Obamacare has problems but can they be fixed?

Published November 4, 2016

Editorial by Wilmington Star-News, November 4, 2016.

As Mark Twain said of his own death, reports of Obamacare's demise are greatly exaggerated.

Open enrollment for insurance plans under the Affordable Care Act (the proper name for Obamacare) began Tuesday, and the big news has been that premiums for some of the popular plans are going up by an average of 25 percent.

Republicans -- who have been trying to repeal the Affordable Care Act for its entire existence -- promptly harped on this fact to prove that The System is Broken. Donald Trump and Mike Pence both pledged this week to “repeal and replace” Obamacare.

Just one problem or two. The premium increases aren’t quite as bad as we thought.

First off, the premium hikes apply only to the 7 percent of Americans who get their health insurance through one of the Affordable Care Act exchanges. If you get your health insurance through your employer, through Medicare or Medicaid, you’re not affected.

Second, the burden of the increases will be softened by various subsidies. Of that 7 percent -- or about 10 million people -- 85 percent are eligible for one subsidy or another. These subsidies are often big enough to cancel out the premium increases; in many cases, customers will actually wind up paying less.

That leaves about 1 million Americans who are getting stung -- bad, but it could be worse.

Third, many health-care experts believe the double-digit increase is a one-time thing, a painful correction. It may not happen again.

Which isn’t to say Obamacare is trouble-free. It isn’t. The basic problem is, people don’t want health insurance unless they're sick.

We decided that we don’t want a health-care system like Canada’s, where everyone is signed up whether they like it or not, and everyone has to pay. Obamacare is an opt-in system; if you don’t want it, and don’t have alternative insurance, you have to pay a fine or fee.

What’s happened is, too many sick people are signing up for Obamacare. Too many young, healthy people don’t think they need it, and they opt to pay the fine.

Obamacare is not “socialized” medicine. It ultimately relies on private insurance companies -- and private insurers rely on the vast majority of their customers not putting in big claims. Without enough healthy clients, some companies have been losing money on the health-care exchanges.

The ACA is better than the non-system we had before, when millions of working Americans had no health insurance. They let health problems slide until they landed in the emergency room, costing us all money. There's abundant evidence that Obamacare and Medicaid expansion have eased inflation in the private health care market, so that all of us are paying less.

Republicans, meanwhile, remain disturbingly vague about what they'd replace Obamacare with.

Until they come up with something more detailed, it seems much wiser to stick with the devil we know.

http://www.starnewsonline.com/opinion/20161104/editorial-nov-4-obamacare-has-problems-but-they-can-be-fixed

November 4, 2016 at 10:13 am
Norm Kelly says:

Have only read the headline. Rest of post not worth reading. Simple answer: NO!!!

Actual answer: HELL NO!

Socialism FAILS every time it's tried. Socialism has it's own failure built into it. Was it Margaret Thatcher who said (and I'm not quite quoting, so no quote marks; the sentiment is right): The problem with socialism is that eventually you run out of other peoples' money.

The entire idea of socialism is that someone gets free stuff from the government, while someone who doesn't get the free stuff is stuck with the bill. You see, 2 things involved with socialism. First, giving stuff to people that you 'like' in order to get their loyalty and, in the case of U.S, buying votes. Second, you get a minority of people, the 'wealthy', angry at you but since they have a limited number of votes, they can't stop you from stealing from them. But, eventually, 'the rich' figure out what's going on, and they find ways around socialists stealing their money. So, eventually, those who are given free stuff are restricted on what they get free, how often they get it free, or how much they are allowed to use of the free stuff, otherwise the system goes bankrupt. Kinda like Obamascare is doing!

With socialized medicine, eventually restrictions are put in place as to how many times you can get 'expensive' care before you are cut off because your 'value' to the system has become negative. Or, the system is costing too much, too few providers are available to the masses, and you can't get an appointment with your provider in a reasonable time: which could mean waiting 6 months or more to get an exam while you suffer/die from cancer. No tests to determine type of cancer, extent of cancer, so you die before they figure out what's wrong. Or you are considered 'too old' to spend the money on, so you are allowed to die. This is what many in the U.S. referred to as 'death panels' before Obamascare was forced upon us by the U.S. based socialists.

