Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Are you? Or are you simply looking to deflect attention away from points you don't like. Generally I find that people who ask impertinent personal questions instead of addressing themselves to the topic are just trying to dance away from a discussion they're not equipped to handle. In this case, I raised a moral issue about society's obligation, and instead of addressing it you decided to try to deflect.
Regardless, my income is such that yes I'm very much getting hit with higher taxes to pay for the subsidies that financially support less affluent people getting access to affordable health coverage. Thanks for asking. I'll expect you to answer some personally invasive questions about yourself, later, I'm sure.
I'd also support whatever changes you would like to make to put us all in one big pool. But it isn't always all just about what you want or what I want. We live in a society with other people who don't want such a large change made right now. You should respect them as I do, and recognize that what we have going on now is a compromise that makes things a bit better, but with still more work to do.
Why yes, it looks like I will have to purchase my insurance via the exchange. So yes, I will also be supporting those with less, as I have always done. Just wanted to make sure that you did too as I find so many on CD subscribe to the ok for thee but not for me edict on life.
I agree that work needs to be done to put all in on big pool. Pray tell then WHEN do we start this? With people such as yourself echoing support for the ACA, how will change come about? Why can't legitimate discussions about the shortcomings of the ACA be lodged without instant rebuttal of support by yourself?
Higher premiums for those purchasing on the exchange is a valid and legitimate concern. For many paying for the small stuff and insuring against the bigger costs via a HSA is a legitimate and financially responsible manner to pay for care. In fact for the poorer it might actually be smarter as they can build cash in a HSA that could be used to pay for medical costs if needed, or if costs aren't generated it can be used as a retirement vehicle down the road. Seems smarter than giving more of their money to an insurance company whether the care is used or not. Would an tax credit direct payment via the govt into an HSA for a catastrophic plan actually be the smarter choice overall for that customer than merely subsidizing an insurance company?
But consistently supporting the ACA as you seem to do when you jump into every thread reporting difficulties with the ACA will never allow that to happen. This is a great deal for insurance companies: 30 million more customers or govt paying premiums every month like clockwork. But is it as great deal for the customers, particularly those who can't qualify for subsidies?
People need to be told of the shortcomings of the ACA in order for changes to happen. God knows the media is only showing Pollyanna type stories of cheap monthly premiums while completely disregarding the large deductibles that will follow. Deductibles that are so high that they will preclude people from getting care. Deductibles that could have been paid for via a subsidized HSA.
Don't be satisfied with the status quo on a pretty lousy plan to deliver a worthy goal.
The unemployed and very underemployed will generally sign up since it's basically free for them. It's the moderately employed and above youngins that won't be signing up if they didn't have insurance before or will be dropping their insurance as it's too expensive.
And that will contribute it it crashing and burning.
I agree that work needs to be done to put all in on big pool. Pray tell then WHEN do we start this? With people such as yourself echoing support for the ACA, how will change come about?
Your mistake is in thinking that the latter precludes the former. The reason why ACA exists is because right-wing greed-mongers and their allies the blue dogs would have obstructed a more comprehensive reform. So ACA moves the nation closer to a conscientious standing, and we can continue to move in the right direction over time. You can start working on your "big pool" idea now. ACA supporters generally do not oppose your idea, so you have no worries there. So as soon as you change the attitudes of those who oppose more comprehensive health reform, i.e., right-wingers and blue dogs, then your change can go into effect right on top of ACA.
Quote:
Originally Posted by NSHL10
Why can't legitimate discussions about the shortcomings of the ACA be lodged without instant rebuttal of support by yourself?
Which discussions are you talking about? Because here we see that your single pool idea has been met with nothing but support from me. So which discussions are you concerned about me refuting? The ones that are trying to scurrilously rationalize repealing ACA? Those discussions? Are you actually asking why people who support the overall intention of ACA to reduce the number of less affluent Americans who cannot afford healthcare oppose calls to re-increase the number of less affluent Americans who cannot afford healthcare? Really? Really?
Quote:
Originally Posted by NSHL10
Higher premiums for those purchasing on the exchange is a valid and legitimate concern.
Higher premiums than what? If you have a better option elsewhere, you should take it. The exchange ensures that there are good choices even for those who don't have better options offered to them.
Quote:
Originally Posted by NSHL10
For many paying for the small stuff and insuring against the bigger costs via a HSA is a legitimate and financially responsible manner to pay for care.
There are still HSA-compatible plans on the exchanges, so your whole diatribe in that regard makes no sense.
Quote:
Originally Posted by NSHL10
But consistently supporting the ACA as you seem to do when you jump into every thread reporting difficulties with the ACA will never allow that to happen.
Bull. You're just making stuff up now. I readily support better ideas. I only oppose calls to do things that will make it more difficult for the most vulnerable members of society to afford healthcare. Why are you defending such calls?
Quote:
Originally Posted by NSHL10
But is it as great deal for the customers, particularly those who can't qualify for subsidies?
You mean the folks who can afford health coverage? Remarkably, I'm more concerned about those who would have to live without healthcare than those who wouldn't. Why aren't you?
Quote:
Originally Posted by NSHL10
People need to be told of the shortcomings of the ACA in order for changes to happen.
The reality is that what you're complaining about isn't a shortcoming of ACA. It's a shortcoming of our healthcare industry. Stuff costs money. What are you suggesting we do about that?
