Debate thread (Sept. 10)

[wdefromtx 3,611]

1 minute ago, homersapien said:

I did answer.  You just refuse to accept it.

Tying health insurance to your employee is antiquated and irrational.

So, you don't have a real answer.

You want me to get my insurance through the government? LMAO, have you seen what they offer currently? You think I am being irrational? That's funny. 

[auburnatl1 6,182]

13 minutes ago, AU9377 said:

We need a plan that provides coverage for everyone, while controlling the cost of coverage. 

I would suggest there are 3 demographics with different needs - 1) middle class and above that simply need the system to be much more efficient, leaner, and therefore affordable (the vast majority - much subsidized by employers) 2) lower middle class that need supplements 3) poor, homeless, ect that need a pure safety net.

Imo it’s not a one size fits all and why solutions to date have failed and exploded costs

[homersapien 12,245]

https://www.fiercehealthcare.com/payer/how-10-years-aca-have-shaped-insurance-business-and-what-s-next

How 10 years of the ACA have shaped the insurance business—and what’s next

The Affordable Care Act (ACA) is celebrating its 10th birthday—marking a decade of change in how insurance companies do business. 

While the landmark healthcare law’s central focus was to broaden access to coverage, it also significantly accelerated a transition to alternative payment models (APMs) focused on value and instituted new reforms to ensure health plans cover certain benefits. 

Matt Eyles, CEO of America’s Health Insurance Plans, had a front-row seat to the evolution of the industry over the past 10 years.

“It really is a dramatically different industry today, not only in terms of how consumer-focused it is but also, I think, in terms of how our members think about integrating care across the entire continuum,” said Eyles, whose work with health payers began in late 2009. “The ACA has been a big part of the evolution in terms of how the industry thinks and operates.” 

 

RELATED: Why the ACA's impact on the individual market offers lessons for future health reform 

Here’s a look back at some of the biggest changes over the past decade to the insurance business: 

Dramatic expansion of coverage 

Prior to the ACA’s passage in 2010, about 46.5 million people lacked health insurance, according to data from the Kaiser Family Foundation (KFF). By 2016, that had declined to a record low of 26.7 million thanks in large part to reforms in the law, namely Medicaid expansion. 

By 2018, that had increased slightly to 27.9 million uninsured, according to KFF, as affordability challenges remain. Coverage gains began to stall the year prior, a trend that continues today. 

The coverage expansions both opened new business lines—and allowed startups to break into the market—and forced health insurers to take on members who might have previously been denied coverage for preexisting conditions........

 

 

Edited September 13 by homersapien

[homersapien 12,245]

5 minutes ago, wdefromtx said:

So, you don't have a real answer.

You want me to get my insurance through the government? LMAO, have you seen what they offer currently? You think I am being irrational? That's funny. 

If your company does not offer an employer-sponsored plan, and if you are not eligible for Medicare or Medicaid, individuals and families have the option of purchasing insurance policies directly from private insurance companies or through the Health Insurance Marketplace.

 

[wdefromtx 3,611]

2 minutes ago, TexasTiger said:

How high? Millions?

This was 16 years ago. 

I think it was maybe 2 million annually and 10 million lifetime. Or it may not have had a lifetime. Regardless it was insanely high. 

I would rather have that with deductibles that are reasonable compared to unlimited max with deductibles that are substantially higher and financially ruin people. 

[wdefromtx 3,611]

Just now, homersapien said:

If your company does not offer an employer-sponsored plan, and if you are not eligible for Medicare or Medicaid, individuals and families have the option of purchasing insurance policies directly from private insurance companies or through the Health Insurance Marketplace.

 

But, you just said me getting insurance through my work is antiquated. Why would I want to get insurance privately? 

You do realize people could do that prior to the ACA right? 

Why were plans through employers outlawed/banned or whatever for people to be able to get in through a market place and why were existing plans in the marketplaces forced to be eliminated? 

[wdefromtx 3,611]

1 hour ago, homersapien said:

I am saying everyone is entitled to healthcare and healthcare insurance. 

If "some" have to "give up stuff" in order to provide that healthcare/insurance to everyone, so be it. I have to "give up stuff" (my money) to fund our government.  It's part of the dues I owe as a citizen. 

Finally, if you don't like the plan Democrats passed, then you should try to get Republicans to pass one.  (I heard they have the "concept of a plan" in mind. )

Meanwhile, I hope Democrats come to recognize that a universal plan - such as our peers have - is better for everyone and cheaper to boot.  Of course, Republicans will fight it every inch of the way. 

 

Put another way.

By your way of thinking, would you be fine with giving up your house and land to go live in an apartment or tiny house crammed in a neighborhood and pay substantially more for it just so that people in other cities, states were able to get into a similar apartment or house that you were forced into? Yes, or no? 

 

[auburnatl1 6,182]

32 minutes ago, wdefromtx said:

Put another way.

By your way of thinking, would you be fine with giving up your house and land to go live in an apartment or tiny house crammed in a neighborhood and pay substantially more for it just so that people in other cities, states were able to get into a similar apartment or house that you were forced into? Yes, or no? 

