ObamaCare

[jj3044]

Is it better than letting healthcare become 33% of our GDP by the time my kids are in college? Yes, I think so.

How do you know that it's better? If you don't know that it's better (and it seems like you don't), why would you spend $1.1 trillion?

The funny part is that I hear a lot of complaints that the bill is going to cost 1.1T. But it has the potential to save a far greater sum of money to our country than that.

It has the potential? What, in our history, leads you to believe that something the government does will save money? You are putting a lot of faith in a government that has, among other things, waived the requirements of the ACA for going on 300 different (and large) companies and that, among other things, has helped to nearly bankrupt social security, and that, among other things, has helped to make sure Medicare and Medicaid are ineffective at best.

That is correct, I don't know that it will be better. All I know is that the current system is unsustainable and WOULD have bankrupted our country. I'm pretty sure we are all in agreement there. So, I'm willing to try it. I think that there are a lot of good provisions in the bill that will help reduce the cost of healthcare in the long run. Hopefully our government made a good decision.

[Night Strike]

So, I would like to ask you this question: Would you be ok with health insurance being mandatory unless you can prove that you have the assets to pay for a major disease/condition should you get one (just as in this car insurance example)? Personally I would be in favor of that.

Nope, I wouldn't be ok with that because car and health insurance are completely different. Car insurance is required because a person chooses to drive a car while health insurance is required because a person chooses to breathe. I'd much rather have the government actually hold people accountable for paying their own bills if they don't have insurance instead of mandating that everyone has health insurance that costs at least $20k per year.

Following your own logic you would have no problem with mandatory insurance for gun ownership presumably?

Owning a gun is a Constitutional right while owning a car is not, so gun insurance would not be the same. To be honest, all of these fees, registrations, and possible insurance on owning a gun are all the exact same as poll taxes: an infringement on Constitutional rights.

[thegreekdog]

Is it better than letting healthcare become 33% of our GDP by the time my kids are in college? Yes, I think so.

How do you know that it's better? If you don't know that it's better (and it seems like you don't), why would you spend $1.1 trillion?

The funny part is that I hear a lot of complaints that the bill is going to cost 1.1T. But it has the potential to save a far greater sum of money to our country than that.

It has the potential? What, in our history, leads you to believe that something the government does will save money? You are putting a lot of faith in a government that has, among other things, waived the requirements of the ACA for going on 300 different (and large) companies and that, among other things, has helped to nearly bankrupt social security, and that, among other things, has helped to make sure Medicare and Medicaid are ineffective at best.

That is correct, I don't know that it will be better. All I know is that the current system is unsustainable and WOULD have bankrupted our country. I'm pretty sure we are all in agreement there. So, I'm willing to try it. I think that there are a lot of good provisions in the bill that will help reduce the cost of healthcare in the long run. Hopefully our government made a good decision.

Which good provisions in the bill will help reduce the cost of healthcare in the long run?
Are you concerned about the assignment of waivers to various large employers?
Are you concerned that the individual mandate will require that people purchase health insurance with generous benefits and virtually no cost-sharing?
What provisions of the ACA require that premiums and costs of insurance remain static? In other words, what's to prevent all health insurance from doubling their prices?

[spurgistan]

Is it better than letting healthcare become 33% of our GDP by the time my kids are in college? Yes, I think so.

How do you know that it's better? If you don't know that it's better (and it seems like you don't), why would you spend $1.1 trillion?

The funny part is that I hear a lot of complaints that the bill is going to cost 1.1T. But it has the potential to save a far greater sum of money to our country than that.

It has the potential? What, in our history, leads you to believe that something the government does will save money? You are putting a lot of faith in a government that has, among other things, waived the requirements of the ACA for going on 300 different (and large) companies and that, among other things, has helped to nearly bankrupt social security, and that, among other things, has helped to make sure Medicare and Medicaid are ineffective at best.

Medicare ineffective? explainplz?

[thegreekdog]

Is it better than letting healthcare become 33% of our GDP by the time my kids are in college? Yes, I think so.

How do you know that it's better? If you don't know that it's better (and it seems like you don't), why would you spend $1.1 trillion?

