So one of the three things will need to happen. 1) The United States climbs deeper into debt. Federal funding will be used to continue offsetting the true costs of healthcare expansion.2) Cost controls will be implemented. Insurance companies will cover less medical expenses, leaving the insured person with ever increasing out of pockets costs, copays, or coinsurance rates.3) The Federal Government increases taxes across the board to subsidize health care. They might also cut spending in other areas to divert funding to medicare, medicaid, or reinsurance programs. Or any combination of the above 3 options.
Or 4) The government implements a public option to compete with the private companies (that would solve the problem of lack of competition referred to in your link). Since private companies are always more efficient that the government, they shouldn't have anything to worry about, right?"The public health insurance option, also known as the public insurance option or the public option, is a proposal to create a government-run health insurance agency which would compete with other private health insurance companies within the United States. The public option is not the same as publicly funded health care, but was proposed as an alternative health insurance plan offered by the government. The public option was initially proposed for the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act, but was removed after Sen. Joe Lieberman (I-CT) threatened a filibuster."https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Public_option
@goaded The Public option collapsed and never materialized long ago for cost reasons. Also that option would contribute to either problem number 1, or number 3. I forgot to mention the health insurance co-ops spawned by the ACA, which was their solution for a non profit alternative to generate competition in some states and counties. Also, why would liberals support a piece of legislation that was drafted by the very same for profit health insurance companies they demonize? This is not a single payer health care system, something most liberals have been advocating for a long time. All the healthcare exchanges really provided, was free taxpayer advertising and market outreach for the big health insurance companies. Aetna, Cigna, and United health group have withdrawn off of the exchanges in many states and counties due to unanticipated costs and profit losses. It's been a failure since it's inception.
And don't even get me started on these "great" plans offered through the exchanges. The deductibles, copays, coinsurance, out of pocket costs, and/or premiums are sky rocketing.
"The public option was initially proposed for the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act, but was removed after Sen. Joe Lieberman (I-CT) threatened a filibuster""why would liberals support a piece of legislation that was drafted by the very same for profit health insurance companies they demonize?"Well, because they thought a Republican might actually vote for a Republican plan, and they couldn't get DINO's to vote for single payer. They didn't (and don't) understand today's Republicans very well.Do you think there may be some factor, some group of people, that led to the supposed failure of this Republican plan?Maybe, in a couple of years, the Democrats will have a chance to implement a single payer system, and I hope not too many people die in the mean-time.
What was happening to the deductibles, copays, coinsurance, out of pocket costs, and/or premiums before the ACA?
@goaded They were rising. It was really inevitable, and the costs are going to happen one way or another. Also it wasn't a Republican plan, the republicans wanted insurance companies to be able to sell their products across states, and to import prescription drugs from Canada to reduce costs. Something democrats fiercely objected to. This so called Affordable Care Act, was written behind closed door meetings with health insurance executives. So much for that transparency promised by Barack Obama. Thirdly, Democrats have never cared if Republicans would vote for something or not. That's a stupid argument, and Obama has only sided with Congressional republicans in the TPP, and TPA acts. Something American worker unions strongly protested against.
Our government has 386 trillion dollars in unfunded liabilties for medicare. Medicare, is a single payer system in which the youth are taxed for the healthcare of adults 65 and older. So if our socialized medical care isn't affordable as it is, why would we expand entitlements? There is no way we can implement a government public option, or medicare for all, without drastic revenue increased. Anyone who can comprehend basic math would know this.
