Prediction: So when does the Plug get Pulled on the ACA?

[Spoonman]

Don't forget that folks are getting a look at what this POS is going to cost them.

When you hit folks in the pocketbook they pay attention.

see, that's just it. this is costing a lot more than most anticipated. my neighbors son turned 26 in Sept. he's off his father splan now. he's a student working part time. the bronze plan will cost him $385 a month with a $5000 deductable. He is going through sticker shock. his selection is he will do without it.

 

[Edgetho]

I and Mr. Foxfyre get Medicare which is the closest thing we have to single payer health insurance in this country.

It is affordable for us so far even though our premiums are going up 38% and our copays and deductibles have doubled AND both Mr. Foxfyre and myself have lost our primary care doctors and a few specialists due to the ACA. So are we happy campers? No, not at all.

But because we have a direct relationship with those in the medical profession, I can say with confidence that doctors, nurses, and other healthcare professionals are ALL in agreement that Medicare is one of the most expensive, inefficient, indefensible, and increasingly complicated and confused healthcare system ever imposed upon the American people. And as more and more funding is drained from it and more and more regulations and requirements are piled onto it, we can expect thousands more doctors to stop taking medicare patients at all. As well as more and more healthcare professionals leaving public practice and going to do something else.

But will the inefficiency, expense, and incomprehensible and stupid rules kill ACA? Nope. Our government thrives on it and really doesn't care much whether anything works like it is supposed to as long as they can throw folks enough bones to keep the professional politicians and bureaucrats in their cushy positions.

It will be the people themselves that have to kill the ACA by voting out enough of those career politicians and voting in enough reformers to get it done. Will that happen? I dunno.

The one unknown factor at this time is whether by late spring or summer that enough Democrats are running really scared enough that they'll agree to rescind Obamacare. That hasn't happened in a long time, but anything is possible.

Are you ready to give up your Medicare in exchange for a voucher so you can go try and find a private company that will insure you?

Yup.

If I had the opportunity when I started work in the 60's to pay into a Health Insurance plan that would promise to Insure me forty years into the Future, I would have jumped on it. And so would anybody else with a brain.

Which, undoubtedly, excludes you.

What you're suggesting is that the government just issue money to us with no Interest return, no growth, no..... No nothing.

IOW, give us 1965 money to pay 2013 bills with.

This is why government programs fail. You're trying to pay 2013 bills with 1965 money.

Government takes the money you send them, spends it, and later replaces it with new money stolen from new tax money.

A Ponzi Scheme.

Private Enterprise would take that same money, invest it and by the time it became necessary for you to use it, it would be worth a lot more. It would have double around 7 times.

So if I put in a $100 in 1965, that money today would be worth over $12,000.

That's why Private Enterprise works and government programs don't.

That, and people who believe in government are just simply inherently stupid.

Insurance Companies are Investors. They would take that money and invest it, put it to work, and by the time I had to activate the Insurance, it would be far, far cheaper than the gubmint.

You people are great at coming up with Grade School questions and solutions for Advanced Calculus problems.

It shows, too. Look at the ACA.

 

[JakeStarkey]

"The ACA is dead, it just hasn't stopped breathing yet."

Even more shrill.

 

[HereWeGoAgain]

Isn't it interesting that those on the right are now speaking of a Single Payer System. During the debates prior to ACA it was the right who managed to get single payer removed from the original bill.
Now, you will immediately say that the gop was not allowed to take part in the drafting of the bill. THAT IS A COMPLETE LIE AND IS ONE MORE EXAMPLE OF HOW EASY IT IS TO FOOL REPUBLICANS.

"That said, some context: Of the 788 amendments filed, 67 came from Democrats and 721 from Republicans. (That disparity drew jeers that Republicans were trying to slow things down. Another explanation may be that they offered so many so they could later claim—as they are now, in fact, claiming—that most of their suggestions went unheeded.) Only 197 amendments were passed in the end—36 from Democrats and 161 from Republicans. And of those 161 GOP amendments, Senate Republicans classify 29 as substantive and 132 as technical. "
http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/prescriptions/2009/07/this_is_what_bipartisanship_looks_like.html

I like your caps...but I don't give a shit about any of this. It is meaningless. The consensus is the old system was not working well. The ACA is a ******* disaster. The question is what comes next?

That is what we all should be talking about.

I hear this a lot. By whose measure? What I mean is that I have worked since I was 14. I'm now 69. I have had insurance the vast majority of my working life. I have never once had a problem with the "current system". I have had 3 major surgeries (at a cost of about $500 for all three) - My Wife had her gall bladder removed ($100) a Hysterectomy ($100) two knees replaced ($100) and we both are on medications every day ($10) per prescription - 2 for her and 3 for me ($50) per month for a 90 day supply.

