Current Administration vow to eliminating ACA

Status
Not open for further replies.
Beststash said:
For those that have forgotten, the "Great Society" was a bold set of programs that aimed at improving Americans' everyday lives. This was a bygone era where people believed that Government should be run to serve the people it represents and not the interests of business or special interest groups.

Not only did it include Healthcare (Medicare/Medicaid) but also housing, education, elimination of poverty, the environment, immigration, and Civil rights.
The last 50 years we have gone from this concept to an era of "government is the problem" with the idea that government should be run like a business. If this pandemic has done nothing else it has shown that our healthcare system in America is broken (along with a lot of other things). If the ACA is overturned it will be a tragedy for millions of Americans. I don't think anything is more important that the welfare of our citizens, not even profit and certainly not debt (as witnessed in just the last few weeks).
Click to expand...

I agree.
 
Aerides said:
Financially, yes. But I'd think that the protection for coverage for pre-existing conditions is a bigger impact for many, as it's Y/N on if you can get private non-group insurance at all.
Click to expand...

IMHO, the even bigger thing to be concerned about the lack of community rating (ie reinstating medical underwiting) in almost all of the 'replace' proposals that I have seen.

It's not just about being able to buy insurance if you have pre-existing conditions. It is also about limiting the insurance company's ability to fully price for it.

This subtle difference is often missed in media coverage -- across the spectrum.

-gauss
 
Poopycat said:
I wish that some of the politicians who were floating the Medicare buy-in option for age 55+ would have gotten more traction.
Click to expand...

Actually, there is one politician (still in the race) that announced on April 9th his proposal for people age 60+ the option to buy into Medicare.

This candidate said "And to be clear — these are priorities now, but they will be my program ...."

That's as much as I think I can say without introducing politics.

You can google it for more information.
 
RetiredAt55.5 said:
Actually, there is one politician (still in the race) that announced on April 9th his proposal for people age 60+ the option to buy into Medicare.

This candidate said "And to be clear — these are priorities now, but they will be my program ...."

That's as much as I think I can say without introducing politics.

You can google it for more information.
Click to expand...

I believe you. The ideas for 50+, 55+ and 60+ are definitely there and have been voiced too but it's not going anywhere (not to get into any politics)
 
I wish they would do yearly health screenings, similar to what life insurance companies do, and set rates based on that. Perhaps, the additional insurance costs would motivate people to have better life choices when it comes to eating and exercising, and those that do take care of their bodies would get a discount.
 
natetheb said:
I wish they would do yearly health screenings, similar to what life insurance companies do, and set rates based on that. Perhaps, the additional insurance costs would motivate people to have better life choices when it comes to eating and exercising, and those that do take care of their bodies would get a discount.
Click to expand...



What about the child with leukemia or congenital heart disease or Type 1 diabetes? Or the 35 year old woman with breast cancer? Or my friend who is in his early 30s who is awaiting a kidney transplant? Should they be financially punished all their lives for bad luck? There is a lot of illness that is not lifestyle related.
 
jimbee said:
Nope.
Click to expand...
What do you mean by nope? If by nope you mean there are some who pay full boat, then you are correct. But the vast majority of Medicare recipients are heavily subsidized. Only those with modified adjusted gross incomes above $500,000/yr, (single), $750,000 (married) receive no subsidy.
 
Last edited:
natetheb said:
I wish they would do yearly health screenings, similar to what life insurance companies do, and set rates based on that. Perhaps, the additional insurance costs would motivate people to have better life choices when it comes to eating and exercising, and those that do take care of their bodies would get a discount.
Click to expand...

It wouldn't necessarily work that way. DH's employer requires both he and I to undergo a health screening to get reduced insurance rates. (Covered children are excluded from this requirement.) But his employer is not allowed to know our individual specific results. I'm not sure if they get aggregate info as to how many or what percentage of employees have health conditions. They're self-insured, so they do adjust rates according to how much in claims they had to pay out the prior year, as any insurance company probably does.

