originally posted by: AboveBoard
Well for starters, all the protections are not carried over. 50+ folks and sick people can be charged WAY more than they can under the ACA.
So, you mean they might actually have to pay the full cost for their possibly ailing health? Interesting...
The cheap junk plans will appeal to young healthy folks and that makes sick and older people have to pay even more because the pools will be
split between healthy/young and sick/old.
So you advocate the idea that young people who can't even afford their student loans should continue to subsidize the cost of other people's
Insurance rates for both individual and employer plans will go up.
This is conjecture, akin to Obama's claims that the average premium under the PPACA would decrease by $2,500/year. Care to explain why one conjecture
holds more validity than the other at the time that it's not provable?
If someone has a junk plan and gets sick, their insurance will not really cover it. It will cause bankruptcy and death.
You still did not cite where in the proposed bill that this is fact. Furthermore, you are speaking in hyperbole, only citing the worst-case scenario
that will affect a minute amount of people. But keep in mind, these are the same young people who, before the PPACA was passed, opted out of health
insurance altogether, so it's not exactly like it's a big deal when compared to before--and I don't really see the massive piles of bodies from the
2000s and before that are attributed to young people who didn't have insurance. Can you show me those, or will you admit that you're over-exaggerating
this talking point?
Please look at the data and analysis yourself and see what you think.
Here's one of the two problems (the second problem being that this is an oped from the LA Times): You don't need to compare the two bills, you need to
accept the fact that neither one is very good. Period.
The average American's health insurance and healthcare doesn't need to be manipulated by the federal government. If they want to create an optional
insurance for low- or no-income people as a option, that's fine (and it already exists, to a point), but dicking with everyone's just to benefit a
relatively low portion of Americans is irresponsible at the federal level.
There are subsidies but far less of them and a lower cut off for receiving them.
Good...the criteria that needs met in order to suckle from the teet of the American taxpayer needs to be tightened...but the process also needs to be
fair and efficient for those truly in need. Right now, the criteria are too loose and the administration too inefficient.
So, healthy people can buy illusory security for less, but if they get sick they will need to wait six months to purchase a plan that will
cover them assuming they don't lapse fore than 63 days in their coverage or it will be a pre-existing condition and they will not be covered for it.
(Note: this keeps changing - not sure where current law stands - this has changed sonsee below for current info. I'm leaving my mistake here as
pre-existing conditions are still a concern. )
I agree that the issue of pre-existing conditions is a tough one, but I stand firm in believing that not everyone should be forced to share the cost
of someone's medical condition. Pre-existing conditions, as handled now by the PPACA, are causing a heavy strain on the insurance industry. If you
want to see the downfall of the insurance industry (and, honestly, I kind of do, but not for the sinister reasons as that makes it sound), then by all
means, mandate that they keep covering these people in unaffordable ways for the providers.
Cuts to Medicaid are a massive part of this bill.
Probably because usurping control via mandates to the insurance industry is expensive. Expanding Medicaid in lieu of the creation of the PPACA is what
should have been the goal in the first place, assuming the true goal was to get those who cannot afford it insured.
The health industry gained jobs under the ACA through hospital expansions and the higher level of people with quality insurance seeking care.
These gains are projected to become losses when the factors that drove the increase are removed.
A large majority of those jobs were in order to administer the PPACA mandates and insurance information correctly. My mom was the one person in charge
of teaching everyone how to use the new national healthcare database, and there were a LOT of new hires just to deal with that. She then go a
promotion to lead compliance officer for the hospital, and the amount of compliance with the PPACA is something that she had never seen before in her
entire more-than 35-year career in the medical field (the bulk of which being an RN).
Yes, jobs were created, but not only because of the reasons that you imply or state.
Also, Congress has exempted themselves from their own legislation. I leave you with that thought.
Red herring--Congress exempts themselves from reality.
Young and healthy people will opt for those plans, leaving those with pre-existing conditions in their own, much more costly, market. In
the end, the effect is the same as if companies could just outright discriminate against those with serious health problems.
It is absolute bullsh*t to refer to this as "discrimination"--it is not the job of Joe or Jane American to subsidize those with costly medical issues
by force using their own personal health insurance as the means to do so. If that's the role of the federal government--to mandate such a thing--they
need to grow a pair and just specify that as a line item in the next budget.
But, let's just look at my state of residence and see how the PPACA is doing for hospitals here:
Kentucky hospitals losing money
under PPACA: 8 things to know
Effect of the Affordable Care Act in Kentucky
I can't find the really good one that I cited on ATS a while ago, but it went really in depth into the average profit margin of KY hospitals, how many
have closed and why, etc. The PPACA has definitely not been all bells and whistles, and the most negatively affected areas in KY have been in the
poorer rural areas.
I stand by my belief, 100%, that ANY usurping of the health insurance/care industry by the federal government will always lead to a very bad result in