The Terrifying Stakes Of Repealing Obamacare Without A Clear Replacement

[zenkai]

Yes, it's more expensive than it ever has been because... it's been increasing every year, even before the ACA. And if Trump's proposed plans for health care go through (what little he has said) it could increase dramatically more than ever.

This really has nothing to do with the ACA so much as the health industry has run away costs, that are in no way being dramatically affected by the ACA.

Here's what happened to A LOT of people. Their insurance was going up by about 10% every year. Those of us with private insurance saw this cost increase before the ACA was even a thing. People with employer insurance saw that cost mostly if not completely absorbed by their employer.

So let's say the year before the ACA was passed your insurance was 330, because it had gone up by 10% from the previous year, which was 300 that year. But your employer was paying 90%, so you paid $30 that one year, then $33 the next.

The ACA passes, your employer is a vindictive dickhead conservative who wants to see it repealed, so to get more support behind getting it repealed, they go from paying 90% of your insurance premium to 10%.

Your insurance goes up by 10% again... no big change. The ACA hasn't done anything to change the cost. But, the premium is now 363, up 10% from the previous year, and your employer is now only paying $36 of that and you now hae to pay $327. You have personally seen a huge increase in what you pay. Now, you have the information on what your employer pays for your health insurance.

You can get that information from them. A lot of people did. They saw that employers were bailing out on paying for employee health insurance. They did their research and got educated about it. A lot of people said they personally saw huge cost increases, while the data of premium showed that there was no significant increase in the amount of inflation from year to year... but employers were paying less, so employees who didn't have much of a second thought of doing their research thought their insurance was "skyrocketing".

But then you have people like @zenkai who believe this sky rocket in price that they paid was due to the ACA, when in reality it was their employer dicking them over. But in most cases, they worship their employer almost as much as they worship Trump, and their employer could never do anything wrong, even if they gave them effectively a pay cut by reducing how much they pay for employee health insurance.

You want to see overall costs go down? Universal health care, single payer, let the government negotiate it down. Health care does not function like most markets. For free market to work there needs to be a choice, and the more choices the better. In a lot of cases of health care, when there's an emergency, you have no choice. The consumer cannot make a choice when their life is on the line, or a limb, or whatever. Most stuff where free market cannot exist is already socialized in our and many other governments. We just have to add health care to that.

Believe? It is, I even proved links with factual data, all you have done is given your opinion. Remain ignorant, I don't care, at least even intelligent democrats admit ACA is a failure. http://www.forbes.com/sites/theapoth.../#74b23179740b
http://www.cnn.com/2016/10/04/politi...raziest-thing/

[Felya]

My company provides documentation at the start of enrollment and then also provides a book of the entire companies financials for the fiscal year at the end of the year. I am not the CFO of my company so no I cant tell you what brokered deal they have in place to offset their cost shown if one actually exists. My company is not American originated to being with.

What "brokered deal"? Employers get a significant tax credit for providing your insurance. They might be a great employer, but the reason they don't tell you how much they pay after subsidies, isn't a sign of it.

[Daelak]

But this is what I dont get, it was a bi-partisan bill that got killed because enough Dems voted no.

Welcome to the United States Congress.

[Raakel]

God bless the american health system where injuries can turn you into a homless person!

Survival of the fittest....

/sarcasm

[Tehshocka]

What "brokered deal"? Employers get a significant tax credit for providing your insurance. They might be a great employer, but the reason they don't tell you how much they pay after subsidies, isn't a sign of it.

So any company can get this. What point are you trying to make then? This is something that has gone on for awhile. I'm guessing you are making a correlation to state/fed sponsored tax credit to bring jobs in to the ACA which has essentially added zero jobs and drove premiums up.

[NYC17]

I don't understand why people are wondering what Trump's plan will look like. It's HSA vouchers, which might include a mandate and will be cross state, with a premium being a tax write off.

https://www.donaldjtrump.com/policies/health-care/

It's the Trump factor. He says words, doesn't provide any indication he has an understanding of what those words mean or the context they seem to require, so both his supporters and detractors alike try to assign meaning to them that may or may not be there. Is he saying the government will provide insurance to everyone if private companies can't? Probably not, but it's vague enough to leave open that possibility. Is he saying that insurance, no matter how shitty, will be "available" to everyone? Paul's tweet about how Trump loves his plan seems to indicate that, but again, who knows?

