Free Birth Control; Children Up to 26; Pre-Existing Conditions; Free Mammograms, etc. If these matter to you...

[FaithManor]

I used to be closer to (one party's) side on health care. I am now almost completely in Camp Other Party on health care.

 

The difference? A sick child who is now a young adult with a chronic health condition who requires lifelong expensive care.

 

I certainly THOUGHT that I understood about poor people and health care. Had I not been a poor person, most of my life? Had I not run the gamut of experience, from no health care as a child, to working in a Medicaid clinic as a young adult, to being a low-income parent yet with very good union benefits? Surely I had a large picture, right?

 

But no. That next level of necessary compassion did not kick in, even for me, until I understood what it meant that people's children will die without some form of universal coverage. Well, now I know. And I can't un-know.

 

I was already fully equipped with the compassion, and basic milk of human kindness, that leads me to understand my child is not more precious than your child (or your child is not less precious than mine), or my father than your father, or myself than yourself. But the part where this intrinsic belief is applied to health care in my nation -- well, like I said, now I know.

 

For anyone reading who remains unconcerned about tens of millions of Americans, including children, elderly, veterans, who may fall through the cracks unless something amazing happens, THIS is the perspective that you obviously don't have. Go find it. Don't stop seeking compassion until you obtain it...I pray to God you can learn it through observation and not experience.

I heart this, and I wish your family the very best.

[historically accurate]

OK, here it is:

 

"If I were designing a system from the ground up, it would be modelled on patients making medical decisions based on their values and their doctors' advice, and insurance companies not being able to second guess this.  It would be regulated by state insurance commissions rather than federal ones.  It would be subsidized and there would be a state high risk pool similar to that for auto insurance.  When a policy said 'out of pocket limit' that would mean 'This is the maximum you will have to pay this year', no exceptions.  High deductible plans would be available and encouraged."

 

To be VERY clear--the stipulation of state high risk pools means that everyone would be able to get insurance, regardless of 'insurability' or preexisting conditions.

 

If we couldn't get states to expand Medicaid to cover those who can't get a subsidy through the ACA, how would the states cover ALL high risk individuals?  

 

The mandate is one of the most hated things of the ACA, so would your system require high risk individuals purchase insurance? If so, would there be a punishment if they didn't? If not, what happens to an individual who chooses not to sign up - does s/he not get medical care? I'm assuming high risk pools would be expensive since they're going to pay out and pay out big; how would individuals afford the premiums, copays, et al?

 

Obviously, I realize that you probably haven't sat around and come up with a fully fleshed out plan for this, so I understand if you don't have answers.

[Carol in Cal.]

And yet how many people, even on this forum, think this stuff never happens, that there are always ways to get treatment?  They think these stories are an exaggeration or a scare tactics.  No, it's happening, to real people and to real families.  It is something our country should be ashamed of.

Nobody who has been around here for any length of time should think this.

 

Even if we haven't had personal experience with it, which it sounds like most of us have, what about Joanne's husband?  Remember that, everyone?  How the ER's would only stabilize him, not treat him?  How he couldn't get on a transplant list because he didn't have medical insurance coverage?  How he suffered what I remember reading was irreversible damage before this was resolved to any extent at all?

 

We know this is true.  

 

It happens every darned day.  It's not right.

[FaithManor]

AFAIK high risk auto insurance is somewhat subsidized. I might be wrong about that, but that's what I envisioned. It's subsidized and everyone can get it--the state becomes the insurer of last resort, with the other stipulations in place.

 

Re. the first paragraph, in an ideal world, wouldn't you think that patients and their doctors would decide what treatment they need and would get? That's how medical insurance started out, and it made sense. What makes it not make sense now? Isn't it the ideal that we should shoot for?

It doesn't work because that methodology is no longer profitable. When the concept of health insurance began, medical technology and pharmacology was not this advanced. Simply put, when it came to paying up there just wasn't that much to be done compared to now. The insurance market is a for profit market and as such must ration healthcare to remain that way and make investors happy.

