Is 'very middle class' the same thing as 'typical'? How does your household income compare to the US median?

Tom

Ricky keeps trying, he points to rising costs here and there....Ricky, that means NOTHING, these price hikes were known at the time of the promise and Obama promised this plan would reduce waste and save us money....it hasn't, it was a lie.

In the great scheme of things, the only thing that matters is the rising cost of health care in the US. And that's why you are paying more for insurance. Not the ACA and nothing Obama said (over promise or lie) makes any difference to the fact that everybody has faced the kinds of cost increases for insurance you've seen.For 2 decades ... (Or had to abandon insurance)

The question that matters to you, or should, is whats being done about rising health care costs? The ACA has already had some affect. And promises to have more. I don't think anybody really knows the potential outcomes, because there will be al kinds of innovation in response to the ACA. Any time there is a significant break from the standard way of doing things, there is a sudden influx of innovation.In something as deeply flawed as the American health care system that's got to be good.

archduke

What I like most about the naiveté of this statement is the assumption that it will remain at 10%. That the Federal government will never reduce the Medicaid subsidy below 90%. I guarantee that within the next decade the percentage the Federal Government pays towards the expanded Medicaid will be below 80%

And that would make it a bad deal?
The indigent have insurance, they can get medical intervention before it becomes expensive and in less costly manner than the current system. The freeloading states get it all for free for 3 years, pay only 10% and the mere prospect (guaranteed by you even if a Republican is in the White House?) of it costing more makes it a bad deal?

Whats the alternative?

“The conversation we are having with the congressional delegation goes like this, ‘If we don’t expand Medicaid, what is the Georgia solution to indigent care?’ ” said Matthew Hicks, vice president for government relations at Grady. “So far they don’t have an answer

The States that have turned down Medicare expansion have a duty to offer some way of paying for their poor to get medical care.... To date, all they've done is bitch about the potential for a higher share then the one on the table ...eventually.
That doesn't help the indigents today.
These states, all gain more from the Federal system then they put in, and just want to pile up at the trough for more ....

bbauska

If you are 45 and and a woman who has had a hysterectomy? Does she need to pay for pregnancy coverage? How about abortion services? Perhaps she need birth control? Do those services cost money?
Please don't say that this woman has the possibility of pregnancy.
This woman should have the choice to not have to pay for the services.

Remember this statement B?
I know you are adamantly opposed to abortion. So I wonder how the following argument from EJ Dionne of the WP sits with you? excerpts follow

If you’re a conservative strongly opposed to abortion, shouldn’t you want to give all the help you can to women who want to bring their children into the world? In particular, wouldn’t you hope they’d get the proper medical attention during and after their pregnancy?
All of which ought to present members of the right-to-life movement with a challenge. In the name of consistency, they need to break with their conservative allies and insist that maternity coverage be included in all health-care plans. Shouldn’t those who want to prevent abortion be in the forefront of making the case that a woman will be far more likely to choose to have her baby if she knows that both she and her child will get regular medical attention?

http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/ ... ml?hpid=z2

I am VERY middle class. I live in the suburbs but barely. My house is an older house and only 1500 square feet, it's worth quite a bit less less than the average for the region. My salary is average to slightly above for the area but my wife works only part time so that balances us back out and I have had only 1 raise in the last 5 years....pretty darned "average" or "Typical", trust me, you would not argue that fact!

Ricky, You keep spewing the same things. "Health care costs are rising!"
I get it, but bottom line, as you pointed out, they have been for a long time. This was fully known to Obama and he promised us savings, not just savings but significant savings at that. Our costs went UP. ACA was supposed to save us money not cost us more, it was supposed to reduce costs, it did not. You point out

The ACA has already had some affect. And promises to have more

Yes, it has made peoples insurance costs go up and honestly, the way it is designed will cause further increases in costs, it will not save us anything. You can go on and on how wonderful it is, even if I go along with you, it's not costing us LESS as was promised!

