Affordable Care Act - is it making people healthier?

[Juror#8]

I know there is some huge unnavigable affordable care act thread but I didn't want this to get lost in the mix there.

 

Interested to know your thoughts on this study snd what you feel the merits are, etc. it would be really interesting if someone were able to target article based on the data or maybe the methodology to make their point of dissaproval instead of leaning on grotesque Obama memes, the politics of the New York Times, personal testimonials about your friend's friend's friend's small fabric business with two employees, etc. That is, of course, if substantive criticism exists.

 

I'm on board as a fan of the aca for some of the reasons mentioned in this article. But I know that it's not without its issues and financial 'growing pains.'

 

So what say you?

 

http://www.nytimes.com/2016/08/09/upshot/obamacare-appears-to-be-making-people-healthier.html?_r=0

[Dorkington]

Any time you make preventative care more easily accessible, it should make the population healthier.

 

That being said, the ACA is still a bandaid on an ax wound.

[DC Tom]

Half-assed article on a half-assed study. An honest headline would read "People say that Medicare coverage makes them feel healthier."

[Azalin]

On the surface you might say that the ACA is working great if there are people who are getting coverage that hadn't been able to receive it before, but how good can it ultimately be if companies like Blue Cross/Blue Shield and United Health Care are bailing from it due to losses? It doesn't matter what's being provided for low income Americans if the cost of maintaining it will bankrupt the providers.

[keepthefaith]

I think it's irrelevant as to whether or not it (The ACA) has resulted in healthier people. What might be relevant is that going to the doctor regularly for either checkups or to address an issue may improve someone's health. Mostly, however, we the people are responsible in maintaining our health through our own choices and decisions. We use doctors mostly to solve problems not prevent problems. We the people need to be better educated and more motivated in maintaining our health and I do think that the medical profession should play a larger role in prevention than it does currently.

 

As for how we pay for medical care (which is what the ACA is mostly about), I don't favor anything that causes most people to pay more while telling the people that pay more what is and what is not an acceptable level of coverage. I don't favor anything that tells employers that they must provide coverage to employees and mandates what coverage can be chosen. I don't favor anything that tells another group that they must buy health insurance and mandates a minimum level of coverage. I don't favor anything that restricts where one can buy insurance. I don't favor anything that taxes a plan is is deemed "too good" that someone may want to buy.

 

I do favor something that better educates people about maintaining their health, promotes personal responsibility for the individual to better maintain their own health, allows each to choose their own insurance coverage and pay for it themselves to the greatest extent possible.

 

For those that can't afford health insurance, I'd support temporary government assistance and a plan which allows some others to buy into medicaid based on an income scale.

Edited August 9, 2016 by keepthefaith

[FireChan]

Half-assed article on a half-assed study. An honest headline would read "People say that Medicare coverage makes them feel healthier."

This. There's a significant portion of the US who think they no longer have hypertension because they are on meds for it and their blood pressure dropped. Not exactly a scientific population.

Edited August 9, 2016 by FireChan

[Gene Frenkle]

This. There's a significant portion of the US who think they no longer have hypertension because they are on meds for it and their blood pressure dropped. Not exactly a scientific population.

Good thing you have Tom to agree with!

 

Do you have a link for your findings about hypertension?

[FireChan]

Good thing you have Tom to agree with!

 

Do you have a link for your findings about hypertension?

Usually I'd say do your own homework but...

 

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2568468/

[Gene Frenkle]

Usually I'd say do your own homework but...

 

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2568468/

So...a study from 2004...Bush's fault?

 

You must have nearly Googled your arse off for that one!

[IDBillzFan]

So...a study from 2004...Bush's fault?

 

You must have nearly Googled your arse off for that one!

 

Do people pay you to come out of the basement to post about Bush?

[FireChan]

So...a study from 2004...Bush's fault?

 

You must have nearly Googled your arse off for that one!

It's the second result when Googling "hypertension misconceptions." Hardly Googling my "arse off." Not to mention I had already read the study before I typed my first claim.

