Affordable Care Act tore me up

[Renathras]

if they dont happen with regularity then the charges will not incur rapidly and paying them should not be a problem. what is your problem with it?

My problem is that if the crux of your (or anyone's) argument that everyone should buy insurance is "Well, EVERYONE will have an expensive disaster/medical diagnosis within a few months!!", then that's demonstrably false. Indeed, it's not even true for the vast majority of the population, and it's not true with that regularity - for example, a person hit by a car may incur expenses, but it likely will only happen to them ONCE in their lives, not with regularity every few months.

If the entire basis of your argument is founded on something that is FACTUALLY, demonstrably WRONG, how can we take your argument or its conclusion - that people are just accidents waiting to happen, that these accidents WILL happen, and thus everyone should get insurance - as a valid or worthwhile argument?

When the foundation of the argument is just WRONG, then the argument can and should be rejected.

[Torgent]

Our Communist Fascists have destroyed Healthcare in the USA. Cost up, Benefits Down, and insurance companys folding due to the debacle.

Insurers warn Obamacare is unsustainable, expect premiums to rise again

http://www.aol.com/article/2016/04/1...-ris/21345061/

Insurance companies don't like being forced to help people?! WHODATHUNKIT

[Renathras]

No. I'm saying that people in certain states did not support the ACA (or their elected representatives did not) and they turned down coverage for poor people via Medicaid. They created the bed you now lie in.

It sucks but your alternatives are to improve your situation or move if you can. Otherwise you are crossing your fingers hoping not to get sick/in an accident and most people will end up with some sort of serious illness over the course of their lifespan. Hoping not to get sick is a losing proposition.

Or, you know, we could repeal the ACA. Since many of these people are worse off UNDER the law than they were before...

[Wyrt]

If the fine is this bad for you then you most likely qualify for government assistance. You should probably look into that.

[Celista]

Or, you know, we could repeal the ACA. Since many of these people are worse off UNDER the law than they were before...

A lot of people are better off. If you're a poor person who lives in a red state that rejected the ACA then yes indeed you are worse off or about as well off as you were before.

[Aori]

One of the most powerful countries in the world ... struggles to supplement something as basic as health care to its ppl. What's next for US, clean water will be a privilege as well It's kind of funny, sort of.

Funny you mention water.. the Flint Michigan thing is still ongoing. The last town I lived in had boil water warnings a few times a month.

[Cthulhu 2020]

This isn't exactly right.

Firstly, because there are many countries with public insurance where it costs many times more than the "private" health insurance in the US pre-ACA (they just pay for it with taxes instead of premiums, so it hides the cost to the individual user).

Secondly, because even as late as the 1990s, many people didn't have insurance and the cost of health CARE was cheaper so people could easily afford it.

One thing a lot of people seem not to realize - health INSURANCE drives up the cost of health CARE. Which is why it's rather ironic that the supposed solutions to the rising cost of health CARE was to force everyone to buy insurance.

In simple terms, by adding a middle-man/third party (the insurance company), even if there were ZERO administrative costs, it increases the cost of health care because that person has to take their X%. That's before you get into bureaucratic loopholes, mandates, red tape, administrative costs, overhead, and reduced efficiency of consumer/supplier interaction by adding in that third party.

This is why people COULD afford health CARE into the 80s and 90s without insurance and now they cannot.

It's more complicated than that alone, mind you - things like lower real wages than back then also come into play - but it's not an unsubstantial contributing factor. It is a fact that health insurance, just by existing, increases the cost of health care.

.

The problem is, as I said above, people think about health insurance as a payment/installment plan for health care. That's not what it is. I guess that's more what health savings accounts/plans are. But insurance is not that. Insurance is a risk share, not a way to pay for something.

They COULD afford to go to the doctor for the sniffles, but a major surgery would still bankrupt most of the US.

Local clinic visits costing more money is a fairly recent thing. What we're talking about when talking about people not being able to afford care is not going to a clinic for the sniffles, cause most can still afford that even now, especially since a lot of them are government subsidized. A lot of states realize the importance of general public health. Except you know, a lot of red states. Who were also the ones who rejected expanding medicaid. It's the Republican politicians making everything more difficult that is making a lot of things worse for people.

