Second installment on ACA for those that like to read tea leaves...

[sengsational]

Consumers who have good, well-presented information to use and who have a reason to shop wisely provides the best way to reduce costs (IMO).

Something closer to knowledge parity (along with other steps that improve market efficiency) does tend to reduce profits, but not necessarily to the extent that capital finds a better use elsewhere. We're spending a lot of money on health care in the US, there will still be lots of money to me made if the margins are lower.

Here's a link to an earlier thread.... anybody want to initiate a kickstarter?
http://www.early-retirement.org/forums/f38/poll-would-you-share-the-price-you-paid-for-medical-procedures-79499.html

 

[daylatedollarshort]

You've said this before, and it is as inaccurate now as it was then. Medical bills are the cause of about 5% of bankruptcies (pre ACA), not 62%.

"A recent Harvard University study showed that medical expenses account for approximately 62 percent of personal bankruptcies in the US. Interestingly, the study also showed that 72 percent of those who filed for bankruptcy due to medical expenses had some type of health insurance, thus debunking the myth that only the uninsured face financial catastrophes due to medical-related expenses."

Source - Top 10 Reasons People Go Bankrupt | The Huffington Post

"The Affordable Care Act may give more people access to health insurance, but experts don’t expect it to help solve a major problem in this country: medical bankruptcies. According to a 2013 study by NerdWallet Health, unpaid medical bills are expected to be the No.1 cause of bankruptcy filings, surpassing both credit card and mortgage debt."

Source - http://www.foxbusiness.com/features/2014/02/18/medical-bankruptcies-are-still-problem-here-what-to-expect.html

"The article by Himmelstein et al1 in this issue of the The American Journal of Medicine documents that health care expenses were the most common cause of bankruptcy in the United States in 2007, accounting for 62% of US bankruptcies compared with 8% in 1981.2

Most bankruptcies occurred in middle-class citizens with health insurance, further evidence that our current health care system, based on for-profit, employment-based health insurance, is not working. Millions of Americans have limited access to health care because they cannot afford health insurance. Millions of others, such as those who have to file for bankruptcy because of health care costs, have inadequate health insurance. It is estimated that 1 in 5 Americans goes without health insurance or has inadequate health insurance.3

Why is the United States, one of the richest countries in the world, the only major industrial nation that is unable to provide access to health care to all its citizens? Are there any other nations whose citizens have to declare bankruptcy because of health care expenses?"

Source - American Journal of Medicine: Only in America: Bankruptcy Due to Medical Costs

Samclem, if you don't want to believe these sources from The American Journal of Medicine and both the right and left media, then that is certainly your choice, but I am not interested in taking this thread off topic beyond this post. We will just have to agree to disagree.

 

[gerntz]

All insurance should be treated equally tax-wise, not a before tax income reduction thru employers & after tax payment if not thru employer. Personally, I'd make them all after tax; i.e., insurance cost thru employer would become taxable income.

 

[gerntz]

They were saying the replacement plan would need at least 8 senators from the minority, unless the majority is willing to get rid of the filibuster for good.

It's going to be a long period of uncertainty but another scenario is if they impair the ACA with budgetary moves or executive orders which do not require 60 votes in the Senate, a lot of insurers may choose to bail long before a full repeal.

As I understand things, it takes just a majority to repeal the ACA. But it takes the 60 in Senate to replace it with something new. If this is correct, then there should be a replacement plan passed before or with ACA repeal. However, if not enough Senators want to get on board with new to make 60, then I think repeal without replacement ought to be passed for a future time, say 1-2 years, & let those that don't make 60 justify 80M not having insurance options at that future date.

I've read some here say we should JUST modify/improve the ACA vs. replacing. Trouble for me is it's complexity & mandates. And while it provides 20M with insurance - 7M of those added to Medicaid &/or young adults staying on parents' insurance - it leaves another 60M without insurance at all. For me, whatever a replacement program might be, it needs to coverage a much larger fraction of the 80M without insurance on their own. But to say we ought to just modify ACA for 13 of 80M doesn't make sense to me.

 

[rodi]

We have repeatedly asked to avoid speculation and politics but they continue. Thread closed.