Debate Now An Unhappy Birthday for Obamacare?

[Foxfyre]

I should point out that the lack of common metrics is the biggest issue to a reasonable discussion on Obamacare.

What I hear constantly is the right and the left arguing against the metrics they respectively chose to highlite.

Obamacare was supposed to save everyone 2500/year. How ? I don't ever recall how, exactly that was supposed to happen. The way it was presented, we would have 2500/year more to spend. Someone recently told me that the saving were in the "reduced increases" (that was a good one) I would see...meaning I had no way of knowing just what my increases were with or without since one would never be generated. So, as I explained, such a claim in that regard was total bullcrap.

We were told we could keep our doctors. Do we know how many people really lost their doctors...and why ?

So, the unhappy birthday in my estimation is simply the polling numbers which easily can and could be swayed by a good disinformation campaign.

The President actually said this:

If you like your healthcare plan, you can keep it.

Most of us who understood the bill knew that the asterisk was "if the plan met the minimum standards for the ACA. But since the President didn't verbalize the asterisk...he rightly got criticized for it. Meaning that if your plan was a junk plan deemed only to pay for emergency room visits and a once a year check-up, you would have to be upgraded. And yes, those with the junk plans lost their insurance that they probably paid very little for. The insurance that meets the minimum standards of the ACA is slightly more expensive in most areas and still more expensive in some. That was the group who was most "affected" by the measure passing. In a lot of those cases--people who had junk policies--they didn't qualify for the subsidy either.

The largest group that was affected was that the uninsured are now insured or are paying a penalty. This will reduce the tax burden we pay for county hospitals over time because there will be a reduction in visits since these people are now insured. Overall, the cost for the user will be lowered as well since pill therapy can be utilized instead of much more costly emergency services.

As for losing doctors, this will likely be a short-term issue as the dust settles. You'll probably lose physicians who were not all that dedicated now that there will be a slightly different element of the population visiting the hospitals.

The overwhelming majority of the nation was in no way effected since most get their insurance through their employer and the plans offered far exceeded the ACA minimums.

Anyone who says otherwise is unaware of the facts.

I am not sure why all this is in here if you were responding to my post which was that we need a set of common metrics.

Well, you stated that "we were told we could keep our doctor". That was incorrect. Physicians can change their mind on insurance every other day if they wish.

So the President (and all others who supported Obamacare) was lying when he said these words again and again and again with no qualification of any kind whatsoever?



Or was he just misinformed or incorrect?

 

[Sun Devil 92]

I should point out that the lack of common metrics is the biggest issue to a reasonable discussion on Obamacare.

What I hear constantly is the right and the left arguing against the metrics they respectively chose to highlite.

Obamacare was supposed to save everyone 2500/year. How ? I don't ever recall how, exactly that was supposed to happen. The way it was presented, we would have 2500/year more to spend. Someone recently told me that the saving were in the "reduced increases" (that was a good one) I would see...meaning I had no way of knowing just what my increases were with or without since one would never be generated. So, as I explained, such a claim in that regard was total bullcrap.

We were told we could keep our doctors. Do we know how many people really lost their doctors...and why ?

So, the unhappy birthday in my estimation is simply the polling numbers which easily can and could be swayed by a good disinformation campaign.

The President actually said this:

If you like your healthcare plan, you can keep it.

Most of us who understood the bill knew that the asterisk was "if the plan met the minimum standards for the ACA. But since the President didn't verbalize the asterisk...he rightly got criticized for it. Meaning that if your plan was a junk plan deemed only to pay for emergency room visits and a once a year check-up, you would have to be upgraded. And yes, those with the junk plans lost their insurance that they probably paid very little for. The insurance that meets the minimum standards of the ACA is slightly more expensive in most areas and still more expensive in some. That was the group who was most "affected" by the measure passing. In a lot of those cases--people who had junk policies--they didn't qualify for the subsidy either.

The largest group that was affected was that the uninsured are now insured or are paying a penalty. This will reduce the tax burden we pay for county hospitals over time because there will be a reduction in visits since these people are now insured. Overall, the cost for the user will be lowered as well since pill therapy can be utilized instead of much more costly emergency services.

As for losing doctors, this will likely be a short-term issue as the dust settles. You'll probably lose physicians who were not all that dedicated now that there will be a slightly different element of the population visiting the hospitals.

The overwhelming majority of the nation was in no way effected since most get their insurance through their employer and the plans offered far exceeded the ACA minimums.

Anyone who says otherwise is unaware of the facts.

I am not sure why all this is in here if you were responding to my post which was that we need a set of common metrics.

