- Joined
- Aug 10, 2013
- Messages
- 25,636
- Reaction score
- 32,737
- Location
- Cambridge, MA
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Slightly Liberal
Next week we'll hit the eleventh anniversary of the Affordable Care Act becoming law (not bad, given that some didn't think it would survive to its first birthday!). It's fun to think back now to the many predictions, quantitative and otherwise, that were made back then. From John Boehner's warning at the time that its passage would be "Armageddon" and "ruin the country," it was the subject of many outlandish, and frankly deranged, prophecies.
Sarah Palin famously warned that under the ACA her "parents or my baby with Down Syndrome will have to stand in front of Obama's 'death panel' so his bureaucrats can decide, based on a subjective judgment of their 'level of productivity in society,' whether they are worthy of health care." That turned out not to be a real thing!
Some predicted that private insurance would be made illegal (nope!) or at least that conservatives' then-favorite insurance products, HSAs and high deductible plans, would be outlawed (seems these days like they wish they had been!). Other were less outlandish but still wrong. The ACA would erode employer-based coverage (instead it grew), jeopardize access for seniors (it didn't), destroy Medicare Advantage (it's more popular than ever, and no longer costs more than traditional Medicare), or that projected savings in Medicare were somehow being 'double counted' and would not actually extend the life of the Medicare Trust Fund beyond its expected 2017 exhaustion date (wrong, it did).
Of course, it wasn't just the absurd doom-and-gloomers who were wrong. I thought the first decade of the ACA would mostly be a coverage story, and we wouldn't see much in the way of fruits of its cost containment and care delivery changes until the 2020s. I bought the official prediction that it might push up health spending slightly relative to the baseline over its first decade (instead cumulative costs were $2.7 trillion below the baseline). I underestimated how much GOP political pressures would undermine the law's federalist approach. I thought the individual mandate was a much more important piece of the law's architecture than it seems to have been.
How about you? Has more than a decade of experience with the ACA caused you to update any of your priors?
The ACA was and is not a fix to health care but it is a miracle in many ways simply based on how much it was sabotaged and attacked and its still here benefiting millions
the plan with ANY healthcare system/bill is that it will forever need tweaked and worked on for continued improvement . . to fix parts not working so well, redo parts that failed etc etc
The sabotage of it by the GOP is the only story worth discussing now.
There's an odd thing about the ACA where anyone even mildly supportive of it or its achievements feels the need to preface every mention of it with a clarification that it's not perfect, it involves compromises, the work in improving our heath care system will have to continue, etc. All of which are true! But it's also okay to just acknowledge that it's a good thing. For 49 years (until the ACA, actually) Medicaid didn't cover poor adults if they didn't have children, and Medicare even today doesn't cap out-of-pocket spending, leading to a proliferation of supplemental private plans to fill in those gaps. But people don't start every conversation about Medicaid or Medicare with "well, they're not perfect, but...".
I think it's because the GOP was so effective at flooding the zone early on with "bad news," much of it fabricated (see Palin's death panels) or inconsequential. I remember a time when HHS offering 1-year waivers for mini-med plans was the biggest scandal in the rightwing infotainment universe. A decade later does anyone even remember what those were?
Unfortunately, nobody ever counter-flooded the zone with the myriad good news that was actually significant that emerged over the past ten years (record lows in cost growth, people experiencing better health outcomes, health care quality improving, etc, etc). Which has left even many of the ACA's supporters feel like there's something to apologize for.
Unsure. I had higher hopes initially, but it was watered down and the Medicaid portion was not adopted by many states. But its made a great dent in uninsured and has helped decouple health care from employers.Next week we'll hit the eleventh anniversary of the Affordable Care Act becoming law (not bad, given that some didn't think it would survive to its first birthday!). It's fun to think back now to the many predictions, quantitative and otherwise, that were made back then. From John Boehner's warning at the time that its passage would be "Armageddon" and "ruin the country," it was the subject of many outlandish, and frankly deranged, prophecies.
Sarah Palin famously warned that under the ACA her "parents or my baby with Down Syndrome will have to stand in front of Obama's 'death panel' so his bureaucrats can decide, based on a subjective judgment of their 'level of productivity in society,' whether they are worthy of health care." That turned out not to be a real thing!
Some predicted that private insurance would be made illegal (nope!) or at least that conservatives' then-favorite insurance products, HSAs and high deductible plans, would be outlawed (seems these days like they wish they had been!). Other were less outlandish but still wrong. The ACA would erode employer-based coverage (instead it grew), jeopardize access for seniors (it didn't), destroy Medicare Advantage (it's more popular than ever, and no longer costs more than traditional Medicare), or that projected savings in Medicare were somehow being 'double counted' and would not actually extend the life of the Medicare Trust Fund beyond its expected 2017 exhaustion date (wrong, it did).
Of course, it wasn't just the absurd doom-and-gloomers who were wrong. I thought the first decade of the ACA would mostly be a coverage story, and we wouldn't see much in the way of fruits of its cost containment and care delivery changes until the 2020s. I bought the official prediction that it might push up health spending slightly relative to the baseline over its first decade (instead cumulative costs were $2.7 trillion below the baseline). I underestimated how much GOP political pressures would undermine the law's federalist approach. I thought the individual mandate was a much more important piece of the law's architecture than it seems to have been.
How about you? Has more than a decade of experience with the ACA caused you to update any of your priors?
I expected the ACA to be complete disaster, and it is.
"If you like your plan, you can keep your plan. If you like your doctor, you can keep your doctor." was a lie, and Obama later admitted it.
so never mind the millions who have benefitted, you have a grievance about something that was said at the time, and are still carrying that grievance??I expected the ACA to be complete disaster, and it is.
