Questions for Obama supporters

[Cow Poke]

somebody needs to bring this thing back down to earth

[Zymologist]

Get your head outta the clouds.

[rogue06]

Questions for Newton supporters:

1. Do you think gravity is a good idea?
---2. If so, have you used it yet?
------3. Is it saving your aching back?

Good grief, guys, newsflash: The most controversial element of Obamacare, pushed by Obama, the liberal, came from the Heritage Foundation, a conservative think tank. It doesn't have to be, and shouldn't be, a partisan issue. Judge it on its merits, not by whether you like the president or not.

Proving that conservatives can come up with bad ideas too. Why is it that the liberals picked up one of their stinkers and ran with it?

[Sam]

Proving that conservatives can come up with bad ideas too. Why is it that the liberals picked up one of their stinkers and ran with it?

Because if one wants to do things like eliminate the ability to discriminate based on things like gender, pre-existing conditions and so on, one needs to find a way to balance the ratio of sicker patients with healthier patients. One way to do this is to provide "Medicare for all." Another way is to restrict or eliminate employer-based insurance and guarantee minimal catastrophic care. Yet another way is something like a mandate. Republicans initially backed #3. Some, such as Yuval Levin, are currently proposing #2 and Progressives have historically been in favor of #1.

But this isn't the only area of agreement between Republicans and Democrats that morphed into hyperbolic disagreement after the passage of the ACA. In 2009, Republicans, led by Paul Ryan, Richard Burr, and Tom Coburn, introduced a health care reform bill that included state exchanges, penalties for discriminating based on various condtions (led by an independent audit board, no less — insurer death panels!), a package of essential benefits (meeting the same standard as that which existed for members of Congress) and guaranteed issue (elimination of pre-existing condition discrimination). The Republican plan, by eliminating employer tax credits for providing insurance, would have pushed tens of millions of people out of their health insurance plans. Individuals would receive a tax credit similar to the ACA's subsidies which would, interestingly enough, have had much the same effect as what's being criticized by Republicans today regarding the ACA's effect on the labor supply. And while Republicans today want to criticize the ACA's use of "risk corridors" for three years as a "bailout," they were all too happy to introduce the concept in their own Medicare reform less than 10 years earlier. The difference between the two is that the ACA risk corridors expire after three years; Medicare Part D's never expire.

Even today, we're still seeing Republicans express areas of agreement with the ACA and finding them pull back when the plans appear unpopular. Burr and Coburn, accompanied by Orin Hatch, released an outline of a Republican alternative, titled P-CARE, to the ACA that maintains numerous elements of the ACA (in principle: the first action of the bill would be to repeal the ACA in full). The P-CARE bill initially would have paid for expanded coverage (though less expansive and less comprehensive than the ACA's coverage) by capping the amount of pre-tax income that can go towards employer-based insurance at 65%. Pretty much immediately, this was understood to constitute a fairly sizable ($1,000+/year) tax on middle-class earners and the language of the outline was subsequently changed to be much narrower in scope — meaning that the health insurance expansion part of the outline can no longer be called revenue-neutral. It would have also meant that a great many people receiving employer-based insurance would have likely been driven away by the increased cost and moved into the individual market (which would revert to a form much closer to the pre-ACA status quo than the post-ACA non-group market).

Given the Republican alternatives in 2009 and 2014, as well as the mandate proposal by Heritage, it would seem that there just aren't really that many ways to skin this cat. Fixing the health insurance market, providing some sort of guaranteed issue, and expanding coverage is a process that likely only has a handful of realistic routes. And the downfalls will all be pretty similar, as well. What we've learned is that both parties have proposed many of the same routes — but only one is currently taking responsibility for those proposals.

—Sam

[Darth Executor]

Because if one wants to do things like eliminate the ability to discriminate based on things like gender, pre-existing conditions and so on, one needs to find a way to balance the ratio of sicker patients with healthier patients.

There is no need to do things like eliminate the ability to discriminate based on relevant factors. We can simply institute a liberalism tax and have people like you pay for the health care costs of everybody who can't afford them.

