For example, someone thought they got coverage for something and they didn't. That mis-communication can lead to actual harm when it comes to medical and financial issues.
For example, someone thought they got coverage for something and they didn't. That mis-communication can lead to actual harm when it comes to medical and financial issues.
The bad news it that it's taken this long for anyone in authority to even admit there's a major problem there, when there's only 7 weeks left to correct it for those who lose their insurance Jan 1.
Someone in another discussion brought up the Space Shuttle accidents. I'll bet you more people will die because of this monumental monstrosity ... except they didn't volunteer for something obviously dangerous.
Ah, I just remembered that economists can predict over large populations how many will prematurely die if you remove X dollars from the population. I forget the now obsolete figures, but I'll bet on that basis alone there will be that many casualties.
Any time the visible foot of government makes such big steps people will die, it's a given.
I'm expecting over the next few years, as the number of uninsured drops close to zero, that there will be no discernible drop in the number of annual deaths.
Errm, it's as I understand it a well established fact that tens of millions will remain without coverage. Try a search like this: https://www.google.com/search?q=obamacare+won't+cover+everyo...
The first two links said 30 and 26 million, which agrees with my general memory. It was obviously a very early criticism of the ACA.
1) Offering insurance to undocumented immigrants would shrink the number 2) Strengthening the mandate would shrink the number 3) Expanding medicaid to the states that "opted out" due to the Supreme Court decision would shrink the number
People are going to be trying to figure this out for a long time (even if the ACA gets terminated with extreme prejudice in a few years). There are a LOT of factors:
The cost of guaranteed issue and community ratings is huge price increases for the under 50 set to subsidize the inherently more expensive 50-64 set (or so I've read, but I'm sure its roughly true).
A lot of people are losing the ability to work more than 29 hours at one place, or are just plain getting fired because they now cost more than they can produce, and that loss of wealth will have significant effects. Heck, the #1 piece of advice to get more subsidies is to make less money.
Then we get into the messy dynamic effects, where "Europe" is the object lesson: due to the changed game, a bunch of companies are not going to be founded or make it, or fail ... and in the longer term people are going to notice that there's no scenario where being married doesn't result in higher costs. Accounting for the effects of the latter is supremely difficult.
And then there's the argument this with all else Obama et. al. are doing (most certainly including the eGOP) is moving the US rapidly to failed nation status. It's hardly beyond the realm of possibility that will kill 10s of millions. If it denies me the medications I need to live, I'll be one of them....
ADDED: now that you've labeled me as dishonest (e.g. for not wanting to provide health care for illegal aliens (which, yes, is a harsh position)), I'm not sure there's much point in continuing to discuss this.
But also add the effects of reduced medical innovation. Starting with the 2.3% excise tax on medical devices, which we know from the history of "socialized medicine" will continue. One reason health care is so expensive in the US is that we pay nearly all the burden of new drug development....
If we manage to curtail the already feeble new antibiotic development efforts the results world wide will be measured in ... biblical proportions.
I'm in my low 40's and my premium went down over 20%. I think the premium increases for people are also very much about the improved quality level of the plans, and some of that quality increase is "hidden" due to the old plans having lots of against-the-patient "tricks" that are now outlawed.
BTW, you have referred to my other comment a couple of times now. I am not saying it is dishonest to not want to provide health care for undocumented immigrants. I am saying that is intellectually dishonest to have that position, and simultaneously criticize Obamacare for not covering that number of uncovered patients. I believe that if someone criticizes a problem, it is their responsibility to also be in favor of the solution. That's a basic value in rational discourse/dialectic.
WRT to dishonesty, "e.g." -> for example, illegal aliens aren't the only ones included, just the most clear cut and harshest example for me; trust me, you're labeling me as dishonest.