An insurance company will know about your health conditions when they have to pay out claims. Does the person who may only get a yearly physical get lower rates than the person who takes regular prescriptions to manage multiple conditions or someone undergoing cancer treatments? My mother's Blue Cross rate was the same as my grandparents Blue Cross rate, even though my grandparents took no medication and seldom went to the doctor, while my mother racked up tens of thousands of dollars in cancer costs.

EastWest Gal said:
What about the child with leukemia or congenital heart disease or Type 1 diabetes? Or the 35 year old woman with breast cancer? Or my friend who is in his early 30s who is awaiting a kidney transplant? Should they be financially punished all their lives for bad luck? There is a lot of illness that is not lifestyle related.
Click to expand...

+1
 
EastWest Gal said:
What about the child with leukemia or congenital heart disease or Type 1 diabetes? Or the 35 year old woman with breast cancer? Or my friend who is in his early 30s who is awaiting a kidney transplant? Should they be financially punished all their lives for bad luck? There is a lot of illness that is not lifestyle related.
Click to expand...

No those are diseases, Natetheb is talking about lifestyle choices like diet and exercise.

I like the idea of motivating people to live a healthier lifestyle. There is a new movement in medicine called lifestyle medicine that focuses on diet, exercise, sleep, managing stress and having healthy, supportive relationships. A movie is about to be released on this style of medicine. I saw it last year at a health and nutrition conference and went to a lecture by Dr. Stancic. Here is a link to the movie trailer:

https://drstancic.com/code-blue
 
Last edited:
BeachOrCity said:
It also says god help you if you don’t have insurance to negotiate the costs down!!!!

Frankly I would like it if they offered a 50k deductible policy just to get their rates and pay everything myself unless I got the big C , heart attack etc.
Click to expand...
Why I basically have only a major Medical hospitalization plan. All doctor visits, check ups, even labs can be prenegotiated. And of course it helps to not live in the US!
 
Aerides said:
Financially, yes. But I'd think that the protection for coverage for pre-existing conditions is a bigger impact for many, as it's Y/N on if you can get private non-group insurance at all.
Click to expand...

Almost everything I have read where there is a proposal to remove ACA has a qualifier that pre-existing coverage is maintained. I guess there are some that don't, but I think that is few and far between from what I have read.
 
Tiger8693 said:
Almost everything I have read where there is a proposal to remove ACA has a qualifier that pre-existing coverage is maintained. I guess there are some that don't, but I think that is few and far between from what I have read.
Click to expand...

Sure I see that too. But if the ACA is ruled unconstitutional (as the current case aims to do), until there is new law in place, there is no coverage, game over. Just proposals and promises. So, bird in the hand, etc.
 
Aerides said:
Sure I see that too. But if the ACA is ruled unconstitutional (as the current case aims to do), until there is new law in place, there is no coverage, game over. Just proposals and promises. So, bird in the hand, etc.
Click to expand...

Agreed. But if it is unconstitutional, well, it has to be struck down. Hopefully at that point a system that is constitutional and provides for pre-existing conditions is negotiated in good faith and put in place. Fingers crossed.
 
Poopycat said:
I wish that some of the politicians who were floating the Medicare buy-in option for age 55+ would have gotten more traction. It would have allowed people who wanted or needed insurance to purchase Medicare for a reasonable cost. Seems like it would have been a win-win situation for everybody.

Many in the 55-65 age range who want to retire early or just can’t find another job after being laid off could buy into Medicare so they could be insured, and avoid the exorbitant costs of the individual market. The program would be optional so if they had a better option (currently employed, covered under spouse’s plan), they wouldn’t have to participate.

It wouldn’t hurt the government, and may actually help to have younger and potentially healthier people in the Medicare pool, and they would be paying into the program so there shouldn’t be a giant cost burden.

And to your point, if you take some of the older and potentially “less healthy” people out of the private insurance pool, that should theoretically bring down the premium costs for the others in the individual market.

