The Terrifying Stakes Of Repealing Obamacare Without A Clear Replacement

[Macaquerie]

Is there Marxism in the health care system in Germany? Not a expert on their system, but I have read they have a much admired health care system which does exactly what you are calling Marxism. Only there the people have 2 choices when it comes to a insurance plan. A low and high deductible ones which they pay a premium for. But it is affordable because of the controls in place.

If setting reasonable limits on what the health care services can charge and make it affordable for more people to have health care is Marxism, then sign me up.

You know why Germany's health system works? Because they have a mandate!

[ati87]

While it is horrible that many die from a lack of insurance in the US, there should never be a law against even suicide. The only reason we do not have affordable health care in the US is because of greed. Personally ( it is not going to happen ) I would like to see price controls on health care across the board. To make health care really affordable for everyone who is your average joe working to make a living. The Affordable Health Care Act never did address that problem. And at the time it was passed, they had the power within congress to do it.

Having the power is fine but also the courage. The ACA was in some ways historical because multiply presidents over the course of decades tried to do what Obama has done but failed.

The ACA still has some work to do ofc since they didn't address everything but for starters maybe Republicans should focus on medical companies that are price gouging instead of the whole repeal and replace it with e empty bill.

[Ghostpanther]

You know why Germany's health system works? Because they have a mandate!

I think you are putting too much importance on a mandate. It could still work if it is attractive and affordable to the people. I am not against tax increases to help support a more affordable health care system. But even there they do give the people a option which plan they want and how much coverage they desire.

[paralleluniverse]

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

Everything here is totally wrong, proving your cluelessness on healthcare.

1. The ACA contains savings and tax measures that overwhelmingly cover the cost of the subsidies. That's why the CBO estimates repealing ACA would massively increase the deficit.

2. The growth in healthcare spending was accelerating before the ACA, and has significantly slowed since the ACA. Get your facts right.

3. The ACA forcing people to buy insurance is not an issue, it's the solution to the problem of adverse selection, where only sick people buy in causing a price death spiral. By forcing everyone to buy insurance, we get a healthier risk pool, which reduces the price of insurance. This idea that people don't need or want insurance is bogus. Everyone needs it because if you don't have insurance, then you are either freeloading whenever you get sick or get in a car crash and can't afford the ER care, or you are gaming the system by waiting until you're sick to buy in. So you do not understand how insurance works.

4. The exchanges are not faltering. Enrollments are at a record high.

5. The first link is bogus. Healthcare inflation is at record lows, so the first graph cherry picks the subitems in healthcare spending that have gone up the most (meaning that the non-picked subitems have gone down). Then it cites a report for Kaiser that premiums rose but as I've been saying and as the link says: "premiums are rising at modest levels, at least compared to a few years ago."

Here's what the full non cherry-picked data looks like:


6. The second article is old news that I've previously debunked.

In conclusion, a screed of ignorant bullshit.

[Ghostpanther]

Having the power is fine but also the courage. The ACA was in some ways historical because multiply presidents over the course of decades tried to do what Obama has done but failed.

The ACA still has some work to do ofc since they didn't address everything but for starters maybe Republicans should focus on medical companies that are price gouging instead of the whole repeal and replace it with e empty bill.

I agree. Esp. on the bold part. But the whole appeal can take place if it is replaced with something better.

[I Push Buttons]

I dont assume it was. I want the real degree of how much. For all we know it could of been less than 3% differential or even *gasp* flat.

My mistake, the above study was from 2009, before Obamacare. So the 45,000 per year was the rate before the ACA.

The closest thing I can find on short notice to what it is now is this:

From:
https://www.cdc.gov/nchs/data/nhis/e...e201611_03.pdf

I would assume less people failing to receive medical treatment would result in less deaths, no?

[Ghostpanther]

My mistake, the above study was from 2009, before Obamacare. So the 45,000 per year was the rate before the ACA.

The closest thing I can find on short notice to what it is now is this:

From:
https://www.cdc.gov/nchs/data/nhis/e...e201611_03.pdf

I would assume less people failing to receive medical treatment would result in less deaths, no?

Of course you are right. But thing interesting about the chart is why was the figures close to the same in 1998/99 decade before the ACA?

[Tehshocka]

My mistake, the above study was from 2009, before Obamacare. So the 45,000 per year was the rate before the ACA.

The closest thing I can find on short notice to what it is now is this:

From:
https://www.cdc.gov/nchs/data/nhis/e...e201611_03.pdf

I would assume less people failing to receive medical treatment would result in less deaths, no?

Your chart proves that not only more people had coverage prior to ACA but ACA still hasnt even met the 4.3% mark in 1999....

[Ghostpanther]

Your chart proves that not only more people had coverage prior to ACA but ACA still hasnt even met the 4.3% mark in 1999....

Umm. Then maybe more people having jobs and a better economy made it better conditions for having insurance? In other terms, more affordable.

[paralleluniverse]

I think you are putting too much importance on a mandate. It could still work if it is attractive and affordable to the people. I am not against tax increases to help support a more affordable health care system. But even there they do give the people a option which plan they want and how much coverage they desire.

Without a mandate, how do you prevent a price death spiral caused by people waiting until their sick to buy insurance? You can't.

Without a mandate, the whole thing collapses.

Of course, this is the sort of policy cluelessness subscribed to by Trump and the GOP. They'll cover everybody without a mandate! Magical thinking.

