The ACA is not about cost of care or even directly about access to health care. It is about access to health insurance. It increases access to health insurance to about 30 million additional people. About 19 million people will still be uninsured after the ACA is implemented.
I still want the system where we treat hospitals like freeways, serve anyone coming through, and just cover the costs with taxes. At some point I realized that Doctor Who usually ends up in Britain for the free health care. Who’s going to save the USA from a Sontaran invasion? No one, that’s who.
Hell, we already pay for the health care for the INSURED. Most of them get insurance through work, which increases the cost of every product or service that we buy.
The U.S. health care system is badly broken, and the Affordable Care Act is a band-aid on a sucking chest wound. We will eventually have to go to a system where there is Universal Basic Health Care for everyone, plus supplemental health insurance for those who can afford it. We can’t afford to do anything else.
On the subject of the uninsured, about 10% of health insurance premiums go to covering the uninsured. They get massive bills, can’t pay them, and then people with insurance get charged more to make up for it.
http://www.time.com/time/health/article/0,8599,1887489,00.html
I tend to think because of how outlandishly expensive our health system is we will eventually create a tiered system based on something similar to the UK NICE Program. Each tier will spend $X a year on medical care based on how it improves quality of life and life expectancy. the higher tiers will cover more expensive treatments.
Our current system of insurance premiums going up 30% a year is not sustainable, the rates double every 2-3 years at that rate.
Hell, we don’t even have to leave the good 'ol U.S. of A. to make that same argument.
Medicare is “universal healthcare” for seniors and it is vastly more cost effective and efficient than the not-really-free “free market” insurance scheme the rest of us are subjected to.
Cite?
Michael Moore was right when he pointed that that in any American political or Congressional/WH debate over health-care reform, “The health-insurance companies are the enemy and should not have a place at the table.” We can only hope that meme spreads and we get real single-payer reform that does not leave them in business/existence.
If you go with universal insurance, sure. But failing that (and the US is clearly failing that), you’re going to have to talk to the insurance companies, since they’re the ones through whom anything you arrange for actually happens.
If Medicare is so great why do so many people that have it also have commercial insurance either as a supplement or as a replacement to fill the holes in the benefits? (I recall readaing the majority of Medicare members do but I don’t have a cite.)
My understanding is that, just like in the US, tourists aren’t left to die in the street. In other words, no big change from what we do here.
The reason for this is that Medicare is not one cohesive program. It is better to think of it as a cobbling together of at least 4 different programs (A, B, C and D).
There are a few ways that private insurance companies play a role in Medicare. Medicare has developed as a program that had initially been set up to provide coverage for hospital (inpatient) stays and short-term nursing home care (now Medicare Part A). It also provided a separate medical coverage for some types of outpatient care (now Medicare Part B). Eventually, another option was introduced called Medicare Advantage (also called Medicare Part C) that gave people the option of receiving their benefits from a private health insurance company. Under Medicare Advantage, people typically pay an additional fee to receive their Medicare benefits through a private health insurance company. The additional fee covers care not covered under Medicare A & B, but that the private insurance companies offer as part of their Medicare Advantage program (for example, dental care). However, while Medicare Advantage programs have baseline levels of care they must offer (at least what A & B offer), they can structure their benefits in different ways- so they could charge more for a service than A or B, but offer a lower cost deductible for something else. Medicare Part D is the most recent addition which also offer prescription drug coverage (not covered under A or B and only covered under some Medicare Advantage plans with additional costs to individuals).
Each of these four types of Medicare have their own individual levels of coverage, deductible, days of care limit, out-of-pocket costs and co-insurance. Medigap is a type of insurance specially designed to deal with the “gaps” in Parts A & B. So, that’s where you end up with additional types of private insurance to cover those gaps.
I don’t think anyone knows what he future will hold for health care. I tend to think that there will be universal health care at some point, but we may not be able to ever afford that. Not to mention that any move in that direction would be likely opposed by both the health insurance and physician lobbies, Kaiser, etc.
“Weren’t” is actually correct, though you seem to be making fun of it. It’s the subjunctive mood.
Stop throwing stuff like facts and reality around. Bit fat stupid guys like Mikey Moore hate that.
Do you think that when you type like this, it helps you win the debate?
I don’t understand Romney’s argument that this will “cost jobs” - given healthcare will expand to include at least another 30 million citizens isn’t that a straight admission of huge inefficiencies in the current system?
His argument, I think, is that “job creators” will stop hiring new employees and will fire the ones they have now, rather than offering them health insurance or paying the fines for not offering them health insurance.
I have not read an explanation for why he didn’t think this was a problem in his own state when he fought for and won a similar health care law.
Well, I’m kinda struggling on the maths; if 50 million have not been covered, that means 250 have been.
Add 30 million to 250 and that looks a lot like 12% more business, not allowing for the likelihood that many of the 30 million will possibly need services more than the existing customer base (at least to begin with), or that Medicare already deals with the needs of a chunk of the 250 million. You have to be looking at 20%+ more work for many services. And this is going to “cost jobs”?
Hey, don’t ask me to *defend *his argument. I can only present it, as I understand it. Don’t go confusing the issue with your messy facts, now! 
Sorry! Just thinking out loud. I suppose it makes sense to think it will cost managerial/admin jobs.