An RN's thoughts on the health care law

Nurses Activism

Published

I've been following the debate about the health care law and it seems like most commenters are totally for it or adamantly against it. I've been watching my family, friends, and patients face bad choices and rationed health care because of our current health insurance system. What I really want to know is if this law will fix it.

First, let's look at some of the key parts of the Affordable Care Act (ACA), most of which are phased in by 2014:

- The best parts of the law are the provisions that people cannot be denied health coverage because of pre-existing conditions, that insurers can not drop you when you get sick, and that eliminate annual and lifetime caps on coverage. What worries me are the loopholes that insurance company lawyers will use to continue to cherry-pick who they cover. For example, the law doesn't say how much they can charge to cover people with pre-existing conditions.

- Almost everyone (even the insurance companies) agrees that it's good to let parents keep their children, up to the age of 26, on their health insurance (if they have it).

- Large companies that don't give their workers health insurance will have to pay $2,000.

- People who do not have health insurance where they work and choose not to buy it will have to pay a penalty. Is the individual mandate a fee, a tax, or a penalty? I don't really care what we call it. I understand why everyone should be part of the healthcare system. Medicare does this, covering everyone 65 and over. The individual mandate is a clumsier way of creating one risk pool, through private insurance companies. I've don't like it because it requires people to give money to profit-making insurance companies.

- If you are very low income, you may qualify for a government-funded subsidy to buy insurance through a health exchange, or, for the most low income, become eligible for Medicaid which is set to expand.

- It shrinks the Medicare donut hole in prescription drug coverage, where there's coverage to a certain point and then nothing until a higher spending cap is reached. Since 2010, 5.2 million seniors and people with disabilities have saved $3.7 billion on prescription drugs. I believe the donut hole should be entirely eliminated.

- All insurance plans will be required to include preventative care (i.e. mammograms, vaccinations, colonoscopies, physicals) with no co-pay, by 2018.

- Medicare coverage will now include an annual physical and no co-pays for preventative services.

- Before, small businesses paid as much as 18% more than larger businesses for premiums. Now, they will get tax credits (up to 50% of the cost of premiums) for offering health insurance to their workers. In 2011, this affected 2 million employees.

- Pharmaceutical, medical device manufacturers and health insurance companies will have their taxes increased. I agree with this. This law gives them millions of new customers. They can help pay.

- The law increases funding for community health centers, one of the best provisions of all.

- For the first time, the law taxes health benefits, and the main target is the comprehensive, best plans. In 2018, those plans (more than $10,200/single; $27,500/family) will be taxed. The insurance company has to pay, but they're going to pass the cost along to anyone lucky enough to have a good plan. I think this will push more people into plans that cover fewer health needs and have large out-of-pocket costs.

- In 2013, if you make more than $200,00 (individual) or $250,000 (family), you will pay a Medicare tax on investment income (before Medicare tax was only on wages).

- The Medicare tax rate goes up to 3.8%, from 2.9%.

Although the advocates for the law say that it will bring down health care costs. I believe that some of these benefits are over-stated and ignore some remaining very large problems.

What the law doesn't or maybe won't do:

- Despite the all the claims about cost controls for individuals and families, most of them are weak. Insurance companies, drug companies, and hospitals will still largely be able to charge what they want. Although there are limitations on rate increases, this is not enough protection, 9% increases for several years is just as untenable (although it is better than the current, unfettered, increases).

- I expect that people will continue going bankrupt because of high medical bills or choosing to skip or delay doctor visits or needed treatment.

- Insurance companies will still be able to deny care recommended by a doctor using the same excuses ("experimental," "not medically justified," etc) as now.

- I read that the non-partisan Congressional Budget Office said that up to 27 million people will still have no health coverage. Since the Supreme Court decision allows individual states to opt out of the Medicaid expansion for low income people without a federal penalty, that number will probably grow.

- Some people are worried that employers will drop existing coverage because the exchanges will now be a more affordable option. I'm not too worried since before this law, employers could drop or reduce coverage any day they wanted (and many did). There's nothing in ACA which makes it more attractive to drop coverage, in fact they might have to pay a penalty for dropping coverage.

- The law promotes IT systems in healthcare, many of which are wasteful and have been used by some employers to erode RN clinical judgment.

- There are similar misguided incentives for "wellness" programs that penalize people who have diabetes, high blood pressure, or other medical conditions often beyond their control.

- The windfall for insurance companies, big pharmaceutical firms (who were exempted from strong cost controls to win their support for the law), further strengthen a healthcare system already too focused on profits rather than patient need.