 

This ideal can never again be accomplished through insurance.

Edited January 15, 2017 by FaithManor

[Slartibartfast]

AFAIK high risk auto insurance is somewhat subsidized.  I might be wrong about that, but that's what I envisioned.  It's subsidized and everyone can get it--the state becomes the insurer of last resort, with the other stipulations in place.

 

Re. the first paragraph, in an ideal world, wouldn't you think that patients and their doctors would decide what treatment they need and would get?  That's how medical insurance started out, and it made sense.  What makes it not make sense now?  Isn't it the ideal that we should shoot for?

Here's an article about the NC system for subsidizing bad drivers.

 

http://www.johnlocke.org/site-docs/research/NC_Auto_Insurance.pdf

[Frances]

AFAIK high risk auto insurance is somewhat subsidized. I might be wrong about that, but that's what I envisioned. It's subsidized and everyone can get it--the state becomes the insurer of last resort, with the other stipulations in place.

 

Re. the first paragraph, in an ideal world, wouldn't you think that patients and their doctors would decide what treatment they need and would get? That's how medical insurance started out, and it made sense. What makes it not make sense now? Isn't it the ideal that we should shoot for?

But how is that financially feasible? If everyone gets everything they and their doctors want, then how would most people be able to afford the insurance premiums without major governmental subsidization? Sure, it sounds ideal. But where does the money come from to pay the insurance premiums necessary to finance such a system?

 

If we had single payer with the ability for people to pay for extras or extra insurance, at least a big chunk of money could actually go for medical care rather than to insurance companies.

[Barb_]

Another essay from a different publication:

 

Without Obamacare, I will get sicker, faster, until I die

 

 

[Slartibartfast]

But how is that financially feasible? If everyone gets everything they and their doctors want, then how would most people be able to afford the insurance premiums without major governmental subsidization? Sure, it sounds ideal. But where does the money come from to pay the insurance premiums necessary to finance such a system?

 

If we had single payer with the ability for people to pay for extras or extra insurance, at least a big chunk of money could actually go for medical care rather than to insurance companies.

I think we should cut out medical insurance companies completely.

Edited January 15, 2017 by Slartibartfast

[Carol in Cal.]

If we couldn't get states to expand Medicaid to cover those who can't get a subsidy through the ACA, how would the states cover ALL high risk individuals?  

 

The mandate is one of the most hated things of the ACA, so would your system require high risk individuals purchase insurance? 

I'm not saying it would be simple or easy or cheap.  What I'm saying is what I think is ideal.

 

The mandate was hated mostly because it was coupled with taking away the only reasonably affordable plans that a lot of people had, but also partly because the subsidies were so quantized.  If the mandate hadn't been so expensive, I think people would have adjusted to it, the way they have adjusted to the fairly insignificant Medicare payroll taxes that everyone pays without really questioning it.  The trouble is, the mandate and the rest of the system created such a big, sudden increase in so many people's costs of living, and then if you thought you would get a subsidy, you might suddenly tip a dollar over the cliff and owe the government a ton of money because of it.  It was profoundly inept. 

 

And in general the ACA was sold with the lie 'If you like your doctor, you can keep your doctor.  If you like your insurance plan, you can keep your insurance plan.'  The combo of that with the way things played out later really was difficult to accept, I think.

[FaithManor]

Nobody who has been around here for any length of time should think this.

 

Even if we haven't had personal experience with it, which it sounds like most of us have, what about Joanne's husband? Remember that, everyone? How the ER's would only stabilize him, not treat him? How he couldn't get on a transplant list because he didn't have medical insurance coverage? How he suffered what I remember reading was irreversible damage before this was resolved to any extent at all?

 

We know this is true.

 

It happens every darned day. It's not right.

Yes and the toll it took on his mental health/neuro processing was so bad that Joanne eventualy had to get out for her own welfare and that of the kids.

 

Hers is not the only marriage I know of destroyed by this kind of thing.