Well, you stated that "we were told we could keep our doctor". That was incorrect. Physicians can change their mind on insurance every other day if they wish.

Right.

Well, the context was framed in the healthcare plan. You know this. Anyone who is over the age of 18 knows that a doctor can take your particular insurance or not on any given day of the week. If you were "fooled" by that....that is unfortunate.

That was the context of my comment. So yes, I know this.

The promise was made that Obamacare would not impact that.

Based on what I've read...it has.

And I think that is the point of the thread.

Whether you think it's true or Obamacare has been the target of a smear campaign, it is not as popular as some thought it would be.

I've heard it said that many will learn to like it, but from what I can tell they are not being allowed to make up their minds.

Neither side says to much these days.

My original point was that when it was being debated, a score card should have been developed so that a post mortumm could be done on it to see if it was living up to it's promises. That never happened.

So, you are left with this kind of conflict. Both side picking the metrics they feel make it look the best or the worst in can look and then highliting those. The truth is somewhere in between.

 

[Greenbeard]

Some interesting (though not entirely surprising) findings on networks under the ACA this week. So much for the hand-wringing about network quality and customer satisfaction.

Access is similar, but quality may be better in narrow hospital networks

Hospital networks in Covered California are narrower than their counterparts in the commercial market, but geographic access to care is not much different — and quality is comparable or better, a new study shows.

This last measure “indicates that the average quality in the (Covered California) networks is actually higher than in the commercial networks,” the study states. "It seems plausible that insurers are deliberately excluding some hospitals that have not been designated as top performers.“

Survey finds 3 out of 4 satisfied with their ObamaCare plans

The vast majority of people who bought health insurance through ObamaCare exchanges are satisfied with their plans, according to a new national survey.

People overwhelmingly said they felt positively about their choices of doctors and hospitals and their copays for appointments and prescriptions, delivering good news for the Obama administration one year into the law's rollout.

 

[Greenbeard]

In addition to the different models states could adopt and the choice to default to the federal exchanges, the ACA also created the option of regional marketplaces that spanned multiple states--an option that would make sense particularly for some of the smaller states (that don't have the scale to support the operations of their exchanges financially) but that wasn't seriously pursued.

Perhaps I spoke too soon.

Exclusive: States quietly consider ObamaCare exchange mergers

A number of states are quietly considering merging their healthcare exchanges under ObamaCare amid big questions about their cost and viability. . .

Others are contemplating creating multi-state exchanges as a contingency plan for a looming Supreme Court ruling expected next month that could prevent people from getting subsidies to buy ObamaCare on the federal exchange.

The idea is still only in the infancy stage. It’s unclear whether a California-Oregon or New York-Connecticut health exchange is on the horizon.

But a shared marketplace — an option buried in a little-known clause of the Affordable Care Act — has become an increasingly attractive option for states desperate to slash costs. If state exchanges are not financially self-sufficient by 2016, they will be forced to join the federal system, HealthCare.gov.

Now that's interesting.

 

[candycorn]

The President actually said this:

If you like your healthcare plan, you can keep it.

Most of us who understood the bill knew that the asterisk was "if the plan met the minimum standards for the ACA. But since the President didn't verbalize the asterisk...he rightly got criticized for it. Meaning that if your plan was a junk plan deemed only to pay for emergency room visits and a once a year check-up, you would have to be upgraded. And yes, those with the junk plans lost their insurance that they probably paid very little for. The insurance that meets the minimum standards of the ACA is slightly more expensive in most areas and still more expensive in some. That was the group who was most "affected" by the measure passing. In a lot of those cases--people who had junk policies--they didn't qualify for the subsidy either.

The largest group that was affected was that the uninsured are now insured or are paying a penalty. This will reduce the tax burden we pay for county hospitals over time because there will be a reduction in visits since these people are now insured. Overall, the cost for the user will be lowered as well since pill therapy can be utilized instead of much more costly emergency services.

As for losing doctors, this will likely be a short-term issue as the dust settles. You'll probably lose physicians who were not all that dedicated now that there will be a slightly different element of the population visiting the hospitals.

The overwhelming majority of the nation was in no way effected since most get their insurance through their employer and the plans offered far exceeded the ACA minimums.

Anyone who says otherwise is unaware of the facts.

I am not sure why all this is in here if you were responding to my post which was that we need a set of common metrics.

Well, you stated that "we were told we could keep our doctor". That was incorrect. Physicians can change their mind on insurance every other day if they wish.

Right.

Well, the context was framed in the healthcare plan. You know this. Anyone who is over the age of 18 knows that a doctor can take your particular insurance or not on any given day of the week. If you were "fooled" by that....that is unfortunate.

