I have never said ACA did not help about 50% of the uninsured and some of those who were helped were helped greatly. Some are already being priced out of the private market place. Let's not forget about them as well as the millions still uninsured. Actually I am not happy about the Repubs and the insurance companies still fighting the ACA, but saw it is as a sort of silver lining in a dark cloud that these problems are likely to lead to the real deal, a National Health Care Plan due to the waste with the private profit maximizing middle men/ insurance industry.
Canada did it around 50 years ago -- and no I do not think the 50 years ago makes its example inapplicable. I remember reading sometime ago about their transition. I would think that the US response to Medicare which, too, was claimed to cause private doctors to quite or move etc. but never turned out that way would be instructive. I do agree with our Congress and President now legally for sale to the billionaires backed by their ownership of the corporate media that we do have additional political problems in healthcare as well as many areas to enact what polls show a majority of the people want.
Ok, peace, but I don't believe a Medicaid, i.e inferior level of health care designated only for the poor is the way to go as these type of programs when not available to the wealthy, middle class and poor are inevitably subject to attack. This is one of the reasons why right winger hate universal programs that have the support of a much larger base than what is seen as programs only for the poor.
Good question and the fact that these folks just don't have the evidence does make one wonder why they keep trying to quibble. I suspect like the tobacco industry or the fossil fuel industry with climate change it is understandable that they are just trying to hang on to their profit as long as possible by claiming it is all so difficult
Liberals finally start to admin the so called "ACA" is not working. Now they are pushing single payer. LOL. I will pay around $6500 in premium for my family for 2016 (more than $500 per month), and have a $4000 deductible, which means insurance company won't pay a dime until I spend $10k on my health care. I think I contribute to this ACA crap enough. Thanks Obama and liberals.
Are you participating in the exchanges? Why don't you just pay the tax and save all that money? Or why don't you get a job with better employer benefits? Or are you not aware that prices were rising prior to the ACA? I neither voted for Obama nor am I a liberal, but that's a pretty ignorant statement to blame the high cost of health insurance all on Obama and liberals. The healthcare system has never been very efficient, and there were problems with rising costs way before the ACA was enacted. Hopefully you're close to Medicare age so soon enough those costs won't weigh you down so much. Edit: And there's definitely an information asymmetry problem.
I wasnt referring to single payer as an option. I was referring to less dramatic changes that would not have upset the whole system. For example, finding solutions for preexisting conditions and help assist with the lower income to afford insurance. For as much effort that was put into this nonsense, something could have easily passed to make that happen. But instead, the Democrats sold Obamacare as a much better solution that would only effect the rich and help everyone else. Again in hindsight as usual, the rich are laughing while the middle class is once again burdening the brunt of this abomination.
Sound like you are referring to something stronger than ACA but not the single payer option. What are these less dramatic changes (than single payer) that solve the preexisting conditions and assist with lower income to afford insurance?
Yes and why is that? It's because the rich are so opposed to paying any kind of new tax to support extending health care to the poor so it ends up being paid for with higher deductibles. Someone has to pay for it - and it's falling on the middle class when the rich are richer than ever. I blame the Republicans as much if not more for Obamacare, because they are so up their butts with this no-new taxes on the rich b.s. it's killing this country and really putting all the burden on the middle class who doesn't have an army of lobbyists to fight for them.
ACA was a stupid idea. It should have always been single payer system. Whether ACA was there or not private insurance costs have been going through the roof. Look at the graph I posted. The reason why costs are higher is people who could previously not gotten insurance (The really sick) are in the insurance pool. Also since ACA limited the % profit an insurance company can get, they are better off if all costs go up which increases the profit they can generate.
The cost of private medical insurance has been going up for years before the still private ACA and is still going up, but not quite as fast under the ACA. Where have you been? On your parent's insurance or just uninsured so you don't realize this?
Once again you seem to be lacking in short term memory. The Obama admin. went to great pains to bring in Republicans often to the consternation of many Democrats. I'm sure Glynch will be happy to remind you about how disappointed many liberals are at how much Obama has compromised. Further you miss the key point that the ACA at it's core is a Republican idea that had been enacted by the Republican presidential candidate in 2012. What you keep on missing is thinking that somehow these solutions could be done without systematic change. It's a failure of understanding how insurance works and why both the mandate was needed if you want to address issues like pre-existing conditions. Insurance by nature has to be pool based. You can't just add risk without increasing the amount of those covered. To force the insurance industry to cover pre-existing conditions you have to increase the pool otherwise people could just go without coverage and paying into the pool until they actually developed a serious medical condition. In other words only withdrawing from the system without adding to it. This is two of the primary problems with this debate is lack of memory about the situation prior and the actual debate of ACA along with a basic failure to understand how insurance works.
