30 Million People Lost Their Healthcare in the Dead of Night

Submitted by: oobaka 11 months ago in


While you were sleeping, US senators were ordering late-night pizza and dismantling the Affordable Care Act. By 1pm, the senate took it's first step in repealing Obamacare and when you woke up millions of Americans found out that the healthcare they acquired was going as fast as it came.

The vote didn't repeal Obamacare, but it does set the table for Republicans to clear the first procedural hurdle for repeal. The bill will now go to the House of Representatives for a vote expected to take place today. We can all accurately guess what's going to happen.

Can't wait to hear how this is a good thing and how it moves America in a forward direction.
There are 42 comments:
Male 541
1.5 Trillion dollars.
0
Reply
Male 41,571
So oobaka is a big fat fucking liar who believes everything the DNC tells him he must believe.
No surprises there! 
After all, it's ALL-HATE TRUMP all day long on IAB now. No matter how stupid or false the story? As long as it is anti-Trump? Up it goes!
0
Reply
Male 357
The main point here is the ACA has not been repealed. The ground work is being laid to repeal it but that doesn't mean it will actually happen. Maybe it will maybe it won't we'll see. I'm betting that Obamacare will be killed but that the ACA will live on (yes I know they're the same thing but symbols matter). The thing is while a majority of people dislike Obamacare a majority likes what the ACA actually does (except the mandate).   
0
Reply
Male 603
Look, I'll put this simply, because it's really simple. The more entitles you have involved in a system, the more overhead you'll need to manage them, think of it as the opportunity cost for communication. If we imagine that health care providers are entities in a complex system, then they further complicate the process of health care, and what are they but money lenders? They are entirely uncesseary complications to the healthcare system. Introduced by a man whose benefactors would richly benefit by him creating a caveat for companies, by which they could further extract profit. 
Think of a world where secretaries aren't sitting, filling out bizzilions of forums as they have to wrangle money from health care providers. Here, in order to get a price on something, companies can't charge such exorbances as they currently do. Maybe this forestalls health development, as pharmaceutical companies can't draw from such revenue. But, maybe too, health science shouldn't be left in those who don't have anything but our best interests at heart. Maybe the need for more centralized funding of health science might allow for it's better distribution. Instead of billions spent on boner pills, a few more lives might've been saved. And I'm sorry if that doesn't draw a tear. 
So, why have Billy to pay Bob to pay Paul? When Billy can just pay Paul? Or, better yet, seen as everyone's already paying John once a year anyways, why can't everyone just pay John, and he can pay Paul?
Richard. Milhouse. Nixon, btw. That's the cunt we have to thank for all this.

Thanks for the edit button, Fancy, was in dire need of some commas
1
Reply
Male 52
Just sort yourselves out a decent national health service like most civilised countries and be done with it!
0
Reply
Male 8,792
ImaginaryN That would be Fuck-to-the-No.
0
Reply
Male 8,198
The ACA is a confusing monster to most.  With that said, the ACA could have worked has the Republicans WANTED to fix it earlier, but they have no desire to see it work, so it didn't work fully.  When passing any major legislation there are ALWAYS problems with it that need to be amended.  The problems have never been Amended because the GOP plan was simply to repeal it whole-cloth instead of doing what previous administrations have done with major legislation's.  To Amend and fix the problem areas.  The ACA had some good, some bad, but the intent is definitely good.  In my opinion it didn't go far enough but it was better than what we did have.  
1
Reply
Male 603
Some unbelievably selfish people in these comments. Nevermind the fact that millions of people are now more at risk of being denied medical care, you just worry about your wallets. No need to give a fuck about anyone else. Personal accounts don't mean anything. On the whole, even this botched piece of legislation did far more good than harm, had it passed whole, with it's initial intent, it might've actually put us at a point where we were atleast competitive with other comparable nations. Instead, we backslide, convinced in to acting against our interests by those who have the most to gain by dismantling the legislation. It's an impressive feat. Bending the American people so far over, yet getting half of them to take it with a smile. ACA FTW. 
1
Reply
Male 1,283
thething911 I am very sorry that those people did not plan better, but that is not my problem.  I put money into savings every week.  That money is there for emergencies.  It's like my own little private HSA.  Been doing this since I first started working when I was 14.  I am self insured basically.  If anything ever happens, I have that money there to deal with it.  In addition, it is gaining me interest instead of some insurance company.  Is that selfish of me to take care of myself and expect others to do the same?

