General Discussion
Related: Editorials & Other Articles, Issue Forums, Alliance Forums, Region ForumsObamacare is not a disaster
it is a start of something greater. Hopefully the DLC types will come off the ledge and concede that maybe universal health approach is the most simple, elegant way to address the lack of health care for all. My relatives in Canada all agree with me that universal health care (extending Medicare to cover all Americans) would have been the most logical way to approach this big problem. For now, we must work on making Obamacare stronger but we must voice our opinions with what is working and what isn't working. This is why shouting down dissent is a bad idea because Obamacare needs positive and negative feedback for it to succeed long term.
The sticker shock criticism to me makes perfect sense as most Americans are insulated inside of a "no more taxes bubble". But for Obama care or universal health care to work our population must contribute to the pool to make it work. Is this socialized medicine? Yes and if you are against socialized medicine or for the greater good that is fine.
My health insurance is going up even though, I am a single, male. Female closes to my age are in their child bearing years and they need more care, so this is where my money is going for. I don't regret this at all because given the statistics of our country when it comes to infant mortality we can, and should do better.
The main concern I have is that we spend a lot of money on healthcare but statistically we are far behind countries with Universal health care. In theory we should be ahead, but reality is capitalism can't solve all market woes like economic conservatives believe. ACA takes several steps to address this ineffectrive and inefficient spending but I think much more is needed.
It is a work in progress though, so people need to be patient.
kydo
(2,679 posts)Any time I hear someone just rehashing the bagger grunting (in the normal world this is generally referred to as talking) points. I correct them and say Obamacare is not a disaster and pretty say what you wrote.
The stunned look on baggers face like "how dare you contradict me tale with facts, bitch." I just smile a smug smile and let the stupid be stupid.
Harmony Blue
(3,978 posts)would be against the idea to begin with. But for this to work we have to increase the pool size to reduced the risk which is why I am surprised many members of the Democratic party do not understand this. Still, we just have to be patient and with calm, explain why it is imperative to increase this pool for the greater good.
brush
(53,474 posts)Especially the part about how his ACA contribution helps pay for care for childbearing women close to his age.
It's kind of like paying property taxes (even if you don't have kids) on a house which partly goes to schools or the ER, or fees/taxes on auto registration to help pay for road maitenance. It's all part of the "common good", a concept that seems to have been lost from when the founders of this nation included that very idea in the Constitution.
Harmony Blue
(3,978 posts)this to me is what should be the stark difference between Democrats and Republicans. The current Republican party fantasize about Ayn Rand's myopic world view while Democrats should embrace the greater good concept.
loudsue
(14,087 posts)companies, to what we could have if that was considered a "tax", and then send it viral. If everyone who is paying $8,000 per year to an insurance company INSTEAD paid that into a "tax" pool, I promise you, everyone would have better medical coverage. Insurance companies make brazillion$$$ every year that, if that was paid in taxes earmarked for healthcare, instead, it would cover everyone, for everything.
Insurance companies have NO BUSINESS in the health care business.
Doctor_J
(36,392 posts)and was implemented by staunch far-right Republican governor Willard Romney. Now all of a sudden millions of "Dems" are fans because this president implemented. "Manufacturing Consent" comes to mind.
brush
(53,474 posts)It's a stepping stone closer to single payer, and probably the fact that it originated from the Heritage Foundation, the only way we're ever going to get there.
Doctor_J
(36,392 posts)and repeating that isn't going to make it true. It locked into law the fact that every single American pays money to those blood suckers. It is a step away from SP. And, nothing the Heritage Foundation has ever done will ever help the people of this country in any way
brush
(53,474 posts)Saying the ACA is a step away from SP, to me is not that different than saying it's a step closer to SP.
Remember, most people that will be covered by the ACA are getting their coverage subsidized, which reduces the premium they will pay by quite a bit.
Which means the insurance companies have to be satisfied with much smaller premium payments, which is one reason they've tried to block the ACA.
Doctor_J
(36,392 posts)be a step toward getting them out??? This fails the laugh test. Your love for everything Obama does is making you nutty.
brush
(53,474 posts)Hoyt
(54,770 posts)under the Medical Loss Ratio. I say let them shoulder the risk of insuring more people, and developing the systems necessary to administer plans for the next few years. If they do a decent job, they can continue for awhile. If not, it will be easier to change the system.
Doctor_J
(36,392 posts)not a first step, period. I am willing to admit that a few more people will have access to health care, and that's good. Why won't the fan club admit that it's a disaster compared to what Canada has?
