<p>I do not want the IRS making law, and neither should anybody on here, right, left or center, pro ACA or no ACA.</p>
<p>None of us should want the IRS making law. Ev. Er.</p>
<p>There will always be people in power and they will not always agree with you or me. You don’t want to give unelected officials so much power over your life. It’s the “Matrix.”</p>
<p>I want the legislature to get together and enact Universal Health Care. Failing that, which it obviously will, though why so many people operate against their better interest, I do not know, I want them to at least have to legally fix the law. </p>
<p>I don’t know why we want a law in which insurance companies are the biggest winners, but that’s what we have, now. I know they want the subsidies. I’m sure, since they have the biggest voice in a post citizens united world, we will have all the states having the subsidies without a legislative fix. But, that won’t be because it’s better for you and me. It will be because it’s what BCBS wants. </p>
<p>Tom, that side already isn’t bringing home the bacon under ACA: the ~25 states who didn’t expand Medicaid, to the detriment of their people and their states. They are very well aware that they are hurting their constituents. So bringing home the bacon isn’t the most important thing to them any more. </p>
<p>dstark, are you thinking what I think you’re thinking?..</p>
<p>LasMa, Medicaid is for poor people. The Affordable Care Act is supposed to make healthcare affordable. It doesn’t. Subsidies do not equal affordability. In fact, they are required precisely because its not affordable. PG is correct. Insurance companies are the real winners in this crazy mess. And, I do think designed to fail is a real possibility if that makes you any happier this morning.</p>
<p>It did for my D. She’s low income but not low enough for Medicaid. If not for the subsidy, she would not have insurance at all, an outcome which you apparently think is just fine. But she is a "winner. "</p>
<p>And yes, so are the insurance companies. No reform at all can happen without their being happy. </p>
<p>My S too. He wouldn’t be able to afford insurance on his wages of $20,000 a year, but he’s too high for Medicaid. WIthout the ACA he’d have no health insurance. </p>
<p>LasMa: And we, a family of 4 will be kicked out of our plan, forced into a inferior version with an (I checked this morning )70% increase - an that’s the ‘old’ rate. So, you think it’s okay for my family to pay your D’s subsidies. The pre-existing condition restrictions are gone so insurance is available to everyone. Again, as a parent I wouldn’t let my child be without health insurance I would consider it MY responsibility…no matter how old they were. </p>
<p>But those who would repeal the ACA want the pre-existing condition restriction back. Also, they want to get rid of the rule about kids under 26 on their parents’ plan.</p>
<p>Interesting that you believe that everyone gets their ideas from others on TV. Kind explains the lack of substance in many people’s statements - took much stupid TV, including Fox news.</p>
<p>I have believed this from when I was a little kid and I saw losers living off of government, while walking by help wanted signs. Does not take much to figure out what is going on. And this was BEFORE Fox news was even conceived of. </p>
<p>And as another poster said, this has nothing to do with getting poor people healthcare, so that argument has no bearing on this thread. Only an idiot believes you have to disrupt a system for 300 million people to provide services for 40 million of which 40+% were young people uninsured by choice.</p>
<p>Of course many people expect and think this is okay precisely because they have been trained and taught to see you, an actual producer who wants to pull their own weight, as the government cheese. If this were a game of tag, you are it.</p>
<p>“But those who would repeal the ACA want the pre-existing condition restriction back. Also, they want to get rid of the rule about kids under 26 on their parents’ plan.”</p>
<p>Not really. Everyone agrees there were problems pre-ACA and there are problems post-ACA. Personally, I think pre-existing conditions is overblown in terms of actual impact and 26 is rather old to be called a child but these are details on which consensus could likely have been reached with a bit of actual leadership. Now, we just have a big convoluted mess.</p>
<p>There are so many moving parts to all this. For every action there will be a reaction and usually the private sector reaction is faster. So many of the physician websites are talking more and more about direct patient care meaning no insurance taken. Direct pay. The doctors save time. The patient saves money. The doctor gets the patients medications for less. The doctors don’t have to fill out time consuming electronic medical records, authorization requests, and insurance forms. The doctor has more time to spend with the patient. There is a more personal relationship. Then the patient gets a catastrophic plan to cover surgeries etc., IOW, real catastrophes, which is what insurance is supposed to be for. </p>
<p>Just shows how these people think - a 26 year-old is not an adult, but a kid. That is all you need to understand about the nanny state.</p>
<p>Anyway, it is a moronic argument for an entire redoing of a system. The ACA could be scraped and all that would be needed is a one line bill that allows children to stay on parents’ healthcare until 26. </p>
<p>How stupid have we become that people think that basic legislation cannot be passed, but an entire morass of nonsense is required instead to do simple things?</p>
<p>Banning pre-existing conditions without an individual mandate broke New York’s individual market. The trouble is, the people who are expensive are VERY expensive. So I don’t see banning pre-existing condition exclusions, without a mandate, as a workable solution. Notice that New York’s rates went DOWN after the ACA. </p>
<p>There are so many loopholes to the individual mandate, it barely exists. And of course, the individual mandate does not apply to all those illegal immigrants, tens of thousands rushing across our borders with TB, tropical diseases, unvaccinated, and who all require medical care and will get it. Who will pay? Just watch your rates. </p>
<p>Of course it broke the individual market because in banning pre-existing conditions they also banned the insurance companies from charging the proper price for each policy. Government should not be setting prices.</p>
<p>It is like wanting to buy a luxury car, but then wanting to only pay for a mini-car. The system broke because they instituted price controls on policies, not because of banning pre-existing conditions. </p>
<p>No surprise the rates went down after ACA for the end user - they are USING other people’s money! However, the overall cost of the product actually went up over two-fold!</p>