Good read that gives insight into the reality of the OHCA.
Well duh. Also, is it just me, or is nobody mentioning that the flood of people buying policies the last couple of days did so out of fear of punishment. Not because it was suddenly available.
44 Likes
Well duh. Also, is it just me, or is nobody mentioning that the flood of people buying policies the last couple of days did so out of fear of punishment. Not because it was suddenly available.
Remember the little box you can check and be exempted. Based on the honesty level of the Obama Admin, I’m guessing that those who checked the box saying they want to purchase but couldn’t get the web site to work…or whatever…are included in those who “registered”.
No matter how you cut it, the AHCA is a total failure and it will only get worse for the average american once the employer mandate takes effect.
42 Likes
I’m not the biggest fan of the Obamacare, but the statistics they present can easily be spun both ways. For example, if that same piece was on a different site the headline could have been “Millions of previously uninsured are able to get coverage through Obamacare”
But they’re not previously insured signups until they’ve paid their first month’s premium!
.
No matter how you cut it, the AHCA is a total failure
The overarching goal, I think, was to reduce the # of uninsured, and the # of uninsured is going down pretty sharply (Gallup).
I’m not a fan of ObamaCare. But I think some here are totally blinded by confirmation bias.
41 Likes
The number dropped drastically from 18 to 15.9 because many lost their insurance last year because of ACA “if you like your plan you can keep it” bullshit. They had no option than to sign up for Obamacare. What’s interesting is the downward trend from 17.5 to 16.3 for the year PRIOR to the healthcare.gov site even being active.
1 Like
The overarching goal, I think, was to reduce the # of uninsured
I don’t think you can have this goal without any other considerations. I think it is safe to say we could have 100% coverage if we just made someone else pay for everyone that didn’t want to pay, I.E. the rich pay for everyone else. So the “Realistic” goal of the ACA was to hold or lower prices. The promise of “We will save everyone an average of 2K a year” is simply wrong. In fact prices have gone the other way and predictions are that they will go up even more thru 2015-2016.
Another aspect of these numbers is that ~2M people are now insured thru the expansion of medicaid/medicare. While that may have been part of the ACA that narrows the actual amount of people that are now insured due to the massive changes that effect those of us that were already insured even further. IOW medicaid/medicare could have been expanded without the change in private insurance at all.
In the end we have ~2M now insured thru medicaid/medicare most of whom were previously uninsured, another 2M now insured thru the exchanges that did not have insurance and ~5M that lost policies due to changes caused by the ACA that got policies under the exchanges or simply switched to the exchanges for price reasons.
The bottom line is that nearly everyone who is not getting a subsidy saw an increase in premium costs and will likely see continuing increases. We are talking about 260M people. We still have 30-50M uninsured. And we did all this so in effect 2M people could get private insurance policies thru the exchanges?
So yes if you want to narrow the goal to “More people have insurance” and only that, why then, yes we have a raging success. If you want to be realistic about it we could have saved everyone a shit load of money, expanded medicare/medicaid and the 30-50M number would have been 32-52M people.
Again, the only way the ACA makes ANY sense is if you view it thru the lens that the end game is to eliminate private insurance and move to a single payer system, which when completed can then start to actually work on lowering costs via denying services.
~Matt
28 Likes
What’s interesting is the downward trend from 17.5 to 16.3 for the year PRIOR to the healthcare.gov site even being active.
Even more interesting is that the number was 14% in 1999, almost a full 2% less then it is today AFTER the ACA. Can we say that if the goal of the ACA is to lower the percentage of uninsured we should get rid of the ACA?
~Matt
I don’t know. I seem to be blinded by the fact that the number of uninsured at Qtr 1 of the last 4 years stays really constant.
2010 - 16.4
2011 - 16.3
2012 - 16.5
2013 - 16.6
Wheras the number of uninsured in 2013 was because of the policies dropped due to the ACA.
All they did was reshuffle the deck. Lets see the number of paid insurance policies in 6 to 9 months. It reminds me of the woman that the White House brought to the State Of The Union speech as a prime example of how this program helps people and then a month later they jacked up her rates so high she couldn’t afford the policy.
Anybody that is unbiased will see that the number of uninsured has really remained constant the last 4 years. Voodoo economics meet voodoo ACA victory.
1 Like
I’m not a fan of ObamaCare. But I think some here are totally blinded by confirmation bias.
+1
Again, the only way the ACA makes ANY sense is if you view it thru the lens that the end game is to eliminate private insurance and move to a single payer system, which when completed can then start to actually work on lowering costs via denying services.
yep. i think this is the only way we could realistically transition from the insurance/provided by business model to a government system. an overnight change was simply impossible. of course i welcome the change while you dread it ;0)
27 Likes
of course i welcome the change while you dread it ;0)
Yes, that is an understatement. I’m not really keen on the idea of there only being one source I can get my health care from and with no recourse if I don’t like the service. In the end it turns out exactly like education. I get to pay some ridiculous amount of money for something that is just short of non functioning and if I want those services to a standard I can accept, I get to pay for it again. Quite frankly I’m certain I don’t make enough money to be able to afford the quality care I’m paying for now, twice and that is exactly where we are headed.