Each Doctors appointment cost us $10 per visit.

Now, this may seem like a lot, but the surgeries were over a 25 year time period and we see our Doctor every 3 months. Our insurance picks up the rest.

How is that not "fair"?

I'm with you.
I've had two major surgeries in the last year and paid squat. We use a medical savings plan and it works out great. Zero unexpected expenses!
Blue Cross even assed up 13 thousand for two techs the hospital brought in that weren't on my providers list that they didnt have to pay.....but they did.

And now these clowns want me to pay on average forty percent more in premiums,double my deductible and receive substandard care......and be happy about it.
F'n Astounding!!!

 

[deaddogseye]

It won't be repealed. The President will veto repeal, and if a Republican is elected President in 2016, the Democratic Senate will block repeal, and if the Republicans win the Senate in 2016, the Democratic Senate will filibuster repeal.

That may well stop repeal but remember that a key part of passing this (after the election of Scott Brown) was that they went through budget reconcilliation which requires only a majority vote in the Senate (there was controversy over whether they could use this but they did). So if the Republicans take the White House (not saying they will, but if they do) and the senate they will be able to seriously undermine the law and weaken it this way even if they cant flat out repeal it.

If a law can be passed by reconciliation, then it can be repealed by reconciliation.

But i dont beleive it was passed by reconcilliation -- they used that to justify a second technical vote that was needed after the first vote where they had 60. So i may e wrong but i think while it needed the reconcilliation vote (with respect to certain budgetary aspects) to be finally enacted after Brown was elected it was actually enacted without it. So i dont think they can repeal it that way but they can really gut it is my guess

 

[Edgetho]

That may well stop repeal but remember that a key part of passing this (after the election of Scott Brown) was that they went through budget reconcilliation which requires only a majority vote in the Senate (there was controversy over whether they could use this but they did). So if the Republicans take the White House (not saying they will, but if they do) and the senate they will be able to seriously undermine the law and weaken it this way even if they cant flat out repeal it.

If a law can be passed by reconciliation, then it can be repealed by reconciliation.

But i dont beleive it was passed by reconcilliation -- they used that to justify a second technical vote that was needed after the first vote where they had 60. So i may e wrong but i think while it needed the reconcilliation vote (with respect to certain budgetary aspects) to be finally enacted after Brown was elected it was actually enacted without it. So i dont think they can repeal it that way but they can really gut it is my guess

You are correct, but that was during the time that dimocraps were pushing the fantasy that the ACA wasn't a tax.

Since the SCOTUS has ruled that the Central part of the ACA is a tax, then it no longer matters.

 

[Foxfyre]

I and Mr. Foxfyre get Medicare which is the closest thing we have to single payer health insurance in this country.

It is affordable for us so far even though our premiums are going up 38% and our copays and deductibles have doubled AND both Mr. Foxfyre and myself have lost our primary care doctors and a few specialists due to the ACA. So are we happy campers? No, not at all.

But because we have a direct relationship with those in the medical profession, I can say with confidence that doctors, nurses, and other healthcare professionals are ALL in agreement that Medicare is one of the most expensive, inefficient, indefensible, and increasingly complicated and confused healthcare system ever imposed upon the American people. And as more and more funding is drained from it and more and more regulations and requirements are piled onto it, we can expect thousands more doctors to stop taking medicare patients at all. As well as more and more healthcare professionals leaving public practice and going to do something else.

But will the inefficiency, expense, and incomprehensible and stupid rules kill ACA? Nope. Our government thrives on it and really doesn't care much whether anything works like it is supposed to as long as they can throw folks enough bones to keep the professional politicians and bureaucrats in their cushy positions.

It will be the people themselves that have to kill the ACA by voting out enough of those career politicians and voting in enough reformers to get it done. Will that happen? I dunno.

The one unknown factor at this time is whether by late spring or summer that enough Democrats are running really scared enough that they'll agree to rescind Obamacare. That hasn't happened in a long time, but anything is possible.

Are you ready to give up your Medicare in exchange for a voucher so you can go try and find a private company that will insure you?

I would give up my Medicare in a heartbeat if we could go back to the healthcare system that was available to us before the government started meddling and we had had that all the 40 some years since. But now, unless they are very wealthy, seniors have no choice but to accept whatever Medicare or Medicaid chooses to provide them. Insurance companies no longer have incentive to insure older Americans so they don't offer coverage. And, as a result, the conveyor belt quality of healthcare most seniors receive now is pitiful compared to how it once was.

