The Affordable Care Act, like most health care reform efforts, focuses on people without insurance. Thats fine, because those people do face significant problems obtaining health care in the United States. But underinsurance is a real concern, too, and its often ignored. http://www.nytimes.com/2014/12/02/upshot/underinsurance-remains-big-problem-under-obama-health-law.html?abt=0002&abg=1&_r=0 The deductibles for exchange plans is too high for the lowest income earners but would also point out that the percentage of employer sponsored plans with deductibles exceeding $1000 went from 10% in 2006 to 22% before the ACA and have now reached 41% and shows no sign of slowing. The rise in deductibles even for employer sponsored plans has been dramatic, both before the ACA and since it was enacted...Other countries with weaker economy have figured out how to deliver affordable healthcare to all of their citizens. Our government has absolutely no interest in doing so because there is too much money to be made off of private health insurance, and grossly over-inflated medical care. As with everything in America it is about profits and greed
good luck getting anyone to listen to the truth. If, and I mean if you can get an affordable insurance quote on the exchange it will 95% plus of the time useless and the out of pocket outragageous. So you will likely, if you are basically a healthy person, pay thousands of premiums and never meet the deductible, rendering the policy virtually useless. If you are a health person, healthy family you are better off purchasing Catastrophic insurance, far less cheaper and put the money you would have paid into a savings account.
Taking people who can't afford insurance and trying to coerce them into buying it isn't exactly going to help the problem very well. Just my
It is the Federal Government, Current Administration, 2010 Dem Majority that passed an ill written, poorly thought out law that over 50% of voters disapproved of and I might say is what started the Tea Party protests by voters fed up with being ignored. Obama, Dems promised subsidies for those that couldn't afford premiums quoted on the exchanges, they promised Federal Exchange would be available in States that failed to set up their own exchanges[ again promising affordable coverage. Not until after ppaca passed did HHS publish regulations on "minimum essential coverage" requiring coverage of benefits that single males/females/menopausal women/those with children over 26 years old and so on currently don't need and many who will never need to use these "costly" maternity, newborn and pediatric medical/dental coverage. No, they didn't tell us that the "real individuals" that had no insurance because they couldn't afford it and/or their job didn't provide it wouldn't qualify for it because they earned too little. The people earning too little are the ones that should be getting the assistance. Plus most don't realize that if they take the subsidy and subsequently get a raise within the same tax year, increasing their salary to an amount disqualifying them from the subsidy; will have to refund the amount or a portion of it to the Federal Government. I am not sure what happens to those that lose their jobs during the tax year that have been getting a subsidy. Perhaps they lose the subsidy and are told to apply for their States Medicaid program if they qualify, or, perhaps if they can't afford coverage and don't qualify for Medicaid they owe the penalty. Who knows as these issues are not discussed on the IRS website. Expanding Medicaid is not the answer to making health insurance affordable and available to all. As far as those with costly pre-existing conditions, such as, cancer, heart disease, liver disease and other illnesses that require ongoing treatment including prescription drugs, surgery, medical care, rehabilitative care, home health care, long term care and the like; they should be covered under group insurance available through a division of Medicare or another branch of HHS. By providing group coverage through several or more insurance companies providing for affordable premiums with government subsidy; these individuals can be insured without increasing the premiums for small business group insurance, individual and family policies. As far as emergency room care for the uninsured, there should be an agreed on reimbursement for the hospital and each private provider providing care to the patient. Reimbursement should come from HHS/Treasury as it is the Federal Government/IRS responsible for enforcing the insurance mandate and the Federal Government legislated that hospitals and providers cannot refuse to provide ER care to illegals, uninsured and those unable to afford treatment. As independent provider care is considered a service, non-payment for the service cannot be deducted as a loss on income tax. If you legally have to provide the care, and the Government doesn't have to pay for that care where the patient does not; then shouldn't you at least be able to deduct it from you income? Doctors want to provide care to those that need it and would never let someone die because they couldn't pay. But that doesn't mean they shouldn't be compensated in some way for their time. The hospitals and providers shouldn't be legally forced to provide services without compensation. Hospitals and providers are in a unique position that virtually no other profession is in. Do you understand?
We could have full socialized medicine just like they have in Israel which is paid for by USA dollars. If that's the only alternative then I readily approve.
