The Problem With Obamacare Is Obamacare

[Tiny]

Originally Posted by Mort Watt

What drove this need for you to criticize my post with this depth? I wasn't challenging or disagreeing with anything specific said by you...

Hey Mort, I suspect LL didn't like the part about "a lunatic in the White House beholden to big business, a Supreme Court that is giving him the power to run us off the rails, and a Congress that won't do its fucking job." Yeah, when it comes to health care, Republicans just sit on their asses and don't do jack. But so did Democrats in 2021/2022 and 1993/1994. And yes the Republicans in 2017/2018 and 2001/2002. Those are years when one party controlled both houses of Congress and the presidency, as I recollect.

In 2009/2010 Democrats did as Democrats like to do and threw more money at the problem with Obamacare. And while that helped a certain segment of the population, it did nothing about out of control costs and poor healthcare outcomes.

A pox on both the parties. They deserve it. If we were smart we would have paid Lee Kuan Yew, ex PM of Singapore, to come fix our system after he retired from politics. Apparently though this isn't rocket science, because most developed countries have lower costs and better outcomes than we do. Even Costa Rica is head and shoulders above us in terms of longevity and maternal mortality.

[Mort Watt]

Very well said, Tiny. I guess we are getting some original thought in here after all.

It's broke. It's bad. Our current government is unwilling/incapable of fixing it. This is going to get much, much worse in the next several years.

.

[adav8s28]

Originally Posted by Tiny

In 2009/2010 Democrats did as Democrats like to do and threw more money at the problem with Obamacare. And while that helped a certain segment of the population, it did nothing about out of control costs and poor healthcare outcomes.

After the ACA became law, 30 million people got health insurance coverage. Twenty million got a private plan at HealthCare.Gov, ten million got the "Expanded Medicaid". So, approx 10% of the USA population got health insurance coverage that did not have it before the ACA was passed in 2010. Over 90% of the USA population has some type of health insurance coverage. When Bush43 was president only 80% of the population had some type of health insurance coverage.

[Brot]

Originally Posted by Why_Yes_I_Do

Let's check in on the UK via the AI:The more ya know...

Include Japan and Canada if you want a meaningful comparison, along with national expenditures per capita.. We have a national healthcare program of sorts already; just show up at your local emergency room or county hospital, citizen or not, thanks to our excessively high property taxes in Texas.

[adav8s28]

Originally Posted by Brot

Include Japan and Canada if you want a meaningful comparison, along with national expenditures per capita.. We have a national healthcare program of sorts already; just show up at your local emergency room or county hospital, citizen or not, thanks to our excessively high property taxes in Texas.

You can go to the emergency room for an emergency situation. What if you want to go to the doctor for a checkup or for preventative care? If you are not insured or can't pay out of pocket you won't be able to see a doctor unless you can find a free clinic. Or find a doctor who works for free.

Texas does have high property taxes but it doesn't have a state income tax. Most states do. In New York the state income tax is 10% of your income, ouch!

There are some problems with ACA (Obamacare) but it does provide health insurance coverage to 30 million people. So, this would decrease the number of people who would go to the emergency room in Texas and not be insured.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Affordable_Care_Act

[Texas Contrarian]

Originally Posted by adav8s28

If the risk corridor program is in place, you won't need the subsidies that Biden implemented in 2021. The premium price won't triple like is now. According to the AI tool health insurance companies that have excess profit from business on the government exchanges reimburse the Federal Government. Health insurance companies that incur a loss are reimbursed by the government. This keeps the premium price from spiking year after the year. The risk corridor program is permanent in Medicare Part D, It should be permanent in the ACA legislation as well. Millions of people will their health insurance policy if premiums are allowed to triple in price.

Continual fixation on the lack of a risk corridor structure is one of the reddest of red herrings ever to have been catapulted into this nationally esteemed discussion forum. I thought I made it clear enough in two earlier posts that it's of minimal consequence; the primary drivers of spiraling healthcare costs are extreme price opacity in the hospital chains, the insurance companies, and with the PBMs.

Originally Posted by Tiny

...If we were smart we would have paid Lee Kuan Yew, ex PM of Singapore, to come fix our system after he retired from politics...

Hear, hear! I'd be all for that. However, it wouldn't meet the needs of most of our congressional members; since with the exception of a handful, they care a lot more about the health of their campaign coffers than they do about making health care for our citizens more affordable. And the entirety of the healthcare industry takes a back seat to almost no one when it comes time to hand out the bribes ... er, campaign cash.

Originally Posted by Mort Watt

It's broke. It's bad. Our current government is unwilling/incapable of fixing it. This is going to get much, much worse in the next several years.

I'm afraid that you're exactly right. Our political class has effectively cleared the playing field for some of the most brazen grifters and rent-seekers in history.

