Jump to content

Affordable Care Act


pierremvp1
 Share

Recommended Posts

Been trying to register for mine since it went live, damn server is clogged up. My health insurance ends Jan 1 and my employer has me as 1099 so yeah.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 3 weeks later...

This is the biggest fustercluck to hit the American public in the last 50 years.

 

"If you like your insurance, you can keep it." "If you like your doctor, you can keep him." "Your insurance premiums will go down by $2,500 per year."

 

All false. 15 million people are getting notices that their current coverage can no longer be offered. Networks are restricting which doctors and hospitals are included. Average family premiums are up $3,000, not down $2,500 since that lie was offered.

 

After 3 weeks, we've only seen the first hints of how bad this mess will become. It's not a matter of "glitches" or web site traffic problems, it's a matter of the whole 5 million lines of code need to be redone. Fixing it won't take weeks or months, it will take years.

 

Worse, if the software is patched up and sputters along, there's still the overriding problem of adverse selection -- most of the people signing up will be the high-cost, high-subsidy people.

 

Of every 100,000 people who are claimed to have been "signed up," 90,000 of them will actually be shoved into Medicaid, being ineligible to buy insurance in the first place. Most of the rest will be unhealthy or low-income -- more high-subsidy drags on taxpayers. This problem has now been aggravated by the frustration factor of non-functionality of the website on anyone who isn't a high-cost potential applicant. People who want their large subsidy will try 50 times harder to sign up than someone who gets little or no subsidy.

 

The current numbers on this are enlightening. Claims of tens of thousands "signed up" in this or that state turn out to result in but a handful, as in dozens or hundreds of actual purchasers of insurance.

 

Almost none of the young and healthy will participate, they're not stupid. Only an idiot would sign up to pay $1,000 or $2,000 or $3,000/year for overpriced coverage they really don't want, when the alternative is to pay a penalty -- oh, excuse me -- a tax, according to the Supreme Court, of $95 the first year and continued peanuts in subsequent years. And the IRS can't even enforce those minor "taxes" with a lien or a levy. If you can arrange your affairs so that you never are owed a refund, enforcement is completely and utterly toothless. By law.

 

That spells a death spiral for the insurance market over the next couple of years, and even more massive premium increases, on top of the already massive increases for a bunch of mandatory coverage most people don't want.

 

All this for a program that was "not going to cost the taxpayers a single dime" but which CBO now says will cost taxpayers 2 TRILLION over the next 10 years.

 

Anyone who thought the feds, in their infinitesimal wisdom, could commandeer 1/6th of the economy and it would work well needs to think again. It's doomed to slow-motion failure by its very nature. The fact that there don't seem to be any adults in charge of this circus makes the joke even more painful.

 

Give it 3 years and with any luck the entire nightmare will all be repealed. Then maybe we can try some market-based reforms instead of edicts.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

And the fustercluck goes on.

 

This febrile and totally incompetent administration, after a monumental effort to hide prices from the public, which resulted in a morass of personal data being required before anyone could get something so simple as a price quote, which resulted in a non-functional site, have stepped in it yet again.

 

They added a "shop" feature which has only two age categories -- under 50/over 50. Yeah, it's like buying a TV on Amazon! Not.

 

Totally ridiculous. The "estimates" of premiums are virtually all wrong, most of them by huge percentages. Total garbage. If you're selling insurance, it helps to know the exact age of the potential applicant if you want to provide an accurate quote. Anything else is useless. Or perhaps intentionally deceptive.

 

But, don't lose hope. We can expect years of this sort of idiotic stuff as this ongoing circus augers in to final destruction over the next 2-3 years.

 

It's actually hard to tell whether they wanted to hide actual costs because it would expose the lie of "costs will go down" or if they were actually intentionally operating against taxpayer interests in trying to get maximum subsidized participation by making everything appear to be dirt-cheap to the uninsurable and low-income (but above Medicaid income) applicants.

