uninsured rate has plummeted since Obamacare kicked in

According to Gallup the rate of uninsured people in America has fallen by 22% down to 13.4% since Obamacare started.

http://www.vox.com/2014/6/5/5782320/the-uninsured-rate-has-plummeted-since-obamacare-kicked-in

I know there is a lot of controversy regarding the individual responsibility program. That being said, people will now get to live happier, healthier, and more productive lives because they can now get the health insurance they deserve and need.

What say you OT?

I don't know how this could potentially be anything but good news to every decent citizen of a society. ACA is one step closer to a national healthcare system that most if not all developed states have been enjoying for quite the long time now. I'm not sure why healthcare is treated any differently than say education in some countries.

My premiums tripled and my copays doubled.

@DaBrainz: shhh it's better plan now. My premium went up but not that much

@DaBrainz: I'm sorry to hear that, I hope people will work together to work out the issues of the new system so that things like that don't happen anymore.

my rates went up a bit. but they've been going up a bit every single year i've been working ( 13+ )

Yet premiums have gone up.

Now I wonder how many Republicans out there are really willing to campaign on taking away these people's health insurance.

they'll turn to benghazi and pretend like they never tried to destroy obamacare

Has it really gone down? From what I understand about 8 million people signed up through the exchanges, but 6 million people who previously had insurance had their insurance policies cancelled because of the law, so that's a net gain of only 2 million, which is likely to be lower because some of those people have "enrolled" but haven't paid yet (then of course there is the issue of Medicaid expansion, but I don't know the numbers for that off hand, I just know that there is some debate about that). That doesn't seem like enough newly insured people to cause a 22% drop in the uninsured rate.

Also we have to consider the quality of the insurance plans, I remember reading that plans on the exchange cover less brand-name prescription drugs than plans off the exchange. And many of the plans on the exchanges offer a narrower "network" (see page 11 of the pdf file) of doctors and hospitals, and many people who previously got insurance through their employer may soon find themselves forced into a crappy Obamacare plan.

In any case President Bush put forth a health-care plan in 2007, that could've made it easier for people to get insured (and of course it would have gone into effect years earlier) without many of the problems that Obamacare caused, but Democrats never gave it any serious consideration.

As for Sun Tzu's point, I don't know if repealing Ocare will "take away" people's insurance plans, I think they would still have the plans if they bought them, but if they are receiving subsidies to buy those plans, then the subsidies would be terminated and they may no longer be able to pay for those plans.

@airshocker: indeed, as I said above people need to work together to make things better.

"We don't want to take away your health insurance, we just want to take away your ability to pay for your health insurance"

Yeah, that's a winning message

And repealing obamacare would literally take the health insurance away from all the people who have signed up for medicaid since its expansion.

You mean the idea that everyone deserves a shot at being happy, healthy, and educated?

>Conspiracy rant on how the government doesn't want you to be an educated, free thinking, and healthy individual.

I agree. We just need to work together to remove Democrats from office so we can repeal this nonsense and put something different in its place. Hopefully something that isn't an abomination like the ACA.

Health insurance is a Giffen good, who knew! :P

your actually right for once lol

Of course. The best way to improve health care is to expand medicare access to the entire population.

But this is better than nothing.

that's the problem we always accepting " its better than nothing"

I can understand libertarians and conservatives being against obamacare. It forces you to do something with your money that you may or may not want to do, which is against what libertarians stand for, and it's... You know, something that Obama and the democrats did, which is enough for conservatives to automatically go against it. What I don't understand is why so many self-proclaimed "progressives" settled for it. It's basically the exact opposite of the universal/public alternative that has been discussed for almost 20 years.

Then again, the same folks that rallied against the war in Iraq seemed to be perfectly fine with the idea of bombing Libya and invading Syria just because Obama said it was the right thing to do, so I guess there is no such thing as an American left wing, just obamaliebers and anti-republicans.

