Obamacare has resulted in better overall health... Go figure

[Triple_D_Bet]

single payer isn't "socialism". it simply fires for profit insurers and makes the government the insurer. you still get to choose what private sector doctor you want to go to.

it's more simply understood as medicare for all. it's wildly popular with the majority of voters. as evidenced by the rest of the world: we would cut the cost in half and cover everyone. that way tens of thousands of people per/year weren't dying from preventable shit just because they can't go to a doctor.



who cares? i'm sure prison industrial complex has stock has been increasing. that doesn't matter. some industries should not have a profit motive.



um............ no. i'll tell you what would be next: we'd spend less on health care, have better outcomes, and spur a ton of entrepreneurship.

single payer isn't "socialism".

It's funny how all the people who claim they know what's best for business never seem to be running a business....you'd think with the tremendous insight they picked up from wherever they got their opinions, they'd simply enter the market and do it better instead of trying to force companies to do what they want. Alternative theory? They can't do so, because they're full of it

you must lack the ability to read. all the empirical evidence show that obamacare is a considerable upgrade over what we had.

if you even have the intellect to explain this: i'd like to know why conservatives burden businesses with the hassle of insuring their employees when we could "unburden" business to "create jobs" if the government handled insurance? why do you insist on unnecessary burdens to business?

The "burden" of insuring a person is the responsibility of exactly one party: that person. If they have skills to get a job with coverage, or have family who helps them out, or have voluntary charity coverage, it's still their responsibility. While many of us morally support voluntarily providing a basic level of healthcare for those who can't afford it, there is no right to healthcare; people aren't owed the time or resources of a doctor, nurse or taxpayer just because they don't make enough for the coverage they want.

10-20% difference in opinion polls when it's referred to as the Affordable Care Act vs. Obamacare.

Even greater % when people are polled on specifics of the act vs. the name of it.

As much as I dislike the ACA, I think the blatant partisanship surrounding it is even worse...people root for their party the same way they root for a football team, and with less reason

No, you're correct, nothing worth discussing is usually over with in a few sentences. Otherwise, what's the point?

At some point, in anything whether it's economics and welfare, science and global warming, regulation and Enron, Medical Care and ACA, it's going to result in long posts or deep discussion. And that's not a bad thing in fact, it's a great thing. Everything just previously mentioned is very complex and there are multitude upon multitude of variables that make possibilities with each nearly endless, there's just a lot to cover. And you probably just scratched the surface.

ANyways, thanks for the insight and effort, I for one appreciate it.

[scumbag]

there is no right to healthcare

of course healthcare is a basic human right. life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. w/o adequate health care you have none of those.

the rest of the industrialized world recognizes it as a basic human right. i wonder why you're so out of touch with what the rest of the world thinks basic human rights are?

[chipper]

I thank God everyday for the ACA. Being self employed with a wife with pre-existing conditions, we would be uninsured without it. Thanks Obama!

[scumbag]

chipper- what's your view on the GOP as a result of their war on ACA? how do you view democrats as a result of ACA? how closely do you follow politics? how long was your wife w/o insurance pre-obamacare?

[jjgold]

its over priced

people that work pay for lazy minorities

[GIVEMETHEMONEY]

bull shit. get a fukking life scumbag and quit writing about lies!

you must be a demonazicommiefukkupcrappy!

[jtoler]

ACA or die.

[THE_LOCKSMITH]

its over priced

people that work pay for lazy minorities

[Triple_D_Bet]

of course healthcare is a basic human right. life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. w/o adequate health care you have none of those.

the rest of the industrialized world recognizes it as a basic human right. i wonder why you're so out of touch with what the rest of the world thinks basic human rights are?

No. You do not have the right to force someone else to give you something or provide for you. Declaring it a right doesn't make it so, and it violates the principle of what a right is. Exercising a right can't interfere with someone else's rights; trying to force someone to give you their property (goods or services) because you don't have enough is theft, nothing more.

I'm "out of touch" with what many think because they're too busy with their lives or too apathetic to think it through and realize the error of their beliefs.

chipper- what's your view on the GOP as a result of their war on ACA? how do you view democrats as a result of ACA? how closely do you follow politics? how long was your wife w/o insurance pre-obamacare?

Spoiler alert: anecdotal evidence isn't.

