Obamacare

How the Affordable Care Act Continues to Fall Short

The government always fails to deliver on its promises.

|

Doctor
Dreamstime

Of the seven main candidates running for president, only one wants to keep the Affordable Care Act in place: the Democratic kind-of-front-runner Hillary Clinton. Everyone else wants to get rid of it. 

Most Republicans would replace it by returning health insurance regulation to the states, although they would also lock in much of the ACA's new spending. Self-proclaimed socialist Bernie Sanders would replace it with a single-payer system—Medicare for all. It's a terribly inefficient and costly idea, as many pundits have explained. 

But it's worth noting that Sanders' main beef with the ACA is that it doesn't offer universal coverage. Basically, not everyone is insured under the law. While I think he and the other candidates are wrong to see the provision of health insurance cards to all or most Americans as the be-all and end-all of health care policy (health care coverage, put simply, is different from health care), Sanders is right. 

One understands his disappointment since covering most of the uninsured by making insurance affordable was a main policy goal of the health care overhaul. That's what the employer and the individual mandates—the requirement for every American to buy health insurance—were for. Those who didn't buy insurance would be required to pay a fine to cut down on the would-be free riders—who wouldn't buy insurance and then, when they got emergency room treatment, would stick taxpayers with the tab. 

Yet, the mandates aren't working as planned. My colleague Brian Blase recently summed up the difference between the projected numbers of people who were expected to enroll in the ACA during this third open enrollment and the people who actually did. He notes a high estimate of 12.7 million people signing up for an exchange plan. But Blase actually thinks there will only be an average of 11 million enrollees this year. That's 16 million fewer than the Rand Corporation predicted, 11.8 million fewer than the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services predicted, 12.1 million fewer than the Urban Institute predicted and 10 million fewer than the Congressional Budget Office projected. 

In my opinion, this gap is another example of how the government always fails to deliver on its promises (whether you like the promise or not). On one hand you have the theory: The ACA will finally address the problem of the uninsured in America. On the other hand, you have a reality produced by politics and unintended consequences. 

The politics here is that the administration didn't resist pressure from interest groups, and it extended so many exemptions to the payment of the fines that 70 percent of uninsured Americans won't be forced to pay a fine in 2016, according to data from the tax-filing software Turbo Tax. The 14 exemptions include things like economic hardship or cancelled insurance, which addresses the failed "if you like your plan you can keep it" promise. These are on top of exemptions written in the law for illegal immigrants, religious groups and Native Americans. 

Now, some may think that it's good to exempt these groups. (I actually wish everyone were exempt.) However, right from the get-go it jeopardized one of the main objectives of the law. It has unintended consequences, too. Without as many young and healthy customers as planned—the ones who would be charged higher premiums to cross-subsidize others—insurance companies are finding the cost of the law hard to stomach. Some are threatening to leave the exchange while taxpayers foot a larger bill than originally planned as a result of having to bailout insurers. 

Another unintended consequence of lower exchange enrollment is lower spending relative to what was expected, leading to more taxpayers footing a larger bill per enrollee since most enrollees are around the poverty line and thus receive large subsidies. 

There are many other problems with ACA enrollment numbers. As Blase notes, "young and healthy people in the middle class are shunning exchange plans." All these failures make a catastrophic collapse of the exchanges more likely. Let's hope it doesn't open the door to the ultimate Democratic dream of turning America into France by adopting a single-payer system. 

COPYRIGHT 2016 CREATORS.COM 

Advertisement

NEXT: Apple's Involuntary Servitude

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  1. The ACA is not affordable, it drains my bank account, eats up my entire tax return, raises my premiums, and raises the deductible for people who already can afford Health insurance.

    Fuck this shit.

    /Drops mic

    1. Have you heard? Dear Leader may grant you an exemption if you can’t afford the affordable care act.

      1. Dear Leader’s definition of “can’t afford” is probably a lot different than yours or mine. If you have any money left after paying your premiums and/ or your taxes, then I’m pretty sure Dear Leader will say you can afford the ACA. Unless you’re one of his cronies, of course.

      2. If it’s 8.5% of your income for the lowest level insurance plan…. I lost my Health Insurance for the last quarter of the year and have to pay $200 on top of the taxes I owe. My Health Insurance, admittedly not the lowest level, was 8.4% of our income…

        Taxes are hell when you have two working adults who work multiple jobs each, plus extra contract work.

  2. No! I just read an opinion piece in NEJM about how the uninsured are at a super super low and that improved medical outcomes are sure to follow!

    Ah, the wonderful state of medical literature.

    1. It’s dropped several percentage points, and last I looked wasn’t even below historical lows. That’s what the entire Obamacare fight was over.

