Healthcare in America

[DuffMan]

Originally Posted by nfotiu

Mail in, requires to mail a form, and then they eventually get back to you with a login for the web system that doesn't work. In person, is just people who walk you through the website that doesn't work. Phone, I don't know, might work. But you really going to be able to compare complicated insurance plans and rates over the phone?

Everything about it is a massive failure so far, and I have gone from being a supporter to just thinking it should be scrapped. It benefits so few people, and has made the situation far worse for for too many people. And the people who it does benefit can't apply anyway.

Oh come on, give up? where's that can do American spirit?

[Rathji]

Originally Posted by nfotiu

Hmm, good point. If only those exchanges actually worked and could get you to the point of seeing what options are available .

Of course.

The technical issues of the exchanges are a separate issue, and need to be resolved, but that doesn't mean the other parts of the plan are a failure because it is having serious issues in some places.

[nfotiu]

Originally Posted by Rathji

Of course.

The technical issues of the exchanges are a separate issue, and need to be resolved, but that doesn't mean the other parts of the plan are a failure because it is having serious issues in some places.

At what cost though? To eliminate all healthcare insurance options for people making around $12000 to 19000 is disgraceful and cruel. Whereas before they could carry at least a plan that covered catastrophic issues. Now a single mother of 2 making 19k per year has no affordable options because they make too much for Medicaid, and not enough for subsidies.

[nfotiu]

Originally Posted by DuffMan

Oh come on, give up? where's that can do American spirit?

You are quite the disrespectful bigot aren't you?

[Red Slinger]

Originally Posted by nfotiu

At what cost though? To eliminate all healthcare insurance options for people making around $12000 to 19000 is disgraceful and cruel. Whereas before they could carry at least a plan that covered catastrophic issues. Now a single mother of 2 making 19k per year has no affordable options because they make too much for Medicaid, and not enough for subsidies.

Part of the ACA plan for those people was for the federal government to provide free money for the individual states for three years to cover those situations. 26 states refused that free money. All 26 are either run but a Republican Governor or a Repubic State House. Most of those States (like Louisiana, Mississippi, etc.) have the worst healthcare provisions in the union. So, these governments made a political choice to refuse coverage for their citizens.

It's by no means a perfect system. There are problems with gaps in coverage as you mentioned. There are also problems associated with the technical issues that have been widely panned. The Democrats have been trying to reform healthcare for decades. It finally got to the point where not only were there millions of Americans without coverage but the existing system was about to bankrupt the government. It basically reached the boiling point so something had to be done.

Let's not forget that Obama originally wanted single-payer universal coverage. That system was screamed down by Republicans and some Blue-dog Democrats. Eventually, Obama adopted the previous Republican proposal which is, more or less, the current ACA. I imagine that this system will eventually work out the wrinkles and will work well for most and not so well for some. But this is the first step in the evolution of healthcare in America. I think within 30-40 years, the USA will have a system similar to that in Canada.

[DuffMan]

Originally Posted by nfotiu

You are quite the disrespectful bigot aren't you?

Oh my, a bit touchy, are we.

[nfotiu]

Originally Posted by Red Slinger

Part of the ACA plan for those people was for the federal government to provide free money for the individual states for three years to cover those situations. 26 states refused that free money. All 26 are either run but a Republican Governor or a Repubic State House. Most of those States (like Louisiana, Mississippi, etc.) have the worst healthcare provisions in the union. So, these governments made a political choice to refuse coverage for their citizens.

It's by no means a perfect system. There are problems with gaps in coverage as you mentioned. There are also problems associated with the technical issues that have been widely panned. The Democrats have been trying to reform healthcare for decades. It finally got to the point where not only were there millions of Americans without coverage but the existing system was about to bankrupt the government. It basically reached the boiling point so something had to be done.

Let's not forget that Obama originally wanted single-payer universal coverage. That system was screamed down by Republicans and some Blue-dog Democrats. Eventually, Obama adopted the previous Republican proposal which is, more or less, the current ACA. I imagine that this system will eventually work out the wrinkles and will work well for most and not so well for some. But this is the first step in the evolution of healthcare in America. I think within 30-40 years, the USA will have a system similar to that in Canada.

I don't disagree with most of what you wrote. I know my opinion has been jaded by people I know and am close to who I was convinced would be helped by the aca only to find our it left them in a far worse position. It is only a narrow scope of people that were going to be helped by the aca anyways. And that is self employed and hourly workers. To see that a rather large chunk of the people who need help the most is pretty crappy. The problems with the website, while on one hand could be viewed as just an inconvenience, the other side of that problem are that it allows people who are losing current insurance to not have any faith they have better options. And as someone who has tried to help people use that system, I can say that it is not just because it was busy. It is impossible based on inputs I've provided for people to get to a point where you can actually apply for insurance.

Maybe it will evolve into something good, I just fear the implementation of it was so poor that it will make the public so apprehensive, no one will ever try again.

And really the bottom line is who did this help? You said the government would have gone bankrupt, how does the aca save the government money?

