Surprise: Republican ACA alternatives are much worse deal for middle-class Americans

[Jhhnn]

LOL of course Jhhnn, if anything my coverage and or access should be shittier as I actually pay taxes...what was I thinking.

But right now I would take almost anything...

Nice dodge. Everybody pays taxes, one way or another.

Or does making more money (right now, anyway) somehow make you morally superior & therefore more deserving?

 

[bozack]

Nice dodge. Everybody pays taxes, one way or another.

Or does making more money (right now, anyway) somehow make you morally superior & therefore more deserving?

All I am saying is that as someone with a good company sponsored health plan I am unable to get what I consider quality healthcare....maybe when I finally have my appointment in January I will be so amazed with the service my tune will change, but prior to the changes in MA, and eventually the ACA it was far easier for me to get in and actually see a doctor.

But to answer your question, I do feel that those who positively contribute be it individually and or via their employer should have more immediate access to preventative services, and I would say the same if roles were reversed and I had to join the govt plan.

 

[Bart*Simpson]

Millions of policies. You're hilarious.

Per FactCheck.org - a very liberal site - the number as of last year was 2.6 million to 4.7 million policies cancelled due to Obamacare.

http://www.factcheck.org/2014/04/millions-lost-insurance/

"Millions" is therefore accurate.

 

[BonzaiDuck]

All I am saying is that as someone with a good company sponsored health plan I am unable to get what I consider quality healthcare....maybe when I finally have my appointment in January I will be so amazed with the service my tune will change, but prior to the changes in MA, and eventually the ACA it was far easier for me to get in and actually see a doctor.

But to answer your question, I do feel that those who positively contribute be it individually and or via their employer should have more immediate access to preventative services, and I would say the same if roles were reversed and I had to join the govt plan.

I think there should be some vehicle for collecting more than "personal experience" data on this, perhaps coinciding with the medical records paperwork, or maybe as a 10-question survey of ACA beneficiaries.

I never had a personal stake in the issue of universal healthcare or extension of healthcare to "pre-existing condition" candidates and the indigent.

The first principle for everything: Everything has a cost. Like an undertaker waiting to collect a bill, any climate change arising from fossil-fuel use may come back to bite any given individual or collective in the ass. Healthcare costs are passed on with more immediacy: pro bono service to emergency-room indigents eventually gets reflected in hospital accounting, and perhaps distributed to other health-care customers through increasing rates for services. Are those increases passed on again to insurance companies, creating incentives for increasing premiums of all insured?

I have a good health insurance policy for a retiree; I have Medicare parts A and B. My premiums haven't increased any more than they did annually before the ACA existed. But they increase an average of $10/annum each and every year. Also worthy to note: my premiums actually decreased about two years ago -- an adjustment resulting from state regulation.

My brother chose a career with uncertain income promise. He's disabled and can no longer work; he'll only have Social Security and Medicare when he reaches the age of 62.5; he currently gets an SSDI check. Bro is very good about reading fine print and -- with the paperwork -- getting it done.

He's happy as a pig in s*** with the ACA. Doesn't complain about visits to the county clinics or any delays. He has no problem renewing his prescriptions. I pay $80/month for my own Spiriva inhaler and caps; he pays about $2/month. The uninsured, unsubsidized prescription cost is $267/month.

None of the disasters predicted by rabid GOP voices has occurred. No -- I think there is a element of hate for the ACA because of a greater element of hate for Obama. And if you ask me, Hillary had a lot to do with the ACA. It was her pet issue as First Lady back in the '90s, and she was severely criticized for it.

 

[fskimospy]

Per FactCheck.org - a very liberal site - the number as of last year was 2.6 million to 4.7 million policies cancelled due to Obamacare.

http://www.factcheck.org/2014/04/millions-lost-insurance/

"Millions" is therefore accurate.

When did factcheck.org become a very liberal site? Remember, 'not right wing' doesn't mean 'very liberal'.

 

[Bart*Simpson]

When did factcheck.org become a very liberal site? Remember, 'not right wing' doesn't mean 'very liberal'.

Factcheck.org became 'very liberal' the day it was launched in 2003 by the Annenberg Public Policy Center among whose officers has been counted none other than Barack Obama.

I chose that site because it is known to be Obama-friendly and the statistics on it would not be easily dismissed by someone who likes Obama.

 

[Jhhnn]

Per FactCheck.org - a very liberal site - the number as of last year was 2.6 million to 4.7 million policies cancelled due to Obamacare.

http://www.factcheck.org/2014/04/millions-lost-insurance/

"Millions" is therefore accurate.

So, on the percentages, how many policies were cancelled?

2.6M is how much of the total number of families insured at the time?

Using that 2.6M number, less than 1%.

Not quite. First off, this affects a pretty small sliver of the U.S. population: the people who buy health insurance directly, rather than the 80 percent who get it from their jobs or a government program like Medicare or Medicaid, or the 15 percent who have no health insurance at all.

