Affordable Care Act in jeopardy?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:1. Democrats had a once-in-fifty years filibuster-proof control of the legislature and the White House. Congrats could have easily passed single payer but--in hopes of retaining political power--Obama and the Democrats blinked. Yet posters in this thread are mostly blaming republicans.

2. The government doesn't do anything efficiently. The idea that Healthcare will get better in terms of service and/or cost under government control is borderline looney.

3. It isn't fair that a poor person could be stuck wolithout healthcare due to means. Likewise, it isn't fair that healthy people who take care of themselves would be forced to pay for the bad lifestyle choices of others. I get the idea of universal care. any proposed solutions for making people lead healthier lifestyles if we're all going to be on the hook for the repercussions of bad lifestyle decisions?

1. Agree. They could and should have passed both single payer and immigration reform. Instead we got some Frankenstein-like health insurance laws and a Deporter-in-Chief

2. Disagree. Government can run things well WHEN led and managed by professionals, not by egomaniacs or amateurs.

3. Agree.

And when has that been the case? Can you give an example?

Canada
Most European countries
Singapore
Japan
China

? I don't think China's healthcare system is great.

True, but compare where it is today and where it was 30 years ago. They have made significant progress while we are stagnant, at best.

Those aren't examples of government efficiently administering anything. And I was much more interesting in our own country and an example there since it is OUR government that would be managing, not someone from Singapore.

As for Canada. I personally know some who moved to the U.S. after retirement and a prime reason was healthcare availability.

Sure Europe's health care is efficient. They live longer than we do, and they pay half as much. Better outcome at less cost is the definition of efficiency.

+1.

This argument assumes that healthcare drives outcomes. While that is true in some cases (e.g., life-saving surgery outcomes will be driven by healthcare), I think more often than not, the relationship is reversed and outcomes drive care. If I drink a six pack of beer and eat at McDonald's three times a day, odds are that my health outcome will suck regardless of form of healthcare I receive.

I do recall that in 2009 one of the main arguments for the ACA was that access to preventative care would lead to a healthier population AND reduced overall overall healthcare costs. As far as I can tell, neither of those predictions have turned into reality 7 years later. Perhaps those that supported the ACA are ready to admit that this stuff is much more complicated that they originally thought and perhaps they should stop offering bad solutions?

Some things that were touted as a solid for ACA.

Obama's mother had to fight with her insurance company when she had cancer. Bogus story tied to health care when it was a pre-ex on a disability policy.

Preventative care will have a sizable impact on health care costs.

The cost of uninsured and therefore unpaid medical bills is a significant issue. ACA will solve that and help lower premiums since that cost won't be transferred. Never was that much money and never was an issue in the industry.

I have repeatedly stated for almost 3 years that 2016 would be THE year on which direction ACA would take.

[Anonymous]

More bad news....

https://www.washingtonpost.com/business/economy/health-care-exchange-sign-ups-fall-far-short-of-forecasts/2016/08/27/3d93f602-6895-11e6-99bf-f0cf3a6449a6_story.html?hpid=hp_hp-top-table-main_healthinsurance616pm%3Ahomepage%2Fstory

Enrollment in the insurance exchanges for President Obama’s signature health-care law is at less than half the initial forecast, pushing several major insurance companies to stop offering health plans in certain markets because of significant financial losses.

As a result, the administration’s promise of a menu of health-plan choices has been replaced by a grim, though preliminary, forecast: Next year, one in four counties is at risk of having a single insurer on its exchange, said Cynthia Cox, who studies health reform for the Kaiser Family Foundation.

Debate over how perilous the predicament is for the Affordable Care Act, commonly called Obamacare, is nearly as partisan as the divide over the law itself. But at the root of the problem is this: The success of the law depends fundamentally on the exchanges being profitable for insurers — and that requires more people to sign up.