Skip to main content
No. of Recommendations: 3
In a free market, consumers are supposed to have choices. Obamacare (the ACA) eliminates the choice of a "substandard" health insurance plan (e.g. a high-deductible plan without pregnancy, pediatric or drug coverage) and forces everyone to buy a more expensive plan with broad coverage.

Why should I have to pay for pediatric dental care and pregnancy/ childbirth coverage? Why shouldn't I be allowed to take the risk of higher deductibles to reduce my per-month cost?

A recently-posted chart without clear sources showed that the ACA will raise out-of-pocket insurance costs for only 6% of the population. That seems like a "small category."


Now that new insurance marketplaces are opening, insurance companies are canceling millions of individual plans that fail to meet minimum standards.


http://www.nytimes.com/2013/11/01/business/when-insurers-dro...

Millions! That is not a "small" number of people. None of them are covered by employer insurance. It's hard to say whether employers will begin to drop company insurance, dumping more millions into this "small" category.

DH and I are in the "small category" of people whose health insurance costs will rise under the ACA. We are both healthy and have had catastrophic plans for many years. Under the ACA, our health insurance is going up 45%! We will be forced to pay $1100 per month! That is as much as a mortgage would be!

In WA State, one state which is being held up as a success, the vast majority of ACA signups are Medicaid. TPTB seem to be surprised that few paying customers are signing up. Too bad that the Medicaid subscribers will be a drain on the system because they will use a lot of health care but won't pay premiums. Why aren't the "rich" buyers of private health insurance signing up?

DUH! Many of the current buyers of private healthcare are self-employed or retirees who are too young for Medicare. How many families can suddenly cough up hundreds of dollars extra per month for any expenditure at all, let alone one they might not need (health insurance)? How many families can afford an extra mortgage?

There will be a nasty unintended consequence. By removing the choice of lower-cost "substandard" catastrophic policies, families may be forced to drop health insurance altogether even if they have to pay a penalty.

The U.S. needs a single-payer system. Barring that, the U.S. needs complete market freedom for the insurance industry to create a wide variety of policies.

Obamacare appears to be the worst of all worlds by pandering to the insurance companies and forcing everyone into the same government-mandated mold.

For centrists like me, the example of Obamacare might push us into the Republican camp (where many of us voted sometimes in the past)...if the Republicans have the sense to dump the crazy right wing fringe and return to traditional libertarian free-market Republicanism (which is unlikely to happen).

Wendy
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 0
" We are both healthy and have had catastrophic plans for many years. Under the ACA, our health insurance is going up 45%! We will be forced to pay $1100 per month! That is as much as a mortgage would be!

"

In a free market health care system, you would choose just how much insurance you need. Insurance companies would be accountable to you and not your employer. If you didn't like how the your insurance co. treated you, you would then find one of their competitors and sign up with them.

Your argument is pure nonsense.
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 0
The U.S. needs a single-payer system...

...For centrists like me,

___________

You can't be a centrist and support single-payer.

Although I get your point...I think the problems with the substance of O-care (not the website) will push people to the GOP, but it might lead to more ballot splitting. Too many people didn't like Bush and the GOP controlling Congress and the same of Obama and Dems having control.

Just look at the States Obama won with GOP Governors and Senators. Contrary to the belief nobody likes gridlock in Washington, I think people prefer gridlock to bad legislation getting passed.
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 0
"...For centrists like me,

"

You are far from a centrist when you support a socialist system.
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 0
Someone beat me to it

Centrists do not support single payer, if you do you aren't Centrist when it comes to the topic of healthcare.

In fact your who argument makes no sense, you say Obamacare is bad because it eliminates choice, yet Obamacare has more choice than single payer (single choice government controlled).
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 1
Based on what you've written, you'll be paying about $350/mo. more for a "silver" exchange plan than you were previously paying for a catastrophic plan. Although that's a much more comprehensive plan than a catastrophic plan, I understand you ire at being forced to pay more.

"Bronze" plans tend to cost a couple hundred less per month than "silver." That would bring your premium to within a about $150/mo. of your current plan, which would have probably increased its premium next year anyway.