Hoyt
(54,770 posts)Sure, things could be better. But compared to pre-ACA, they are.
StrayKat
(570 posts)How do you foresee this conversion from ACA to single-payer or another type of universal happening? As I see it, the main reason that the ACA is unlikely to migrate to a single payer system is it bypasses the multi-billion dollar insurance industry and would severely cut into the profits of the bloated pharmaceutical industry. Both these industries have very powerful lobbies and employ huge numbers of people. Even if reducing these industries is best for the nation long-term, who is going to commit political suicide by going up against them now that there is a bandaid that can be spun into looking like a solution?
[quote]". . . our population must contribute to the pool to make it work"[/quote]
Is it really contributing to the pool? Buying private insurance as it is doesn't accumulate funds. Whatever you didn't use in the year is lost. It doesn't rollover. It doesn't go into a group insurance pool, rainy day fund, or get refunded. The insurance company basically eats it. If you paid $3,000/year for 10 years and didn't use it, you're out $30,000 dollars + any payments under the deductible. If you can't pay the 11th year when you get sick, it's as if you never paid anything all those years before.
Doctor_J
(36,392 posts)speaking of silly posts....
In a nutshell, we had to start someplace...I think this is just a beginning.
But, there seem to be quite a number of people on DU who express similar sentiments. That this is an intermediate step and we'll migrate into the single payer we all want. That anyone who sees the ACA as anything but a godsend is a right wing troll.
I agree with your post #6, by the way.
brush
(53,474 posts)who don't have insurance thru a job, right? And who make quite a bit of money and aren't eligible for the subsidies provided by the ACA to most subscribers, right?
At one time my wife and I, after relocating to another state and not yet working, bought insurance on the open market. We were both paying over $300 a month, which was even more than the $3000 you mentioned, and the policies hardly covered anything when we tried to use them.
One of the things the ACA was designed to eliminated was the "junk" policies many people have who think they are insured don't realize their policy is not so good until they try to use it.
Hell, even on my most recent job, the deductible went up last year to $3000, effectively making my insurance from my job even a "junk" policy.
My point is, we'll all be better off when everyone is contributing to the ACA and helping the "common good" by paying for provisions like say, "maternity care" when you you're a middle-aged male.
That in itself, paying for insurance through the ACA, is not that far removed a concept than paying a tax to the government for universal insurance coverage (Medicare for all).
It may take a few years but people will finally realize, after the ACA is working smoothly, that paying the ACA for coverage is not that far from paying the government a tax for coverage.
StrayKat
(570 posts)Last edited Sat Nov 9, 2013, 09:02 PM - Edit history (1)
I see the same problems as before.
Brush: Hell, even on my most recent job, the deductible went up last year to $3000, effectively making my insurance from my job even a "junk" policy.
The current cap on deductibles is $6,350 for individuals and $12,700 for families. I don't see how this is more of a protection if you thought that a $3,000 deductible made for a junk policy.
Brush: My point is, we'll all be better off when everyone is contributing to the ACA and helping the "common good" by paying for provisions like say, "maternity care" when you you're a middle-aged male.
We now have different classes of coverage: 1. people with employer insurance, 2. people with Medicare, 3. people who qualify for Medicaid, and 4. people who self-pay. It doesn't seem like there is much of a "common good". A 2% overall overpay in a year in the self-pay group doesn't go toward covering an upsurge in Medicare costs, for example, and vice versa.
Also, from what I can see, our costs were so high before that everyone was already paying for maternal care even if it wasn't covered. We were all paying in the form of higher prices being paid by those who had insurance or could afford it for the 'free' prescriptions for those in need that some pharmaceutical companies offered . One way or another everything was being paid for. I can't see how this changes anything because while more people paying premiums are being added into the system, so are more people with expensive pre-existing conditions and people who are heavily subsidized.
Iliyah
(25,111 posts)Its not, but corporate media have their taliking points from their corporate masters who want as Grayson said "get sick and die".
Doctor_J
(36,392 posts)It is what it is - a way to insure a few more people while keep the insurance companies rich, and thus keeping their campaign money flowing. Anyone who is being honest will admit that. Calling it "the start of something greater" is just as dishonest as the teabaggers calling it socialized medicine. It is a step in the wrong direction - letting profiteers and merchants of death keep 20% of a 3 trillion dollar pie. As far as us having the worst health care for the most money, ACA will not change that a bit.
