I Am Bored

Loads of viral videos, games, memes, lists and social networking for when you're bored. Updated every day, so visit often.
LatestPopularMost BookmarkedMost EmailedTop RatedMy FavoritesRandomChat
AllGamesFunnyEntertainmentQuizzesWeirdTechLifestyle, Arts & Lit.News & PoliticsScienceSportsMisc
Submit Content  





rss

friendsmore friends | add your site
Extreme Humor

123 Games

Funny Stuff

Viva La Games

Free Samples

Pugorama

Gorilla Mask

Asylum

Oddee

Urlesque

FreeGame Heaven

Funny Videos

Angelsfire.nl

Crazy Games

Insane Pictures

Friday Fun

Shi**y Stories

I hate retail

Chaostrophic



Back to Listing

How Ddoes Tthe Affordable Care Act Aaffect Yyou?

Hits: 2778 | Rating: (1.8) | Category: Misc. | Added by: auburnjunky
Page: 1 24 Next >   Jump to: Bottom    Last Post
Musuko42
Male, 18-29, Europe
 2850 Posts
Thursday, October 17, 2013 8:35:47 AM
@HumanAction

"In ANY economic system, there are only a few ways to mitigate a sudden increase in demand: first, rapidly expand supply (impossible in healthcare); second, ration; and third, raise prices."

But demand isn't going up: there is still the same number of sick people needing treatment.

I thought the American system allowed you to get treatment regardless, and then the bill got sorted out afterwards?

Or do/did hospitals there actually turn people away when they can't pay, and let them die?

In which case, holy ****...how heartless could anyone be to defend that system?

Musuko42
Male, 18-29, Europe
 2850 Posts
Thursday, October 17, 2013 8:32:39 AM
@HumanAction

"When you average those 30-40 million people in at 0$ for the "before" column, then the AVERAGE rates for all Americans necessarily increase. How could they not?"

The average cost for the insured Americans would (potentially) stay the same. That's what I was talking about.

The average cost for all Americans, which is what you were saying...well, I don't know about that. Of those 30-40 million who were paying nothing before, when they got sick surely SOMEBODY was having to pay for their healthcare, be it themselves, the taxpayer, the hospitals (if the patient goes bankrupt and doesn't pay), etc.

If that somebody is American, then wouldn't the average cost stay the same, because it's in there somewhere?

Assuming they got treatment. If they *didn't* get treatment for whatever reason, then you still have a cost: the lost productivity of that unhealthy/dead person.

Musuko42
Male, 18-29, Europe
 2850 Posts
Thursday, October 17, 2013 8:29:56 AM
@HumanAction

Ah, I get what you're trying to say now.

Well, of those 30-40 million, I'm given to believe that a number of them were wanting to pay for insurance, but were blocked (pre-existing conditions). They will now buy insurance because they are now allowed to.

And the rest: I'd say there are two types. Those who don't pay because they can't afford it and are gambling that they stay healthy, and those who don't pay because they are wealthy enough to pay out of pocket for any potential medical costs.

Of those two; those who can't afford it anyway are pretty screwed, and I don't know enough about the legislation over there to know if they are helped or covered somehow. And those who are wealthy enough: I doubt they would struggle with the additional expense.

Ilikelogic
Male, 40-49, Europe
 522 Posts
Thursday, October 17, 2013 8:26:27 AM
I pay 2.8% of my pay, my employer adds the same amount and we all have a good health insurance, even the 96 year olds, the obese, the people with cancer, diabetes and so on.
Greetings from Luxemburg.

Musuko42
Male, 18-29, Europe
 2850 Posts
Thursday, October 17, 2013 8:26:22 AM
@HumanAction

You're getting things mixed up. The quantity of people needing care will go up, but so too will the quantity of people paying but not needing care.

As long as the ratio between the two (healthy v sick) is the same, it doesn't matter how many are in the system. The cost per person will remain the same.

