I hate the ACA

[poppy]

This thread is like the inverse of 'if you are in favor of high taxes, send extra money but keep your hands off my wallet!'

 

Let's all just fight for free universal health insurance and solve all these problems.

[ThisIsTheDay]

No, I would rather the bureaucratic nonsense were reasonable. Just because someone has a low enough income to qualify for Medicaid does not mean it is ok to put them through this. I think it is very incomist. The paperwork and requirements go beyond what is reasonable. 

 

And also, I would rather that medicaid participation were an option, not a legal requirement punishable through fines (and prison time if you don't pay the fines) for not participating. 

 

(((Jane)))

 

I am really in shock that there are a couple of posters here coming down on you because you are unhappy with these new crazy regulations. I can't imagine what their reasoning is--ACA is the best thing ever, no matter what and under any circumstances, it seems. And blaming you for "wanting" insurance--when you must apply to satisfy the law. :banghead:

 

Before ACA, Medicaid applications and renewals were simple. There's no reason on earth that they should not still be--except for this disaster of a law. Just because some small end result of a law is good does not mean the entire law is and that everyone should just suck it up and comply.

 

What they don't seem to get is that you are an educated person. It is reasonable to expect that you SHOULD be able to do what it takes to apply. But the application process is a complete train wreck. So you "should" be grateful. BUT if you were a povertry stricken illiterate or an illegal alien (excuse my unPCness for calling it what it is), then they would be all over themselves about how terrible our government is for expecting that person to be able to comply and conform.

 

I am honestly so sick of this board. What's happened to it over the past several years is so sad.

 

Anyway--Jane--blessings to you and yours not only today but as you work through the system and as your husband gets back on track with his employment. :grouphug: :grouphug:

[ChocolateReignRemix]

(((Jane)))

 

I am really in shock that there are a couple of posters here coming down on you because you are unhappy with these new crazy regulations. I can't imagine what their reasoning is--ACA is the best thing ever, no matter what and under any circumstances, it seems. And blaming you for "wanting" insurance--when you must apply to satisfy the law. :banghead:

 

Before ACA, Medicaid applications and renewals were simple. There's no reason on earth that they should not still be--except for this disaster of a law. Just because some small end result of a law is good does not mean the entire law is and that everyone should just suck it up and comply.

 

What they don't seem to get is that you are an educated person. It is reasonable to expect that you SHOULD be able to do what it takes to apply. But the application process is a complete train wreck. So you "should" be grateful. BUT if you were a povertry stricken illiterate or an illegal alien (excuse my unPCness for calling it what it is), then they would be all over themselves about how terrible our government is for expecting that person to be able to comply and conform.

 

I am honestly so sick of this board. What's happened to it over the past several years is so sad.

 

Anyway--Jane--blessings to you and yours not only today but as you work through the system and as your husband gets back on track with his employment. :grouphug: :grouphug:

Please cite the part of the ACA that changed the Medicaid application process.

 

You may also want to note the number of people in this thread who noted the Medicaid application in their states are fairly simple.

 

The issue is with the Texas application, which as others have noted, does seem to have one of its goals to be to punish those in need of assistance.

[Erica in OR]

You may also want to note the number of people in this thread who noted the Medicaid application in their states are fairly simple.

 

The issue is with the Texas application, which as others have noted, does seem to have one of its goals to be to punish those in need of assistance.

 

To add to the sample size, my experience with Oregon's application process over the last year or two was quite onerous.

 

Erica in OR

[maize]

I went with a younger relative of my husband to the social services department in Bath, NY a couple months ago. She was applying for Medicaid. They needed a few types of proof-- birth certificate, pay stubs, info about rent. After waiting for an hour to get in, she had it done in about 20 minutes. Her verification came a week later, then her card a week after that. And because she was eligible, they offered her applications for heating assistance, a cell phone, and food stamps if necessary. They then directed us to a catholic charities group for immediate help.

That's NY. People can gripe about their taxes, but when you get down to it-- the state makes a big effort in taking care of their people. That's why I find it ironic that the rural areas who get the bulk of this assistance will harp about those big city elites running things, when it's those big cities who are basically the ones financing the assistance. And then they vote for the group who have continually fought to screw them over.

Part of the problem is that with only two parties to choose from, when you pick one party you are choosing their entire platform. If you cannot stomach some aspects of a party's platform you may vote against it even if other aspects would be in your favor.

