It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

ACA survives and thrives with subsidies

page: 2
6
<< 1    3 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jul, 31 2017 @ 02:19 PM
link   
a reply to: burdman30ott6

Really.......on account of because of the fact that when you take the Insurance companies out of the equation, costs drop dramatically. Furthermore, without single payer, we have millions of people circulating throughout society with undiagnosed diseases putting the rest of society at risk of serious illness. I get your point, but........this isn't the US of the 1950's where the majority of the population had an ethical and moral compass. Its 2017! And worse, going forward, the unemployment rate will only go up via AI and robotics. More and more people will be unable to provide for themselves because there won't be any jobs.

As a result, its going to happen. The only question is when.




posted on Jul, 31 2017 @ 02:19 PM
link   
The problem is there's no point in 'letting it die', that's a childish and destructive response to a complex problem.

There's got to be a better system on offer to replace it with.

And Trump just didn't have a better system lined up to take it's place.



posted on Jul, 31 2017 @ 02:24 PM
link   

originally posted by: Krazysh0t
Really? Proof? I understand that the ACA added 20 million people to the health insurance roles. So I'm sure you can produce a source that shows that 20 million people were hurt by these new gains.


Let's not play the "Pretend Krazysh0t is a dumbass" game, dude. I know well and good that you're smart enough to recognize that any system which takes millions of Americans who had existing healthcare plans, and triples, quadruples, or more their premiums while doubling or tripling their deductibles can be accurately said to be "hurting" those people. Premiums were increasing before the ACA, but deductibles were staying fairly stagnant... Your insurance was spendy, but you got a benefit out of it and could afford to actually use it. With the ACA we have people who used to like their insurance and use their insurance now paying way way more for far less benefits. Why? 'Cause somebody has to pay for those pre-existing conditions that are swamping the whole system.



posted on Jul, 31 2017 @ 02:27 PM
link   
a reply to: TonyS

I still say you all sound like Ol' Maduro down in Venezuela.

We tried taking partial control of it and wrecked it, so now the only option is to give us total control of it.

You know as well as I do that nothing the US government does will be either efficient or cheap. So why on earth do you want it to fully socialize 1/6th of our entire economy? Let's tell that segment of the economy to start smoking crack, it might still work out better for all of us.



posted on Jul, 31 2017 @ 02:30 PM
link   
a reply to: Krazysh0t

Well, I'm not so sure.
Its dated but see: www.epi.org...


From August 1997 to August 2007, employment in the health insurance industry grew an astounding 52%, from 293,000 to 444,000.1 During the same period, employment among physicians, nurses, and others who provide health services or work to support them grew half as fast, by 26%, from 10,387,000 to 13,042,000.


444,000 people in 2007.

But wait, there's more! See: fortune.com...


Let’s consider evidence on the cost issue first. In 1991, Steffie Woolhandler and David Himmelstein, two Harvard doctors with an interest in health policy, published a paper in The New England Journal of Medicine in which they estimated that health care administration constituted somewhere between 19% and 24% of total spending on health care, an amount that was 117% higher than what it was in Canada and much more than in the U.K.


Ouch! But.....it gets worse!


About a decade later, the researchers decided to revisit their earlier examination of U.S. healthcare administrative inefficiency. They wanted to determine whether changes in the medical care system—including the rise of managed care and numerous hospital mergers, and changes in technology, including the growing use of computers and the Internet—had changed the administrative burden. They found that things were worse. Their updated estimate, once again published in The New England Journal of Medicine, found that administration accounted for about 31% of health care spending and that more than 27% of all of the people employed in health care worked in administrative and clerical occupations.


Its way past time to cut out the middleman. 460,000 jobs lost? They'll probably transition to government jobs administering the single payer system.



posted on Jul, 31 2017 @ 02:32 PM
link   
a reply to: ketsuko

You're right.........the US government can screw up anything they touch.

What's wrong we outsource it to say...............the UK or Sweden, or better yet and closer to home.....Canada.



posted on Jul, 31 2017 @ 02:36 PM
link   

originally posted by: burdman30ott6

originally posted by: Krazysh0t
Really? Proof? I understand that the ACA added 20 million people to the health insurance roles. So I'm sure you can produce a source that shows that 20 million people were hurt by these new gains.


