The ACA (Obamacare/Romneycare) has NOT resulted in lower prices


Renzatic

Suspended
Looks like it hasn't done a damn thing to either lower costs. or drive prices up any higher than what they were already trending towards.

So what's the moral of this story? I guess it's be that both the Democrats and Republicans were wrong about Obamacare, and the end result of which was a perfectly lateral move. The only bright side being that preexisting conditions can now be covered by insurance.
 

Robisan

macrumors 6502
Jan 19, 2014
337
2,035
Prices for only "Medical Care Services" (a subset) of the "Urban Consumer Price Index" (another subset) is not an accurate measure of the ACA's effect on overall healthcare cost. Partisan hack Jerome Corsi at partisan hack central, World Nut Daily, cherry picks to distort.

Look at overall healthcare spending as a percentage of GDP:

(via)

As you can see, something happened in 2010 that flattened healthcare spending as a percentage of GDP. Can't quite put my finger on it. Thinking, thinking...
 

Zombie Acorn

macrumors 65816
Feb 2, 2009
1,301
9,062
Toronto, Ontario
Prices for only "Medical Care Services" (a subset) of the "Urban Consumer Price Index" (another subset) is not an accurate measure of the ACA's effect on overall healthcare cost. Partisan hack Jerome Corsi at partisan hack central, World Nut Daily, cherry picks to distort.

Look at overall healthcare spending as a percentage of GDP:

(via)

As you can see, something happened in 2010 that flattened healthcare spending as a percentage of GDP. Can't quite put my finger on it. Thinking, thinking...
Actually it looks like all countries flattened out in 2010. Healthcare costs for consumers is all people care about anyways. For people in my age bracket they have definitely went up.
 

Robisan

macrumors 6502
Jan 19, 2014
337
2,035
Interesting, if you look at the GDP chart above, note that in 1980 US spending was at par with rest of the world and then it starts to rise dramatically. Something happened in 1980. Hmm, thinking, thinking...

Then in 1992 costs suddenly flattened for the next eight years. Something happened in 1992. Hmm, thinking, thinking...

Then in 2000 suddenly exploded again. Something happened in 2000. Hmm, thinking, thinking...
 

0007776

Suspended
Jul 11, 2006
6,474
8,051
Somewhere
Looks like it hasn't done a damn thing to either lower costs. or drive prices up any higher than what they were already trending towards.

So what's the moral of this story? I guess it's be that both the Democrats and Republicans were wrong about Obamacare, and the end result of which was a perfectly lateral move. The only bright side being that preexisting conditions can now be covered by insurance.
I think the main reason people are against it is that it was promised to lower the cost, and for the average person it hasn't done that. Instead as you said, the main area it was successful was in allowing people with preexisting conditions to get insurance without driving the prices any higher than they were already going. It bought us some time, but we still need a permanent solution like a single payer system to replace it.
 

vrDrew

macrumors 65816
Jan 31, 2010
1,317
11,832
Midlife, Midwest
It was never the goal of the ACA to "lower prices" for medical services. That probably would have been either impractical or impossible, given the nature of the US medical system. "Lower prices" would have meant asking doctors to charge lower fees for suturing wounds, setting bones, and doing office appointments.

What the ACA has done, and quite successfully, is lower the rate of increase in medical spending. While at the same time expanding the number of Americans covered by health insurance - which it has achieved on the order of fifteen to twenty million people. Doing that - while keeping the total amount our economy spends on medical care constant - is impressive.

Now, by some definitions, the ACA has "lowered prices" for consumers of medical care. Millions of Americans can now purchase comprehensive individual or family health insurance for far less than the true market price for such policies, thanks to the tax credit subsidies that make up between 5% and 85% of the cost of coverage. And its important to notice the word "comprehensive" there. Because prior to the ACA, millions of Americans were frankly wasting their money on so-called "miniMed" policies that gave the illusion of having health insurance, while providing no real coverage.

