I'm in SC right now. I'm self-employed. I'm also very healthy. I never use it, but I have it.
Obamacare ruled unconstitutional by US federal judge...
- Thread starter NoleSoup4U
- Start date
They had the support in California. The people out there wanted it. Then, like I pointed out before, the California Dems hired an ex-big insurance lobbyist to come in and kill the bill. It is what it is. The Dems only care about a single-payer system when they're trying to get elected.
As more people enrolled in the exchanges, pricing was supposed to come down. Republicans defunded the exchanges and insurance companies colluded to keep prices up.
The prices went up because the risk pool kept getting smaller, and the risk pool kept getting smaller because the prices were going up. It was a destructive cycle that was obvious to a lot of us.
https://newrepublic.com/article/143650/killed-single-payer-california
Jimmy Dore had a great video about it. I'll try to post it next.
Well, then something doesn't make any sense. They had the support for what they wanted, but they didn't vote for it because they "hired" a lobbyist to ruin what they already wanted and had support for to begin with. And, that was done so they could get elected (or reelected). None of that makes any sense. It doesn't have to make sense, mind you. But, that makes even less sense than usual.
Sure it makes sense. The insurance companies don't want single-payer, therefore the Dems don't want it.
If they delivered what they were promising on the campaign trail, what the hell are they gonna promise on the next campaign trail? They can’t afford to have people happy with healthcare because then they can’t promise better healthcare in order to get elected.
Well, that's not what you described. What you just wrote there sounds like a biased right-wing mouthpiece's summation. I'm sure that politicians are being paid-off, but you think only one side does this.
Any state trying to exclude themselves from the Federal model will have a tough time, regardless.
There's always something to gripe about. But, I agree, that particular carrot will be gone.
I'm not sure what your point is here. The Republicans have never claimed to be in favor of a single-payer system. What I'm pointing out is that you're being played by the Democrats. Single-payer is a pipe dream at this time.
Look at the graph. Rates have been rising steadily for a long time. ACA had little effect one way or the other. Had the exchanges not been defunded it might have stemmed the increase.
The article said it was set aside until they can work out the details. That doesn’t mean it isn’t coming.
My point? You started this thread! lol
I'm not living in California, for one thing. I don't believe, or trust, the Democrats OR the Republicans, as a group.
I'm sorry that Florida is a shithole.
I don't know what to tell you. Smaller risk pools means increased prices. That isn't controversial or anything. And the increased prices means that more people drop out, which makes the risk pools even smaller. The bill was doomed from the beginning. It was a bogus plan that the Dems passed to try to pull the wool over the public's eyes. It backfired on them and they've been getting their teeth kicked in ever since.
Wut?! Are you saying that since I started the thread you have the inability to make a point? I didn't bring up single-payer. I just pointed out that a judge struck down the ACA. How did we end up talking about single-payer?
You almost never have any idea what you are talking about. I like your spirit, but the facts aren’t often on your side. I’d offer you some friendly advice to dig a little deeper and maybe try and get your news from places you aren’t using currently.
You didn't bring-up California's single-payer issue? Okay
I CAN make a point, sure.
What facts of mine are wrong? Why do people like you make blanket statements like this? Let's go over my claims in this thread:
- Judge struck down the ACA: Duh
- The Democrat party won't support single payer: Gave two sauces
- Prices and risk pools are correlated: Duh
Yeah, I brought that up as one reason why the Dems don't support single-payer as a party. They could have passed single payer when they had control of the House, Senate, and presidency...but they didn't. Instead, they gave you a bill that supports big insurance. Why did they do that?
Dems will support Single Payer. Because they struck down a proposed bill does not mean they will do it again. They want it to be the right bill.
Of course prices are correlated with risk pools. But you credited Obamacare with making insurance unafforadable for you, which I demonstrated was false. Rates rising has been static. You would have still been priced out. And Republicans did their best to sabotage ACA by shorting the exchanges and removing the Mandate.