Let's not play the "Pretend Krazysh0t is a dumbass" game, dude. I know well and good that you're smart enough to recognize that any system which takes millions of Americans who had existing healthcare plans, and triples, quadruples, or more their premiums while doubling or tripling their deductibles can be accurately said to be "hurting" those people. Premiums were increasing before the ACA, but deductibles were staying fairly stagnant... Your insurance was spendy, but you got a benefit out of it and could afford to actually use it. With the ACA we have people who used to like their insurance and use their insurance now paying way way more for far less benefits. Why? 'Cause somebody has to pay for those pre-existing conditions that are swamping the whole system.


The only game I'm playing is the "deny ignorance" game. You made a claim, produce the evidence, Mr. Moderator. I'm sure you know the rules.



posted on Jul, 31 2017 @ 02:39 PM
link   
a reply to: TonyS

You make it sound so easy...



posted on Jul, 31 2017 @ 02:43 PM
link   
Turkey is one of the most corrupt countries in the world and it has single payer. The least America could do is have single payer. Congress however is too much in the pockets of insurance to let that happen.

en.wikipedia.org...



posted on Jul, 31 2017 @ 03:02 PM
link   
a reply to: Krazysh0t

time.com...


For another, the typical plan's deductible is quite different nowadays. In 2008, high deductibles were the minority: 18% of covered workers had deductible of at least $1,000, per the Kaiser Family Foundation, up from only 10% in 2006. For workers with employer-sponsored plans at small firms, 35% had deductibles of $1,000 or more in 2008, up from 16% in 2006.
Read Next: Here’s How Much the Average American Worker Has to Pay for Health Care
Fast-forward to 2016, and high-deductible plans have become standard: 51% of all covered workers, and 65% of workers in small firms, face deductibles of at least $1,000. Workers at smaller firms must pay an average of $2,069 out of pocket before insurance payments kick in, versus $1,238 for workers at firms with 200 or more employees.


money.cnn.com...

For the 85% of enrollees with lower incomes, federal subsidies make the premiums somewhat more affordable. Those even closer to the poverty line can get additional subsidies that reduce the deductibles, which can run into the thousands of dollars.
But for many middle class Americans -- a single person earning more than $47,520 or a family of four with an income of $97,200 -- the pricey premiums and deductibles mean health care coverage remains out of reach.


budget.house.gov...

• Americans with employer health care coverage – approximately 155 million people – are paying higher premiums and higher deductibles under Obamacare. President Obama promised premiums would decline $2,500 per family; instead, average family premiums in the employer-sponsored market have soared to more than $18,000.

• Deductibles are also increasing. According to the Kaiser Family Foundation, deductibles for individual plans in the employer-sponsored market are up an average of 89 percent, from $646 in 2010 to $1,221 in 2016. This is faster than the rise in individual premiums (27 percent), double the rise in workers’ wages (13 percent), and more than cumulative inflation over the period (10 percent).

• Individuals and families are facing higher prescription drug costs under Obamacare. The average individual with a plan in the exchange marketplace has to pay 46 percent of his or her total drug costs, compared to 20 percent for someone with employer-sponsored health care, according to Health Affairs.

• Many families have found health care under Obamacare to be so unappealing that instead of purchasing coverage they have chosen to pay the individual mandate penalty. In 2015, roughly 8 million Americans paid the penalty and more than 12 million claimed an exemption from the penalty. That’s at least 20 million people who have decided Obamacare is not worth the trouble and/or the price.

edit on 31-7-2017 by burdman30ott6 because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 31 2017 @ 03:04 PM
link   

originally posted by: TonyS
a reply to: ketsuko

You're right.........the US government can screw up anything they touch.

What's wrong we outsource it to say...............the UK or Sweden, or better yet and closer to home.....Canada.


I suppose there is an easy answer: If you want it, outsource yourself?

Oh, that's right! Canada has immigration controls, so it isn't as easy to move there as it might be to move to say ... the US.



posted on Jul, 31 2017 @ 03:19 PM
link   
a reply to: burdman30ott6

Right. The ACA isn't perfect, but that isn't saying what you said originally that it hurt just as many people as it helped. Yes, it goes without saying that there were winners and losers, but the overall health insurance situation is better now than it was pre-ACA and that is something you can't get around no matter how much you hate the bill. That is why it has become so popular while the GOP has tried to repeal it.

Ultimately, if you cared about the American people, you should be requesting to fix the ACA not scrap it altogether.



posted on Jul, 31 2017 @ 03:34 PM
link   

originally posted by: Krazysh0t
Ultimately, if you cared about the American people, you should be requesting to fix the ACA not scrap it altogether.