That was the context of my comment. So yes, I know this.

The promise was made that Obamacare would not impact that.

Based on what I've read...it has.

And I think that is the point of the thread.

Whether you think it's true or Obamacare has been the target of a smear campaign, it is not as popular as some thought it would be.

I've heard it said that many will learn to like it, but from what I can tell they are not being allowed to make up their minds.

Neither side says to much these days.

My original point was that when it was being debated, a score card should have been developed so that a post mortumm could be done on it to see if it was living up to it's promises. That never happened.

So, you are left with this kind of conflict. Both side picking the metrics they feel make it look the best or the worst in can look and then highliting those. The truth is somewhere in between.

I'm pretty ambivalent about it myself since like the overwhelming majority, I wasn't affected. The worry we had was being over-run with new patients who now have insurance. That hasn't happened although the ACCs (Ambulatory Care Clinics--aka "doc in a box") are seeing their numbers increase.

 

[candycorn]

I should point out that the lack of common metrics is the biggest issue to a reasonable discussion on Obamacare.

What I hear constantly is the right and the left arguing against the metrics they respectively chose to highlite.

Obamacare was supposed to save everyone 2500/year. How ? I don't ever recall how, exactly that was supposed to happen. The way it was presented, we would have 2500/year more to spend. Someone recently told me that the saving were in the "reduced increases" (that was a good one) I would see...meaning I had no way of knowing just what my increases were with or without since one would never be generated. So, as I explained, such a claim in that regard was total bullcrap.

We were told we could keep our doctors. Do we know how many people really lost their doctors...and why ?

So, the unhappy birthday in my estimation is simply the polling numbers which easily can and could be swayed by a good disinformation campaign.

The President actually said this:

If you like your healthcare plan, you can keep it.

Most of us who understood the bill knew that the asterisk was "if the plan met the minimum standards for the ACA. But since the President didn't verbalize the asterisk...he rightly got criticized for it. Meaning that if your plan was a junk plan deemed only to pay for emergency room visits and a once a year check-up, you would have to be upgraded. And yes, those with the junk plans lost their insurance that they probably paid very little for. The insurance that meets the minimum standards of the ACA is slightly more expensive in most areas and still more expensive in some. That was the group who was most "affected" by the measure passing. In a lot of those cases--people who had junk policies--they didn't qualify for the subsidy either.

The largest group that was affected was that the uninsured are now insured or are paying a penalty. This will reduce the tax burden we pay for county hospitals over time because there will be a reduction in visits since these people are now insured. Overall, the cost for the user will be lowered as well since pill therapy can be utilized instead of much more costly emergency services.

As for losing doctors, this will likely be a short-term issue as the dust settles. You'll probably lose physicians who were not all that dedicated now that there will be a slightly different element of the population visiting the hospitals.

The overwhelming majority of the nation was in no way effected since most get their insurance through their employer and the plans offered far exceeded the ACA minimums.

Anyone who says otherwise is unaware of the facts.

I am not sure why all this is in here if you were responding to my post which was that we need a set of common metrics.

Well, you stated that "we were told we could keep our doctor". That was incorrect. Physicians can change their mind on insurance every other day if they wish.

So the President (and all others who supported Obamacare) was lying when he said these words again and again and again with no qualification of any kind whatsoever?



Or was he just misinformed or incorrect?

He was boiling it down to a soundbyte as politicians are apt to do. He got called out on it and was given the "Lie of the Year Award" by Politifact. Most understood it was contingent on your existing plan meeting the ACA standards, hence 332-206 landslide victory.

 

[dblack]

I should point out that the lack of common metrics is the biggest issue to a reasonable discussion on Obamacare.

What I hear constantly is the right and the left arguing against the metrics they respectively chose to highlite.

Obamacare was supposed to save everyone 2500/year. How ? I don't ever recall how, exactly that was supposed to happen. The way it was presented, we would have 2500/year more to spend. Someone recently told me that the saving were in the "reduced increases" (that was a good one) I would see...meaning I had no way of knowing just what my increases were with or without since one would never be generated. So, as I explained, such a claim in that regard was total bullcrap.

We were told we could keep our doctors. Do we know how many people really lost their doctors...and why ?

So, the unhappy birthday in my estimation is simply the polling numbers which easily can and could be swayed by a good disinformation campaign.

The President actually said this:

If you like your healthcare plan, you can keep it.