Of course, everyone crying that without the ACA, pre-existing conditions weren't covered could have opted to voluntarily chip in their own money and provide coverage for them, and maybe try to prove the feasibility of their claims that it's best for all along the way. Instead and as is almost always the case, they insist on spending mostly other people's money, and think that a majority vote makes robbery noble. Stealing from people to try to do good with it isn't a virtue, and not learning from the pattern of unintended (but predictable) consequences of previous redistribution attempts proves the true intellectual laziness of those supporting more of the failed policies

[rkelly110]

No. You do not have the right to force someone else to give you something or provide for you. Declaring it a right doesn't make it so, and it violates the principle of what a right is. Exercising a right can't interfere with someone else's rights; trying to force someone to give you their property (goods or services) because you don't have enough is theft, nothing more.

I'm "out of touch" with what many think because they're too busy with their lives or too apathetic to think it through and realize the error of their beliefs.



Spoiler alert: anecdotal evidence isn't.

Of course, everyone crying that without the ACA, pre-existing conditions weren't covered could have opted to voluntarily chip in their own money and provide coverage for them, and maybe try to prove the feasibility of their claims that it's best for all along the way. Instead and as is almost always the case, they insist on spending mostly other people's money, and think that a majority vote makes robbery noble. Stealing from people to try to do good with it isn't a virtue, and not learning from the pattern of unintended (but predictable) consequences of previous redistribution attempts proves the true intellectual laziness of those supporting more of the failed policies

Pre the year 2000, employers offered free major medical. If you needed hospitalization or having a baby, it was
covered. Doctor visits were less than $50. All of a sudden, BAM, employees were blasted with $200 a month
insurance payments with no raise in pay to compensate.

Sure, if you didn't have kids or a family you could opt out. Point is, how could the insurance companies MAKE
us pay those high rates? Not just us, employers also. Who made them God?

Now doctor visits are 3 times higher, the insurance companies can raise rates on a whim, cover who THEY wanted.
Now we are paying $500 a month for cheap coverage.

You don't think that's wrong for one industry to over take a whole country unregulated? The ACA is reeling them in.
That's a good thing don't ya think?

[Triple_D_Bet]

Pre the year 2000, employers offered free major medical. If you needed hospitalization or having a baby, it was
covered. Doctor visits were less than $50. All of a sudden, BAM, employees were blasted with $200 a month
insurance payments with no raise in pay to compensate.

Sure, if you didn't have kids or a family you could opt out. Point is, how could the insurance companies MAKE
us pay those high rates? Not just us, employers also. Who made them God?

Now doctor visits are 3 times higher, the insurance companies can raise rates on a whim, cover who THEY wanted.
Now we are paying $500 a month for cheap coverage.

You don't think that's wrong for one industry to over take a whole country unregulated? The ACA is reeling them in.
That's a good thing don't ya think?

They don't make you pay it; they set the price, and you either pay it or don't. The immense regulation even pre-ACA keeps the pricing high, and limits competitive options. If you don't like the price someone sets for a service, don't buy it; if you think it can or should be done cheaper, get in the industry and prove it (and make some money along the way). Don't use force to try to make people run their businesses the way you assume they should work...aside from not respecting their rights, it doesn't work; they'll figure a way around it, as they're currently doing.

[rkelly110]

They don't make you pay it; they set the price, and you either pay it or don't. The immense regulation even pre-ACA keeps the pricing high, and limits competitive options. If you don't like the price someone sets for a service, don't buy it; if you think it can or should be done cheaper, get in the industry and prove it (and make some money along the way). Don't use force to try to make people run their businesses the way you assume they should work...aside from not respecting their rights, it doesn't work; they'll figure a way around it, as they're currently doing.

That's the problem, there is/ was no regulation, they could charge whatever they want.

Yes, employers were struggling to find cheaper plans for their employees, but it's gotten out of hand. Along came
the ACA and because Obama put it forth and behind closed doors, employers said a big FU and cut hours so they
are disqualified for insurance. Now, wasn't that just so nice of them?

Instead of raising the price of their goods $.25 a pizza (Papa Johns), they fuk their employees. What does that say
about our mighty businesses?

I like the Repubs idea of buying insurance across state lines. It will open up the free market, which creates
competition and will bring down costs for everyone. Instead of trying to repeal 50 times, maybe add to the
plan, make it better.

[stevenash]

How many people have died because Obama took their health care away?

[spro23]

Obamacare is a bachelor tax on young men, forcing us to pay a higher rate than necessary so women can get pills and abortions on-demand.

women use more healthcare, even women without children. Hence they pay higher rates. Obama changed that so men are stuck with the bill. Any man who trusts government is a fool

[brooks85]

How many people have died because Obama took their health care away?

you're thinking of the VA



obamacare death panels haven't started yet. Try to keep up, not that hard. Or if it is, consider that a reality check for your intellect.