      1. His site where he is Editor Publish be damned.

  3. Once again, the libertarian establishment fucks up. As Katherine Mangu-Ward famously noted about Ron Paul: great on principle, terrible on politics. The anti-gummint mentality keeps crowding out the pro-liberty (political) majority of libertarians,

    Nothing in this posting beyond typical anti-gummint ranting, including (of course) J Pyrate just above this.
    Lest we forget, fiscal conservatives (Republican and libertarian) never had a credible alternative to Obamacare, “Git gummint out” is not an alternative. (On Medicare financing alone) And “fuck this shit” is an admission of failure.

    A major block of Americans don’t give a shit if their insurance costs go up (to some extent). That’s the price we pay, they believe, for covering the uninsured — rolling back the obstacle of affordability and the unfairness of pre-existing exclusions. (Spare us your talking points, which have been failing for years).

    One more example of why the libertarian label is rejected by 91% of libertarians. (Cato’s Zogby survey).
    We have only two options.
    1) Overthrow the government and install a libertarian emperor.
    2) Develop and promote actual policy alternatives, get elected and govern.
    What has libertarian purity achieved in 40 years? And what does it offer today, when voters are eager for change?

    1. I knew I smelled something.

      1. Usually the Hihn-crypt doesn’t open until nighttime. Hmmm…

        1. I was a little worried he’d fallen ill or something. Good to see he’s still healthy enough to spit vitriol. Also, it’s a fantastic opportunity to test the Reasonable extension I just downloaded.

    2. fiscal conservatives (Republican and libertarian) never had a credible alternative to Obamacare, “Git gummint out” is not an alternative

      Actually, it is an alternative. I know we joke, but you actually are retarded, aren’t you? Why else would you believe that eliminating something that’s bad requires that the bad thing be replaced? If you cut out a cancer, you really don’t need to replace with something else.

      1. Libertarians should support growing government if they want to be taken seriously!

        1. And the Hihn-thing thinks that is actually a good argument.

          1. Ever notice that the only actual cosmotarian never gets called a cosmotarian?

            1. I think he’s a sock puppet myself. Unless someone has met the guy, I refuse to believe he exists.

              1. Actually I don’t think any of us actually exist. We’re all sock puppets of either Tulpa or Mary Stack.

              2. See them run from the issue!
                One more time:

                “One more example of why the libertarian label is rejected by 91% of libertarians. (Cato’s Zogby survey).
                We have only two options.
                1) Overthrow the government and install a libertarian emperor.
                2) Develop and promote actual policy alternatives, get elected and govern.
                What has libertarian purity achieved in 40 years? And what does it offer today, when voters are eager for change?

                No answer

                “I don’t need no steeenkeeng alternative to Medicare being subsidized by a quarter trillion dollars from income taxes (instead of the phony trust fund), plus $40 trillion in unfunded liabilities.”

                What’s your plan for installing a libertarian emperor?

        2. Brochettaward|2.25.16 @ 8:28AM|#
          Libertarians should support growing government if they want to be taken seriously!

          Retards always lie about the exact opposite.
          When they’ve been outsmarted.

          WTF
          And the Hihn-thing thinks that is actually a good argument.

          And they travel i packs.
          Like all wild dogs.

      2. (lol) Wants a liberarian emperor, proving my point exactly

        One more time:

        “One more example of why the libertarian label is rejected by 91% of libertarians. (Cato’s Zogby survey).
        We have only two options.
        1) Overthrow the government and install a libertarian emperor.
        2) Develop and promote actual policy alternatives, get elected and govern.
        What has libertarian purity achieved in 40 years? And what does it offer today, when voters are eager for change?

        Why is that rocket science for you?

        Actually, it is an alternative.

        Not to voters. Try again.

        I know we joke, but you actually are retarded, aren’t you?

        I mentioned “Medicare financing” to expose the libertarian goobers, I got a lengthy list of them in this thread … all of them as ignorant as you. And proud of it!

        Why else would you believe that eliminating something that’s bad requires that the bad thing be replaced?

        Thus confirming your ignorance. “I don’t need no steeenkeeng alternative to Medicare being subsidized by a quarter trillion dollars from income taxes (instead of the phony trust fund. plus $40 trillion in unfunded liabilities.

        Why do you say the Cato Institute is retarded?
        Cato says we need TWO alternative. Both are stupid, which is why I said “credible.”

        Anything else?

        1. “I know we joke, but you actually are retarded, aren’t you?”

          Maybe just abysmally stupid.

          1. Now Sevo wants a libertarian emperor! Or is this just more bullying?

            Maybe just abysmally stupid

            Another one running from the issue!

            “One more example of why the libertarian label is rejected by 91% of libertarians. (Cato’s Zogby survey).
            We have only two options.
            1) Overthrow the government and install a libertarian emperor.
            2) Develop and promote actual policy alternatives, get elected and govern.
            What has libertarian purity achieved in 40 years? And what does it offer today, when voters are eager for change?

