Obamacare basics

[Texas Proud]

Obamacare is to get more people covered. lowering the cost was a false promise to get it passed

I agree that what was passed and what was promised was not the same... that is why so many people did not like (and a good number still do not like) what was passed...

Like most things that are passed into law, you have to accept that it is what it is until a new law changes it.... (and we all know how ofter that happens)....

 

[bUU]

The original reason that health care reform was mentioned, and what was told to the public was to lower the cost of healthcare..... not provide universal coverage.

I think you can choose to think of it that way, if it serves your personal preference to do so, however the health care reform efforts in question always involved making health care more affordable - not more affordable for you personally - not to lower any individual's costs - but to make health care more affordable.

"Any doubt as to the Senate origin of Obamacare is dispelled by Sen. Harry Reid’s official website, which confirms that on Nov. 18, 2009, “Senator Harry Reid unveiled the Senate health care bill that makes health care more affordable while reducing the federal deficit”"

Precisely. If you choose to interpret that statement as meaning that it will result in you personally paying less for health care, that's your prerogative, but that's not the actual meaning of those words.

Obamacare is to get more people covered. lowering the cost was a false promise to get it passed

You are also entitled to view things in that manner if it is your preference, but the reality is that lowering the cost of health care for those who could not afford health care as things were actually results in getting more people covered - the two halves of your sentence, which you decided to present as alternatives in some manner, actually are cause-and-effect.

 

[gerrym51]

i am not out to get people angry. the president wanted to cover more people.

there is nothing inherently wrong with wanting to do this-but is does cost money.

increasing the coverages of insurance-mandating coverages-and eliminating caps is not going to lower the cost-regardless of what was said.

 

[anethum]

i am not out to get people angry. the president wanted to cover more people.

there is nothing inherently wrong with wanting to do this-but is does cost money.

increasing the coverages of insurance-mandating coverages-and eliminating caps is not going to lower the cost-regardless of what was said.

Not covering people costs money, too.

One mandate which absolutely saves money is requiring plans to cover contraception.

 

[jarts98]

....the health care reform efforts in question always involved making health care more affordable - not more affordable for you personally - not to lower any individual's costs - but to make health care more affordable.

I seem to recall the President promising a $2,500 per year per family reduction in health insurance premiums (per a Forbes.com story: 'The president promised it would, saying, “we can cut the average family’s premium by about $2,500 per year.”'). Many people relied on that promise.

Thus far my premiums have INCREASED by about that much. I'll gladly pay the $20 co-pay for the now "free" annual checkup if I can get my $2,400 in increased premiums back.

 

[youbet]

there is nothing inherently wrong with wanting to do this-but is does cost money.
.

Exactly.

Originally, to sell the program, it was touted as a program to control and reduce the aggregate cost of healthcare to our nation. Whether it will succeed in that endeavor will be unknown for some time to come. The politicians will say whatever they have to say to sell whatever they're pushing...... nothing new there.

As to the humanitarian aspects, I'm certainly all for efforts to have a system where everyone can receive health care regardless of their economic circumstances. Obamacare is one way to approach this goal. We'll see how it turns out and how much it costs as we move ahead with it.

 

[gerrym51]

Not covering people costs money, too.

One mandate which absolutely saves money is requiring plans to cover contraception.

i'm a pharmacist. most plans i've dealt with do cover contraceptives beffore
obamacare was created.

are you talking about no co-pays or about organizations like the catholic church that don't.

 

[M Paquette]

I can buy health insurance now. The insurer can't cancel it should I develop an expensive illness because I didn't sufficiently document the acne I had at age 13.

I'm happy. We'll pay $13,752 this year for the privilege of being insurance moochers and looters. I'm OK with that.


(Yes, this is a high deductible, HSA eligible plan. Insuring old people is expensive, or as one noble youth expressed to me regarding budgetary matters, "Old people suck.")

 

[Texas Proud]

I think you can choose to think of it that way, if it serves your personal preference to do so, however the health care reform efforts in question always involved making health care more affordable - not more affordable for you personally - not to lower any individual's costs - but to make health care more affordable.

Precisely. If you choose to interpret that statement as meaning that it will result in you personally paying less for health care, that's your prerogative, but that's not the actual meaning of those words.

