On More Generous Terms, Obamacare Proves Newly Popular

[aociswundumho]

And they’ll regret that decision at age 65.

Some will and some won't. Doesn't matter either way. They're adults, it should be their choice.

If you say they aren't capable of making such choices regarding their own lives, then I say they must also not be capable of voting for politicians, which effects the lives of other people.

 

[Court Jester]

Prior to age 26 is ok with you then?

Well, my opinion on that has always been that if the PRIVATE insurance companies want to extend coverage to children who are still living with the parents, especially those older than age 18 WHO ARE GOING TO COLLEGE. Then the decision would be based on the benefit of having some younger, more often than not HEALTHY, and most importantly good risk people ADDING to the insurance pool which rarely end up driving up costs, or ending up as payouts ---and then less profit to those companies.

Same way a parent may add a college age child to their auto insurance and then both parties benefit. But only so far as private insurers want to do that in the marketplace.

Why would any other than handicapped or retarded kid age 24-26 still be needing mommy and daddy to cover them when they should be out paying for or getting covered with their own insurance through a job?

Look, here’s the history. Every US social program has been greeted by the right thusly:
-opposition
-it’s communist, socialist, whatever
-it’s ok, but it needs to be privatized to be more efficient
-how dare you say I want to harm Social Security?

Why do you believe that healthcare is a right? Where is that in the constitution of the United States?

Some years hence, the right will repeat this pattern and declare their everlasting love for the ACA. They already moved in that direction by changing from simple opposition to “repeal and replace.” Only they won’t call it Obamacare any longer.

There were not enough votes to repeal and replace thanks to your liberal Republican senator John McCain. The problem with ACA is that it is not sustainable over the long haul, and it does not adequately control costs. It was too far reaching, and now with some states like California pledging to give free healthcare to ALL people, including illegal aliens, then all of that burden falls on the taxpayers, and then also causes the quality of healthcare to keep going down, while rising in price.

 

[PeacefulWarrior]

Of course medicare and Obama's shitty insurance are two different things, but not by much.

You demonstrate that you dont know what ObamaCare™ actually is.
Hint: its NOT insurance.

 

[Lycanthrope]

No thanks - Uncle Donald promised me Trumpcare! Twice the quality at half the price!

Any day now...

 

[PeacefulWarrior]

Why do you believe that healthcare is a right?

Because it just sounds like the civilized and humane thing to do! I support it.
My FREE Socialist BidenCare™ plan just got used again today when I went for my checkup at the urologist.
Scrips covered too...NO CHARGE! How can you beat that?

Socialism is the preferred model IMO. Working well for me.

 

[Schism]

You demonstrate that you dot know what ObamaCare™ actually is.
Hint: its NOT insurance.

It most certainly is. You purchased coverage with gov't mandates applied.

Depending on the level you purchased determines the coverage limits you receive.

And there ARE limits. ACA does not cover every single claim without gaps. Gaps exist.

 

[Nickyjo]

Well, my opinion on that has always been that if the PRIVATE insurance companies want to extend coverage to children who are still living with the parents, especially those older than age 18 WHO ARE GOING TO COLLEGE. Then the decision would be based on the benefit of having some younger, more often than not HEALTHY, and most importantly good risk people ADDING to the insurance pool which rarely end up driving up costs, or ending up as payouts ---and then less profit to those companies.

Same way a parent may add a college age child to their auto insurance and then both parties benefit. But only so far as private insurers want to do that in the marketplace.

Why would any other than handicapped or retarded kid age 24-26 still be needing mommy and daddy to cover them when they should be out paying for or getting covered with their own insurance through a job?


Why do you believe that healthcare is a right? Where is that in the constitution of the United States?



There were not enough votes to repeal and replace thanks to your liberal Republican senator John McCain. The problem with ACA is that it is not sustainable over the long haul, and it does not adequately control costs. It was too far reaching, and now with some states like California pledging to give free healthcare to ALL people, including illegal aliens, then all of that burden falls on the taxpayers, and then also causes the quality of healthcare to keep going down, while rising in price.

There are rights that are not enumerated in the Constitution, but more than hinted at in the Declaration of Independence. Health care these days, in societies that are capable of providing it, could be considered a right, much as food is. It has been promoted as such since FDR, who spoke of the four freedoms. If the ACA is not sustainable, come up with amendments that will make it so or a new plan to replace it. You are swimming against history. The developed world decided collectively (GASP!) long ago that we are in this together, that capitalism doesn’t work perfectly, and that it is the duty of the state to pick up the slack. The debate is not over whether, but how much. Ayn Rand and her culture of selfishness are dead and unmourned.

 

[MTAtech]

Some will and some won't. Doesn't matter either way. They're adults, it should be their choice.

If you say they aren't capable of making such choices regarding their own lives, then I say they must also not be capable of voting for politicians, which effects the lives of other people.

