Can you guarantee that everyone that has insurance now will still have it? That it will be cheaper? If so on what basis? And if you can't guarantee that...why should we do this?
For the record The average employer-sponsored family premium has gone up by $4,154 under Obama, from 2008, before he took office, to 2014, according to the Kaiser Family Foundation’s annual employer survey conducted with the Health Research & Educational Trust. The catch? That’s relatively slow growth for premiums. The RNC may cast it as bad news, but it’s an improvement compared with the growth in premiums before Obama took office. Under Bush, the average family premiums (including both what employers and employees pay) went up $4,677 in his last six years in office, from 2002 to 2008, an increase of 58 percent. That $4,154 growth under Obama is a 33 percent increase. If we look at Bush’s first six years, the discrepancy gets even bigger: From 2000, the year before Bush was first inaugurated, to 2006, the average family premium went up $5,042, or an increase of 78 percent. (See Exhibit 1.11 on page 31 of the KFF report for these numbers.)
People who are currently enrolled in a Federal Exchange will no longer have those exchanges. If the proper regulations are eliminated, it will be cheaper than it is now. Being able to deny people based on pre-existing conditions and the sustainability issues with ACA. ACA doesn't reduce cost like it was promised to, further increases the control of Big Pharma and is problems with its own sustainability issues.
I can gurauntee that within 4 years, at least 15 million less people will have health insurance than today.
So you're ADMITTING that millions will lose health insurance and all you can do is HOPE rates will be lower? Have any insurance companies said they would lower rates if regulations (that protect us) were done away with? And if so by how much? - - - Updated - - - So what's the selling pitch of repeal? The facts say that ACA HAS kept the increases smaller than previously by the way
Millions of people have already lost their insurance under the guise of a lie. The chief architect of ACA would result in people losing their insurance. He also knew ACA would lead to higher premiums. He also knew he could get away with it because people don't understand economics. Well, I understand economics; I knew this would happen. After all, how could it not happen? The difference is I don't need to lie to anyone because I don't care how people feel. If firms are obligated to cover patients regardless of pre-existing conditions, to cover the risk pool of sick patients, they need to increase cost for health patients. Without this regulation, cost would have no direction to go but down. Health insurance companies also invest their premuims in financial markets. With record low interest rates, insurance companies will need to further increase cost on healthier paitents to fund the liabilities of sick patients.
What happens to those with pre-existing conditions; moreover those with life threatening conditions??
It's not sustainable. Most of the data has shown this. Insurance premuims, maybe. Medical care in general has increased 4% from a year ago. That is the highest it's been since before ACA was implimented.
Which regulations would that be? If the wrong ones are eliminated, it will be more expensive I suspect.
There is nothing preventing them from getting medical treatment. We can still make legislation to protect them, but it would require them to pay more.
Some subsidies allow for consumers to mitigate their expenditures. In many ways, ACA reimburses doctors better than Medicare/Medicaid, which is why some doctors don't have a problem with it.
That was one of the initial problems in the past; some insurance companies would insure them, but at an astronomical cost that most could not afford. Getting a monthly premium bill at 14k per month was out of the range for almost all of them.
An interesting generality that sounds false on its face when 20 million more people are insured today than prior to the ACA. A person, not a policy, "would result in people losing their insurance"?? And apparently some don't understand inflation. What? Inflation? The rate of premium increase has been lower than prior to the ACA, and premiums are driven by a number of things including the cost of medical services. Premiums pay for it all, and they have increased more slowly. So the cost of healthcare has increased more slowly even though the insurance industry has enjoyed very nice profitability. So you favor withholding coverage for pre-existing conditions?? REALLY?? Or they may reduce their contributions to their investment funds.
There is no perfect answer to this problem because insurance companies cannot cover these cost without passing them onto everyone else. Unless you implement a single-payer system, which will never happen in the United States because: 1) One of the many reasons why Obamacare had initial support was because it guaranteed insurance company profits would be protected. 2) A single-payer system would require the 47% of Americans who don't pay Federal taxes to start paying federal taxes; already a politically unpopular stances.
