Should Obama care be repealed?

[luv2]

[h=1]another poll question?[/h]

[Amethya]

While I know it helps some patients, I personally don't like it that much. For starters, I stupidly forgot to sign up for my employer's insurance in the beginning of the year because I thought I had to wait 3 months, when it was given right away. So now I'm about to turn 26 and I will be kicked out of my dad's insurance. So I went online to find out about medicare and other options, right off the bat I was denied government help because I earn too much. I got to the other options and they are all $260+ a month, and I'm like, I can't afford this! So I go call different insurance places and each of them is cheaper in individual plans, so I need to pick one or I have to pay the fine for not having insurance, but some of these say they won't cover my existing conditions or not this medications but this doctor... this is a very difficult thing to do and I wish it was easier for me.

[blondy2061h, MSN, RN]

While I know it helps some patients, I personally don't like it that much. For starters, I stupidly forgot to sign up for my employer's insurance in the beginning of the year because I thought I had to wait 3 months, when it was given right away. So now I'm about to turn 26 and I will be kicked out of my dad's insurance. So I went online to find out about medicare and other options, right off the bat I was denied government help because I earn too much. I got to the other options and they are all $260+ a month, and I'm like, I can't afford this! So I go call different insurance places and each of them is cheaper in individual plans, so I need to pick one or I have to pay the fine for not having insurance, but some of these say they won't cover my existing conditions or not this medications but this doctor... this is a very difficult thing to do and I wish it was easier for me.

You may qualify for a special enrollment period with your employer since you're losing coverage at an odd time, but honestly, $260/month ain't bad for coverage.

[AliNajaCat]

They can't refuse to cover preexisting conditions. And $260/month is peanuts.

Don't call insurance companies directly. Call an independent insurance agent (they're in the listings) and have them do the legwork for you. They are in a far better position to do the research and price checks for you.

And next time....read the fine print. Consider this a very inexpensive life lesson on that!

[AliNajaCat]

Another thing about the tort reform exaggeration:

Of 100 cases brought to attorneys for possible medical malpractice cases, 96 are rejected outright as not meritorious, i.e., no basis for an action, and no suit is brought.

Of the remaining 4/100, only 4% ever go to trial, and of those, only 1 prevails (wins). Does this sound like huge tort judgments are driving costs for medical care? Ummm, no.

[Flatline, BSN, RN]

Another thing about the tort reform exaggeration:

Of 100 cases brought to attorneys for possible medical malpractice cases, 96 are rejected outright as not meritorious, i.e., no basis for an action, and no suit is brought.

Of the remaining 4/100, only 4% ever go to trial, and of those, only 1 prevails (wins). Does this sound like huge tort judgments are driving costs for medical care? Ummm, no.

You are either being naive or intentionally deceptive with those numbers.

I say this because most adults are fully aware of the fact that the vast majority of cases are settled out of court, right or wrong. It is incredibly expensive to hire a legal team to just get the case thrown out let alone take it to court... Saying only 4% go to trial and only 1 out of the 4 wins is silly.

Much easier to settle for a cost not much more than the legal legal fees. Just a couple of months ago I was at a meeting where the legal counsel was stating that on average a medical company spends $500,000 in legal fees defending and maintaining a single brand name every year.

Does not matter if the lawsuits are thrown out, sent trial, or even won. They are incredibly expensive to defend against regardless.

[Amethya]

They did for UnitedHealthCare, for short-term plans. I called them in December, for $168 to $264.

And I learned this the hard way...

[DeeAngel]

I challenge any of the above posters to describe one person they know well who has worked hard all his or her life and whose health has deteriorated over the last fifteen years since they saw a physician for lack of health insurance. I challenge them to describe an elderly person they know personally who would be on the streets or dead without the "handout" that is Social Security. I challenge them to describe what their life was like when they themselves had, say, a soft-tissue infection that went untreated for months because they couldn't afford self-pay without health insurance. I challenge you to describe the daily life of an accident victim whose money is gone and who sits right now in a darkened room in a third-rate SNF rotting away.

I assure you that I know all of those people personally, and have been among them myself. The first guy earned less than $24,000 last year; he is among the working poor but the health plan I got him into has subsidized ("handout?") premiums which have allowed him to have both medical and dental care for the first time in more than fifteen years. This, in turn, has not "bankrupted" him, but made it possible to keep working.