 

I really, really dislike our two party system.

 

I'd prefer a system that allows for many smaller parties, so people had better chance of finding a party platform that is actually a good match for them. In countries that do this government often depends on coalitions forming, but coalitions can shift and change depending on issues (i.e., parties A, D, and F might vote together on one issue, while parties B, D and F vote together and against parties A, C, and E on another).

Edited December 26, 2016 by maize

[justasque]

The LA times has an excellent article about the difficulties of repealing and replacing the ACA.  Lots of good points to consider.  Very much worth a read.

[poppy]

I'm not even sure what the ACA opponents want at this point.

[StephanieZ]

I'm not even sure what the ACA opponents want at this point.

 

I personally believe the strategic political ACA opponents actually want to medically neglect / starve out / otherwise kill off poor people.

 

I am sure that many/most voters who vote for those politicians don't actually want those things, but I can't comprehend why they vote for the people who advocate such evil, so I'll leave it at that. I guess my best guess is that the sheeple who follow those who want to repeal the ACA (without any substantial replacement in hand . . . despite voting for many years, dozens of times, for repeal) . . . anyway, my best guess is that they just simply do not understand the complexities of modern health care financing and believe the platitudes offered by anti-ACA politicians . . . and they will be genuinely surprised when, after repeal, things get worse and worse and worse.  

 

Once the ACA-repeal folks get their wishes for repeal satisfied, unobstructed by the left, it will be enlightening to see what they do. My guess is they'll repeal the ACA, let a lot of people suffer, return to the employer-based morass that is even worse off than it was 8 years ago . . . blame all the negatives of our long-time-crappy-and-getting-crappier health care system on the short-lived ACA . . . and just let fools and folks suffer, while blaming current issues on past actions of Obama & his allies. Enough fools and folks will believe this . . . blaming everything today on history  . . . and so let them get away with undo-ing the gains of the ACA and ignoring the current challenges. There will be no plan. Just suffering for those who can't afford the full costs of the current system. They'll kick the problem down the road, while congratulating themselves on imagined successes. 

[Lynnae]

My experience with the ACA and Oregon Healthplan (Oregon's Medicaid) has been horrid. My husband lost his job in April, losing his insurance with it. before mid-June, we applied through Healthcare.gov. But we couldn't sign up for a subsidized plan, because we might qualify for OHP. So they forwarded our info to OHP.

 

Six weeks later, OHP denied us based on our income when we applied for OHP for our kids in February - when my husband was employed. How they screwed that up, I'm not sure.

 

Because of the denial letter, we were able to sign up for a subsidized plan through the ACA, but it didn't go into effect until September. 4 months without insurance means we have to pay a partial fine. But we couldn't sign up for insurance during that time, because those are the rules. You physically are not allowed to sign up for a plan on Healthcare.gov if you are waiting on a Medicaid decision from the state. And as far as I can tell so far, there's no exemption for "waiting for the state to make a Medicaid decision and then dealing with their incompetence when they make the decision based on the wrong income." I need to waste another half a day calling on that.

 

Meanwhile, I've sent in two more income verifications to OHP (on in August, one in November), because I do believe we qualify for OHP. It's December. We applied in June. Every time I call they're "going to make a decision soon." Every time I deal with this I have to take hours off of work. I'm trying to work to earn money so we don't have to be on public assistance anymore. But every time I have to deal with the government bureaucracy, it hinders my ability to earn an income. It's like they want to keep you poor.

[Guest]

All these unemployment stories, healthcare SHOULD NOT be tied to employment!!

[bettyandbob]

All these unemployment stories, healthcare SHOULD NOT be tied to employment!!

EXACTLY

Edited December 26, 2016 by Diana P.

[poppy]

Untangling business from health insurance (a coveted employee benefit)  is not on the table in this very business friendly administration.

 

Also note among Donald Trump's position on the ACA (from his  campaign website): " Nearly every state already offers benefits beyond what is required in the current Medicaid structure. The state governments know their people best and can manage the administration of Medicaid far better without federal overhead. States will have the incentives to seek out and eliminate fraud, waste and abuse to preserve our precious resources."

 

In other words, prepare for more questionnaires, roadblocks, run around,  red tape and built in delays.  Everyone who gives up is money in the state's pocket.