If you love something, set it free. Ultimately, if you believed in the American people, you wouldn't treat them like children who can't provide for themselves. Ultimately, I believe in the American people enough to want to see them thrive on their own two feet, not in a system by which we redefine "success" to include having other subsidize your life.



posted on Jul, 31 2017 @ 03:40 PM
link   
a reply to: Krazysh0t

That's because ACA gives insurance to the poor who can't afford insurance and then insurance companies go to the government once in a while to get a bailout called cost sharing subsidies. Insurance isn't free. Poor people who get it are paid for by the rich with taxes.



posted on Jul, 31 2017 @ 03:43 PM
link   

originally posted by: allsee4eye
a reply to: Krazysh0t

That's because ACA gives insurance to the poor who can't afford insurance and then insurance companies go to the government once in a while to get a bailout called cost sharing subsidies. Insurance isn't free. Poor people who get it are paid for by the rich with taxes.


Actually they're paid for it by the middle class in the form of higher premiums, higher deductibles, and grossly reduced benefits.



posted on Jul, 31 2017 @ 03:45 PM
link   

originally posted by: Krazysh0t

originally posted by: TonyS
a reply to: Krazysh0t

Through your employer I'd guess. While at the same time you're paying fat taxes to support the insurance companies.

The only "fair" thing to do is to get the insurance companies out of the equation for basic and catastrophic care via single payer. If Sweden and the UK can do it, the US can do it.

I LOATH insurance companies, but here's the thing. The insurance industry makes up a SIGNIFICANT sector of our employment data. If we eliminate it then all those people will be jobless. Killing the insurance industry would crash our economy. If we want to get rid of it, we need to phase it out slowly. Not kill it with flat out.

I'm not saying the current situation is preferable, but I really tire of anti-ACA people pretending like the ACA is the worst thing ever. It helped a lot of people and could help even more if we'd just fix it.


Theres a way around that.

Look up the North Carolina vehicle insurance laws.

I work in the insurance industry and the set-up I see when I used to work on NC policies was crazy interesting.

The state insures high risk drivers, but does so THROUGH insurance companies. The insurance companies manage the policies, and do all the administration work, but the premiums are controlled via the state, and the state pays out on claims.

Its really interesting, they may be able to do something similar with health insurance.



posted on Jul, 31 2017 @ 03:48 PM
link   
a reply to: burdman30ott6

The cost sharing subsidies the government pays to insurance companies for given insurance to the poor who can't afford insurance are paid by taxes. Taxes come from rich people mostly. 20% of Americans pay 80% of taxes.



posted on Jul, 31 2017 @ 04:42 PM
link   

originally posted by: allsee4eye
Turkey is one of the most corrupt countries in the world and it has single payer. The least America could do is have single payer. Congress however is too much in the pockets of insurance to let that happen.

en.wikipedia.org...


Yep. Your'e right.

Guess what? Venezuela has universal care too, and babies in neonatal units sleeping in cardboard boxes ... It's working out so well.


They sink. They all go down.

There are no rats, except the filthy rich ones who extorted billions from the people, who can desert that ship. And it will rapidly be the same everywhere else too. How long will those Euro-Utopian social states hold up under the refugee onslaught they now have to pay for in addition to their own welfare classes?



posted on Jul, 31 2017 @ 04:43 PM
link   

originally posted by: allsee4eye
a reply to: burdman30ott6

The cost sharing subsidies the government pays to insurance companies for given insurance to the poor who can't afford insurance are paid by taxes. Taxes come from rich people mostly. 20% of Americans pay 80% of taxes.


In other words, you don't pay, so eff 'em!

So speaks greed and envy. How dare they not pay for you and everyone else?



posted on Jul, 31 2017 @ 04:46 PM
link   

originally posted by: allsee4eye
a reply to: burdman30ott6

The cost sharing subsidies the government pays to insurance companies for given insurance to the poor who can't afford insurance are paid by taxes. Taxes come from rich people mostly. 20% of Americans pay 80% of taxes.


The magnitude of subsidies needed, however, is based on the insurance company shortfalls after the healthy haves have paid large premiums and deductibles to cover their own insurance needs AND whatever formula the insurance company uses to pick up the tab for the have nots. The subsidies cover shortfalls from the predictions of that formula.



new topics

top topics



 
6
<< 1    3 >>

log in

join