If you don't know these people or see them regularly in your work, you have no business whatsoever shooting off your mouth about what a "disaster" the Affordable Care Act is and how it hasn't done anything of substance. What was it supposed to do? What has it done? Dropped the uninsured rate to its lowest level EVER in this country. Dropped the childhood uninsured rate to less than 2%. Made it possible for millions and millions of people to be immunized, have cancer screens, get routine dental care, have reliable contraception, get medications for chronic conditions like diabetes, COPD, MS, CP, and others. And why do you think the insurance companies aren't screaming to make the ACA go away? Because they're making money, too.

OK, you want to wave a wand and make that all go away? Maybe it's easy for you to say that....because you don't know anybody for whom it has been life-saving. I do. Look around you, see those people you ignore on the streets or in your ERs or your children's school cafeteria. And tell them it's all gone. And you-- will you help them then?

How nice for your friend to have insurance for the first time. My premiums were jacked up to $850.00 a month (for just me) with a $6500.00 deductible. This means I have to pay cash for most of my healthcare. My two inhalers for my very mild (when controlled) asthma are $400.00 a month. I pay $1250.00 a month for both. When the next rate increase goes into effect my choice will be to: pay the premium so my life savings doesn't get confiscated in bankruptcy court or pay for my inhalers. I will not be able to afford to pay for both things. I qualify for no help of any kind and my future choice will be between choosing to keep my savings which I *will* need to pay for a nursing home or I can chose to breathe.

For me the Affordable Care Act is a financial disaster that will end in bankruptcy or my asthma being allowed to go out of control. While it may be lifesaving for some of your friends, it could be life ending for me. This is completely unsustainable. I don't see why the health of others is prioritized over my health.

[elkpark]

You are either being naive or intentionally deceptive with those numbers.

I say this because most adults are fully aware of the fact that the vast majority of cases are settled out of court, right or wrong. It is incredibly expensive to hire a legal team to just get the case thrown out let alone take it to court... Saying only 4% go to trial and only 1 out of the 4 wins is silly.

Much easier to settle for a cost not much more than the legal legal fees. Just a couple of months ago I was at a meeting where the legal counsel was stating that on average a medical company spends $500,000 in legal fees defending and maintaining a single brand name every year.

Does not matter if the lawsuits are thrown out, sent trial, or even lost. They are incredibly expensive to defend against regardless.

Tort reform has always been a "red herring" in discussion of healthcare costs. Conservatives love it and cling to it, despite the numerous studies that have shown it would have an economic effect so small that it's basically insignificant.

New study shows that the savings from 'tort reform' are mythical - LA Times

https://prescriptions.blogs.nytimes.com/2009/08/31/would-tort-reform-lower-health-care-costs/

https://www.nytimes.com/2014/11/04/upshot/malpractice-reform-wont-do-much-to-reduce-health-spending.html

Combining the various cost components, we estimated the total annual cost of the medical liability system to be $55.6 billion in 2008 dollars (Exhibit 1). This amount is equivalent to approximately 2.4 percent of total national health care spending in 2008. National Costs Of The Medical Liability System (Emphasis mine. If you look at the original article, you'll see that that figure includes the costs of malpractice litigation/negotiation and payouts. There are numerous studies over time that have found the cost to be in the 2-3% range of total healthcare costs.)

Even the people in favor of tort reform (the people who are actually involved and informed, that is, not just the people mindlessly repeating slogans) acknowledge that it produces only minor savings:

Does our analysis suggest that tort reforms such as caps on damages and limits on attorneys' fees should not be enacted? No, because even this small level of extra cost should be eliminated from the system. It does suggest, though, that claims of high levels of expected savings from tort reform are overstated.

http://content.healthaffairs.org/content/29/9/1578.full

States that have enacted state tort reform have not realized big savings in healthcare costs. Texas is one example:

The same group of researchers also looked at the effect of tort reform on healthcare costs and found no evidence that they fell after 2003. The researchers compared healthcare costs in Texas counties where doctors faced a higher risk of lawsuits with those with a lower risk. The assumption was that physicians in high-risk counties were practicing more defensive medicine prior to 2003, and that fewer unnecessary procedures would be performed after 2003. However, they found that there were slightly more procedures performed in high-risk counties after the law was passed ... A third report by non-profit advocacy group Public Citizen in October 2011 echoed the conclusions of both research studies. The report, called A Failed Experiment,” found that Medicare spending and private insurance premiums both have risen faster than the national average since tort reform.

