ACA has problems but is step in right direction

Advertisement

I recently retired and signed up for health insurance under the ACA.

The coverage is comparable to what I had before and I am saving about $700 a month. I could have signed up for a little bit better plan and still saved about $500.

Sure this program has some bugs to fix but all new programs have problems starting out.

Since I have been working starting in 1979 I have seen my insurance continue to get worse every time it comes up for renewal. The problem with insurance rests with the companies not someone who is trying to make it better for working people. Why can’t we work together to make a system that works, instead of complaining about a system that is broke and yet no one wants to take on the insurance companies to fix the problem?

I know this will probably not change anyone’s mind, but it is something we all should think about. After all, who pays for the uninsured? Don’t we all end up paying in the end?

Chuck Miller

Dixie

Comments

mspinks 3 months, 2 weeks ago

Insurance companies are in the business to provide a service and in the end...make a profit so that they can continue paying wages and benefits to their employees. Why again should they roll over and give away the farm?

0

PearlY 3 months, 2 weeks ago

I'd be curious whether you're "saving" that $700 or just shifting the cost to someone else by taking a subsidy. I could get a plan through the exchange that is not quite as good as what I used to have but would "save" me about $300 from what I used to pay, but only if I shifted about $700 onto someone else's shoulders by taking a subsidy. If I pay my own way, my premiums for a much worse policy than what I had would be double what I used to pay.

Obamacare may be a step in the right direction only if followed by five or ten steps in the wrong one.

0

fatherof5 3 months, 2 weeks ago

PearlY, the CBO estimates the comprehensive plan will result in a small net savings for taxpayers in terms of the deficit. There are a lot of moving parts, but this small deficit reduction includes paying for subsidies to make health insurance more affordable for the poor and many in the middle class.

If Mr. Miller's net savings include these subsidies, why is that a bad thing? The poor and middle class have taken huge economic hits on a variety of fronts over the past 30 years. Mr. Miller's savings - and yours - should be cause for celebration. Believe me, the very wealthy are still doing just fine.

If you want to argue that "it's the principle of the thing," then your libertarian principles will lead to an oligarchy soon enough.

1

PearlY 3 months, 2 weeks ago

fatherof5, "waste" is an expenditure of funds without a commensurate benefit. If I was happy with the health insurance plan that cost me $300 a month before Obamacare, and I am now receiving a WORSE plan that costs, between me and the taxpayers, $800 a month, there is more than $500 a month of wasted money involved. Some of it may be the government's, adding to the deficit. Some of it may be mine. Some of it may be your children's, who will be paying hidden surcharges on their premiums. But it's WASTE.

I give no credence to the CBO's estimates of what "the comprehensive plan" will do to the deficit. They are required by law to cost legislation taking it for granted that the legislation will do what it pretends to do, rather than what all knowledgeable observers know that it will do. For example, the CBO's estimates assume that the Medicare reimbursement cuts to physicians that have been in every budget for years will really be implemented, even though they have been waived every single year and nobody believes they will be implemented.

It's a bad thing anytime someone is subsidized who is not really needy, just to expand the power of government. You really think that only the rich will end up subsidizing "the poor and middle class"? That's not realistic. Sure, demagogic politicians can implement "soak the rich" taxes, but the people who really bear the costs of that are the poor and middle class, in lost jobs, lost opportunities, and lost improvements in living standards. Remember the luxury tax on yachts and the thousands of good middle class jobs that were lost? Even the politicians who advocated that tax eventually had to admit it had backfired.

For a couple of hundred years, this country managed to avoid an oligarchy, create a middle class, and vastly improve the living standards for the poor and working classes not only in this country but around the world. No, its not a cause for celebration to me that millions more Americans will now become dependent on the competence and compassion of a federal government that is so bloated it's most effective program is the creation of more programs.

And if you think the subsidies are so great, check out the networks provided by exchange policies in the larger cities. In Seattle, you'd have access to huge numbers of mental health counselors, but not the doctors at University Hospital, Swedish Hospital or Fred Hutchison. Good luck if you need an outstanding surgeon or oncologist; all you'll get is paid counseling sessions to help you deal with your impending death.

0

PearlY 3 months, 2 weeks ago

You do understand, I hope, that "a small net savings for taxpayers in terms of the deficit" only means that the deficit has been slightly reduced. It doesn't mean the taxpayers have "saved" anything, since the means of deficit reduction in this case is in large part by raising taxes.

0

mspinks 3 months, 1 week ago

On another note..... if Mr. Miller is 65 or older, then he "enrolled" in Medicare....not ObamaCare.

0

tpeacock 3 months, 1 week ago

If you ever question the money Insurance companies have at their disposal, notice the sheer deluge of TV commercials for all sorts of Insurance and from various sources. Check into the money invested in the stock markets and you'll find the same companies are heavily invested. The Insurance folks have plenty for their employees, and much, much more.

1

mspinks 3 months, 1 week ago

McDonald's does the same with all of their commercials. Should they be required to give away food? How about Ford or GM?

1

PearlY 3 months, 1 week ago

Most insurance companies invest any excess of premium money received over current pay-outs; they are REQUIRED to hold reserves against expected future claims. This is more so with companies that provide life insurance and annuity policies, but probably they all do it to some extent.

The only way to evaluate how much money health insurance companies have is through their balance sheets and income statements. I suspect their profit margins and cash reserves are not remarkably different from those of most other corporations.

0

Sign in to comment

4 free views left!