3 ms·

Because despite the Affordable Care Act being a long way from a proper first-world system, people realize that it's miles better than what we had previously on

by bluthru 13y ago

Because despite the Affordable Care Act being a long way from a proper first-world system, people realize that it's miles better than what we had previously on the whole.

cynwoody 13y ago
How can a system that costs more for less coverage and poorer access to treatment be better than what we had before? RTFA! What we had before had plenty of problems, but Obamacare is a failure from the get-go, leaving aside the $600+m web site debacle.
- hga 13y ago
  "and poorer access to treatment" One critical thing about what I gather is the vast majority of plans is that their provider networks are narrow since the insurance companies were pressured hard to lower costs (we've all read about how many quality hospitals have been outright excluded). So narrow that routine medicine outside of your county or local area is out-of-network and entirely uncovered. This is going to have some serious effects on those who've retired but have not yet reached the 65 year old threshold for Medicare and have a second home, e.g. snowbirds who want to avoid harsh northern winters: http://www.americanthinker.com/2013/12/more_obamacare_devastation.html http://www.americanthinker.com/2013/12/more_obamacare_devast...
poulsbohemian 13y ago
Without this turning into a long diatribe, one of the major problems I have is that the general assertion that the ACA is "better than nothing / better than what we had before" is that it is only true in some states. Yes, many states were doing a poor job of regulating health insurers, but in my state (Washington), the ACA offers few new benefits. Whereas previously high-deductable / catastrophic plans were available cheaply for those who were willing to pay cash for the bulk of their health needs, now everybody is pushed to plans that don't do enough for preventative care and will cost ~$1000/month for a typical family. I think we are all thankful to see people with long-term chronic illness finally able to buy health insurance regardless of their state, but for those states that already had functioning marketplaces for family/individual insurance, the ACA smacks of unnecessary federal meddling that, IMHO, fixes the market rather than leading to the competitive market that was a claimed benefit. Background: I've been a buyer/selector of health insurance as both an individual and employer since 2006, so have been through this a couple times now.

by bluthru 13y ago

Because despite the Affordable Care Act being a long way from a proper first-world system, people realize that it's miles better than what we had previously on the whole.

cynwoody 13y ago

How can a system that costs more for less coverage and poorer access to treatment be better than what we had before? RTFA! What we had before had plenty of problems, but Obamacare is a failure from the get-go, leaving aside the $600+m web site debacle.

hga 13y ago
"and poorer access to treatment" One critical thing about what I gather is the vast majority of plans is that their provider networks are narrow since the insurance companies were pressured hard to lower costs (we've all read about how many quality hospitals have been outright excluded). So narrow that routine medicine outside of your county or local area is out-of-network and entirely uncovered. This is going to have some serious effects on those who've retired but have not yet reached the 65 year old threshold for Medicare and have a second home, e.g. snowbirds who want to avoid harsh northern winters: http://www.americanthinker.com/2013/12/more_obamacare_devastation.html http://www.americanthinker.com/2013/12/more_obamacare_devast...

poulsbohemian 13y ago

Without this turning into a long diatribe, one of the major problems I have is that the general assertion that the ACA is "better than nothing / better than what we had before" is that it is only true in some states. Yes, many states were doing a poor job of regulating health insurers, but in my state (Washington), the ACA offers few new benefits. Whereas previously high-deductable / catastrophic plans were available cheaply for those who were willing to pay cash for the bulk of their health needs, now everybody is pushed to plans that don't do enough for preventative care and will cost ~$1000/month for a typical family. I think we are all thankful to see people with long-term chronic illness finally able to buy health insurance regardless of their state, but for those states that already had functioning marketplaces for family/individual insurance, the ACA smacks of unnecessary federal meddling that, IMHO, fixes the market rather than leading to the competitive market that was a claimed benefit. Background: I've been a buyer/selector of health insurance as both an individual and employer since 2006, so have been through this a couple times now.