$150/mo. more for a plan with lower deductibles and out-of-pocket costs may not be ideal for your situation, but it's not all that bad, in my opinion, considering it covers a lot more and the deductible and out-of-pocket limits are lower.


BTW, the Washington Healthplan Finder website seems to work great.


The U.S. needs a single-payer system.

Yes. Like the French system.

http://www.theatlantic.com/business/archive/2012/03/france-a...
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 3
In a free market health care system, you would choose just how much insurance you need. Insurance companies would be accountable to you and not your employer. If you didn't like how the your insurance co. treated you, you would then find one of their competitors and sign up with them.

Your idea of how a free market works in insurance is pure fantasy. In a free market, when you do get sick, either your premiums increase until you cannot pay them, or you get dropped outright and nobody will offer you insurance again.

Also, why would insurance companies have any incentive to drop employer-linked coverage? They love it because then they only need to insure people healthy enough to work.

There are too many perverse incentives to permit a free market health care system. Some government regulation will always be necessary for health insurance. The debate is only over what regulations work best.

You can't be a centrist and support single-payer.

BS. That is like saying you cannot be a centrist and support public education. You are also ignoring the fact supported by endless data that the only successful healthcare systems in the world are single-payer. The market does not always work (especially for services as inelastic as healthcare).
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 2
In a free market health care system, you would choose just how much insurance you need.

Not quite.

In a free-market health insurance system you would choose just how much you want. And if you were wrong, for example choosing an insufficient amount of coverage for your actual needs, you'd go broke. Then, you'd have to go without any medical care.

As long as health care providers are required to treat patients regardless of ability to pay, the system is not a free-market system. Also, Medicaid and Medicare's existence means our health care system isn't, and can't be, a free market system.

Anyway, who in their right mind wants an unregulated, free market health care industry? That'd be a nightmare.
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 0
"In a free-market health insurance system you would choose just how much you want. And if you were wrong, for example choosing an insufficient amount of coverage for your actual needs, you'd go broke. "

It's called freedom of choice. Then you live with the consequences.

"As long as health care providers are required to treat patients regardless of ability to pay, the system is not a free-market system. "

Did I say in a free market system? We don't have a free market system today.

"Anyway, who in their right mind wants an unregulated, free market health care industry? "

How would you know, since we never had an unregulated modern healthcare system.

I will bet it would be far better than what we have today!
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 2
I will bet it would be far better than what we have today!

Hahaha. How naive.

Let's be clear about what you are proposing so everybody can see what you support plainly. A poor, unemployed family watching their child die of meningitis because they cannot afford insurance or treatment. And then watching their other child succumb to the illness because the contagion was not properly controlled in a hospital.

That is literally the world for which you advocate when you support an unregulated free-market healthcare system. Nobody in their right mind would ever support such a system.
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 0
"Yes. Like the French system."

NO, we don't need 70%+ tax rates here in America.
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 0
"In a free-market health insurance system you would choose just how much you want. And if you were wrong, for example choosing an insufficient amount of coverage for your actual needs, you'd go broke."

Typical liberal mindset "we can't be trusted to make our own decisions, we need government to make them for us, they are smarter than us"

complete BS
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 1
NO, we don't need 70%+ tax rates here in America.

If you could replicate the costs and results of French healthcare, then you could actually lower taxes. Government costs in France are less than they are in the US per capita. Total costs are actually less than half as much.
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 1
I was using the bronze plan numbers. The silver plan is higher cost, of course.
Wendy
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 0
"Let's be clear about what you are proposing so everybody can see what you support plainly. A poor, unemployed family watching their child die of meningitis because they cannot afford insurance or treatment. And then watching their other child succumb to the illness because the contagion was not properly controlled in a hospital.

"

You are mistakenly comparing today's world to what it would be in a free market system. In other words, you are MUS.

"That is literally the world for which you advocate when you support an unregulated free-market healthcare system. Nobody in their right mind would ever support such a system.
"

You speak from COMPLETE ignorance, because there is NO way you could know. You realize it, right?
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 0
"If you could replicate the costs and results of French healthcare, then you could actually lower taxes. "

Prove it!
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 9
<Centrists do not support single payer, if you do you aren't Centrist when it comes to the topic of healthcare.>

Centrists choose what they will support. By definition, centrists do not hew to a specific party line.

