Jump to content


Obamacare good or bad (or somewhere in the middle)?


  • Please log in to reply
20 replies to this topic

#1 Kingzfan2000

Kingzfan2000
  • Member
  • 5,647 posts
  • LocationMaryland

Posted 21 October 2013 - 07:55 PM

lets talk about it.  In plain words with no links to bloated articles, why do you think Obamacare is good, bad, or kinda good but not really super-awesome?  Ill say to start off that the concept is a good idea but I think Obama fucked up royally in the implementation of it by making people come out of pocket for it.  I havent checked myself but I have heard complaints that it is very expensive with some ridiculous premiums and in these times when a lot of people arent doing so great financially, forcing people to take on a pretty significant expense does seem like a pretty valid criticism if that is indeed what is happening.  Force people to take on the expense of healthcare or fine them thousands of dollars.  Something tells me that's not exactly the change people were hoping for when they voted him into office.

#2 joe

joe
  • Member
  • 2,654 posts

Posted 21 October 2013 - 08:03 PM

I think it is bad because it is simply a huge handout to crony insurers.

True affordable health care for all is something that only a competitive market can come close to providing.

#3 brucoe

brucoe

    Incognito Legospaceman

  • Moderator
  • 3,573 posts
  • LocationGrand Rapids, Michigan

Posted 21 October 2013 - 08:19 PM

The one good thing I've seen so far is no pre-existing conditions that can disqualify you for it. What I've seen that is bad is how easy it is to lapse from having coverage so that if you were under it and then can't afford to keep making payments, you basically lose coverage, which means universal healthcare becomes a fantasy, not the reality. What they should have done is create universal health care and then figure out the parameters of paying for it after you are already covered and continue to be covered.
http://www.duanegundrum.com
The only blog that DARES to print TRIES to print the CAN SPELL the truth

#4 ThreePi

ThreePi
  • Member
  • 6,071 posts

Posted 21 October 2013 - 09:25 PM

The Night of the Long Knives was when the Nazis instituted a mandate that all Germans carry health insurance. That's basically what Obamacare is,a Nazi mandate.

#5 Lopez

Lopez
  • Member
  • 17,120 posts

Posted 21 October 2013 - 10:18 PM

If there wasn't some sort of personal cost attached to health insurance, costs would skyrocket because people would have absolutely no incentive to resist more and more services. That's why Cadillac plans are so bad. Forcing consumers to at least pause before making a health care purchase is the only way they can be encouraged to tame costs through the private market instead of a public plan and centralized rationing.

That's all I'm going into for now because this thread is a complete disaster. Every post except ThreePi's is horrible.

#6 Kingzfan2000

Kingzfan2000
  • Member
  • 5,647 posts
  • LocationMaryland

Posted 22 October 2013 - 12:03 AM

Yes I agree that some cost is of course reasonable, if a person decides they want to get healthcare for themselves or their families.  Basically forcing people to take on a pretty considerable expense and then fining them if they dont is the problem that a lot of people have.  No one is arguing that health care should be free.  The issue people are having is that its expensive and mandatory.  If people had money laying around to pay for healthcare coverage, most likely they already had healthcare coverage.  What part of fining people who dont get coverage sounds like a good idea?  Its like people who didnt have healthcare generally didnt have it because they couldnt afford it.  Its like if when the Clinton administration was pushing for more home owners among minorities, they had introduced legislation forcing people to buy a home and fining them if they didnt.  Its as simple as the fact that a lot of people dont like the idea of being forced to purchase something.  People work hard for their money and dont want to be forced to spend it how the government tells them to. I could see if this was completely uncharted territory and the US was the first country in the world to try some type of universal health care program.  But considering a good portion of the developed world has viable national healthcare, its not like the Obama administration didnt have a viable model to imitate

The fact that no one has come in to say anything good about TACA is pretty telling though.

#7 AvonClay

AvonClay
  • Member
  • 865 posts

Posted 22 October 2013 - 12:38 AM

There are subsidies for people who can't afford insurance. And if by "viable national healthcare" you're referring to single payer, Obama couldn't pursue that for obvious reasons.

