Millions simply can't afford the ACA ....

[Bob]

Well, so much for the Democrats so often bragged about fix for health insurance.

Uninsured Under the ACA: Millions of Americans Can't Afford Coverage (http://news.yahoo.com/uninsured-under-aca-millions-americans-cant-afford-coverage-201854260.html)Rocky Rush, a 37-year-old single father from Nebraska, has gone without health insurance for years due to the cost, and the Affordable Care Act hasn't changed that.

U.S.News & World Report

[Common]

However many there is that cant afford the ACA theres millions more that couldnt afford insurance before that can now. Nothing is perfect

[Redrose]

Well, so much for the Democrats so often bragged about fix for health insurance.

Uninsured Under the ACA: Millions of Americans Can't Afford Coverage (http://news.yahoo.com/uninsured-under-aca-millions-americans-cant-afford-coverage-201854260.html)

Rocky Rush, a 37-year-old single father from Nebraska, has gone without health insurance for years due to the cost, and the Affordable Care Act hasn't changed that.

U.S.News & World Report


The ACA may be helping some, but it is doing so by hurting others. That is unacceptable. We must revise it and correct it's inequities.

[Common]

The ACA may be helping some, but it is doing so by hurting others. That is unacceptable. We must revise it and correct it's inequities.

First common sense comment ive heard. Lets fix it.

[Redrose]

First common sense comment ive heard. Lets fix it.


That's what I was hoping with this new Congress, but now it's funded through October, I can't see anything happening anytime soon.

There is nothing good about a law that benefits one group by hurting another. To me that is very un-American.

[texan]

Not true it is working perfectly, I would tell you how many it is helping but its hard to say the numbers change every six months.

Cee'Gar can you go get us a Cut & Paste from liberalsareliars.com to disprove this thread?

[Professor Peabody]

However many there is that cant afford the ACA theres millions more that couldnt afford insurance before that can now. Nothing is perfect

Do you consider 7 to 8 million newly insured including Medicaid a success?

[Peter1469]

Do you consider 7 to 8 million newly insured including Medicaid a success?

It depends. How many people lost plans they did not want to lose?

[Professor Peabody]

It depends. How many people lost plans they did not want to lose?

I was baiting a response. There were 46 to 48 million uninsured when Obama care was passed. 7 to 8 million is about 15% so it's a failure for what's being spent on it.

[Redrose]

My policy covers maternity, I'm 66. Need I say more on that?

My policy covers pediatric care, no kiddies at home.

My policy covers drug rehab. We don't use drugs.

I needed a diagnostic test for an intestinal problem.....they would not approve it. I'm too old.

My premium increased 190% in two years with no end in sight. Social Security got a 1.7% increase, but the Medicare deduction increase took part of that.

Before Obamacare, in 2008, my then 84 year old mom had any test her doctor ordered. The ACA changed our healthcare quality, rationing, fewer doctors and hospitals, higher rates. Many are badly affected, while others see a benefit.

What the Obama administration pittled away on that debacle, they could have provide insurance for the 10 million who needed it without destroying the system for the rest of us. All of the GOP suggestions covered pre existing conditions too. Harry Reid worked very hard to obscure that fact.

[zelmo1234]

I was baiting a response. There were 46 to 48 million uninsured when Obama care was passed. 7 to 8 million is about 15% so it's a failure for what's being spent on it.

To date about 9 million have lost their insurance. so the program has very little net gain.

[Peter1469]

To date about 9 million have lost their insurance. so the program has very little net gain.

If your numbers and Prof P's numbers are correct, it looks like a net loss.

[Redrose]

The "took" coverage from some to "give" to others. All they did was "income redistribution" just like BHO said to Joe the Plumber. They just changed who was covered. Many in the middle class were adversely affected, while the poverty class benefited. Many people I know lost their coverage because their hours were cut so their employer could handle the ACA mandates and still keep their bottom line healthy. That was predicted in 2008 by the critics of the ACA. We were told we were alarmists and wrong, but what we predicted has come to fruition.

Those people not only had their hours reduced which lowered their pay, they are mandated to buy health insurance though an exchange or face a penalty, policed by that honorable agency, the IRS. Talk about gestapo tactics.

[Professor Peabody]

First common sense comment ive heard. Lets fix it.

The only way to "fix" it is to start again.

[CaveDog]

There is nothing good about a law that benefits one group by hurting another. To me that is very un-American.



Technically I'd have to agree. It doesn't matter how well intentioned a law is or even whether it's helping a segment of the population. If it lays undue burden on one segment of the population while favoring another the law becomes arbitrary in nature and destructive of equality under the law. Then again, I tend to be a strict constructionist so I'm bound to interpret things in that light.

[Captain Obvious]

However many there is that cant afford the ACA theres millions more that couldnt afford insurance before that can now. Nothing is perfect

So all the ACA accomplished was a huge entitlement and a huge increase in costs for the rest of us who had insurance.

Awesome...

[lynn]

The people that view ACA a success is the insurance companies, the investors, and the government. The public got totally screwed.