I’m not saying that they aren’t capable of making that decision. I’m just thinking about whether they will be destitute at 65 and need public assistance. It also undermines the SSA trust fund by not having contribution.

 

[Nickyjo]

I’m not saying that they aren’t capable of making that decision. I’m just thinking about whether they will be destitute at 65 and need public assistance. It also undermines the SSA trust fund by not having contribution.

Some will and some won't. Doesn't matter either way. They're adults, it should be their choice.

If you say they aren't capable of making such choices regarding their own lives, then I say they must also not be capable of voting for politicians, which effects the lives of other people.

Nice try. Just go on line and note how citizens of so many other countries like the US “aren’t capable of making such choices.” And yet they are allowed to vote. Your post seems to suggest the old saw that the poor, the injured on the job, and others are that way due to some moral failing on their part. We somehow moved past that myth.

 

[Court Jester]

Because it just sounds like the civilized and humane thing to do! I support it.

I am in agreement that it is civilized to do when the people who we are providing the free healthcare to are incapable of providing for themselves. Then it is humane.

My FREE Socialist BidenCare™ plan just got used again today when I went for my checkup at the urologist.

How is something "free" when other people are paying for it? Just because a person may not be paying for it themselves, does not mean it didn't cost anything and was free. Unless the healthcare workers are unpaid volunteers, and the drugs, supplies, and everything else was donated, then it wasn't free.

Socialism is the preferred model IMO. Working well for me.

For YOU maybe, not for me. I pay for my healthcare and other people's too. What happens when there isn't enough people paying in, for those getting out? Will you then be happy when you have nothing?

Do you pay your own rent and buy your own groceries? So, why not your healthcare too? Ask me, and it all comes down to priorities.

 

[PeacefulWarrior]

I am in agreement that it is civilized to do when the people who we are providing the free healthcare to are incapable of providing for themselves. Then it is humane.



How is something "free" when other people are paying for it? Just because a person may not be paying for it themselves, does not mean it didn't cost anything and was free. Unless the healthcare workers are unpaid volunteers, and the drugs, supplies, and everything else was donated, then it wasn't free.

For YOU maybe, not for me. I pay for my healthcare and other people's too. What happens when there isn't enough people paying in, for those getting out? Will you then be happy when you have nothing?

Do you pay your own rent and buy your own groceries? So, why not your healthcare too? Ask me, and it all comes down to priorities.

I love my BidenCare™.

You'll need a crowbar to pry me off it.

 

[Court Jester]

There are rights that are not enumerated in the Constitution, but more than hinted at in the Declaration of Independence.

The declaration is NOT law, it was a declaration of intent.

Health care these days, in societies that are capable of providing it, could be considered a right, much as food is.

How is food a right? Wouldn't food be a person's own personal responsibility under the part of the Declaration of Independence which mentions "pursuit of happiness"? People are fee to pursue those things which they benefit from (aka: property), but no guarantee it need provided for them.

It has been promoted as such since FDR, who spoke of the four freedoms.

Those also not constitutional rights, just ideals.

If the ACA is not sustainable, come up with amendments that will make it so or a new plan to replace it.

The democrats refused to even entertain any debate on how to improve healthcare without absorbing it into the national debt.

You are swimming against history.

Rome wasn't built in a day, and it didn't fall in a day either.

The developed world decided collectively (GASP!) long ago that we are in this together, that capitalism doesn’t work perfectly, and that it is the duty of the state to pick up the slack. The debate is not over whether, but how much. Ayn Rand and her culture of selfishness are dead and unmourned.

And when you run out of my money then what? Will you be doing your grocery shopping in Venezuela?

 

[Court Jester]

I love my BidenCare™.

You'll need a crowbar to pry me off it.

You won't have it when we just stop paying for it.

 

[Individual]

Because it just sounds like the civilized and humane thing to do! I support it.
My FREE Socialist BidenCare™ plan just got used again today when I went for my checkup at the urologist.
Scrips covered too...NO CHARGE! How can you beat that?

Socialism is the preferred model IMO. Working well for me.

Should it be called socialism or collectivism?

 

[Greenbeard]

There were not enough votes to repeal and replace thanks to your liberal Republican senator John McCain. The problem with ACA is that it is not sustainable over the long haul, and it does not adequately control costs. It was too far reaching, and now with some states like California pledging to give free healthcare to ALL people, including illegal aliens, then all of that burden falls on the taxpayers, and then also causes the quality of healthcare to keep going down, while rising in price.

And yet the quality of health care improved after the ACA passed and cost growth dropped dramatically, even as tens of millions of Americans were gaining coverage. Perhaps that’s part of the reason the GOP never had a “replace” to go with their phony repeal.

It most certainly is. You purchased coverage with gov't mandates applied.

