Latest problem with Obamacare. Too many people now have access to healthcare.
- Thread starter BornRuff
- Start date
"The estimated net costs in 2014 stem almost entirely from spending for subsidies that will be provided through exchanges and from an increase in spending for Medicaid. For the 2015–2024 period, the projected net costs consist of the following:
Gross costs of $2,004 billion for Medicaid, the Children’s Health Insurance Program (CHIP), subsidies and related spending for insurance obtained through exchanges, and tax credits for small employers; and
Receipts of $517 billion from penalties on certain uninsured people and certain employers, an excise tax on high-premium insurance plans, and other budgetary effects—mostly increases in tax revenues...."
...
Obamacare is many things, inter alia, health insurance, the redistribution of income, central planning, and the growth of the federal govt.
What happens when a limited resource like health care experiences a rapid growth in demand?
I must ask, is there actually anyone out there who is opposed to adequate & universal health care for every person on this planet? It would sure appear from some of the comments that there are some who don't like this utopian ideal.
No one was denied treatment under former law. A system of rationing existed, but in a different manner than Obamacare's rationing. The problem isn't providing low quality health care to the uninsured. The problem is the empowerment of govt. at the expense of health care that the overwhelming majority found satisfactory.
What happens when a limited resource like health care experiences a rapid increase in demand?
Is this a joke? You can't seriously believe this. Millions of people were denied healthcare because they couldn't afford it. This includes people who had insurance, but didn't have the right insurance, or couldn't pay the exorbitant copays.
You demean yourself.
Are you suggesting there will be no rationing under Obamacare?
What do you think this proves? This is the exact breakdown of how this equals 1.5 trillion, not 2.5 trillion.
A trillion dollars is not a rounding error. It is a pretty significant sum.
I answered this question for you already. Why do you not respond to that instead of just asking the same question over and over again?
Do you think asking this question leads to a reason why people shouldn't have access to healthcare? It is pretty ghoulish to say that other people should be denied such a basic human necessity because you don't want anything to change for yourself in the slightest.
What happens to the quality of health care when a limited resource experiences a rapid increase in demand?
Healthcare is being managed by the exact same people who managed it before, the insurance companies. Why would you expect any material difference in the coverage provided?
Lol, again? Read the damn responses instead of asking the same question over and over again.
The law prohibited hospitals from denying any one emergency care. Emergency care was provided to anyone who showed up. Moreover, community hospitals and clinics provided a further source of health care.
Obamacare has not ended rationing on non-emergency care. It has simply empowered govt. affiliated panels to make the determination.
Good grief, is that your new word for "dead panels"? How many times do I have to tell you that the exact same people are making health care decisions as were before. It is still the insurance companies.
Please name this "government affiliated panel" you speak of.
As for the rest of this, having a law that says hospitals have to stabilize people who show up in their emergency rooms in crisis is not health care. It is stupidity. It makes people wait until preventable things become very expensive emergencies, provides no help beyond just making sure they don't die right then and there, and provides no compensation for hospitals for the care they provide.
Community clinics provide some help in some areas, but it is very far from comprehensive healthcare and only helps a portion of the population.
Obama said that Obamacare would be priced at $900 billion on a gross basis over ten years. He lied. The cost is over $2 trillion gross over ten years.
If I felt that you answered my question I wouldn't have repeated it. I still don't think you have answered the question.
I don't have a problem with establishing universal coverage on a state by state basis using the military budget as the source of funding. I have a problem with empowering the federal govt. in a way that will cause it to borrow more and increase the national debt. Increasing the national debt borrows from the future of generations to come in order to fund present consumption.
Don't create straw men. It's unfair, detracts from our conversation, and doesn't work with anyone who is persistent.
It wasn't necessary to empower the federal govt. in order to provide health care to people with such a poorly thought out legislative chimera.
I beg to differ. Obamacare changed the healthcare and health insurance system the same way a public utility commission changes the production, rates and distribution of utilities. In the process Obamacare empowered govt. Empowering govt. produces adverse unintended consequences.
I just don't think you are engaging me in dialogue.
Independent Payment Advisory Board (IPAB).
