<p>
</p>
<p>As I understand it, the point was to get every eligible American resident covered.</p>
<p>California is run by 3 companies. Anthem, BS and Kaiser. </p>
<p>GP knows this. This isnt because of ACA. These 3 firms have 80 percent of the market right now. It gets old to discuss issues with people that obfuscate the facts. Speaking for myself, I like opinions that are based on facts. If the facts are distorted, the opinions are distorted.</p>
<p>This distortion of facts is a really, really big problem for this country. A big problem for ACA and bealthcare in general.</p>
<p>ACA has issues that are legit and can be debated. When facts are distorted, the writer loses credibility. Sometimes a poster will get the facts wrong. That is ok. We are not Watson the IBM computer. But the baloney…</p>
<p>It is funny. This is an educated group here sharing opinions. I think for the most part I can trust opinions here more than I can trust the opinions in fhe WSJ. That is a low bar. :)</p>
<p>dstark - Aren’t there some areas of State where many more offer insurance?</p>
<p>Yes there are. Health Net has some muscle and is going to try and expand in Calif. the company sees ACA as an opportunity. At least that is what the company says. :)</p>
<p>There are several companies that are trying to make inroads in 2014. (But not all regions of Cal). Some company called Western XXX is offering insurance in my region. Slightly lower rates than other companies in my region. </p>
<p>I am wary about using a company I dont know. I guess purchasers of health insurance like me keep the oligopoly going.</p>
<p>This distortion of facts is a really, really big problem for this country.
And how easily we assume what someone else says is truth, so it all rolls and rolls. What one person says here about State X, there’s another who says the opposite. And a third who will have his own reality. But each thinks their stand is it. As it is and always will be.</p>
<p>acting- you want it to be personal, we all do. But that doesn’t mean we can make things perfect for us- or even that we know what perfect really is. I suppose you could come back with, well I want this and this. But that doesn’t always make it make medical sense. You’d want that test. Then what? You’re assuming there is a drug to treat it, more exercise, less exercise, diet changes. I think a lot of people think medical science is at some incredibly evolved state where if they would just do X, we’d thrive.</p>
<p>Actually, hasn’t the biggest distortion thus far been the whole if you like it you can keep it business? Misinformation on a message board is largely irrelevant.</p>
<p>There are a lot of very smart and well-educated people on this thread who, collectively, are having trouble figuring out the mechanics, let alone the implications, of the ACA. That is troubling to me.</p>
<p>Bay, any change, until it actually is put in place, is not going to be known in terms of mechanics, let alone the implications. There are always pitfalls, mistakes, problems, exceptions. We already see them in this. Some big ones. None of the government programs like social security or any big deal thing was the way it now has evolved. It’s going to be difficult, getting this incorporated. Once it is, the hope is that it is as entrenched as Social Security, Medicare and other such entitlement programs with ownership due to the skin in the game participants place.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Are most people satisfied with this philosophy? I know I am not, when it comes to expensive decisions that have wide-ranging iimpacts. I don’t run my own life decisions this way.</p>
<p>You are in Calif, right Bay?</p>
<p>A friend of mine tried to sign onto the covered ca website. He said it takes 20 miniutes to sign up.</p>
<p>My opinion is over time things will run more smoothly. I base this on watching roll outs of other projects. </p>
<p>The individual market is a mess. People didnt know what they were buying or what they were covered for in tbe past.</p>
<p>ACa will make things simpler down the road. Insurance companies are going to have to explain the coverage in 4 pages instead of whatever… It is going to be easier to compare plans from different insurance companies. Insurance is going to be less opaque.</p>
<p>The lack of competition…the decrease in networks, the fact that some people are going to struggle to pay for insurance are issues that are occuring right now… In 2013. </p>
<p>I do believe these are issues going forward too. Bclintonk just addressed the network issue yesterday. </p>