If people can not plan ahead and be prepared because they would rather have the latest smartphone with unlimited data or any other number of stupid subscription services people pay for, I should pay for their healthcare for them?  Whose the one being selfish?  They guy that goes out and spends $100 on alcohol every week then doesn't have money for his own healthcare and expects the rest of the country to pay for it when his liver goes out or me?
0
Reply
Male 603
waldo863 I thoroughly agree that they're are many people who make many stupid decisions in life, but as one of them, I want to understand. There are so many forces that leave us illequiped for where we are now. I'm young, and I'm sure my health care is crazy about me, I can't remember a time I was ever much sick, I contribute far, far more than I take. But I've worked shit jobs with people overnight for a while, and I'm not gonna judge them for smoking, because life's fucking hard. Too, I've never done heroin, but goddam, I wouldn't want to try getting off of it. It's then best in us to care for one another, and this legislation was one small step towards that goal, getting more help for more people when they need it.
0
Reply
Male 1,283
thething911 I guess I am more of the survival of the fittest mentality.  If you can't take care of yourself or convince someone to take care of you, sorry.

The only force that leaves you ill equipped for where we are now is YOU.  YOU control yourself and your knowledge.  

Look, I'm not going to judge anyone for smoking either, but when you get lung cancer and die, don't come complaining to me.

I've never been addicted to heroin either, but if you get addicted to it, don't come crying to me.

How is it in our best interest to care for those too stupid to take care of themselves?  how is it in our best interest to carry around dead weight?
0
Reply
Male 1,891
thething911 
Do you know what they call forcing someone to work for the benefit of another?  
Hint: Slavery

Do you know what it's called when you take from someone who does not give it willingly?
Hint: Theft

Do you know how the government compels compliance with the law?
Hint: Deadly force and deprivation of freedom.

-2
Reply
Male 1,845
insaneai
Do you know what they call forcing someone to work for the benefit of another? 
Taxes

Do you know what it's called when you take from someone who does not give it willingly?
Taxes

Do you know how the government compels compliance with the law?
Jail or deportation.
-1
Reply
Male 1,891
0
Reply
Male 808
insaneai I pay for police and fire but I don't need it, I pay for education but I don't need it, I pay for health care but I don't need it, I pay for roads I don't drive...blah blah blah, I am Canadian and the safety net of social programs for ALL is paramount here
4
Reply
Male 1,283
canusuck You don't use police?  So if there were no police, you'd be able to go to the grocery store, and assuming it hadn't been robbed blind, not get robbed on the way there?  You eat, therefore you use police.

You don't use fire?  So when buildings caught on fire somewhere, and that fire was contained and did not destroy half the city, that did not affect you at all?  Your city was not destroyed by fire, therefore you use the fire department.

You don't use roads?  How the the construction materials for the place you live get to where you live so that where you live could be built?  Wait, it got there on roads, therefore you use roads.

