[la_mode]

Most (at least a large percentage) of the low-income people who will be signing up for it, will not be able to afford the monthly payments. It's not cheap at all, the most basic plan for a healthy 25-35 year old man is something like $65, and this can be higher/lower depending on region.

Before, a lot of these people were probably going to the public hospital or on medicaid if they qualified. Now, a lot of them will be signing up for this "Obamacare" and not be able to afford it.

This hasn't been addressed, because it's such a divisive topic and both left/right want to argue till the cows come home, like everything else in American politics.

They won't be able to afford the penalty either for not having health insurance, so is this really just a way to rob the poor of the little money they have? What will happen to the millions who get insurance via Obamacare, but cannot afford the payments? That's going to end up being the majority.


*let's avoid whether you agree with Obamacare or not, there's enough of those already

[eradicator]

Oh the people on medicaid will still be on medicaid, make no mistake about it.

[la_mode]

Another way to look at it...could Obamacare essentially cancel itself out when the majority that sign up for it, can't afford it?

[Dr. Howard]

(10-08-2013 11:44 PM)master_thespian Wrote:  

Oh the people on medicaid will still be on medicaid, make no mistake about it.

sort of. Thats the plan right now, that if you are FEDERALLY eligible for medicaid based on your income then you get ZERO discount on an insurance exchange. You pay as much as Mr. 100k+. The idea is that you're already eligible for medicaid and should be on that.

here's where the plan falls down. State's that don't participate in medicaid or have suspended it. TN for example is not taking new enrollment in its medicaid program. So, those people are fucked by obamacare.

[shameus_o'reaaly]

I'm a Brit, so I may be missing important points of Obamacare, but:
It takes 8 years to train as a doctor in the states, right?
Currently, since the options are Medicaid/Medicare or private insurance, the choice is between
cost of care and quality of care, right? You can pay through a provider, or take your time in a public hospital/welfare clinic?
The ACA aims at providing the same level of care to all comers, regardless of whether they have a contributory
healthcare plan, right?
So why has nobody stopped to think that, between the inception of the Affordable Care Act, and about 10-15 years down the line, it will cost more and more money to get less and less access to fewer and fewer doctors, nurses, consultants and auxiliaries?
Where will they recruit new doctors when the pay, prestige and benefits of the job vanish?
Just a thought. The whole idea strikes me as a logistical nightmare

[It_is_my_time]

Quote:

So why has nobody stopped to think that, between the inception of the Affordable Care Act, and about 10-15 years down the line, it will cost more and more money to get less and less access to fewer and fewer doctors, nurses, consultants and auxiliaries?
Where will they recruit new doctors when the pay, prestige and benefits of the job vanish?
Just a thought. The whole idea strikes me as a logistical nightmare

That is why over 60% of the country is against it now. Why those 12% who are against it still voted for Obama (round about) in 2012, I have no idea.

It is a cluster. And the latest report says it will now cost more than if they did nothing at all. Much less all the drawbacks you have pointed out.

That is why the govt. is shut down. The Republicans are trying their best to at least stall it for one year to give the people a year to get ready for it and maybe vote in a Republican senate in 2014 to ax it for good.

[The_CEO]

(10-09-2013 02:23 PM)shameus_oreaaly Wrote:  

I'm a Brit, so I may be missing important points of Obamacare, but:
It takes 8 years to train as a doctor in the states, right?
Currently, since the options are Medicaid/Medicare or private insurance, the choice is between
cost of care and quality of care, right? You can pay through a provider, or take your time in a public hospital/welfare clinic?
The ACA aims at providing the same level of care to all comers, regardless of whether they have a contributory
healthcare plan, right?
So why has nobody stopped to think that, between the inception of the Affordable Care Act, and about 10-15 years down the line, it will cost more and more money to get less and less access to fewer and fewer doctors, nurses, consultants and auxiliaries?
Where will they recruit new doctors when the pay, prestige and benefits of the job vanish?
Just a thought. The whole idea strikes me as a logistical nightmare

No. It's not like in the UK. The ACA doesn't have anything to do with a "public" hospital or "welfare clinic".
It creates an exchange (marketplace) that pools healthy and sick people together to keep the rates down. As it was before, only old and sick people bought insurance, and if you had a pre-existing condition, you were excluded altogether. In the ACA, coverage is through private insurance co's on the exchange.

