The Affordable Care Act II - Because Mr. Obama Loves You All

[B-Large]

So, reluctantly I am back at work, but my adventure sure was exciting and I hope to get back to it slowly but surely, but in the meantime I thought it would be interesting to compare plans we had in Maine/ Colorado to our employer sponsored plans offered by our hospital system. When you look at total cost of the plans, they are almost equal.... Our ACA plans were about 500/month and had a 6,000 annual deductible, but when I looked at my employer sponsored plan with a 500 deductible, the premium were much higher per month that it almost came out here same, the difference being my employer paid a large portion of that cost as part of my compensation package... Very close to what a subsidy from the State would have provided had we take it. Coincidentally, although my employer plan was slightly less expensive, I am captive to my hospital for all services, which isn't bad because we have exceptional services and no need to go elsewhere. My employer based plan is nice because I never get any paperwork post services where the ACA plans were piles of paperwork, much of it very convoluted and likely not able to be understood by the average policy holder. Getting prices of services in Maine was impossible, often incorrect, and spent slot of time, slot, on the phone getting services corrected and correctly billed and adjusted. A breast MRI was 3500, we paid full price because there was no discount if you had insurance and wanted it to go to deductible, but it would have been better to be uninsured and pay about 1200-1500... The annual plan selection was very easy on ACA plan, people who are confused are probably really stupid and are confused about pumping gas.

 

At the end of the day, I'm still for single payor. The ACA was a welcome reform and increased access, but it's still uses a disjointed convoluted mess as it operating framework. We will waste trillions dicking around tinkering around the fringes of this behemoth, but in the end the only effective solution will be some sort of national health model with incentives in place to encourage responsible utilization of care and services.

[unbillievable]

 

 

the difference being my employer paid a large portion of that cost as part of my compensation package... Very close to what a subsidy from the State would have provided had we take it.

 

The above quote is the trap that makes Obamacare a horrible idea.

 

People are losing employer paid benefits and switching to government subsidies from increased taxes. They got you to believe that the cost is the same by simply re-labeling the bill. You're paying more for your "free" healthcare without realizing it. Then add the management waste x1000 (because it's government)...

 

Why is more government the go-to liberal solution to a bad government?

 

 

 

 

[Doc]

The above quote is the trap that makes Obamacare a horrible idea.

 

People are losing employer paid benefits and switching to government subsidies from increased taxes. They got you to believe that the cost is the same by simply re-labeling the bill. You're paying more for your "free" healthcare without realizing it. Then add the management waste x1000 (because it's government)...

 

Why is more government the go-to liberal solution to a bad government?

 

Because doing something, no matter how ill-conceived and counter-productive it may be, is better than doing nothing.

[DC Tom]

 

Why is more government the go-to liberal solution to a bad government?

 

 

Stupidity. You can't trust people...but you can trust the government, apparently.

[Tiberius]

 

Why is more government the go-to liberal solution to a bad government?

 

 

 

 

Because without it a massive number of people wouldn't be able to see a doctor. Real life issues suck

[3rdnlng]

Because without it a massive number of people wouldn't be able to see a doctor. Real life issues suck

Are you actually stating that more people get to see a doctor now with the ACA than prior to it becoming (sort of) the law of the land?

[GG]

At the end of the day, I'm still for single payor. The ACA was a welcome reform and increased access, but it's still uses a disjointed convoluted mess as it operating framework. We will waste trillions dicking around tinkering around the fringes of this behemoth, but in the end the only effective solution will be some sort of national health model with incentives in place to encourage responsible utilization of care and services.

 

Exactly how did the ACA increase access to healthcare?

[birdog1960]

 

Exactly how did the ACA increase access to healthcare?

people who were previously followed for chronic illnesses rarely and sporadically are being seen regularly now. many patients that previously lacked a medical home, now have one because they are insured and have access to private clinics. they are generally seen more often and by better providers in this scenario than in the er's or thru charity care.

Edited December 14, 2015 by birdog1960

[GG]

people who were previously followed for chronic illnesses rarely and sporadically are being seen regularly now. many patients that previously lacked a medical home, now have one because they are insured and have access to private clinics. they are generally seen more often and by better providers in this scenario than in the er's or thru charity care.

 

The latter part is truly debatable when you look at the hospital and doctor groups that are dropping the exchanges. ACA is doing exactly what it was meant to do - create a two class system of health care. Good luck to all of you in that system.

[birdog1960]

 

The latter part is truly debatable when you look at the hospital and doctor groups that are dropping the exchanges. ACA is doing exactly what it was meant to do - create a two class system of health care. Good luck to all of you in that system.

the second part isn't debatable. it's true. there are 20 million more insured people today than before the ACA. most have a medical home. there'd be many more than 20 mil more insured if repug states would stop stalling on expanding Medicaid.

[Tiberius]

Are you actually stating that more people get to see a doctor now with the ACA than prior to it becoming (sort of) the law of the land?