[Ducbutter]

Originally Posted by Texas Contrarian

Continual fixation on the lack of a risk corridor structure is one of the reddest of red herrings ever to have been catapulted into this nationally esteemed discussion forum. I thought I made it clear enough in two earlier posts that it's of minimal consequence; the primary drivers of spiraling healthcare costs are extreme price opacity in the hospital chains, the insurance companies, and with the PBMs.

TC, I think you might have more success if you can frame your response in more of a, "Republicans bad , Democrats good " kind of way. This pox on both their houses approach just isn't going to cut it.

[adav8s28]

Originally Posted by Texas Contrarian

Continual fixation on the lack of a risk corridor structure is one of the reddest of red herrings ever to have been catapulted into this nationally esteemed discussion forum. I thought I made it clear enough in two earlier posts that it's of minimal consequence; the primary drivers of spiraling healthcare costs are extreme price opacity in the hospital chains, the insurance companies, and with the PBMs.

Premiums and copays are not tripling in group health insurance thru the employer. They are in some Obamacare markets. Why is that? The two structures that were designed to keep premiums from increasing year after year have been removed.

We have never had prices that are transparent. Or that example with some doctors in Okla is not happening in every state. No one in Congress is discussing about making that become a reality. There has been some talk about allowing health insurance companies sell policies across state lines on the Obamacare exchanges.

I don't think it's reasonable that the premium for a health insurance policy take up more than 8% of your income check. It will without the government subsidies or the risk corridor program. Obamacare has unique problems that employer based insurance does not have even though price transparancy is not a reality across the United States.

The Federal Gov needs to pay the subsidies or bring back the risk corridor program so that five million people won't lose their health insurance coverage.

[Tiny]

Originally Posted by adav8s28

After the ACA became law, 30 million people got health insurance coverage. Twenty million got a private plan at HealthCare.Gov, ten million got the "Expanded Medicaid". So, approx 10% of the USA population got health insurance coverage that did not have it before the ACA was passed in 2010. Over 90% of the USA population has some type of health insurance coverage. When Bush43 was president only 80% of the population had some type of health insurance coverage.

Obama did as Democrats like to do and threw more money at the problem with the ACA. And while that helped a certain segment of the population, it did nothing about out of control costs and poor healthcare outcomes.

[SpeedRacerXXX]

Originally Posted by Tiny

Obama did as Democrats like to do and threw more money at the problem with the ACA. And while that helped a certain segment of the population, it did nothing about out of control costs and poor healthcare outcomes.

There has to be a solution that both sides can agree on. I have a family member whose family insurance will increase exorbitantly next month due to the elimination of the ACA subsidies. They have been advised to go without health insurance rather than pay the ridiculous premiums. Not good.

I am lucky to have Medicare. I have money deducted from my Social Security benefits (about $185 a month), pay nothing for my Medicare Advantage plan, and actually get money back through the plan. I just had Achilles tendon surgery and it cost me $250. And who is paying for my Medicare benefits? Taxpayers. Same as with the ACA.

[adav8s28]

Originally Posted by Tiny

Obama did as Democrats like to do and threw more money at the problem with the ACA. And while that helped a certain segment of the population, it did nothing about out of control costs and poor healthcare outcomes.

@Tiny, sorry you don't like the ACA. It does give health insurance coverage to over 30 million people (a good percentage of them are already sick). The ACA was designed fix the individual market. These are the self-employed or individuals who work for a small company that does not offer their employees' health insurance. Employer based health insurance, Medicare & Medicaid were left alone. The ACA was not designed to overhaul the entire healthcare system for the USA.

If all the policyholders at Allstate and State Farm totaled their car every year the premium price would triple there as well.

If Trump can spend 400 million to redesign a ballroom, why can't the Government find the money for the subsidies at least for one more year.

[Texas Contrarian]

Originally Posted by adav8s28

Premiums and copays are not tripling in group health insurance thru the employer. They are in some Obamacare markets. Why is that? I have already explained that. The two structures that were designed to keep premiums from increasing year after year have been removed. No structure that would have kept costs from exploding was ever created.

We have never had prices that are transparent. No, we haven't.But it's high time to start, don't you think? Or that example with some doctors in Okla is not happening in every state. But it should! No one in Congress is discussing about making that become a reality. But they should! There has been some talk about allowing health insurance companies sell policies across state lines on the Obamacare exchanges.

I don't think it's reasonable that the premium for a health insurance policy take up more than 8% of your income check. It will without the government subsidies or the risk corridor program. Good grief! When will you give the risk corridor red herring a rest? Obamacare has unique problems that employer based insurance does not have even though price transparancy is not a reality across the United States.

