• Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
    • Access to private conversations with other members.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

Poll: Most Dems say ObamaCare hasn't improved premium costs

sun rise

sun rise

The world is on fire
Premium Member
The law was primarily focused on giving the uninsured access to health care using a mostly Republican model (aka Romneycare) and it succeeded in doing that.

The total obstructionist attitude of the right toward the law meant that issues could not be addressed and lessons learned applied. Only now that it's been shown that people mostly like the law has the right, to some degree, decided that losing elections was losing and stopped trying to repeal the law.

A law that would seriously address costs would be structurally revolutionary. But one simple way of addressing costs is to increase competition by allowing everyone to voluntarily buy into Medicare. Of course the right is opposed to increasing competition in this way.

Another way is to deal with lunatic price increases for drugs. Capitalism has failed with drug prices. We need public corporations manufacturing drugs rather than for-profit bastions of greed over human life corporations as we have today.

As an alternative, allow drug imports from Canada.
 
Valjean

Valjean

Veteran Member
Premium Member
Most people, of all political persuasions, don't know a thing about insurance pricing. They know what their last bill was. They don't know what their bill would be had Obamacare never been adopted, or if Rubio hadn't sabotaged the risk corridors.

I've read that costs have risen more slowly for most insured, since Obamacare.
 
Altfish

Altfish

Veteran Member
To quote the article...

"Twenty percent of Democrats said their premium costs have gotten worse under the health care law, with 36 percent saying they were the same. A minority, 32 percent, said they had seen an improvement. Twelve percent were unsure."

So let's analyse that.
20% said premiums were worse - 32% said they were better and 36% said they were the same.
Yet the article say that 32% is the MINORITY

Now my maths isn't brilliant by when I was at school 32 was bigger than 20 - I assume it still is.

So the headline should be "Most Dems say that premiums have gone down or stayed the same"
 
Kangaroo Feathers

Kangaroo Feathers

Yea, it is written in the Book of Cyril...
Altfish said:
To quote the article...

"Twenty percent of Democrats said their premium costs have gotten worse under the health care law, with 36 percent saying they were the same. A minority, 32 percent, said they had seen an improvement. Twelve percent were unsure."

So let's analyse that.
20% said premiums were worse - 32% said they were better and 36% said they were the same.
Yet the article say that 32% is the MINORITY

Now my maths isn't brilliant by when I was at school 32 was bigger than 20 - I assume it still is.

So the headline should be "Most Dems say that premiums have gone down or stayed the same"
Click to expand...
It's called "alternate maths". Don't be ignorant.
 
Kangaroo Feathers

Kangaroo Feathers

Yea, it is written in the Book of Cyril...
tytlyf said:
The OP is cheering price gouging and the removal of pre-existing conditions coverage.
But that's the capitalist position.
Click to expand...
56427019_667337003710134_8701887832307793920_n.jpg
 
icehorse

icehorse

......unaffiliated...... anti-dogmatist
Premium Member
Revoltingest said:
Obamacare was never designed to reduce costs.
It was to reduce prices for some, & increase them for others.
Click to expand...

I think it was primarily designed to help the previously "uninsurable" get insurance. My wife and I are among the people who were deemed "uninsurable" before the ACA. And we're both in pretty good health.
 
Revoltingest

Revoltingest

Pragmatic Libertarian
Premium Member
icehorse said:
I think it was primarily designed to help the previously "uninsurable" get insurance. My wife and I are among the people who were deemed "uninsurable" before the ACA. And we're both in pretty good health.
Click to expand...
Right.
But others endured price increases & even loss of insurance because of Obamacare.
On top of that, those who couldn't afford it had to pay income tax penalties.
Obamacare even imposed taxes on medical equipment, thereby increasing costs.
It was badly designed & implemented.
 
slackercruster

slackercruster

New Member
America needs a 2 tier healthcare system. One healthcare system for the rich as a fee for service and one for the average person that is gov supplied - aka socialized healthcare. That is the only way you can do it. The rich can have whatever they want and the poor / average person can still get some healthcare. Socialized med wont be as good as rich med, but it can be doable. If you don't like socialized medicine, get 4 jobs and pay for the rich healthcare.

Once healthcare turned into big biz it was put on a trajectory for destroying the ability of the average person paying for healthcare out of pocket. The healthcare provider know they can rape the insurance companies with exaggerated costs, so the whole system is rotten and greed filled.

Everyone pays 3% of their income and gets some medical care. Or charge a sales and usage tax to cover basic healthcare for all. The usage tax may be good, the foreign tourists will even chip in.

What is basic socialized healthcare? You got a bursting appendix, you can get it out...you need a heart transplant...go get the rich healthcare.

The rich can pay for the best if they don't want socialized med. The average person can use the socialized plan. But you can never have success if you force the average person to pretend they are rich and force a high cost, unaffordable health plan on them.

