If the Supreme Court Ends Obamacare, Here’s What It Would Mean

[OscarLevant]

They're not free, somebody is paying for them.

This one quote sums up the entire idiotic situation regarding Obamacare. All the ACA does is rob Peter to pay for Paul's medical care. It does not solve the problem, which is the price of healthcare in the US.

Cue Greenbeard to inform me that thanks to the ACA, the price of healthcare is only rising at 5.478877% per year instead of 5.482544452% thus beating any and all estimates and proving once and for all what a resounding success Obamacare has turned out to be.

Yes, taxes rob peter to pay paul when you need a fire department to put out the fire in your house, should it happen, noting that the odds of your house burning are slim. How can that be true? It has to be true, or there would be no such thing as fire insurance. If everyone's house burned down in one'life time, fire insurance premium's would be more than your mortgage. But, you no problem with robbing peter to pay paul when it comes to fires, or cops catch burglars, etc.

Yes, that is the nature of taxation, everyone contributes to a common fund conceived to improve society, as a whole, a concept of which is inclusive of helping the disadvantaged, paying for police and fire departments, paying for national defense ( noting that our country has yet to be attack by any foreign nation since WWII ) etc etc .

See, the idiotic trick the right plays, when it comes to a social policy, which, by nature, is a collective effort, is to frame the argument at an emotional, personal level. For example, a right winger will say "so you want to take money from me to pay for some bum who doesn't want to work?".

Logical fallacy.

Your logical fallacy is appeal to emotion

You attempted to manipulate an emotional response in place of a valid or compelling argument.

yourlogicalfallacyis.com

This is why we don't want morons like Trump running the country.

The right argue: Taxation for medical services for the disadvantaged: == Socialism
Taxation for police, fire and military == not socialism

That's an inconsistency. Either all of it is socialism, or all of it is not. It depends on how you define socialism. Given that there are over 150 pages on wikipedia discussing what socialism is, we can see that it can be many things, depending on various factors, opinions, world views, philophies, etc.

But, in point of fact, NONE of it is totalitarian socialism. But ALL of it is democratic socialism, because the policy is enacted by legislators who are voted into office.

If you want to say it's not socialism. then you are defining socialism as 'state owning all the tools of production and distribution'.

But since FDR, republicans have been calling social programs to help the disadvantaged as 'socialism' in an effort to stigmatise it.

But, this has backfired, because the younger generation now has a higher opinion of socialism, --- it's 'social' it has a nice ring to it.

But, when democrats point to countries that use public programs to better society as a whole, leading them to be among the happiest
nations on earth, republican then will say "well, netherland countries are capitalist countries, they are not socialism.

What republicans need to do is get to get together and MAKE UP YOUR ****ING MINDS ON THE DEFINITION OF SOCIALISM.

 

[Greenbeard]

Brief anecdote, as an entrepreneur I've found that I actually appreciate paying incrementally more for health insurance as my income goes up, because it is reassuring to me that, if my income goes back down, my health insurance costs will drop and remain manageable.

I've found I feel resentful of the fact that when people just barely exceed Medicaid eligibility their economic wellbeing drops dramatically. I feel resentful of the fact that I can go from paying $2,400 per year for premiums to paying over $12,000 on the same premiums once my income crosses an arbitrary threshold by one penny (this is an ACA flaw). It would be really nice to just focus on making more money by knowing that my insurance costs will always hover at a predictable percentage of my income. I think it actually works. It makes this social benefit seem universal rather than privately transactional. Despite long-ago criticisms of ACA, I think it has the potential to be a very functional policy. I'm cynical of government, but I'm frankly even more cynical toward unregulated insurance companies because I've witnessed them doing things that are basically fraudulent.

The good news is that both the bill already passed by the House Dems this year and the Biden Plan smooth out those rough edges. Both eliminate the 400% FPL cap on eligibility for premium tax credits (i.e., no family, regardless of whether their income is above 400% FPL, ever pays more than 8.5% of its income for the benchmark plan--in the House Dems' bill, that's still a silver plan, in the Biden Plan it's a gold plan). And the House Dems begin the phase-in of required premium contributions at 0% of income, as compared to the ACA's current ~2%, to smooth out the transition between Medicaid and marketplace coverage. And of course both fix the family glitch.

Easy, common sense stuff that increases affordability for millions of people.

 

[ttwtt78640]

Brief anecdote, as an entrepreneur I've found that I actually appreciate paying incrementally more for health insurance as my income goes up, because it is reassuring to me that, if my income goes back down, my health insurance costs will drop and remain manageable.

I've found I feel resentful of the fact that when people just barely exceed Medicaid eligibility their economic wellbeing drops dramatically. I feel resentful of the fact that I can go from paying $2,400 per year for premiums to paying over $12,000 on the same premiums once my income crosses an arbitrary threshold by one penny (this is an ACA flaw). It would be really nice to just focus on making more money by knowing that my insurance costs will always hover at a predictable percentage of my income. I think it actually works. It makes this social benefit seem universal rather than privately transactional. Despite long-ago criticisms of ACA, I think it has the potential to be a very functional policy. I'm cynical of government, but I'm frankly even more cynical toward unregulated insurance companies because I've witnessed them doing things that are basically fraudulent.