            Another no answer

            “I don’t need no steeenkeeng alternative to Medicare being subsidized by a quarter trillion dollars from income taxes (instead of the phony trust fund), plus $40 trillion in unfunded liabilities.”

            What’s your plan for installing a libertarian emperor?

            (my tone here is in defense from yet more of Sevo’s aggression)

    3. Christ you’re an idiot.

      1. Christ you’re an idiot.

        It’s called Politically Incorrect. My name’s not Christ. And you can’t deal with the issue.

    4. You are too stupid to insult.

      1. You are too stupid to insult.

        You are too stupid to deal with the issue.
        How will we get the libertarian emperor you want.

    5. Lest we forget, fiscal conservatives (Republican and libertarian) never had a credible alternative to Obamacare, “Git gummint out” is not an alternative.

      fiscal conservatives: “All this bloodletting isn’t helping the patient. He’s getting worse.”

      Michael Hihn: “Oh yeah? You got a better plan?”

      fiscal conservatives: “Um, yeah. Stop the bloodletting.”

      Michael Hihn: “That’s not a plan! Get the fuck out!”

      1. See them run from the issue!
        One more time:

        “One more example of why the libertarian label is rejected by 91% of libertarians. (Cato’s Zogby survey).
        We have only two options.
        1) Overthrow the government and install a libertarian emperor.
        2) Develop and promote actual policy alternatives, get elected and govern.
        What has libertarian purity achieved in 40 years? And what does it offer today, when voters are eager for change?

        No answer

        “I don’t need no steeenkeeng alternative to Medicare being subsidized by a quarter trillion dollars from income taxes (instead of the phony trust fund), plus $40 trillion in unfunded liabilities.”

        What’s your plan for installing a libertarian emperor?

        1. Are you this stupid naturally, or do you have to work at it?

          1. sarcasmic|2.25.16 @ 10:51AM|#
            Are you this stupid naturally, or do you have to work at it?

            You ran from the question. Which part of this confuses you?

            “One more example of why the libertarian label is rejected by 91% of libertarians. (Cato’s Zogby survey).
            We have only two options.
            1) Overthrow the government and install a libertarian emperor.
            2) Develop and promote actual policy alternatives, get elected and govern.
            What has libertarian purity achieved in 40 years? And what does it offer today, when voters are eager for change?

            So far, you SEEM to be saying: “I don’t need no steeenkeeng alternative to Medicare being subsidized by a quarter trillion dollars from income taxes (instead of the phony trust fund), plus $40 trillion in unfunded liabilities.

            What’s your plan for installing a libertarian emperor?

            1. That is like my asking you what your plan is for attaining a three digit IQ. It’s not going to happen, so it isn’t worth asking.

              1. Sarcasmic — ever the genius — says HIS healthcare reform is “not going to happen.” so he doesn’t have to respond.

            2. Damnit guys… why won’t you pick a side in my false dilemma? I think that it is so witty that I’ve repeated it about five times.

              1. 1) Create a false dichotomy,

                2) Complain when people don’t take the bait

                3) Profit???

                1. Join the 37 personal aggressors too cowardly to address the issue.

                  + Fuck up the meaning of false dichotomy

                  + Beam with pride.

                  + While drooling.

                  = Tribal loyalty among faux libertarian bullies.

    6. So you think the strategy we should follow to win is to not state our principles? Doesn’t that just mean that when the inevitable compromises happen we are starting out from a weaker position than those who have stated principles?

      Prog: It is a travesty of justice that the poor, predominately minorities, are DYING because they have no health care.
      LIber: La la la
      Prog: Mandatory health insurance financed by a tax on WMCGS earnings
      Liber: Umm, how about we do less of that
      Prog: You hate minorities!
      Liber: No No I love minorities, but costs are too high
      etc.

      1. So you think the strategy we should follow to win is to not state our principles?

        Non sequitor.

        Doesn’t that just mean that when the inevitable compromises happen we re starting out from a weaker position than those who have stated principles?

        Compromise with WHAT ,.,, if we have no policies? DUH. Do you vote yet? Follow politics at all?

        Prog: It is a travesty of justice that the poor, predominately minorities, are DYING because they have no health care.

        Goober calls that a policy!!!!

        … Liber: No No I love minorities, but costs are too high

        (lol) What’s your alternative?

        One more time:

        “One more example of why the libertarian label is rejected by 91% of libertarians. (Cato’s Zogby survey).
        We have only two options.
        1) Overthrow the government and install a libertarian emperor.
        2) Develop and promote actual policy alternatives, get elected and govern.
        What has libertarian purity achieved in 40 years? And what does it offer today, when voters are eager for change?

