A man you can bait with a Tweet

[BigRedBuster]

Let me ask you this??? Why on God's green earth would insurance companies reduce premiums and force providers to accept less? The ACA wrote them one hell of a big fat check. How? Ultimately, they will be able to convince enough people that these premiums are needed while the customer is being forced to buy their product. Result??? The government will just keep raising the subsidies to pay for more of the higher and higher premiums.

Many people won't complain about that because...hey....their out of pocket for HC hasn't changed that much and at the same time, maybe their in a tax bracket that doesn't pay that much into the federal government to pay for the subsidies.

 

Insurance companies are complaining right now they aren't making enough money. If nothing major changes, they will just convince the government to subsidize more.

[RedDenver]

Interesting that the costs level off with the ACA, which counters the argument I have heard that ACA isn't controlling costs any better than before the ACA.

[zoogs]

Yes. And nowhere have I approached a claim that healthcare costs in the U.S. aren't exorbitant. In fact, I have referred specifically to this problem as real in several of my recent posts.

 

Thus, I have NO idea why you insist on this "you have your head in the sand" stance.

 

It doesn't need to be repealed. It needs to be fixed or added to.

This. Are we forgetting that legislation is always work in progress? That nobody, literally, is advocating the ACA as the end all be all, well, we don't need to work on healthcare issues ever again bill?

 

But because there still exist baseline, fundamental problems in healthcare in the US, we must all agree that the ACA is a "bad bill". OK.

[BigRedBuster]

Interesting that the costs level off with the ACA, which counters the argument I have heard that ACA isn't controlling costs any better than before the ACA.

Look at the costs in other countries during that time. They basically have leveled off too.

 

That happened back in the 90s and early 2000s also.

 

I would hold off in claiming the ACA is the cause of controlling costs.

 

Also...that graph is a percent of GDP. so, there is another side of the equation.

[BigRedBuster]

Point to one post of mine where I have called for it to be repealed.

 

My stance has always been that the ACA, as it stands today, isn't sustainable. That is the definition of a bad bill fiscally. Ignoring that is not helping anything. I have also said for the last 7 years that the Republicans are idiots because they keep chanting the "REPEAL OBAMACARE" crap when they had nothing to replace it with.

 

The ACA provides a very very basic framework to work from with the exchanges. However, there needs to be major changes from there.

If the Republicans were smart, this is where they would go. They sort of did that. But, what they proposed did nothing to control costs. It just took some of the parts that are decent away because of ideology.

[RedDenver]

 

Interesting that the costs level off with the ACA, which counters the argument I have heard that ACA isn't controlling costs any better than before the ACA.

Look at the costs in other countries during that time. They basically have leveled off too.

 

That happened back in the 90s and early 2000s also.

 

I would hold off in claiming the ACA is the cause of controlling costs.

 

Also...that graph is a percent of GDP. so, there is another side of the equation.

 

Yeah, looks like that graph is somewhat misleading because it's based on GDP. A cost-per-person graph would make more sense.

[Moiraine]

I couldn't read everything 'cause I'm at work so forgive me if this is stupid but BRB - doesn't the graph you posted give evidence that the ACA is not the problem? Costs have been growing steadily since 1980. ACA doesn't seem to have affected the rate of cost increase.

[BigRedBuster]

 

 

Interesting that the costs level off with the ACA, which counters the argument I have heard that ACA isn't controlling costs any better than before the ACA.

Look at the costs in other countries during that time. They basically have leveled off too.

 

That happened back in the 90s and early 2000s also.

 

I would hold off in claiming the ACA is the cause of controlling costs.

 

Also...that graph is a percent of GDP. so, there is another side of the equation.

 

Yeah, looks like that graph is somewhat misleading because it's based on GDP. A cost-per-person graph would make more sense.

 

Follow this link. LINK

 

Sort it for 2015 and you'll see US right at the top for expenditures per capita.

[zoogs]

Point to one post of mine where I have called for it to be repealed.

You haven't called for it to be repealed. What I'm talking about is your insistence that it is a BAD BILL.

 

Which, if your stance is merely that it needs to be tweaked and improved upon, I find baffling. I, nor anyone, is demanding everyone think of the ACA as great. I came in here to say "the ACA is working well" as a simple rejoinder to Trump and the Freedom Caucus's false and disingenuous claims that it's a disaster spiraling out of control. As I've emphasized many times since, the fact that there are challenges remaining is hardly inconsistent with this viewpoint.

 

Furthermore, thus far you have offered no thesis other than the continued existence of healthcare cost problems to support your argument. My counterpoint to this is that serious problems exist in every domain, so by this standard every serious, big legislative push must be viewed as "bad".

 

Correct me if I'm wrong or let me know if I've simply given the wrong impression or misunderstood you. I think I've staked out a far more neutral position on the ACA here, and I find all the arguments that yours is the more or only reasonable stance to have to be truly confounding. Maybe we're simply not communicating our respective stances well.

[BigRedBuster]

I couldn't read everything 'cause I'm at work so forgive me if this is stupid but BRB - doesn't the graph you posted give evidence that the ACA is not the problem? Costs have been growing steadily since 1980. ACA doesn't seem to have affected the rate of cost increase.

I haven't said the ACA is the cause of increases.