 

Individualism/objectivism vs societal collectivism  in a nutshell.  The underlying cause of almost every disagreement on this site. 

Except for Trump himself.  A completely different… ism.

Edited September 13 by auburnatl1

[homersapien 12,245]

32 minutes ago, wdefromtx said:

Put another way.

By your way of thinking, would you be fine with giving up your house and land to go live in an apartment or tiny house crammed in a neighborhood and pay substantially more for it just so that people in other cities, states were able to get into a similar apartment or house that you were forced into? Yes, or no? 

 

That is an extreme and totally irrelevant analogy.    

No one would seriously suggest I should give up my house so others can be housed. 

If you want a better insurance plan that what is available through ACA, then go out and buy it.   No one is stopping you.  

I once had a good insurance plan with my employer until I didn't as the result of a merger out of my control.  I spent the next three years hoping I didn't have a medical emergency that could have literally wiped me out.  That system sucked.  You were lucky.

[homersapien 12,245]

12 minutes ago, auburnatl1 said:

Individualism/objectivism vs societal collectivism  in a nutshell.  The underlying cause of almost every disagreement on this sight. 

Except for Trump himself.  A completely different… ism.

Yeah, but let's try to keep it rational. 

Individual rights and freedom are definitely important worth fighting for, but like it or not, we live in a society with collective interests. 

No man is an island.

[wdefromtx 3,611]

2 minutes ago, auburnatl1 said:

Individualism/objectivism vs societal collectivism  in a nutshell.  The underlying cause of almost every disagreement on this sight. 

Except for Trump himself.  A completely different… ism.

Exactly. 

The issue is people want others to sacrifice what they earned as long as it benefits them. But I seriously doubt he'd want to give up his land and house to so someone else gets the same. 

But whatever.

It is what politicians want us to disagree on. It makes it easier for them to benefit themselves. All you have to do is go to each parties NC page and read their platforms. They are essentially the same. Both say they want the same things (they diverge some when it comes to certain issues) and blame the other side. 

You'd think after decades and decades they would have figured it out. 

 

 

[wdefromtx 3,611]

4 minutes ago, homersapien said:

That is an extreme and totally irrelevant analogy.    

No one would seriously suggest I should give up my house so others can be housed. 

If you want a better insurance plan that what is available through ACA, then go out and buy it.   No one is stopping you.  

I once had a good insurance plan with my employer until I didn't as the result of a merger out of my control.  I spent the next three years hoping I didn't have a medical emergency that could have literally wiped me out.  That system sucked.  You were lucky.

There you have it folks. When it is something, you have to give up, it matters. 

Still waiting for you to answer why democrats made a law that forced people to lose what they had for the benefit of others. Were they forced to, to make it work? 

Funny that you believe I can get better healthcare through ACA than my employer. 

The new system sucks and exploded costs. 

[auburnatl1 6,182]

9 minutes ago, homersapien said:

Yeah, but let's try to keep it rational. 

Individual rights and freedom are definitely important worth fighting for, but like it or not, we live in a society with collective interests. 

No man is an island.

Obviously it’s a volume knob  that balances between the 2.  The disagreement is how loud does everybody agree to put it at.

[Leftfield 3,380]

4 minutes ago, auburnatl1 said:

Obviously it’s a volume knob  that balances between the 2.  The disagreement is how loud does everybody agree to put it at.

The extremes on both sides...

 

Edited September 13 by Leftfield

[homersapien 12,245]

8 minutes ago, auburnatl1 said:

Obviously it’s a volume knob  that balances between the 2.  The disagreement is how loud does everybody agree to put it at.

Well, this disagreement is based on a hypothetical example of my giving up my house in the interest of creating affordable housing for others.

I'd say that's an "11" if not higher.

 

 

Edited September 13 by homersapien

[homersapien 12,245]

29 minutes ago, wdefromtx said:

Still waiting for you to answer why democrats made a law that forced people to lose what they had for the benefit of others. Were they forced to, to make it work? 

 

I don't think you even know why your employer discontinued your plan.  I can find no references that support the ACA forcing them to do so.

If anything, just the opposite.  It had employer mandates:

Employer mandate: Large employers (with 50 or more full-time employees) must offer health insurance that meets ACA standards. (https://www.adp.com/spark/articles/2024/02/real-answers-to-pressing-aca-compliance-questions.aspx  )

 

See also:

https://www.commonwealthfund.org/publications/issue-briefs/2023/jan/what-employers-say-future-employer-health-insurance

https://www.cms.gov/cciio/resources/fact-sheets-and-faqs/aca_implementation_faqs2

https://www.maynardnexsen.com/publication-paying-employees-to-opt-out-of-health-insurance-or-other-benefits-problems-and-potential-solutions

https://www.cigna.com/employers/insights/informed-on-reform/employer-mandate

etc....

(Search "Did ACA force companies to discontinue employee plans?")

You've just been running with your political paradigm and it's totally bogus. 

 

 

 

Edited September 13 by homersapien

[auburnatl1 6,182]

6 minutes ago, homersapien said:

Well, this disagreement is based on a hypothetical example of my giving up my house in the interest of creating affordable housing for others.

