THe President promised people would pay less.
I am paying less. Therefore, the President was completely honest.
What I heard the President say, over and over, was that the main goal was to slow down the curve on the increase in medical costs. Not stop it, not reverse it, just get it to slow down and give us a chance to get more things done to fix the screwed up system we have.
Makes one wistful and nostalgic, doesn’t it, thinking back to the days of Republican presidents who were paragons of honest candor and integrity. Well, at least there’s the amiable doofus Gerald R. Ford, who boldly led the nation to Whip Inflation Now!
So, here we are, not dead, just pining for the Ford.
It isn’t that the ACA is a brilliantly crafted piece of legislation, a marvel to behold. Its a Frankenstein monster, cobbled together to satisfy power centers with wildly divergent goals and wants. And at least some of it is crafted by people who dearly hope it will fail, the health of their portfolio being far more important than their fellow citizens.
Its working better because what we had was utter slobbering madness. Even a threadbare tire from the junkyard will roll better than a twenty pound square of concrete.
Also included in that Gallup report is a link to another Gallup poll titled Newly Insured Through Exchanges Give Coverage Good Marks.
I’ve got some required reading for anybody even remotely interested in the ongoing ACA SCOTUS case. Seriously, read this journal entry which COMPLETELY eviscerates the Halbig/King argument.
Three Words and the Future of the Affordable Care Act
I go back to what I’ve been saying ever since the Court agreed to hear this case in the first place: If it rules in favor of the plaintiffs & strikes down the subsidies, it will LOSE all of its credibility & legitimacy as an institution. Period.
More people want to fix Obamacare than repeal it:
If you’re gaining weight at a pound a week, and an exercise program lowers that to a pound a month, has the program done any good?
You moved to a new state and are keeping the same doctors? Did you used to live on the border?
Also, why would you think moving from one state to another would be the same cost? Especially when you want them to allow out of state doctors. Your objection seems incoherent.
No. I moved in June. I found new doctors here. I was using the same insurance that I was using in MD. I can’t continue using it starting Dec 31, so I have to find a new one. Does this make it clearer?
The doctors are in Texas. The new Obamacare insurance is in Texas. The networks for all companies in the exchange except one are so narrow that out of the list of 8 doctors my wife made for me to check, all those companies (except one) only allow one of them. The one company that I want to use allows 7 out of 8.
And no, I don’t expect the same cost. But this is going from $850 to $1200 premiums, from $5K to $12.5K deductible and from $9K to $24.5K out of pocket costs.
Much, thanks, I just couldn’t make sense of why you were upset.
That sounds like you should have done the research upon moving and choosing doctors, that they were all in the same network.
Or not, because that simply isn’t realistic.
This seems like a moving to a new state problem, not an ACA problem.
It sounds like you’re willing to pay that price to get the benefit of seeing seven of your eight preferred doctors.
I just looked at a Texas ACA calculator for Huston and it says that silver plans start around $758 (for a 40yo couple with two kids making too much for a subsidy) and have a max out of pocket of 13,200. If that’s near accurate, maybe you’re valuing keeping your existing doctors a bit much.
That’s for an HMO. Sorry, I am not touching HMOs.
Again, I am comparing apples to apples. I had a PPO before. I am looking for a PPO again. I had an insurance that basically every doctor took. I am looking for one with sufficiently wide network. And for that same apple to apple thing, the jump in price is ridiculously high.
Okay, that’s your choice.
No, you’re comparing two very different states.
Not all PPOs are identical.
That would depend on how the various states have their insurance industries set up. So it might not be apples to apples. Also, “basically every doctor took” doesn’t sound like an especially rigorously investigated claim.
You’re looking to replicate your experience in another state and it costs more. So what?
Newsflash, the house I live in now is worth ten houses of equal size in a shitty part of Texas. You’re not comparing apples to apples because you’re assuming that a simplistic matching is evidence of anything. Not even mentioning that you are basing the size of an acceptable network by how many of eight random doctors they incorporate.
So tell us again why Obamacare needs to be repealed.
Does that not prove that it is a job-killer? All those poor free clinic folks out of a job…:rolleyes:
As if we needed more validation about the rightwing judicial hackery that is the King case, behold: the Turtle himself admits what the King case is all about.
Again, SCOTUS will become a completely illegitimate institution if it rules for the plaintiffs in King. It’s not happening; John Roberts cares too much about the Court’s perception for that to take place.
How will it be “illegitimate” if cases will continue to be sent to it as the highest court of the land?
It would no longer be the Court as we know it, but rather the judicial arm of the Republican Party. Hell, McConnell is already treating it as a political organization in that quote, but that’s the institutional categorization that John Roberts wants to avoid.
Seriously, it doesn’t take a rocket scientist to figure out what’s going on behind the scenes with the King case, and I’m not the only one making the case that SCOTUS is imminently delegitimizing itself.
All of which, mind you, are reinforced by experts far more schooled in legalese than myself.
Seriously, pretending that the SCOTUS case is anything other than rightwing judicial hackery affords it far more legitimacy than it deserves. There’s nothing legitimate about it to begin with - because it was concocted by two guys who want to demolish the ACA at all costs - and there is even less legitimacy behind the Court’s decision to weigh in, especially considering that it did not need to do so. So yes, siding with the plaintiffs in this case would, for all intents & purposes, destroy the legitimacy of the Court as an institution.