Any time you take all the competition out of the system, you wind up with a more inferior quality, quantity, and cost effectiveness pretty much no matter what it is.

 

[candycorn]

And you would imagine wrong.

I got a news flash for you, Ms Earhart. This thing is going to crash and burn all around you.

You ain't seen nothing yet. This is the small part of the ACA. Small potatoes. Kindergarten.

Wait until the Employer program hits and people start to get layed-off, fired, have their hours cut back, have their employers cancel their ENTIRE Group Plan.

You ain't seen nothing yet.

dimocraps are so stupid, it's just incredible.

Making something work is a lot harder than just running your ******* mouth about it. You need to learn that.

But you won't. Never have, never will.

I remember the same sort of "over my dead body" nonsense that was going on in Texas back when the State passed seatbelt laws. Today something like 98% of Texans wear seatbelts. The angry, bitter, brain-dead opposition will be cowed into silence pretty soon then you won't be able to find those who were once so vocally opposed.

seatbelts don't cost people monet and have huge deductables. the only reason most people where seatbelts is the heavy fine you get if you don't. i still won't wear one.

See what I mean by "angry, bitter, brain dead"? If not, consult a mirror.

 

[candycorn]

No one needs insurance. People have survived for most of human history without insurance. It's a luxary.

Another example.

 

[JakeStarkey]

If the TeaPs are out of the way, the GOP will keep the House and may take the Senate.

If so, then the ACA can continue to be reformed.

But BHO's veto for the remaining two years of his admin will be formidable to overcome.

 

[bendog]

The GOP has lost two, two, presidential elections on a single issue of whether the people WANT govt to help them, including by providing some means of everyone getting insurance, at least when they want it.

Regardless of what happens, if the GOP runs another TPM in 16, they'll lose again. Not liking Obamacare is not the same as liking what McCain ran on. And the demographics continue to kill the gop. Old white people have medicare. Latinos don't want to pay for it and get jack shite.

 

[Foxfyre]

I and Mr. Foxfyre get Medicare which is the closest thing we have to single payer health insurance in this country.

It is affordable for us so far even though our premiums are going up 38% and our copays and deductibles have doubled AND both Mr. Foxfyre and myself have lost our primary care doctors and a few specialists due to the ACA. So are we happy campers? No, not at all.

But because we have a direct relationship with those in the medical profession, I can say with confidence that doctors, nurses, and other healthcare professionals are ALL in agreement that Medicare is one of the most expensive, inefficient, indefensible, and increasingly complicated and confused healthcare system ever imposed upon the American people. And as more and more funding is drained from it and more and more regulations and requirements are piled onto it, we can expect thousands more doctors to stop taking medicare patients at all. As well as more and more healthcare professionals leaving public practice and going to do something else.

But will the inefficiency, expense, and incomprehensible and stupid rules kill ACA? Nope. Our government thrives on it and really doesn't care much whether anything works like it is supposed to as long as they can throw folks enough bones to keep the professional politicians and bureaucrats in their cushy positions.

It will be the people themselves that have to kill the ACA by voting out enough of those career politicians and voting in enough reformers to get it done. Will that happen? I dunno.

The one unknown factor at this time is whether by late spring or summer that enough Democrats are running really scared enough that they'll agree to rescind Obamacare. That hasn't happened in a long time, but anything is possible.

Are you ready to give up your Medicare in exchange for a voucher so you can go try and find a private company that will insure you?

Yup.

If I had the opportunity when I started work in the 60's to pay into a Health Insurance plan that would promise to Insure me forty years into the Future, I would have jumped on it. And so would anybody else with a brain.

Which, undoubtedly, excludes you.

What you're suggesting is that the government just issue money to us with no Interest return, no growth, no..... No nothing.

IOW, give us 1965 money to pay 2013 bills with.

This is why government programs fail. You're trying to pay 2013 bills with 1965 money.

Government takes the money you send them, spends it, and later replaces it with new money stolen from new tax money.

A Ponzi Scheme.

Private Enterprise would take that same money, invest it and by the time it became necessary for you to use it, it would be worth a lot more. It would have double around 7 times.

So if I put in a $100 in 1965, that money today would be worth over $12,000.

That's why Private Enterprise works and government programs don't.

That, and people who believe in government are just simply inherently stupid.

Insurance Companies are Investors. They would take that money and invest it, put it to work, and by the time I had to activate the Insurance, it would be far, far cheaper than the gubmint.

You people are great at coming up with Grade School questions and solutions for Advanced Calculus problems.

It shows, too. Look at the ACA.