HumanAction
Male, 18-29, Midwest US
 2353 Posts
Thursday, October 17, 2013 8:15:34 AM
@Musuko

Also, we are talking about different things, somewhat. You seem to be saying that the rates for already insured people could very well stay the same or even go down.

Sure. I don't think it's likely, but sure - could happen.

I am saying that the rates for those 30-40 million people go up; they have to. Beforehand, they paid zero dollars (they didn't have insurance) and now they pay something; that's an increase in rate.

When you average those 30-40 million people in at 0$ for the "before" column, then the AVERAGE rates for all Americans necessarily increase. How could they not?

HumanAction
Male, 18-29, Midwest US
 2353 Posts
Thursday, October 17, 2013 8:12:30 AM
@Musuko

The rates will only go up if the percentage of people needing care goes up.

Sure, but this is a given in any third-party payer system. Adding people to a system where they are not directly responsible for paying will necessarily result in an increase in quantity demanded.

Or, do you suppose that adding 30-40 million people to the healthcare system will somehow lower the quantity demanded? I think not.

a large number of them are young and healthy

What is the primary reason people are uninsured in the US? Simply, insurance is too expensive. Otherwise, they would have it. Why would they have it if it were affordable? To use it, obviously.

Simple logic suggests that quantity demanded will surely rise.

Musuko42
Male, 18-29, Europe
 2850 Posts
Thursday, October 17, 2013 7:50:42 AM
@HumanAction

"Even if our rates all stay the same (a BIG "if", IMO), the average rate still increases because more people are in the system. In the past, they paid nothing."

The rates will only go up if the percentage of people needing care goes up.

Compare:
100 policy holders, 10 people need treatment = 10:1 ratio of payers/users.
We then add in loads of extra people:
1000 policy holders, 100 people need treatment = 10:1 ratio of payers/users.
The cost per person stays exactly the same.

The only reason adding 30-40 million people to that pool would add costs is if a disproportionate number of those people are sick. And as HolyGod has repeatedly pointed out, a large number of them are young and healthy.

TL:DR, yes you're adding more "drains" on the system, but you're also adding a lot more people paying into the system too.

Musuko42
Male, 18-29, Europe
 2850 Posts
Thursday, October 17, 2013 7:45:08 AM
@CrakrJak

"Pile on all the millions of uninsured people into the already overcrowded and under served Medicare rolls and the waits are going to double, and likely triple."

I thought Obamacare required people to buy insurance (or pay a fee/fine)?

How does that end up adding people to Medicare?

(Also, bit rich for you of all people to talk about other people's insurance premiums going up when you don't pay any yourself).

Cajun247
Male, 18-29, Southern US
 10317 Posts
Thursday, October 17, 2013 6:59:21 AM
@HolyGod

That is one way of putting it, in fact people on Medicaid are actually worse off than uninsured patients because Medicaid pays too little. The same could be said for many health insurance companies because of a lack of choice. IMHO Obamacare reforms are not the vehicles to fix this problem.

HumanAction
Male, 18-29, Midwest US
 2353 Posts
Thursday, October 17, 2013 6:54:50 AM
@HolyGod

That is going to balance out the spreading of costs.

This means that the average cost of insurance goes up. Even if our rates all stay the same (a BIG "if", IMO), the average rate still increases because more people are in the system. In the past, they paid nothing.

In ANY economic system, there are only a few ways to mitigate a sudden increase in demand: first, rapidly expand supply (impossible in healthcare); second, ration; and third, raise prices.

Let's say the new sick people cost the insurance industry a billion dollars more a year.

As you would say, "citation needed" XD

The new provision that LIMITS insurance company profits comes into play as well.

Historical precedent suggests that the insurance companies will find a way to work around this.

HolyGod
Male, 30-39, Western US
 5056 Posts
Thursday, October 17, 2013 6:42:01 AM
Cajun247

"You got it backwards, you're assuming that insurance is the same as access."

