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.
But here we are , 2 years in pronouncing it a failure. And I am certain that there are more ER visits. In the past, if you were sick and had no insurance, you go to the County hospital and the taxpayers pay 100% of the costs.More people being insured is better than fewer. The ACA has facilitated that. Does it have some problems? Sure. Every program ever launched does and, as far as I know, no program ever launched was perfect right out of the gate.
And why is that ?
Please make the case and don't call it self-evident.
When there are more persons on insurance, they get preventative help and do not wait for an emergency situation. Acute care costs much more than preventative care since we're talking about pills vs. procedures.
Additionally, the insurance allows the public to escape the costs of trauma care and eleviates the stress on the public health system.
If you are suggesting ER visits will go down or have gone down, you'd be wrong.
Obamacare and emergency rooms a bit of perspective needed Center for Public Integrity
On paper the argument sounds plausible, but it does not seem to be happening in reality.
It might be, as the article suggests...that it will take time. There are no guarantees.
Now that Jane Doe is paying for a product each month (or paying the tax penalty), they are using it by showing up at the hospitals in and around their home.
I have no doubt it will take some time and modifications.
anecdotal evidence. Did you just use anecdotal evidence? Your agenda here is clear.What green beard says on the surface is true but looks are deceiving. Most economists peg 75 percent of the lower costs to a poor economy.
The further we get from the 2007-09, the harder it gets to keep pinning the entirety of the unprecedented era of health care we're experiencing on it. 2014 was the best economic year since the late '90s on a variety of metrics (which, by the way, is itself quite contrary to the doomsday predictions about the ACA's economic impact that were made in the years proceeding its launch), yet underneath the enrollment growth the trend continued.
Here's the Altarum Institute (which tracks health spending and prices) in their latest monthly look at health prices:
For the HCPI as a whole, only 2 of the 10 components saw increases in price growth (nursing home care and dental services). Some of this downward pressure is related to economy-wide price behavior, seen most clearly with durable medical equipment price growth of only 0.2% and price growth for other nondurable medical products actually falling by 1.1%. Yet, the price behavior for hospitals and physicians suggests that something else is happening. Are we seeing the first signs of newfound health care efficiency via insurance exchanges, high-deductible health policies, transparency, and more keeping health care prices contained? Health care and economy-wide inflation are quite low for this stage of the business cycle recovery. January 2015 was the 67th month of economic expansion following the recession, yet we are barely off the decade-plus HCPI low. A return to 2% growth for the HCPI now seems further off in the future.
Meanwhile, here's the editor of Modern Healthcare just a few weeks ago noting what's becoming increasingly clear: "The spending slowdown is real":
Over the past two years, conventional wisdom presumed without offering much in the way of evidence that the lingering recession and the rise of high-deductible and narrow network plans explained the slowdown in healthcare spending, now in its fifth year.
Indeed, most economists and the media echo chamber repeatedly said rapid spending growth would resume once the economy picked up steam, which it has. But healthcare spending growth has not.
The argument that the slowdown was transitory had a shred of plausibility in the privately insured market, where reporting is much less transparent and the impact of higher costs on households—a very real phenomenon—takes time to unfold.
But now, finally, the Mr. Joneses at the Congressional Budget Office have come around to admitting that something is happening here, even if they don't know what it is.Most media accounts last week focused attention on the CBO's significantly lower projections for spending on premium subsidies available under the Affordable Care Act. As recently as January, the government projected over $1 trillion would flow to low- and moderate-income households buying health plans on the exchanges over the next decade.
Now, the CBO projects it will be $209 billion less because of lower overall premiums and—surprise, surprise—a reduction in the number of people who will need coverage. Fewer small and medium-sized businesses are expected to drop coverage because, lo and behold, insurance has become more affordable for employers because of the slowdown. . .
Suggesting the slowdown was transitory never made sense when it came to Medicare. Most seniors are insulated from the vicissitudes of the business cycle. And the last thing anyone would call Medicare is a high-deductible plan with a narrow network. Yet the slowdown has been just as dramatic there as it has been in the private insurance market.
Even the CBO now admits that the healthcare system has begun delivering lower-cost care to seniors. A year before the ACA passed, the CBO expected the CMS to spend $725 billion in 2015. Last week, it projected this year's spending would be just $632 billion, or $11,429 for each of the program's 55.3 million beneficiaries.
Much of the lower costs are because they don't have the number of people enrolling that they anticipated so that subsidies are much less.
As I already noted in the post above, per enrollee spending has fallen by almost a quarter relative to the projections "sold" back in 2010. That's a number that's independent of enrollment.
Besides that, the cost growth slowdown has also showed up in Medicare. Medicare's enrollment isn't affected by external factors, its network is quite wide, its deductibles haven't changed (though its premiums have fallen over the past few years), and its enrollees are more insulated from transitory economic influences than the average working-age person with private sector insurance. And yet Medicare, too, hasn't been immune from the history-making: Per Capita Medicare Spending is Actually Falling.
Medicare spending isn’t just lower than experts predicted a few years ago. On a per-person basis, Medicare spending is actually falling.
If the pattern continues, as the Congressional Budget Office forecasts, it will be a rarity in the Medicare program’s history. Spending per Medicare patient has almost always grown more rapidly than the economy as a whole, often by a wide margin.
And this goes well beyond what the ACA needed to balance its books.
Pre-ACA, Medicare spending in 2014 was on track to be $710 billion.
