Affordable (health) Care Act

[MontyMM]

Yikes - I didn't think you owed us that much!  We've only recently finished paying you back for the loan you gave us to put the place back together in 1946 - true story! :P

 

But it's not the interest payments that worry me, it's that the global economy is so fragile after the collapse of 2007.  Playing chicken with financial reputation of Economy No 1 at this time is just madness, and I'm not sure they understand how easily we could all slide back into something even worse than the Great Depression.

 

It's interesting what you suggest, as that gives a sort of mixed answer to my question - that this movement started out as a calculated and well-organised project by special interests, but has now gone rogue and serves no-one.  That would certainly fit what we see.  I know for example that there are some very unhappy Republicans on Wall Street, who are very clear that this is getting out of hand. 

[TechAngel85]

https://www.newser.com/story/176223/obama-calls-in-tech-surge-for-sickly-health-site.html

 

Bahahahaha!

[Neovalen]

https://www.newser.com/story/176223/obama-calls-in-tech-surge-for-sickly-health-site.html

 

Bahahahaha!

Totally saw that coming.

[z929669]

I am 100% in favor of the ACA. I pay around $550/month for family health insurance through my job (and my employer pays around $750 I think), and am responsible for the first $4,000 each year. Then I reach max out-of-pocket and pay no more. My son has hemophilia, which costs about $12,000/mo, so I hit the max pretty much instantly.

 

The US healthcare system sucks ass better than anyone, and we have figured out how to really make the corporate bastards running this country very rich indeed, whilst working class are ever-more demoralized and trigger happy to shoot up everyone they see. I am all for a single payer system (never going to happen) ... rather than counting sheep to fall asleep, I count decapitations of insurance executives and congressmen.

 

I appreciate you healthy younger people putting a little more into the system, as it benefits everyone in the end (including yourselves later, theoretically). It is still half-assed without a single payer and forcing corporate insurance "protection-money collectors" to compete with the federal government, but it is better than being completely screwed I guess. Sorry to say that it is only going to get worse in the decades to come. Now it is the 99%, but it will soon be the 99.9% and so on.

 

Turn your channels to HBO on Friday nights and watch Real Time with Bill Maher, and you will pretty much get most of my point of view :/ (oh, and George Carlin was my favorite comedian)

 

EDIT: Oh, and Monty ... as usual, I couldn't agree more or disagree less to everything you have stated on this topic, and the words of most others around here are encouraging. Just remember that underlying all of this is "citizens united" ... it is the wave of the future, and the result of corporate interests buying up our judicial and legislative systems for their exclusive interests. We lose ... the world loses.

[phazer11]

I haven't been able to see how much cheaper it'll be for me to go on the ACA yet since Florida in all it's wisdom decided... "hey we don't need to make our own website for this let's let California be trendsters, they can make their own." I'm sure it will be a fair bit cheaper my family is on the same group plan and I personally have many medical costs, though not as many as when I was a kid (NICU for at least a month, out of school about 50% of my school years... the list goes on) not unlike Zed's kid except mine are more to do with my general immune system than the blood (I don't think it is that high before insurance though). Having insurance is all well and good but there's also the things insurance companies choose not to cover, for instance when I was a kid my mom was rear ended (the jerk somehow got off) and my mom lives with debilitating back problems to this day, many of which could have been avoided if the insurance companies would have approved disc replacement. ER's are also a problem often people waste precious time for treatment because ER's don't work well since ***'s came out, I'm in favor of ACA as well if you couldn't tell. Look at France or Canada's healthcare system and quality of life if you don't believe me.

 

More off topic stuff.

 

If you're interested in such things as good news sources, I recommend Democracy Now's web streams and for you to look to see if you receive RT North America (or wherever it is you live) it's better than CNN imo.

I love George Carlin's stuff too, Robin Williams is probably my favorite living comedian. Now if you want to really see how ****** up the US healthcare system is... watch Sicko by Michael Moore. While you're at it why not watch Bowling for Columbine, Fahrenheit 9/11 and Religulous...

One of the largest problems with the US is that our "representatives" in the government often do not thoroughly read (if at all) the bills they vote on and in some case (or many) are paid not to. I was taught by my parents and grandparents to question everything, Carlin was big on it too. I think there are too many "agencies" acting autonomously from the larger portion of the government and that's when we get problems like the problems the leakers reveal. Also, we have people using the military on U.S. soil and IIR my history correctly then Posse Comitatus should, if the government was following its own rules prevent the military being used on US soil.