What is the problem with "MiniMed" policies? As an example, McDonalds used to offer what they called "McCrew Care", for which employees paid $56 per month. What was the maximum coverage they could get under that plan: $2000 per year. I don't know if you know what medical services cost these days, but $2000 is basically nothing. It might, possibly, pay for a minor walk-in urgent care treatment. But it would do nothing for someone injured in a car accident; pay for a pregnancy, and would be a rounding error if someone got a serious condition like cancer or heart disease.
 

jkcerda

macrumors 6502a
Jun 10, 2013
682
38,976
Criminal Mexi Midget
I think the main reason people are against it is that it was promised to lower the cost, and for the average person it hasn't done that. Instead as you said, the main area it was successful was in allowing people with preexisting conditions to get insurance without driving the prices any higher than they were already going. It bought us some time, but we still need a permanent solution like a single payer system to replace it.
Something Hillary said will never happen
 

FieldingMellish

Suspended
Jun 20, 2010
2,440
3,079
The entire world would save a bundle if we just let the frail and the sick simply expire. What you have now is a lot of good money thrown away after bad. Any plan that portends to keep the Crypt Keeper held erect on crutches is bound to cost loads in premiums. multiplied by the masses.
 

bradl

macrumors 601
Jun 16, 2008
4,006
11,823
The entire world would save a bundle if we just let the frail and the sick simply expire. What you have now is a lot of good money thrown away after bad. Any plan that portends to keep the Crypt Keeper held erect on crutches is bound to cost loads in premiums. multiplied by the masses.
We'll remind you of your comments when it is your loved ones who are sick and frail.

And I still await your taking up my offer for my wife abandoning any use of the ACA in exchange for you giving her one of your eyes.

Until then, your comments are hollow and baseless.

BL.
 

tunerX

Suspended
Nov 5, 2009
355
825
Well if it hasn't led to any cost reductions that's a problem.
The ACA has actually lead to cost reductions for many.

But it has lead to increases for many more. This is the problem when the government created a mandatory program serviced by several commercial providers without tort reform or the ability to setup free market entities to service multiple states.

The premiums increase without bound and the middle class out of pocket costs explode. This problem could have been corrected if the establishment wanted to do it. The Democrats had all three branches and passed all of the ACA without a single republican vote... how did anyone think this abomination was going to end up.

Again, the ACA has actually lead to cost reductions for many but it has failed for many more.
 

bruinsrme

macrumors 604
Oct 26, 2008
6,537
2,262
My first comment would be, don't blame Romney. He signed the bill but also vetoed portions of I.
Boston City hospital was he poster child for the obamacare model. Of the course after it had around $250 million pumped into it to balance its books.
 

FieldingMellish

Suspended
Jun 20, 2010
2,440
3,079
We'll remind you of your comments when it is your loved ones who are sick and frail.

And I still await your taking up my offer for my wife abandoning any use of the ACA in exchange for you giving her one of your eyes.

Until then, your comments are hollow and baseless.

BL.
You have me confused with someone else you are debating. And you are free to disagree with my assertions, similar to that of Democratic death panels. We have seen hospitals enriched from the business of keeping people alive in a horridly haggard state that only worsens with each treatment.
 
Last edited:

0007776

Suspended
Jul 11, 2006
6,474
8,051
Somewhere
or the ability to setup free market entities to service multiple states
That part is at least allowed in some states, it's just not used because it doesn't make sense for the insurance companies.

authors completed a study of a number of states that passed laws to allow out-of-state insurance sales. Not a single out-of-state insurer had taken them up on the offer. As Ms. Corlette’s paper highlighted, there is no federal impediment to across-state-lines arrangements. The main difficulty is that most states want to regulate local products themselves. The Affordable Care Act actually has a few provisions to encourage more regional and national sales of insurance, but they have not proved popular.

Insurers have been muted in their enthusiasm for G.O.P. across-state-lines plans. Neither America’s Health Insurance Plans, the lobbying group for most private insurers, nor the Blue Cross Blue Shield Association have endorsed such a plan when it has come before Congress.
http://mobile.nytimes.com/2015/09/01/upshot/the-problem-with-gop-plans-to-sell-health-insurance-across-state-lines.html?referer=&_r=0
 
  • Like
Reactions: Eraserhead

bradl

macrumors 601
Jun 16, 2008
4,006
11,823
You have me confused with someone else you are debating. And you are free to disagree with my assertions, similar to that of Democratic death panels. We have seen hospitals enriched from the business of keeping people alive in a horridly haggard state that only worsens with each treatment.
No. I don't.

