Join the Unexplained Mysteries community today! It's free and setting up an account only takes a moment.
- Sign In or Create Account -
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 0
questionmark

Affordable Care Act’s free-market economics

119 posts in this topic

FIRST, PRESIDENT Obama’s Affordable Care Act (ACA) forced millions to switch their insurance plans. Now, critics say, those people can’t keep their doctors, either. Another broken promise? More proof the ACA is a disaster?

Not quite: As with all of those canceled policies, this “outrage” isn’t good evidence that the law is flawed, no matter what the president may have promised.

The issue is that some of the people who must switch health plans are transitioning into policies with narrow networks that don’t always include the doctors, hospitals and other providers they used before. Anecdotes have emerged of people parting with physicians they’ve trusted for years.

Read more

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Some parts of ACA were badly implemented and will require ongoing 'tuning', but ACA is not the healthcare disaster the anti-Dems, or anti-Government, factions are playing it to be.

I agree with the conclusions that ACA is not "socialised medicine", but the free-market at work. It just happens to be inclusive of all (or a much greater proportion) of the population than the previous system. Initial costs for some individuals may rise, but long-term benefit to the national economy will accrue from having more people with access to better healthcare.

It is not the job of Government to allow (or even pass law facilitating) business to exclude citizens from the benefits of living in a society. It is the job of Government to ensure business operates with a sense of social inclusion, and for Government to promote social justice. Government - even the govt of the US - is "for the people" and must be a balance against the selfish interests that would otherwise splinter the society it is there to serve.

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

the medical practitioners should just reevaluate current definitions of the Hippocratic oath ~

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I actually think Obamacare is more fascist than socialist. It forced people who were taking from the system without paying (socialism) to buy a product from a company at a profit. Whether they wanted to or not.

Changing the Hippocratic Oath would probably work. But do you really want a society that would let its citizens die and financially ruin their families just because they were foolish with their decisions?

2 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yeah, it totally doesn't matter what the President of the United States of America promises the citizens - promises that directly led to increased support for the law and its eventual approval.

The WaPo gonna have to keep buying bigger buckets to carry all of that water.

3 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Some parts of ACA were badly implemented and will require ongoing 'tuning', but ACA is not the healthcare disaster the anti-Dems, or anti-Government, factions are playing it to be.

I agree with the conclusions that ACA is not "socialised medicine", but the free-market at work. It just happens to be inclusive of all (or a much greater proportion) of the population than the previous system. Initial costs for some individuals may rise, but long-term benefit to the national economy will accrue from having more people with access to better healthcare.

It is not the job of Government to allow (or even pass law facilitating) business to exclude citizens from the benefits of living in a society. It is the job of Government to ensure business operates with a sense of social inclusion, and for Government to promote social justice. Government - even the govt of the US - is "for the people" and must be a balance against the selfish interests that would otherwise splinter the society it is there to serve.

Oh yeah.

Taking money from one group that worked for it and giving it to another group that didn't will definitely not "splinter" the society. No, no. There's no doubt it will bring us all closer together.

Kumbayah.

Harte

5 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Taking money from one group that worked for it and giving it to another group that didn't will definitely not "splinter" the society. No, no. There's no doubt it will bring us all closer together.

actually it does and the ACA medicaid expansion is hardly alone. Our society has a vested interest in the health and well being of it's citizens. Those who work pay for those who cannot.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

. Our society has a vested interest in the health and well being of it's citizens.

lmao, no it does not.

the whole idea of ACA was that someone was loosing money\not getting paid, it absolutely was not created to make society healthier, but i don't expect someone like you to see it.

2 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

And you would be wrong. again.

ACA drafters believed that increasing insurance coverage would not only improve quality of life but also help reduce medical bankruptcies (currently the leading cause of bankruptcy in America[128]) and job lock.[129] In addition, many believed that expanding coverage would help ensure that the cost controls successfully function; healthcare providers could more easily adapt to payment system reforms that incentivize value over quantity if their costs were partially offset—for example, hospitals having to do less charity care or insurers having larger and more stable risk pools to distribute costs over.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Patient_Protection_and_Affordable_Care_Act

And the US Constitution spells this out as well, not as a grant of powers but a guide.

We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

lmao, best joke of the day.

you should get out more, like in real world,

Edited by aztek
2 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Yet, even for people who have never switched plans, this sort of thing happened well before the ACA; insurers constantly negotiate with providers over inclusion in coverage networks and payment rates.

I wonder how things would have played out if the President said:

"If you like your current health care plan, you can keep it. PROVIDED it meets minimum standards. We aren't going to let you keep a health care play that doesn't provide minimal coverage. Because that will cause the whole system to break down."

Would people have accepted something like that, or would they have just let FOX news run with it and distort it ignorant people started believing that Obamacare will force everyone to find a new health care plan and doctor?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Some parts of ACA were badly implemented and will require ongoing 'tuning', but ACA is not the healthcare disaster the anti-Dems, or anti-Government, factions are playing it to be.

I agree with the conclusions that ACA is not "socialised medicine", but the free-market at work. It just happens to be inclusive of all (or a much greater proportion) of the population than the previous system. Initial costs for some individuals may rise, but long-term benefit to the national economy will accrue from having more people with access to better healthcare.

It is not the job of Government to allow (or even pass law facilitating) business to exclude citizens from the benefits of living in a society. It is the job of Government to ensure business operates with a sense of social inclusion, and for Government to promote social justice. Government - even the govt of the US - is "for the people" and must be a balance against the selfish interests that would otherwise splinter the society it is there to serve.