 

Of course, the entire proposition can only succeed if they attract millions of young, healthy people at much higher costs than they should pay or would be willing to pay. Which is totally impossible with puny "taxes" for not buying insurance which are largely unenforceable.

 

Funny that 2-3 weeks ago various House and Senate Democrats were screaming bloody murder about Cruz, et al being "terrorists" and "arsonists" and "hostage-takers" for offering them a chance to delay this very bad joke for a year. Now, they've suddenly decided that it would be a good idea to do exactly that. Must be an election next year, or something, eh?

 

I say to them: Too bad, you had your chance, but you weren't bright enough to take it. Now live with your metastasizing pile of crap.

 

You own it, 100%. No Republican voted for it. No Republican had anything to do with writing the ridiculous 2,000 page law. No Republican had anything to do with its implementation. No Republican had anything to do with the writing of 20,000 pages of regulations. No Republican had anything to do with the joke of a web-site. No Republican had anything to do with the coming ultimate total failure because the economics of it are centrally-planned and top-down and not market-based.

 

I look forward to it providing many more instances of proof that government will totally screw up anything it touches as this sad saga continues to unfold. And it's only just begun.

 

Perhaps at some point the public will be immunized to the idiotic idea that government can solve problems. Or has any idea what it is doing. Or can be trusted to do anything right. Or can get a web-site built for less than, what is it? 300 million? 400 million? 600 million? Estimates vary. Who knows. I predict it'll cost 2 billion+ before it's tossed in the trash and written off as a failure. Who cares? Build another one! How much could a lousy web-site possibly cost? 5-10 billion?

 

Please pass the popcorn as we watch the law of unintended consequences operate on a heretofore unimagined scale.

 

:lol

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I love how now, because of our shiny new affordable healthcare, Jackson Hospital will try to raise property taxes in an effort to build for our new affordable healthcare system!

 

The thinking is somewhere along the lines of "we need to make Jackson attractive to all these people who can now choose where to get healthcare as a result of the law, because it needs to offset the costs of servicing all of the still-uninsured!"

 

Still-uninsured? Are you fucking kidding me? We didn't just get anally penetrated by Obamacare to STILL have to be responsible for the uninsured.

 

But this reduces costs in the long run! Are you sensing a pattern in rhetoric?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

This is going to be so much better than expected. Most of these terrible policies exist because democracy allows one to gang up on relatively small groups of people and force things down their throat with little sacrifice from the benefiting parties. This time, it seems like the benefiting party is the minority to the detriment of everyone else. I can't wait to see the ironic outrage.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Those people who are getting the heavily subsidized care benefit in the short term, but everyone loses in the end when health care costs continue to go through the roof and the quality of care goes down.

 

 

Well, the people with pre-existing conditions that were previously unable to get healthcare because of the cost will probably still benefit. Like you said, the incredibly poor might not even benefit from this in the long-run. It's going to blow up all over the Democrats

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Let's be clear about exactly what our favorite jokester actually said on June 15, 2009, while addressing a meeting of the American Medical Association in Chicago:

 

And that means that no matter how we reform health care, we will keep this promise: If you like your doctor, you will be able to keep your doctor. Period. If you like your health care plan, you will be able to keep your health care plan. Period. No one will take it away. No matter what.

 

And later in the same address:

 

Let me repeat – if you like your health care, the only thing reform will mean is your health care will cost less. If anyone says otherwise, they are either trying to mislead you or don’t have their facts straight.

 

http://blogs.wsj.com/washwire/2009/06/15/obama-if-you-like-your-doctor-you-can-keep-your-doctor/

 

Kind of a "read my lips" moment. Who, exactly, is it that doesn't have his facts straight or is misleading anyone?

 

Bush 41 could tell us how that works. Where's the red-hot media outrage that would be rampant if any Republican were in the White House and had foisted this giant disaster on the public on pure party-line votes in Congress?

 

And, who was that guy who called our Community-Organizer-in-Chief a liar during an address to a joint session of Congress in 2009?