Post-ACA (which required the program to slow growth and get more efficient), Medicare spending in 2014 was expected to be $652 billion.
In reality, Medicare spending last year was $600 billion. The slowdown is producing huge savings in Medicare, above and beyond what was statutorily required by the ACA.
In addition, the plans have a very narrow focus and the deductibles are significant. Many are foregoing care because they do not have the deductible, which may or may not be a good thing. One could say we are reducing unnecessary procedures or one could say people can't afford the care they need. Obamacare does not insure all the uninsured as was promised so we sort of have the same situation we had before obamacare. Green cannot argue that choice has not been severely restricted or that doctors en masse don't like obamacare. Can't see where those are positives. Plus the benefits seem to be a boon(or boondoggle depending how you see it) for the poor and just another cross to bear for the middle class, who will have to absorb the brunt of obamacare.
As far as I can tell, part of the "problem" is that most people have spent so long insulated from market dynamics in the health sector that they don't recognize it (nor like it) when it appears. Different networks have different costs associated with them. Opening up a real, functioning market means that insurers get to price different potential networks and offer different networks (at different price points) for your consideration. You as the consumer then get to choose one based on the mix of price and access to various providers that you want.
The exchanges have lots of broad network plans in them (generally, as a matter of economic fact, those will cost more), but they also have lots of narrower network options. The latter have proven popular because they tend to be less expensive--that is to say, in an open market people seem to generally value lower premiums over broader provider networks. That isn't restricting choice, that's giving people a choice. You don't have to choose a more expensive broad network plan, there are lower-cost options available if you want them. It seems many people do.
Yes, this is different than the norm in the employer space, where 1) employees generally don't get to make decisions, 2) employers err on the side of giving them more, and 3) the insurance costs more than the offerings people are flocking to in the exchanges (which, again, can be up to 20% cheaper for plans of equivalent benefits and generosity compared to employer-based plans). Turns out when they have to spend their own money--even if they're getting a subsidy to supplement--people in open markets are price conscious and show you what they really value. These market dynamics are absent in the employer-based world, where folks tend to be used to getting everything and (seemingly, other than in their lack of wage growth) not paying for it.
As for deductibles, those are what expose consumers to price when they interact with health care providers (up to now I've been talking about market dynamics in the insurance market). If you've got a $250 deductible and Provider A is offering a service for $1,200 while Provider B is offering that same service for $5,000 you have very little economic reason to choose one over the other, since you're effectively paying the same thing either way. You may even be drawn to Provider B's higher price for certain perverse reasons.
And Green I do not understand why posts like yours have no relation at all to my real world experiences. My premiums last year alone went up 20 percent. My wife's costs for blood pressure medicines have quadrupled. Many doctors won't take obamacare because they can't stay in business with its payments. So you are presenting a macro picture which leaves out the micro problems.
Are you in the open market? Did you shop around? Or are you in an employer-based plan (and, if so, is it fully insured or self-insured)?
Finally I love the diagnosis that says we really won't be able to evaluate its success or failure til many years down the road. So we have to destroy our healthcare system before we know we have destroyed our healthcare system. Please, call a shrink.
The health care system is about as far from "destroyed" as it can get. On most indicators, it's never done better than it's doing right now.
The experience of just about everybody I know plus the medical community I know simply doesn't support the hype promoted by those who are paid to or have vested interest in supporting the ACA.
un-subbed
I simply don't see how we needed Obamacare to make this change. Additionally, if Boxer and Co. were so keen to this....did anyone go to jail for any of these deaths. 180,000 a year and nobody is held accountable ?
Just what does this mean ?
If you are suggesting ER visits will go down or have gone down, you'd be wrong.
Didn't medicare include forms of regulations regarding hospital "performance" ?
Were hospitals unregulated prior to the ACA ? I know the answer to that is no.
So the question has to be.....How was this happening under the nose of regulators ?
The government tends to defer to the private professional bodies that shape the standards for the industry.
Which is why they passed a law indulging the insurance industry's desire for captive customers.
Please expand on your statement.
What I am reading is that somehow we let the fox rule the chickencoup. And the professional bodies apparently turned out to be pretty incompetent.
Statistics seem to support some kind of improvement.
Yes, we know that insurance essentially became the profit making middleman....but how does that affect hospital safety ?
I have seen five different physicians in the last calendar year. No problem getting any of the appointments.More people being insured is better than fewer. The ACA has facilitated that. Does it have some problems? Sure. Every program ever launched does and, as far as I know, no program ever launched was perfect right out of the gate.
And why is that ?
Please make the case and don't call it self-evident.
When there are more persons on insurance, they get preventative help and do not wait for an emergency situation. Acute care costs much more than preventative care since we're talking about pills vs. procedures.
Additionally, the insurance allows the public to escape the costs of trauma care and eleviates the stress on the public health system.
Not when there are fewer doctors seeing more patients. Not when you can't get an appointment with your doctor when you need to see a doctor now. Most doctor's offices these days have answering machines that tell you that if you are experiencing a medical emergency, dial 911. Otherwise leave a message and your call will be returned within 24 hours or some such.
[
And the emergency rooms are packed and overflowing everywhere.
Tragic...
And with much higher deductibles, higher copays, and higher premiums for most folks, most people are experiencing significantly higher out of pocket costs.
Beforehand people showed up at the County hospital and the taxpayers were liable for 100% of the costs. Now, gee, the individual pays. I like sending less of my tax dollars down that particular drain.