#8 Lopez

Lopez
  • Member
  • 17,120 posts

Posted 22 October 2013 - 12:43 AM

The penalty doesn't apply unless health insurance costs more than 9.5 percent of household income. I think that's affordable, but I'm sure some people disagree.

The individual mandate is what makes the law work. It's what forces healthy people to get insurance, which lowers costs and balances out the older, less healthy people entering the marketplace now that health insurance is more accessible and insurers can't discriminate against those with pre-existing conditions.

Here are some studies for the individual marketplace premiums:

Congressional Budget Office: Health insurance premiums will be 16 percent lower than expected in Obamacare's federal marketplaces.

RAND Corporation: Health insurance premiums will rise, but the increase caused by Obamacare is much smaller than how much most people will get through tax subsidies.

Avik Roy, conservative health care expert: Premiums will rise by 24 percent in 13 states and the District of Columbia, but in some states, like Ohio, premiums will drop by as much as 30 percent. (The numbers don't account for subsidies, which apply to anyone with an annual income up to 400 percent of the federal poverty level, or $45,960 a year.)

Keep in mind most people get health insurance through their employer or a public plan, so these numbers don't apply to them.

#9 therockdltj

therockdltj
  • Member
  • 6,248 posts

Posted 22 October 2013 - 01:23 AM

View PostLopez, on 22 October 2013 - 12:43 AM, said:

The penalty doesn't apply when your health insurance costs more than 9.5 percent of household income. I think that's affordable, but I'm sure some people disagree.

The individual mandate is what makes the law work. It's what forces healthy people to get insurance, which lowers costs and balances out the older, less healthy people entering the marketplace now that health insurance is more accessible and insurers can't discriminate against those with pre-existing conditions.

Here are some studies for the individual marketplace premiums:

Congressional Budget Office: Health insurance premiums will be 16 percent lower than expected in Obamacare's federal marketplaces.

RAND Corporation: Health insurance premiums will rise, but the increase caused by Obamacare is much smaller than how much most people will get through tax subsidies.

Avik Roy, conservative health care expert: Premiums will rise by 24 percent in 13 states and the District of Columbia, but in some states, like Ohio, premiums will drop by as much as 30 percent. (The numbers don't account for subsidies, which apply to anyone with an annual income up to 400 percent of the federal poverty level, or $45,960 a year.)

Keep in mind most people get health insurance through their employer or a public plan, so these numbers don't apply to them.
This makes more sense.

#10 Jwheel86

Jwheel86
  • Member
  • 1,854 posts

Posted 22 October 2013 - 01:41 AM

I don't think its possible to have a good health care system period given the global reality of the industry. Part of the reason US health care costs are so high is that European single payer countries have price controls, which means the US is paying the difference in R&D costs. Profits aren't the problem, its R&D costs. If the US went single payer with real price controls, medical R&D would stall. Is it really a coincidence medical advancements have come at the same time as high costs? Throw money at any industry and it'll come up with crazy ideas (see the defense industry).

Free market doesn't work too because 1. There is no price discovery. Ask any specialist what something will cost, he'll have no idea. 2. Death is the cost of no buying what doctors sell, can't negotiate with death.

3rd party payer doesn't work because if the cost is just showing your insurance card then people have no incentive to not get any service they want.

#11 Demut

Demut

    デムト

  • Member
  • 15,525 posts
  • LocationGermany

Posted 22 October 2013 - 05:41 AM

Worst thing that ever happened in U.S. history.
“Quiet now, no more stupid hodoring. NO HODORING!”

#12 zotquix

zotquix

    1st Daimyo of Ohio

  • Member
  • 3,750 posts

Posted 22 October 2013 - 08:22 AM

View Postjoe, on 21 October 2013 - 08:03 PM, said:

I think it is bad because it is simply a huge handout to crony insurers.

A) I don't think that is why you think it is bad

B) It isn't a huge handout. They're highly regulated and their profits are capped.

View Postbrucoe, on 21 October 2013 - 08:19 PM, said:

The one good thing I've seen so far is no pre-existing conditions that can disqualify you for it. What I've seen that is bad is how easy it is to lapse from having coverage so that if you were under it and then can't afford to keep making payments,

If you can't afford it, you get medicaid...

#13 phazedplasma

phazedplasma
  • Member
  • 4,881 posts

Posted 22 October 2013 - 11:30 AM

God Emperor Obama and his Privilege Gestapo have shown their true colors with Obamacare.

