SS is still going to fail in the future just as it was projected to fail in 1985 when Congress raised the FICA/Payroll taxes that built the surplus that is being used today. I would also argue that a welfare program that only averages $15K/yr and requires about 1/2 of all recepients to also receive welfare is a failure. The problem identified in 1935 was that 1/2 of the people didn't invest so that they would accumulate enough in assets to generate income during retirement

Ok, you are back with SS. Take away the wage cap and give benefits based on income will correct the problem. Why should Reagan, Romney, Gates and Buffett get SS benefits? Your second point is a little confusing but I will assume that you consider SS a "welfare program". I am not sure about your 15k figure but I'll go with it. Yes the problem identified in 1935 was about investing for the future. You complain that people don't invest but ignore the reason why they do not invest. SS forced them to invest because changing human nature is very hard. How can you complain about people not investing and, then complain about a program that makes them invest? You want people to invest and to do it responsibly. By your own statements, you say 1/2 did not invest in 1935. Why do you think that it would be different today? Nobody is stopping those with money from investing their surplus. Without SS, the problems would come back and again we would have to decide whether it is our responsibility to help people invest and to help people who cannot invest enough. You would just put a higher price tag on that in the future.

Of course, if you prefer people starving and dying, my argument is mute.

Since the ACA isn't a cost effective solution I don't see how it can ever be determined to be "working" .

Not the question of the OP. You ASSUME that, because ACA isn't the best way, it can't work. That is a different discussion and just your prediction.

 

In addition to providing for the estimated 3 million individuals that have pre-existing conditions but no insurance "Obamacare's" goal was to reduce the costs of health care but there's a fundamenal failure related to this. Overwhelmingly individuals need primary care physcians for normal office visits and using "insurance" for these visits isn't cost effective when addressing private clinics.

http://finance.yahoo.com/news/obamacare-driving-doctors-stop-taking-221939584.html

Handling insurnance paperwork and billing is a "non-value-added" expense that doesn't benefit the patient. It has nothing to do with providing care for the person and yet this singular expense represents over 1/2 the billing costs for the health services provided. A typical office visit costs about $120 at the clinic I use and over 1/2 of that is just to pay for the clerical staff handing the insurance paperwork that is completely unrelated to providing any care to the patient.

This over doubling of the cost of the actual medical services provided is true for any insurance paid medical services and, as noted, it's going to get worse under the ACA.

Is there a solution? Absolutely and it's applicable whether there is insurance or not. If the person pays "out-of-pocket" for this small expendature related to normal office visits the cost of the medical services could be cut in half. Instead of $120 for the visit the patient would only need to pay $60. If they have insurance then the patient could submit the bill to the insurance company and take care of collecting reimbursement for the costs eliminating the costs to the medical providers and the cost of health care. The insurance company could actually pay 100% of the lower costs of health care instead of the typical 80% and still save money (i.e. 80% of $120 is $96).

Insurance should never be used for typical services that the individual can afford because of the huge increases in the costs of services because of overhead expendatures to administer the insurance. Insurance should only be used for costs that are beyond the ability of the individual to pay out of pocket. Even if insurance is used for small expendatures it is far more cost effective to have the individual bill the insurance company than to have the medical provider employ people to do the billing.

The mandate under the ACA for insurance to pay for routine doctors visits is an automatic "failure" because, like with any insurance, it over doubles the costs of the health care services for routine medical care. The goal of "reducing the costs of health care" cannot be met under the ACA because it is ignoring the fact that the primary costs are unrelated to providing the health care but instead are the overhead expendatures for the medical provider to deal with insurance.

To "work" a program has to meet the goals established for it and the ACA is actually increasing the "non-value-added" costs to healthcare, increasing overall costs, as opposed to reducing them which was a stated goal.

 

Unlikely, even if the ACA had competitive pricing in the market and comparable coverage to what you get from market solutions or even the hybrid system we had before you still miss the hidden fee's of legislators and bureaucrats. Even if you solved these problems you'll find that you lose on having more health care options and providers who provide quality service and the opportunity to shop driving more new solutions in health care.

so the answer is no.

 

As has been shown with California's release of the costs for insurance under the "private exchanges" the costs are not comparable to private insurance. It was projected that the costs for the ACA's insurance exchanges would be between $6,000 to $7000 when the ACA was passed while private insurance was typically under $4000 at the time. Today the costs of private insurance have topped $4000 and California's pricing of over $6000 still reflects much higher costs than private insurance for the same coverage.

Please note that just because a person might receive a government subsidy it doesn't reduce the actually cost of the "insurance" under the ACA. It just means that taxpayers are sharing the costs with the person.

So the criteria of "lower or roughly equal premiums and at least a similar amount of healthcare provision" has already failed because the insurance exchanges are charging much higher premiums for the same healthcare provisions based upon the costs established by the California exchanges.