SWMCinci
Well-known member
All education..... once the feds are involved it always happens.
Trump’s Commonsensical Food-Stamp Rule
- Thread starter 2manyBats
- Start date
All education..... once the feds are involved it always happens.
ProV1
Well-known member
Totally false equivalent. Obamacare was modeled after Romneycare which was an attempt to shore up the private insurance markets. Fundamentally, it did 3 things. First, it inserted minimum insurance requirements. Second, it required people buy insurance kind of like they are required to buy auto insurance or pay a fine. Third, it created exchanges of private insurance. It was all built on private insurance. True, some freeloaders decided to pay a penalty but that has nothing to do with a public option. If the government offered a public insurance option, people would be free to buy it, buy a private plan, or continue to freeload.
Really - Obamacare was a LIE ..... You think this was Good ? Or Do You Fit the Mold
ACA Architect: 'The Stupidity Of The American Voter' Led Us To Hide Obamacare's True Costs From The Public
ACA Architect: 'The Stupidity Of The American Voter' Led Us To Hide Obamacare's True Costs From The Public
You’ve got to hand it to MIT economist Jonathan Gruber. The guy dubbed the “Obamacare architect” is a viral YouTube sensation. A few months back, he was caught on tape admitting that Obamacare doesn’t provide subsidies for federally-run insurance exchanges; the topic of a new case before the...
www.forbes.com
ProV1
Well-known member
Please reread the post. You do not understand. I made no judgment about its value. I just stated what it fundamentally was about and then explained why it was different than a public option.Really - Obamacare was a LIE ..... You think this was Good ? Or Do You Fit the Mold
ACA Architect: 'The Stupidity Of The American Voter' Led Us To Hide Obamacare's True Costs From The Public
ACA Architect: 'The Stupidity Of The American Voter' Led Us To Hide Obamacare's True Costs From The Public
You’ve got to hand it to MIT economist Jonathan Gruber. The guy dubbed the “Obamacare architect” is a viral YouTube sensation. A few months back, he was caught on tape admitting that Obamacare doesn’t provide subsidies for federally-run insurance exchanges; the topic of a new case before the...
You act like we all should be on Medicare !!
that's 15% of the Population - and All on it Need Extra Coverage !
Benefit Gaps and Supplemental Coverage
Medicare provides protection against the costs of many health care services, but traditional Medicare has relatively high deductibles and cost-sharing requirements and places no limit on beneficiaries’ out-of-pocket spending for services covered under Parts A and B. Moreover, traditional Medicare does not pay for some services that are important for older people and people with disabilities, including long-term services and supports, dental services, eyeglasses, and hearing aids. In light of Medicare’s benefit gaps, cost-sharing requirements, and lack of an annual out-of-pocket spending limit, most beneficiaries covered under traditional Medicare have some type of supplemental coverage that helps to cover beneficiaries’ costs and fill the benefit gaps
An Overview of Medicare | KFF
This issue brief provides an overview of Medicare, the health insurance program for people ages 65 and over and younger people with long-term disabilities. The brief review the characteristics of people on Medicare, what Medicare covers, benefit gaps and supplemental coverage, beneficiaries'...
www.kff.org
Do you even Know the 3 Questions to be answered for the Public Option ? Just to get a Quote
ProV1
Well-known member
I have no idea what three questions you are talking about.
You Continue to Get Schooled by The posters on Yappi
In order to get a Health Insurance Quote - Obamacare / Public Option you have to give the below
before you get a Insurance Cost Quote !
#1 -Name
#2 - Social Security Number and
#3 - INCOME
It's a F'n Tax - ALL DAY LONG
ProV1
Well-known member
So what?
Do you have Employer Provided ?
If so, You'd have to Ask a Senior Citizen to get there Input about how Medicare Works, and Doesn't Work !
Because if you Don't Buy the EXTRA COVERAGE, If Falls Way Short !!
Benefit Gaps and Supplemental Coverage
Medicare provides protection against the costs of many health care services, but traditional Medicare has relatively high deductibles and cost-sharing requirements and places no limit on beneficiaries’ out-of-pocket spending for services covered under Parts A and B. Moreover, traditional Medicare does not pay for some services that are important for older people and people with disabilities, including long-term services and supports, dental services, eyeglasses, and hearing aids. In light of Medicare’s benefit gaps, cost-sharing requirements, and lack of an annual out-of-pocket spending limit, most beneficiaries covered under traditional Medicare have some type of supplemental coverage that helps to cover beneficiaries’ costs and fill the benefit gaps
If so, You'd have to Ask a Senior Citizen to get there Input about how Medicare Works, and Doesn't Work !
Because if you Don't Buy the EXTRA COVERAGE, If Falls Way Short !!