 

Why does is being from 2004 matter? Was the science flawed back in 2004? Are folks more medically educated now than a time when WebMD was already 8 years old and internet access was already widespread?

 

I can corroborate these results from personal experience. Can you claim otherwise?

Edited August 9, 2016 by FireChan

[Doc]

Good thing you have Tom to agree with!

 

Do you have a link for your findings about hypertension?

I hear that quite a bit, actually.

[Magox]

Well, I should hope so. If you are providing more coverage to more people, the end-result should be a healthier population. That in my view was never really what was at the crux of it all.

 

The issues were

 

A) Unfairness of the law to people who have to purchase health insurance through the individual market who don't qualify for subsidies.

 

B) Significantly higher overall premiums

 

C) Mandating people to purchase a service through a private provider.

 

D) Drag on small to medium businesses

 

E) Paternalistic douchebaggery of mandating certain benefits for "approved" plans by the government.

 

F) The overall cost of the ACA and an overall cost benefit analysis of whether or not it was worth it. (If it stands as is, then no)

 

G) Taxes taxes and more taxes

 

H) The bill does next to nothing to address skyrocketing medical costs

 

I) No reforms for the drug making industry. It is practically criminal what the drug makers are doing.

[Juror#8]

Well, I should hope so. If you are providing more coverage to more people, the end-result should be a healthier population. That in my view was never really what was at the crux of it all.

 

The issues were

 

A) Unfairness of the law to people who have to purchase health insurance through the individual market who don't qualify for subsidies.

 

B) Significantly higher overall premiums

 

C) Mandating people to purchase a service through a private provider.

 

D) Drag on small to medium businesses

 

E) Paternalistic douchebaggery of mandating certain benefits for "approved" plans by the government.

 

F) The overall cost of the ACA and an overall cost benefit analysis of whether or not it was worth it. (If it stands as is, then no)

 

G) Taxes taxes and more taxes

 

H) The bill does next to nothing to address skyrocketing medical costs

 

I) No reforms for the drug making industry. It is practically criminal what the drug makers are doing.

Ok while I agree in part, what are the alternatives (if not tax subsidies, increasing premiums amongst some segments, and governmental involvement) that could also accomplish extending general healthcare accessibility to a wider segment of the population?

 

I haven't heard of an open competition interstate model that sounds anything other than idealistic.

On the surface you might say that the ACA is working great if there are people who are getting coverage that hadn't been able to receive it before, but how good can it ultimately be if companies like Blue Cross/Blue Shield and United Health Care are bailing from it due to losses? It doesn't matter what's being provided for low income Americans if the cost of maintaining it will bankrupt the providers.

So what is the alternative as you see it?

[Magox]

Ok while I agree in part, what are the alternatives (if not tax subsidies, increasing premiums amongst some segments, and governmental involvement) that could also accomplish extending general healthcare accessibility to a wider segment of the population?

 

I haven't heard of an open competition interstate model that sounds anything other than idealistic.

 

So what is the alternative as you see it?

 

 

I have no problems with subsidies for lower-income folks. When I say unfairness, it's because that premiums in many areas have more than doubled since the ACA, and if you are a middle aged couple who lives in rural America and you have a combined income of $65,000, your health insurance premiums are most likely going to be well north of 1000 a month with a high deductible HMO plan. PreACA they had the option to purchase a comparable deductible Max Out of Pocket plan for close to half that price. How is that fair that a couple who played by the rules are their lives, now has to pay a premium for crappy health insurance that will practically financially break them, and a couple making $20,000 a year can get a benefit rich plan that is 10 times better with practically no deductible for less than $50 a month?

 

Is that fair?

[Azalin]

So what is the alternative as you see it?

 

 

There was a time when being a doctor was a vocation, and a medical practice was a business. If I had to say what I think might be a possible alternative to what we have, I'd start by peeling back the layers of legal red tape and regulation that appears to be weighing down the industry. Health care is not a system, as so many people seem to regard it, and I believe it can't be treated as if it was akin to a power grid or a telecommunication network. That's just what I think - I'll admit that I'm not smart enough to give you a good answer, but I don't believe continued government involvement will do anything but make it worse than it has already become.

