Page 9 of 11 FirstFirst ... 7891011 LastLast
Results 81 to 90 of 108

Thread: And ACA dismantlement starts

  1. #81
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2011
    Posts
    2,283
    I thought this info would be an eye opener for some.

    http://kff.org/other/state-indicator...2:%22asc%22%7D

  2. #82
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2010
    Location
    SoCal
    Posts
    6,145
    So which ones do people on ACA exchange plans fit into? The "non-group" or the "other public", I'm thinking non-group but that is pretty much everywhere less than 10%, and "non group" is not strictly ACA, but includes non-ACA individual plans AND I strongly suspect a few although not many employer plans (some employers use non-group plans that is, I had an employer like that, it sucks not to get group type benefits, although it still was employer subsidized).

    I have heard it said those affected by exchange plans are actually small in number and those who get subsidies a subset of even that as self-employed sometimes earn too much (the cut off for subsidies is low cutting out much of the middle class IMO - but luckily most middle class people don't have to rely on exchange plans - they are employees or their spouses are).

    Meanwhile 1/3 of the population or so is on Medicaid and Medicare (including ACA expanded Medicaid). That's why using some existing dissatisfaction with exchange plans to go after Medicaid and to a lesser extent Medicare will be so painful. It's one of those nuclear bombs to kill a flea things (if one considered the exchange plans a flea that is).
    If you want something to get done, ask a busy person. If you want them to have a nervous breakdown that is.

  3. #83
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2011
    Posts
    2,793
    Since I'm in the early 60s group that is supposed to be hard hit, I guess I will have to practice benign neglect health practices. I have never prescribed to the medical paradigm as it exists anyway - all of the conventional treatments and procedures scare me more than the illnesses they supposedly cure. It just pees me off how we have to make everything so difficult and ugly when it doesn't need to be.

  4. #84
    Senior Member iris lilies's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2013
    Posts
    10,215
    Quote Originally Posted by ApatheticNoMore View Post
    So which ones do people on ACA exchange plans fit into? The "non-group" or the "other public", I'm thinking non-group but that is pretty much everywhere less than 10%, and "non group" is not strictly ACA, but includes non-ACA individual plans AND I strongly suspect a few although not many employer plans (some employers use non-group plans that is, I had an employer like that, it sucks not to get group type benefits, although it still was employer subsidized).

    I have heard it said those affected by exchange plans are actually small in number and those who get subsidies a subset of even that as self-employed sometimes earn too much (the cut off for subsidies is low cutting out much of the middle class IMO - but luckily most middle class people don't have to rely on exchange plans - they are employees or their spouses are).

    Meanwhile 1/3 of the population or so is on Medicaid and Medicare (including ACA expanded Medicaid). That's why using some existing dissatisfaction with exchange plans to go after Medicaid and to a lesser extent Medicare will be so painful. It's one of those nuclear bombs to kill a flea things (if one considered the exchange plans a flea that is).
    People on ACA exchange policies are in "non-group" in the Kaiser chart posted by sweetana. Thanks for that!

    Yes, it is shocking how tiny is the number of people that actually uses insurance on the exchanges. The overriding statistic that illustrates the general ineffectiveness of The ACA is that after all of the strum und drung of it that EVERYONE in the United States, all 300 million of us, got to experience, about 6% more of the population had health insurance in 2015 when compared to earlier (2009?) figures. That is off the top of my head, but it is pretty close. Talk about nuclear bomb to kill fleas, that is it, The ACA.
    Last edited by iris lilies; 3-15-17 at 10:06pm.

  5. #85
    Senior Member jp1's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2010
    Location
    San Francisco
    Posts
    3,056
    If I recall correctly something like 82 or 83% had some sort of insurance before the ACA took effect, so yeah, adding 6% to that number isn't great. It's only 33% or so of the previously uninsured. But for some of those people it is undoubtedly life saving. And probably cost reducing, assuming it reduced the number of ER visits through earlier treatment. Personally I'd have preferred some sort of single payer system, but that just wasn't in the cards.

    More importantly, though, are the protections for pre-existing conditions and denials of coverage after people got sick and the end of lifetime caps. SO has good quality employer provided health insurance but last year he had over $500,000 in medical treatment due to an issue that is better but still not fully resolved. It's quite conceivable that, without the ACA, he would have hit the lifetime cap in a year or two. He still takes a prescription that costs nearly $10,000/month. It's expected that he won't need it for forever, but if they don't resolve the underlying problem he may very well end up on it for the long term.

  6. #86
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2013
    Location
    Nevada
    Posts
    2,824
    The ACA allowed my best friend's 19 yo daughter to get a liver transplant. She had insurance through her Mom's policy. She developed a rare liver disease and was too sick to go to college. So without the ACA requirements she would have been off her Mom's insurance. Also many people only had catastrophic insurance and then were able to buy decent insurance.

  7. #87
    Senior Member iris lilies's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2013
    Posts
    10,215
    Quote Originally Posted by Teacher Terry View Post
    The ACA allowed my best friend's 19 yo daughter to get a liver transplant. She had insurance through her Mom's policy. She developed a rare liver disease and was too sick to go to college. So without the ACA requirements she would have been off her Mom's insurance. Also many people only had catastrophic insurance and then were able to buy decent insurance.
    I have read parts of the bill and skimmed others. Have you?

    The provision for 26year old child coverage has not changed.

    why, exactly, do,you think your friend in the nursing home loses
    Medicaid coverage?

    To the average AMerican that $7,000 deductible IS catastrophic. While I think that is silly and people need to budget mpre for their health care snce everyone seems to want it all for free, that is the feedback I get.

    Anyway, it doesnt matter, the Senate wont be signing off on this version, anyway.

  8. #88
    Senior Member catherine's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2011
    Location
    Central Jersey
    Posts
    6,484
    Quote Originally Posted by iris lilies View Post

    To the average AMerican that $7,000 deductible IS catastrophic. While I think that is silly and people need to budget mpre for their health care snce everyone seems to want it all for free, that is the feedback I get.
    I think it's more that people want it affordable--not necessarily free. A heart attack shouldn't bankrupt anyone, but it happens--especially to people who just haven't been able to get their earning up to a point where they could afford decent healthcare.

    BTW, my deductible isn't $7,000; it's significantly lower, and I get good coverage for that. I agree with you that having skin in the game is a good way to keep healthcare costs down--but that would be skin, not an arm and a leg.
    "Do any human beings ever realize life while they live it--every, every minute?" Emily Webb, Our Town
    www.silententry.wordpress.com

  9. #89
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2013
    Location
    Nevada
    Posts
    2,824
    IL: when my friend's daughter got sick the ACA had just been implemented. So she could have not stayed on her Mom's insurance if she had gotten sick the year before. They are talking about huge cuts for Medicare and Medicaid. My friend in the nursing home had lots of $ and insurance. Battling stage 4 ovarian cancer for 20 years and her DH cancer took everything they owned.

  10. #90
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2011
    Location
    Boston, MA
    Posts
    2,089
    Quote Originally Posted by iris lilies View Post

    Anyway, it doesnt matter, the Senate wont be signing off on this version, anyway.
    Or the House, it looks like - at least not today.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •