<p>“it doesn’t necessarily mean they get to take the vacations I do, drive the kind of car I do, or have the sorts of other economic freedoms I have.”</p>
<p>Don’t be so sure. In some locations a single person can have up to $55,000 in income and a family of 4 up to $78,000 in household income to qualify for Section 8 vouchers</p>
<p>“In some locations” ? </p>
<p>Let’s remember that this isn’t just about excluding expensive hospitals. It’s about asking those hospitals to review to see how they can pare some costs. Then come negotiate. We learned this when UCLA first came up.</p>
<p>
That’s why they sell Platinum plans. You’re welcome to pay more. </p>
<p>But don’t forget that you would be able to keep the plan you had in 2010 but for your unwillingness to pay the premiums they quoted you in 2012.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>I took a hiatus from this thread so please pardon me for this comment if it’s redundant. Actually hospitals do not expect more patients who are paying less. In fact hospitals project that the reverse will occur. That’s why so may large hospital systems were such vocal supporters. Ascension, for instance, is one of our country’s largest systems and lead the arguments in favor of ACA. </p>
<p>We actually discussed this whole dynamic earlier in the thread, so I won’t repeat it all here.</p>
<p>I am going to <em>try</em> to find a non-political way to help clarify a central theme of this thread. I am not always successful at my attempts, because its assumed that since I originally hail from a country with universal healthcare that I support a particular side of the aisle in America…which isn’t exactly true because I’m pretty disgusted with the entire polarized political system at the moment and I wasn’t in love with the political system in Canada either, though I did enjoy the comparatively worry-free aspects of healthcare :)</p>
<p>Bus driver, whom I love dearly, said this:
</p>
<p>The bald fact here is that trying to “fix” something you’ve only chosen to “half” regulate, meaning you’ve decided to regulate access to healthcare insurance but are allowing the free market to determine HOW it meets its twin objectives of meeting regulations and turning a profit, is a recipe for unintended consequences. Narrowing networks is one such consequence, though I agree the intent precedes ACA.</p>
<p>It is also enormously convenient for insurance companies, because they get to blame ACA while preserving their margin. I do believe in their right to preserve their margins, btw.</p>
<p>It seems to me that many posters are understandably mad, but mad at the wrong people. They’re citing ACA as responsible for the narrowing of networks, but its actually a function of the negotiating power of health insurance companies who in turn are responding to anticipated consumer demand thresholds.</p>
<p>If you are, for example, unwilling to pay about $13,000 - $15,000 a year out of pocket with an average annual rate hike of between 15-20% as I have for the last several years, then yes, you too are part of the problem 
When I bought my plan, the annual cost was HALF of what it is today. It is my single greatest expense beyond payroll as an employer, even exceeding hard overhead. And the cost has been outpacing inflation by at least four hundred percent. If there’s a single reason I’ve had to increase my billable hour rate, its healthcare.</p>
<p>Whether you know it or not, healthcare is also causing a structural deficit or gap in public education and is likely the primary reason salaries are flat, IMHO.</p>
<p>ACA is presently the law, however ineffectual the implementation. Attempting to repeal this kind of law would be about as practical and productive now as repealing social security. So whatever one might think about whether ACA was necessary or not is at this point, moot.</p>
<p>If you’re mad about your networks, lobby your insurers, or ask your government for a single payer system in which the economy of scale will control the cost. I predict when the “scapegoat” of ACA has lessoned with time, the resultant transparency and consumer consciousness will create the kind of market where one way or the other the network of providers will broaden.</p>
<p>Right now, you have a bunch of spoiled children (certain healthcare providers) refusing to eat the dinner they’ve been offered. We all know that eventually, a spoiled child will eat :)</p>
<p>And, someone in your state allowed this to happen as it did. ACA didn’t tell Anthem or some others to narrow their networks. You have an insurance commissioner or some agency that has approval authority or oversight, no?</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>This extreme subsidization of the federal, state, and local workers’ healthcare costs by the taxpayer needs to end. Perhaps ALL employer-subsidized healthcare needs to end (as GP suggested). I’m especially galled by the civil servants’ plans, though. Why should they pay so little for health insurance? It makes no sense that some of them pay so little.</p>
