HuffPo: Obamacare rollout has been a complete disaster.

The law does suck donkey dicks, it was written by health insurance lobbyist, but it's better than the condition of healthcare now because the industry is in a state where the uninsured either declare bankruptcy, are paid for out public funds or receive an inhumane level of care.

If you are against it, show me a good plan. And assume the GOP will forver obstruct a single payer plan.

How will the Chronicle commenters boycott the ACA? Only 15% of Americans will use the exchanges.

Here are some good numbers:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/wonkblog/wp/2013/11/08/obamacare-by-the-numbers/

 

I offered a good plan that would be more effective at all the stated goals.

Edit: For example, the individual mandate in this law has no teeth. My proposal makes it much more important for each person to comply with the mandate. Right now the consequences are negligible unless you qualify for a subsidy and think you'll miss out if you miss the open enrollment period. But for most Americans the subsidy is a non-factor.

 

If the meme has been that the Individual Mandate is an infringement on MUH FREEDOMS, wouldn't anything with more teeth will be seen as an even more egregious infringement?

 

Not the way I structured it. The fine isn't the way to make people comply. The administration misunderstands the issue with Pre-X.

Pre-existing condition exclusions are the most effective way to incentive people to keep coverage. It works in Medicare Supp and it works in group insurance.

They should not have done away with Pre-X completely. Instead, they should have incorporated a hybrid of the Medicare Supp market and Group Insurance market with regards to pre-existing conditions. No riders or exclusions as long as you maintain coverage. If you allow a break in coverage, the insurance company should be able to penalize you with a short term exclusion. 3 months, 6 months, whatever. Something that would keep people with the mindset that they need to maintain insurance.

Edit: But honestly I don't care anyway how it was perceived.

 

What if you have Pre-X and your rates get so high that you want to shop around? No other company will take you. You are essentially locked in to your current company who can then raise your rates without worrying that you will go somewhere else, because you can't. That's how it works now.

 

Yup. I had personal health insurance, got cancer, and then got raised the maximum every time the insurance company could legally do it. If I didn't like it or couldn't afford it, my only choice was to have no insurance at all.

The law definitely has problems and needs tweaking, but I have very little sympathy for the people complaining. Go get cancer and then get bent over a barrel with absolutely no recourse and then tell me that paying a little more when healthy is too burdensome.

 

I had a personal policy for my family that was increasing at an astronomical rate in the mid-2000s. i had never been sick, so I changed my deductible to $5000 in order to even be able to afford insurance at all. Sure enough, that year- cancer-. I was locked into that high deductible policy which then increased dramatically year to year.

 

Nope, you guys didn't see my proposal so you are attributing things to it that aren't accurate.

http://bbs.clutchfans.net/showpost.php?p=8353193&postcount=270

I would not allow for the maximum rate increase type system that exists now.

 

I was talking about the alternative we had (the old system), not about the ACA.

And man, that sucks, White Lightning.

 

The problem that I see with your solution is what do you do about young people who don't want to get insurance in the first place? If I am in my mid-20's not making a lot of money there is no incentive for me to get insurance because I am healthy. What happens though when I get into an accident or get sick or something else where I am required to go to the hospital. Under you argument I won't have insurance and won't be able to get insurance after since I will have a pre-existing condition.

 

You'd still be able to get insurance, you'd just have a short term exclusion (say 90 days.) This would eliminate the people who want to avoid insurance until they need it.

I'm also not saying get rid of the fine, I just don't think it's enough to really modify behavior.

All that said, ACA is not going to push young people onto the plan.

 

the alternative was not the old system. Nobody advocated the old system.

 

I'm still not quite sure how that short term exclusion works. If I am one of the young invincibles I am not getting insurance unless I am forced to or have a situation where I need to go to the hospital. Does your exclusion mean I can't get insurance until after 90 days from going to the hospital? IN that case what happens to the bills in the meantime?

I think it is too early to tell how well the ACA will push young people to get insurance but there is some promising news. In California recent stats show that a quarter of those signing up are younger and in KY 41% who signed up are younger.

 

To be fair the GOP alternative wasn't quite the old system but it didn't make substantial change and might've made things worse. For example the GOP proposal also included allowing those with preexisting conditions but with no way to increase the pool of insured to make up for that. Also allowing people to buy insurance across state lines just removes individual states less control (something Republicans are supposedly against) and also causes a race to the bottom among insurance companies providing coverage in states. Tort reform as Florida and Texas have shown hasn't proven to be a huge cost control measure.

 

You can get insurance, but it won't pay for any pre-x conditions for 90 days. The purpose is to provide an incentive for you to get insurance NOW instead of waiting until AFTER you need it, which the ACA encourages.

The system works very well for Medicare Supp.

 

Then why was it so damned hard to get healthcare reform?

There were two choices: leave it the way it is (we have the BEST system in the world!) or ACA.

I heard a lot about repealing and replacing it, but I never heard a real plan from the GOP (other than the ACA, but that's from 1990's GOP which is borderline socialism now).

 

Republicans have shown time and again they have no interest in improving ACA or offering any alternative. They had majority control of congress all through the 90s and 00s and not once did they show any interest to introduce any type of legislation for healthcare reform.

 

wrong. You have all the choices in the world. vote differently.

Thats cause you have bad news sources.

Patient's Choice Act

 

You mean the bill that dramatically balloons the deficit while not actually addressing any of the key issues facing our health care system (access and affordability)? The one that, despite 40+ votes to repeal the ACA, has never once been voted on in the House? Do you believe that proposal is a good alternative to the current system?

 

yes and I disagree with every opinion you wrote above.