Most of us who understood the bill knew that the asterisk was "if the plan met the minimum standards for the ACA. But since the President didn't verbalize the asterisk...he rightly got criticized for it. Meaning that if your plan was a junk plan deemed only to pay for emergency room visits and a once a year check-up, you would have to be upgraded. And yes, those with the junk plans lost their insurance that they probably paid very little for. The insurance that meets the minimum standards of the ACA is slightly more expensive in most areas and still more expensive in some. That was the group who was most "affected" by the measure passing. In a lot of those cases--people who had junk policies--they didn't qualify for the subsidy either.

The largest group that was affected was that the uninsured are now insured or are paying a penalty. This will reduce the tax burden we pay for county hospitals over time because there will be a reduction in visits since these people are now insured. Overall, the cost for the user will be lowered as well since pill therapy can be utilized instead of much more costly emergency services.

As for losing doctors, this will likely be a short-term issue as the dust settles. You'll probably lose physicians who were not all that dedicated now that there will be a slightly different element of the population visiting the hospitals.

The overwhelming majority of the nation was in no way effected since most get their insurance through their employer and the plans offered far exceeded the ACA minimums.

Anyone who says otherwise is unaware of the facts.

I am not sure why all this is in here if you were responding to my post which was that we need a set of common metrics.

Well, you stated that "we were told we could keep our doctor". That was incorrect. Physicians can change their mind on insurance every other day if they wish.

So the President (and all others who supported Obamacare) was lying when he said these words again and again and again with no qualification of any kind whatsoever?



Or was he just misinformed or incorrect?

Misinforming. We were conned and (many) Democrats applauded the deception.

 

[Foxfyre]

I should point out that the lack of common metrics is the biggest issue to a reasonable discussion on Obamacare.

What I hear constantly is the right and the left arguing against the metrics they respectively chose to highlite.

Obamacare was supposed to save everyone 2500/year. How ? I don't ever recall how, exactly that was supposed to happen. The way it was presented, we would have 2500/year more to spend. Someone recently told me that the saving were in the "reduced increases" (that was a good one) I would see...meaning I had no way of knowing just what my increases were with or without since one would never be generated. So, as I explained, such a claim in that regard was total bullcrap.

We were told we could keep our doctors. Do we know how many people really lost their doctors...and why ?

So, the unhappy birthday in my estimation is simply the polling numbers which easily can and could be swayed by a good disinformation campaign.

The President actually said this:

If you like your healthcare plan, you can keep it.

Most of us who understood the bill knew that the asterisk was "if the plan met the minimum standards for the ACA. But since the President didn't verbalize the asterisk...he rightly got criticized for it. Meaning that if your plan was a junk plan deemed only to pay for emergency room visits and a once a year check-up, you would have to be upgraded. And yes, those with the junk plans lost their insurance that they probably paid very little for. The insurance that meets the minimum standards of the ACA is slightly more expensive in most areas and still more expensive in some. That was the group who was most "affected" by the measure passing. In a lot of those cases--people who had junk policies--they didn't qualify for the subsidy either.

The largest group that was affected was that the uninsured are now insured or are paying a penalty. This will reduce the tax burden we pay for county hospitals over time because there will be a reduction in visits since these people are now insured. Overall, the cost for the user will be lowered as well since pill therapy can be utilized instead of much more costly emergency services.

As for losing doctors, this will likely be a short-term issue as the dust settles. You'll probably lose physicians who were not all that dedicated now that there will be a slightly different element of the population visiting the hospitals.

The overwhelming majority of the nation was in no way effected since most get their insurance through their employer and the plans offered far exceeded the ACA minimums.

Anyone who says otherwise is unaware of the facts.

I am not sure why all this is in here if you were responding to my post which was that we need a set of common metrics.

Well, you stated that "we were told we could keep our doctor". That was incorrect. Physicians can change their mind on insurance every other day if they wish.

So the President (and all others who supported Obamacare) was lying when he said these words again and again and again with no qualification of any kind whatsoever?



Or was he just misinformed or incorrect?

Misinforming. We were conned and (many) Democrats applauded the deception.

And apparently at least some still do. I wonder how those surveys would turn out if they polled those of us who have not had a happy experience with Obamacare? Those who lost doctors because of Obamacare, who no longer have access to their former convenient healthcare facilities? Of course those who are being subsidized by the rest of us and who haven't had to deal with the big copays and deductibles are happy. Of course those getting their healthcare free are happy. Of course those whose employers are footing the bill and who aren't smart enough to know that costs them in other ways are happy.

And if that "Kaiser Family Foundation" is part of the Kaiser Foundation that is squarely in bed with Obamacare and are selling their own healthcare plan, I don't know how trustworthy they would be to conduct an objective survey on people's satisfaction with Obamacare.