But here we are , 2 years in pronouncing it a failure. And I am certain that there are more ER visits. In the past, if you were sick and had no insurance, you go to the County hospital and the taxpayers pay 100% of the costs.More people being insured is better than fewer. The ACA has facilitated that. Does it have some problems? Sure. Every program ever launched does and, as far as I know, no program ever launched was perfect right out of the gate.
And why is that ?
Please make the case and don't call it self-evident.
When there are more persons on insurance, they get preventative help and do not wait for an emergency situation. Acute care costs much more than preventative care since we're talking about pills vs. procedures.
Additionally, the insurance allows the public to escape the costs of trauma care and eleviates the stress on the public health system.
If you are suggesting ER visits will go down or have gone down, you'd be wrong.
Obamacare and emergency rooms a bit of perspective needed Center for Public Integrity
On paper the argument sounds plausible, but it does not seem to be happening in reality.
It might be, as the article suggests...that it will take time. There are no guarantees.
Now that Jane Doe is paying for a product each month (or paying the tax penalty), they are using it by showing up at the hospitals in and around their home.
I have no doubt it will take some time and modifications.
Didn't medicare include forms of regulations regarding hospital "performance" ?
Were hospitals unregulated prior to the ACA ? I know the answer to that is no.
So the question has to be.....How was this happening under the nose of regulators ?
The government tends to defer to the private professional bodies that shape the standards for the industry.
Which is why they passed a law indulging the insurance industry's desire for captive customers.
Please expand on your statement.
What I am reading is that somehow we let the fox rule the chickencoup. And the professional bodies apparently turned out to be pretty incompetent.
Statistics seem to support some kind of improvement.
Yes, we know that insurance essentially became the profit making middleman....but how does that affect hospital safety ?
I don't see much connection between ACA and hospital performance. Any regulations in ACA aimed at that goal were tagalongs at best. The primary thrust of the law was to centralize control over how we pay for healthcare.
anecdotal evidence. Did you just use anecdotal evidence? Your agenda here is clear.What green beard says on the surface is true but looks are deceiving. Most economists peg 75 percent of the lower costs to a poor economy.
The further we get from the 2007-09, the harder it gets to keep pinning the entirety of the unprecedented era of health care we're experiencing on it. 2014 was the best economic year since the late '90s on a variety of metrics (which, by the way, is itself quite contrary to the doomsday predictions about the ACA's economic impact that were made in the years proceeding its launch), yet underneath the enrollment growth the trend continued.
Here's the Altarum Institute (which tracks health spending and prices) in their latest monthly look at health prices:
For the HCPI as a whole, only 2 of the 10 components saw increases in price growth (nursing home care and dental services). Some of this downward pressure is related to economy-wide price behavior, seen most clearly with durable medical equipment price growth of only 0.2% and price growth for other nondurable medical products actually falling by 1.1%. Yet, the price behavior for hospitals and physicians suggests that something else is happening. Are we seeing the first signs of newfound health care efficiency via insurance exchanges, high-deductible health policies, transparency, and more keeping health care prices contained? Health care and economy-wide inflation are quite low for this stage of the business cycle recovery. January 2015 was the 67th month of economic expansion following the recession, yet we are barely off the decade-plus HCPI low. A return to 2% growth for the HCPI now seems further off in the future.
Meanwhile, here's the editor of Modern Healthcare just a few weeks ago noting what's becoming increasingly clear: "The spending slowdown is real":
Over the past two years, conventional wisdom presumed without offering much in the way of evidence that the lingering recession and the rise of high-deductible and narrow network plans explained the slowdown in healthcare spending, now in its fifth year.
Indeed, most economists and the media echo chamber repeatedly said rapid spending growth would resume once the economy picked up steam, which it has. But healthcare spending growth has not.
The argument that the slowdown was transitory had a shred of plausibility in the privately insured market, where reporting is much less transparent and the impact of higher costs on households—a very real phenomenon—takes time to unfold.
But now, finally, the Mr. Joneses at the Congressional Budget Office have come around to admitting that something is happening here, even if they don't know what it is.Most media accounts last week focused attention on the CBO's significantly lower projections for spending on premium subsidies available under the Affordable Care Act. As recently as January, the government projected over $1 trillion would flow to low- and moderate-income households buying health plans on the exchanges over the next decade.
Now, the CBO projects it will be $209 billion less because of lower overall premiums and—surprise, surprise—a reduction in the number of people who will need coverage. Fewer small and medium-sized businesses are expected to drop coverage because, lo and behold, insurance has become more affordable for employers because of the slowdown. . .
Suggesting the slowdown was transitory never made sense when it came to Medicare. Most seniors are insulated from the vicissitudes of the business cycle. And the last thing anyone would call Medicare is a high-deductible plan with a narrow network. Yet the slowdown has been just as dramatic there as it has been in the private insurance market.
Even the CBO now admits that the healthcare system has begun delivering lower-cost care to seniors. A year before the ACA passed, the CBO expected the CMS to spend $725 billion in 2015. Last week, it projected this year's spending would be just $632 billion, or $11,429 for each of the program's 55.3 million beneficiaries.
Much of the lower costs are because they don't have the number of people enrolling that they anticipated so that subsidies are much less.
As I already noted in the post above, per enrollee spending has fallen by almost a quarter relative to the projections "sold" back in 2010. That's a number that's independent of enrollment.