drastic revenue increases*
"They were rising. It was really inevitable, and the costs are going to happen one way or another." So, is it fair to blame that on the ACA?The selling across state lines idea is apparently more about removing state's control over (lowering) standards of healthcare: "The real underlying issue is that Republicans and others who created this do not want to create adequate standards for the sale of health care.” That would result in policies that “perpetuate the practices that have harmed consumers,” khn.org/news/selling-insurance-across-state-lines/"it wasn't a Republican plan" It's basically the plan put forward in 1993:"The 1993 Republican alternative, [...] the Health Equity and Access Reform Today Act, contained a "universal coverage" requirement with a penalty for noncompliance—an individual mandate—as well as subsidies to be used in state-based 'purchasing groups'.""Of 1993's 43 Republican Senators, 20 supported the HEART Act"https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Affordable_Care_Act
@goaded The 1993 Republican alternative, introduced by Senator John Chafee as the Health Equity and Access Reform Today Act, contained a "universal coverage" requirement with a penalty for noncompliance—an individual mandate—as well as subsidies to be used in state-based 'purchasing groups'. Advocates for the 1993 bill included prominent Republicans such as Senators Orrin Hatch, Chuck Grassley, Bob Bennett and Kit Bond. Of 1993's 43 Republican Senators, 20 supported the HEART Act. Another Republican proposal, introduced in 1994 by Senator Don Nickles (R-OK), the Consumer Choice Health Security Act, contained an individual mandate with a penalty provision; however, Nickles subsequently removed the mandate from the bill, stating he had decided "that government should not compel people to buy health insurance". At the time of these proposals, Republicans did not raise constitutional issues with the mandate; Mark Pauly, who helped develop a proposal that
23 republican senators opposed it.
included an individual mandate for George H. W. Bush, remarked, "I don't remember that being raised at all. The way it was viewed by the Congressional Budget Office in 1994 was, effectively, as a tax."
"23 republican senators opposed it." Yes, slightly more than half. What proportion opposed almost the same thing in 2009? Vote was "all Democrats and two independents voting for it, and all Republicans against (except Jim Bunning, who did not vote).".
@goaded Because it's a bad deal. Their respective constituents opposed it, and pressured them to do oppose the ACA. We also were not in 19 trillion dollars in debt in 1993. Different times, and the government was in a different financial position. Now is not the time to dig our national debt deeper, and increase our interest payments. It also didn't work in lowering health insurance costs. It was a disastrous, expensive, and time consuming roll out of the exchanges. That only costed us 319 million dollars, half of the non profit co-ops have failed or withdrawn from the exchanges, and most counties only have 1 big health insurance provider offering plans for their area. Exactly what did it accomplish? Now with health insurance costing more and covering less, we are forced to buy it or face a substantial tax penalty. How exactly does that help the poor or middle class? The only income based exemption, is if you make less then 10,300 dollars for an individual.
I should point out that Germany's healthcare is not that dissimilar to America's, with multiple private insurance companies, but they are very heavily regulated in what the can and/or must provide. They have had problems with younger people gravitating to cheaper insurance, but the only problem is (right-wing) politicians trying to change the rules to let them back in to the other providers as they get older and their company's rates overtake everyone else's, which is not fair to the people who joined early and paid over the odds because they looked ahead.This is where the new Republican "replace" ideas seem to be: https://abetterway.speaker.gov/?page=health-careIt's not exactly bulging with detail.If you can buy car insurance across state lines, do the policies not have to meet state requirements? If not, isn't that taking away state's rights? If so, shouldn't health insurers also have to abide by state laws and won't the premiums go up to match everyone else's?
The health insurance companies, who thought this would increase their profit margins and expand their markets on the dime of the taxpayer, supported this legislation. They underestimated the costs of insuring the sickest portion of the population, and lost millions of dollars due to the exchanges. Great job. Luckily most of the ACA will be scrapped in the coming years.
https://www.healthcare.gov/fees/Here's the fees we have to pay thanks to the democrats. Good job. I'll link the only health insurance plans in the area too.
You can read the great coverage for yourself, offered by this gold plan. www.healthcare.gov/.../details
Although I agree, a single payer healthcare system would better than the ACA. We just need to be in a solvent financial position first.
Most countries have a single payer healthcare system, but allow private health insurance systems to compete. The ACA isn't a single payer healthcare system. I am not opposed to the idea of health care reform, but this country is in 19 trillion dollars of debt. We need to fix our current deficit and fund our current liabilities first, before talking about a medicare for all program.
So why wouldn't you buy the insurance instead of paying the fine? For a bit more, you get health insurance!
@goaded It's not just a bit more though. Your talking about 2,108 dollars in yearly costs, versus 695 dollars , or 2 percent of your income. If you are healthy and don't anticipate high annual medical costs, the deal isn't worth it. Aside from that, under current law they can't put a lien on you. They can only with hold it from a tax return, so people have been paying less in taxes.