Rasmussen for instance doesn't have any kind of dog in that fight and recently reported this:

May 11, 2015

Opposition to Obamacare’s requirement that every American have health insurance is over 50% for the first time in months, even as more voters report that someone in their family has purchased health insurance through one of the exchanges established under the new law.

Just 37% of Likely U.S. Voters believe the government should require every American to buy or obtain health insurance, according to the latest Rasmussen Reports national telephone survey. That’s down four points from February and the lowest level of support since December 2013. Fifty-two percent (52%) now oppose government-mandated health insurance. It’s the first time opposition has risen above 50% since last summer and the highest this finding has been in 17 months. Eleven percent (11%) remain undecided. (To see survey question wording, click here.) . . .
Health Care Law - Rasmussen Reports

And in March:

Monday, March 02, 2015
Voters still tend to share an unfavorable opinion of the new national health care law and say it has hurt more than helped them. They’re also less enthusiastic this month about fixing the law rather than repealing it. (To see survey question wording, click here.) . . .
Voters Less Hot for Obamacare Fix - Rasmussen Reports ​

 

[RKMBrown]

My view...

I want to see it repealed and replaced. Repealed because I believe punishing people for not buying what democrats want them to buy is just wrong on face.

Replaced cause there are some issues that need to be addressed. Mainly the government should be breaking up monopolies, forcing a return to free market pricing on health care, and helping health care providers recover the money from people who don't pay their health care bills.

 

[Foxfyre]

My view...

I want to see it repealed and replaced. Repealed because I believe punishing people for not buying what democrats want them to buy is just wrong on face.

Replaced cause there are some issues that need to be addressed. Mainly the government should be breaking up monopolies, forcing a return to free market pricing on health care, and helping health care providers recover the money from people who don't pay their health care bills.

But why would Obamacare need to be replaced to accomplish that?

I would not have any problem with the federal government at least provide strong incentives for the states to NOT have intrastate healthcare monopolies and have some kind of 'truth in advertising' or some such related to insurance policies, etc. And I could see justification to set up some sort of assigned risk pool similar to the national flood insurance program to make sure that the difficult to insure people with pre-existing conditions etc. would have access to insurance. All that could easily have been accomplished without dismantling and restructuring the entire system.

But other than enforcing RICO and anti-trust laws and perhaps some kind of national program for hard-to-insure people, I see no reason that the federal government should be involved in our healthcare at all.

 

[RKMBrown]

My view...

I want to see it repealed and replaced. Repealed because I believe punishing people for not buying what democrats want them to buy is just wrong on face.

Replaced cause there are some issues that need to be addressed. Mainly the government should be breaking up monopolies, forcing a return to free market pricing on health care, and helping health care providers recover the money from people who don't pay their health care bills.

But why would Obamacare need to be replaced to accomplish that?

1) Obamacare establishes a government monopoly on health care, funded by the american taxpayer no less. Establishing a monopoly is the opposite of breaking up a monopoly.
2) The bedrock of obamacare is the funding windfalls of forcing tens of millions of people who don't need insurance to buy insurance, and forcing the ENTIRE tax payer base who already have insurance to pay taxes to fund Obamacare for the people who sign up and get "government" assistance checks to pay their insurance premiums. Obamacare is really just another welfare program on top of medicaid. The only difference is everyone on Obamacare gets some form of welfare, rich/poor/middle class it does not matter.

 

[Foxfyre]

My view...

I want to see it repealed and replaced. Repealed because I believe punishing people for not buying what democrats want them to buy is just wrong on face.

Replaced cause there are some issues that need to be addressed. Mainly the government should be breaking up monopolies, forcing a return to free market pricing on health care, and helping health care providers recover the money from people who don't pay their health care bills.

But why would Obamacare need to be replaced to accomplish that?

1) Obamacare establishes a government monopoly on health care, funded by the american taxpayer no less. Establishing a monopoly is the opposite of breaking up a monopoly.
2) The bedrock of obamacare is the funding windfalls of forcing tens of millions of people who don't need insurance to buy insurance, and forcing the ENTIRE tax payer base who already have insurance to pay taxes to fund Obamacare for the people who sign up and get "government" assistance checks to pay their insurance premiums. Obamacare is really just another welfare program on top of medicaid. The only difference is everyone on Obamacare gets some form of welfare, rich/poor/middle class it does not matter.

Those footing the bill to pay the insurance costs of those getting artificially reduced premiums aren't getting any form of welfare.

But again why does Obamacare have to be replaced at the federal level? Why not disband it, enforce anti-trust and RICO laws, and let the free market work?