 

 

[EssArrBee]

Damn, z my heart goes out to you and your family. How does anything cost 12,000/mo, insanity. My first car didn't even cost that much. My great g-ma is still alive and lives in a old folks place in Mass. and it is less than that, I think only 9K/mo. And that is for 24 hour care of a women who just turned 105 a couple days ago. Still lucid, by the way.

 

This country is so hell bent on being the best and richest that no one ever stopped to figure out what that actually meant. The American dream has become a nightmare no one can wake up from.

[stoppingby4now]

I'm in favor of health care reform, but I'm against the AHCA. We need change, no doubt, but as provisions of this bill get enacted (unless they are struck out), it's not going to end well.

 

One case in point in how stupid this was put together, is a woman who battled cancer (and is winning), but was making trips to a cancer institute in Boston. Part of the rules enacted by this bill will prevent her from being able to go out of state for treatment and be covered, so any future visits are going to have to be out of pocket. This is going to prevent a lot of people from being able to visit top institutions for any given problem.

[steveley]

And there's the rub. State boundaries for insurance carriers. Why don't they allow them to compete nationally, or regionally even? At the very least, they have to cover out of state care (and none of that out of network BS) because not every state has all specialties covered. I am sure it's something to do with interstate commerce, standards boards, and associated tax revenues... you know, the stuff that's more important than a healthy and financially stable populace.

[z929669]

I'm in favor of health care reform' date=' but I'm against the AHCA. We need change, no doubt, but as provisions of this bill get enacted (unless they are struck out), it's not going to end well.

 

One case in point in how stupid this was put together, is a woman who battled cancer (and is winning), but was making trips to a cancer institute in Boston. Part of the rules enacted by this bill will prevent her from being able to go out of state for treatment and be covered, so any future visits are going to have to be out of pocket. This is going to prevent a lot of people from being able to visit top institutions for any given problem.

And how do you arrive at that conclusion? Insurance already restricts many to within-network services, so only wealthy or lucky people get to do that anyway o_O ... and blame the republicans for the pressures against federalism as well as the insurance lobby for backing this restriction ... we wouldn't want to cut into their profits would we?

 

Our mess of a healthcare system that is fine for the rich and bad for everyone else is so big and convoluted that notbody --and I do mean no body-- can understand how to change it to elicit the desired result. Hem-hawing around the edges with  healthcare reform  is a ridiculous waste of time, as it has been for decades. Notice that the only *reform* that lasts is the kind that further costs the middle class and continues to benefit only the wealthy.

 

No, this beast is so big that something big and drastic needed to be done. The AHCA has been weakened by fear mongering against *socialized* healthcare, which is really only *socialized* for those who cannot afford healthcare and wind up costing the middle class far more money than if we simply paid 100% of their primary care expenses! ... costing the middle class, not the upper class mind you. The reason for this fear mongering? Protection of the insurance industry and all those growing fat off of that: drug companies, corporate health systems, government and affiliates, etc.

 

Without a single payer solution for those that will otherwise go without or go with the most expensive forms of healthcare at our expense, we will eventually tank. The AHCA at least kicks this sleeping giant in the side of the head with a lead boot. Cange will finally come, and it can only lead to better, not worse (unless you are a wealthy person with ties to big corporate interests). And yes, I happen to know quite a bit about healthcare policy and practices in the US and other countries ... it is a primary function of my job to understand and predict trends in healthcare using data from the US, Canada, and parts of Europe. Add in years of research related to my son's condition, I am pretty sure that your assumptions are misguided.

 

Time will certainly be revealing the truth though, regardless.

[phazer11]

And how do you arrive at that conclusion? Insurance already restricts many to within-network services, so only wealthy or lucky people get to do that anyway o_O ... and blame the republicans for the pressures against federalism as well as the insurance lobby for backing this restriction ... we wouldn't want to cut into their profits would we?

 

Our mess of a healthcare system that is fine for the rich and bad for everyone else is so big and convoluted that nobody --and I do mean no body-- can understand how to change it to elicit the desired result. Hem-hawing around the edges with  healthcare reform  is a ridiculous waste of time, as it has been for decades. Notice that the only *reform* that lasts is the kind that further costs the middle class and continues to benefit only the wealthy.

