Pipe dream? Obamacare

[swchandler]

youwindsurf,

I'm glad you mentioned the state's rights issue, because I was going to raise that point and highlight the hypocrisy of Republicans even suggesting portability of moving insurance across state lines. I had a dental appointment, so I had to cut my comments short.

Isn't it ironic that Democrats didn't take them up on the issue? Yet, if the did, I'm sure that the Republicans would have found a way to across it up, especially since they wouldn't have advocated stricter more comprehensive insurance regulations of a state like California.

Even now, Republicans are talking about the need to delay the rollout of the ACA to negotiate "bi-partisan" changes to the law when they have no intent whatsoever to follow through. I'm convinced that their position to postpone the ACA for one year was just a ploy to gain more time to run against the ACA leading up to the 2014 election. As far as negotiating changes to the ACA, they could start doing that today, but that would suggest that they're prepared to accept real healthcare reform. After spending over 3 years attempting to kill the ACA in every way they could, we're suppose to believe that they really believe in healthcare reform and that they support meaningful change?

[MalibuGuru]

[feuser]

[coboardhead]

Stevenbard

I had a policy for twenty years. I gave them close to six figures in premiums with no claims. Three years ago, before Obamacare, I received a cancellation notice because the insurance company decided, unilaterally, to stop that plan.

So, I had to get a physical (had not had one since college) and try to qualify for health insurance...crossing my fingers that neither one of us had a pre existing condition. Two middle aged, self employed folks at the mercy of the insurance system.

Boy, do I miss those good ole days?

[isobars]

[techno900]

Since the CBO numbers for the ACA have been all over the place, with a number of revisions both up and down (mostly up), how could anyone put much trust in their projections?

I am not even suggesting that political gamesmanship was/is involved, just that given the scope and size of the ACA, any numbers put forth by the CBO have to be met with considerable skepticism. If the ACA survives, I would anticipate that the real costs of the ACA will be far greater than any current/past projections.

The selling of the ACA was based largely on the its cost, but once passed, many felt that they had been victims of a "bait and switch" routine. Now that Obama's broken promise about folks being allowed to keep our insurance if they like it has been outed, it's clear that we have been victims of the bait and switch routine.

[techno900]

feuser said:

[uwindsurf]

[coboardhead]

Techno

While I agree with you in principle, in practice it has not been the case. Medical costs are driven by the well insured that have large group policies either through employment or the government. Those of us that do not have access to these plans do not enjoy the same protections, but are left paying the high unit costs generated by these individuals.

Add in unscrupulous business practices by insurance companies and you have a very tenuous situation for roughly 5% of the population. In addition, another group of folks cannot even get this high cost and, frankly crappy, coverage. One thing is interesting. Until the last couple weeks, those of us in the individual market could not generate any interest from the Republicans. I appreciate the new found concern.

[uwindsurf]