As I said, the ONLY answer to this is simple,
Obama needs to say this is not what he promised and he will work on fixing the problems. Even if he NOW grants a one year extension giving people more time, what about the millions who already had their policies cancelled and now have to pay more? He can't fix that can he? Face it, this was a re-election lie, the facts all point to him knowing the costs would rise, they point to him knowing EVERYTHING he was selling was a lie, but it was good for getting him and his party re-elected. He could worry about the fall-out later, the liberals will (as you are doing) try to bail him out and he's a good speech giver, he is president not for his policies (they stink and liberals should be crying foul) and not for his experience or for what he has done to date, he simply gives nice speeches and nothing more. Liberals have a giant man-crush on him.

tom

Ricky, You keep spewing the same things. "Health care costs are rising!"
I get it, but bottom line, as you pointed out, they have been for a long time. This was fully known to Obama and he promised us savings, not just savings but significant savings at that. Our costs went UP. ACA was supposed to save us money not cost us more, it was supposed to reduce costs, it did not. You point out

What part of the ACA do you blame for your insurance costing more?

tom

Yes, it has made peoples insurance costs go up and honestly, the way it is designed will cause further increases in costs,

In what way is it designed to make your costs go up?

Did you expect your insurance costs to go down if there was no ACA?
Why?

There's a cause and effect to reality Tom. Obama's over promise (lie) didn't cause your insurance to go up. So stop with the rage about his promise and try and answer the three questions above honestly.
If the answer is I don't know ...that's fine too.

Since 2010, the average rate of health-care cost increases has been less than half the average in the prior 40 years. The first wave of the cost slowdown emerged just after the recession and was attributed to the economic hangover. Three years later, the economy is growing, and costs show no sign of rising. Something deeper is at work.

The Affordable Care Act is a key to the underlying change. Starting in 2010, the ACA lowered the annual increases that Medicare pays to hospitals, home health agencies and private insurance plans. Together, these account for 5 percent of the post-2010 cost slowdown. Medicare payment changes always provoke fears — in this case, that private plans would flee the program and that the quality of care in hospitals would suffer. Neither of these fears has materialized, however. Enrollment in private plans is up since the ACA changes.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/ ... story.html

The affects on rising health care costs by the ACA won't be clearly known for a couple of years... The optimist quoted above makes a good case however.

Tom, I asked a specific question and you responded with vagueness and other things. The median (ie, where the middle is) household income in the USA is c.$51,000. How does your situation compare with that?

By the way, in your figures you lumped in your employer's share of the cost of insurance. Do you believe you would get all of that as pay if they did not provide the insurance? How is the premium split between you and the employer, and where did the increase fall? It wasn't clear to me how much you are actually out of pocket worse of (considering that employee benefits and taxes on them are not necessarily fungible)

I was trying to find where Obama talked about premiums going down $2,500 a year. It was a campaign promise for the 2008 election, before the ACA was passed! (also it was not a drop in premiums but that premiums would be $2,500 lower than anticipated) Surely you are not relying on a promise made before we even knew what type of health care reform was even passed? After the ACA was passed the White House said the average family would save $2,000 by 2019 from what premiums otherwise would be.
http://m.washingtonpost.com/blogs/fact- ... _blog.html

freeman3 wrote:I was trying to find where Obama talked about premiums going down $2,500 a year. It was a campaign promise for the 2008 election, before the ACA was passed! (also it was not a drop in premiums but that premiums would be $2,500 lower than anticipated) Surely you are not relying on a promise made before we even knew what type of health care reform was even passed? After the ACA was passed the White House said the average family would save $2,000 by 2019 from what premiums otherwise would be.
http://m.washingtonpost.com/blogs/fact- ... _blog.html

Typical family?

Average family?

2500 per family per year?

He said all three.