[Carol in Cal.]

 The insurance market is a for profit market and as such much ration healthcare to remain that way and make investors happy.

 

This ideal can never again be accomplished through insurance.

It could if the state insurance commissions did their jobs better.  Some do better than others.  CA and MN are among the better ones.  

 

We elect those people.  We can press them.  And we should.  We can't accept what we have now forever.

 

 

[Slartibartfast]

I'm not saying it would be simple or easy or cheap.  What I'm saying is what I think is ideal.

 

The mandate was hated mostly because it was coupled with taking away the only reasonably affordable plans that a lot of people had, but also partly because the subsidies were so quantized.  If the mandate hadn't been so expensive, I think people would have adjusted to it, the way they have adjusted to the fairly insignificant Medicare payroll taxes that everyone pays without really questioning it.  The trouble is, the mandate and the rest of the system created such a big, sudden increase in so many people's costs of living, and then if you thought you would get a subsidy, you might suddenly tip a dollar over the cliff and owe the government a ton of money because of it.  It was profoundly inept. 

 

And in general the ACA was sold with the lie 'If you like your doctor, you can keep your doctor.  If you like your insurance plan, you can keep your insurance plan.'  The combo of that with the way things played out later really was difficult to accept, I think.

But when the risk corridors were removed that was when insurance plans started dropping things. That wasn't Obama's decision. It was Marc Rubio that stuck in that poison pill. It would subsidize insurance companies for increased costs.

 

What was realized was that people who got ACA were actually MORE ILL than people who had insurance before, because many of them hadn't had insurance because they could not get it.

 

It wasn't Obama's fault the thing that would have allowed people to keep their insurance was gutted and Rubio did not make that promise so it wasn't necessarily his fault that promise wasn't kept either.

[Barb_]

What make you trust the government with this?  

I've talked in detail about what makes me not do so.  I've said over and over that I'd like to.

I've indicated respect for the way the system works in Germany, which I'm fairly familiar with, and I've said why I don't think it would work here.

What makes you believe that it would?  Where is your evidence?

 

Because our healthcare system is a Rube Goldberg machine of cobbled-together crap thanks to partisan infighting.  Single payer is simpler, easier to follow, and more fair.  I think it can be done thanks to Medicare, Social security, the USPS, and other governmental agencies while far from perfect, run themselves considerably better than healthcare runs right now. 

[Carol in Cal.]

But how is that financially feasible? If everyone gets everything they and their doctors want, then how would most people be able to afford the insurance premiums without major governmental subsidization? Sure, it sounds ideal. But where does the money come from to pay the insurance premiums necessary to finance such a system?

 

If we had single payer with the ability for people to pay for extras or extra insurance, at least a big chunk of money could actually go for medical care rather than to insurance companies.

What makes you trust that this would happen?  

As I've said many times, I'd like to think that it would.  But I don't.  

[ktgrok]

'subsidized' addresses that.  Which I have stipulated more than once.

 

Does that equal free, for those that have little to no income? If not, not good enough, people still die. 

 

If so, is this like medicaid? Or medicare? Or what?

[Carol in Cal.]

Because our healthcare system is a Rube Goldberg machine of cobbled-together crap thanks to partisan infighting.  Single payer is simpler, easier to follow, and more fair.  I think it can be done thanks to Medicare, Social security, the USPS, and other governmental agencies while far from perfect, run themselves considerably better than healthcare runs right now. 

Medicare pays so little that medical providers limit how many Medicare patients they will accept.  If we force everyone into a system like that, with no escape valves to speak of, service availability will dry up.

[Slartibartfast]

Does that equal free, for those that have little to no income? If not, not good enough, people still die. 

 

If so, is this like medicaid? Or medicare? Or what?

But it would have to cover middle class people too, the middle class with serious illnesses can no more afford health care than the poor can.

