The American Constitution

[JoeKitchen]

Is it?  I can't find any record of that, but I'm open to correction.  Nevertheless, again, there's nothing in the ACA that forces people to change doctors, or forces doctors to leave plans.  Plans and doctors can and do, and always have, changed organically.  The fact that some doctors or plans changed after the ACA was was implement is not, in and of itself, any indication that a deliberate "lie" was told, or that the ACA caused this at all.

...and millions more people have coverage.   Does that matter to you?  If not, what Grueber said is prescient.

The vast majority of those covered by the ACA had insurance previously.  The vast majority of the uninsured prior to the ACA are still uninsured.  The actual number of people using the exchanges is vastly lower than what we were told would be on it by now.  The premiums, especially on the exchanges, grow at a vastly higher rate (in some instances 100%+ a few years in a row) then what we were promised. 

[James Clark]

The vast majority of those covered by the ACA had insurance previously.  The vast majority of the uninsured prior to the ACA are still uninsured.  The actual number of people using the exchanges is vastly lower than what we were told would be on it by now.  The premiums, especially on the exchanges, grow at a vastly higher rate (in some instances 100%+ a few years in a row) then what we were promised.

Nice dodge.  But how about answering the question?  Does the fact that an additional x people have coverage, and that people that were previously uninsurable can now be covered, matter to you?

[Manoli]

The vast majority of those covered by the ACA had insurance previously. 
The vast majority of the uninsured prior to the ACA are still uninsured. 

20 million people gained Medical Insurance under the ACA
Of those 20 million, over 7 million have since lost insurance (under Trump)

[degrub]

the fundamental fact about insurance of any kind is that those who do not have "disasters" or "needs" pay for those who do. It is called sharing the risk. It is how it works. The companies providing the coverage early in ACA had problems pricing the coverage. The price charged had to go up as this was not a fully tax payer funded operation and the companies providing the insurance and the companies providing re-insurance to insurance companies (spreading the risk around) have to make a net profit and maintain reserves.

[JoeKitchen]

20 million people gained Medical Insurance under the ACA
Of those 20 million, over 7 million have since lost insurance (under Trump)

So prior to Obama, we had about 14.5% uninsured.  It then dropped to 10.9%, but is now back to almost 14%.  Aside from taking away the individual mandate, I really dont see what Trump did to make to the percentage higher. 

The price on the exchanges were going up greatly prior to Trump coming into office, and perhaps people just could not afford it.  Then when the mandate was taken away, the decided why not just drop it, especially since you can sign up even if your sick.  So, I'll not have insurance and if anything happens, I'll just sign up then. 

[JoeKitchen]

Nice dodge.  But how about answering the question?  Does the fact that an additional x people have coverage, and that people that were previously uninsurable can now be covered, matter to you?

I am a libertarian; I don't engage in using empathy when looking at things logically.  Plus, my level empathy for the uninsured has no baring what so ever on the effectiveness of the program, which is what I am more concerned with. 

[faberryman]

Then when the mandate was taken away, the decided why not just drop it, especially since you can sign up even if your sick.  So, I'll not have insurance and if anything happens, I'll just sign up then.

Of course, you won't be covered for charges you incur prior to signing up. Usually the big ones are when you are involved in an accident. I fell off a ladder and broke my humerus at the shoulder joint. Within twelve hours I had a plate and nine screws in my arm and a $30,000 bill. No time to call and sign up. Fortunately, I had insurance.

[James Clark]

So prior to Obama, we had about 14.5% uninsured.  It then dropped to 10.9%, but is now back to almost 14%.  Aside from taking away the individual mandate, I really dont see what Trump did to make to the percentage higher. 

The price on the exchanges were going up greatly prior to Trump coming into office, and perhaps people just could not afford it.  Then when the mandate was taken away, the decided why not just drop it, especially since you can sign up even if your sick.  So, I'll not have insurance and if anything happens, I'll just sign up then.

