|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Political Threads This section is for Political Threads - Enter at your own risk. If you say you don't want to see what someone posts - don't read it :hihi: |
05-12-2018, 12:44 PM
|
#1
|
Registered User
Join Date: Nov 2003
Location: RI
Posts: 21,183
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jim in CT
Except it didn’t work. So we didn’t really have it. Too many opted out. We increased coverage, covered more people, covered more health events for more people, but didn’t get sufficient numbers of healthy people.
|
That's just not true. Numbers of uninsured plummeted to historic lows and near the CBO estimates. The issues had more to do with Republican led states denying the exchanges and more recently Trump gutting Federal funding. In states where it was embraced it was actually working nearly according to plan. Not perfect but heading in the right direction.
|
|
|
|
05-12-2018, 01:51 PM
|
#2
|
Registered User
Join Date: Nov 2007
Posts: 12,632
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by spence
That's just not true. Numbers of uninsured plummeted to historic lows and near the CBO estimates. The issues had more to do with Republican led states denying the exchanges and more recently Trump gutting Federal funding. In states where it was embraced it was actually working nearly according to plan. Not perfect but heading in the right direction.
|
you are like a wind-up toy
|
|
|
|
05-12-2018, 05:48 PM
|
#3
|
Registered User
Join Date: Jul 2008
Posts: 20,429
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by spence
That's just not true. Numbers of uninsured plummeted to historic lows and near the CBO estimates. The issues had more to do with Republican led states denying the exchanges and more recently Trump gutting Federal funding. In states where it was embraced it was actually working nearly according to plan. Not perfect but heading in the right direction.
|
"That's just not true."
Yes it is true. Costs skyrocketed because not enough healthy young people signed up. Sick people signed up in huge numbers, healthy people paid the fine and self-insured. That's why it failed miserably.
|
|
|
|
05-14-2018, 10:38 AM
|
#4
|
Registered User
Join Date: Nov 2003
Location: RI
Posts: 21,183
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jim in CT
"That's just not true."
Yes it is true. Costs skyrocketed because not enough healthy young people signed up. Sick people signed up in huge numbers, healthy people paid the fine and self-insured. That's why it failed miserably.
|
Jim, you're just making thing up again. Uninsured among young adults dropped more than any other age group. Of course with Trump's changes this could change dramatically.
Makes a lot of sense to break something people depend on without any alternate plan.
|
|
|
|
05-14-2018, 11:16 AM
|
#5
|
Registered User
Join Date: Jul 2008
Posts: 20,429
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by spence
Jim, you're just making thing up again. Uninsured among young adults dropped more than any other age group. Of course with Trump's changes this could change dramatically.
Makes a lot of sense to break something people depend on without any alternate plan.
|
Yes, numbers of uninsured dropped. Problem was, sick people had huge incentives to join, and healthy people had incentives not to join. That's why the math didn't work. Too many healthy people were better off paying the fine/penalty, rather than enrolling.
If it worked as swimmingly as you suggest, why did costs skyrocket? The ACA got a lot more people insured, sure. But the pooling of risk between healthy people and sick people, wasn't nearly sufficient. You can't prove that wrong by pointing out how many people signed up. The problem wasn't that too few signed up, the problem was too few healthy people signed up.
I think we need a system where the young/healthy people cannot opt out. We need their money to help pay for people who are sick through no fault of their own. The ACA attempted to do this. It gave an easy out to the healthy.
|
|
|
|
05-14-2018, 11:31 AM
|
#6
|
Registered User
Join Date: Nov 2003
Location: RI
Posts: 21,183
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jim in CT
If it worked as swimmingly as you suggest, why did costs skyrocket?
|
You're making thing up again. Costs didn't skyrocket in fact the rate of increase slowed as was expected.
|
|
|
|
05-14-2018, 12:24 PM
|
#7
|
Registered User
Join Date: Jul 2008
Posts: 20,429
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by spence
You're making thing up again. Costs didn't skyrocket in fact the rate of increase slowed as was expected.
|
You're right, people in the exchanges didn't see triple digit increases, I'm making it up. Companies didn't drop out of Obamacare when they realized they couldn't avoid big losses, nope, I made that up too.
"the rate of increase slowed as was expected"
Now who is making stuff up? Obama didn't sell this by saying "the rate of increase will slow", he said the typical family would save $2500 a year. Didn't happen. Not until the tax overhaul , that is.
|
|
|
|
05-14-2018, 12:39 PM
|
#8
|
Registered User
Join Date: Nov 2003
Location: RI
Posts: 21,183
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jim in CT
Obama didn't sell this by saying "the rate of increase will slow", he said the typical family would save $2500 a year. Didn't happen. Not until the tax overhaul , that is.
|
The $2500 figure was a calculation around total savings. He may have misspoke by attributing it to premiums but was likely just reciting a talking point that wasn't clear.
Regardless, under the health care act actual savings have been estimated at closer to $3300 besting even the original $2500 mark.
|
|
|
|
Posting Rules
|
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts
HTML code is Off
|
|
|
All times are GMT -5. The time now is 12:22 AM.
|
| |