Benefit Gaps and Supplemental Coverage
Medicare provides protection against the costs of many health care services, but traditional Medicare has relatively high deductibles and cost-sharing requirements and places no limit on beneficiaries’ out-of-pocket spending for services covered under Parts A and B. Moreover, traditional Medicare does not pay for some services that are important for older people and people with disabilities, including long-term services and supports, dental services, eyeglasses, and hearing aids. In light of Medicare’s benefit gaps, cost-sharing requirements, and lack of an annual out-of-pocket spending limit, most beneficiaries covered under traditional Medicare have some type of supplemental coverage that helps to cover beneficiaries’ costs and fill the benefit gaps
Gh0st
Well-known member
It's not a false equivalent at all. Obamacare was the first national attempt to force people into the insurance pool, specifically the young and healthy to try and spread costs. You contended that people would pay for a public option if available. With the ACA, the government tried to force private companies to provide coverage to people who were previously uninsured by preventing them from excluding people with pre-existing conditions, dropping patients who became ill, and forcing them to cover essential health benefits. The idea being that if you get the young and healthy to pay into the plans, and not use them, it would offset the cost of the older and chronically ill in the insurance population. It completely failed in that the predictable rise in premiums was more than the penalty to simply freeload. People made the logical choice to not pay the higher sum and as a result, insurance companies ended up with a roster of chronically ill and high utilizing individuals without the stable of young enrollees to essentially subsidize the cost.
The exchanges were not exclusive to private insurance. Part of the ACA was Medicaid expansion to 133% of the poverty line and Medicaid services were also on the exchange. The result was that percentages of previously uninsured were moved into the Medicaid category without necessarily providing increased Medicaid funding on a proportional level. Medicaid started cutting reimbursements to hospitals and providers, dropping medications from formularies, and some states simply didn't expand their Medicaid services because the money wasn't there.
Unless you are going to force people to have insurance, the only ones who are going to be buying are the old and chronically ill. You will continue to have the young and healthy choosing to pay penalties rather than high premiums. The only way the public option works is if it includes the entire population and if rationing occurs. You cannot provide a free ride for some, and not all, and offer unlimited services without expecting and getting dramatic spending increases.
ProV1
Well-known member
My points on a public option, have nothing to do with how Obamacare worked I understand how it worked. A Medicare type option for those that want it has nothing to do with the fundamentals' of Obamacare. I'm not saying that people would be forced to buy it. They could buy their own private policy or continue to go without.
I Don't See a Government medical System that won't End up - Two Tiered !!!!
I have a Good Friend - owns an insurance / Financial Adversary Business. ( I've stated this before )
the Doctors Offices really don't want to Accept Subsidized Patients because most patients can't afford to pay their Co- pays !!
---- Doctors Offices have Two Patient Doors, and a Payment Up Front Window ------
and the Financials show, thousands of Individuals Owing Hundreds Each ! do the Math and its Not Working !!
Paying All or Some of the Health Care Monthly Insurance Premiums for People that Can't Afford Co-pays Only Works for the
the Insurance Companies !
Gh0st
Well-known member
We have Medicare and Medicaid. We don't need a third public option that is optional for people to buy. There's absolutely no reason that anyone would buy it unless it was significantly cheaper and it couldn't remain significantly cheaper without either massive subsidization or rationing. What you are proposing is introducing yet another government price control, that already has not worked with Medicare or Medicaid for decades and detaches health care cost even more from market influences.
Obamacare tried Medicaid expansion, it didn't work. Obamacare tried coercion to force people to buy insurances, it didn't work. Obamacare tried to force private companies to cover more people, it didn't work. I have no idea what you think introducing an optional, low reimbursing public option would bring to the health care system that would be beneficial in anyway. The only way that ends is that we pay for an inefficient system that nobody uses, or we pay incredibly high subsidies to keep it funded when all the chronically ill flock to it. At that point you may as well talk about bringing in single payer.
ProV1
Well-known member
How do you know? Why do we have Medicare? Would you agree that we have it because private insurance would be unaffordable for people when they are old? If not, why do we have Medicare? Do you want to do away with Medicare?
I am self employed and in my 50's....hardly unique. I buy my insurance on the open market. It is massively expensive. I can afford it but most people can not. They are either way under insured and bankrupt if they get sick or not insured at all. Don't say we don't need another option just because YOU don't want one. Costs are going up 3-4 times inflation. At what point to you think relying solely on an employer based system is going to kill business and the broad economy?
Gh0st
Well-known member
The problem with health care costs rising is incredibly easy to understand. The older population spends more on health care than the entire current working class is contributing. People live longer and spend more in their old age than they ever have before and the trend is going to continue.
Your solution to this problem is to add more people to the takers and get the money to fund that from where exactly? Do you want to continue taxing the old and retired to keep funding their health insurance or is the working class now supposed to subsidize their own insurance as well as the retired? Perhaps the money grows on trees somewhere and we can get it from there.