When you put out a fire, what do you replace it with?

 

[RKMBrown]

My view...

I want to see it repealed and replaced. Repealed because I believe punishing people for not buying what democrats want them to buy is just wrong on face.

Replaced cause there are some issues that need to be addressed. Mainly the government should be breaking up monopolies, forcing a return to free market pricing on health care, and helping health care providers recover the money from people who don't pay their health care bills.

But why would Obamacare need to be replaced to accomplish that?

1) Obamacare establishes a government monopoly on health care, funded by the american taxpayer no less. Establishing a monopoly is the opposite of breaking up a monopoly.
2) The bedrock of obamacare is the funding windfalls of forcing tens of millions of people who don't need insurance to buy insurance, and forcing the ENTIRE tax payer base who already have insurance to pay taxes to fund Obamacare for the people who sign up and get "government" assistance checks to pay their insurance premiums. Obamacare is really just another welfare program on top of medicaid. The only difference is everyone on Obamacare gets some form of welfare, rich/poor/middle class it does not matter.

Those footing the bill to pay the insurance costs of those getting artificially reduced premiums aren't getting any form of welfare.

But again why does Obamacare have to be replaced at the federal level? Why not disband it, enforce anti-trust and RICO laws, and let the free market work?

When you put out a fire, what do you replace it with?

Incorrect, tax payers are funding EVERYONE that is in Obamacare. Thus, everyone in Obamacare is on taxpayer funded welfare.

As for replacing vs disbanding.. the point was there is a need for some federal government involvement in healthcare to right the wrongs they have already done. You can't have a freemarket when the market is being monopolized by government sanctioned monopolies.

 

[Sun Devil 92]

I should point out that the lack of common metrics is the biggest issue to a reasonable discussion on Obamacare.

What I hear constantly is the right and the left arguing against the metrics they respectively chose to highlite.

Obamacare was supposed to save everyone 2500/year. How ? I don't ever recall how, exactly that was supposed to happen. The way it was presented, we would have 2500/year more to spend. Someone recently told me that the saving were in the "reduced increases" (that was a good one) I would see...meaning I had no way of knowing just what my increases were with or without since one would never be generated. So, as I explained, such a claim in that regard was total bullcrap.

We were told we could keep our doctors. Do we know how many people really lost their doctors...and why ?

So, the unhappy birthday in my estimation is simply the polling numbers which easily can and could be swayed by a good disinformation campaign.

The President actually said this:

If you like your healthcare plan, you can keep it.

Most of us who understood the bill knew that the asterisk was "if the plan met the minimum standards for the ACA. But since the President didn't verbalize the asterisk...he rightly got criticized for it. Meaning that if your plan was a junk plan deemed only to pay for emergency room visits and a once a year check-up, you would have to be upgraded. And yes, those with the junk plans lost their insurance that they probably paid very little for. The insurance that meets the minimum standards of the ACA is slightly more expensive in most areas and still more expensive in some. That was the group who was most "affected" by the measure passing. In a lot of those cases--people who had junk policies--they didn't qualify for the subsidy either.

The largest group that was affected was that the uninsured are now insured or are paying a penalty. This will reduce the tax burden we pay for county hospitals over time because there will be a reduction in visits since these people are now insured. Overall, the cost for the user will be lowered as well since pill therapy can be utilized instead of much more costly emergency services.

As for losing doctors, this will likely be a short-term issue as the dust settles. You'll probably lose physicians who were not all that dedicated now that there will be a slightly different element of the population visiting the hospitals.

The overwhelming majority of the nation was in no way effected since most get their insurance through their employer and the plans offered far exceeded the ACA minimums.

Anyone who says otherwise is unaware of the facts.

I am not sure why all this is in here if you were responding to my post which was that we need a set of common metrics.

Well, you stated that "we were told we could keep our doctor". That was incorrect. Physicians can change their mind on insurance every other day if they wish.

So the President (and all others who supported Obamacare) was lying when he said these words again and again and again with no qualification of any kind whatsoever?



Or was he just misinformed or incorrect?

He was boiling it down to a soundbyte as politicians are apt to do. He got called out on it and was given the "Lie of the Year Award" by Politifact. Most understood it was contingent on your existing plan meeting the ACA standards, hence 332-206 landslide victory.

Didn't Obamacare start up after the election ?

 

[Sun Devil 92]

I should point out that the lack of common metrics is the biggest issue to a reasonable discussion on Obamacare.

What I hear constantly is the right and the left arguing against the metrics they respectively chose to highlite.

