Jump to content

The Affordable Care Act II - Because Mr. Obama Loves You All


Recommended Posts

 
 
 
2
2 hours ago, Doc Brown said:

Hence the appeal of single payer as the old system sucked and the ACA has been good for some but bad for others.

 

Not with that attitude.

 

So, it would be a lot like the ACA with a little tweaking.  Just throw more government money at it to protect people with preexisting conditions.  Premiums for healthy people on the open market were lower pre ACA because insurance companies could deny those with pre existing conditions.  What is the  better plan you think Republicans can come up with?


There is no appeal for single payer for people who want government out of their lives.

Medical insurance prior to ObamaCare was ok, provided you were willing to pay for medical insurance. Medical insurance post-ObamaCare has been horrific. 

As someone who pays their own insurance, ObamaCare has been simply horrible. Prior to that, I had insurance via my husband's company, so I knew how both ends of how corporate insurance worked when given as a benefit to employees, and as the "employee". The corporate-pay part came out of the bottom-line for us and insurance coverage was always a "fun" decision pre-ObamaCare, and an Obamanation (Wow! the urban dictionary definitions for that word are not kind) afterward.  To sit down and be shown the wretched "choices" now "allowed" by ObamaCare, along with the increased costs, well, at the very least ObamaCare has been an economic nightmare.  

I'd take the pre-ObamaCare health insurance costs and availability policies any day of the week. The last thing anyone should want is more government involvement with health insurance (except for allowing it to be purchased across state lines). It never seems to go well for American citizens. 

  • Like (+1) 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

But not in the the states that did not expand coverage. Those people did not see an improvement in cancer treatment. The "pro-life" crowd made sure of that. 

 

Quote

“New studies suggest the 2010 Affordable Care Act has modestly improved Americans’ timely access to cancer treatment, and may have smoothed some racial disparities in patient access. Researchers said the health law’s expansion of insurance coverage, including the enlargement of the government Medicaid insurance program for lower-income people in many states, boosted rates of diagnosis and treatment of patients with certain cancers at earlier stages.”

https://www.wsj.com/articles/health-law-improved-access-to-cancer-treatment-studies-show-11559475001?mod=hp_lead_pos11

Link to comment
Share on other sites

$586 Billion Later, Health Care Is Worse Than Before Obamacare 

Issues & Insights, by John Merline

 

Original Article

 

"I am not the first President to take up this cause, but I am determined to be the last.” That was how then-President Barack Obama pitched Obamacare to a joint session of Congress on Sept. 9, 2009. He described a health care system in crisis and promised that his reforms would “provide more security and stability to those who have health insurance. It will provide insurance for those who don’t. And it will slow the growth of health care costs for our families, our businesses, and our government.”

 

Nearly a decade after having his vision realized, how have his promises worked out?

  • Like (+1) 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 6/5/2019 at 9:06 AM, B-Man said:

$586 Billion Later, Health Care Is Worse Than Before Obamacare 

 

As was predicted.

 

Because it was meant to destroy health care and pave the way for socialized medicine.

  • Like (+1) 1
  • Thank you (+1) 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, DC Tom said:

 

As was predicted.

 

Because it was meant to destroy health care and pave the way for socialized medicine.

 

 

So............

 

I can stop waiting for my $2500 premium decrease ?

 

?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

38 minutes ago, B-Man said:

 

 

So............

 

I can stop waiting for my $2500 premium decrease ?

 

?

 

Yes. You would have gotten it too, if it weren't for those meddling/pouncing/obstructionist Republicans.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

 

 

Trump Just Revolutionized Health Care — And Nobody Noticed

Issues & Insights, by The Editorial Board

 

Original Article

 

Few have ever heard of “Health Reimbursement Accounts,” but they could fundamentally change the nation’s health care system — for the better — and destroy the Democrats’ case for socialized health care.

 

Late last week, the Trump administration finalized rules that will let companies put money into tax-exempt HRAs that their employees could then used to buy an individual insurance plan on their own. Seems like no big deal, right? Except it will start to unravel a 77-year-old policy mistake that is largely responsible for many of the problems the health care system suffers today.

 

More at the link:

 

 

 

.

  • Like (+1) 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

AVIK ROY: Trump could revolutionize the private health insurance market.

Enter President Trump and his team at the National Economic Council, led by Larry Kudlow. The council found an elegant way to give employers the opportunity to voluntarily convert their health benefits from a defined benefit into a defined contribution. For example, an employer could fund an HRA for each worker and their family, which they could then use to shop for a plan that best suits their needs.

 

The administration estimates that as many as 800,000 employers — mostly smaller businesses — will choose this option, expanding health care choices for 11 million workers in the next decade. These employers will benefit from having fiscal certainty over their health expenditures. And workers will benefit from being able to choose their coverage and take it from job to job.

