Dear Sick People,

[Aegon]

Apparently you are not dealing with the ACA. Premium - double, deductible to be met - triple, RX not covered for my wife x 3 (last year $140/mo, this year $400/mo), provider access - cut in half. Participation - mandatory. 

Tell me, what should I like about the ACA? Why should I care?

I have several serious health problems, including (as of today) Stage 3B kidney disease. Once it's repealed I have no idea how I'll be able to afford anything. Depending on whether it's a full repeal or if some of it stays, I honestly have no clue what's going to happen to me. And there are 20 million others just like me.

They need a legitimate replacement. They can't just leave us in the cold...

[The Grand Nudger]

Apparently you are not dealing with the ACA. Premium - double, deductible to be met - triple, RX not covered for my wife x 3 (last year $140/mo, this year $400/mo), provider access - cut in half. Participation - mandatory. 

Tell me, what should I like about the ACA? Why should I care?

-and now they know you'll pay that much.  The price isn't going to down if the ACA is repealed.  

Sure, sure, some cutrate company will provide a shittier service at a lower pricepoint, but looking at the above, is a shittier service what you need? Personally, I don;t know that life and the maintenance thereof should be a for profit industry, but so long as it is we may as well approach the reality of it. I get full VA coverage, I wish you (and the rest of my family) did too. We can do it, but we're not going to get there by going in the opposite direction. I;d say that;s why you should care. The ACA gets you closer to what you need, and what some of us already have.

[Minimalist]

Apparently you are not dealing with the ACA. Premium - double, deductible to be met - triple, RX not covered for my wife x 3 (last year $140/mo, this year $400/mo), provider access - cut in half. Participation - mandatory. 

Tell me, what should I like about the ACA? Why should I care?

Do you think you will do better with the insurance companies on your own?

Remember.

http://articles.latimes.com/2007/nov/09/...fi-insure9

Health insurer tied bonuses to dropping sick policyholders

Insurance companies are not in business to provide health care.  They are in business to make money for the crooked corporate cocksuckers who run them.

[Brian37]

No, I'm not dealing with the ACA, and there is no dispute that many people are not better off. I'm sorry you're one of them. I always considered the ACA a poor compromise. As I said, single-payer is the way to go; I've supported that my entire adult life. However, it won't happen anytime soon. God forbid we cut out the insurance industry.

But tossing millions of people who formerly had no coverage back onto the proverbial street doesn't strike me as a good 'plan'.

When the GOP point to the rising premiums, they are not wrong, but are lying about the context. The ACA slowed down the rise in the rate more than it would if it had never been made a law. Second thing these assholes lie about is that that rise is not hurting a majority. The biggest reason for the rise is that the asshole GOP refuse to fund Medicare and Medicaid which even with the ACA causes still far too much people to use the ER. That use of the ER was far worse when we didn't have the ACA.

But, this again, like everything else is a result of 36 years of deregulation. This is just the GOP being assholes for no good reason other than to be spiteful winners.

[brewer]

Apparently you are not dealing with the ACA. Premium - double, deductible to be met - triple, RX not covered for my wife x 3 (last year $140/mo, this year $400/mo), provider access - cut in half. Participation - mandatory. 

Tell me, what should I like about the ACA? Why should I care?

-and now they know you'll pay that much.  The price isn't going to down if the ACA is repealed.  

Sure, sure, some cutrate company will provide a shittier service at a lower pricepoint, but looking at the above, is a shittier service what you need?  Personally, I don;t know that life and the maintenance thereof should be a for profit industry, but so long as it is we may as well approach the reality of it, rather than our best wishes for how it could be better within that context.

Return of free market and competition. Part of the problem is that we had limited companies to choose from and only one plan that would cover my wife's specialists physicians. Not much of a choice. Barring any hospitalization, it would have been less expensive to go with no insurance and pay out of pocket. I could buy cheap ass hospital only/catastrophic coverage but that would not satisfy the mandate.

---

Apparently you are not dealing with the ACA. Premium - double, deductible to be met - triple, RX not covered for my wife x 3 (last year $140/mo, this year $400/mo), provider access - cut in half. Participation - mandatory. 

Tell me, what should I like about the ACA? Why should I care?

Do you think you will do better with the insurance companies on your own?

Remember.

http://articles.latimes.com/2007/nov/09/...fi-insure9

Health insurer tied bonuses to dropping sick policyholders

Insurance companies are not in business to provide health care.  They are in business to make money for the crooked corporate cocksuckers who run them.

bold mine

YES.

