Affordable Care Act (AKA Obamacare)

[AWvsCBsteeeerike3]

Personally, I say that health >>>> money, but that's just me. Some people love their money more than they love other people, and yeah, those are the ones who, in general, really, really dislike Obamacare.

This is a ridiculously worded statement.

The number 1 cause of stress is financial concerns. So, if legislation taxes an already stressed middle class, then...that's not good. Perhaps it's not that people don't want other people to be healthy, but they themselves don't want to pay for it because they simply can't afford to.

Yeah, yeah, yeah. Obamacare helps people pay for coverage up to something like 4x the poverty line. The problem is the poverty line is absurdly low and I think you'd be tough pressed to find a family just aabove the subsidy line that is doing so well they can just cough up the money for premiums. I guess you could argue they'll then be covered, which is nice, but they'll also be on the hook for the large deductibles (I think 2K+ for the silver policy) as well as the premiums. Meh.

But, hey, at least insurance companies are still getting their money.

[Radbird]

No worries. We won't have to worry about it after today.

[Joe Shlabotnik]

The number 1 cause of stress is financial concerns. So, if legislation taxes an already stressed middle class, then...that's not good. Perhaps it's not that people don't want other people to be healthy, but they themselves don't want to pay for it because they simply can't afford to.

How about the stress of paying for stuff like pregnancies or a life-threatening illness or accident? Or the stress of wondering if you will still have coverage after a lay-off. Or the stress of a bad job you can't leave because you are worried about losing the employer-provided health care?

I think those are bigger stresses.

[AWvsCBsteeeerike3]

The number 1 cause of stress is financial concerns. So, if legislation taxes an already stressed middle class, then...that's not good. Perhaps it's not that people don't want other people to be healthy, but they themselves don't want to pay for it because they simply can't afford to.

How about the stress of paying for stuff like pregnancies or a life-threatening illness or accident? Or the stress of wondering if you will still have coverage after a lay-off. Or the stress of a bad job you can't leave because you are worried about losing the employer-provided health care?

I think those are bigger stresses.

For like the 10th billion time, I'm not saying Obamacare isn't somewhat good. I'm saying it's taxing the wrong people.

[heyzeus]

I can't disagree with your points in this thread, AW. It's the reason I can't get my righteous indignation up into a filthy lather over the ACA. I think what the tea party faction is doing is myopic and destructive to our democracy, but I also think the ACA is maybe a 1/4 solution to the problem. It's better than nothing, but nothing I've read quantifies for me how much better it is than nothing. And of course, the answer to that question depends on whose perspective you're looking at.

The actual solution, which perhaps every other western nation in the world has realized, is the single payer system. Also not perfect. Also costly. But less innocent and defenseless people either die unnecessarily or are economically ruined, mortality rates are overall lower.

[Socnorb11]

I can't disagree with your points in this thread, AW. It's the reason I can't get my righteous indignation up into a filthy lather over the ACA. I think what the tea party faction is doing is myopic and destructive to our democracy, but I also think the ACA is maybe a 1/4 solution to the problem. It's better than nothing, but nothing I've read quantifies for me how much better it is than nothing. And of course, the answer to that question depends on whose perspective you're looking at.

The actual solution, which perhaps every other western nation in the world has realized, is the single payer system. Also not perfect. Also costly. But less innocent and defenseless people either die unnecessarily or are economically ruined, mortality rates are overall lower.

What is better about a single payer system, zeus? If you say it's better, than I absolutely believe that it is........ but how so?

[AWvsCBsteeeerike3]

A single payer system would cut out insurance companies, from what I understand. The government acts as the insurance company. Everyone pays them their 'premiums' in whatever form it would be and the government in turn negotiates prices with medical providers. the argument against it, I guess, is that it is a tax on everyone and the government can't be as efficient as private insurance companies at negotiating rates.

As of now, that's an absolutely ludicrous argument because the ACA is going to act as a tax and insurance companies aren't currently negotiating comparable rates to medicare/Medicaid. So....you've got a tax and more expensive costs than what the governemtn would get.

Brilliant!

[heyzeus]

A single payer system would cut out insurance companies, from what I understand. The government acts as the insurance company. Everyone pays them their 'premiums' in whatever form it would be and the government in turn negotiates prices with medical providers. the argument against it, I guess, is that it is a tax on everyone and the government can't be as efficient as private insurance companies at negotiating rates.

Also, it's communism. Because if the government provides something, it's communism, and we're all gonna die.

Of course, as Keynes helpfully pointed out, in the long run we're all dead. And we're dead a lot quicker if we don't have any primary health care, or if our insurance companies refuse treatment, or if we can't get treated because it would cost $100 billion and we don't want to destroy our family's economic future. But, you know, COMMUNISM BOO SCARY!

[Socnorb11]

A single payer system would cut out insurance companies, from what I understand. The government acts as the insurance company. Everyone pays them their 'premiums' in whatever form it would be and the government in turn negotiates prices with medical providers. the argument against it, I guess, is that it is a tax on everyone and the government can't be as efficient as private insurance companies at negotiating rates.

As of now, that's an absolutely ludicrous argument because the ACA is going to act as a tax and insurance companies aren't currently negotiating comparable rates to medicare/Medicaid. So....you've got a tax and more expensive costs than what the governemtn would get.

Brilliant!

Gotcha. Thanks AW. So it would basically be a not-for-profit system, unlike the current insurance system that's going to gouge every penny they can out of consumers....

[AWvsCBsteeeerike3]

Right, I never got this into it. But, I remember an argument against the single payer system being that there would be 'death panels' where the provider (gov't) would be forced to cut coverage of some illnesses.

I doubt that is true compared to what private insurance companies cover.

That said, there are certainly cases where people just need to die and not be artificially kept alive. Maybe those instances are what the scare tactics were aimed at. I don't know. But...at some point people need to face reality and not be so afraid of death.