41 replies to this topic

[colion]

No, the raison d'etre is reducing the uninsured and that has been accomplished and will continue to do so

Wrong. There are many ways to reduce the number of uninsured. The Obamacare route was chosen to do this because it would reduce the average family insurance premium by $2,500/year - that is its raison d'etre. Instead, as the public is finally waking up to it is one of the most expensive ways of correcting a problem and undoubtedly will not eradicate the problem or increase the quality of care because of its fatally flawed fundamentals which will undoubtedly lead to major changes one way or the other - as long as the polls supporting Obamacare remain negative. It's benefit is that it forces the issue which has fallen flat on its face for decades.

U.S. Uninsured Rate Drops to 13.4%

The fact is that the number of insured has fallen far below the projections used to justify Obamacare's passage and will hasten its demise/transformation. Among the things that have come to pass which no sane politician would have voted for are:

1 - About 13% fewer uninsured in 2014 rather than 37%

2 - Many millions had insurance cancelled and a million are still uninsured due to unaffordable premiums, astronomical deductibles, lack of access to needed physicians/hospitals, increased co-pay, inability to cover needed treatments, etc.

3 - Instead of a promised deficit reduction there will be a $2T+ increase in debt during the next 20 years (somebody has to pay for those subsidies)

4 - Employer insurance being spun off to the detriment of workers.

5 - $7K+/family in additional taxes/fees during the next decade.

What we don't know is if the cost curve will continue to bend downward. Anyone who says they know is as bogus as your 39% average policy rate increase.

We don't know if the cost curve will continue to bend downward? Surely you don't think that the liar-in-chief pushed that crap on the naïve in order to reach an ideological goal. Or do you? As for the 39% it is time for you to get 'smart'. Figures in this area are widely reported.

What's sort of funny is that the odds are pretty good that those that rail against people getting insurance under Obamacare tend to be themselves either on Medicare or heavily govt subsidized insurance from their employer. Yea, hypocrites can be funny

When all else fails throw up some wishful thinking and hope that it sticks.

Edited by colion, 08 May 2014 - 02:52 PM.

[colion]

Massachusetts study suggests health insurance saves lives Giving more people health insurance could save tens of thousands of lives nationwide, according to a new analysis of data from Massachusetts, whose reforms became the model for President Obama's health law. Throughout the national debate over the Affordable Care Act, critics have questioned whether expanding coverage results in better health. The new analysis adds to the growing evidence that it does. Mortality rates in Massachusetts measurably improved compared with similar places around the country after the state began guaranteeing its residents health coverage in 2006, according to researchers at the Harvard School of Public Health, Brigham and Women's Hospital and the Urban Institute.

This is a fountain of misinformation due to the fact that it leaves out (or you left out) the full story. The fact is that MA and Obamacare differ in major ways. With respect to this question the important point is that Obamacare anticipates getting half of its expanded coverage via Medicaid and the other half by subsidizing private insurance. In MA private coverage was expanded more than public which is a key factor that must be factored in when accessing the health of the population. It has been repeatedly documented that Medicaid does not make people healthier so at best half of Obamacare is potentially in a position to do some good. I suspect that many of the new Medicaid enrollees will soon learn that they are better off in the ER as before. Unless Obamacare results in increased private insurance coverage (which it is not intended to do) it is highly unlikely that it will have a beneficial effect on mortality rates.

Edited by colion, 08 May 2014 - 03:11 PM.