Posted by bad_luck on 3/19/2014 4:10:00 PM (view original):

Posted by MikeT23 on 3/19/2014 3:15:00 PM (view original):

Posted by bad_luck on 3/19/2014 1:36:00 PM (view original):

Posted by MikeT23 on 3/19/2014 8:47:00 AM (view original):
I've largely ignored the early hiccups of the ACA.   The problem is see is the people needed to fund it aren't that interested in having it.   So it's going to become a government program if amendments aren't made.   And, while it sounds harsh, people will start living longer thus requiring more medical care that will be funded by the government.   It's going to be a financial albatross or the care provided by the ACA will become shoddy.   As we know, people who can afford the best will pay for it.  And that will leave the less than stellar for everyone else.   I don't think the government will force the best to see ACA members when they have plenty of patients without them.  Doctors don't accept all insurance now. 

The problem is see is the people needed to fund it aren't that interested in having it

What do you mean by "it" in the above sentence? Genuine question.

No it's not a genuine question.

No, really. I'm being serious. What is being funded?

Posted by MikeT23 on 3/19/2014 4:33:00 PM (view original):

Posted by bad_luck on 3/19/2014 4:09:00 PM (view original):

Posted by MikeT23 on 3/19/2014 3:17:00 PM (view original):

Posted by bad_luck on 3/19/2014 1:59:00 PM (view original):
Also this:

 And, while it sounds harsh, people will start living longer thus requiring more medical care that will be funded by the government.

is a medicare problem, not an ACA problem.

No, it isn't.   Medical problems can develop early in life.  Well before medicare.   If not tended to, the condition can become virtually untreatable.

Told you it sounded harsh.

Ok, but early life medical problems aren't the concern when evaluating population aging and lifespan as a whole.

It is when you're trying to determine how long they'll live and future medical care required.   Why do you think early detection/care is unimportant?

Posted by MikeT23 on 3/19/2014 4:34:00 PM (view original):

Posted by bad_luck on 3/19/2014 4:10:00 PM (view original):

Posted by MikeT23 on 3/19/2014 3:15:00 PM (view original):

Posted by bad_luck on 3/19/2014 1:36:00 PM (view original):

Posted by MikeT23 on 3/19/2014 8:47:00 AM (view original):
I've largely ignored the early hiccups of the ACA.   The problem is see is the people needed to fund it aren't that interested in having it.   So it's going to become a government program if amendments aren't made.   And, while it sounds harsh, people will start living longer thus requiring more medical care that will be funded by the government.   It's going to be a financial albatross or the care provided by the ACA will become shoddy.   As we know, people who can afford the best will pay for it.  And that will leave the less than stellar for everyone else.   I don't think the government will force the best to see ACA members when they have plenty of patients without them.  Doctors don't accept all insurance now. 

The problem is see is the people needed to fund it aren't that interested in having it

What do you mean by "it" in the above sentence? Genuine question.

No it's not a genuine question.

No, really. I'm being serious. What is being funded?

Posted by bad_luck on 3/19/2014 4:39:00 PM (view original):

Posted by MikeT23 on 3/19/2014 4:33:00 PM (view original):

Posted by bad_luck on 3/19/2014 4:09:00 PM (view original):

Posted by MikeT23 on 3/19/2014 3:17:00 PM (view original):

Posted by bad_luck on 3/19/2014 1:59:00 PM (view original):
Also this:

 And, while it sounds harsh, people will start living longer thus requiring more medical care that will be funded by the government.

is a medicare problem, not an ACA problem.

No, it isn't.   Medical problems can develop early in life.  Well before medicare.   If not tended to, the condition can become virtually untreatable.

Told you it sounded harsh.

Ok, but early life medical problems aren't the concern when evaluating population aging and lifespan as a whole.

It is when you're trying to determine how long they'll live and future medical care required.   Why do you think early detection/care is unimportant?

Two different issues.