I would be dreading it less if anything we did in this country was even to a level of “Decent”, but it’s not. Education in many areas, mine and many others, is barely acceptable. Infrastructure is falling down and everything we expect government to do, with few exceptions is getting worse, not better. I just don’t see a government take over “Fixing” the problem.
Furthermore if the end game is that the government starts to say “Sorry, we aren’t paying for that”, why is it that that is not acceptable for the private insurance companies to do so? At least with a private insurance company I can say “Fine, I will go somewhere else that does”. No such choice with government…unless you have enough to pay twice, like with education.
~Matt
26 Likes
of course i welcome the change while you dread it ;0)
Yes, that is an understatement. I’m not really keen on the idea of there only being one source I can get my health care from and with no recourse if I don’t like the service.
I think you misunderstand the term single payer. It is not single provider
9 Likes
i think the model someone mentioned on here yesterday (mexico) is what is best although i’m open-minded. you appoint a panel of health experts, give them a budget and say “this is the budget, what will it pay for?” then if someone wants a procedure beyond that they must pay out of pocket or through insurance. this way you can still have medical research etc to innovate but the basic costs are covered.
you are sour on education, i’m not although there are certainly problems IMO they are related to our society not the government system. i’m 100% public educated and kinda ok with that. that’s a bit off topic though.
15 Likes
The number of uninsured will rise dramatically when the Employer Mandate actual goes into effect. It will effect every family that gets their insurance from their employer (except those entities that self insure like various states).
Also, the number rose so dramatically because they allowed people to simply check a box and opt out under the premise that they could not get the site to work. How is that considered enrollment? Their numbers are totally bogus but 50% of americans will buy the hype.
I think you misunderstand the term single payer. It is not single provider
No, but much like the “if you like your doctor…” pledge, the implications of the policy can bring about that result, or something similar. My Canadian relatives (none of whom would trade their system for ours, it’s worth noting, warts and all) have very few options in terms of providers their single payer system allows for. There’s no question that greater government influence over the system results in fewer options for patients. The question is, is that trade-off worth the peace of mind of never having to go without health care because of financial considerations. I think most people living in Western nations probably agree that it is.
2 Likes
I think you misunderstand the term single payer. It is not single provider
No, but much like the “if you like your doctor…” pledge, the implications of the policy can bring about that result, or something similar. My Canadian relatives (none of whom would trade their system for ours, it’s worth noting, warts and all) have very few options in terms of providers their single payer system allows for. There’s no question that greater government influence over the system results in fewer options for patients. The question is, is that trade-off worth the peace of mind of never having to go without health care because of financial considerations. I think most people living in Western nations probably agree that it is.
I spent 20 years under the Canadian system and now 20 years under the American system, and like your Canadian relatives, I’d love to go back to single payer. Options come down to where you live, not who is paying the bills. For the last few years in the States I have been living in some pretty small towns. I have pretty good insurance as far as insurance goes. I don’t even need to deal with referrals. Let me tell you, options suck. Not cause of who is paying the bills, but due to where I live.
Just a different perspective. I’ve seen the pro’s and con’s of both systems. Neither are perfect, and the Canadian one needs some changes. But I sure do prefer it over this American one. And again, I have pretty good insurance, most of which is employer paid
I think you misunderstand the term single payer. It is not single provider
Yes, that is the way it will be presented to everyone, but can you explain to me how any company that technically has one customer, the US government, can operate any differently then it’s competitors? In the long run it is not only a single payer system, but also a single provider system. The US government will dictate what the “Providers” will do, how, when, etc and those “Providers” will do as they are told as they are a captive vendor to not only a single customer, but also to a customer that writes the laws.
e
Jumping from one company to another does not allow you to “Pick a new provider” with “Different servics and options” because all the companies will have to follow the same regulations. If the federal government says “This is not covered under these conditions”, NO, NONE, NOT ONE, insurance company that is under the government umbrella will offer those services because they will not get paid for providing them. You will then, just like we have to do with public education, have to seek out a private provider, either of insurance or care, to get those services we want.
Of course our taxes will not go down because we are no longer using the government services and thus we will have to pay twice.
~Matt
5 Likes
My Canadian relatives (none of whom would trade their system for ours, it’s worth noting, warts and all) have very few options in terms of providers their single payer system allows for.
Interesting observation. I guess my answer is that we have “enough” options, for the most part. There are issues, particularly wait times for some types of non-critical care, but generally speaking if you need something, you can get it.
We really have a hybrid model here. The government plan only covers basic health services. extended services, prescriptions, dental, eyeglasses, etc are all paid for out of pocket or by a private health plan, typically through your employer. And the peace of mind is really important, if you lose your job for what ever reason at least you know you will not be SOL if you get seriously ill, and the hospitals aren’t SOL for treating uninsured, hospital administration costs are lower because there is less headache dealing with a myriad of health insurers, less effort on collections, etc.