The idea that the “out of pocket” cost of X should be some percentage of each buyer’s (household?) income (the difference being subsidized by income redistribution programs/subsidies) simply encourages the “market” price of X to rise. The “deal” then becomes: no matter what is charged by providers of X, a public subsidy will keep it (appearing to be) “affordable”.

To try to counter that, the next “logical” step is to have the “single payer” (aka the subsidizer) set the “fair” price. Welcome to Democratic Socialism.

 

[Neomalthusian]

The idea that the “out of pocket” cost of X should be some percentage of each buyer’s (household?) income (the difference being subsidized by income redistribution programs/subsidies) simply encourages the “market” price of X to rise. The “deal” then becomes: no matter what is charged by providers of X, a public subsidy will keep it (appearing to be) “affordable”.

To try to counter that, the next “logical” step is to have the “single payer” (aka the subsidizer) set the “fair” price. Welcome to Democratic Socialism.

Something has to control provider costs. Most people easily rule out deprivation. That leaves either a government bureaucracy or a corporate insurance bureaucracy. There are potential problems with both. Costs need to be controlled to prevent anyone from getting rich providing care that's not actually needed or therapeutic. However costs should not be controlled in a way that results in what's basically consumer deception (making insurance buyers think they're getting protection from medical bankruptcy when they're actually not). They also should not be controlled in a way that results in means-based deprivation (you don't get care if you can't afford to pay cash for it).

 

[Deuce]

America did fine before 2010.

No the hell it didn't. Do you think healthcare was the #1 topic in the 2008 election just for shits and giggles? Or are you too young to remember that?

 

[Mashmont]

No the hell it didn't. Do you think healthcare was the #1 topic in the 2008 election just for shits and giggles? Or are you too young to remember that?

I'm old than you, champ. The Marxist media made it the biggest issue ever, but it wasn't.

 

[Greenbeard]

The idea that the “out of pocket” cost of X should be some percentage of each buyer’s (household?) income (the difference being subsidized by income redistribution programs/subsidies) simply encourages the “market” price of X to rise. The “deal” then becomes: no matter what is charged by providers of X, a public subsidy will keep it (appearing to be) “affordable”.

Hence the importance of fostering competition in the marketplaces. One of the many reasons the GOP effort to destabilize and drive out insurers has been so dumb.

 

[ttwtt78640]

Hence the importance of fostering competition in the marketplaces. One of the many reasons the GOP effort to destabilize and drive out insurers has been so dumb.

Price competition only matters when there are actual savings to be had. For those paying X% of their income (and the rest gets paid by the PPACA subsidy) it matters not what the total price is. Those subsidized “shoppers” couldn’t care less what the total cost is - for them it is fixed at X% of their income.

 

[Greenbeard]

Price competition only matters when there are actual savings to be had. For those paying X% of their income (and the rest gets paid by the PPACA subsidy) it matters not what the total price is. Those subsidized “shoppers” couldn’t care less what the total cost is - for them it is fixed at X% of their income.

Relative price does matter to shoppers in the marketplace, subsidized or not. And in a world with multiple sellers, competition to offer the best relative price necessarily puts downward pressure on total premium. Which is exactly what we've seen in the marketplaces.

The premium subsidy is a fixed dollar amount. The value of that fixed amount is determined by the difference between the buyer's premium cap (i.e., percentage of income) and the price of the benchmark plan, so it's price-linked. But the subsidy itself is a fixed dollar amount that can be applied to any plan sold in the marketplace. If you apply it to a more expensive plan than the benchmark plan, it covers less and you pay more. If you apply to a less expensive plan than the benchmark plan, it covers more and you pay less.

The relative values of all competing plans are preserved. Which is to say, less expensive plans are still more attractive to shoppers and sellers with lower premium offerings have a competitive advantage. If there are other sellers you can't simply enter the market, set a premium, and the subsidy resizes to protect the consumer from the excess cost of your plans relative to competitors.

 

[Jack2aTee]

I just went on Medicare and went to my first Dr. appt. today. Medicare has a $191 dollar yearly deductible. I go twice a year. Medicare costs $1,500 more per year than my obamacare plan from last year. The obamacare plan high deductible and the 20% out of pocket Medicare fee are equal for a $40,000 surgery, and face it, that's like a minimum surgical expense.

I'm seriously considering quitting the Medicare scam.

You have Medicare Original. Get with a good Advantage Part C plan. I pay nothing for my appt.'s, no co-pays for operations and a small charge for things like MRI's, lab work, etc. $1500 worth of drugs every 3 months costs me $95. I have a $1500 annual out-of-pocket.