3 ms·

Without obamacare i would have no coverage at all. i dont object to paying for traditional health insurance but before obamacare i could not qualify as i have

Without obamacare i would have no coverage at all. i dont object to paying for traditional health insurance but before obamacare i could not qualify as i have too many preexisting conditions.

transfire 11y ago
Just about everyone agrees with the preexisting conditions aspect of the law. The problem with the law is much bigger than that however. I'll try to break down some of the issues to clarify. 1. The law institutionalizes a broken insurance and pharmaceuticals system that puts profits about health outcomes. 2. Because of high deductibles, the employed poor are paying for care they cannot afford to use, in effect subsidizing the upper classes who can. 3. Dependents become a burden to tax payers b/c they are now responsible for their health coverage. (Think unemployed granddaughter who lives with, but also helps take care of, her grandmother.) 4. Administrative requirements are out-of control. And digital record systems are proving to be a complete disaster (thanks to lousy regulations). 5. The system continues to perpetuate employee provided care. 6. It unfairly burdens the young to placate the old. I am sure others can add to this list.
- hwstar 11y ago
  Point 1 I agree on, the others not so much. 2. Not true. The co-pays and deductibles for low income people are subsidized. Some pay as little as $5 to see the doctor or get a name brand prescription drugs. 3. The system was designed to spread the risk. This is by design. 4. Not really. I don't have any trouble seeing a doctor when I need one due to red tape. 5. No. It does the opposite. It offers freedom from employment for those who work for 35 years and acquire assets to live off of. 6. Historically, the young have always supported the old in human society since the beginning of time. There's no logical reason to change that deal.
  - transfire 11y ago
    2. Cost sharing only operates in a very limited window of income. One must also buy a Silver plan which costs more (offsetting some of the cost share) and these plans are highly restricted to in-network doctors and hospitals. 3. And the effect is to destroy family bonds. 4. It's not just about seeing a doctor, but the additional costs. Do you know the average doctor has 7 minutes per patient per visit in order to be profitable? 5. People who work 35 years soon get Medicare. For everyone else one still has to contend with getting new coverage when one leaves their job. 6. That makes it okay to institutionalize? You missed the word "unfairly". The ACA goes beyond what is natural. We are going to tax 18 year olds to pay for grandmom's $500,000 cancer medicine so she can live an extra 4 months?

Without obamacare i would have no coverage at all. i dont object to paying for traditional health insurance but before obamacare i could not qualify as i have too many preexisting conditions.

transfire 11y ago

Just about everyone agrees with the preexisting conditions aspect of the law. The problem with the law is much bigger than that however. I'll try to break down some of the issues to clarify. 1. The law institutionalizes a broken insurance and pharmaceuticals system that puts profits about health outcomes. 2. Because of high deductibles, the employed poor are paying for care they cannot afford to use, in effect subsidizing the upper classes who can. 3. Dependents become a burden to tax payers b/c they are now responsible for their health coverage. (Think unemployed granddaughter who lives with, but also helps take care of, her grandmother.) 4. Administrative requirements are out-of control. And digital record systems are proving to be a complete disaster (thanks to lousy regulations). 5. The system continues to perpetuate employee provided care. 6. It unfairly burdens the young to placate the old. I am sure others can add to this list.

hwstar 11y ago
Point 1 I agree on, the others not so much. 2. Not true. The co-pays and deductibles for low income people are subsidized. Some pay as little as $5 to see the doctor or get a name brand prescription drugs. 3. The system was designed to spread the risk. This is by design. 4. Not really. I don't have any trouble seeing a doctor when I need one due to red tape. 5. No. It does the opposite. It offers freedom from employment for those who work for 35 years and acquire assets to live off of. 6. Historically, the young have always supported the old in human society since the beginning of time. There's no logical reason to change that deal.
- transfire 11y ago
  2. Cost sharing only operates in a very limited window of income. One must also buy a Silver plan which costs more (offsetting some of the cost share) and these plans are highly restricted to in-network doctors and hospitals. 3. And the effect is to destroy family bonds. 4. It's not just about seeing a doctor, but the additional costs. Do you know the average doctor has 7 minutes per patient per visit in order to be profitable? 5. People who work 35 years soon get Medicare. For everyone else one still has to contend with getting new coverage when one leaves their job. 6. That makes it okay to institutionalize? You missed the word "unfairly". The ACA goes beyond what is natural. We are going to tax 18 year olds to pay for grandmom's $500,000 cancer medicine so she can live an extra 4 months?