[FaithManor]

Because our healthcare system is a Rube Goldberg machine of cobbled-together crap thanks to partisan infighting. Single payer is simpler, easier to follow, and more fair. I think it can be done thanks to Medicare, Social security, the USPS, and other governmental agencies while far from perfect, run themselves considerably better than healthcare runs right now.

And prior to insane budget cuts and a lot of privatization, NASA worked very well. I think there is an unfair assumption that there is absolutely nothing that the government does decently.

[Carol in Cal.]

And prior to insane budget cuts and a lot of privatization, NASA worked very well. I think there is an unfair assumption that there is absolutely nothing that the government does decently.

See, though, the downside risk of screwing this up is very different from NASA.  In NASA, if they lost their budgets they could just slow down.  I'm sure it wasn't fun, but it was doable.  Whereas when people need medical care, they need it.  Right then, generally.  The urgency is completely different.

[Barb_]

Medicare pays so little that medical providers limit how many Medicare patients they will accept.  If we force everyone into a system like that, with no escape valves to speak of, service availability will dry up.

 

Single payer across the board would force change on both sides.  There is plenty of waste in health care, although not as much as there used to be in the 90s when insurance reimbursements were many times higher than they are now.  Health care would be accountable to taxpayers instead of stockholders and insurance companies.  My husband actually has no problem with Medicare payments--he said it's Medicaid that has them over the barrel.  There would have to be negotiation, politicking, and and lobbying.  But it's still more hopeful than anything we currently have.

[Slartibartfast]

Medicare pays so little that medical providers limit how many Medicare patients they will accept.  If we force everyone into a system like that, with no escape valves to speak of, service availability will dry up.

Which isn't a compelling argument when people with pre-existing conditions are about to lose their care.

[Guest]

And round and round we go. I have all sorts of responses typed up but it's not worth the effort to tread them out here where the most pie in the sky sentimentalism wins.

 

Have fun in the echo chamber ladies - my experiences are obviously not valued when we say how much this isn't working for us, it's not what you want to hear. Only those who have benefitted from the ACA get to have a voice on here apparently.

 

I'm personally looking forward to watching this actually get changed nationally and hopefully most of it shredded on the floor. If only the best, most durable policies survive the congressional process that would be fantastic. This isn't working for almost anyone right now, no matter how many stories Barb links. There are plenty of families like mine who are hurting more and more under this nonsense. Both sets of experiences are true, and no system is going to fix both flawlessly.

Edited January 15, 2017 by Arctic Mama

[Slartibartfast]

And round and round we go. I have all sorts of responses typed up but it's not worth the effort to tread them out here where the most pie in the sky sentimentalism wins.

 

Have fun in the echo chamber ladies - my experiences are obviously not valued when we say how much this isn't working for us, it's not what you want to hear. Only those who have benefitted from the ACA get to have a voice on here apparently.

 

I'm personally looking forward to watching this actually get changed nationally and hopefully most of it shredded on the floor. If only the best, most durable policies survive the congressional process that would be fantastic. This isn't working for almost anyone right now, no matter how many stories Barb links. There are plenty of families like mine who are hurting more and more under this nonsense. Both sets of experiences are true, and no system is going to fix both flawlessly.

People are sentimental because it will actually kill people.

 

It isn't hyperbole.

[Carol in Cal.]

Which isn't a compelling argument when people with pre-existing conditions are about to lose their care.

It's an entirely separate argument.  Dang it.  I have said this over and over.  I don't support get rid of the pre-existing condition mandate.  You are arguing with things I'm not saying and using my quotes to do so.  That makes this just go in circles, and it's unreasonable.

[Barb_]

And round and round we go. I have all sorts of responses typed up but it's not worth the effort to tread them out here where the most pie in the sky sentimentalism wins.

 

Have fun in the echo chamber ladies. I'm personally looking forward to watching this actually get changed nationally and hopefully most of it shredded on the floor. If only the best, most durable policies survive the congressional process that would be fantastic. This isn't working for almost anyone right now, no matter how many stories Barb links. There are plenty of families like mine who are hurting more and more under this nonsense. Both sets of experiences are true, and no system is going to fix both flawlessly.

