Repealing the ACA under Trump

[Moiraine]

 

 

 

 

 

So I'm supposed to be happy that this supposed "extremely small number" of people that are being bled dry by forced healthcare at uber inflated rates is such a small sample size? Well, I'm part of that "extremely small number". Not a fan.

 

I like having halthcare (since our government decided long ago that healthcare is a luxury not a right like Canada). But I don't like paying more for it than my house. At that rate, what good is it? Oh, that's right. If I don't have it I can pay even more money back to the government via penalties. Thanks government!

I think everyone not only likes, but needs health insurance. How do we make it affordable in a world where people don't have to have it, companies don't have to cover everyone, and the government plays a minimal role?

a) It was more affordable when it wasn't forced, weird!

b) ask Canada

 

Healthcare is great. Healthcare INSURANCE is a crock of sh#t.

In this very thread BRB posted a chart showing the rate of increase did not go up with ACA.

 

So ya, it was "more affordable when it wasn't forced" but that was already the trend.

 

Unfortunately the bill is named the Affordable Care Act and it only became that for the poorest. I'm fine with that but the name isn't accurate for everyone.

Are you completely ignoring the rest of the graph?

 

Please tell me how the ACA affected healthcare costs around the world that have the same shape of graph after the ACA was enacted.

I'm replying to one specific part of Redux's post and I don't have the graph in front of me right now. And I didn't know we were talking about worldwide health care costs(?)

 

 

I don't think I understand your reply but I'll try before going back to work.

 

You're saying all graphs worldwide look the same, so the ACA didn't make things more affordable?

 

I didn't say it made it more affordable except for the poor.

 

I said it didn't increase the rate of cost increase. It had no effect.

[BigRedBuster]

 

 

 

 

 

So I'm supposed to be happy that this supposed "extremely small number" of people that are being bled dry by forced healthcare at uber inflated rates is such a small sample size? Well, I'm part of that "extremely small number". Not a fan.

 

I like having halthcare (since our government decided long ago that healthcare is a luxury not a right like Canada). But I don't like paying more for it than my house. At that rate, what good is it? Oh, that's right. If I don't have it I can pay even more money back to the government via penalties. Thanks government!

I think everyone not only likes, but needs health insurance. How do we make it affordable in a world where people don't have to have it, companies don't have to cover everyone, and the government plays a minimal role?

a) It was more affordable when it wasn't forced, weird!

b) ask Canada

 

Healthcare is great. Healthcare INSURANCE is a crock of sh#t.

In this very thread BRB posted a chart showing the rate of increase did not go up with ACA.

 

So ya, it was "more affordable when it wasn't forced" but that was already the trend.

 

Unfortunately the bill is named the Affordable Care Act and it only became that for the poorest. I'm fine with that but the name isn't accurate for everyone.

Are you completely ignoring the rest of the graph?

 

Please tell me how the ACA affected healthcare costs around the world that have the same shape of graph after the ACA was enacted.

 

I'm replying to one specific part of Redux's post and I don't have the graph in front of me right now. And I didn't know we were talking about worldwide health care costs(?)

 

 

 

Well, it helps to look at all the graph and it will give an indication on if your theory is correct.

 

The fact is, the shape of the US line is very very similar to the shapes of other countries around the world. Ours is just WAY higher. So, in reality, it appears cost of health care has leveled off for almost everyone around the world. If that's the case, it's probably a safe bet that the ACA didn't have anything to do with that. Also, if you look at the past, there were periods where it all leveled off before without the ACA.

 

The problem is, the US line hasn't come CLOSER to the other countries lines. We still pay way more than the rest of the world and that hasn't improved.

 

So, I fail to see how the graph I posted is really positive for the ACA.

[Moiraine]

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

So I'm supposed to be happy that this supposed "extremely small number" of people that are being bled dry by forced healthcare at uber inflated rates is such a small sample size? Well, I'm part of that "extremely small number". Not a fan.

 

I like having halthcare (since our government decided long ago that healthcare is a luxury not a right like Canada). But I don't like paying more for it than my house. At that rate, what good is it? Oh, that's right. If I don't have it I can pay even more money back to the government via penalties. Thanks government!

I think everyone not only likes, but needs health insurance. How do we make it affordable in a world where people don't have to have it, companies don't have to cover everyone, and the government plays a minimal role?

a) It was more affordable when it wasn't forced, weird!

b) ask Canada

 

Healthcare is great. Healthcare INSURANCE is a crock of sh#t.

In this very thread BRB posted a chart showing the rate of increase did not go up with ACA.

 

So ya, it was "more affordable when it wasn't forced" but that was already the trend.