[The_CEO]

(10-09-2013 02:09 PM)wiscanada Wrote:  

(10-08-2013 11:44 PM)master_thespian Wrote:  

Oh the people on medicaid will still be on medicaid, make no mistake about it.

sort of. Thats the plan right now, that if you are FEDERALLY eligible for medicaid based on your income then you get ZERO discount on an insurance exchange. You pay as much as Mr. 100k+. The idea is that you're already eligible for medicaid and should be on that.

here's where the plan falls down. State's that don't participate in medicaid or have suspended it. TN for example is not taking new enrollment in its medicaid program. So, those people are fucked by obamacare.

Under the Affordable Care Act, states were offered Federal $ to expand Medicaid to cover the poorest uninsured. The supreme crt ruling made it so states that wanted to could opt out. That is why as you point out, the poorest are still not covered. It is a consequence of certain states opting out though, not by design from the ACA.

[thegmanifesto]

(10-09-2013 02:30 PM)It_is_my_time Wrote:  

That is why over 60% of the country is against it now. Why those 12% who are against it still voted for Obama (round about) in 2012, I have no idea.

Well, it was either Obama or male cheerleader Mitt Romney.

No red pill man could ever vote for a male cheerleader in good conscience.

[Katatonic]

(10-09-2013 02:41 PM)The_CEO Wrote:  

(10-09-2013 02:09 PM)wiscanada Wrote:  

(10-08-2013 11:44 PM)master_thespian Wrote:  

Oh the people on medicaid will still be on medicaid, make no mistake about it.

sort of. Thats the plan right now, that if you are FEDERALLY eligible for medicaid based on your income then you get ZERO discount on an insurance exchange. You pay as much as Mr. 100k+. The idea is that you're already eligible for medicaid and should be on that.

here's where the plan falls down. State's that don't participate in medicaid or have suspended it. TN for example is not taking new enrollment in its medicaid program. So, those people are fucked by obamacare.

Under the Affordable Care Act, states were offered Federal $ to expand Medicaid to cover the poorest uninsured. The supreme crt ruling made it so states that wanted to could opt out. That is why as you point out, the poorest are still not covered. It is a consequence of certain states opting out though, not by design from the ACA.

What's so fucking scary is that people honestly think those were their only choices. That's also why the government acts acts with impunity when it comes to violating our rights at home and of those abroad.

[Enigma]

(10-09-2013 02:23 PM)shameus_oreaaly Wrote:  

I'm a Brit, so I may be missing important points of Obamacare, but:
It takes 8 years to train as a doctor in the states, right?
Currently, since the options are Medicaid/Medicare or private insurance, the choice is between
cost of care and quality of care, right? You can pay through a provider, or take your time in a public hospital/welfare clinic?
The ACA aims at providing the same level of care to all comers, regardless of whether they have a contributory
healthcare plan, right?
So why has nobody stopped to think that, between the inception of the Affordable Care Act, and about 10-15 years down the line, it will cost more and more money to get less and less access to fewer and fewer doctors, nurses, consultants and auxiliaries?
Where will they recruit new doctors when the pay, prestige and benefits of the job vanish?
Just a thought. The whole idea strikes me as a logistical nightmare

There are actually doctors in the rest of the world. In fact, there are doctors who get a Western education and then return to a country with lower wages to practice medicine.

If less people want to become doctors for money and prestige, the outrageous education prices will go down and the people who are actually interested in helping people but couldn't afford inflated medical school costs will take their place.

I don't think the Affordable Care Act is the right idea but using a broken system as evidence against it is ridiculous.

There's also so much misinformation surrounding the subject that most people don't know anything about it. I was worried about it myself because it is "so expensive" yet opting out actually costs just under $100 for the first year. People pay more than that for their Netflix streaming account.

The OP quotes $65 per month but I was paying around that before I even hit 25 and was getting basic coverage through my employer.

[It_is_my_time]

(10-09-2013 02:45 PM)thegmanifesto Wrote:  

(10-09-2013 02:30 PM)It_is_my_time Wrote:  

That is why over 60% of the country is against it now. Why those 12% who are against it still voted for Obama (round about) in 2012, I have no idea.

Well, it was either Obama or male cheerleader Mitt Romney.

No red pill man could ever vote for a male cheerleader in good conscience.

I'd take a male cheerleader over a proud admitted feminist running for the National Organization for Women party.

With that said, Gary Johnson was the best red pill candidate this last election.

[It_is_my_time]

Quote:

If less people want to become doctors for money and prestige, the outrageous education prices will go down and the people who are actually interested in helping people but couldn't afford inflated medical school costs will take their place.

