Good news for us re: Obamacare/ACA

[rawhide]

What? People skew facts to their own liking. Preposterous.

[carlfense]

What? People skew facts to their own liking. Preposterous.

That's why it's probably best to get as close to the source as possible . . . in this case Rand ---> LA Times --> Avik Roy

[Junior]

What? People skew facts to their own liking. Preposterous.

 

So, are you OK with Avik Roy presenting slanted data as a means to make a point that isn't actual true?

[rawhide]

Clearly, I don't advocate this.

[rawhide]

What? People skew facts to their own liking. Preposterous.

That's why it's probably best to get as close to the source as possible . . . in this case Rand ---> LA Times --> Avik Roy

 

 

 

Noam N. Levey is the same person as Avik Roy?

 

Or did you mean that Roy just hunt and pecks his facts from the LA T rather than from the Rand report? Cause I don't have a dog in the hunt for the LaT's either. poopy paper

[Junior]

Clearly, I don't advocate this.

 

Sorry for the confusion, the "well the other side does it too" defense just seems to be fairly common.

[rawhide]

Well, I will concur both sides do that

[carlfense]

What? People skew facts to their own liking. Preposterous.

That's why it's probably best to get as close to the source as possible . . . in this case Rand ---> LA Times --> Avik Roy

 

 

 

Noam N. Levey is the same person as Avik Roy?

 

Or did you mean that Roy just hunt and pecks his facts from the LA T rather than from the Rand report? Cause I don't have a dog in the hunt for the LaT's either. poopy paper

What?

[rawhide]

What? People skew facts to their own liking. Preposterous.

That's why it's probably best to get as close to the source as possible . . . in this case Rand ---> LA Times --> Avik Roy

 

 

 

Noam N. Levey is the same person as Avik Roy?

 

Or did you mean that Roy just hunt and pecks his facts from the LA T rather than from the Rand report? Cause I don't have a dog in the hunt for the LaT's either. poopy paper

What?

The LAT's article was written by Noam N. Levey not Avik Roy; taht may be why I appear exceedingly confused because you said get closer to the source I just don't see how that relates. It's the smog, man.

[Hooked on Huskers]

Dummy here in Obamacare/ACA program and discussions. Someday I will read ACA plan but for right now, completely ignorant.

 

The Pros and Cons of ACA boil down to this: Do the costs outweigh the benefits?

 

My main questions:

 

Similar to Universal Health Care? Right or wrong? I know most civilized countries got Universal Health Care.

 

I thought only eligible for low income families. Right or wrong?

 

ACA plan is pretty much free? (patient)

 

Thanks, again dummy here :wacko: .

[carlfense]

What? People skew facts to their own liking. Preposterous.

That's why it's probably best to get as close to the source as possible . . . in this case Rand ---> LA Times --> Avik Roy

 

 

 

Noam N. Levey is the same person as Avik Roy?

 

Or did you mean that Roy just hunt and pecks his facts from the LA T rather than from the Rand report? Cause I don't have a dog in the hunt for the LaT's either. poopy paper

What?

The LAT's article was written by Noam N. Levey not Avik Roy; taht may be why I appear exceedingly confused because you said get closer to the source I just don't see how that relates. It's the smog, man.

Avik Roy wrote the article that you posted from Forbes. The information that Roy cited was from an article in the LA Times. The LA Times article was a preview of a still unavailable Rand survey.

[carlfense]

The Pros and Cons of ACA boil down to this: Do the costs outweigh the benefits?

That will largely depend on who you ask. If you ask a young healthy and wealthy individual their personal story will be quite a bit different than if you ask an older, poorer, sickly individual.

 

As a whole? We'll see. In my opinion it's far better than the status quo. It's an incremental step towards where we should be.

 

My main questions:

 

Similar to Universal Health Care? Right or wrong? I know most civilized countries got Universal Health Care.

Closer to universal health care than we were prior to the ACA. Still won't be universal, though.

 

I thought only eligible for low income families. Right or wrong?

Medicaid expansion varies state to state. At least partially subsidized plans available for families up to around $94,000 (iirc). Other immediate benefits for all incomes (can't deny based on pre-existing conditions) and longer term more theoretical benefits (EMR, for example).

 

ACA plan is pretty much free? (patient)

There isn't really an ACA insurance plan per se. An individual doesn't get "Obamacare" or go into "Obamacare." It's a lot more complicated than that but the general idea is that they get private insurance and might be eligible for government assistance in paying for it. (Other than the states that expanded Medicaid, of course.)

[strigori]

Dummy here in Obamacare/ACA program and discussions. Someday I will read ACA plan but for right now, completely ignorant.

 

The Pros and Cons of ACA boil down to this: Do the costs outweigh the benefits?

 

My main questions:

 

Similar to Universal Health Care? Right or wrong? I know most civilized countries got Universal Health Care.

 

I thought only eligible for low income families. Right or wrong?

 

ACA plan is pretty much free? (patient)

 

Thanks, again dummy here :wacko: .

Its a far cry from universal health care, a step in the right direction, but no where near where it really needs to be.

 

Low income families can qualify for some subsidies, unless you fall into a low wage gap area that was supposed to be picked up by medicade expansions that many states, like Nebraska, declined to do. And people can, and do, fall into an area where they do not qualify for subsidies, so they end up where taking the tax penalty for no coverage instead. There are a ton of other aspects of the law that help everyone. Like 'pre=existing conditions' no longer exist, you cant get denied coverage for a history of something. And the expansion of the ages where young people can remain covered by their parent's plans. And no more lifetime maximums. Also insurance companies are limited in that they have to have a certain percentage of premiums go to actual healthcare instead of execs and stockholder pockets.

 

There is nothing free about the ACA for almost all people. All plans still require premiums.

[BigRedBuster]

There is no health care that is free anywhere in the world.

[Hooked on Huskers]

Our U.S. health care sucks even before "Obamacare" thing. Number #37 in the world yet our health expenditures per capita rated #1 according to WHO report. Broken down bigtime. We need to learn and follow France(#1), Italy(#2), Spain(#4), Japan(#8), scandinavian countries, U.K.(#18), etc. and even Canada plans (performance rankings).

 

World Health Organization (WHO)

 

Official Report Including Expenditures per person

 

U.S. Ranks Last Among Seven Countries on Health System Performance Based on Measures of Quality, Efficiency, Access, Equity, and Healthy Lives

 

examiner.com source .......

 

Although our health care system is the ranked behind nearly every other industrialized country, the US can proudly boast that we pay more, a LOT more, than anyone else for our care. Not only does the United States spend more than $1 trillion more per year than anyone else on the planet, we also pay more, a lot more, per capita for our health care.

 

The World Health Organization says, “The U. S. health system spends a higher portion of its gross domestic product than any other country but ranks 37 out of 191 countries according to its performance.” This puts to rest the tired notion that the American “free market” pushes for the most efficient and least expensive system. In fact, we are the least efficient healthcare in the industrialized world.