Affordable Care Act - catastrophic plans cancelled

[skipmac]

Originally Posted by CatInHand

I just did a quick look at the last presidential results. I think the reality is that most states are purple, and the whole differentiating based on political party is divisive and does no one any good.

If you don't like where you are, then move. No point in grousing about it.

Grousing? Me? Nope, just pointing out the facts of FL. Anyway I am not inclined to directly disclose my personal political preferences as it is contrary to the spirit and rules of the forum and my daddy (or was it my mama, I forget) always told me not to discuss religion or politics in polite company (this is polite company is it not?)

Besides, while in general I do tend to lean strongly in a certain direction I don't fit so neatly into a specific, political box.

I agree that purple may be a good description since FL did go blue for the presidential election but on the other hand, maybe red and blue checked is the best description since the certain parts of the state are very red and certain parts very blue. Seems to be little intermingling of the two.

[transmitterdan]

Originally Posted by HBWT

Let's try and answer some of the questions posted today.

A majority of the estimated funding will come from new taxes on insurers and providers.

I'm not picking on this poster. I see this type of statement in various forms and it makes me a bit worried about our critical thinking skills. Companies (issuers and providers) don't fund taxes. They collect taxes and send them to the government. Consumers pay any and all taxes. Tax money doesn't magically grow within a company. They get the money from their customers.

[jcapo]

Originally Posted by Doodles

Not sure exactly what you mean, but using SBI does not necessarily make you a Florida resident nor does it have to. I use SBI but retain my Virginia residency. SBI is just a mail drop.

SBI will help you with the paperwork if you want to become a Florida resident. Having an SBI address does not automatically make you a Florida resident.

[colemj]

Originally Posted by SV THIRD DAY

Like I said before, the way to go would have been Single Payer, like the smart folks in Canada and most of the world. But unfortunately there was more power to be had in this ACA debacle, more campaign cash to rake in, so now we are left trying to make the best out of the worst situation.

I agree that we should have a single payer system and if it had been implemented, we wouldn't see the mess we are now. It would also be less expensive and easier to administer.

However, I don't remember the lead-in the way you do. I remember that the single-payer system was the one proposed from the start, but was dead in the water from the get-go. It was also killed in the Clinton era, and several times earlier than that.

I saw the development of the ACA as a foot in the door compromise to the political and cultural aversion to "socialism", and not that there was more power and campaign cash from it. I remember businesses, rich folks and the insurance industry all against it - and they are the power and cash in the system. Pharmaceuticals were for it, but they would be for a single-payer system also because both mean more distribution for them.

I see the ACA as a painful temporary step toward true rehabilitation of the healthcare access system in the US. Kind of like the first decision to attend that meeting and say "I'm the US, I have a problem and I need help".

I think success of the ACA, no matter how ugly or costly, will break down the unexamined belief and political jingoism barriers existing around US healthcare access, and this will lead more smoothly into achieving a sustainable and better model.

Mark

[CatInHand]

Originally Posted by colemj

I agree that we should have a single payer system and if it had been implemented, we wouldn't see the mess we are now. It would also be less expensive and easier to administer.

However, I don't remember the lead-in the way you do. I remember that the single-payer system was the one proposed from the start, but was dead in the water from the get-go. It was also killed in the Clinton era, and several times earlier than that.

I saw the development of the ACA as a foot in the door compromise to the political and cultural aversion to "socialism", and not that there was more power and campaign cash from it. I remember businesses, rich folks and the insurance industry all against it - and they are the power and cash in the system. Pharmaceuticals were for it, but they would be for a single-payer system also because both mean more distribution for them.

I see the ACA as a painful temporary step toward true rehabilitation of the healthcare access system in the US. Kind of like the first decision to attend that meeting and say "I'm the US, I have a problem and I need help".

I think success of the ACA, no matter how ugly or costly, will break down the unexamined belief and political jingoism barriers existing around US healthcare access, and this will lead more smoothly into achieving a sustainable and better model.

Mark

What Mark said.

[Eumelia]

I thought we were supposed to be non-political. What does "political" mean anyway?

[letsgetsailing3]

Originally Posted by colemj

I agree that we should...

However, I don't ...

I saw the ...

I see the ACA as ...

I think success ...

Mark

Completely political opinion about the ACA.

One of the problems with health care discussions is that most of it revolves around people's allegiance to a particular party (pick one), instead of actually looking at the pros and cons of the health care system we have now and the alternative ways forward.

Health care entities are very happy to cover everyone, as long as we continue to pay double what other countries pay for health care. After all, their profits remain intact.