Meanwhile, the President made repeated promises that Americans who liked their policies could keep them even when he knew that was not true. If that's not a lie, what is?

WASHINGTON — Even as President Barack Obama sold a new health care law in part by assuring Americans they would be able to keep their insurance plans, his administration knew that tens of millions of people actually could lose those their policies.

“If you like your private health insurance plan, you can keep your plan. Period,” Obama said as he pitched the plan, the unqualified promise he made repeatedly.

Yet advisers did say in 2010 that there were large caveats and that anyone whose insurance plan changed would lose the promised protection of being able to keep existing plans. And a report in 2010 said that as many as 69 percent of certain employer-based insurance plans would lose that protection, meaning as many as 41 million people could lose their plans even if they wanted to keep them and would be forced into other plans. Another 11 million who bought their own insurance also could lose their plans. Combined, as many as 52 million Americans could lose or have lost old insurance plans.

Some or much of that loss of favored insurance is driven by normal year-to-year changes such as employers changing plans to save money. And many people could end up with better plans. But it is not what the president pledged.

Read more here: http://www.mcclatchydc.com/2013/11/07/2 ... rylink=cpy

If you don't believe that was a lie, here's one for you: he told Chuck Todd, during his so-called "apology," that it was only 5% who might lose their coverage. He knew that was false.

Archduke Russell John wrote:

Doctor Fate wrote:Your argument is that 10% of an expanded Medicaid roll is no biggie.

What I like most about the naiveté of this statement is the assumption that it will remain at 10%. That the Federal government will never reduce the Medicaid subsidy below 90%. I guarantee that within the next decade the percentage the Federal Government pays towards the expanded Medicaid will be below 80%.

Note well: it was not my argument, but I'm sure you know that.

And, the Archduke is right--nothing sets in stone the level of Medicaid support. Eventually, this is going to mean big tax increases at the State level.

The heart of the ACA fallacy: we can get something for nothing. Anyone who believes in the myth of the ACA should not claim to understand math.

I'm not talking about the ideal; I'm talking about the ACA. The way it is constructed it cannot succeed. It is impossible.

Even now, ask around. Those who have been forced to change policies: do you have more access to doctors, a wider network, and more coverage for less money? Lower premiums?

Or, is more like:

1. Less access to doctors in your area?
2. A smaller network?
3. Higher deductibles and co-pays? More overall out of pocket expense?
4. Coverage you cannot and will not use?
5. Higher premiums?

So, this is a good deal?

Now, let's consider the website.

I read somewhere about a comparison to WW2. In the same amount of time it's taken to build a useless website, we took down Nazi Germany.

Now, I realize there is a difference in focus, etc. However, no one can actually look at this and tell me why the website being so bad is reasonable--for $400M plus?

If this was a start-up, investors would be fleeing and Sebellius would be sacked, Obama's reputation would be zilch, etc.

This is a fiasco.

Again your video is from 2008--not very relevant to ACA. And if the vast majority of Americans get to keep substantially similar plans to the ones they had then the president's statements will be a non-issue. The issue he was addressing was this: will most Americans get to keep the health-care plan that they already like? The president said yes. If that holds true for most Americans, then people are not going to say he lied. You're trying to contend that the president misrepresented the ACA and otherwise it would not have been passed (or perhaps he would not have been reeelected) That argument clearly is incorrect if only a few percent of Americans had to get substantially different plans

Danivon, I am not about to post what I make.
But between my wife and myself we are right at about average middle class for the area we live in (New York is higher than the average but our taxes and cost of living is also higher) smack dab square in the middle. You simply need to trust me on that.

Ricky
Costs have risen in general thanks to requiring insurance companies to accept all regardless of pre-existing conditions, due to requiring them to cover more things, due to the tax on medical equipment, all while nothing was done to eliminate inefficiencies.