 

____

OP, I do empathize with you.  It should be a lot simpler, and it CAN be a lot simpler, and it stinks when people become pawns in these games.

[StephanieZ]

Untangling business from health insurance (a coveted employee benefit)  is not on the table in this very business friendly administration.

 

 

FWIW, I think that businesses would LOVE to decouple insurance from employment. Managing health insurance is a huge PITA, management headache, huge costs beyond the obvious premiums. Insurance can be a lure to get good employees, but it can also be the opposite. 

 

The companies who do NOT provide health coverage would likely fight against any health related reform, as it'd likely require some $$ contribution from employers. Also, huge employers who already provide coverage and can use their massive size to negotiate for good rates might also resist . . . But, I would imagine that many employers would celebrate universal health coverage. I know that I would, as an employer of 12-14, 9 of whom are full time and insurance eligible for our group plan. 

[LucyStoner]

I'm sure someone has mentioned this but you absolutely do not have to pay a penalty for not having insurance at the income point you describe.

 

If you lived in a Medicaid expansion state, you would all coveted for free until your husband found a new job.

 

Also the Medicaid application varies by state, it sounds like yours is unduly complicated. Sometimes it seems like states do that to discourage people from accessing the benefits they qualify for.

Edited December 26, 2016 by LucyStoner

[LucyStoner]

FWIW, I think that businesses would LOVE to decouple insurance from employment. Managing health insurance is a huge PITA, management headache, huge costs beyond the obvious premiums. Insurance can be a lure to get good employees, but it can also be the opposite.

 

The companies who do NOT provide health coverage would likely fight against any health related reform, as it'd likely require some $$ contribution from employers. Also, huge employers who already provide coverage and can use their massive size to negotiate for good rates might also resist . . . But, I would imagine that many employers would celebrate universal health coverage. I know that I would, as an employer of 12-14, 9 of whom are full time and insurance eligible for our group plan.

Many employers would love to decouple this.

 

Insurance businesses and their extremely powerful lobby, not so much.

[StephanieZ]

Many employers would love to decouple this.

 

Insurance businesses and their extremely powerful lobby, not so much.

 

Yes!! It's the health insurance industry that is a huge part of the problem, I think. 

 

It's a little ironic, because there would still be a place for health insurance even after universal health coverage is offered. Supplemental health insurance policies will likely always have a place, a big place, at the table, as they do in most places with universal coverage. 

[LucyStoner]

My husband's employer pays north of $25,000 a year just to insure my little family. We pay another $5000 for the employee paid portion of the plan (that would be the part that covers me). They have thousands of employees. They are a non-profit.

 

I have a hard time thinking that it would cost that much to buy into a Medicare for All type option. Not spending all that on insurance would allow them to put more money into wages (which stimulates the economy) and things that would directly improve patient care and research (they are a healthcare organization.)

Edited December 26, 2016 by LucyStoner

[Laura Corin]

Yes!! It's the health insurance industry that is a huge part of the problem, I think. 

 

It's a little ironic, because there would still be a place for health insurance even after universal health coverage is offered. Supplemental health insurance policies will likely always have a place, a big place, at the table, as they do in most places with universal coverage. 

 

Yes.  The insurance companies in the UK have a really easy time.  Everyone has access to the NHS but some employers offer top-up insurance as a perk, and people use it to get more luxurious hotel services in hospital or shorter waiting times. The insurance companies don't deal with coughs and sniffles, nor with emergency care, just with specialist planned care, so they have a lot of people who never call on the insurance but who like to have it in their back pockets just in case.  When insurance services are called upon, it's for fancy operations that make them look glossy.

[FaithManor]

Please cite the part of the ACA that changed the Medicaid application process.

 

You may also want to note the number of people in this thread who noted the Medicaid application in their states are fairly simple.

 

The issue is with the Texas application, which as others have noted, does seem to have one of its goals to be to punish those in need of assistance.

Exactly. There are other states that are quite simple in comparison. The ACA had no control over each state's individual medicaid application.

[QueenCat]

I do not know anyone at all that benefitted from the ACA.

 

I do.......... my son. I am scared to death of what will happen if it really gets repealed. If he becomes uninsurable because of repeal, I will blame every single person who voted for our next President. And I will expect everyone who railed against ACA who knows my son  to be willing to help him out with real financial help, not just prayers.