[scumbag]

No. You do not have the right to force someone else to give you something or provide for you. Declaring it a right doesn't make it so, and it violates the principle of what a right is. Exercising a right can't interfere with someone else's rights; trying to force someone to give you their property (goods or services) because you don't have enough is theft, nothing more.

lol libertarians! do even empathy, bro?

[Big Bear]

check out these giants

[Triple_D_Bet]

That's the problem, there is/ was no regulation, they could charge whatever they want.

Yes, employers were struggling to find cheaper plans for their employees, but it's gotten out of hand. Along came
the ACA and because Obama put it forth and behind closed doors, employers said a big FU and cut hours so they
are disqualified for insurance. Now, wasn't that just so nice of them?

Instead of raising the price of their goods $.25 a pizza (Papa Johns), they fuk their employees. What does that say
about our mighty businesses?

I like the Repubs idea of buying insurance across state lines. It will open up the free market, which creates
competition and will bring down costs for everyone. Instead of trying to repeal 50 times, maybe add to the
plan, make it better.

There was and is tons of regulation in the healthcare market, compared to which the ACA is barely a drop in the bucket. Medical device restrictions, labyrinthine regulations on what you can or can't claim, out-of-control lawsuits...all have a hand in creating the mess in healthcare that doesn't exist elsewhere.

Cutting hours and cost-avoidance strategies for businesses were pretty predictable; again, you can't force businesses to voluntarily operate for less profit than they want to. You might prefer they raise their prices, but I prefer to not subsidize unconditionally. If you want to do so, that's the beautiful thing about not forcing everyone to pay: you're free to spend that quarter on providing healthcare to those who can't afford it. Do you consider it more unethical of a company to reduce costs (considering a company's main reason for existing is to generate a profit for owners), or for the government to steal from everyone to fund what a bare majority want?

Republicans are taking an almost entirely partisan approach to the ACA; I support any of them (or others) who argue against it for reasons of government overreach and anti-liberty, but they're just against it because it wasn't their idea (this time). yet another example of people treating politics like a 2-team sport leading to a loss for everyone

[Triple_D_Bet]

lol libertarians! do even empathy, bro?

I have plenty of empathy; as I've made clear in the responses you're probably not reading carefully, I agree with the sentiments behind many of these programs (giving money to help those less fortunate). However, I'm not willing to steal from others to do it...and your willingness to do so invalidates any moral high ground you try to take. Being generous with stolen money is hardly a virtue.

[AchillesTG]

And meanwhile, my families insurance that is not subsidized by the taxpayers continues to increase in cost substantially.

So have you been paying for a "non-qualified policy" that will never pay? Are you just throwing money down a rat hole or are you in the 50yr old doughnut hole?

I have Company Insurance. ACA says Insurance Companies cannot deny due to pre-existing conditions. Well, Insurance Companies already figured that out!

Since everything was below my deductible, I had to make cash prices with providers just to save my life.
I had throat cancer surgery with a $3000 Deductible. Baylor Medical outpatient surgery cut me a cash deal for $1300 for the surgical clinic. The MRI cash price was $500 instead of $1500.

My total throat cancer surgery cost me $5500 out of pocket.

My Insurance Company said the Surgical Center was only worth $400, MRI $200, ENT Specialist for surgery $80. They only deducted $700 from my deductible.

I filed a formal complaint with the Company and State Insurance Commissioner.

I received a letter from my Insurance Company, that I may be sued by Baylor Medical and my ENT. Let us know if you need some help.

Just like hackers, they will always find a way around the rules.

[rkelly110]

So have you been paying for a "non-qualified policy" that will never pay? Are you just throwing money down a rat hole or are you in the 50yr old doughnut hole?

I have Company Insurance. ACA says Insurance Companies cannot deny due to pre-existing conditions. Well, Insurance Companies already figured that out!

Since everything was below my deductible, I had to make cash prices with providers just to save my life.
I had throat cancer surgery with a $3000 Deductible. Baylor Medical outpatient surgery cut me a cash deal for $1300 for the surgical clinic. The MRI cash price was $500 instead of $1500.

My total throat cancer surgery cost me $5500 out of pocket.

My Insurance Company said the Surgical Center was only worth $400, MRI $200, ENT Specialist for surgery $80. They only deducted $700 from my deductible.

I filed a formal complaint with the Company and State Insurance Commissioner.

I received a letter from my Insurance Company, that I may be sued by Baylor Medical and my ENT. Let us know if you need some help.

Just like hackers, they will always find a way around the rules.

