So the government health plan might turn away people with pre-existing conditions? Isn’t the #1 goal of public health care to ensure that those with pre-existing conditions can find health care?
This means that as written, the new health care plan will run out of money by 2014.
And this was not an unforeseen problem:
Later in the article they’re saying that one possibility is that people will have to pay a larger portion of the insurance - “Hundreds Per Month”.
The health care bill hasn’t even been implemented yet, and there are already numerous stories about unintended consequences, budget shortfalls, and unrealistic elements of the bill.
Is anyone having second thoughts about this yet? Does it strike you that this plan looks well thought out?
The program’s just a stopgap measure to get us to 2014, when the cost burden gets shifted onto the insurance companies. So, this isn’t the new healthcare plan running out of money, it’s one program that’s part of the new healthcare plan to subsidize insurance for people with preexisting conditions until the insurance companies are no longer legally allowed to deny them coverage.
That doesn’t mean the plan wasn’t well thought out, just that the money allocated to this one program wasn’t sufficient, which is a fact that, like you said, people knew at the time the program was set up.
For many people, that was indeed a primary reason.
And your cited article could not possibly be more irrelevant to that issue.
No.
No, it does not mean that.
You are conflating 1) the temporary pool specifically created for high-risk people to get insurance until the regulations change for pre-existing conditions, and 2) the broader budgeting of the reform bill. Are you doing this intentionally? Or do actually know so little about the reform bill? These are people who would not have had insurance at all with the previous system. This is a stop-gap measure for those who are presently uninsurable. These high-risk pools are attempting to provide some temporary relief for some of those people who lack insurance right now, until the rules change in four years. That’s what the article is referring to.
Lots of people on the left pointed out that this health reform act has lots of potential problems.
We pointed out, repeatedly, the superiority of a single-payer system. But that wasn’t even on the table. So the Democrats instead passed a compromise act based on conservative ideas. I’m not a fan of this, but it’s what we have. It was the GOP, of all people, who were complaining about cuts in Medicare. We will absolutely need to make more changes, but we already knew we would need more changes because we couldn’t get the people who claim to be for cutting costs on board to support their own ideas.
Option #3: I knew it, and didn’t realize that anyone would think it was anything else but the stopgap funding. Perhaps I should have been more clear, but my second quote made it fairly clear, I thought, but on rereading I should probably have quoted the next paragraph from the article. I was worried about quoting too much from the original article.
In any event, this is just another example of this program either being messed up, or that it was intentionally passed knowing that it would need extensive modifications to properly work.
And yes, single payer would have been simpler. But that’s not what the Democrats voted on. The existence of a better system does not justify voting for any lobbyist-written glurge with the words “health care” printed on the cover.
A lot of study went into that law. They were convinced that it was the best option available.
As far as policy goes, I’m not sure I agree with them myself, but that doesn’t make them dishonest, or even wrong in their decision. Even though they did pass the law knowing full well that it would need to be modified, that does not mean that it was a mistake. Despite the problems (which any plan will have), it could still work in general terms. And politically, it forces the issue. The GOP can’t strip out the provisions allowing people with pre-existing conditions to be covered. That is far too popular an idea, even among Republicans.
That means, directly, the GOP can’t strip out the mandate, because of adverse selection. That means in turn that the GOP can’t strip out all of the subsidies for low income families. And that means that the GOP has to work within the existing framework of (near) universal coverage, even if they ultimately decide to support something like mandatory HSAs or another quasi-libertarianish plan. The Republicans can no longer simply engage in mindless obstructionism on this issue, as they’ve done on so many others. The long-term budget problem still exists, and when they eventually regain power, they’ll need to engage with that somehow.
The reform act was a good move for that alone. It doesn’t have to solve the entire problem to get the ball moving.
And before the health care bill was passed, there were numberous stories about unintended consequences, budget shortfalls, and unrealistic elements of the bell. Before the Democrats went along with all of those amendments that Republicans wanted these things existed. And when the truth wasn’t good enough, some people (Sarah Palin for one) used scare tactics and propaganda techniques to try to frighten people out of supporting it – in very obviously dishonest ways.
Tell me one thing that has gone wrong so far – but wait until it actually goes wrong. If you can’t get an appointment to see your doctor because of the new system or the system doesn’t accept you or whatever.