For me, the bottom line is the ACA law didn't go far enough. Insurance companies are going to be a little more restricted more than they were in the past. It will help some people but doesn't cover all Americans.

Polls show that a majority of Americans would rather that Medicare cover everyone. We would still have to work to improve it, but it would be easier and more cost-effective. It would eliminate the higher administrative costs (ACA limits insurance companies to 15%, even assuming they don't find ways around that, Medicare's is 3%) and the corporate profits - billions of dollars removed from the health care system and not spent on health care.

Specializes in OB, HH, ADMIN, IC, ED, QI.

The newspapers ran an article yesterday about this. I'll find it and post it here, or in Facebook (as Lois Feldstein-Klein).

Specializes in Critical care, tele, Medical-Surgical.

medicare beneficiaries less likely to experience cost- and access-related problems than adults with private coverage

[color=#333333]medicare beneficiaries age 65 and older are more satisfied with their health insurance, have better access to care, and are less likely to have problems paying medical bills than working-age adults who get insurance through employers or purchase coverage on their own. ...

[color=#333333]medicare beneficiaries less likely to experience cost- and access-related problems than adults with private coverage - the commonwealth fund

Specializes in Critical care, tele, Medical-Surgical.

[color=#111111]how i lost my fear of universal health care

permission to live: how i lost my fear of universal health care

[color=#111111]how i lost my fear of universal health care

permission to live: how i lost my fear of universal health care

i am a little skeptical when the first thing the author tells us is how she was a "die-hard conservative republican", and then describes how she is anything but one and even provides links to a die-hard liberal website. she even explains how she is now ok with gov't providing abortions. maybe her political leanings have changed. that's fine, it happens. i also love the gobs of anecdotal evidence. so, i'm more inclined to believe she has always been a liberal who believes in universal healthcare, and is embellishing her story for effect.

that being said, there are fixes needed for our healthcare system. however, there are much better ways of doing it then universal healthcare. frankly, i don't believe she should not have to "worry about exepense" and should receive 55% of her salary for a year because she chose to have a baby (or 2, or 4) while everyone else pays for her decision.

Specializes in OB, HH, ADMIN, IC, ED, QI.

"That being said, there are fixes needed for our healthcare system. However, there are much better ways of doing it then universal healthcare." end quoteYou have to start somewhere, and a lot of negotiating was done (I want this, so I'll give you that, type of thing) to get the Affordable Healthcare Act passed!It is far more, and very much less than "Universal healthcare"! People who are insured now, through their employers will continue that, as before. Only premiums set by insurance companies will reflect burdensome situations such as childbearing, and at present those premiums are lowest for women in their childbearing years. No higher rates may be charged for individual differences, (such as seniors over 55 years of age, and those who have "pre-existing conditions").Nurses will have enlarged capacities and greater opportunities with the healthcare that includes preventive care. I imagine the writer of the post criticizing and taking great assumptions of herring's viewpoint, hasn't read the Affordable Healthcare Act. I have, and nowhere does it place any additional burden on taxpayers other than the 1% whose obligation of 5% on income over $250,000/ year, will hardly be felt by them. The Republican platform financed by megacorporations (not individuals, but a conglomeration of "good old boys" that includes few women) hardly reflects interests of the majority of voters. It does support the sway of big business, a faction that hates paying any income tax, directs their profit making industries to create jobs away from our country and keeps their funds in non taxable accounts offshore!Liberal and conservative leaning individuals can be seen in both parties. I think the exposure of that, and the way the tax laws have been manipulated by the rich for the rich, is a good thing. Like an infection brewing undetected, it had to be brought to view so that once seen, it can be eradicated. It's not the Affordable Healthcare Act that is the culprit here, it's the tax evading rich who victimize the middle class and the poverty stricken! Very few charities benefit us, who have little time or money to go to Art Galleries and theatrical Broadway stage productions!When someone as rich as a Gates forces their philanthropy to benefit others who have less, that makes news.

Specializes in OB, HH, ADMIN, IC, ED, QI.

I tried to edit my comment to make reading it easier, but the system here refused to allow that time consuming effort....

I just read an article in Bloomberg (July 24) titled "High Court Ruling to Increase Uninsured: CBO says."

Oh lamazeteacher. So much I could say about your posts. I'll just stick with the most recent.

"You have to start somewhere, and a lot of negotiating was done (I want this, so I'll give you that, type of thing) to get the Affordable Healthcare Act passed!"

Yes. there was quite a bit of negotiating. However, little of it had to do with improving healthcare. It was all about getting the best deal they could in exchange for votes.

