My issue with the ACA is that its not exactly the "young and healthy" subsidizing the rest. It's the "young and healthy who buy individual insurance." Most young and healthy people are not required to contribute, because they are on employer plans (hence keeping the cost of *those* plans down). Not sure how fair it is that only this small group is really paying for all the previously uninsurable.

Anonymous wrote:

that's a great story. I'm genuinely happy for your little niece.

however, why couldn't O then just come out and say....look, young or healthy people, you need to pay more so those less fortunate can be helped.

AND why did he not combine this with government intervention on the cost side of medicine? remember even in medicare, the gov cannot negotiate to drive down costs for pharm.

I think if he proposed a COMPREHENSIVE solution...one that attacked access, supply, and cost issues....everyone would be more accepting.

Actually, access, supply, and cost issues are all part of the ACA. Some of these things are long term and won't be fixed overnight, but there is definitely more to the ACA than subsiding the less healthy via the more healthy. As far, as the "young and healthy people, you need to pay more so the less fortunate can be helped," my understanding from the beginning was that this would be the case--and part of the way to bring down costs overall--and it's no surprise to me, but I'm a news junkie.

I truly think there is a lot of good coming out of the ACA in the long run, however it is somewhat of a mess because private insurance and employer based insurance are still so popular. Ideally, I think we should have a single payer system or at least a public option, but this was the best that could be done in this political climate. I fear, though, that part of the issue is that navigating this complex system is going to become untenable to those who are not savvy about reading the fine print.

PP you quoted. I'm a news junkie too, and I agree that was the 'between the lines' analysis in terms of who would be paying more. but lets face it, Obama and the D's did not say it outright during the helath care battles of 09. I know why they didn't - it would be politically suicidal, but nevertheless they were not 100% honest and upfront with the American people and that's why this is being thrown back in their faces.

As for supply and cost issues...the aca is not really doing much. There is no massive program (like h1b) to import hordes of foreign docs to help with supply issues in the medical system (a lot due to the AMA being more powerful than a random tech worker's lobby) and there is no huge government intervention on the cost side to drive down pharma and procedure prices a la Canada or even Switzerland (the swiss have something similar to ACA but are WAYYY more aggressive on cost control, hence why it kind of works there - not to mention more healthier and homogenous population in high density).

I agree with you regarding single payer...I think Obama was weak in even taking it off the table during his run against Clinton in the primaries....single payer should've been the starting point for negotiation...ACA (a heritage plan) the Right's version, and public-option the middle ground.

that's a great story. I'm genuinely happy for your little niece.

however, why couldn't O then just come out and say....look, young or healthy people, you need to pay more so those less fortunate can be helped.

AND why did he not combine this with government intervention on the cost side of medicine? remember even in medicare, the gov cannot negotiate to drive down costs for pharm.

I think if he proposed a COMPREHENSIVE solution...one that attacked access, supply, and cost issues....everyone would be more accepting.

Actually, access, supply, and cost issues are all part of the ACA. Some of these things are long term and won't be fixed overnight, but there is definitely more to the ACA than subsiding the less healthy via the more healthy. As far, as the "young and healthy people, you need to pay more so the less fortunate can be helped," my understanding from the beginning was that this would be the case--and part of the way to bring down costs overall--and it's no surprise to me, but I'm a news junkie.

I truly think there is a lot of good coming out of the ACA in the long run, however it is somewhat of a mess because private insurance and employer based insurance are still so popular. Ideally, I think we should have a single payer system or at least a public option, but this was the best that could be done in this political climate. I fear, though, that part of the issue is that navigating this complex system is going to become untenable to those who are not savvy about reading the fine print.

Anonymous wrote:Yes, the prices are going to increase for the young and healthy.

But I do see some positives coming out of the ACA. For example, my niece was born with a congenital heart disorder requiring multiple open heart surgeries in the first month of life and ongoing monitoring ever since. By the time she was three days old, she had reached her lifetime limit on her father's employer healthcare plan. She was kicked off of the health insurance plan, and my SIL and BIL had to pay out of pocket for several of her surgeries, putting them so far in debt, they'll probably take it to their grave. Now that the law is passed that removes lifetime limits and denial of coverage based on pre-existing conditions, she is able to be insured again for a lot of her ongoing treatment. That is an awful way to start life--at one month of age, never being able to have health insurance again.

that's a great story. I'm genuinely happy for your little niece.

however, why couldn't O then just come out and say....look, young or healthy people, you need to pay more so those less fortunate can be helped.

AND why did he not combine this with government intervention on the cost side of medicine? remember even in medicare, the gov cannot negotiate to drive down costs for pharm.

I think if he proposed a COMPREHENSIVE solution...one that attacked access, supply, and cost issues....everyone would be more accepting.

Yes, the prices are going to increase for the young and healthy.

But I do see some positives coming out of the ACA. For example, my niece was born with a congenital heart disorder requiring multiple open heart surgeries in the first month of life and ongoing monitoring ever since. By the time she was three days old, she had reached her lifetime limit on her father's employer healthcare plan. She was kicked off of the health insurance plan, and my SIL and BIL had to pay out of pocket for several of her surgeries, putting them so far in debt, they'll probably take it to their grave. Now that the law is passed that removes lifetime limits and denial of coverage based on pre-existing conditions, she is able to be insured again for a lot of her ongoing treatment. That is an awful way to start life--at one month of age, never being able to have health insurance again.

Anonymous wrote:From what I read, except for those getting subsidies, prices are going up.

You need to get out more...

Anonymous wrote:From what I read, except for those getting subsidies, prices are going up.

[img]http://www.zuguide.com/images/3405/3405.0.570.359.jpg/img]



You need to get out more...

Anonymous wrote:From what I read, except for those getting subsidies, prices are going up.

You need to expand what you read. A lot of people not getting subsidies are getting lower prices as well.

From what I read, except for those getting subsidies, prices are going up.

And for that small number of people who get an increase, they are also getting better benefits.