This is true. For decades insurance companies invested the premiums they collected and grew them on the market. In that way they could offer coverage at significantly lower costs and thereby lure more customers who would provide more dollars they could invest. It was win win for both. And medical suppliers and other providers, competing with each other, had to price their products so that buyers would choose their product over somebody else. This also helped keep costs down.

Consider that one x-ray machine will cost $100,000 (that's low but I'm rounding numbers) and the x-ray tube that makes the machine work cost $10,000 and is good for 200 x-rays. So we know we will have to charge $50 plus 10% for shipping, handling, storage for each x-ray just to pay for the cost of the tube. And then we have to figure the depreciation on the machine and how many x-rays it can take before it is obsolete or worn out and has to be replaced and spread that cost over all those x-rays. And we have to factor in the cost of wages of the X-ray tech and support staff who will be taking the x-ray, the cost of the radiologist who will read it, and the overhead in the facility that houses the machine plus training, supervision, and other costs associated with producing a single x-ray in a medical facility.

Add all that up and the facility knows exactly how much it has to charge for that x-ray to stay even. And the insurance companies have experts to know how much that is and they factor it into the cost of coverage for the policies they cover.

But now here comes government insurance that doesn't cost out the expense of the x-ray in any individual hospital but rather picks a number and announces that is what it will pay for the x-ray and the hospital can't charge the patient for the difference. If the number is lower than the actual cost of the x-ray, and it often is, the medical faclity is forced to shift the loss to another patient. The insurance company for that other patient has to pay the higher cost and, when the policy comes up for renewal, the new premium will reflect that higher cost.

It doesn't take much of this before the whole process of free market supply and demand breaks down and all the costs are arbitrary and what the provider can get to offset the indefensible amounts the government chooses to pay for this and that. Costs quickly spiraled out of control. And meanwhile, the more government expands its mandated coverages, the bigger and more expensive the government bureaucracy becomes until more money is going to feed the bureaucracy than is being used for anything else.

But those who have never allowed themselves to see this phenomenon really believe that more government is better than less government, and the ACA, once the bugs are worked out, will be the greatest thing since sliced bread.

 

[deaddogseye]

If a law can be passed by reconciliation, then it can be repealed by reconciliation.

But i dont beleive it was passed by reconcilliation -- they used that to justify a second technical vote that was needed after the first vote where they had 60. So i may e wrong but i think while it needed the reconcilliation vote (with respect to certain budgetary aspects) to be finally enacted after Brown was elected it was actually enacted without it. So i dont think they can repeal it that way but they can really gut it is my guess

You are correct, but that was during the time that dimocraps were pushing the fantasy that the ACA wasn't a tax.

Since the SCOTUS has ruled that the Central part of the ACA is a tax, then it no longer matters.

I wish i could agree with what you are saying - or at least what i think you are saying but i cant.

The Court said that the penalty part of obamacare is a tax -- not the entire law. So i thinkn in the scenario where the GOP has the WH and less than 60 in the senate - and the House you are back to a majority vote on budget related items like the penalty / tax, but not the whole thing. And of course there would be every effort made to turn as much as possible into "budget issues"

But then by then the Dem may have exercised the nuclear option on the fillibuster rules and all bets may be off and it wont matter and the entire shooting match will be at the mercy of the GOP majority - if there is one. i think that is why the Dems have been reluctant to mess with the fillibuster rules too much because what goes around comes around and if you let that genie out of the bottle it just might turn around and kill obamacare

 

[bendog]

But time and time again it's proven that there is no competititon between insurance companies within a given state or region, because Blue Cross, or whatever, will have 60-80% of the insured.

There are two approaches: 1. Basically single payor, or in the case of obamacare, a theory that all hospitals/providers can be forced to take medicare rates, which are cheaper than those charged to insurors. 2. A blow up the entire system approach, so that healtchcare is just shopping for a new radiator/lamp, in which each provider has to advertise up front how much you pay for a new knee (or whatever), with insurance being some form or medical savings acct or subsidzed tax credit

 

[RandallFlagg]

But time and time again it's proven that there is no competititon between insurance companies within a given state or region, because Blue Cross, or whatever, will have 60-80% of the insured.

There are two approaches: 1. Basically single payor, or in the case of obamacare, a theory that all hospitals/providers can be forced to take medicare rates, which are cheaper than those charged to insurors. 2. A blow up the entire system approach, so that healtchcare is just shopping for a new radiator/lamp, in which each provider has to advertise up front how much you pay for a new knee (or whatever), with insurance being some form or medical savings acct or subsidzed tax credit

Or (3) pass a few laws or establish a few regulations that (1.) States can compete for your business and (2) Your insurance is yours to keep as long as the premiums are being paid. (3) You can not be denied (or dropped) coverage for pre-existing conditions.

