WhiteHouse Posts Obamacare Costs State-by-State

It's all going to migrate, only posts made at testingforge.net will disappear.

Ah. So historians will have a first-person record of who was able to present the facts about the ACA and whose only counterargument was to piss on their shoes and scream.

So is there an epidemic of health care providers laying people off, or is there a massive looming doctor shortage due to the increased demand from the unwashed proletariat suddenly having access to care? I can't keep track.

It depends on which message is worse for Obama. Facts be damned, they will say what they have to say.

What partisan bullshit. This damage is being caused by both parties, even if the Democrats are the ones who have been particularly desperate to push it on the unwilling public.

Drives prices of medical care and medicines down? Nope, doesn't do that at all.

And who are you to tell them they can't have that choice? Wow. more and more the fascist is coming out of the people pushing this.

Says the guy who did the same thing in his previous post.

So you claim. And yet, like garamet, you've still been one of the biggest cheerleaders for it.

And you show this by editing people's posts to make what they said into a straw man.

We got something that does harm and that the vast majority of Americans want nothing to do with. It does the opposite of what the stated goal was, and yet you and all the other kool-aid drinkers keep pushing it.

Crybaby.

And of course the doctor shortage, which has been noted for the past three decades, has nothing to do with the obscene cost of medical school.

Unless it's one of those Obama as Time Lord things, where he made medical school tuitions go up back in the 1980s.

You're right...it's so hard to keep track.

My health insurance premium will either be marginally cheaper or significantly cheaper with ACA and only some of my co-payments and deductibles will be reduced, depending on which plan I choose!

No shit, Sherlock! Why do you think it was unoriginal, if not because it followed my post. You're too easy.

According to the paper I linked to up thread, NY will be hit the hardest. Their costs will rise by a wholly unsustainable 23% annually. In fact, when speaking of the five most populous states:

The hospital I'm familiar with gets a check write from Medicaid every two weeks. That's great. But, even after last Friday's check write the government still has an unpaid balance of 235 million dollars. You can render every approved service under the sun, but when the payor doesn't pay you have problems. Further, the patient and public at large don't care about the government not paying you. If you, as a not-for-profit, try to collect from them or even contemplate dropping Medicaid, you look like a prick and you're putting a few billion dollars worth of charitable funding on the line. So, you continue to treat the patients, take the pennies the government pays you, and hope the endowment and charitable foundation can make up the slack.

How cute, you think that was an insult.

You're being willfully disingenuous. Doctors aren't the only healthcare providers.

To use another industry in a similar predicament. There's a massive surplus of people to build and maintain heavy trucks. Unfortunately, there is a shortage of people to drive those trucks. Guess what happens to the people that build and maintain them.

Supposedly it's nurses too.

I believe that's hardly a national problem. Regional, perhaps. Muad Dib, a nurse, has also voiced his concerns about the glut of nurses.

You're right. There's been a nursing shortage for over a decade as well.

The shortages and surpluses are a feature of 50 separate health care markets distorting the national market. This is an example of ACA not doing enough, because it left the state based status quo in place.

Please elaborate. It may be the cold medicine, but I don't understand what you mean by "state based status quo." Or, rather, I would ask which one in particular.

It was probably a bit misleading to say status quo, since that could mean no change at all. I meant no change to the status of 50 distinct markets that don't cross state lines.

You dumb ass. That's exactly what anecdotal doesn't mean.

http://screen.yahoo.com/snl-blockbuster-actors-skits/obamacare-cold-open-090000730.html

When faced with statistics, the Obamatons turn to anecdotes. When faced with anecdotes, they turn to "That's anecdotal!" At any rate, it amounts to "LALALALALALA! I CAN'T HEAR YOU! LALALALALA!"

Oh, and there's making out that it is somehow a bad thing that the GOP is trying to keep Government from further intruding into your life. Good for the GOP. It is about time they got off their asses and did something.

As far as a doctor shortage, as I understand it, that comes from the breaking of the link between supply and demand: It looks like they'll get a lot busier while their pay could actually go down. Surprise, surprise, it no longer becomes worthwhile to put up with all the sacrifices required to become a doctor and voila! Shortages.

As for how you fix the problem without Obamacare, first let me state the problem: Health insurance buffers patients from the cost of healthcare. This is supposed to be a good thing, but what that does is drive up costs. If your doctor tells you you need a $35 Band Aid and then tells you it won't cost you any money because it is covered by insurance you say "sure" and get the Band Aid. If he said "I take cash or checks" you'd say "screw that" and buy a box of generic band aids at the drug store for $7.

I don't know how to fix this problem though. If I did I'd also know how to fix our runaway government spending, personal credit card debt, and the financial and housing debacles. Human nature is to be very willing to spend Other People's Money.

You've got statistics? Present 'em.

How would you change that, though? Yet another bureaucracy at the Federal level? Adding to an existing one? I ask because there's already a bureaucracy at the State level. Who would take their power?

Eliminating the exlusivity rules insurers use in negotiating with the states. It's kind of like the prescription drugs in Canada compared to the US. I'm not entirely sure how it gets fixed, but the issue is essentially that there is wide variation in what states require of insurance remibursements. The rest is basic supply and demand.

Borrowed from a friend of mine:

"If Breaking Bad had premiered in 2014...

Episode One: Walter White is diagnosed with stage-three terminal lung cancer. Under Obamacare, his maximum annual out-of-pocket expense is $12,700. His insurance company is forbidden from dropping his coverage or imposing a lifetime maximum benefit. Walt pays his bills and lives out his last few years in relative comfort and safety. The end.

Man, that sucks! THANKS OBAMA!!!"

But at least she won't be hundreds of thousands in debt. You can't collect from the dead.

And what kind of plan would a person with a brain hemorrhage in their medical history have been able to buy on their own before the ACA?

So glad you bumped this, Ramen! It shows just how wrong the naysayers were:

State by state costs if the ACA were repealed.

Not that that was your intention, but that makes it so much sweeter.

Considering that this lady is going to die because she's skipping brain checks anyway:

I'm sure you believe that's the whole story.

Can't answer tafkats' question, huh?