Besides that, the cost growth slowdown has also showed up in Medicare. Medicare's enrollment isn't affected by external factors, its network is quite wide, its deductibles haven't changed (though its premiums have fallen over the past few years), and its enrollees are more insulated from transitory economic influences than the average working-age person with private sector insurance. And yet Medicare, too, hasn't been immune from the history-making: Per Capita Medicare Spending is Actually Falling.
Medicare spending isn’t just lower than experts predicted a few years ago. On a per-person basis, Medicare spending is actually falling.
If the pattern continues, as the Congressional Budget Office forecasts, it will be a rarity in the Medicare program’s history. Spending per Medicare patient has almost always grown more rapidly than the economy as a whole, often by a wide margin.
And this goes well beyond what the ACA needed to balance its books.
Pre-ACA, Medicare spending in 2014 was on track to be $710 billion.
Post-ACA (which required the program to slow growth and get more efficient), Medicare spending in 2014 was expected to be $652 billion.
In reality, Medicare spending last year was $600 billion. The slowdown is producing huge savings in Medicare, above and beyond what was statutorily required by the ACA.
In addition, the plans have a very narrow focus and the deductibles are significant. Many are foregoing care because they do not have the deductible, which may or may not be a good thing. One could say we are reducing unnecessary procedures or one could say people can't afford the care they need. Obamacare does not insure all the uninsured as was promised so we sort of have the same situation we had before obamacare. Green cannot argue that choice has not been severely restricted or that doctors en masse don't like obamacare. Can't see where those are positives. Plus the benefits seem to be a boon(or boondoggle depending how you see it) for the poor and just another cross to bear for the middle class, who will have to absorb the brunt of obamacare.
As far as I can tell, part of the "problem" is that most people have spent so long insulated from market dynamics in the health sector that they don't recognize it (nor like it) when it appears. Different networks have different costs associated with them. Opening up a real, functioning market means that insurers get to price different potential networks and offer different networks (at different price points) for your consideration. You as the consumer then get to choose one based on the mix of price and access to various providers that you want.
The exchanges have lots of broad network plans in them (generally, as a matter of economic fact, those will cost more), but they also have lots of narrower network options. The latter have proven popular because they tend to be less expensive--that is to say, in an open market people seem to generally value lower premiums over broader provider networks. That isn't restricting choice, that's giving people a choice. You don't have to choose a more expensive broad network plan, there are lower-cost options available if you want them. It seems many people do.
Yes, this is different than the norm in the employer space, where 1) employees generally don't get to make decisions, 2) employers err on the side of giving them more, and 3) the insurance costs more than the offerings people are flocking to in the exchanges (which, again, can be up to 20% cheaper for plans of equivalent benefits and generosity compared to employer-based plans). Turns out when they have to spend their own money--even if they're getting a subsidy to supplement--people in open markets are price conscious and show you what they really value. These market dynamics are absent in the employer-based world, where folks tend to be used to getting everything and (seemingly, other than in their lack of wage growth) not paying for it.
As for deductibles, those are what expose consumers to price when they interact with health care providers (up to now I've been talking about market dynamics in the insurance market). If you've got a $250 deductible and Provider A is offering a service for $1,200 while Provider B is offering that same service for $5,000 you have very little economic reason to choose one over the other, since you're effectively paying the same thing either way. You may even be drawn to Provider B's higher price for certain perverse reasons.
And Green I do not understand why posts like yours have no relation at all to my real world experiences. My premiums last year alone went up 20 percent. My wife's costs for blood pressure medicines have quadrupled. Many doctors won't take obamacare because they can't stay in business with its payments. So you are presenting a macro picture which leaves out the micro problems.
Are you in the open market? Did you shop around? Or are you in an employer-based plan (and, if so, is it fully insured or self-insured)?
Finally I love the diagnosis that says we really won't be able to evaluate its success or failure til many years down the road. So we have to destroy our healthcare system before we know we have destroyed our healthcare system. Please, call a shrink.
The health care system is about as far from "destroyed" as it can get. On most indicators, it's never done better than it's doing right now.
The experience of just about everybody I know plus the medical community I know simply doesn't support the hype promoted by those who are paid to or have vested interest in supporting the ACA.
un-subbed
This thread in summary:
Greenbeard issues a lengthy, detailed post with data and linked sources to support his claims.
Fox tells him that she doesn't trust the numbers and that she could post equally strong data and links to support her argument. Therefore, such data is rendered meaningless.
Fox then gives us her anecdotal evidence which proves beyond a shadow of a doubt that the ACA has been terrible for most Americans.
Riveting read!
Just what does this mean ?
It means that despite the (incorrect) rhetoric that benefits for Medicare beneficiaries were somehow cut, they've actually seen their coverage expanding since the ACA passed. Their out of pocket costs are going down and their prescription drug benefit is improving. And yet overall program spending growth remains historically, unprecedentedly low. No easy feat.
I have seen five different physicians in the last calendar year. No problem getting any of the appointments.More people being insured is better than fewer. The ACA has facilitated that. Does it have some problems? Sure. Every program ever launched does and, as far as I know, no program ever launched was perfect right out of the gate.
And why is that ?
Please make the case and don't call it self-evident.
When there are more persons on insurance, they get preventative help and do not wait for an emergency situation. Acute care costs much more than preventative care since we're talking about pills vs. procedures.
Additionally, the insurance allows the public to escape the costs of trauma care and eleviates the stress on the public health system.
