http://www.xoxohth.com/thread.php?thread_id=3965176&mc=94&forum_id=2#35958911

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=3965176&forum_id=2#35965869)

exorbitant costs for shitty high-deductible coverage.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=3965176&forum_id=2#35958874)

At least you show your racism in the rest of the post.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=3965176&forum_id=2#35960230)

Now respond substantively.

I'm saying that you are both stupid and a racist.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=3965176&forum_id=2#35960426)

1-You: Hidden tax + overt, unquestionable racism

2-Me: That's dumb because no one has an issue with this analogous situation + you're racist

3-You: Wahh! I got called a racist.

4-Me: Are you racist?

5-You: Declares correctness without argument + cries more about being called a racist

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=3965176&forum_id=2#35960533)

Because of your snark, vitriol and unwillingness to engage substantively, let me make it easy for you:

1) Have health insurance costs gone up enormously for healthy people post-Obamacare? If so, have the benefits of their policy increased, decreased or stayed the same?

2) Does Obamacare permit insurance companies from turning away people with pre-existing conditions?

3) Has Obamacare disproportionately benefited minorities compared to white people?

4) Was the primary purpose of Obamacare to benefit such minorities and/or lead to a death spiral leading to single payer?

I look forward to your substantive responses, thank.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=3965176&forum_id=2#35960584)

2-It does not and this is a good thing.

3-No. It has disproportionately benefited poor whites through Medicaid expansion.

4-Neither. It's primary purpose was to have every American to have health coverage. The Supreme Court threw a wrench in it when it said states did not have to expand Medicaid. There were all sorts of attempts to lower costs, particularly though Medicare reimbursement mechanisms. The goal was meaningful insurance for everyone, not to benefit minorities, you racist fuck.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=3965176&forum_id=2#35960757)

1 - from your own link: ""In the individual market there is evidence emerging there was serious under-pricing in the first few years," she says. The correction that began last year continued with steep premium hikes for 2017. According to the National Federation of Independent Business (which opposes Obamacare). 41 percent of business owners buy their own insurance rather than get coverage through a group policy they buy for their employees."

2 - sure, it's a good thing for the sick. a bad thing for the healthy who have to pay higher premiums.

3 - "Health coverage for all racial and ethnic groups is growing as a result of the Affordable Care Act through the new insurance exchanges and additional public funds for health care. But the study found Obamacare’s expansion of Medicaid is particularly effective at reducing the coverage gap between whites and racial minorities, as minorities are more likely to be uninsured and qualify for the program, which covers lower-income Americans up to 138% of the poverty line.

That will ultimately help close racial gaps in health-care coverage, researchers found. By 2016, the difference between the white and Latino uninsured rate is projected to fall from 18.1 to 12.7 percentage points, under the current state of Medicaid and Obamacare. The gap between uninsured whites and Native Americans is expected fall from 12.6 to 6.7 percentage points. "

http://www.msnbc.com/msnbc/how-obamacare-reduces-racial-disparities-health-care-study

4 - Reid said he thinks the country has to “work our way past” insurance-based health care during a Friday night appearance on Vegas PBS’ program “Nevada Week in Review.”

“What we’ve done with Obamacare is have a step in the right direction, but we’re far from having something that’s going to work forever,” Reid said.

When then asked by panelist Steve Sebelius whether he meant ultimately the country would have to have a health care system that abandoned insurance as the means of accessing it, Reid said: “Yes, yes. Absolutely, yes.”

https://www.forbes.com/sites/theapothecary/2013/08/10/sen-harry-reid-obamacare-absolutely-a-step-toward-a-single-payer-system/#78a6e90f3af9

also see:

http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/obamacare-architect-jonathan-gruber-fire/story?id=26919286

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=3965176&forum_id=2#35960798)

2-Paying car insurance sucks for those who don't wreck their cars. Paying home owners sucks for those whose homes don't burn down, but that is how fucking insurance works, bro. If you want to nationalize the whole thing, Dems/libs are game.

3-Nice trick you tried there. The percentages are close because Medicaid helps the poor, who tend are disproportionately minorities. But for the raw number of beneficiaries, most are white people who now have access to Medicaid, unless cruel conservative states take it away from them.