 

It's working better than shreds of paper.  No one thinks what we have is perfect, or even all that great.  But you don't quit your crappy job until you find a better one and you don't shred your crappy healthcare bill until you implement a safety net.  Don't you understand you will likely be worse off once it is gone?  They have NO PLAN to take care of you.

[Slartibartfast]

It's an entirely separate argument.  Dang it.  I have said this over and over.  I don't support get rid of the pre-existing condition mandate.  You are arguing with things I'm not saying and using my quotes to do so.  That makes this just go in circles, and it's unreasonable.

It is not unreasonable when the pre-existing conditions mandate is GONE. That was on the chopping block and was hacked at gleefully.

 

It can never be a separate argument because they are connected.

 

I am not trying to be crabby and mean, I am just saying, many of us have children or have relatives that are children that will die.

 

My son has a congenital heart defect and isn't insurable anymore than my nephew is but his condition isn't as expensive as my nephew's.

Edited January 15, 2017 by Slartibartfast

[Frances]

It could if the state insurance commissions did their jobs better. Some do better than others. CA and MN are among the better ones.

 

We elect those people. We can press them. And we should. We can't accept what we have now forever.

I still don't understand how if insurance companies cannot ration care under your ideal, the premium prices would in any way be affordable, especially if there is also going to be an additional tax added on to pay for the high risk pool like you suggest b done similar to how some states do auto insurance. Choosing what they will and will not cover is a fundamental concept that makes the insurance system work. Taking away one fundamental part of the system would seem to render it financially unworkable. Why not remove it completely except for possibly top-up insurance?

[Carol in Cal.]

Single payer across the board would force change on both sides.  ....  But it's still more hopeful than anything we currently have.

Why do you trust the government with this, in the face of evidence to the contrary?  

Seriously, why?

 

Because I would like to, but I just can't.  Not with what I've seen.  

 

They are just never responsible.  They can't be sued.  There's no recourse.  And they have no idea how to manage funds.

[Guest]

What is the math on single payer??  Has anyone added up what it would cost to each tax payer if insurance companies were forced to close and everyone in the country went on something like Medicaid?

[Slartibartfast]

Why do you trust the government with this, in the face of evidence to the contrary?  

Seriously, why?

 

Because I would like to, but I just can't.  Not with what I've seen.  

 

They are just never responsible.  They can't be sued.  There's no recourse.  And they have no idea how to manage funds.

They are still better than the private sector.

[Barb_]

Why do you trust the government with this, in the face of evidence to the contrary?  

Seriously, why?

 

Because I would like to, but I just can't.  Not with what I've seen.  

 

They are just never responsible.  They can't be sued.  There's no recourse.  And they have no idea how to manage funds.

 

Carol, which evidence to the contrary?  Specifically. Help me understand where you're coming from.

[FaithManor]

See, though, the downside risk of screwing this up is very different from NASA. In NASA, if they lost their budgets they could just slow down. I'm sure it wasn't fun, but it was doable. Whereas when people need medical care, they need it. Right then, generally. The urgency is completely different.

I was bringing it up as an example of a government agency that has run fairly efficiently and successfully.

[Carol in Cal.]

They are still better than the private sector.

No, not true, because there would be no checks and balances.  No recourse at all.

Now we have the private sector, which frankly is to a large extent detestable, and we have the federal regs, and we have the state insurance commissions.  

 

Absolute power corrupts absolutely.

[historically accurate]

And round and round we go. I have all sorts of responses typed up but it's not worth the effort to tread them out here where the most pie in the sky sentimentalism wins.

 

Have fun in the echo chamber ladies - my experiences are obviously not valued when we say how much this isn't working for us, it's not what you want to hear. Only those who have benefitted from the ACA get to have a voice on here apparently.

