2016 Presidential Horse Race

[ShawneeIrish]

I will say I am probably as liberal as anyone on this board. I left my job this year and my wife's does not provide insurance. Our options through the exchange setup by ACA were awful. We both would have qualified for a subsidy individually but do not as a couple. The first plan we got was not very good but then the KY system shut down anyhow and had to get a new plan which was even worse. Now my wife has adequate coverage and I have what is basically a catastrophe only policy. We make around 80k combined and spend around 600 a month on insurance. I have long hated the ACA as a bs policy that is a giveaway to private insurance companies that does absolutley nothing to provide real universal care other than force people to buy provate insurance but just thought as avery liberal voter who has experience with the ACA I would share my experience. Much of the reasoning for my dislike of ACA may be different than those who are conservatives but I share in the opinion that the ACA has been a horrible failure.

 

[wizards8507]

That being said, I did benefit from one of the earlier changes made by the ACA. After graduating college, I enlisted in the Army, but before that there was a gap (including while I was in Syria) where I didn't have a job that provided health insurance. Because of the ACA, I was able to stay on my parent's plan. It was awesome.

This is the new standard of "awesome" in Obama's America. A grown man unable to provide for himself prior to joining the Army (a pretty grown man thing to do), so the government forces a private company to allow the grown man to stay dependent on his mommy and daddy.

Meanwhile, the rest of us grown men providing for our families have seen our premiums go through the roof (for me it was about double) so we can subsidize the "awesome" benefits for IrisihinSyria and his friends.

I will say I am probably as liberal as anyone on this board. I left my job this year and my wife's does not provide insurance. Our options through the exchange setup by ACA were awful. We both would have qualified for a subsidy individually but do not as a couple. The first plan we got was not very good but then the KY system shut down anyhow and had to get a new plan which was even worse. Now my wife has adequate coverage and I have what is basically a catastrophe only policy. We make around 80k combined and spend around 600 a month on insurance. I have long hated the ACA as a bs policy that is a giveaway to private insurance companies that does absolutley nothing to provide real universal care other than force people to buy provate insurance but just thought as avery liberal voter who has experience with the ACA I would share my experience. Much of the reasoning for my dislike of ACA may be different than those who are conservatives but I share in the opinion that the ACA has been a horrible failure.

The dirty little secret about the ACA is that it wasn't even supposed to work, which makes the Obama drones who still support it sound even more ridiculous. Even its designers set it up to fail. It wasn't created to insure the uninsured, it was created to collapse the healthcare system so that the people would demand single payer. It's the Chancellor Palpatine school of government. Create a problem that only you can solve. Rather than usurping power, make the people think it was their idea.

Harry Reid says Obamacare will lead to single-payer system

 

[RDU Irish]

Both parents and in-laws benefited from ACA (albeit in different terms).

1) My dad has worked in a factory his whole life. He was constantly getting laid off due to his jobs getting shipped to Mexico, etc. Now that he's older, it's harder to find full-time work w/ benefits that isn't through a temp agency. He finally did, only to find out that the private insurance company providing the service decided it wasn't in their best interest to do business with my dad's current employer. They stripped the benefits, leaving everyone w/o coverage. Thanks to ACA my dad (who has melanoma) grabbed a policy that costs him the exact same. The coverage is the exact same and w/o pre-existing condition stipulations. Although the deductible is higher. The alternative is what they used to do when he lost a job pre-ACA and that was pay much much higher premiums for equal or sometimes less coverage through companies like Anthem, etc.

2) Father-in-law owned a company. Got cancer. Had to sell the company. Lost his insurance as a result. Because of ACA and the affiliated no more pre-existing condition policies, he and his wife were able to get a new, great insurance policy to cover him throughout the remainder of his life. In the past, he would've been SOL.

Maybe those aren't the examples you're looking for, but it's my only personal experience with ACA at the moment.

Yes - cost and accessibility is increased for the sick and skyrockets for the young and healthy. No free lunch.

I can't even drop the maternity rider on our coverage or it counts as a "change" to the policy and I get slammed into Obamacare. Even with the very expensive, now unnecessary rider my coverage is less costly than the cheapest ACA plan available.

Plus, the concept that your deductible changes your plan is pure BS. It is almost a linear relationship to the monthly expense ($1200 deductible change means $100/month difference in premium). The list of what is covered and how is 100% identical - that is what constitutes the plan, IMO.

I know this won't be popular, but I think max deductibles in ACA are too low. Give people the option for true catastrophic coverage with $10k or even $20k deductibles. With health savings accounts and averaged over your entire life, this would cost dramatically less for those that are healthy while providing continued financial incentive to A) stay healthy and B) shop your health services. I would gladly switch to one of these now that my HSA is built up enough to cover the deductible. Make it true catastrophic coverage while incentivizing health and consumer participation.