<p>“This extreme subsidization of the federal, state, and local workers’ healthcare costs by the taxpayer needs to end. Perhaps ALL employer-subsidized healthcare needs to end (as GP suggested).”</p>
<p>Good idea. I think you should run for office on that platform.</p>
<p>Let’s not forget that no-one ran for office on the reality of this law, either. And right now those who will have to defend it in November are freaking out.</p>
<p>Well, then nothing to worry about for those who don’t like it. </p>
<p>What are they going to replace it with? And how will it work?</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Nice try, but pretty much every one of your paragraphs takes a political pov. :)</p>
<p>I agree with your post #6046, kmcmom, and of course you are one of my favorite posters…definitely am with you on the contempt for the entire polarized political system. I think there are many people who think because someone is unhappy with an aspect (or several aspects) of the ACA, that they dislike everything about it, the entire idea, or who put it in motion. And then they automatically react to defend that this was all happening anyways, you people just had it so good before, it’s okay because (fill in the blank). But everything makes more sense to me if I just think of things in non-political ways, such as follow the money. That’s what it all comes down to.</p>
<p>This was a huge opportunity for many entities. Insurers to make things over the way they like, companies to take the opportunity to dump workers from their plans or reduce their health insurance. I am sure that these groups will see their finances increase. But at what and whose cost? It would be great if we see salaries from those companies increase, I wonder if that will happen though. And until things shake out, hopefully in the positive way that you see, kmcmom, there will plenty of screaming. I think there’s nothing wrong with that, because if people just took it quietly, the things that need to be fixed aren’t going to change.</p>
<p>If you all think there is screaming now, just wait until large numbers of people get dumped from their employer plans. I can’t even imagine what will happen then. Maybe we all just stop working and go on Medicaid.</p>
<p>I dont think so bluebayou.</p>
<p>Okay, maybe not everyone, but I definitely see the lower income workers at my company quitting and going on Medicaid. Without the lure of healthcare, what’s to keep them? If they dump insurance, they’d better raise wages big time.</p>
<p>If they dump insurance, they’d better raise wages big time. </p>
<p>Yes, how likely is this? When small businesses decide employees will do better buying their own insurance on the exchange does anyone expect big pay hikes.
I doubt it.</p>
<p>I guess it depends on the job market, Flossy. High unemployment, the businesses can do anything they want. If the job market tightens, they’ll have to do something to keep their workers. Looking good for the companies not to raise wages right now.</p>
<p>dstark:</p>
<p>Tx has made it clear several times, that we need to stick to the facts, not opinion. For example, stating that health care is the reason for ed salaries remaining flat is sheer speculation, (and probably not even supported by economics), but a good sound bite. Later, kmcmom suggests folks “lobby” - if that ain’t political, I don’t know what is.</p>
<p>Just bcos some may agree/like with the post, doesn’t mean it is not overly political. :)</p>
<p>Busdriver11, there is quite a bit of speculation in your posts. </p>
<p>Looks like the exchanges can handle 800,000 signups a day. If true, the exchanges have built in quite a bit of excess capacity. </p>
<p>PCIP enrolled approximately 100,000 high risk people before closing down. The cost was 32,000 a person… Not a family. There were many more people that could have signed up. The total cost of just 100,000 people was $3.2 billion. I am guessing but if there are 1 million people at high risk with an average cost of $25,000 per person, that is $25 billion. </p>
<p>These 1 million people are part of the risk pool for individual bealth insurance… Not employer health insurance. This puts the individual health insurance behind the 8 ball right at the start. </p>
<p>Busdriver11, it is obvious you like you employer health insurance… As you should. Great plans. Relatively low costs. Heavily subsized. What is not to like? And you are wortied ACA is going to negatively impact your insurance.</p>
<p>Maybe.</p>
<p>I can afford to pay for my insurance without the employers subsidy, so, if that is what people want, I am fine with it. I’m happy to support the rest quitting their jobs and going on medicaid.</p>
<p>Bluebayou, you wrote this…</p>
<p>“Nice try, but pretty much every one of your paragraphs takes a political pov.”</p>
<p>Not true.</p>
<p>A profit driven healthcare system is not going to insure most of the unprofitable people. Is this a political statement?</p>