[I Push Buttons]

Your chart proves that not only more people had coverage prior to ACA but ACA still hasnt even met the 4.3% mark in 1999....

1. No, less people had insurance before the ACA. That is a fact. The uninsured rate prior to the ACA was 15.7%, it is 8.6% now.
2. This chart does not show insurance coverage... It shows the percent of people failing to receive medical treatment due to cost.

[Tehshocka]

Umm. Then maybe more people having jobs and a better economy made it better conditions for having insurance? In other terms, more affordable.

This is true, which is why I don't understand why people gallivant the position of Obama bringing in a bunch of burger flipper jobs. TRUMP has manufacturers on their toes currently. Still up in the air if they actually come through with what they say however.

- - - Updated - - -

1. No, less people had insurance before the ACA. That is a fact. The uninsured rate prior to the ACA was 15.7%, it is 8.6% now.
2. This chart does not show insurance coverage... It shows the percent of people failing to receive medical treatment due to cost.

Aye, you are correct there my apologies.

[Macaquerie]

I think you are putting too much importance on a mandate. It could still work if it is attractive and affordable to the people. I am not against tax increases to help support a more affordable health care system. But even there they do give the people a option which plan they want and how much coverage they desire.

The importance of the mandate is a well known result in the theory of risk and uncertainty called the lemon's problem. Without a mandate, the very act of buying insurance is already a red flag for insurance companies, since if you were healthy, why would you be trying to buy insurance at all? This is the key factor that leads to costs spiraling out of control. Under Obamacare, we have a mandate but the enforcement is completely toothless, so plenty of people choose to flout it anyway, meaning that people who actually need it face higher and higher premiums as a result.

[drakensoul]

Your chart proves that not only more people had coverage prior to ACA but ACA still hasnt even met the 4.3% mark in 1999....

Shockingly there are many things from 1999 that we'll never get back.



This graph proves that the current administration has failed!

No, it doesn't work that way. Unfortunately the world changes and we have to create new systems to improve from where we are now moving forward. Comparing to 1991 and saying "Look at how much we are failing!" is meaningless.

The healthcare landscape has changed. It is more expensive and the number of people trying to access it is astronomically higher than it was before. The number of people without insurance accessing hospital services is also astronomically higher. The amount of lost revenue from providing services to people who never pay the bill is astronomically higher.



The graph proves that in spite of the inertia of the current economic subsystem pushing toward fewer insured, more sickness, less access, the ACA was able to help move it in the other direction. How that is anything but success is beyond comprehension.

[Ghostpanther]

Without a mandate, how do you prevent a price death spiral caused by people waiting until their sick to buy insurance? You can't.

Without a mandate, the whole thing collapses.

I disagree. I still think it can be done without a mandate. Having a stronger economy and at the same time, putting in controls on health care costs can make it more affordable The health care industry right now is taking the people in the US to the cleaners. Limit what they can charge based on the rate of inflation. They are in the business of health care, which is not a industry they should be allowed to take advantage of people in need of thier coverage. It has been done before with energy prices.

[ati87]

I agree. Esp. on the bold part. But the whole appeal can take place if it is replaced with something better.

With what though?

First ACA didn't address everything but did adres allot of issues that needed to be addressed so technically their is no point in replace to begin with. However unless by monday the entire republican party decides to go on shrooms I doubt they will bring in a public option I doubt that any law they could come up with is actually better (high-risk bloody pools)

[Tehshocka]

Shockingly there are many things from 1999 that we'll never get back.



This graph proves that the current administration has failed!

No, it doesn't work that way. Unfortunately the world changes and we have to create new systems to improve from where we are now moving forward. Comparing to 1991 and saying "Look at how much we are failing!" is meaningless.

The healthcare landscape has changed. It is more expensive and the number of people trying to access it is astronomically higher than it was before. The number of people without insurance accessing hospital services is also astronomically higher. The amount of lost revenue from providing services to people who never pay the bill is astronomically higher.



The graph proves that in spite of the inertia of the current economic subsystem pushing toward fewer insured, more sickness, less access, the ACA was able to help move it in the other direction. How that is anything but success is beyond comprehension.

Gas prices is built on speculation and added taxes (Whole other discussion)

I do agree however, with the argument you presented. Again, at least for me. It all comes down to how a small few effect the majority.

[Macaquerie]

I disagree. I still think it can be done without a mandate. Having a stronger economy and at the same time, putting in controls on health care costs can make it more affordable The health care industry right now is taking the people in the US to the cleaners. Limit what they can charge based on the rate of inflation. They are in the business of health care, which is not a industry they should be allowed to take advantage of people in need of thier coverage. It has been done before with energy prices.

How the hell is what you are proposing less of crushing government imposed burden than simply requiring people to buy insurance? Oh right, because it doesn't affect YOU in any way, and fuck all those doctors amirite?

[Shadowferal]

With what though?

Two things:
Add a public option by having Medicare compete with private insurers.

Have government directly negotiate prescription prices. (as other countries do to drive down these ridiculous drug costs)

[ati87]

The graph proves that in spite of the inertia of the current economic subsystem pushing toward fewer insured, more sickness, less access, the ACA was able to help move it in the other direction. How that is anything but success is beyond comprehension.

Well a black muslim, communist, weak, dictator,anti-colonial gay guy pushed for the change