Not when there are fewer doctors seeing more patients. Not when you can't get an appointment with your doctor when you need to see a doctor now. Most doctor's offices these days have answering machines that tell you that if you are experiencing a medical emergency, dial 911. Otherwise leave a message and your call will be returned within 24 hours or some such.
[
And the emergency rooms are packed and overflowing everywhere.
Tragic...
And with much higher deductibles, higher copays, and higher premiums for most folks, most people are experiencing significantly higher out of pocket costs.
Beforehand people showed up at the County hospital and the taxpayers were liable for 100% of the costs. Now, gee, the individual pays. I like sending less of my tax dollars down that particular drain.
Before the government demanded that emergency rooms provide free care to whomever showed up, everybody was expected to pay for their emergency room visit. Those who didn't have the money or insurance to pay received the necessary treatment and were set up on a payment plan to pay $10/month or whatever to cover their bill.
We didn't need to dismantle and restructure the entire healthcare system to restore that simple concept.
I have seen five different physicians in the last calendar year. No problem getting any of the appointments.More people being insured is better than fewer. The ACA has facilitated that. Does it have some problems? Sure. Every program ever launched does and, as far as I know, no program ever launched was perfect right out of the gate.
And why is that ?
Please make the case and don't call it self-evident.
When there are more persons on insurance, they get preventative help and do not wait for an emergency situation. Acute care costs much more than preventative care since we're talking about pills vs. procedures.
Additionally, the insurance allows the public to escape the costs of trauma care and eleviates the stress on the public health system.
Not when there are fewer doctors seeing more patients. Not when you can't get an appointment with your doctor when you need to see a doctor now. Most doctor's offices these days have answering machines that tell you that if you are experiencing a medical emergency, dial 911. Otherwise leave a message and your call will be returned within 24 hours or some such.
[
And the emergency rooms are packed and overflowing everywhere.
Tragic...
And with much higher deductibles, higher copays, and higher premiums for most folks, most people are experiencing significantly higher out of pocket costs.
Beforehand people showed up at the County hospital and the taxpayers were liable for 100% of the costs. Now, gee, the individual pays. I like sending less of my tax dollars down that particular drain.
Before the government demanded that emergency rooms provide free care to whomever showed up, everybody was expected to pay for their emergency room visit. Those who didn't have the money or insurance to pay received the necessary treatment and were set up on a payment plan to pay $10/month or whatever to cover their bill.
We didn't need to dismantle and restructure the entire healthcare system to restore that simple concept.
But here we are , 2 years in pronouncing it a failure. And I am certain that there are more ER visits. In the past, if you were sick and had no insurance, you go to the County hospital and the taxpayers pay 100% of the costs.More people being insured is better than fewer. The ACA has facilitated that. Does it have some problems? Sure. Every program ever launched does and, as far as I know, no program ever launched was perfect right out of the gate.
And why is that ?
Please make the case and don't call it self-evident.
When there are more persons on insurance, they get preventative help and do not wait for an emergency situation. Acute care costs much more than preventative care since we're talking about pills vs. procedures.
Additionally, the insurance allows the public to escape the costs of trauma care and eleviates the stress on the public health system.
If you are suggesting ER visits will go down or have gone down, you'd be wrong.
Obamacare and emergency rooms a bit of perspective needed Center for Public Integrity
On paper the argument sounds plausible, but it does not seem to be happening in reality.
It might be, as the article suggests...that it will take time. There are no guarantees.
Now that Jane Doe is paying for a product each month (or paying the tax penalty), they are using it by showing up at the hospitals in and around their home.
I have no doubt it will take some time and modifications.
I don't know how you call it a success or a failure. While I might be ideologically leaning...there is nobody who can present anything to me that shows what either side planned to utilize as a scorecard. It's typical of almost all issues like this. If you don't lay out specifics, you are not accountable.
The right calling it a failure was a propaganda campaign from the start.
The left has not done much better.
What you claim is a thought experiment. It is not proven.
You'd hope that would be the case.
Time will tell....the great failure of politics. What if Obama had offered up a scorecard and a promise to kill the program if it did not measure up ? Not that loser Bush ever did anything like that.
I have seen five different physicians in the last calendar year. No problem getting any of the appointments.And why is that ?
Please make the case and don't call it self-evident.
When there are more persons on insurance, they get preventative help and do not wait for an emergency situation. Acute care costs much more than preventative care since we're talking about pills vs. procedures.
Additionally, the insurance allows the public to escape the costs of trauma care and eleviates the stress on the public health system.
Not when there are fewer doctors seeing more patients. Not when you can't get an appointment with your doctor when you need to see a doctor now. Most doctor's offices these days have answering machines that tell you that if you are experiencing a medical emergency, dial 911. Otherwise leave a message and your call will be returned within 24 hours or some such.
[
And the emergency rooms are packed and overflowing everywhere.
Tragic...
And with much higher deductibles, higher copays, and higher premiums for most folks, most people are experiencing significantly higher out of pocket costs.
Beforehand people showed up at the County hospital and the taxpayers were liable for 100% of the costs. Now, gee, the individual pays. I like sending less of my tax dollars down that particular drain.
Before the government demanded that emergency rooms provide free care to whomever showed up, everybody was expected to pay for their emergency room visit. Those who didn't have the money or insurance to pay received the necessary treatment and were set up on a payment plan to pay $10/month or whatever to cover their bill.
We didn't need to dismantle and restructure the entire healthcare system to restore that simple concept.
