Affordable Care Act repeal impact on Ohio (Republic, Congress: insurance, house)

[Natural510]

They just need to take insurance companies out of the equation and create a single-payer system nationwide. It will probably never happen with our politicians beholden to insurance companies and their lobbyists, but it's the only sensible solution.

[bjimmy24]

Originally Posted by Natural510

They just need to take insurance companies out of the equation and create a single-payer system nationwide. It will probably never happen with our politicians beholden to insurance companies and their lobbyists, but it's the only sensible solution.

That sounds absolutely terrible.

[WRnative]

Originally Posted by ZnGuy

$15,00 deductible.

$15,000 deductible??? Likely BS.

The maximum allowable is less than $15k. So:

<< In 2017, the maximum allowable cost-sharing (including out-of-pocket costs for deductibles, co-payments, and co-insurance) is $7,150 for self-only coverage and $14,300 for families.6>>

https://www.healthpocket.com/healthc...s#.WK2BhX9UVVc

<<
Out-of-pocket maximums should not be confused with deductibles (the amount you pay out-of-pocket before coinsurance kicks in). That being said, on some high deductible health plans like catastrophic coverage your maximum will be the same as your deductible.>>

Out-of-pocket Maximum Limits on Health Plans - Obamacare Facts

Persons can post anecdotal information in any thread, but such claims are meaningless if they aren't verifiable. On this and other topics, I see the same posters posting ridiculous claims that don't stand the test of objective verification.

The entire U.S. healthcare system is a mess, with expenses higher than anywhere in the world and outcomes relatively poor.

Yet the Republicans, including Donald Trump, have yet to produce a replacement for the Affordable Care Act, even though the Congressional Republicans have had years to do so. Why not?

The Republicans have blocked any program to control drug prices, a major contributor to inflated drug prices in the U.S.

Let's see the Republican alternative, and let's hope that excessive billings, bad debts, and heightened administrative costs don't drive insurance premiums back to the larger premium increases experienced under the G. W. Bush administration than experienced once the ACA took effect.

Will the Republicans keep provisions of the ACA designed to reduce healthcare costs?

Cleveland Clinic CEO Toby Cosgrove reports rough financial year for hospital in 2016 | cleveland.com

<<
PD: What do you think will happen to the ACA given the promises of repeal by the Trump administration?
Cosgrove: The ACA is the law of the land in one form or another, and it's not going to go away. It's a huge shift, and if you think about it, it's the biggest change that's happened to healthcare in a century. And it affects 100 percent of the people, not just the providers.


I would be surprised if you had full-scale repeal of the act for a couple reasons. First, if you did that it would leave 20 million people uncovered and the political fallout of that would be huge. Second, I don't think there's a consensus among Republicans about what to replace it with. So I think you'd continue to have 70 to 90 percent of the ACA as it is now, and change portions of it.>>


Cleveland Clinic CEO Toby Cosgrove on working with Trump, Obamacare, staying healthy and burgers: Q & A | cleveland.com


Let's hope emergency rooms aren't overrun, imperiling the health of all Americans needed emergency care. Let's hope that hospital systems once again are facing crippling deficits if not failure.

Let's hope persons still can get preventive treatment rather let health care conditions deteriorate to the point that expensive options and greatly impaired health zap the lives of individuals.

We don't emphasize wellness in the U.S., and now, with the Republicans totally in control of the federal government, are significantly increasing health-impairing pollution. From the last-linked article:

<<The ACA doesn't do anything to speak of about getting people to stop smoking, or becoming obese, it doesn't do anything about taxing sugar or cigarettes.>>

Meanwhile, obvious problems such as the opioid epidemic, based on what I've read, don't receive even $1 billion in direct annual funding.

As Gov. Kasich noted in the link in post 1, much of the anti-addiction funding is provided by the ACA. Talk to any sheriff about how addiction is the underlying cause of the majority of imprisonments, including crimes committed to fund addictions. Understand why Kasich is aghast at the efforts of some Republicans to gut Medicaid expenditures.

[WRnative]

Originally Posted by woxyroxme

Prior to June 2014 I had insurance through my employer.

