Thread: Obamacare Summed Up in One Statistic - Fewer American Uninsured

3 of the 6 ranges list no change.

of the other 3 two moved a fraction of a percent. The largest move was 2.2%

WOW... now that's change! 2,000 pages of law... 2.2% 'improvement'

failshipmentlv4.jpg

All of that was due to young people being kept on their parent's plan longer. Costing all of us more money.

Great, so for the first time in three years, the proportion of Americans who have health insurance went up, from 83.7 percent in 2010 to 84.3 percent in 2011. One demographic hitting above 2%. And yet, the cost of insurance premiums during the same time period rose some 9.5%, will do another 4% this year on top of. Even the author of your article was smart enough to not bother bringing up costs all that much when pimping how wonderful Obamacare is. Probably because like Obama, the author does not care who has to pay for it so long as it is not him.

It is like the blind leading the stupid...

Reminder: Obamacare saves American lives; Romney & other Republicans would overturn it. Plain Honest Truth: Obamacare Saves Lives

A 0.6% increase at what expense? A cost of insurance premiums during the same time period rose some 9.5%.

Must be liberal math. That's far too small a gain for far too much expense in my eyes.

The expensive parts of Obamacare won't fully kick in til 2014. Wait and listen to the outrage then.

Originally Posted by eohrnberger

A 0.6% increase at what expense? A cost of insurance premiums during the same time period rose some 9.5%.

Must be liberal math. That's far too small a gain for far too much expense in my eyes.

But look what premiums are doing in 2012.

Annual premiums for employer-sponsored family health coverage reached $15,745 this year, up 4 percent from last year, with workers on average paying $4,316 toward the cost of their coverage, according to the Kaiser Family Foundation/Health Research & Educational Trust (HRET) 2012 Employer Health Benefits Survey released today.

This year’s premium increase is moderate by historical standards, but outpaced the growth in workers’ wages (1.7 percent) and general inflation (2.3 percent). Since 2002, premiums have increased 97 percent, three times as fast as wages (33 percent) and inflation (28 percent).

“In terms of employee insurance costs, this year’s 4 percent increase qualifies as a good year, but it still takes a growing bite out of middle-class workers’ wages, which have been flat or falling in real terms,” Kaiser President and CEO Drew Altman, Ph.D. said.

“Premium growth is at historic lows, which greatly benefits workers. Continuing to ensure that Americans have coverage options that are affordable is vitally important for our nation’s health,” said Maulik Joshi, Dr.P.H., president of HRET and senior vice president for research at the American Hospital Association.

Family Health Premiums Rise 4 Percent to Average of $15,745 in 2012, National Benchmark Employer Survey Finds - Kaiser Family Foundation

Originally Posted by Unique POV

But look what premiums are doing in 2012.



Family Health Premiums Rise 4 Percent to Average of $15,745 in 2012, National Benchmark Employer Survey Finds - Kaiser Family Foundation

Agreed that medical insurance premiums keep going up, and that's what driving the ever increasing cost of medical care to everyone, insured or not.

Disagree that Obamacare is a solution to this problem. From my perspective, Obamacare is increasing the rate and the amount at which these expenses will be dumped on those who cary insurance.

Meanwhile, people are losing their insurance as employers cut out full time positions to avoid the insurance mandate.

Just one example: Worker hours to be cut over Obamacare? | New Hampshire NEWS02

Originally Posted by MattInFla

Meanwhile, people are losing their insurance as employers cut out full time positions to avoid the insurance mandate.

Just one example: Worker hours to be cut over Obamacare? | New Hampshire NEWS02

That just doesn't make sense, why would a company cut a position that provided health insurance to avoid being forced to provide health insurance to that position?

Originally Posted by Sluggo

Great, so for the first time in three years, the proportion of Americans who have health insurance went up, from 83.7 percent in 2010 to 84.3 percent in 2011. One demographic hitting above 2%. And yet, the cost of insurance premiums during the same time period rose some 9.5%, will do another 4% this year on top of. Even the author of your article was smart enough to not bother bringing up costs all that much when pimping how wonderful Obamacare is. Probably because like Obama, the author does not care who has to pay for it so long as it is not him.

It is like the blind leading the stupid...

