Maggie's Farm

The law, in its majestic equality, forbids the rich as well as the poor to sleep under bridges, to beg in the streets, and to steal bread. — Anatole France

"Between 2020 and 2026, the number who would lose Medicaid coverage would increase to 14 million as states dropped the Medicaid expansions and the per-capita Medicaid caps started to force the states to drop coverage.... By 2026, 52 million, 19 percent of the nonelderly population, would be uninsured. The increase would be disproportionately attributable to coverage losses among people between the ages of 55 and 64 and with incomes below 200 percent of the federal poverty level."

IdahoBob: There were millions of people who lost health care coverage under Obamacare.

Percent of uninsured Americans

IdahoBob: Most of the people who will "lose" coverage when Obamacare is ended/replaced/fixed will be those people who choose to not have health care insurance.

Reread our post. Or should we paste it here so you can respond this time?

IdahoBob: My mother and father never had health insurance until they turned 65.

Medicare.

mudbug: So it becomes against the law not to have health insurance (something everyone is supposed to want anyway) and the percentage of uninsured wasn't even cut in half?

Insurance isn't mandatory, and the tax for not being covered has been phased in over time.

mudbug: After the president lied that you could keep your insurance plan if you liked it

That was an oversimplification. However, most people have been covered under the same or very comparable plans they had been covered by all along. However, junk policies were eliminated, and, of course, insurance companies change plans for a number of reasons not related to the ACA.

mudbug: and that your insurance bill would be reduced by $2500/year

Also a misstatement. Health care as a percentage of GDP has leveled off, meaning health care is significantly less than it would have been without the ACA. However, premiums have increased.

mudbug: the cost of using it (deductibles) went up too.

Sure. Along with the insurance exchanges, high deductibles have long been a conservative policy prescription, the idea being that people need to have skin in the game for the market signal to have an impact on pricing.

mudbug: All that while there are now a lot of places with only one insurance carrier because it became uneconomical for insurers wot offer policies there.

Part of that is due to Republicans undercutting risk corridors, which were devised to help stabilize the markets during the first few years of the transition.

mudbug: So not only are people having problems affording insurance but insurance companies are having problems providing that insurance.

Sure. As with every large program implemented by the federal government, there have been problems during the roll-out, including, for instance, Medicare Part D under the Bush Administration. What usually happens is that the Congress enacts modifications of the original bill in order to iron out the difficulties. Instead, Republicans did everything they could to sabotage ObamaCare, such as refusing the expand Medicaid in many Republican-led states, or the Trump Administration trying to end all advertising concerning the end of enrollment for the upcoming year.

Now, let's compare to the Republicans repeal and replace. Trump promised that everyone would be covered, and it would cost less. Instead, the Republicans have proposed a bill which cuts taxes for the wealthy and cuts healthcare for the poor, yet includes incentives that will exacerbate the freeloader problem.

Drowningpuppies: Yep, let's blame the Republicans for the failure of Obamacare.

ObamaCare hasn't failed. Health care as a percentage of GDP has leveled off, while more people than ever have coverage, even as Republicans have tried to destabilize the exchanges.

OneGuy: They had an i-phone for $799!!!!

Most people can get an iPhone for a nominal cost with their cellular service. Plans can be typically had for $50 per month per line with digital services. Cellular phones are a near necessity nowadays; for employment, and to keep in touch with children when the parents work.

JK Brown: a massive data plan

Texting with pictures is standard fare for kids checking in with their working parents. That doesn't require "a massive data plan". Family plans at U.S. Cellular with three lines and 2GB are about $100 per month, or $33 per line. Add $25 per month for the Kid's new iPhone, Sis is a toddler and uses a pretend phone, Mom uses the old smartphone, and Dad still keeps his old flip-phone because he likes to flip it and say "Beam me up, Scotty." The kids still laugh every time.

Health insurance for a family of four varies, but without a subsidy or employer contribution is about $2000 per month.