You serious??   "Aside from the terminal cancer, you're perfectly healthy!"  Besides, it's not just Trump. It's (R) governerments in states like mine that refuse to take the ACA money to expand Medicaid, and the federal government deliberately cutting information that would direct people to signup.  Killing the mandate is just the most obvious ploy, but like the right's incessant "voter fraud" nonsense, there are all sorts of subtleties designed to torpedo the program.

[James Clark]

I am a libertarian; I don't engage in using empathy when looking at things logically.  Plus, my level empathy for the uninsured has no baring what so ever on the effectiveness of the program, which is what I am more concerned with.

It's not empathy.  It's a straight calculation.  Is the incremental cost to you worth it if it means other citizens will be healthier.  So is it?

[Slobodan Blagojevic]

It's not empathy.  It's a straight calculation.  Is the incremental cost to you worth it if it means other citizens will be healthier.  So is it?

No.

[James Clark]

No.

An honest man.

Edit:  Not necessarily a *consistent* man, but an honest one . I've never understood why my right-leaning friends are so eager to pay billions to defend lives from terrorists, but so unwilling spend money to save lives from much more pernicious enemies.

[Slobodan Blagojevic]

An honest man.

Edit:  Not necessarily a *consistent* man, but an honest one . I've never understood why my right-leaning friends are so eager to pay billions to defend lives from terrorists, but so unwilling spend money to save lives from much more pernicious enemies.

Because terrorists could kill ME or MY family, however slight the chance is, while I couldn’t care less if a whale dies for eating like a pig. Honest enough?

Besides, insurance is a textbook example for a moral hazard. It eliminates one incentive to live a healthy lifestyle.

[32BT]

Besides, insurance is a textbook example for a moral hazard. It eliminates one incentive to live a healthy lifestyle.

Au contraire, insurance allows you to create those incentives. If the price of admission is the same for everyone (either non-existent or horribly expensive), there is no instrument.

[JoeKitchen]

It's not empathy.  It's a straight calculation.  Is the incremental cost to you worth it if it means other citizens will be healthier.  So is it?

No. 

More medical coverage does not make someone healthier.  People are not going to suddenly eat better and exercise, stop inhaling smoke into their lungs just because they have more coverage.  All it means is that they have more coverage.  I don't see the overall cost savings. 

[JoeKitchen]

Of course, you won't be covered for charges you incur prior to signing up. Usually the big ones are when you are involved in an accident. I fell off a ladder and broke my humerus at the shoulder joint. Within twelve hours I had a plate and nine screws in my arm and a $30,000 bill. No time to call and sign up. Fortunately, I had insurance.

Good point, insofar as accidents are concerned. 

[Robert Roaldi]

Besides, insurance is a textbook example for a moral hazard. It eliminates one incentive to live a healthy lifestyle.

Sharing risk is one of the things that makes capitalism and modern industrial society possible. It and the rule of law are cornerstones of modern culture.

We find ways to manage free riders and moral hazard because we're all better off for it. You owe it to yourself to read something other than Ayn Rand, humanity didn't stop thinking when she died (or even when she was alive for that matter). Start with Joseph Heath's Filthy Lucre. Then re-read Adam Smith, not just the two paragraphs you like though, this time read the other 2000 pages.

Libertarianism is as discredited as communism. It is only slightly better because it never actually took hold anywhere so we have no historical record of its failures. Yet.

[Slobodan Blagojevic]

...You owe it to yourself to read something other than Ayn Rand...

Never read a single page. Read Marx though, all three tomes of Das Kapital, probably close to 2000 pages.

P.S. I never claimed I am a libertarian.

[faberryman]

Good point, insofar as accidents are concerned.

That is the point. You buy health insurance so an accident doesn't bankrupt you. It is for the unexpected. That's why they call it insurance.

[JoeKitchen]

That is the point. You buy health insurance so an accident doesn't bankrupt you. It is for the unexpected. That's why they call it insurance.

Of course, I have insurance, for that reason.  But that does not take away from the fact that some people don't think like this. 

[faberryman]

Of course, I have insurance, for that reason.  But that does not take away from the fact that some people don't think like this.

I'll grant you that some people aren't that bright, and don't manage their lives prudently. There is a bell curve.