Payoffs for states get Harry Reid to 60 votes - Chris Frates - POLITICO.com

Along those lines, Obama promised several times that debate on healthcare would include doctors, nurses, healthcare administrators, insurance companies, etc. and would be televised. That never happened. PolitiFact | The Obameter: Negotiate health care reform in public sessions televised on C-SPAN

"I imagine the writer of the post criticizing and taking great assumptions of herring's viewpoint, hasn't read the Affordable Healthcare Act. I have..."

I wish I had a dollar for everytime I heard a liberal (including the President) imply that since my opinion is different then theirs, I must not understand. And, you have read the law? Seriously? Very impressed. And disturbed at the same time.

"People who are insured now, through their employers will continue that, as before."

Only until their employer quits offering insurance. Or, goes out of business.

Nearly 10% of employers to drop health benefits, survey finds - latimes.com

"No higher rates may be charged for individual differences, (such as seniors over 55 years of age, and those who have "pre-existing conditions")"

That's how it is now. And that is actually something that should be changed. Since insurance companies can't charge more, they do everything they can to avoid high-risk customers altogther. If they charged based on risk like all other forms of insurance, and if people had long-term relationships with their insurance company (not tied to their job), premiums would be lower and more people would be covered.

"I have, and nowhere does it place any additional burden on taxpayers other than the 1% whose obligation of 5% on income over $250,000/ year, will hardly be felt by them."

So, who is to decide that "it will hardly be felt by them"? And we should make policy by this standard? What happens when the government decides you can do with less then what you have earned, and when they take more you will hardly feel it?

"The Republican platform financed by megacorporations (not individuals, but a conglomeration of "good old boys" that includes few women) hardly reflects interests of the majority of voters."

I bet that more people identify with people running businesses then they do with the Hollywood and media people who are financing the President's campaign.

I could go on about that statement and others you make regarding the rich, the middle-class, etc., but that would be going off topic and taking up more of my time then I care to spend on that.

Oh, one more thing. The rich are the only ones benefitting from the charities that they contribute to??? Lol! Please name some of those charities. I would love to know more about them.

[quote=lamazeteacher;6687317

Read the law (certainly not as difficult or illegible to non lawyers as some would have you believe, and Republicans' alternate proposal is) and you'll know that, don't just

adopt the opinion of someone else

who hasn't read it!.

Would you mind pointing me to the Republicans' alternate proposal? Maybe provide a link. I know of many great ideas floating about, but I wasn't aware there was a formal proposal out, and I can't find it. It really must be something if the current law (over 2300 pages) is not difficult to read, but the Republicans' is!

Specializes in Critical care, tele, Medical-Surgical.

Before i was old enough for Medicare my employer changed insurance companies. My long time physician was not a preferred provider.

This had nothing to do with the affordable care act because the act had not yet passed.

I really don't see how any of this will be paid for...how do we expect to enroll some what, 30 million Americans on Medicaid, when state by state the healthcare systems are already broke and vanishing. In Az, there are no new enrollments allowed for childless adults into Medicaid, and even if you do have a child, they can only fall under one of the four categories for the adult to receive Medicaid benefits. If we expect that everything will be federalized and are duped into believing that the Federal government will pay for this mess, then think again. We are so broke as a nation that we can't continue to deficit spend to keep these programs afloat and sustain for much longer. As poverty rises in the US year by year, more people become reliant on some form of government benefit. As of this year, there are 100 million Americans that are considered living in the poverty level. When Obama took office, there were 32 million Americans on food stamps, that number has risen to 45 million. I believe as of right now 1 in 4 or 1 in 5 Americans are on Medicaid. Let's be realistic. We all work in the healthcare system, and we all see how bad it really is. Just to pass a bill for the sake of passing a bill isn't a good way to run a nation, especially a nation who is engulfed in debt.

What is the solution? I'm not sure if there really is a solution anymore. It's like when someone buys a house, and they are so far behind in mortgage payments that they just can't get ahead. They use one credit card to pay off the next, while at the same adding more debt to the credit card. This is the kind of rut that this nation is in, and it wouldn't make sense to take out another loan to make additions to the house would it? At this point, I believe we as a nation have crossed the thin red line and there is no going back from here, until one day it just finally comes down us.

I just read an article in Bloomberg (July 24) titled "High Court Ruling to Increase Uninsured: CBO says."

I hope I am wrong, but I am concerned about the people who will not be able to get Medicaid, and the people who will lose employer sponsored medical care. The costs of individual policies have already gone up horrendously. I am hoping for the best, but I am fearing the worst.

+ Add a Comment