The funny part is that I hear a lot of complaints that the bill is going to cost 1.1T. But it has the potential to save a far greater sum of money to our country than that.

It has the potential? What, in our history, leads you to believe that something the government does will save money? You are putting a lot of faith in a government that has, among other things, waived the requirements of the ACA for going on 300 different (and large) companies and that, among other things, has helped to nearly bankrupt social security, and that, among other things, has helped to make sure Medicare and Medicaid are ineffective at best.

Medicare ineffective? explainplz?

I actually meant inefficient.

[jj3044]

Is it better than letting healthcare become 33% of our GDP by the time my kids are in college? Yes, I think so.

How do you know that it's better? If you don't know that it's better (and it seems like you don't), why would you spend $1.1 trillion?

The funny part is that I hear a lot of complaints that the bill is going to cost 1.1T. But it has the potential to save a far greater sum of money to our country than that.

It has the potential? What, in our history, leads you to believe that something the government does will save money? You are putting a lot of faith in a government that has, among other things, waived the requirements of the ACA for going on 300 different (and large) companies and that, among other things, has helped to nearly bankrupt social security, and that, among other things, has helped to make sure Medicare and Medicaid are ineffective at best.

That is correct, I don't know that it will be better. All I know is that the current system is unsustainable and WOULD have bankrupted our country. I'm pretty sure we are all in agreement there. So, I'm willing to try it. I think that there are a lot of good provisions in the bill that will help reduce the cost of healthcare in the long run. Hopefully our government made a good decision.

Which good provisions in the bill will help reduce the cost of healthcare in the long run?
Are you concerned about the assignment of waivers to various large employers?
Are you concerned that the individual mandate will require that people purchase health insurance with generous benefits and virtually no cost-sharing?
What provisions of the ACA require that premiums and costs of insurance remain static? In other words, what's to prevent all health insurance from doubling their prices?

I'm not sure if you read my older posts, but I illustrated many provisions that should reduce costs and improve outcomes. Instead of re-hashing the same post, feel free to search for them... I don't post too often so it shouldn't be hard.

As for waivers, my understanding is that those waivers are for a limited time only. I know that one company that I work with has a waiver, but that waiver expires in 2014 when they are forced to change their benefit design. That being the case, I am not worried as everyone will be on the same playing field. See, the waiver was needed for groups that wouldn't be able to afford coverage if they immediately got rid of their old designs (with lifetime limits, etc) that helped keep the cost lower for those groups. If their weren't any waivers, those groups would have been forced to drop coverage way before the healthcare exchanges were set up. The waiver allowed those companies to keep coverage until the exchanges were ready in 2014. At least, that is my understanding.

I'm not sure what you consider "generous benefits". Can you elaborate? The policies must have a minimum amount of coverage in order to be approved, but I'm not sure if that is what you are talking about here?

The ACA actually does have provisions to eliminate arbitrary rate increases. Insurers are now forced to spend at least $0.85 from every dollar on paying claims, so their overhead is limited to 15% or less. Also, I believe the ACA sets up regulators that will approve rate increase filings. They look at the financials and decide if the filing is appropriate. I happen to live in a state that their has been a health insurance commissioner for some time doing just that, so I have seen how it works. He often denies or reduces the proposed rate increases.

[thegreekdog]

Is it better than letting healthcare become 33% of our GDP by the time my kids are in college? Yes, I think so.

How do you know that it's better? If you don't know that it's better (and it seems like you don't), why would you spend $1.1 trillion?

The funny part is that I hear a lot of complaints that the bill is going to cost 1.1T. But it has the potential to save a far greater sum of money to our country than that.

It has the potential? What, in our history, leads you to believe that something the government does will save money? You are putting a lot of faith in a government that has, among other things, waived the requirements of the ACA for going on 300 different (and large) companies and that, among other things, has helped to nearly bankrupt social security, and that, among other things, has helped to make sure Medicare and Medicaid are ineffective at best.

That is correct, I don't know that it will be better. All I know is that the current system is unsustainable and WOULD have bankrupted our country. I'm pretty sure we are all in agreement there. So, I'm willing to try it. I think that there are a lot of good provisions in the bill that will help reduce the cost of healthcare in the long run. Hopefully our government made a good decision.