In other words, most people don't pay the penalty fee. That will soon change though, they kept it loosely enforced to avoid increasing unpopularity with the ACA. It's a long term corporate scam.
Oh, this is beautiful: abetterway.speaker.gov/.../...lthCare-Snapshot.pdf"Real enforcement of the Hyde Amendment.Our plan protects federal taxpayer dollars from being used for abortion or abortion services and ensures the Hyde Amendment is actually applied"Implying the Hyde Amendment isn't applied today; that couldn't have anything to do with Planned Parenthood, could it?
@goaded Yeah the planned parenthood battle is redundant. That's an earmark for evangelical Christians. It doesn't actually outlaw abortions though, it just doesn't fund them with federal taxpayer money. People can pay for their own abortions. The costs of heart disease and cancer are much more important issues to focus on, especially when talking about national health care policies.
If you're healthy and you eat right, you can still get ill and die in your 30's (from personal experience, my sister, and she had excellent care).If $695 is 2% of your income, $2,108 is only 6% of your income. Doesn't seem that much to me, when care can cost hundreds of thousands or more.
@goaded No the penalty is 696 dollars, or 2 percent of your income, whichever is greater. That's just for an individual though. Also the 2,108 dollars is ONLY for the premium for a silver plan. Silver plans feature higher deductibles, higher coinsurance/copays, which you pay after your deductible and they don't count towards the annual out of pocket limit. You have to really understand how health insurance works here before you will understand these issues. And yes, even though it might happen, statistically speaking it will not.
They also only pay towards healthcare or services that are covered by your plan. So if you need a particular treatment that's not covered, it doesn't matter what your health costs were for the year, you are still the one stuck with the bill.
Did I state anywhere how I am better than anyone? nope. lol. I simply stated that me and my family shouldn't be paying for people that choose not to work or choose not to take care of their own health. Sorry. I mistook this for a poster seeking legitimate answers to his question. Didn't see it for what it clearly is: yet another example of a foreigner trying to tell us how we should be living in America. I'm not gonna go down this path so have a good day :D
In essence, it's not free. Those who already had health insurance now have to pay for it, even if their employer provided health benefits.
This answer is reasonable unlike the others who just call it communism and nazism.
I hoped I explained it well. I was excited about it when it was announced, especially since my mom didn't have health insurance. However, when she started getting fined because she couldn't afford OC and my dad's taxes sky rocketed because he already had insurance for himself and his kids, I was no longer so enthusiastic about it. I don't think the whole idea should be tossed out, more like improved.
I also do think the problem isn't just down to Obama care but rather the system that is in place. Americas system is unfair. Only country in the world where people don't go to hospital because they can't afford it.
I completely agree. Hopefully, someone will figure out what to do about all of this. Fingers crossed.
With the iq levels of republicans well below world average, nah don't think so no.That's why Donald trump said on live tv 10 years ago that if he gets into politics he will go for a republican because the voters believe everything
Lol I remember that. Here's hoping anyone got a brain these days 🍻 Cheers
If it works the way I think it does I just don't understand why people begrudge paying a bit extra so that people who can't afford anything are able to have healthcare. Isn't that what society does? Because here in America a lot of people are selfish bastards. But to give you a more acceptable logic and reason is because people feel that they shouldn't work so hard for others to benefit from their labor. People wake up early and grind to provide for themselves and family and to give them a nice lifestyle. That can't be achieved if they are paying a lot in taxes out of pocket.
@Hispanic-Cool-Guy is it a lot more? Like every middle class person now pays a set amount more or was it a % based on their earnings?
You pay taxes depending on what tax bracket you fall under depending on your salary.
@Hispanic-Cool-Guy so the extra paid to cover obamacare is paid in taxes and not insurance premiums?
So for the average middle class person medical care under Obama could be $200 a month.
I don't follow politics much. Not do I personally care about medical insurance. But if a person refuses to get Obama Care and they are middle class or rich, they will be fined fees throughout the year to cover cost.
