But if the only way to get insurance via the Affordable Care Act is via the Federal website (and various state website), then there’s a definite problem. And right now, that seems to be the case, at least for the Federal.
Where did you get that idea? You can apply by mail or phone. See:
Social Security was not sold as a program in which the healthy (the young) subsidize the less healthy (the old), but anyone who thought a little about it understood that it was. The “you can keep your insurance” bit might hurt the bill’s popularity a little, but ultimately its longevity will be determined by whether more people feel they have benefited from the bill vs harmed by it. I still think a lot more people will be helped than hurt, so I think ultimately it will be popular. And I don’t think it matters that the healthy subsidize the sick- because that’s pretty much how the whole concept of health insurance works anyway… you pay more than you get back when you’re healthy, but if you get sick you get more benefit than you pay.
See, it’s that pesky “if you get sick” where ACA differs from “whole concept of health insurance”. Because in ACA it is “if you are sick” you get insurance and you get more benefit than you pay.
Were those wonderful plans you are so upset about being cancelled sold that way? And yet, even the worse of them can’t help but do that, at least until they can dump the sick through rescission or cancellation.
Should advertisements for commercial insurance be branded false advertising unless they give people such a primer concerning the fundamental nature of health insurance?
I’d ask you if Medicare should be repealed if President Johnson didn’t make your point, except that I’m afraid of the answer.
What supporters were saying before it passed doesn’t affect whether the ACA is a good law. And I would be surprised to find that any political speech advocating a policy utterly avoided misleading passages. But, for the record, President Obama did pretty much say just what you are claiming he didn’t. This is from September 2009:
It seems to me pretty clear that the rest of us are people who aren’t so healthy.
Of course, President Obama was also saying that those healthy people can get sick, in which case they would be unfairly taking resources from some of us that aren’t sick at the moment:
And one last point about why conservatives should prefer ACA over the hidden tax. It’s that the amount of the hidden tax is determined by bureaucrats and judicial interpretations:
ACA is more controversial than EMTALA because it is more about enacted law than about lower court case law, and thus more open to public debate, as on this board.* ACA repeal doesn’t mean individualism. It means the hidden taxes of EMTALA and bankruptcy.
P.S. to liberals: I do know that EMTALA, seen as a bizarre form of universal coverage, has several tremendous holes, the most tragic perhaps being non-surgical cancer care. But it is still a form of universal coverage for the many serious conditions it does cover, and we should make the right own up to their own complacency concerning the cost-socialization implications of ACA repeal.
- Of course, another reason that ACA is more controversial than EMTALA is because Barack Obama championed the former.
Yes, and that’s part of the point- without the ACA, those people were doomed to either medical bankruptcy or death.
But don’t pretend that it’s “insurance”. It isn’t.
Sure it is. It just has some regulations on it.
Still qualifies as insurance.
Not according to the description you gave.
With every insurance of any kind in all of human history, some people gained more benefit than they paid, and some paid more than they benefited. Under the ACA, this will continue.
That’s not what you described. You described a situation where people enter the insurance with either the same risk and same premiums or paying premiums proportionate to the risk, and then, when/if they get unlucky, and the risk is realized, getting more than what they paid.
That’s insurance. That’s not ACA.
That’s not exactly what I said, but in any case the ACA does provide insurance. And the healthy subsidize the sick.
It’s not insurance. It’s a welfare scheme. And the healthy subsidize the sick.
The healthy were already subsidizing the sick, as well as those without insurance. And it’s still insurance.
… because you say so.
No, I say so because it’s insurance 
It’s not the norm for health insurance, except in the pre-ACA US individual market. When insured via your U.S. employer, premiums are the same for a cancer survivor as for someone who hardly ever goes to the doctor.
If I understand correctly, you are trying to redefine the way the word insurance is used in most English speaking countries to be synonymous with that of the worst practices found in the US individual market.
Even hardboiled employers – at least the ones who offer insurance to their staff – wouldn’t consider it fair for those who get cancer to, in addition to all their copays, have to pay more for insurance. In most civilized countries – say, Germany – an insurer that charged more for cancer survivors would be in violation of law.
Insurers who charge higher premiums to – or do not cover – people with pre-existing conditions, such as heart disease and cancer, are committing a profound moral wrong. Before ACA, competitive pressures in the individual market made it difficult for them to avoid such immoral behavior. We did need a law to stop that. Individual plans excluding people with pre-existing conditions are inhumane and thus need to be abolished.
True. When insured via your U.S. employer, and a cancer survivor joins the group, premiums had to go up for everyone in the group. That’s called “welfare”. In this case it would be a private welfare scheme, not government-funded, but welfare scheme nonetheless. As in - transfer of funds from one group of people to another based on the other group’s need.
The problem with ACA isn’t the website. The website is actually keeping the public from being aware of the full extent of the problems. There are still 36 states in which people aren’t experiencing sticker shock.
The problems go WAY beyond a broken website. That’s why the President moved the enrollment period next year until after the election. Even he doesn’t have any confidence in the functioning of his law.