        Which part confuses you? Would Ron Paul give a response as wacky as yours? What’s your plan for installing a libertarian emperor? And why had your way failed for over 30 years? (except local level)

        1. “One more time:

          “One more example of why the libertarian label is rejected by 91% of libertarians. (Cato’s Zogby survey).
          We have only two options.
          1) Overthrow the government and install a libertarian emperor.
          2) Develop and promote actual policy alternatives, get elected and govern.
          What has libertarian purity achieved in 40 years? And what does it offer today, when voters are eager for change?”

          Mike, mike, mike…
          You seem to think someone here takes your drivel as something other than a convenient target for snark. You’re wrong.
          We’ve all read similar piles of crap over the years and while you think it deserves a thoughtful response, we’ve learned it deserves insults and snark.
          Fuck off, slaver.

          1. “One more time:
            “One more example of why the libertarian label is rejected by 91% of libertarians. (Cato’s Zogby survey).
            We have only two options.
            1) Overthrow the government and install a libertarian emperor.
            2) Develop and promote actual policy alternatives, get elected and govern.
            What has libertarian purity achieved in 40 years? And what does it offer today, when voters are eager for change?”

            You seem to think someone here takes your drivel as something other than a convenient target for snark.

            You seem to think I give a shit about a foul mouth pack of wolves who want a libertarian dictator.

            Fuck off, slaver.

            (yawn)

        2. So you are saying that a policy of “Health care is a free market issue and should not be run or paid for by government” is not a policy? To qualify as a policy we need to grant the premise that health care is a government job, and then try to propose less expensive ways to do it?

          Since government involvement is what drives cost increases, the only policy that will drive costs down without reducing the amount and quality of health care we get, is to remove government from the health care markets. That is the libertarian position and I fail to see how giving up the position, wacky as you find it, will get us to the state of affairs we seek.

          But continue to tell us we are all stupid and explain again how having an ideal is the reason we aren’t winning.

          1. THIS is the type of robotic libertarians who have been rejected by 91% of libertarian,

            So you are saying that a policy of “Health care is a free market issue and should not be run or paid for by government” is not a policy?

            (laughing) His confusion likely comes from having no clue what a policy us, which is further confirmed in the balance of his comment.

            To qualify as a policy we need to grant the premise that health care is a government job, and then try to propose less expensive ways to do it?

            OMG. We can’t have a policy to repeal anything because … because THAT IS using defending government!!! Yes. They’re all like that!

            the only policy that will drive costs down without reducing the amount and quality of health care we get, is to remove government from the health care markets. (lol) How?. How do you repeal Medicare, and get elected to do so, since even Cato fucks up that one? How would you repeal Medicaid, and get elected to do so.

            That is the libertarian position and I fail to see how giving up the position, wacky as you find it, will get us to the state of affairs we seek.

            THAT’S NOT A ;POLICY
            ANSWER THE QUESTION.

            1. I am sorry I thought stating that government should be out of health care pretty clearly implied repealing ACA… But let me state it for you: I propose to repeal the ACA. I further propose to eliminate Medicare and Medicaid. I really try to avoid going ad hominem, a practice I would recommend to you, but you are testing my restraint.

              1. I am sorry I thought stating that government should be out of health care pretty clearly implied repealing ACA…

                Who said otherwise??? But HOW?

                But let me state it for you: I propose to repeal the ACA. I further propose to eliminate Medicare and Medicaid.

                How many votes will you get?

                I really try to avoid going ad hominem,

                Bullshit. Your very first comment.

                One more time: How?. How do you repeal Medicare, and get elected to do so, since even Cato fucks up that one? How would you repeal Medicaid, and get elected to do so.

                1. Where in my post did I go ad hominem? Unfortunately I do not think you can get elected advocating the repeal of any entitlement, that is why I expect to see our economy collapse in my lifetime. Fortunately I do not want to serve on a school board so I am not advocating it as a campaign plank; you see this is a website where people discuss ideas. Ideas are interesting even if they are not popular.

                  1. Where in my post did I go ad hominem?

                    Now you try intimidation.

                    Unfortunately I do not think you can get elected advocating the repeal of any entitlement,

                    Now you reverse yourself and agree with me.

                    that is why I expect to see our economy collapse in my lifetime.

                    Now you introduce an entirely new topic.

                    Fortunately I do not want to serve on a school board so I am not advocating it as a campaign plank;

                    Not advocating WHAT? What does ADA have to do with school board elections?

                    you see this is a website where people discuss ideas. Ideas are interesting even if they are not popular

                    NOW YOU GET IT!!!
                    Perhaps.

    7. Whenever I see a post like this, I always suspect the writer personally benefited from the ACA.

      1. Intellectual depth?

        Whenever I see a post like this, I always suspect the writer personally benefited from the ACA.

        I’m on Medicare. Wipe the egg off your face.