You do use those things, usually indirectly, but everyone does.
2
Reply
Male 603
waldo863 People getting trampled by the thousands in places like China, not here. A low magnitude earthquake hits a South East Asian country and people die by the thousands, not here. The difference? We learned from events like the Triangle Shirtwaist Factory fire and the San Francisco earth quake and equiped ourselves for the future. No one likes legislation I guess, but, the hell else are you going to do to ensure, that when the inevitable happens, you make out alright? Here in CA, hospitals are on whoopie chusions, down in Katrina, the levees might be actually built. Why? Cuz some people in this country have got their shit together and made sure we're ready... ish
0
Reply
Male 1,891
canusuck Good for you!
-1
Reply
Male 1,891
Monthly premiums up over 200%, deductible up 500% with the ACA.  I'm looking forward to the repeal.
0
Reply
Male 1,283
insaneai Yes of yes of yes.  Actually, with the ACA, since I work for a very small company, I don't have insurance provided through work anymore.  I did prior the ACA.  Since ACA raised the cost of the business insurance, it was no longer and expense the owner could afford.  Since we have less than 50 employees, he is not required to.  Since the cost went up, and he was paying a portion before, my premium has gone up something like 400% and my deductible  is much higher than it previously was too.  So yeah, this needs to go away as the additional expense has been killing me.
2
Reply
Male 8,198
waldo863 That happened regardless before the ACA.  Your plan went up because it wasn't making money.  For any health insurance pool to work there has to be 85/15 healthy to sick.  If you can't get that ratio the plan will fail or they have to up the price of it to make it viable.
0
Reply
Male 1,283
normalfreak2 Well, my case is a little different actually.  Since we are a pretty small company, we outsource payroll.  Part of that outsourced payroll included providing benefits.  Due to the fact that they have thousands of employees, before ACA, we could be in their group under their plans and the boss paid them more every month.  After ACA though, for some reason, they were not able to combine all the small individual companies under them in to one large group anymore.  So the boss turned to healthcare.gov for businesses and realized things were a lot more expensive since we were now a much smaller pool.  Instead of being in a pool of thousands of people across all ages, we are now just a pool of 8 with 3 of those 8 being over the age of 60.  If ACA did not happen, myself and every other company that was under the same staff leasing agency as us, would have much better insurance than we do now.
0
Reply
Male 1,845
I find the title of this post a bit disingenuous. This is just the first step...we're not sure what the final step will look like. If Congress keeps the Medicare expansion in, or passes an alternative bill that contains the Medicare expansion, most Americans will be OK in most situations, at least for now.
1
Reply
Male 1,832
bliznik Most will be ok? I'm sure that'll be a relief for those that aren't part of the "most"
0
Reply
Male 1,845
oobaka We're in a country of 319 million. Country-wide policies that affect a large majority of Americans in a manner that doesn't discriminate against a suspect class is pretty friggin' awesome, IMO.
0
Reply
Male 1,604
I went from being able to afford very basic insurance to not being able to afford it at all when ACA went into effect. I'm just going to sit back and wait to see what happens. As I can't afford ANY insurance now,(I do not qualify for medicaid because of my paltry income) it couldn't possibly get any worse. 
0
Reply
Female 4,656
squidbush same boat.  I had semi-affordable HC and lost my provider when 0bamacare was "passed without having been read" (not that they cared because they exempted themselves)  I can't afford HC at all now, I'm being taxed to pay for others' AND I'm being fined for not having it.  yeah this was the greatest thing ever....
-1
Reply
Male 8,198
melcervini This is the ULTIMATE personal responsibility issue.  You are already paying for others now it's asking that you pay for yourself.  You will one day require the services of healthcare as you get older.  
-1
Reply
Female 4,656
normalfreak2 maybe you missed it.. but I HAD healthcare that I was paying about 190-200 a month for with a 500.00 deductible.  When 0bamacare was approved, I was told I could keep my provider. I was lied to and I not only lost my provider, but the LOWEST estimate I could get was 480 a month with a 2k deductible.  I CANNOT afford that.  So I have NO healthcare ( waiting on any potential VA approval... 2 years and counting)  MY taxes went up to pay for someone else's AND I'll be fined for not having it.  "Affordable" Healthcare, My asshole.
1
Reply
Male 2,718
normalfreak2 You realize how flipping backwards that is?  Perhaps mel could afford to pay for herself if she wasn't being asked to pay so much for others in the first place.  
1
Reply
Male 8,198
dromed That's not how insurance works, at fucking all.  Can any Libertarian or Conservative show me where Healthcare is run by the free market (private sector) and successful or has been EVER?    The closest I could find is Switzerland and that's not even a free market solution.  It's similar to Romneycare and has a mandate.  
0
Reply
Male 41,571
normalfreak2 America has somehow survived all those years without Obamacare... and now the healthcare system is EVEN WORSE than before, unless you're rich of course.
0
Reply
Male 8,198
5cats That's 100% pure unadulterated bullshit...I'm in a unique circumstance, I'm a dual citizen that lives in both Countries and I can specifically talk about the differences both positive and negative.  I think that perspective is important.  I live in America and in Ontario, I am on the Exchanges in Illinois, my employer doesn't offer insurance.  That may be changing next year I heard.   But my costs went down, But I figured as much because my state took the subsidies. I'm fairly certain of the people that complain here most of them live in states where they made no attempt to even try it or accept the subsidies .  There are far more people that have been helped than hurt by the ACA.
0
Reply
Male 4,383
AHCA cost my wife and I plenty. We are paying at least three other peoples premiums. Can't end soon enough for me.
1
Reply
Male 1,845
Yet healthcare costs rose at a slower rate in the last 8 years than in the 8 years prior to that. I wonder why you are the only outlier. Do you happen to live in a state that refused to adopt the Medicare expansion?
1
Reply
Male 41,571
bliznik Liar. The RATE didn't rise "as much" according to 'projections' but almost every policy is WORSE than before! Higher deductibles, higher costs, lower coverage. The ratio of better / same / worse is something like 20 / 30 / 50. Half of Americans are worse off, so 20% can get better. And EVERYONE is paying WAY MORE than before...
0
Reply
Male 1,845
5cats Liar, cite your evidence. Oh wait, you don't have any citations. You prefer quoting statistics out of thin air instead of quoting peer-reviewed research papers.
0
Reply
Male 666
bliznik trimble Could it be because insurance premiums and health care cost are not the same thing? It really depends on exactly what you are referring to in both cases and if you are talking about a macro, micro, or personal level of costs.
 