 

Oh, yeah, Joe Wilson, Republican member of the House from SC. By golly, Joe was right. He is a liar. Direct and outright. Unequivocally. Repeatedly.

 

The media did manage to get totally outraged about Joe's factual outburst. I'll agree that it wasn't polite, but when the public is being blatantly lied to by a narcissistic empty suit on an ongoing basis, what else are you going to do?

 

The AMA supported this monstrosity, what were they thinking? Oh, wait, I know. It's called the "doc-fix." Wherein Congress stops taking the annual machete to reimbursement rates under Medicare to try to cut out-of-control costs.

 

More important, what's been the result? What are many doctors now doing? Leaving/retiring from practice early or converting to "concierge" practice where no insurance or government is involved or allowed and only prepaid cash is accepted.

 

Then, there are those docs who are revolted by the high cost, intrusiveness and time-wasting of requirements for electronic record-keeping and provision of patient data to the feds and all of the privacy implications -- as in you, as a patient now have no privacy or confidentiality.

 

Why? So the feds can dictate to docs from on high about what "best practices" shall be, or you get financially penalized if you don't agree. If I was a doc, I'd look at quitting, too. I don't think that most of them signed up to be told how to practice medicine by the feds, but that's what they face.

 

Unions also supported this disaster until they discovered that it imperils not just the 40 hour work-week, but their multi-employer health plans.

 

Democrats up for re-election suddenly seem to think that delays are a good idea.

 

Who will be next to jump ship?

 

:lol

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Those people who are getting the heavily subsidized care benefit in the short term, but everyone loses in the end when health care costs continue to go through the roof and the quality of care goes down.

 

 

I think wealthy people with low taxable income will come out quite well getting subsidized health care even if quality eventually goes down. Free stuff is really good especially when you don't need it to be free.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The unfortunate thing is that I really doubt this ever gets repealed. Fortunately, voters might be waking up, though. From the article I posted:

 

 

 

Pam Kehaly, president of Anthem Blue Cross in California, said she received a recent letter from a young woman complaining about a 50% rate hike related to the healthcare law.

"She said, 'I was all for Obamacare until I found out I was paying for it,'" Kehaly said.

 

Remember that Obamacare was pretty damn unpopular in the first place. The backlash was dampened because Obama managed to convince a lot of idiots that the law would make costs go down and that if they "liked their plan, they could keep their plan."

 

It could be seen from a mile away that both of those Obama "promises" were falsehoods.

 

I hate pieces of s*** like that and I'm so happy she got screwed.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 3 weeks later...

I think wealthy people with low taxable income will come out quite well getting subsidized health care even if quality eventually goes down.

 

Did you forget that dividends, interest, passive real estate income and business income are all part of taxable income?

 

Which "wealthy people" are you referring to? The handful who own only federal-tax-exempt municipal bonds? Maybe 1 in 100,000?

 

As for "if quality eventually goes down," well, it already did long ago. Only about 50% of MDs now accept Medicaid, even fewer will wind up accepting any policy issued under the ACA -- they hate the even more massive paperwork and requirements. Oregon's 20-year study shows that Medicaid outcomes are worse than being uninsured. Why? You're tied up in the Medicaid bureaucracy shuffle when you try/need to get care. Good luck trying to find a physician with an ACA policy.

 

So, as the gigantic disaster of a total fustercluck known as the ACA rolls on and on and on, wreaking havoc on central-planners' pipe-dreams everywhere, I can't wait until the website is fixed so that almost everyone can more quickly and easily understand how badly hammered they will be by higher premiums, deductibles and co-pays. Oh, and lack of choice of physician, can't forget that.