So, will I read this post? It will be a waste of time. Can socialist medicine be fixed? Yes, by removing it. Yes, by replacing it with an actual plan. The scheme of Obamascare is already failing, and can not be fixed. Of course, your friendly, loving, kindly, non-racist socialist lib pol will PROMISE to fix it by implementing what they call 'single payer'. A friendly sounding name for a full take-over of the entire medical industry by central planners. What the rest of the world calls 'socialized medicine'. Look at how your socialist government has 'fixed' the VA Health care system. What have they done to 'fix' it? They spend more money on it. Have they actually fixed it? No, but spending money on failing central planner programs at least makes THEM feel good. And when it comes to socialist lib pols, we all know the only thing they care about are 'feelings'. So long as people 'feel good' about it, it's no longer a problem. Move on. These are not the droids you are looking for!

Stinkin' socialists! Vote. Vote often. Vote for Hildaliar! Might as well stick with the socialist party.

November 4, 2016 at 10:27 am
Norm Kelly says:

OK. I wasted my time reading this drivel. Could not hold back from adding to my prior comments. When some lib misleads the masses, refuses to disseminate truth, it's necessary to respond. Like this gem: 'Republicans, meanwhile, remain disturbingly vague about what they'd replace Obamacare with.' Truth: Republicans HAVE put forth their ideas. Demons and their media allies have REFUSED to recognize this fact. Even when Obamacancer was being forced upon us by socialists in Washington, the ever-lying White House occupier TOLD citizens that Republicans DID NOT have a plan but refused to consider socialist medicine. Among all the other lies he told, this was a whopper. Since then all lib allies have refused to consider any of the plans put forth by Republicans. The only thing socialists will consider is expanding the take-over of the medical industry. There WERE plans and there ARE plans. But, since you are a lib/socialist and these plans do NOT involve government control, you refuse to acknowledge their existence. Your problem again, not ours!

'Until they come up with something more detailed, it seems much wiser to stick with the devil we know.' First, libs weren't content to stick with the devil we know BEFORE they forced socialist medicine upon us. So, why do we need to stick with this disaster? Cuz it's a lib scheme? Cuz it's government control and libs LIVE for more, expanding, intrusive government control of the masses?

One idea floated by Republicans, conservatives, and Constitutionalists involves limiting malpractice awards. One idea floated by this same group involves allowing individuals to buy health insurance across state lines.

One idea floated by this same group involves allowing individuals and small businesses to form buying groups to benefit from group buying discounts. Kinda like IBM, Google, Wachovia and other big companies are allowed to buy insurance at a discount because of the group feature. Yet, federal law prohibits both buying across state lines as well as forming buying groups. Why is it socialists are opposed to freedom of citizens to make our own decisions? What is it about socialists that makes them believe they SHOULD make decisions for me as well as they they believe they make BETTER decisions for me than I can make for myself?

The bottom line of every socialist scheme is that the implementors believe they ARE more qualified to make our decisions, they are more qualified to determine our future for us than we are. These socialists LIKE being in control and believe it is their duty.

So, let them move to somewhere they can rule, and leave us freedom lovers alone. It is what our Constitution says should happen! But, then, the truth is socialists, libs, media-allies don't believe in the U S Constitution.

November 4, 2016 at 10:46 am
Richard L Bunce says:

The basic problem is that most people do now want to pay the premium for their personal finance risk due to healthcare expenses... they want someone else to do it. Canada single payer is not everyone pays... revenue to fund it is unlinked to the expenses incurred in using it... Again, that is not insurance, that is a government payment program.

November 4, 2016 at 5:59 pm
Caroline McCullen says:

Can you please include a link to the Republican plans? Seriously, I'd love to see how they would address these problems.

November 5, 2016 at 10:18 am
Richard L Bunce says:

See home, auto, life, boat, liability, business... every other type of insurance for how insurance works without Federal government intervention. Healthcare Insurance is not healthcare. It is insurance, a personal finance tool.

NC SPIN
NC SPIN
NC SPIN
NC SPIN
NC SPIN
NC SPIN
NC SPIN
NC SPIN