What I would like to see is a complete destruction of the law. Unfortunately, I don’t expect it to happen even if it is an utter and complete failure.
But there is a sliver of hope - since this is just the beginning. Further technical site failures, half-assed “solutions” like recent Obama’s turnaround or the two bills in Congress, combined with the sticker shock of high deductibles for those that signed up that will hit in Jan-Apr, and the jump in premiums and deductibles/OOP expenses for the next year that will most probably happen right around Sept-Oct 2014, right in time for the elections, will be fun to watch.
This percentage (51%) appears to be more or less corroborated by M.I.T. economist Jon Gruber, a former adviser to Mitt Romney (back when it was Romneycare). Here is a chart sourced from a New Yorker article using Gruber’s estimates.
camille, it’s self-evident that the cancelled policies don’t meet ACA standards, that’s not the question. I’ll read your cite when I have time (I’ll be out of town till Friday), but quick glance, this doesn’t seem to answer the question either. Again, I’m not asking for explanation of any benefit of ACA other than the implied one that “lots” of crappy policies were among those cancelled in the individual market, so the broken promise isn’t so bad after all.
Strat: The last bolded sentence in that post is pretty much on topic:
“The primary reason for the increased cost is that the A.C.A. bans any plan that would require people who get sick to pay medical fees greater than six thousand dollars per year.”
So, the question is: Does that make a policy “crappy”? It probably does for some people but not for others. If you’re healthy, you might want a high deductible.
Iggy’s example above shows the absurdity of government rules. I might have a plan that provides doctor house calls at no additional charge, but if he gives me an aspirin I have to pay for it. Under the ACA, that plan is “crappy” even though by any objective measure it is wonderful.
I’ve never been a fan of bright-line rules except when they are necessary for enforcement purposes. Under the guise of consumer protection, the ACA has gone crazy with these rules. Why would the government mandate that a person be insured against a future risk of needing aspirin when you can buy a bottle of 500 of them at Target for $3.99? It’s needless bureaucracy and administrative overhead for something that is not remotely a problem.
There is *nothing *in it that you approve of? Nothing at all? Really?
Are you in the “repeal and replace” camp, and if so, replace with what? Or is there a purpose to your position other than opposing whatever the other guys try to do?
This wasn’t in response to me, but I would like to see some of the following:
A reasonable way to cover people with pre-existing conditions. We aren’t going to let people die in the streets, but there also has to be a way to keep people from waiting until they get sick to buy insurance. The ACA does this unreasonably by putting the burden largely on the middle class.
A complete and total divorce, destruction, and separation from health insurance and your job. If the employer wants to pay your premiums while you work for him, then great, but your policy should be one personal to you just like your home and auto policies are. If you quit or get fired from your job, you aren’t scrambling for new auto insurance the next day. Such a system discourages upward mobility and going into business on your own. The ACA cements this by requiring large employers to offer health insurance.
Market based reforms and a separation of insurance from known medical risks. No insurance for doctor visits, contraception, and the regular perils of life that we all face. We don’t insure against needing oil changes in the car or light bulbs for the house. End the AMA ban on doctor’s advertising fees. Encourage competition for what is basically a 10 minute visit. I don’t think a general practitioner needs 12 years of school. Change the licensing requirements for doctors to reflect the skill level needed for each task. The ACA does none of this and forces insurance to cover known risks.
Reform the drug laws. Yes, I know it is a quasi-libertarian position, but I don’t think that the guy with an anxiety disorder who has a script for Xanax needs to keep going back every 3 months, paying for a doctor’s visit, and showing his ID at a licensed pharmacy. Drug abuse is a moral failing and fighting it with criminal enforcement has been a total failure. The ACA doesn’t talk about this, but it is a minor part of health costs anyways.