 

And, just for the record, it wasn't only Dear Leader who lied about keeping your coverage or MD, there was a large assortment of his Democrat cohorts who did likewise:

 

SEN. HARRY REID (D-Nev.): “In fact, one of our core principles is that if you like the health care you have, you can keep it.� (Sen. Reid, Congressional Record, S.8642, 8/3/09)

 

SEN. RICHARD DURBIN: “We believe — and we stand by this — if you like your current health insurance plan, you will be able to keep it, plain and simple, straightforward.� (Sen. Durbin, Congressional Record, S.6401, 6/10/09)

 

SEN. CHUCK SCHUMER (D-NY): “If you like your insurance, you keep it.� (U.S. Senate, Finance Committee, Bill Mark-Up, 9/29/09)

 

SEN. PATTY MURRAY (D-Wash.): “Again, if you like what you have, you will be able to keep it. Let me say this again: If you like what you have, when our legislation is passed and signed by the President, you will be able to keep it.� (Sen. Murray, Congressional Record, S.6400, 6/10/09)

 

SEN. MAX BAUCUS (D-Mont.): “That is why one of the central promises of health care reform has been and is: If you like what you have, you can keep it. That is critically important. If a person has a plan, and he or she likes it, he or she can keep it.� (Sen. Baucus, Congressional Record, S.7676, 9/29/10)

 

SEN. TOM HARKIN (D-Iowa): “One of the things we put in the health care bill when we designed it was the protection for consumers to keep the plan they have if they like it; thus, the term ‘grandfathered plans.’ If you have a plan you like — existing policies — you can keep them. … we said, if you like a plan, you get to keep it, and you can grandfather it in.� (Sen. Harkin, Congressional Record, S.7675-6, 9/29/10)

 

THEN-REP. [now Senator] TAMMY BALDWIN (D-Wis.): “Under the bill, if you like the insurance you have now, you may keep it and it will improve.� (Rep. Baldwin, Press Release, 3/18/10)

 

SEN. MARK BEGICH (D-Alaska): “If you got a doctor now, you got a medical professional you want, you get to keep that. If you have an insurance program or a health care policy you want of ideas, make sure you keep it. That you can keep who you want.� (Sen. Begich, Townhall Event, 7/27/09)

 

SEN. MICHAEL BENNET (D-Colo.): “We should begin with a basic principle: if you have coverage and you like it, you can keep it. If you have your doctor, and you like him or her, you should be able to keep them as well. We will not take that choice away from you.� (Sen. Bennet, Press Release, 6/11/09)

 

SEN. BARBARA BOXER (D-Calif.): “So we want people to be able to keep the health care they have. And the answer to that is choice of plans. And in the exchange, we're going to have lots of different plans, and people will be able to keep the health care coverage they need and they want.� (Sen. Boxer, Press Release, 2/8/11)

 

SEN. SHERROD BROWN (D-Ohio): “Our bill says if you have health insurance and you like it, you can keep it…�(Sen. Brown, Congressional Record, S.12612, 12/7/09)

 

SEN. BEN CARDIN (D-Md.): “For the people of Maryland, this bill will provide a rational way in which they can maintain their existing coverage…� (Sen. Cardin, Congressional Record, S.13798, 12/23/09)

 

SEN. BOB CASEY (D-Pa.): “I also believe this legislation and the bill we are going to send to President Obama this fall will also have secure choices. If you like what you have, you like the plan you have, you can keep it. It is not going to change.� (Sen. Casey, Congressional Record, S.8070, 7/24/09)

 

SEN. KAY HAGAN (D-N.C.): ‘People who have insurance they're happy with can keep it’ “We need to support the private insurance industry so that people who have insurance they're happy with can keep it while also providing a backstop option for people without access to affordable coverage.� (“Republicans Vent As Other Compromise Plans Get Aired,� National Journal’s Congress Daily, 6/18/09)

 

SEN. MARY LANDRIEU (D-La.): “If you like the insurance that you have, you'll be able to keep it.� (MSNBC’s Hardball, 12/16/09)

 

SEN. PAT LEAHY (D-Vt.): “If you like the insurance you now have, keep the insurance you have.� (CNN’s “Newsroom,� 10/22/09)

 

SEN. BOB MENENDEZ (D-N.J.): “If you like what you have, you get to keep it� “Menendez is a member of the Senate Finance Committee, which is expected to release a bill later this week. He stressed that consumers who are satisfied with their plans won't have to change. ‘If you like what you have, you get to keep it,’ he said.� (“Health Care Plan Would Help N.J., Menendez Says,� The Record, 6/19/09)