@airshocker: and that's where you and I disagree, and will continue to do so until republicans in congress actually hold true to their stated beliefs of being fiscally conservative. It would also be nice if they stopped denying science based on their own gut feelings regarding subjects they themselves admit they are not experts on.

Well said. Let's not forget that Obama and members of Congress are exempt from the ACA.

I'm currently unemployed and without health insurance. I barely make enough on unemployment to get by, so how in the world would I be able to afford health insurance premiums and the deductibles as it stands? That's the bit that gets me. If I can't afford it, but I'm forced to have it, how does that benefit me in the long run?

@jasean79:

This largely varies on the state you live in, but I would check to see if you qualify for subsidiaries.

Weren't you having difficulties finding insurance too? I think a few months ago you said something about not being able to find any affordable plans and not really qualifying for any subsidies? Maybe I'm thinking of someone else.

No, wasn't me. I haven't even looked at healthcare.gov. I was hoping to have work by now.

@whipassmt: yup that was me. As insaid then, the law has been a mixed bag for me. I had insurance until I was 26, same with my gf, her mom now has insurance (she's self employed and lives in Kentucky so subsidies for her), and I currently don't have insurance which sucks, but hey I'm young and healthy. Hopefully I get a job that offers insurance, but until then its working many people.

@Serraph105: So since you can't find an insurance plan that fits for you, you'll have to pay the fine.

I don't know if this will be much help for you, but maybe you should consider Medishare.. It is not a health-insurance program, it is a Christian "health care sharing ministry" - where members pay a monthly fee - and can donate directly to another member - in order to help other members pay their medical bills. People who are members of such ministries are exempted from the obamacare mandate, so you won't have to pay the fine for being uninsured.

From what I understand Medishare and similar groups are cheaper than health-insurance plans because they are non-profit and exclude those who live unhealthy lifestyles (smoke, abuse drugs, have sexual relations outside of marriage). The big downside is that they are actually not obligated to pay like a health-insurance company would be.

You do have to be a Christian to participate in that specific program, but I think you have said that you are on other threads. Plus you can't use tobacco or illegal drugs or abuse alcohol or legal drugs.

II am not affiliated with Medishare, I get my health-insurance (Aetna) and dental (Cigna) from my mother (through her employer).

In any case take a look, if it's helpful to you that's good, if not, nothing lost.

I've heard they're FORCING people to get this coverage that covers basically nothing, which is one of the stupidest things I've ever heard.

The US has SO many countries with free healthcare to model their system after, but somehow they keep missing the mark like Hellen Keller at a shooting range. It's like they're not even trying.

The courts ruled it constitutional because it's considered a tax..what I'm wondering is why the **** didn't they make it an actual tax? Instead, they give people a false choice.

I'm not sure what you're talking about. Compared to the Democrats, Republicans are the picture of fiscal sanity.

And I wish Democrats would stop trying to tell me what I'm allowed to do. We can't have everything we want in a political party.

as long as you guys keep paying for mommy's estrogen pills, i'm good. I love you guys.

"Reagan proved that deficits don't matter" - Darth Vader Richard Bruce Cheney

Obama cuts deficit in half: "Democrats suck at spending!"

My employees are even more screwed now than they were before. With ACA, basically we've offered them a limited "healthcare payment plan" which is barely qualifiable as any form of useful assistance, because offering all of them full healthcare benefits would be too much for many financially. Now, because we are required to offer them this plan, and they are required to either accept it or take the fine, most are opting to take the fine and constantly spout the "Obama has failed us" ignorance.

No, you've failed yourselves by being low level, no-drive, bloodsuckers who want everything for free. Many of my employees spend their break time chatting with each other about how cool it would be to get injured and get to sit at home collecting food stamps and disability checks.

Excuse me, I'm off on a tangent. The truth is, though, that we need to just go ahead and go with a national healthcare system that is not controlled primarily by private corporations looking for money in their pockets with no true concern for the welfare of their customers.