 

Unfortunately the bill is named the Affordable Care Act and it only became that for the poorest. I'm fine with that but the name isn't accurate for everyone.

Are you completely ignoring the rest of the graph?

 

Please tell me how the ACA affected healthcare costs around the world that have the same shape of graph after the ACA was enacted.

I'm replying to one specific part of Redux's post and I don't have the graph in front of me right now. And I didn't know we were talking about worldwide health care costs(?)

 

Well, it helps to look at all the graph and it will give an indication on if your theory is correct.

 

The fact is, the shape of the US line is very very similar to the shapes of other countries around the world. Ours is just WAY higher. So, in reality, it appears cost of health care has leveled off for almost everyone around the world. If that's the case, it's probably a safe bet that the ACA didn't have anything to do with that. Also, if you look at the past, there were periods where it all leveled off before without the ACA.

 

The problem is, the US line hasn't come CLOSER to the other countries lines. We still pay way more than the rest of the world and that hasn't improved.

 

So, I fail to see how the graph I posted is really positive for the ACA.

 

I replied already (and did earlier in thread) but just to add - I didn't say it was positive. I said the ACA didn't make things worse, but more people became insured.

[Redux]

If the government is going to force insurance on the people, they should have ensured it would be affordable for those who didn't have it because they couldn't afford it. In that regard, total failure.

[BigRedBuster]

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

So I'm supposed to be happy that this supposed "extremely small number" of people that are being bled dry by forced healthcare at uber inflated rates is such a small sample size? Well, I'm part of that "extremely small number". Not a fan.

 

I like having halthcare (since our government decided long ago that healthcare is a luxury not a right like Canada). But I don't like paying more for it than my house. At that rate, what good is it? Oh, that's right. If I don't have it I can pay even more money back to the government via penalties. Thanks government!

I think everyone not only likes, but needs health insurance. How do we make it affordable in a world where people don't have to have it, companies don't have to cover everyone, and the government plays a minimal role?

a) It was more affordable when it wasn't forced, weird!

b) ask Canada

 

Healthcare is great. Healthcare INSURANCE is a crock of sh#t.

In this very thread BRB posted a chart showing the rate of increase did not go up with ACA.

 

So ya, it was "more affordable when it wasn't forced" but that was already the trend.

 

Unfortunately the bill is named the Affordable Care Act and it only became that for the poorest. I'm fine with that but the name isn't accurate for everyone.

Are you completely ignoring the rest of the graph?

 

Please tell me how the ACA affected healthcare costs around the world that have the same shape of graph after the ACA was enacted.

I'm replying to one specific part of Redux's post and I don't have the graph in front of me right now. And I didn't know we were talking about worldwide health care costs(?)

 

Well, it helps to look at all the graph and it will give an indication on if your theory is correct.

 

The fact is, the shape of the US line is very very similar to the shapes of other countries around the world. Ours is just WAY higher. So, in reality, it appears cost of health care has leveled off for almost everyone around the world. If that's the case, it's probably a safe bet that the ACA didn't have anything to do with that. Also, if you look at the past, there were periods where it all leveled off before without the ACA.

 

The problem is, the US line hasn't come CLOSER to the other countries lines. We still pay way more than the rest of the world and that hasn't improved.

 

So, I fail to see how the graph I posted is really positive for the ACA.

 

I replied already (and did earlier in thread) but just to add - I didn't say it was positive. I said the ACA didn't make things worse, but more people became insured.

 

Again, that's not what the graph shows. The graph was showing healthcare costs as a percentage of GDP. So, there is another side to the equation. If GDP goes up and healthcare actual costs stay the same, the graph line would decline because it's a lower percentage of GDP. If healthcare costs raise faster than GDP, the line will go up. if GDP goes up and health care goes up roughly at the same rate, the line will be flat.

 

The line is flat.....so, healthcare still increased in cost because the US GDP has increased over that period of time.

 

Now, you could possibly say it's a good sign that it's not increasing at a higher rate than GDP. However, the same happened in the rest of the world.

[BigRedBuster]

If the government is going to force insurance on the people, they should have ensured it would be affordable for those who didn't have it because they couldn't afford it. In that regard, total failure.

I agree...And....what has happened is that insurance for people who could afford it before, has now gone up so much that more people are actually having a harder time affording it.

[zoogs]

b) ask Canada

You want the Canadian healthcare system here?

 

OK

[Moiraine]

 

 

If the government is going to force insurance on the people, they should have ensured it would be affordable for those who didn't have it because they couldn't afford it. In that regard, total failure.

I agree...And....what has happened is that insurance for people who could afford it before, has now gone up so much that more people are actually having a harder time affording it.

