| Author |
|
Peter Hicks
Byrne Robotics Member
Joined: 30 April 2004
Location: Canada
Posts: 1891
|
| Posted: 05 March 2015 at 1:12pm | IP Logged | 1
|
|
|
"We also have to admit, on a macro-level, that the program has failed in all of it's promises- it has not reduced budgetary stresses on the federal government, it has not reduced the rate of the uninsured, it hasn't improved access to care, it hasn't reduced the average cost of insurance, nor has it reduced the cost of care."
******************************************************
I thought ~7 million people had signed up under the ACA that previously had no coverage. Why has this not reduced the rate of the uninsured?
For people whose rates increased (and this seems to be a common story) was this because they formerly had "low quality" coverage with high co-pays and many things that just were not covered at all, and now the ACA has set some minimal standards that have ended those types of basic policies?
|
| Back to Top |
profile
| search
|
| |
Bill Lancellotta
Byrne Robotics Member
Joined: 07 March 2008
Location: United States
Posts: 157
|
| Posted: 05 March 2015 at 1:40pm | IP Logged | 2
|
|
|
Joseph, it has increased access to care for
myself and others. Still, I realize there are many
problems with the law and that it will need to be
amended. Let's just not throw the baby out with the
bathwater. I shudder to think of the chaos that would
create!
|
| Back to Top |
profile
| search
|
| |
Andy Meyers
Byrne Robotics Member
Joined: 05 August 2014
Location: United States
Posts: 567
|
| Posted: 05 March 2015 at 1:50pm | IP Logged | 3
|
|
|
But here's another question, do you think the President would sign a compromise deal that alters the law, or would he dig in his heels, hoping that prevailing politics would play against Republicans?
I say he digs in his heels because he will see his legacy at stake and won't back down because of it.
|
| Back to Top |
profile
| search
|
| |
Craig Markley
Byrne Robotics Member
Joined: 16 April 2004
Location: United States
Posts: 3969
|
| Posted: 05 March 2015 at 1:54pm | IP Logged | 4
|
|
|
Those who had crappy insurance to begin with (and were being ripped off) saw their rates increase. An increase has been seen in those states whose governor has not expanded Medicaid also.
|
| Back to Top |
profile
| search
|
| |
Joseph Gauthier
Byrne Robotics Member
Joined: 11 March 2009
Posts: 1414
|
| Posted: 05 March 2015 at 1:57pm | IP Logged | 5
|
|
|
Peter, fewer than seven million consumers purchased policies on Obamacare exchanges, but it wasn't seven million previously uninsured consumers. A large percentage of these sign ups were from consumers whose previous policies had been purchased on the individual market, but which had been cancelled due to Obamacare mandates. Still others found the policies they had previously received through small businesses discontinued by their employer because Obamacare provided a reasonable alternative.
And others, like me, fell into a classic middle-class trap: together, my wife and I make a comfortable living. We are comfortable enough that we are taxed from every conceivable direction, but not so comfortable that every dime of tax payed doesn't hit like a fist to the solar plexus. For years, my family has benefited from exceptional insurance coverage provided through my wife's employer- I guess you could call it a Cadillac plan, if you wanted to borrow the term used by the social engineers in the federal government. It's expensive, but worth the cost.
After Obamacare went on line, due to increased cost projection, (particularly the mandate to cover children to the age of twenty-six) the company dropped coverage of souses to mitigate costs. Now, of course I can purchase a lesser plan through my own employer, but as I've already stated, we're already in a middle-class trap.
We have a son in high school getting ready for college. My step-son has gone to work for his dad, but he's only twenty-three and still feeling his way through life and we regularly provide him with financial assistance. And we've just recently taken in my wife's mother. We still pay our share of the coverage purchased through my wife's employer to cover my wife and the kids, and we're grateful that the quality of the plan hasn't been otherwise diminished, but we simply can not afford another monthly premium from a second policy to cover me.
Anyway, my wife and the kids are covered, and as far as I'm concerned, that's all that matters.
|
| Back to Top |
profile
| search
|
| |
Andrew W. Farago
Byrne Robotics Member
Joined: 19 July 2005
Location: United States
Posts: 4067
|
| Posted: 05 March 2015 at 1:59pm | IP Logged | 6
|
|
|
Here's Obamacare in action:
I work for a small non-profit, and the cost of adding my wife to my plan is prohibitively expensive. My wife's a independent contractor whose income fluctuates month to month, and for about ten years, her health insurance was the really basic kind, since that's what we could reasonably afford. As a woman, her healthcare costs were more than a man of the same age and condition, since that's how the system worked. There was basically a penalty for being a woman.
With the ACA, we were able to get her a plan that we could afford that would actually cover her major medical expenses. Without that coverage, having a baby could have completely wiped out all of our savings, especially if there had been any sort of complications with the delivery. A routine delivery, no insurance at all, is in the neighborhood of $50,000 when you add in all of the experts, equipment, and a two-day hospital stay. I'd bet that any complications (we didn't have any, fortunately) could double that cost.
If the Republicans repeal the ACA without replacing it with anything better, and if that makes the insurance companies decide to go ahead and double their rates overnight or just dump millions of people they're covering overnight, I guess that's their call, but it's a law that's certainly changed my life for the better. Far better to fix the glitches that raised some people's premiums to ridiculous levels than to go back to the previous system, which was "don't take any risks, ever, do your best to put a million dollars into the bank, and try to die suddenly without being sick for very long."
|
| Back to Top |
profile
| search
| www
e-mail
|
| |
Stephen Robinson
Byrne Robotics Member
Joined: 16 April 2004
Location: United States
Posts: 5835
|
| Posted: 05 March 2015 at 2:33pm | IP Logged | 7
|
|
|
Thanks for sharing your story, Andrew.