 

I'm personally looking forward to watching this actually get changed nationally and hopefully most of it shredded on the floor. If only the best, most durable policies survive the congressional process that would be fantastic. This isn't working for almost anyone right now, no matter how many stories Barb links. There are plenty of families like mine who are hurting more and more under this nonsense. Both sets of experiences are true, and no system is going to fix both flawlessly.

 

Wait, what?

 

Weren't you the one who just posted that you saved $50K+ with your healthshare?  So, you have some sort of access to healthcare - a healthshare, but you want the ACA to be ripped away from people who don't have access to a healthshare and rely on the ACA for their sole medical care? (I apologize if I am confusing you with someone else; I'm more of a lurker, so it's entirely possible)

 

If the gov't had some sort of plan in order to replace the ACA, ok then we could discuss the merits/pitfalls of the new plan. But as of yet, there is no plan. 

[Frances]

Medicare pays so little that medical providers limit how many Medicare patients they will accept. If we force everyone into a system like that, with no escape valves to speak of, service availability will dry up.

But if that really happened, wouldn't people push to have higher reimbursement rates for Medicare? I mean if the majority of people could not get care, what would be the point of the system? In this country, we already spend significantly more per capita on healthcare than other developed nations with worse results. If instead, we take that money and apply it to a more efficient system that removes much of the insurance industry, I don't see how we can do worse.

[Slartibartfast]

No, not true, because there would be no checks and balances.  No recourse at all.

Now we have the private sector, which frankly is to a large extent detestable, and we have the federal regs, and we have the state insurance commissions.  

 

Absolute power corrupts absolutely.

Really? How so? In government there are checks and balances, there are elections, there are many ways of recourse.

 

For-profit hospitals are much worse, for-profit prisons are worse, for-profit schools are worse

[ChocolateReignRemix]

And round and round we go. I have all sorts of responses typed up but it's not worth the effort to tread them out here where the most pie in the sky sentimentalism wins.

 

Have fun in the echo chamber ladies - my experiences are obviously not valued when we say how much this isn't working for us, it's not what you want to hear. Only those who have benefitted from the ACA get to have a voice on here apparently.

 

I'm personally looking forward to watching this actually get changed nationally and hopefully most of it shredded on the floor. If only the best, most durable policies survive the congressional process that would be fantastic. This isn't working for almost anyone right now, no matter how many stories Barb links. There are plenty of families like mine who are hurting more and more under this nonsense. Both sets of experiences are true, and no system is going to fix both flawlessly.

 

I don't benefit from the ACA but I do have a background in insurance and healthcare economics.  Sadly, I do believe most of what I want to see for our nation is pie in the sky at this time.  I have seen nothing proposed thus far that would improve what we currently have or had before the ACA.

[Lang Syne Boardie]

And round and round we go. I have all sorts of responses typed up but it's not worth the effort to tread them out here where the most pie in the sky sentimentalism wins.

 

Have fun in the echo chamber ladies - my experiences are obviously not valued when we say how much this isn't working for us, it's not what you want to hear. Only those who have benefitted from the ACA get to have a voice on here apparently.

 

I'm personally looking forward to watching this actually get changed nationally and hopefully most of it shredded on the floor. If only the best, most durable policies survive the congressional process that would be fantastic. This isn't working for almost anyone right now, no matter how many stories Barb links. There are plenty of families like mine who are hurting more and more under this nonsense. Both sets of experiences are true, and no system is going to fix both flawlessly.

 

You realize, I hope, that much of this conversation has been muted due to a desire to keep the thread open. If we get too specific about the politics, the thread will be locked.

 

I feel as if I'm risking a hand slap for a political post when I say this, but as Barb has pointed out, the thread has pretty much run its course, anyway:

 

Repealing with no revealed plan to replace is what has everybody freaked out, not some intense abiding love for the ACA as-is with no fixable areas even noted! Surely that has been obvious! Everyone knows there's room for improvement. Of course. Not a question.

 

But no checks and balances between executive and legislative, an entirely impotent second party on this issue, repealing as fast as possible with no revealed plan to replace what's broken down. THAT is our problem. Will there not be some who are simply left out in the cold, when the dust clears? THAT is our question.