        1. I am seeing a pattern to Mr. Hihn’s posts. (forgive me I am a newcomer and I suspect this is common knowledge here)
          1. Post some outrageous claim ignoring the difference between having an ideological discussion and practical politics. Preferably insulting everyone here for daring to come to a libertarian site to discuss libertarian ideas.

          2. Post demand that people answer his post according to his straw man form, coupled with some general insults.

          3. wait.

          4. Respond to anyone who answers with more gratuitous insults.

          5. Pat himself on the back for being more effective at defending liberty than us.

          Not sure if troll or serious.

    8. Why are you under the impression that “I don’t need no steeenkeeng alternative to Medicare being subsidized” isn’t a valid policy alternative? You’re doubling down on this rhetoric without offering any sort of explanation.

      I say fuck it, let it burn. Medicare is a failure. Let’s treat it like one and move forward from there.

      “It’s not an alternative in the eyes of voters.”

      Sounds like we have an issue with the information available to voters, then.

      1. ANOTHER ONE!

        Why are you under the impression that “I don’t need no steeenkeeng alternative to Medicare being subsidized” isn’t a valid policy alternative? You’re doubling down on this rhetoric without offering any sort of explanation.

        Umm, subsidies. Why do you defend them?

        I say fuck it, let it burn.

        How many votes will you get?

        “It’s not an alternative in the eyes of voters.”

        Sounds like we have an issue with the information available to voters

        Blame the voters for your own ignorance. No different than a prog.

    9. I totally agree with you, Hihn. Ideological purity might make people feel good, but it doesn’t mean shit in terms of actually helping people. Ideological purity < Actual marginal advances in liberty, even if it means that we have to reach a compromise with other factions on some issues. I have trouble calling myself a Libertarian, simply because Libertarians have painted themselves into a corner as a result of never budging on anything, ever.

      1. Ideological purity might make people feel good, but it doesn’t mean shit in terms of actually helping people

        You manage to touch almost all the bases here. Imagine a salesman or marketer who ridiculed, “Sell the sizzle, not the steak.?” Or, two salespersons competing for your business. One of them spends all their time bashing the competition. The other shows how his products will benefit you and your family. Which will you buy from?

        It goes back to our founding. A factional war between “pro-liberty” folks and “anti-gummint” folks. The anti-gummint have been winning among our base, as you see here, but has NOTHING to offer voters which they’re actually proud of!!. And are killing the movement.

        I have trouble calling myself a Libertarian, simply because Libertarians have painted themselves into a corner as a result of never budging on anything, ever.

        Solutions are quite simple once one gets the hang of it, , and has elected thousands of us at the local level. I was elected in two states and launched a wining tax revolt. The goobers sneer because I didn’t get all the taxes repealed!

        The Cato survey I mentioned at the top found that even libertarians reject being labeled as such. 91% of them. Think of them as “Nolan libertarians” — at the forefront of so many advances in individual liberty. You’re talking about “movement libertarians” who have achieved squat.

        1. Yep. I totally agree. The commenters here actually pushed me away from the Libertarian label, even though I’d consider myself one under the traditional definition.

          1. I’m building a case on that for the Kochs. Reason TA:LKS about Independents, laughingly claims that PROVES a libertarian moment … then INSULT INDEPENDENTS by shamelessly aligning with conservative Republicans, attacking liberals by name but NEVER conservatives by name. DUH. I’ve been saying for months that Independents are turned off by it, PERHAPS as you just described.

            30% of independents are collectivists. duh.
            Most independents HATE partisan bitching, so one major threat to libertarianism is libertarians … and Reason.

            It’s also why the libertarian brand is rejected by 91% of libertarians, as shown in a Cato survey which commissioned a top political pollster.

            The lust for power can be deadly, which REAL libertarians knew at birth.

            Th\at Cato survey places you with 59% of Americans. Only 5.3% will define themselves as libertarian, and the bullies here are a fraction of that — MAYBE 1% of Americans.

            1. Actually, I do have to disagree with you on the point about reason never attacking conservatives by name. They actually attack conservatives by name all the time. Case-and-point, just from today, they posted these articles:

              https://reason.com/blog/2016/02…..ehind-dona
              (Chris Christie is a “bombastic authoritarian who think [his] charisma can paper over shortcomings of [his] policies”)

              https://reason.com/blog/2016/02…..r-having-t
              (This specifically calls out John Kasich for being a hawk)

              I’m not turned off by Reason’s staff – I’m turned off by libertarians that claim that their positions are supported by data, but refuse to change their positions when new contradictory data emerges.

              1. Actually, I do have to disagree with you

                You seem determined to publicly humiliate yourself. Your links are totally useless.
                Find an attack, or even a disparaging remark, against “conservatives” or “conservatism.”
                As I keep laughing at your “contradictory data.”

                Are you done stalking me yet?