4-Sure it is a step toward national health insurance, which has been a liberal goal for 120 years. What is your point?

No one can seriously argue our national health situation is not better because of the ACA. People who were free riding on cheap plans or no plans before could not do so under the individual mandate. Y'all just torpeded that, and Doodikof will pay the price to insurance his family.

Your goal of a mad max world where the sick and poor die on the streets does not have a constituency. Even Trump said he would not reduce Medicare/Medicaid.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=3965176&forum_id=2#35960913)

lol you wish this were the case

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=3965176&forum_id=2#35965458)

Also, our FICA deductions have always paid for Medicare and Medicaid for the elderly and poor.

Are Trumpmo in favor of eliminating those? I bet PA/MI/WI voters would love that plan.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=3965176&forum_id=2#35960349)

You’re such a myopic dipshit you actually believe “trumpmos” are a single ideological entity representing something other than supporters of Donald Trump. I’d love to get rid of those programs, many other Trump voters would not.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=3965176&forum_id=2#35960381)

Your analogy is absolutely retarded.

It would make sense if housing insurance worked generally like this (which is basically how our health insurance works now):

Rich person pays X to cover $300,000 house.

Poor person pays Y to cover $300,000 house, which is the exact same as above.

X is greatly higher than Y and the coverage they receive is the same. The actuarial costs is somewhere in the middle of X and Y.

BUT IT DOESN'T WORK LIKE THAT YOU FUCKING RETARD.

Another better analogy would be if House A should cost $2,000 a year to insure (healthy person) and House B (unhealthy person) should cost $5,000, but they both get to pay $3,500.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=3965176&forum_id=2#35960749)

He was bitching about the healthy paying for the derelicts. I was saying all insurance works like that - those who use it subsidize those who don't.

Edit: I think the confusion comes from the parallel comment, which was bad writing. I was saying home owners who don't file claims subsidize those who do. Health insurance works the same way. That is the parallel situation.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=3965176&forum_id=2#35960982)

There used to be a reinsurance program that helped insurers keep costs down, but the GOP got rid of it as part of the debt ceiling suicide walk in 2011.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=3965176&forum_id=2#35961060)

You may have a sub 110 IQ or more likely you are just trying to save face after that idiotic analogy I

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=3965176&forum_id=2#35961864)

None of this was true of Obamacare. Even without the mandate, an insurance company cannot sell me a policy based on my risk and claims history. Nor is there a government subsidy for me to obtain homeowners insurance the cost of which is borne by others indirectly.

Not surprisingly, my homeowners insurance for my seven figure house is $1700 a year, with a modest deductible. Whereas health insurance is priced beyond the pale.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=3965176&forum_id=2#35962166)

But the difference is those people can go to state high risk pools if they can't find insurance.

Type 1 diabetics, etc. just got to die if they got fired before 2010. Government subsidizing their insurance is a moral good that an advanced and decent society provides.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=3965176&forum_id=2#35961047)

https://census.gov/library/visualizations/interactive/health-insurance-map.html

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=3965176&forum_id=2#35961148)

hundreds of millions have employer based coverage and fell into the "if you like your plan you can keep it" group. nearly all of them have had their plans get worse and worse every year to the point that their plans barely resemble insurance any more.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=3965176&forum_id=2#35962922)

If you get a serious diagnosis, you can get on insurance after the fucking fact if needed, then just cancel the policy.

Thanks, Obama!

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=3965176&forum_id=2#35965888)

Twist: “government” isn’t subsidizing it, indebted and underemployed millennials are

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=3965176&forum_id=2#35961866)

but not mine.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=3965176&forum_id=2#35958980)

or it could happen in 2020. But they aren't going to go for that, they are just going to do public option.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=3965176&forum_id=2#35965958)

GOP has complete control of all elected branches. They didn't propose that.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=3965176&forum_id=2#35962314)

https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2018-04-03/trump-ending-obamacare-subsidies-lowered-insurance-cost-for-many

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=3965176&forum_id=2#35965723)