then maybe obama should not have been going around telling us that "if we like our insurance plan we get to keep it, period". the letter i got from BCBS said they were cancelling my plan b/c of increasing costs associated with the ACA. i actually spoke to someone yesterday and was told i have to wait till 11/15 to sign up for new plan. looks like there will be more options for us now and more providers are moving in...more competition is always a good thing.
Really? Our housekeeper has been helped tremendously by the ACA. Her husband is a construction worker (operates cranes, a high paying job with benefits if he can get it) in poor health. When he's working, they have insurance. When he isn't, before the ACA, both of them did without, going to "emergency clinics" for the typical things people see doctors for and paying full freight, and going to the county hospital for more serious issues, like her husband's now failing heart, (something that has put paid to his career as a crane operator). You know, the county hospital our taxes are paying for. The ACA has allowed them to have affordable insurance. I think a lot of people here simply don't know anyone who's been helped by the ACA, so the whole idea is abstract and confusing.
Thanks, Obama. 2013 $200 deductibles for couples, $3000 OOP Max, $25 prescription copay 2014 $2500 deductibles, 10000 OOP Max. higher premium, 30% prescription co-insurance 2015 $2600 deductibles, 10000 OOP Max, same premium
Congratulations! You actually know someone that has been helped out tremendously by ACA. For every one you can name, I can name a dozen that has been hurt. Nobody is debating that there have been people who have been helped. There is no debate that there are provisions that are good. The debate is at what cost. I know an individual, in her mid 50's, self employed, who has paid fairly into the system for decades. She has recently, in the last couple months, came down with some serious health issues that seem to be escalating. Now her health insurance is canceling her plan because they are no longer going to be offering it in this state, thanks to rising costs (ACA). Now she is going to pay out the roof because she is now considered pre-existing. Do you feel this is justified?
Except, of course, the guy he was responding to: If you knew what you were talking about, you would know that they can't charge more for pre-existing conditions. This is why it's so hard to take the anti-ACA people seriously. You consistently don't even know anything about the policy you're complaining about.
As Major noted the ACA limits what can be charged for someone with pre-existing conditions also consider that prior to the ACA that insurance companies could deny your friend coverage for her pre-existing condition. While paying for insurance isn't something any of us like to do it's much preferable to not having insurance when you need it.
Except that even without ACA that is the way insurance is supposed to work already. Risk is spread out among people with lower risk to cover those with higher risk. Your argument is correct that yes there are costs to be born but what you are missing is that prior to ACA and without ACA those costs are going to be born anyway. People without insurance still use the healthcare system without having insurance the costs ends up getting passed on anyway to the taxpayers, other patients of the medical facility and etc...
And those costs were dramatically higher because the uninsured were using the system in the least efficient way possible and, in many cases, passing those costs directly to the taxpayer in the form of unpaid ER bills.
So your one of those people that believe introducing government into a situation will result in improved fiscal responsibility and efficiency. Santa Claus...
So, you're one of those people with the irrational belief that government action is incapable of positively influencing the market. You probably also think that tax cuts increase government revenue. Conclusion: you listen to and believe liars over facts.
You are correct. Happy? I shall acknowledge that since I knew less about the details of the ACA, I will just shut up and pay 75% more for half the coverage than what I could have two years ago. My opinion and what affects me no longer matters.
Its still not a debate. Its just plain ignoring the facts. That is like trying to argue with a Christian who says the world is only 6000 years old.
The insurance companies have benefited the most; their profits are up. Government mismanagement has cost the taxpayers billions. Most everyone I know has had their premiums go up and benefits go down including my GP. A single payer system like Medicare would have been better.
At the time the bill passed the Congress was controlled by Democrats as I recall. Big Insurance got to them.