Single payer in Canada, Norway, France, Germany, etc. delivers better health and life expectancy at lower cost and more equally across wealth classes. This is a matter of fact, not political party.

<In fact your who argument makes no sense, you say Obamacare is bad because it eliminates choice, yet Obamacare has more choice than single payer (single choice government controlled).>

Obamacare forces everyone to buy insurance from corporations which have high overhead (usually 20% or more). Single payer (like Medicare at 2%) has lower overhead and more efficient allocation of resources.

Wendy
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 1
"Single payer in Canada, Norway, France, Germany, etc. delivers better health and life expectancy at lower cost and more equally across wealth classes. This is a matter of fact, not political party.

"

And much lower quality of healthcare and longer wait times etc. This is a matter of fact and not political party.
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 1
"Single payer (like Medicare at 2%) has lower overhead and more efficient allocation of resources.

"

You are soooo uninformed. This bogus info.
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 1
"If you could replicate the costs and results of French healthcare, then you could actually lower taxes. "

Prove it!


http://www.pbs.org/newshour/rundown/2012/10/health-costs-how...

The first chart (link below) clearly shows that the entire French system (private and public dollars) costs less per capita than the government share of US healthcare costs (which only make up less than half of what is spent in the US today).

http://newshour.s3.amazonaws.com/photos/2012/10/02/US_spends...

You could pay for the entire thing and still have money left over to lower taxes. And that is not even counting the roughly $4,000 per capita that would be saved in private expenditures.
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 1
You are mistakenly comparing today's world to what it would be in a free market system. In other words, you are MUS.

...

You speak from COMPLETE ignorance, because there is NO way you could know. You realize it, right?


Actually, we do know. The US existed before Medicare and Medicaid. It existed before hospitals were required to treat uninsured people with life threatening injuries or diseases. It was a time when senior citizens died of disease homeless in the streets and children of the poor had no medical care whatsoever. Sure, there was some charity. But charity has never been enough to fill the public health need. That is the world you advocate returning to. If you cannot recognize that, you are being willfully ignorant.
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 1
Is everyone who supports Obamacare or single payer ignoring this little fact?

1. If government gets control over healthcare, government will hold that hostage over our heads by making us live a certain way to get the healthcare when we need it, things such as can't eat this, can't do that, etc. etc. if we don't follow the governments "healthy" lifestyle rules they will simply deny you the care or ration it when it comes time for you to need it, is that what we want in America? really? Government to grade us on how we live per their rules in order to get the healthcare? Doesn't anyone see the wrong in government forcing us to live a certain way in order to get healthcare?
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 1
Actually the left is advocating a country where its citizens are under the full control of government will.

Government will implement things such rules to live by eventually.

Rule 1: If you eat salt we will deny you healthcare if you need it, it will be denied because you didn't follow our rules.

is that what we want?
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 0
"Actually, we do know. The US existed before Medicare and Medicaid."

You forget the insurance and healthcare regulations before and after WW2 and before 1964. The most damaging one was having employers provide healthcare insurance.
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 0
I was using the bronze plan numbers. The silver plan is higher cost, of course.

Okay. When I ran the numbers through the calculator, the highest cost for the silver plan for a couple, aged 55, was about $1100. Thought that was the max. Just redid it for a couple aged 64 and got $1,385. My mistake.
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 0
I think it's time we call it what it is becoming.

It's not health insurance anymore, its becoming an entitlement.
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 0
"It existed before hospitals were required to treat uninsured people with life threatening injuries or diseases. It was a time when senior citizens died of disease homeless in the streets and children of the poor had no medical care whatsoever. "

Baloney. Again, MUS.
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 0
1. If government gets control over healthcare, government will hold that hostage over our heads by making us live a certain way to get the healthcare when we need it, things such as can't eat this, can't do that, etc. etc. if we don't follow the governments "healthy" lifestyle rules they will simply deny you the care or ration it when it comes time for you to need it, is that what we want in America?

