General Discussion
Related: Editorials & Other Articles, Issue Forums, Alliance Forums, Region ForumsLet's make one thing clear, the ACA is about health insurance, not health care...
...its aspirations to health care gasped their last breath with the death of the public option.
But as policy focused on improving access to health insurance that provides meaningful coverage and reduces the potential of financial ruin due to medical expenses...yes, it does accomplish something there.
Of course the prices are going to be high and there is going to be sticker shock for many. That's the price of offering health insurance that actually covers something, while still allowing insurance companies their profits.
The only long-term solution for affordable health CARE is to get rid of the insurance company profits and offer single-payer, or at least a public option so large the insurance companies and hospital corporations will have to slash their profits and overhead just to compete.
But hey, at least with the current ACA we can take comfort that we're not "socialists" (*eyeroll*).
Thanks for taking the time to read this.
gopiscrap
(23,761 posts)Barack_America
(28,876 posts)And hopefully people will come to understand why they would pay a lot less for actual health care.
gopiscrap
(23,761 posts)Recursion
(56,582 posts)It's a model of health insurance with a monopoly of enrollees and a monopsony with providers.
Loudly
(2,436 posts)frazzled
(18,402 posts)It was just government-run insurance (like Medicare), as opposed to private insurance. It was insurance, not health care (meaning doctors, clinics, et al.). Medicare is insurance, not health care.
Your notion of health care would be a system in which the government employs the doctors and runs the hospitals. That was never going to happen, and indeed is relatively rare.
Barack_America
(28,876 posts)That can happen with single-payer. If the government is the only payer, hospitals will adjust their charges to what they will be paid (Medicare pay rates already dictate most charges).
Recursion
(56,582 posts)Blue Cross in particular is not-for-profit in many states.
It hasn't made their plans noticeably cheaper.
frazzled
(18,402 posts)Economics and finances, not about health care in any sense of the word. No health policy expert or health economist would agree with your wording.
And by the way, private insurers also dictate charges to hospitals.
A system of health care, as opposed to health insurance, would be more like the VA, which provides its own health services.
The ACA for the first time regulates health insurers and provides universal access to insurance.
oldhippie
(3,249 posts)No, hospitals will adjust their COSTS to what they will be paid. Or they will go out of business and operation. Do you think that would improve the care to the patients?
AnotherMcIntosh
(11,064 posts)Owning health insurance company stock is a guaranteed source of income.
jsr
(7,712 posts)solarhydrocan
(551 posts)The biggest:
the rest:
Link for multiple charts on AET AFL AIZ CI CNC CFIN HNT HUM SIE TMK UNM WLP
http://finance.yahoo.com/quotes/AET+AFL+AIZ+CI+CNC+CFIN+HNT+HUM+TMK+UNM+WLP/view/dv
AnotherMcIntosh
(11,064 posts)of the politicians has risen.
Nuclear Unicorn
(19,497 posts)Is get the fascists to pass a law allowing us to see how they engage in fascism. Easy as pie.
LostOne4Ever
(9,289 posts)It won't happen right away, but it lays a foundation.
Recursion
(56,582 posts)Single payer social insurance is one model of health care provisioning that has worked in some countries, but there are plenty of others that have worked too. What wasn't working was what we had. ACA needs improvement, but we don't have to sign a death pact with the concept of "single payer"; plenty of other systems work too.
Bluenorthwest
(45,319 posts)Why do you call the VA a 'death pact'? Why reject the system that works best for us right now, right here?
Recursion
(56,582 posts)The VA is government-operated, like the UK's NHS. The "death pact" referred to requiring that it be literally a single payer system and nothing else. I'd prefer a national health system like the UK has to a single payer system, personally.
Nuclear Unicorn
(19,497 posts)It's a confidence building exercise.
russspeakeasy
(6,539 posts)NYC_SKP
(68,644 posts)...and just puts it out there to compete, a little, at first.
Would that not lead to full blown single payer after a few years, if done right?
The reality of it all is that we were never going to be able to change overnight from 100% corporate insurance to 100% single payer public care.
What we have in ACA is the best we could get that moves us closer.
Barack_America
(28,876 posts)At this time the government can't afford to extend exchange participation to dependents, forking out money to all these insurance companies with rates elevated by the relatively small size of the plans.
A potential fix? A government plan for families paying over 9.5% of their incomes for medical premiums, in order to bring costs down.
Here's hoping.
Hoyt
(54,770 posts)offered by insurance companies. Not to mention government has, from day one, not taken on the costs and risks associated with administering Medicare - - contracting with insurance companies to do it, under Federal rules.
Recursion
(56,582 posts)It's sort of the dirty secret.
Bluenorthwest
(45,319 posts)Fairly basic stuff.