You can have all inclusive health insurance that is fast and expensive. Or you can have rationed health insurance that is cheaper and slower. You choose, there's no in between option.
Proposing "what ifs" as if Medicare has not existed for the last 50 years is pretty meaningless as far as understanding the argument. I have no idea what health care prices would look like in a world without Medicare and neither do you because Medicare has been massively influencing health care prices for decades in ways that don't follow market trends.
ProV1
Well-known member
People are not living longer. Our life expectancy is going down. The more expensive the system gets the worse the outcomes seem to be getting. We pay exponentially more than anywhere else in the world for worse outcomes so this can be improved. This issue will become a massive drain on the economy. Argue all you want that we are just stuck because too much is spent on old people. I refuse to believe it is hopeless.
Gh0st
Well-known member
We are living longer than we were in 1966 when Medicare was started.... Didn't realize I had to clarify that. And when you say declining, you're talking about 78.8 years to 78.6 years since 2014. So not really a dramatic difference.
Because we value freedom in this country. You are allowed to forego preventative care your entire life and expect to be taken care of when you finally make it onto the government teat. It costs significantly less money to be seen by a physician once per year and be treated for your high blood pressure and high cholesterol than it does to be treated for bypass surgery. You are allowed to smoke for 30+ years KNOWING it poses a health risk in just about every conceivable way. You are allowed to be morbidly obese, eat garbage, drink alcohol to excess, and never exercise KNOWING it poses health risks in just about every conceivable way.
The difference is, you're shocked that this has lead increased health care costs and demand the government bail us out, and I'm neither shocked nor do I think throwing people on a government program fixes this problem.
Thought I'd do some fact checking on this.
Life expectency in the U.S. has been going down by about 0.03% per anum since 2014....the same year most of the ACA provisions took effect.
Incidentally, several websites have had recent (past 5 months) articles about how life expectency continues its "downward spiral" (apparently a 3 in 10000 decrease must be some kind of tipping point, probably related to climate change). But, one page cites the U.N. data that the U.S. life expectancy increased by 0.08% in 2019. Thanks Trump!
Life Expectancy is the wrong way to look at it. LE is the average age at death. We should, for this discussion be more concerned with age of death for each generation.
20-30 year olds dying at much higher numbers than in the past skew the average. It also reduces the number of potential taxpayers for another 40-50 years.
Ideally from a numbers stand point we'd be better off if retirees started using opiods and overdosing than if 20 somethings did.
I'm not advocating either scenario, just showing why LE is irrelevant.
20-30 year olds dying at much higher numbers than in the past skew the average. It also reduces the number of potential taxpayers for another 40-50 years.
Ideally from a numbers stand point we'd be better off if retirees started using opiods and overdosing than if 20 somethings did.
I'm not advocating either scenario, just showing why LE is irrelevant.
ProV1
Well-known member
Skipping preventative care sounds like a crappy system to me but hey, I’m not a doctor.
Gh0st
Well-known member
ProV1
Well-known member
I’m not 100% sure but I don’t think the countries who have a much lower cost system with better outcomes make it a law to go to the doctor once a year. Maybe they do. If so, maybe we should. We make them go to the BMV every few years. The doctor sounds a whole lot smarter.
SWMCinci
Well-known member
The VA is an example of a public option. With near unlimited funding, government control of services delivery, and a limited audience it is a dismal failure. Come back to me about a public option when Medicare is actually paying for the costs of the services it covers, Medicaid has reach parity with Medicare, CHAMPUS is liked and respected by its customers, and the VA isn't the disaster that it is.
Gh0st
Well-known member
They don't, but many of them don't have to. They have a different way of life than we do.
ProV1
Well-known member
I tend to believe that it has less to do with way of life but more to do with the system. Yes...Americans are much fatter and to some degree, a bit more lazy but I don’t think that stops them from going to the doctor as much as the cost barriers even for the insured. Which takes me back to your original point. Our system sucks and costs way to much. I just refuse to believe that there is not a better way. A lot of times innovation is a result of desperation. We might not be there yet but I predict we will be.
Gh0st
Well-known member
Going to the doctor is not the struggle in this country. Following their advice and realizing you can't always get what you want is the problem.
Preventative rather than reactionary care is the way to practice that keeps costs under control. I get blown off on a daily basis telling people to stop smoking, eat better, exercise more, take your medications, because the attitude is that they know better than I do.
Changing health care is going to require either government enforced rules or rationing, high cost for doing the wrong thing, or fundamentally changing the attitude of over 350 million people.
ProV1
Well-known member
I appreciate the argument but I just don’t agree that this is mostly a culture problem. You are basically saying that Americans are not only fat and lazy (I agree to an extent) but also stupid. The US does not have a monopoly on those things.