Uh oh! Break out your tin foil hats!

If you think this is a legitimate fear, then I am sure you can point to plenty of examples of this happening in single-payer systems, right? Surely, it must also happen in Medicare and Medicaid.
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 0
"Uh oh! Break out your tin foil hats!

If you think this is a legitimate fear, then I am sure you can point to plenty of examples of this happening in single-payer systems, right? Surely, it must also happen in Medicare and Medicaid. "

One can only assume you trust the government fully?
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 0
"If you think this is a legitimate fear, then I am sure you can point to plenty of examples of this happening in single-payer systems, right? Surely, it must also happen in Medicare and Medicaid.
"

First off, not until Obamacare has the government had enough control to pull this off. Secondly, the push is already being made by the likes of Bloomberg and Michelle Obama etc.
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 0
Why should I have to pay for pediatric dental care and pregnancy/ childbirth coverage? Why shouldn't I be allowed to take the risk of higher deductibles to reduce my per-month cost?

You can. You are NOT compelled to buy insurance. You just incur a small penalty for not buying it. If you do NOT get sick, you reap the savings.

HOWEVER, if you DO need medical care while you are not insured, you will be "personally responsible" for paying ALL your medical expenses out of your own pocket. That is the definition of the most radical conservative "personal responsibility" claim in existence.

Do you accept "personal responsibility"--or do you deny you are NOT TRULY conservative at all?
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 0
You forget the insurance and healthcare regulations before and after WW2 and before 1964.

Only 9% of the population had health insurance immediately prior to WWII. What regulations are you talking about and how do you claim they kept 91% from getting health insurance? How did they restrict free-market competition? How did they prevent the uninsured from getting medical care?

The most damaging one was having employers provide healthcare insurance.

Until the ACA, there was never a requirement that employers provide healthcare insurance. Employers only began to widely provide health insurance during WWII in an attempt to attract employees during labor shortages (a market reaction, I might point out).
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 0
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 0
First off, not until Obamacare has the government had enough control to pull this off.

Many single-payer governments have complete control over what is covered. Why shift the focus only to the US? Maybe because you have no examples?
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 0
" What regulations are you talking about and how do you claim they kept 91% from getting health insurance?"

Never said that!

"Employers only began to widely provide health insurance during WWII in an attempt to attract employees during labor shortages (a market reaction, I might point out).
"

Wrong. It was a compromise with business to freeze wages.
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 0
"Many single-payer governments have complete control over what is covered. "

So what. We are talking about the US.
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 0
"You can. You are NOT compelled to buy insurance. You just incur a small penalty for not buying it. If you do NOT get sick, you reap the savings.

HOWEVER, if you DO need medical care while you are not insured, you will be "personally responsible" for paying ALL your medical expenses out of your own pocket. That is the definition of the most radical conservative "personal responsibility" claim in existence.

"

ASSININE response.
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 1
Baloney. Again, MUS.

I'm sorry, I couldn't hear you with your head in the sand.
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 0
"I'm sorry, I couldn't hear you with your head in the sand.
"

Yes, much like your unsubstantiated MUS.
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 0
"If you think this is a legitimate fear, then I am sure you can point to plenty of examples of this happening in single-payer systems, right? Surely, it must also happen in Medicare and Medicaid."

One can only assume you trust the government fully?


This is not a response to my post.

But to answer your question, more than I trust a private health insurance company. Then, again, that is not saying much.
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 0
"You can. You are NOT compelled to buy insurance. You just incur a small penalty for not buying it. If you do NOT get sick, you reap the savings.

HOWEVER, if you DO need medical care while you are not insured, you will be "personally responsible" for paying ALL your medical expenses out of your own pocket. That is the definition of the most radical conservative "personal responsibility" claim in existence.

"

ASSININE response.


You do NOT state the response is "not true". It must be true because people are required to evaluate their risks and then choose to pay to buy insurance--or not.

If they choose to NOT buy insurance, they secure the benefits of the savings if they have no significant medical expenses. That is the "heads they win" part of the deal.

