If you have limited means, you need comprehensive. If you can afford to pay routine medical bills, then it’s actually a really bad deal for you to carry comprehensive. Insurance isn’t insurance when it covers every little thing, that’s actually known as a prepayment plan.
However, ACA is predicated on people of means paying into the system.
If you are one of these Republicans, that means you support the main idea of the Affordable Care Act, but just want to change the items covered.
The covered items, regardless of what is on the starting list, are bound to change over time. Knowing there will be changes down the road, it makes no sense to me to say that I’m for the mandate, but against implementing it unless the day 1 coverage list is just to my liking. If people decide they like being covered but want lower premiums, they would give the GOP a good issue to campaign on.
As for broken legs: Way back in 2005, the mean US treatment cost for a leg fracture was $26,750. It must be a lot more now. If you shop around, you can find cheaper, but when your leg is broken, guess what? You are in no position to shop around, and may be stuck with providers charging far more the mean.
Suppose that Americans were forced to buy health insurance and then found out it did not cover broken legs. People would be really pissed off at the politicians behind that exclusion. Also, if someone has a broken leg and doesn’t get it taken care of, that person is likely to go on disability. So I respectfully disagree with the broken leg exclusion.
No one is going to exactly agree with what is included or excluded. Personally I would exclude contraception (likely an unpopular view here!) while including some dentistry. That’s no reason to take my marbles and go home – while threatening the full faith and credit of the United States.
Just to understand – do you think that the lower middle class $55 a month (3.88 percent of income) premium – the one you apparently think is too high – should include or exclude maternity care? I don’t know what you will answer, but am curious.
I basically agree with you, but disagree with broken legs. That is a good candidate for insurance. Why? Because only a small percentage of people will suffer broken bones in their lifetimes. We can all risk pool a small amount of money on the chance that we might be one of those people who has a broken bone. That’s the purpose of insurance.
Insurance is not for things like doctor’s visits, birth control, and immunizations for children. These are non-emergencies and could and should be shopped around. Everyone needs these things and it’s silly and counterproductive for us to pool our money, give an administrator/bureaucrat a cut of our money, and then redistribute when we use what we all need.
The price quoted above for a broken leg was for surgical treatment. Non-surgical is $2500, which anyone with decent means can cover, if not all at once, then over a few months.
Now, as for the mandate, Republicans cannot support a mandate any longer. The thing about high profile legislative fights is that it makes the debate more widespread and more in depth. Republican officeholders, not being too concerned about matters of constitutional limits on congressional power, didn’t think too hard about what an individual mandate meant. Libertarian groups like Cato and Reason did their thinking for them and said, no, Congress can’t do that. the Supreme Court proved the libertarians right, although let the mandate slide in its current form as a tax. But they still upheld the principle: Congress cannot force Americans to buy things under the commerce clause.
The Republican view on health care is now candidate Obama’s view: Americans do not need to be forced to buy health insurance, and the weakness of the mandate means they cannot be forced in any case.
Obviously he was wrong. But one side has wised up, the other side clings to the error like a drowning man to a life preserver.
I’m go glad we only have about a week and half left of this before the argument is over and done with. The ACA is staying and no amount of lies from Republicans will be able to stop it. Just get used to paying a little more ok? Its better in the long run for everyone
Obama was right the first time. The individual mandate can never have enough teeth to be effective. It’s only effect is going to be to piss off penalty-payers.
As for whether the ACA is staying, as long as more people disapprove of it than approve, the law will be in political danger. You can cry all you want about how some people want it to go further, but no one is going to be motivated to vote against Republicans for repealing a law they express disapproval of.
The only people who approve of the law are Democrats, and they aren’t voting Republican anyway.
Fine with me, as there will be more independents and more Democrats in favor of it as the Massachusetts example showed.
Since the ACA has a majority approval, your scenario will never happen. Things start on October 1, better get ready! 