I don't agree with you. Obamacare will have the effect of increasing societal costs while decreasing overall quality.
One size doesn't have to fit all. Let a thousand flowers bloom. Allow each state to find it's own way. This is what is referred to as the "laboratory of democracy."
This is dumb. Just admit you had your numbers wrong. First you claimed that the CBO claimed that it cost 2.5 trillion, when the CBO clearly says that it costs 1.5 trillion.
Then you adjust your claim down to 2 trillion and claim you were talking about the gross cost, which makes no sense. The project has 2 trillion in expenditures and ober 500 billion in receipts. The cost to the taxpayer is 1.5 trillion.
This is not a philosophical issue. I answered the question.
http://forums.canadiancontent.net/u...t-problem-obamacare-too-many.html#post1898665
If you have problems with my answer, address them.
Providing healthcare costs money. There is no getting around that.
Please explain how the health delivery system is any different now? How has the government's role changed in that regard?
The system is the exact same system you had before. All the government has done is ensure that more people are included in the system.
I am doing my part. If you ignore what I write I can't help you with that.
This is a great example of your ignorance on this topic.
The IPAB applies to Medicare. Medicare has always been a government program and there have always been government employees working to keep costs down.
Why?
Lol, how long have the states had to do that and how has that worked out?
People shouldn't be used as science experiments.
The only real problem is that all citizens still don't have universal care and the private
managed care HMO are still allowed to extort money from the system.
managed care HMO are still allowed to extort money from the system.
Mostly what I'm getting from all this is that there are far too many programs and insurance providers. All with massive bureaucracies to ensure trillions are spent on health care but very few people are getting any kind of treatment.
I don't think that including the insurance companies was ideal in any way. There is absolutely zero prospect of a single payer system in the US though, so the best they really can do is get more people into the existing system.
Not only the number of payers but also the sheer number of programs. Seems like every tax bracket gets its own set of bureaucrats.
Compose your emotions.
I readily admit that $2.5 trillion gross is greater than $2.024 trillion gross. I used the greater number in error. I also readily admit that $2.024 trillion gross over ten years is far in excess of the $900 billion gross figure over ten years used by Obama when he lied about the costs of Obamacare.
Didn't Obama use a gross figure when he lied about the cost of Obamacare?
Again, I don't think you did answer my question.
I don't think that you are addressing either the decrease in quality that comes from increased demand imposed on a limited resource. Obamacare does nothing to increase the supply of quality health care, except through possibly increasing the national debt in a way which isn't sustainable over the long term. All things are related.
How will this additional cost be funded over the long term? We know that Obama's numbers were a lie. The CBO report tells us that.
Please explain how the health delivery system is any different now? How has the government's role changed in that regard?
The govt. has seized control of healthcare for 310 million people, changed the configuration of coverage to require mandatory coverages for items that have no relevance to many individuals in order to subsidize other individuals. In doing so it has forced health insurers to offer coverages that aren't reasonably tailored to individual choice. All old men are now required to obtain coverage that provides for pre-natal care. Why?
Obamacare is many things including, but not limited to, a redistribution of wealth through cental planning and empowerment of govt. under an ill-conceived scheme passed on a straight party line vote. If this scheme had been carefully considered it would not have been necessary for Obama's Administration to delay implementation of various parts of the legislation thirty times.
I don't think you're addressing my questions. You simply talk about the nobility of the objective and then dismiss my points by calling them matters of philosophy or stating rhetorically that healthcare is expensive.
The IAPB was created by Obamacare for the purpose of saving money from the health care of seniors covered under Medicare so the savings would be available to fund Obamacare coverage to non-seniors. The IAPB is a rationing board and a funding mechanism.
Societal costs by increased premiums and deductibles most Americans will experience under the exchanges set by the ACA, and the same for large companies that retain health care coverage for personnel by deciding not to force them into the exchanges. Small to mid size companies will reduce the size of operations in order to come below the threshold requirments for the employer mandate. Senior healthcare in the end of life phase will be radically reduced that their lives will be ending prematurely. All for the sake of empowering Big Brother.
The states have plenty of time to work this out in their individual ways.
That's what's happening now under the ACA.