Usually, large bills like the ACA get markups and updates to improve them. It’s always been understood that the first iteration isn’t perfect, and needs edits to remove unforeseen problems. That’s always been the case with any transformative legislation. But this bill never got that, due to scorched-Earth political opposition, unlike any bill previously.
I say all this, because the “move on to something better” in the past meant to improve the existing framework of the aca.
Well, that’s all well and good, but right now, there’s no real alternative. So, if we force them to take people with existing conditions and some of them go under, rates will go up and competition will go down. It’s not like MFA is already in place or anything – right now, without insurance companies, most people wouldn’t have insurance.
Looks like in aggregate, premiums came down this year and more insurers are getting into the exchanges, according to the link. It’s amazing how well this law has held up after 9 years of a constant barrage of hatred and sabotage. Imagine what it could do if we were in different political times, and both parties were committed to its success. Oh well, I can dream, I guess…
Here’s an interesting link from the Commonwealth Fund. They compare some reform options, building on the ACA, and a few single-payer options. In these reforms, they estimate the impact to cost and coverage. The “build on ACA” reforms in a nutshell are more subsidies, plugging some holes within Medicaid eligibility, restoring the madate, autoenrollment, and a public option. This gets us to universal coverage. Then, there are a few single payer options, too, that achieve universal. The cost estimates split by national costs and government funded costs…anyway, an interesting read. And of course, we know that the political situation won’t allow any - or hardly any - of this to occur anytime in the near future.
A very informative link. Thank you.
I think a natural progression would be to add a public option. Include laws that mandate that it must be financially self-sufficient, and therefore can’t operate at a loss to undercut competition. But it can cut out the profit motive that makes private insurance so insidious - I truly don’t understand why people worry about government “death panels” when insurance companies are already motivated to ration medical care.