This was an interesting read. I consider myself fortunate in that my employer provides great insurance and pays roughly 75% of the premium. As you get older, this benefit increases in importance. I am almost 60 and am currently recovering from the H1N1 flu virus. It is admittedly not as easy to bounce back compared to say 40 years ago. One of the bigger battles was to keep pneumonia from setting in. I coordinate everything through my general practitioner as a matter of personal choice. All of the aforementioned stated, I can only imagine the battle a number of folks are fighting out there with this strain of flu who have no insurance. I feel for them as I was there one time myself in my earlier years. Unfortunately, while the ACA was well intentioned, its development and passage were reckless, and regardless of the intent - the result remains the same .... a disaster.
Indeed. I was without coverage only for about a year when I was 22 and working a temporary job with no health benefits. I tell students all of the time to consider the total package, not just the salary. When you are 25, you think you will be healthy forever. When you are 50, you've already had close friends get ill or die from disease or accidents and you probably already have gimpy knees and an ailment or two yourself. Not reckless, but hasty. The plan did not have to be comprehensive and implemented all at once. Better to have implemented it gradually. Take one item, like pre-existing conditions, implement it and see that it works, tweak it if needed and then move on to the next item. It would have gone down smoother, even if it took 10 years. Hyperbole. The program has barely started and it is far too soon to judge the results. The only disaster was in web-site database management and that has already been addressed. One thing is sure, the status quo was a snowballing disaster with unsustainable costs and had to be changed.
Good to see you back Red. I agree with your comments for the most part. I am fortunate enough to have good employer provided insurance (though I pay a portion as most) and even more fortunate at 62 to have never been in the grips of big medicine, hospitals or pharma. I see my doctor once a year and he curses me for my health (LOL) and only take my daily aspirin. Your point that reforms should have been phased in over time is dead on. One reform missing from the AHCA is providing true competition in all phases of healthcare. Right now I see a crony capitalism where the government in partnership with insurance, pharma and hospitals have no real price or performance competition such as you see in most business. This creates opportunity for the uncontrolled price increases we have seen and helps with the uneven distribution of services. That should be the first fix attempted. You are also right to a point that the web site was a disaster but time will tell if the program works or not. I see many signs that it will not be successful. First is there aren't enough signing up to pay for the poor getting it at subsidized rates. There is report after report reflecting that point. There are also studies (not from the right) that even if insured many will still use hospital emergency rooms as the first line of health care. There are many reasons for this but one is there aren't enough GPs around to provide service. Also many insurance pools are dropping doctors. There is so far no evidence (you're right it is early) that the cost per patient or procedure will drop. This means the country's total health care costs will rise no matter what. You see many of the AHCA approved policies have very high deductibles and co pays and/or higher premiums another issue One problem that will inhibit any change is the fat that president Obama & the Ds in congress put the attractive stuff in (no pre existing conditions, no life time limit on coverage$) without really addressing the problem of paying for those. They did not address the true cost issue (managing cost/patient or cost/procedure). That may be good for a political win but not for the country. I believe open competition would go a long way to dealing with those problems.
http://article.wn.com/view-mobile/2014/01/24/Moodys_downgrades_outlook_for_health_insurers/ Moody's says it's not looking to good. Look for insurance bailouts in the near future. $1200 a month for $3000 deductible or $1450 for $7000. Those are quotes given to 2 couples I know for insurance. Sounds pretty steep to me.
The most concerning thing to me is we've taken healthcare from the private sector and put it in the political arena. Now health care will become the political football in the championship game for years to come. What we had before had problems that needed solving - but there was stability. You had a reasonable expectation of how things work to plan any long term health issue. Those days are gone. Anyone who says they know how health care is going to work in 2016 is a fool or a liar. And a lot of people will be impacted by the changes in both good and bad ways. The decision to do it 'hasty' as Red says, will increase the good and bad impacts. In both a quantitative and qualitative manner.
All of the insurance is provided by the private sector, this is not socialized medicine. The insurance companies are still going to be telling the doctors what they can provide.
This is not socialized medicine! There are no government doctors, no government hospitals, and no government insurance. There are only government guidelines. The private sector has not been locked out of ACA, it is an inherent part of it.
