The PPACA Thread Part III - Let's have a healthy debate!

[Handyman]

Re: The PPACA Thread Part III - Let's have a healthy debate!

It's the old line, "The next pill costs $1 to make. The first pill cost $400,000,000 to make." Also, how many people do you know who've had Hep-C? The market size for that cure is far more limited than most drugs we see in our day-to-day lives. It's going to take a long time for Bristol Meyers Squibb to recoup their R&D costs on Daklinza.

Leave out the Hep-C pill, look what they did to the Schizophrenic drugs. There is plenty of examples of how the current pricing model is a joke.

[Wisko McBadgerton]

Re: The PPACA Thread Part III - Let's have a healthy debate!

The way the policies are currently constructed, you can't afford to have a major medical expense. Not with super high deductibles.

In my house, the little McBadgerton has a chronic illness. My total recurring annual costs (premiums plus out of pocket $$) has increased by more than $10,000 since the ACA has come in. (Same employer, same carrier) I'm fortunate, but how in the world does that work for an average family making $60k (which is above median) and spending 20-30% of their income on health care costs alone? To borrow a phrase from a former President, "It's the craziest thing in the world."

You fix it...

Why is it people on the Right cant seem to understand you dont have to just burn the house down when the rook leaks...

Right! That's exactly what all the morons to the right of The President should do; Get out of the way so the Hillary can fix it. Again. Or in other words:"Sorry about all the goofs, but TRUST us! Just a few more fixes like the last one and we'll be good! You'll save money! This time we really mean it! Seriously!"

To borrow another former President's phrase, "Fool me once shame on me, Fool me -- you can't get fooled again."

[FreshFish]

Re: The PPACA Thread Part III - Let's have a healthy debate!

So think of something better...something that wont screw all those people who have insurance now but didnt before and that is a start. We can discuss repealing it when you can replace it completely.

Repeal entirely at the federal level, make health insurance premiums tax-deductible to everyone, not just corporate employees, and concentrate reforms at the state level.

Even better, eliminate corporate-sponsored health insurance entirely. The only reason we have corporate-sponsored health insurance in the first place is a result of the wage-price controls during WWII -- wages were frozen while fringe benefit spending was not. Duh.
-- almost no mandates (e.g., PPACA makes men and post-menopausal women acquire maternity coverage, to force them to contribute to others' insurance coverage payment). We don't need the state chiropractic association forcing everyone in the state to acquire chiropractic; make it an option.
-- broaden the risk pool by using open enrollment windows and pooled coverage through association-based pricing (not employer based any more at all)
-- people with certain risk profiles receive direct subsidies from the state budget, just like they used to before PPACA was shoved down our throats
-- allow high-deductible plans, catastrophe only plans, and allow FSAs to roll over from year to year
-- we already have Medicaid for the poor, most of the so-called "expansion" in coverage merely went to increase the Medicaid rolls, not to offer insurance to people who did not have any access to it earlier: the "problem" never was "access" to insurance, it was the ability to afford premiums. PPACA merely put a majority of the uninsured into Medicaid while screwing over the self-employed (as per WJC, it was just "crazy" to do so).

The National Association of Insurance Commissioners is a very competent and professionally-staffed organization that can research and coordinate implementation of the best reforms across all the states while allowing for local flexibility to adjust to local demographics. They know what they are doing and do a very good job of it, and they have to deal with the day-to-day consequences of their decisions. The feds fail, they shrug their shoulders and say, "oh well that's too bad." No accountability is the biggest problem; the states are definitely accountable where the feds are not.

This "come up with a better solution" is total bovine fecal matter, and deep down you probably know it. There are plenty of better solutions around. The feds are gridlocked and never ever should have been involved in the first place; other than equalizing the tax treatment of premium payments between self-employed and corporate-employed, they should have stayed out.

Even better, make individually purchased health insurance tax deductible while making corporate sponsored health insurance a taxable fringe benefit. Incentives work way better than mandates when they are thought through ahead of time and applied consistently.

[SJHovey]

Re: The PPACA Thread Part III - Let's have a healthy debate!

Your explanation is nonsense.

There is nothing wrong with my explanation. It's the program that's nonsense.

This, by the way, is a perfect example of why the system will never be corrected even with HRC in the White House and Dems in control of Congress. If left wing sheeple like Rover are going to demand we stay the course with a broken system, how will the Dems push through real change that works?

[FreshFish]

Re: The PPACA Thread Part III - Let's have a healthy debate!