That's right Achillies, I forgot about that part of the ACA. Many people owed, and went bankrupt because of
themselves or a loved one being hospitalized. The ACA limits the amount out of pocket one has to pay so
people don't go bankrupt.

Like the IRS, they WILL get their money! The ACA limits that.

Look, we are all on this planet together, maybe look out for one another, by pooling our money together.
Instead of looking at that guy and saying he's beneath me, fuk him.

[Triple_D_Bet]

That's right Achillies, I forgot about that part of the ACA. Many people owed, and went bankrupt because of
themselves or a loved one being hospitalized. The ACA limits the amount out of pocket one has to pay so
people don't go bankrupt.

Like the IRS, they WILL get their money! The ACA limits that.

Look, we are all on this planet together, maybe look out for one another, by pooling our money together.
Instead of looking at that guy and saying he's beneath me, fuk him.

"Pooling your money together" by force is more accurately labeled as "taking people's stuff cause you want it", or "stealing" for short

[brooks85]

That's right Achillies, I forgot about that part of the ACA. Many people owed, and went bankrupt because of
themselves or a loved one being hospitalized. The ACA limits the amount out of pocket one has to pay so
people don't go bankrupt.

Like the IRS, they WILL get their money! The ACA limits that.

Look, we are all on this planet together, maybe look out for one another, by pooling our money together.
Instead of looking at that guy and saying he's beneath me, fuk him.

that logic goes against everything natural in life and I am sure we can agree, however the rules got here, they are here for a reason and logically should supersede your feelings on wishing for a peaceful world.

[thechaoz]

Thanks Obama. Going to miss him. How soon we forget what was before

[brooks85]

Thanks Obama. Going to miss him. How soon we forget what was before

yeah, you might actually have to get a job huh? no unemployment extensions to get your vote this time

I'm sure hillary will cook up something for you.

[ByeShea]

Thanks Obama. Going to miss him. How soon we forget what was before

Prosperity?

[muldoon]

Prosperity?

You can give Obama credit or not - totally subjective. But if you forget the few years leading up to 2008, you were either extremely high, or extremely partisan.

[teaserpleaser]

You can give Obama credit or not - totally subjective. But if you forget the few years leading up to 2008, you were either extremely high, or extremely partisan.

Boom! Well put Muldoon!

[Ra77er]

"Pooling your money together" by force is more accurately labeled as "taking people's stuff cause you want it", or "stealing" for short

What's the definition of earning it then? 10/20/30/40 years of working? What if you get messed up at a young age and are unable to work? So many variables to make a broad statement like that but wouldn't pooling money for healthcare purposes make sense? Sure some may not "deserve" healthcare according to each individuals perspective but wouldn't you rather see that then someone legitimately lose a loved one over healthcare costs?

Stealing is the norm for suits and peasants alike, the difference is robin hood will help out his people unlike the suits that only look after themselves. This is realized on lists like Forbes.

[Triple_D_Bet]

You can give Obama credit or not - totally subjective. But if you forget the few years leading up to 2008, you were either extremely high, or extremely partisan.

Sadly, that seems to be the norm: "my team" did nothing wrong, "their team" did nothing right...the opposite of an informed voter

[Triple_D_Bet]

What's the definition of earning it then? 10/20/30/40 years of working? What if you get messed up at a young age and are unable to work? So many variables to make a broad statement like that but wouldn't pooling money for healthcare purposes make sense? Sure some may not "deserve" healthcare according to each individuals perspective but wouldn't you rather see that then someone legitimately lose a loved one over healthcare costs?

Stealing is the norm for suits and peasants alike, the deference is robin hood will help out his people unlike the suits that only look after themselves. This is realized on lists like Forbes.

"Earning it" defined simply: as being given it voluntarily, either per a contract or as a gift. Pooling money is what insurance is all about; people can throw a little bit of money to be covered in the event of a rare mishap. If the mishap is rare enough and the money is enough, the math works out (even after profit is taken out for the administrators of the insurance pool) and it's a successful business providing value for all parties. When it comes to healthcare insurance, there are a few major deviations from a successful insurance model:

1) Covered events aren't sufficiently rare. Preventative care and increasingly common ailments are all tossed in, so everyone has to draw upon it to some degree. Out of mathematical necessity, this means the prices have to go up. When you pass legislation that mandates the minimum amount of things covered by an insurance plan (instead of letting people choose whatever they want) and make that insurance mandatory as well, people end up paying more than they want or need. Good for insurance companies, bad for consumers...but consumers were gullible enough to clamor for it.