 

Furthermore, if those estimates are right, the new rule could dramatically expand the market for individually purchased health insurance, encouraging more plans to enter the market and lowering premiums for all participants. The White House estimates that the rule could expand the number of Americans with health insurance coverage by as many as 800,000.

 

The Trump HRA rule should be seen as the beginning — not the end — of reforms to improve the quality of private health insurance. Congress also needs to repair the individual market for health insurance by reforming Obamacare-era regulations that punish young and healthy people for buying coverage.

 

 

 

Faster, please.

 
  • Awesome! (+1) 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

GOOD: Trump issues executive order increasing transparency in hospital prices, doctor fees. 

 

“The executive order will direct the Department of Health and Human Services to require hospitals and insurers to disclose negotiated rates for services, as well as provide patients with out-of-pocket costs before their procedures. . . .

 

The order also requires HHS to determine further regulatory steps that need to be taken to address surprise billing, while looking into other barriers that impact transparency in health care costs, according to Azar.”

 
 
 
.
  • Like (+1) 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Quote

 

Over the weekend The Washington Post published a heart-rending description of a pop-up medical clinic in Cleveland, Tenn. — a temporary installation providing free care for two days on a first-come-first-served basis. Hundreds of people showed up many hours before the clinic opened, because rural America is suffering from a severe crisis of health care availability, with hospitals closing and doctors leaving.

Since the focus of the report was on personal experience, not policy, it’s understandable that the article mentioned only in passing the fact that Tennessee is one of the 14 states that still refuse to expand Medicaid under the Affordable Care Act. So I’m not sure how many readers grasped the reality that America’s rural health care crisis is largely — not entirely, but largely — a direct result of political decisions.

The simple fact is that the Republicans who run Tennessee and other “non-expansion” states have chosen to inflict misery on many of their constituents, rural residents in particular. And it’s not even about money: The federal government would have paid for Medicaid expansion.

So if rural America is suffering, a large part of the explanation is gratuitous political cruelty. This cruelty has denied health insurance to millions who could have had it with a stroke of the pen. And rural hospitals are closing, rural doctors leaving, in large part because people can’t afford to pay for care.

 

https://www.nytimes.com/2019/06/24/opinion/republican-states-health-care.html?action=click&module=Opinion&pgtype=Homepage

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 2 weeks later...

Oh, and by the way, the oligarchs are on there way to crushing the American health care system. Let them buy bandaids the Republican lawyers sniffed as they left the courtroom. 

 

 

 

Quote

 

As The Post reports, in oral arguments, “two members of a three-judge panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 5th Circuit grilled lawyers representing Democratic-led states and the U.S. House to explain why the Affordable Care Act remains valid.”

If this suit succeeds, it would be the most profound upheaval in the history of the American health-care system, with 20 million people likely to lose health coverage, somewhere between 50 million and 130 million losing protections for preexisting conditions, mass closings of hospitals deprived of revenue, chaos as the entire regulatory structure of the system is swept away in one fell swoop, and other effects we can’t even begin to imagine. It would be a cataclysm.

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

12 minutes ago, Tiberius said:

To people that can't afford to buy their policies, yes. 

 

Do you have any idea how unbelievably ignorant you have to be to say that?  Nine years promoting the ACA, and you STILL have no idea how it actually works.  :lol:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 7/10/2019 at 7:08 PM, Tiberius said:

Isn't it funny 20 million people might lose health care coverage? Drink blood, laugh, wash rinse 

If it switches to single payer, 180 MILLION people lose insurance they pay for now and happen to like. As for your 20, what the ****happened to PBO Care? Wasn't that supposed to pick up those 20 ?

 

A55hole

  • Thank you (+1) 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 hours ago, DC Tom said:

 

Do you have any idea how unbelievably ignorant you have to be to say that?  Nine years promoting the ACA, and you STILL have no idea how it actually works.  :lol:

You completely missed the point. Try following along with the conversation before spewing your ignorance 

9 hours ago, Cinga said:

If it switches to single payer, 180 MILLION people lose insurance they pay for now and happen to like. As for your 20, what the ****happened to PBO Care? Wasn't that supposed to pick up those 20 ?

 

A55hole

F u 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

12 hours ago, Cinga said:

If it switches to single payer, 180 MILLION people lose insurance they pay for now and happen to like. As for your 20, what the ****happened to PBO Care? Wasn't that supposed to pick up those 20 ?

 

A55hole

 

Single payer in the 1950s, with the major unions on board, might have worked

 

too late now

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 hours ago, row_33 said:

 

Single payer in the 1950s, with the major unions on board, might have worked

 

too late now

 

 

Single payer is not even an option in  Constitutional Republic which I think we still are. Single payer assumes the government can control prices and wages for an entire segment of the population which is totally against any protections reserved to the People.

  • Like (+1) 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

×
×
  • Create New...