You are also entitled to view things in that manner if it is your preference, but the reality is that lowering the cost of health care for those who could not afford health care as things were actually results in getting more people covered - the two halves of your sentence, which you decided to present as alternatives in some manner, actually are cause-and-effect.

You can think whatever you like, but you can not rewrite history on a whim... it is not my personal preference to believe what I see as plain facts... and someone provided a quote from the President stating that insurance premiums were going to go down....

So what does 'more affordable' really mean A good amount of people who did not have health care insurance did not want to have health care insurance... they did not say 'we want to make sure all the uninsured will be insured', but said 'make health care more affordable', which to me means exactly what it says.... I am not the one trying to put a spin on the words spoken.... sure, there are always unintended things that come up, but making health care insurance more expensive for the majority of people so other can be insured is not making health care more affordable...


So, you are entitled to your view, but mine is based on what was being said at the time.... not what is being said now...

 

[travelover]

I think I hear a pig trotting...........

 

[MichaelB]

I think I hear a pig trotting...........

No need. Lots of "what was said" and "what was intended" but for the most part, based on opinions. People will believe what they choose. No problem with that.

 

[gerrym51]

I've posted this before.

I live in mass. Prior to Romneycare which is almost a carbon copy of the presidents plan Ma. had guarantee issue. An insurance company could NOT turn you down for individual insurance plans. the price was very expensive-about 10,000 a year for good coverage for 1 person.

this was in 2006.

after Romneycare enacted the price for these individual plans DID go down-i would say about 20 percent.-these are the only plans that went down.all other plans have been going up since then.

 

[anethum]

I've posted the following before, too. Although I didn't live or work in MA when Romneycare went into effect, my insurance was with Blue Cross of Massachusetts because my employer was based there. The price of my insurance (which was obviously a group plan) went down when Romneycare went into effect.

 

[gerrym51]

I've posted the following before, too. Although I didn't live or work in MA when Romneycare went into effect, my insurance was with Blue Cross of Massachusetts because my employer was based there. The price of my insurance (which was obviously a group plan) went down when Romneycare went into effect.

are you still in ma. after a lull of small increase in the last 4 yrs i've had nothing but increases and deductible increases.

i can only say what i've read. individual policies definetly went down

 

[anethum]

No, the MA megacorp started to lay most of us off soon thereafter, so my health insurance provider has been in my own state in more recent years.

I hope you understand that most folks insured in the rest of the country have seen nothing but increases over the years, too. I recall, however, that when I turned 50, my car insurance premiums went down.

 

[travelover]

Maybe I only heard what I wanted to hear, but I though the ACA was passed to address:

• Some people were unable to get affordable (or any) insurance because of preexisting conditions. Some bankrupted by medical costs.

• Some people were unable to afford medical insurance and were using emergency rooms when crises occurred, rather than preventative care in a doctor's office.

 

[gerrym51]

Maybe I only heard what I wanted to hear, but I though the ACA was passed to address:

• Some people were unable to get affordable (or any) insurance because of preexisting conditions. Some bankrupted by medical costs.

• Some people were unable to afford medical insurance and were using emergency rooms when crises occurred, rather than preventative care in a doctor's office.

these 2 may be some reasons but the main reason was to get more covered

 

[scrinch]

As to the humanitarian aspects, I'm certainly all for efforts to have a system where everyone can receive health care regardless of their economic circumstances. Obamacare is one way to approach this goal. We'll see how it turns out and how much it costs as we move ahead with it.

+1 ...and I hope we will make modifications when we discover what parts are working well and what parts aren't.

 

[Katsmeow]

We continue to talk about 'health care', which is only focused on medical care but does not include dental care.. I am surprised that there is little talk about this care, which is pretty important to most folks... bad teeth and bad gums can lead to other health problems...

So, why is dental care left out of the discussion when we talk 'health care'


PS.... not talking about crowns and cosmetic stuff, but basic dental care.

While there may be exceptions, for most people:

1. Lack of dental care won't kill you.
2. The expense of dental care won't bankrupt you.
3. The cost of dental care is much less than the cost of medical care.

 

[bUU]

I seem to recall the President promising a $2,500 per year per family reduction in health insurance premiums

You say this and then you quote this:

(per a Forbes.com story: 'The president promised it would, saying, “we can cut the average family’s premium by about $2,500 per year.”').

Do you see the difference between the quote and your interpretation of it? If not, that might explain why you said this next sentence in an accusatory manner:

Many people relied on that promise.