There are more Democrats than Republicans. And some Republicans approve of the law too. You will see an exponential increase in Republican support once it is implemented as people see their premiums drop and their coverage increase, and others who need insurance but can’t afford it finally be able to buy it with government subsidies.
That would be 2% of Americans. Most people will still get their insurance through their employer, and most of the masses of uninsured will be on Medicaid.
So it won’t take many people losing their workplace insurance before you have more losers than winners, and very pissed off losers at that.
Again, you ignore the example of Massachusetts, your levels of how much people will get piss are imaginary.
You never get tired of the the most wrong person in the room, do you?
According to the Kaiser Family Foundation, 18% of Americans under the age of 65 have no health insurance.
You never get tired of being wrong, do you? Did I say that 2% of people don’t have health insurance? Are you aware that Medicaid expansion covers a substantial portion of the uninsured in ACA? Are you aware that the uninsured who make over a certain amount don’t get subsidies?
In all fairness, I don’t know what you’re referencing with the 2% comment. Americans without health insurance? Americans who will get insurance under Obamacare? Americans who will go on Medicaid? Americans who will get insurance on exchanges? Americans who will get subsidies? I really can’t tell what group of people you were referencing, so I don’t think it’s fair to get outraged at someone who erred in their interpretation of your cryptic comment.
I was responding to the argument that support for the law will increase once people start getting subsidies. You can’t count on that because very few Americans would qualify today, and if more Americans qualify it will be because their employers dumped them. In that case, the best ACA supporters can hope for is a wash.
I did the math on my own plan, and I’d be taking a pretty solid hit of about $250/month if I was dumped into the exchange. Or I could take a much less comprehensive plan. I doubt any of my fellow employees would be pleased if our company dropped insurance due to ACA. Union workers have much more to lose, and much more political clout if they get angry.
Cite?
And since I know the cite won’t say what you think it says, all that matters is that more people is getting better health insurance for a cheaper price. You really can’t argue with that at all. Well you could, but you’d be wrong
This in no way clarifies at all what your 2% figure is in reference to.
Was it… the kind of milk you like in your latte? Your body fat percentage? The amount by which Adaher Industries has beaten the S&P for the last five years?
Why? Nancy Pelosi is even backing off that claim.
At a Thursday afternoon press conference, Nancy Pelosi responded to news that, contrary to earlier claims by Barack Obama and Pelosi herself, Obamacare will cause health insurance premiums to rise sharply for many people who purchase their own insurance in the individual market.
“I don’t remember saying that everybody in the country would have a lower premium,” Pelosi said in response to a question from THE WEEKLY STANDARD. But during last year’s presidential campaign, Pelosi said that because of Obamacare “everybody will have lower rates.” Pelosi, the House minority leader, made the comment during a July 1, 2012 appearance on Meet the Press:
I think she confused “everybody” with “everybody on average”. Its a mistake, but hardly a big one. I’m sure you’ll run with it like you ran with Obama’s “57 states” comments.
I don’t care that she said that. I don’t care that Republicans are pointing to it and trying to make it a bigger deal than it is. I don’t care that you probably think you were lied to. And I certainly don’t care about it as evidence we should defund Obamacare.
Health care needs to be fixed and the ACA is the fix we need. In another generation, when the country is ready for single payer, we’ll fight that battle then
Only if your employer is no longer paying part of your premium. If your employer decides you are not worth paying part of your health insurance premium, and dumps you into the marketplace, why is that Obama’s fault? Your employer decided you aren’t worth as much as you thought you were. You beef is with your employer, not Obamacare. And if it weren’t for Obamacare, you premium in the individual insurance market would be much higher than $250 more a month.
Fact is, we were all lied to. Or, allowing that Pelosi didn’t KNOW she was spewing and untruth because she never read the whole bill, "misled.
Yes, it is a mistake, and a colossal one. It completely misrepresents an effect of the bill. Face it, she, Obama and other supporters were spewing any shit they could to garner support for the bill. Or do you think that she would have, at that time, actually uttered, “Well, most people will have lower premiums. Not all, but most.”?
And I even question the veracity of that.