 

[Polish Leppy 22]

With all due respect Lax, I don't think 20 million new Americans signed up for obamacare. That number (if accurate) includes people that lost their coverage with the new law.

I lost my coverage. Lost my PCP twice. Now I pay $300 a month with a 8000 deductible. It's better that I do private pay than use my coverage at the doctor. My coverage is useless.

There's a reason why it gets terrible news press. The law stinks for everyone.

The law is a major financial catastrophe. There's a reason why major insurance carriers are dropping out. Furthermore, it's going to add trillions more to our 18.5 trillion debt. There's no way to pay back that money with the ACA in place.

Doesn't matter, Rizzo. The ones who shoved this down our throat don't care about cost or quality. Just coverage. That's why supporters of it are telling us to celebrate the "20 million" or whatever it is.

 

[pkt77242]

Doesn't matter, Rizzo. The ones who shoved this down our throat don't care about cost or quality. Just coverage. That's why supporters of it are telling us to celebrate the "20 million" or whatever it is.

Do you really think that cost on average is increasing more than before the ACA? Also how has quality gone down? Care to elaborate?


We have already had this conversation about costs and the truth is that prices for health insurance are increasing at about the same rate if not less than before the ACA (and most likely it is less). Did some people see a large increase, sure. Did some people actually see their policies decrease, sure. Overall on average was it anything higher than what we saw before the ACA, nope, and many years it has been less. It just boggles my mind how you keep going back to that well.

Analysis of 2016 Premium Changes in the Affordable Care Act’s Health Insurance Marketplaces | The Henry J. Kaiser Family Foundation

Analysis of 2015 Premium Changes in the Affordable Care Act’s Health Insurance Marketplaces | The Henry J. Kaiser Family Foundation

 

[Rizzophil]

Pkt. I get you want to defend Obamacare. But talk to real people instead of the spin articles. No one that I have talked to in the hospital, home care, specialists primary care, or birth centers think that it's good. They are agree- the law stinks



Also, they are publicly telling home health care companies that government will be shutting down half in the next five years (home care companies). The goal is to reduce the amount of companies so they can manipulate the system. They just did the same thing oxygen companies.

Think about this. With the new rules and regs for oxygen companies, Medicare now has ten days to review and authorize oxygen scripts. They take their time. They are slow and inefficient. What are you supposed to do if your grandpa gets discharged from the hospital with oxygen? He will need a script but can't get it for ten days. This is real life.

But, if you get readmitted to the hospital, the hospital gets penalized, not the government. It's shameless and real. I got tons of stories. See them everyday.

 

[pkt77242]

Pkt. I get you want to defend Obamacare. But talk to real people instead of the spin articles. No one that I have talked to in the hospital, home care, specialists primary care, or birth centers think that it's good. They are agree- the law stinks

Huh? First off not spin articles, facts about ACA price increases. Just because they don't disagree with your assessment doesn't make them spin articles.

2nd I am not a huge fan of the ACA, I think that the biggest flaw of the ACA is that it was built on top of our already broken health care system. People saying that quality has gone down or that price increases on average are much worse than before aren't being honest.

3rd. In my immediate family (parents, siblings and their SOs) I have an NP who does clinic and in patient work, 2 social workers, a retired director of finance for a hospital, a retired a hospital manager, a nurse manager and a physical therapist. You really might want to no accuse me of talking to people who work in the health care field. I go to my wife's work parties frequently and talk with many doctors, nurses, and management. I would say that people are split on the ACA. Many think that it didn't go far enough and would have preferred a single payer system. Some liked the old system and some want the whole entire system blown up and started from scratch and their are some that like it.

 

[Corry]

One of the only issues I have with the law is as a disabled veteran it forces you to use the VA or pay the full freight. The full cost of insurance without subsides is huge, I lost my job a little while ago, and on just my wife's income we qualified for some subsidies. The only thing is because I'm a disabled Vet they wouldn't allow me to sign up, because 100% of my medical is paid through the VA. I've never used the VA for anything, who the hell would? Thankfully the problem was short lived, after I found employment I just went back into my employer offered plan.

 

[kmoose]

We have already had this conversation about costs and the truth is that prices for health insurance are increasing at about the same rate if not less than before the ACA (and most likely it is less). Did some people see a large increase, sure. Did some people actually see their policies decrease, sure. Overall on average was it anything higher than what we saw before the ACA, nope, and many years it has been less. It just boggles my mind how you keep going back to that well.

But the point is that we were promised that costs would go down for EVERYONE. And they haven't. And they went up significantly for a lot of middle class families. My own personal experience is that my coverage has not changed all that much. I would say it is a net neutral. But a net neutral is a failure, for a law that was supposed to add millions of people to the pool and bring costs down all across the board.