What matters more, ineffectual good intentions or actual unfortunate results?

Market leaders that are continuing to sell coverage through HealthCare.gov or a state equivalent have been granted average premium increases of 30% or more in Alabama, Delaware, Hawaii, Kansas, Mississippi and Texas, according to information published by state regulators and on a federal site designed to highlight rate increases of 10% or more.

In states including Arizona, Illinois, Montana, Oklahoma, Pennsylvania and Tennessee, the approved rate increases for the market leader top 50%. In New Mexico, the Blue Cross Blue Shield plan agreed to resume selling plans through the online exchanges after sitting out last year, but has been allowed to increase rates 93% on their 2015 level.

Dominant insurers in Connecticut, Georgia, Indiana, Kentucky, Maine, Maryland and Oregon have been allowed to raise premiums by 20% or more, and rate increases from similarly situated carriers in Colorado, Florida and Idaho are brushing up against that threshold.

Beyond rate increases, provider networks are becoming more restrictive, and the number of insurance companies available to choose from continues to decline.

Cheerleaders who continue to proclaim, "who are you going to believe? Me? or your own eyes?" must be losing all credibility by now, no?

[dxmnkd316]

Re: The PPACA Thread Part III - Let's have a healthy debate!

My insurance went up $3/month but the out-of-pocket max went up $2,000.

[St. Clown]

Re: The PPACA Thread Part III - Let's have a healthy debate!

My insurance went up $3/month but the out-of-pocket max went up $2,000.

My enrollment process doesn't begin until next month. I'll learn the damage then. I'm not excited about this as I likely have some shoulder surgery on the horizon.

[FreshFish]

Re: The PPACA Thread Part III - Let's have a healthy debate!

My insurance went up $3/month but the out-of-pocket max went up $2,000.

beyond rate increases, the shrinking of provider networks also means longer waiting time to get an appointment. You might need to find a new provider, and then call them and be told that the next available opening is four months from now.

[dxmnkd316]

Re: The PPACA Thread Part III - Let's have a healthy debate!

beyond rate increases, the shrinking of provider networks also means longer waiting time to get an appointment. You might need to find a new provider, and then call them and be told that the next available opening is four months from now.

Not really. I've been with the same provider literally since the day I was born.

[FadeToBlack&Gold]

Re: The PPACA Thread Part III - Let's have a healthy debate!

I have little problem getting an appointment, except for an annual physical. My doctor is booked out 4 months in advance on those, but that was also the case pre-ACA.

[Rover]

Re: The PPACA Thread Part III - Let's have a healthy debate!

Most complaints about repealing the ACA at this point are confined to frustrated older conservative males who haven't been laid in 30 years and blame the ACA for that. I don't want to name names here (cough..Fishy...cough) but that's pretty much it. But, I'll make it simple. The last two Gooper Presidential candidates ran explicitly on a repeal and go back to the pre-ACA set up platform. One guy (Mittens) lost handily. The other (Trump) is about to get crushed! If people truly felt the way the serial whiners do, why won't the public elect these men President? Dealing with anti-Obamacare people is like dealing with the Flat Earthed Society. Eventually when it turns out you're not looking for solutions but just want to complain, you just set yourselves up as objects of ridicule. That works for me, but I'm not sure what you get out of it.

[St. Clown]

Re: The PPACA Thread Part III - Let's have a healthy debate!

You're nuts if you think Trump's numbers have anything to do with his stance on the Unaffordable Care Act.

[FlagDUDE08]

Re: The PPACA Thread Part III - Let's have a healthy debate!

You're nuts if you think Trump's numbers have anything to do with his stance on the Unaffordable Care Act.

He's only spoon-feeding the narrative from MSM and trying to politicize it. States failing in the execution of it is the man behind the curtain.

[FreshFish]

Re: The PPACA Thread Part III - Let's have a healthy debate!

Not really. I've been with the same provider literally since the day I was born.

Are you covered under an exchange policy? or under your employer's group plan?

[Rover]

Re: The PPACA Thread Part III - Let's have a healthy debate!

You're nuts if you think Trump's numbers have anything to do with his stance on the Unaffordable Care Act.

Both he and Romney ran on a repeal platform. IF this issue truly matters more than female companionship for most people, including several USCHO posters, one would think the voters would have overlooked the flaws in both men and elected them President, no?

Or, perhaps people get tuned out if they're not stop whiners with zero workable solutions?