Relatively few people develop serious medical problems early in life. Most that do, especially the ones that develop problems so bad that they become "virtually untreatable" (your words), have shorter than average lifespans. This is a problem for insurance companies. The best way to combat it is to get everyone access to basic preventative care. One of the goals of the ACA. 

The first issue you brought up--people living longer and requiring more medical care--is a reflection of the population as a whole living longer. Since the majority of the population won't develop serious medical issues early in life (and the people that do won't live as long), this is a problem for medicare, not the ACA.

Posted by bad_luck on 3/19/2014 4:39:00 PM (view original):

Posted by MikeT23 on 3/19/2014 4:34:00 PM (view original):

Posted by bad_luck on 3/19/2014 4:10:00 PM (view original):

Posted by MikeT23 on 3/19/2014 3:15:00 PM (view original):

Posted by bad_luck on 3/19/2014 1:36:00 PM (view original):

Posted by MikeT23 on 3/19/2014 8:47:00 AM (view original):
I've largely ignored the early hiccups of the ACA.   The problem is see is the people needed to fund it aren't that interested in having it.   So it's going to become a government program if amendments aren't made.   And, while it sounds harsh, people will start living longer thus requiring more medical care that will be funded by the government.   It's going to be a financial albatross or the care provided by the ACA will become shoddy.   As we know, people who can afford the best will pay for it.  And that will leave the less than stellar for everyone else.   I don't think the government will force the best to see ACA members when they have plenty of patients without them.  Doctors don't accept all insurance now. 

The problem is see is the people needed to fund it aren't that interested in having it

What do you mean by "it" in the above sentence? Genuine question.

No it's not a genuine question.

No, really. I'm being serious. What is being funded?

I guess you don't know what you're talking about. So I'll stop asking.

Posted by MikeT23 on 3/19/2014 4:46:00 PM (view original):

Posted by bad_luck on 3/19/2014 4:39:00 PM (view original):

Posted by MikeT23 on 3/19/2014 4:33:00 PM (view original):

Posted by bad_luck on 3/19/2014 4:09:00 PM (view original):

Posted by MikeT23 on 3/19/2014 3:17:00 PM (view original):

Posted by bad_luck on 3/19/2014 1:59:00 PM (view original):
Also this:

 And, while it sounds harsh, people will start living longer thus requiring more medical care that will be funded by the government.

is a medicare problem, not an ACA problem.

No, it isn't.   Medical problems can develop early in life.  Well before medicare.   If not tended to, the condition can become virtually untreatable.

Told you it sounded harsh.

Ok, but early life medical problems aren't the concern when evaluating population aging and lifespan as a whole.

It is when you're trying to determine how long they'll live and future medical care required.   Why do you think early detection/care is unimportant?

Two different issues.

Relatively few people develop serious medical problems early in life. Most that do, especially the ones that develop problems so bad that they become "virtually untreatable" (your words), have shorter than average lifespans. This is a problem for insurance companies. The best way to combat it is to get everyone access to basic preventative care. One of the goals of the ACA. 

The first issue you brought up--people living longer and requiring more medical care--is a reflection of the population as a whole living longer. Since the majority of the population won't develop serious medical issues early in life (and the people that do won't live as long), this is a problem for medicare, not the ACA.

No it isn't. 

Would you say that people who seek treatment earlier are more likely to live longer?   Assuming you're not just arguing to argue, maybe a weak assumption, do you A) think they will live longer and B) require future medical treatment?

Posted by bad_luck on 3/19/2014 4:50:00 PM (view original):
Also, why do you think medical care provided to non-retirees is "funded by the government?"

Posted by mchalesarmy on 3/19/2014 2:25:00 PM (view original):

In February, for the second consecutive month, young adults made up 27 percent of those who had successfully purchased coverage through the online insurance marketplace in Texas, compared to 25 percent of those who enrolled nationally, according to data from the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services. 

The Obama administration has said that young adults — who are generally healthy and have fewer medical costs — should make up 40 percent of those insured through the marketplace to offset the costs of older, higher-risk patients and keep premiums down.