What we're talking about are the major surgeries that were only cheap if you were putting your life in the hands of a questionably licensed surgeon.

[Hooked]

The aca insurance providers are all going bankrupt, its a complete and utter failure.

[drwelfare]

If the fine is this bad for you then you most likely qualify for government assistance. You should probably look into that.

Nope, not close to getting assistance

[breadisfunny]

Our Communist Fascists have destroyed Healthcare in the USA. Cost up, Benefits Down, and insurance companys folding due to the debacle.

Insurers warn Obamacare is unsustainable, expect premiums to rise again

http://www.aol.com/article/2016/04/1...-ris/21345061/

bwhahahah communist facists. that's a good one.

[drwelfare]

The aca insurance providers are all going bankrupt, its a complete and utter failure.

I remember Rush saying that was the goal, kill the private side leaving government as only option.

[Aeluron Lightsong]

Yay for being on my parents insurance.

[breadisfunny]

I remember Rush saying that was the goal, kill the private side leaving government as only option.

got any evidence for that or just the paranoid ravings of rush limbaugh and friends?

[Sunseeker]

No. I don't have to pay them. I also don't have health insurance.

[Renathras]

Like what sort of percentage? I do not think that what you are discussing is as common as what you are making it out to be. Even minor procedures can be very expensive.

See, that's the thing: The numbers are hard to come by, but are substantially less than 100%.

For example, the odds of getting cancer at some time in your life for Americans is around 42%. However, the odds of dying from it are around 20%. The problem with the statistics are they tend not to go into details - for example, many cancers are benign like a spot of skin cancer or something that isn't life threatening and has no associated expense. Indeed, many benign cancers go undetected and people may never even be diagnosed - much less assess costs - due to them.

So the idea that "everyone's going to have a huge medical expense in a few months" is idiotic since many people don't have a huge medical expense IN THEIR LIFETIME.

Additionally, this argument is usually associated with another similar one, which is at any moment, you could be hit by a car or something and now you need insurance.

It has the same problem - the odds of you suffering from a catastrophic event like that in your lifetime aren't that high, either, and you can have such an event and incur few to no medical costs (like a glancing blow or something). Additionally, that's what CAR INSURANCE (liability) is for - to cover people hit by cars. And, again, these events occur (with respect to the total population) at a relatively low frequency.

...counter to the pro-ACA proponent argument that it's going to happen to everyone in a few months, many many MANY people go their entire lives without ever being hit by a car.

- - - Updated - - -

Because he isn't going to the doctor until he does. And then he can't pay, leaving society to pay for him. That's literally the exact problem with our health care system. That's an option for people, and then those same people bitch and moan that insurance costs too much (which is caused by people who don't get insurance then get large hospital bills that they can't pay). But GG.

"until he does", where he could possibly afford it on his own without insurance, you mean?

Or, should I say - YET AGAIN in this thread - that many people don't need to go to the doctor? Stop assuming everyone WILL at some point have a major medical expense when many people WON'T.

- - - Updated - - -

A lot of people are better off. If you're a poor person who lives in a red state that rejected the ACA then yes indeed you are worse off or about as well off as you were before.

Those that I know personally are worse off.

[Adamas102]

I didn't have health care last year either. I had no illness and injuries, but it would have run me about 4000 for the cheapest plan available. So affordable!

It was that, or pay the $200 fine.

I have insurance now (which thank goodness, because I actually did have medical problems that would be in the 6-8 grand range now), but the fact of it is... Its hard to plunk down several hundred bucks a month for some people if nothing is wrong.

You do realize that the main point of insurance is to prepare for those unforeseen issues that may or may not arise, right? Sure, some (maybe most) years the fine is less, but with healthcare costs where they are now the last thing you want is for something serious to happen that might completely ruin you financially.

Basically, you were gambling. OP did it and lost, but at least it's minor enough for him to still be here complaining about the fine instead of medical bills he can no longer afford. Being able to get insurance with pre-existing conditions is a major boon as well for all those idiots out there that assumed they'd be healthy until they got older.