You, like many others here, have been whinging and moaning about how the ACA is nothing but a bunch of death panels, costing more than helping, a huge burden on the people, huge tax, etc, and wanting to repeal it and go back to what we had before. I've posted many a times in this forum of my wife's situation with her eyes and what we've had to go through due to get coverage for her and how no-one would insure her from her pre-existing condition, and challenged you and anyone against the ACA to take me up on my offer.

None of you (plural, including you) have yet to take me up on that offer. So again: until you do, your opinions of the ACA are hollow and without base and will continue to until you have a life-threatening event happen to you.

BL.
 

FieldingMellish

Suspended
Jun 20, 2010
2,440
3,079
No. I don't.

You, like many others here, have been whinging and moaning about how the ACA is nothing but a bunch of death panels, costing more than helping, a huge burden on the people, huge tax, etc, and wanting to repeal it and go back to what we had before. I've posted many a times in this forum of my wife's situation with her eyes and what we've had to go through due to get coverage for her and how no-one would insure her from her pre-existing condition, and challenged you and anyone against the ACA to take me up on my offer.

None of you (plural, including you) have yet to take me up on that offer. So again: until you do, your opinions of the ACA are hollow and without base and will continue to until you have a life-threatening event happen to you.

BL.
You seriously think that you are that unique in suffering a personal instance, sufficiently so as to challenge so many?
 
  • Like
Reactions: tgara

vrDrew

macrumors 65816
Jan 31, 2010
1,317
11,832
Midlife, Midwest
You seriously think that you are that unique in suffering a personal instance, sufficiently so as to challenge so many?
Nobody buys car insurance because they are planning on getting into an accident. Nobody buys term life insurance because they are planning on dying at age 45.

The only person who would be truly unique would be the person who never got sick or died. Those two things have happened to every human being throughout history. The only difference is what point, and to what extent, those things take place.

The ACA has had remarkably little effect on the 150 million or so Americans who get their health insurance provided as part of their employment. As reported in today's New York Times:

“The employer-based system is alive and well,” said Jeff Alter, the chief executive of the commercial insurance business for UnitedHealthcare, one of the nation’s largest health insurance companies. Even among critics of the law, including the Republican presidential candidates, there has been virtually no debate about employer coverage.
Employers note that providing health insurance, for which companies receive a sizable tax benefit, remains a vital tool in recruiting and retaining employees. What is more, the cost-containing provisions of the ACA have helped slow the growth in health coverage costs.

So: At worst - the ACA has had no effect on the roughly half the population who gets health insurance through their employer. While still enabling roughly 20 million previously uninsured Americans to get coverage; and enabling millions more in the private market to find afford, comprehensive coverage - regardless of their health or financial circumstances.

What are you complaining about, again?
 

zioxide

macrumors 603
Dec 11, 2006
5,725
3,711
Duh?

The entire point of the Heritage Foundation's private health insurance mandate was to sell out the American people to big business health insurers in order to make a bunch of money for some high up executives and shareholders. The PPACA was based on this plan.

Health care costs will never be corralled as long as there is profit to be made.


UHC is the only solution.

Meanwhile we have to listen to Republicans fear monger about government "death panels" in a country where poorer people have to set up a ****ing gofundme page just to pay medical bills so they don't die.
 

MadeTheSwitch

macrumors 6502a
Apr 20, 2009
825
15,191
The ACA has actually lead to cost reductions for many.

But it has lead to increases for many more. This is the problem when the government created a mandatory program serviced by several commercial providers without tort reform or the ability to setup free market entities to service multiple states.

The premiums increase without bound and the middle class out of pocket costs explode. This problem could have been corrected if the establishment wanted to do it. The Democrats had all three branches and passed all of the ACA without a single republican vote... how did anyone think this abomination was going to end up.

Again, the ACA has actually lead to cost reductions for many but it has failed for many more.
Without a single GOP vote. Riiiight. The Republicans were the one thing that would have saved us all. The same people that sat on their hands in congress for decades and produced nothing and rarely even talked about healthcare. The same people who 7 years later, still don't have a replacement though they have demonstrated they are quite good at repealing something. The party of no.....and no answers.