Biggest ''problem'' with ACA --- it is expanding much to the great displeasure of the forum right wingers: Good Obamacare news: UnitedHealthcare jumps into market http://www.dailykos.com/story/2014/...acare-news-UnitedHealthcare-jumps-into-market more coverage more lives saved LESS cost
They went unregulated for decades so I guess I would have to answer, both of them. Which is why I am neither Dem or Repub.
Yea...do you have any concrete evidence that it has "LESS cost"? NO. Do you have any evidence that there will be more lives saved? NO. Do you have any evidence for anything you say, or do you just talk out of your ass on this forum? The fact is, premiums are rising, deductibles are rising, and while the amount spent on healthcare may decrease, it is not because of an improved healthcare system, but because people don't want to pay the exorbitant amounts that the federal government needs to run our healthcare system.
Well the biggest reason for high healthcare costs is an inability for people to take responsibility. Responsibility for their health and their lives. Now, some people are obviously victims of circumstance, but what's caused healthcare costs to soar is the rising cost of malpractice insurance. Because people don't want to take responsibility when they CHOOSE to go to a doctor, doctors have to pay an insane amount of money to insure against malpractice suits. Those costs are shifted to consumers, and it has a huge impact on rising healthcare costs. The government should have covered tort reform before implementing a new healthcare system. That alone could have cushioned the prices of healthcare.
I have already posted several links which show costs have been reduced. Click on search. - - - Updated - - - and 45,000 would still be dying every year due to lack of health care coverage - this much to the delight of the radical far right
Yea...this is the second time I've asked you a direct question, and your response was "look at my other posts". If you're going to argue on this forum, please post reliable sources, and be prepared to adequately defend your position with evidence. I've looked at a few other posts of yours, and all of them are biased news articles, not solid evidence of your point. The fact is, nobody knows what the true economic costs of Obamacare is, and while I'm sure sick people will benefit greatly from it, healthy people are going to have to pay more to support them. Also, with Obama arbitrarily changing and altering the law without the consent of congress, there's no telling what the end costs are going to be to consumers and society as a whole.
The biggest problem with the ACA is that it is a violent intervention into our human rights. Get the gun out of the room and we'll talk.
There are no studies that show the cost of "providing" health care have been reduced. Only that some people, mainly those getting taxpayer subsidy MAY be paying less than they could have paid for coverage. Period. The cost of "providing health care" and the cost of health insurance are two very different things. Get it Mr. Truth? The cost of providing care is still rising while the payments to providers for that care continues to decrease year after year.
I thought I answered the problem and no hands down. The biggest problem is that it was passed by a Congress that could not care less about what the people wanted. 1. The overwhelming majority didn't want obamacare(less). 2. The overwhelming majority doesn't want anything to do with obamacare(less). 3. The overwhelming majority will never want anything to with obamacare(less). Those are 3 of the most important reasons against obamacare(less).
But costs have gone up and far higher than previously under the reasonable costs before hand. obamacare is a joke.
I have concrete evidence. I personally have saved about $30,000 in health care premiums for far better coverage over the six years that I have had Romneycare in Massachusetts, which is the same thing as Obamacare. My premiums have gone down since the state switched over to Obamacare. If you want to talk about exorbitant amounts spent on health care, the government already pays for half of all the health care provided in the US but does it with 20% of the money. This means that the private sector pays for half the health care in the US with 80% of the money. If the government just took the whole thing over it would cost everyone a lot less money.
I believe I've answered this. The biggest problem with obamacare(less) is that it was passed while the overwhelming majority didn't want it, doesn't want it and will never want it. That's the biggest problem of obamacare(less)
45,000 dead Americans every year thanks to Republicans is an evil that not only intrudes into people's lives, it causes death. ACA saves lives. If Jesus was here today he'd be very pleased with that.
