Absolutely. It’s a false argument to claim that ACA is better for families that already had insurance they were satisfied with, at a fraction of the current cost. It’s OK to point out that some people couldn’t buy insurance because of medical history, or even that lifetime maximums were a problem for a certain number of people. But comparing an expensive ACA plan to no insurance at all is misleading.
And if affordability for those who get subsidies is touted as a plus, that’s simply reflective of the fact that the ACA is a tremendous income transfer program, as well as a significant contributor to making the tax code more complicated. If that fits your worldview, then those might be viewed as positive features. In some respects, it’s hard to argue they are not, but you can’t ignore the cost and frustration of maintaining a complex, burdensome, onerous, inefficient system.
Fair enough, but what’s the solution? What’s the midline between someone like my family, who wouldn’t even have insurance without ACA, and Peanut50, who’s been savaged by increased premiums at just the time she and her husband need insurance the most?
Suppose we blow up the system. What do we put in its place?
Trouble is, the private companies who are benefiting from those sweet, sweet admin costs are also the ones donating heavily to political campaigns to keep them in that middle-man spot.
Oh, can’t be. It was all supposed to be peachy keen.
“If you like your health care plan, you’ll be able to keep your health care plan.”
– Obama.
“Lack of transparency is a huge political advantage. And basically, you know, call it the stupidity of the American voter or whatever, but basically that was really, really critical to getting the thing to pass.”
– Jonathan Gruber, an architect of the Affordable Care Act, on the passage of Obamacare.
Huh. The President *promised * us this wouldn’t happen.
“We agree on reforms that will finally reduce the costs of health care,” Obama said. "Families will save on their premiums; businesses that will see their costs rise if we do nothing will save money now and in the future. “Now, I just want to repeat this because there’s so much misinformation about the cost issue here. You talk to every health care economist out there and they will tell you that whatever ideas are – whatever ideas exist in terms of bending the cost curve and starting to reduce costs for families, businesses, and government, those elements are in this bill.” - Obama
You’re kidding–right? You’re telling me that I’m lucky that I have insurance–at all? I’m not someone who only received insurance through sufferance. I’ve been buying–and paying–for insurance for damn near 40 years. I’d have had it this year, and last, without ACA, and a hell of a lot less expensively.
Of course it’s good that we had insurance. That’s why I’ve made sure that we bloody well had it, all these years.
Right. Because single-payer has been a brilliant solution for the VA, right? Anyone her aside from me ever serve–in the military? I have. Trust me when I tell you that single-payer ain’t that great, either.
MOREOVER, you make single-payer sound like manna from heaven–again. It’s not. What’s single-payer? Single payer is, again, people like me, paying for it, through taxes. You seriously think that eliminating the companies with a motive to keep costs down, is the smart choice? Fine, then, tell me about any government agency, department, etc., that has shrunk in size or saved anyone any money. Anyplace.
Try not to be so polite when you’re being patronizing, please. I have crew that live and work in Canada. I know full well that it’s funded by taxes, but a very, very large chunk of that is corporate taxes paid on the raw materials that they export in very large quantities. Obviously, not all taxes are paid by individuals who are being taxed. Right?
OK, so, then, what is it that WE are doing that is so much more expensive, such a larger part of the budget, that is preventing us from having all these same wonderful programs? Hmm? And the “wait my turn” thing? A friend of ours decided he couldn’t wait more than a year for his hip replacement, and came down here–and paid cash. Yup, god knows, that’s a luxury item there.
“Better” is purported. Just because everybody gets some type of coverage does NOT make it BETTER.
Ah, yes, the right again. So, what are these analyses saying we’d have to cut, to get rid of, in order to have the very same thing as all these happy Europeans? And British, I should add, to use the proper nomenclature.
Ah, there we go.
You know, I find it very difficult to believe that it’s just THAT simple. Take out the insurers, put those folks out of work, of course; switch over to another enormous bureaucracy, and VOILA!, our costs would go down and everyone would be happy.
Except, of course, the people who are paying out the nose in their taxes. How do you solve that? There’s still going to be the 47% that aren’t putting in, but are taking out more than what they are contributing. So far, Obamacare has been a massive transfer of wealth, to some unknown number of actually new insureds. I mean, they can gloat about whatever number they are now claiming as “insured through Obamacare,” but 5-7 million of those are people like me who had their perfectly good policies cancelled and killed off, because of it. Had their premiums nearly doubled, and their total costs actually doubled, if someone became ill.
Next year, my totals–if anyone becomes ill–will be over $40K. You think that saddling the working middle class with those types of costs, to fund any sort of socialist program, without being shown actual numbers–not the made-up out of thin air BS that the Obama/Pelosi/Reid crew used–displaying that their costs will actually go donw, will work?
Wake up, folks. You can all think that “class warfare” is great, as long as the administration is controlled by a group of neighborhood activists, but it’ll be a lot less great when those of us with broken backs decide to stop paying.