Which good provisions in the bill will help reduce the cost of healthcare in the long run?
Are you concerned about the assignment of waivers to various large employers?
Are you concerned that the individual mandate will require that people purchase health insurance with generous benefits and virtually no cost-sharing?
What provisions of the ACA require that premiums and costs of insurance remain static? In other words, what's to prevent all health insurance from doubling their prices?

I'm not sure if you read my older posts, but I illustrated many provisions that should reduce costs and improve outcomes. Instead of re-hashing the same post, feel free to search for them... I don't post too often so it shouldn't be hard.

As for waivers, my understanding is that those waivers are for a limited time only. I know that one company that I work with has a waiver, but that waiver expires in 2014 when they are forced to change their benefit design. That being the case, I am not worried as everyone will be on the same playing field. See, the waiver was needed for groups that wouldn't be able to afford coverage if they immediately got rid of their old designs (with lifetime limits, etc) that helped keep the cost lower for those groups. If their weren't any waivers, those groups would have been forced to drop coverage way before the healthcare exchanges were set up. The waiver allowed those companies to keep coverage until the exchanges were ready in 2014. At least, that is my understanding.

I'm not sure what you consider "generous benefits". Can you elaborate? The policies must have a minimum amount of coverage in order to be approved, but I'm not sure if that is what you are talking about here?

The ACA actually does have provisions to eliminate arbitrary rate increases. Insurers are now forced to spend at least $0.85 from every dollar on paying claims, so their overhead is limited to 15% or less. Also, I believe the ACA sets up regulators that will approve rate increase filings. They look at the financials and decide if the filing is appropriate. I happen to live in a state that their has been a health insurance commissioner for some time doing just that, so I have seen how it works. He often denies or reduces the proposed rate increases.

I did a search and there are actually too many to read. I trust that you've indicated the perceived benefits of the ACA.

(1) Waivers - You do not seem concerned. After a few minutes of searching, I cannot find anything tangible that indicates the waivers are temporary. I went on two supportive websites (Mother Jones and the SEIU website) and did not find anything there either. That's not to say I don't believe you, but the administrators of the ACA are not making it very clear that these are temporary, and that seems like a rather easy way to debunk conservative critiques. Kathleen Sebelius noted that "without the waivers, many employers would have increased premiums, and some would have dropped coverage altogether." A lobbyist for the AFL-CIO noted (in defense of his organization's waiver), that "some union health plans had a legitimate need for waivers because they had annual coverage limits lower than $750,000. If they had to increase coverage to that level they would incur significant new costs." These two statements seem to indicate that the ACA should not be implemented for all employees; just those employees of organizations which could afford the increased limits. That seems rather counterintuitive.

(2) Generous benefits - A simple example might be appropriate. Prior to the ACA, a health insurance plan cost $100 and provided potentially $200 of benefits. Subsequent to the ACA, a health insurance plan cost $120 and provided potential $500 of benefits. Does it concern you that the increase in benefits is not offset by an increase in cost?

(3) Rate increases - The law does not prevent rate increases. From the "healthcare.gov" website:

"For the first time ever in every State, insurance companies must publicly justify any rate increase of 10% or more. And the law gives States new resources to review and block these premium hikes."

I'm not sure how "public justification" of a rate increase helps. There can be a request or demand for public justification without a law. I make a demand for justification for price increases when I choose to purchase a cheaper pair of shoes. The market tends to take care of these things. Nevermind that the threshhold is 10% or more. This also seems like burden shifting by the government. Instead of the federal government assuming the burden of blocking premium hikes, it puts the onus on state governments. And, although some may call me paranoid, I'm not convinced that insurance companies don't have the wherewithal or political capital to block and attempts at blocking premium increases... especially at a state level.

I'm not suggesting that the ACA is a bad law. I don't know the answer. There are things about it that concern me (in addition to those listed above). To be honest, I would have preferred a state-run healthcare program than the ACA (although my most preferred plan would be to remove health insurance regulations completely and provide for increased competition). To be fair, as well, the ACA is essentially the Republican plan from the late 1990s and was implemented by a Republican governor in Massachusetts. Ultimately my concern is that this is a corporate boondoggle for health insurance companies that will merely pass more costs on to taxpayers. There is nothing that has happened between then and today that has convinced me otherwise.

