So What Was The Point of Obamacare Again?

[Eric Cartman]

The point of ObamaCare was to benefit Big Government and it's Cronies...in this particular case, Big Insurance and Big Pharma.

Fine, get rid of it. BTW, I hope you're willing to give up your Medicare.

I'd be perfectly happy to keep my tax money to invest in my own health savings account, to pay for regular health care services on my own, and have a catastrophic care policy. This combination would be far less expensive than the government enabled health care insurance monstrosity which is just a way to make prepaid health care incredibly expensive.

Oh my. When my father died in 03/04 he ran up almost $100,000 worth of bills.

My fairly well off father in law is probably nearing the half million mark. I don't know if the average person can save that much. But hey, if you would live with throwing my father in law and yours out on the street to wait for the savior in sandals to come heal him I guess it would be fair.

You are a moron. There's not point explaining to you what catastrophic and long term care policies are. Nor would you understand the concept of investing one's own money to care for oneself instead of paying taxes to a corrupt centralized bureaucracy that skims most of it for its own preservation.

I think most people understand that private insurance provides zero healthcare and effectively skims 20% to 30% of funds intended for healthcare and all they provide (that is useful) is the clerical duty of creating a risk pool of funds and paying bills. That function can and has been accomplished for a tiny fraction of that amount. The structure of the health care system is more debatable (e.g. Medicare or a system like they have in Singapore that has market devices built in)

 

[NYcarbineer]

Fine, get rid of it. BTW, I hope you're willing to give up your Medicare.

I'd be perfectly happy to keep my tax money to invest in my own health savings account, to pay for regular health care services on my own, and have a catastrophic care policy. This combination would be far less expensive than the government enabled health care insurance monstrosity which is just a way to make prepaid health care incredibly expensive.

Oh my. When my father died in 03/04 he ran up almost $100,000 worth of bills.

My fairly well off father in law is probably nearing the half million mark. I don't know if the average person can save that much. But hey, if you would live with throwing my father in law and yours out on the street to wait for the savior in sandals to come heal him I guess it would be fair.

You are a moron. There's not point explaining to you what catastrophic and long term care policies are. Nor would you understand the concept of investing one's own money to care for oneself instead of paying taxes to a corrupt centralized bureaucracy that skims most of it for its own preservation.

Where does the 'investment' money come from when a family of, say, four, currently covered by Medicaid,

loses their Medicaid as people like you would like to see happen? Magic?

You Progs always resort to burning your phony strawmen.

Don't you realize that you are contributing to AGW?

So you deny saying this?

"Nor would you understand the concept of investing one's own money to care for oneself instead of paying taxes to a corrupt centralized bureaucracy that skims most of it for its own preservation."

So explain to us how the family on Medicaid will be better off if Medicaid is taken away from them and they 'invest' their own money in their healthcare..

Be specific. Give us some facts and figures.

 

[NYcarbineer]

The point of ObamaCare was to benefit Big Government and it's Cronies...in this particular case, Big Insurance and Big Pharma.

Fine, get rid of it. BTW, I hope you're willing to give up your Medicare.

I'd be perfectly happy to keep my tax money to invest in my own health savings account, to pay for regular health care services on my own, and have a catastrophic care policy. This combination would be far less expensive than the government enabled health care insurance monstrosity which is just a way to make prepaid health care incredibly expensive.

Oh my. When my father died in 03/04 he ran up almost $100,000 worth of bills.

My fairly well off father in law is probably nearing the half million mark. I don't know if the average person can save that much. But hey, if you would live with throwing my father in law and yours out on the street to wait for the savior in sandals to come heal him I guess it would be fair.

You are a moron. There's not point explaining to you what catastrophic and long term care policies are. Nor would you understand the concept of investing one's own money to care for oneself instead of paying taxes to a corrupt centralized bureaucracy that skims most of it for its own preservation.