Depending on the level you purchased determines the coverage limits you receive.

And there ARE limits. ACA does not cover every single claim without gaps. Gaps exist.

And these limits in private coverage are because of “government mandates”?

 

[Schism]

And yet the quality of health care improved after the ACA passed and cost growth dropped dramatically, even as tens of millions of Americans were gaining coverage. Perhaps that’s part of the reason the GOP never had a “replace” to go with their phony repeal.

Your talking about private medical practices who accept insurance. The policies didn't improve healthcare that already existed.

ACA is nothing more than an insurance cafeteria.

And these limits in private coverage are because of “government mandates”?

What are you talking about? ACA requires insurers to offer certain and specific coverages, but it's geared towards very basic healthcare. If you get cancer or survive a car wreck in ICU you're just as ****ed. Plus with tiers, the poor can get a low cost policy but the coverage has huge gaps and limitations.

 

[Greenbeard]

Your talking about private medical practices who accept insurance. The policies didn't improve healthcare that already existed.

They did, in fact. Hospitals got safer, medical practices got better. The financial model for health care started moving from paying for health care widgets to paying for quality and health, thanks to the ACA

What are you talking about? ACA requires insurers to offer certain and specific coverages, but it's geared towards very basic healthcare. If you get cancer or survive a car wreck in ICU you're just as ****ed. Plus with tiers, the poor can get a low cost policy but the coverage has huge gaps and limitations.

In a decade right wingers have swung from believing the ACA is outrageously generous coverage beyond all reason to believing that it doesn’t even cover cancer treatments or recovery from a car wreck. How far we’ve come.

 

[Blue_State]

Imagine that, we removed other options and what is left is becoming more popular. After removing all the food from the home except beets, we found everyone loves beets.

 

[PeacefulWarrior]

Should it be called socialism or collectivism?

"Call it" whatever the hell ya want Friend....Luv my BidenCare™!!!

 

[Individual]

"Call it" whatever the hell ya want Friend....Luv my BidenCare™!!!

I find collectivism more descriptive.

 

[Court Jester]

And yet the quality of health care improved after the ACA passed and cost growth dropped dramatically, even as tens of millions of Americans were gaining coverage.

Yeah, when you give some people who NEVER bothered to prioritize their own healthcare and offer the free or below market price healthcare paid for by other people (taxpayers), then why would those people complain?

If the government forced you to give your spare bedroom to homeless people, the homeless people will be very happy, but will you?

Perhaps that’s part of the reason the GOP never had a “replace” to go with their phony repeal.

It came down to gamesmanship and fear of losing some seats in some congressional districts for some Republicans. As we are seeing right now with the Biden agenda, sometimes seemingly have more votes in congress comes with a double edged sword.

I have ALWAYS argued that BEFORE the ACA was enacted, and then later on when talking about repealing it. That it would have been politically savy for Republicans to guarantee two things up front 1) coverage for preexisting conditions, and 2) coverage for adult children living at home, but maybe just up to age 24 or 25. Had they show rock solid support for those two things, and then came up with a replacement which was not a mandate, but which deregulated across state line competition, AND made it possible to allow for more pharmaceutical purchases across NATIONAL borders, then that would have probably been a doable vote for more Republicans. But a preexisting condition guarantee was crucial. And in terms of the marketplace, a mandate across the board for preexisting conditions with all insurers is no big deal, when ALL insurance companies are required to provide it. Then they all just adjust their actuary tables and roll with it; no company is at any disadvantage.

And these limits in private coverage are because of “government mandates”?

Some mandates may be appropriate, but government always gets it wrong when they assume they can completely control the free market, especially if they think there can be no profit motive in business. There MUST always be a profit motive, otherwise you must replace private capital investment, assuming risk, and profits with government funding (taxes), and then government assurances, which will end up with even more taxes while destroying innovation and participation in the free market.

Profit is not immoral. It is the engine behind our better standard of living.

 

[Cope]

Jesus hotsauce Christmas cake... wasn't the ACA supposed to lower prices? It's more popular than ever but prices are still rising at double digit rates?

Not to mention the "more generous" part must simply mean that the government (and us) are subsidizing even more of it since the costs of the plans went down.

 

[Greenbeard]

It came down to gamesmanship and fear of losing some seats in some congressional districts for some Republicans. As we are seeing right now with the Biden agenda, sometimes seemingly have more votes in congress comes with a double edged sword.

I have ALWAYS argued that BEFORE the ACA was enacted, and then later on when talking about repealing it. That it would have been politically savy for Republicans to guarantee two things up front 1) coverage for preexisting conditions, and 2) coverage for adult children living at home, but maybe just up to age 24 or 25. Had they show rock solid support for those two things, and then came up with a replacement which was not a mandate, but which deregulated across state line competition, AND made it possible to allow for more pharmaceutical purchases across NATIONAL borders, then that would have probably been a doable vote for more Republicans. But a preexisting condition guarantee was crucial. And in terms of the marketplace, a mandate across the board for preexisting conditions with all insurers is no big deal, when ALL insurance companies are required to provide it. Then they all just adjust their actuary tables and roll with it; no company is at any disadvantage.