[Whistlebritches]

You are trying really hard to pick a fight.

 

The cost of healthcare in this country is astronomical compared to many other developed countries. There are many costs in the US that aren't even in the realm of reality.

 

LINK

 

 

 

This is not a made up problem. It's real. Just stop and think about how much more healthcare we could provide to everyone if our cost was somewhere close to everyone else.

 

Great....more people are on health insurance. Fantastic. I have said that for a long time. But, if they can't afford their premiums or deductibles...what good is it?

 

Those examples I gave on cost of medication or a procedure was NOT exaggerated. Those are real costs we are all paying. If that doesn't change, the system will collapse.

 

NEITHER proposal (ACA nor AHCA) addresses this problem.

 

I'm sorry if I'm a little frustrated at this. My company spent over $2,750,000 in health care for our employees last year. I didn't mistype that. That is just plain ridiculous when I could provide healthcare for employees in another country for one hell of a lot less and nobody seems to think the cost of providing healthcare matters.

 

Let's just stick our heads in the sand and barricade ourselves behind party lines.

I know it isn't what you're getting at but this graph sure looks like a solid argument for single payer.

[BigRedBuster]

 

Point to one post of mine where I have called for it to be repealed.

You haven't called for it to be repealed. What I'm talking about is your insistence that it is a BAD BILL.

 

Which, if your stance is merely that it needs to be tweaked and improved upon, I find baffling. I, nor anyone, is demanding everyone think of the ACA as great. I came in here to say "the ACA is working well" as a simple rejoinder to Trump and the Freedom Caucus's false and disingenuous claims that it's a disaster spiraling out of control. As I've emphasized many times since, the fact that there are challenges remaining is hardly inconsistent with this viewpoint.

 

Furthermore, thus far you have offered no thesis other than the continued existence of healthcare cost problems to support your argument. My counterpoint to this is that serious problems exist in every domain, so by this standard every serious, big legislative push must be viewed as "bad".

 

Correct me if I'm wrong or let me know if I've simply given the wrong impression or misunderstood you. I think I've staked out a far more neutral position on the ACA here, and I find all the arguments that yours is the more or only reasonable stance to have to be truly confounding. Maybe we're simply not communicating our respective stances well.

 

Where have I said that everyone should be forced to agree with me?

 

You're stands that it's "Working well" baffles me. But, I'm not forcing you to agree with me.

If the government deems it a necessity that everyone own a car so they force everyone to buy a car and they only provide Ferraris and if you can't afford it we will subsidies the difference....well.....they will solve the problem of everyone needs to own a car......but......

[BigRedBuster]

 

You are trying really hard to pick a fight.

 

The cost of healthcare in this country is astronomical compared to many other developed countries. There are many costs in the US that aren't even in the realm of reality.

 

LINK

 

 

 

This is not a made up problem. It's real. Just stop and think about how much more healthcare we could provide to everyone if our cost was somewhere close to everyone else.

 

Great....more people are on health insurance. Fantastic. I have said that for a long time. But, if they can't afford their premiums or deductibles...what good is it?

 

Those examples I gave on cost of medication or a procedure was NOT exaggerated. Those are real costs we are all paying. If that doesn't change, the system will collapse.

 

NEITHER proposal (ACA nor AHCA) addresses this problem.

 

I'm sorry if I'm a little frustrated at this. My company spent over $2,750,000 in health care for our employees last year. I didn't mistype that. That is just plain ridiculous when I could provide healthcare for employees in another country for one hell of a lot less and nobody seems to think the cost of providing healthcare matters.

 

Let's just stick our heads in the sand and barricade ourselves behind party lines.

I know it isn't what you're getting at but this graph sure looks like a solid argument for single payer.

 

I don't like the idea and I'm not ready to jump on board with it.

 

But....at this point in time, I think we need to at least consider it.

[zoogs]

I think what we're tussling over is what is the domain of "reasonable" turf on this issue. For example, I won't literally force people to agree with me on everything, but I might assert that so-and-so stance is outside the realm of sanity. That's in effect the same thing: 'sure, you can think that, but you'd be delusional to do so.'

 

I haven't said the ACA is the cause of increases.

Just to emphasize, since I think my frustration has been getting the better of me here: I think you are a smart, reasonable guy with reasonable concerns. Let's review:

 

- You don't think the ACA is causing healthcare increases. Agree.

- You think healthcare in the US has a serious cost problem that needs to be fixed. Agree.

- You point to Europe as a (better, at least) model for costs. Agree.

- You think the ACA does nice things with expanding coverage, but doesn't go very far in addressing the cost problems above. Agree. (I'd also say coverage problems remain, too.)

- You think the AHCA is a terrible solution and do not want the ACA to be repealed. Agree.

 

So, this is what I find incongruous. If for the topic of healthcare we agree on ALL of these points, why is it that holding the ACA in such low esteem is such a strongly held position for you? To me, it looks like you have a lot more in common with proponents of e.g. single payer (i.e, move to the left of ACA) and yet you speak the same language about the bill as proponents of moving the entire system far, far, far to the right. How can we be speaking the same language on healthcare and yet such different ones on the ACA? Incongruity. That's all.

[deedsker]

Wrong thread and I am an idiot...