The Federal Gov needs to pay the subsidies or bring back the risk corridor program so that five million people won't lose their health insurance coverage.

Support for a risk corridor program of the type envisaged by early Obamacare advocates is just another example of the multiple elements of sleight-of-hand necessary to make it look like Obamacare is "working." Again, the lack of a risk corridor structure is not why this whole thing is such a fiscal fiasco. Anyone wishing to attain even the most rudimentary understanding of the issue needs to realize that.

Originally Posted by Tiny

Obama did as Democrats like to do and threw more money at the problem with the ACA. And while that helped a certain segment of the population, it did nothing about out of control costs and poor healthcare outcomes.

Yes, indeed! As currently constituted, Obamacare will not "work" and cannot "work" unless large quantities of taxpayer dollars are poured into it. Remember when Obama claimed that the ACA would "bend the cost curve" downward? Well, of course, it did the opposite -- big time!

Originally Posted by adav8s28

If Trump can spend 400 million to redesign a ballroom, why can't the Government find the money for the subsidies at least for one more year.

Maybe because there's a big difference between building a monument to a president's ego with $400 million of private money from contributors, and pouring hundreds of billions of taxpayer dollars into a huge fiscal fiasco? I'll agree with you on one thing, though -- I think congress should go ahead, bite the bullet, and extend the subsidies for one year, especially inasmuch as failing to do so would be political suicide. But then they should work feverishly to tear up the whole thing and start over, addressing all the problems to which we alluded earlier. The fiasco that answers to the name of the "Affordable Care Act" (a misnomer if there ever was one!) is perhaps an even bigger national embarrassment than our mind-numbingly byzantine tax code.

Originally Posted by SpeedRacerXXX

There has to be a solution that both sides can agree on...

One would think!

Color me uber-cynical, but my take on the issue is that when push comes to shove, far too many congresspersons (on both sides of the aisle) enjoy their campaign contributions far too much to do any more than pay lip service to the issue.

So we see lots of caterwauling, but no one makes a serious attempt to do a damned thing.

[Tiny]

Originally Posted by SpeedRacerXXX

There has to be a solution that both sides can agree on. I have a family member whose family insurance will increase exorbitantly next month due to the elimination of the ACA subsidies. They have been advised to go without health insurance rather than pay the ridiculous premiums. Not good.

Originally Posted by adav8s28

If Trump can spend 400 million to redesign a ballroom, why can't the Government find the money for the subsidies at least for one more year.

Originally Posted by Texas Contrarian

Maybe because there's a big difference between building a monument to a president's ego with $400 million of private money from contributors, and pouring hundreds of billions of taxpayer dollars into a huge fiscal fiasco? I'll agree with you on one thing, though -- I think congress should go ahead, bite the bullet, and extend the subsidies for one year, especially inasmuch as failing to do so would be political suicide. But then they should work feverishly to tear up the whole thing and start over, addressing all the problems to which we alluded earlier. The fiasco that answers to the name of the "Affordable Care Act" (a misnomer if there ever was one!) is perhaps an even bigger national embarrassment than our mind-numbingly byzantine tax code...


Color me uber-cynical, but my take on the issue is that when push comes to shove, far too many congresspersons (on both sides of the aisle) enjoy their campaign contributions far too much to do any more than pay lip service to the issue.

So we see lots of caterwauling, but no one makes a serious attempt to do a damned thing.

Gentlemen, There's a lot we all agree on. I'd expand TC's characterization of the ACA to our whole health care system. Yes, extend it for a year and work diligently to fix it. But as you say, Congressmen like to ladle out the pork, and an efficient health care system would put a big dent in their fundraising.

And darn it Adav8s28, I replied to you with almost exactly the same post that you were replying to. I was hoping we'd get in a circular argument. A couple of our fellow board members did that late one night, from about 11:00 PM to 5:00 AM, and each boosted their post count by about 1,000. It was easy to do because they were copying and pasting. We're never going to become legends like Yssup, Chung Tran and WTF if we don't get on the stick. Seriously, I believe you're focused on a couple of trees and missing the forest. You're taking a scalpel to the problem when you need a chain saw.

[Tiny]

Originally Posted by Ducbutter

TC, I think you might have more success if you can frame your response in more of a, "Republicans bad , Democrats good " kind of way. This pox on both their houses approach just isn't going to cut it.

Haha! Yeah, in another universe if Republican president Mitt (or Trump for that matter) were trying to introduce Romneycare to America many of the anti-Trump posters would be up in arms. And the Trump fans can be just as bad.

[Ducbutter]

Originally Posted by Tiny

Haha! Yeah, in another universe if Republican president Mitt (or Trump for that matter) were trying to introduce Romneycare to America many of the anti-Trump posters would be up in arms. And the Trump fans can be just as bad.

That is all fact.