 

SEN. JEFF MERKLEY (D-Oreg.): “[E]nsuring that those who like their insurance get to keep it� “The HELP Committee bill sets forward a historic plan that will, for the first time in American history, give every American access to affordable health coverage, reduce costs, and increase choice, while ensuring that those who like their insurance get to keep it.� (Sen. Merkley, Press Release, 7/15/09)

 

SEN. BARBARA MIKULSKI (D-Md.): “It means that if you like the insurance you have now, you can keep it.� (Sen. Mikulski, Press Release, 12/24/09)

 

SEN. JAY ROCKEFELLER (D-W.Va.): “I want people to know, the President's promise that if you like the coverage you have today you can keep it is a pledge we intend to keep.� (U.S. Senate, Finance Committee, Hearing, 9/23/09)

 

SEN. JACK REED (D-R.I.): “If you like the insurance you have, you can choose to keep it.� (Sen. Reed, Town Hall Event, 6/25/09)

 

SEN. BERNIE SANDERS (I-Vt.): “‘If you have coverage you like, you can keep it,’ says Sen. Sanders.� (“Sick And Wrong,� Rolling Stone, 4/5/10)

 

SEN. JEANNE SHAHEEN (D-N.H.): ‘if you have health coverage that you like, you get to keep it’ “My understanding … is that … if you have health coverage that you like you can keep it. As I said, you may have missed my remarks at the beginning of the call, but one of the things I that I said as a requirement that I have for supporting a bill is that if you have health coverage that you like you should be able to keep that. …under every scenario that I’ve seen, if you have health coverage that you like, you get to keep it.� (Sen. Shaheen, “Health Care Questions From Across New Hampshire,� Accessed 11/13/13)

 

SEN. DEBBIE STABENOW (D-Mich.): “As someone who has a large number of large employers in my state, one of the things I appreciate about the chairman's mark is — is the grandfathering provisions, the fact that the people in my state, 60 percent of whom have insurance, are going to be able to keep it. And Mr. Chairman, I appreciate that. That's a strong commitment. It's clear in the bill … I appreciate the strong commitment on your part and the president to make sure that if you have your insurance you can keep it. That's the bottom line for me.� (U.S. Senate, Finance Committee, Bill Mark-Up, 9/24/09)

 

SEN. JON TESTER (D-Mont.): “‘If you like your coverage, you'll be able to keep it,’ Tester said, adding that if Medicare changes, it will only become stronger�. (“Tester In Baker To Discuss Health Care,� The Fallon County Times, 11/20/09)

 

SEN. TOM UDALL (D-N.Mex.): “Some worried reform would alter their current coverage. It won't. If you like your current plan, you can keep it.� (“What I Learned: About Health Care Reform This Summer, By Your Lawmakers In Congress,� Albuquerque Journal, 9/8/09)

 

SEN. SHELDON WHITEHOUSE (D-R.I.): “…it honors President Obama’s programs and the promise of all of the Presidential candidates that if you like the plan you have, you get to keep it. You are not forced out of anything.�(Sen. Whitehouse, Congressional Record, S.8668, 8/3/09)

 

http://washingtonexaminer.com/27-democratic-senators-who-promised-you-could-keep-your-health-coverage/article/2539245

 

That was just the Democrat Senators who lied on the record.

 

And, back in 2010 every single Democrat Senator voted against the Enzi (R-WY) proposed fix of the HHS regulation, a one-page deal, defeated on a party-line vote:

 

“Congress disapproves the rule submitted by the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services, Department of Health and Human Services relating to status as a Grandfathered Health Plan under the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (published at 75 Fed. Reg. 34538 (June 17, 2010)), and such rule shall have no force or Effect.�

 

THAT HHS rule is THE rule that forces people out of existing coverage. The Democrats all knew what exactly they were doing -- if you don't force most people into new, overpriced coverage, the whole deal collapses. Defeat the Enzi proposal, allow the HHS rule to go forward. And so it did, with zero Republican votes. Exactly how the whole disaster was passed in the first place.

