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.
Ah, the (not-so-veiled) resort to "RRAAAACCIISSST!!!"
Too rich......lol
It had nothing at all to do with racism. It had to do with an inability in some sectors to move forward and adapt to manifest elements of modernity and recognition of a fait accompli for what it inescapably is.
Again, the exchanges in total represent a small slice of the pie, and problems with them are a given at this point. Some of them are working well, but some are not. There needs to be a re-balancing in these problem areas to put them back on an even keel. This will not be the last time, but rather the first of many. Large, complex systems simply require regular maintenance.
1) Some say Insurance companies deliberately wants Obamacaare to fail by withdrawing widely used plans. In my experience my doctors outright didnt accept Marketplace plans and Blue cross stopped PPO plans suddenly.
2) Overall Mean mentality of consumers about "My tax money" going to support and subsidize others and Corps priority of profits over people.
3) Kind of socialist principle.
4) Increase in premiums ( even though Insurers do this than the Marketplace).
I still think it was a step in the right direction towards some regulation and universal healthcare. ( except of course the penalty for not having one).
Can any one point why its a failure or success and give reasons?
It's a success that most likely will be repealed , and re-introduced at a later date. America is only
going to get more and more progressive by each passing decade which means that Obamacare is
not going away by any means.
A single payer health insurance system would reduce healthcare costs for everyone in the short run.
Quote:
Originally Posted by SportyandMisty
I don't see that being the case.
Quote:
Originally Posted by villageidiot1
Why not? Do you work for a health insurance company?
No, I've never worked in the health insurance field or any adjacent industry.
But I don't see why you would think that "single payer" would result in lower total aggregate expenditures.
If we do a thought experiment where, with the snap of your fingers, we had single-payer, what would be different?
* The number of patients would be the same
* The number of doctors and medical care facilities (e.g., imaging centers, surgicenters, etc etc etc) would remain the same in the short run (recall you said single payer would drive down costs in the short run)
* Overhead costs of healthcare service providers would remain the same
* Covered procedures would remain the same
* Overhead costs of insurance companies would go away, to be replaced by
* Overhead costs of a new Single Payer government entity
Would new overhead costs be lower than old overhead costs? I don't think there is a compelling reason to think so. It is certainly possible that overhead costs will go up, because we're talking about a new government bureaucracy. Moreover, there would be a substantial learning curve where the new bureaucracy is not efficient and makes numerous mistakes in the short run that would require rework.
Last edited by SportyandMisty; 10-14-2016 at 04:08 PM..
Speaking from firsthand experience, I see the following:
PRO - Subsidized Coverage for many poor people
Coverage for people with pre-existing conditions
Greater emphasis on preventive care: free immunizations, cancer screenings, etc.
CON - Spiraling rates for unsubsidized subscribers (my state, Washington, has seen silver
Plan premiums rise nearly 30% over the past two years, with no end in sight)
Steadily rising deductibles and co-pays
Ham-handed and incompetent government bureaucracy (again: my state's exchange
"forgot" to pass on the premiums to insurance companies and left thousands of
subscribers technically without coverage for months in 2015)
************
I'd give the system a C- thus far. It seems to be burdened with the worst features of both private insurance companies (insatiable greed and increasingly unaffordable premiums) and government administration (clunky websites, arbitrary changes in byzantine regulations, etc.)
Unless something is done to control premiums and streamline the process, folks like myself will be forced out of the exchanges, into private insurance, and punished (fined) by the government for not participating in the approved programs. If that happens, I see a wholesale collapse of the ACA, much as many decayed rust belt cities have seen their tax bases destroyed as the middle-class refused to continue to subsidize non-productive folks and expanded government programs so that politicians could retain power.
I agree with your list of "pros" and "cons".
However, the "con" of steadily rising deductibles and copays is, in the words of Obamacare designers, a "feature." It is very much an intended consequence. It is not an unintended consequence.
Economist know that incentives matter, and the designers of the system very much want incentives at the margin to consume less health care services rather than more health care services.
It seems to me the discussion about "Single Payer" is a bit misguided. When I hear many people extol the virtues of "Single Payer," it seems they really mean that someone else pays. You know, rich people.
Your premiums went up so that unhealthy people can be covered. Before ACA, unhealthy people were rejected by insurance companies. Only the healthy had insurance.
So who is supposed to pay for the healthcare costs of the unhealthy segment of the population? Your choices are: (1) They are on their own and we ignore them, which is how it was before ACA, (2) We let them participate in insurance but then all of our premiums go up to cover their costs, (3) We cover the unhealthy but through some government plan like Medicare, but then instead of paying high premiums you are paying high taxes.
So unless you want to abandon the unhealthy people in our society, you can either pay higher premiums or you can pay higher taxes. Which do you prefer?
BTW, being unhealthy arises from a lot of things. I had a cancer scare a few years ago and was said to have a pre-existing condition and could only get insurance through work. Before ACA I was one of the unlucky people who could not get insurance otherwise. Is that fair?
As to the OP - ACA helped provide access to insurance but did nothing to lower healthcare costs. The latter has to be addressed at some point but doing so requires a major overhaul of how medical care is delivered in this country. My feeling is ACA will be replaced with single payer at some point anyway.
I choose to exercise, eat very healthy, not smoke or do drugs, and take care of myself. I'm rewarded by paying out my a** for someone else that does none of the following? Obamacare is a bandaid on an open heart surgery. America is morbidly obese and the ones causing the majority of the problems. They should tax junk food and overweight people. If you want to eat like crap then pay extra money for it. If you choose to live an unhealthy lifestyle then pay for it too. I bet that will help motivate people to be healthier! I already hear the comeback "for some people it's a medical condition!" Yeah it sure is, but 99% of the people choose to be unhealthy and they should pay for it.
Obamacare in it's current form is not sustainable. People who are sick and truly deserve it should get it, unfortunately the majority do not deserve it.
To hear some people tell it, all food you do not grow and cook yourself is "junk food." Others will tell you that meat or dairy products are "junk food," along with anything containing added salt. And to tell you the truth, all that exercise is likely to lead to knee and hip replacements that the rest of us are going to have to help pay for.
It may be that health insurance and well-intentioned do-gooders should be kept separate from each other.
It had nothing at all to do with racism. It had to do with an inability in some sectors to move forward and adapt to manifest elements of modernity and recognition of a fait accompli for what it inescapably is.
Yes, yes....quite right.....inescapable and such.....quite right, I say, quite right....
(harrumph!)
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.