"If you like your plan, you can keep your plan. If you like your doctor, you can keep your doctor." was a lie, and Obama later admitted it.
I apposed it when it became obvious what a huge totally unmanageable hodgepodge it had become. The Democrats caved when they did not expand Medicare (which was working well and popular at the time), and phase into a Medicare for all option to private insurance.Next week we'll hit the eleventh anniversary of the Affordable Care Act becoming law (not bad, given that some didn't think it would survive to its first birthday!). It's fun to think back now to the many predictions, quantitative and otherwise, that were made back then. From John Boehner's warning at the time that its passage would be "Armageddon" and "ruin the country," it was the subject of many outlandish, and frankly deranged, prophecies.
Sarah Palin famously warned that under the ACA her "parents or my baby with Down Syndrome will have to stand in front of Obama's 'death panel' so his bureaucrats can decide, based on a subjective judgment of their 'level of productivity in society,' whether they are worthy of health care." That turned out not to be a real thing!
Some predicted that private insurance would be made illegal (nope!) or at least that conservatives' then-favorite insurance products, HSAs and high deductible plans, would be outlawed (seems these days like they wish they had been!). Other were less outlandish but still wrong. The ACA would erode employer-based coverage (instead it grew), jeopardize access for seniors (it didn't), destroy Medicare Advantage (it's more popular than ever, and no longer costs more than traditional Medicare), or that projected savings in Medicare were somehow being 'double counted' and would not actually extend the life of the Medicare Trust Fund beyond its expected 2017 exhaustion date (wrong, it did).
Of course, it wasn't just the absurd doom-and-gloomers who were wrong. I thought the first decade of the ACA would mostly be a coverage story, and we wouldn't see much in the way of fruits of its cost containment and care delivery changes until the 2020s. I bought the official prediction that it might push up health spending slightly relative to the baseline over its first decade (instead cumulative costs were $2.7 trillion below the baseline). I underestimated how much GOP political pressures would undermine the law's federalist approach. I thought the individual mandate was a much more important piece of the law's architecture than it seems to have been.
How about you? Has more than a decade of experience with the ACA caused you to update any of your priors?
How is it a complete disaster? Please elaborate and document.
Here's an example of how we Canadians see it sometimes:I expected the ACA to be complete disaster, and it is.
"If you like your plan, you can keep your plan. If you like your doctor, you can keep your doctor." was a lie, and Obama later admitted it.
...Medicare Advantage (it's more popular than ever, and no longer costs more than traditional Medicare)...
I expected the ACA to be complete disaster, and it is.
"If you like your plan, you can keep your plan. If you like your doctor, you can keep your doctor." was a lie, and Obama later admitted it.
Good one!my taxes, when I worked, was slightly higher, and I DO MEAN, slightly higher, than people with similar incomes in the US.
for that, when I developed a melanoma, I had it removed, the hole grafted, the site dressed by nurses at a local clinic as well as the donor site, ALL without a penny out of my pocket.
a close friend needed both his knees replaced, same thing, he had the surgery and his rehabilitation as well was completely paid for.
granted, our health care doesn't cover prescription drugs, but considering what you all down there pay, we pay a pittance in comparison.
the canard about people here going to the states is just that, a canard. oh yeah, some rich folks who don't want to wait a couple of months for surgery go to the states to jump the queue but that is all that is.
NOT ONE PERSON, not my dad when got bone cancer, or my mother, or my brother, or myself, or any of my friends EVER had a reason to cross the border.
NO NEED to worry about going bankrupt paying medical bills or paying huge sums a month for "insurance".
What is not covered, like dental, we can still purchase on a monthly plan that is far less than any of you pay.
YET, we hear about our system being socialism, when in fact our system as guaranteed a lower infant mortality rate, longer life, less obesity, and LESS needless surgeries since our doctors can't bleed us dry.
Obamacare is better than nothing, but you all need to start pushing hard for universal health care, EVERY other civilized nation in the world has it.
But you know ........ "death panels" and such
I don't disagree with your OP and don't mean to nitpick, but the quoted part is not entirely correct. Some Medicare Advantage plans do cost more than traditional Medicare, although they often provide better coverage.
In 2009, payments to MA plans continue to exceed what Medicare would spend for similar beneficiaries in FFS. MA payments per enrollee are projected to be 114 percent of comparable FFS spending for 2009, compared with 113 percent in 2008. This added cost contributes to the worsening long-range financial sustainability of the Medicare program.
We estimate that total Medicare payments to MA plans will average about 100 percent of FFS spending in 2020.
There's a much more effective argument for Skychief and his fellow health care haters. It goes like this:If you liked your plan when the ACA passed, you could keep it (provided your insurer also liked your plan and continued to offer it). And the participation of doctors in any particular plan's network is determined by contract negotiations between doctors and health plans; the ACA doesn't insert the government into those private contract negotiations.
That's the "complete disaster"? That the ACA didn't commandeer the business operations of insurers and health care providers? The convergence of critiques from the left and right is another fascinating trend that emerged after the ACA passed, and I'm still not entirely sure what to make of it.
This isn't even close to being an accurate representation of what was promised and the end result. PoliFact, who generally bends over backwards to help Democrats, called this the "lie of the year."If you liked your plan when the ACA passed, you could keep it (provided your insurer also liked your plan and continued to offer it). And the participation of doctors in any particular plan's network is determined by contract negotiations between doctors and health plans; the ACA doesn't insert the government into those private contract negotiations.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?