 

[GoIrish41]

But the point is that we were promised that costs would go down for EVERYONE. And they haven't. And they went up significantly for a lot of middle class families. My own personal experience is that my coverage has not changed all that much. I would say it is a net neutral. But a net neutral is a failure, for a law that was supposed to add millions of people to the pool and bring costs down all across the board.

Significant improvement for those who did not have coverage and now do. I would not call that a failure. I'm no huge fan of the ACA, but let's not let the perfect get in the way of the good. It was a wash for you and helped millions of people.

 

[IrishLax]

But the point is that we were promised that costs would go down for EVERYONE. And they haven't. And they went up significantly for a lot of middle class families. My own personal experience is that my coverage has not changed all that much. I would say it is a net neutral. But a net neutral is a failure, for a law that was supposed to add millions of people to the pool and bring costs down all across the board.

Right, it really doesn't matter to the end user WHY the costs have gone up so much... they simply have gone up -- in many cases extremely significantly -- for a large portion of our society.

Placing blame on whoever as to the "why" they have gone up is really irrelevant. It was a lie that costs would go down, it was a lie that everyone could keep their plans if they liked them, and it was a lie that it wasn't a tax.

I'm fine with people defending the merits of the ACA and the good it has accomplished... but I'd also like appreciation for the vast majority of people that are simply in the same boat they were in before, but paying more either implicitly or explicitly.

 

[pkt77242]

Right, it really doesn't matter to the end user WHY the costs have gone up so much... they simply have gone up -- in many cases extremely significantly -- for a large portion of our society.

Placing blame on whoever as to the "why" they have gone up is really irrelevant. It was a lie that costs would go down, it was a lie that everyone could keep their plans if they liked them, and it was a lie that it wasn't a tax.

I'm fine with people defending the merits of the ACA and the good it has accomplished... but I'd also like appreciation for the vast majority of people that are simply in the same boat they were in before, but paying more either implicitly or explicitly.

I agree and disagree. There is no doubt that the cost didn't go down. That is factual. There is also no doubt that they never should have sold it that way. I disagree with the idea that

in many cases extremely significantly

Obviously some people saw large increase and some people saw decreases. On average the increase has been less than before the ACA (though I will admit it is hard to credit the ACA for it as lots of things go into the prices of insurance). I don't think that the ACA is a magic bullet and personally I want a single payer system. I think the greatest flaw of the ACA is that it was built upon our already heavily flawed healthcare system. I think that the ACA is a slight improvement over what we already had but unless we completely scrap our existing model, that is probably the best we can hope for, small incremental improvements either in getting more people covered or controlling prices (unless you do a single payer system I am not sure that we will ever see lower costs).

Now I do agree that most people are still in the same boat as before but as I have already pointed out I don't see that happening without blowing up our existing system.

So for me
1. It was oversold. Price decreases won't happen with for profit companies increased when the costs of healthcare are still increasing. Just can't happen.
2. It has worked decently. More people are covered (postive), and increases seemed to have slowed most years but it is too soon to tell (kind of positive but well short of what we were promised).

So I give it a 6 on a scale of 1-10. A slight improvement over what we had but still lacking in many ways.
3

 

[kmoose]

Significant improvement for those who did not have coverage and now do. I would not call that a failure. I'm no huge fan of the ACA, but let's not let the perfect get in the way of the good. It was a wash for you and helped millions of people.

If it doesn't do what it is supposed to do, then it is a failure. I commend your constant (even unreasonable at times) advocacy for the poor. But the good it did for poor people does not change the fact that it didn't do what they said......... no.......... promised people it would. And the financial effects of effectively providing damn near free health care to the poor has yet to be determined.

 

[GoIrish41]

I agree and disagree. There is no doubt that the cost didn't go down. That is factual. There is also no doubt that they never should have sold it that way. I disagree with the idea that


Obviously some people saw large increase and some people saw decreases. On average the increase has been less than before the ACA (though I will admit it is hard to credit the ACA for it as lots of things go into the prices of insurance). I don't think that the ACA is a magic bullet and personally I want a single payer system. I think the greatest flaw of the ACA is that it was built upon our already heavily flawed healthcare system. I think that the ACA is a slight improvement over what we already had but unless we completely scrap our existing model, that is probably the best we can hope for, small incremental improvements either in getting more people covered or controlling prices (unless you do a single payer system I am not sure that we will ever see lower costs).

Now I do agree that most people are still in the same boat as before but as I have already pointed out I don't see that happening without blowing up our existing system.

So for me
1. It was oversold. Price decreases won't happen with for profit companies increased when the costs of healthcare are still increasing. Just can't happen.
2. It has worked decently. More people are covered (postive), and increases seemed to have slowed most years but it is too soon to tell (kind of positive but well short of what we were promised).

