If You Like Your Drugs...

Rick wrote:

archer wrote: Rick, I'm OK with rebuilding it, I'm OK with anything from a to tweak to an overhaul, if that is what it takes. What I'm not OK with is scrapping it altogether and then waiting another decade before we address the problem again.

So do you agree with this major component of the law that was never told to us prior?

#1 If insurance company's don't get enough people to sign up, or the people they get are mostly sick and have very costly needs, which lead to insurance companies lossing money, the government (taxpayers) must then subsidize/bail them out.

If you don't agree with this hidden part of the law, how do you remove it and stilll expect the law to work? This was the carrot dagled in front of insurance companies to get them to go along... without it, what company in their right mind would agree to take on millions of pre-existing cases for the same cost as healthy people?

I always wondered how Obama and crew got insurance companies to climb aboard, now we are all finding out. This is more than just a crack in the foundation.

You are 100% correct.

The "risk corridor" part of the law is designed to pay back to the insurance companies a percent of their losses if there are not enough healthy people in the over all pool to balance out cost.

And this comes out of the taxpayers pocket. And this is above and beyond the subsidies, the 1/2 billion cost of the website, the hidden taxes (ask your financial advisers about the new taxes on your capital and non-capital gains for 2014), the out-of-pocket IRS penalties, the medical device taxes, the taxpayers monies for setting up new local clinics staffed by medical personal paid by the federal government (that's a part of the law you haven't even seen instigated yet, it's at the future discretion of HHS as to when this will begin)... there are million of dollars in additional cost that the public isn't aware of.

We had to pass it before we would know what's in it. Read the whole law, it's jammed pack with future surprises... most which will cost the middle and lower class, the very people Obama says he wants to help and protect.

Update.

I'm listening to Selebuis' testimony given yesterday 12/11/2013. The amount spent for the ACA website is now $667,000.00. I doubt Amazon has spent that kind of money on their website since the day they went public.

Walter L Newton wrote:

Rick wrote:

archer wrote: Rick, I'm OK with rebuilding it, I'm OK with anything from a to tweak to an overhaul, if that is what it takes. What I'm not OK with is scrapping it altogether and then waiting another decade before we address the problem again.

So do you agree with this major component of the law that was never told to us prior?

#1 If insurance company's don't get enough people to sign up, or the people they get are mostly sick and have very costly needs, which lead to insurance companies lossing money, the government (taxpayers) must then subsidize/bail them out.

If you don't agree with this hidden part of the law, how do you remove it and stilll expect the law to work? This was the carrot dagled in front of insurance companies to get them to go along... without it, what company in their right mind would agree to take on millions of pre-existing cases for the same cost as healthy people?

I always wondered how Obama and crew got insurance companies to climb aboard, now we are all finding out. This is more than just a crack in the foundation.

You are 100% correct.

The "risk corridor" part of the law is designed to pay back to the insurance companies a percent of their losses if there are not enough healthy people in the over all pool to balance out cost.

And this comes out of the taxpayers pocket. And this is above and beyond the subsidies, the 1/2 billion cost of the website, the hidden taxes (ask your financial advisers about the new taxes on your capital and non-capital gains for 2014), the out-of-pocket IRS penalties, the medical device taxes, the taxpayers monies for setting up new local clinics staffed by medical personal paid by the federal government (that's a part of the law you haven't even seen instigated yet, it's at the future discretion of HHS as to when this will begin)... there are million of dollars in additional cost that the public isn't aware of.

We had to pass it before we would know what's in it. Read the whole law, it's jammed pack with future surprises... most which will cost the middle and lower class, the very people Obama says he wants to help and protect.

So again I ask ANYONE who supports fixing this law... is this acceptable to you? And if you would like this part stripped from the law as part of a "fix", how could the law possibly work if insurance companies can't survive without it and therefore opt out? For years we've heard complaints from the left about evil insurance companies... so you can't possibly be for this part, CAN YOU?

As Rick has said over and over, this law does not deal with costs. Costs are the problem - everything else can easily be dealt with via small legislation. Costs need to be dealt with or the rest is just rearranging the chairs on the deck of the Titanic. I see the following as dealing with that in some way:

1. Access to Healthcare for the poor. Uninsured people are using the ER's as their clinics raising costs astronomically. Set up clinics that have similar requirements to not turn anyone away that are designed to deal with clinic functions and not emergencies. Pay for this using a combined fund from both Insurance companies and taxes. This will decrease costs.

2. Price Controls. There - I said it. That ugly phrase that engenders an automatic vitriolic response because it is such a bad idea. Maybe its a bad idea, but it needs to be looked at. Right now we have a system where costs are dictated by the supplier and we have no recourse. The normal competitive control is missing as you can't just shop for care by price. We need to find a way to either allow that or set price controls to take the place of free market competition.

3. Get rid of outdated Interstate Commerce laws. This one's already been beat to death.

4. Tort reform. This one is one that I disagree with at a very deep level, but it needs to be discussed and then discarded once everyone understands that it is not in their best interests.

There are a multitude of ways to reduce the costs of medicine. Deregulation is not a good option, but changing the regs to make it a bit more streamline and inexpensive for the drug companies comes to mind as an option. Any way you slice it, drugs cost a fortune to develop and market.

These are just my opinions (for the benefit of Homeagain )

Great ideas TM... and I agree, it's always been about costs but costs were not even addressed in this law. This law was built on bad assumptions mixed with hope and utopian dreams.
JMO :happier:

In some ways, ACA are making costs worse, by lowering payments to doctors more than hospitals, doctors will have to refuse more patients and hospitals will have less competiton so people will have to pay for their outrageous overhead.

FredHayek wrote: In some ways, ACA are making costs worse, by lowering payments to doctors more than hospitals, doctors will have to refuse more patients and hospitals will have less competiton so people will have to pay for their outrageous overhead.

"In some ways"? In every way.