You also didn't even know the mandate had been removed.
The Democrats, in California, apparently fvcked-over their constituents. I'm not surprised by that at all, assuming it went down as you claim. I'm fully aware that American politicians are all for sale. Northrop Grumman and General Dynamics have the same deep pockets as Pfizer and Merck.
Look, it's obvious that group plans do the best job of providing coverage for preexisting conditions while controlling costs. So, what if you could buy an insurance policy from your bank? The bank would negotiate the price for a fee. Now you're going before the insurance company with 10k people in a group instead of one person. You don't think the insurance company wouldn't be willing to negotiate a better price in order to sell policies to 10k people. You bet your ass they would! Make it easier to get insurance and the price will go down. Regulate the f*** out of it and the price will go up.
Going from what we had to Single Payer would have been a huge leap. Wasn't feasible. ACA is a bridge.
I wouldn't have been priced out of my prior plan. It was going up five to ten dollars a year, basically keeping pace with inflation. The rate increase of the ACA is far beyond that. I also want to know, in regards to the graph you posted, are those prices before or after subsidies? From what I've dealt with, it's pretty obvious they are after.
What was even better about my prior policy? Almost everyone took it! I didn't have to drive to the next town to see a specialist!
Are you serious? You know that happens now, right? That is how I have my company insurance. We pool it through ADP.
Also, many from the right DO NO WANT to require insurance companies to cover pre-existing conditions. That is the huge driver of costs behind ACA. You can't jack up rates or deny coverage for sick people. If you actually have medical issues as you claim, you're gonna be in for a hell of a price bump if ACA is repealed. Be careful of what you wish for.
So, the other option was to make people so miserable that they begged you for a single-payer? Great plan.
Look, unless something fundamentally changes in the Democrat Party, it isn't happening. Even if it does, it isn't getting passed the Senate. While I agree with you that things weren't good before the ACA, they're even worse now.
Here's a "point" for you:
As long as human healthcare is a "for profit" industry, we're fvcked. We being the average citizens. Actually, even those who are wealthy beyond imagination will suffer. A profit incentive does not really work well with a humanitarian niche like... quality of life. We need more Jonas Salk's. We have a greed-based society.
Ok, you clearly don't know how to read graphs. The price hikes have been static for a long time. Look at the graph. I'm not sure how to better explain that.
I just posted it, but you are gonna be in real trouble if you have serious medical issues and ACA is repealed. It protects people like you.
Great, that means you realize that it works. Let us expand upon that concept.
No we aren't. Give the consumer more power and you'll see a drop in prices. It's a one-sided game right now, which is exactly what big insurance wants. There are a lot of for-profit industries out there that don't screw people over.
Do you understand that you don't have to choose an Obamacare plan? I have plenty of options here. If you don't, its because insurers are interested in your state.
Also, your insurance will go up bigly if ACA is repealed. You have admitted you have serious medical issues.
You are clueless on this. Let me guess. You think opening up state lines will help?
I had a scare. I don't actually have "medical issues". It's not like I'm diabetic, have bad cholesteral, high blood pressure or anything else. What happened to me isn't a trend.
Even if it was. Give me better options to join group plans. Not every job offers a group plan. Give people another way to access them.
I don't think it only has to do with state lines, which is why I didn't bring that up specifically. There's more than just a single problem with the healthcare system.
Let me try a different angle here.
If Florida has so few insurance options, why doesn't an insurance company come in and offer great rates/coverage and grab up a bunch of customers?
I think we both agree there are problems. Where we are disagreeing is how to fix those problems. I want a more free-market approach to it. You want a more socialistic approach. It's not a big deal or anything.
Who knows why there aren't more options. Maybe it's a problem at the state level. Maybe the barriers to entry are more than what companies are willing to pay. That doesn't make the ACA a good plan.
That didn't answer my question. I was asking if the prices post ACA were the prices after the plans were subsidized.