I have no doubt that Trump's ego insists that he can do whatever he wants. I have no doubt his ego tells him that if he was to get a better plan than the ACA he'd be the best president that ever presidented. What his ego doesn't tell him is that reality dictates he deal with people who are diametrically opposed to what a better plan than the ACA would look like.

Delusion is a hell of a drug.

[Tehshocka]

Welcome to the United States Congress.

Lol I get that but essentially Dems voted against something its base clearly wants.

[Cthulhu 2020]

Believe? It is, I even proved links with factual data, all you have done is given your opinion. Remain ignorant, I don't care, at least even intelligent democrats admit ACA is a failure. http://www.forbes.com/sites/theapoth.../#74b23179740b
http://www.cnn.com/2016/10/04/politi...raziest-thing/

So your "proof" was speculation on how increasing health care enrollment "could" increase costs, but didn't actually analyze or use any of the real numbers of deductibles or insurance premiums. Numbers that we actually have that directly refute your claims.

And now you're going to back it up with... opinion pieces.

Dude, this is completely, utterly, wholly, and depressingly pathetic, even compared to your normal drivel.

As I said, you can go look up the numbers of the increase in premium from year to year. You can go look up how the amount of money that employers put towards their employee health insurance dropped DRAMATICALLY after the ACA passed. But you won't go look up those numbers, because it would cause you to wake up from that dream world you've constructed.

[Sooba]

So tell me Libs why did a few of your representatives not vote to allow Canadian drugs into the US when clearly these are things you want?

Many of the so-called "Libs" in American politics are in no way progressive economically. From the view of the American right, everyone on the left is part of some monolithic hegemon of groupthink, (Outgroup homogeneity effect.) Realistically many are corporate shills with a civil-rights bent, oblivious to the fact that the corps they bow down to effectively stymie the equality they seek. Corey Booker is the perfect example of this - staunchly standing up to past misdeeds of an appointee one day, and bowing down to his corporate overlords and fucking over lower and middle class people literally the next day.

[zenkai]

So your "proof" was speculation on how increasing health care enrollment "could" increase costs, but didn't actually analyze or use any of the real numbers of deductibles or insurance premiums. Numbers that we actually have that directly refute your claims.

And now you're going to back it up with... opinion pieces.

Dude, this is completely, utterly, wholly, and depressingly pathetic, even compared to your normal drivel.

As I said, you can go look up the numbers of the increase in premium from year to year. You can go look up how the amount of money that employers put towards their employee health insurance dropped DRAMATICALLY after the ACA passed. But you won't go look up those numbers, because it would cause you to wake up from that dream world you've constructed.

LOL ignore the proofs I have linked and keep posting data from 2008, you clearly know how insurance works.

[Machismo]

Free market nutjob.

Remove prescriptions because random people, not doctors, know what's best for their medical needs and the side effects!

Deregulation doesn't work, because healthcare is not a normal market. There is massive information asymmetry. When you end up in the ER after a car crash, you can't shop around for the cheapest price like you can for a toaster, so this economic mechanism that brings down the price of toasters doesn't work for healthcare. Go read Ken Arrow.

ACA is working great. The insured rate and healthcare inflation are at record lows thanks to the ACA. Vast majorities of people on ACA plans say they're satisfied with their coverage. The subsidies pay out the difference between a % of income and the premium, so they perfectly cancel out all premium hikes, which were a lot higher before the ACA than after.

To strengthen the ACA so that it's even cheaper is simple: increase the subsidies further. A public option would also be good.

If you think the ACA is running great, you are delusional. Health care companies are dumping exchanges and states, and prices are set to jump significantly for many people. On top of that you are saying the best way to make it cheaper... is to increase subsidies. I hate to break it to you, but those subsidies are coming from the taxpayers, meaning there's no savings at all. Until you realize that taxpayer-backed subsidies are part of the total, you shouldn't discuss costs.

As for the people on the exchanges, I'm sure most of them are happy. They are getting health care that is funded by complete strangers, that sounds fucking fantastic. More people are insured... because they are legally obligated to be insured. Now go ask all those who are subsidizing everyone else if they are happy about the ACA.