I think most people understand that private insurance provides zero healthcare and effectively skims 20% to 30% of funds intended for healthcare and all they provide (that is useful) is the clerical duty of creating a risk pool of funds and paying bills. That function can and has been accomplished for a tiny fraction of that amount. The structure of the health care system is more debatable (e.g. Medicare or a system like they have in Singapore that has market devices built in)

Obamacare puts a cap on how much overhead an insurance company can claim. It's called the medical loss ratio,

and its basically the difference between how much a company collects in premiums versus how much they pay out in actual medical care coverage.
It's set by the ACA at something like at least 85% payout. Medicare, as a comparison, has a medical loss ratio in the high nineties.

 

[boedicca]

The point of ObamaCare was to benefit Big Government and it's Cronies...in this particular case, Big Insurance and Big Pharma.

Fine, get rid of it. BTW, I hope you're willing to give up your Medicare.

I'd be perfectly happy to keep my tax money to invest in my own health savings account, to pay for regular health care services on my own, and have a catastrophic care policy. This combination would be far less expensive than the government enabled health care insurance monstrosity which is just a way to make prepaid health care incredibly expensive.

Oh my. When my father died in 03/04 he ran up almost $100,000 worth of bills.

My fairly well off father in law is probably nearing the half million mark. I don't know if the average person can save that much. But hey, if you would live with throwing my father in law and yours out on the street to wait for the savior in sandals to come heal him I guess it would be fair.

You are a moron. There's not point explaining to you what catastrophic and long term care policies are. Nor would you understand the concept of investing one's own money to care for oneself instead of paying taxes to a corrupt centralized bureaucracy that skims most of it for its own preservation.

I think most people understand that private insurance provides zero healthcare and effectively skims 20% to 30% of funds intended for healthcare and all they provide (that is useful) is the clerical duty of creating a risk pool of funds and paying bills. That function can and has been accomplished for a tiny fraction of that amount. The structure of the health care system is more debatable (e.g. Medicare or a system like they have in Singapore that has market devices built in)

I think most people realize that ObamaCare has just made things worse.

What I'd like to see:

- Get rid of ObamaCare.

- Separation of health care from insurance; tax reform so that the cost of a policy is an individual deduction in full. The employer's form health care expenses could then be added to the employees' salaries.

- Tax exempt health saving accounts with a very high, or no limit for contribution.

- Interstate competition as opposed to the state limits now in place.

- Separation of regular health care services (doctor visits) from catastrophic care. Most healthy people are better off just paying cash (from their heath savings accounts) for basic services and avoiding health insurance claims, and then buying catastrophic policies.

- Medical tort reform along the model in Texas.

Recent developments such as concierge care and basic health services at WalMarts are good examples of market experimentation to lower health care costs and broaden availability.

 

[Eric Cartman]

Fine, get rid of it. BTW, I hope you're willing to give up your Medicare.

I'd be perfectly happy to keep my tax money to invest in my own health savings account, to pay for regular health care services on my own, and have a catastrophic care policy. This combination would be far less expensive than the government enabled health care insurance monstrosity which is just a way to make prepaid health care incredibly expensive.

Oh my. When my father died in 03/04 he ran up almost $100,000 worth of bills.

My fairly well off father in law is probably nearing the half million mark. I don't know if the average person can save that much. But hey, if you would live with throwing my father in law and yours out on the street to wait for the savior in sandals to come heal him I guess it would be fair.

You are a moron. There's not point explaining to you what catastrophic and long term care policies are. Nor would you understand the concept of investing one's own money to care for oneself instead of paying taxes to a corrupt centralized bureaucracy that skims most of it for its own preservation.

I think most people understand that private insurance provides zero healthcare and effectively skims 20% to 30% of funds intended for healthcare and all they provide (that is useful) is the clerical duty of creating a risk pool of funds and paying bills. That function can and has been accomplished for a tiny fraction of that amount. The structure of the health care system is more debatable (e.g. Medicare or a system like they have in Singapore that has market devices built in)

Obamacare puts a cap on how much overhead an insurance company can claim. It's called the medical loss ratio,

and its basically the difference between how much a company collects in premiums versus how much they pay out in actual medical care coverage.
It's set by the ACA at something like at least 85% payout. Medicare, as a comparison, has a medical loss ratio in the high nineties.