    10. I think Mr. Hihn has moxie. I also think those without the will to compromise are dead weight on the backs of those who would march forward instead of wasting in idyllic dreams.

      1. those without the will to compromise are dead weight on the backs of those who would march forward instead of wasting in idyllic dreams.

        Bingo. If you gave them two libertarians. One had a tax plan to freeze government spending. And Rand Paul who “wants” major tax cuts with no chance of being enacted. Guess which one “they” support.

        Don’t call it compromise. That’s not how it’s done, and nobody storms the barricades so they can compromise. It’s “win-win” How can BOTH sides win as much as they can TODAY. What the opposing side gets as their part is NOT compromise. It;s the price you pay to get YOUR win. If BOTH sides don’t gain, on net, then nothing happens. For now.

        For those who can’t deal with that, they can go live on a desert island. See, enjoying the bounty of America means paying the prices. But at the end we can achieve 95% of the goals for BOTH capitalism and socialism. Even Ayn Rand defended the hippie communes in the 70s. Their only error, she said, was thinking they had to become farmers to live in a communal society. Win-win.

        1. God damn you make sense to me.

          1. Is this a sock puppet replying to Hihn replying to another sock puppet?

            1. Is this the trashmouth, motherfucking bully?

            2. Is this a sock puppet replying to Hihn replying to another sock puppet?

              This is the purist trashmouth (aka retard) who says we can’t have a policy to replace Obamacare without first admitting healthcare IS a government job!! (OMFG) See for yourself:

              To qualify as a policy we need to grant the premise that health care is a government job, and then try to propose less expensive ways to do it?
              http://bitly.com/1T16XOG

              AND THEY VOTE! Umm, the reason we need to replace Obamacare is … wait for it …. it’s ALREADY a law (gasp) … and we want to REMOVE it. Anyone else so hopelessly confused?

              This is the moral and intellectual bankruptcy of a typical libertarian purist, and how they are INCAPABLE of defending their dumbfuck positions … every time they’re challenged

              One more time” “git gummint out” is NOT a solution. It’s a goal. Try explaining that to libertarian purists, our mental equivalent of the Progs and the Christian Ayatollahs.

              P.S. That was the fourth time he had LIED about my point, in growing desperation..

              (walks away laughing)

              1. Do you know what a question mark means?

                1. Do you know what a question mark means?

                  Umm, that’s why I used one, chump.

                  1. Do you know what a question mark means?

                    (lol) Did you know what “another” means … when you used it?
                    You’re not ready for the adult table.

            3. So anyone that disagrees with you is a “sock puppet?” Is an ad hominem attack considered a serious stand-in for argument amongst Libertarians these days?

              1. So anyone that disagrees with you is a “sock puppet?”


                Read it again. I was defending myself. Jatflax called me a sock puppet,

    11. The link Hihn sources to is so dated that the pictures no longer exist on Cato’s site.

      1. It’s not about pictures, chump. H. Woodrow Chippenhous is a rather shameless liar
        It’s like the assholes who send anonymous emails with a link to a phony source … because goobers never check the link anyhow. They’re EAGER to be manipulated.

        One more time for the morally impaired. Cato’s survey reported that the libertarian brand is rejected by 91% of libertarians — which they define with the definition we’ve used for 40 years, fiscally conservative and socially liberal. And this links to the proof Chippenhaus lies about

        http://www.cato.org/policy-rep…..-2004-2006

        That’s a lengthy summary of several surveys. Scroll down about 2/3 to a bold subhead How Libertarians See Themselves In the process, you’ll see my proof for yourself , see that Chippenhaus as a liar of truly psycho proportions. Is it really surprising that these thugs are rejected by 91% of libertarians?

        (This comment is in self defense of aggression)

  4. My friend’s sister in-law makes $55 /hour on the computer . gr She has been out of a job for nine months but last month her income was $13390 just working on the computer for a few hours.visit that site….

    ——— http://www.alpha-careers.com

    1. Seen it.

      1. Me too. His friend’s sister-in-law makes some really great videos! Some freaky stuff too!

  5. Have you heard?

    Dear Leader says if you can’t afford the Affordable Care Act, He may grant you an exemption!

    1. He is as merciful as he is strong!

  6. only one wants to keep the Affordable Care Act in place: the Democratic kind-of-front-runner Hillary Clinton.

    Well, to be fair, she wants to “build on it”, whatever that means. Maybe she’ll raze it and use the foundation.

    1. Those of us who recall the early Clinton years remember that Hillary Care promised just as byzantine a system as what Obama gave us, I suspect her “Building on it” means more layers of bureaucratic patronage jobs and even less efficiency.
      I seem to recall saying that government provided healthcare would have the efficiency of the DMV and the kindness of the IRS. We gave it too much credit,

      1. I suspect her “Building on it” means more layers of bureaucratic patronage jobs and even less efficiency.

        Oh, no doubt about it. A *6000*-page “law”.