The biggest problem I see with what Obama did was that in order to get something passed, he was more interested in having the words "universal coverage" than in lowering the costs of care. It seems to me the biggest impediment to universal coverage is the cost.

If we cut the cost in half to be on par with other developed countries, wouldn't universal coverage be an easier goal?

But the health care lobby (and I do mean the one that donates to both parties) did a fine job of hijacking the discussion, which really wasn't held in public. So we didn't manage to debate things like doctor pay (higher than other countries), medical education (still controlled by a few gatekeepers), tort reform (lawyers who support the Democrats won't have that), pharmaceutical costs (higher in the U.S., even though the U.S. is the largest consumer), etc.

There are lots of topics that should have been debated in public, but are only discussed by our representatives behind closed doors. You know, the representatives from both parties who get lots of campaign support from health care companies.

So I guess we shouldn't be surprised at the inadequate result, that can't really be called "reform".

[SV THIRD DAY]

Originally Posted by colemj

I saw the development of the ACA as a foot in the door compromise to the political and cultural aversion to "socialism", and not that there was more power and campaign cash from it.

True...but the problem is at the rate the ACA is bombing, costs going up, people losing plans they like. Lets admit it, this could be disaster that will for generations tain the well...keeping any real solutions from happening. If the public wasn't ready for single payer...then the argument should have continued to be made until they were ready. This disaster we have now is turning people off from letting the Govenment do anything (which in a way I love... only time will tell, but the problem is we suffer in the mean time

[SV THIRD DAY]

Originally Posted by letsgetsailing3

The biggest problem I see....
It seems to me...
So I guess....

Am I crazy or isn't that just what you started out your post with? Maybe I'm confuzed...happens easily...

[letsgetsailing3]

Originally Posted by SV THIRD DAY

Am I crazy or isn't that just what you started out your post with? Maybe I'm confuzed...happens easily...

Happy to clear this up.

I provided an opinion as well, but it was about health care. I see a difference between the subject of health care, and the politics of health care.

As with most problems, both political parties concern themselves more with trying to find a nuanced position that allows them to criticize the other side than a neutral position that might allow them to agree on some pretty major things.

In the health care debate, both political parties agreed that pre-existing conditions shouldn't stop people from getting health care coverage. Too bad they couldn't come up with the entire laundry list of things they actually agree on, and simply pass that, while reserving the other stuff for public debate.

[Lake-Effect]

Originally Posted by letsgetsailing3

It seems to me the biggest impediment to universal coverage is the cost.

If we cut the cost in half to be on par with other developed countries, wouldn't universal coverage be an easier goal?

No.

The biggest impediment to universal coverage is getting to the moral position that universal coverage is a rational and ethical goal. Universal coverage requires either a single-payer system or a carefully-regulated healthcare marketplace. Once you're there, economies of scale plus regulation drives the costs down as a natural, market-driven consequence. That's the way it's always played out if you study the countries who have universal health care.

ACA is a small step, but in the right direction.

(not political, factual)

[SV THIRD DAY]

Originally Posted by Lake-Effect

(not political, factual)

Opinion called fact is still opinion. At least in my Opinion and aparently from the recent polls, the majority seem to agree with my opinion...at least today anyway.

Originally Posted by Lake-Effect

economies of scale plus regulation drives the costs down as a natural, market-driven consequence.

hmmm...not quite what I remember in my Econ classes...regulation drivinig down cost as a natural market driven consequence? Really, examples please, I'm egar to learn something new here.

I agree with you on Single Payer being the solution, but the problem now is that this ACA is turning into such a disaster with Presidential lies, people losing their Dr and Insurance all wrapped up in basic Govent ineptitude, the American public's appetite for trusting the Government is not just at record lows...but pretty much over.

[Doodles]

Originally Posted by Lake-Effect

ACA is a small step, but in the right direction.

(not political, factual)

Actually, that is quite political. Many (I am not among them) feel that it is one more step toward a socialist government and way of life that they oppose.

[Boatguy30]

I'm really beginning to think that Reagan was right when he opposed the creation of Medicare in 1965. We want to bang on about free markets, but where I live most people getting care either have VA benefits (single payer) or Medicare. You can't possibly have a functional market with these two huge distortions.

We either need to go all free market or to one systems that covers all Americans. We'd sure have a much different and younger electorate today without Medicare.

[gonesail]

single pay is not what we are getting. the new tax will be devastating to many when their premiums double and triple after being dropped this year. affordable is not the right word .. more like disgusting