 

Calling an open forum an echo chamber and accusing people of pie in the sky sentimentalism (when they're talking about children's lives at stake), these statements only reflect upon yourself.

 

[Carol in Cal.]

But if that really happened, wouldn't people push to have higher reimbursement rates for Medicare? I mean if the majority of people could not get care, what would be the point of the system? In this country, we already spend significantly more per capita on healthcare than other developed nations with worse results. If instead, we take that money and apply it to a more efficient system that removes much of the insurance industry, I don't see how we can do worse.

Why aren't we pushing for higher reimbursement rates now?  Or if someone is, why is it ineffective?  

 

Answer:  Because Medicare is so big and impersonal that it's not really all that subject to pressure.

 

How we could do worse:  Right now medical services for Medicare recipients are subsidized by medical services provided to others at higher rates.  Hence, if we forced in Medicare for all, no such subsidies would be available, so service levels would drop.  And there would be no recourse for this--you can't really sue the government, so that's not hanging over anyone's head anymore, and you can't go look for a job with better medical so that admittedly limited safety valve is taken away, and you can't pressure nonexistent state insurance commissions.  No, your only recourse would be to pressure the federal government.  I don't see that as an effective recourse on any level.

[Slartibartfast]

I don't benefit from the ACA but I do have a background in insurance and healthcare economics.  Sadly, I do believe most of what I want to see for our nation is pie in the sky at this time.  I have seen nothing proposed thus far that would improve what we currently have or had before the ACA.

I don't benefit from the ACA either.

 

We have insurance, I am more worried about the next generation.

[Frances]

It's an entirely separate argument. Dang it. I have said this over and over. I don't support get rid of the pre-existing condition mandate. You are arguing with things I'm not saying and using my quotes to do so. That makes this just go in circles, and it's unreasonable.

But whatever the new system is, it has to be financially feasible. I'm sure lots of people would like to keep the pre-existing condition mandate and children on plans until age 26 idea and do away with the requirement to have insurance and some of the extra taxes that helped to pay for Obamacare. But that won't work financially. I'm fine with replacing Obamqcare with something financially feasible that provides affordable healthcare for everyone. So far I haven't heard any proposal from the right that even comes close. We know what works in every other developed nation in the world, some form of universal healthcare.

[Carol in Cal.]

 

For-profit hospitals are much worse, for-profit prisons are worse, for-profit schools are worse

So maybe the actual change should be to require hospitals and medical centers to be nonprofits.  Actually, that has a lot of merit.  

 

But taking away checks and balances is dangerous.  

[ktgrok]

yeah, regarding the pre-existing condition part, our government was given a chance to vote to keep that. They voted against it. Shows how they feel about it. 

 

Also, if you require insurance to cover everyone, including the sickest, but don't have a mandate that the healthiest buy insurance, that will drive premiums up even higher. It's simple math. 

[Barb_]

So maybe the actual change should be to require hospitals and medical centers to be nonprofits.  Actually, that has a lot of merit.  

 

But taking away checks and balances is dangerous.  

 

The federal government can't mandate away for-profit hospitals when they aren't footing the bill.

[Guest]

Wait, what?

 

Weren't you the one who just posted that you saved $50K+ with your healthshare? So, you have some sort of access to healthcare - a healthshare, but you want the ACA to be ripped away from people who don't have access to a healthshare and rely on the ACA for their sole medical care? (I apologize if I am confusing you with someone else; I'm more of a lurker, so it's entirely possible)

 

If the gov't had some sort of plan in order to replace the ACA, ok then we could discuss the merits/pitfalls of the new plan. But as of yet, there is no plan.

No, you're not understanding what I said. I saved money by ditching our ACA ruined policy. We haven't submitted a single bill to our health share yet from any of this, except a midwifery plan for prenatal and birth that we must reimburse back because we didn't use it.

