how much has obamacare cost america ?

BU Medical Sciences
This forum made possible through the generous support of SDN members, donors, and sponsors. Thank you.
plumazul said:
Here is an interesting story about how things are going in Massachusetts (which got a head start on the ACA since the almost identical Romneycare was implemented there first). It appears they are approaching 0% uninsured.

Also, for those in the thread that appear confused about the origin of current healthcare policy:

Major portions of the ACA, including the much debated individual mandate to purchase healthcare, originated in the Republican Party and right wing think-tanks as a rebuttal to single payer being offered by left leaning institutions. Many Republicans are now against it solely because the President agreed to it.
Click to expand...
Their premiums have also gone UP and waiting times have also gone UP. Also Obamacare is not Romneycare at the federal level.
Members don't see this ad.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 users
deanthedream17 said:
This plan is nothing like Romneycare. Romneycare passed with bipartisan support and isn't going to increase the deficit. Too many socialists on this forum that want their money they earn one day to be happily redistributed by their dear leader.
Click to expand...
Socialist?! I prefer pinko commie! It sounds better.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 3 users
Members don't see this ad :)
plumazul said:
As a future physician/scientist I am much more concerned with facts like these and I would never accept any unsourced "facts" from anyone (esp. you :p)
Click to expand...
please scroll down to the first comments of the link you provided. The commenter perfectly states there is no source at all to back up those claims.
 
deanthedream17 said:
please scroll down to the first comments of the link you provided. The commenter perfectly states there is no source at all to back up those claims.
Click to expand...

Do you understand what a comments section is?
 
  • Like
Reactions: 6 users
plumazul said:
As a future physician/scientist I am much more concerned with facts like these and I would never accept any unsourced "facts" from anyone (esp. you :p)
Click to expand...
"Facts" that agree with you, @plumazul? No one is talking about mortality rate. Premiums have gone up, and wait times have gone up. Those are facts.

http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/romneycare-massachusetts-years/story?id=16614522
The system is not without its flaws. Premiums remain high in Massachusetts. In fact the state has the highest individual market premiums in the country, according to the non-partisan Kaiser Foundation. Currently, per capita health care spending in the state is expected to nearly double between now and 2020- from between $10,000 and $12,000 (the current cost) to $17,872- if there is no intervention, according to figures provided by Blue Cross Blue Shield Massachusetts.

Wait times: (Slide 2)
http://www.washingtonpost.com/busin...etts/2012/04/12/gIQAUZffCT_gallery.html#item1
 
The healthcare system was unsustainable and in the 16+ years I have been watching politics I don't recall that any republican administration or congress even talked about fixing it. However, I don't know if the ACA is the right answer. Only time will tell.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 users
Members don't see this ad :)
deanthedream17 said:
I appreciate that I "disgust you". Do you know something? My grandparents were dirt poor when they immigrated from Italy. They asked for nothing. No handouts. They worked hard and lived at or below their means and saved. Nowadays, people have a different mindset that if you are missing something, there will be somebody else to provide it for you. People have no money yet they bring more children into the world.
Click to expand...

Maybe American dream was something possible at that generation. American dream now days? Pff
 
Lamel said:
Obviously joking. I think it is a step in the right direction.



Who cares how good or advanced our medical care is if numerous people can't even access or afford it? From your posts you seem to not get that point.

It's sad to see a potential future doctor lacks the perspective of such a large portion of society.


Edit: Never mind, this thread has turned into a bunch of "bootsraps" nonsense. We have people justifying lack of access to medical care because now medical care is not a right. That says a lot about attitudes in this country, and its this lack of societal cooperation that will hold us back.
Click to expand...


Good to hear @Lamel, and sorry I didn't pick up on that right off the bat. Sad statement when the far right is so-o-o- far right that your statement could be taken at face value...
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 users
deanthedream17 said:
Yes that's my point what your so called using as God's word isn't a primary source its just someone talking bs
Click to expand...

:confused: I posted two links, one was a story by a WBUR healthcare reporter the other was a fully sourced wiki article. What are you talking about?
 
DermViser said:
"Facts" that agree with you, @plumazul? No one is talking about mortality rate. Premiums have gone up, and wait times have gone up. Those are facts.

http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/romneycare-massachusetts-years/story?id=16614522
The system is not without its flaws. Premiums remain high in Massachusetts. In fact the state has the highest individual market premiums in the country, according to the non-partisan Kaiser Foundation. Currently, per capita health care spending in the state is expected to nearly double between now and 2020- from between $10,000 and $12,000 (the current cost) to $17,872- if there is no intervention, according to figures provided by Blue Cross Blue Shield Massachusetts.