Nothing has been dismantled and most people saw no change in their insurance. If the existing policy met the minimum standards for Obamacare (the ACA), nothing changed.
You're simply not telling the truth.
I have seen five different physicians in the last calendar year. No problem getting any of the appointments.When there are more persons on insurance, they get preventative help and do not wait for an emergency situation. Acute care costs much more than preventative care since we're talking about pills vs. procedures.
Additionally, the insurance allows the public to escape the costs of trauma care and eleviates the stress on the public health system.
Not when there are fewer doctors seeing more patients. Not when you can't get an appointment with your doctor when you need to see a doctor now. Most doctor's offices these days have answering machines that tell you that if you are experiencing a medical emergency, dial 911. Otherwise leave a message and your call will be returned within 24 hours or some such.
[
And the emergency rooms are packed and overflowing everywhere.
Tragic...
And with much higher deductibles, higher copays, and higher premiums for most folks, most people are experiencing significantly higher out of pocket costs.
Beforehand people showed up at the County hospital and the taxpayers were liable for 100% of the costs. Now, gee, the individual pays. I like sending less of my tax dollars down that particular drain.
Before the government demanded that emergency rooms provide free care to whomever showed up, everybody was expected to pay for their emergency room visit. Those who didn't have the money or insurance to pay received the necessary treatment and were set up on a payment plan to pay $10/month or whatever to cover their bill.
We didn't need to dismantle and restructure the entire healthcare system to restore that simple concept.
Nothing has been dismantled and most people saw no change in their insurance. If the existing policy met the minimum standards for Obamacare (the ACA), nothing changed.
You're simply not telling the truth.
I believe I am telling the truth. Both my husband and I are paying higher deductibles and copays since the ACA went into affect and our premiums are higher. We have both lost our primary physicians because of the ACA and my husband lost his cancer doctor. My elderly aunt and uncle still have their primary care physician because she went into totally private practice, but she accepts no insurance of any kind so her patients pay for her services out of pocket.
Because we have so many personal contacts in various medical services we talk to a lot of professionals in those services and not one of them would say that the ACA didn't make changes that effectively changed the whole system and not one of them are liking it.
And if you read any source other than the pro-Obama propaganda network, there are one or two exceptions, but pretty much all agree that there is much more to dislike about Obamacare than there is to like.
I have seen five different physicians in the last calendar year. No problem getting any of the appointments.Not when there are fewer doctors seeing more patients. Not when you can't get an appointment with your doctor when you need to see a doctor now. Most doctor's offices these days have answering machines that tell you that if you are experiencing a medical emergency, dial 911. Otherwise leave a message and your call will be returned within 24 hours or some such.
[
And the emergency rooms are packed and overflowing everywhere.
Tragic...
And with much higher deductibles, higher copays, and higher premiums for most folks, most people are experiencing significantly higher out of pocket costs.
Beforehand people showed up at the County hospital and the taxpayers were liable for 100% of the costs. Now, gee, the individual pays. I like sending less of my tax dollars down that particular drain.
Before the government demanded that emergency rooms provide free care to whomever showed up, everybody was expected to pay for their emergency room visit. Those who didn't have the money or insurance to pay received the necessary treatment and were set up on a payment plan to pay $10/month or whatever to cover their bill.
We didn't need to dismantle and restructure the entire healthcare system to restore that simple concept.
Nothing has been dismantled and most people saw no change in their insurance. If the existing policy met the minimum standards for Obamacare (the ACA), nothing changed.
You're simply not telling the truth.
I believe I am telling the truth. Both my husband and I are paying higher deductibles and copays since the ACA went into affect and our premiums are higher. We have both lost our primary physicians because of the ACA and my husband lost his cancer doctor. My elderly aunt and uncle still have their primary care physician because she went into totally private practice, but she accepts no insurance of any kind so her patients pay for her services out of pocket.
Because we have so many personal contacts in various medical services we talk to a lot of professionals in those services and not one of them would say that the ACA didn't make changes that effectively changed the whole system and not one of them are liking it.
And if you read any source other than the pro-Obama propaganda network, there are one or two exceptions, but pretty much all agree that there is much more to dislike about Obamacare than there is to like.
The only change I saw was the normal annual increase of 3 or 4 bucks that I saw before the ACA.
Here is what you said, however:
"We didn't need to dismantle and restructure the entire healthcare system to restore that simple concept."
True or false: The hospitals that were there in your neighborhood 5 years ago are still there. In fact, the facilities were likely improved and new facilities were built. If you'll give me your zip code, we can research it more thoroughly.
True or false: The pharmacies that were available to you 5 years ago are still there. Walgreens and CVS are pretty much going like gangbusters and the Wal*Mart pharmacies are as crowded as ever when I have to go by there to pick up the $4 scripts.
From Walgreens.com
What are your current store growth plans?
We expect a net increase in Walgreens store count in fiscal 2015 of approximately 60-120 stores.
I have seen five different physicians in the last calendar year. No problem getting any of the appointments.
Tragic...
Beforehand people showed up at the County hospital and the taxpayers were liable for 100% of the costs. Now, gee, the individual pays. I like sending less of my tax dollars down that particular drain.
Before the government demanded that emergency rooms provide free care to whomever showed up, everybody was expected to pay for their emergency room visit. Those who didn't have the money or insurance to pay received the necessary treatment and were set up on a payment plan to pay $10/month or whatever to cover their bill.