Regardless of the difference between the quote and how you decided to interpret it, no one "relies" on campaign promises in such a blind manner. People evaluate the proposals made in the context of the supporting information for them, and compare them to the proposals made by the opposing side, on all the critical aspects, not just money. It is a shame that other factors interfered with achieving that cost goal in that time frame, but many of the other critical aspects are being achieved on time.

Thus far my premiums have INCREASED by about that much.

My premiums have stayed the same going on six years now.

after Romneycare enacted the price for these individual plans DID go down-i would say about 20 percent.-these are the only plans that went down.all other plans have been going up since then.

Regardless, comparing 2013 real prices to 2006 real prices is missing the point. I'm paying almost 25% more today for milk than in 2006. Many other prices have increased due to inflation. Comparing numbers in a specific sector without factoring in broader inflation that affected all sectors misses the mark.

I've posted the following before, too. Although I didn't live or work in MA when Romneycare went into effect, my insurance was with Blue Cross of Massachusetts because my employer was based there. The price of my insurance (which was obviously a group plan) went down when Romneycare went into effect.

are you still in ma. after a lull of small increase in the last 4 yrs i've had nothing but increases and deductible increases.

As I mentioned, my premium hasn't changed in six years. Judging anything based on our own personal situation is really missing the boat, and judging anything based solely on money is also a big problem, as far as I'm concerned.

+1 ...and I hope we will make modifications when we discover what parts are working well and what parts aren't.

I hope that ACA prompts folks to realize that it was far too small of an effort to bring about the kinds of changes a society like ours should expect of itself. ACA will do some good, but I hope that eventually people will get really serious about doing something to ensure much more affordable health care, available to everyone, regardless.

 

[jarts98]

It seems to me you're saying we should ignore what any politician actually says (but instead we should just evaluate their plans). Why shouldn't we hold them accountable for what they promise? (That's all politicians, not just Democrats or Republicans.) Did you actually read and evaluate the X,XXX pages of the bill? And do the same for the other health insurance bills so you could determine which one you would support? Does anyone have time to do that? I doubt the congressmen read it all and they voted for/against it. It's not trusting in "a blind manner" to listen to what someone says and then hold them accountable (good or bad) when the actual results are in.


I know the President promised "average" family savings of $2.5k, not a savings of that amount for every family. I happy for you that you're one of the families that has had no increase. Perhaps if you had experienced the premium increases, you'd feel differently.

 

[bUU]

It seems to me you're saying we should ignore what any politician actually says (but instead we should just evaluate their plans).

It should be obvious that people should make decisions on something more than just listening to sound bites. Always dig deeper into what is being said and evaluate the underpinnings of the proposals being made.

Why shouldn't we hold them accountable for what they promise?

Define what you mean by "hold them accountable"? If you just are looking for justification for being disappointed or unhappy, recognize that you don't need any foundation for that... your feelings are your own and you don't need to defend them to anyone.

If, instead, you're looking for a means of assessing performance, then you have to normalize your assessment for your assessment to have validity. If someone promises to reduce defense spending 50%, and then the continental US is attacked on the day that person takes office, are you really going to assess their performance in a myopic manner, looking only at the numbers? And reality is always thousands of times more complex that that simplistic example.

If, instead, you're looking for foundation for a claim of failure, then you have to remember that what we're talking about is a choice that was made, between (ostensibly) two options. Failure, in that context, is not against a myopic yardstick, but rather against the likely outcome of the alternative.

Making the comparison to the alternative is critical. I think it is obvious that we can go back 50 years and find radical variances between the promises made by every elected President and the reality that was achieved. Given that, if you're continually disappointed then "holding them accountable" with prejudice (i.e., flip-flopping from one to the next, essentially failing each one and using that appraisal to justify skipping from frying pan to fire to frying pan to fire) just fosters a death spiral down to ever-increasing variances between promises and achievement.

Did you actually read and evaluate the X,XXX pages of the bill?

Personally, no. Rather, I have developed over decades a manner of understanding the relative merits of various experts in the matters that matter to me, and relied on those experts who I trust, who did read and evaluate the alternative proposals. If I didn't learn to trust others, in that manner, I'd continually be limited to making decisions based on simplistic knee-jerk reactions. Without such a cooperative method of evaluating the challenges of being an active member of our society, I'd be limited to vacuously making choices based on sound bites, surface presumption, the influence of attractive propaganda, and other spurious information.