Wait times: (Slide 2)
http://www.washingtonpost.com/busin...etts/2012/04/12/gIQAUZffCT_gallery.html#item1
Click to expand...

I deal in facts @DermViser , that's what science is. Look it up. And *I* am talking about mortality rates. Policy as far-reaching as the ACA has a lot of consequences and it would appear that one of these is fewer people will die. As a future physician this is important to me. I have no idea what you do for a living, and I don't really care but I guess you might be a GOP PR professional, so you probably have different priorities in this debate. My major concern is M&M.

As for your other points, those were true before Romneycare. The ACA was never intended to rein in medical cost. It's about getting people covered. If you have some ideas about costs, I'd be glad to hear them.
 
plumazul said:
I deal in facts @DermViser , that's what science is. Look it up. And *I* am talking about mortality rates. Policy as far-reaching as the ACA has a lot of consequences and it would appear that one of these is fewer people will die. As a future physician this is important to me. I have no idea what you do for a living, and I don't really care but I guess you might be a GOP PR professional, so you probably have different priorities in this debate. My major concern is M&M.

As for your other points, those were true before Romneycare. The ACA was never intended to rein in medical cost. It's about getting people covered. If you have some ideas about costs, I'd be glad to hear them.
Click to expand...
You accused me of not dealing in facts with the statements I made re: costs and premiums. You were incorrect, which is why I posted evidence supporting my argument.

And no, Obamacare was sold to the American people saying that it would be budget neutral and in fact decrease the deficit. This was said again and again by the administration, Democrats, etc. in order to sell the law to the public.
 
DermViser said:
You accused me of not dealing in facts with the statements I made re: costs and premiums. You were incorrect, which is why I posted evidence supporting my argument.

And no, Obamacare was sold to the American people saying that it would be budget neutral and in fact decrease the deficit. This was said again and again by the administration, Democrats, etc. in order to sell the law to the public.
Click to expand...

NO, I said you were making unsourced comments that I choose to ignore. When you did source them they did not backup your original comment. Also, you seem to be having trouble understanding the difference between fiscal scoring of a bill and the intent of the bill. I suggest you read up on this, I have neither the time nor the inclination to tutor you on this.

BTW, last time I checked, CBO was still scoring the ACA to decrease the deficit.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: 1 users
plumazul said:
NO, I said you were making unsourced comments that I choose to ignore. When you did source them they did not backup your original comment. Also, you seem to be having trouble understanding the difference between fiscal scoring of a bill and the intent of the bill. I suggest you read up on this, I have neither the time nor to inclination to tutor you on this.

BTW, last time I checked, CBO was still scoring the ACA to decrease the deficit.
Click to expand...
My statement was: "Their premiums have also gone UP and waiting times have also gone UP." My comment was then sourced. Key words - "I choose to ignore". That's fine, but it doesn't make my statement false. The "intent" of the ACA was to increase access AND to cut costs. Not one or the other.

You are also incorrect about the CBO: http://thehill.com/policy/healthcare/208314-cbo-to-stop-measuring-certain-o-care-effects
 
DermViser said:
My statement was: "Their premiums have also gone UP and waiting times have also gone UP." My comment was then sourced. Key words - "I choose to ignore". That's fine, but it doesn't make my statement false. The "intent" of the ACA was to increase access AND to cut costs. Not one or the other.

You are also incorrect about the CBO: http://thehill.com/policy/healthcare/208314-cbo-to-stop-measuring-certain-o-care-effects
Click to expand...

:eek: This is getting comical. Now you are throwing up links and making claims that are not in the links. :laugh:

I have already rebutted your previous claims about premiums.

goodnight. :yawn::sleep:
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 user
plumazul said:
:eek: This is getting comical. Now you are throwing up links and making claims that are not in the links. :laugh:

I have already rebutted your previous claims about premiums.

goodnight. :yawn::sleep:
Click to expand...
It's not my claim. It's directly sourced:
http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/romneycare-massachusetts-years/story?id=16614522
The system is not without its flaws. Premiums remain high in Massachusetts. In fact the state has the highest individual market premiums in the country, according to the non-partisan Kaiser Foundation. Currently, per capita health care spending in the state is expected to nearly double between now and 2020- from between $10,000 and $12,000 (the current cost) to $17,872- if there is no intervention, according to figures provided by Blue Cross Blue Shield Massachusetts.
 