2015 - 2016 ACA

Now I have insurance through my employer again with Anthem for $226/month for me and my wife including dental, no deductible BS, there are co-pays $25 for an office visit, $7 prescriptions but it's way better than what I had with ACA.

Yes, but how much is your employer paying to subsidize this coverage?

What would happen if you developed a medical condition that precluded you from working, and this new "pre-existing condition" prevented you from obtaining health insurance?

Heck, individuals with perpetually excellent health, and who avoid debilitating accidents, could self-insure.

[TXStrat]

Originally Posted by Natural510

They just need to take insurance companies out of the equation and create a single-payer system nationwide. It will probably never happen with our politicians beholden to insurance companies and their lobbyists, but it's the only sensible solution.

Be careful what you wish for. I know single payer systems sound great, and people hate those pesky, evil corporations, but, under single payer health care systems, you get what you pay for.

I have lived in two different countries in Europe for a total span of about a decade. Both countries have single payer health care systems, and both systems come nowhere close to providing the level of, and access to care we enjoy here. The National Health Service in the UK is in a shambles, and has been for decades. Care rationing, wait times for non-elective procedures, hospital overcrowding and lack of bed space, and medication shortages are quite real. The ability to attract, recruit, and retain the most qualified doctors is severely hampered by the fact that the NHS is in the red, and has been for decades. See the recent young doctor protests for an example. This is despite the comparatively higher tax burden our British cousins across the pond endure. While some may claim there is no significant difference in tax burden, those people conveniently leave out the Value Added Tax (VAT) from their comparative analysis to skew the numbers in order to support their contention. They only compare income taxes, and in some cases some limited sales taxes. In the UK, the VAT is 20% on most goods and services. There is a reduced rate VAT of 5% on things like health and safety items (children's car seats, etc.), and energy saving materials for the home. There is also 0% VAT on most food items, and children's clothing. So, adding an additional 20% on everything aside from food, kid's clothes, health and safety items, and energy saving materials, quickly adds up to a significantly higher tax burden. While it is true, Britons have the option to pay £0 out of pocket for any and all medical care, they are, in fact, getting what they pay for. Many opt to purchase private insurance. They still pay the VAT, and other taxes to subsidize the floundering NHS, but the private insurance affords them greater access, and a higher level care through semi-privatized providers.

[woxyroxme]

Originally Posted by WRnative

Yes, but how much is your employer paying to subsidize this coverage?

What would happen if you developed a medical condition that precluded you from working, and this new "pre-existing condition" prevented you from obtaining health insurance?

Heck, individuals with perpetually excellent health, and who avoid debilitating accidents, could self-insure.

I don't know what my employer pays but when I was on ACA I got nothing for a subsidy.

People who develop medical conditions that keep them from working get social security disability and Medicaid like my neighbor has been getting for 40 years.

[bjimmy24]

Originally Posted by TXStrat

Be careful what you wish for. I know single payer systems sound great, and people hate those pesky, evil corporations, but, under single payer health care systems, you get what you pay for.

It doesn't sound great to anyone with an ounce of common sense.

[WRnative]

High healthcare expenditures in the U.S. are a major drag on the nation's economic competitiveness.

In New Survey of 11 Countries, U.S. Adults Still Struggle with Access to and Affordability of Health Care - The Commonwealth Fund

U.S. health care system ranks lowest in international survey - CBS News

[WRnative]

Originally Posted by woxyroxme

I don't know what my employer pays but when I was on ACA I got nothing for a subsidy.

People who develop medical conditions that keep them from working get social security disability and Medicaid like my neighbor has been getting for 40 years.

Yet the ACA likely provided you with more affordable health insurance of a much higher quality than if the ACA didn't exist, and some persons did receive meaningful subsidies.

If you had major, pre-existing conditions, the ACA would have been a godsend.

[Natural510]

Originally Posted by bjimmy24

That sounds absolutely terrible.

Sure, our current and past systems worked just fine. That's why the rest of the developed world force employers to provide health insurance, which of course encourages job growth.