cruiser_96;1750957 wrote:"...to stay solvent"????????? It doesn't have to stay solvent. Just raise taxes!
That's SOOOOO 2008....we don't raise taxes to pay for stuff any more, we just print more money.
cruiser_96;1750957 wrote:"...to stay solvent"????????? It doesn't have to stay solvent. Just raise taxes!
Which, by the way, is a really neat trick to artificially hide the rise in insurance costs. People will THINK they are making out with the rise in premiums slowing...until they actually get sick and get smacked with reality.QuakerOats;1785011 wrote:maximum out-of-pocket costs for consumers will rise to $7,150 for an individual and $14,300 for a family.
I think they need to rename it something other than the Affordable Care Act. It did some good things but did absolutely zero to reduce costs or make it "affordable" for most people.gut;1785344 wrote:Which, by the way, is a really neat trick to artificially hide the rise in insurance costs. People will THINK they are making out with the rise in premiums slowing...until they actually get sick and get smacked with reality.
Pretty much what most obamakare critics have been saying for the last 5 years. Nobody will care until it actually hits them.gut;1785344 wrote:Which, by the way, is a really neat trick to artificially hide the rise in insurance costs. People will THINK they are making out with the rise in premiums slowing...until they actually get sick and get smacked with reality.
About the only good thing I can think of is guaranteeing coverage for pre-existing conditions. I doubt they needed to re-write the rules of an entire industry just to mandate people have coverage.sleeper;1785348 wrote:I think they need to remain it something other than the Affordable Care Act. It did some good things but did absolutely zero to reduce costs or make it "affordable" for most people.
I'm actually for single payer but no one ever talks about the lack of R&D and medical progress that will come with it. I also worry about how quality will be affected when hospitals and doctors are capped at some arbitrary number by some bureaucrat who has no clue about what every procedure should cost.gut;1785353 wrote:About the only good thing I can think of is guaranteeing coverage for pre-existing conditions. I doubt they needed to re-write the rules of an entire industry just to mandate people have coverage.
And they probably also could have just passed a law banning insurance companies from screening/rating on pre-existing conditions.
I do believe it was mainly pushed as a first-step toward single payer. Sure, we subsidize global healthcare...and if we stop doing that we can save money. And 20 years from now we'll be talking about what to do for the lack of medical progress and investment in R&D.
What's really ridiculous is a cash payer pays 10X the rate negotiated by insurance. Why? I guess, in theory, if you negotiate in advance you can get a much better deal, but you still don't know how that stacks up to what an insurance company pays. But if you come in for an emergency, as many costly visits often are, you can't really negotiate after the fact.sleeper;1785359 wrote: If we don't go single payer, I think one of things we need is more cost transparency. I think its ridiculous that I can't shop around for non-emergency medical procedures and know what things are going to cost BEFORE I chose the provider.
I agree. It's ridiculous. I used to work for an insurance company and it always cracked me up when the customer service have their disclaimer about payment not being guaranteed. Why the fuck were people calling them if they couldn't guarantee what would be paid?sleeper;1785359 wrote:I think its ridiculous that I can't shop around for non-emergency medical procedures and know what things are going to cost BEFORE I chose the provider.