If they DO incur significant medical expenses, they pay the full cost of those medical expenses because of their choice to run the risk. That is the "tails they lose" part of deal.
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 0
" What regulations are you talking about and how do you claim they kept 91% from getting health insurance?"

Never said that!


You argued that regulations prior to WWII affected the market for healthcare and prevented it from being a free market. I want to know what regulations and how you think they affected healthcare or interfered with the free market. You are free to explain in whatever way you wish. But if you cannot come up with any, I think it is fair to conclude that you were just making this up. And it leads me to believe that 91% were without insurance as a function of the free market at that point in time.
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 1
You argued that regulations prior to WWII affected the market for healthcare and prevented it from being a free market. I want to know what regulations and how you think they affected healthcare or interfered with the free market.
______________________________

Are you really an idiot?

Wage controls forced employers to offer compensation in other forms to attract empooyees. Health insurance was provided in lieu of wages.

You have been told this before, it is not difficult.

If the idiocy of trying to impose stupid forced controls on the system had not been done through stupid regulation) we would still have a sane health care system. but folks who think like today's libs knew better and chose stupid
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 2
<. If government gets control over healthcare, government will hold that hostage over our heads by making us live a certain way to get the healthcare when we need it, things such as can't eat this, can't do that, etc. etc. if we don't follow the governments "healthy" lifestyle rules they will simply deny you the care or ration it when it comes time for you to need it, is that what we want in America? really? Government to grade us on how we live per their rules in order to get the healthcare? Doesn't anyone see the wrong in government forcing us to live a certain way in order to get healthcare?>

First, there is NO indication that government will deny medical care if people live unhealthy lifestyles. The insurance companies charge more to smokers but not to the obese.

Second, I think that's too bad because I think that people SHOULD be held responsible for their poor lifestyle choices.

Wendy
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 2
First, there is NO indication that government will deny medical care if people live unhealthy lifestyles. The insurance companies charge more to smokers but not to the obese.

While I think this particular fear in unfounded, it's important to recognize what the argument is.

The claim is not that the government will deny medical care to people who live unhealthy lifestyles. Rather, it is the fear that the government will use the fact that it pays for individuals' health care as a public policy justification for regulating your lifestyle.

In other words, own could (very plausibly) say today that it's none of the governments' business if I eat too much salt, drink too much soda, or eat saturated fats. However, if the government bears the additional health care expenses of your lifestyle choices, it now has a credible public policy argument for limiting salt usage, regulating soda sizes, and banning saturated fats.

Again, I'm not sure how credible a fear this is. But that's the line of reasoning.

Albaby
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 0
"I want to know what regulations and how you think they affected healthcare or interfered with the free market."

Easily looked up.

"But if you cannot come up with any, I think it is fair to conclude that you were just making this up."

You know that is a lie. If you have done any research in this area.

"And it leads me to believe that 91% were without insurance as a function of the free market at that point in time.
"

Health Insurance was in its infancy back then. From a medicine standpoint, we are talking about the dark ages.
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 0
"Second, I think that's too bad because I think that people SHOULD be held responsible for their poor lifestyle choices.

Wendy
"

There are natural ways of holding people responsible i.e. not subsidizing their health insurance thru community rating.
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 0
In other words, own could (very plausibly) say today that it's none of the governments' business if I eat too much salt, drink too much soda, or eat saturated fats. However, if the government bears the additional health care expenses of your lifestyle choices, it now has a credible public policy argument for limiting salt usage, regulating soda sizes, and banning saturated fats.

Again, I'm not sure how credible a fear this is. But that's the line of reasoning.


Good explanation.

But the nanny-state already has an even "better" rationale for regulating lifestyle choices, at least with regard to food consumption. We've seen some hint of this with Bloomberg's anti-soda laws.

A line of reasoning that justifies regulation of certain foods is that these foods contain chemicals, like monosaccharides and disaccharides, i.e. sugar, that are toxic when consumed above certain amounts over a period of time. Consuming too much sugar may kill you a lot more slowly than consuming, say, arsenic, but the rationale for regulating it is the same.