I don't think the Affordable Care Act is the right idea but using a broken system as evidence against it is ridiculous.

There's also so much misinformation surrounding the subject that most people don't know anything about it. I was worried about it myself because it is "so expensive" yet opting out actually costs just under $100 for the first year. People pay more than that for their Netflix streaming account.

Great, so we have more people with insurance to see the doctor for every little ache, and now less doctors due to less pay and prestige. That isn't a great recipe at all.

To opt out the first year it is under $100. But it rises quickly after that for the next 5 years.

[The_CEO]

(10-09-2013 03:03 PM)It_is_my_time Wrote:  

Quote:

If less people want to become doctors for money and prestige, the outrageous education prices will go down and the people who are actually interested in helping people but couldn't afford inflated medical school costs will take their place.

I don't think the Affordable Care Act is the right idea but using a broken system as evidence against it is ridiculous.

There's also so much misinformation surrounding the subject that most people don't know anything about it. I was worried about it myself because it is "so expensive" yet opting out actually costs just under $100 for the first year. People pay more than that for their Netflix streaming account.

Great, so we have more people with insurance to see the doctor for every little ache, and now less doctors due to less pay and prestige. That isn't a great recipe at all.

To opt out the first year it is under $100. But it rises quickly after that for the next 5 years.

People can't go 'see the doctor for every little ache'. They have an insurance policy with a private insurer. Like with any insurance policy, some things are covered. Some aren't.
Previously, uninsured people would go to the ER with "every little ache" leaving tax payers with the bill.

[Handsome Creepy Eel]

Quote:

The Republicans are trying their best to at least stall it for one year to give the people a year to get ready for it and maybe vote in a Republican senate in 2014 to ax it for good.

So all of this is some kind of overarching plan by our Republican saviors? I feel better already, knowing that they have everyone's best interests in mind. Just gotta hunker down until 2014 and it's all gonna be fine

[Therapsid]

This was a problem I had with Obamacare (and Romneycare before it) from the get-go. It means that poor and working class people have a lot less disposable income.

So, okay maybe some guy can just afford paying for a basic plan on the health care exchange.

But it could mean he's now living completely paycheck to paycheck and can't save for the future.

Remember - the whole rationale of the Affordable Care Act is that healthy young people who rarely need medical care will end up subsidizing old and sick people.

But when you think about it, doesn't this just mean that young people will have less wherewithal to save for the future, whether for retirement, to buy a home, or start their own business.

The program could end up reducing economic mobility, especially if it also has negative impacts on small and medium sized businesses and job creation.

[It_is_my_time]

(10-09-2013 03:20 PM)The_CEO Wrote:  

(10-09-2013 03:03 PM)It_is_my_time Wrote:  

Quote:

If less people want to become doctors for money and prestige, the outrageous education prices will go down and the people who are actually interested in helping people but couldn't afford inflated medical school costs will take their place.

I don't think the Affordable Care Act is the right idea but using a broken system as evidence against it is ridiculous.

There's also so much misinformation surrounding the subject that most people don't know anything about it. I was worried about it myself because it is "so expensive" yet opting out actually costs just under $100 for the first year. People pay more than that for their Netflix streaming account.

Great, so we have more people with insurance to see the doctor for every little ache, and now less doctors due to less pay and prestige. That isn't a great recipe at all.

To opt out the first year it is under $100. But it rises quickly after that for the next 5 years.

People can't go 'see the doctor for every little ache'. They have an insurance policy with a private insurer. Like with any insurance policy, some things are covered. Some aren't.
Previously, uninsured people would go to the ER with "every little ache" leaving tax payers with the bill.

With more people being insured there will be more people visiting the same number of doctors.

We are already facing a doctor shortage due to feminist quotas at medical schools ensuring a certain % of medical students are women, and then a hefty % of those women cut their hours or quit all together to have families.

Then you add in your dream of cutting out the doctors doing it for money, and there will be doctors who quit over the massive beauracratic paper work and the lost revenue, you get a larger doctor shortage.

Which means less doctors for more people. Simple supply and demand.

[It_is_my_time]

(10-09-2013 03:23 PM)Handsome Creepy Eel Wrote:  

Quote:

The Republicans are trying their best to at least stall it for one year to give the people a year to get ready for it and maybe vote in a Republican senate in 2014 to ax it for good.

So all of this is some kind of overarching plan by our Republican saviors? I feel better already, knowing that they have everyone's best interests in mind. Just gotta hunker down until 2014 and it's all gonna be fine

I'm guessing since you post here you are red pill. If so, you should be supporting the Republicans in trying to repeal a feminist law that takes money from men and gives it to women.