[PLAYER57832]

Is it better than letting healthcare become 33% of our GDP by the time my kids are in college? Yes, I think so.

How do you know that it's better? If you don't know that it's better (and it seems like you don't), why would you spend $1.1 trillion?

The funny part is that I hear a lot of complaints that the bill is going to cost 1.1T. But it has the potential to save a far greater sum of money to our country than that.

It has the potential? What, in our history, leads you to believe that something the government does will save money? You are putting a lot of faith in a government that has, among other things, waived the requirements of the ACA for going on 300 different (and large) companies and that, among other things, has helped to nearly bankrupt social security, and that, among other things, has helped to make sure Medicare and Medicaid are ineffective at best.

That is correct, I don't know that it will be better. All I know is that the current system is unsustainable and WOULD have bankrupted our country. I'm pretty sure we are all in agreement there. So, I'm willing to try it. I think that there are a lot of good provisions in the bill that will help reduce the cost of healthcare in the long run. Hopefully our government made a good decision.

Which good provisions in the bill will help reduce the cost of healthcare in the long run?
Are you concerned about the assignment of waivers to various large employers?
Are you concerned that the individual mandate will require that people purchase health insurance with generous benefits and virtually no cost-sharing?
What provisions of the ACA require that premiums and costs of insurance remain static? In other words, what's to prevent all health insurance from doubling their prices?

I'm not sure if you read my older posts, but I illustrated many provisions that should reduce costs and improve outcomes. Instead of re-hashing the same post, feel free to search for them... I don't post too often so it shouldn't be hard.

As for waivers, my understanding is that those waivers are for a limited time only. I know that one company that I work with has a waiver, but that waiver expires in 2014 when they are forced to change their benefit design. That being the case, I am not worried as everyone will be on the same playing field. See, the waiver was needed for groups that wouldn't be able to afford coverage if they immediately got rid of their old designs (with lifetime limits, etc) that helped keep the cost lower for those groups. If their weren't any waivers, those groups would have been forced to drop coverage way before the healthcare exchanges were set up. The waiver allowed those companies to keep coverage until the exchanges were ready in 2014. At least, that is my understanding.

I'm not sure what you consider "generous benefits". Can you elaborate? The policies must have a minimum amount of coverage in order to be approved, but I'm not sure if that is what you are talking about here?

The ACA actually does have provisions to eliminate arbitrary rate increases. Insurers are now forced to spend at least $0.85 from every dollar on paying claims, so their overhead is limited to 15% or less. Also, I believe the ACA sets up regulators that will approve rate increase filings. They look at the financials and decide if the filing is appropriate. I happen to live in a state that their has been a health insurance commissioner for some time doing just that, so I have seen how it works. He often denies or reduces the proposed rate increases.

I did a search and there are actually too many to read. I trust that you've indicated the perceived benefits of the ACA.

(1) Waivers - You do not seem concerned. After a few minutes of searching, I cannot find anything tangible that indicates the waivers are temporary. I went on two supportive websites (Mother Jones and the SEIU website) and did not find anything there either. That's not to say I don't believe you, but the administrators of the ACA are not making it very clear that these are temporary, and that seems like a rather easy way to debunk conservative critiques. Kathleen Sebelius noted that "without the waivers, many employers would have increased premiums, and some would have dropped coverage altogether." A lobbyist for the AFL-CIO noted (in defense of his organization's waiver), that "some union health plans had a legitimate need for waivers because they had annual coverage limits lower than $750,000. If they had to increase coverage to that level they would incur significant new costs." These two statements seem to indicate that the ACA should not be implemented for all employees; just those employees of organizations which could afford the increased limits. That seems rather counterintuitive.

(2) Generous benefits - A simple example might be appropriate. Prior to the ACA, a health insurance plan cost $100 and provided potentially $200 of benefits. Subsequent to the ACA, a health insurance plan cost $120 and provided potential $500 of benefits. Does it concern you that the increase in benefits is not offset by an increase in cost?

(3) Rate increases - The law does not prevent rate increases. From the "healthcare.gov" website:

"For the first time ever in every State, insurance companies must publicly justify any rate increase of 10% or more. And the law gives States new resources to review and block these premium hikes."