 

All the money we saved is strictly due to the untenable cost of our ACA plan and the going strictly cash pay on all this. The health share will reimburse the rest eventually, maybe, but there is no guarantee of coverage. And yet we still save money compared to trying to continue under the plan we liked that the ACA razed.

 

We aren't the only family in that boat.

[Frances]

Because our healthcare system is a Rube Goldberg machine of cobbled-together crap thanks to partisan infighting. Single payer is simpler, easier to follow, and more fair. I think it can be done thanks to Medicare, Social security, the USPS, and other governmental agencies while far from perfect, run themselves considerably better than healthcare runs right now.

And Social Security would work even better and we wouldn't be facing the prospect of it not having enough funds if they removed the cap on SS taxes. My husband and I don't pay SS taxes on all of our wages due to the cap, but we'd be happy to pay on all of it in order to keep the system solvent and ensure enough will be there for those who need it. Just as we would be happy to pay more in taxes, if necessary, to have some form of universal healthcare in this country. And I'm not just talking theory here. We are exactly the type of people who would likely pay more due to the taxes we don't pay now on our employee sponsored plans and our current tax rates.

[poppy]

yeah, regarding the pre-existing condition part, our government was given a chance to vote to keep that. They voted against it. Shows how they feel about it. 

 

Also, if you require insurance to cover everyone, including the sickest, but don't have a mandate that the healthiest buy insurance, that will drive premiums up even higher. It's simple math. 

 

What people want is the market to regulate itself.  That didn't happen before.  It got prohibitively more expensive every year before the ACA.  Which was not THAT long ago.  I remember magazine covers talking about skyrocketing health (and college) costs........... do anti-ACA people seriously have no recollection of this?  It was bad. And really, there is zero reason to believe that the trajectory will change now.  

[ChocolateReignRemix]

Why aren't we pushing for higher reimbursement rates now?  Or if someone is, why is it ineffective?  

 

Answer:  Because Medicare is so big and impersonal that it's not really all that subject to pressure.

 

How we could do worse:  Right now medical services for Medicare recipients are subsidized by medical services provided to others at higher rates.  Hence, if we forced in Medicare for all, no such subsidies would be available, so service levels would drop.  And there would be no recourse for this--you can't really sue the government, so that's not hanging over anyone's head anymore, and you can't go look for a job with better medical so that admittedly limited safety valve is taken away, and you can't pressure nonexistent state insurance commissions.  No, your only recourse would be to pressure the federal government.  I don't see that as an effective recourse on any level.

 

I love how you believe everything occurs in a vacuum.

 

If we went to a Medicare for all model. it would be virtually a brand new system and there is no reason reimbursement rates couldn't/wouldn't increase.  As part of a comprehensive plan, I would also see us long term subsidizing medical school to offset student loans and removing some of the need for high rates.  None of this is a mystery as it is exactly what other nations have done.

 

And in your post above, the fact one has to look for a new job for better medical benefits is just absurd.  Economists have made the case before that tying medical insurance to employment has had a negative on economic growth.

[Barb_]

 

 

Calling an open forum an echo chamber and accusing people of pie in the sky sentimentalism (when they're talking about children's lives at stake), these statements only reflect upon yourself.

 

 

Yeah, that statement was borderline cruel, especially after everyone has been patient with your lack of empathy on this thread, Arctic Mama.

[ChocolateReignRemix]

No, you're not understanding what I said. I saved money by ditching our ACA ruined policy. We haven't submitted a single bill to our health share yet from any of this, except a midwifery plan for prenatal and birth that we must reimburse back because we didn't use it.

 

All the money we saved is strictly due to the untenable cost of our ACA plan and the going strictly cash pay on all this. The health share will reimburse the rest eventually, maybe, but there is no guarantee of coverage. And yet we still save money compared to trying to continue under the plan we liked that the ACA razed.

 

We aren't the only family in that boat.

 

I somehow doubt that you saved that much if your NICU bills are not reimbursed.  "Negotiations" or not.