  7. One little note: the native American exemption makes sense because registered tribal members can get care from the feds already, so they are basically on a Medicaid like system to begin with. Or, at least, they have access to care, although those who can afford private coverage generally do so, because, well…..the Indian Medical System is like Medicaid.
    Oh, and it’s still far cheaper to pay the penalty than buy the insurance through the exchanges. Not to mention the incredible headaches that the post office level incompetence of most people working in the exchanges causes for many, if not most, of the people who try to use them. I have seen numerous 1095 A’s showing only a couple of month’s coverage for people who had coverage all year. Not surprising, since the system was put in “service” without first developing the infrastructure, so massive screw ups are the rule, not the exception.

    1. So supposedly independent nations get government health care paid for by tax payers? That makes sense!

      1. But a long time ago, some white people were mean to them, and the color of your skin is white, therefore you must be made to pay!

        If you disagree, you’re a greedy racist who wants to profit from the continued genocide of Native Americans.

  8. My two sentence healthcare plan that gets roughly as much done as ACA at a fraction of the cost:

    Refundable tax credit for 100% of out-of-pocket insurance costs, maximum of [insert national average premium per person], valid only for households under 40k in income.

    Households over 40k: be an adult and get insurance, or don’t; the government isn’t your damn mother.

    Not fully libertarian obviously, and still an expensive welfare credit, but aren’t those two lines better than the current thousands of pages of regulations?

    1. Without the thousands of pages, how could they reward cronies and social engineer?

    2. I made this proposal several on this site several years before Obama got elected and was shouted down by Joe. But yeah, why can’t we end the tax deductibility of business provided health insurance, thus ending the link of employment and health coverage, thus enabling the consumers of health insurance coverage buy directly for sellers of health insurance coverage, thereby bringing a modicum of market forces to bear upon the cost of medical care?

  9. Does the church of the flying spaghetti monster grant me exceptions from these onerous government regulations? I have been touched by His Noodly Appendage.

    1. Show us on the doll where he touched you…

  10. As someone who deals with ACA pretty much every day [I work in health care] there are basically three ways it manifests itself:

    1. Strait up market plan ACA: it costs too much for too little; you hardly ever see this being used in my world.

    2. It is highly subsidized: I more often see patients who pay $60-$80 a month for ACA because they financially qualify for government subsidy; it is still pretty lousy insurance due to high deductibles and co pays, and limited providers that accept it.

    3. Expanded Medicaid [which depends on State you live in]; this encompasses the vast majority of those who benefit from “Obamacare” and is totally tax funded; it is also very comprehensive coverage and RXs cost around $2-$6.

    While this does indeed cover more people, the theory on which it was premised, that younger, healthier subscribers who would pay full price to offset everyone else is not happening. As the penalties increase to the point that is does indeed cost as much or more to not buy the plan, this will likely change but only because uninsured individuals and families are forced to get it. Which of course is the main reason libertarians do not like it in the first place.

    Progressivism in action.

    1. Exactly. Yes, more people are covered, but it’s shit coverage, and various ACA provisions raised the premiums on existing plans while limiting coverage. And, yes, the death spiral is going to take it down within a decade. Which, of course, was the idea all along; a single-payer system like you see in the UK, with private boutique insurance for those who can afford it.

  11. On the other hand, you have a reality produced by politics and unintended consequences.

    Without as many young and healthy customers as planned?the ones who would be charged higher premiums to cross-subsidize others?insurance companies are finding the cost of the law hard to stomach

    Another unintended consequence of lower exchange enrollment is lower spending relative to what was expected, leading to more taxpayers footing a larger bill per enrollee since most enrollees are around the poverty line and thus receive large subsidies.

    Both of these unintended consequences were foreseen by the law’s critics before it was even passed. What’s that saying? “Easily foreseen consequences are not unintended?” Seems like that should be an Iron Law or something.

  12. Also, you use a stock photo of an Asian doctor, reason? LACISTS!11!11!!!!!

  13. hai

  14. ….$….Just before I looked at the paycheck that said $6914 , I didnt believe that my mom in-law really bringing in money in their spare time from their computer. . there neighbour had bean doing this for only six months and resently paid for the mortgage on there place and bourt a top of the range Saab 99 Turbo . look at this site….

    Clik this link in Your Browser..

    ???????? http://www.Wage90.com

    1. Your mommy in law is banging Johns who have a fetish of old ladies, and your wife is bringing up the rear.

      1. Define “rear” as you use it here. 🙂

  15. Inescapable Consequences

    “The trouble with socialism is that eventually you run out of other people’s money?” -Margaret Thatcher (1925-2013)

    It all began in 1965 with the passage of Medicare. That law set the stage for so-called Managed Care, better called “Managed Cost” and the rest of the current ills in the American system of medical delivery ? notice avoidance of the governmental euphemism “healthcare” ? including ObamaCare. Medicare alone is bankrupting these United States of America.