But at this moment my insurance is denying me continued coverage on medication that two physicians have said is medically necessary for me. I have been taking it for many years (15?). It is not addictive. I do not take as many as my prescription allows so I am not abusing it. One of the physicians was the Director of Mental Health for the State of Tennessee twice. The other teaches at Vanderbilt Medical School. If I have to pay for it, it will cost $1000 a month. of my social security and teacher’s pension.
I have not had a cost of living raise in three years. My insurance rate is going up 12% next year.
Because of this change, in part, I have left the house five times in 65 days.
If by following you mean having my insurance go up 20% then yes. All it lacks is a government sign in my front lawn describing how much money I’m saving.
If you’re working from the premise that turning away the sick is bad, and that this government program is a boondoggle for still doing that but at a lesser rate than the previous status quo, then is arguing for the previous status quo and it’s greater harm in this regard logical?
I guess you could make a case that we’re not getting our money’s worth, but since no other realistic proposals are on the table, we’re talking about returning to how things were. How were they better in this regard?
Sam Stone - When the government embarks on one of its invasions, say one of those you’ve supported so avidly and which have been such great successes, are those costed accurately from the get-go, was there any likelihood of adjustments along the way, of scenarios panning out a little different to the projections? Or was the general principle agreed and contingency assumed?
First off, your health care was going to go up anyway. If this is a mad grab for money by your insurance company before the HCR law is fully enacted, why don’t you use the Free Market to change providers, to one that doesn’t try to money grab you?
Second, do you understand what *stimulus *means in the context of the Recovery Act?
Do you actually not understand that the *signs *stimulate the economy? Are you honestly unaware that someone makes those signs?
Please, before you make huffy attacks, it would be nice if you at least paid the smallest amount of effort to find out some details.
Part of the confusion is the original plan was for Universal Health Care or UHC. What passed was a series of compromises. What passed was not UHC.
People think that is what passed, but that isn’t so. About 15 million Americans will still be left without coverage after 2014. The bill was never intended to be UHC.
The bill doesn’t even guarantee decent health coverage or pro-active care. It was just the best the lawmakers thought they could get.
The idea was not to reject an inferior bill but to pass it then work to modify it. The reasoning being once it’s in place, the opposition will be less.
Now that’s the theory, whether it will be that way or whether you agree or not is another matter.
Because the free market is reacting to the government mandates. I used the free market to choose the least of those increases.
Yes it means politicians spent money we don’t have on a project that caused my rates to go up at a much higher rate.
The only sign I understand is the dollar sign. We were promised lower health care costs. The exact opposite happened.
I didn’t make a huffy attack, I posted real numbers which was predicted before the program was voted on. It’s bullshit and the government is already back-peddling on who will get “helped”.
No you didn’t. You took what your employer offered you. Or you settled for a bullshit High Deductible plan that will destroy you financially if you ever get really sick or hurt. Or you are 25 and in perfect health.
The law will lower rates. We will save money in the long term. Surely a scion of self-reliance like yourself understands that saving money in the long term is a good thing?
Your 20% increase (if it even exists) could be for any number of reasons. Your employer might be trying to save money. Your conditions may have changed. Your insurance company may be trying to gird itself against future losses. Unless you have any evidence that this increase is specifically due to the HCR law, why are you stating it as fact?
You haven’t shown that.
Also, I would like to hear you explicitly admit that your non-sequitur dig about the signs was unfounded. Can I assume that you agree that it was since you’re changing the subject?
You randomly posted to an uninformed anti-stimulus article and a personal anecdote, with no frames of reference. How are these real numbers?
Your posts suggests that 1. You don’t understand what stimulus is. And 2. You are perfectly willing to throw up random, unrelated issues in order to craft the illusion of making a point.
Really? Do you know anything about HSAs and HDCPs? Clearly not. We have a $10,000 deductible, after that, our care is covered 100%. No co-pays, no lifetime maximum.
Before you assume that all of us are blind sheeple just begging for someone to take care of us, keep in mind that there are many of us who ave spent hours researching our insurance options, studying our budgets and paying attention to our health care.
And we’re the ones who are going to get screwed the hardest in all of this. The ones who have done the work and been involved in our own healthcare.
I’m unemployed and this is a personal insurance policy.
The law didn’t lower rates, it raised them.
It was 20%. It’s not up for debate. 20% was the lowest increase my agent could find.
You are completely clueless on what is actually happening in the insurance industry. The government program mandates individuals who are not insured purchase a policy. The cost of those policies just went up dramatically.