Yet there's one party that wants to spend even more than the other. Granted, Republicans want to spend more money on specific things. Either way, I'll choose the lesser of two evils any day of the week.

ITT people forget that Obama can't do shit without concurrence from the Senate and the House. So to play it off that Obama unilaterally cut spending is one of the most stupid things I've heard on this forum.

The fiscal agenda of the Republican party for the past 30 years or so has been to purposefully create huge deficits by aggressively cutting taxes for the sole purpose of using those deficits as a talking point against popular government programs. Not only that but for the past 4 years republicans in congress have publicly flirted with the idea of defaulting on the federal government's debts. The republican party is a lot of thing, "fiscally sane" is not one of them. The democratic party may be filled with impotent corporate stooges but they've consistently gone out of their way (I would argue to a fault, but I personally have pretty eccentric views on the federal budget) to finance their policies since the Clinton years with pay-go (something Bush got rid of and Obama re-instituted) and more recently with the ACA, which cuts the deficit by a few hundred billion dollars over the next decade alone and extends the solvency of Medicare by nearly a decade.

@airshocker: from what I have seen republicans don't spend less just on other things, and less intelligently. It's a fairly safe bet that republicans don't have the political will power to ever cut the military's budget (ex. They have refused to cut spending when heads of the military asked to cut certain wasteful spending), and would likely increase it if given the chance for political points.

Dems on the other hand want to spend more up front for health care so we can reduce the amount of tax dollars lost from costly emergency room visits. Meanwhile republicans opposed this idea because is something tax payers shouldn't foot the bill for despite the fact it loses them money in the long run.

I truly dont mean to offend you with any of this, but that's just not the picture of fiscal sanity you claim for republicans.

No, it really wasn't. Taxes were cut in a very real effort to improve the economy. It had its intended effect.

Finance them by creating even more taxes, you left out. That's not something I'm ever going to support for any reason. I would argue that political gaming isn't a reflection on how sane one party is or isn't. They all see it as a game.

It's already been shown that the ACA is more expensive than it was originally marketed to be.

The same can be said for Democrats with regards to any number of political stances. Lets take gun control because I'm rather fond of that one. This country is becoming less and less violent as a whole. Gun crime is down. Yet the Democrats want to spend even more money enforcing rules that would have no effect on gun violence. They've already spent quite a bit of money on a law that doesn't do anything but target lawful gun owners. So don't to me about insanity.

I'm not unreasonable. Lets spend money on healthcare. I like being healthy. But only when you guys stop spending money on other things.

@airshocker: gun crime is down which is great, but we still rank number one in first world nations in the number of gun related deaths per year and it's really not even close. Trying to lower that number further is both morally and economicly responsible. I'm open to other ways of accomplishing this, but currently only dems are offering solutions as flawed as they might be.

That's a cute story

Look, you don't have to take my word for it that the GOP tax cuts have been selling the public snake oil. Senior policymakers within the GOP, people like Bruce Bartlett and probably most infamously, David Stockman (Reagan's OBM director) have publicly stated that the official rationale for these tax cuts has been bullshit and the real reason for them has been to A) line the pockets of their rich friends and B) create a talking point against popular government programs. HW said it best, it's voodoo economics.

That's the cost of freedom, buddy. And lets be honest for a moment: Gun related deaths are almost entirely the fault of criminals. Not your average gun owner.

That's why you're fiscally insane. You would rather spend money on things that have been proven not to work simply because it's an action you can take.

I'm not in favor of taking action when it won't work.

Then how come it worked?

"Gun related deaths are almost entirely the fault of criminals"

No shit. I don't think he was trying to state otherwise

"You would rather spend money on things that have been proven not to work"

This is untrue, in the case of guns, considering mass murder is almost strictly an American problem in the first world.

And yet he hasn't suggested ways to actually stop criminals and has instead thrown support behind things that only affect legal owners of firearms.

And as I already said, there is a price to certain freedoms.