Some better than others.
Affordable Care Act
- Thread starter 57Brave
- Start date
Some better than others.
sturg33
I
I don't believe I've ever said that.
57Brave
Well-known member
No, you will be a good citizen by paying your part so when after a long life when you do get sick (and you will) your care will be insured.
And my grandchildren wont have to pay excessive insurance because of bloated ER costs by being burdened by your 3 AM dorm room economics
I think it is called "pay forward"
Pretty rational concept..
not all that revolutionary either
And my grandchildren wont have to pay excessive insurance because of bloated ER costs by being burdened by your 3 AM dorm room economics
I think it is called "pay forward"
Pretty rational concept..
not all that revolutionary either
SJ24
New member
I'm as free market as the next guy, and Obamacare is probably going to fail, but I think pre-existing conditions should be covered by the government, just like people who have disabilities are covered.
1/3 of the population have a pre-existing condition. Have the government pay for that particular treatment or service, and let them purchase health insurance for the rest. You obviously don't want the government paying for colds or poor lifestyle choices and the like- we'd go bankrupt. But this is a grand compromise that any rich society would/should make.
Inject a little nuance into the debate and you'll find good solutions.
1/3 of the population have a pre-existing condition. Have the government pay for that particular treatment or service, and let them purchase health insurance for the rest. You obviously don't want the government paying for colds or poor lifestyle choices and the like- we'd go bankrupt. But this is a grand compromise that any rich society would/should make.
Inject a little nuance into the debate and you'll find good solutions.
57Brave
Well-known member
Almost 60 percent of Maine voters endorsed the expansion, making the first time that a state had approved the ACA’s Medicaid expansion through a ballot initiative.
https://thinkprogress.org/maines-ne...ople-on-her-first-day-in-office-814ff0af886d/
https://thinkprogress.org/maines-ne...ople-on-her-first-day-in-office-814ff0af886d/
57Brave
Well-known member
acesfull86
Well-known member
https://marginalrevolution.com/marginalrevolution/2022/09/the-evolution-of-single-payer-health-insurance.html
This is one of the big underreported stories these days, namely that single payer systems are working far less well than they used to, including during the pandemic but not only. Eventually the blame will shift and will be put on something like “austerity,” whereas the deeper understanding was that those systems were bound to end up understaffed and undercapitalized all along. In any case, here is the latest from Sweden, circa summer 2022:
In 2000, around 100,000 Swedes had private health insurance. Today, there are seven times as many, in a country of 10 million people. In 60% of cases, the insurance is paid for by the employer. According to the Swedish insurers’ organization Svensk Försäkring, the rate can vary from 300 to 600 crowns on average per month. For those dealing with health problems, the advantages are quicker consultations and avoiding long waiting lines.
And that is from Le Monde, not the Heritage Foundation. The Canadian, British, and New Zealand systems are all in crisis too. But that narrative is not exactly tailor-made for today’s media environment…
This is one of the big underreported stories these days, namely that single payer systems are working far less well than they used to, including during the pandemic but not only. Eventually the blame will shift and will be put on something like “austerity,” whereas the deeper understanding was that those systems were bound to end up understaffed and undercapitalized all along. In any case, here is the latest from Sweden, circa summer 2022:
In 2000, around 100,000 Swedes had private health insurance. Today, there are seven times as many, in a country of 10 million people. In 60% of cases, the insurance is paid for by the employer. According to the Swedish insurers’ organization Svensk Försäkring, the rate can vary from 300 to 600 crowns on average per month. For those dealing with health problems, the advantages are quicker consultations and avoiding long waiting lines.
And that is from Le Monde, not the Heritage Foundation. The Canadian, British, and New Zealand systems are all in crisis too. But that narrative is not exactly tailor-made for today’s media environment…
acesfull86
Well-known member
https://www.wsj.com/articles/transparency-family-glitch-oira-irs-tax-subsidy-obamacare-aca-exchange-health-insurance-regulatory-meeting-biden-revesz-11665610038?mod=opinion_lead_pos9
What happens when you combine partisan politics with an unaccountable regulatory regime? You get the White House’s decision Tuesday to extend ObamaCare subsidies beyond what is legally permitted by tax law. The Biden administration’s new rule to remove what’s been cleverly framed as the “family glitch” is a political play that should worry anyone concerned with regulatory transparency in Washington.
As I’ve written in these pages, the White House has long sought to expand coverage on ObamaCare exchanges in this way. But the law is clear; it made subsidies for exchange plans available if the employee had to pay more than about 10% of income for a self-only plan. Basing subsidy eligibility on the cost of self-only coverage meant that families that had to pay more than 10% of income for a family plan lost out on the subsidy. This created the so-called family glitch—even though the vast majority of families in these situations were insured on an employer plan.
Not only does this rule lack statutory basis, it comes with a high price tag. According to the Congressional Budget Office, it is expected to cost $45 billion over the next decade as it pushes people off their employer plans to obtain heavily subsidized exchange plans. Few currently uninsured people will get coverage.