Your single pool idea doesn't actually make things better for middle class people, incidentally. It actually makes things better only for those who are currently in small pools. Suggesting what you suggesting is the right thing to do, but don't deceive yourself into thinking that it will reduce costs for the middle class.
Why do you think the insurance companies will be fine? Their only hope to stay in business is PPACA and all the new customers being sent their way.
Many of companies in the exchanges are subsidiaries of larger companies, start ups or smaller local/ regional companies. Many could go belly up independent of bigger companies. Most would drop out of the exchanges, raise rates and do other things to discourage those they didn't want from signing up with them. Many bronze plans have fewer doctors and hospitals in network than their more expensive plans. Government controlled markets will do their thing and free market medicine their thing. I suspect concierge services will spread.
Many of companies in the exchanges are subsidiaries of larger companies, start ups or smaller local/ regional companies. Many could go belly up independent of bigger companies. Most would drop out of the exchanges, raise rates and do other things to discourage those they didn't want from signing up with them. Many bronze plans have fewer doctors and hospitals in network than their more expensive plans. Government controlled markets will do their thing and free market medicine their thing. I suspect concierge services will spread.
Concierge services could expand.To those who can afford them. That doesn't help the vast majority that can't afford them. Maybe the start-ups will be successful, maybe not. Co-ops are an interesting concept that might take off.
What government controlled markets are you talking about? The framework of ACA is to work with private insurance companies and within their own markets. Going forward, the insurance companies will be subject to and include the laws and regulations of ACA whether a formal ACA exists or not. No going back there.
Take a look at the larger insurance companies.Many of those are making a very concerted effort to move and expand more into another health insurance market. Medicare. Specifically, the Medicare Advantage plans. United Healthcare, Cigna and Humana come to mind. Even the big HR consulting firms like TowersWatson are going that route. To Medicare they are going. Imagine that. To a far more gov't controlled environment than ACA. Think about that.
I could see an eventual merge of ACA and Medicare. Particularly when (not if) employers drop out of the health insurer supply business for their employees. Thats coming.
Concierge services could expand.To those who can afford them. That doesn't help the vast majority that can't afford them. Maybe the start-ups will be successful, maybe not. Co-ops are an interesting concept that might take off.
What government controlled markets are you talking about? The framework of ACA is to work with private insurance companies and within their own markets. Going forward, the insurance companies will be subject to and include the laws and regulations of ACA whether a formal ACA exists or not. No going back there.
Take a look at the larger insurance companies.Many of those are making a very concerted effort to move and expand more into another health insurance market. Medicare. Specifically, the Medicare Advantage plans. United Healthcare, Cigna and Humana come to mind. Even the big HR consulting firms like TowersWatson are going that route. To Medicare they are going. Imagine that. To a far more gov't controlled environment than ACA. Think about that.
I could see an eventual merge of ACA and Medicare. Particularly when (not if) employers drop out of the health insurer supply business for their employees. Thats coming.
ACA is an attempt by govt to regulate the insurance market. Doctors can and will most often operate in their own self interest. My primary care physician is not taking new Medicare patients as are many others in the area. Many specialist are not taking Medicare. That is happening in some regions and not others. Concierge is happening in sone areas and not others. Not every health practitioner is focused on being part of the effort to expand medical services.
ACA is an attempt by govt to regulate the insurance market. Doctors can and will most often operate in their own self interest. My primary care physician is not taking new Medicare patients as are many others in the area. Many specialist are not taking Medicare. That is happening in some regions and not others. Concierge is happening in sone areas and not others. Not every health practitioner is focused on being part of the effort to expand medical services.
And there is nothing wrong with regulating the insurance market. Especially since the insurance companies have proven to be unable to regulate it themselves. Evidently though, the insurance companies have no problems in being in regulated environments else they wouldn't be so interested into expanding even more into Medicare.
As it turns out my primary care physician is taking new Medicare patients. So are the specialists. I am in Medicare and have not had one problem seeing any doctor. Its true that some doctors in certain areas aren't taking new Medicare patients, OTOH many of those aren't taking any new patients regardless of the type of insurance they might have.
Without Medicare most of the hospitals would fold. And many doctors would be hurting. I do go to specialists (have an appointment next week). When I go, almost everyone in the waiting room is around my age (68) or older. I've noticed that.
And there is nothing wrong with regulating the insurance market. Especially since the insurance companies have proven to be unable to regulate it themselves. Evidently though, the insurance companies have no problems in being in regulated environments else they wouldn't be so interested into expanding even more into Medicare.
As it turns out my primary care physician is taking new Medicare patients. So are the specialists. I am in Medicare and have not had one problem seeing any doctor. Its true that some doctors in certain areas aren't taking new Medicare patients, OTOH many of those aren't taking any new patients regardless of the type of insurance they might have.
Without Medicare most of the hospitals would fold. And many doctors would be hurting. I do go to specialists (have an appointment next week). When I go, almost everyone in the waiting room is around my age (68) or older. I've noticed that.
It is regional as is concierge services. The trend is more not taking and more concierge. If ACA does expand services as intended doctors will or will not respond to the increased demand. Doctors have the choice to be or not be in network as do hospitals. When you are able to compare plans in any states exchange the number of doctors in network can vary within states and their plans. In California medical services are rationed by plan and company with Platinum plans having far more choices than Bronze. Wait til you see Mississippi etc.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