*Nor do I
@Hispanic-Cool-Guy hmm fair enough. Thanks 😊
Scroll Down to Read Other Opinions
Obama is lying to you for the greater good. They're gonna start world war three and kill sixty million people, but don't you see? It's all to build a perfect utopia! That's why it's necessary! Don't you see?That's the religion of communism, and that's why the political rhetoric of communism may differ from country to country, more hardline communist in the East, more "Socialist" in the West, but no matter what country on what continent, as soon as the Communists take power, the political rhetoric fades and there's always 60 million peasants dead, eugenics implemented, secret police formed, and the inner party members ensconced in inscrutable power, above the law and beyond accountability.They try to sneak it in in such a pretty package, but it's always the same fucking poison that's inside. Talk to ANYBODY who ever escaped a communist country, they're out there.
England has a completely free health system along with the rest of the world including:Israel All European countries CanadaAustralia The list goes on.Oh no but of course by your logic we are all Marxist communists right?
lol!! No, not all Muslims. Just this Particular one, hun.I had Married a Muslim Man tin Egypt who is a Good man. Not a radical nor a Marxist.If you know me here, dear, for 3 years, then you know What I am all about. Not like this. xx
My point was not about Muslims.Muslims aren't Marxist. It's a political theory not a religion. It was invented by a Christian in central London. Free healthcare does not equal Marxism
@yucel_eden No healthcare system is "free". They have what is called, single payer healthcare systems. Obamacare is not a single payer healthcare system, which honestly I would prefer in comparison to Obamacare.
That's the same with the army though and nobody gives a shit.A fighter jet costing 10 million is contracted for 500 million like the f35 so the weapons companies make money without anyone questioning.Where is the justice?
Do you really think it costs 700 billion to maintain an army that still hasn't won in Iraq after 15 years?
The US military has kept Allied nations defended since 1945. The war against terrorism isn't over but the last war the US won was the Cold war. We won in Iraq when Sadam was overthrown it's up to the Iraqi people now to win the peace and secure their future, if they are worthy of liberty they will have it. The US military's aircraft need updated as most are from the 70's &80's. The military employs, educates and trains large numbers of US citizens. Military expenditure like the fighter jet you mentioned employs large numbers of citizens and contributes to the economy. Where's the justice in giving folks free health care and expecting others who have trouble making ends meet pay for it while at the same time taking no action to reduce the price of medication , hospital bills or the cost medical insurance? Where's the justice in forcing folks to take out Obamacare insurance even if they don't want it? I'm not opposed to universal healthcare but Obamacare has to go.
No healthcare in the world is free
That was my point.And for those that think if you don't have health insurance, you won't get care, take a closer look at the US Healthcare system. If you "need" healthcare and go to a hospital, you WILL get it, contrary to what the media likes to report.
And then slapped with a 200k bill?Exclusive in America
Actually, no. If you can prove it's totally unaffordable for you, the hospital will write it off as a loss. Sure, it does take paperwork and effort on your part. And no, you're not going to get prime healthcare, BUT you will get seen by a doc and they will do their best to get you back to health.
So what all these Americans on every other post, or britians visiting USA are lying faggots except you?
No, they're all believing the lies in the media. I've personally dealt with the healthcare system in a situation like this. ALL American hospitals cannot turn away anyone who needs healthcare. If you're sick, they'll prescribe some medication and send you on your way. If you're in need of serious medical care, you WILL get it. You may not spend the night in the hospital, but you will get some medical help - whether you can afford it or not.
It's not the Cold War anymore asshole grow a pair of brain lobes.
Remember that Medicare is socialized medicine- Ronald Reagan said it was, so it must be true.
Don't associate Nazis with Bolshevists, dumbass.
Which is what the way the world works in every developed nation?Americas healthcare is worse than cubas and is comparable to that of Vietnam. Even countries like turkey are a million times ahead.But then again your Americans, land of the free eh
Do you live in one of the 19 states that refused to expand Medicare? (Search for "All states not expanding Medicaid" in the following link, in case you don't know.)The Kaiser Family Foundation points out, there IS a coverage gap "that results from state decisions not to expand Medicaid, meaning their income is above current Medicaid eligibility but below the lower limit for Marketplace premium tax credits. These individuals would have been newly-eligible for Medicaid had their state chosen to expand coverage."kff.org/.../
The 19 states: Alabama, Florida, Georgia, Idaho, Kansas, Maine, Mississippi, Missouri, Nebraska, North Carolina, Oklahoma, South Carolina, South Dakota, Tennessee, Texas, Utah, Virginia, Wisconsin*, Wyoming.* Wisconsin has a waiver for Medicaid, so doesn't have a coverage gap.