[Spryte]

I do.......... my son. I am scared to death of what will happen if it really gets repealed. If he becomes uninsurable because of repeal, I will blame every single person who voted for our next President. And I will expect everyone who railed against ACA who knows my son to be willing to help him out with real financial help, not just prayers.

I am so sorry. I, too, am having anxiety because of wondering what will happen when it gets repealed. Prayers don't help us - or anyone - access medical care.

[LucyStoner]

I do.......... my son. I am scared to death of what will happen if it really gets repealed. If he becomes uninsurable because of repeal, I will blame every single person who voted for our next President. And I will expect everyone who railed against ACA who knows my son to be willing to help him out with real financial help, not just prayers.

I know a lot of people who benefited from the ACA.

 

I also know a lot of people who have not benefited.

 

I too worry about the consequences of a full repeal. It seems a lot people want the good in the law without what makes those good things possible.

[Peach]

I do.......... my son. I am scared to death of what will happen if it really gets repealed. If he becomes uninsurable because of repeal, I will blame every single person who voted for our next President. And I will expect everyone who railed against ACA who knows my son  to be willing to help him out with real financial help, not just prayers.

 

This. My son developed pretty severe epilepsy a few years ago (and had an emergency surgery, non-related). He has Medicaid now but in April ages out of the children's health insurance here. Our stat did expand Medicaid but if that goes away with repeal, and he's no longer eligible for the state kids' insurance, we have a huge problem that is making my seriously panicky. His anti-seizure meds are covered now, but out of pocket would be more than our monthly rent. In addition, husband and I, thanks to the ACA, have health insurance for the first time in 15 years,. He worked for a small company that didn't offer any employee plans. I think putting emphasis on employer insurance discourages people from taking jobs with small businesses. Anyhow, stories like my son are what gets me so angry when I hear the GOP so willing to just yank out the existing plans with nothing at all to replace it with. Those losing insurance are real, actual living people, not just numbers on a spreadsheet. Guaranteeing 'access', which is their popular talking point now, is nothing. 

[Carol in Cal.]

Really, it's not realistic to just repeal the ACA.

 

It's not like the congress can just wave a wand and return to what was there before it.  Each medical plan has to be approved, along with its premiums, by each state in which it will be offered.  It's not clear to me what the insurance companies would even be able to offer if the ACA was repealed.

 

And especially WITH the retention of the full coverage mandate and the rule allowing kids to stay on their parents' plans to age 26, reverting to the old offerings is not possible--those are not minor tweaks to the old policies.

 

I love the aims of the ACA but they were pursued incompetently by the government, which broke the old system irretrievably without putting anything reasonable in its place.  It is plain and well-documented that Obama knew he was lying to convince people to pass the ACA, and I am convinced that he did so in order to ensure that this system would be even more broken and would hasten calls for single payer.  And single payer will put far too much power in the hands of the government, which I don't trust at all.  Absolute power ALWAYS corrupts.  This whole mess is a disaster no matter what happens next.  We have a broken system now, no one with a clear capability to repair it, and no proposal that is even remotely implementable on the table. 

 

I am glad for those who had been unable to get coverage before and can now, but other than that this is a horrible mess that is just getting worse.  It's quite appalling and terrifying.

 

[Tanaqui]

Absolute power ALWAYS corrupts.

 

The fact that there are many, many, many functioning democracies that have had single payer systems for generations proves this to be a wild misstatement of the facts.

 

[maize]

The fact that there are many, many, many functioning democracies that have had single payer systems for generations proves this to be a wild misstatement of the facts.

This was my thought exactly!

 

I do think absolute power is quite dangerous, but government organized healthcare is not synonymous with absolute power. Certainly the government has a better chance of prioritizing the welfare of its citizens than does our current assortment of profit-driven insurance companies!

Edited December 27, 2016 by maize

[ChocolateReignRemix]

Really, it's not realistic to just repeal the ACA.

 

It's not like the congress can just wave a wand and return to what was there before it.  Each medical plan has to be approved, along with its premiums, by each state in which it will be offered.  It's not clear to me what the insurance companies would even be able to offer if the ACA was repealed.

 

And especially WITH the retention of the full coverage mandate and the rule allowing kids to stay on their parents' plans to age 26, reverting to the old offerings is not possible--those are not minor tweaks to the old policies.