Edit: You do understand that health insurance had/has mandated loss ratios imposed, ever prior to the ACA? Their profit margin is/was regulated. It would be nice if you would not play the "crooked corporate" card all of the time. Is Brian your son?

[vorlon13]

Bill Clinton:

‘So you’ve got this crazy system where all of a sudden 25 million more people have health care, and then the people who are out there busting it, sometimes 60 hours a week, wind up with their premiums doubled and their coverage cut in half. It’s the craziest thing in the world.’

[BrianSoddingBoru4]

Given how much private insurance companies hate paying claims, coupled with the conservative hatred for government insurance, I expect the replacement plan to be something along the lines of a one dollar premium and a $50,000 deductible.

You people need some sort of a modified single-payer system. It works.

Boru

[Brian37]

-and now they know you'll pay that much.  The price isn't going to down if the ACA is repealed.  

Sure, sure, some cutrate company will provide a shittier service at a lower pricepoint, but looking at the above, is a shittier service what you need?  Personally, I don;t know that life and the maintenance thereof should be a for profit industry, but so long as it is we may as well approach the reality of it, rather than our best wishes for how it could be better within that context.

Return of free market and competition. Part of the problem is that we had limited companies to choose from and only one plan that would cover my wife's specialists physicians. Not much of a choice. Barring any hospitalization, it would have been less expensive to go with no insurance and pay out of pocket. I could buy cheap ass hospital only/catastrophic coverage but that would not satisfy the mandate.

---

Do you think you will do better with the insurance companies on your own?

Remember.

http://articles.latimes.com/2007/nov/09/...fi-insure9



Insurance companies are not in business to provide health care.  They are in business to make money for the crooked corporate cocksuckers who run them.

bold mine

YES.

Edit: You do understand that health insurance had/has mandated loss ratios imposed, ever prior to the ACA? Their profit margin is/was regulated. It would be nice if you would not play the "crooked corporate" card all of the time. Is Brian your son?

Nice try but no, sorry, regulations DO NOT HURT business, this is just fucking bullshit to avoid paying higher taxes. 

The evidence IS in as far as economic history. High taxes and regulations and investment after WW2 built our middle class. Our decline started with Reagan starting the age of deregulation.

Regulations are what got led out of gas. Regulations are what mandated seat belts and air bags in cars. Lack of regulations caused the great depression. Lack of regulations are why nobody at the top of Duke Energy went to jail for dumping coal ash into water sources. Lack of regulation is why the CEO of Wells Fargo isn't going to prison.

Now nobody here is saying every single mom and pop shop or even all big business's are crooks, NOBODY IS CLAIMING THAT, but the over all averages over the past 36 years have created a destructive climate. It never occurs to big businesses that you CAN USE regulations to employ people and motivate business to make money off that new regulation. Just like cars didn't stop being made because seat belts were mandated.

This is just a bullshit excuse by assholes who know they can do it, but dont want to do it.

[Minimalist]

Don't give me that shit. 

The documents show that in 2002, the company's goal for Barbara Fowler, Health Net's senior analyst in charge of rescission reviews, was 15 cancellations a month. She exceeded that, rescinding 275 policies that year -- a monthly average of 22.9.
More recently, her goals were expressed in financial terms. Her supervisor described 2003 as a "banner year" for Fowler because the company avoided about "$6 million in unnecessary health care expenses" through her rescission of 301 policies -- one more than her performance goal.
In 2005, her goal was to save Health Net at least $6.5 million. Through nearly 300 rescissions, Fowler ended up saving an estimated $7 million, prompting her supervisor to write: "Barbara's successful execution of her job responsibilities have been vital to the profitability" of individual and family policies.

I guess this is what the fucking republicunts call "patient-driven health care."  As in driving them away.

[The Grand Nudger]

Return of free market and competition.

Return?  The ACA -greatly- expanded the for profit healthcare industry.  The free market never went anywhere. The whole point of collective bargaining is to get providers to compete. To entice them with lucrative contracts.

Part of the problem is that we had limited companies to choose from and only one plan that would cover my wife's specialists physicians. Not much of a choice. Barring any hospitalization, it would have been less expensive to go with no insurance and pay out of pocket. I could buy cheap ass hospital only/catastrophic coverage but that would not satisfy the mandate.

I presume you availed yourself of every resource the ACA offered in sourcing your new provider? Your old provider was shit, the mandates are a joke....if they fell below that bar, idk what to tell you, you were getting reamed........or am I misunderstanding something?