Does anybody on the right rely on the ACA for their insurance?

no "affordable" "care" for me. I've been getting raped on insurance my whole life. They take money out of every check and I still get medical bills! I'd love to know who these lucky people are though that get it

 

25% to 40% of all Americans forced to change doctors and or insurance plans just so Obama could get more control over the populace is a major big negative.

I had medical insurance for about 50 years before ACA and I assure you it was not useless in any way, shape, or form. When ACA arrived I was on Medicare where the coverage decreased by a noticeable though but not major (so far) degree while the premiums were a tad less if I don't include the Medicare supplement insurance required to mitigate the greatly higher deductibles and co-insurance. ACA had little impact on Medicare other than it was used to justify the ACA death panel, and Obama stole hundreds of millions of dollars from it, mostly from Part C, to help fund ACA. To be fair he paid Medicare back by illegally (per the IG) taking funds from a research HHS budget. This was a sordid story, but it is getting off track. I can also assure you that people who saw their deductibles rise from $1000 to $10,000 would surely apply your useless term to ACA insurance and not their previous insurance. There is hardly any medical insurance more useless than a $10,000 deductible.

 

I have zero interest in this conversation, so I am going to stop participating, but I do want to comment on one thing...

I realize that you started this thread, and there is a topic in your OP. With that being said when threads get long, different people go off on different tangents about subjects that they brought up that were tangential to the OP topic. There is not one thing wrong with that, and those side conversations about different topics do not involve the person that wrote the OP.

This is one of those situations. I was speaking to someone else about a different topic, and you jumped into my conversation on that tangential topic. That does not make the conversation about the topic that you started in the OP, it makes our conversation about that tangential topic. I didnt ask you to jump into my conversation with another person. As the OP, you seem to behave as if you need to babysit every post in the thread as if you have ownership over every conversation that takes place. You do not. Just because your OP was about topic x, does not mean that I cannot have a conversation with someone else about the tangential topic y. While you dont want to hijack a thread and take it in an entirely different direction, there is absolutely nothing wrong with having a debate about a tangential topic that is a component of the larger subject.

Every response in a thread started by you directed toward someone else, does not make you a part of that conversation. The minute that you jump into MY conversation on a tangential topic, is the minute that you have changed topics to that tangential topic, at least as it relates to the new discussion you have started with me.

 

I wonder why you participated in the first place. I don't mind people derailing the thread after others have had a chance to discuss the topic. If I "jumped in" like you say, that means I wasn't the one who changed the subject. I think that, in most instances, people who change the subject do so because they realize that remaining on topic is a challenge to beliefs that they can't defend.

 

Nice spin.

I didn't ask if you have policies complaint with ACA requirements, I'm asking if you have insurance provided by insurers through the program which often subsidizes premiums.

 

Where I live, all insurers often subsidize premiums.

 

Wow, are you a politician.

Let's try this.

Did you or did you not buy your insurance coverage from Affordable Care Act marketplace?

 

Is that what you wanted to know? Yes, I did. But it makes no difference if I had bought it through an agent he would have simply filled in the online forms himself instead of me filling them in. I did that one year. Waste of time. At least for me. Because by doing it myself I can look at all the choices myself instead of the agent reciting them to me.

 

So, you would agree that you have a motivation to protect the insurance program you're dependent on?

 

With the nuclear option that is unnecessary. I fully expect, although oppose, the democrats will finally totally eliminate the filibuster for legislation.

 

Damn! Is there end to this potential evil?!!

 

Looks like your point is going to be that people can't defend things unless it's for personal benefit. Which is pure demagoguery. But could be true for Trump loyalists, given that that's how their leader thinks. I support things I depend on and also support things I don't depend on. I support BLM, even though I'm not black. I support gay marriage, despite the fact that I'm not gay. I support refugees, despite not ever being one. I support women's right to choose, despite the fact that I'm not a woman, and an abortion is unthinkable for me and my wife. I support bringing our troops home, despite the fact that neither I nor anybody in my close family is in the military.... and so on.

Is my suspicion correct? In your world, do people only support the things that benefit them personally?

 

That has nothing to do with the ACA. Insurance companies choose and drop providers, and providers choose and drop insurance plans. That has always been like that. Nothing changed. If you consider that a negative, then you should be rooting for a single payer system, where that is much less likely to occur (though it still happens)

 

Covered California is a bad joke. I pay less -per month with my company sponsors Cadillac level insurance. When I had my hip replaced I paid a $100 hospital admission fee and $0.00 co-pays for the follow up visits. My monthly cost........$60.00. My Obama Care policy had a $6,000 deductible and a $95 a month payment. That's better?

 

The vast majority of health care systems in my area don't accept Medicaid.

 

With a single payer system nobody can change insurance companies, and if your doctor retires rather than become a government employee a single payer system forces you to change doctors.

 

I have no desire to go down your pedantic rabbit hole. If you want to see the topic of the conversation that you jumped into, by all means go back and read that conversation.

As a simple example...If in a discussion about the Clinton administration's welfare reform, somebody were to say that Bill Clinton's attitude toward welfare was shaped by coming from the small town from Hope Arkansas, and that it was a town of only 3,000 people, and then someone responded to that by saying that Hope is a town of 50,000 people, and they proceed to debate that point.....their specific conversation is about Hope Arkansas and not the larger subject of the Clinton welfare reform.

The person that responded went off on that tangent because they wanted to correct that persons misstatement about the population of Hope Arkansas, nothing more, and nothing less. They didnt do so because "they realize that remaining on topic is a challenge to beliefs that they can't defend", they did so because they saw someone incorrectly characterizing the town of Hope, Arkansas. There is nothing wrong with correcting the record, in fact, doing so is helpful to the original topic, even if that new conversation is not about the original topic. To whatever extent that the original person felt that the small town impacted his policy making, is the same extent that it is important to then determine was it a tiny town of 3,000, or a smallish city of 50,000.

 

Of course group insurance is always better than individual insurance. Especially in California. My last job before being self-employed my coverage was from California... and it was fabulous But it's still Obamacare.

 

Are you reading what you write? If a doctor retires it's the DOCTOR that forces you to change doctors! Which has nothing to do with the healthcare system. Unless there is one that forces retired doctors to see patients just so they are not forced to change.

 

Have you read what you just wrote?
It was in response to "With a single payer system nobody can change insurance companies, and if your doctor retires rather than become a government employee a single payer system forces you to change doctors."
It was the health care system that caused the doctor to retire which results in the person changing doctors.

 

It is illegal to buy or sell actual health insurance in the United States. You can get a plan, under the ACA, which covers many things that insurance would never cover. Actual insurance, which indemnifies one against unexpected loss, is not possible to purchase. It use to be cheap. I paid $59/month for it in 2008.

Calling anything "health insurance" today is a bastardization of the term.

 

What insurance company and what was your yearly out of pocket?

 

The healthcare system "causes" a doctor to retire? That's some of the most twisted tortured "logic" I have seen.

 

I would not thought I would have to explain.

The doctors trained for many years with the expectation that they would make a very good living as well as serving mankind. When they they are forced into accepting payments for patients which do not provide the standard of living which they desire, but they still have to work those long hours, they would just rather retire.

 

It was Blue Cross of California, I think. I don't remember what my yearly out of pocket was. But my premiums kept going up 15% to 20% every year. I worked for a little under six years for this company, and when they shut down in our state I was paying more than double the premium that I payed when I started.