Obamacare sticker shock

With your warped view of history? Even your own party when they had control of both the House and the Senate still couldn't pass a single payer plan. (BTW, Big Pharma & Big Healthcare spend more on lobbyists than the NRA and Big Oil.) Dems like that corporate cash.

Fred...there is no "control" of the senate when Republicans can filibuster, I'm surprised you dont know that. The Democrats needed some Republican votes and with compromise they got them. But compromise made many democrats unhappy.....the objections to the ACA are pretty evenly divided between those who think it does too much and those who think it doesn't go far enough. Thats a good definition of a bi-partisan bill, each side gave up something to get it done. But that is never enough for Republicans. If they dont get their way they threaten snd bully till everyone is hurt.

archer wrote: Fred...there is no "control" of the senate when Republicans can filibuster, I'm surprised you dont know that. The Democrats needed some Republican votes and with compromise they got them. But compromise made many democrats unhappy.....the objections to the ACA are pretty evenly divided between those who think it does too much and those who think it doesn't go far enough. Thats a good definition of a bi-partisan bill, each side gave up something to get it done. But that is never enough for Republicans. If they dont get their way they threaten snd bully till everyone is hurt.

Which republicans did they get?

archer wrote:

Rick wrote:

archer wrote: Where was that outrage when insurance companies were raising premiums 40%/year .....I don't remember any Republicans complaining about what those hikes were doing to women, and the self employed, or the middle-class. But now that you can hang it on the Democrats you suddenly are concerned? BS. Like ever damn year for decades health insurance costs are going up.....what has changed is lower income people CAN get health insurance with financial help, and no one can be turned down, or cancelled for health reasons.

.....that 40% number is an average taken from my health insuramce premiums from the early 2000s....anecdotal, yes, just like yours.

So when Obama said the ACA would save the average family $2500 a year, was that a lie or was he clueless? I only see two options here for his AFFORDABLE care act.

With the subsidies, which the average family will qualify for, do you actually KNOW that they wont save 2500/year?

First of all, subsidies are just another way of getting wealth redistribution... doesn't make the policies cheaper, just makes someone else pay the difference. Of course, Obama in his flowery words never mentioned this when he was trying to sell this turd... he just said the ACA would make insurance cheaper.
Secondly, the people who are most likely to get subsidies are the ones who don't have insurance... most people who do (imo) will end up paying more even if they do get a small subsidy... higher deductibles will likely overcome those.

What in the ACA actually addresses the costs of healthcare that WOULD lower premium costs? Is it the medical device tax? Will forcing insurance companies to cover pre-existing conditions help to lower the costs for healthy people? How about forcing people to pay for maternity coverage when they are incapable of ever having a child? One size fits all is a BAD IDEA.

I think It would be cheaper just to add a tax to current policies based on income to cover the uninsured who can't afford it. That's more redistribution of wealth but at least it wouldn't give the government more control over the policies most of us would like to keep.

The Affordable Care Act (ACA) will cause a major expansion of high-deductible health insurance, a fact that has received little attention but has substantial implications for patients, health care providers, and employers. High-deductible health plans (HDHPs), often considered “blunt instruments” that indiscriminately reduce utilization of both appropriate and discretionary care, require annual out-of-pocket payments of $1,000 to $10,000 for many services before more comprehensive coverage begins.1 Unfortunately, large gaps remain in our understanding of HDHPs' effects on vulnerable populations, life-saving services, and health outcomes.

http://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJMp1309490

And it will cost the salaries of bureaucrats and thousands of workers to dispense those subsidies.

Rick wrote:

archer wrote:

Rick wrote:

archer wrote: Where was that outrage when insurance companies were raising premiums 40%/year .....I don't remember any Republicans complaining about what those hikes were doing to women, and the self employed, or the middle-class. But now that you can hang it on the Democrats you suddenly are concerned? BS. Like ever damn year for decades health insurance costs are going up.....what has changed is lower income people CAN get health insurance with financial help, and no one can be turned down, or cancelled for health reasons.

.....that 40% number is an average taken from my health insuramce premiums from the early 2000s....anecdotal, yes, just like yours.

So when Obama said the ACA would save the average family $2500 a year, was that a lie or was he clueless? I only see two options here for his AFFORDABLE care act.

With the subsidies, which the average family will qualify for, do you actually KNOW that they wont save 2500/year?

First of all, subsidies are just another way of getting wealth redistribution... doesn't make the policies cheaper, just makes someone else pay the difference. Of course, Obama in his flowery words never mentioned this when he was trying to sell this turd... he just said the ACA would make insurance cheaper.
Secondly, the people who are most likely to get subsidies are the ones who don't have insurance... most people who do (imo) will end up paying more even if they do get a small subsidy... higher deductibles will likely overcome those.

What in the ACA actually addresses the costs of healthcare that WOULD lower premium costs? Is it the medical device tax? Will forcing insurance companies to cover pre-existing conditions help to lower the costs for healthy people? How about forcing people to pay for maternity coverage when they are incapable of ever having a child? One size fits all is a BAD IDEA.

I think It would be cheaper just to add a tax to current policies based on income to cover the uninsured who can't afford it. That's more redistribution of wealth but at least it wouldn't give the government more control over the policies most of us would like to keep.

Perhaps if the Republicans would concentrate on providing alternatives, or changes, there would be a bill people liked better....but no, that is not how the Republicans do things.....they "just say no" then bitch.

if it was gonna be cheaper, we would not be forcing each other to buy it.

Oh and you wanted single payer, you did not compromise, you delayed it longer than you will live.

on that note wrote: if it was gonna be cheaper, we would not be forcing each other to buy it.

Oh and you wanted single payer, you did not compromise, you delayed it longer than you will live.

Unlike some of my conservative friends, it's not all about me. It's about this country's future.