IdahoBob: A good plan is about half

The Silver Plan is about $1000 per month, depending on state. It means that the cost of a new iPhone, which is about $25 per month is negligible.

IdahoBob: But all of this begs the question; regardless of how much it costs should it be subsidized for the useless worthless layabouts and paid for by the hard working productive people???

A lot of hard working people can't afford health insurance.

IdahoBob: We have created an entire class of people who are comfortably supported cradle to grave at the expense of the people who are productive and hard working

What you point to is the free-rider problem. That doesn't mean there are not others in actual need. It isn't necessary to deny one to acknowledge the other.

IdahoBob: What happens when you kill that goose that lays those golden eggs?

Government has been involved in providing a social safety net for at least eighty years, yet the U.S. economy has continued to prosper. All major developed economies are mixed economies.

As Frederic Bastiat pointed out "In the department of economy, an act, a habit, an institution, a law, gives birth not only to an effect, but to a series of effects. Of these effects, the first only is immediate; it manifests itself simultaneously with its cause — it is seen. The others unfold in succession — they are not seen: it is well for us, if they are foreseen." For instance, Social Security doesn't merely provide for the old, but actually creates greater economic mobility in their children who no longer have to stay at home to provide for their parents, but can travel far and wide in search of opportunity.

Idaho: There will always be people in actual need.

John 12,8: The poor you will always have with you, and you can help them any time you want.

Idaho: This is a problem best handled by charities especially smaller local charities that can tell the difference between someone in need and someone who is a free loader.

History has shown that charities are not sufficient, especially during times of economic distress. That's why all developed economies have social safety nets, including unemployment insurance, pensions for seniors and the disabled, and guaranteed healthcare.

IdahoBob: No! It's not. The reason we and other developed economies have "social safety nets" is simply because these people vote and politicians can buy votes and even increase the pool of potential voters by paying out outlandish benefits to a special interest group.

The most successful economies all have social safety nets. What a coincidence!

IdahoBob: It is morally and constitutionally wrong to rob Peter to pay Paul.

All taxation "robs Peter to pay Paul". Even raising taxes to pay for a road may mean you are paying for a road that doesn't reach your home or business.

Notably, you didn't actually dispute our statement about the history of the social safety net, which arose largely in response to social conditions.

Thos: I suspect that he would take issue with your attempt to twist his words into a justification for the welfare state.

We weren't making an appeal to authority but merely citing a common quote concerning the seen and unseen effects of actions within a complex system. Did you disagree with this?

As an example, we noted that Social Security has the "unseen" effect of providing greater economic mobility in the young.

Jim: thanks to the ACLU, the federal courts have ruled that the mentally ill cannot be institutionalized or forced to get medical treatment

You probably mean the U.S. Constitution, not the ACLU. In any case, people can be forcibly committed, but there is a judicial process involved to prevent someone from being committed who is competent.

Jim: under Obamacare they can be forced to buy insurance to pay for the medical treatment they refuse to get, and if they refuse to pay for the insurance, they can eventually be imprisoned for tax evasion.

Not according to the plain language of the Affordable Care Act: "In the case of any failure by a taxpayer to timely pay any penalty imposed by this section, such taxpayer shall not be subject to any criminal prosecution or penalty with respect to such failure." Nor can the government "file notice of lien with respect to any property of a taxpayer by reason of any failure to pay the penalty imposed by this section or, levy on any such property with respect to such failure."

Now that you've been properly informed, we're sure you will retract your position.

JK Brown: The real question is why the girl is in a dress and why was the dress sculpted to look like it was blowing open at the crotch?

Huh?

http://www.fox5ny.com/news/240232064-story

Thos: Of course you were.

No. We were not arguing the statement was correct because it was said by Bastiat, but were using a quotation with which we thought you might agree. Did you disagree?

As an example, we noted that Social Security has the "unseen" effect of providing greater economic mobility in the young, a pointed you have ignored.