A quick question for Americans (Health Insurance)

[rah]

Then why bother having exchanges at all? Why fine people for not buying insurance? I think we both know the answer to that question.

You weren't talking about exchanges. You specifically said

which is the entire point of Obamacare. More people have lost coverage than gained.

So of course you were wrong AGAIN. Typical Ben. when called out for a mistake, just tries to change his story.

nice xpost with Ming.

[Ben Kenobi]

Uhhh... the changes in Medicaid were a part of O-care. All you are focusing on are the exchanges, which is just ONE part of O-care.
And, let's not forget all the children under 26 who are still covered on their parents plans who weren't before.
O-care is more than just the exchanges.

It seems pretty clear that the program as a whole was a failure and that Medicaid is the success. I don't see how Obamacare can claim that it's responsible for coverage when the exchanges are the part that is responsible for the coverage in the first place.

It also goes to show that the individual mandate is wholly unnecessary and counterproductive. Rather than helping people, it has hurt them considerably. And that's not counting all the people who lost their doctor and their good coverage for lesser coverage.

[Ben Kenobi]

when called out for a mistake

What mistake? The exchanges are a failure. The individual mandate is a failure. In the end there will be nothing left of Obamacare once all the exchanges collapse.

[rah]

No one is saying the exchanges have a problem. We were refuting you typical BS.
I agree that Obamacare isn't working, but I won't lie about how many more people are covered now.

AGAIN you said

which is the entire point of Obamacare. More people have lost coverage than gained.

Just admit for once that you were wrong, instead of trying to change the subject.

Don't you even read your own posts?

[Ming]

I don't support O-care. It has serious problems that should have been seen from the beginning.
It probably can't be fixed without MAJOR changes...

But that doesn't change the fact that many more Americans have insurance now.
It might not be the best insurance, but you were still proven wrong.

Your statement was incorrect or just made up BS.

[Ben Kenobi]

No one is saying the exchanges have a problem. We were refuting you typical BS.
I agree that Obamacare isn't working, but I won't lie about how many more people are covered now.

What lie? The number of people on the exchanges is a fraction of the total number signed up for 'obamacare' who are really signed up for Medicaid.

which is the entire point of Obamacare. More people have lost coverage than gained. Just admit for once that you were wrong, instead of trying to change the subject.

Given that I don't equate Medicaid = Obamacare, I don't see how you can say that. When Medicaid predates Obamacare by decades, it strikes me as dishonest to lump Medicaid patients in with those in the exchanges. When we look at the actual exchanges, more people have lost coverage than gained coverage.

[Ben Kenobi]

But that doesn't change the fact that many more Americans have insurance now.

Sure, through Medicaid, not Obamacare exchanges. The exchanges are going to fall apart. The exchanges are *the* signature part of the legislation and they aren't working.

[rah]

But that's not what you said originally.

which is the entire point of Obamacare. More people have lost coverage than gained.

I don't really care what your little pea brain considers part of Obamacare. You didn't specify a subset.

But then just keep saying that's not what you said. Everyone will believe you.

I'll just keep posting what you ACTUALLY posted.

[Ming]

Given that I don't equate Medicaid = Obamacare, I don't see how you can say that.

Nobody cares if you don't equate Medicaid to O-care... because you are wrong.

When Medicaid predates Obamacare by decades, it strikes me as dishonest to lump Medicaid patients in with those in the exchanges.

But the Medicaid increased coverage is part of O-care... so you are the one being dishonest as usual.

When we look at the actual exchanges, more people have lost coverage than gained coverage.

You didn't say that originally... only after you got caught making up more BS and lying. As usual, you are proven wrong so you try to change the argument.

[Dauphin]

Uh, no. Single Payer will drastically drive costs upwards as if you have only one buyer, and that buyer is the government, there's no incentive to cut costs or waste.

Go to an auction (or eBay) where you are one of many bidders, and one where you are the only bidder. According to your logic you will try and outbid yourself and make it more expensive in the latter scenario.

[-Jrabbit]

I am one of the fortunate ones whose pre-ACA plan from BCBS continued after the law changed. With the mandated inclusions (mammograms, birth control, annual wellness physical, pre-existing, etc), my coverage actually improved, and the cost was lower than anything comparable on the exchanges. I'm self-employed and incorporated, so "employer contribution" is meaningless in my case.

Recently got my notice, and my cost is up about 25% (national average) for 2017. It's a huge chunk, but getting things like my wife's mammo folded in is a significant benefit.

I'm 63, so basically in a holding pattern until Medicare kicks in. Can't wait to see how Paul Ryan and friends maneuver to screw me over!

Side note: Ben also conveniently ignores all the red states who declined the Medicaid expansion, keeping millions more uncovered as a political statement.

[KrazyHorse]

A monopoly (single seller) pushes prices up, and a monopsony (single buyer) drives it down. In a monopsony the sellers are still competing for the business of the single buyer. In a monopoly you don't need to compete to make sales as you are the only gig in town.

Only true in the short run. Longer run there is a supply response which wipes out underpriced for reasonably elastic inputs (and over 20 years or so, all inputs into health care are very elastic).

[KrazyHorse]

My and my family's out of pocket insurance cost is 0 for a reasonably top of the line plan. My employer covers everything.

Gotta love that 45% tax wedge.

[onodera]

Mine is going up $30/mo. Spouse and self coverage. Total for my part is now $570/mo or $6840/yr...or (assuming a 2080 hour work year) $3.29/work hour. My company contributes an additional $590/mo. (one could consider that I would earn a higher wage if my company didn't have to pay this much for my benefits??) This brings total cost to $1160/mo or $13,920/yr...or $6.69/work hour.

I went to McDonald's this morning for a breakfast biscuit and wondered what the guy serving it to me for $7.25/hr gets for his health coverage. Then I realized that he probably only works 25-30 hours a week and probably qualifies for a subsidy from the government. Assuming that is true and the money comes from the taxes I pay, then we could effectively double the $6.69/hr to $13.38/hour. So I guess I pay $27,830.40 per year...but at least I cover 4 people!!

$13920/yr... I could pay $1500/yr for a completely independent (no employer discount) medical insurance for both me and my wife. Of course, local voluntary insurance doesn't include the nasty stuff like transplantation, cancer treatment, diabetes or AIDS, but I could half your insurance cost to account for lower cost of living and still save 5300 every year. In 30 years I would have $150K, enough to pay for multiple expensive treatments in private clinics.

[Aeson]

I don't even have to pay the penalty since I don't stay in the US longer than a month (or 35 days or whatever it is).

On the downside, if I do get sick/injured I may have to wait until there's a bus in the morning to go to a less than perfectly modern hospital that may not treat me until I've put cash down. Or I can have a quack doctor come and do some magic. Or just let nature take it's course.

The best part of healthcare here is the cure for everything involves massage therapy. Getting sick isn't so bad ...