Not saying I buy this line of reasoning. I don't. But if the government can regulate the amount of mercury and pesticides in food, why not fat and sugar? Far more people die of diet-related heart disease than from mercury or pesticide poisoning.
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 5
But if the government can regulate the amount of mercury and pesticides in food, why not fat and sugar? Far more people die of diet-related heart disease than from mercury or pesticide poisoning.

I think the likely distinction is that mercury and pesticides are adulterations of the food - things that are not supposed to be in the product, and that the consumer would eliminate if possible. But if you eat a chocolate bar or drink a Coke, the fat and sugar are ingredients.

One is more about protecting the consumer from the producer, the other is about protecting the consumer from themselves.

Albaby
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 1
One is more about protecting the consumer from the producer, the other is about protecting the consumer from themselves.

Exactly. I don't need the government telling me that I can't have 30 Cokes a day. I have a waistline that does that for me.
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 0
I think the likely distinction is that mercury and pesticides are adulterations of the food - things that are not supposed to be in the product, and that the consumer would eliminate if possible. But if you eat a chocolate bar or drink a Coke, the fat and sugar are ingredients.

That's an important distinction, I agree. But sugar is an additive in a lot of food that you might not expect it to be in. Perhaps chemical preservatives are a better analogy. The addition of both add value to the food product, but at some health cost.
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 1
Are you really an idiot?

Wage controls forced employers to offer compensation in other forms to attract empooyees. Health insurance was provided in lieu of wages.


lowstudent, I think you proved yourself to be the ignorant one. Wage controls went into place AFTER WWII began, not before.
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 0
albaby: In other words, own could (very plausibly) say today that it's none of the governments' business if I eat too much salt, drink too much soda, or eat saturated fats. However, if the government bears the additional health care expenses of your lifestyle choices, it now has a credible public policy argument for limiting salt usage, regulating soda sizes, and banning saturated fats.

Hey, anyone who'll reach that far realizes that the gov't needs an army to survive and an army needs fir soldiers so....
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 1
"I want to know what regulations and how you think they affected healthcare or interfered with the free market."

Easily looked up.


Show me. Or are you FOS?

"And it leads me to believe that 91% were without insurance as a function of the free market at that point in time."

Health Insurance was in its infancy back then. From a medicine standpoint, we are talking about the dark ages.


Medical care was already becoming too expensive for the uninsured in the 1920s as a result of medical advances. That is why Blue Cross was founded in the late 20s. But that did not stop the uninsured from going without care. The market did not take care of them.

You are ignorant to think otherwise. And you are a fool to think that private insurance, left to its own devices, would provide affordable coverage to the poor or continue to cover those who become sick. These people were forced out all the time, even with regulations that were specifically written to try and limit an insurance company's ability to do so.
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 0
One is more about protecting the consumer from the producer, the other is about protecting the consumer from themselves.
In that vein, it is worth noting that the government has spent a fair amount of effort trying to get people to live a "healthy lifestyle" only to find that their substitutes were even more unhealthy.
Margarine vs butter, as an example. Can you say "trans-fat"? I knew you could.
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 0



In WA State, one state which is being held up as a success, the vast majority of ACA signups are Medicaid. TPTB seem to be surprised that few paying customers are signing up. Too bad that the Medicaid subscribers will be a drain on the system because they will use a lot of health care but won't pay premiums.


Current Medicaid recipients are not eligible for the ACA enrollment.
Stop spreading fear and lies, but then I guess then you wouldn't be eligible to register as a Republican.
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 0
Current Medicaid recipients are not eligible for the ACA enrollment.
Stop spreading fear and lies, but then I guess then you wouldn't be eligible to register as a Republican.


That's not what she said. In fact, she's absolutely correct:

http://m.cbsnews.com/storysynopsis.rbml?pageType=general&...
Matt Salo, executive director of the National Association of Medicaid Directors, said, "We're seeing a huge spike in terms of Medicaid enrollments."

He says the numbers have surprised him and state officials.

CBS News has confirmed that in Washington, of the more than 35,000 people newly enrolled, 87 percent signed up for Medicaid. In Kentucky, out of 26,000 new enrollments, 82 percent are in Medicaid. And in New York, of 37,000 enrollments, Medicaid accounts for 64 percent.