http://healthcare.dmagazine.com/2012/08/28/studies-texas-tort-reform-had-no-effect-on-physician-supply-lowering-costs/

And, of course, there is always the argument that the tort reform proposals, always put forward by conservatives, are less about reining in healthcare costs and more about reining in plaintiffs' attorneys, because they tend to be a powerful and effective Democratic bloc:

Tort reform has seldom been about reducing healthcare spending. For Republicans, it's about de-funding a bloc of reliable Democratic Party supporters -- trial lawyers. That's why the suppression of malpractice lawsuits has remained part of Republican and conservative orthodoxy despite the evidence that its impact on healthcare spending would be minimal.

New study shows that the savings from 'tort reform' are mythical - LA Times

[Daisy4RN]

They can't refuse to cover preexisting conditions. And $260/month is peanuts.

Don't call insurance companies directly. Call an independent insurance agent (they're in the listings) and have them do the legwork for you. They are in a far better position to do the research and price checks for you.

And next time....read the fine print. Consider this a very inexpensive life lesson on that!

Alinajacat, maybe what is "peanuts" to you is not to other people. I agree with other posts that the ACA is not affordable for them. My premiums and costs skyrocketed! Not affordable for me, and obviously not for others as well. Please consider that your financial situation may be better than other working people. I think that most people who signed up for ACA receive Medicaid or subsidies which working people are paying for and cannot afford. Any new plan should work for all people as much as possible. Tort reform, cutting waste and abuse, and having copayments for people on Medicaid would greatly help.

[NagathaChristie]

One big problem is the changes that were forced on ACA in order for it to be passed.

We need the ACA but what we truly need is the original ACA.

Healthcare is a necessity. What a travesty that insurance companies are allowed to continue with these huge deductibles.

Consider this info on the ACA/Obamacare:

All health insurance plans must provide ten essential health benefits. The only exceptions are plans that existed on March 23, 2010, and were "grandfathered in."

Families With Health Insurance - Here's six ways Obamacare improved your family's health insurance already.

• Parents can add their adult children (up to age 26) to their plans.
  
• If anyone gets sick, the insurance company can't drop them from the plan or limit how much insurance your family uses.
  
• If any children are chronically ill, a new insurance company can't deny coverage.
  
• Most families will find that wellness or pregnancy exams are now free. In other words, they no longer have to make co-payments.
  
• Insurance companies can't raise premium payments without getting the OK from the state government.
  
• Some families received a check from the insurance company. That's because Obamacare says that insurance companies must spend at least 80% of premiums on providing actual medical services. If they spent it on advertising or executive salaries, they have to pay the excess back to policy-holders.
  

Why would we not want this? This is a plan for the people.

[NagathaChristie]

Did you check the marketplace?

Clearly you are above the poverty line if you did not meet the subsidy requirements. $260 is too expensive for you?

Maybe Dave Ramsey could help you with your finances. :)

My health insurance through my employer is about $300 a month. Its deducted from my income.

[heron, ASN, RN]

Alinajacat, maybe what is "peanuts" to you is not to other people. I agree with other posts that the ACA is not affordable for them. My premiums and costs skyrocketed! Not affordable for me, and obviously not for others as well. Please consider that your financial situation may be better than other working people. I think that most people who signed up for ACA receive Medicaid or subsidies which working people are paying for and cannot afford. Any new plan should work for all people as much as possible. Tort reform, cutting waste and abuse, and having copayments for people on Medicaid would greatly help.

Copayments for people on Medicaid ... suggested right after you scolded another poster for assuming everyone is as "well off" as she is? Clearly, you want more consideration for your circumstances than you're willing to give to anyone else.

When ACA advocates caved to the insurance industry by taking a public option off the table, they pretty much guaranteed premium escalation, in my opinion. Some of that is due to the actuarial reality of banning pre-existing conditions and lifetime caps, which means you're getting real insurance at realistic prices.

I disagree with any proposals that put the burden of cost reduction on people already living in poverty and those injured or killed by medical malpractice, dangerous and carelessly prescribed drugs or defective dme.

Follow the money ... there's where we need to start. $400+ for one vial of Lantus that cost under $100 in 2010 contributes way more to escalating costs than "out-of-control" med-mal suits.

The ACA didn't go anywhere near far enough.