problems with ACA

[miamited]

Hi all,

I'm just sitting here with my own thoughts (which can be a very dangerous thing for me) and in another thread the approval/disapproval of the people concerning the ACA came up. It seems that there are many who say that the ACA must be repealed and I'm sympathetic to those who would think such is the only choice, but...

What specifically is wrong with the ACA? Now please, I'm not asking for some vague response that would claim that the whole thousand pages of the current ACA is corrupt and worthless. I'm asking for specific provisions of the ACA that are injurious to the people of our nation at large.

For example: The current ACA requires that all healthcare plans cover basic well medical services. I don't think such a thing should be required.

The ACA requires that everyone have some form of medical insurance coverage. Either through medicaid, medicare or some private medical insurance plan. I don't think the government should be able to tell us that we must have health insurance coverage for ourselves and our families.

Please be specific as to exactly what words are found in the current ACA that you might have issue with.

God bless you,
In Christ, ted

 

[seashale76]

Hi all,

I'm just sitting here with my own thoughts (which can be a very dangerous thing for me) and in another thread the approval/disapproval of the people concerning the ACA came up. It seems that there are many who say that the ACA must be repealed and I'm sympathetic to those who would think such is the only choice, but...

What specifically is wrong with the ACA? Now please, I'm not asking for some vague response that would claim that the whole thousand pages of the current ACA is corrupt and worthless. I'm asking for specific provisions of the ACA that are injurious to the people of our nation at large.

For example: The current ACA requires that all healthcare plans cover basic well medical services. I don't think such a thing should be required.

The ACA requires that everyone have some form of medical insurance coverage. Either through medicaid, medicare or some private medical insurance plan. I don't think the government should be able to tell us that we must have health insurance coverage for ourselves and our families.

Please be specific as to exactly what words are found in the current ACA that you might have issue with.

God bless you,
In Christ, ted

The ACA was a stop gap measure. It's better than what we had before, but it is flawed and needs to be revamped. For example, one of the issues is that even though it exists some people still can't afford insurance. This is due to the fact that individual states have rejected federal monies that were to go to help pay for those that couldn't afford it. Plus, any system where we still have insurance tied to employment needs to be scrapped in favor of something else (true UHC).

Personally, I think the government should be able to tell you that you have to be insured, because parents being idiots shouldn't affect their children. Once you've known a mother and baby to almost die in a home childbirth because the family decided they didn't need health insurance, you might change your mind on the matter. I've seen the travails of those that don't have insurance. It's pathetic, sad, and shouldn't happen in this country.

A huge focus should be on preventative health care. It would also save everyone a lot of money in the long run.

That said, I am for UHC. I like the idea of the two-tier model and think it will work better in the US. We already have government provided healthcare here, all we need to do is expand it to make it available to everyone with a public option for insurance. The framework is already there for it. I think that a two-tier system would be more accepted by more people here in the US. A mixed delivery system would provide more patient choice, and Americans like to have choices.

Single payer = government pays for everything and you can also buy supplemental; Two-tier = government pays for basic minimum care/coverage and you can buy supplemental or pay extra fees; both = have public and private hospitals and doctors available

The reason why health insurance costs more in the US is because insurance companies have to negotiate directly with hospitals and pharmaceutical companies (something that doesn't occur in other countries) and the government doesn't set/control the prices (and the market doesn't set them either because insurance companies in the US are in a weak negotiating position). Unless this dilemma is solved and accounted for, there will always be issues.

While UHC doesn't guarantee good delivery of care, it would go a long way into making things better than they are now.

 

[miamited]

Hi seashale,

If the federal monies are available to help those people in those states, is it then really a problem with the ACA or the problem of the states not wanting to accept the monies because of perceived servitude that they think accepting such monies would put them under to the federal government? There are an awful lot of states that do accept the monies and they don't seem to be dying tormented deaths at the hands of the federal government because of it. So, I'm saying that as regards this matter of people not being able to afford the insurance even though the monies are available to the states through the federal government, shouldn't we try to work out some way that the states might take what's offered rather than throw out the mountain because of a mole hill? Yes, that's a mixed metaphor, but you get my point. Do we really need to repeal the current ACA because of this specific problem?

As regards my changing my mind because someone suffers without medical insurance. You're preaching to the choir. This is why I've offered up this thread. I hear a lot of people saying that we need to repeal! Repeal!!! Repeal!!!! the ACA and I'm not so assured that such people aren't making that demand merely because the current ACA is seen as a 'democratic party' plan and not really judging it on its merits or lack thereof. I'm wanting to discuss exactly what it is about the plan that such people are so concerned about that they feel the only response is to repeal the ACA.

