HomeLatest ThreadsGreatest ThreadsForums & GroupsMy SubscriptionsMy Posts
DU Home » Latest Threads » Forums & Groups » Main » General Discussion (Forum) » Obamacare is not somethin...

Sun Nov 10, 2013, 08:49 AM

 

Obamacare is not something you can purchase.

10 replies, 2267 views

Reply to this thread

Back to top Alert abuse

Always highlight: 10 newest replies | Replies posted after I mark a forum
Replies to this discussion thread
Arrow 10 replies Author Time Post
Reply Obamacare is not something you can purchase. (Original post)
Scuba Nov 2013 OP
Laelth Nov 2013 #1
NYC_SKP Nov 2013 #2
Shemp Howard Nov 2013 #3
AndyA Nov 2013 #4
Mass Nov 2013 #5
Shemp Howard Nov 2013 #6
Mass Nov 2013 #9
Shemp Howard Nov 2013 #10
great white snark Nov 2013 #7
LWolf Nov 2013 #8

Response to Scuba (Original post)

Sun Nov 10, 2013, 09:27 AM

1. k&r for exposure. n/t

-Laelth

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Scuba (Original post)

Sun Nov 10, 2013, 11:01 AM

2. Kick! (nt)

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Scuba (Original post)

Sun Nov 10, 2013, 11:02 AM

3. I don't think it's that simple.

Whenever insurance companies are involved, there will be mischief, if not downright evil. So that's part of the picture.

But in some respects the ACA reminds me of cable TV in my area. I have three choices: Basic, Preferred, and Premium. But even Basic is too expensive! It bundles channels I want with channels I don't want. It would be a lot better if I could just pick, and pay, for the channels I want.

The same should be true with the ACA. The ACA should be more like a restaurant menu, and less like a cable TV service.

I certainly admit that my argument is not perfect. If the choices are too unrestricted, many people would pick plans that cover essentially nothing. That would put those people back to square one.

But a 60 year old should not have to pick any plan that has maternity coverage! That 60 year old instead needs a solid plan that covers prescription medications. For a 20 year old, it would probably be just the opposite.

Allow the 60 year old to drop maternity coverage, and allow the 20 year old to drop prescription coverage.

So, yeah, we need an ACA that is less like a cable TV service, and more like a restaurant menu. Just my two cents.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Shemp Howard (Reply #3)

Sun Nov 10, 2013, 11:17 AM

4. A la carte instead of bundled

I too hate paying for cable channels that I'll NEVER watch. No benefit to me at all, just a waste of money. Would much rather be able to pick the ones I want.

Health care really should be the same way. Congress really should have anticipated that the greedy insurance companies would not suddenly become compassionate about their customers and make plans affordable as well as let customers choose what options they need for their individual situations.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Shemp Howard (Reply #3)

Sun Nov 10, 2013, 01:12 PM

5. Yes, and I have no kids in school, therefore I should be able to not to pay for taxes for education,

I wont need SNAPS, so I should not have to pay taxes for this

It is always so great to see RW views professed by self-proclaimed
progressives.

This is called solidarity, my friend. We all pay for everything in order to pay the risk. It makes me sick to read things like that.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Mass (Reply #5)

Sun Nov 10, 2013, 01:36 PM

6. I see your point, but...

Look, we simply have to get everyone covered. Everyone. And right now that will not happen, because of the costs and deductibles involved. People will opt out. Part of that is due to insurance company mischief. But part of that is due to the way the ACA was set up.

ACA needs more flexibility.

Let me ask you something. Many people really, really need the Platinum ACA plan. Their health issues demand it. Whould you advocate that every person be required to sign up for Platinum in order to lower the overall Platinum plan cost?

If you say yes, then I guess you could call that solidarity. But understand that most people would end up paying much more, and even more people would opt out and pay the fine.

No easy choices, I know.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Shemp Howard (Reply #6)

Sun Nov 10, 2013, 02:16 PM

9. The point is that we do not pay more because we pay for maternity or prescription drug

Personally, I support single payer where the cost is spread according to income. ACA is just an acceptable, though not great, compromise, where the poorest among us get some break, some in the top tier of the middle class and above get hammered. I have little concern for the second part. I am happy for the first tier.

The real problem here are those people at the limit of the subsidy domain, who are generally better with an ACA contract in the long run but right now may have a hard time finding the money to pay for it.

The problem with contracts a la carte is what happens if you get sick of a disease not covered by the contract. Do we let those people get sicker and die if they cant pay? If not, who is going to pay for it? This is why the whiners who can pay tire me. I want to focus on those who cannot pay.

It is also a question of mentality. Democrats in this country are to the right of the RW parties in Europe and most of the world. Healthcare is a right. If it is a right, we must be sure that people have access to care. We must have a central entity negotiating prices for the people. We are not yet there. We need to get this step running and then make the system get better. Destroying it will not help.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Mass (Reply #9)

Sun Nov 10, 2013, 02:33 PM

10. Bingo!

"I support single payer where the cost is spread according to income."

Absolutely. I don't know enough about the negotiations that went on behind the scenes, but that's the way it should have been done.

I would like to have seen a, perhaps, 2% health care tax on all individual and corporate income. I don't know why that wasn't done. Maybe the word "tax" was just too scary.

"The problem with contracts a la carte is what happens if you get sick of a disease not covered by the contract."

Again I agree. That problem would certainly occur if the ACA had been too flexible. I guess I'm just searching for some middle ground.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Scuba (Original post)

Sun Nov 10, 2013, 01:44 PM

7. K&R

Thanks Scuba.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Scuba (Original post)

Sun Nov 10, 2013, 01:55 PM

8. There's a contradiction in that poster.

If we truly wanted to "expand access to care," we wouldn't have enacted health INSURANCE reform, and it wouldn't involve private, for-profit insurers.

The fact that private, for-profit insurance companies will continue to put profit before care, to put maximizing profit before anything else, should not be a surprise to anyone, and should have been an evident stumbling block when designing the misnamed "Affordable Care Act."

It should have been named the "National Health Insurance Mandate." NHIM.

I know that something is happening out there with "co-ops;" some sort of non-profit insurance. That part interests me; if they work, and gain wide-scale traction, THAT could be the step in the right direction I've been looking for.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink

Reply to this thread