I am happy for the people who will at last get HC, but we're still paying WAY too much, and this will not help that in the least.
brush
(53,474 posts)dollar pie were they keeping before the ACA?
SoapBox
(18,791 posts)JaneyVee
(19,877 posts)Patience.
SidDithers
(44,228 posts)Tommy Douglas introduced an early form of single-payer in Saskatchewan in 1946. Federal Parliament passed the Canada Health Act in 1984.
Sid
Doctor_J
(36,392 posts)The comparisons are ridiculous.
RC
(25,592 posts)Patience my ass.
The purpose of the ACA is to slowdown and even derail Single Payer. The main road block to good health care in this country is still the insurance companies. That has not changed. Guaranteed 20% profit, when your life is at stake is obscene. Our health care should not be a for profit business. That guarantees people dying when treating them would cut into the bottom line too much.
JaneyVee
(19,877 posts)cheapdate
(3,811 posts)Doctor_J
(36,392 posts)whereby a relatively few filthy rich people take money promising "health care", and then do everything they can to deny that very thing to the peons who gave them their hard-earned money. the insurance companies provide absolutely nothing - they are just middle men who suck 600 billion dollars out of our economy (20% of 3 trillion dollars), every single year.
Major Nikon
(36,814 posts)But this is only true for group rates rather than individual policies.
leftstreet
(36,078 posts)SidDithers
(44,228 posts)Many people who look at Canadian single-payer fail to realize that it took almost 40 years for to become what it is. Tommy Douglas introduced a limited form of single-payer as Premier of Saskatchewan in 1946. The Canada Health Act was passed by federal Parliament in 1984. (Dates may be off by a year or 2, I'm going on memory)
And Canadian single-payer isn't really a national health care plan, but 12 individual Provincial health care plans, all adhering to a single set of Federally mandated standards.
This is how I imagine single-payer developing in the US, though hopefully over a much shorter time period. The ACA allows a state to create it's own single-payer system. Eventually, a state will be the first to do that - Vermont? Other states will be watching closely to see how Vermont succeeds, and will then implement their own single-payer system. And then the dominoes will begin to fall.
Sid
Major Nikon
(36,814 posts)Things will get mighty interesting when those dominoes start to fall. I suspect a lot of Republicans' political careers will go along with it.
KentuckyWoman
(6,666 posts)No ACA is not a disaster, but the insurance companies were given pretty much free reign to stick it to everyone instead of just the people with preexisting and women in general. They are going to wallowing in an even deeper pool of money.
The bigger difference right now is government subsidies that go straight into the pockets insurance companies in the hopes more people will have "coverage" and less people will forced to walked away from hospital bills leaving the hospital or local taxpayers to pick up the pieces.
Time will tell.
I personally am a "winner" at the moment. I buy an individual policy and the option through the Kentucky exchange was cheaper even before my subsidy.
OmahaBlueDog
(10,000 posts)Right now, I think there would be a lot of pushback to Canadian or British single-payer in the sense that it is a lot like being in a huge HMO. It's great for basic care, and it's great for emergency care. It's not so good for someone who knows they are better served by heading straight to a specialist, and many Americans have that now and are willing to continue to pay for that privilege.
The current goal should be to fix the Windows Vista-like rollout, and get people buying health plans with little to no delay by year end. The secondary goal should be to see what needs to be done to appease those who have lost coverage they liked. For those who had coverage that met ACA standards, every reasonable effort should be made to tweak the plan to get them like-kind-and-quality coverage at what they were being charged before. For those who liked the fact that fact that they carried very minimal coverage (health coverage in name only), they need to be told that the fun is over, and that they need to buy real insurance.
I think what we'll eventually end up with is this: a national HMO and an up-sell national PPO. They will likely be a heavily regulated private enterprise, which is what I'm told is the current "German" model. It will be "private" which will appease one set of political sensibilities, but will essentially put doctors on one fee schedule, which will appease another set of political sensibilities.
Doctor_J
(36,392 posts)truedelphi
(32,324 posts)You wont find the following info in the ACA. Its in the Omnibus Reconciliation Act of 1993 (OBRA 1993) a federal statute which applies to Medicaid, and, if you are enrolled in Medicaid, it will apply to you depending on your age.
a) OBRA 1993 requires all states that receive Medicaid funding to seek recovery from the estates of deceased individuals who used Medicaid benefits at age 55 or older.
