5 ms·

This comes from a very concerted effort by highly placed folks in the US (Koch Brothers, health care companies). Essentially, they create fear and confusion aro

This comes from a very concerted effort by highly placed folks in the US (Koch Brothers, health care companies). Essentially, they create fear and confusion around the new laws through Fox News and dial-in radio, and American idiots eat it up like it was the Bible truth. The people in this country who are against the health care law, uniformly, know nothing about it and regurgitate Fox News BS when asked why it's a bad law. Thing is, the law has its issues, but the other side never gets near them, they just make shit up "death panels" and government interference and stuff. I, as an American, am super embarrassed by all this. It doesn't help that the health care companies wrote the fucking law, anyway... now they're fighting against it! The sad truth is, unless we have a single-payer, socialized medical system, none of these changes will help much. Really, the biggest change the new law enacts is that it forces health care companies to cover people with pre-existing conditions like Diabetes and heart disease. Right now, they can tell you to go away, they won't cover that stuff. IN 2014, I hear they'll be forced to at least offer you a psychotically expensive plan if you have diabetes.... Ah, this country sucks ass.

dllthomas 13y ago
I respectfully disagree - I think the biggest change the law enacts is the cap on the MLR. Telling insurance companies they have to cover those with pre-existing conditions doesn't make them want to cover those with pre-existing conditions, it just makes them not want to be sued for one more thing. That is no kind of motivation to keep costs down or provide decent service - if Joe Sicko says "screw this, I am going to your competition" they break out the champaigne. With the MLR cap, having one more person means they can take home more money, so long as they're operating near the cap to begin with.
deleted 13y ago
[deleted]
hershel 13y ago
According to webmd, plan rates will only depend on age: "" Q: Will there be a limit as to how high a premium insurance companies can charge if you have a pre-existing condition? A: Yes. As of 2014, insurers cannot charge consumers different rates for health insurance because of health status or gender. You can be charged more for your age, however, with older people paying a higher premium than young people. But that increased charge is capped at no more than three times the standard rate"[1] Edit: Actually "The law allows for differences of premiums based only on four criteria: age, location, family size, and smoking."[2], which seems like a good way to do racial profiling and increasing premiums on poor people(since they're probably less healthy), as expected in the u.s, but at least pre existing conditions couldn't be a basis for a rate difference. I wonder thought how legal would be doing data mining with this information (an other free datatbases) , and how much deanonimization could be practically achieved ? [1]http://www.webmd.com/health-insurance/health-reform-insurance-for-pre-existing-conditions http://www.webmd.com/health-insurance/health-reform-insuranc... [2]http://ahip.org/Issues/January-1-2014-Provisions.aspx http://ahip.org/Issues/January-1-2014-Provisions.aspx [1]http://www.webmd.com/health-insurance/health-reform-insurance-for-pre-existing-conditions http://www.webmd.com/health-insurance/health-reform-insuranc...
IanDrake 13y ago
I don't think I fit your description of those who don't like the ACA, but I don't like it none the less. I believe we could fix health care costs by removing just one law. Stop making health insurance a tax deductible employee benefit. Think critically about the effect that small change would have and you'll see why our system is broken.
- dllthomas 13y ago
  While I totally agree with your proposed change, I don't think that fixes the system as a whole - especially if it were the only change to the pre-ACA state of affairs.
- lewispollard 13y ago
  As an interested non-American, how would that change the system?
  - IanDrake 13y ago
    In the US, if your employer pays for your health insurance, they pay for it with pre-tax dollars. If you buy it, you buy with post tax dollars. That's why employers pay for it in lieu of paying you more. If your employer pays for your car insurance as a benefit, they pay for it with post tax dollars, so they don't do that. So, employers pay the premium on your health care for the tax advantage. Now consider the how psychology behind not being the one who pays for the premium. Do you care how much your services cost? No. Do you care if the premium goes up? No. Do you shop around for better insurance? No. Do you care if you loose your job if you're sick? Hell yes. In effect all normal market pressures are gone. No one who consumes resources cares about their costs because they're are completely disconnected from paying them or some derivative of them. This is why doctors don't post prices. While the net effect for people with employer provided health insurance is ever increasing rates, the effect on those people without health insurance is brutal. They are trying to enter a market that has no price pressure.
    - lewispollard 13y ago
jeremyt 13y ago
I love how you make baseless accusations directed at the "Koch brothers" based on an article that doesn't even say that there were actual denial of service attacks. Then you poke fun at "American idiots", and then admit in your last sentence that you don't really even know how the law works yourself. Bonus points for picking the two conditions, heart disease and diabetes, that mostly result from poor choices instead of random innocent victims. Your whole post is like a parody of pseudo-intellectual liberalism.
- VonGuard 13y ago
  Uhm.... Diabetes can be a life-long disease. Way to discount people for being irresponsible. Clearly people who eat too many sweets don't deserve health care in your eyes.
  - jeremyt 13y ago
    Which is why I said "mostly". Anyway, remove that sentence and the rest of my comment stands.