We didn't need to dismantle and restructure the entire healthcare system to restore that simple concept.
Nothing has been dismantled and most people saw no change in their insurance. If the existing policy met the minimum standards for Obamacare (the ACA), nothing changed.
You're simply not telling the truth.
I believe I am telling the truth. Both my husband and I are paying higher deductibles and copays since the ACA went into affect and our premiums are higher. We have both lost our primary physicians because of the ACA and my husband lost his cancer doctor. My elderly aunt and uncle still have their primary care physician because she went into totally private practice, but she accepts no insurance of any kind so her patients pay for her services out of pocket.
Because we have so many personal contacts in various medical services we talk to a lot of professionals in those services and not one of them would say that the ACA didn't make changes that effectively changed the whole system and not one of them are liking it.
And if you read any source other than the pro-Obama propaganda network, there are one or two exceptions, but pretty much all agree that there is much more to dislike about Obamacare than there is to like.
The only change I saw was the normal annual increase of 3 or 4 bucks that I saw before the ACA.
Here is what you said, however:
"We didn't need to dismantle and restructure the entire healthcare system to restore that simple concept."
True or false: The hospitals that were there in your neighborhood 5 years ago are still there. In fact, the facilities were likely improved and new facilities were built. If you'll give me your zip code, we can research it more thoroughly.
True or false: The pharmacies that were available to you 5 years ago are still there. Walgreens and CVS are pretty much going like gangbusters and the Wal*Mart pharmacies are as crowded as ever when I have to go by there to pick up the $4 scripts.
From Walgreens.com
What are your current store growth plans?
We expect a net increase in Walgreens store count in fiscal 2015 of approximately 60-120 stores.
Since when did privately owned drugstores become part of the ACA?
Before the government demanded that emergency rooms provide free care to whomever showed up, everybody was expected to pay for their emergency room visit. Those who didn't have the money or insurance to pay received the necessary treatment and were set up on a payment plan to pay $10/month or whatever to cover their bill.
We didn't need to dismantle and restructure the entire healthcare system to restore that simple concept.
Nothing has been dismantled and most people saw no change in their insurance. If the existing policy met the minimum standards for Obamacare (the ACA), nothing changed.
You're simply not telling the truth.
I believe I am telling the truth. Both my husband and I are paying higher deductibles and copays since the ACA went into affect and our premiums are higher. We have both lost our primary physicians because of the ACA and my husband lost his cancer doctor. My elderly aunt and uncle still have their primary care physician because she went into totally private practice, but she accepts no insurance of any kind so her patients pay for her services out of pocket.
Because we have so many personal contacts in various medical services we talk to a lot of professionals in those services and not one of them would say that the ACA didn't make changes that effectively changed the whole system and not one of them are liking it.
And if you read any source other than the pro-Obama propaganda network, there are one or two exceptions, but pretty much all agree that there is much more to dislike about Obamacare than there is to like.
The only change I saw was the normal annual increase of 3 or 4 bucks that I saw before the ACA.
Here is what you said, however:
"We didn't need to dismantle and restructure the entire healthcare system to restore that simple concept."
True or false: The hospitals that were there in your neighborhood 5 years ago are still there. In fact, the facilities were likely improved and new facilities were built. If you'll give me your zip code, we can research it more thoroughly.
True or false: The pharmacies that were available to you 5 years ago are still there. Walgreens and CVS are pretty much going like gangbusters and the Wal*Mart pharmacies are as crowded as ever when I have to go by there to pick up the $4 scripts.
From Walgreens.com
What are your current store growth plans?
We expect a net increase in Walgreens store count in fiscal 2015 of approximately 60-120 stores.
Since when did privately owned drugstores become part of the ACA?
When you address the "healthcare system" and make a silly claim that it was dismantled, you open the door.
Please address the true or false questions honestly, if you can. I know you'll be short-circuiting your own argument when you reveal that nothing much has been dismantled but the truth is the truth.
Now...true or false, the same hospitals in your area are pretty much the same hospitals that were there 5 years ago....right?
I have seen five different physicians in the last calendar year. No problem getting any of the appointments.When there are more persons on insurance, they get preventative help and do not wait for an emergency situation. Acute care costs much more than preventative care since we're talking about pills vs. procedures.
Additionally, the insurance allows the public to escape the costs of trauma care and eleviates the stress on the public health system.
Not when there are fewer doctors seeing more patients. Not when you can't get an appointment with your doctor when you need to see a doctor now. Most doctor's offices these days have answering machines that tell you that if you are experiencing a medical emergency, dial 911. Otherwise leave a message and your call will be returned within 24 hours or some such.
[
And the emergency rooms are packed and overflowing everywhere.
Tragic...
And with much higher deductibles, higher copays, and higher premiums for most folks, most people are experiencing significantly higher out of pocket costs.
Beforehand people showed up at the County hospital and the taxpayers were liable for 100% of the costs. Now, gee, the individual pays. I like sending less of my tax dollars down that particular drain.
Before the government demanded that emergency rooms provide free care to whomever showed up, everybody was expected to pay for their emergency room visit. Those who didn't have the money or insurance to pay received the necessary treatment and were set up on a payment plan to pay $10/month or whatever to cover their bill.
We didn't need to dismantle and restructure the entire healthcare system to restore that simple concept.
Nothing has been dismantled and most people saw no change in their insurance. If the existing policy met the minimum standards for Obamacare (the ACA), nothing changed.