[Red Slinger]

^ According the the impartial CBO the ACA reduces healthcare costs in the long term. Healthcare is the largest portion of government spending in the USA.

[nfotiu]

Originally Posted by Red Slinger

^ According the the impartial CBO the ACA reduces healthcare costs in the long term. Healthcare is the largest portion of government spending in the USA.

http://www.cbo.gov/publication/44176. I may be wrong, but that to me looks like it wil cost the federal government a net of 1.3 trillion over 10 years.

[Red Slinger]

I could be wrong but that report only describes the cost of the ACA and not how in compares in cost to the previous system.

[Displaced Flames fan]

Originally Posted by DuffMan

So, it's about the dushonesty of the Obama administration, not really about the end results?

Really? So it is ok to lie in a salespitch to a Nation if you know whats good for them??

[DuffMan]

Originally Posted by Displaced Flames fan

Really? So it is ok to lie in a salespitch to a Nation if you know whats good for them??

Well, it's not like he made up a story about wmd's and went and attacked a country under false pretenses, wasting trillions of dollars and sending the country into a recession, or anything.

[Displaced Flames fan]

Originally Posted by DuffMan

Well, it's not like he made up a story about wmd's and went and attacked a country under false pretenses, wasting trillions of dollars and sending the country into a recession, or anything.

That is a pathetic response given the talk here lately about the "Both parties do it" argument. Not surprising though.

So I will assume you believe that since the Obama administration knows what's best for the American people and we are clearly too stupid to understand it for ourselves that it is absolutely acceptable for them to deceive us in order to obtain our support.

[DuffMan]

Originally Posted by Displaced Flames fan

That is a pathetic response given the talk here lately about the "Both parties do it" argument. Not surprising though.

So I will assume you believe that since the Obama administration knows what's best for the American people and we are clearly too stupid to understand it for ourselves that it is absolutely acceptable for them to deceive us in order to obtain our support.

absolutely.

or in other words.

I just don't see it the way you do, and I'm probably not the only one.

[Displaced Flames fan]

Originally Posted by DuffMan

absolutely.

or in other words.

I just don't see it the way you do, and I'm probably not the only one.

Sorry but a response of "absolutely" to my statement does not equate with "I just don't see it the way you do." In any way whatsoever.

[DuffMan]

Originally Posted by Displaced Flames fan

Sorry but a response of "absolutely" to my statement does not equate with "I just don't see it the way you do." In any way whatsoever.

I know, I just thought my "absolutely" was a crazy response to a crazy statement, and you would've caught on. The second part of it is what I was saying seriously.

[HockeyIlliterate]

Originally Posted by nfotiu

Maybe it will evolve into something good, I just fear the implementation of it was so poor that it will make the public so apprehensive, no one will ever try again.

Maybe, but I tend to believe that the only evolution that is realistically possible for the ACA is to turn it into, essentially, Medicare for everyone.

Medicare has its issues, for sure, but if the doctor-reimbursement* and drug negotiation matters can get resolved (as well as some of its funding issues)**, then I don't see why people would not be in favor of making it available on a wider basis.

People could still obtain health care insurance, at their own cost, to cover what Medicare does not (which would allow the current health insurance companies to stay in business, although perhaps in a reduced form), while everyone in the US would be given the ability to obtain at least some minimum form of health care.

Besides, implementing Medicare for all would avoid (and would have avoided) all of the current angst, headaches, and problems that those trying to enroll on the ACA website are now facing.

* Increasing the doctor reimbursement rates to a more reasonable and equitable level is a no-brainer. By doing so, doctors would not have any incentive to drop patients, and accordingly, people really could keep their doctor if they liked their doctor.

** In this regard, increasing Medicare taxes is probably the most realistic solution, but if the taxes were imposed on all sources of income (and not just on wages), an increase might not be necessary.

[Displaced Flames fan]

Originally Posted by DuffMan

I know, I just thought my "absolutely" was a crazy response to a crazy statement, and you would've caught on. The second part of it is what I was saying seriously.

Fair enough. I guess I don't understand the unwillingness to publicly decry that kind of deception, regardless of where it takes place on the political spectrum.

[nfotiu]

I have to say after trying to help my self employed girl friend and her kids enroll in the health exchanges for 2 months, and being no closer to being able to actually enroll and pay for coverage, this is looking like it will be a disaster far worse than is being reported now. I thought I had her enrolled, only to have that account disappear with nothing left on who to contact or anyway to login to pay. The health care support still tells us we are victims of glitches. So many kids are trapped between the health care exchanges and medicaid, especially in divorced families, that it is not possible to sort out for months. So her kids who had health insurance will have to go into 2014 without insurance. I would not be surprised if even half the people who used to have health insurance (outside of people who have work policies) will have health insurance on January 1, 2014. And so few new people will benefit, because the subsidies are only for such a narrow and specific situation. An poorer, working people who used to have options for at least some kind of insurance, are now left with nothing. It is so disappointing how this turned out, and I can't imagine what the government is going to do when they realize that so many more people are going to be without insurance to start the year.

[Mr.Coffee]

wow, that sounds bad.