 

I love the aims of the ACA but they were pursued incompetently by the government, which broke the old system irretrievably without putting anything reasonable in its place.  It is plain and well-documented that Obama knew he was lying to convince people to pass the ACA, and I am convinced that he did so in order to ensure that this system would be even more broken and would hasten calls for single payer.  And single payer will put far too much power in the hands of the government, which I don't trust at all.  Absolute power ALWAYS corrupts.  This whole mess is a disaster no matter what happens next.  We have a broken system now, no one with a clear capability to repair it, and no proposal that is even remotely implementable on the table. 

 

I am glad for those who had been unable to get coverage before and can now, but other than that this is a horrible mess that is just getting worse.  It's quite appalling and terrifying.

 

Exactly what old system do you think was broken? 

[Carol in Cal.]

 

I do think absolute power is quite dangerous, but government organized healthcare is not synonymous with absolute power.

Single payer gives the government absolute power over what health care one can receive.

That's not workable in this country. 

[TechWife]

I do not know anyone at all that benefitted from the ACA. 

 

My parents greatly benefitted from the ACA. The "donut hole" for their prescription coverage was closed. They received "extra help" paying their Medicare Part D premiums and had a cap on their prescription costs due to their low income level. Prescriptions that weren't affordable became affordable. Pain medicine that was $300+ per month went down to $7.45 per month. 

 

It's people like my parents that I think of when people say they want to scrap the whole thing and start over. Who will take care of them in the meantime? My parents were just over the threshold of qualifying for Medicaid in a state that didn't expand coverage under the ACA. There is no safety net. 

[Guest]

Single payer gives the government absolute power over what health care one can receive.

That's not workable in this country.

Right now that absolute power is in the hands of for-profit insurance companies and millions of people are suffering for it.

[Tanaqui]

Single payer gives the government absolute power over what health care one can receive.

 

It does not.

 

Single payer does not choose your doctors for you, nor does it choose the treatments. It doesn't even have to prevent you from utilizing private sector healthcare instead of or in addition to the public health care. All it does is pay the bills.

 

[Tanaqui]

I mean, honestly, Carol, your comment is like saying "Single payer roads is giving the government absolute power over where I can drive" or "Public education is giving the government absolute power over when my child learns to read". It's wildly overstated to the point of silliness.

[Janeway]

It seems to me the more reasonable complaint would be "people who qualify for medicaid should not be burdened by spending hours and hours on copious amounts of unnecessary paperwork to satisfy the superstitious behavior of legislators who want to assign the blame of poverty to people who suffer from it." But throughout this thread, I don't see you responding to the comments that explain how this paperwork is not a consequence of the ACA but of legislation designed to make public assistance undesirable, as if people very simply choose poverty, and a negative experience will make them think twice about keeping that choice. I'm curious what you would think if it were only a ten minute phone call that assured the medical expenses of your family were paid, including a horrific (or not so horrific) accident, or something as unpreventable and random as appendicitis.

Go back and read through my posts. I have repeatedly said people should not be put through this based on their income. It is not ok to diminish a person like this based on their income.

[Tanaqui]

And, Janeway, as the rest of us have repeatedly pointed out, the problems you're having have nothing to do with the ACA and everything to do with lawmakers in your state trying to stick it to the poor by making them jump through hoops. Blame your state government for not backing the ACA.

[TechWife]

I guess it is different because of freedom of the states to do things, sort of....

 

I

 

To top it off, short of a horrific accident, I do not intend to use Medicaid. I intend to take the children to a regular doctor if they get sick. Which means, I have to pay. So I am investing all this time and energy to be on a state program, which is not free as we all pay for it when we pay our taxes, when I do not want it, can't use it, and won't use it.

 

 

What does this even mean?

 

Doctors that accept Medicaid patients are "regular doctors."  

 

If you choose to pay out of pocket instead of selecting a participating provider and having them file for payment, then you are loosing out. If you qualify for it, then you need it and you should use it. 

[Janeway]

This. My son developed pretty severe epilepsy a few years ago (and had an emergency surgery, non-related). He has Medicaid now but in April ages out of the children's health insurance here. Our stat did expand Medicaid but if that goes away with repeal, and he's no longer eligible for the state kids' insurance, we have a huge problem that is making my seriously panicky. His anti-seizure meds are covered now, but out of pocket would be more than our monthly rent. In addition, husband and I, thanks to the ACA, have health insurance for the first time in 15 years,. He worked for a small company that didn't offer any employee plans. I think putting emphasis on employer insurance discourages people from taking jobs with small businesses. Anyhow, stories like my son are what gets me so angry when I hear the GOP so willing to just yank out the existing plans with nothing at all to replace it with. Those losing insurance are real, actual living people, not just numbers on a spreadsheet. Guaranteeing 'access', which is their popular talking point now, is nothing.

