Sorry for the long post, just catching up.
klezman wrote:Shoddily implemented, to be sure. The law, imo, is significantly better than the pre-ACA status quo. But what do I know...I'm just a Canadian who thinks everybody ought to have access to affordable healthcare and that paying for it via emergency room visits isn't the answer.
I Agree and Agree and Agree.
chemvictim wrote: This does not look affordable to me. I went on my state's website … The cheapest plan is $740 per month … I can see how people are less than thrilled with this, really.
mother wrote:WOW you need to move! In CT gold plans are ~$500/mo
It seems like there is still a great deal of discrepancy in pricing as well as a lack of full understanding of what is being purchased. At least with the rules on minimum levels of insurance people cannot get blind sided by plans that say "only pays for emergency room visits in the case of an accident" in which case appendicitis would NOT be included.
rpm wrote:ObamaCare is turning out pretty much the way all of us non-Democrats figured: more expensive (whether as premiums, deductibles, co-pays or co-insurance)
Of course it is more expensive for the majority of people. The program is designed to bring the average cost of getting insurance down, not the median. Unfortunately by bringing the average cost down, it is probably bringing the average paid up because many people who had pre-existing conditions before simply would go without and many others would be underinsured.
I feel that (other than the website debacle) the biggest issue with Obamacare is that it was sold incorrectly as a win-win. Healthy 20 and 30 somethings were NEVER going to win. They are the help. Their money and health make this whole thing work. Unfortunately the expectations were set incorrectly and now people are pissed. Well DUH!
rpm wrote:ObamaCare is the single biggest government policy debacle since Prohibition…
It's also the only great social policy experiment passed on a purely partisan basis.
WAY too early to say. The whole thing hasn’t kicked in yet. Heck, even this part hasn’t kicked in yet. Roll-out Debacle, Absolutely. Long term Policy Debacle, Jury hasn’t even been selected yet.
As to the partisan passing, yes. But then again this is just about as partisan as the pendulum has swung. If things aren’t passed on a partisan basis, they aren’t passing at all. (Which pisses me off to no end)
kylemittskus wrote: F me (and the rest of us) for actually listening to and believing a pretty basic and declarative statement made by the President.
Yep, Horrid Lie of a statement. At least he could have added the proper qualifiers to it to give a warm fuzzy about the fact that ACA set a required minimum level of care. And if your plan was to be canceled it was because it didn’t meet those.
dlschier wrote:Insurance companies have great bargaining power to negotiate low rates. That is what the service provider gets paid. But don't worry, they make up the difference on the people that don't have insurance who have to pay full price.
That’s one of the points of ACA… have nobody BUT those with insurance. If you go to a restaurant, look at the menu, and get sticker shock, you can get up, apologize, and go somewhere else. If you are sick and go see a doctor, or worse, get into an accident and are taken to the ER, you don’t really have the ability to peruse the menu before taking services. This is ideally what the insurance companies are doing. Driving down the menu prices.
Think about it: Insurers are in business too, they attract customers by having: a) lower rates (meaning lower costs) b) a larger network, c) better service. They look at ALL the menus, bargain with some, down-select, and then package those up to sell to us. With the Operating margin capped at 15% (also an ACA provision if I’m quoting it correctly) the only ways they can net more is to attract more customers and to reduce their own managing costs…this would seem to work in the public’s favor. (-Edited to correct wording on operating margin)
To have an issue with ACA as I see it, you must hold at least one of the following opinions:
a) The ACA raises the cost of insurance as a whole (More cost to provide a given service…I don’t see it)
b) The Age/price slope is set wrong (possibly fair argument but purely opinion based)
c) The ACA sets the bar for minimum insurance too high (What would you drop?)
d) People with pre-existing conditions should have to pay more or should not be insured (Really? How is this fair?)
e) People shouldn’t have to have insurance in the first place (is it ok if they then go to the ER and not pay? Why?)
f) 85% of premiums collected must go to pay claims is too much or too little
G). …More to be added as people bring up valid/pseudovalid arguments or I remember more
2014 - 20 Btl. Fjellene (10 bot), Urraca Chard (10 bot)
Last purchase: 5/3/14
2013 - 75 btl. 2012 - 98 btl. 2011 - 112 btl. 2010 - 30 btl.