The many vague, and poorly thought up economic policies of the far left.

[tstorm823]

The problem is your dishonest bullshit trying to pretend it is single-handedly responsible for the entirety (or near-entirety) of the people who have been additionally been able to access healthcare due to the ACA. You've got no reasonable data for this claim, of course: that's why it's bullshit.

All your argument on the ACA has been evasive, digressive, nonfactual bullshit. It's one of the most spectacularly dishonest performances you have ever put on in this forum.

You are really upset that you've said so many wrong things.

Seriously though. If I said "there is no employer mandate", and someone shows me there is, I say "oh, I was wrong about that, thank you." You are decidedly not taking that tactic, and it is tough to watch this absolute meltdown.

An uninsured person bets their livelihood that they won't need a serious medical procedure.

No, it's still all just money. It's a question of who pays.

 

[Seanchaidh]

No, it's still all just money. It's a question of who pays.

If you have cancer and cannot afford cancer treatment, then waiting until it is 'an emergency' in order to receive emergency care is likely a death sentence.

 

[tstorm823]

If you have cancer and cannot afford cancer treatment, then waiting until it is 'an emergency' in order to receive emergency care is likely a death sentence.

Call 800-813-HOPE to speak to an oncology social worker to help navigate your options.

 

[Seanchaidh]

Call 800-813-HOPE to speak to an oncology social worker to help navigate your options.

"no money? sorry, you're fucked"

 

[tstorm823]

"no money? sorry, you're fucked"

Again, it's funny to me that I seem to be the only one who knows that hospitals in the US aren't from an episode of Scrubs, but rather have social workers available to help people through hard times, to take advantage of the programs available for them. You're all so incredibly cynical.

 

[Silvanus]

Again, it's funny to me that I seem to be the only one who knows that hospitals in the US aren't from an episode of Scrubs, but rather have social workers available to help people through hard times, to take advantage of the programs available for them.

Sure-- accompanied by exorbitant, life-destroying fees for the uninsured or underinsured (or, increasingly, even the insured). We don't need to point to pop culture, because the stats are there. Over half of personal bankruptcies. 100 million in medical debt.

You're all so incredibly cynical.

Absolutely incredible that you'd say this after the "it's all just money" comment, failing to conceive of a motivation or risk in healthcare that isn't financial. Are you sure you're not a performance piece?

 

[tstorm823]

Absolutely incredible that you'd say this after the "it's all just money" comment, failing to conceive of a motivation or risk in healthcare that isn't financial. Are you sure you're not a performance piece?

Health insurance is all just money. Decouple healthcare and health insurance in your brain.

 

[Silvanus]

Health insurance is all just money. Decouple healthcare and health insurance in your brain.

Performance piece, got it.

 

[Seanchaidh]

but rather have social workers available to help people through hard times, to take advantage of the programs available for them.

getting a round of chemotherapy as a walk-in at the free clinic

Nobody should die because they can't afford health care - Public Citizen

]]>

www.citizen.org

The reality is that many people do die because they can’t afford health care. And now, a new study in today’s American Journal of Public Health says the numbers are a lot higher than we thought. The study estimates that 35,327 to 44,789 people between the ages of 18 and 64 die in the U.S. each year because they lack heath insurance. That’s more than double the previous estimate made by the Institute of Medicine in 2002.

 

[tstorm823]

getting a round of chemotherapy as a walk-in at the free clinic

Nobody should die because they can't afford health care - Public Citizen

]]>

www.citizen.org

Rationalization is a hell of a drug.

 

[Agema]

You are really upset that you've said so many wrong things.

To summarise:

• I said that the ACA resulted in little or no increase in government expenditure whilst facilitating a large increase in healthcare cover. I then also added that there was evidence that measures in the ACA had produced forms of savings and potentially reduced the increase in healthcare costs. (Given that the government was subsidising increased access, you would therefore expect that the ACA would increase government healthcare expenditure.) One argument why it didn't significantly do so is because the ACA also acted to decrease elements of healthcare costs in the USA: which ultimately everyone benefits from, even those who would have had cover without the ACA. So you argued that private spending on healthcare increased. Whether this is true or not, it just doesn't contradict my point that the ACA imposed little or no additional cost on public healthcare expenditure. You have offered absolutely nothing to refute that the ACA is well claimed to have offered forms of efficiencies or other savings that have made healthcare cheaper: you just misrepresented my argument to claim I made a mistake.

• I did not initially address the employer mandate, I explained how the government had offered subsidies to support people unable to afford cover. You introduced it and that's fine, but the existence of the employer mandate plainly does not refute the government offering subsidies to support people who otherwise could not get or afford cover. The ACA clearly does do this, and people use it. Then you appear to imply I argued the employer mandate doesn't exist. That's just a lie.

• You variously claim the ACA forces people to be insured. It did initially, but that was struck down and we can see that people are still getting insurance, indicating their preferred, voluntary choice to get cover. You appear to argue that the employer mandate forces people to buy insurance (#120 & #123): it does not. Employers who meet certain size criteria are required to offer insurance to their employees... who are also free to refuse it. Despite the technicality of the ACA forcing people to get cover originally, the end result years after that was struck down suggest the ACA very much enabled the access of healthcare affordability for millions who genuinely wanted it. That's our real-world outcome: people's ability to get insurance cover has increased. Those who really don't want it can still do without

• Then there's all sorts of specious waffle like that increased healthcare cover doesn't mean increased access, which as noted is at best a semantic technicality, and inaccurate in terms of real world outcomes. Or saying everyone could afford insurance anyway - no evidence or justification. Or claiming the expansion in healthcare cover is almost entirely down to the employer mandate, but have provided no meaningful defence of this - even admitting so - thus is not worth addressing.