I can’t be the only one here that sees that this debacle is simply another program like the AHA. (Affordable Housing Act). Have you guys already forgotten how that turned out? Another brilliant program to get housing (insurance) for the poor and working poor, who couldn’t afford it (ring a bell?). The one where the banks and mortgage lenders were driven into making all those loans, because the regulators created and empowered, by the AHA, forced them to do that?
For several years my spouse and I had NO insurance - and he’s diabetic, and has long-standing issues due to his birth defect. We were denied over and over. We had no insurance and we had no access. There’s a thread on this forum about the bullshit I had to go through just to get a goddamned tetanus booster.
And WTF does it matter if someone received insurance through sufferance or not? Is anyone less deserving of health care than another? I really hope that was not what you intended to say but it could be read that way.
Comparing the VA to a national health service like the UK’s or Canada’s or Germany’s is apples to oranges, or at least apples to pears. They aren’t the same thing.
Nevermind that the Republican anti-government types have been repeatedly cutting funding to the VA, just like they’ve cut, or tried to cut, funding to every other important and needed government service for decades.
It’s not, but it sure as hell beats being locked out of the system entirely. Or what you’re going through.
Insurance companies have NO motive to keep costs down because they want their profits to go up. Sure, they squeeze the folks actually providing the services but they never trim their costs.
First of all, you don’t necessarially want a government agency to shrink - if it’s providing a vital function or benefitting people you want to at least maintain it at the current level, and probably at least up the funding enough to keep up with inflation.
As for saving money, just one example: the FDIC, which insures your money in case of a bank failure. Lots of people have benefitted from that when a bank went under. In the old days, they’d just be out the money. Now, your money is insured to a set level.
Here’s another: The Coast Guard doesn’t so much save money as save lives. Maybe we should just let people drown?
Why shouldn’t corporations pay taxes? If anything, industries with inherent hazards (which would include most involved in resource extraction) should be paying to support health care.
A good slice of it is completely unnecessary middle-men, i.e. “private insurance companies”.
There is an oversupply of expensive technology - for example, the average US city has more MRI machines than some entire countries. Those who have the machines have to pay for them, which leads to an incentive to use them even when not really needed, which drives up costs.
Which is also related to defensive medicine - running tests that are almost certainly not necessary but are required as a CYA measure. Most sprained ankles don’t require an MRI or CAT scan. Or, on a more mundane level, viral infections shouldn’t be treated with antibiotics but far too many people aren’t happy unless they leave the doctor’s office with a prescription for something.
He must have been pretty flush with cash to pull that off - is he aware that there are very competent doctors in India willing to do a hip replacement for cash for a fraction of what a US surgeon charges? If Canadians were that desparate for treatment they’d be going to India for such things and not the US, because India is a crapload cheaper, but the quality of the treatment is just as good in their top-end hospitals.
It sure as hell is better for those who DON’T get coverage under the old system! I guess it was OK 40 million people just didn’t have access to regular health care at all. If such a person needed a hip replacement they’d NEVER get it - because they don’t have the money and it’s not a life-or-death requirement.
To start:
Eliminate the necessity of private insurance (having it as an adjunct, like in Germany, would be OK)
Eliminate the oversupply of high-end, very expensive medical technology (the more MRI machines than any one city needs issue)
Get malpractice *premiums *under control (private insurance company woes again)
That’s just to start.
Of course it’s not that simple, the devil is in the detail - but if you’re willing to throw millions of people needing healthcare under the bus to keep your premiums low why do you balk at putting insurance company employees out of work?
Hey - wouldn’t the new bureaucracy need people with experience in health care administration…?
I used to work for the health insurance industry. Now I work in a different industry. Why can’t those other people do the same?
Are you referring to the people who pay no Federal taxes? Like Mr. Trump, who apparently went 20 years without paying any?
Or are you saying the only people who deserve healthcare are those who can afford to pay and if you’re sick and poor to hell with you, suffer and die?
You ARE aware, aren’t you, that you are now in the category of people who, not that long ago, would simply not be covered at all? That if they roll back the “no denial on pre-existing conditions” clause you are now screwed?
Also, like a lot of people, you don’t seem to have a clue how insurance works. You HAVE TO HAVE a pool of people who pay more in premiums than they collect in order to cover those that cost more than they pay in - which category, by the way, you fell into as soon as the amount the insurance company paid out exceeded how much you paid in premiums. In fact, between a heart attack and cancer you’ve cost the insurance company a crapload more than, say, a 20 year old unemployed jerk with appendicitis or a single mom intermittently employed who needed her gall bladder out.
If you’re whining about those who collect more than they pay in YOU are now in that category.
At one point my spouse hit a lifetime maximum on his insurance policy, was cut, and then blacklisted and told that company would NEVER cover him again, at ANY price. Then he went years unable to get insurance. Is that preferable? Keep in mind, that used to be done routinely to people who had cancer so before you answer consider that YOU are now in that category of people.