Force/Encourage (I’m still undecided on a mandate) people who are 18 (or 22 while still in school) to purchase catastrophic health insurance with a health savings account. None of this suckling on Mom and Dad’s teat until age 26. You are an adult, so provide for yourself. That way when you are 42 and are diagnosed with diabetes, cancer, or heart disease, you don’t have a pre-existing condition. You were insured when you got the condition, and are in the same risk pool as those who are reasonably healthy. From age 22 to 40, the vast majority of people should be able to bank a sizable sum in their personal HSAs to pay for treatment of annoying late 30s to late 50s treatments that arise. And if you are hit by a bus at age 45, the money goes to your kids.
Of course the elephant in the room will be people who simply cannot afford or do not plan for their own health. The Medicaid requirements should be changed to help those truly in need and shouldn’t be a lifestyle. How harsh we become about handing out care on the government dime for those who willfully refuse to provide for themselves is a difficult thing, but I would suggest “much harsher than we are now.”
IOW, I would do a 180 from the suggest that more government is the answer. A large part of the problem is that so much government has made people price insensitive to medical care and allowed it to spiral out of control.
I hope you realize that Obamacare is a large step in the overall direction you wish to see.
It is no longer legal to limit coverage of those. Done.
Absolutely, but also not yet politically feasible. Single-payer is the obvious way to go, and we already have the structure in place with Medicare. That wasn’t feasible this time either, but we’re down that road.
The market gave us the colossal mess we had before ACA. The things you advocate have mostly been in place for generations.
Single payer again.
If that includes allowing competition in pricing, as the Republicans prevented Medicare Part D from doing, sure.
It’s a bit more than that, and it does have innocent victims who can only be protected by locking abusers up somewhere. We do need better treatment programs, obviously. But that’s only tangential to health insurance policy.
Not separable from the overall complex issues of how parents let go of their newly-adult children. Whether they pay directly for insurance or have it subsidized by their parent, what does it matter? Recognizing and preparing for the risk of catastrophic injury is not well-described as “suckling”, either. :dubious:
It’s already that way, unless you’re going to tell us about welfare queens.
Doesn’t look that way from here. Looks like you’re a strong supporter of Obamacare, and should be stridently happy to extend it to single payer.
That, or the insensitivity of today’s medical industry to competition and the inadequacy of the control mechanisms government is allowed to impose on monopolistic practices?
Guy’s, Terr, like most Republicans, has no answers beyond a fervent belief that whatever Obama is doing is wrong. You can’t expect him to come up with an opinion or an alternative plan until he hears what Obama thinks of it.
If you read carefully I didn’t actually say you were a Republican. I just observed that the reflexive knee jerk opposition to the slightest gesture of Obama’s is a quality you share with them.
ETA: apologies to the grammar guardians of the dope for the errant apostrophe in my last post. I usually know better. :smack:
There is no such thing as “government”. It is simply a convenient shorthand used to give a noun form to a wide variety of circumstances. It is not a thing, it has no inherent qualities, no essential nature. The government of a social democracy is so utterly unlike the government of an authoritarian autocracy as to render any comparison absurd.
All over the world, systems similar to this work. The people served by them are entirely free to vote them out of existence, and they don’t. Not because they are wonderful in any magical sense, but as a practical solution to a practical problem, an “It’ll do” more than a “a gift from God”.
If you are right, and there is something inherently evil and/or inefficient about these sorts of systems, then all those other countries would have either dismantled those systems or their countries would have been reduced to smoking ruins. Neither has happened.
You are wrong. That’s perfectly OK, you have every right to that. But if your argument is nothing more than a political dogma, then you have a lot more in common with a faithful Marxist than you seem to realize. And there is also nothing wrong with espousing such simplistic dogma, this is the forum wherein “witnessing, if you must” is permissible.
Its just a bit embarassing to watch, one is uncertain as to whether to offer charity or mockery. Generally, I go for mockery, as that comes more naturally to me and I am not a very nice person.
If Obama decided to work toward removing government handouts instead of increasing them, I’d be all for it. Even though the black Muslim atheist Communist foreigner proposed it - I’d support him all the way.
Ok, so giving you the benefit of the doubt what is your solution for people who through no fault of their own have pre-existing conditions and so can’t afford medical care under the current system?