2) Moral hazard in that consumers directly affect their chances of covered events. Majority of diseases and healthcare expenditures go towards treating preventable conditions which are the result of lifestyle choices. When a person has carte blanche to do what they want to their body and insurance companies have the mandate to try to fix it for them, prices (and profits for insurance companies) have to go up. The increased cost doesn't hurt the irresponsible people as much as it does those who take better care of themselves; the irresponsible ones are still taking more out of the system then they're putting in. Good for insurance companies, bad for consumers...but consumers were gullible enough to clamor for it.

3) Subsidizing insurance makes it less transparent and more expensive. To combat the inevitable increases in costs, most legislation focuses on subsidizing it (stealing from some groups to give to others) to keep uninformed/apathetic voters happy. Of course, you can't just take the money as a direct separate tax in most cases; you need to take it from a spot you claim you have a surplus, do some accounting obfuscation to make it look like it's a surplus, toss in a bunch of restrictions to try to prevent people from exploiting the subsidies, attach strings to the providers, etc. The unintended consequences of these regulations pile up pretty quickly, and raise costs across the board while preventing lower cost services from emerging as they would in a free market. With the increase in prices, insurance companies make more money. Good for insurance companies, bad for consumers...but consumers were gullible enough to clamor for it.

4) Mandatory insurance isn't insurance, and mandatory regulations stifle competition. Insurance works so long as the mathematical model is viable; both the insurance company and the insured receive benefit. In a free market, if the insured don't like their coverage and think they're getting gouged, they can simply shop around for a better company. If they're truly being gouged, a better company will arise as people see the opportunity to make money offering better services. In the current anything-but-free market, the barrier to entry (regulatory requirements for insurance companies) is so high that it effectively prevents competition (as regulation usually does), but consumers are forced to buy insurance anyways (both legally and effectively, since they don't have any alternatives). Without competition, insurance companies can charge whatever they can get away with. Good for insurance companies, bad for consumers...but consumers were gullible enough to clamor for it.

5) Comprehensive coverage isn't comprehensive, nor can it be. The current "we'll cover everything" approach is not only too costly, but doesn't actually cover everything; as mentioned above, deductibles must still be paid, and insurance companies will hold people to the letter of their rules to disqualify or minimize payments. People who don't like it have no recourse except to seek out an insurance company with better coverage...except thanks to all the regulations, there aren't any. Good for insurance companies, bad for consumers...but consumers were gullible enough to clamor for it.

Deciding who "deserves" healthcare is extremely simple, and it's the same as deciding who "deserves" a cell phone, or a car, or most anything else: if they can convince someone to provide it to them (usually by paying for it), they've earned it/deserve it. Many of us support charitably providing for a basic level of care to those who can't otherwise afford it; such a concept is both affordable and doesn't carry perverse incentives, as a recipient still has incentive to strive for success (to earn money and receive better care for their family among other things).

Voluntarily pooling money to minimize risk of catastrophic events is a good idea, and the reason insurance exists. What we currently have now is nowhere near that sensible model. Stealing money to fund our unsustainable ideas isn't good, regardless of whether or not you think other people are stealing money (and it's a mistake to look at rich people and say they're stealing; most are rich largely because people continue to voluntarily give their companies money in exchange for goods or services. If you want to take them to task for stealing concerning government subsidies, don't blame them; blame the voters and the officials who gave it to them).

[GIVEMETHEMONEY]

Was this report written by the same liars on global warming and found out to be a lie when the emails were hacked? lmfao

[rkelly110]

Just as I predicted when they put Obama care into effect. Hospitals (us) won't have to eat the cost of the uninsured.
Eventually, our health care costs will come down due to everyone having insurance.

Read more here.

http://www.forbes.com/sites/brucejapsen/2015/08/02/as-obamacare-takes-hold-unpaid-hospital-bills-vanish/?utm_campaign=yahootix&partner=yahootix

[Triple_D_Bet]

Just as I predicted when they put Obama care into effect. Hospitals (us) won't have to eat the cost of the uninsured.
Eventually, our health care costs will come down due to everyone having insurance.

Read more here.
http://www.forbes.com/sites/brucejap...rtner=yahootix

You're saying now that we've subsidized more peoples' insurance, they pay their bills with that insurance....so instead of hospitals (us) being stuck with the bill, the bills are now being funded by the taxpayers (us). Seems like a pretty safe prediction to make (that increased government funding of health insurance would ensure hospitals get paid and the taxpayer is still on the hook)....but it doesn't seem like much has changed, and certainly no evidence to support costs are coming down, with increasing evidence to the contrary

[raydog]

i will make it to pluto before ins. costs come down...that is a fact