So you are saying the reason crakr has waits is because of insurance companies and not the number of providers that take the insurance?

Cajun247
Male, 18-29, Southern US
 10317 Posts
Thursday, October 17, 2013 6:35:23 AM
Why do you assume that the people serving medicare patients aren't going to increase accordingly?


You got it backwards, you're assuming that insurance is the same as access. It's not, if we want to subsidize access the money should go to hospitals not insurance policies.

HolyGod
Male, 30-39, Western US
 5056 Posts
Thursday, October 17, 2013 6:07:15 AM
Crakr

"Pile on all the millions of uninsured people into the already overcrowded and under served Medicare rolls and the waits are going to double, and likely triple."

1. Why do you assume that the people serving medicare patients aren't going to increase accordingly? Won't the market adjust to fit the need? You don't go to a government run medical facility. You go to a for profit private sector facility. They will grow to accommodate.

2. The number of people on medicare is nowhere near going to triple. Why would waits triple?

"It's not a small number, 30 to 40 million people"

That is NOT EVEN CLOSE to the number. Most uninsured americans are not super sick people, they are young healthy people that don't buy insurance because they don't need it.

"The insurance rates are doubling, for most people,"

*CITATION NEEDED*

CrakrJak
Male, 40-49, Midwest US
 17292 Posts
Thursday, October 17, 2013 5:24:59 AM
"The Affordable Health Care Act doesn't impact those already living off of everyone else."

Yes, yes it does. People on medicare, like myself, already have to wait a month or more to see a doctor, even longer to see a specialist. Pile on all the millions of uninsured people into the already overcrowded and under served Medicare rolls and the waits are going to double, and likely triple.

"The people in this country who are really sick and don't have health insurance is a small enough number.."

It's not a small number, 30 to 40 million people (not counting the illegal aliens) is nothing to sneeze at. Not to mention a lot of people are going to lose their current health insurance because of Obamacare.

The insurance rates are doubling, for most people, and for most this is a complete surprise because they were lied to and told their premiums would go down $2000+ and that if they liked their plan they'd get to keep it.

HolyGod
Male, 30-39, Western US
 5056 Posts
Thursday, October 17, 2013 5:18:02 AM
5Cats

"Insurance Companies will make BILLIONS MORE PROFITS because of the ACA, they LOVE IT!"

Totally disagree. I think they hate it.

"The Affordable Care Act holds health insurance companies accountable to consumers and ensures that American families receive value for their premium dollars. Because of health care reform, insurance companies now must disclose how much they spend on health care and how much they spend on administrative costs, such as salaries and marketing. If an insurance company spends less than 80% (85% in the large group market) of premium on medical care and efforts to improve the quality of care, they must rebate the portion of premium that exceeded this limit. This rule is commonly known as the 80/20 rule or the Medical Loss Ratio (MLR) rule."

HolyGod
Male, 30-39, Western US
 5056 Posts
Thursday, October 17, 2013 5:12:42 AM
AuburnJunky

""the higher costs will be spread out over everybody" That's the problem."

1. For every 500 lb cancer patient with diabetes that signs up now, 100 perfectly healthy people in their 20s and 30s will. Everyone I know who doesn't have health insurance is young and healthy, which is why they don't have health insurance. That is going to balance out the spreading of costs.

2. The people in this country who are really sick and don't have health insurance is a small enough number that when spread out over 300 million people the increase in costs, WHATEVER it may be is going to be insignificant. That is math too. Let's say the new sick people cost the insurance industry a billion dollars more a year. Everyone's insurance premium would go up 25 cents a month. You think anyone is losing their benefits or job over that?

3. The new provision that LIMITS insurance company profits comes into play as well.

Musuko42
Male, 18-29, Europe
 2850 Posts
Thursday, October 17, 2013 4:19:04 AM
@CreamK

"Math also says that disabled people should be terminated etc. horrible things. Health care is not only about cost but care."