What happens when you combine partisan politics with an unaccountable regulatory regime? You get the White House’s decision Tuesday to extend ObamaCare subsidies beyond what is legally permitted by tax law. The Biden administration’s new rule to remove what’s been cleverly framed as the “family glitch” is a political play that should worry anyone concerned with regulatory transparency in Washington.
As I’ve written in these pages, the White House has long sought to expand coverage on ObamaCare exchanges in this way. But the law is clear; it made subsidies for exchange plans available if the employee had to pay more than about 10% of income for a self-only plan. Basing subsidy eligibility on the cost of self-only coverage meant that families that had to pay more than 10% of income for a family plan lost out on the subsidy. This created the so-called family glitch—even though the vast majority of families in these situations were insured on an employer plan.
Not only does this rule lack statutory basis, it comes with a high price tag. According to the Congressional Budget Office, it is expected to cost $45 billion over the next decade as it pushes people off their employer plans to obtain heavily subsidized exchange plans. Few currently uninsured people will get coverage.
acesfull86
Well-known member
https://www.wsj.com/opinion/unitedhealthcare-and-the-obamacare-con-insurance-ea8dd896?mod=opinion_lead_pos12
Well, well. Progressives are at last acknowledging that ObamaCare is a failure. They aren’t doing so explicitly, of course, but their social-media screeds against insurers, triggered by last week’s murder of UnitedHealthcare CEO Brian Thompson, suggest as much. “We’ve gotten to a point where healthcare is so inaccessible and unaffordable, people are justified in their frustrations,” CBS News medical contributor Céline Gounder said during a Friday segment on the roasting of health insurers.
A Gallup survey released Friday affirms the sentiment, finding that only 44% of Americans rate U.S. healthcare good or excellent, down from 62% when Democrats passed ObamaCare in 2010. A mere 28% rate the country’s insurance coverage highly, an 11-point decline. ObamaCare may rank as the biggest political bait-and-switch in history.
Remember Barack Obama’s promise that if you like your health plan and doctor, you could keep them? Sorry. How about his claim that people with pre-existing conditions would be protected? Also not true. The biggest howler, however, was that healthcare would become more affordable.
Grant Democrats this: The law has advanced their political goal of expanding government control over insurers, in return for lavishing Americans with subsidies to buy overpriced, lousy products. (One might observe that Democrats are driving a similar Faustian bargain to induce automakers to produce more electric vehicles.)
…..
ObamaCare requires plans to cover myriad government-determined “essential benefits” regardless of whether people need them. It also prohibits insurers from charging higher premiums based on a patient’s health-risk factors and limits their ability to do so for older people. The young and healthy are thus required to subsidize their elders, while taxpayers are required to subsidize everyone on the exchanges.
If the goal were to help Americans with costly health conditions, it would have been far simpler and less expensive to boost subsidies for state high-risk pools. But that wouldn’t have accomplished Democrats’ actual goal, which is to turn insurers into de facto public utilities and jerry-rig a halfway house to single-payer healthcare. What a con.
Well, well. Progressives are at last acknowledging that ObamaCare is a failure. They aren’t doing so explicitly, of course, but their social-media screeds against insurers, triggered by last week’s murder of UnitedHealthcare CEO Brian Thompson, suggest as much. “We’ve gotten to a point where healthcare is so inaccessible and unaffordable, people are justified in their frustrations,” CBS News medical contributor Céline Gounder said during a Friday segment on the roasting of health insurers.
A Gallup survey released Friday affirms the sentiment, finding that only 44% of Americans rate U.S. healthcare good or excellent, down from 62% when Democrats passed ObamaCare in 2010. A mere 28% rate the country’s insurance coverage highly, an 11-point decline. ObamaCare may rank as the biggest political bait-and-switch in history.
Remember Barack Obama’s promise that if you like your health plan and doctor, you could keep them? Sorry. How about his claim that people with pre-existing conditions would be protected? Also not true. The biggest howler, however, was that healthcare would become more affordable.
Grant Democrats this: The law has advanced their political goal of expanding government control over insurers, in return for lavishing Americans with subsidies to buy overpriced, lousy products. (One might observe that Democrats are driving a similar Faustian bargain to induce automakers to produce more electric vehicles.)
…..
ObamaCare requires plans to cover myriad government-determined “essential benefits” regardless of whether people need them. It also prohibits insurers from charging higher premiums based on a patient’s health-risk factors and limits their ability to do so for older people. The young and healthy are thus required to subsidize their elders, while taxpayers are required to subsidize everyone on the exchanges.
If the goal were to help Americans with costly health conditions, it would have been far simpler and less expensive to boost subsidies for state high-risk pools. But that wouldn’t have accomplished Democrats’ actual goal, which is to turn insurers into de facto public utilities and jerry-rig a halfway house to single-payer healthcare. What a con.
sturg33
I
Lucky for us, the opposition party to the dems also wants government to run healthcare