“The next couple of weeks are going to be instrumental,” said Sara Smith, program director for the pro-ACA Texas Public Interest Research Group, which advocates on consumer issues. “We have two weeks to inform the state’s most uninformed health care consumers.”

John Davidson, senior health care policy analyst for the conservative Texas Public Policy Foundation, said that will be a futile battle, given that costs for young people under Obamacare aren't minimal.

“The ACA was sold as something that would make health care cheaper. A lot of people are going on the exchange expecting their plans to be free or very inexpensive, and that’s just not the case,” he said. “...Young, healthy people aren’t going to want to pay rates like this, especially if they don’t have to go to the doctor."

Before the implementation of the ACA, insurance companies often charged a five-to-one ratio or higher for monthly premiums based on a consumer's age, according to America’s Health Insurance Plans, the national trade association representing the health insurance industry. The new law limits this ratio to three to one. In order to make this system work, the Obama administration has said that young adults need to enroll at high enough rates to yield a surplus in premium revenue — which insurance companies can then allocate to help cover the expected deficit created by lower premiums for older patients.

 

Texas Tribune - 

The Obama administration has said that young adults — who are generally healthy and have fewer medical costs — should make up 40 percent of those insured through the marketplace to offset the costs of older, higher-risk patients and keep premiums down.

If one can't pay the premiums, who will?

Posted by MikeT23 on 3/19/2014 4:55:00 PM (view original):
Depends on what you consider serious. 

I guess we'd agree cancer is serious(just starting at the top).  I'm diagnosed with nut cancer at 40.  Routine check-up I wouldn't have had if I had no insurance.  My nut is removed.   But the tricky thing with cancer is it could re-materialize somewhere else at a later date.   So, every 6 months or so, I'm off the cancer treatment center to be examined.   Maybe it never comes back but, nonetheless, I'm making two trips to the doc every year until I'm 90.   Without that check-up, I'm diagnosed with cancer all over my body at 46 because I had to go to the doc and I'm dead within a year.   What was more expensive?

Posted by MikeT23 on 3/19/2014 4:56:00 PM (view original):

Posted by bad_luck on 3/19/2014 4:50:00 PM (view original):
Also, why do you think medical care provided to non-retirees is "funded by the government?"

For ****'s sake, you're like a child begging for someone to pay attention to them.    Will the ACA be subsidized by the government?

Posted by bad_luck on 3/19/2014 5:00:00 PM (view original):

Posted by MikeT23 on 3/19/2014 4:55:00 PM (view original):
Depends on what you consider serious. 

I guess we'd agree cancer is serious(just starting at the top).  I'm diagnosed with nut cancer at 40.  Routine check-up I wouldn't have had if I had no insurance.  My nut is removed.   But the tricky thing with cancer is it could re-materialize somewhere else at a later date.   So, every 6 months or so, I'm off the cancer treatment center to be examined.   Maybe it never comes back but, nonetheless, I'm making two trips to the doc every year until I'm 90.   Without that check-up, I'm diagnosed with cancer all over my body at 46 because I had to go to the doc and I'm dead within a year.   What was more expensive?

Those two trips to the Dr. every year probably cost $75 each. Twice a year for 50 years, you're looking at $7500. Small potatoes. Round up to $100 each and you're still only at $10,000.

Cancer treatment, hospital stays, pain meds, and hospice care for a terminally ill patient will, just a guess, run more than $10,000.

Would this fit the definition of a Retard-slap-fight in the making?

Posted by bad_luck on 3/19/2014 5:01:00 PM (view original):

Posted by MikeT23 on 3/19/2014 4:56:00 PM (view original):

Posted by bad_luck on 3/19/2014 4:50:00 PM (view original):
Also, why do you think medical care provided to non-retirees is "funded by the government?"

For ****'s sake, you're like a child begging for someone to pay attention to them.    Will the ACA be subsidized by the government?

Health insurance premiums are subsidized for low income people by the government. The actual medical care is still paid for by private insurance companies.