You should look up the difference between "concrete evidence" and "anecdotal evidence". You gave an EXCELLENT example of anecdotal evidence supporting your claim, unfortunately, that doesn't mean anything to me. When I say "concrete" I suppose I should be more specific and say empirical. Also, while the government MAY cost people less money by taking over healthcare, that does not give any indication that they will provide GOOD healthcare for a lower price. In fact, most government agencies are clogged up by inefficiencies. Could you imagine having to wait months for the government to figure out if they should give you surgery or not? Unfortunately, in some countries, this has cost lives while people waited for healthcare. I live in Washington, where people often come from Canada just to get health services that are unavailable in Canada. Your statement about government spending 20% of the money for half the healthcare is flat-out wrong. According to the CMS, the government spent a total of $572 billion on medicare, and $471 billion on medicaid in 2012. That gives a (minimum) grand total of $1.043 trillion spent on healthcare by the federal government. Contrast that to the $917 billion spent on private health insurance, and you can easily see that the government spends more than the public sector does on insurance. This means that the government is responsible for about 53% of medical expenditures, not 20% as you claim. However, if you read further on in the report, which I will include at the bottom, it says that the government was only responsible for 26% of healthcare spending, with 21% of the spending coming from private businesses. So, the government is responsible for 5% more healthcare spending, but they spend 13% more than the private sector does for that healthcare. Now, to be fair, these are HUGE numbers, and obviously there are generalizations of some sort, and to be fair to you, state and local governments covered 18% of healthcare, although their expenditures are not covered in the report. However, overall, your claim that "the government already pays for half of all the health care provided in the US but does it with 20% of the money. This means that the private sector pays for half the health care in the US with 80% of the money." Is flatout WRONG. Here is the healthcare study from the CMS (center for medicare and medicaid services) that shows all the facts I have given above. An example of concrete, or empirical, evidence.
is obvious that you don't know the difference between Health Insurance/Health insurance coverage and the continued rising premiums and the cost of providing health care. It is two different topics. The cost of Health Insurance premiums and benefits, out of pocket and deductible of this coverage has a direct effect on the cost of providing health care. I would say that the cost of providing health care has less to do with insurance costs then it does with the rising cost of doing business, rising government regulation, HHS mandates including EHR's which are very costly and very time consuming for the doctors. For many that had affordable coverage the PPACA has caused them to lose the coverage and force them to purchased more costly coverage that requires them to pay for benefits they will never need to use; or apply for Medicaid if they earn to little to qualify for a subsidy. Many are that don't owe federal income tax are choosing to not purchase health insurance and since they earn too little are not subject to the penalty and since they owe no income tax IRS is not able to charge them a penalty. There is still a huge number of uninsured that seek emergency room care. Care that those of us paying for private health insurance are still bearing the cost for. We also are still paying for illegals that present to the emergency rooms. So, the, "YOU LIE", comment turns out to be correct. We will continue to pay for the uninsureds/illegals seeking emergency room care PLUS, now we will also be paying to subsidize those that qualify for subsidy and we will pay the increased costs of expanding Medicaid. All around, the taxpayer loses, those that have private health insurance lose, small businesses lose. Tell me who you think the winners are? And, wouldn't we have been better off putting those with pre-existing conditions and those that earned below the poverty level on medicare? A new Medicare program, perhaps called part F, that offered low cost medical coverage subsidized by us the taxpayer? It would cost far far less than the current PPACA act.
Now add the number of lives saved to the equation and the increased productivity to society as a result of their return to work. I have already presented links to Facebook of testimonials of people by the thousands saying their lives have been saved. Take a look for yourself and see that there is a cost benefit to saving these lives that we did not have under Republican "care".
The biggest problem with ACA is that contrary to the lies of the far right, it is working and ever expanding: Another big boost for Obamacare Source: Washington Post By Greg Sargent August 28 at 3:40 PM In another sign that the politics of Obamacare continue to shift, the Medicaid expansion is now all but certain to come to another big state whose Republican governor had previously resisted it: Pennsylvania. The federal government has approved Pennsylvania Governor Tom Corbett’s application for the state’s own version of the Medicaid expansion, without a handful of the conditions Corbett had hoped to impose, Dem sources tell me. Corbett just announced that he will accept the expansion that has been offered, perhaps with some last-minute changes — expanding coverage and subsidies to as many as half a million people. This comes after months of jockeying between Corbett and the federal government. Corbett had pushed for a version of the expansion that would have imposed various conditions designed to make it more palatable to conservatives and to achieve political distance from Obamacare — while simultaneously taking all that federal money. Among them: Using the cash to pay for private coverage for the poor. -snip- Read more: http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/plum-line/wp/2014/08/28/another-big-boost-for-obamacare/
