ObamaCares works!

Something the Dog Said wrote: A close friend of mine hit her $1 million limit at age 30 after going through two bouts of cancer. Would you condemn her to no more health care for the rest of her life? On the other hand, I have reached my annual deductible only once in fifty years. I am fine with averaging out our actuarial health care costs. Insurance companies have it down to a fine science. What we are seeing with the increased pool of participants in the health insurance pool is a huge slowdown in the annual rate of increase in both health care premiums and in medical costs, even greater than predicted. What is really sad is in states such as Texas and Oklahoma who have the largest percentage of uninsured individuals in the country and are actively trying to prevent their residents from access to the health care exchanges. This just keeps the cost of health care higher in those areas as the cost of the uninsured health care is passed on in the form of higher medical costs and higher insurance premiums, not to factor in the loss of productivity from those individuals who do not have access to preventive health care.

There are still a lot of questions about those health care exchanges. Will they only attract bad risk people? Will they have enough money by collecting premiums or will they be subsidized by taxpayers?

Can we can the partisan nonsense and use some logic here for a change?

The people who couldn't afford health insurance before can't magically afford it now simply because Congress passed a law. Someone, ie the taxpayer, is affording it to them via a subsidy. That subsidy comes at a cost, the same as it did when their subsidy was less formal and consisted of those with insurance covering their bills. As it turns out, those who are now providing their insurance subsidy are the very same people who were providing their care subsidy before, those who purchased insurance on their own.

One can elect to pay a tax instead of an insurance premium, and the tax is less by the way, and still receive the same care, at the same cost to the insured, that they were getting before the ACA law was passed. The illegal immigrant isn't taxed for failing to have health insurance and they haven't been magically been given the ability to afford insurance they couldn't afford last year with a taxpayer provided subsidy, so their costs to the system haven't changed a bit.

If a subsidized family, which didn't incur any health care costs before because they couldn't afford either insurance or the cost to see a doctor, are now given insurance via the subsidy, the hope is that they will go see the doctor to take advantage of the "free preventative care" mandated by the law, right? This is an additional cost, one which wasn't incurred before, which increases the consumption of care, which increases the total amount spent on healthcare, right? Not only that, it increases what the insurance company is paying out in benefits, right? Those additional dollars spent on benefits has to come from someone's pocket, doesn't it? Do you think it's going to come out of the profit dollars of the insurance company or somewhere else? My bet is somewhere else, how about yours?

The only other pocket for those dollars to come out of are the pockets of the people paying premiums to the insurance company, right? The poor aren't paying that premium, their premium is subsidized by those who were paying premiums before the ACA anyway, right?

So can someone please tell me where these supposed savings are coming from? The point of the law was to increase the consumption of health care, right? The more of something that is used, the more that is spent on it, right? I mean, if you drive more miles, you have to purchase more gas, buy tires more often, replace your brakes more often, change your fluids more often and all of these things cost you more money, not less. So how is paying for more health care for more people going to cost less than it did before?

Can we at least be honest enough to admit that whether or not you need to see a doctor is in no way determined by whether or not you have insurance?

What the ACA actually is is using the force of government to confiscate money from young people for your own benefit. When I was a young man, I didn't have health insurance and I paid for every dollar of care I consumed. When I needed stitches, I paid for them. When I went to the emergency room to have my ankle examined after it was injured playing soccer, I paid for that as well. I paid for the brace for my ankle, I paid for the physical therapy to rehabilitate the ankle. I didn't freeload off of anyone. But now, what you are saying, is that you want to free ride off of people like me when I was young. You want the young people today to pay for reducing the cost of your care. What that actually means is that you want the free ride at the expense of today's young. You want the benefit of their money and their youth for yourself. That's really what the ACA is all about, and it's obscene.

The ACA is going to cost $2.7 Trillion over the next decade - that's a CBO number by the way. That's a $270 Billion per year tax increase on the 50% of the population that actually pays income taxes in addition to the income taxes levied to fund Social Security and Medicare each and every year. You aren't saving a penny, you are simply paying the money to a different entity than you were before. Or, perhaps I should say, you are simply increasing the burden on your children and grandchildren to pay at a later date for the benefits of what you are consuming in the here and now. You are using the force of government to take from them for your benefit. Those who want the young to lower their costs are the freeriders, not the other way around.

Forcing young people to subsidize insurance for the sick, old, and poor is owning a brand new car but not getting the benefit of lower/no repair costs.

So can someone please tell me where these supposed savings are coming from?

They will come from the lower overall COSTS of health care that the writers of the law made sure to address.

lol Just kidding

on that note wrote:

LadyJazzer wrote: ...and children with pediatric cancer, and or leukemia, or congenital heart defects, or....

You don't like it, Fred?...Don't buy it.

Otherwise, I'm not interested in your Randroid "I've got mine---screw you" politics of elitism.

Tick-tock, tick-tock.... October 1st is only 3 weeks away...And January 1st, it ALL goes into effect... But you keep complaining, Fred... It looks good on you.

It is so funny that they have spun forcing people to pay for themselves as being selfless.

We are not saying we are going to take care of these people. We are saying we are going to force them to buy some basic product so that LJ feels better. These are two very different things. But be clear, the priority is that LJ feels better, oh yeah, and the massive companies she is marketing for constantly. Marketing to have you punished if you don't shop with them and buy the products she wants, I mean they want, I mean she wants, I mean whatever they tell her she wants for you.

But she got to say Randrioid, so she got her little O and again did not use logic, just 2nd grade name calling, again and again and again and again. The "I've got mine---screw you" is exactly what you are marketing for the health insurance companies. The mine, btw is your money. And no one sounds more like a robot than the ACA marketers, you sound like little cult followers, no information, but eternal allegiance.

History will play this out. Just about everyone did a 180 on our response to 9-11. The reason this was delayed so long even from the onset is how bad it is going to feel. If it was going to feel good, we would not be delaying. It is only going to take a few years for LJ and her minions to look exactly like those that supported invading Iraq.

Hopefully things will be delayed another few years so we can get past these money mongering, war loving leaders and get back to spending our resources the way we see fit. If you want to take care of the helpless, come up with a welfare program, don't force them to buy what you want them to have so you feel better.

Tick-tock, tick-tock.... October 1st is only 3 weeks away...And January 1st, it ALL goes into effect... But you keep complaining... It looks good on you.

Tick toc, tic tock,
your choices are ticking away on the ACA clock

But don't worry, the folks in Washington have it all figured out...

(now back to the Syria fubar)

If the Republicans can take back the Senate, hopefully they can start dismantling the worst part of these new laws, piece by piece.

FredHayek wrote: If the Republicans can take back the Senate, hopefully they can start dismantling the worst part of these new laws, piece by piece.

That IS what most Republicans in congress are all about, destroy whatever you can and don't worry about having a plan of their own, THAT might actually take some work and planning on their part and so far they show no inclination to do either one.

"Repeal and Squeal".... There IS NO "replace"...

LadyJazzer wrote: "Repeal and Squeal".... There IS NO "replace"...

"Recall and loose"... there is no Morse/Giron.

archer wrote:

FredHayek wrote: If the Republicans can take back the Senate, hopefully they can start dismantling the worst part of these new laws, piece by piece.

That IS what most Republicans in congress are all about, destroy whatever you can and don't worry about having a plan of their own, THAT might actually take some work and planning on their part and so far they show no inclination to do either one.

Don't forget they want to drink dirty water and breath dirty air, kill old people, and dismember small furry animals for fun.