I'd say that's an "11" if not higher.

 

 

Another balancing act is  about “fair”. Liberals often focus on fairness of situation - family wealth, race, or gender. Then throw in the greed rant. I totally get it.

But the uncomfortable truth and much bigger problem imo is the species itself - the vast diversity of intellect, social skills, and ambition.     Better education can help to a point. 

In little league everybody gets to play at least half the game regardless of ability. Until you get to the competitive  levels. Then  talent takes over and many can’t play.  If teams don’t do that they’ll literally lose every game. 

It’s a global economy today. Every company is in a vicious competition to survive  and will focus solely on talent and cost. Like any mlb team.  

The only point is every ying towards “fairness” has a yang against  competitiveness. Which is why whenever I hear simple solutions to rights and fairness issues - respectfully, they don’t have a clue. 

[wdefromtx 3,611]

1 minute ago, homersapien said:

I don't think you even know why your employer discontinued your plan.  I can find no references that support the ACA forcing them to do so.

If anything, it had employer mandates:

Employer mandate: Large employers (with 50 or more full-time employees) must offer health insurance that meets ACA standards. (https://www.adp.com/spark/articles/2024/02/real-answers-to-pressing-aca-compliance-questions.aspx  )

 

See also:

https://www.commonwealthfund.org/publications/issue-briefs/2023/jan/what-employers-say-future-employer-health-insurance

https://www.cms.gov/cciio/resources/fact-sheets-and-faqs/aca_implementation_faqs2

https://www.maynardnexsen.com/publication-paying-employees-to-opt-out-of-health-insurance-or-other-benefits-problems-and-potential-solutions

https://www.cigna.com/employers/insights/informed-on-reform/employer-mandate

etc....

(Search "Did ACA force companies to discontinue employee plans?")

You've must been running with your paradigm and it's bogus.

 

 

 

Come out from under your rock. 

I know exactly why my employer got rid of it. It was the ACA, we had all kinds of meetings and discussion from HR about it. It was a variety of reasons from the plans not fitting into what was now allowed or going to be too expensive.

Fact is, many companies ahead of time started phasing out high end plans because of the "Cadillac Tax" that was supposed to go into effect. This is fact as I worked at different companies that did so. So whatever research you do is meaningless. It happened, end of story. 

It was not just employer based. Plans disappeared from state exchanges as well. Another fact as my parents experienced. 

You can cite whatever BS source you want, the ACA law changed things, state exchanges and companies reacted accordingly. And before your next tactic trying to tell me it was the company and not the ACA that did it, that's BS. 

[homersapien 12,245]

3 minutes ago, wdefromtx said:

Come out from under your rock. 

I know exactly why my employer got rid of it. It was the ACA, we had all kinds of meetings and discussion from HR about it. It was a variety of reasons from the plans not fitting into what was now allowed or going to be too expensive.

Fact is, many companies ahead of time started phasing out high end plans because of the "Cadillac Tax" that was supposed to go into effect. This is fact as I worked at different companies that did so. So whatever research you do is meaningless. It happened, end of story. 

It was not just employer based. Plans disappeared from state exchanges as well. Another fact as my parents experienced. 

You can cite whatever BS source you want, the ACA law changed things, state exchanges and companies reacted accordingly. And before your next tactic trying to tell me it was the company and not the ACA that did it, that's BS. 

Sounds to me like your gripe is with your employer, not the ACA.

[TexasTiger 14,310]

By

[wdefromtx 3,611]

Just now, homersapien said:

Sounds to me like your gripe is with your employer, not the ACA.

Nope it's with democrats and the ACA because it is what messed things up. 

[TexasTiger 14,310]

Just now, wdefromtx said:

Nope it's with democrats and the ACA because it is what messed things up. 

How would you change it?

[homersapien 12,245]

7 minutes ago, auburnatl1 said:

Another balancing act is  about “fair”. Liberals often focus on fairness of situation - family wealth, race, or gender. Then throw in the greed rant. I totally get it.

But the uncomfortable truth and much bigger problem imo is the species itself - the vast diversity of intellect, social skills, and ambition.     Better education can help to a point. 

In little league everybody gets to play at least half the game regardless of ability. Until you get to the competitive  levels. Then  talent takes over and many can’t play.  If teams don’t do that they’ll literally lose every game. 

It’s a global economy today. Every company is in a vicious competition to survive  and will focus solely on talent and cost. Like any mlb team.  

The only point is every ying towards “fairness” has a yang against  competitiveness. Which is why whenever I hear simple solutions to rights and fairness issues - respectfully, they don’t have a clue. 

Respectfully, but I don't think I've ever presented any "solution" as "simple".

Even my proposals for revising our electoral system are not "simple" regarding making them happen.

[wdefromtx 3,611]

1 minute ago, TexasTiger said:

How would you change it?

Look at a model of some other countries and see how what they can do can be applied. But you act like what I would do means anything. 

[homersapien 12,245]

2 minutes ago, wdefromtx said:

Nope it's with democrats and the ACA because it is what messed things up. 

Again, maybe for you, but they were a godsend to many many more.

And they didn't force your employer to do anything.