Warrior General Games

Originally posted by Lurchy
The point you are trying (badly) to make is that insurance doesn't cover the full cost of healthcare. This is kind of a no-shit Sherlock point, and it's essentially irrelevant to the ACA discussion since insurance has not covered the full costs since the inception of health insurance.

I think the overall point of the whole discussion is questioning the "Affordable" part of the Affordable Care Act.

Originally posted by Cowpoker
I think the overall point of the whole discussion is questioning the "Affordable" part of the Affordable Care Act.
There is no question about it. The ACA did virtually nothing to address the root causes of medical expense, which is why costs have continued to rise.

Originally posted by foofighter24
Out of curiosity, why is single payer so important to you? If you want insurance, go pay for it. No need to drag others into it unless you want a free ride.

Don't you want cheap effecient health care coverage?

Here is a great analogy for our current for profit system:

You foo, me, Cuiv, cornblade, lurchy, cowpoker, and seths all decide to buy a house together. We decide to split the cost evenly. At the last minute 2 of us decide we don't want to pay for it but are still going to live there. The lease agreement we signed with each other states that those 2 still get to live in the house regardless of whether they pay or not leaving the other 5 to now split a much larger share. Not fair right? That's what happens now. Hospitals over bill insurance companies to recoup monies spent providing care to the uninsured. Insurance companies then pass that cost on to its customers via premiums and deductibles.

I just don't get conservative ideology anymore. Letting the bottom fall out only makes things more expensive for everyone. Which is like, the exact opposite of being fiscally responsible. The fiscally responsible thing to do would be to strengthen and support the bottom to lower overall long term costs for everyone involved.

Originally posted by jdbolick

There is no question about it. The ACA did virtually nothing to address the root causes of medical expense, which is why costs have continued to rise.

Well no shit, it was a bill written to make insurance companies more money and not lower healthcare costs.

Originally posted by jdbolick

There is no question about it. The ACA did virtually nothing to address the root causes of medical expense, which is why costs have continued to rise.

btw, I already addressed the cost-savings issue. The ACA does not do nearly enough toward cutting costs, which I've said from the beginning of the debate should be priority #1 BEFORE expanding the pool of covered people. However, claiming the ACA did virtually nothing is ideological hogwash tbqh.

Costs have continued to rise at a slower pace AFTER the ACA than for the twenty years or more BEFORE the ACA. Causal relationships can be argued, and that may have more to do with the economy than the ACA, but to assign a causal relationship between the ACA and rising medical costs is nonsensical.

Look, the ACA is a bloated, industry-kissing-ass pos law that never should have been passed in its current form. BUT, and this is a Run DMC-esque big BUT, it still has some merits. Whether the positives outweigh the negatives will not be known for years to come. In the meantime, what is known is that there is a lot that could be improved but neither political party has the balls to make the changes that are needed, so here we are, stuck with it.

Originally posted by Cowpoker
I think the overall point of the whole discussion is questioning the "Affordable" part of the Affordable Care Act.

Which is a valid point, in general. That said, in regards to the OP, if the ACA had never passed, would the diabetic fellow's treatment be any more affordable?

Originally posted by Lurchy
You know, people often use logical fallacies as a crutch, when their argument fails them and it's easier to make up something to attack instead of what the other person actually said, or when it's easier to attack the character of the other rather than the facts of the debate.

You seem to spend a whole lot of time on crutches. Have you thought about signing up for the ACA?

Originally posted by Lurchy
The point you are trying (badly) to make is that insurance doesn't cover the full cost of healthcare. This is kind of a no-shit Sherlock point, and it's essentially irrelevant to the ACA discussion since insurance has not covered the full costs since the inception of health insurance.

Is "logical fallacy" your personal attack of the week?

Do you have any substantive points you actually want to discuss, or would you prefer to keep screaming at your monitor?

Originally posted by Corndog
Just judging from my aunt who is around the same age with diabetes, it would be much less than that.

Originally posted by Cowpoker
I am guessing $500-$750+ a month for a policy with maybe a $5,000 deductible

So, the only information the article gives is that he is from SC, is 49 and has a wife. Based on that and some average assumptions elsewhere, this is what healthcare.gov is quoting for coverage for him and his wife (assumed same age and also a smoker), which would be cheaper than them being insured separately:

There are multiple Bronze plans available ranging from $905/$7,100 for lowest deductible to $705/$11,000 for lowest premium.

There is one Platinum plan available at $2,200 monthly premium and $0 deductible (but still $4k max annual out of pocket with co-pays, etc.). Silver and Gold are obviously inbetween these two extremes.

Cowpoker was obviously describing something closer to a Bronze plan. Looks like he could probably get into that $500-$750 window, but his deductible would be over double what cowpoker guessed. Otherwise, to get a lower deductible, but still 42% higher than what cowpoker guessed, he needs to pay 21% more than the top end of cowpoker's estimate on premium (or 45% more than the midpoint).