[Sparko]

Maybe we could fund free healthcare for everyone in the USA by conquering the world and making them pay for it. Let's start with Canada.

[Sparko]

Proving that conservatives can come up with bad ideas too. Why is it that the liberals picked up one of their stinkers and ran with it?

Apparently so people like Sam can have a way to blame Republicans when their plans fall apart.

[Zymologist]

I would hardly call what the Democrats (and especially Obama) have been doing with Obamacare "taking responsibility".

[Sparko]

Sam, as a liberal, would you answer the questions in the OP?

[Sam]

Sam, as a liberal, would you answer the questions in the OP?

I think the questions are kind of fishing for a fallacy of distribution but sure.

1) Yes

2) No; given my rather uncommon childrearing/work situation, my income is low enough to qualify for Medicaid but my family support system is relatively well-off. We decided that utilizing the exchanges (and when you qualify for Medicaid on the exchanges, you go on Medicaid) wouldn't be right. So when my non-ACA compliant plan was "canceled," I was rolled into a similar, though compliant, plan by default. Premiums are only slightly higher after the shift.

3) It certainly would. More importantly, though, it certainly does for tens of millions of people.

—Sam

[Cow Poke]

2) No; given my rather uncommon childrearing/work situation, my income is low enough to qualify for Medicaid but my family support system is relatively well-off. We decided that utilizing the exchanges (and when you qualify for Medicaid on the exchanges, you go on Medicaid) wouldn't be right. So when my non-ACA compliant plan was "canceled," I was rolled into a similar, though compliant, plan by default. Premiums are only slightly higher after the shift.

May I ask what your deductible was before, and now?

Thanks

[Sparko]

I think the questions are kind of fishing for a fallacy of distribution but sure.

1) Yes

2) No; given my rather uncommon childrearing/work situation, my income is low enough to qualify for Medicaid but my family support system is relatively well-off. We decided that utilizing the exchanges (and when you qualify for Medicaid on the exchanges, you go on Medicaid) wouldn't be right. So when my non-ACA compliant plan was "canceled," I was rolled into a similar, though compliant, plan by default. Premiums are only slightly higher after the shift.

3) It certainly would. More importantly, though, it certainly does for tens of millions of people.

—Sam

I did some checking on healthcare.gov. The quickie chart says it "could" save me money in monthly premiums but would not save me in yearly healthcare costs. Who cares about "premiums" by themselves? It is the overall healthcare costs that matter. If the premiums end up making you pay more per year than you are now in healthcare costs, then you lose. If the premiums are cheaper but the healthcare costs per year go up (and the chart was for a typical person, not even someone with serious chronic illness) then you still lose.

Yet someone who is on medicaid "wins" because the rest of us end up paying more? Doesn't sound fair to me.

[Sam]

May I ask what your deductible was before, and now?

Thanks

$5,000/$5,000

[Cow Poke]

$5,000/$5,000

That sure doesn't square with what I've checked out for a wide range of people in my community, Sam, but I have no reason not to take you at your word.

I think, if there were glowing success stories, the Obama admin would be parading them for all to see.... I've searched, and I find things like a lesbian couple in California who were paying 1300 a month for insurance, but with Obamacare, they only pay 142 a month due to subsidies. So, rather than pay their OWN health insurance, I get to pay mine and theirs TOO. The article goes on to admit that their deductible is higher, but this is "one of the success stories you never hear about".

The article also mentioned that their previous provider "decided to tighten its rules", but doesn't indicate whether this may have been a result of Obama's "if you like your health insurance (and I don't think it's a crappy plan) you can keep it --- PERIOD.

So, in this "success story", a lesbian couple gets WAY cheaper premiums, higher deductible, and the taxpayers foot the difference.

[Zymologist]

I have heard precious few success stories, but I have heard quite a few that weren't positive in the least. For some reason, these stories seem to get dismissed altogether.

It very much appears that no counter evidence is even possible, in the Obamacare debate.