Mac Burks: You missed the point entirely.

Mine is getting close.

What??? Who came up with that rule? :D

Its hard, I know. Self-control isn't in most peoples vocabulary. I used to be fat and I was having health problems. Now, I'm in much better shape, even though I'm older.

Personable responsibility and preventative medicine go a loooong way. But here in the US, we practice over-consumption, sedentary lifestyles and reactive medicine. Hence, the problems we have now.

Top places with better healthcare system - just in case [Link: tranio.com]

I don't think Mac missed the point. The point he was making was the old system had major problems also. The old system was ok if you worked for a company who helped subsidized the cost to you or got great rates because of the number of employees it had.

But if you worked for a company that did not have a health plan or had a pre-existing condition then those people were f***ed. Insurance companies only want to insure healthy people and collect premiums. If you got a condition then the insurance company would cancel your policy if they had a chance, such as a missed premium.

Then those people who didn't have insurance would go to Emergency Rooms and run up big bills and never pay them. Who do you think ended up paying those bills. You did, because the hospital would raise the rates to insured patients to compensate for those unpaid bills.

The idea is good, but it needs a lot of work.

Yes indeed the goal is admirable but it may prove to be too costly.

That ACA did not address costs, just coverage.

I have three ER nurses in the extended family and, so far, the ACA has had no significant impact on folks using the ER as their primary source of medical care.

As to extending coverage to include preexisting conditions and the like that is really not very difficult IF you are prepared to throw tons of money at the problem - which is what the ACA did.

Our existing plan met the requirements of the ACA so we were able to keep it.

BUT we had to pay a good deal more.

The first year after the ACA our rates went up $300 a month.

Recently they jumped another 23%.

So other people are now covered because folks like us pay for it - which I suppose is good.

Yet the rates are so high that we are investigating changing to a plan that simply provides "catastrophic care".

That will result in less money going into the "pool" that pays for others.

If significant numbers did likewise then what would happen?

The "old" system may have had problems but the ACA did little to address those.

Frederick

The only way that healthcare costs are going to come down in the U.S. is standardizing the pricing of drugs, diagnostics, and routine procedures. Doing so will require negotiating and regulating these costs by the federal government, and it will also require limiting liability--within reason--for malpractice (except in cases of gross negligence). Other peer nations of the U.S. have done this successfully.

The system we have now--constantly increasing costs and pricing, decreasing life expectancy--is completely unsustainable. Imagine walking into a clients home or business for a basic audio/video system install, telling them it will cost between $200 and $100,000, and then demanding payment to the point of bankruptcy regardless of whether or not the system works. Also, let them know they'll be receiving individual invoices from every installer, salesperson, programmer, project manager, AR clerk, accountant, warehouse manager, and anyone else that touched their project in some way--tangible or not--with minimal explanation of what work was actually performed or for how long. Be sure to explain to the client that some bills will arrive in a week, while others may take years to show up--they'll just have to live in fear of their overall financial exposure.

A ridiculous and almost unbelievable situation, and yet that is the current state of healthcare in the U.S.

How is that good?
I'm willing to pay for myself but not for others.
That's socialism and I don't want that.

Or, are you saying that we're not paying for uninsured people but instead that since most everyone has coverage, the pool of people is larger and that's the 'other' in your statement? Because if that's the case, than that's OK -- no different than other insurance programs (house, car).
Still, healthy people should pay less, just like safer drivers pay less.

I think he says it is "good" because if you are walking in the streets and have a heart attack, ambulance is called and you are taken to a hospital and treated prior to demanding payment.

Insurance is pretty much socialism. Sometimes you'll be paying for others, sometimes others will be paying for you.

Exactly. The moment your total incurred medical costs exceed your premium payments, someone else is paying for you. You're healthy until all of a sudden you aren't anymore.

Part of what you say is true but mixed with rhetoric. FCWilt had a pretty good comment. Any thoughts on what he had to say?

If you can be objective you might say that an exchange took place.

People who had preexisting conditions or people who could not afford insurance might get covered now, but as you know, not all can.

Meanwhile, people who were covered and could afford to cover their premiums have had the costs go up so much that they can't afford it any longer. Like me, like FCWilt, and you know it is widespread.

So we exchanged coverage for we who could pay to a different group that couldn't. New ones in the group, others now forced out. That is not progress. Wrong direction.

A steady diet of pro ACA reporting tells you it's all good. Weighing the current evidence indicates we are not going in the right direction. That is, if "affordable" has any meaning. Not if "premiums $100 or less, less than your cable bill or your cell phone bill" (Mr. Obama) is meant to be an honest statement.

I was thinking that caring for the less fortunate might be considered a good thing by many.

But the ACA forces us to do that as opposed to, say, relying on charitable giving.

While I have (knock on wood) never had significant health issues in 66 years my brother faced an insurance problem when he as diagnosed with an obscure form of cancer.

So a system where you cannot be canceled because you get sick can be a boon to some but it is going to cost the healthy a good chunk of change.

We as a society need to decide what is "right" and that is not a simple question.

Frederick

Here is Australia we pay 1.4% of our income as medicare levy which is removed from our pay before we receive it. For that we all get nearly all medical treatment without charge and if you are a low income earner you don't pay anything towards the medicare levi. Medication is also heavily subsidised with very few medications costing more than $35.00. Many common ones like Lipator are $5.00 for 30 tablets at the discount chemist store. If you wan't private hospital rooms and priority treatment you can pay extra for private healthcare on top of the medicare with your own chosen provider. You cannot be knocked back for pre-existing conditions but may have a waiting period on them of 6 months for the private cover but if you are urgent The medicare system will cover you regardless and give urgent cases priority. This is the exact system Obama tried to implement originally but was forced to scale it back multiple times before it became what it is now. All the bullshit reasons given for not doing it have been shown not to exist in either Australia or the UK. You guys got screwed without lube, but if you are looking for someone to blame, look to all those that fought Obama all the way.