Freeman
so when he lies to only 10 million people it doesn't matter? and you rather conveniently concentrate only on the issue of those who can keep their pre-existing policies, you are failing to account for his promise to save us money while the majority of us are paying more. That lie isn't going to missed by anyone! Keep telling yourself it doesn't matter, it does and people are really fired up. He promised lower costs. Mine is more, the guys in my production that are barely getting by are paying more, my neighbors are paying more, a lot of people who voted for Obama are wondering why, they are asking out loud why he lied...people not involved in politics at all, people who simply voted for this promise are wondering what the hell happened.

Keep telling yourself this doesn't matter and we will simply grow used to it.

fate

And, the Archduke is right--nothing sets in stone the level of Medicaid support. Eventually, this is going to mean big tax increases at the State level.

Shouldn't states have to help pay for the costs of medical care to their indigents? Or is it okay for Red States to keep getting Blue States to cover their programs?
Note Well, Fate, that low tax jurisdictions, shouldn't get to be low tax because they rely on hand outs from the federal government.
You'd call them welfare bums.

Fate

The heart of the ACA fallacy: we can get something for nothing. Anyone who believes in the myth of the ACA should not claim to understand math

I don't know where you get this. For one there have been taxes and fines that were designed to
ensure that the ACA had additional funding.
For another there has been a reduction in medicare fees, without any drop in the practioners accepting medicare .... If the price of medicine is to go down, someone has to start trying to pay less. This has been a successful first step .
Plus, the plan has a holistic approach to the cost of providing care. Chip away at wasteful use, and encourage effective care that delivers more for the dollar...
from the article I linked earlier:

The law also emphasized that payments should be based on the value, not the volume, of medical care. In a value-based system, compensation is made for the patient as a whole, not for specific services provided. As a result, eliminating services that are not needed is financially rewarded. The reaction to this change has been rapid: Hospital readmissions, which used to bring in substantial dollars, are now penalized.
Unsurprisingly, the readmission rate in Medicare is down 10 percent since 2011. Similarly, hospital-acquired infections used to bring in additional dollars, but now they do not. One program to cut infections, encompassing only 333 hospitals, saved more than $9 billion. Both of these changes improve patient health even as they reduce spending.
The accountable-care movement — which aims to make providers more accountable for the cost and quality of care — has blossomed far beyond expectations. There are nearly 500 Accountable Care Organizations (ACOs) nationwide, half in Medicare. Ten percent of Medicare beneficiaries are in ACOs, and many others are in payment systems that put together all reimbursements for a procedure, such as a hip replacement or cardiac stent insertion. Leaders of medical systems routinely report that they expect, and are preparing for, a move to value-based payments

.

tom

Ricky
Costs have risen in general thanks to requiring insurance companies to accept all regardless of pre-existing conditions, due to requiring them to cover more things, due to the tax on medical equipment, all while nothing was done to eliminate inefficiencies

I'll refer you to my quotation above, that highliights some of the policies that are already having an effect on inefficiencies.
Second, I'll challenge you on the notion that the minimal standards are the main driver of higher premium costs. The main driver is the cost of medicine, period.
With or without the ACA your premiums had to increase OR alternatively your insurance package had to be increasingly less valuable. That had been going on for 20 years Tom....Why do you think it wouldn't continue? Why do you think it wouldn't affect you?
The ACA may have precipitated some plans to be cancelled by insurers.... but only because they failed to meet minimal levels.
You say, "I don't care I want to pay what I want to pay" . And I say, unless you can guarantee that you can cover all your medical debts you are a threat to the public purse.
A cheap policy that leaves an insurance company the means to deny payment, is a threat first to your financial well being. Then, inevitably to the public after you go bankrupt.
The notion that Fate brings up

The heart of the ACA fallacy: we can get something for nothing.

may be right when it applies to people like you who can't understand why costs are going up. But that's been the case with treatment of the indigent in the US, at least since the 80s. Someone was paying for all the care at emergency wards ...... who do you think that ultimately was?