And this is better? You have to choose between retiring comfortably or having your daughter get breast cancer surgery?
Most countries with universal healthcare allow an alternative private stream where you (or your insurance company) can pay for you to skip the queue if you want. Canada is unusual (or even unique) in not allowing that, but the U.S. wouldn't be compelled to follow the Canadian model rather than choosing one of the many others available. And all those countries that allow private insurance for people to skip the queue (like in the UK) still come in about 1/3 under the U.S. even when you add all private and public spending together. So that's not the explanation either.
And one part to this problem is that every state has a separate set of requirements which require duplicate admin costs x50 even for the same company. Allow insurance companies to sell across state lines and it will be interesting where that will take the costs.
I have received care through the VA that is on par or of higher quality than is typical on the civilian side. I never have a problem seeing my primary whenever needed including walk ins. Sure, some things like optometry and dental have to be scheduled several weeks or months out, but anything emergent gets you seen five minutes ago. As a bonus my ortho is a reserve Viper pilot so whenever I see him we get to tell lies about who can drink more and wether door kickers have a greater sexual prowess than zoomies. It may not be perfect but it's not bad.
Yes, but this has been a problem long before ACA was around. You can’t pin our tremendously expensive healthcare on ACA. We, as a nation, can do better for all people living here.
If you've ever seen the IDC10 coding list for medical billing, it would blow your mind. A hysterectomy maybe a "standard procedure" but there are all sorts of things that may have needed to be done mid-procedure that are billed as separate items. Some require different consumables or complications that used specialized equipment not needed for the routine procedure. Some of it is piddly little crap that shouldn't really need to be reimbursed, but some things are significant and must be billed as such.
Do lawyers ever actually benefit society? Nurses do doctors do, garbage truck drivers do, waiters, barbers, but lawyers? I just can’t think of any reasonable benefit. It seems like there’s just my lawyer battling your lawyer. Most countries get By just fine without them, by and large.
To add to the above… there are plenty of “citations” on the effects of ACA to the cost of medical care. They’re just hard to find as most only address it on a state by state issue and not a national issue--and in my opinion, by design as ACA specifically created an exchange for every state.
Yes. Given that over 50% of governing bodies at the state and national levels are lawyers/attorneys, we have no choice. However, where a lawyer/attorney comes into their own is when they defend you from that same body or worse a plaintiff. At the center of any society is the law. Just see what happens when it's not.
Mine more than doubled and I got less coverage. And that doubling only came after ACA and after years of nominal (less than 10% and sometimes no) annual increases.
Still, to a large extent, they are a self-licking ice cream cone. The example provided is still my lawyer defending me against the governing body’s lawyer. If you removed the money from the process and paid them a fixed wage, would there be as many lawyers? But I agree that we, as a modern society need lawyers and laws. I just think that their perception of value is greater than actual. They have made it so that I can’t even practically defend myself in traffic courtYes. Given that over 50% of governing bodies at the state and national levels are lawyers/attorneys, we have no choice. However, where a lawyer/attorney comes into their own is when they defend you from that same body or worse a plaintiff. At the center of any society is the law. Just see what happens when it's not.
Not quite. The intent of ACA was not to control "total expenditures" but to get a select group of people medical coverage be re-configuring who would pay for it. So your graph does not address those increases. It was those with individual policies vs group policies that took it the hardest. The graphs below show this increase and the speed at which it happened right at the start of ACA in 2014. As you can see the plot of those with individual plans skyrocketed past group plan costs in a matter of a year. So while you consider the examples above as "anecdotes" they are actually the hard facts of the matter. As I stated earlier, there are many citations on these rate increases if you so choose to look, but to state that ACA did not cause individual costs to significantly increase is simply false.
My reply was to your 1st question, but like any unperfect system this is also true. It's no different than no tort monetary caps or the ongoing legacy oil company cases in LA where the only people that benefit are the law firms on both sides. Regardless, until we stop electing a majority of legal counselors to office they will be manning the ice cream machine 24/7.
That is not correct. Outside of employer plans, ACA became the only coverage option. ACA offered expanded Medicaid coverage up from the existing $11,500 single income limit to $16,000. This provided “free” insurance coverage to millions in various states. From single income limits of $16,001 to $49,999 ACA subsidized those individuals premiums/deductibles by 20% to 100% depending on type ACA policy used. Now anyone (single) beyond the $49,999 limit was paying full price which ironically hit the small business owner the hardest as few qualified for group rates. So ACA was hardly a true “coverage of last resort” otherwise everyone regardless of income would have been on it. Whether anyone who received coverage through Medicaid expansion or through the subsidized exchange was any sicker than average I would not know but they still received their coverage at a substantial cost reduction.
Not really. One thing ACA did from the get go was change how the money flowed between patient and provider. For example, it drastically decreased certain provider reimbursements and created a new separate path for the ACA subsidy/penalty moneys to follow through the IRS. Some people have claimed this was by design to keep the ACA costs within historical trends. Even the “father of ACA” had problems explaining this issue before a sub-committee. So considering the IRS handles the subsidies/penalties and HHS handles the exchanges I would be suspect on any medical expenditure comparisons from what I’ve experienced, read, and been told. As they say follow the money…..
I believe I stated “reestablish” catastrophic plans as it relates to ACA putting an age 30 limit on them. That age limit affected millions to include me for no apparent reason than to force people to buy full coverage that was not wanted.
So you’re saying someone should make that decision for them? Should we also decide/force people to save for their retirements as well given over 75% of people age 50 have less than $100K in retirement? Regardless what medical system is used there will always be the 25% who expect someone else to make their decisions and take care of them. I understand that but to tweak the remaining 75% to accomplish that I don’t agree with.
Same here. If we are talking about a $10,000 deductible that some can't afford, we are also talking about an annual premium now that is greater than $10,000. I pay more than this (more than $15,000) to insure just myself as an individual with no subsidy. Granted, I'm on the older side of the spectrum. Not sure what younger people pay for an individual policy.
