Low-income households were among those whose coverage rates fell furthest last year
Let’s call this for what it is, the Republican class war. Eliminate the average and low income Americans health care while giving the rich individuals and corporations gobs of tax breaks, loopholes, and tax reduction.
Depopulation by design…
I’ll grant that Trump has led a classist, anti-poor attack on ACA. But here are some questions the article leaves unanswered, making me wonder how responsible Trump actually is for this particular loss (as the headline says) of healthcare.
The article refers to people who “lost” coverage in 2017, but this could refer to two different things: a) people who were covered in 2016 and opted out for 2017 and b) people who actually lost coverage during the 2017 calendar year. It would make sense for a different set of reasons for each type of decline, so how much of the drop was one versus the other?
The article refers to the income level of $36k, which is close to what I make. Mid- 2016 I got a raise and as a result I had to pay back ALL of my advance tax credits. Premiums have been rising dramatically every year, even before Trump was elected, and I dropped coverage because a small gain in income meant a huge increase in premiums. How many people dropped coverage for a similar reason?
The article states that simply because Trump mentioned the possibility of stopping subsidy payments, many insurance companies stopped offering plans on the exchange. While this may be true, they could not have discontinued plans with those policies still in effect; in other words, those plans would have stopped at the end of a year, not in the middle of the year, and this by itself could not be a reason why people lost coverage IN 2017. It might account for people losing coverage when they decided to opt out for 2017, but how could this be possible if Trump’s talk about stopping subsidy payments didn’t start until 2017, so it could only effect 2018 coverage? Unless he actually spoke about it as a candidate (it would have had to be before the election) and that got the insurance companies scared.
The article states that customers may have dropped coverage, gambling on the possibility that Trump would not enforce the individual mandate. In this case, however, is it accurate to say these people “lost” coverage, if they intentionally dropped it?
Irrespective of the reasons or mechanisms, if increased numbers of people are without coverage and become ill, if they end up going to emergency rooms, the cost of the uncompensated care gets shifted to those who have insurance in the form of increased premiums, co-pays and deductibles. The Affordable Care Act left 28 million uncovered and this is why increasing premiums have been relentless.
It didn’t “leave” 28 million uncovered. A Supreme Court ruling that made the Medicaid expansion optional and the defunding of various provisions of the law by House Republicans, community health centers for example, as well as actions by states, “left” a lot of people uncovered. This is not to mention, a good quarter of the people uncovered were/are not citizens. Even under Medicare-for-all, it’s likely those folks would remain uncovered.
Sure, some segments would be uncovered no matter what, but there’s much more nuance to that number than often quipped.
Great reason for a French “Style” Revolution, don’t you think?
World Health Organization ranking of health systems in 2000
Not much has moved in 18 years since this study.
A recent and interesting article ranking Switzerland and France as the top nations in the world for healthcare systems. Why can’t America study what they are doing and emulate them?
Depopulation by Death due to Little Donnie and the Racist Republicans need to have it all for their Pimps.
Is there anything that makes clearer how fucked up Obamacare (née Romneycare) is than that we have to be forced to have it?
No one forces us to exercise a right to healthcare (not “coverage”, but care), as folks with that right around the world will attest.
There is a zero cost way to help the uninsured. This would be to repeal the prescription laws passed by the FDR administration that granted doctors a legal government enforced monopoly over access to medical drugs.
Without prescription laws, you can with some study have no difficulty in controlling your blood pressure and cholesterol levels. These are the two major causes of heart attacks and strokes. The generic medications to control both of these conditions will cost you $80 a year at Walmart. High blood sugar, non-insulin dependent? $40 dollars a year. Walmart also sells standard strength coated aspirin. Taking one of these a day will help prevent heart attacks.With additional study and no prescription laws, you can reduce your need for doctors/hospitals from today’s levels. Study the value of turmeric, some of the other OTC medicines and supplements and you can handle the more simple issues. It is “monopoly medicine” that makes US health care the world’s most expensive. Removing the monopoly as far as possible will save billions of dollars. Granted for some things, doctors and hospitals are still necessary, but reducing the need for these services is a “no-cost” way of bringing down those costly services.
The reason US health care costs are the world’s highest is because the practice of medicine is more profitable in the US than anywhere else. Any job in the health care field likely pays more here in the US than anywhere else. Then our administrative costs are shocking compared to the rest of the developed world. Millions of jobs right there. Consider that the US doctor has a “staff” of several people compared to doctors in other countries who make do with just an “office nurse”. Look at the size of those working in hospitals whose tasks consist of dealing with insurance companies and everything else. US hospitals can have as much “administrative staff” as people employed in performing health care. Consider that insurance companies merely function as “middle men” between the patient and the doctor or hospital. Rest of the developed world has administrative costs a small fraction of ours. Then we have the “for profit” drug industry free to charge whatever they want. In the rest of the world prices of medical drugs are a small fraction of our own.
Effectively our government exists to benefit the few at the expense of the many…
Spot on. A bit slow but effective. Load ‘em up on fast food, diet soda, nicotine, and now opioids, then deny them healthcare, and they will die. Heard yesterday that six people an hour in this country die from opioid abuse. But that’s only 51,000 per year, a far cry from the couple hundred million the fascists want to excise from this country. Wars are too ruinous and risky so there needs to be an alternate approach to the genocide of the underclasses. The staggering numbers, however, indicate the futility of trying to eliminate two hundred million people—even at two million souls per year, it would take way over a hundred years to reach the population level desired by the new world order. So this shows the stupidity of the reactionary right. Problem is they remain committed to this goal, and they will continue to do great harm so long as they are positioned to do so. A tough ticket for reformers.