Obamacare's inconvenient truths exposed during shutdown

Cosmetic surgery is still very exorbitant. The fees doctors and hospitals currently charge will not go down if the insurance companies are bankrupted. People will not be able to pay it and the govt will take everything over. Mark my words. Demonize the insurance companies but the alternative is much worse.
Correct. As high as some deductibles and out of pocket maxes are these days, that's all they're for but the cost is still outlandish.
Not what I would do to fix things.
 
It would be cheaper. That's why you get rid of health insurance, both private and government, to pay for routine healthcare. You pay as you go instead.
Paying monthly is not cheaper. Have you noticed the constant cost elevations in healthcare costs? Universal healthcare would be paid for through taxes. That is paying as you go.
 
As I have said before, if Obamacare worked like the Fraudocrats promised it would, it wouldn't need subsidies.

Obamacare's inconvenient truths exposed during shutdown​


After years of Democrats telling the American people that former President Barack Obama's Affordable Care Act (ACA) was a thriving system, the glaring truth revealed now during the government shutdown is that not only has the ACA resulted in widespread fraud and allegations of kickbacks to insurance companies, the American people are footing the bill for subsidies to hide the fact that Obamacare is broken.

"Everything Obama told us was a complete lie," E.J. Antoni told John Solomon during a special report on the government shutdown sponsored by the Association of Mature American Citizens.

Antoni, who serves as chief economist at the Heritage Foundation, continued: "When he said, 'If you like your health care plan, you can keep your health care plan.' No you couldn't. Obamacare made a lot of those health care plans illegal. He said, 'If you like your doctor, you can keep your doctor.' No, it forced a lot of doctors out of business, and it forced a lot of doctors to no longer take most insurance."

President Barack Obama repeatedly promised Americans during the rollout of the ACA - commonly known as Obamacare - that "if you like your doctor, you can keep your doctor," a claim intended to reassure Americans about the ACA's impact on existing healthcare arrangements. However, millions of people lost access to their preferred and established physicians due to narrowed insurance networks and cancellations of plans which did not comply with the law's new requirements, leading even left-leaning PolitiFact to name it the "Lie of the Year" in 2013.



Insurance companies pocketing profit from subsidies meant for Americans

Rep. Jack Bergman, R-Mich., revealed the latest scandal within Obamacare. Bergman, speaking to Just The News, laid out the timeline for subsidies which were meant to lighten the burden for Americans but when unused, were pocketed by the insurance companies.

Bergman explained that "In 2010, the Democrats passed the Affordable Care Act. Then in 2014, ACA premium tax credits became available, meant to help families earning 100 to 140% of the federal poverty level - that was designed to help those folks. In 2021, through the ARPA (American Rescue Plan Act), Democrats temporarily extended and expanded those subsidies to everyone, regardless of income, for one year. In 2022, the IRA (Inflation Reduction Act), they extended the expansion again, but only through January 1 of 2026."


Dems let their own deadlines expire

Bergman emphasized that the expiration imposed by Democrats implicitly meant that the extension was not meant to be permanent. That extension expires and is what Democrats have shut down the government over. As Bergman puts it, "They're blaming us, the Republicans, for letting their own temporary extensions expire."

0% APR for Up to 21 Months = No Credit Card Interest Until 2027




more

The largest surprise regarding these subsidies, is that they haven't been going directly to patients. They've been going to insurance companies, according to Bergman. "Insurance companies' profits right now are up something like 240+ percent. There's something morally wrong with that. Not only is it shamefully wrong, but morally wrong."

Bergman did not name any specific insurance companies.


"Millions of these so-called ghost enrollees, people who are technically eligible, but are unaware of it, never use these subsidies. The insurers pocket the difference."

OpenSecrets reported that in 2012, the health insurance industry donated roughly $9.6 million to Democrats. In 2024, the industry donated almost $40 million to Democrats.



Conservitards sabotaged it.
 
Catastrophic healthcare for a major issue is what insurance is for. You insure your house and car against major damage in accidents, severe weather, etc., not for something like your stove breaking and you need a new one (unless you are stupid and buy a policy to cover that sort of thing). You buy life insurance in case you die unexpectedly to cover your dependents.
People also buy life insurance to cover the outrageous, inflated costs of funerals.
 
Obamacare was a compromise bill. There was pressure from the right and some on the left who were besieged by insurance company lobbyists. They have the most lobbyists of any group in America. Money doesn't talk, it swears.
Obamacare was supposedly a first step toward universal healthcare. The lobbying/financial pressure was at level 12.
Every industrial nation has universal care, except us.
 
Obamacare was a compromise bill. There was pressure from the right and some on the left who were besieged by insurance company lobbyists. They have the most lobbyists of any group in America. Money doesn't talk, it swears.
Obamacare was supposedly a first step toward universal healthcare. The lobbying/financial pressure was at level 12.

So? It ended up being little more than being akin to that unwanted Christmas fruit cake you keep passing on to someone else. It sucked from top to bottom and delivered nothing that was promised by the Democrats.
Every industrial nation has universal care, except us.
Irrelevant appeal to popularity.

3566860-Warren-Buffett-Quote-If-the-reason-for-doing-something-is-that.jpg
 
So? It ended up being little more than being akin to that unwanted Christmas fruit cake you keep passing on to someone else. It sucked from top to bottom and delivered nothing that was promised by the Democrats.

Irrelevant appeal to popularity.

3566860-Warren-Buffett-Quote-If-the-reason-for-doing-something-is-that.jpg
Irrelevant? It is a fact, an important one. Nations that became industrialized later did not follow our terrible system. In fact, one came to see how it worked so they would be careful not to duplicate any of it.
 
Irrelevant? It is a fact, an important one. Nations that became industrialized later did not follow our terrible system. In fact, one came to see how it worked so they would be careful not to duplicate any of it.
So? The nations that have it almost all have (New Zealand seems to be the exception) worse medical care outcomes than the US does too. I expect you to now trot out one of those studies, like the KFF or Commonwealth ones, that show how bad the US system is because it isn't socialized. Except even those admit the US has the best care in the world, even if it is very expensive.
 
So? The nations that have it almost all have (New Zealand seems to be the exception) worse medical care outcomes than the US does too. I expect you to now trot out one of those studies, like the KFF or Commonwealth ones, that show how bad the US system is because it isn't socialized. Except even those admit the US has the best care in the world, even if it is very expensive.
Absolutely wrong as usual. https://www.nbcnews.com/health/health-news/us-health-care-ranking-report-last-rcna171652 We pay double and get much worse results.
 
Absolutely wrong as usual. https://www.nbcnews.com/health/health-news/us-health-care-ranking-report-last-rcna171652 We pay double and get much worse results.
They cite the Commonwealth study I mentioned. You didn't read it. I did. Here's some of the highlights:

We examine five key domains of health system performance: access to care, care process, administrative efficiency, equity, and health outcomes

Look at Exhibit 1. There is a line item, "care process." That one measure is the ONLY one in the study that measures how well the healthcare process works. Everything else--EVERYTHING--else in that entire study is about how socialized a nation's medical system is and how "fair and equal" it is. That has NOTHING TO DO with the quality of care the system delivers. NOTHING!
It's shown on NBC's own article too which you failed to read. There's an embedded graph that shows the same thing as it was taken from that study.
Your own article admits the same thing:
“The United States provides perhaps the most advanced medical treatments in the world, but only for those who can afford it,” Gostin said. “For far too many people, high-quality medical care is out of reach.”

So, stop conflating socialized medical systems with the quality of care they deliver. They suck in quality even if they deliver in "fair and equal."
 
Back
Top