Obamacare was supposed to save everyone 2500/year. How ? I don't ever recall how, exactly that was supposed to happen. The way it was presented, we would have 2500/year more to spend. Someone recently told me that the saving were in the "reduced increases" (that was a good one) I would see...meaning I had no way of knowing just what my increases were with or without since one would never be generated. So, as I explained, such a claim in that regard was total bullcrap.

We were told we could keep our doctors. Do we know how many people really lost their doctors...and why ?

So, the unhappy birthday in my estimation is simply the polling numbers which easily can and could be swayed by a good disinformation campaign.

The President actually said this:

If you like your healthcare plan, you can keep it.

Most of us who understood the bill knew that the asterisk was "if the plan met the minimum standards for the ACA. But since the President didn't verbalize the asterisk...he rightly got criticized for it. Meaning that if your plan was a junk plan deemed only to pay for emergency room visits and a once a year check-up, you would have to be upgraded. And yes, those with the junk plans lost their insurance that they probably paid very little for. The insurance that meets the minimum standards of the ACA is slightly more expensive in most areas and still more expensive in some. That was the group who was most "affected" by the measure passing. In a lot of those cases--people who had junk policies--they didn't qualify for the subsidy either.

The largest group that was affected was that the uninsured are now insured or are paying a penalty. This will reduce the tax burden we pay for county hospitals over time because there will be a reduction in visits since these people are now insured. Overall, the cost for the user will be lowered as well since pill therapy can be utilized instead of much more costly emergency services.

As for losing doctors, this will likely be a short-term issue as the dust settles. You'll probably lose physicians who were not all that dedicated now that there will be a slightly different element of the population visiting the hospitals.

The overwhelming majority of the nation was in no way effected since most get their insurance through their employer and the plans offered far exceeded the ACA minimums.

Anyone who says otherwise is unaware of the facts.

I am not sure why all this is in here if you were responding to my post which was that we need a set of common metrics.

Well, you stated that "we were told we could keep our doctor". That was incorrect. Physicians can change their mind on insurance every other day if they wish.

So the President (and all others who supported Obamacare) was lying when he said these words again and again and again with no qualification of any kind whatsoever?



Or was he just misinformed or incorrect?

He was boiling it down to a soundbyte as politicians are apt to do. He got called out on it and was given the "Lie of the Year Award" by Politifact. Most understood it was contingent on your existing plan meeting the ACA standards, hence 332-206 landslide victory.

I'm sorry, but that was never explained.

The statement was made pure and simple.

When it started to happen....the term "junk plan" suddenly became the most overused verse in political B.S.

There was no public discussion of ACA standards.

It was the lie of the year and has yet to be bested.

 

[candycorn]

My view...

I want to see it repealed and replaced. Repealed because I believe punishing people for not buying what democrats want them to buy is just wrong on face.

Replaced cause there are some issues that need to be addressed. Mainly the government should be breaking up monopolies, forcing a return to free market pricing on health care, and helping health care providers recover the money from people who don't pay their health care bills.

But why would Obamacare need to be replaced to accomplish that?

1) Obamacare establishes a government monopoly on health care, funded by the american taxpayer no less. Establishing a monopoly is the opposite of breaking up a monopoly.
2) The bedrock of obamacare is the funding windfalls of forcing tens of millions of people who don't need insurance to buy insurance, and forcing the ENTIRE tax payer base who already have insurance to pay taxes to fund Obamacare for the people who sign up and get "government" assistance checks to pay their insurance premiums. Obamacare is really just another welfare program on top of medicaid. The only difference is everyone on Obamacare gets some form of welfare, rich/poor/middle class it does not matter.

Those footing the bill to pay the insurance costs of those getting artificially reduced premiums aren't getting any form of welfare.

But again why does Obamacare have to be replaced at the federal level? Why not disband it, enforce anti-trust and RICO laws, and let the free market work?

When you put out a fire, what do you replace it with?

Incorrect, tax payers are funding EVERYONE that is in Obamacare. Thus, everyone in Obamacare is on taxpayer funded welfare.

As for replacing vs disbanding.. the point was there is a need for some federal government involvement in healthcare to right the wrongs they have already done. You can't have a freemarket when the market is being monopolized by government sanctioned monopolies.

Not correct. People pay for their own insurance. The small % who receive a subsidy are getting just that, a subsidy....

 

[candycorn]

The President actually said this:

If you like your healthcare plan, you can keep it.