So I give it a 6 on a scale of 1-10. A slight improvement over what we had but still lacking in many ways.
3

Great post. This is pretty much where I am at. A move in the right direction. So not a failure, but not all that was promised. But hell, what policy ever lives up to what its advocates put out there?

 

[pumpdog20]

This is the new standard of "awesome" in Obama's America. A grown man unable to provide for himself prior to joining the Army (a pretty grown man thing to do), so the government forces a private company to allow the grown man to stay dependent on his mommy and daddy.

Meanwhile, the rest of us grown men providing for our families have seen our premiums go through the roof (for me it was about double) so we can subsidize the "awesome" benefits for IrisihinSyria and his friends.


The dirty little secret about the ACA is that it wasn't even supposed to work, which makes the Obama drones who still support it sound even more ridiculous. Even its designers set it up to fail. It wasn't created to insure the uninsured, it was created to collapse the healthcare system so that the people would demand single payer. It's the Chancellor Palpatine school of government. Create a problem that only you can solve. Rather than usurping power, make the people think it was their idea.

Harry Reid says Obamacare will lead to single-payer system

If this truly is the case, it worked for me, because I'm all in on single payer now.

 

[DomeX2 eNVy]

If it doesn't do what it is supposed to do, then it is a failure. I commend your constant (even unreasonable at times) advocacy for the poor. But the good it did for poor people does not change the fact that it didn't do what they said......... no.......... promised people it would. And the financial effects of effectively providing damn near free health care to the poor has yet to be determined.

Brian Kelly was supposed to win a national championship in 5 years. He is a failure at ND.

I like your post, but if you really feel everything is all or failure, I feel bad for you. I honestly believe you are smarter than this rhetoric.
I pay more now than I did 3 years ago for insurance, but my 25 year old student son is covered, and I want to believe many other needy American benefit including many people I know and have worked with that have "pre-existing conditions" are able to get sick care because of it. As a Christian, I don't begrudge my sacrifice. I work with a wonderful woman who had lung cancer as few years ago and had to go on-line to beg friends for donations to help her get treatments. A few weeks ago she found out that her cancer had come back. This time she had insureance to cover her surgery. It actually cost me less🙂 Though I'd be happy to support her either way.

 

[IrishLax]

For those following the caucusing in Iowa, this is a must-watch video:<iframe width="640" height="360" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/Cnh-136QqO8?rel=0" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>

Only the Democrats do it this way, and I'm not sure if it's way more awesome or way more stupid/ridiculous. The part around the 5 minute mark with the Biden people needing one more body is epic though.

 

[Polish Leppy 22]

If it doesn't do what it is supposed to do, then it is a failure. I commend your constant (even unreasonable at times) advocacy for the poor. But the good it did for poor people does not change the fact that it didn't do what they said......... no.......... promised people it would. And the financial effects of effectively providing damn near free health care to the poor has yet to be determined.

Let's not forget poor people are feeling the worst effects of ACA, although you wouldn't hear it from ACA supporters.

We were told ACA would save the average American family $2500. Not even close. We were told it was within the budget. That was way off. Again if we're talking about "coverage", then sure you could call ACA a success.

Those of us who look beyond "number insured" and take into account all the other factors realize it's a shitshow. Set up for failure from Day 1 to bring in single payer.

 

[Cackalacky]

Anyone watching the caucus?
<iframe src="//giphy.com/embed/l2JI9hJjzH1VjJxS0" width="480" height="270" frameBorder="0" class="giphy-embed" allowFullScreen></iframe><p><a href="http://giphy.com/gifs/hug-daughter-ted-cruz-l2JI9hJjzH1VjJxS0">via GIPHY</a></p>

 

[Corry]

I am. CNN just released a entrance poll that showed Trump 27% Cruz 22% Rubio 21% Clinton leads by 4% in the same poll

 

[phork]

Cruz wins!

 

[DillonHall]

Great night for Rubio!

 

[NDVirginia19]

Big loss for Trump today... Now that it looks like a clear 3 horse race, I wonder what happens going forward past NH with establishment candidates.

 

[dwshade]

Great night for Rubio!

Absolutely. Almost got 2nd place. Totally outperformed expectations.

 

[NDVirginia19]

Damn, Rubio just gave a damn good speech on Fox

 

[Irish4Life09]

Real happy to see how well Rubio did tonight. Would love for him to be the eventual Republican candidate.

 

[FearTheBeard]

Democratic race is so close its insane

 

[Booslum31]

Democratic race is so close its insane

Hillary winning by .4% right now. Crazy.

 

[FightingIrishLover7]

Hillary only had 0.4% more than a 73 year old democratic socialist, in a conservative state.

That has to be a significant loss for her camp, no?

 

[FightingIrishLover7]

Hillary only had 0.4% more than a 73 year old democratic socialist, in a conservative state.

That has to be a significant loss for her camp, no?

74, my bad.