The ACA doesn't regulate reimbursements. Insurance companies' actuaries determine premiums and other questions of copays, deductibles, reimbursement levels, etc. It's up to them. They manage their business and yes, insurance companies normally reimburse better than Medicare does. So what regulations should be eliminated to reduce the cost of insurance coverage?
Except for not having the insurance coverage of course... Has anyone actually WRITTEN that legislation you're fantasizing about? And it sure sounds like your response to expensive insurance is MORE expensive insurance.... - - - Updated - - - 2) A single-payer system would require the 47% of Americans who don't pay Federal taxes to start paying federal taxes; already a politically unpopular stances. Show us something besides your assertion that backs that up... - - - Updated - - - I still haven't see anything approaching answers to those questions
Why wont single payer happen? It seems more likely seeing as how we pay for the uninsured via paying insurance customers premiums or taxes anyway, been like that since the old system or the ACA. When people get hurt they get treated, that is not free.
ACA made millions of insurance plans illegal because it didn't mean the requirements of the ACA. "If you like your insurance plan, you can keep your insurance plan. Period." Remember that promise? I would say so, since this person knew this would happen. What is inflation? I'm curious if you can tell me without looking it up. Health care cost hasn't increased more slowly. But that is just one of the issues. Another issue is sustainability, which also increases cost. In order for the program to work, there needs to be a constant inflow of new, young, healthy enrollees each and every year. Smaller-than-expected figures for exchange enrollment mean there will not be enough healthy people to subsidize the overall risk pool without insurance prices rising even more. Yes. Well, I've heard of dumber ways insurance companies can become bankrupt.
The overhead for a single-payer system like "Medicare for All" would run about 3% compared to private insurance overhead of about 25%. Such a system would also eliminate the cost of existing employer and employee healthcare costs and personal monthly premium payments. The overall cost of healthcare would decline with that and with price controls on drugs and medical equipment, plus more effective provider-fraud measures. Think of it this way: we pay nearly twice as much for healthcare (insurance) as Canada pays and their outcomes compare well with ours. So if you really want top-notch healthcare plus lower costs, do the things Canada does but spend about 25% more than they spend for it. We would save about 20 to 25%. Overall, with the end of employer/employee costs and individual premium costs the bottom line would be a significant savings and would make healthcare available to all as "Medicare-for-All". Every other developed nation proves it.
We've studied welfare states and how they can fund the programs that they do. A good book I would recommend on this subject is a book by Peter Lindert, titled Growing Public: A Monumental History of Two Centuries of Social Spending. It's not enough to spend your tax revenue progressively, but you need a tax structure that collects revenue more efficiently. Many places in Scandinavia can reduce inequality with a more regressive tax structure, which involves including the working poor in the tax structure. - - - Updated - - - It's not free, but it's a tax citizens barely notice. It's not the same as asking people who collect money from the government to start paying the government.
Increase demand by granting access to everyone and prices will go up. Simultaneously decrease the the number of providers and prices will also go, this years increase is just the tip of the iceberg. The insurance companies are staying afloat by taking out of play the most expensive options for your health care dollars, In the end this will mean that more people die of cancer sooner rather than later, because the more ground breaking the cure the more it will cost.
That has nothing to do with the question. I don't need to smart guy. I've lived it for 70 years. You aren't looking at the government figures I'm looking at. And that graph doesn't reveal the reality given it's structure. The only reason for smaller-than-expected enrollment was that with the ACA it wasn't expected that so many would opt for paying the mandate rather than buying coverage. With national healthcare a tax will be paid with no exceptions. LOL!!! That's a non-starter. The nation struggled to force government to find a way to prevent such denials and no majority is going to approve of returning to letting people choose between bankruptcy and death. Those investment funds are for the purpose of getting through periods of ups and downs due to any unforeseen issue. An earthquake might be an example. Normally, unless things have changed greatly since I worked for Blue Cross and Blue Shield, the investment fund is rarely tapped into. It mostly grows and grows and grows. So your answer isn't convincing. - - - Updated - - - Those aren't "regulations".
The first part is so is the fact that most of the new enrolless - 71% - by some counts qualified for medicaid and so essentially added nothing to the pool financially except debt the rest had to pick up. And until we see what the republican replacement looks like your questions are inherently unanswerable.