Abso-bloody-lutely.

I'm sick of having to debate with people who seem to have forgotten that the economy is there to service the people, not the other way around.

They don't seem to understand that of course it'll cost money: things that are worth doing, things that improve people's lives, generally DO cost money.

Besides, I doubt that it'll cost more in the long run anyway. People who have reliable access to healthcare are bound to be healthier and more productive and capable of earning more and paying more taxes. I'm no expert, but I would bet a few pennies on that offsetting the costs.

Musuko42
Male, 18-29, Europe
 2850 Posts
Thursday, October 17, 2013 4:15:22 AM
@5Cats

"Already harming average Americans! The ACA is BAD FOR USA. 0-care (zero care)."

If people on here were jumping on a conservative plan and calling it a failure after giving it scant few days to prove itself, you would be SCREAMING in rage at them.


Musuko42
Male, 18-29, Europe
 2850 Posts
Thursday, October 17, 2013 4:03:10 AM
@Xprez

"The Affordable Health Care Act doesn't impact those already living off of everyone else. It affects people that actually work for a living, like me and some of you here."

Only blind luck keeps you from becoming one of those people. I'm healthy and working too, but I will never assume that I'll always be that way.

Hope, but not assume, and don't cut the safety net out from underneath you in case you one day need it.


Draculya
Male, 40-49, Asia
 12564 Posts
Thursday, October 17, 2013 1:42:20 AM
Furthermore, and this is where the real socialism comes in, the nation (federal government or states) needs to subsidise healthcare of the needy at the expense of other less worthy programmes. The cost cannot be borne out by employers and employees alone, because (taken to an extremes) it disincentivises employment. I would see a government subsidy as a temporary measure, renewed annually, until malpractice and super-normal healthcare costs can be reined in.

Draculya
Male, 40-49, Asia
 12564 Posts
Thursday, October 17, 2013 1:38:33 AM

As for the "Death Panels" that are so often quoted by the far-right... yes, there will have to be people who decide what's right for the aggregate good of the nation balanced with the good of the patient. The partial solution is top-up plans for the wealthy. This is not ideal, and permits a health gap to remain, but at least a good fundamental level of healthcare is provided for the otherwise un-insurable.

Draculya
Male, 40-49, Asia
 12564 Posts
Thursday, October 17, 2013 1:38:20 AM
It's not communism, duh! It's socialism. Socialism is not a bad thing.

It allows everyone healthcare. It's also not a zero-sum game; he needs to get HIS math right. A larger industry benefits from economies of scale.

If you eliminate punitive jury-decided malpractice suits and substitute for a bureaucratic arbitration/judge based systems with payout tables and demonstrations of pecuniary loss, then healthcare gets cheaper.

You also need to legislate capped costs and standard offer procedure rates under the plan.

5Cats
Male, 50-59, Canada
 26157 Posts
Wednesday, October 16, 2013 7:11:46 PM
@C_Frost: You know all those 'math classes' you slept through as a youth???

@Nerd Rage is correct: The 'logical end game' of ObamaCare is to have Insurance Companies RUN the healthcare industry. With the government providing the 'muscle' to keep pesky 'free markets' OUT! And keep 'the masses' IN whether they want it or not...

Choice? No need for that! The government will make it for you!

auburnjunky
Male, 30-39, Southern US
 10157 Posts
Wednesday, October 16, 2013 6:53:39 PM
"the higher costs will be spread out over everybody"

That's the problem.

Page: 1 24 Next > 

You Must be Signed in to Add a Comment

If you've already got an I-Am-Bored.com account,
click here to sign in.

If you don't have an account yet,
Click Here to Create a Free Account
 

Back to Listing ^top


Bored | Suggest a Link | Advertise | Contact I Am Bored | About I Am Bored | Link to I Am Bored | Live Submission | Privacy | TOS | Ad Choices | Copyright Policy |
© 2014 Demand Media, Inc. All rights reserved.