I didn’t say there was no mandate, i said, “Bye bye” which can imply something short of that.
What the article does show is that the hardship exemptions can apply to anyone. No one need pay the mandate unless they are a sucker.
And now we get better than merely anecdotal evidence that insurance costs are higher, not lower:
When one person says they are now paying more, that’s an anecdote. When a union is complaining that they are paying more, that’s a big enough number to be data.
Oh, but they aren’t the only union complaining that ACA will lower their living standards:
Much like the individual mandate, I suspect the administration will be carving out some pretty big exemptions here.
Bye bye is certainly not what I’d say if I were trying to honestly convey information.
But I guess we just have to differ on that.
I haven’t read your link, because why would I, since they bear no resemblance to what you post. But are you aware that so called “Cadillac Insurance Policies” were taxed and Unions were upset about that because they typically get great insurance in lieu of other compensation?
This was the case for a long time. I don’t see how this is shocking news.
The mandate exists in name only. It has the same significance as laws against unmarried couples living together.
Or, you know, not.
If there’s a law, and it is never enforced, what is the difference between that law and the law I mentioned?
This isn’t hard. All you have to do is claim hardship and you don’t have to prove it. That’s it. And even if you don’t, the IRS can’t collect it from you anyway because Congress made it illegal for them to do anything but dock your refund.
Like laws against walking elephants down the street, it’s a meaningless law.
There is definitely some meaningless stuff around here somewhere.
Yes, like disagreeing without actually making a constructive argument.
Let me just point out how awesome my home state is doing in rolling out the ACA:
Covered CA blows past one million health plan enrollees
That’s besting it’s own projections of hitting ~700K in the first year.
Premium hikes are expected to be huge, according to health industry officials, just before the elections:
I imagine that as we speak the Obama team is figuring out how to delay this. For the good of the law, of course.
Access to the best cancer centers has been cut back in the ACA plans.
This is the crux of the problem with ACA. The supporters thought that there was magical savings to be found just by making insurance companies do what they wanted. But there is no free lunch. In order to keep costs down, insurance companies had to limit access, and that’s exactly what they did unless you are fortunate enough to afford a gold or platinum plan.
Then there’s having to prioritize certain services as free. In order to pay for free contraception and maternity care, insurers had to raise premiums and cut other services. Which again, they did. Young women win, cancer patients lose.
THe money quote from the article:
**“What we learned was that people are willing to make trade-offs in order to have access to affordable health care,” the company said. “Our provider networks reflect this.”
Read more: Health Law Concerns for Cancer Centers | RealClearPolitics
Follow us: @RCP_Articles on Twitter
**
Um yeah, those who are buying insurance for the first time. Those who had plans that cover the best cancer treatment and lost them might not be so happy.
Besides, isn’t it better for people buying insurance for the first time to decide for themselves what tradeoffs they want? Who is to say that less coverage in the traditional way is inferior to less coverage through narrower networks?
But that’s always been true. Insurance companies have always made such tradeoffs. ACA may change the decisions that are made, and that may cause some people pain (and others will benefit), but ACA didn’t create that situation.
You might be right about the failure to cut costs though. This law doesn’t seem to do much to cut private costs.
They definitely made tradeoffs, but they weren’t required to make tradeoffs in a way dictated by the government, so there were more choices. You could opt for better access to tertiary care centers in exchange for say, not having certain things covered like maternity care or preventive care. After all, how badly does a cancer patient need free preventive care?
That would require people to anticipate their medical needs when getting insurance, much like calling the lotto in advance. The whole point of health care reform is to provide better outcomes for the most people, not just the lucky ones.
Conservatives only care about the wealthy, the rest of us should die in the street by their lights.
THat’s not the reason for the changes. The reason for the changes was to get everyone into the same pool. An older person can very reliably anticipate not needing maternity care or contraception.
And the reason maternity care and contraception was chosen over cancer was politics.
A man can pretty much anticipate not needing maternity care too.
Sure, if he’s single. Obviously a family plan would need that.
But that’s not really the point. Democrats made a political calculation about what they were going to cover. Young women, an important demographic for them, get free stuff. Cancer patients must pay full freight. Is there really any logical argument for why maternity care is more important than cancer treatment?