#14 Massdriver

Massdriver
  • Member
  • 2,759 posts
  • LocationTexas

Posted 22 October 2013 - 02:15 PM

I would prefer a system similar to Singapore's system: http://www.brookings...cellencePDF.pdf

I'm open to correction on why their system wouldn't work here or why it isn't as good as it seems.

#15 Demut

Demut

    デムト

  • Member
  • 15,525 posts
  • LocationGermany

Posted 22 October 2013 - 04:02 PM

View Postphazedplasma, on 22 October 2013 - 11:30 AM, said:

God Emperor Obama and his Privilege Gestapo have shown their true colors with Obamacare.
Posted Image
Funnily enough I did not have to make this myself, it had already been posted. On the Tea Party’s official website no less xD
“Quiet now, no more stupid hodoring. NO HODORING!”

#16 kaberle

kaberle
  • Member
  • 7,868 posts
  • LocationBaltimore
  • Xbox Live:Jera85

Posted 22 October 2013 - 04:41 PM

That is an epic picture.

#17 Demut

Demut

    デムト

  • Member
  • 15,525 posts
  • LocationGermany

Posted 22 October 2013 - 04:45 PM

Yup, most official Warhammer illustrations tend to be pretty epic. I believe this is the original image.
“Quiet now, no more stupid hodoring. NO HODORING!”

#18 TwinIon

TwinIon

    Technologist Extraordinaire

  • Member
  • 7,973 posts
  • LocationSan Diego

Posted 22 October 2013 - 04:58 PM

I think it's a small step that was about as good as Obama could get.  Healthcare is a debate this country needs to have and a huge piece of legislation with the goal of getting everyone covered is a good start.  I think the idea of having a government run exchange with regulations about what can't be left out (pre-existing conditions, contraception, etc), is a good idea, even if it hasn't really worked out quite yet.

Unfortunately, I think it does little to fix the reasons that healthcare in the US is as absurdly expensive as it is, and even though it curbs insurance providers ability to completely screw everyone, it still doesn't go far enough to ensure that they have sufficient incentive to change the more structural issues with health costs.  I think there were provisions in early drafts of the ACA that attempted to deal with this, but they got mostly removed.  Without going into too much depth or citing too many articles, I think that what ultimately needs to happen is that a single payer system needs to be setup and much more robust cost management needs to be implemented.

I think the ACA is a small step in that direction, and since it's keeping healthcare as a front page topic, hopefully we can move further along that path.
Techie/Gamer/Geek Extraordinaire
XBL:Collateral Damg | PSN:CollateralDmg | Steam: colateral_dmg | Origin: twinion
Letterboxd: TwinIon

#19 Lopez

Lopez
  • Member
  • 17,120 posts

Posted 22 October 2013 - 07:26 PM

View PostMassdriver, on 22 October 2013 - 02:15 PM, said:

I would prefer a system similar to Singapore's system: http://www.brookings...cellencePDF.pdf

I'm open to correction on why their system wouldn't work here or why it isn't as good as it seems.

Singapore's system is great. Really, any system with aggressive rate setting would be a massive improvement.

#20 Massdriver

Massdriver
  • Member
  • 2,759 posts
  • LocationTexas

Posted 22 October 2013 - 08:57 PM

View PostLopez, on 22 October 2013 - 07:26 PM, said:

Singapore's system is great. Really, any system with aggressive rate setting would be a massive improvement.

It seems like any healthcare law that doesn't have at least modest support from both parties may end up failing. For instance, the pdf I linked on Singapore's system emphasizes the government being very proactive about tweaking the law as time progresses, and they did so efficiently and effectively. Our system is completely broken. Obamacare has no real chance of being tweaked to fix issues with it, or tweaked to cut costs. It has a lot in it, but no matter what, they aren't going to get it all right the first time. I don't see our healthcare system getting more efficient and cheap until both parties can agree towards making some type of system work.

#21 Lopez

Lopez
  • Member
  • 17,120 posts

Posted 22 October 2013 - 09:00 PM

I think once it settles in that the marketplaces are good and Obamacare is here to stay, Republicans will take more measured steps to fix it.




0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users