Well, the state run healthcare exchanges of Oregon and Massachusetts have gone under and it appears California's is going next. My question is what happens to all those forced into this stuff by government threats? If they had coverage before, what do they do now? And, where can they go now to get coverage? At what price? Read more @ http://datechguyblog.com/2015/04/25...e-the-latest-failed-state-obamacare-exchange/
The person in charge of that for Obama is Helen Back. So, you can go to Hell-n-back to get new, cheap coverage.
Your honesty is refreshing. Now.....you also willing to be critical of, and honest about, all of Obama's lies that he purposely spread to get it passed in the first place?
Yes, of course. You can't keep your plan, and your rate did go up. Nobody bothered to put together a competent plan that would've actually worked because it was a non stop pissing match of which party could urinate the most on the other. Public option wasn't passed, laws removing state barriers weren't passed, it's not really an affordable care act because healthcare is still very expensive. One thing it did do was lower the cost of healthcare..to the government. Even with medicaid expnded in all states receiving funds it's cheaper., but the rest of us are screwed. Public option should've been at the forefront. I may be a liberal, but i'm also a realist. In fact if such a thing existed, i'd call myself a liberal libertarian. There should be no more laws and regulation than absolutely necessary and the government's extent of welfare should focus on giving disadvantaged people a help up, in a "teach a man to fish" way. There are serious problems in this country that need intervention but neither republicans nor democrats are competent (or they're paid off enough with our mega corporations single handedly financing campaigns) to fix it, a good example of this is rand paul, who was supposedly a libertarian until he started talking about running for president, now he is behaving like a typical republican. Not only that but both parties have got to start coming up with mutual solutions that will work. It's nothing but a power struggle in washington and nothing is actually getting done. Just cutting taxes and regulations isn't working. Tons of idiotic liberal policies aren't working. We need competent government. We don't have that and haven't for some time. For the record, i'm also a very pro gun "liberal".
The ACA is not success if you look at what the Government claimed it would achieve prior to its passage. Lowering overall premiums? Hasn't . Providing health insurance to those with pre-existing conditions? Did so but the insurance does less than promised due to high premiums unaffordable by most and high out of pocket costs; prior to the actual insurance coverage kicking in. And as far as small businesses, group insurance, the cost has increased or remained near the same while deductible and co-payments/out of pockets have increased for the same premium cost. No gain there.
So I believe we agree that the ACA is better than what existed prior to the ACA but that more work is required to actually develop a healthcare system worthy of our great country. Time for both parties to stop the BS and start working to solve the problem.
Agree with that, we need to keep the regulations governing Private Health Insurance Companies and actually expand these regulations to include making deductibles, out of pocket and co payments commensurate with the premiums charged. We need to delete the HHS arbitrary minimum essential benefit mandate that requires individuals and small businesses to pay much higher premiums for maternity, newborn and contraceptive care when none of the individuals insured under the policy will EVER need these costly benefits. (it was just another opportunity for the liberals to shift the costs of insurance). Through HHS mandated minimum essential coverage, the individual mandate and subsequent taxes(actually IMO a fine), uninsured emergency treatment and promised bailout to insurance companies offering insurance on the "exchanges" who lose money by doing so; the taxpayer is paying 3X times more than they were paying to absorb the cost of uninsured medical care through the emergency room In fact it would have been cheaper to the Government and Taxpayer to simply put those with pre-existings on Medicare by creating another division of Medicare where their premium is based solely on their income. And expanding Medicaid while it may have sounded like a good idea, simply puts more people on State paid welfare and provides them with deficient insurance that is seeing less and less providers, hospitals willing to accept.
Here is a little known fact about medicaid: http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2013/11/28/us/Shortage-of-Doctors-Accepting-Medicaid.html?_r=1& and another source: http://kaiserhealthnews.org/news/third-of-medicaid-doctors-say-no-new-patients/ Putting more people in the medicaid system does mean they will have insurance, it does not mean they will be able to see a doctor.
While it wasn't the best alternative, people, including illegals have always been able to see a doctor when needed by visiting the E.R. And, those with a job but with no insurance have always been able to seek medical treatment from physicians willing to accept monthly payments. And, contrary to what many believe, likely due to biased studies on the subject, medical expenses are not the number 1 cause of "bankruptcy". There is actually no reputable study done that lists all debt and the percentage of each type of debt for each bankruptcy filing. When it comes to claiming that medical debt is the number 1 cause, that is only, possibly, accurate when studying X number of bankruptcy filings where a medical debt is listed as one of the debts. In other words, when you file bankruptcy you list all debts owed. IMO the top two debts will be Credit Card Debt, Car Loan debt, Mortgage Debt, etc. Naturally, school loan debt, possibly one of highest debts an individual may owe is not listed as the Federal government doesn't allow Student Loan Debt to be listed when you file bankruptcy, even though for many it is huge reason they can't pay their other debts. So if you are specifically studying medical debt and trying to prove it is the number 1 cause of bankruptcy, you simply look at the the number of bankruptcies that include a medical debt. Far different from it being the reason for bankruptcy or number 1 cause.
We used to have a free health clinic down here where doctors from around the area would donate a day a month to take care of the poor and those without insurance. It closed a few years back and I am uncertain as to the reason why. You are right about the ER. Bankruptcy, I don't know as I haven't followed that. But what you say sounds right.
There is only one way to improve the health care system in the USA - Tort Reform! Rein in medical malpractice suits and allow medical insurance to be offered nation wide. Give doctors a chance to perform their care without fear of ambulance chasers and give people the chance to chose which medical coverage they want without state restrictions.
Now all you have to do is provide your answer to who will pay if the people choose no insurance. You might also provide any solid evidence showing that tort reform will have any substantial impact on total medical expenditure in the United States. If I remember correctly the actual impact is minimal unless you make Hugh assumptions about unnecessary testing. Or maybe you can find an example of where tort reform has worked in the US.
ACA is a resounding success: * insuring millions previously uninsured * reducing premiums * creating many more jobs in the health field * enhancing the health of the public ... and many more benefits to follow!
If the ACA made all of us immortal conservatives would say it was Obama's plot against religion and hardworking funeral directors. Their major argument remains that having NO healthcare coverage at all is somehow better than having one with any kind of delays or complexities
I'm on Medicaid in Florida and on one of their MMA's (an HMO similar plan) and have not had any major issues getting timely care or the medications needed from a variety of medical providers, including in home access to a social worker and occupational therapy and other vital care. But add 800k more people its likely going to hurt a largely decent system most of us are happy with naturally the company overseeing my care want me to avoid the ER and hospital since its saving them money. Its not perfect but the system is better than no such care and I pay nothing out of pocket so am grateful for what taxpayers are providing me.
Because despite endless opinion pieces you have failed to provide any evidence that the ACA is a failure. If even you can't prove it is a failure then it must be a Sucess.
