Affordable Care Act and Ramifications Discussion

Parent Cafe
241

<br>

<br>

<p>Why would they be in an auto accident? They won’t have a job or a job that pays enough to have a car. If they are unemployed, who pays for their care or health insurance?</p>

<br>

<br>

<p>This is what makes concierge medicine or practices offering low fees for services in return for not having to deal with insurance companies interesting.</p>

<br>

<br>

<p>Interestingly, small business owners are the unhappiest with MA’s healthcare system. Cheaper health plans from the exchanges haven’t materialized for them.</p>

242

<br>

<br>

<p>Require parents to take a first-aid course to claim their kids as dependents.</p>

243

<p>Geeps20 what are the rates in RI for those with serious preconditions. </p>

<p>I dont think anybody is loving this plan, but it is better than what existed before. I say that but I do want to see the numbers in Oct.</p>

244

<p>It’s better for those with pre existing or those who get sick, it’s not insuring the other people.</p>

<p>It’s not better, imho, just different.</p>

245

<p>Yeah… Insuring those with preexisting conditions or who are sick just makes healthcare different…not better…</p>

246

<p>I know this and social security are your hobby horse, dstark, but this plan leaves 30 million uninsured according the CBO. It costs billions of dollars to insure 20 million people. This could have been done for so little money by making three regulations:</p>

<ol>
<li> You can’t exclude for pre-existing.</li>
<li> You can’t get rid of people for getting sick</li>
<li> Every state needs a pool for the uninsurable.</li>
</ol>

<p>It didn’t need this law to get that done.</p>

<p>Now it’s just a different group who can’t get insurance and others who desperately need work can’t get hours. So, it’s different, but it leaves other populations in a horrible position, and these are the most vulnerable. So, for you it might be better, but for the people who now have to work two jobs and STILL don’t have healthcare, how is it better?</p>

<p>It’s worse.</p>

247

<p>They could also have funded more medical school spots and residency spots so more doctors could be trained. That would mean more competition and lower charges for services, and less waiting time to see a doctor. But there is none of that in ACA. Did the AMA object? As it is now half of those who apply to medical school are rejected, around 20,000 applicants. Even assuming that half of those are not qualified, that’s 10,000 smart young people who could become doctors if there were more spaces in medical schools.</p>

248

<p>That would take just a few pages of legislation, too, poetgirl. </p>

<p>What legislationnow exists is a monster to regulate, less people who need the insurance will get it, and how does it save the taxpayer money?</p>

249

<p>"Yeah… Insuring those with preexisting conditions or who are sick just makes healthcare different…not better… "</p>

<p>If they actually get care it is. Insurance is just a mechanism that is supposed to “insure” care is available and delivered. (And I think it is that mechanism that is broken.)</p>

<p>The current system has proven itself as unregulatable.</p>

250

<p>I am not going to argue, poetgrl. </p>

<p>I am going to work out with a guy who cant quit his job because his wife got cancer and she is not insurable. The fuuny thing is… He hates Obamacare. And Obamacare is going to free him so he can quit.</p>

251

<p>I think you’re right mini. Also tating. The med school issue is a big one. Supply side is the issue here. One way or the other no amount of throwing money at this is going to make care available. One way or the other the same amount of people get locked out. Maybe different people. But the numbers stay the same unless you increase the supply side</p>

252

<p>More Physicians Assistants and more Registered nurse practioners will have to be employed to give care. </p>

<p>Without more doctors available, access is going to be impossible.</p>

253

<p>So you’re only worried about the guy with the job with benefits at the gym and not the fry cook at McDonald’s who can’t afford to quit his job, had to get a second job because his hours are cut and STILL doesn’t have insurance? I guess if that’s your bench mark . …</p>

254

<p>Is that what I said? </p>

<p>Really?</p>

255

<p>Yes, tom, even if you opt out, you still pay taxes…just like with all national benefits, whether you’re using them or not, someone’s gotta pay. And you can always opt in if you want. Just an idea, we’re all just trying to fix the system. I think we’d do far better than politicians and lobbyists.</p>

256

<p>TatinG, do you have a kid who is applying to medical school or do I have you confused with somebody else?</p>

257

<p>

</p>

<p>So do you think that people who have 5 children in the public school system should pay higher property taxes that people with one or none?</p>

<p>I don’t actually disagree with you on this, generally speaking. I thik it is reasonable that pople who use highways should help pay for them with tolls, for example. But I think that the way this could most easily be dealt with in a universal coverage single-payer model is with a simply copay per visit. Just keep it small.</p>

258

<p>True. I do. And if she makes it I may feel differently. :)</p>

<p>But seriously. Nothing in the ACA addresses the doctor shortage. More doctors are retiring early and yet the bulk of the baby boom is just now entering the years when they will need more medical care.</p>

259

<p>TatinG, I love your response. That is great. </p>

<p>Good luck to your daughter. It is ridiculous how hard it is to get into med school.</p>

<p>I have my suspicions too.</p>

260

<p>“But seriously. Nothing in the ACA addresses the doctor shortage.”</p>

<p>Don’t see any reason why it should. And the doctor shortage is TINY compared with the shortage of chemical dependency and mental health professionals. None of this is going to be addressed until everyone is in the system.</p>