Obamacare

[xoxoxoBruce]

Some interesting questions about Obamacare.

1. Once Obamacare goes into effect, it will be impossible to substantially cut it back. Both sides seem convinced of this -- Republicans in terror, Democrats in glee.
~snip~
Entitlements are hard to roll back, but it is clearly not impossible, because it’s been done.

[Lamplighter]

Originally Posted by xoxoxoBruce

Some interesting questions about Obamacare.

A problem is that the underlying assumption within that link (Bloomberg) is not valid,
or at least it was not the primary raison-d'etre for the Affordable Care Act.
Most the issues in that link are based on a thesis of "saving $". For example:

Here’s another interesting observation I heard the other day,
this time from a participant in the recent Brookings' papers:
it’s not clear that ACOs are going to save money.

But the primary basis of the ACA / Obamacare primarily was to insure
the (15 ?) millions of people who did not have their own health insurance,
and then to support these newly "insured" by inducing larger numbers
of relatively healthy (working younger people) to buy into their own
health insurance instead of going without.

It's a matter of POV.

[xoxoxoBruce]

AFFORDABLE Care Act.
No, the idea was to get skyrocketing medical costs under control by getting everyone covered and having more efficiency. That should have been single payer instead of the hodge-podge we got. But as I said before, it can be fixed as we go.

[Lamplighter]

I agree that getting "skyrocketing medical costs under control" is part of the ACA,
but that was proceeding under Medicare even before the ACA was passed.
My issue was with the premise of the various "observations" in the link.

We are probably in agreement also on "should have been single payer
instead of the hodge-podge we got."

But that was just one of the options being considered, but that obviously
would have been far more of a upheaval in the US economy
than the more limited transformations of the current form of the ACA.

[Lamplighter]

This editorial is from Forbes...

Forbes
Todd Essig
9/29/13

Let's Get Personal: Obamacare Really Is Good For The Young And Healthy

<snip>
What really embarrasses me is that we’re supposed to be looking out,
taking care, making it easier for those coming up to build a good life.
Instead, bloviating blowhards dispense lies, half-truths, cherry-picked facts,
distortions, and ideological flourishes all designed to confuse and mystify.<snip>

So, let’s shower the crud off ourselves before the marketplace opens
and get personal about whether the Affordable Care Act is a good thing
for people who are young and healthy.

Here are 4 reasons why the answer is “yes, it is.”

<snip>

It is left to the reader to explore this man's calmly stated
and sensible approach to health insurance...
.
.

[Adak]

Just heard on the radio that Aetna (CA's biggest medical insurer with 48% of the market), has dropped out of the exchange for ObamaCare.

This is going on in many states: Iowa (lost their largest insurer), New Hampshire and West Virginia have no health care provider, at all.

The larger health insurers are reluctant to get into this because it's unknown territory for them. On the one hand, the law prevents them from raising the rates above a certain level, but on the other hand, they have to provide a certain level of care to those that they cover.

To top it off, if the healthy people don't need to buy it (maybe paying the IRS penalty will be a better alternative for them), then the whole insurance plan idea, goes out the window. Insurance can't work that way. The risk has to be spread around an adequate base of subscribers.

The national health care plan is a good one, but I wish they would have done more planning and studying, before they decided to pass it into law. So many things - like all these exemptions, etc., they make for a very poor start for it.

[glatt]

Originally Posted by Adak

To top it off, if the healthy people don't need to buy it (maybe paying the IRS penalty will be a better alternative for them)

The way this is being phased in, the penalties for not buying insurance in the first year are relatively small. (At least the last time I looked into it several months ago.) So it's probably wise from a financial point of view to sit on the sidelines until next year when the penalties become real, and health care will be cheaper than the fine. Of course, if you pay for the health care, then you can use the health care. If you opt for the fine, you get nothing in return.

Debating Obamacare is kind of funny that way, because it's only being phased in slowly, so it will be a few years before we know exactly how it's going to pan out.