Tangentially, I've often argued that if the GOP has a
pro-life (and essentially pro-pregnancy) platform, it
should also advocate for making at least all prenatal
care free. Otherwise, if the government is going to
control pregnancy to a point and then quit, it's no more
than a deadbeat dad.
Having a baby is incredibly expensive. And that's not
considering actually raising the child.
My wife is a lawyer, but her firm has terrible health
care. Adding myself (a self-employed writer) and a child
would have been an astronomical expense -- one *we*
might be able to afford but we can't imagine how, say,
the paralegals at her firm do it (premiums are not
progressive).
I signed up for myself and my son through the exchange
and got a good plan for a third of what being added to
my wife's coverage would cost. Even at 40, I'm fortunate
enough to have no major health issues, so I'm one of the
"healthy" people contributing to the pot.
|
| Back to Top |
profile
| search
| www
|
| |
Randy Lahey
Byrne Robotics Member
Joined: 24 January 2006
Location: Canada
Posts: 675
|
| Posted: 05 March 2015 at 6:10pm | IP Logged | 8
|
|
|
I can't get over 50k for having a baby. Mine cost me about $45 in parking fees. How could someone without insurance have have multiple children or even one?
For those that don't mind saying, what do you pay monthly for health insurance and did it go up or down with obamacare?
|
| Back to Top |
profile
| search
| www
e-mail
|
| |
Steven Myers
Byrne Robotics Member
Joined: 10 June 2004
Location: United States
Posts: 5624
|
| Posted: 05 March 2015 at 9:13pm | IP Logged | 9
|
|
|
Obamacare has succeeded in getting insurance for a lot of people who didn't have it before. It hasn't led to lower costs, at least not yet. The law does not require the insurance companies pass on any savings to their customers.
|
| Back to Top |
profile
| search
| www
|
| |
Joseph Gauthier
Byrne Robotics Member
Joined: 11 March 2009
Posts: 1414
|
| Posted: 24 June 2015 at 12:06pm | IP Logged | 10
|
|
|
Well, here we are- late June already, and the Supreme Court has begun issuing opinions. Any predictions on how the court will rule in this particular case?
Also, any opinions on the substance of the House GOP's planned response to a favorable ruling for the petitioners? For those not familiar: http://thehill.com/policy/healthcare/245355-gop-prepares-for -obamacare-ruling
House Republicans appear to be coalescing behind a plan that would give states the option of keeping ObamaCare subsidies if the Supreme Court rules against the healthcare law. The plan, presented Wednesday by Rep. Paul Ryan (R-Wis.), would give block grants to states that want them, according to lawmakers who attended a briefing. States would get to choose how to spend the money to cover people in their state. The grants would last for two years, giving the next president a chance to enact an alternative to ObamaCare.
Personally, I find a lot to like about this compromise. Truly a lot. To me, the most important aspect is the repeal of the individual and business mandates, but I also love the concept of block granted funds, respecting the federalist nature of our Republic, and allowing for competing visions or reform in the fifty-six distinct engines of democracy that inform the nation. There will be funding questions, but the two year sun-set mitigates much of those concerns.
Three important questions remain for me (if the Supreme Court rules against the executive branch): Will the GOP Senate take up the plan, will Senate Democrats stand in the way, and will the President sign off? After these questions find answer, one wonders, of course, how the people will respond...
Edited by Joseph Gauthier on 24 June 2015 at 12:07pm
|
| Back to Top |
profile
| search
|
| |
Robert Cosgrove
Byrne Robotics Member
Joined: 16 January 2005
Location: United States
Posts: 1710
|
| Posted: 24 June 2015 at 8:02pm | IP Logged | 11
|
|
|
I'm not much for any sort of regulation of speech, but if I were to embrace an exception, it would be this: no politician or reporter would be allowed to use the word "free" to describe any government benefit. Thus, instead of saying, "I think child care/birth control/health care/college/housing/pet food/whatever should be free," one would be required to say, "I think child care/birth control/health care/college/housing/pet food/whatever should be paid for by the taxpayers." That might start an honest discussion as to whether the particular benefit is worth the cost.
Quite apart from the point I make above, but related to it, as to Obamacare in particular, the Wall Street Journal has an article today by Holman Jenkins which makes the following observations (among others):
*polls show that 74% of ObamaCare's eight million enrollees are "satisfied" with their coverage plans; the polls fail to count the 12 million who are eligible for ObamaCare but have declined to enroll.
*Of the eight million who have signed up, some 87% are receiving taxpayer subsidies, with the annual subsidy currently averaging $3,312 per recipient. "Which is excellent if you're one of the recipients," as someone else is paying for all or part of your health care.
|
| Back to Top |
profile
| search
|
| |
Kevin Brown
Byrne Robotics Member
Joined: 31 May 2005
Location: United States
Posts: 8841
|
| Posted: 25 June 2015 at 8:15am | IP Logged | 12
|
|
|
They upheld it: https://www.yahoo.com/politics/supreme-court-upholds-obamaca re-subsidies-122340028541.html
I'm more shocked that it was a 6-3 decision than anything else!
|
| Back to Top |
profile
| search
|
| |
|
|
Topic Closed)