As for prescriptions, I know when I need medication, and I know what type to get. If I don't, I ask a doctor. None of that requires the mountain of regulations surrounding prescription drugs. As for ER visits, I wouldn't require hospitals to treat people they do not wish to treat. Hospitals should not be forced to treat patients they don't want to treat.

[Felya]

So any company can get this. What point are you trying to make then? This is something that has gone on for awhile. I'm guessing you are making a correlation to state/fed sponsored tax credit to bring jobs in to the ACA which has essentially added zero jobs and drove premiums up.

No, I am saying that not only do you not understand the actual cost of your insurance through work, but also the sign of your employer being "great" actually hides the full story. Unlike taxes, that you explicitly pay on your pay check, the amount your employer actually pays isn't as transparent. Because you see taxes subtracted, but your employer contribution doesn't seem like a subtraction from what you should be making. Instead, as you are using in your example, even the idea of them showing how much 'they' pay makes them great. What you don't see on that report, is that a portion of what you pay in taxes, also goes to your employer. Kind of like you paying for someone to pay you less, so you can have insurance and be held in a safe space of not knowing how much it actually costs you.

- - - Updated - - -

LOL ignore the proofs I have linked and keep posting data from 2008, you clearly know how insurance works.

Here is the Wikileak email that one of your proofs concluded meant Clinton thought ACA was failing:

https://wikileaks.org/podesta-emails/emailid/15408

[Cthulhu 2020]

LOL ignore the proofs I have linked and keep posting data from 2008

Ignoring? Proof? So far your "proof" has been speculative opinion on the effects of more enrollment, and that article even went on to assume that most if not all of the new enrollees were sick, which is patently false on its face. Then you have... two opinion pieces. Have you posted anything else? Did I miss something? Because so far the only links I've seen couldn't pass for proof, much less evidence. The numbers for 2008-2016 premiums are available. I keep telling you to go look them up, and you keep not doing it. Why is that?

Hmm... I wonder why you wouldn't want to check the premiums or the decreasing amount that employers are paying... Gee, it's a huge mystery.

you clearly know how insurance works.

At least you're right about one thing.

[Felya]

Just a reminder, ACA is not Hillarycare, but was instead a counter by some in GOP and Heritage, to Hillarycare:

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Clin...e_plan_of_1993

[paralleluniverse]

If you think the ACA is running great, you are delusional. Health care companies are dumping exchanges and states, and prices are set to jump significantly for many people. On top of that you are saying the best way to make it cheaper... is to increase subsidies. I hate to break it to you, but those subsidies are coming from the taxpayers, meaning there's no savings at all. Until you realize that taxpayer-backed subsidies are part of the total, you shouldn't discuss costs.

As for the people on the exchanges, I'm sure most of them are happy. They are getting health care that is funded by complete strangers, that sounds fucking fantastic. More people are insured... because they are legally obligated to be insured. Now go ask all those who are subsidizing everyone else if they are happy about the ACA.

As for prescriptions, I know when I need medication, and I know what type to get. If I don't, I ask a doctor. None of that requires the mountain of regulations surrounding prescription drugs. As for ER visits, I wouldn't require hospitals to treat people they do not wish to treat. Hospitals should not be forced to treat patients they don't want to treat.

If you think the ACA is running badly, then you've been duped by GOP lies.

The price jump was a one time correction for the fact that prices in previous years was below expectations. These price hikes (which were much higher before ACA), do not affect people getting subsidies, which constitute 80% of people on the exchanges, because the subsidies were designed to perfectly cancel out price hikes. Enrollments are up, not down, the system is working.

Your attacks on subsidizing people for healthcare just proves you have no idea how insurance works and what it is for. In car insurance, people who don't crash their cars subsidize people who do crash their cars, the same is true of every type of insurance including health insurance. If people weren't subsidized, then how will the poor afford healthcare? You think they shouldn't, and that hospital shouldn't have to take ER patients. In other words, your "solution" to healthcare is worse than even the pre-ACA system: just let them go broke or die.