Wow…..

3 Sentences. Look how easy that was. Geee… Even that idiot Nancy Pelosi can even read those three sentences to find out what is in it.

 

[dblack]

But time and time again it's proven that there is no competititon between insurance companies within a given state or region, because Blue Cross, or whatever, will have 60-80% of the insured.

There are two approaches: 1. Basically single payor, or in the case of obamacare, a theory that all hospitals/providers can be forced to take medicare rates, which are cheaper than those charged to insurors. 2. A blow up the entire system approach, so that healtchcare is just shopping for a new radiator/lamp, in which each provider has to advertise up front how much you pay for a new knee (or whatever), with insurance being some form or medical savings acct or subsidzed tax credit

Or (3) pass a few laws or establish a few regulations that (1.) States can compete for your business and (2) Your insurance is yours to keep as long as the premiums are being paid. (3) You can not be denied (or dropped) coverage for pre-existing conditions.

That last one is an ignorant fantasy. It's asking insurance to be something it's not. That it can't be, not without heinous stipulations like the individual mandate.

 

[JakeStarkey]

Has ACA been repealed?

 

[RandallFlagg]

But time and time again it's proven that there is no competititon between insurance companies within a given state or region, because Blue Cross, or whatever, will have 60-80% of the insured.

There are two approaches: 1. Basically single payor, or in the case of obamacare, a theory that all hospitals/providers can be forced to take medicare rates, which are cheaper than those charged to insurors. 2. A blow up the entire system approach, so that healtchcare is just shopping for a new radiator/lamp, in which each provider has to advertise up front how much you pay for a new knee (or whatever), with insurance being some form or medical savings acct or subsidzed tax credit

Or (3) pass a few laws or establish a few regulations that (1.) States can compete for your business and (2) Your insurance is yours to keep as long as the premiums are being paid. (3) You can not be denied (or dropped) coverage for pre-existing conditions.

That last one is an ignorant fantasy. It's asking insurance to be something it's not. That it can't be, not without heinous stipulations like the individual mandate.

Really? I recall distinctly, the company that I worked for for 25 years had "open enrollment" each and every year for new employees - pre-existing conditions were allowed every year but one (and I don't know why they didn't do it then).

One of my best friends Wife has MS - they were accepted with no problem.

Another friend had a child with Down's Syndrome - full coverage when the child was born.

So what EXACTLY about my statement is "ignorant"?

 

[dblack]

Or (3) pass a few laws or establish a few regulations that (1.) States can compete for your business and (2) Your insurance is yours to keep as long as the premiums are being paid. (3) You can not be denied (or dropped) coverage for pre-existing conditions.

That last one is an ignorant fantasy. It's asking insurance to be something it's not. That it can't be, not without heinous stipulations like the individual mandate.

Really? I recall distinctly, the company that I worked for for 25 years had "open enrollment" each and every year for new employees - pre-existing conditions were allowed every year but one (and I don't know why they didn't do it then).

One of my best friends Wife has MS - they were accepted with no problem.

Another friend had a child with Down's Syndrome - full coverage when the child was born.

So what EXACTLY about my statement is "ignorant"?

First of all, my apologies for my poor word choice. It wasn't meant as a personal insult, but it's a problem with the general public's perception of health insurance.

Insurance isn't a "buyer's club" you join to share expenses. Trying to use it that way isn't working, and it's the main reason the health care market is so fucked up. Insurance is a type of a bet, a hedge, that we invest in to cover unexpected catastrophe. When you purchase an insurance policy, it's meant to cover unforeseen circumstances, not ordinary expenses, and certainly not current liabilities. It makes no sense, either for the vendor or the customer, to try to run insurance that way.

If our desire regarding our health care is to socialize the cost, then it should be done via government and not through a for-profit business.

 

[Foxfyre]

The GOP has lost two, two, presidential elections on a single issue of whether the people WANT govt to help them, including by providing some means of everyone getting insurance, at least when they want it.

Regardless of what happens, if the GOP runs another TPM in 16, they'll lose again. Not liking Obamacare is not the same as liking what McCain ran on. And the demographics continue to kill the gop. Old white people have medicare. Latinos don't want to pay for it and get jack shite.

I dunno. The GOP didn't run a TPM in the last election and lost. However, a recent poll indicates that Romney would easily win over Obama if the 2012 election were held this November instead of last November. And that is almost 100% based on the public's resentment and anger at being so blatantly lied to about Obamacare and because they are just now beginning to realize the terrible freedom robbing legislation that it is.

I am guessing a TPM would do even better than Romney.