The ACA is definitely an improvement. Can you imagine what the health care insurance industry would look like without any government intervention... policies that don't cover basic needs, companies without enough capital to cover large claims, dropped coverage on anyone with a serious illness. It would be a mess.

 

[Eric Cartman]

Fine, get rid of it. BTW, I hope you're willing to give up your Medicare.

I'd be perfectly happy to keep my tax money to invest in my own health savings account, to pay for regular health care services on my own, and have a catastrophic care policy. This combination would be far less expensive than the government enabled health care insurance monstrosity which is just a way to make prepaid health care incredibly expensive.

Oh my. When my father died in 03/04 he ran up almost $100,000 worth of bills.

My fairly well off father in law is probably nearing the half million mark. I don't know if the average person can save that much. But hey, if you would live with throwing my father in law and yours out on the street to wait for the savior in sandals to come heal him I guess it would be fair.

You are a moron. There's not point explaining to you what catastrophic and long term care policies are. Nor would you understand the concept of investing one's own money to care for oneself instead of paying taxes to a corrupt centralized bureaucracy that skims most of it for its own preservation.

I think most people understand that private insurance provides zero healthcare and effectively skims 20% to 30% of funds intended for healthcare and all they provide (that is useful) is the clerical duty of creating a risk pool of funds and paying bills. That function can and has been accomplished for a tiny fraction of that amount. The structure of the health care system is more debatable (e.g. Medicare or a system like they have in Singapore that has market devices built in)

I think most people realize that ObamaCare has just made things worse.

What I'd like to see:

- Get rid of ObamaCare.

- Separation of health care from insurance; tax reform so that the cost of a policy is an individual deduction in full. The employer's form health care expenses could then be added to the employees' salaries.

- Tax exempt health saving accounts with a very high, or no limit for contribution.

- Interstate competition as opposed to the state limits now in place.

- Separation of regular health care services (doctor visits) from catastrophic care. Most healthy people are better off just paying cash (from their heath savings accounts) for basic services and avoiding health insurance claims, and then buying catastrophic policies.

- Medical tort reform along the model in Texas.

Recent developments such as concierge care and basic health services at WalMarts are good examples of market experimentation to lower health care costs and broaden availability.

Singapore has exactly what you are describing (catastrophic policy and a heath savings account) but it is facilitated by the government.

 

[boedicca]

I'd be perfectly happy to keep my tax money to invest in my own health savings account, to pay for regular health care services on my own, and have a catastrophic care policy. This combination would be far less expensive than the government enabled health care insurance monstrosity which is just a way to make prepaid health care incredibly expensive.

Oh my. When my father died in 03/04 he ran up almost $100,000 worth of bills.

My fairly well off father in law is probably nearing the half million mark. I don't know if the average person can save that much. But hey, if you would live with throwing my father in law and yours out on the street to wait for the savior in sandals to come heal him I guess it would be fair.

You are a moron. There's not point explaining to you what catastrophic and long term care policies are. Nor would you understand the concept of investing one's own money to care for oneself instead of paying taxes to a corrupt centralized bureaucracy that skims most of it for its own preservation.

I think most people understand that private insurance provides zero healthcare and effectively skims 20% to 30% of funds intended for healthcare and all they provide (that is useful) is the clerical duty of creating a risk pool of funds and paying bills. That function can and has been accomplished for a tiny fraction of that amount. The structure of the health care system is more debatable (e.g. Medicare or a system like they have in Singapore that has market devices built in)

Obamacare puts a cap on how much overhead an insurance company can claim. It's called the medical loss ratio,

and its basically the difference between how much a company collects in premiums versus how much they pay out in actual medical care coverage.
It's set by the ACA at something like at least 85% payout. Medicare, as a comparison, has a medical loss ratio in the high nineties.