 

What Redux said above is utterly wrong. It's one of the few things I assumed people could agree with. The ACA absolutely did make insurance more affordable for those who couldn't afford it before.

 

There are plenty of negatives about the ACA that can be argued that I would agree with. That isn't one of them. Your point that it made it less affordable for those who could afford it before is one I can agree with.

[Moiraine]

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

So I'm supposed to be happy that this supposed "extremely small number" of people that are being bled dry by forced healthcare at uber inflated rates is such a small sample size? Well, I'm part of that "extremely small number". Not a fan.

 

I like having halthcare (since our government decided long ago that healthcare is a luxury not a right like Canada). But I don't like paying more for it than my house. At that rate, what good is it? Oh, that's right. If I don't have it I can pay even more money back to the government via penalties. Thanks government!

I think everyone not only likes, but needs health insurance. How do we make it affordable in a world where people don't have to have it, companies don't have to cover everyone, and the government plays a minimal role?

a) It was more affordable when it wasn't forced, weird!

b) ask Canada

 

Healthcare is great. Healthcare INSURANCE is a crock of sh#t.

In this very thread BRB posted a chart showing the rate of increase did not go up with ACA.

 

So ya, it was "more affordable when it wasn't forced" but that was already the trend.

 

Unfortunately the bill is named the Affordable Care Act and it only became that for the poorest. I'm fine with that but the name isn't accurate for everyone.

Are you completely ignoring the rest of the graph?

 

Please tell me how the ACA affected healthcare costs around the world that have the same shape of graph after the ACA was enacted.

I'm replying to one specific part of Redux's post and I don't have the graph in front of me right now. And I didn't know we were talking about worldwide health care costs(?)

 

 

Well, it helps to look at all the graph and it will give an indication on if your theory is correct.

 

The fact is, the shape of the US line is very very similar to the shapes of other countries around the world. Ours is just WAY higher. So, in reality, it appears cost of health care has leveled off for almost everyone around the world. If that's the case, it's probably a safe bet that the ACA didn't have anything to do with that. Also, if you look at the past, there were periods where it all leveled off before without the ACA.

 

The problem is, the US line hasn't come CLOSER to the other countries lines. We still pay way more than the rest of the world and that hasn't improved.

 

So, I fail to see how the graph I posted is really positive for the ACA.

I replied already (and did earlier in thread) but just to add - I didn't say it was positive. I said the ACA didn't make things worse, but more people became insured.

Again, that's not what the graph shows. The graph was showing healthcare costs as a percentage of GDP. So, there is another side to the equation. If GDP goes up and healthcare actual costs stay the same, the graph line would decline because it's a lower percentage of GDP. If healthcare costs raise faster than GDP, the line will go up. if GDP goes up and health care goes up roughly at the same rate, the line will be flat.

 

The line is flat.....so, healthcare still increased in cost because the US GDP has increased over that period of time.

 

Now, you could possibly say it's a good sign that it's not increasing at a higher rate than GDP. However, the same happened in the rest of the world.

...that's exactly what I'm saying. The trend didn't change here or anywhere else. Costs continued to rise. The ACA had no effect. It can easily be argued that it's a failure for that reason. But it hasn't increased the rate of health care cost increase as far as I can see. The trend remained the same before and after the ACA.

[Moiraine]

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

So I'm supposed to be happy that this supposed "extremely small number" of people that are being bled dry by forced healthcare at uber inflated rates is such a small sample size? Well, I'm part of that "extremely small number". Not a fan.

 

I like having halthcare (since our government decided long ago that healthcare is a luxury not a right like Canada). But I don't like paying more for it than my house. At that rate, what good is it? Oh, that's right. If I don't have it I can pay even more money back to the government via penalties. Thanks government!

I think everyone not only likes, but needs health insurance. How do we make it affordable in a world where people don't have to have it, companies don't have to cover everyone, and the government plays a minimal role?

a) It was more affordable when it wasn't forced, weird!

b) ask Canada

 

Healthcare is great. Healthcare INSURANCE is a crock of sh#t.

In this very thread BRB posted a chart showing the rate of increase did not go up with ACA.

 

So ya, it was "more affordable when it wasn't forced" but that was already the trend.

 

Unfortunately the bill is named the Affordable Care Act and it only became that for the poorest. I'm fine with that but the name isn't accurate for everyone.

Are you completely ignoring the rest of the graph?

 

Please tell me how the ACA affected healthcare costs around the world that have the same shape of graph after the ACA was enacted.

I'm replying to one specific part of Redux's post and I don't have the graph in front of me right now. And I didn't know we were talking about worldwide health care costs(?)