The only reason you say we are wrong is because you are either dishonest or you don't understand how your arguments have failed to adequately address any of the key points made. Given that there's a load of analyses of the ACA outcomes out there (healthcare, economic, etc.) which you plainly haven't read and know nothing about, it's just bewildering for you to be so zealous about the stumbling bullshit you're spouting.

 

[Seanchaidh]

Rationalization is a hell of a drug.

is that what you want people to treat their cancer with?

 

[Gergar12]

https://www.cnbc.com/2024/09/10/harris-capital-gains-tax-election.html

28% on 1 million income > 39.6% on 100 million individuals. Index funds saved. No selloff.

'If Harris proposes raising the NIIT to 5%, the combined rate would be 33% for top earners. Biden’s plan would raise the combined rate to 44.6%.'

Still better than 44%.

 

[tstorm823]

To summarise:

The thread is still here. Anyone can read it. Your summary is just playing pretend.

 

[Silvanus]

The thread is still here. Anyone can read it.

You're right.

Anyone can confirm, for instance, that you mischaracterised the employer mandate as forcing people to get insured, to pretend a big chunk of the insured were on plans they didn't want. And that when it was pointed out that the individual isn't required to get insured, you acted as though Agema was disputing that an employer mandate existed.

That is the population targeted by the mandates, the people who would rationally choose not to be insured.

And I don't want to hear any more of your bullshit about them being forced to buy insurance: there is no individual mandate anymore, whether through an employer or the marketplace.

There is an employer mandate. I do not know why you think there isn't. It requires businesses to cover their full-time employees and their dependents up to age 26. It is comical to me that you think the drop in the uninsured rates is indicative of how much people want to buy insurance when the demographic you use is specifically those mandated by the law we are discussing to be covered through their parents' employers.

Tis indeed still right there for people to check, but I thought I'd pull the quotes together.

 

[tstorm823]

You're right.

Anyone can confirm, for instance, that you mischaracterised the employer mandate as forcing people to get insured, to pretend a big chunk of the insured were on plans they didn't want. And that when it was pointed out that the individual isn't required to get insured, you acted as though Agema was disputing that an employer mandate existed.

Tis indeed still right there for people to check, but I thought I'd pull the quotes together.

If that were Agema's entire post, you're spot on, I'd be putting my entire argument on tiny semantics that he didn't necessarily say, but oh boy it isn't:

]
From what I can see, the uninsured population of 19-25s appears to be currently just under 15%. Before the ACA it was about 33%. That gives some idea how many young people are happy to have insurance. And I don't want to hear any more of your bullshit about them being forced to buy insurance: there is no individual mandate anymore, whether through an employer or the marketplace.

The law requires employers to provide insurance for employees and their dependents until age 26. The demographic he's using is just on their parents' insurance, through no decision of their own. Characterizing this as evidence of the desires of people under 26 is silly. And coming from someone who at one point told me to go read about the ACA and come back after I learned some more, him either just not knowing or forgetting about one of the most consequential pieces of the ACA is quite satisfying.

 

[Thaluikhain]

is that what you want people to treat their cancer with?

 

[Silvanus]

The law requires employers to provide insurance for employees and their dependents until age 26. The demographic he's using is just on their parents' insurance, through no decision of their own. Characterizing this as evidence of the desires of people under 26 is silly.

"The demographic he's using" is 15-25s, which is a lot broader than merely dependents of that age bracket. But let's pretend for a moment that the entirety of that 18 pp increase is among people who don't have their own insurance, and are covered by their parents' plans. It's a huge leap, but let's assume it for a moment.

...That's your idea of the unfair and coercive nature of the ACA? The fact that more parents opted to cover their kids? And your argument was predicated on the idea that people who didn't want plans would rather keep their own money-- but if it's on their parents' plans that they're receiving coverage, then how exactly does that concern materialise?

 

[tstorm823]

And your argument was predicated on the idea that people who didn't want plans would rather keep their own money-- but if it's on their parents' plans that they're receiving coverage, then how exactly does that concern materialise?

Because we're comparing before the ACA and after the ACA. You two seem to believe that before the ACA, there were millions desperate for health insurance who just couldn't afford it, and now they can. I'm telling you that the difference between then and now is millions of people who previously would have either been generally indifferent to health insurance or not seen it as worth their money (mostly young people) have now incidentally been insured through their employer or their parents.

You two see the increase in the number of insured as an increase in people's access to health care, but the vast, vast, vast majority of the increase in the number of insured is people who don't have any major health spending, who were brought into the insurance system to help pay for the very few who do. The increase in insured is not how many more people are receiving health care, it's how many more people are paying for it, most of whom receive effectively no health care. And you are welcome to support that if you like, the many healthy paying for the few sick, so long as you understand that's what the law is about. It doesn't make healthcare costs go down, it doesn't get people better care, it just redistributes who pays for it.

 

[Silvanus]

Because we're comparing before the ACA and after the ACA. You two seem to believe that before the ACA, there were millions desperate for health insurance who just couldn't afford it, and now they can. I'm telling you that the difference between then and now is millions of people who previously would have either been generally indifferent to health insurance or not seen it as worth their money (mostly young people) have now incidentally been insured through their employer or their parents.

So, if we put aside the mischaracterisation of the ACA as forcing people to get insurance, we have a huge rise in those insured through voluntary plans-- which may be either direct or through their parents.

And then we have a series of assumptions you've made: that the entire rise is down to kids on their parents' plans, and that those kids don't benefit in any meaningful way. They're pretty huge leaps, but we can put them aside for now.

What concern are we left with? You're saying this system is so awful because some parents are choosing to insure their kids, and you think this is bad because the kids might not care about it? And this is the ACA's fault for... giving the parents the option?