The ACA is definitely an improvement. Can you imagine what the health care insurance industry would look like without any government intervention... policies that don't cover basic needs, companies without enough capital to cover large claims, dropped coverage on anyone with a serious illness. It would be a mess.

Only in your deluded world devoid of free market forces.

All government interference does is enable rent-seeking. We have lower supply, higher prices, and government sponsored spoils for the Big Government cronies instead of a functioning health care market place.

 

[Eric Cartman]

Oh my. When my father died in 03/04 he ran up almost $100,000 worth of bills.

My fairly well off father in law is probably nearing the half million mark. I don't know if the average person can save that much. But hey, if you would live with throwing my father in law and yours out on the street to wait for the savior in sandals to come heal him I guess it would be fair.

You are a moron. There's not point explaining to you what catastrophic and long term care policies are. Nor would you understand the concept of investing one's own money to care for oneself instead of paying taxes to a corrupt centralized bureaucracy that skims most of it for its own preservation.

I think most people understand that private insurance provides zero healthcare and effectively skims 20% to 30% of funds intended for healthcare and all they provide (that is useful) is the clerical duty of creating a risk pool of funds and paying bills. That function can and has been accomplished for a tiny fraction of that amount. The structure of the health care system is more debatable (e.g. Medicare or a system like they have in Singapore that has market devices built in)

Obamacare puts a cap on how much overhead an insurance company can claim. It's called the medical loss ratio,

and its basically the difference between how much a company collects in premiums versus how much they pay out in actual medical care coverage.
It's set by the ACA at something like at least 85% payout. Medicare, as a comparison, has a medical loss ratio in the high nineties.

The ACA is definitely an improvement. Can you imagine what the health care insurance industry would look like without any government intervention... policies that don't cover basic needs, companies without enough capital to cover large claims, dropped coverage on anyone with a serious illness. It would be a mess.

Only in your deluded world devoid of free market forces.

All government interference does is enable rent-seeking. We have lower supply, higher prices, and government sponsored spoils for the Big Government cronies instead of a functioning health care market place.

It is not devoid of market forces. Hospitals and doctor practices can remain private, savings accounts are your own money. Catastrophic care would be a nanny state situation. I don't care if you can't afford a fancy cars,dinners, concerts, vacations, mansions etc. but I (and most people) want everyone to be able to get chemotherapy, bypass surgery etc.

 

[NYcarbineer]

Oh my. When my father died in 03/04 he ran up almost $100,000 worth of bills.

My fairly well off father in law is probably nearing the half million mark. I don't know if the average person can save that much. But hey, if you would live with throwing my father in law and yours out on the street to wait for the savior in sandals to come heal him I guess it would be fair.

You are a moron. There's not point explaining to you what catastrophic and long term care policies are. Nor would you understand the concept of investing one's own money to care for oneself instead of paying taxes to a corrupt centralized bureaucracy that skims most of it for its own preservation.

I think most people understand that private insurance provides zero healthcare and effectively skims 20% to 30% of funds intended for healthcare and all they provide (that is useful) is the clerical duty of creating a risk pool of funds and paying bills. That function can and has been accomplished for a tiny fraction of that amount. The structure of the health care system is more debatable (e.g. Medicare or a system like they have in Singapore that has market devices built in)

Obamacare puts a cap on how much overhead an insurance company can claim. It's called the medical loss ratio,

and its basically the difference between how much a company collects in premiums versus how much they pay out in actual medical care coverage.
It's set by the ACA at something like at least 85% payout. Medicare, as a comparison, has a medical loss ratio in the high nineties.

The ACA is definitely an improvement. Can you imagine what the health care insurance industry would look like without any government intervention... policies that don't cover basic needs, companies without enough capital to cover large claims, dropped coverage on anyone with a serious illness. It would be a mess.

Only in your deluded world devoid of free market forces.