My friends 23 year old son, who is a painter who's employer does not provide insurance, signed up on the Washington state exchange. He pays $50.00 a month for insurance. When he signed up he had a torn ACL and some other issues with his knee. On january 2nd, the day after his coverage became effective he went in for the surgery. I'm guessing ACL surgery costs about $30k. He just got it for $50.00. So anyone want to guess how the insurance company is going to make up for that $30k loss? That's right, they are going to compensate for it by charging more for your insurance. At my friends son's current rate of $50.00 a month the insuance carrier will have made the money back from him in 50 years providing he lives that long and incurrs no other claims in that time. Good plan government, good plan.
1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I wonder how things would have played out if the President said:

"If you like your current health care plan, you can keep it. PROVIDED it meets minimum standards. We aren't going to let you keep a health care play that doesn't provide minimal coverage.

Minimal coverage like prenatal care for men? Laughable.

Edited by OverSword
2 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

My friends 23 year old son, who is a painter who's employer does not provide insurance, signed up on the Washington state exchange. He pays $50.00 a month for insurance. When he signed up he had a torn ACL and some other issues with his knee. On january 2nd, the day after his coverage became effective he went in for the surgery. I'm guessing ACL surgery costs about $30k. He just got it for $50.00. So anyone want to guess how the insurance company is going to make up for that $30k loss? That's right, they are going to compensate for it by charging more for your insurance. At my friends son's current rate of $50.00 a month the insuance carrier will have made the money back from him in 50 years providing he lives that long and incurrs no other claims in that time. Good plan government, good plan.

What exactly do you think happened before the ACA? He still could have gotten his surgery without insurance, and skipped out on the medical bills (which occurs to the sum of $50 billion every year) and then us with insurance get hit for it with higher premiums. The only difference? Now your friend's son isn't stuck with $30,000 in medical bills (which is the leading cause of bankruptcy in the United States).

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

What exactly do you think happened before the ACA? He still could have gotten his surgery without insurance, and skipped out on the medical bills (which occurs to the sum of $50 billion every year) and then us with insurance get hit for it with higher premiums. The only difference? Now your friend's son isn't stuck with $30,000 in medical bills (which is the leading cause of bankruptcy in the United States).

Incorrect. If he didn't have insurance the hospital would have filed for a loss with the IRS and been reimburrsed through tax write-offs.

And he would have had a $30k bill that's true.

edit for:

I believe the goal is to have enough of this happen to break the current system and change to the single payor system.

Edited by OverSword
2 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Incorrect. If he didn't have insurance the hospital would have filed for a loss with the IRS and been reimburrsed through tax write-offs.

And he would have had a $30k bill that's true.

Please cite a source showing that hospitals get reimbursed for 100% of their unpaid bills. Here is my source stating otherwise.

http://usatoday30.usatoday.com/money/industries/insurance/2009-05-28-hiddentax_N.htm

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Incorrect. If he didn't have insurance the hospital would have filed for a loss with the IRS and been reimburrsed through tax write-offs.

And he would have had a $30k bill that's true.

edit for:

I believe the goal is to have enough of this happen to break the current system and change to the single payor system.

So, again: Who is paying?

and, what is cheaper: The treatment of an ailment by a GP or the treatment of the same ailment gone chronic in the ER?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So, again: Who is paying?

and, what is cheaper: The treatment of an ailment by a GP or the treatment of the same ailment gone chronic in the ER?

Regardless, IMO the reason they have developed this unsustainable model is to force us into a single payor system administered (no doubt) by the most incompetent administrators in the nation, our beloved federal government.

Warning: large amounts of deep graft ahead.

Edited by OverSword
1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Regardless, IMO the reason they have developed this unsustainable model is to force us into a single payor system administered (no doubt) by the most incompetent administrators in the nation, our beloved federal government.

Warning: large amounts of deep graft ahead.

Which is quite missing the point. The point is that we either enact a system where those who cannot pay for medicine don't get it or we enact a system in which all will be able to. Passing the bill through the back-door is not just unfair but also dishonest.

And yes, ACA is probably the worst imaginable alternative but it is one... which is far more than any government or legislative had gotten together since the 1930s, when the problem was first identified.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

And don't get me wrong, I'm very happy my friends son got the surgery. I',m just pointing out what a failure and a joke the ACA will eventually become. Just one more example of the leaders of our country abusing our trust and failing in thier duty to the people.

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

lol, wait. insurance or not, he will get dozen or so bills from hospital, and posibly from individual doctors, and labs, they'll bill him whatever insurance didn't pay. a 50 bucks insurance does not pay 100% even $300 does not cover everything.

Edited by aztek
1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

lol, wait. insurance or not, he will get dozen or so bills from hospital, and posibly from individual doctors, and labs, they'll bill him whatever insurance didn't pay. a 50 bucks insurance does not pay 100% even $300 does not cover everything.

No ****. That isn't included in the $30k for the surgery. xrays - seperate charge anesthiasia - seperate charge perscription drugs etc etc...That's alway been the case and has no bearing on what I said.
1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

yea, so even with aca plans, ppl will still get bills, and still not pay them. that does not look like aca is solving what it was made to solve in a first place.

Edited by aztek
3 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Obamacare is more democrat than republican. And it's the only thing the republicans have to throw mud over of any substance whatsoever.

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

They wouldn't have that mud if he'd been upfront about it and stopped lying a week or two after he learned he was lying.

Harte

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!


Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.


Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 0

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.