I'm not sure how "public justification" of a rate increase helps. There can be a request or demand for public justification without a law. I make a demand for justification for price increases when I choose to purchase a cheaper pair of shoes. The market tends to take care of these things. Nevermind that the threshhold is 10% or more. This also seems like burden shifting by the government. Instead of the federal government assuming the burden of blocking premium hikes, it puts the onus on state governments. And, although some may call me paranoid, I'm not convinced that insurance companies don't have the wherewithal or political capital to block and attempts at blocking premium increases... especially at a state level.

I'm not suggesting that the ACA is a bad law. I don't know the answer. There are things about it that concern me (in addition to those listed above). To be honest, I would have preferred a state-run healthcare program than the ACA (although my most preferred plan would be to remove health insurance regulations completely and provide for increased competition). To be fair, as well, the ACA is essentially the Republican plan from the late 1990s and was implemented by a Republican governor in Massachusetts. Ultimately my concern is that this is a corporate boondoggle for health insurance companies that will merely pass more costs on to taxpayers. There is nothing that has happened between then and today that has convinced me otherwise.

Except, the real question is not if the current law is fantastic, it is whether it is better than what we had.

Those are 2 very, very different questions. I would never say that our current law is great. It has, as you noted a lot of problems. However, it is much better than what we had.

[thegreekdog]

Except, the real question is not if the current law is fantastic, it is whether it is better than what we had.

Those are 2 very, very different questions. I would never say that our current law is great. It has, as you noted a lot of problems. However, it is much better than what we had.

That is the question I'm asking and I'm challenging jj3044's response. I don't think it will be better than what we had.

[jj3044]

Is it better than letting healthcare become 33% of our GDP by the time my kids are in college? Yes, I think so.

How do you know that it's better? If you don't know that it's better (and it seems like you don't), why would you spend $1.1 trillion?

The funny part is that I hear a lot of complaints that the bill is going to cost 1.1T. But it has the potential to save a far greater sum of money to our country than that.

It has the potential? What, in our history, leads you to believe that something the government does will save money? You are putting a lot of faith in a government that has, among other things, waived the requirements of the ACA for going on 300 different (and large) companies and that, among other things, has helped to nearly bankrupt social security, and that, among other things, has helped to make sure Medicare and Medicaid are ineffective at best.

That is correct, I don't know that it will be better. All I know is that the current system is unsustainable and WOULD have bankrupted our country. I'm pretty sure we are all in agreement there. So, I'm willing to try it. I think that there are a lot of good provisions in the bill that will help reduce the cost of healthcare in the long run. Hopefully our government made a good decision.

Which good provisions in the bill will help reduce the cost of healthcare in the long run?
Are you concerned about the assignment of waivers to various large employers?
Are you concerned that the individual mandate will require that people purchase health insurance with generous benefits and virtually no cost-sharing?
What provisions of the ACA require that premiums and costs of insurance remain static? In other words, what's to prevent all health insurance from doubling their prices?

I'm not sure if you read my older posts, but I illustrated many provisions that should reduce costs and improve outcomes. Instead of re-hashing the same post, feel free to search for them... I don't post too often so it shouldn't be hard.

As for waivers, my understanding is that those waivers are for a limited time only. I know that one company that I work with has a waiver, but that waiver expires in 2014 when they are forced to change their benefit design. That being the case, I am not worried as everyone will be on the same playing field. See, the waiver was needed for groups that wouldn't be able to afford coverage if they immediately got rid of their old designs (with lifetime limits, etc) that helped keep the cost lower for those groups. If their weren't any waivers, those groups would have been forced to drop coverage way before the healthcare exchanges were set up. The waiver allowed those companies to keep coverage until the exchanges were ready in 2014. At least, that is my understanding.

I'm not sure what you consider "generous benefits". Can you elaborate? The policies must have a minimum amount of coverage in order to be approved, but I'm not sure if that is what you are talking about here?