Yes, but not just that. You saying it there isn't?

 

Medicare and medicade, both HUGE government programs, ensure millions and millions live better, healthier lives. Not to mention the VA, another huge government program. The health care industry--you know, the private sector--would contract significantly if the government didn't prop it up with businss

[GG]

the second part isn't debatable. it's true. there are 20 million more insured people today than before the ACA. most have a medical home. there'd be many more than 20 mil more insured if repug states would stop stalling on expanding Medicaid.

 

20 million is how many people signed up for ACA, and a big number of those moved over from private plans, and in the process lost their doctors and coverage. And it's going to get worse as more exchanges go out of business, more doctors stop accepting ACA and more private insurers drop coverage. But yes, continue to demonize the group who predicted this disaster.

[Tiberius]

 

20 million is how many people signed up for ACA, and a big number of those moved over from private plans, and in the process lost their doctors and coverage. And it's going to get worse as more exchanges go out of business, more doctors stop accepting ACA and more private insurers drop coverage. But yes, continue to demonize the group who predicted this disaster.

And those signed up through medicade, and those that didn't lose their health care at all.

 

But the point is, those who wanted to do nothing and fought tooth and nail to deny anyone health insurance are now acting like the bare minimum that would pass might have problem,so yes, I think demonizing those that actually want to stop people from being able to get health care is a good thing. They are f'n a hole, sh it heads.

[birdog1960]

 

20 million is how many people signed up for ACA, and a big number of those moved over from private plans, and in the process lost their doctors and coverage. And it's going to get worse as more exchanges go out of business, more doctors stop accepting ACA and more private insurers drop coverage. But yes, continue to demonize the group who predicted this disaster.

no, 20 million people are newly insured https://beta.finance.yahoo.com/news/if-you-hate-obamacare--don-t-read-this-154048355.html but don't let the fact stop you from making shite up.

 

The ACA has extended insurance coverage to about 10 million people through changes in the Medicaid program, and to another 10 million through subsidized insurance policies, Elmendorf says. That’s 20 million people with insurance who wouldn’t have had it without the ACA. When Elmendorf ran the CBO, the agency estimated the law would extend coverage to 23 million additional Americans by 2015, so the program is a bit behind projections. But it’s still in the ballpark.

Edited December 14, 2015 by birdog1960

[3rdnlng]

http://dailycaller.com/2014/01/27/fewer-people-have-health-insurance-now-than-in-2009/

[Doc]

 

20 million is how many people signed up for ACA, and a big number of those moved over from private plans, and in the process lost their doctors and coverage. And it's going to get worse as more exchanges go out of business, more doctors stop accepting ACA and more private insurers drop coverage. But yes, continue to demonize the group who predicted this disaster.

 

Not to mention providers not getting paid when exchanges go belly up.

 

And birddog is conveniently conflating coverage with medical care. Most of it through Medicaid expansion, which didn't need a massive and expensive health care overhaul.

[/dev/null]

 

Exactly how did the ACA increase access to healthcare?

Obama passed a law.

 

So let it be written. So let it be done

[birdog1960]

http://dailycaller.com/2014/01/27/fewer-people-have-health-insurance-now-than-in-2009/

did you look at the link for gallup? it's stale, nada, nothing. why would gallup be sourced for numbers available from the cbo? my citation is from the previous chief of the cbo. it amazes me that repugs can take even relatively straightforward numbers and pollute and convolute them.

[GG]

no, 20 million people are newly insured https://beta.finance.yahoo.com/news/if-you-hate-obamacare--don-t-read-this-154048355.html but don't let the fact stop you from making shite up.

 

The ACA has extended insurance coverage to about 10 million people through changes in the Medicaid program, and to another 10 million through subsidized insurance policies, Elmendorf says. That’s 20 million people with insurance who wouldn’t have had it without the ACA. When Elmendorf ran the CBO, the agency estimated the law would extend coverage to 23 million additional Americans by 2015, so the program is a bit behind projections. But it’s still in the ballpark.

 

You're pointing to an article that talks about Elmendorf's projections, as if they're already in the bag and ignore the exchanges that are shutting down and insurance companies that are dropping coverage.

[birdog1960]

 

Not to mention providers not getting paid when exchanges go belly up.

 

And birddog is conveniently conflating coverage with medical care. Most of it through Medicaid expansion, which didn't need a massive and expensive health care overhaul.

Medicaid expansion was an integral part of the ACA. it was always considered part of the solution to insuring the uninsured. i'm not conflating anything. the ACA incentivized states to expand Medicaid. those 10 million newly insured lives don't happen without the ACA

 

You're pointing to an article that talks about Elmendorf's projections, as if they're already in the bag and ignore the exchanges that are shutting down and insurance companies that are dropping coverage.

it compares the actual numbers 20 million, to his projections of 23 million but carry on with your obfuscation. i'm sure the rubes here are impressed.