 

No, this beast is so big that something big and drastic needed to be done. The AHCA has been weakened by fear mongering against *socialized* healthcare, which is really only *socialized* for those who cannot afford healthcare and wind up costing the middle class far more money than if we simply paid 100% of their primary care expenses! ... costing the middle class, not the upper class mind you. The reason for this fear mongering? Protection of the insurance industry and all those growing fat off of that: drug companies, corporate health systems, government and affiliates, etc.

 

Without a single payer solution for those that will otherwise go without or go with the most expensive forms of healthcare at our expense, we will eventually tank. The AHCA at least kicks this sleeping giant in the side of the head with a lead boot. Change will finally come, and it can only lead to better, not worse (unless you are a wealthy person with ties to big corporate interests). And yes, I happen to know quite a bit about healthcare policy and practices in the US and other countries ... it is a primary function of my job to understand and predict trends in healthcare using data from the US, Canada, and parts of Europe. Add in years of research related to my son's condition, I am pretty sure that your assumptions are misguided.

 

 

Well put, I was trying to come up with a more tactful response than what I was going to write in response. As I said keep informed, look from multiple sources, watch a few documentaries by people like Michael Moore or Bill Mauher while getting even more information from sources like The Huffington Post, The Guardian, Slate, RT News, Democracy Now. Question everything and look at it from multiple perspectives and sources it's the only real way to be an informed rational human being. I often have to shake my head when I hear people say things like SB4N's comment above (often Republicans and/or Religious Nuts but not always there are some Democrats that are just as guilty) they are fallacious (often red herrings or sometimes non-sequiturs) comments and often isolated instances that have little impact on the topic in point. I feel bad for the woman I do but the fact of the matter is there are other people out there besides just her and many in worse shape should we stop this reform that will help thousands or millions of people just because of one or a few person(s).

 

I'm talking about people barely scraping by because their medical bills are so high or the grandparents that have to choose whether to eat or buy medicine because if they don't take their meds they slowly start losing themselves. Or someone who has to choose whether or not it's too expensive to re-attach a limb after it's been lost in an accident. Most of our contemporary societies have systems in place for this. The person who lost their limb in Canada can quickly get it re-attached without having to worry about whether he has to take out a second, third, forth, fifth etc. mortgage on his house to pay for it so he's not crippled for life because the taxes that everyone in Canada pays covers him.

 

In England... Well actually SICKO covers a lot of this (I included a link to the full video)

[stoppingby4now]

Sounds like you are accusing me of fear mongering. :facepalm:

 

On the contrary, we need change, with that I agree. I also agree there is fear mongering going on by those that oppose the AHCA.

 

This isn't going to end well because it's not going to be sustainable financially in its current form. My prediction is the AHCA is going to pull us under into financial ruin as a nation if major changes aren't made (which I hope there are, but there's too much fighting in Washington to have high hopes), or premiums are going to sky rocket and put too much of a strain on the majority of the country. We know two families that currently don't have health insurance because they can't afford it, and they still can't afford it even with the subsidies, so they are going to pay the penalty instead which ironically is cheaper. What happens when a large population of the working poor opts to pay the penalty and only get insurance when they really need it? Another couple has already seen their premiums almost double with no increase in coverage.

 

Also, from what I've read, the AHCA limits the age rating to a 3:1 ratio, whereas the majority of the states are at a 5:1 ratio or higher. That alone is going to cause higher premiums for the younger age groups. Except there are factors that allow subsidies to help reduce the cost of their insurance. Who is paying for that?

 

Yes, there is some extravagant fear mongering, but there is some candy coating going on too.

[z929669]

Costs will definitely increase for young, healthy types, but it will be relatively little pinch to most of them (but obviously, young people with children and families might take a hit). The fact is that most people don't really know how to purchase the right insurance or use it efficiently.

 

*Financial ruin* is a bit assumptive and dramatic, given the early hour of this implementation, don't you think? Isn't that where we have been heading under the current mess? Let's wait two more years before we discuss the short-term impacts of this legislation. Long term impacts will not begin to be revealed until 2020+, and by then the real global crises will be rearing their ugly heads to give us all something tangible to be fearful of (i.e., oil and water).