Most of us who understood the bill knew that the asterisk was "if the plan met the minimum standards for the ACA. But since the President didn't verbalize the asterisk...he rightly got criticized for it. Meaning that if your plan was a junk plan deemed only to pay for emergency room visits and a once a year check-up, you would have to be upgraded. And yes, those with the junk plans lost their insurance that they probably paid very little for. The insurance that meets the minimum standards of the ACA is slightly more expensive in most areas and still more expensive in some. That was the group who was most "affected" by the measure passing. In a lot of those cases--people who had junk policies--they didn't qualify for the subsidy either.

The largest group that was affected was that the uninsured are now insured or are paying a penalty. This will reduce the tax burden we pay for county hospitals over time because there will be a reduction in visits since these people are now insured. Overall, the cost for the user will be lowered as well since pill therapy can be utilized instead of much more costly emergency services.

As for losing doctors, this will likely be a short-term issue as the dust settles. You'll probably lose physicians who were not all that dedicated now that there will be a slightly different element of the population visiting the hospitals.

The overwhelming majority of the nation was in no way effected since most get their insurance through their employer and the plans offered far exceeded the ACA minimums.

Anyone who says otherwise is unaware of the facts.

I am not sure why all this is in here if you were responding to my post which was that we need a set of common metrics.

Well, you stated that "we were told we could keep our doctor". That was incorrect. Physicians can change their mind on insurance every other day if they wish.

So the President (and all others who supported Obamacare) was lying when he said these words again and again and again with no qualification of any kind whatsoever?



Or was he just misinformed or incorrect?

He was boiling it down to a soundbyte as politicians are apt to do. He got called out on it and was given the "Lie of the Year Award" by Politifact. Most understood it was contingent on your existing plan meeting the ACA standards, hence 332-206 landslide victory.

Didn't Obamacare start up after the election ?

Yes.

 

[candycorn]

The President actually said this:

If you like your healthcare plan, you can keep it.

Most of us who understood the bill knew that the asterisk was "if the plan met the minimum standards for the ACA. But since the President didn't verbalize the asterisk...he rightly got criticized for it. Meaning that if your plan was a junk plan deemed only to pay for emergency room visits and a once a year check-up, you would have to be upgraded. And yes, those with the junk plans lost their insurance that they probably paid very little for. The insurance that meets the minimum standards of the ACA is slightly more expensive in most areas and still more expensive in some. That was the group who was most "affected" by the measure passing. In a lot of those cases--people who had junk policies--they didn't qualify for the subsidy either.

The largest group that was affected was that the uninsured are now insured or are paying a penalty. This will reduce the tax burden we pay for county hospitals over time because there will be a reduction in visits since these people are now insured. Overall, the cost for the user will be lowered as well since pill therapy can be utilized instead of much more costly emergency services.

As for losing doctors, this will likely be a short-term issue as the dust settles. You'll probably lose physicians who were not all that dedicated now that there will be a slightly different element of the population visiting the hospitals.

The overwhelming majority of the nation was in no way effected since most get their insurance through their employer and the plans offered far exceeded the ACA minimums.

Anyone who says otherwise is unaware of the facts.

I am not sure why all this is in here if you were responding to my post which was that we need a set of common metrics.

Well, you stated that "we were told we could keep our doctor". That was incorrect. Physicians can change their mind on insurance every other day if they wish.

So the President (and all others who supported Obamacare) was lying when he said these words again and again and again with no qualification of any kind whatsoever?



Or was he just misinformed or incorrect?

He was boiling it down to a soundbyte as politicians are apt to do. He got called out on it and was given the "Lie of the Year Award" by Politifact. Most understood it was contingent on your existing plan meeting the ACA standards, hence 332-206 landslide victory.

I'm sorry, but that was never explained.

The statement was made pure and simple.

When it started to happen....the term "junk plan" suddenly became the most overused verse in political B.S.

There was no public discussion of ACA standards.

It was the lie of the year and has yet to be bested.

True.

What was explained was that insurance would have to be offered to persons with pre-existing conditions and that you could keep you child on your plan until they turn 26.

Imagine my surprise...nobody wants to talk about the overwhelming support for the good parts of the ACA...only that some fools didn't understand what it is. I would bet that if you asked conservative posters on this board, they would still--to this day--think there is a product called "obamacare".

 

[candycorn]

Good to see the polling above looking favorably on Obamacare by and large. Some "unhappy" birthday.

 

[Sun Devil 92]

Good to see the polling above looking favorably on Obamacare by and large. Some "unhappy" birthday.

Are we looking at the same poll ?
This poll adds up to more than 100% so all numbers have to be normalized.

But questions 4,5&6 (repeal all or most) is still more than the 1,2&3.

It's not overwhelming...but still greater.