Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
You have to do bothEveryone is talking about the NCAA basketball tournament flacaltenn.
Costs are what is driving people out of healthcare coverage. It is more important to make the system work than throw money at premiums.
Would the Republican plan make access better? Almost certainly not.
The Affordable Care Act Made Access Better
The GOP argument here rests on two premises, neither of which holds up well to scrutiny.
The first is that the Affordable Care Act is a misnomer ― in other words, it doesn’t really provide “affordable care” ― because the newly insured on Medicaid can’t find doctors who will see them, and the ones with private coverage are stuck with high out-of-pocket costs that make even modest medical treatment prohibitively expensive.
Each argument represents one piece of the larger truth. The big problem with Medicaid, as even staunch defenders admit, is that the program pays doctors very little ― and, as a result, it can be difficult to get specialist appointments. The big problem with the Affordable Care Act’s private plans is that they tend to have high out-of-pocket costs, enough to keep even people with insurance from getting care they need.
But researchers who have followed the Affordable Care Act closely have found that, on the whole, access has clearly improved ― perhaps because critics exaggerate the extent of the problems, and perhaps because even imperfect Medicaid or Affordable Care Act plans are superior to having no insurance at all.
People are less likely to struggle with medical bills, and more likely to have a regular source of care, according to a 2015 paper in the Journal of the American Medical Association that’s one of the most comprehensive studies of the Affordable Care Act.
Six in 10 of the newly insured said their coverage enabled them to get care they could not get before, according to a survey by the Commonwealth Fund. The same survey found that people with Medicaid or private coverage through the health care law were able to find new doctors with roughly the same ease as those who had insurance already.
- A slew of additional studies have reached similar conclusions. And all are consistent with two of the most thorough studies in the field ― one from Oregon and one from Massachusetts ― that found clear, solid evidence that giving people insurance improved their access to care and financial security. (The effects on health are more ambiguous, but that’s a story for another time.)
The main argument Republicans make about their proposal ― the reason they say it will improve access ― is that it would “reduce costs.” At first blush, the argument seems plausible.
Republicans would weaken or eliminate the Affordable Care Act’s new regulations on insurance ― like the requirement to cover all people regardless of pre-existing conditions, or the minimum standard for generosity of coverage. When these regulations took effect, insurers raised premiums; if the regulations become weaker or go away, it stands to reason, insurers will reduce premiums.
But premiums would be falling because insurance would be covering less, so that medical care was becoming cheaper on the front end (when people paid premiums), but more expensive on the back end (when they actually used medical services).
See aboveThe government should never be in the business of making people buy health insurance, mandating health insurance requirements, taxing it or giving subsidies for it.
Obamacare sucks. Ryancare sucks a little less.
Actually, it is the conservative wing of the party that most opposes it, doofus.Conservatives love this bill because it is a textbook example of how you widen the gap between rich and poor.
The law was collapsing anyways so what future are you referring to?
Humana, Aetna, and others dropping out of the marketplace because they're sick of it.
People tired of the high deductibles and high premiums with little coverage.
But sure, let's expand Obamacare, which wouldn't have been an voted in by congress anyways.
You're right. They oppose it because it does not do quite enough damage to the poor and elderly. Those damned tax credits are an outrage! Just another entitlement . Let the poor bastards die already and be done with it.Actually, it is the conservative wing of the party that most opposes it, doofus.Conservatives love this bill because it is a textbook example of how you widen the gap between rich and poor.
See aboveThe government should never be in the business of making people buy health insurance, mandating health insurance requirements, taxing it or giving subsidies for it.
Obamacare sucks. Ryancare sucks a little less.
It's all horseshit and I have documented why. The free market/ health care for profit does not work except for those making the profit. And any one who claims to actually believes Ryan's 3 phases will become reality is either a sucker or a liarSee aboveThe government should never be in the business of making people buy health insurance, mandating health insurance requirements, taxing it or giving subsidies for it.
Obamacare sucks. Ryancare sucks a little less.