A single payer system couldn't be passed in 2010 and I highly doubt that it can be passed now. As much as people hate incrementalism this has to be an incremental approach that might take a generational change before it comes about.
It is irrelevant who's idea this was originally ... unless you really think either party cares about its policies outside of shoring up its voters base. Thats gold. I dont know how insurance works? Insurance is about risk. Taking on guaranteed losses (preexisting conditions) is not a form of insurance nor a risk. Everyone pooling in to take everyone elses guaranteed loss is a form of socialism. Medicare and Medicaid is socialistic, not a form of insurance. Would you expect automobile insurance to cover a car accident before the policy was written? "Ahh yes, I wrecked my car two years ago ... can you write me a policy so I can make a claim now?". That sounds pretty ignorant. What the ACA did was force insurance companies to burden the socialistic responsibility of collecting payment from everyone to cover the preexisting costs, in exchange of forcing everyone to purchase this much more expensive policy. However the ACA foolishy believed everyone would choose to buy these plans instead of paying the tax/fine and made no provision to enforce insurance companies to stay in the exchanges. Further, subsidizing the costs of the poor/less wealthy does no good when they can't afford the high deductibles in the first place. So again, Obama should have worked to have pre-existing conditions rolled into a medicaid style program where it left the government and tax payers responsible to ensure they received coverage and left the rest the same for now....not insurance companies who were vulnerable to fail.
You are talking about expanding Medicaid-ish to cover all folks with pre-existing conditions (and I assume also to cover all poor folks and with no or very little deductibles). Do you know how many folks would be considered to have a pre-existing conditions by insurer? And how many are poor enough to fall into this type of plan? This is essential singer payer system where the government and tax payers cover all of these folks. This IS more drastic than the government option that couldn't even muster enough vote to pass.
I wouldn't suggest adding the less poor to medicaid. There still could be tax breaks or vouchers...or some other creative method. As far as pre-existing conditions, insurance already finds every reason no to pay on something. I dont think they would need an excuse then.
I talked to my hospital CEO friend this weekend, he said that BCBS came to them demanding a 25% discount on all services, not just the HMO services. Of course they will just find 25% more chargeable services... so the game goes on.
Even the NYT gives no comfort to contented moderate supporters of the ACA version of private insurance middle men in health care. Neither does it give comfort to the right wingers who just don't care about the uninsured or insured. It will prove almost impossible to overcome the perverse incentive of maximizing profits one way or other by the insurance company middle men. Excerpts from an interesting article. http://www.nytimes.com/2016/01/06/u...ed-often-face-crushing-medical-debt.html?_r=0 ********** The number of uninsured Americans has fallen by an estimated 15 million since 2013, thanks largely to the Affordable Care Act. But a new survey, the first detailed study of Americans struggling with medical bills, shows that insurance often fails as a safety net. Health plans often require hundreds or thousands of dollars in out-of-pocket payments — sums that can create a cascade of financial troubles for the many households living paycheck to paycheck. Carrie Cota learned the hard way that health insurance does not guarantee financial security. Ms. Cota, a 56-year-old travel agent from Rosamond, Calif., learned she had the autoimmune disease lupus in 2007. She ran up thousands of dollars in medical and dental bills and ended up losing her job, and eventually her house. Beth Landrum put off getting an M.R.I. that her doctor had recommended after the deductible on her family’s health plan increased to $3,300 a year. Health Insurance Deductibles Outpacing Wage Increases, Study Finds The New Health Care: Underinsurance Remains Big Problem Under Obama Health Law “I had to move in temporarily with my ex-husband,” she said in a recent interview. “I’m staying with him until I can figure out what to do.”
Here is Robert Reich on Bernie and healthcare. He was a Hilary supporter a month or two ago. Sounds like he is flipping if he has not endorsed yet. ************ Today, Bernie Sanders will be unveiling the details of his single-payer healthcare plan. I've seen it, and it's a huge advance over what we have now. The Affordable Care Act is an important first step towards the goal of universal health care -- insuring more than 17 million Americans who had lacked health insurance. But 29 million Americans still lack health insurance, and millions more can’t afford to see a doctor because of high co-payments and deductibles. ... Bernie’s plan isn't nearly as radical as it will be portrayed. It builds on the strengths of Medicare. Like Medicare, it's universal -- separating health insurance from employment, and enabling people to choose a health care provider without worrying about whether that provider is in-network: All they’d need do is go to the doctor and show their insurance card. No more copays, no more deductibles and no more fighting with insurance companies when they fail to pay for charges. https://www.facebook.com/RBReich/posts/1137257032953558
