BaalsTears;1899339 What happens when a limited resource like health care experiences a rapid growth in demand?[/QUOTE said:
Latest problem with Obamacare. Too many people now have access to healthcare.
- Thread starter BornRuff
- Start date
Did he? Please show me any sort of proof of this claim.
Talking about the cost of a program that has both revenues and expenditures only in terms of gross expenditures doesn't make any sense, so I am pretty skeptical that he ever spoke in those terms.
That is false. It puts more money into the system to pay for more staff and resources.
It will be funded the same way any other government expenditure is funded.
If you call setting basic minimums and then letting you buy insurance from whoever you want and for whatever you want "seizing control", so be it, but I don't think that is accurate.
The government is not preventing anyone from getting care for whatever they want.
You don't think that Medicare has always rationed healthcare? How on earth do you think they operate?
Medicare is a huge program. It is going to cost the US 8.1 trillion dollars over the next 10 years.
It would be incredibly irresponsible not to have people looking over that spending and looking at ways that costs can be kept down.
The ACA did not introduce the idea of having bureaucrats try to keep Medicare costs down. It just set up a new committee to do that.
Lol, do you have any examples of this actually happening? What sane company would do that rather than just pay the fine?
Why on earth do you think that seniors health care would be in any way reduced or their lives ended early? Are you going back to the death panels stupidity again?
They have plenty of time until what? People need health care now. They needed it 50 years ago.
Exactly how long is it ok to allow people to suffer without access to healthcare in the richest country in the world?
For me the problem is the ideal held by a lot of Americans and all the health insurance companies that a 'for profit' system is going to give the best healthcare to everyone. That is ridiculous! Universal healthcare, which every human is entitled to equally, doesn't come from a 'for profit' system. This is one area where capitalism is simply wrong. If that means it has to be controlled and administered by the feds so every person can have equal care then so be it. It far outweighs the negatives that come with the alternative. Remove profit from the system and it will be much more fundamentally sound and fair.
BT, you mention tailored coverage. You ask why a 50 year old man needs coverage with pre-natal care? I ask you why not have a system where all treatment is available to all people? Why would you promote a system where if I didn't buy coverage for endo-pancreatic carcinoma because I couldn't afford it I don't get care for it and people like you just watch me die? I don't in any way think ACA is perfect but it sure beats what was in place in the Loser States of America last year.
You buy more of the constrained resource if you're the provider. Demand just increased. That's a good thing.
Well we have universal health coverage here in Canada and we do not have a utopian system .
People waiting over a year in some instances to see a specialist is maybe universal but somewhat lacking in healthcare .
The tide in favor of ACA has changed as more people favor it:
New Poll Shows Voters in Red States Want to Expand Medicaid
by Sally Kohn Apr 8, 2014
A core part of Obamacare is popular in states from Kansas to Georgia where Republicans are blocking it. They’ll pay come November.
Republicans desperately hoping to focus the nation on Obamacare’s failures are being stymied by facts. The Affordable Care Act hit its March 31 goal of 7 million enrolled in private insurance plans and 3 million more have signed up for coverage under Medicaid. Now, Republicans face stiff opposition from voters in states where they blocked Medicaid expansion.
According to new polling by Public Policy Poling conducted for MoveOn, in voters support Medicaid expansion in key states by wide margins: 52 to 35 percent in Kansas, 58 to 33 percent in Florida, 59 to 30 percent in Pennsylvania, 54 to 38 percent in Georgia. All are states where Medicaid expansion has been blocked by Republican politicians. In Virginia, where the GOP has also blocked Medicaid expansion, a previous poll found that even a majority of state Republican voters support extending coverage for the state’s low-income residents. And other polls show that three-out-of-four Americans nationwide, including a majority of Republicans, support Medicaid expansion.
Nevertheless, Republicans are actively, single-handedly blocking health coverage for 5 million Americans in 24 states. One academic study suggests that of those 5 million, 10,000 Americans will die this year alone due to lack of insurance. The Medicaid expansion is the law of the land, it’s already paid for, and 5 million more Americans would be getting coverage if Republican politicians hadn’t taken it away because of petty partisanship. Largely because Republicans want to spite President Obama on a key piece of his namesake legislation, thousands of Americans may die.