All government interference does is enable rent-seeking. We have lower supply, higher prices, and government sponsored spoils for the Big Government cronies instead of a functioning health care market place.

In a free market, the people with the money to afford healthcare would get it. The more they could afford the better it would be.

The people who could not afford it would go without, or at best be at the mercy of the whims of charity.

THAT is free market healthcare. Prove that the US would be better off under those conditions.

 

[NYcarbineer]

You are a moron. There's not point explaining to you what catastrophic and long term care policies are. Nor would you understand the concept of investing one's own money to care for oneself instead of paying taxes to a corrupt centralized bureaucracy that skims most of it for its own preservation.

I think most people understand that private insurance provides zero healthcare and effectively skims 20% to 30% of funds intended for healthcare and all they provide (that is useful) is the clerical duty of creating a risk pool of funds and paying bills. That function can and has been accomplished for a tiny fraction of that amount. The structure of the health care system is more debatable (e.g. Medicare or a system like they have in Singapore that has market devices built in)

Obamacare puts a cap on how much overhead an insurance company can claim. It's called the medical loss ratio,

and its basically the difference between how much a company collects in premiums versus how much they pay out in actual medical care coverage.
It's set by the ACA at something like at least 85% payout. Medicare, as a comparison, has a medical loss ratio in the high nineties.

The ACA is definitely an improvement. Can you imagine what the health care insurance industry would look like without any government intervention... policies that don't cover basic needs, companies without enough capital to cover large claims, dropped coverage on anyone with a serious illness. It would be a mess.

Only in your deluded world devoid of free market forces.

All government interference does is enable rent-seeking. We have lower supply, higher prices, and government sponsored spoils for the Big Government cronies instead of a functioning health care market place.

It is not devoid of market forces. Hospitals and doctor practices can remain private, savings accounts are your own money. Catastrophic care would be a nanny state situation. I don't care if you can't afford a fancy cars,dinners, concerts, vacations, mansions etc. but I (and most people) want everyone to be able to get chemotherapy, bypass surgery etc.

I would advise not falling for the rightwing scheme of trying to frame the debate under the general premise that market forces are indisputably superior.

They are not.

 

[boedicca]

You are a moron. There's not point explaining to you what catastrophic and long term care policies are. Nor would you understand the concept of investing one's own money to care for oneself instead of paying taxes to a corrupt centralized bureaucracy that skims most of it for its own preservation.

I think most people understand that private insurance provides zero healthcare and effectively skims 20% to 30% of funds intended for healthcare and all they provide (that is useful) is the clerical duty of creating a risk pool of funds and paying bills. That function can and has been accomplished for a tiny fraction of that amount. The structure of the health care system is more debatable (e.g. Medicare or a system like they have in Singapore that has market devices built in)

Obamacare puts a cap on how much overhead an insurance company can claim. It's called the medical loss ratio,

and its basically the difference between how much a company collects in premiums versus how much they pay out in actual medical care coverage.
It's set by the ACA at something like at least 85% payout. Medicare, as a comparison, has a medical loss ratio in the high nineties.

The ACA is definitely an improvement. Can you imagine what the health care insurance industry would look like without any government intervention... policies that don't cover basic needs, companies without enough capital to cover large claims, dropped coverage on anyone with a serious illness. It would be a mess.

Only in your deluded world devoid of free market forces.

All government interference does is enable rent-seeking. We have lower supply, higher prices, and government sponsored spoils for the Big Government cronies instead of a functioning health care market place.

It is not devoid of market forces. Hospitals and doctor practices can remain private, savings accounts are your own money. Catastrophic care would be a nanny state situation. I don't care if you can't afford a fancy cars,dinners, concerts, vacations, mansions etc. but I (and most people) want everyone to be able to get chemotherapy, bypass surgery etc.

Condolences on your persistent ignorance of how markets function.

 

[boedicca]

You are a moron. There's not point explaining to you what catastrophic and long term care policies are. Nor would you understand the concept of investing one's own money to care for oneself instead of paying taxes to a corrupt centralized bureaucracy that skims most of it for its own preservation.