[Renathras]

They COULD afford to go to the doctor for the sniffles, but a major surgery would still bankrupt most of the US.

Local clinic visits costing more money is a fairly recent thing. What we're talking about when talking about people not being able to afford care is not going to a clinic for the sniffles, cause most can still afford that even now, especially since a lot of them are government subsidized. A lot of states realize the importance of general public health. Except you know, a lot of red states. Who were also the ones who rejected expanding medicaid. It's the Republican politicians making everything more difficult that is making a lot of things worse for people.

What we're talking about are the major surgeries that were only cheap if you were putting your life in the hands of a questionably licensed surgeon.

Not really, my grandparents in the 90s had to have some medical procedures done (as did grandparents) and they were able to afford it on their own.

The thing you have to realize is that health care COSTS have gone up a lot over that period. The same period where health INSURANCE has become more prevalent.

As I said before, insurance drives up cost in much the same way that the abundance of student loans has driven up the costs of college - both health care and college tuition (two things that people can get funding for via insurance and loans, respectively) have gone up by several times the amount that inflation has. It's not just reduced Real wages, it's that these things are being driven even higher. In the case of college, it's directly because of loan availability and size. In the case of health care, it's a combination of insurance, longer lives, and an aging population combined with a (relative to population) reduction in the number of healthcare professionals.

[chazus]

Again, nobody thinks they need it until they need it, but I do understand why people THINK they don't have to.

Here's the problem.

I have $325 in cash. Do I:

1) Spend it on Health Insurance for 1 month, HOPING that something happens and it'll be useful, and still have to pay ~300 in fees anyway, and now have spent $600
2) Not get health insurance, and break even on the fee.

You can't decide to have a problem or not. You CAN decide what to do ahead of time. If a person in this situation (read: tens of millions of people)... If they get sick, they're fucked either way, because even if you have insurance, you still pay percentages and co-pays. If they're struggling to make one month of insurance, they sure as hell can't handle an insured serious situation.

If they do nothing, and just pay the fee, that's livable.

[oxymoronic]

See, that's the thing: The numbers are hard to come by, but are substantially less than 100%.

For example, the odds of getting cancer at some time in your life for Americans is around 42%. However, the odds of dying from it are around 20%. The problem with the statistics are they tend not to go into details - for example, many cancers are benign like a spot of skin cancer or something that isn't life threatening and has no associated expense. Indeed, many benign cancers go undetected and people may never even be diagnosed - much less assess costs - due to them.

So the idea that "everyone's going to have a huge medical expense in a few months" is idiotic since many people don't have a huge medical expense IN THEIR LIFETIME.

Additionally, this argument is usually associated with another similar one, which is at any moment, you could be hit by a car or something and now you need insurance.

It has the same problem - the odds of you suffering from a catastrophic event like that in your lifetime aren't that high, either, and you can have such an event and incur few to no medical costs (like a glancing blow or something). Additionally, that's what CAR INSURANCE (liability) is for - to cover people hit by cars. And, again, these events occur (with respect to the total population) at a relatively low frequency.

...counter to the pro-ACA proponent argument that it's going to happen to everyone in a few months, many many MANY people go their entire lives without ever being hit by a car.

- - - Updated - - -



"until he does", where he could possibly afford it on his own without insurance, you mean?

Or, should I say - YET AGAIN in this thread - that many people don't need to go to the doctor? Stop assuming everyone WILL at some point have a major medical expense when many people WON'T.

- - - Updated - - -



Those that I know personally are worse off.

the funniest part of all this post is, most likely way you wont have huge medical bills in your lifetime is if you get hit by a car and killed. otherwise its 100% gonna happen, even the healthiest person will have to visit the doctor several times in their life if they live to die from old age.

[chazus]

You do realize that the main point of insurance is to prepare for those unforeseen issues that may or may not arise, right?

Yes. But what good is it if you make a gamble with it, and miss (1 month out of 12 and don't get sick/injured)?

You can't 'prepare' for it if you can't afford to have it. Just because it's there doesn't mean people can afford it.