I am guessing you are a young male as well, under 35. If so, you should doubly be cheering on the Republicans to repeal this thing.

[The_CEO]

(10-09-2013 03:31 PM)Therapsid Wrote:  

This was a problem I had with Obamacare (and Romneycare before it) from the get-go. It means that poor and working class people have a lot less disposable income.

So, okay maybe some guy can just afford paying for a basic plan on the health care exchange.

But it could mean he's now living completely paycheck to paycheck and can't save for the future.

Remember - the whole rationale of the Affordable Care Act is that healthy young people who rarely need medical care will end up subsidizing old and sick people.

But when you think about it, doesn't this just mean that young people will have less wherewithal to save for the future, whether for retirement, to buy a home, or start their own business.

The program could end up reducing economic mobility, especially if it also has negative impacts on small and medium sized businesses and job creation.

Assuming that this hypothetical middle class or poor person is not getting insurance from work, then it's much better for them to get it on the exchange-marketplace, and also not be rejected for some pre-existing condition.

As for economic mobility, the ACA and exchanges are great for entrepreneurs - they can obtain an individual policy that is not tied to traditional employment. And, anyone 26 or younger can stay on their parent's policy.

30 million people who previously had no insurance can now get covered by buying insurance and taking "personal responsibility". Romneycare/the Aca derived from the conservative Heritage Foundation for that reason.

[Handsome Creepy Eel]

(10-09-2013 03:50 PM)It_is_my_time Wrote:  

(10-09-2013 03:23 PM)Handsome Creepy Eel Wrote:  

Quote:

The Republicans are trying their best to at least stall it for one year to give the people a year to get ready for it and maybe vote in a Republican senate in 2014 to ax it for good.

So all of this is some kind of overarching plan by our Republican saviors? I feel better already, knowing that they have everyone's best interests in mind. Just gotta hunker down until 2014 and it's all gonna be fine

I'm guessing since you post here you are red pill. If so, you should be supporting the Republicans in trying to repeal a feminist law that takes money from men and gives it to women.

I am guessing you are a young male as well, under 35. If so, you should doubly be cheering on the Republicans to repeal this thing.

I live in a country with universal health care (even if it's not so high quality, we're not that developed after all), where health care is funded from a 13% "health care contribution" tax on income. That means that not only women use up more of health care resources (as everywhere), but also the men (since they earn more) pay more than 50% of it! That's double the injustice!

Yet I've never felt threatened by this or spared even one thought that things should be some other way. I just don't see it. If we're going to fight unfair female advantages in society, quotas and divorce laws/practices would be at the top of the list, and universal health care somewhere far at the bottom. I guess it's because divorce rulings and anti-DV laws are openly malicious and made to destroy men, whereas universal health care just seems to favor women as a coincidence.

[It_is_my_time]

(10-09-2013 03:59 PM)Handsome Creepy Eel Wrote:  

(10-09-2013 03:50 PM)It_is_my_time Wrote:  

(10-09-2013 03:23 PM)Handsome Creepy Eel Wrote:  

Quote:

The Republicans are trying their best to at least stall it for one year to give the people a year to get ready for it and maybe vote in a Republican senate in 2014 to ax it for good.

So all of this is some kind of overarching plan by our Republican saviors? I feel better already, knowing that they have everyone's best interests in mind. Just gotta hunker down until 2014 and it's all gonna be fine

I'm guessing since you post here you are red pill. If so, you should be supporting the Republicans in trying to repeal a feminist law that takes money from men and gives it to women.

I am guessing you are a young male as well, under 35. If so, you should doubly be cheering on the Republicans to repeal this thing.

I live in a country with universal health care (even if it's not so high quality, we're not that developed after all), where health care is funded from a 13% "health care contribution" tax on income. That means that not only women use up more of health care resources (as everywhere), but also the men (since they earn more) pay more than 50% of it! That's double the injustice!

Yet I've never felt threatened by this or spared even one thought that things should be some other way. I just don't see it. If we're going to fight unfair female advantages in society, quotas and divorce laws/practices would be at the top of the list, and universal health care somewhere far at the bottom.

Oh, you are not even in America..

That is fine that universal healthcare would be at your bottom. It wouldn't be at my bottom, it is just another way women steal money from men by using the govt's guns pointed in the back of the men, so that the women don't respect or want men.

Add to that, the inferior service you get in return for paying more so women can pay less.