 

There are many, many dozens of Democrat members of the House of Representatives who have also lied on the record. As of this writing, even former Speaker Nancy Pelosi still has the lies on her website -- "Keep your doctor, and your current plan, if you like them."

 

http://www.democraticleader.gov/news/reports/whatquotemarks-health-care-reform-bill-you

 

Maybe she should read the damned thing (and the 20,000 pages of regulations) so she can find out what's in it.

 

Now that the plan that you liked which covered the MD that you liked has been grandfathered by law, and then de-grandfathered by HHS regulation, and then attempted to be un-de-grandfathered by presidential fiat without benefit of law, and you still can't buy it, what can you do?

 

I'd suggest throwing any idiot who voted for it out, at the first possible opportunity.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 3 weeks later...

So, as the ACA debacle continues, how did Dear Leader manage to dig his hole so freaking deep?

 

Even the under-35 set think he sucks.

 

In his first term, he did stuff like the $800 billion "stimulus" which stimulated nothing other than government spending.

 

States loved it, they reduced their borrowing dollar for dollar. People mostly saved any tax savings. There were no "shovel ready" jobs, only subsidies for union members. All of that bounced off of most people. Most didn't understand it and it didn't much affect them. They yawned. So did the economy.

 

He tried for "climate change" legislation to restrict coal mining and use, etc. That failed, but nobody much noticed except a few coal miners and companies in West Virginia and Kentucky, and who cares about them, anyway?

 

He did "cash for clunkers," perhaps the dumbest idea of all time. Very Luddite. All that did was drive up the price of used cars, but that didn't affect very many people because people weren't buying many cars, new or used.

 

He got the ACA passed into law, but it was frontloaded on benefits like perpetual children staying on policies until age 26, and backloaded on taxes and other costs, so it all sounded good.

 

Didn't really affect too many people since most of it was years away from implementation. Even though most didn't much like it no matter how many speeches he made, it was no big deal, only 50% of the country wanted it repealed. The repeated outright lies about keeping your coverage and doctors kept people calm.

 

He ran 4 consecutive trillion dollar federal budget deficits, but the long-term implications of that was over the heads of most people and had no immediate effect on them, so they ignored it.

 

The answer to the question is simple.

 

SCREW AROUND WITH SOMETHING THAT NEGATIVELY AFFECTS ALMOST EVERYONE.

 

Of all the over-reaching, ONLY the ACA will affect 100 to 200 hundred million people directly.

 

Nothing else could hold a candle to the ACA in terms of personal damage.

 

Higher premiums, higher deductibles, worse coverage in terms of pay-out, smaller doctor and hospital networks, but, of course, coverage for stuff you don't need, want or care about will be the absolute best. I'm sure every single male here is highly concerned with his maternity and birth control coverage, not to mention pediatric dental care for children they don't have.

 

Coverage disrupted. Doctors disrupted. Hospitals disrupted. Treatment disrupted. You disrupted.

 

All to do what? Cover a few more people?

 

The old chesnut was 57 million uninsured. Problem with that is that only about 35 million were American citizens. And the problem with that number is that most of them were already eligible for Medicaid and didn't care -- or were young and didn't care -- or were financially well-off and could pay for their own care. Which only left maybe 3 to 5 million.

 

So, how smart is it to disrupt the entire health care system, 1/6th of the entire economy to pick up that last 1 or 2%?

 

Did anyone tell them that about 90% of the people with insurance were happy with their insurance?

 

Over the next 10 months I'm waiting for the outrage to build to def-con 5 as the next 100 million people find out that they have been screwed over in the interest of facilitating some faculty-lounge idea of how health insurance and health care should work.