ACA expanding to Tennessee: Neighboring the nation's two biggest Obamacare success stories has apparently made Republican Gov. Bill Haslam in Tennessee reconsider his refusal of Medicaid expansion under the law. Arkansas and Kentucky lead the nation in reducing the number of uninsured people in their states, largely because they accepted the expansion. Haslam appears to want in on the action now. This would be the first time for the governor to actually submit a plan. If approved by federal officials and the state legislature, the plan would help Tennesseans caught in the coverage gap of the Affordable Care Act, which has left 162,000 Tennesseans without health insurance, according to the Kaiser Family Foundation. In March 2013, Haslam ruled out expansion of a traditional Medicaid model and said he favored a plan to leverage federal funds to, instead, help the poor buy private health insurance. Haslam said then that a "Tennessee Plan" should require copayments, which traditional Medicaid does not, so people would have "some skin in the game." Now he's saying that the state could submit an application for a waiver in the program in the fall. It would follow the Arkansas model for expansion, using the public funds to subsidize purchase of private plans for the new enrollees. Haslam is going to have to convince his Republican legislature to go along with the plan, and that could lead him to craft a program that the federal government would reject. A very recent example is Pennsylvania, which just announced a deal with the federal government to expand the program. There's only so far the administration will go to work with a Republican governor on Medicaid. In Gov. Tom Corbett's case, the administration refused to tie Medicaid enrollment to employment, restricting the program to people who have jobs or are actively looking for one. Haslam's idea to force copays from the newly eligible Medicaid recipients could be rejected, too. Iowa tried to impose premiums on people who earned more than 50 percent of the federal poverty line, and that was denied. The White House isn't going to be willing to create an unreasonable financial burden on low-income people. Haslam is in the place a growing number of Republican governors—recognizing that Obamacare is increasingly less toxic, and that rejecting the money that is helping a lot of people and providing an economic boon to states is pretty politically damaging. http://www.dailykos.com/story/2014/...tate-up-for-Medicaid-expansion-nbsp-Tennessee Why is it expanding? Because it is working!
There is a problem with trying to repeal it this: 27 States Expanded or Will Expand Medicaid x 2 Senators per State = 54 Seats out of 100 Seats = Safe from Repeal (Unless five Senators turn on the best interests and will of the States they represent not very likely.) You do understand the math at this point and in the House they can likely put up a fight.
Republicans causing 45,000 deaths? I don't think so. Nice try. It was the Federal Government after WWII that asked employers to provide Health Insurance to employees. Making it virtually an employer based program. Employers provided Insurance as an employment benefit. By doing so hundreds of thousands of employees and their families were covered by heath insurance. It worked fine until unemployment rose and federal regulations caused premiums to increase along with new surgical procedures, tests and drugs. All contributing to increased costs to provide health care, resulting in higher premiums. Then came an increase in Malpractice lawsuits. Some real and some not.(an increase in fraudulent suits). These legal costs contributed to a further increase in the cost of providing health care and resulted in higher premiums.
All I seem to be reading is medicaid, medicaid, medicaid. What about those of us who now have to pay drastically increased premiums and deductibles? The ACA is nothing but a huge wealth distribution program. Those of us have get no subsidy will be paying extra so others can get medicaid and subsidies. It's a huge burden on already stretched middle class families. My family has private insurance right now in the state of Louisiana. My current company has decided to extend my coverage through the end of the year but after Dec. 31st, my policy can no longer exist. It's a great policy and we've had it for years...... but we can't keep it, mostly because there is no maternity coverage, which we didn't need anyway. Looking at our new options that are compliant with the ACA, our premiums will be increasing by several hundred dollars monthly only to have far less coverage in the sense that our deductibles will be completely ridiculous and out of reach. To go up to the silver plan just makes it completely unaffordable and we won't even mention the gold plans. We are self employed and have our oldest child beginning college and he works a part time job. So when figuring out if we could qualify for any subsidy, our sons part time income has to be included in our household income. He barely makes enough to cover car insurance, gas to get back and forth to school and work, and the occasional lunch, but yet his income is supposed to also help cover our health insurance. This is beyond ridiculous and the worst part if there is no company competitive since all the private companies now have to follow the new rules. We don't have a choice, we are stuck trying to figure out how to pay this huge monthly increase for poor coverage. We really don't know what to do, but we do know we will have to sell our house soon because all the increased costs lately are just becoming too much to stay here. So please stop telling me how this is helping medicaid patients and low income families. It is helping them at the expense of families like mine who are left to cover their bills.
Only a very limited amount of employers provided that type of health care coverage - those who could afford to do so on their 1120 corporate tax forms. And most of those employees are elite suburbanites. With ACA 20 million more are covered - this means billions of dollars and thousands of lives are saved every day.