[zelmo1234]

However many there is that cant afford the ACA theres millions more that couldnt afford insurance before that can now. Nothing is perfect

unfortunately there are about the same number of uninsured in the USA now as there were before the ACA

There were about 7 million that signed up and that was downgraded to abut 6.2 and there were about 3 million that qualified for the expanded Medicaid program.

And about 9 million people were not able to keep their insurance. The percentage of uninsured is about the same.

[Ransom]

You gotta admit. Gruber might have made a mistake saying it, but he wasn't inaccurate. The American voter is stupid.

[Cigar]

The ACA may be helping some, but it is doing so by hurting others. That is unacceptable. We must revise it and correct it's inequities.

Welcome to The Insurance Industry ... I can't tell you the last time I made a Claim :rollseyes:

[Redrose]

Welcome to The Insurance Industry ... I can't tell you the last time I made a Claim :rollseyes:


I agree with you totally on that point. The insurance industry is designed to reap money in, and selectively pay money out. It is a big money making operation.

The problem with the ACA is the gov't. tried to overhaul the entire system too quickly. We needed health care revisions for sure, but the way the ACA handled it was all wrong. Premiums rose instead of staying the same with minimal annual increases, or reducing as BHO preached, $2500 savings per household. A big lie. People got fewer choices, more restrictions, higher premiums and reduced level of care.

Accepting pre-existing conditions is a wonderful thing, but anyone who knows anything about insurance knew just that item alone would increase premiums significantly. Insurance companies had to adjust rates to absorb that new requirement. It is likened to buying fire insurance after the house caught fire. It's a lose/lose for the insurance company. They passed that increase down to us.

BHO and Congress (the Dems) were less than honest with us on these issues. They had to lie to us to garner support. It's a bad law, that at the very least needs to be revised to get the flaws and inequities out.

There is nothing good about a law that takes coverage from some to give to others. That is precisely what the ACA is doing.

[Professor Peabody]

First common sense comment ive heard. Lets fix it.

The best way to fix it is to remove everything between the title and Obama signature and replace it.

[Captain Obvious]

The one thing I see rolling out with the ACA is that out-of-pocket costs (deductibles, co-insurances) are increasing rapidly across the system. The ACA was billed to reduce costs but the big question with it is - what is it actually doing to reduce costs?

One concept in healthcare is over-utilization. People get services that aren't needed. CMS (Medicare) every year tweaks it's fee schedule to combine services that were once reimbursed separately to be reimbursed in total. IOW they're paying you one fee when they were paying you two fees previously. This is designed to control utilization. Providers may be disincented to provide two services when they're only getting paid for one. Those results are questionable since, generally, providers frown on someone telling them how to practice medicine.

The other aspect, specifically with the out-of-pocket costs is that, if a patient pays 10% co-insurance for an MRI which might cost say $2,500 billed then their out-of-pocket cost is $250. If this co-insurances increases to 20% then their cost is now $500. They're less likely to want to have that procedure done. Same for ER's, if the co-pay is $50 then they might go. If the co-pay increases to $150 they might stay home and take two Tylenols. The latter is something that's currently being recognized by ER's reduced volumes.

These do nothing to control costs, costs are still what they are. These are designed to inhibit utilization which is either a good thing or a bad thing depending on the circumstance.

For what it's worth...

[lynn]

The one thing I see rolling out with the ACA is that out-of-pocket costs (deductibles, co-insurances) are increasing rapidly across the system. The ACA was billed to reduce costs but the big question with it is - what is it actually doing to reduce costs?

One concept in healthcare is over-utilization. People get services that aren't needed. CMS (Medicare) every year tweaks it's fee schedule to combine services that were once reimbursed separately to be reimbursed in total. IOW they're paying you one fee when they were paying you two fees previously. This is designed to control utilization. Providers may be disincented to provide two services when they're only getting paid for one. Those results are questionable since, generally, providers frown on someone telling them how to practice medicine.

The other aspect, specifically with the out-of-pocket costs is that, if a patient pays 10% co-insurance for an MRI which might cost say $2,500 billed then their out-of-pocket cost is $250. If this co-insurances increases to 20% then their cost is now $500. They're less likely to want to have that procedure done. Same for ER's, if the co-pay is $50 then they might go. If the co-pay increases to $150 they might stay home and take two Tylenols. The latter is something that's currently being recognized by ER's reduced volumes.

These do nothing to control costs, costs are still what they are. These are designed to inhibit utilization which is either a good thing or a bad thing depending on the circumstance.

For what it's worth...

The MRI billed at $2,500 is not the actual cost as the person's insurance carrier determines the cost which would average at 33% of the MRI charge. After that it is determined what the insurance company will pay and what the consumer will pay. This most likely will be applied to the patient's deductible since many policies now have large deductibles. The trend right now is the insurance companies will pay the physician's visit charge minus your co-pay at 33%. This is done so the pharmaceutical companies will ensure their profits since you can only get a script if you are seen for a visit.

All lab work, diagnostic testing, etc is being applied to the deductible. This is becoming the new norm for insurance coverage.

[Peter1469]

I don't have a high opinion of doctors in the first place. If I start to get big bills, I am going to start saying no. I have noticed over the last couple of years, that my "health treatment plan" is whatever the maximum the insurance company covers. I think the system is utterly corrupt.