There are other problems with people not choosing on their own without laws to carry health insurance. Many such people, when they do get sick, then rely on hospital ER's for such minor things as colds and flu and viral infections that should be handled by a family GP. But they can't go to a family GP because the family GP wants to get paid now. All ER's are required to see people and treat them and then if the bill isn't paid, the taxpayer ends up paying it. This isn't fair to anyone. The sick patient generally has to wait hours and hours to be seen and then doesn't get proper followup care and the taxpayer gets stuck with the bill.

There are actually a number of reasons that healthcare insurance is more expensive in the U.S. than other countries. Our medical practitioners, on the whole, make a lot more money than in other countries. Doctors in Europe aren't generally paid as well as doctors in the U.S. Doctors in many other countries aren't paid as well as doctors in Europe. But these other countries don't hold their doctors up as gods of long life. Medical equipment costs are higher here. Drugs cost more here. Finally, medical malpractice insurance costs are ultimately paid by those who pay the doctors. Litigious costs are also ultimately paid by the patients.

Anyway, we'll see if others might join in.

God bless you,
In Christ, ted

 

[seashale76]

Hi seashale,

If the federal monies are available to help those people in those states, is it then really a problem with the ACA or the problem of the states not wanting to accept the monies because of perceived servitude that they think accepting such monies would put them under to the federal government? There are an awful lot of states that do accept the monies and they don't seem to be dying tormented deaths at the hands of the federal government because of it. So, I'm saying that as regards this matter of people not being able to afford the insurance even though the monies are available to the states through the federal government, shouldn't we try to work out some way that the states might take what's offered rather than throw out the mountain because of a mole hill? Yes, that's a mixed metaphor, but you get my point. Do we really need to repeal the current ACA because of this specific problem?

As regards my changing my mind because someone suffers without medical insurance. You're preaching to the choir. This is why I've offered up this thread. I hear a lot of people saying that we need to repeal! Repeal!!! Repeal!!!! the ACA and I'm not so assured that such people aren't making that demand merely because the current ACA is seen as a 'democratic party' plan and not really judging it on its merits or lack thereof. I'm wanting to discuss exactly what it is about the plan that such people are so concerned about that they feel the only response is to repeal the ACA.

There are other problems with people not choosing on their own without laws to carry health insurance. Many such people, when they do get sick, then rely on hospital ER's for such minor things as colds and flu and viral infections that should be handled by a family GP. But they can't go to a family GP because the family GP wants to get paid now. All ER's are required to see people and treat them and then if the bill isn't paid, the taxpayer ends up paying it. This isn't fair to anyone. The sick patient generally has to wait hours and hours to be seen and then doesn't get proper followup care and the taxpayer gets stuck with the bill.

There are actually a number of reasons that healthcare insurance is more expensive in the U.S. than other countries. Our medical practitioners, on the whole, make a lot more money than in other countries. Doctors in Europe aren't generally paid as well as doctors in the U.S. Doctors in many other countries aren't paid as well as doctors in Europe. But these other countries don't hold their doctors up as gods of long life. Medical equipment costs are higher here. Drugs cost more here. Finally, medical malpractice insurance costs are ultimately paid by those who pay the doctors. Litigious costs are also ultimately paid by the patients.

Anyway, we'll see if others might join in.

God bless you,
In Christ, ted

Well- our doctors tend to be paid more- because in some countries a medical degree is not based on the graduate degree model that we have in the US. In some countries, you can become an MD from zero degree after five or six years. If any of their doctors come to the US they can't practice and must go to our medical schools in order to do so. I happen to know an ICU nurse that was a doctor in his country of origin. I also know one GP that makes less than I do (I'm a nurse).

I also carry liability insurance for myself. Hospitals are HCAHPS driven. Everything from patient care to charting is about CYA. If I don't chart something it didn't happen, so I document everything.

Believe me when I tell you I know first hand how a lack of insurance plays out with many folks. I see more long term and frequent flyer homeless and poor patients than most people do.

 

[miamited]

Hi seashale,

You responded:

Believe me when I tell you I know first hand how a lack of insurance plays out with many folks. I see more long term and frequent flyer homeless and poor patients than most people do.

Oh, I know the problems that the uninsured cause and cost hospitals. This is why the issue of a national health law was ever even considered. I also agree that the UHC model does seem to work fairly well. I'm not one who feels that I'm somehow, because I'm an American, I 'deserve' better health care than the rest of the world. Of course, I'm not one to use doctors or medical facilities much. If I need stitches or am suffering some fairly serious medical issue, I generally go to the local urgent care center. I haven't really been to a doctor for a general check up in over 10 years.

