Debmomto2girls
If not ACA, than what??
November 13, 2012 at 8:07 AM
I doubt I will get an answer because I have asked this several times in this board and have yet to get an even remotely logical response. I think it is pretty indisputable that healthcare prior to ACA was failing. Many, many people had no health insurance ad even more than that many were also denied treatment because of ore-existing conditions. On top of that, hospitals we're losing money because of unpaid healthcare costs due to lack of insurance. It wasn't working for many of Americans.

So, I'll ask again, if not ACA, what?

Replies

  • PTmomma3
    November 13, 2012 at 4:52 PM
    It's usually very clear where people stand on healthcare reform, but you've got me so confused that I don't know where to start. In each post you have contradicted what you stated in the previous post.

    First you say private insurance is what got us into this mess. Then in the same post you argue that insurance companies should be given even more power to sell across state lines and the competition/free market would bring costs down. In the very next post you ask why the ACA didn't just force insurance companies to pay for pre-existing conditions, while arguing how wrong it is to force people to have insurance. I don't know where to start!

    If you are in favor of letting the free market fix it (i.e. give insurance companies virtually unlimited power with no government regulations), then how can you argue that insurance companies should be forced to pay for pre-existing conditions? Then how can you be so appalled that people are being forced to buy insurance? It's ok to force one group of people to do something, but wrong to force someone else? Even more confusing is that for all intents and purposes, the government DID force insurance co's to accept people with pre-existing conditions!

    You're mad that people are forced to buy insurance, then argue that some were given exemptions. You say that Medicare and Medicaid are in such terrible shape that doctors are refusing to see those patients, then argue that the solution should've been to expand them to more people. If the government can't afford it now, how do you think it could expand to cover everyone? And do you not realize that the bulk of the ACA is aimed at expanding Medicaid? It was expected to cover 30 million of the 50 million who lack insurance. Your argument is by far the most confusing one I've ever seen.


    Quoting yourspecialkid:

     


    Quoting Debmomto2girls:


    No, I do not own stock in an insruance company. I am an RN who is sick of the way the system was.  No other candidate had a plan. The ACA took care of some issues I thought would solve some of the healthcare problems.  I think universal healthcare and/or single payer could maybe help even more.


     


    The point of my original post was there has been a lot of talk from the right wing about "Obamacare", etc but not one ever had an alternative solution. Obviously, you do not either. Expanding tricare, medicaid, etc is still not going to cover those in need.  It may cover slightly more. and BTW, how would the government pay for the expansion? people but not enough, If you think people can afford healthcare without insurance you ar living in a dreamland.


    Quoting yourspecialkid:


     


    Quoting Debmomto2girls:


     They couldn't afford the insurane because of outrageous fees.  ACA makes it cheaper than before.  If I had to go in another direction, it would be single payer not expanding Tricare, medicaid, etc.


    Quoting yourspecialkid:


     


    Quoting Debmomto2girls:


    Quoting yourspecialkid:


     First of all, health CARE in the US is not failing.  We have excellent medical care here.  We have a problem with the delivery of services.



    Requiring people to have INSURANCE will not fix the problem.  IMHO, insurance specifically the HMO/PPO type plans is part of our problem.  I grew up with no insurance, yet went to the doctor when I was sick.  I even had a serious injury...broke my ankle in 2 places.  My Mom paid out of pocket for it and it didn't bankrupt her.  We didn't run to the doctor for everything.  I am not saying we shouldn'ti have insurance, I am just saying we shouldn't be running to the doc for a hangnail just because we have a $20 copay.



    It would have been much easier and much cheaper to create a buy in for Tricare, Medicare or Medicaid.  Ins co's should be able to sell across state lines...there should be limits on law suits...ins regulations should be consistent across state lines...employers should get out of the ins business...med facilities should be encouraged to post prices....let people choose...create competition..ins policies should allow people to choose the coverage they want....we do with auto/home policies...



    With the exception of a few elements the new law is nothing more than an expensive bureaucratic ball of crap.  Senator Wyden of OR had a better plan..he was a Dem and couldn't get an ear.  Ryan and Wyden even worked together some...no one wanted to hear the plan.  Why did we have to pass a plan before we even knew what was in it? 


    In my opinion, telling someone they cannot have treatment because they can't get insurance because of a pre-existing condition, is an epic fail. Yes, we give great medical care but you either have to have a job that provides insurance or be poor enough for medical assistance. That isn't right

     So why not just force the ins companies to cover pre-existing conditions?  Why go to the 2000 pages of bureaucracy....fail to address many of the reasons hc is expensive...force people to buy it...then give a big chunk of them exemptions?