Condolences on your completely and utter ignorance of the relationship between Supply and Demand.

I think most people understand that private insurance provides zero healthcare and effectively skims 20% to 30% of funds intended for healthcare and all they provide (that is useful) is the clerical duty of creating a risk pool of funds and paying bills. That function can and has been accomplished for a tiny fraction of that amount. The structure of the health care system is more debatable (e.g. Medicare or a system like they have in Singapore that has market devices built in)

Obamacare puts a cap on how much overhead an insurance company can claim. It's called the medical loss ratio,

and its basically the difference between how much a company collects in premiums versus how much they pay out in actual medical care coverage.
It's set by the ACA at something like at least 85% payout. Medicare, as a comparison, has a medical loss ratio in the high nineties.

The ACA is definitely an improvement. Can you imagine what the health care insurance industry would look like without any government intervention... policies that don't cover basic needs, companies without enough capital to cover large claims, dropped coverage on anyone with a serious illness. It would be a mess.

Only in your deluded world devoid of free market forces.

All government interference does is enable rent-seeking. We have lower supply, higher prices, and government sponsored spoils for the Big Government cronies instead of a functioning health care market place.

In a free market, the people with the money to afford healthcare would get it. The more they could afford the better it would be.

The people who could not afford it would go without, or at best be at the mercy of the whims of charity.

THAT is free market healthcare. Prove that the US would be better off under those conditions.

 

[Eric Cartman]

I think most people understand that private insurance provides zero healthcare and effectively skims 20% to 30% of funds intended for healthcare and all they provide (that is useful) is the clerical duty of creating a risk pool of funds and paying bills. That function can and has been accomplished for a tiny fraction of that amount. The structure of the health care system is more debatable (e.g. Medicare or a system like they have in Singapore that has market devices built in)

Obamacare puts a cap on how much overhead an insurance company can claim. It's called the medical loss ratio,

and its basically the difference between how much a company collects in premiums versus how much they pay out in actual medical care coverage.
It's set by the ACA at something like at least 85% payout. Medicare, as a comparison, has a medical loss ratio in the high nineties.

The ACA is definitely an improvement. Can you imagine what the health care insurance industry would look like without any government intervention... policies that don't cover basic needs, companies without enough capital to cover large claims, dropped coverage on anyone with a serious illness. It would be a mess.

Only in your deluded world devoid of free market forces.

All government interference does is enable rent-seeking. We have lower supply, higher prices, and government sponsored spoils for the Big Government cronies instead of a functioning health care market place.

It is not devoid of market forces. Hospitals and doctor practices can remain private, savings accounts are your own money. Catastrophic care would be a nanny state situation. I don't care if you can't afford a fancy cars,dinners, concerts, vacations, mansions etc. but I (and most people) want everyone to be able to get chemotherapy, bypass surgery etc.

Condolences on your persistent ignorance of how markets function.

Markets are a simple and efficient way of distributing limited resources. They are not so good at is long term planning and compassion.

 

[Foxfyre]

what about all the people who's healthcare got substantially worse after the switch, or did everyone forget about them?

I am not doubting they may be some, but most of what I have heard are accusations and assertions that are not proven or substantiated. I have people, ON US MESSAGE BOARD, assert that their premiums have skyrocketed and when asked for details, have not had any.

The biggest complaint I have heard is, "Tax payers are subsidizing people to have health insurance through the ADA."

That may be true, but who was paying for the visits that the uninsured were making on a regular basis to the ER and paying through the nose.......Yes, the Tax Payer.

For my husband and myself, after ACA, the coverage on our insurance is not a lot different, but our healthcare premiums are up 38%, most of the deductibles and copays have doubled at least--some more than doubled--and we both lost our primary physicians plus hubby's cancer doctor, the wait times to see a doctor are much longer, and we live under considerable uncertainty re the changes yet to come. I don't know a single soul who is insured now who was not insured before and I don't know a single soul who thinks they are better off under ACA than they were before ACA. I know a number of people who lost the great insurance they had.