DermViser said:
It's not my claim. It's directly sourced:
http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/romneycare-massachusetts-years/story?id=16614522
The system is not without its flaws. Premiums remain high in Massachusetts. In fact the state has the highest individual market premiums in the country, according to the non-partisan Kaiser Foundation. Currently, per capita health care spending in the state is expected to nearly double between now and 2020- from between $10,000 and $12,000 (the current cost) to $17,872- if there is no intervention, according to figures provided by Blue Cross Blue Shield Massachusetts.
Click to expand...
Is it possible that's a result of minimum plan standards that eliminate very cheap, barebones plans?
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 user
Having read through all of these exceedingly "professional" responses, I've arrived at one FACTUAL, EVIDENCE-BASED conclusion: @DermViser & @deanthedream17 are, in fact, the same person.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 5 users
jonnythan said:
Is it possible that's a result of minimum plan standards that eliminate very cheap, barebones plans?
Click to expand...

Yes, that could be a factor. What @DermViser doesn't/won't understand is the meaning of the word "remain". Mass. has had a long history of high costs, including insurance premiums. This is nothing new and has very little to do with the implementation of Romneycare or the ACA. Actually now (the story he posted is two years old) there is evidence that the cost trajectory is coming down somewhat. It is interesting that @DermViser posted that link. Overall it's a glowing review of Romneycare/ACA
 
DermViser said:
This clears things up as to why there was no MCAT, he was applying for the BS/MD program at UF: http://weblogs.sun-sentinel.com/news/politics/dcblog/2009/10/the_pruitt_letter_on_benjamin.html
Click to expand...


That still doesn’t really clear things up. He applied for the BS/MD (UF’s junior medical program) but was accepted for regular admission without an MCAT. That’s why members of UF’s selection committee and even some of their professors made such a big deal about it. Even if he did get accepted to BS/MD pathway (which he didn’t) there are still requirements. However, a member of UF’s selection committee said “there were portions of the application that were unacceptable.” Yet, the dean overruled the rejection and said he was an exceptional candidate.

There’s a lot we don’t know about this whole thing but what we do know is UF’s selection committee rejected him and didn’t feel he was competitive. I'll let you arrive at your own conclusion at what exactly happened here.

http://www.gainesville.com/article/20080410/NEWS/804100319?p=1&tc=pg

http://www.gainesville.com/article/20080403/BREAKING/647033353?p=1&tc=pg

http://www.tampabay.com/news/politi...rs-in-prison-for-political-corruption/1173056
 
Last edited:
Mr Interesting said:
That still doesn’t really clear things up. He applied for the BS/MD (UF’s junior medical program) but was accepted for regular admission without an MCAT. That’s why members of UF’s selection committee and even some of their professors made such a big deal about it. Even if he did get accepted to BS/MD pathway (which he didn’t) there are still requirements. However, a member of UF’s selection committee said “there were portions of the application that were unacceptable.” Yet, the dean overruled the rejection and said he was an exceptional candidate.

There’s a lot we don’t know about this whole thing but what we do know is UF’s selection committee rejected him and didn’t feel he was competitive. I'll let you arrive at your own conclusion at what exactly happened here.

http://www.gainesville.com/article/20080410/NEWS/804100319?p=1&tc=pg

http://www.gainesville.com/article/20080403/BREAKING/647033353?p=1&tc=pg

http://www.tampabay.com/news/politi...rs-in-prison-for-political-corruption/1173056
Click to expand...
Based on the letter it looks like he wanted a transfer into the UF junior medical program.
 
Other posters already gave a lot of good healthcare related reasons that the ACA is a step in the right direction, but since the original post specifically mentioned costs, let's take a look:

The US is debt is growing exponentially and is currently at the highest ever peacetime level (even if taken as a percentage of the GDP). Something has to be done.