The ACA actually does have provisions to eliminate arbitrary rate increases. Insurers are now forced to spend at least $0.85 from every dollar on paying claims, so their overhead is limited to 15% or less. Also, I believe the ACA sets up regulators that will approve rate increase filings. They look at the financials and decide if the filing is appropriate. I happen to live in a state that their has been a health insurance commissioner for some time doing just that, so I have seen how it works. He often denies or reduces the proposed rate increases.

I did a search and there are actually too many to read. I trust that you've indicated the perceived benefits of the ACA.

(1) Waivers - You do not seem concerned. After a few minutes of searching, I cannot find anything tangible that indicates the waivers are temporary. I went on two supportive websites (Mother Jones and the SEIU website) and did not find anything there either. That's not to say I don't believe you, but the administrators of the ACA are not making it very clear that these are temporary, and that seems like a rather easy way to debunk conservative critiques. Kathleen Sebelius noted that "without the waivers, many employers would have increased premiums, and some would have dropped coverage altogether." A lobbyist for the AFL-CIO noted (in defense of his organization's waiver), that "some union health plans had a legitimate need for waivers because they had annual coverage limits lower than $750,000. If they had to increase coverage to that level they would incur significant new costs." These two statements seem to indicate that the ACA should not be implemented for all employees; just those employees of organizations which could afford the increased limits. That seems rather counterintuitive.

(2) Generous benefits - A simple example might be appropriate. Prior to the ACA, a health insurance plan cost $100 and provided potentially $200 of benefits. Subsequent to the ACA, a health insurance plan cost $120 and provided potential $500 of benefits. Does it concern you that the increase in benefits is not offset by an increase in cost?

(3) Rate increases - The law does not prevent rate increases. From the "healthcare.gov" website:

"For the first time ever in every State, insurance companies must publicly justify any rate increase of 10% or more. And the law gives States new resources to review and block these premium hikes."

I'm not sure how "public justification" of a rate increase helps. There can be a request or demand for public justification without a law. I make a demand for justification for price increases when I choose to purchase a cheaper pair of shoes. The market tends to take care of these things. Nevermind that the threshhold is 10% or more. This also seems like burden shifting by the government. Instead of the federal government assuming the burden of blocking premium hikes, it puts the onus on state governments. And, although some may call me paranoid, I'm not convinced that insurance companies don't have the wherewithal or political capital to block and attempts at blocking premium increases... especially at a state level.

I'm not suggesting that the ACA is a bad law. I don't know the answer. There are things about it that concern me (in addition to those listed above). To be honest, I would have preferred a state-run healthcare program than the ACA (although my most preferred plan would be to remove health insurance regulations completely and provide for increased competition). To be fair, as well, the ACA is essentially the Republican plan from the late 1990s and was implemented by a Republican governor in Massachusetts. Ultimately my concern is that this is a corporate boondoggle for health insurance companies that will merely pass more costs on to taxpayers. There is nothing that has happened between then and today that has convinced me otherwise.

I agree player, I don't think it is perfect, but hopefully it will turnout better than what we had before.

So to respond Greekdog:
1) I am getting my information from the attorney at my company. It's always possible that I am misunderstanding (they do seem to speak gibberish sometimes! ), but I know that the group I referenced in my previous post has an exemption that will expire in 2014, and they are going to be sending the part of their population that would be affected to the exchange.
2)It doesn't worry me because there will be a good many healthy people who will now be paying for coverage (who didn't previous), so the actual costs will be spread out among a larger population.
3) The law you mentioned, "And the law gives States new resources to review and block these premium hikes." is what I was talking about before, about how my state has a healthcare commissioner that reviews rate increases, and approves/modifies/denies them based on information that receive.

[Night Strike]

2)It doesn't worry me because there will be a good many healthy people who will now be paying for coverage (who didn't previous), so the actual costs will be spread out among a larger population.

Or they can choose to pay the tax instead to save money and then force the insurance company to cover them when they do get sick since pre-existing conditions of all kinds can never be denied.

[thegreekdog]

hopefully it will turnout better than what we had before.

I honestly hope it will too, but I'm inherently skeptical about all things government. In my opinion, the government does things to benefit itself and its consituents (which are not people like you and me).

1) I am getting my information from the attorney at my company. It's always possible that I am misunderstanding (they do seem to speak gibberish sometimes! ), but I know that the group I referenced in my previous post has an exemption that will expire in 2014, and they are going to be sending the part of their population that would be affected to the exchange.