[stoppingby4now]

Financial ruin goes beyond an assumption of increase of national debt. Anticipated loss of new jobs due to employer taxes would prevent a lot of people from being able to find jobs, and even put more out of work all together. A lot of companies throughout the nation have already cut full-time workers to part-time so that they don't have to provide health insurance. That's putting a strain on families today.

 

And for the record, I have a major dislike for the way our healthcare is handled. Doctors get a whopping average of 2 hours of nutritional study. I got tired of them wanting to throw pills at me and my loved ones to mask problems without ever finding the cause. There are some good doctors out there, but they are hard to find.

 

I found a fantastic holistic practitioner several years ago who helped me get my body back under control. It's all been out of pocket, but today I don't see a doctor, I see her, and I still pay less compared to the doctor visits and the drugs they would throw at me. I personally take exception to being forced into buying a minimum set of coverage which is beyond what I need and will ever use for an industry I can't fully support. Add in the ability for holistic practitioners to be covered by insurance, and I'll change my tune.

[MontyMM]

In the end, I think that the significant thing about ACA is that it represents a fundamental shift in thinking - that it is unacceptable for a citizen to be without healthcare. I think that's a piece of the European pie that a majority of Americans have decided is very much to their liking.

 

It is undoubtedly full of flaws, and indeed may be unsustainable in its current form. But then, our entire nations are unsustainable in their current form!

 

I think it is worth thinking about in quite simple terms, outside the complex context of our current broken social-economic system. At its most basic, universal healthcare for all citizens in a developed country is, fundamentally, perfectly sustainable and affordable, for the simple reason that the vast majority of people spend far more time being productive than being sick. Now, that is only relevant if we are willing to entertain quite radical change, but, I believe that radical change is coming whether we like it or not. The question is whether we attend to it proactively and rationally, or wait and see what emerges from crisis.

[EssArrBee]

Employers that are cutting full-time workers aren't doing it because of the ACA, that is just them lying to make a quick buck. Look at what Starbucks just said about businesses doing that, they are greedy scumbags, not business owners with their backs against the wall. And 97% of small businesses do not even have to worry about the law because small business taxes aren't going up and their employees still get to go on the exchange and they don't have enough employees. Just another BS myth about the law. And how is better for those of us that pay taxes to leave people uninsured? Everyone will need healthcare, yes even young, healthy individuals will need it. Accidents happen even you aren't insured. I actually like that poor people can go to a doctor's office now instead of having to wait till they are so sick that an ER is the only place they go, and I have pick up tab with taxes, and ERs are about 300% more than a GP. F**k that! Now I will not have to wait 3 hours just to see a nurse at an ER if I ever need it because people are there for colds and flus. Let these people pay penalties, which will go to back into the system, oh and the penalties don't even kick in the first year.

 

I think our current interpretation of what the law is so diluted that we can't even describe it accurately. All these premium increases and not caused by the ACA, they are caused by greed. It has already been established by research groups that since the law was passed that premiums went up 10% and they blamed it on the ACA while the law really only increased premiums by 1%. Again when the law into effect the same thing happened and 10% increases in premiums around the country and about 2% from the ACA. Your getting punished by a system where you have no choice. At least now you can leave your insurance and go on the exchange and get coverage, probably will be cheaper and better over time.

 

Monty is right about unsustainable healthcare in the USA and it gets me so angry when the 5 minute memory crowd is bitching about the price of healthcare going up when the ten years before the ACA was passed it went up over 100%. Is that sustainable? Where were was all your bitching then? And Americans already pay more in taxes for healthcare than France, and most of us get nothing for it.

 

As far the debt goes people need to realize that the American debt is not like anyone else's debt in the whole world. The Treasury has auctions for our debt and people fight over getting a seat for those auctions. It is one of most coveted assets on the planet. Your debt isn't in demand, Mexico's debt, BoA's debt, China's debt is not in demand, no one wants to buy it because the risk is way to high. If our debt ever gets to really dangerous point we print money and pay it off. That isn't ideal, but it we always have that safety net and all the debt is in dollars so we can do what we want.

 

Oh, and even if the whole industry fails, we win anyways because we will have no choice but to make the industry public.