Meanwhile Obamacare overall is getting more popular. Already, the components of the law were incredibly well-received and polls showed that a significant percentage of people saying they “opposed” Obamacare actually think the law doesn’t go far enough—as in, they support an even more progressive solution. Now, as the news comes that over 7 million Americans enrolled for insurance through the exchanges, polls show that even absolute support for Obamacare is on the rise. Obamacare is now not only more popular than President Obama (47 percent versus 46 percent favorability) but the law is wildly more popular than Congressional Republicans (only 18 percent favorability).
New Poll Shows Voters in Red States Want to Expand Medicaid - The Daily Beast
This is what happens when Medicaid is not expanded:
This 32-Year-Old Florida Woman Is Dead Because Her State Refused To Expand Medicaid | ThinkProgress
''Charlene Dill, a 32-year-old mother of three, collapsed and died on a stranger’s floor at the end of March. She was at an appointment to try to sell a vacuum cleaner, one of the three part-time jobs that she worked to try to make ends meet for her family. Her death was a result of a documented heart condition — and it could have been prevented.
Dill was uninsured, and she went years without the care she needed to address her chronic conditions because she couldn’t afford it.
Under the health reform law, which seeks to expand coverage to millions of low-income Americans, Dill wasn’t supposed to lack insurance. She was supposed to have access to a public health plan through the law’s expansion of the Medicaid program. But Dill, a Florida resident, is one of the millions of Americans living in a state that has refused to accept Obamacare’s Medicaid expansion"
Yeah, we have a lot of people here in Canada whining and complaining about our healthcare system (which I've used a lot in recent years and have personally found to be excellent) but do all the complainers ever wonder where the money is coming from to fund the system? I suggest too many people think someone else should be looking after them and maybe do a little more themselves to look after their health, like get off the couch and quit eating greasy Macs. Quit running to emergency for every little sniffle and hang nail. Before whining about healthcare add up all the money you spend smoking, drinking, gambling, eating junk foods and compare all that to what you spend on healthcare.
Oh really? Now that the ACA is law people are still going to die because they do not have insurance?
This doesn't get any better.
It doesn't really matter what you do there are always going to be people who are going to die!
The doctor's salaries are a fixed cost within the system just like nurses. The 'for profit' part that needs to go is all the insurance companies and private hospitals. Their need as corporations to maximize the ROI to shareholders means decisions are made based upon potential profits/losses instead of best care for the patient. To me any form of private health-care system is going to be bad for everyone but the richest 5%. All healthcare systems should be public and receive FULL funding and the #1 priority in the budget.
When you think that the US could have fully funded Obamacare (even at 2.5 trillion) with the money spent invading Iraq for the first year it makes one wonder just where the priorities of the US govt and people are. They will gladly spend trillions killing people in a foreign sovereign nation but complain about spending a billion or 2 keeping their own population healthy.
I think that you need to read the quote a little more carefully.
"Nevertheless, Republicans are actively, single-handedly blocking health coverage for 5 million Americans in 24 states. One academic study suggests that of those 5 million, 10,000 Americans will die this year alone due to lack of insurance."
This is not a quote about people dying because the ACA isn't working properly. It is a quote about people dying because republican lawmakers are blocking the implementation of the bill in their states and therefore blocking 5 million people from getting health care.
I am still confused here. It comes across that some of our members are arguing against everyone receiving adequate healthcare. Maybe I'm reading it wrong.
Eh? How can a political party, pretty much by definition a group, do something "single-handedly?"
Meh, I am not going to argue over semantics.
The fact is that the ACA provides states with money to expand medicaid to cover more people, and 24 states with Republican governors have decided to refuse that and leave this group with no health coverage.
Are you aware that the Federal subsidy shrinks over time, leaving the states with the tab?
I think that claiming that they are "leaving the states with the tab" is a bit misleading, since at the lowest rate the feds will still be covering 90% of the costs.
The Affordable Care Act was passed in 2010 and the states would be responsible for that 10% starting in 2020. I think it is very reasonable for states to contribute a small portion of the costs of providing this coverage, especially when you are giving them 10 years to find the money to do so.
This is an amazing deal for the states. Where else are they going find the opportunity to provide healthcare to all of these people and pay so little of the cost themselves?