So yeah, I think it was fair to say much more on both fronts.

But keep making arbitrary judgments based on your "aunt" if you must.

Originally posted by glbisthewaytobe
Don't you want cheap effecient health care coverage?

Here is a great analogy for our current for profit system:

You foo, me, Cuiv, cornblade, lurchy, cowpoker, and seths all decide to buy a house together. We decide to split the cost evenly. At the last minute 2 of us decide we don't want to pay for it but are still going to live there. The lease agreement we signed with each other states that those 2 still get to live in the house regardless of whether they pay or not leaving the other 5 to now split a much larger share. Not fair right? That's what happens now. Hospitals over bill insurance companies to recoup monies spent providing care to the uninsured. Insurance companies then pass that cost on to its customers via premiums and deductibles.

I just don't get conservative ideology anymore. Letting the bottom fall out only makes things more expensive for everyone. Which is like, the exact opposite of being fiscally responsible. The fiscally responsible thing to do would be to strengthen and support the bottom to lower overall long term costs for everyone involved.

I think you are close but missing some key components. All 5 of us will not have the same need and will not all use the house equally or some might not use it all. I would have used a vacation home or time share instead of a house we will all absolutely need, on the other hand, a vacation home makes it seem like a luxury and not a need so we need to figure out something we can substitute for an example that we won't all use but at some point might need.

You are completely right about costs, anyone who purchases insurance or uses health services is paying for their service plus a portion of the services that people used and never paid for. Nothing has really changed in that regard though.

Originally posted by Cowpoker
I think you are close but missing some key components. All 5 of us will not have the same need and will not all use the house equally or some might not use it all. I would have used a vacation home or time share instead of a house we will all absolutely need, on the other hand, a vacation home makes it seem like a luxury and not a need so we need to figure out something we can substitute for an example that we won't all use but at some point might need.

You are completely right about costs, anyone who purchases insurance or uses health services is paying for their service plus a portion of the services that people used and never paid for. Nothing has really changed in that regard though.




The house is the best example because at some point we will all need it. When you have roommates you aren't all at the house all the time equally. Some will stay with their girlfriend, others will bring friends over, etc, etc. Timeshares are a bad example as for the reason you stated.

Originally posted by glbisthewaytobe
Here is a great analogy for our current for profit system:

Let me correct your analogy for you:

You foo, me, Cuiv, cornblade, lurchy, cowpoker, and seths all decide to buy a house together. We decide to split the cost evenly, although some of us will use the house more than others. At the last minute 2 of us decide we don't want to pay for it but are still going to live there. The lease agreement we signed with each other states that those 2 still get to live in the house regardless of whether they pay or not leaving whichever of the remaining 5 who show up at the house to now split a much larger share. Not fair right? That's what happens now. Hospitals bill insurance companies and paying uninsured customers to recoup monies spent providing care to those that do not pay, whether they are uninsured or not. Insurance companies then pass some of that cost on to its customers via premiums and deductibles.

Also, glbisthewaytobe, your preferred solution isn't to make all 7 people pay 1/7th of the rent. Your solution is to go from 2 people living rent free to 3 people living rent free, 2 people living with almost no rent, 1 person living with a fair rent, and 1 person making up the rent for the first 5 people. If your status quo scenario is unfair, how is your future scenario not way more unfair?

Originally posted by Lurchy
Costs have continued to rise

Yes. They have.

It really makes me lol at how terrible people are at math that they don't understand that a growing cost is a growing cost whether it is growing faster or slower than last year. And that a deficit is still a deficit whether it is larger or smaller than last year.

Originally posted by Lurchy
Whether the positives outweigh the negatives will not be known for years to come.

Not only is that already known, it has been known for years.

Originally posted by Lurchy
Which is a valid point, in general. That said, in regards to the OP, if the ACA had never passed, would the diabetic fellow's treatment be any more affordable?

I'm not sure, it probably depends on the local and state programs available. I'm fairly certain that if he was a resident of MN, he would have been treated at the U of M hospital and the state would pick up the tab and the county would pick up his referral, local Dr. costs.

The obvious frustration comes from the big giant bullshit promise that we were all spoon fed about ACA being about giving people the care they need (didn't happen in this case and I doubt this is the one case of a person falling through multiple giant cracks), that care being affordable ( nothing changed from prior to ACA in his case ), pre-existing conditions covered ( guess what, they always were if you were willing to pay a high premium, have not heard anyone with a pre-existing who had insurance prior to ACA talk about how it is so much cheaper now ) and we will help people who can't afford their care or policy.

It isn't the first time a politician has fed us complete bullshit, won't be the last time either. What you have in ACA is an insanely huge bill that in my opinion, has not changed a hell of a lot for poor people, people with pre-existing conditions or the previously uninsured and it hasn't made care cheaper ( in my opinion it won't either ). Completely Worthless legislation.