How has the ACA did what it was advertised to do?

[Captain Obvious]

Nevermind

[Captain Obvious]

Didn't put the tPFD on this, sorry.

They were all blue so it looked automatic.

[Cigar]

DONE DEAL; never to be overturned

http://www.mikechurch.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/06/barack-obama-deal-with-it-300x205.jpg

I'm not going to put my corporate policy on a Forum just because you don't believe it works for me, my business and my employees.

You'll just have to Deal With it.

Thread banned by request of OP.

[Green Arrow]

It doesn't. I've been opposed to it from the beginning, because it's a sham. It's designed to help businesses and insurance companies make more money, while leaving poor folks like me fucked.

[Green Arrow]

Yep ... you and 20 Million others

Is it 20 million still uninsured?

[Cigar]

Is it 20 million still uninsured?

I say whatever helps you cope with reality. :laugh:

The ACA is Law and will never be repealed.

[Captain Obvious]

Well, so much for this forum.

Might as well close the thread now.

[Green Arrow]

I say whatever helps you cope with reality. :laugh:

The ACA is Law and will never be repealed.

That's nice. We're discussing the law's effectiveness, not its repeal.

[Safety]

Nevermind

My personal experiences with ACA has been, longer waiting time to see the doctor, increased premiums (but that was going on before ACA was implemented), and the ability to get coverage for my M-I-L. I attribute the longer wait times to more people are visiting the actual doctor instead of using the emergency room. Other than that, no adverse impact to me or my family.

[Howey]

I believe it's been a success in its main goal - getting people insured. Due to the nature of its convoluted birth, it should be replaced by Medicare Part E.

[Peter1469]

I believe it's been a success in its main goal - getting people insured. Due to the nature of its convoluted birth, it should be replaced by Medicare Part E.

That would make sense if the private insurance market was left alone and Part E was there to cover those who couldn't get private insurance.

[Howey]

That would make sense if the private insurance market was left alone and Part E was there to cover those who couldn't get private insurance.

I guess you don't understand the concept of everyone.

There will be no insurance companies as such.

[Peter1469]

I guess you don't understand the concept of everyone.

There will be no insurance companies as such.

Won't work well in the US.

See the VA as an example.

[Howey]

Won't work well in the US.

See the VA as an example.

The VA, despite a horrendous backlog caused by lack of congressional funding and mismanagement by appointed career bureaucrats, is still considered the best health care model out there.

http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/political-animal-a/2014_06/va_care_still_the_best_care_an050598.php

[Peter1469]

The VA, despite a horrendous backlog caused by lack of congressional funding and mismanagement by appointed career bureaucrats, is still considered the best health care model out there.

http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/political-animal-a/2014_06/va_care_still_the_best_care_an050598.php

Hogwash.

Some VA hospitals are good, some are great, some are bad, and some are horrible.

A single payer system would fail in the US. People demand to much and we could never afford what they would demand so far as service goes.

[Captain Obvious]

Hogwash.

Some VA hospitals are good, some are great, some are bad, and some are horrible.

A single payer system would fail in the US. People demand to much and we could never afford what they would demand so far as service goes.

A materialistic, capitalistic society will never generate a top-notch healthcare system, especially now when we're steamrolling toward single payer and we're consuming far more than we're producing.

This is why Denmark and Canada can have solid healthcare and we can't.

[Boris The Animal]

It doesn't. I've been opposed to it from the beginning, because it's a sham. It's designed to help businesses and insurance companies make more money, while leaving poor folks like me $#@!ed.Yeah, you support yet another big government entitlement in government run healthcare.

[Common Sense]

Won't work well in the US.

See the VA as an example.

The VA is nothing like universal healthcare.

In Canada the government only really acts as the insurer. It doesn't run the hospitals like the VA does.

The comparison is invalid.

[Common Sense]

A materialistic, capitalistic society will never generate a top-notch healthcare system, especially now when we're steamrolling toward single payer and we're consuming far more than we're producing.

This is why Denmark and Canada can have solid healthcare and we can't.

Oh we're pretty capitalistic and materialistic.

[Peter1469]

I would compare a US run single payer system to the UK system, not the Canadian one.
The VA is nothing like universal healthcare.

In Canada the government only really acts as the insurer. It doesn't run the hospitals like the VA does.

The comparison is invalid.

[Common Sense]

I would compare a US run single payer system to the UK system, not the Canadian one.

I doubt that a single payer plan like that would make sense in the US. The existing infrastructure doesn't need to change. Just the insurer.

The Canadian system could be used in the US. It's done by each province. If Ontario can insure 13 million people, why cant say Illinois cover their population?

The majority of states are smaller in population than Ontario.

[Captain Obvious]

Oh we're pretty capitalistic and materialistic.

Yinz try to do everything we do but not all the way.

[Refugee]

It’s all a bit baffling to those outside America. So, previously you had paid for quality insurance and those that didn’t had Medicaid? So, now everyone can buy it at amazingly affordable prices? In which case everyone will switch to cheap insurance, but as there’s no such thing as ‘cheap’, someone has to pay for it.
Are you going down the UK route, because if you are National Insurance isn’t cheap because eventually you end up paying for everyone else. If I remember rightly, my UK National Insurance ‘no opt-out’ was around £60 a week ($93,) in the mid-2000s and that’s whether I used it, or not, but the cost kept going up to subsidize everyone else. That’s nearly $5000 a year and that’s ten years ago!

I think eventually, there has to be a compromise. If you pay peanuts you get a crap service, there’s no other way around it. The ‘equality’ drive will eventually kick in and those paying less will demand those paying more to subsidise them. Am I on the right track here? :smiley:

[Common Sense]

Yinz try to do everything we do but not all the way.

We do our own thing, but our cultures are more similar than different.

The US just has more extremes.

[Common Sense]

It’s all a bit baffling to those outside America. So, previously you had paid for quality insurance and those that didn’t had Medicaid? So, now everyone can buy it at amazingly affordable prices? In which case everyone will switch to cheap insurance, but as there’s no such thing as ‘cheap’, someone has to pay for it.
Are you going down the UK route, because if you are National Insurance isn’t cheap because eventually you end up paying for everyone else. If I remember rightly, my UK National Insurance ‘no opt-out’ was around £60 a week ($93,) in the mid-2000s and that’s whether I used it, or not, but the cost kept going up to subsidize everyone else. That’s nearly $5000 a year and that’s ten years ago!

I think eventually, there has to be a compromise. If you pay peanuts you get a crap service, there’s no other way around it. The ‘equality’ drive will eventually kick in and those paying less will demand those paying more to subsidise them. Am I on the right track here? :smiley:

That's the UK and the amount they pay is based on the amount they earn.

[Captain Obvious]

We do our own thing, but our cultures are more similar than different.

The US just has more extremes.

https://media2.giphy.com/media/DNgLqrA9kiJKo/200_s.gif