Recursion
(56,582 posts)Medicare is partially provisioned by private insurance, as Hoyt was pointing out, and I added the point that Medicaid is essentially entirely provisioned by private insurance. Fairly basic stuff.
Pretzel_Warrior
(8,361 posts)Of where things stands
leftstreet
(36,108 posts)ReRe
(10,597 posts)... that the roll out of ACA is hitting so many bumps. What did we expect? The insurance & pharmaceutical companies wrote the legislation (or their lobbyists), right? And could the website problems be a bit of political cyber-war? It's too bad they went to all that expense, but hey, they are "risk-takers" aren't they? No one twisted their arms to plot against the success of the ACA. It's the law, cretins, like it or not. Cut your losses and let it go. You're going to lose. Bigtime.
blkmusclmachine
(16,149 posts)awoke_in_2003
(34,582 posts)Puzzledtraveller
(5,937 posts)SoapBox
(18,791 posts)snappyturtle
(14,656 posts)grantcart
(53,061 posts)an entirely new care model, moving from fee for service to global care.
The insurance part is like the tip of the iceberg. There is a lot more involved but it will also take time.
http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=3917066
Left Coast2020
(2,397 posts)So why isn't dental care/ procedures i.e. root canel, filings, etc part of ACA?
A dentist has told me that heart disease can come from poor dental health--namely an infection in the gums.
Very disapointed dental procedures are not included at he moment.
Recursion
(56,582 posts)stevenleser
(32,886 posts)treestar
(82,383 posts)Was absolutely wrong.
stevenleser
(32,886 posts)treestar
(82,383 posts)Single payer would be about taxes, not health care.
It's all about paying for it. We don't expect doctors, nurses, etc. to devote their time for no pay.
Nuclear Unicorn
(19,497 posts)Every facet of the law relies on corporations. When they said they couldn't remain viable at current rates while expanding coverage the regulations came from HHS to let them do what they're doing. It's part of the bargain.
And those who think we're getting single payer after this are dreaming. The politicians crawled in bed with the corporations to get them on board. Now the corporations have all the dirty pictures they need to keep their lover obedient and loyal.
jsr
(7,712 posts)JoePhilly
(27,787 posts)woo me with science
(32,139 posts)as with policy direction in virtually every area right now.
Our government is purchased by corporate interests, and its entire reason for existing has been corrupted.
AnotherMcIntosh
(11,064 posts)Puzzledtraveller
(5,937 posts)I have agreed with you in other threads get us branded all manner of things up to and including teabagger plant yadda, yadda.
leftstreet
(36,108 posts)They're really desperate
JoePhilly
(27,787 posts)madokie
(51,076 posts)I use the VA and paid my premiums 40 some odd years ago. I'm paid up in full. And yes it was/is insurance when it comes right down to it
I wish everyone in America had the same health care I have.
marmar
(77,081 posts)woo me with science
(32,139 posts)of government and policy-making. We currently have a government of, by, and for the corporations.
marmar
(77,081 posts)sibelian
(7,804 posts)or at least *opens* the *possibility* of legitimising a socialised model in the minds of the populace. ACA is very obviously an improvement on what was before. I think that's being kind glossed over at the moment.
I think you're likely to now find that further changes to the way healthcare is perceived in the States will ratchet inevitably towards a more socialised model. I think the Republican leeches know this, and realise that they are now kind of screwed.
MineralMan
(146,317 posts)institutions and by private practitioners, it will still be about insurance, even with single-payer.
In a true national healthcare system, the profit motive would be removed completely with health care delivered by government run hospitals and clinics. Think of the VA hospital model. The only real way to control costs of health care is to take profit out of the picture across the board.
Single-payer AND Single-provider is the most economical and most equitable health care system that can be designed. We will not have that in the United States. It would be enormously unpopular.
Until such a system is established, any system will be a system of insurance paying private providers. As long as that is the case, profit will drive the system. From hospitals and healthcare professionals to pharmaceutical companies and medical product companies, and everything in between, for-profit is the current model.
Truly, the only purely government-run healthcare system I know much about is Cuba's. I can't imagine the U.S. instituting anything similar to that in any of our lifetimes.
ScreamingMeemie
(68,918 posts)And the health insurance at least gives me the option of getting to health care. And that is a start. Thank you.
ProSense
(116,464 posts)of the amount of people upset that they can't keep their crappy plans.
IronLionZion
(45,452 posts)because its not care, its the way to pay for care. Issues like what treatments are covered and how much will be reimbursed and the cost of care will still be issues of contention with single payer, just like it is in every country that has it.
Payment for care, is what gets care. A reliable payment system is the only thing that will fund opening more health care providers.
Successful implementation of the ACA will build popular and political support for further reforms like single payer. But first we need more health care providers and people who are used to having near universal insurance coverage for whoever wants it.
Single payer will come one state at a time. See how they did it in Canada, then see Vermont.