87% makes for a healthy majority I would say.
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 0



That's not what she said. In fact, she's absolutely correct:




Quote:In WA State, one state which is being held up as a success, the vast majority of ACA signups are Medicaid.

You are not eligible to sign up for ACA accounts as a medicaid recipient.
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 2
Is everyone who supports Obamacare or single payer ignoring this little fact?

1. If government gets control over healthcare, government will hold that hostage over our heads by making us live a certain way to get the healthcare when we need it, things such as can't eat this, can't do that, etc. etc. if we don't follow the governments "healthy" lifestyle rules they will simply deny you the care or ration it when it comes time for you to need it, is that what we want in America? really? Government to grade us on how we live per their rules in order to get the healthcare? Doesn't anyone see the wrong in government forcing us to live a certain way in order to get healthcare?


Yes! Absolutely!

Who wants to be like the Canadians who aren't allowed to eat bacon?

Who wants to be like the French who can't drink wine or smoke cigarettes?

Who wants to be like the English who can't eat food that rots their teeth?

Lord... thank God for those who remind us of the evils that will befall us if we allow government to be involved with healthcare!!!
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 1




In other words, own could (very plausibly) say today that it's none of the governments' business if I eat too much salt, drink too much soda, or eat saturated fats. However,if the government bears the additional health care expenses of your lifestyle choices, it now has a credible public policy argument for limiting salt usage, regulating soda sizes, and banning saturated fats.
Albaby

Yeah, we’ve certainly seen this with the number of children you choose to have...

And

My Uncle, who never had any children, got an 80% discount on his property tax for not burdening the school system with children to educate

Not
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 1
Wendy, I just wanted to be the first to thank you for sharing your personal experience.

Everyone wants to either argue with you, put you in a box, or dismiss your valid concerns.

No one wants to listen.

Unfortunate for all partisans.


Hawkwin
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 1
Current Medicaid recipients are not eligible for the ACA enrollment.
Stop spreading fear and lies, but then I guess then you wouldn't be eligible to register as a Republican.


Good grief, your ignorance on this subject knows no bounds.

Individuals eligible for the Medicaid Expansion sign up via the Exchange.

If a person applies and submits their income, and it is determined to be low enough, they are granted Medicaid.
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 34
Obamacare (the ACA) eliminates the choice of a "substandard" health insurance plan (e.g. a high-deductible plan without pregnancy, pediatric or drug coverage) and forces everyone to buy a more expensive plan with broad coverage.

That's true, but it is hardly the whole story. ACA also eliminates choices that insurance companies can make that adversely affect you. They can no longer drop you if you get an illness that starts costing a lot of money, or refuse to insure pre-existing conditions. Or refuse to insure you at all. That's a fairly important benefit.

You are currently very happy with your high deductible policy because you don't need it. Your insurance company is happy with the high deductible policy because they only collect premiums and never pay out.

But, without ACA, what happen a few years from now if you or your spouse get an illness that starts costing the insurance company money? Will they start denying claims and making you appeal every decision? Will they drag their feet on approvals until you die? Will they drop you entirely?

What if you want to move to another state where your present insurance company does not provide coverage? Will you be able to get insurance again? Will everything that has happened to you since you first took out your existing policy become a pre-existing condition that you can't insure? Will your inability to get acceptable insurance elsewhere trap you where you are?

All of these things happened prior to people prior to ACA. Some of them have happened to me. But with ACA, those issues are no longer of concern. So, yeah, you have less choice, but you also have quite a bit more protection. Unfortunately for you, it is going to cost more.

But your free market argument that you should have a right to choose really doesn't work anymore for health insurance than it does for building guns and missiles or building roads or supporting social security or any other government program. We don't get a bingo card that allows us to pay for only the things we think provide us with value.
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 0
No


If you live in a state that isn’t expanding Medicaid you may not qualify for either Medicaid or reduced costs on a private insurance plan. It will depend on where your income falls.

