Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : A US National Health Care System? -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Alighieri who wrote (39104)	1/8/2015 3:35:39 PM
From: Lane3	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 42652

An honest way to look at it is that since the implementation of the ACA What is dishonest about consideration of the change since PPACA was framed, as well? To what do you attribute the rise in the number of the uninsured between the time that the legislation was laid out until one could actually get insurance from it? Do you think that the rise between legislation formation in 2009 and implementation in 2014 would have been the same had PPACA not been in the works?

To: Alighieri who wrote (39104)	1/8/2015 4:14:18 PM
From: i-node	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 42652

>> An honest way to look at it is that since the implementation of the ACA the uninsured rate has dropped from 18 to 12.9... No, it isn't honest. The rate dropped by the 5 points as you indicated, but only because the rate had been driven up by the enactment of the law in the first place. So, it isn't "honest" to credit the law with improving the situation when it was responsible for the increase in the first place. Certainly, some significant portion of the increase from 14.4 to 18 was due to the new law (keeping in mind the huge number of policy cancellations as the rate was increasing). We could (honestly) argue about how much of it was a result of the unemployment increase after Obama took office; some surely was. Whatever that increase was, it was transitory and not truly reflective of the "before" rate. 13-14% is in the historical ballpark. Then, it is still necessary to consider whether it was worth it at all. Even a drop from, say, 16% to 13% you're talking about under 10 million additional persons covered with immense additional cost to taxpayers and disruption in the health care system. I think it would be hard to conclude that's a good thing. Yes, I'm biased, but I can't see how, as a nation, we could consider it a good thing.