In the USA, insurance companies actually used to charge women more because they use the services more. Obama the feminist made sure to get rid of this so men now will pay A LOT more than before on average.

I'm not saying our previous system was perfect, but it is far better than this giant failure headed our way.

[Enigma]

(10-09-2013 03:03 PM)It_is_my_time Wrote:  

Quote:

If less people want to become doctors for money and prestige, the outrageous education prices will go down and the people who are actually interested in helping people but couldn't afford inflated medical school costs will take their place.

I don't think the Affordable Care Act is the right idea but using a broken system as evidence against it is ridiculous.

There's also so much misinformation surrounding the subject that most people don't know anything about it. I was worried about it myself because it is "so expensive" yet opting out actually costs just under $100 for the first year. People pay more than that for their Netflix streaming account.

Great, so we have more people with insurance to see the doctor for every little ache, and now less doctors due to less pay and prestige. That isn't a great recipe at all.

To opt out the first year it is under $100. But it rises quickly after that for the next 5 years.

Less doctors looking for pay and prestige means inflated medical school costs go down. "Simple supply and demand." Cheaper medical school costs means more people going to medical school who previously couldn't afford it. Maybe we'll actually get some doctors who care about people and have a decent bedside manner. People don't stop being doctors because they get paid less.

Look at every other country in the world. You can go to third world countries and get treatment in beautiful facilities from Western trained medical professionals for a fraction of the cost. The costs in the US are simply inflated as a huge cash grab.

People are not going to be seeing the doctor any more than they already do. You act like this is free medical coverage or something. As someone else pointed out, the people who didn't have coverage before were just going to the ER and not paying a penny.

I quoted the first year numbers as an example of the level of misinformation being spread. Yes, it will go up, which is the reason that I specified first year. I even stated that I don't think the ACA is the right idea but you're supporting a system that anyone in there right mind sees as inherently broken.

[It_is_my_time]

(10-09-2013 04:06 PM)Enigma Wrote:  

(10-09-2013 03:03 PM)It_is_my_time Wrote:  

Quote:

If less people want to become doctors for money and prestige, the outrageous education prices will go down and the people who are actually interested in helping people but couldn't afford inflated medical school costs will take their place.

I don't think the Affordable Care Act is the right idea but using a broken system as evidence against it is ridiculous.

There's also so much misinformation surrounding the subject that most people don't know anything about it. I was worried about it myself because it is "so expensive" yet opting out actually costs just under $100 for the first year. People pay more than that for their Netflix streaming account.

Great, so we have more people with insurance to see the doctor for every little ache, and now less doctors due to less pay and prestige. That isn't a great recipe at all.

To opt out the first year it is under $100. But it rises quickly after that for the next 5 years.

Less doctors looking for pay and prestige means inflated medical school costs go down. "Simple supply and demand." Cheaper medical school costs means more people going to medical school who previously couldn't afford it. Maybe we'll actually get some doctors who care about people and have a decent bedside manner. People don't stop being doctors because they get paid less.

Look at every other country in the world. You can go to third world countries and get treatment in beautiful facilities from Western trained medical professionals for a fraction of the cost. The costs in the US are simply inflated as a huge cash grab.

People are not going to be seeing the doctor any more than they already do. You act like this is free medical coverage or something. As someone else pointed out, the people who didn't have coverage before were just going to the ER and not paying a penny.

I quoted the first year numbers as an example of the level of misinformation being spread. Yes, it will go up, which is the reason that I specified first year. I even stated that I don't think the ACA is the right idea but you're supporting a system that anyone in there right mind sees as inherently broken.

Prices may go down, or hospitals may just jack up other things to cover for uncertainity.

But we do know there will be less doctors for more people = worse service. Just simple economics.

I don't see any reason at all medical school costs will go down greatly. At least not any time soon.

Yes, the prices are inflated here compared to other countries. There is a trade off.

Like I said, the previous system was far from perfect. But it is better than a 1,200 page bill passed by a feminist who is backed by large corporations looking to destroy their small business competitors.

[la_mode]

Back to topic, what's going to happen when either a substantial amount or majority of those who signed up for health insurance via "Obamacare" cannot afford it?

All these people who were in favor of it thought it was going to be free like the NHS or whatever they have in Canada, when it's really just a merging of private insurers/government.

[TheSlayer]

(10-09-2013 04:42 PM)la_mode Wrote:  

whatever they have in Canada

We have publicly funded health care in Canada and I wouldn't trade it for anything.