<p>I agree with mini. I dont think people understand how disfunctional the individual insurance market is. When I talk to people who dont have individual health insurance, they have no clue ( why should they) or they dont care. That doesnt change the fact the individual insurance market is disfunctional. The individual insurance market may have worked for millions, but for many more millions, it doesnt work. This is a fact.</p>
<p>Bay, I agree with you. That philosophy involves trust and given what we are witnessing that’s a tall order. We’ll see. Nothing we can do about it, now.</p>
<p>Hopefully, it will become easier. But we won’t know how it all shakes out for a while. The first benchmark will be next November, when the premiums are reset or not.</p>
<p>I think the first benchmark will be Jan. 1. </p>
<p>Were the millions who lost their coverage able/willing to sign up on the exchanges?</p>
<p>Did those who were previously uninsured sign up?</p>
<p>There will be other benchmarks later in 2014.</p>
<p>How many people on employer plans lose coverage because those plans were not compliant with ACA?</p>
<p>Are people satisfied or dissatisfied with the restricted networks of providers on the exchanges?</p>
<p>I am simplifying what I am about to say. </p>
<p>Our outlooks can be positive or negative. We can choose our outlooks We can be correct or wrong. </p>
<p>The possibilities are positive and correct . Positive and wrong. Negative and correct. Negative and wrong. </p>
<p>When I look at the above, the best choice is positive and correct. We can discuss whether positive and wrong is better than negative and right or vice versa. </p>
<p>But why would anybody want to be negative and wrong? 
It is not as if your negative opinion is going to change anything.
It is such a bad use of energy.</p>
<p>And in order to eliminate the possibility of being negative and wrong… You have to eliminate the negative outlook part of the equation. ;)</p>
<p>Think about it. </p>
<p>Really…</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>More – I wouldn’t say “many” because at most there are 6 insurers in any given region. In my region there are 5 providers. There were originally 12 insurers statewide. However, one of the regional plans (Alameda Alliance) was dropped because of a financial solvency issue:
[Alameda</a> Alliance removed from California’s insurance exchange - San Jose Mercury News](<a href=“Alameda Alliance removed from California’s insurance exchange – The Mercury News”>Alameda Alliance removed from California’s insurance exchange – The Mercury News)</p>
<p>This brochure lists them all, and shows which providers are in which region:
<a href=“https://www.coveredca.com/news/PDFs/CC-health-plans-booklet-rev2.pdf[/url]”>https://www.coveredca.com/news/PDFs/CC-health-plans-booklet-rev2.pdf</a></p>
<p>In addition to Anthem, Blue Shield & Kaiser, there is Health Net, Molina, and an array of local, community-based insurers. </p>
<p>The brochure also provides an estimate of subsidy eligible individuals in each area. (It could only be a projection obviously)</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>No, because then you are not prepared when things go wrong.</p>
<p>Hope for the best, prepare for the worst.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>It’s like herding cats…one can try…but it will end in frustration. The ACA as it originally was written much less the ACA as it is being modified on an ongoing basis was never understood completely by an of the people who wrote it. And yes, it is troubling.</p>
<p>Positive or negative attitudes make no difference. One has to take a look at facts realistically, no rose colored glasses allowed.</p>
<p>If more people are uninsured next year than this year, the thing cannot be argued to be a success, no matter how positive one’s attitude is.</p>
<p>I get Bay’s statement, but it’s not always how reality works.<br>
There is no “perfect.” </p>
<p>Why are some of you so quick to dismiss the whole thing based on a few experiences or what you “heard” somewhere? Really.</p>
<p>I don’t really see how any individual (including this thread) can even begin to judge ACA based on their personal wants and some alarming things the media put out. </p>
<p>It’s just arguing.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>No, it is reality. If smart people see issues with the law, then how can anyone expect less-educated people to understand what is happening to them?</p>
<p>It is also basic problem-solving. Identifying an issue and dissecting it from every angle. </p>
<p>It is odd to me that some don’t want to hear conflicting or skeptical views. Why is that?</p>