> Because up until that point, insurers had diligently been kicking people with any pre-existing conditions off insurance, and sharing that information with other insurers so you couldn't get coverage anywhere.
Yes, and that's an opportunity for sensible regulation. For example, when you buy auto insurance there's a small amount added-on for "uninsured motorists". That's fine. That works. And that does not triple your insurance costs.
In addition to this, no, the ACA did not fix this at all. All they did was throw people into Medicaid/Medicare. It is a false equivalency. Medicare/Medicaid isn't insurance and it does not provide the same level of care that real insurance does. There are doctors who flat-out refuse to see Medicare patients because they would have to provide that care at a loss.
There's a fairness element here that I guess I don't understand why you might have trouble with. Let's extrapolate my family's health insurance costs out to ten years so we get a sense of the scale of the damage done by the ACA. In round numbers, it means over $200K. Yes, over $200K in costs from the ACA. Prior to ACA, about a third of that, less actually, because right now the ACA is doing shit for us due to the high deductibles. We are paying over $200K NOT to use something.
This is insanity. And what it means, among other things, is that my wife's office will not see Medicare patients if they can help it. Every single employee's insurance has doubled or tripled. Their costs have gone up tremendously just on that front. I think their health insurance costs are in the half million dollars per year range.
Over $200K in ten years for something we don't use because the deductibles are so high we have to pay cash. That is punitive. That is far from "healthcare for all". That is deeply discriminative. This kind of money represents a number of things, such as a secure retirement, paying for kids college, and just being able to save for rainy days (or pandemics).
> That we have health "insurance", in the US, is one of the biggest cons.
Agreed! And who sets the rules? Government. And who fucked it up? Government. And now we want to trust them with the entire system?
C'mon.
What we need is for a deep review of the equations that govern this industry, from student loan guarantees to tort reform, FDA costs and more. I am not delusional enough to think this will ever happen. Politicians don't tend to fix things unless they have to. Happy people are far less motivated to vote for someone than people who remain angry at a situation that can be blamed on the person they are running against. That's why nothing is ever fixed. From a political perspective it is far better to have a bunch of angry poor people than to truly work towards fixing the problem. Votes are king. Our political system is broken. It exists for our politicians, not the people or the nation.
Yes, we need government, but what we have has devolved into a beast that works for itself and not us.
Yes, and that's an opportunity for sensible regulation. For example, when you buy auto insurance there's a small amount added-on for "uninsured motorists". That's fine. That works. And that does not triple your insurance costs.
In addition to this, no, the ACA did not fix this at all. All they did was throw people into Medicaid/Medicare. It is a false equivalency. Medicare/Medicaid isn't insurance and it does not provide the same level of care that real insurance does. There are doctors who flat-out refuse to see Medicare patients because they would have to provide that care at a loss.
There's a fairness element here that I guess I don't understand why you might have trouble with. Let's extrapolate my family's health insurance costs out to ten years so we get a sense of the scale of the damage done by the ACA. In round numbers, it means over $200K. Yes, over $200K in costs from the ACA. Prior to ACA, about a third of that, less actually, because right now the ACA is doing shit for us due to the high deductibles. We are paying over $200K NOT to use something.
This is insanity. And what it means, among other things, is that my wife's office will not see Medicare patients if they can help it. Every single employee's insurance has doubled or tripled. Their costs have gone up tremendously just on that front. I think their health insurance costs are in the half million dollars per year range.
Over $200K in ten years for something we don't use because the deductibles are so high we have to pay cash. That is punitive. That is far from "healthcare for all". That is deeply discriminative. This kind of money represents a number of things, such as a secure retirement, paying for kids college, and just being able to save for rainy days (or pandemics).
> That we have health "insurance", in the US, is one of the biggest cons.
Agreed! And who sets the rules? Government. And who fucked it up? Government. And now we want to trust them with the entire system?
C'mon.
What we need is for a deep review of the equations that govern this industry, from student loan guarantees to tort reform, FDA costs and more. I am not delusional enough to think this will ever happen. Politicians don't tend to fix things unless they have to. Happy people are far less motivated to vote for someone than people who remain angry at a situation that can be blamed on the person they are running against. That's why nothing is ever fixed. From a political perspective it is far better to have a bunch of angry poor people than to truly work towards fixing the problem. Votes are king. Our political system is broken. It exists for our politicians, not the people or the nation.
Yes, we need government, but what we have has devolved into a beast that works for itself and not us.