The problem I am stating is obviously a by the state issue. Assuming you did not spend hours on getting and keeping the Medicaid, and you have been able to get doctors who take Medicaid, and pharmacies that take it, and in your state, middle ground people can get it. But for me, I have spent hours on the process of applying and keeping. Right now, I am owned by Medicaid as is my time. Putting someone through a 20 minute orientation per child is nuts. I have to sit and listen to the same 20 minute speech, 5 times. That is clearly done to send a message or have an agenda. No one can possibly think some one needs to listen to a twenty minute speech, 5 times in a row.

 

I should make a YouTube video to show how bad it is so you all can understand.

Edited December 27, 2016 by Janeway

[Carol in Cal.]

I mean, honestly, Carol, your comment is like saying "Single payer roads is giving the government absolute power over where I can drive" or "Public education is giving the government absolute power over when my child learns to read". It's wildly overstated to the point of silliness.

Where single payer exists, there is a great deal of medical care rationing, and of treatments that are delayed or simply not paid for.  Sometimes medical professionals are even forbidden by law from treating people on those plans even if they are willing to pay privately.

 

Maybe your experience with your local American government is better than mine, but what I see of our government has a lot of incompetence, an extremely frayed safety net, and no one really taking responsibility to make sure that people who need help that the government is committed to providing don't fall between the cracks.  Now, if that has to do with building roads, I can slow down or go around.  If it has to do with public schools, I can homeschool or tutor or go to the library.  If it has to do with medical care, I'm totally screwed, because I can't save up enough to pay for it, I am reliant on insurance for it, and if my (government) insurer decides not to cover something, who do I appeal to?  Another government agency.  Yeah, that'll work.

 

I know that there are some places where this kind of system is trustworthy, like Germany for example, but the US just doesn't have that kind of reliability in government that most of, say Western Europe or the Commonweath countries do.  I don't see us getting there, either.  It's really too bad.

[ChocolateReignRemix]

Where single payer exists, there is a great deal of medical care rationing, and of treatments that are delayed or simply not paid for.  Sometimes medical professionals are even forbidden by law from treating people on those plans even if they are willing to pay privately.

 

Not really, no.

[Laura Corin]

Where single payer exists, there is a great deal of medical care rationing, and of treatments that are delayed or simply not paid for.  Sometimes medical professionals are even forbidden by law from treating people on those plans even if they are willing to pay privately.

 

 

In all forms of medical care in all countries there is rationing and there are waiting lists.  How big those are and how they are organised varies based on organisation and funding.  There are often stories on these boards of Americans waiting a long time for treatment, not being able to afford it at all, or going bankrupt as a result.  In the UK, such difficulties (apart from bankruptcy, which doesn't happen because there are no at-the-time payments) make headlines as they can be put at the door of a single entity, but that doesn't mean that they don't happen in the US.

 

It helps if you think of a single payer as a single insurer.  US insurers often do not cover everything - either there will be upfront costs or some charges will be denied - with those least able to pay cash often worst hit because their coverage is poor. There are many stories on these boards of US insurance companies refusing to pay.  

 

Under a single-payer system, each country decides the level of spending, based on the amount of taxes the users are prepared to pay.  So they de facto decide what level of rationing and waiting they wish to accept.  And (in the UK) if a person who is eligible for the NHS wishes to buy top-up insurance, that is available.  There are also purely private hospitals and doctors in the UK that do not accept NHS money.  Is the system perfect?  Of course not.  But when my husband lost his job, the one thing I didn't have to worry about was healthcare.

 

The UK spends a fraction of the amount spent in the US on healthcare - just think what an amazing system the US could have if three-quarters of that money were used efficiently instead of on insurance company bureaucracy and profits:

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_total_health_expenditure_per_capita#/media/File:Health_care_cost_rise.svg

 

And just to counteract any rumours of elderly people not being offered services, since my mother (92) came to live with me in January, she has seen a GP at least once a month, has a full range of necessary free-to-her medications, has been referred to several sets of specialists for her various needs, and has had a minor operation.  ETA: she had previously been in and out of hospital for three months.