You're simply not telling the truth.
I believe I am telling the truth. Both my husband and I are paying higher deductibles and copays since the ACA went into affect and our premiums are higher. We have both lost our primary physicians because of the ACA and my husband lost his cancer doctor. My elderly aunt and uncle still have their primary care physician because she went into totally private practice, but she accepts no insurance of any kind so her patients pay for her services out of pocket.
Because we have so many personal contacts in various medical services we talk to a lot of professionals in those services and not one of them would say that the ACA didn't make changes that effectively changed the whole system and not one of them are liking it.
And if you read any source other than the pro-Obama propaganda network, there are one or two exceptions, but pretty much all agree that there is much more to dislike about Obamacare than there is to like.
I have seen five different physicians in the last calendar year. No problem getting any of the appointments.Not when there are fewer doctors seeing more patients. Not when you can't get an appointment with your doctor when you need to see a doctor now. Most doctor's offices these days have answering machines that tell you that if you are experiencing a medical emergency, dial 911. Otherwise leave a message and your call will be returned within 24 hours or some such.
[
And the emergency rooms are packed and overflowing everywhere.
Tragic...
And with much higher deductibles, higher copays, and higher premiums for most folks, most people are experiencing significantly higher out of pocket costs.
Beforehand people showed up at the County hospital and the taxpayers were liable for 100% of the costs. Now, gee, the individual pays. I like sending less of my tax dollars down that particular drain.
Before the government demanded that emergency rooms provide free care to whomever showed up, everybody was expected to pay for their emergency room visit. Those who didn't have the money or insurance to pay received the necessary treatment and were set up on a payment plan to pay $10/month or whatever to cover their bill.
We didn't need to dismantle and restructure the entire healthcare system to restore that simple concept.
Nothing has been dismantled and most people saw no change in their insurance. If the existing policy met the minimum standards for Obamacare (the ACA), nothing changed.
You're simply not telling the truth.
I believe I am telling the truth. Both my husband and I are paying higher deductibles and copays since the ACA went into affect and our premiums are higher. We have both lost our primary physicians because of the ACA and my husband lost his cancer doctor. My elderly aunt and uncle still have their primary care physician because she went into totally private practice, but she accepts no insurance of any kind so her patients pay for her services out of pocket.
Because we have so many personal contacts in various medical services we talk to a lot of professionals in those services and not one of them would say that the ACA didn't make changes that effectively changed the whole system and not one of them are liking it.
And if you read any source other than the pro-Obama propaganda network, there are one or two exceptions, but pretty much all agree that there is much more to dislike about Obamacare than there is to like.
Unless you are prepared to provide evidence of those claims, making them in this thread is against the rules.
Oh.....wait.......my bad. The thread rules state that no links or data are needed to support opinions. However...if you do use links and data...you need to provide a summary in your own words.
That's awesome!
Nothing has been dismantled and most people saw no change in their insurance. If the existing policy met the minimum standards for Obamacare (the ACA), nothing changed.
You're simply not telling the truth.
I believe I am telling the truth. Both my husband and I are paying higher deductibles and copays since the ACA went into affect and our premiums are higher. We have both lost our primary physicians because of the ACA and my husband lost his cancer doctor. My elderly aunt and uncle still have their primary care physician because she went into totally private practice, but she accepts no insurance of any kind so her patients pay for her services out of pocket.
Because we have so many personal contacts in various medical services we talk to a lot of professionals in those services and not one of them would say that the ACA didn't make changes that effectively changed the whole system and not one of them are liking it.
And if you read any source other than the pro-Obama propaganda network, there are one or two exceptions, but pretty much all agree that there is much more to dislike about Obamacare than there is to like.
The only change I saw was the normal annual increase of 3 or 4 bucks that I saw before the ACA.
Here is what you said, however:
"We didn't need to dismantle and restructure the entire healthcare system to restore that simple concept."
True or false: The hospitals that were there in your neighborhood 5 years ago are still there. In fact, the facilities were likely improved and new facilities were built. If you'll give me your zip code, we can research it more thoroughly.
True or false: The pharmacies that were available to you 5 years ago are still there. Walgreens and CVS are pretty much going like gangbusters and the Wal*Mart pharmacies are as crowded as ever when I have to go by there to pick up the $4 scripts.
From Walgreens.com
What are your current store growth plans?
We expect a net increase in Walgreens store count in fiscal 2015 of approximately 60-120 stores.
Since when did privately owned drugstores become part of the ACA?
When you address the "healthcare system" and make a silly claim that it was dismantled, you open the door.
Please address the true or false questions honestly, if you can. I know you'll be short-circuiting your own argument when you reveal that nothing much has been dismantled but the truth is the truth.
Now...true or false, the same hospitals in your area are pretty much the same hospitals that were there 5 years ago....right?
No. There has been a lot of consolidation that has been detrimental to several of those hospitals. The private urgent care center closest to our house was once a haven for little emergencies because we could get them taken care of in short order. As a result of the ACA, that same center has now had to sell out to one of the larger healthcare groups and is crowded and uncomfortable with long waits to see a doctor.
Greenbeard and I had some discussion (and disagreement) about the inadequate staffing that now exists so that hospitals are not as sparkly clean as they once were overall. And there are longer waits to attend to patient requests, and, while I have no stats, there seems to be a lot more errors and missed things than there used to be.
It takes a lot longer to get an appointment for various non emergency and/or elective procedures.
