Perhaps a good side effect or two due to ObamaCare?

[Spartana]

Anyone with pre-existing conditions preACA could not get private health insurance. The insurance companies cherry pick only the healthiest individuals. One in two Americans has a pre-existing condition -

http://aspe.hhs.gov/health/reports/2...-existing/#Pre

And without the ACA or employer subsidies, many of the other 50% were uninsured because they couldn't afford the premiums.

So no, not anyone can purchase it from a private insurer preACA. Only a fraction of the uninsured were able to do that either due to cost or pre-existing conditions. Health insurance has been basically tied to employment in the U.S. since wage controls of WWII.

I addresed all that in my post too but wanted to let Ishbel, who is from Scotland, to know that a person can buy - or at least try to buy - health insurance without having to be employed. Also both and and my sister had pre existing conditions and were able to buy fairly inexpensive plans so that is flexible depending on the insurance company.

[Alan]

Anyone with pre-existing conditions preACA could not get private health insurance. The insurance companies cherry pick only the healthiest individuals.

That's the nature of insurance. You're asking someone else to evaluate and then assume the cost of the risk you bring to the table. It's not cherry picking, it's a proper analysis of risk vs reward.

I wonder if the ACA mandates have put all the insurance company actuaries out of work since the analysis of risk seems to have been dis-allowed.

[bae]

I wonder if the ACA mandates have put all the insurance company actuaries out of work since the analysis of risk seems to have been dis-allowed.

It's not really insurance then, it's simple cost-sharing across the population.

I wonder how they solve the rationing problem?

[Alan]

It's not really insurance then, it's simple cost-sharing across the population.

You're right, it's no longer insurance.

I wonder how they solve the rationing problem?

That's a good question. Wish I had an answer.

[Rogar]

My biggest issue with the ACA was maybe 2 out of 3 of the folks I knew who could not afford health insurance could somehow afford cigarettes, booze, smart phones, cable TV, etc., or had a lack of employment motivation. Unfortunately, the third person of my informal survey was truely in need to avoid a catastrophic health financial or health problem. I guess that is all water under the bridge now and given time we will either grow to like it or will see how it is failing.

[Spartana]

It's not really insurance then, it's simple cost-sharing across the population.

I wonder how they solve the rationing problem?

But it's what employer sponsered health insurance does. The insurance company gives the same rate to all employees across the board irregardless of their actual health risks and potential costs will be. I'm sure they assume some will use it more then others do thus off setting the costs and hey are willing to risk that they will still profit

[try2bfrugal]

My biggest issue with the ACA was maybe 2 out of 3 of the folks I knew who could not afford health insurance could somehow afford cigarettes, booze, smart phones, cable TV, etc., or had a lack of employment motivation. Unfortunately, the third person of my informal survey was truely in need to avoid a catastrophic health financial or health problem. I guess that is all water under the bridge now and given time we will either grow to like it or will see how it is failing.

Would you deny other social services to families who smoke and have cable, like public school educations, on the grounds that they should use that money to pay for school?

[try2bfrugal]

It's not really insurance then, it's simple cost-sharing across the population.

I wonder how they solve the rationing problem?

Death panels, of course, just like the ones they have in Denmark, Switzerland, Canada, Australia, France, the UK, and all the other developed countries in the world.

[Spartana]

Would you deny other social services to families who smoke and have cable, like public school educations, on the grounds that they should use that money to pay for school?

I think the difference is that public school is a true socialist service that everyone is entitled to iregardless of income and the ACA isn't. So that those who are footing the bill aren't able to partake of the program themselves.

[gimmethesimplelife]

That's the nature of insurance. You're asking someone else to evaluate and then assume the cost of the risk you bring to the table. It's not cherry picking, it's a proper analysis of risk vs reward.

I wonder if the ACA mandates have put all the insurance company actuaries out of work since the analysis of risk seems to have been dis-allowed.

And this here, your last sentence, is a big problem I have with health care in America. To me it is unforgivable that health care has been done on a for profit basis with the underlying risk vs. reward model. To me as I have stated many many times, health care is a basic human right, not something that should be exposed to risk vs. reward criteria. I applaud ObamaCare for moving health care away from this model that puts profits over people, and I seriously wonder, how do I forgive America for all these years of making health care so non accessible to so many people? Rob