Seems so simple to me. My understanding is Obama had wanted to lower the Medicare age to 55 as part of the ACA (not a buy-in, just lower the age), but Joseph Lieberman, the CT senator, was dead set against it for some reason. Man, I wish that had gone through. Would have solved a bunch of my concerns...
Click to expand...

It wasn't just one senator, the medical people don't want Medicare for all or anything resembling it. The pay schedule is so low it gives people medical care by costing doctors and hospitals big bucks..
 
Golden sunsets said:
What do you mean by nope? If by nope you mean there are some who pay full boat, then you are correct.
Click to expand...
Yes, that is what I meant.
Golden sunsets said:
But the vast majority of Medicare recipients are heavily subsidized. Only those with modified adjusted gross incomes above $500,000/yr, (single), $750,000 (married) receive no subsidy.
Click to expand...
I agree, and I stated that in post #20 of this thread.
 
I never had to utilize ACA being on my employers plan after I retired and before going on medicare. However, DD has been on ACA, and what struck me is how ACA changed over the years. The big negatives are the networks are very narrow so you cannot go the hospitals and doctors you prefer, and co-pays/co-insurance and out of pocket maxes make it pricy for what you get. I guess for retirees that are pre-medicare without employer coverage, it would be nice to have a more stripped down and reasonably priced version that covers pre-existing conditions.
 
Tiger8693 said:
Almost everything I have read where there is a proposal to remove ACA has a qualifier that pre-existing coverage is maintained. I guess there are some that don't, but I think that is few and far between from what I have read.
Click to expand...

By "qualifier that pre-existing coverage is maintained", are you suggesting that medical underwriting (pricing individual premiums based on medical history) will continue to be banned as is currently done under ACA?

"Shall-issue" coverage for pre-existing conditions is very different than community rating.

Oh and by the way, in addition to ACA, community rating is what is present in virtually all group (employer) health plans.

I am hoping that everyone who is calling for a "replacement" to ACA understands the difference in these two concepts.

-gauss
 
gauss said:
By "qualifier that pre-existing coverage is maintained", are you suggesting that medical underwriting (pricing individual premiums based on medical history) will continue to be banned as is currently done under ACA?

"Shall-issue" coverage for pre-existing conditions is very different than community rating.

Oh and by the way, in addition to ACA, community rating is what is present in virtually all group (employer) health plans.

I am hoping that everyone who is calling for a "replacement" to ACA understands the difference in these two concepts.

-gauss
Click to expand...

Nope all the masses understand it that they get it "free" from their jobs or the government will give you big credits if you keep your income low. The very definition of narrow minded.
 
gauss said:
By "qualifier that pre-existing coverage is maintained", are you suggesting that medical underwriting (pricing individual premiums based on medical history) will continue to be banned as is currently done under ACA?

"Shall-issue" coverage for pre-existing conditions is very different than community rating.

Oh and by the way, in addition to ACA, community rating is what is present in virtually all group (employer) health plans.

I am hoping that everyone who is calling for a "replacement" to ACA understands the difference in these two concepts.

-gauss
Click to expand...

What I am suggesting is that people would not be denied coverage due to pre-existing condition, nothing more. Not trying to solve the overall HI problem. That has already been tried, and failed.
 
DFW_M5 said:
The big negatives are the networks are very narrow so you cannot go the hospitals and doctors you prefer, and co-pays/co-insurance and out of pocket maxes make it pricy for what you get. I guess for retirees that are pre-medicare without employer coverage, it would be nice to have a more stripped down and reasonably priced version that covers pre-existing conditions.
Click to expand...

Unfortunately, it really varies by state and even county. I've heard and read the stories about areas with one plan only available, or one provider. But where I live I have a choice of several providers, dozens of plans at all levels. I had to switch docs when I started but I've been very pleased with my new choices, as as DH. I can definitely say if I can keep this plan for 15 years I'll be very happy.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Latest posts

Back
Top Bottom