It allows recovery for any items or services under the state Medicaid plan going beyond nursing homes and other long-term care institutions. In fact, The Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS) site says that states have the option of recovering payments for all Medicaid services provided. The Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) site says at state option, recovery can be pursued for any items covered by the Medicaid state plan.
b) The HHS site has an overview of the Medicaid estate recovery mandate which also says that at a minimum, states must pursue recoveries from the probate estate, which includes property that passes to the heirs under state probate law, but states can expand the definition of estate to allow recovery from property that bypasses probate. This means states can use procedures for direct recovery from bank accounts and other funds.
c) Some states use recovery for RX and hospital only as required by OBRA 1993; some recover for a few additional benefits and some recover for all benefits under the state plan. Recovery provides revenue for cash-strapped states and its a big business.
In my age group, should I lose significant income and end up on MediCaid, which is where the Calif. state exchange automatically puts you, if your income is really low, then I know I won't have anything at all to pass on to my kids.
wyldwolf
(43,865 posts)Doctor_J
(36,392 posts)wyldwolf
(43,865 posts)I've long argued, on DU and within my circle of Democratic friends, that a single payer system can't pass the House and Senate anytime soon. Better to make small incremental changes.
Doctor_J
(36,392 posts)companies. That part of the Fan Club's pitch is bullshit
quinnox
(20,600 posts)Never thought it was a good idea in the first place, without a government option. I think it will likely be majorly tweaked though, and probably won't resemble anything like it does now. Too many people are getting screwed over, and they are complaining to their representatives. Not to mention the clusterfuck with the web sites. Some Democrats in the Senate are losing patience with the whole thing already.
leftstreet
(36,078 posts)Not the legislation itself, which by the time both parties get done with it will probably be irrelevant, but the concept that government needs to be responsible for social programs. That idea must live
Spitfire of ATJ
(32,723 posts)Some "leader", eh?
NoOneMan
(4,795 posts)Its going to take 5 years to see how it impacts outcomes and costs (as well as elections). Though, its got a rocky early implementation.
demosincebirth
(12,518 posts)Hoyt
(54,770 posts)paid by private insurance plans, all claims and local administration are paid/handled by private insurance company owned subsidiaries, supplemental policies are issued by private insurance companies.
The Feds make the rules and private insurance companies pretty much handle everything else, not unlike ACA.
LWolf
(46,179 posts)I have one correction to offer: The ACA, with its foundation firmly established on the private insurance industry, is not a stepping stone to true universal, universally affordable and accessible health care.
If the ACA makes care possible for more net people than before, I'm glad. That's a positive.
I'm not one of those people, and I'm not satisfied with any solution that leaves anyone behind.
ReRe
(10,597 posts)... it's a baby-step towards universal healthcare for all. It's evidently the only way today's Democrats have to make any process on the issue. Long gone are the days of Democrats who just got The People's business done, like FDR or LBJ. Personally, I prefer the old-fashioned way. Now we have to tippy-toe and baby-step in the Way-of-the-Third, so no one will call us those dreaded nasty names, like "liberals, "socialists" or God-forbid "communists."
kelly1mm
(4,719 posts)In my case, my wife and I will be retiring in June 2013 ( she is a school teacher). We have good insurance through the school board that we pay $2800 per year for and the school kicks in a bit over $15,000. Until the ACA, we were stuck working although otherwise we can afford to retire due to 1) cost and 2) preexisting conditions.
In the last 6 months of 2014 we will be able to get insurance for $746 per month (after subsidies $3/18) and in 2015, we will be paying $91 per month after subsidies. I will be 44 and my wife will be 46 so this is shaving almost 20 years of the time we were planning on working.
Doctor_J
(36,392 posts)and neither would your school board. Congrats on having a huge plan from you former employer, and thus being able to retire in your 40's. Most aren't that lucky, and will be working until age 65 since the president didn't even think of lowering the Medicare eligibility age.
Your post in reality has nothing to do with the OP or the disaster that is our HC "system". Like I already posted, vanity thread.
kelly1mm
(4,719 posts)awesome benefits from it. In addition, the medicaid expansion will allow millions of non parents/low income retirees some level of health care in their early retirement years.
duffyduff
(3,251 posts)I predict in that time company-paid health insurance will go the way of pensions, with only unionized private sector workers and public employees being able to have it.
Everybody else is going to get the shaft, the poor worst of all when their estates are seized upon their deaths to pay for Medicaid.
CFLDem
(2,083 posts)but it is a lifesaver for my family.
I sleep easier knowing my family will be able to have affordable coverage if my employment situation changes.
Thank you President Obama!