I'm 61 and I understand that I'm supposed to have little aches and pains. I don't take any medications beyond a pain reliever rarely when I might have a pulled muscle or headache, but honestly that's likely not more than 3-4 times a year. I understand that I'm going to die and I'm expecting to be just as much aware of what I'm dying of and when I'm going to die as Abraham. In other words, one day I'll stop breathing and I'll know that I'm dying.

I've had the blessing of working for a company that provided decent healthcare insurance at very little cost to myself and my family. However, I'm well aware that in today's world, that's a rarity and people will generally put health insurance off. So, the government decided that having health insurance was as important as having automobile insurance and made a law to enforce people to get some.

Anyway, I don't think we're ever going back to allowing the choice of carrying health insurance up to just whether or not anyone wants to. If we do, then who pays the costs of the uninsured that do seek medical care? If we just write it all off to charity, then why don't we all go without health insurance?

So, it seems to me that the question is what kind of health insurance law will we have? And is there some set of laws that overall is completely different from what we have, but better? Or, can we just make amendments or changes to the current law and keep going forward?

As I said, it just seems to me that most of the real 'problem' that many have with the ACA isn't so much the insurance, but that it came to us through a democratic president. This is apparent to me simply because people are forever speaking derogatorily about it as 'Obamacare' and not just the Affordable Care Act.

God bless you,
In Christ, ted

 

[AvgJoe]

Hi all,

I'm just sitting here with my own thoughts (which can be a very dangerous thing for me) and in another thread the approval/disapproval of the people concerning the ACA came up. It seems that there are many who say that the ACA must be repealed and I'm sympathetic to those who would think such is the only choice, but...

What specifically is wrong with the ACA? Now please, I'm not asking for some vague response that would claim that the whole thousand pages of the current ACA is corrupt and worthless. I'm asking for specific provisions of the ACA that are injurious to the people of our nation at large.

For example: The current ACA requires that all healthcare plans cover basic well medical services. I don't think such a thing should be required.

The ACA requires that everyone have some form of medical insurance coverage. Either through medicaid, medicare or some private medical insurance plan. I don't think the government should be able to tell us that we must have health insurance coverage for ourselves and our families.

Please be specific as to exactly what words are found in the current ACA that you might have issue with.

God bless you,
In Christ, ted

I have a problem with the law's title, the Affordable Care Act, because it's a lie. We're a family of 3 and have been in the ACA since the beginning, 2014. That first year we were in a gold plan, with a overall premium of $1,020/month, and the credit brought our premium down to $805/month (affordable?). In 2015, we stayed with the same plan but it went up 15%, so it was $925.75/month (affordable?). In 2016, not only was our premium going up 23%, but our PPO plan was being canceled, they tried to place us on an HMO plan and our doctors were no longer available on ANY of the plans. So, we switched to another insurance company, had to downgrade to a silver plan because the gold plans were now way to expensive and had to find new doctors but, at least, our premium fell to $783/month. Enter 2017, we stay with the same plan but it went up 23% so, it's $966/month (affordable?) this year. How much more of this insanity will I be able to afford? NOT MUCH!!

 

[FireDragon76]

The ACA was the best Obama could do at the time given the political realities.

If you are interested in saving money you should really switch doctors and get a managed care program. Otherwise, there's a reason you are paying more for your healthcare. The managed care plans save money by using standard protocols and computer databases for treating chronic diseases. I am on an HMO and a doctor will perscribe an expensive drug and the insurance company will deny it and offer a cheaper alternative. I'm paying less as a result.

 

[AvgJoe]

The ACA was the best Obama could do at the time given the political realities.

If you are interested in saving money you should really switch doctors and get a managed care program. Otherwise, there's a reason you are paying more for your healthcare. The managed care plans save money by using standard protocols and computer databases for treating chronic diseases. I am on an HMO and a doctor will perscribe an expensive drug and the insurance company will deny it and offer a cheaper alternative. I'm paying less as a result.

I'm in an HMO now. As far as the ACA is concerned, here in SE Texas, there's not much you can do anyway. In 2014, there were 7 or 8 companies offering a total of 30+ plans to choose from. For this year, there were 3 companies offering a total of 8 plans. We're on the best plan that we can afford, the only way to pay less is to drop down to bronze level, that is, if there will be any companies, offering any plans, next year.