 

Well, it helps to look at all the graph and it will give an indication on if your theory is correct.

 

The fact is, the shape of the US line is very very similar to the shapes of other countries around the world. Ours is just WAY higher. So, in reality, it appears cost of health care has leveled off for almost everyone around the world. If that's the case, it's probably a safe bet that the ACA didn't have anything to do with that. Also, if you look at the past, there were periods where it all leveled off before without the ACA.

 

The problem is, the US line hasn't come CLOSER to the other countries lines. We still pay way more than the rest of the world and that hasn't improved.

 

So, I fail to see how the graph I posted is really positive for the ACA.

I replied already (and did earlier in thread) but just to add - I didn't say it was positive. I said the ACA didn't make things worse, but more people became insured.

Again, that's not what the graph shows. The graph was showing healthcare costs as a percentage of GDP. So, there is another side to the equation. If GDP goes up and healthcare actual costs stay the same, the graph line would decline because it's a lower percentage of GDP. If healthcare costs raise faster than GDP, the line will go up. if GDP goes up and health care goes up roughly at the same rate, the line will be flat.

 

The line is flat.....so, healthcare still increased in cost because the US GDP has increased over that period of time.

 

Now, you could possibly say it's a good sign that it's not increasing at a higher rate than GDP. However, the same happened in the rest of the world.

 

I think it's possible we're confusing "increase in healthcare cost" with "increase in the rate of healthcare cost increase"

 

It reminds me of when people were touting the NCLB because kids were better at math and reading. The increase in math and reading gains held steady starting at around 1990. NCLB metely continued at the same rate.

[BigRedBuster]

LINK

 

WASHINGTON — The nation’s health care tab this year is expected to surpass $10,000 per person for the first time, the government said Wednesday. The new peak means the Obama administration will pass the problem of high health care costs on to its successor.

The report from number crunchers at the Department of Health and Human Services projects that health care spending will grow at a faster rate than the national economy over the coming decade. That squeezes the ability of federal and state governments, not to mention employers and average citizens, to pay.

Growth is projected to average 5.8 percent from 2015 to 2025, below the pace before the 2007-2009 economic recession but faster than in recent years that saw health care spending moving in step with modest economic growth.

National health expenditures will hit $3.35 trillion this year, which works out to $10,345 for every man, woman and child. The annual increase of 4.8 percent for 2016 is lower than the forecast for the rest of the decade.

A stronger economy, faster growth in medical prices and an aging population are driving the trend. Medicare and Medicaid are expected to grow more rapidly than private insurance as the baby-boom generation ages. By 2025, government at all levels will account for nearly half of health care spending, 47 percent.

[JJ Husker]

Thought this was interesting.

Was talking with one of my employees today who I thought was getting his health insurance through the exchange.

He told me that his tax preparer simply filed him as exempt for the ACA requirement to have health coverage.

That's right, he has not purchased any health insurance in 2 years and it was as simple as checking a box to get out of paying the "fine" for not having coverage.

 

I wonder who will end up paying for his health care expenses if, God forbid, he has something serious happen. The sad thing is, he can wait until he has a need, then purchase coverage through the exchange and he will have completely defeated the cost sharing idea of "insurance". I would bet there are literally millions doing the exact same thing. Kind of hard to drive costs down if hospitals etc. still have to spread their unpaid bills over the people who actually have insurance. Wasn't that one of the big problems the ACA was supposed to solve?

[NM11046]

Exactly the problem ElDIaco. Good news is that at least with the ACA there was less of this happening - and the answer to your question ... we will. We will pay for his care when he needs it and doesn't have insurance.

[zoogs]

Doubt that there are literally millions:

https://www.nerdwallet.com/blog/health/obamacare-exemptions/

[JJ Husker]

Exactly the problem ElDIaco. Good news is that at least with the ACA there was less of this happening - and the answer to your question ... we will. We will pay for his care when he needs it and doesn't have insurance.

 

This is one reason why I am so concerned about the cost issue. As insurance costs continue to rise, more and more people are going to choose the no insurance route. Being able to get insurance without concern for pre-existing conditions, lapses in coverage, staying on parent's plan to age 26 etc. doesn't mean jack squat if people just plain can't afford it. I've got no evidence but I would guess that the people who were added to the roles of the insured very soon will be outnumbered by the people who have had to drop coverage because they can't afford it. I know there are subsidies and premium assistance but I think all we did was move from the poorest not having coverage to the lower middle not having coverage. Not much more than a short lived band-aid without getting costs under control.

 

BTW, I know....it was a rhetorical question.