    It’s been known for years that, during the last year of life, Medicare recipients spend 30 cents of every dollar that they’ll have spent on medical care during their entire lifetime.(1) Of those 1% with the highest costs in any given year, approximately 50% die. Of those 5% with the highest costs, approximately 40% die. Of those who survive, 50% are demented by the age of 85.

    The American System of medical delivery isn’t making more patients well. It’s making the nation sick.

    See “A Paradox?” under …
    http://nationonfire.com/catego…..re-reform/ .

    Gene Richard Moss, M.D.
    Author of Healthcare Reform D.O.A. (out if print), nominated for two national awards by the American Risk & Insurance Association

    Reference
    1. See, for example, Lubitz, JD and Riley, GF: “Trends in Medicare Payments in the Last Year of Life”. New England Journal of Medicine 328:1092-1096 (1993).

    1. It all began in 1965 with the passage of Medicare. That law set the stage for so-called Managed Care,

      The two are not even remotely connected. And Managed Care traces to the 1940s. Seattle’s Group Health Co-Op was founded as a co-op (member owned) HMO, with doctors as salaried employees of their patients. They now also run their own hospitals and own their own pharmacy, making them THE lowest-cost healthcare structure in the world — zero claims processing (in-plan).

      THAT type of HMO is the modern equivalent of the ethnic and fraternal lodges who financed our healthcare before FDR created our current system (and the health insurance industry).

      It’s been known for years that, during the last year of life, Medicare recipients spend 30 cents of every dollar that they’ll have spent on medical care during their entire lifetime.

      That comparison is made with total healthcare spending for the country, in the same year.

  16. I bet Donald Trump keeps the ACA.

  17. Fuck the ACA… that’s all…

  18. ….$….Just before I looked at the paycheck that said $6914 , I didnt believe that my mom in-law really bringing in money in their spare time from their computer. . there neighbour had bean doing this for only six months and resently paid for the mortgage on there place and bourt a top of the range Saab 99 Turbo . look at this site….

    Clik this link in Your Browser..

    ???????? http://www.Wage90.com

  19. This bill never would have passed if Obama had given the following speech in 2009:

    Now let me be clear, for most of you out there, your health insurance premiums will continue to climb at double digit rates, and you can expect those deductibles and copays to go up as well. For some of you, you will have to find a new doctor and you will lose your current insurance, and you will be forced onto a government plan with higher premiums that includes services you neither want nor need. But let me tell you this, my fellow Americans, when you see that we will have provided insurance to about 1/4 of the uninsured, you will say your sacrifice is worth it.

  20. thousands and thousands of pages of unread socialized medicine never read by the politicians
    is Treason against the people!!

    I read that there are 20,000 pages now and you can bet it is still be written..

    The people have really been enslaved by this treasonous act!!

  21. Repealing prescription laws would have done more good since it would destroy the government enforced monopoly that doctors currently enjoy over access to medical drugs. Note that prescription laws were passed during the FDR administration when the liberal wing of the Democratic Party was in control of things.

    Without prescription laws many people (especially today with so much information available on Internet sites such as “WebMD”, which not only covers the more common medical drugs, but also their side effects and “user reviews”). I’ve also found out that incredible as it may seem, I can do a better job of taking care of my health than my doctors can! No doubt they could do a “better job”, but that would require that they take the time to actually study things, and today no doctor can afford the time to do so… For example many “tests” are effected by what you’ve done previously before the tests. If you are dehydrated your kidney test will be inaccurate. Certain medications will effect your red cell count. And they appear to be more concerned over “life span” than patient comfort. Whereas I’d much prefer that they do the opposite as I have no desire to end my life in a nursing home!

  22. I’ve made $76,000 so far this year working online and I’m a full time student.I’m using an online business opportunity I heard about and I’ve made such great money.It’s really user friendly and I’m just so happy that I found out about it.

    Open This LinkFor More InFormation..

    ??????? http://www.workpost30.com

  23. I’ve made $76,000 so far this year working online and I’m a full time student.I’m using an online business opportunity I heard about and I’ve made such great money.It’s really user friendly and I’m just so happy that I found out about it.

    Open This LinkFor More InFormation..

    ??????? http://www.workpost30.com

  24. The Fit Finally programs and guides are based on over 600 research studies conducted by some of the biggest Universities and research teams of the world.
    We take pride in the fact that our passion for better health and fitness is 100% backed by science and helps 100’s (if not 1000’s) of people every year since 2010. Just try it:

    http://03615gbnxbyy5y42r9r8o80…..kbank.net/

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.