The absolute proof of how bad it really is should be evident that the President, members of Congress, and federal employees are all exempt from the ACA. If it was so great, why did they make sure they would not be subject to it?

 

[JimH52]

I am sorry about that. Have you looked into applying with the ACA? Rather than stay with your insurance company. I do know people who have insurance, who did not have it before.

The ACA is not perfect. I know that. But if the GOP would work with the Dems and correct the areas that need attention, instead of REPEAL cries, I think we would be all better off.

 

[Eric Cartman]

what about all the people who's healthcare got substantially worse after the switch, or did everyone forget about them?

I am not doubting they may be some, but most of what I have heard are accusations and assertions that are not proven or substantiated. I have people, ON US MESSAGE BOARD, assert that their premiums have skyrocketed and when asked for details, have not had any.

The biggest complaint I have heard is, "Tax payers are subsidizing people to have health insurance through the ADA."

That may be true, but who was paying for the visits that the uninsured were making on a regular basis to the ER and paying through the nose.......Yes, the Tax Payer.

For my husband and myself, after ACA, the coverage on our insurance is not a lot different, but our healthcare premiums are up 38%, most of the deductibles and copays have doubled at least--some more than doubled--and we both lost our primary physicians plus hubby's cancer doctor, the wait times to see a doctor are much longer, and we live under considerable uncertainty re the changes yet to come. I don't know a single soul who is insured now who was not insured before and I don't know a single soul who thinks they are better off under ACA than they were before ACA. I know a number of people who lost the great insurance they had.

The absolute proof of how bad it really is should be evident that the President, members of Congress, and federal employees are all exempt from the ACA. If it was so great, why did they make sure they would not be subject to it?

Are you getting your policy from the exchanges or from an employer provided policy? Many employers have raised employees costs and used the ACA as cover.

 

[Foxfyre]

what about all the people who's healthcare got substantially worse after the switch, or did everyone forget about them?

I am not doubting they may be some, but most of what I have heard are accusations and assertions that are not proven or substantiated. I have people, ON US MESSAGE BOARD, assert that their premiums have skyrocketed and when asked for details, have not had any.

The biggest complaint I have heard is, "Tax payers are subsidizing people to have health insurance through the ADA."

That may be true, but who was paying for the visits that the uninsured were making on a regular basis to the ER and paying through the nose.......Yes, the Tax Payer.

For my husband and myself, after ACA, the coverage on our insurance is not a lot different, but our healthcare premiums are up 38%, most of the deductibles and copays have doubled at least--some more than doubled--and we both lost our primary physicians plus hubby's cancer doctor, the wait times to see a doctor are much longer, and we live under considerable uncertainty re the changes yet to come. I don't know a single soul who is insured now who was not insured before and I don't know a single soul who thinks they are better off under ACA than they were before ACA. I know a number of people who lost the great insurance they had.

The absolute proof of how bad it really is should be evident that the President, members of Congress, and federal employees are all exempt from the ACA. If it was so great, why did they make sure they would not be subject to it?

Are you getting your policy from the exchanges or from an employer provided policy? Many employers have raised employees costs and used the ACA as cover.

No, we've been with the same HMO for years and years now. And even with all the changes, and all the changes have hit us negatively in the pocketbook, it still remains the best choice for us. We just hope they'll be able to hold on.

As for employers raising employees' costs, ALL....and I do mean ALL....that I've talked to about that they have either eaten the increases caused that are directly the fault of ACA, and that of course cut into the raises and bonuses they are able to grant their employees. Or, they have passed those costs on to their employees because they just couldn't afford to eat them. When they blame the ACA for those increased costs, they are almost certainly telling it like it is.

 

[boedicca]

Obamacare puts a cap on how much overhead an insurance company can claim. It's called the medical loss ratio,

and its basically the difference between how much a company collects in premiums versus how much they pay out in actual medical care coverage.
It's set by the ACA at something like at least 85% payout. Medicare, as a comparison, has a medical loss ratio in the high nineties.