Problem is, the GOP is not particularly supportive of a requirement of guaranteeing coverage for pre-existing conditions. They voted countless times to repeal that requirement, and when that failed they tried over and over to get the requirement thrown out by the courts. Indeed, the talking point they used to use, which you've recycled here, about "deregulation across state lines" is precisely contrary to the concept of requiring baseline consumer protection regulations on insurers. The point of that concept is to allow/force states to deregulate each other's markets; it's not a coincidence they stopped talking about that once the Dems put in place a nationwide regulatory floor. The GOP's focus became getting rid of those nationwide protections, at which point they would've presumably gone back to attacking any and all state-level protections, as they did before the ACA.

Not to mention the "more generous" part must simply mean that the government (and us) are subsidizing even more of it since the costs of the plans went down.

Corrections to the ACA's original sin/mistake. They were so obsessed back in 2009/10 with keeping the ten-year price tag of the ACA below a trillion dollars, they didn't make the tax credits as generous as they should've from the start. As it turned out, the ACA ended up costing hundreds of billions less than they thought (and American health care in general ended up costing trillions less than expected thanks to the slowdown in health care cost growth), so the point turned out to be moot.

 

[Greenbeard]

Anyway, more near-(but-not-quite-yet-)final numbers are out today: add a million in the last month since the info in the OP came out.

Sign-ups in Affordable Care Act marketplaces reach record 14.5 million

About 14.5 million Americans have signed up to get health coverage this year through Affordable Care Act insurance marketplaces, eclipsing the previous record enrollment by nearly 2 million.

The popularity of ACA health plans is a substantial slice of good news for President Biden, who has made expanding access to affordable health insurance one of his principal domestic policy aims, while some approaches he favors to achieve that goal have stalled on Capitol Hill.

The insurance marketplaces created under the law began offering coverage in 2014.

The health plans are intended for consumers who cannot get affordable benefits through a job, meaning they must buy plans on their own — a part of the U.S. insurance industry that was especially dysfunctional in the past, with companies charging high prices for such individual coverage and rejecting many people with medical conditions. The ACA stopped the practice of spurning or overcharging people with preexisting conditions and for the first time provided federal subsidies to most people buying marketplace plans.

Coverage in the U.S. actually increased during the pandemic, bucking the pre-ACA norm of coverage taking a hit during times of economic disruption, just when people need it most. Good thing Washington bothered to do something to boost the resiliency of the health care system a decade plus ago when it had a chance.

 

[HangLow]

Please post links supporting your claims. What is "it"? Why do what you're doing. and during a pandemic?
Your post reminds of this dishonest mendacity,

Back to the Future: Trump's History of Promising a​

Health Plan That Never Comes​

https://khn.org › news › back-to-the-future-trumps-hist...
Aug 13, 2020 — Trump has promised an Obamacare replacement plan five times so far ... an editorially independent program of the Kaiser Family Foundation.

Affordable Care Act - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

"The Affordable Care Act (ACA), ..colloquially known as Obamacare, is a United States federal statute enacted by the 111th United States Congress and signed into law by President Barack Obama on March 23, 2010. Together with the Health Care and Education Reconciliation Act of 2010 amendment, it represents the U.S. healthcare system's most significant regulatory overhaul and expansion of coverage since the enactment of Medicare and Medicaid in 1965.

The ACA's major provisions came into force in 2014. By 2016, the uninsured share of the population had roughly halved, with estimates ranging from 20 to 24 million additional people covered. The law also enacted a host of delivery system reforms intended to constrain healthcare costs and improve quality. After it went into effect, increases in overall healthcare spending slowed, including premiums for employer-based insurance plans.

The increased coverage was due, roughly equally, to an expansion of Medicaid eligibility and to changes to individual insurance markets. Both received new spending, funded through a combination of new taxes and cuts to Medicare provider rates and Medicare Advantage. Several Congressional Budget Office reports said that overall these provisions reduced the budget deficit, that repealing ACA would increase the deficit, and that the law reduced income inequality by taxing primarily the top 1% to fund roughly $600 in benefits on average to families in the bottom 40% of the income distribution.

The act largely retained the existing structure of Medicare, Medicaid and the employer market, but individual markets were radically overhauled. Insurers were made to accept all applicants without charging based on preexisting conditions or demographic status (except age). To combat the resultant adverse selection, the act mandated that individuals buy insurance (or pay a fine/tax) and that insurers cover a list of "essential health benefits". ..."

​