[Tehshocka]

No, I am saying that not only do you not understand the actual cost of your insurance through work, but also the sign of your employer being "great" actually hides the full story. Unlike taxes, that you explicitly pay on your pay check, the amount your employer actually pays isn't as transparent. Because you see taxes subtracted, but your employer contribution doesn't seem like a subtraction from what you should be making. Instead, as you are using in your example, even the idea of them showing how much 'they' pay makes them great. What you don't see on that report, is that a portion of what you pay in taxes, also goes to your employer. Kind of like you paying for someone to pay you less, so you can have insurance and be held in a safe space of not knowing how much it actually costs you.

- - - Updated - - -



Here is the Wikileak email that one of your proofs concluded meant Clinton thought ACA was failing:

https://wikileaks.org/podesta-emails/emailid/15408

Again, you are talking about a Federal subsidy that is used to drive jobs. I will gladly pay a portion of "my taxes" so that jobs are available. You are clearly an intelligent person and can see that there is a difference in the purpose of this and the ACA (im not being sarcastic.)

[Ehrenpanzer]

Good thing your personal problems in your family mean exactly dick to the rest of the country.

Im not really sure how this qualifies as "personal problems". This is more of a "what Obama said wouldnt happen actually did since the ACA was a clusterfuck of a failure from inception"

[Felya]

Some more fun on why removing ACA is an issue from 1993:

The long-term political effects of a successful... health care bill will be even worse—much worse.... It will revive the reputation of... Democrats as the generous protector of middle-class interests. And it will at the same time strike a punishing blow against Republican claims to defend the middle class by restraining government.

— William Kristol, "Defeating President Clinton's Healthcare Proposal", December 1993

http://www.usnews.com/opinion/blogs/...lthcare-reform

[Cthulhu 2020]

If you think the ACA is running badly, then you've been duped by GOP lies.

The price jump was a one time correction for the fact that prices in previous years was below expectations. These price hikes (which were much higher before ACA), do not affect people getting subsidies, which constitute 80% of people on the exchanges, because the subsidies were designed to perfectly cancel out price hikes. Enrollments are up, not down, the system is working.

Your attacks on subsidizing people for healthcare just proves you have no idea how insurance works and what it is for. In car insurance, people who crash their cars subsidize people who don't crash their cars, the same is true of every type of insurance including healthcare. If people weren't subsidized, then how will the poor afford healthcare? You think they shouldn't, and that hospital shouldn't have to take ER patients. In other words, your "solution" to healthcare is worse than even the pre-ACA system: just let them go broke or die.

Skip ahead to 1:00 if you want to get right to the point.

Just die quickly, ok?

[Machismo]

If you think the ACA is running badly, then you've been duped by GOP lies.

The price jump was a one time correction for the fact that prices in previous years was below expectations. These price hikes (which were much higher before ACA), do not affect people getting subsidies, which 80% are those of people on the exchanges, because the subsidies were designed to perfectly cancel out price hikes.

Your attacks on subsidizing people for healthcare just proves you have no idea how insurance works and what it is for. In car insurance, people who crash their cars subsidize people who don't crash their cars, the same is true of every type of insurance including healthcare. The cost of ACA subsidies are funded by tax hikes and savings. If people weren't subsidized, then how will the poor afford healthcare? You think they shouldn't, and that hospital shouldn't have to take ER patients. In order words, your "solution" to healthcare is worse than even the pre-ACA system: just let them go broke or die.

SUBSIDIES ADD TO THE TOTAL COST.

Keep repeating that until it sinks in.

By 2025, we are expected to spend 20% of our GDP on health care, the ACA helped make that problem even worse. I also understand how insurance works, it's not a difficult concept. The big issue, is that the ACA forced people to buy insurance, even when they didn't want/need it. Not only that, but the exchanges set up by some states are faltering, or even failing. People didn't want to be a part of them any longer, and costs are going up because of it.

http://money.cnn.com/2016/09/16/news...st-in-32years/

http://abcnews.go.com/Health/health-...ry?id=43047190

- - - Updated - - -

Again, you are talking about a Federal subsidy that is used to drive jobs. I will gladly pay a portion of "my taxes" so that jobs are available. You are clearly an intelligent person and can see that there is a difference in the purpose of this and the ACA (im not being sarcastic.)

The issue is wanting to pay a portion of someone else's money to get what you want.