Estimates vary, but the Census Bureau says this figure is about 4 percent of Americans, which comes to about 11 million people. A lot of those folks are finding out that the health insurance plans they have this year aren't going to be sold anymore. How many? Hard to say, with reports ranging from a few hundred thousand to millions. (And their coverage isn't changing today; it's changing next year.)

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/11/01/health-insurance-cancellations_n_4192079.html

So Obama wasn't 100% correct when he said you could keep your plan. He was just 99% correct.

Nobody rational ever accused righties of having a sense of proportion.

 

[K1052]

Factcheck.org became 'very liberal' the day it was launched in 2003 by the Annenberg Public Policy Center among whose officers has been counted none other than Barack Obama.

I chose that site because it is known to be Obama-friendly and the statistics on it would not be easily dismissed by someone who likes Obama.

Obama was never on the board of the Annenburg Foundation or the APPC.

He was selected (at the suggestion of the Joyce Foundation president) to be on the board of the Chicago Annenburg Challenge which was organized to win a grant from the Annenburg Foundation.

 

[werepossum]

Per FactCheck.org - a very liberal site - the number as of last year was 2.6 million to 4.7 million policies cancelled due to Obamacare.

http://www.factcheck.org/2014/04/millions-lost-insurance/

"Millions" is therefore accurate.

I do agree that it's accurate - and 2.6 million to 4.7 million policies is low-balling it - but it's probably also misleading. I highly doubt that 2.6 million to 4.7 million people were left without health care. Our policies for instance were cancelled, but immediate replacements were issued which were ACA-compliant but functionally as good. Everyone who lost insurance due to the ACA could get new insurance - maybe not as good, maybe more expensive, maybe a LOT more expensive, maybe have to have a lifestyle adjustment to afford it - but it was attainable. We ended up having to drop to a worse plan - just couldn't afford our previous level of policy with the Obamacare-compliant goodies tacked on - but it's not like we lost health insurance, we're just getting less now for our dollars. And that is balanced somewhat by abolition of hard caps, so that if one of us got really, really sick long term we'd actually be better off.

 

[Jhhnn]

I do agree that it's accurate - and 2.6 million to 4.7 million policies is low-balling it - but it's probably also misleading. I highly doubt that 2.6 million to 4.7 million people were left without health care. Our policies for instance were cancelled, but immediate replacements were issued which were ACA-compliant but functionally as good. Everyone who lost insurance due to the ACA could get new insurance - maybe not as good, maybe more expensive, maybe a LOT more expensive, maybe have to have a lifestyle adjustment to afford it - but it was attainable. We ended up having to drop to a worse plan - just couldn't afford our previous level of policy with the Obamacare-compliant goodies tacked on - but it's not like we lost health insurance, we're just getting less now for our dollars. And that is balanced somewhat by abolition of hard caps, so that if one of us got really, really sick long term we'd actually be better off.

So... uhh, you now have a more comprehensive policy but you're getting less somehow...

Maybe in Glenbeckistan, I suppose.

 

[Jhhnn]

Obama was never on the board of the Annenburg Foundation or the APPC.

He was selected (at the suggestion of the Joyce Foundation president) to be on the board of the Chicago Annenburg Challenge which was organized to win a grant from the Annenburg Foundation.

You can't confuse Believers with facts.

 

[JSt0rm]

All I am saying is that as someone with a good company sponsored health plan I am unable to get what I consider quality healthcare....maybe when I finally have my appointment in January I will be so amazed with the service my tune will change, but prior to the changes in MA, and eventually the ACA it was far easier for me to get in and actually see a doctor.

But to answer your question, I do feel that those who positively contribute be it individually and or via their employer should have more immediate access to preventative services, and I would say the same if roles were reversed and I had to join the govt plan.

Sounds like you need a better job then. I have best healthcare and never wait for shit.

 

[nickqt]

Per FactCheck.org - a very liberal site - the number as of last year was 2.6 million to 4.7 million policies cancelled due to Obamacare.

http://www.factcheck.org/2014/04/millions-lost-insurance/

"Millions" is therefore accurate.

I do agree that it's accurate - and 2.6 million to 4.7 million policies is low-balling it - but it's probably also misleading. I highly doubt that 2.6 million to 4.7 million people were left without health care. Our policies for instance were cancelled, but immediate replacements were issued which were ACA-compliant but functionally as good. Everyone who lost insurance due to the ACA could get new insurance - maybe not as good, maybe more expensive, maybe a LOT more expensive, maybe have to have a lifestyle adjustment to afford it - but it was attainable. We ended up having to drop to a worse plan - just couldn't afford our previous level of policy with the Obamacare-compliant goodies tacked on - but it's not like we lost health insurance, we're just getting less now for our dollars. And that is balanced somewhat by abolition of hard caps, so that if one of us got really, really sick long term we'd actually be better off.

Ah, man. Why'd you have to go and add objective-reality context to a great talking point about millions of policies that we're "cancelled"?

You're clearly a RINO. Describing objective-reality is a slippery slope, comrade. Pretty soon you'll join the rest of us Democrats calling for 100% taxation and the criminalization of Christianity.

Tread carefully!