    Forcing people to buy...or be fined...for something they already couldn't afford won't fix our problem and we don't have the money to pay for hc for everyone.  This country is so broke it would take more than 30 to pay off our debt if the govt didn't spend another single dime.


    Again...why not expand Tricare, Medicare or Medicaid....and offer a buy in?


     


     LOL @ the ACA making insurance cheaper than before....this is NOT going to happen.  The exemptions alone will eat up any savings even dreamt of by the ACA.  Have you not been reading the paper or listening to the news?


    Why are you insisting on going with a plan that is no plan...do you own stock in some insurance companies...why are you so FOR something that doesn't address the biggest cost influences to begin with?


    Please tell me how you would pay for a single payer system....considering the country owes more than the wealth of its entirety.


     


     If you aren't going to bother reading my entire posts I am not going to bother debating with you.  There were 2 very viable options...put forth by members of both parties...they couldn't even get a look see from the Obama administration.  Instead we have a new law most of the law makers haven't even read...a law that isn't even finished being written...that doesn't address the real cost issues of hc....forces people to buy a product...the parameters and cost of which have yet to be determined.....yet lets millions opt out....


    Did you ever stop for a minute to wonder why ins companies were on board?  Do you think they are doing it out of the goodness of their hearts...hell no...they are doing it because it will increase their profit margins.


    I see you have no plan on how to pay for any of this.


     

  • AdellesMom
    November 13, 2012 at 6:13 PM
    ACA is better than what we had before. My son is finally covered for his "Pre existing conditions."
  • JanetMonroe1991
    November 15, 2012 at 9:08 PM


    Quoting romalove:

     

    Quoting JanetMonroe1991:


    Quoting romalove:

     ACA won't change the money hospitals lose because there will still be many uninsured and of course undocumenteds use hospitals as their healthcare clinics, and end up not paying bills.

    I think if we must have universal healthcare we have to have a single payer system.  The patchwork of ACA is going to be a disaster for the economy on many different levels.

    This is not totally true. I read that hospitals will have the right to turn people without insurance (who can't pay out of pocket) away once the full range of coverage kicks in because everyone will be given a chance at coverage and those that choose not to have it will pay the fee and not have it. So this may end up reducing costs for them. 

    I think our model is going to end up sort of like Canada with longer lines and longer waits but with faster acess to drugs still. 

     Obama put forth a healthcare act that will leave people without insurance without access to hospitals???

    I don't believe it.

    Why not? It makes perfect sense...think about it, it would remove a lot of the burden...if the hospitals have to take care of you anyway then why pay at all? Just pay the small fee for not being covered. That doesn't seem very smart. 

  • JanetMonroe1991
    November 15, 2012 at 9:13 PM


    Quoting tooptimistic:


    Quoting JanetMonroe1991:


    Quoting tooptimistic:

    Florida.  We don't qualify for Medicaid being secondary.  :(

    I know the preexisting clause is good, but at what price?  If you can't afford it, then it doesn't do much good.  I am just thankful he works two jobs to pay for what we need.

    We need really health reform.  Obamacare is only going to make things worse.  We as a country need to decide if health care is right or privilege, and go from there.

    I would rather pay $900 a month into a universal program, and know we have health care.. instead of $900 a month, plus the co pays and the deductible etc..  Someone is really profiting my children's health issues. I think we need to cut out the middlemen.

    Quoting motha2daDuchess:

    what state do you live in? even with insurance, there is a possibility of state help, in az we can even put her on ahhccs, as a secondary..there are other specialist that my dd sees. I'm sorry, but insurances have been going up forever and the fact that your children even have insurance and can not be denied if god forbid something were to happen to your husbands employment.

    Quoting tooptimistic:

    My husband's boss has warned him our  monthly rate is probably going to go up to $950 a month.   No word yet on the dectuable, but we are betting it will go up too.  Because he works two jobs and is offered insurance we get no help at all. Medical bills don't count when you apply for assistance at all.







    What about people like me who can't afford $900 a month (which is more then my rent bill each month)? Don't I deserve a chance at coverage? Doesn't my son? See the Repubs have bitched and whined about the healthcare but not a single one of them have stepped up to offer another solution. They find it a lot easier to complain. 

    I don't know.. If you can't afford it, even with Obamacare, you still can't afford it.  (I just used $900 because that's what we currently pay)  You do deserve coverage.  I think we all do.. :)  That's why I said we as a country need to ask if it is a right or a privilege.  I think its a right.  I truly support a single payer universal health care system.  I think rates should be on a sliding scale based on income. Neither the Republicans or Democrats are listening to us.  We moms need to keep screaming until someone listens.  :)

    Its not fully kicked in yet, so I am not getting any help from it yet. I will tell you then if I am able to afford whatever it is a month.