My contention is that we don't need the the filthy ass government involved at all in healthcare. That should be between an individual and their doctor and the insurance company if the individual chose to have insurance.
All government interference is bad. We know how bad Obamacare was. It drove up the cost of premiums, co payments and deductibles to the paying customers while at the same time provided another freebee for the welfare queens and illegal aliens. It even increased taxes. How stupid was that? Pretty bad, huh? We know how it failed.
I suspect Ryancare will also not be very good either but we need to see the results of the three phases before we come to that conclusion. Anything except full blown socialized medicine would be better than Obamacare. Obamacare set such a low bar that it will be easy to improve on it.
You tards should have read up before making this bullshit claim that those who will lose their insurance will do so voluntarily.,Yeah, 14 million young healthy people will no longer carry health insurance because they wont be under threat of imprisonment and fines for not carrying excessive amounts of insurance that they do not need.
Affordable Care Act revision would reduce insured numbers by 24 million, CBO projects
The analysis predicts that the number of people without health coverage would rise to 52 million by 2026, compared with 28 million if the Affordable Care Act remains intact. That erosion would mean that about 1 in 5 U.S. residents would be uninsured by 2026 — compared to 1 in 10 uninsured now and 1 in 6 who were uninsured before the Affordable Care Act was enacted.
Keep reading until you get it, tard. MORE people will be uninsured than were BEFORE THE MANDATE.
[QU
It's all horseshit and I have documented why. The free market/ health care for profit does not work except for those making the profit. And any one who claims to actually believes Ryan's 3 phases will become reality is either a sucker or a liar
Newt Gingrich Says the Congressional Budget Office Is 'Corrupt' and Should Be Abolished
Newt Gingrich Says 'Corrupt' CBO Should Be Abolished
Actually, it is the conservative wing of the party that most opposes it, doofus.Conservatives love this bill because it is a textbook example of how you widen the gap between rich and poor.
Does that mean the government should get out of VA, and Medicare?You tards should have read up before making this bullshit claim that those who will lose their insurance will do so voluntarily.,Yeah, 14 million young healthy people will no longer carry health insurance because they wont be under threat of imprisonment and fines for not carrying excessive amounts of insurance that they do not need.
Affordable Care Act revision would reduce insured numbers by 24 million, CBO projects
The analysis predicts that the number of people without health coverage would rise to 52 million by 2026, compared with 28 million if the Affordable Care Act remains intact. That erosion would mean that about 1 in 5 U.S. residents would be uninsured by 2026 — compared to 1 in 10 uninsured now and 1 in 6 who were uninsured before the Affordable Care Act was enacted.
Keep reading until you get it, tard. MORE people will be uninsured than were BEFORE THE MANDATE.
What's worse, tens of millions of people losing their health care, or a nation buying a health care system that will bankrupt it and turn it into a banana republic?
Sure, we would all love to give the poor everything they desire, free health care, free college educations, a guaranteed living stipend, a place to live and clothing, etc. But who pays?
Don't you know that would destroy whatever is left of the value of the currency? Are you really so ignorant that you don't understand how economics work?
This isn't about whether or not we, as a society desire to give everyone everything for free. It would be terrific if we could afford to give all the poor in the nation free health care. As it is, considering the state of the art and technology of America's health care system? That is not a realistic goal. You are living in a fantasy land. All government meddling in the health care industry needs to be ended, or it will end the economic viability of the government.
Maybe if the republican health care plan would have eliminated 50 million people, it would be a successActually, it is the conservative wing of the party that most opposes it, doofus.Conservatives love this bill because it is a textbook example of how you widen the gap between rich and poor.
The conservatives who oppose it oppose it because it doesn't go FAR enough in widening the gap between rich and poor.
Turns out Lefty was lying again. Not only will the bill shave 350 Billion off of the deficit, but it will allow people who were forced to buy insurance to be relieved of "The Mandate"!
And that is where the 14 Million projected comes from. 14 Million who'd rather spend their money on other things than Health care they can't use and may not need.