There are currently about 15 federal departments. How does funding to these departments break down?
  • Food stamps, SSI, TANF, public housing etc (Dept of Health, Dept of Housing): 11%
  • Medicaid, Medicare, etc (also Dept of Health): 22%
  • Defense (Dept of Defense, Dept of Homeland Security): 20%
  • Social Security (Social Security Administration -- independent agency that is not part of any department): 24%
  • Benefits for veterans and other ex-federal employees (Dept of Veterans Affairs, etc): 8%
  • Interest on debt (Dept of the Treasury): 6%
  • Everything else (Depts of Agriculture, Commerce, State, Education, Energy, Interior, Justice, Labor, State, Transportation, and independent agencies including the CIA, EPA, FCC, NASA, NSF, SEC, USPS, and dozens more): 9%
91% of the federal budget goes to only six departments. If the government is going to balance the budget, there is no point at looking the other 9 agencies. (As an aside, four of the five departments Ron Paul wanted to shut down were Commerce, Education, Energy, Interior -- yeah, not going to save any significant amount of money.) So where can we look for savings?
  • Defense or Homeland Security? Well when Hagel proposed a budget cut of 10%, the Heritage Foundation published an article about "Obama's downward defense spending spiral" so I guess not.
  • Veteran's Affairs? I don't think anyone who has ever been to a VA hospital would consider this to be a good idea.
  • Treasury? Not possible. The US credit rating would go off a cliff.
Then the cuts have to come from Health, Housing*, or Social Security. The ACA was the only substantive attempt in the last decade to cut at costs in any of these three areas and was supported by evidence by the CBO. Granted, we won't know the true effectiveness of the ACA until several years have passed, but we've yet to see any other options for reducing government spending. In fact, Republicans were fighting against defense spending cuts earlier this year. Keep this in mind before bashing the ACA for being financially unsustainable: The status quo is financially unsustainable. What other solutions do you propose?

*Housing expenditures are tiny compared to those for health and Social Security.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: 7 users
To be honest, I don't like Obamacare. It is something beyond socialism, maybe close to fascism. However, I do believe that poor people need access to healthcare system. Healthcare is not like buying a burger from McDonald. No money = No service logic should not be applied to healthcare. I ain't expert but I cannot think of anything else other than Obamacare to try to fix the problem. Will Obamacare actually fix the problem? No clue but sure it is a valid attempt
 
LMBLBM said:
To be honest, I don't like Obamacare. It is something beyond socialism, maybe close to fascism. However, I do believe that poor people need access to healthcare system. Healthcare is not like buying a burger from McDonald. No money = No service logic should not be applied to healthcare. I ain't expert but I cannot think of anything else other than Obamacare to try to fix the problem. Will Obamacare actually fix the problem? No clue but sure it is a valid attempt
Click to expand...

I think the ACA really failed once they lost the option of government-provided insurance available to anyone who wants to buy it. That system would've at least provided some theoretical floor from which other, "better" private plans could've been compared or improved. It would also keep insurance companies "honest" by giving us an idea of what an insurance plan might cost from a party which is in theory not driven by a profit motive. Being able to buy what is essentially a Medicare policy with the ability to add additional benefits as you see fit would've been an excellent check on the ability of insurance companies to rape and pillage their beneficiaries on the prices of premiums.

Unfortunately, without that check I don't think the ACA will do all that much with respect to controlling insurance premiums. Ironically enough, I think a government-offered insurance plan would've made the insurance market function more effectively and provide consumers with more information with which to make their plan decisions.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 
  • Like
Reactions: 3 users
NickNaylor said:
I think the ACA really failed once they lost the option of government-provided insurance available to anyone who wants to buy it. That system would've at least provided some theoretical floor from which other, "better" private plans could've been compared or improved. It would also keep insurance companies "honest" by giving us an idea of what an insurance plan might cost from a party which is in theory not driven by a profit motive. Being able to buy what is essentially a Medicare policy with the ability to add additional benefits as you see fit would've been an excellent check on the ability of insurance companies to rape and pillage their beneficiaries on the prices of premiums.

Unfortunately, without that check I don't think the ACA will do all that much with respect to controlling insurance premiums. Ironically enough, I think a government-offered insurance plan would've made the insurance market function more effectively and provide consumers with more information with which to make their plan decisions.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Click to expand...


I totally agreed with you on government-offered insurance. It should be either ACA with government-offered insurance or no ACA in my opinion. However, we all know that ACA wouldn't pass congress with government-offered insurance. Let's hope that crippled ACA do what it is supposed to do
 
NickNaylor said:
I think the ACA really failed once they lost the option of government-provided insurance available to anyone who wants to buy it. That system would've at least provided some theoretical floor from which other, "better" private plans could've been compared or improved. It would also keep insurance companies "honest" by giving us an idea of what an insurance plan might cost from a party which is in theory not driven by a profit motive. Being able to buy what is essentially a Medicare policy with the ability to add additional benefits as you see fit would've been an excellent check on the ability of insurance companies to rape and pillage their beneficiaries on the prices of premiums.