 

ETA: here is an example of a UK top-up insurer:

 

http://www.bupa.co.uk/health/health-insurance

Edited December 27, 2016 by Laura Corin

[maize]

Single payer gives the government absolute power over what health care one can receive.

That's not workable in this country.

Not true.

 

Single payer means everyone--EVERYONE--gets access to decent (not perfect) care. Not at the mercy of employers. Not at the mercy of for-profit companies.

 

For those who can afford it and choose to buy private secondary insurance or pay out of pocket, there will be the same variety of premium services (private rooms in hospitals, elective surgeries, etc.) that are currently available to folks with more expensive plans and deeper pockets. The primary difference is that people like the OP of this thread won't be left high and dry without affordable healthcare be ause of a job layoff, disability, or just the bad luck of working for a company with poor benefits.

 

For profit is a horrendous model for an industry that depends on everybody paying more in premiums than they will use in benefits. The marketplace does not work to the consumer's advantage.

Edited December 27, 2016 by maize

[maize]

The problem I am stating is obviously a by the state issue. Assuming you did not spend hours on getting and keeping the Medicaid, and you have been able to get doctors who take Medicaid, and pharmacies that take it, and in your state, middle ground people can get it. But for me, I have spent hours on the process of applying and keeping. Right now, I am owned by Medicaid as is my time. Putting someone through a 20 minute orientation per child is nuts. I have to sit and listen to the same 20 minute speech, 5 times. That is clearly done to send a message or have an agenda. No one can possibly think some one needs to listen to a twenty minute speech, 5 times in a row.

 

I should make a YouTube video to show how bad it is so you all can understand.

20 minutes x 5 is irritating; I get that. It's unecessary bureaucratic nonsense.

 

But--it's less than two hours. If one of your kids ends up hospitalized this year, that two hours is going to pay off handsomely. Five kids, the chances of somebody having a major medical issue are not insignificant.

 

This was over the phone, right? I would have listened to all the 20 minute spiels while cleaning my kitchen. No time lost at all.

 

By all means write to your state legislature about the problem, contact your local media, be the sqeaky wheel working to change it. If enough people do that change can happen.

Edited December 27, 2016 by maize

[maize]

Single payer gives the government absolute power over what health care one can receive.

That's not workable in this country.

No it doesn't Carol.

 

If we implement a government plan for everyone in this country, I 100% guarantee there will continue to be a secondary private healthcare marketplace.

 

Basic care, however, will be much more reliably affordable and accessible and the overall national cost burden will decrease. The ONLY people who stand to lose something are the insurance companies who will no longer have a healthcare monopoly. They're the ones advertising the lies you have bought into, because they will lose a big chunk of their market share if we implement public healthcare coverage. They don't have the welfare of anyone but themselves at heart. You really prefer to leave power over life and death in their hands?

 

Unless you or your husband are healthcare insurance executives, you stand to lose nothing at all under a government funded system.

Edited December 27, 2016 by maize

[maize]

This whole argument just blows my mind away. Truthfully, if single payer were such a guaranteed disaster in this country, wouldn't we be seeing massive outcries and calls for the dismantling of Medicare from the hundreds of thousands currently subjected to this vile government administered system? I honestly don't know a single senior who wishes they could just be left alone to pay for healthcare in the private market.

 

Of course Medicare isn't perfect, but it does work. If our federal government can succesfully manage a healthcare plan for the population segment most prone to disease, I actually have a great deal of confidence that it would be possible to implement something for the rest of us as well.

 

Oh, and how very odd--Medicare has not made it impossible for those enrolled to also take advantage of secondary insurance and private pay options.

 

But naturally, if the rest of us were eligible for the same plan, healthcare in this country would go to the dogs. Yep, it's inevitable.

 

You know folks, I tend towards both social and economic conservativism on a lot of issues. The morass that is healthcare in this country is, however, an issue on which people from every corner of the political spectrum need to come together. We cannot afford partisanship here; we need to think in practical terms. We the People need to take the welfare of ALL the people in this country seriously; we're the only ones who can do it, and it is our federal government--NOT the health insurance industry lobby--that exists to represent US and to implement policies and programs for the common welfare of the people of this nation. Let's stand up and tell the folks in Washington that we demand they fulfill their responsibility as our representatives.