During the Bush years the cost of health insurance rose 7-10% each year, the health insurance system in the US was in a death spiral, rising costs induced healthy people to opt out, which left the insured cohort less healthy, which caused costs to rise, which caused more healthy people to opt out, etc.

We had fewer and fewer people insured at a higher and higher cost, employers have been trimming back coverage and reducing the share the company covers for decades.
Left as it was the health insurance system was on the verge of collapse.
ObamaCare is the first step to reforming the system, it's not perfect but it does represent an improvement.
Repealing ObamaCare would result in millions of Americans losing their health insurance, and going into the Medicaid system, which means taxpayers foot the bill.
Is that what you want?

Originally Posted by goober

During the Bush years the cost of health insurance rose 7-10% each year, the health insurance system in the US was in a death spiral, rising costs induced healthy people to opt out, which left the insured cohort less healthy, which caused costs to rise, which caused more healthy people to opt out, etc.

We had fewer and fewer people insured at a higher and higher cost, employers have been trimming back coverage and reducing the share the company covers for decades.
Left as it was the health insurance system was on the verge of collapse.
ObamaCare is the first step to reforming the system, it's not perfect but it does represent an improvement.
Repealing ObamaCare would result in millions of Americans losing their health insurance, and going into the Medicaid system, which means taxpayers foot the bill.
Is that what you want?

Of course not, but what I also do not want is what has become a manufactured lie (many really) that Obamacare takes us in the right direction. There are parts of Obamacare that make sense, and are even popular. But as a whole Obamacare is not all that popular with real cost impact not known for sure. What we do know is Medicaid is going to be hit anyway which is why some states needed a bribe to get the vote. And when it comes to taxpayers having to foot that bill, well that will happen anyway. My concern is for Obamacare to be really effective it really needs round 2 of legislation effort. No one is being real forthcoming what that will be but it hints to even more regulation change of healthcare intermediaries, or a change in the number of them, or a new round of cost regulations, all the above, etc.

Originally Posted by goober

During the Bush years the cost of health insurance rose 7-10% each year, the health insurance system in the US was in a death spiral, rising costs induced healthy people to opt out, which left the insured cohort less healthy, which caused costs to rise, which caused more healthy people to opt out, etc.

We had fewer and fewer people insured at a higher and higher cost, employers have been trimming back coverage and reducing the share the company covers for decades.
Left as it was the health insurance system was on the verge of collapse.
ObamaCare is the first step to reforming the system, it's not perfect but it does represent an improvement.
Repealing ObamaCare would result in millions of Americans losing their health insurance, and going into the Medicaid system, which means taxpayers foot the bill.
Is that what you want?

Dire, dire indeed Goober; but there is a ray of sunshine my friend! Nobody has ever attacked the problem on the cost side. I wonder how many places would lower their costs, or be put out of business? I know, it is down right mean to suggest that pharma lower its costs, or nurses take less pay, but it appears that could happen, if the government doesn't give away something for free!

Automakers did it, steel industry did it, hell....a whole host of industrys did it. Why for one instant do any of us think that the medical industry can't! If you believe it is not possible, you are only fooling yourself.

Now of course, you will make the case that it will lower our overall healthcare improvement, experimentation level.

You may very well be correct, but I ask you------------->what is more important---------->everyone being able to access healthcare that we have today for a reasonable cost, and the cures slowing somewhat, or only the rich being able to access all healthcare that is cutting edge, while the rest of us pay more for existing healthcare to develop the cures that the rich can only afford?

That sounds bassackwards from a conservative like myself, but the truth is offering any segment of the economy an open checkbook when it is not a national emergency, just screws every other segment of the economy.

We need consistent improvement in every sector of our economy as far as innovation, not just 1 or 2. We can't allow 1 sector to bleed off the growth of the others, and that is exactly what healthcare is doing.

QUESTION------>If America so wanted, we could probably build a ship to transport people to Mars, and back. Is that the smartest thing we could do today, and if we did, how much money would that take out of other programs that would benefit the regular American more? Same with healthcare. Not to mention that if we stop allowing some of this stuff in pharma to happen, the rest of the world will be forced to pay their part for the drugs that our manufacturers discover, instead of totally passing the bill onto us!