Just one hypothetical example: 
A service provider could have charged $100 for a service before ACA and $100 for the same service after ACA.  Yea!!! ACA worked as the "cost" did not go up.

At the same time a person with Insurance may have had to pay $20 before the ACA because they met a small $500 yearly deductible but now that service has to be included in a larger deductible of say $1000 so they now pay $100.  Boo!!!! ACA is bad as "my" "cost" has gone up.

"Costs" stayed the same in one sense but increased by 900% in another.

We also have to ask the question of why did the service provider not raise his prices.  Did his costs stay the same, so no need to change? Did the number of people requesting that service go down so he kept the price the same to keep numbers up? (sacrifice margin to maintain volume.)  If the later why did fewer people request this service? Could it be their "cost" for it went up so they can not afford it?  This seems to be the opposite effect the ACA was intended to create.  Remember all the talk about people having insurance so ER visits would go down because problems would be dealt with at the primary physicians office?  I seem to remember a report recently that indicated that ER visits are up not down.
  
 

3
Reply
Male 4,383
bliznik No, that's not it and I'm not an outlier. My wife is on my insurance because we like it better that what her employer provides (like your doctor, keep your doctor) and for that privilege we pay 75 bucks extra per pay period, not for our insurance but directly to fund the AHCA. Our deductibles all doubled, some tripled and we have less services. The thing is a failure.

0
Reply
Male 1,845
trimble Ahh, you're talking about the deductible. I'm not sure how the ACA affected deductibles, but if you want to blame the ACA for the higher deductibles that everyone is paying nowadays, then sure. I'm not really sure how repealing the ACA will reduce deductibles in the slightest. =/
0
Reply
Male 8,198
bliznik By getting rid of sick people the insurance companies can focus on the #1 goal of health insurance, profit.
0
Reply
Male 1,845
normalfreak2 true, but now that insurance companies know that they can raise deductibles and people will still pay them because of inelastic demand and state health insurance monopolies, I highly doubt they'll generously lower deductibles if they are able to get rid of sick people.
0
Reply