Edited December 27, 2016 by maize

[poppy]

Where single payer exists, there is a great deal of medical care rationing, and of treatments that are delayed or simply not paid for.  Sometimes medical professionals are even forbidden by law from treating people on those plans even if they are willing to pay privately.

 

Maybe your experience with your local American government is better than mine, but what I see of our government has a lot of incompetence, an extremely frayed safety net, and no one really taking responsibility to make sure that people who need help that the government is committed to providing don't fall between the cracks.  Now, if that has to do with building roads, I can slow down or go around.  If it has to do with public schools, I can homeschool or tutor or go to the library.  If it has to do with medical care, I'm totally screwed, because I can't save up enough to pay for it, I am reliant on insurance for it, and if my (government) insurer decides not to cover something, who do I appeal to?  Another government agency.  Yeah, that'll work.

 

I know that there are some places where this kind of system is trustworthy, like Germany for example, but the US just doesn't have that kind of reliability in government that most of, say Western Europe or the Commonweath countries do.  I don't see us getting there, either.  It's really too bad.

 

I honestly don't get it. DId you not read this thread?  How the anti-ACA forces deliberately made the application process really hard in Texas for no good reason?

 

"The wolves tore into the hen house. Vote Team Wolf!" if you actually don't want a safety net, vote Team Wolf. if you don't think the role of government is to help people, vote Team Wolf.   If you want a government that makes it as onerous as possible for low income families to get benefits they are entitled to, by all means, vote Team Wolf.   If you DO want a safety net and for the government to help people, stop voting for the folks throwing in monkey wrenches and thumbing their nose at your goals.

[poppy]

I know a lot of people who benefited from the ACA.

 

I also know a lot of people who have not benefited.

 

I too worry about the consequences of a full repeal. It seems a lot people want the good in the law without what makes those good things possible.

 

Not only do they want it, they've been promised it.    The President Elect pon 60 Minutes said that no one with a pre-exisiting condition will lose insurance. And he said "And it’ll be great healthcare for much less money. So it’ll be better healthcare, much better, for less money".    Wouldn't that be wonderful! He's not only going to make it much cheaper, he's going to improve the quality.  

 

I am pretty sure even his most ardent supporters must know to not hold their breathe on this one.

[bettyandbob]

I think my family experienced some serious medical rationing at the hands of insurance, when we had a cadillac plan long before ACA during a different president. 

 

If anyone thinks private pay insurance isn't involved in medical rationing, they are blind. 

 

There was a time when my family had much stronger finances and better insurance and three kids in different medical crises at the same time. Long before the current president even announced he was running for office. I can tell you the system was beyond broken then. 

 

If anyone thinks having to do without medical care at all because you can't pay isn't rationing, ... (I might get in trouble for describing what I think of that attitude)

 

 

 

 

[maize]

This just really should not be a politically divisive issue. There's a simple, elegant, proven solution to our national healthcare woes. We pool our mutual resources and provide exactly what the president-elect promised: better healthcare, for less.

 

No more trouble with pre-existing conditions.

 

No more ridiculous bureaucratic processing.

 

No impossibly high premiums. No more fines.

 

No more medical bankruptcy.

[JustEm]

Go back and read through my posts. I have repeatedly said people should not be put through this based on their income. It is not ok to diminish a person like this based on their income.

Then complain about and to your state representatives. ACA did nothing to make them make you job through all sorts of hoops to get coverage. I live in a state that is great to Medicaid patients. The online application takes 10 minutes, spells out exactly what proof of income and identification you need to send them and once approved they send you a letter clearly stating how to pick your provider and PCP. They have a great system for people who still need help with the simple steps. There are of course computer and human errors at times that can make it a little more annoying but a quick phone call gets things sorted out.

 

It is the state you live in that is causing you these enrollment issues not the ACA.

[fairfarmhand]

Just FYI, informal polls in my area indicate that lower to lower Middle income people and those with preexisting conditions benefited from Aca. However, those who are solidly middle class or higher were "penalized".

 

 

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Serenade]

FWIW, I think that businesses would LOVE to decouple insurance from employment. Managing health insurance is a huge PITA, management headache, huge costs beyond the obvious premiums. Insurance can be a lure to get good employees, but it can also be the opposite.

Since providing insurance is now required, companies don't see a benefit in providing it. It used to be worth the headache, but now it is just a burden.