Unfortunately, without that check I don't think the ACA will do all that much with respect to controlling insurance premiums. Ironically enough, I think a government-offered insurance plan would've made the insurance market function more effectively and provide consumers with more information with which to make their plan decisions.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Click to expand...
The following is a typical response to your assessment:
"What you proposed is a slippery slope that would lead to a complete government takeover of our health system. The government is never the solution."

And of course, the irrational side usually prevails...
 
Law2Doc said:
A better question would be whether, given that, whether you were for it or against it, this is now the law, your duly elected officials can ever focus on making this thing work rather than simply trying to sabotage it to be able to show they were right after all. Parties don't have to agree on every plan, but honestly once something is voted into law it's pretty anti-American to continue trying to undermine it. Outside of congress we call people who try to undermine the laws of US traitors... And again, I'm not a big fan of this act, but once we have voted to go down this path, which we did, I find it the Obligation of both parties to make it a success.
Click to expand...

On this point, I disagree. There have been numerous times when laws have been first passed, enacted, and then reversed because congress didn't feel they worked. It is a STRENGTH of our legislative branch that nothing is set in stone.
 
thesauce said:
On this point, I disagree. There have been numerous times when laws have been first passed, enacted, and then reversed because congress didn't feel they worked. It is a STRENGTH of our legislative branch that nothing is set in stone.
Click to expand...
In theory, a robust legislative branch is a strength. But in reality, the opposite has been the case:
image.jpg
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 user
chalupabatman13 said:
Having read through all of these exceedingly "professional" responses, I've arrived at one FACTUAL, EVIDENCE-BASED conclusion: @DermViser & @deanthedream17 are, in fact, the same person.
Click to expand...

I will guarantee you we are not the same person and we have never met

We are just not brainwashed into thinking that government does a good job at providing healthcare.
 
PreciousHamburgers said:
GREAT special I caught on the radio last week. I'm going to use it to help me prepare for interviews (hopefully).

http://onpoint.wbur.org/2014/06/13/atul-gawande-healthcare-obamacare-on-point-live
Click to expand...

Take anything Atul Gawande says with a grain of salt. He had some good material early on, but has exhausted his shelf life and has been publishing mostly garbage for the last couple years. He had a piece on palliative care a year ago that completely missed the mark.
 
deanthedream17 said:
I will guarantee you we are not the same person and we have never met

We are just not brainwashed into thinking that government does a good job at providing healthcare.
Click to expand...

We are just not brainwashed into thinking that government does not do a good job at providing healthcare.

Fixed that for ya... ;)
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 users
DokterMom said:
We are just not brainwashed into thinking that government does not do a good job at providing healthcare.

Fixed that for ya... ;)
Click to expand...

you're describing yourself. Please look at the VA hospitals if you really believe the govt does a good job.
 
deanthedream17 said:
You do realize this was going on for years through multiple administrations regardless of domestic spending. Govt can't handle things as complicated as healthcare. Maybe retirement checks, but not medicine. STOP Deceiving yourselves and drinking the OBAMA juice.
Click to expand...
I know the article that I linked to mentioned Republicans, but I'm not personally pointing the finger at either party because you are right: systematic underfunding of the VA also happened in the early 90s and 2006 - 2009, when Democrats were in control. But you claimed that the VA is an example of how the government cannot run an efficient healthcare system, and I am telling you that that is wrong. The VA's problems all stem from a chronic lack of funds. How does Obama factor into that?

It's hard to take someone seriously when their arguments use "Obama" almost as an insult. There was a time when the sitting president was treated with respect regardless of what you thought of his policies.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Next unread thread

Similar threads

A
Requesting a deferral for mental health - how much info to give?
Replies
7
Views
466
Moko
Moko
H
How much of a disadvantage is clinical training at a regional campus?
Replies
6
Views
440
Med Ed
Med Ed
H
Mt. Sinai cost question
Replies
2
Views
725
cj_cregg
cj_cregg
A
How much will this affect my app to OOS schools?
Replies
2
Views
457
AMDG_nontrad
A
R
How much do letters of intent and updates matter when being considered for an interview
Replies
10
Views
1K
GoSpursGo
GoSpursGo
Top