 

Then, there's the back-end of the system that hasn't been written yet. And more doctors opting out of anything to do with a government system -- Medicare, Medicaid, ACA -- due to crummy reimbursement rates (50% already won't accept new Medcaid patients.) Concierge care, anyone? And insurance companies opting out, or forced into bankruptcy because they can't get paid because healthcare.turd is FUBAR.

 

And then, the final devastating realization that the goofy initial premise of the entire ridiculous undertaking was totally mistaken -- that you could induce rational, young, healthy people to buy a grossly overpriced product so that they can subsidize oldsters and the unhealthy.

 

All of this supposedly directed and overseen by a guy who has never run so much as a lemonade stand, but who thinks anything he says in a speech is true. The ACA is wonderful! Because I said so!

 

We're 11 months from an election. His co-conspirators will eventually run away from this total, ongoing disaster like their hair is on fire. The only question will be whether Congress will remain veto-proof and impeachment-proof.

 

This will take many more months and horror stories to fully play out. Never forget that this is the government we're talking about, so absolutely nothing is beyond the realm of possibility in terms of unexpected consequences. Murphy's Law is always hard at work, as has already been conclusively demonstrated.

 

I'm going to be enjoying every single minute of it simply because I told anyone who would listen 5 years ago what the end result would be.

 

The Marlins think they have PR problems? That's as nothing compared to the ACA. It only gets worse as time goes on.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I've only seen polls as high as 80% satisfaction with current plans. Regardless, that is pretty damn high, 80% is about as much satisfaction as any service industry could hope for. I also recall a gallup poll that indicated 50% of the uninsured were satisfied with that state.

 

The Kaiser Family Foundation (a group in favor the ACA and single payer policies) estimated the number of uninsured that earn less than $50k, will not have insurance within 6 months, and do not qualify for pre-ACA government coverage at 8.2m people. Those are the people that "cannot afford" and do not have government aid. 20% of the uninsured are not legal residents of the US per the census. I cannot find any figures that relate the 8.2m people count against legal status.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On docs accepting Medicaid -

Most doctors still reject Medicaid as program expansion nears

 

Because of the program’s history of low payments, fewer than half of U.S. doctors and other health care professionals accept Medicaid patients, according to a recent study.

 

Of more than 1 million physicians, therapists and counselors nationwide, only 43 percent accept Medicaid, according to a new study by HealthPocket, a technology firm that compares and ranks health plans.

http://www.mcclatchydc.com/2013/05/13/191105/most-doctors-still-reject-medicaid.html

 

On satisfaction with health insurance -

2013 Health and Voluntary Workplace Benefits Survey: Nearly 90% of Workers Satisfied With Their Own Health Plan

http://www.ebri.org/pdf/notespdf/EBRI_Notes_09_Sept-13_WBS.pdf

 

On the 57 mill (or whatever other bogus number has ever been tossed around) try this:

 

http://www.enttoday.org/details/article/531807/A_Myth_of_Modern_Medicine_There_are_40_million_Americans_with_No_Access_to_Healt.html

 

The bottom line is that after illegals, the Medicaid eligible but not enrolled, the young who will never buy anything, the well-off who don't need to buy anything, and those who are between coverage, there are very few left.

 

Here's another breakdown based on 46 million "uninsured':

http://spectator.org/articles/41931/myth-46-million

 

10 million illegals. 14 mill Medicaid eligible. 18 mill with income over 50K. 18 mill under age 34. Some overlap on those categories, but not that many left involuntarily uncovered.

 

The entire "uninsured" argument was and is bloated and bogus. Whether it's 3 or 5 or 8 million actual long-term uninsured who actually want coverage, it's a relatively minor problem that certainly didn't require upending 1/6th of the entire economy to fix.

 

But, now, with our shiny new highly dysfunctional ACA, we have more uninsured than before solely because of the ACA.

 

Close enough for government work.

 

Sit back and enjoy the ongoing meltdown. It's got a very good chance of disabusing a lot of people of the silly notion that government is any good at doing anything other than national defense.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

This thread is quite old. Please consider starting a new thread rather than reviving this one.

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Restore formatting

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

 Share



×
×
  • Create New...