Maybe if billionaires like Donald Trump were required to actually pay Federal Taxes like the middle class that wouldn’t be such a problem?
Got a harsh truth for you - those who are healthy and in power don’t give a damn about people with “broken backs” - or those who have had heart problems or cancer. Apparently neither do you, despite now being in that group, with you’re talk about who does and doesn’t “deserve” medical treatment.
I served in the military. Military health care was amazing – prompt appointments, no worries about payment, top-notch care, etc. By far the best health care system I’ve ever experienced, and I bet it’s one of the very best in the world.
Veterans health care sucks in many ways, but active duty care is top-notch, at least in my experience (and from what I hear from friends who still serve). They’re different systems.
Not every government agency and service is “important and needed”, and in fact many are not the responsibility of the federal government at all.
Boy, you’ve swallowed that illogical Democratic party line, haven’t you? If Trump didn’t pay federal income taxes, and if he’s been audited year after year, then that tells me that he’s been in conformance with the tax code written and passed by politicians of both parties for the past 70 years. Either he has illegally evaded taxes or has legally avoided them. If the latter, which seems to be the case, then he is using the tax code like every citizen and business in the country.
You make some valid points about pre-existing conditions and lifetime maximums, but you seem to recognize no validity regarding those who complain that we are paying $12k-$20k a year for health insurance policies that are worse than we had five years ago for 1/3 the cost because our former insurance plans “that we liked” are no longer available. That insurance networks are shrinking, so we cannot “keep the doctors we like”.
The dishonesty and deception of those who wrote and passed this monstrosity is appalling.
This is my frustration with this entire process. There are plenty of legitimate concerns but then you get misleading things like this one. What does that even mean? It is quoted as indicating that they passed something without knowing what was in it - maybe.
The quote was actually to reporters asking about details of the bill while the conference committee was working to resolve differences in the the house and senate bills. In that context, nothing wrong with it. You (the press) do need to wait until it is passed to see what is in it. What is in the two version was public record.
What I can’t figure out is the hydraulics behind “My insurance rates rose 300% and switched to a high-deductible, high out of pocket plan that’s costing me tens of thousands of dollars a year out of pocket” and “it’s all because of the mooches”.
Wouldn’t the mooches be getting the same super-high deductible, nearly worthless health plans that require them to pay for nearly everything out of pocket? If everyone has shitty, expensive care, where is all the money from skyrocketing rates going? Only 16 million people have new insurance due to ACA. Even if all 16 million were as sick as dogs, it wouldn’t account for the other 250 million+ insured people’s costs raising that dramatically.
First, not necessarily true at all. You are obviously mistaken, misinformed and ignorant on this subject. I have been audited a couple of times, and did absolutely nothing wrong. In one case, the audit showed that a gain on a property sale was calculated incorrectly, and I had actually overpaid my taxes, and I got a refund. Given the nature of what Trump’s businesses are, I have little reason to question that his returns are audited in some way or another nearly every year.
Second, I live in PA, and have a shitty plan with Aetna called Coventry One Bronze Deductible Only HSA Eligible. We have four family members. Knock yourself out. You’ll see that what I CLAIM is completely true.
The BCBS plan that I had about four years ago at under $500 a month was discontinued, and a similar plan from them now costs over $1,500 a month. You seem to think that several of us are lying, which I find incredibly insulting. I also find it bewildering.
The “mooches”, as you put it, are getting subsidies and tax credits, reducing their net premiums every month. It’s not just the people who didn’t have insurance before getting the payments, so it’s a lot more than “just” 16 million who do.
It’s a huge income and wealth transfer program that doing nothing to pare actual health care costs. It seems like a tremendous boondoggle for the insurance companies. What industry wouldn’t like a law that required people to buy their product or service, at the same time the government steps in and pays part of the cost? When something is subsidized, let alone mandated, the price goes up.
Dude, my Brother was a IRS tax Auditor for decades. Yes, you can get audited and get a refund or no-change, but then that exempts you from being audited for the next two years. You dont get audited “audited year after year”, if they arent finding some nice deficiencies.
Do you have a cite for the claim that a person is exempted from being audited for two years after an issue free audit? That may be the practice, but I doubt that’s a hard and fast rule. Here is the IRS commissioner:
Improbable and rare, but not necessarily exempt. And that’s for personal. An audit annually of a business doesn’t carry the same practice according to the same article.
Well, yes, thank you you just gave the cite.
*
" If there were no issues following an audit, Koskinen added, “it’s a number of years — two or three at least — before you hear from us again."*
However, if there ARE issues, then yes, you will get audited year after year.
Trump wasnt talking about his Corporation returns, but his personal taxes.
That’s not a cite for what you were claiming. You claimed a person would be exempt. The commissioner said it’d rare. I do not think there is any statutory restriction on auditing an individual annually even if there are no issues. You claim otherwise. Do you have a cite?
Later on in the article another person mentions complexity as a reason to be selected for audit.