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.
We need more choices in the ACA. Right now all the plans are similar as they all need to be ACA compliant so you get some variation in deductibles and out of pocket expenses between the plans, but really they are all the same.
More selling across state lines, more catastrophic plans tied to HSAs, more discounted association plans, even a buy into Medicare option (no subsidies allowed as you would want to strengthen Medicare by placing healthier/wealthier into it to help generate a surplus). Keep the no preexisting exclusion, free physical and max out of pocket expenses mandates intact. Allow the other mandates to vary from plan to plan to allow true choice.
Right now we have 3,000 brands of chocalate pudding being sold. We need to,add some vanilla,and rice pudding to the menu.
We need more choices in the ACA. Right now all the plans are similar as they all need to be ACA compliant so you get some variation in deductibles and out of pocket expenses between the plans, but really they are all the same.
More selling across state lines, more catastrophic plans tied to HSAs, more discounted association plans, even a buy into Medicare option (no subsidies allowed as you would want to strengthen Medicare by placing healthier/wealthier into it to help generate a surplus). Keep the no preexisting exclusion, free physical and max out of pocket expenses mandates intact. Allow the other mandates to vary from plan to plan to allow true choice.
Right now we have 3,000 brands of chocalate pudding being sold. We need to,add some vanilla,and rice pudding to the menu.
I'm not looking for trashing Obama.. trashing liberals and even trashing conservatives in this thread. I'm looking for a serious discussion about the law and where we can IMPROVE it.. not dismantle it.
I will say that I am a defender of it, but the ACA is not the most ideal reform that I wanted. However, I'm personally grateful for it's inception. BUt I recognize that it's not perfect (and never claimed it to be).
So, I would like to hear from those with serious thoughts about what they would change about the law or where they would improve it.
Here's what I would have liked to see:
1. I would have liked to see a medicare for all option. I think it might have offered some serious competition to insurance companies giving them more incentive to lower their prices.
2. I would have opened insurance across state lines. This would help those in rural areas where only two options are available, have more choices thereby pushing down prices.
3. I would have added tort reform.
4. I would have tied the law in with some sort of relief to doctors and education costs.
I may have more ideas down the line, but I would like to hear some of yours.. without the trashing, etc.
Numbers 2 and 3 were offered in the R plan and rejected by the D's.
I'd prefer a system with mandated rider offerings rather than mandatory minimum coverages.
Numbers 2 and 3 were offered in the R plan and rejected by the D's.
I'd prefer a system with mandated rider offerings rather than mandatory minimum coverages.
What would be the difference if they were "rider" offers or minimum coverage, if both were mandatory? You'd still have to get all the items that are mandatory now .. I'm not sure I'm understanding the distinction.
I'm not looking for trashing Obama.. trashing liberals and even trashing conservatives in this thread. I'm looking for a serious discussion about the law and where we can IMPROVE it.. not dismantle it.
I will say that I am a defender of it, but the ACA is not the most ideal reform that I wanted. However, I'm personally grateful for it's inception. BUt I recognize that it's not perfect (and never claimed it to be).
So, I would like to hear from those with serious thoughts about what they would change about the law or where they would improve it.
Here's what I would have liked to see:
1. I would have liked to see a medicare for all option. I think it might have offered some serious competition to insurance companies giving them more incentive to lower their prices.
2. I would have opened insurance across state lines. This would help those in rural areas where only two options are available, have more choices thereby pushing down prices.
3. I would have added tort reform.
4. I would have tied the law in with some sort of relief to doctors and education costs.
I may have more ideas down the line, but I would like to hear some of yours.. without the trashing, etc.
How would a "Medicare for all" work when the current system is headed for insolvency? Politicians simply don't have the interest or courage in funding their mammoth programs, just kick the cans down the road.
Tort reform, yes. But this whole ACA needs to be kicked out the door ASAP. You can't fix which is a disaster from the get-go.
Throw it out. You don't take the best healthcare system in the world and socialize it. Never worked anywhere and never will. This thing is a disaster and many of us knew it from the get-go.
Besides this wasn't about "healthcare" It was about extremists and their lust for power.
Well.. this is supposed to be Great Debates forum.. So please back your assertion up that we are the #1 Health care system in the world..
We spend 17.2% of our GDP on healthcare (we are #1 in spending).. which is a lot higher .. significantly higher then the next highest spender in GDP.. yet we do not have coverage for everyone (and the others do.. they are something liek 98% of their citizens have coverage to access care).
#1 on the Bloomberg list has a life expectancy of 83 we have a life expectancy of 78.6
I'm sorry, but declaring U.S the "best" healthcare system in the world is really just chest pumping. First step in fixing anything is recognizing there is a problem. Unfortunately, there are too many who hold on to what the U.S used to be, completely ignoring that we are no longer there and have slipped .
We are no longer #1 in anything that really either matters or is good. I love my country.. I want us to be #1.. but until everyone wakes up and realizes we are not we won't get there.
So, your assertion is that there was nothing to fix with the system? If that isn't true, please elaborate on how you would address what plagues the system.
What would be the difference if they were "rider" offers or minimum coverage, if both were mandatory? You'd still have to get all the items that are mandatory now .. I'm not sure I'm understanding the distinction.
Under ACA, a bunch of coverage is mandatory, whether the insured wants it or not. I'd rather see insurers mandated to Offer those coverages, but not require every insured to purchase them. I suppose that concept of choice wouldn't financially support Obamacare.
How would a "Medicare for all" work when the current system is headed for insolvency? Politicians simply don't have the interest or courage in funding their mammoth programs, just kick the cans down the road.
Tort reform, yes. But this whole ACA needs to be kicked out the door ASAP. You can't fix which is a disaster from the get-go.
Tort reform should be added to the ACA - but it addresses only 1% of the problem of healthcare. To think that getting rid of tort reform is suddently going to help us address the problem of affordability, the uninsured and those with pre-existing conditions insurance companies wouldn't cover is unrealistic.
Medicare is for seniors - the group that most utilizes health care, just like Medicaid is rife with mostly sick individuals taxing the system.
Medicare would be far more solvent if everyone was able to participate, including younger and healthier individuals who may not need it now, but will in the future.
Also, indeed, it is stressed more now because we had a baby boom and those boomers are reaching retirement and the age where Medicare kicks in, so it will be stressed.. but that is cyclicle.
Under ACA, a bunch of coverage is mandatory, whether the insured wants it or not. I'd rather see insurers mandated to Offer those coverages, but not require every insured to purchase them. I suppose that concept of choice wouldn't financially support Obamacare.
I don't think its so much about the finances of making everyone cover it.
With something like pregnancy - I think its more about how women were charged more for coverage prior to the ACA and the ACA sets out to not discriminate based on sex and pre-exisitng conditions.
Some men have complained on the POC boards about it - but it does take 2 to get pregnant - so having the male sex have to contribute doesn't seem so bad.
Besides, its not like these are a la carte line items - more of a one size type thing for it to be balanced and again, not have to charge women more.
All the other stuff is basic general care items that everyone should have. It's intended to encourage preventative medicine - well visits to catch things before they become expensive problems. That is one area where the other countries with socialized medicine excel at. Because everyone has access they go for their regular check ups and often have a lot of preventative care more than after the fact care.
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.