Okay. That's one company I suppose. I'm not sure that removes my concerns, but perhaps you're not debating here.

2)It doesn't worry me because there will be a good many healthy people who will now be paying for coverage (who didn't previous), so the actual costs will be spread out among a larger population.

Those people did pay for coverage in the past, they just didn't pay for their own coverage.

3) The law you mentioned, "And the law gives States new resources to review and block these premium hikes." is what I was talking about before, about how my state has a healthcare commissioner that reviews rate increases, and approves/modifies/denies them based on information that receive.

Right. Again, not sure that removes my concerns, but perhaps you're not debating.

[jj3044]

hopefully it will turnout better than what we had before.

I honestly hope it will too, but I'm inherently skeptical about all things government. In my opinion, the government does things to benefit itself and its consituents (which are not people like you and me).

1) I am getting my information from the attorney at my company. It's always possible that I am misunderstanding (they do seem to speak gibberish sometimes! ), but I know that the group I referenced in my previous post has an exemption that will expire in 2014, and they are going to be sending the part of their population that would be affected to the exchange.

Okay. That's one company I suppose. I'm not sure that removes my concerns, but perhaps you're not debating here.

2)It doesn't worry me because there will be a good many healthy people who will now be paying for coverage (who didn't previous), so the actual costs will be spread out among a larger population.

Those people did pay for coverage in the past, they just didn't pay for their own coverage.

3) The law you mentioned, "And the law gives States new resources to review and block these premium hikes." is what I was talking about before, about how my state has a healthcare commissioner that reviews rate increases, and approves/modifies/denies them based on information that receive.

Right. Again, not sure that removes my concerns, but perhaps you're not debating.

No, I'm not really debating with you, just letting you know what I have observed thus far working in the industry. I have absolutely no idea if it will pan out great, but I do think that the law is misunderstood, which is warranted based on the ambiguity that the law had when it was passed (as been pointed out since a lot of the congressmen who voted for it didn't read it). I agree that point is messed up, but once the provisions have been explained, I am so far not feeling all that bad about it.

The ACA and healthcare aside, I feel as though our society tends to have a self fulfilling prophecy though... if people think something will fail it typically does.

[PLAYER57832]

Except, the real question is not if the current law is fantastic, it is whether it is better than what we had.

Those are 2 very, very different questions. I would never say that our current law is great. It has, as you noted a lot of problems. However, it is much better than what we had.

That is the question I'm asking and I'm challenging jj3044's response. I don't think it will be better than what we had.

it already is, even if the cost is more overall.. becuase far more people will be covered. Most particularly, you have pretty much ignored or underplayed the impact of the previous condition exclusions and lifetime limit provisions. Those alone are responsible for placing thousands, if not millions on the government funded roles instead of private insurance.

In truth, though, what I really think we need is a reset.

[PLAYER57832]

This maybe should go in its own thread, but it is on topic.

At its root, there is something fundamentally, not sure if "immoral" is the correct word, but not quite good about a system in which more money is made when people are sicker.

Set aside the rest of the debate and just think about that for a minute. I am not talking about bad people, though of course such will take advantage of any system. (but ANY system... so sort of irrelevant to this part of the debate). I am talking about very good, very well meaning people.

One study we (more than one person, cannot remember the first poster) found earlier showed that orthopedic costs went up and the results went down when more orthopedists were in the same area. Orthopedics is a good example because while its important, its not life-threatening, and an area where there have been a lot of advances. What the study found was that when there are more doctors in an area, they will tend to treat patients sooner than if there were fewer doctors in the area.

Importantly, none of the doctors seemed to be aware they were doing this. It seemed to happen in a few different ways. One is just that doctors would talk to each other and sort of convince each other to do this or that more. When cases were more borderline, the tendency (unconscious tendency) was for the doctor to convince themselves to do the procedure, because unconsciously they knew that if they did not do it, another doctor might.

Anyway, a real fix will mean changing the way that system works.

It is just one of many reasons why straight market economics just doesn't work in medicine. (not saying that market elements have to be ignored, but they are not the sole solution).