I have lived a fuller life than most people and have no desire to grovel for longevity. And I don't have anyone to take care of. I am about to go black so far as the health care system is concerned.


The MRI billed at $2,500 is not the actual cost as the person's insurance carrier determines the cost which would average at 33% of the MRI charge. After that it is determined what the insurance company will pay and what the consumer will pay. This most likely will be applied to the patient's deductible since many policies now have large deductibles. The trend right now is the insurance companies will pay the physician's visit charge minus your co-pay at 33%. This is done so the pharmaceutical companies will ensure their profits since you can only get a script if you are seen for a visit.

All lab work, diagnostic testing, etc is being applied to the deductible. This is becoming the new norm for insurance coverage.

[lynn]

I don't have a high opinion of doctors in the first place. If I start to get big bills, I am going to start saying no. I have noticed over the last couple of years, that my "health treatment plan" is whatever the maximum the insurance company covers. I think the system is utterly corrupt.

I have lived a fuller life than most people and have no desire to grovel for longevity. And I don't have anyone to take care of. I am about to go black so far as the health care system is concerned.


Peter, I completely agree with you and I am also staying away from healthcare since I don't have any faith in them anymore.

[Captain Obvious]

The MRI billed at $2,500 is not the actual cost as the person's insurance carrier determines the cost which would average at 33% of the MRI charge. After that it is determined what the insurance company will pay and what the consumer will pay. This most likely will be applied to the patient's deductible since many policies now have large deductibles. The trend right now is the insurance companies will pay the physician's visit charge minus your co-pay at 33%. This is done so the pharmaceutical companies will ensure their profits since you can only get a script if you are seen for a visit.

All lab work, diagnostic testing, etc is being applied to the deductible. This is becoming the new norm for insurance coverage.

Not in all cases, or most for that matter - at least where I'm at, maybe it's different regionally. I'm sure it is actually, but I didn't want to overcomplicate the example.

[Captain Obvious]

The insurance carrier doesn't determine any cost (price) either, those prices are negotiated and agreed to by the carrier and the provider in a contractual arrangement.

This is beyond the scope of the point I was trying to make.

[lynn]

The insurance carrier doesn't determine any cost (price) either, those prices are negotiated and agreed to by the carrier and the provider in a contractual arrangement.

This is beyond the scope of the point I was trying to make.

Perhaps with hospitals but this is not the case with private practice as they have no negotiating power.

[Captain Obvious]

Perhaps with hospitals but this is not the case with private practice as they have no negotiating power.

Of course it is.

Third party insurers contract with hospitals for the facility services fee (ER services, surgical services) and the specific provider for the professional fee (surgeon, family practitioner).

More often than not practices (private or hospital paid) have separate contracts with insurers but sometimes it's all lumped into one contract. But the terms are clear and specific. If I get paid less than agreed I can (and will) sue in court if I need to.

[Captain Obvious]

And private practices have tremendous negotiating power, especially in a competitive market where commercial insurers are jockeying for market share to expand their networks.

[nic34]

I agree with you totally on that point. The insurance industry is designed to reap money in, and selectively pay money out. It is a big money making operation.

The problem with the ACA is the gov't. tried to overhaul the entire system too quickly. We needed health care revisions for sure, but the way the ACA handled it was all wrong. Premiums rose instead of staying the same with minimal annual increases, or reducing as BHO preached, $2500 savings per household. A big lie. People got fewer choices, more restrictions, higher premiums and reduced level of care.

Accepting pre-existing conditions is a wonderful thing, but anyone who knows anything about insurance knew just that item alone would increase premiums significantly. Insurance companies had to adjust rates to absorb that new requirement. It is likened to buying fire insurance after the house caught fire. It's a lose/lose for the insurance company. They passed that increase down to us.

BHO and Congress (the Dems) were less than honest with us on these issues. They had to lie to us to garner support. It's a bad law, that at the very least needs to be revised to get the flaws and inequities out.

There is nothing good about a law that takes coverage from some to give to others. That is precisely what the ACA is doing.

What did you expect from Romneycare?

They screwed up by not passing single-payer.

http://www.pnhp.org/facts/single-payer-faq#public-option

[Captain Obvious]

What did you expect from Romneycare?

They screwed up by not passing single-payer.

http://www.pnhp.org/facts/single-payer-faq#public-option

Single payer would singlehandedly destroy healthcare in this country.

It would lead to the complete "Walmartization" of healthcare, which is where we're headed anyway.

You can get your McDoc Visits in drive through, mass produced, low quality and low cost and somewhere some fat, old white dude will get even more grossly wealthy off of it.

Good for you....

[Common Sense]

Single payer would singlehandedly destroy healthcare in this country.

It would lead to the complete "Walmartization" of healthcare, which is where we're headed anyway.

You can get your McDoc Visits in drive through, mass produced, low quality and low cost and somewhere some fat, old white dude will get even more grossly wealthy off of it.

Good for you....

I disagree...

[Captain Obvious]

I disagree...

Yeah, I know "it works in Canada".

So it will "work" here.

Spare me.