And do the same for the other health insurance bills so you could determine which one you would support?

Remind us, please, what alternative bills were put forward as an alternative to this one. Were any of them pre-tested in a state prior to being put forward as a national initiative?

I know the President promised "average" family savings of $2.5k, not a savings of that amount for every family.

Thanks for acknowledging that.

I happy for you that you're one of the families that has had no increase. Perhaps if you had experienced the premium increases, you'd feel differently.

Doubtful, because money isn't everything in life. It is just one of several critical aspects to this issue.

 

[MichaelB]

I know the President promised "average" family savings of $2.5k, not a savings of that amount for every family. I happy for you that you're one of the families that has had no increase. Perhaps if you had experienced the premium increases, you'd feel differently.

I've looked but cannot find any reference to support this, or any other promise to reduce insurance premiums as part of the PPACA. It would be very helpful if you could provide a link.

 

[bUU]

Good point. The President's promise was actually even more equivocal than jarts98 implied it was:

At a rally in Virginia in June 2008, Obama said: “In an Obama administration, we’ll lower premiums by up to $2,500 for a typical family per year.”

Here's a link to an analysis of the promise, an analysis that concluded that it was "overly-optimistic". My analysis of that analysis is that the efforts proposed were therefore worthy, even though they would likely not be achieved in such a short time-frame:
FactCheck.org : Obama’s Inflated Health “Savings”
In the end, as I mentioned before, it comes down to an evaluation of the alternatives, i.e., which alternative is likely to be better than the other, rather than strictly which one satisfies one specific metric in the absence of consideration of the other aspects. I don't recall any analyses from factcheck.org that indicated that the alternatives to Obama's plan, presented by McCain, in that case, were superior in all aspects of the objectives that Obama put forward, i.e., would save more money, would ensure coverage despite preexisting conditions, would ban lifetime caps, would assert humane minimum expectations, etc. This wasn't a matter of which plan among several would achieve those objectives better - it was a matter of whether you valued working toward those objectives: Many people did; many people didn't.

There is no question, though, that not working toward those objectives (which was effectively the alternative to Obama's plan put forward) would somehow better achieve those objectives. That's another reason why the narrow focus of critics in the media is without merit: Generally, the most vocal critics in the media weren't actually in favor of the objectives, and are hiding their criticism of the objectives behind opportunistic focus on short-term and narrow fixation on anecdotal measures of achievement of those objectives. The reason why they wouldn't just honestly express their antipathy for the objectives, themselves, is because they realize that most Americans value those objectives, even if they're unhappy with how aspects of the efforts to work toward achievement of those objectives are impacting them, personally.

 

[jarts98]

MichaelB....here's a newstory that references a couple of instances of the President making such promises:

Health Premiums Up $3,065; Obama Vowed $2,500 Cut - Yahoo! Finance

BUU - My point is that at some point in time, unless you personally read and analyze a bill, you have to rely on someone (especially for a bill this complex) to draw your personal conclusions. The politicians promises - a think tank or two - media analysis - etc. I did so in regards to the ACA. I didn't read the bill (again, who has time?) but I did read many studies of it. Part of what goes into the hopper (for me at least) is also what is promised. Not blind faith (one way or the other) - just one of many things to include when deciding whether to support a measure or not. Further (again, for me), it speaks to the integrity of our leaders. Can I trust his/her assurance on a future issue based on their judgment/promises on past issues? If I can't, I "hold them accountable" at re-election time - either in a primary or general election.

Regarding other bills, I may have used the wrong word (although I'd assume bills were introduced at the committee level - I don't recall specifically) - but there were other proposals (ex. tort reform, buying across state lines, etc.) made but not advanced. And I don't think that pre-testing is required - although, of course, it'd be nice. I assume you're referring to Romney-care in MA. I don't live there, but from what I've read average premiums have grown greatly since it's passage so I guess we shouldn't be surprised when it happens on a national level, too.

And I agree - money isn't the only thing in life and that's not what I was saying. Hopefully you didn't mean your comment as self-righteous as it appears. My point was PERHAPS if your experiences with the law had been different you would feel differently about it. Maybe not....I don't know. For many people, cost is a factor (not the only factor) and it may be enough of an issue to swing someone from supporting a law/bill to opposing it. A great idea may not be so great if you can't afford it.