Same as marriage. You either live to the budget that is double of the lower earner or the high earner has to pay for the bulk of it if they want to live on a higher level. You can't force a low earner to be a high earner. Obamacare ruined healthcare when it added pre-existing conditions. What should have been done is to add pre-existing conditions and let the pre-existing conditions pay the exorbitant fees. Instead everyone was ruined by paying for pre-existing conditions and got insurance that is not usable since it has very high deductible and high, unaffordable costs and a fine for not being able to afford unusable, high cost insurance.

I called a dermatologist to ask about a wart removal and it is $490 for 5 minutes of work. The doctor does not even do it...his assistant does it. In 2015 it was $175 for the same wart removal, but they raised the rates if your uninsured. They said under Obamacare it is illegal for me to not have med insurance and it is insurance fraud for them to charge a different rate than what they get under Obamacare when they bill insurance companies...$490.

Medicine prices started to skyrocket once the greedy learned they can hike up medicine costs by astounding percentages. They can hold the chronically ill by ransom...it is pay up or die. There is nothing wrong with that is there?

I called another dermatologist and he refused to see cash patients. He only accepted insurance as he could rape the insurance companies. This is textbook material on how a good capitalist should work. Get the highest price the market will bear for the product. If a pill cost .35 cents to make, why not mark it up to $1000 a pill? If an insurance company will pay for it why not $5,000 a pill?

It is not even a question of being able to afford Obamacare med plans. They are useless, at least for me. Thousands of $ in deductibles and copay. I think the goal of insurance companies is to sell you insurance you can not use unless you are very sick and rich.

If the US ever does get a socialized healthcare system then the job is to keep it from spiraling out of control with costs. Humans have a tendency to F' up whatever they get their hands on. This is why we don't make good communists. If we were bees or ants we would make good communists. But self-centered greedy humans can't do it. Bees or ants will give their life for the good of the colony...humans generally wont (military notwithstanding), it is every man and every woman for themselves.

Now that Cuba is opening up some may want to look at that option for healthcare. People have been going to Mexico for healthcare for years. I heard Cuba provides good healthcare and it is affordable.
The powerful healthcare and pill industry will fight a socialized add on plan. It will no doubt take $ from them. They can't rape the system if there is a socialized option and competition.
 
Last edited:
Revoltingest

Revoltingest

Pragmatic Libertarian
Premium Member
icehorse said:
While I agree with you on this point, I suspect we'd disagree on why it was badly executed. Why do you think this is so?
Click to expand...
Assuming that Obama was honest about being able to keep one's doc/plan, that
didn't work out. Also, there was great difficulty in signing up.....rigid schedules,
software failure, impenetrable bureaucracy. My son (as I recall) spent many
months trying to sign up, & get them to correct erroneous info they created
(eg, classifying him as a smoker when he wasn't). At least he had coverage
in case he ever got pregnant.
 
C

columbus

yawn <ignore> yawn
sun rise said:
The law was primarily focused on giving the uninsured access to health care using a mostly Republican model (aka Romneycare) and it succeeded in doing that.
Click to expand...
There are a few words and phrases people often use that immediately make me uninclined to take someone's opinions too seriously. "Evolution is just a theory" is one.
Obamacare is another.
From the fact that the ACA was originally proposed as an alternative to Democrats proposal for health care reform,
to the fact that it was originally instituted by Mitt Romney as governor,
to the fact that ACA in practice was largely shaped by the Republican obstructionist majority in Congress,
to the fact that Trump had majorities in both Houses for two years to keep is promise "Repeal and Replace with Something Great"(which the Republicans had been telling us they could do for many years),
the current law is entirely the responsibility of the Republican law makers who have been in charge most of the time since the 90s.

Referring to ACA as Obamacare is the sort of deceit that has caused me to lose trust in the GOP near entirely. It certainly isn't because I particularly trust Democrats. But I do vote straight ticket these days.

Tom
 
C

columbus

yawn <ignore> yawn
Revoltingest said:
Now you're just being too sensitive.
It's Obama's program, so it gets his name attached.
Same happened with "Reaganomics", the "Carter Malaise", & "Clintern".
Click to expand...
Not any more it isn't.
Trump and the Republicans controlled Washington DC for two years after promising "Repeal and Replace".

If calling it ACA lacks enough partisanship to suit your tastes, Trumpcare would be far more accurate at this time.
Tom
 
Revoltingest

Revoltingest

Pragmatic Libertarian
Premium Member
columbus said:
Not any more it isn't.
Trump and the Republicans controlled Washington DC for two years after promising "Repeal and Replace".

If calling it ACA lacks enough partisanship to suit your tastes, Trumpcare would be far more accurate at this time.
Tom
Click to expand...
So far, Trump's only effect is to remove the penalty assessed
against taxpayers who can't afford Obamacare. That's a good
thing. There's no good reason to penalize people for poverty.
Obamacare is still there.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top