Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Killing the mandate results in increased costs for everyone else. The more people that are insured, the cheaper it is for everyone else. With fewer insured, there are less people to cover the costs of an expensive to treat patient. It's simply the law of averages. So yes, Trump and the GOP have increased health care costs for those who will remain insured. That is a fact.
Not only that, but this process then selects for the sick and against the well patients. So the ratio of high to low HC risk has to rise as do premiums.
sounds great, just convince Americans in there 20's & 30's they should be paying $500 -$1000 a month for insurance as well as a high deductible for something they won't use.
Wrong. OCare has been going up price wise since 2011 and more and more people can no longer afford. This disaster still lies at the feet of your savior.
People electing to walk away from expensive coverage is far different than people "losing" their coverage.
More Democrat lies.
not one ounce of cost controls were ever part of Obamacare, it was DOA right out of the box and has only gotten more and more expensive with practically no choices in care.
Killing the mandate results in increased costs for everyone else.The more people that are insured, the cheaper it is for everyone else. With fewer insured, there are less people to cover the costs of an expensive to treat patient. It's simply the law of averages. So yes, Trump and the GOP have increased health care costs for those who will remain insured. That is a fact.
A country like Canada can give health coverage for everyone at a lower cost because everyone has it. It costs them maybe a hundred a month (for some reason I remember $85 but that was years ago). We will never have that because of the Republican party.
Yeah....that's what we were told would happen.
........it didn't.
Because you can't expect insurance companies to provide minimum coverage requirements and cover preexisting conditions and not raise premiums and deductibles for everyone......even with an unconstitutional mandate.
We tried to tell you that was going to happen but you wouldn't hear a word of it and bought Obama's BS hook, line and sinker.
You still believe that the ACA has/had anything to do with lowering healthcare costs? Nothing in Obamacare addressed the cost of healthcare. It was a forced Ponzi scheme that gave Big Insurance a guaranteed customer base. There is nothing in there to control the cost of health care.
Exactly.
Obamacare was never meant to actually work as described.
Anyone who thought it would was a brain dead lemming.
It was designed to fail and to be a stepping stone to single payer.
They just never counted on Hillary losing the election.
Obamacare was never meant to actually work as described.
Anyone who thought it would was a brain dead lemming.
It was designed to fail and to be a stepping stone to single payer.
They just never counted on Hillary losing the election.
This idea that Obamacare was somehow a blend toward single payer is nonsense, total nonsense. Obamacare was a complicated bow to big business insurance, private markets. If Obamacare had been a public option, I would say that is a blend towards single payer.
Hillary proposed lowering the Medicare enrollment age. And that would been popular and have taken a larger burden off the private sector than the unpopular Mandate.
What a bunch of bs. Wait, you are actually onto something - it is difficult to make the insurance model to work for HC. You know why? We all have one unavoidable pre-existing condition, do you want to guess what is it?
And that's why rest of the developed world solves this differently.
Forcing insurance companies to cover preexisting conditions is like forcing car insurance companies to cover people who crash their car and then limp to the insurance company office to buy a policy.
What kind of insurance model would allow after the fact coverage without raising premiums and deductibles?
A not for profit one (at best).......which we don't have.
Forcing insurance companies to cover preexisting conditions is like forcing car insurance companies to cover people who crash their car and then limp to the insurance company office to buy a policy.
What kind of insurance model would allow after the fact coverage without raising premiums and deductibles?
A not for profit one (at best).......which we don't have.
And this is the crux of our HC conundrum. What to do with the poor, those with pre-exisiting and seniors?
Medicare works well, and Medicare itself is certainly is not for profit. Nor are the Medicaids.
You fail to educate us on 2 + 2 = 4 because, somehow, every other civilized country in the world covers ALL of their population including pre-existing....for 30-40% less money than we spend.
Oh, and they live longer also and have as good stats (infant mortality) - some better.
A lie? Well, then it's a lie that I can climb aboard an aluminum tube in the morning - full of kerosene - and go to all of these places.
In other words, you are living a lie inside your mind. It is one thing and one thing alone - the corporate profit motive - that makes our health care Hell on Earth. Of course, the rich want that money instead of using it for sick people.
But there would be an extra TRILLION per year if we had a decent system and everyone would be covered.
Since it appears you did the math (calling out lies means you really know), how much per person do we need to spend in the USA per year to cover everyone fully and with a decent first world set of health care programs?
$4K
5K
6K
7K
8K
9K
10K
11K
Japan spends around 3K, France about 6K. So what should it cost?
None of that is Obamacare.
Obamacare was the lie.
It was a deliberate and outright lie designed to screw up America's healthcare so badly that single payer would look good in comparison.
This idea that Obamacare was somehow a blend toward single payer is nonsense, total nonsense. Obamacare was a complicated bow to big business insurance, private markets. If Obamacare had been a public option, I would say that is a blend towards single payer.
Hillary proposed lowering the Medicare enrollment age. And that would been popular and have taken a larger burden off the private sector than the unpopular Mandate.
Despite the Left's infatuation with single payer, many Americans didn't want it.
They were too skeptical about things like long wait times, lack of choice and some government bureaucrat deciding what treatments they can or cannot have.
Obamacare's mission, aside from being a giant gift to insurance companies (to get them to endorse it and therefore endorse their own eventual demise) was to throw a monkey wrench into America's healthcare system and change peoples attitudes about accepting single payer.
Basically it had to make our existing system look bad enough to the average American that single payer would eventually look good in comparison.
It's the "frog in a pot of boiling water" method if winning people over to what you want them to do.....
You have to turn the heat up slowly.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