The ACA does not apply to people earning under a certain income a year...
In States where Medicaid Expansion was rejected there is no ACA alternative:
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 0
"That's true, but it is hardly the whole story. ACA also eliminates choices that insurance companies can make that adversely affect you. They can no longer drop you if you get an illness that starts costing a lot of money, or refuse to insure pre-existing conditions. Or refuse to insure you at all. That's a fairly important benefit."


You forgot one thing. People STILL have to pay for it, and so far 80% 'signing up' are eligible for FREE Medicaid. Only 20% of those signing up actually agreed to pay money.

The insurance companies require you to have a checking account or regular credit card they can bill each month if you go through the exchange. You realize that 20% of the population has neither a credit card or checking account?

Once folks sign up .....they will get dropped the moment the insurance companies realize that they aren't going to get paid. You only have insurance when you pay for it.

The 'subsidies' can only be given to those who a) actually pay their portion and b) have a checking account or credit card for the insurance companies to withdraw each month.

More than half the folks 'signing up' will never make more than a payment or two.

---------



"But, without ACA, what happen a few years from now if you or your spouse get an illness that starts costing the insurance company money? Will they start denying claims and making you appeal every decision? Will they drag their feet on approvals until you die? Will they drop you entirely?"

Likely with ACA, your doctor and hospital will get dropped and they'll convince you to go at open enrollment time to another plan.

If folks are bleeding them for millions, they'll find a way to stop it.

-----------

And we've yet to see what most of these policies are....will you get treatment outside your 'plan area' and at what co-pay (out of network)? Can you travel to other states and still have decent coverage or is it 'only at home' in 'your plan area'?

Will people sign up for lower cost plans (HMO) and find out when they are in FL on vacation, they don't have much in the way of coverage?

We passed it, but we still don't know what's in it.


t.
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 48
You are currently very happy with your high deductible policy because you don't need it. Your insurance company is happy with the high deductible policy because they only collect premiums and never pay out. - salaryguru

You hit the nail right square on the head! When it comes to insurance, lots of us are happy to think we're paying low premiums, and we proclaim our satisfaction. The truth of the matter is, we don't know what we're paying for until we ask the insurer to satisfy a claim.

I had me a rude awakening decades ago as a consequence of an auto accident. A car ran a stop sign and, in essence, destroyed the front of my brand-new car (yeppers, it had 55 miles on the odometer). The facts were clear. The police noted the other driver ran a stop sign and destroyed my car. The driver received a ticket. Turned out that both of us were insured by Allstate. I figgered that was a good thing. I was wrong. I got the runaround for over a year and didn't see my car again for over six months. The work done at an "approved" facility was shoddy at best. The car was never made right, I was never made whole and I vowed to never have Allstate as my insurer EVER again. 40 years later, Allstate has not received a penny from me because they did me wrong. They did a bad, bad thing.

But, hey, we were talkin' 'bout a car just then. Turn the attention back to human health - issues of life and death. Imagine the individual who is diagnosed with cancer and discovers his/her insurer isn't willing to pay, or is dead-set on delaying payment until it's too late. It happens. It happened all the time. Anyone with a scintilla of curiosity regarding "insurance realities" will discover story after story of individuals who thought they were insured...only to discover they were being left high and dry...when they needed help the very most.

The ACA is designed to prevent that sort of insurance fraud. You were happy with your $100/month catastrophic policy with its sky-high deductibles, co-pays, dirt-floor maximums and weasel-words? Wake up and smell the coffee. You were satisfied because you never had reason to file a claim.
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 1
<ACA also eliminates choices that insurance companies can make that adversely affect you. They can no longer drop you if you get an illness that starts costing a lot of money, or refuse to insure pre-existing conditions. Or refuse to insure you at all. That's a fairly important benefit.>

I recognize these benefits and I do support the ACA.

I also recognize that part of the reason for the lack of choice is to enable comparability between plans. The current (pre-ACA) system has so much variety that it's almost impossible to compare plans from one company to another.

However, I am shocked at the 45% price increase and also the lack of true catastrophic insurance. There is a place in any marketplace for low-quality/cost as well as high-quality/cost options. The ACA provides bronze, silver and gold but they all cover the same benefits (at different rates).

Wendy
Print the post Back To Top