@goaded maybe it is because the federal government screwed up the private insurance sector.
So your family doesn't live in one of those states?The federal government noticed a problem and provided a solution but 18 (all Republican?) states decided to let some people go without health insurance rather than implement the solution. Perhaps your family's problem is a different one, in which case it could be fixed in the ACA, or the whole thing could get thrown out and millions of people will lose their insurance.
@goaded millions already lost their insurance because of this, and a lot of people's rates will skyrocket this year. Maybe the states wouldn't have to implement it, if the federal government not screwed the insurance market up.
So, presumably your family does live in one of the states that refused to accept federal money to expand Medicaid, offered specifically in order to avoid having millions of people (possibly including themselves) losing their health insurance.It couldn't be that the Republicans did that precisely in order to make the ACA look bad, could it?Despite the fact that people will have died from that decision.Shall we compare the list of states against the states that are nett takers from the federal government? I'd be willing to bet that at least, say, 15 of them are. Probably all 18.
@goaded but the point being, is that Obama care made it necessary to expand Medicare.
No, the point being that expanding Medicare was part of the system needed to make it work, and was paid for. Republicans decided to break it.
@goaded do you have any evidence that the need to expand Medicare was not caused by Obama care?
What's your point? The government paid for the expansion and Republicans turned down the money for political reasons and left people (presumably like your family) without health insurance."those states that expanded Medicaid had a 7.3% uninsured rate on average in the first quarter of 2016, while those that did not expand Medicaid had a 14.1% uninsured rate, among adults aged 18 to 64" While we're at it:"According to a 2014 study, Obamacare likely prevented an estimated 50,000 preventable patient deaths from 2010 to 2013."How many people have terrorists killed in that time?
@goaded do you have a source for that? But what I am saying is that Obama care made the need to expand Medicare.
www.washingtonpost.com/.../ via en.wikipedia.org/.../Affordable_Care_ActIf the ACA made a need and offered to pay for it to be filled, why did 19 states reject it?
@goaded maybe because those states don't like socialism.
Or their citizens, apparently. Still, you can't blame the federal government if the states don't accept money to pay for their own citizen's health.
@goaded or maybe they are trying to stop the spread of Obama care. Obama care created this problem.
"Obama care created this problem." But it also provided a solution, which republicans rejected.That left the problem there, which provided more voters for republicans (less a few dead people, but that's just a detail, and they'd probably have voted democrat anyway).
@goaded the states want to opt out and they can't because of it. Obama care is failing everywhere.
Inability to describe or mentally model alternative viewpoints is a sign of brainwashing. It's called "living in an echo chamber," you don't even know what people in the outside world are like anymore. You see reality through too many filters. Nothing gets inside without pre-approval.Scary mentality, lady. Nazi stormtrooper shit.
@Bananaman177 That reply was simply so well reasoned and insightful that it puts everything I've ever written to shame. Only someone of extreme intelligence, knowledge, and wisdom could have written such an elegant reply.
But ma'am, your sarcasm isn't an argument either. It's just a shell you retreat into when you've intellectually capitulated, but still want to protect your intellectual vanity.This, again, is classic cult brainwashing. You've got levels upon levels of self-reinforcing defense mechanisms in place to keep you from actually thinking.You THINK you think, when almost 90% of it is just emotion-based gut reactions that you later rationalize, not with facts or evidence or even a real assertion, but with sarcasm and snark and smugness and endless self-worship. It's actually ironic therefore you imply I'M trying to be a know-it-all, that's you projecting your own shortcomings on to me. I actually know shit. And I spank overgrown, arrested development, perpetual adolescents like yourself all the time with no effort because of it.Today, a pseudo intellectual met a real intellectual in a battle of minds.img.fireden.net/v/image/1449/58/1449587560724.jpg
I do it for the glory, by the way.Just ignore me. Its probably best.
Nope. However, there is a tax penalty if you don't have health insurance.