dllthomas 13y ago

I respectfully disagree - I think the biggest change the law enacts is the cap on the MLR. Telling insurance companies they have to cover those with pre-existing conditions doesn't make them want to cover those with pre-existing conditions, it just makes them not want to be sued for one more thing. That is no kind of motivation to keep costs down or provide decent service - if Joe Sicko says "screw this, I am going to your competition" they break out the champaigne. With the MLR cap, having one more person means they can take home more money, so long as they're operating near the cap to begin with.

deleted 13y ago

[deleted]

hershel 13y ago

According to webmd, plan rates will only depend on age: "" Q: Will there be a limit as to how high a premium insurance companies can charge if you have a pre-existing condition? A: Yes. As of 2014, insurers cannot charge consumers different rates for health insurance because of health status or gender. You can be charged more for your age, however, with older people paying a higher premium than young people. But that increased charge is capped at no more than three times the standard rate"[1] Edit: Actually "The law allows for differences of premiums based only on four criteria: age, location, family size, and smoking."[2], which seems like a good way to do racial profiling and increasing premiums on poor people(since they're probably less healthy), as expected in the u.s, but at least pre existing conditions couldn't be a basis for a rate difference. I wonder thought how legal would be doing data mining with this information (an other free datatbases) , and how much deanonimization could be practically achieved ? [1]http://www.webmd.com/health-insurance/health-reform-insurance-for-pre-existing-conditions http://www.webmd.com/health-insurance/health-reform-insuranc... [2]http://ahip.org/Issues/January-1-2014-Provisions.aspx http://ahip.org/Issues/January-1-2014-Provisions.aspx [1]http://www.webmd.com/health-insurance/health-reform-insurance-for-pre-existing-conditions http://www.webmd.com/health-insurance/health-reform-insuranc...

IanDrake 13y ago

I don't think I fit your description of those who don't like the ACA, but I don't like it none the less. I believe we could fix health care costs by removing just one law. Stop making health insurance a tax deductible employee benefit. Think critically about the effect that small change would have and you'll see why our system is broken.

dllthomas 13y ago
While I totally agree with your proposed change, I don't think that fixes the system as a whole - especially if it were the only change to the pre-ACA state of affairs.
lewispollard 13y ago
As an interested non-American, how would that change the system?
- IanDrake 13y ago
  In the US, if your employer pays for your health insurance, they pay for it with pre-tax dollars. If you buy it, you buy with post tax dollars. That's why employers pay for it in lieu of paying you more. If your employer pays for your car insurance as a benefit, they pay for it with post tax dollars, so they don't do that. So, employers pay the premium on your health care for the tax advantage. Now consider the how psychology behind not being the one who pays for the premium. Do you care how much your services cost? No. Do you care if the premium goes up? No. Do you shop around for better insurance? No. Do you care if you loose your job if you're sick? Hell yes. In effect all normal market pressures are gone. No one who consumes resources cares about their costs because they're are completely disconnected from paying them or some derivative of them. This is why doctors don't post prices. While the net effect for people with employer provided health insurance is ever increasing rates, the effect on those people without health insurance is brutal. They are trying to enter a market that has no price pressure.
  - lewispollard 13y ago

jeremyt 13y ago

I love how you make baseless accusations directed at the "Koch brothers" based on an article that doesn't even say that there were actual denial of service attacks. Then you poke fun at "American idiots", and then admit in your last sentence that you don't really even know how the law works yourself. Bonus points for picking the two conditions, heart disease and diabetes, that mostly result from poor choices instead of random innocent victims. Your whole post is like a parody of pseudo-intellectual liberalism.

VonGuard 13y ago
Uhm.... Diabetes can be a life-long disease. Way to discount people for being irresponsible. Clearly people who eat too many sweets don't deserve health care in your eyes.
- jeremyt 13y ago
  Which is why I said "mostly". Anyway, remove that sentence and the rest of my comment stands.