 

 

I have no problems with subsidies for lower-income folks. When I say unfairness, it's because that premiums in many areas have more than doubled since the ACA, and if you are a middle aged couple who lives in rural America and you have a combined income of $65,000, your health insurance premiums are most likely going to be well north of 1000 a month with a high deductible HMO plan. PreACA they had the option to purchase a comparable deductible Max Out of Pocket plan for close to half that price. How is that fair that a couple who played by the rules are their lives, now has to pay a premium for crappy health insurance that will practically financially break them, and a couple making $20,000 a year can get a benefit rich plan that is 10 times better with practically no deductible for less than $50 a month?

 

Is that fair?

 

No, it's not.

[Boatdrinks]

On the surface you might say that the ACA is working great if there are people who are getting coverage that hadn't been able to receive it before, but how good can it ultimately be if companies like Blue Cross/Blue Shield and United Health Care are bailing from it due to losses? It doesn't matter what's being provided for low income Americans if the cost of maintaining it will bankrupt the providers.

The ACA is a miguided joke of a program, and ultimately covering the 10% or so of the population that lacked insurance is misguided. These people were already receiving care on the backs of everyone else that has insurance, very expensively via emergency rooms etc. Nor is the issue "bankrupting" of providers. They make plenty of money for counting beans. Perhaps just less than before. Of far greater concern is that the cost of health insurance is more likely to bankrupt everyone else. It has eroded and continues to erode, the income of the middle class that actually work in America. That is what needs to be addressed . The US system of healthcare is broken from its original model , where insurance was an untaxed benefit of employment. The benefit has gotten so expensive that employers no longer want to pay it: indeed just being offered health insurance through an employer has become a 50-50 proposition. When the system is designed around employer sponsored insurance, yet about half of workers won't receive it, something drastic must be done. Whatever that new system is, the 10% ( pre ACA ) going without will be included in that solution. The problem to be solved is fixing health care for the 90% . Some contraction of the insurance industry will probably be required. No different than contraction that has occurred in blue collar industry. The good of the American populace is more important than the good of the insurance companies. There are far to many middle men feeding at the trough of healthcare , that provide no health services themselves. Some government cost controls on medications etc are probably necessary as well. What other means would there be to stop runaway costs far exceeding inflation? Everything related to health services costs far more in theUS than other developed nations, and people aren't exactly dying in the streets there. Repeal the ACA , and replace it with something much better that actually will lower the costs of health insurance for employers and employees alike.

[Azalin]

The ACA is a miguided joke of a program.......... Repeal the ACA , and replace it with something much better that actually will lower the costs of health insurance for employers and employees alike.

 

Sure, repeal and replace - but replace with what? Another government-designed monstrosity? Insurance is one of the factors in rising health care costs, so less insurance? No insurance? Juror was asking for substantive alternatives - I think we all agree that the ACA sucks. I happen to believe that too much legislation, regulation, and getting away from the concept of the old fashioned family doctor is largely to blame.

 

What do you think?

[keepthefaith]

 

Sure, repeal and replace - but replace with what? Another government-designed monstrosity? Insurance is one of the factors in rising health care costs, so less insurance? No insurance? Juror was asking for substantive alternatives - I think we all agree that the ACA sucks. I happen to believe that too much legislation, regulation, and getting away from the concept of the old fashioned family doctor is largely to blame.

 

What do you think?

Pass a law making it illegal for employers to provide health insurance as a benefit. Get rid of government mandated coverage levels. Get rid of state line restrictions. Allow all medical expenses and medical insurance premiums to be tax deductible. Once people become independent buyers and users of health insurance, they will choose and use coverage more wisely and the market for both insurance and care will evolve to more affordable options.

[KD in CA]

Pass a law making it illegal for employers to provide health insurance as a benefit.

 

A-men. Where the !@#$ is the logic in forcing every employer to become experts on health insurance?? Not to mention leaving the huge hole of tens of millions of people who don't actually have a full time job.