The ACA is definitely an improvement. Can you imagine what the health care insurance industry would look like without any government intervention... policies that don't cover basic needs, companies without enough capital to cover large claims, dropped coverage on anyone with a serious illness. It would be a mess.

Only in your deluded world devoid of free market forces.

All government interference does is enable rent-seeking. We have lower supply, higher prices, and government sponsored spoils for the Big Government cronies instead of a functioning health care market place.

It is not devoid of market forces. Hospitals and doctor practices can remain private, savings accounts are your own money. Catastrophic care would be a nanny state situation. I don't care if you can't afford a fancy cars,dinners, concerts, vacations, mansions etc. but I (and most people) want everyone to be able to get chemotherapy, bypass surgery etc.

Condolences on your persistent ignorance of how markets function.

Markets are a simple and efficient way of distributing limited resources. They are not so good at is long term planning and compassion.

Complete and utter nonsense.

Capitalism has done more to improve health and raise standards of living around the world than has any Nanny State.

 

[NYcarbineer]

[

The ACA is definitely an improvement. Can you imagine what the health care insurance industry would look like without any government intervention... policies that don't cover basic needs, companies without enough capital to cover large claims, dropped coverage on anyone with a serious illness. It would be a mess.

Only in your deluded world devoid of free market forces.

All government interference does is enable rent-seeking. We have lower supply, higher prices, and government sponsored spoils for the Big Government cronies instead of a functioning health care market place.

It is not devoid of market forces. Hospitals and doctor practices can remain private, savings accounts are your own money. Catastrophic care would be a nanny state situation. I don't care if you can't afford a fancy cars,dinners, concerts, vacations, mansions etc. but I (and most people) want everyone to be able to get chemotherapy, bypass surgery etc.

Condolences on your persistent ignorance of how markets function.

Markets are a simple and efficient way of distributing limited resources. They are not so good at is long term planning and compassion.

Complete and utter nonsense.

Capitalism has done more to improve health and raise standards of living around the world than has any Nanny State.

No, the reining in of capitalism, getting it on and keeping it on a leash, is what has raised the standard of living around the world.

 

[healthmyths]

I am sorry about that. Have you looked into applying with the ACA? Rather than stay with your insurance company. I do know people who have insurance, who did not have it before.

The ACA is not perfect. I know that. But if the GOP would work with the Dems and correct the areas that need attention, instead of REPEAL cries, I think we would be all better off.

Tell me how ACA can work "better" if the folks promoting can't do simple arithmetic?
Simple in they used 46 million as the reason for helping the "UNINSURED" right? How many times did we hear before ACA was passed as Obama said:
“I don’t have to explain to you that nearly 46 million Americans don’t have health insurance coverage today. In the wealthiest nation on Earth, 46 million of our fellow citizens have no coverage.”
Remember that??? He said it more then a dozen times...
So then WHY after ACA passed was it reduced to 36 million AFTER OBAMA said ACA wouldn't cover 10 million illegal citizens?
Because BEFORE ACA the Census Agreed 10 million of the 46 million were NOT CITIZENS.
Then 14 million that Obama couldn't account for were eligible for Medicaid..according to the same Census they UNDERCOUNTED people eligible for Medicaid!
And this administration that can't even figure out how to inform 14 million people eligible for Medicaid ?
Finally why in the hell would you want to force 18 million people that are under 34 years old so they don't use health insurance, they make over $50,000 but refuse
their employers' health plans... YET they fraudulently included these 18 million as wanting and needing insurance to get the 46 million!
42 million .... is what 10 million plus 14 million plus 18 million that are either not legal or are eligible but didn't know or don't want!
NOT 46 million but 4 million!
So tell me then HOW f...king effective ACA can be if they can't even subtract 42 million from 46 million and figure out there are less the 4 million that want and need!