Welcome to DU! The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards. Join the community: Create a free account Support DU (and get rid of ads!): Become a Star Member Latest Breaking News General Discussion The DU Lounge All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search

still_one

(92,055 posts)
49. I suspect most of this problem is due to states that were against the expanded Medicaid, and never
Wed Aug 17, 2016, 01:19 PM
Aug 2016

setup exchanges in their own states, along with an active campaign in those republican states encouraging people not to participate in the ACA.

The ACA, as Medicare needs everyone to sign-up to work effectively. That is why Medicare has a very strong incentive to sign up when one turns 65, and if they don't, there will be substantial lifetime premium penalties

All insurance programs balance those who are healthy verses those who are not. Since there are usually more healthy folks in the pool, their premiums offset the medical costs for those that are not as healthy.

For those people who are not covered by insurance by their employer or some other way, this subset of the populace is required to sign up for the ACA, or they may be subjected to a penalty. There are exceptions to this, such as if the premium costs exceed a person's income by a certain percentage, they are exempt from the penalty.

In addition, income levels and family size are taken into consideration where many can get reduced payments through subsidization.

A lot of eligible folks still haven't signed up for the ACA, and a lot of the red states refused to expand Medicaid. This has all contributed to the issues why some of these insurance companies are leaving those states where it isn't feasible, while at the same time they are remaining in other states where it is feasible.

While the ACA has issues, and some serious holes, if everyone of those states had been on board there would have been far less issues like this.

When you have young healthy people with the opinion that "I don't need insurance, and the government cannot force me", in large enough numbers, that effects the ACAs efficiency.

Another issue which the media likes to ignore, is that for any program such as the ACA, it takes years for it to get off the ground. As more people sign up, and get on board, the dynamics of the ACA will move into a more feasible solution.

If the Democrats are able to control Congress, and the Executive Branch, I would expect the ACA deficiencies addressed. I could even visualize where an option for

Medicare also isn't free, and depending on the level of coverage it can get quite expensive when you factor in supplemental policies, drug costs, and dental costs.


Good. elleng Aug 2016 #1
I was unaware the law allowed insurers to withdraw from obamacare. Seems like a fatal flaw. grahamhgreen Aug 2016 #2
I agree, elleng Aug 2016 #6
You can't force companies to lose money. former9thward Aug 2016 #29
But it seems you can force consumers to pay big mark-ups for health financing HereSince1628 Aug 2016 #40
But it's perfectly acceptable to force people off of health insurance Wednesdays Aug 2016 #42
That was and is the choice of the American people. Hortensis Aug 2016 #46
They don't even exist unless we allow it. We can force them to do what we will. grahamhgreen Aug 2016 #53
Maybe in your world but not mine. former9thward Aug 2016 #61
Read their announcement and the law. They are not "withdrawing from the ACA". George II Aug 2016 #37
Not true, allow me to quote them: grahamhgreen Aug 2016 #55
This message was self-deleted by its author George II Aug 2016 #62
I suspect most of this problem is due to states that were against the expanded Medicaid, and never still_one Aug 2016 #49
We need a public option, agreed? grahamhgreen Aug 2016 #56
A public option is more likely to occur before single payer, unless the political landscape changes still_one Aug 2016 #60
If we start the fight awoke_in_2003 Aug 2016 #67
All I am doing is trying to point out the differences between the public option verses still_one Aug 2016 #68
Yes, I mean to say awoke_in_2003 Aug 2016 #69
you are right, unfortunately on both points. Still it is important they hear our feedback still_one Aug 2016 #70
If we make enough noise awoke_in_2003 Aug 2016 #71
Your comment is interesting. sheshe2 Aug 2016 #3
Looking from some assurance from Hillary supporters, and then, by her. grahamhgreen Aug 2016 #4
First of all if all Dems... sheshe2 Aug 2016 #10
She has said she would. Hillary Clinton is one of America's most honest politicians. SunSeeker Aug 2016 #11
Excellent! I look forward to reading her specific legislation! grahamhgreen Aug 2016 #17
Good. Now get to work getting the vote out so we have a Dem House. nt SunSeeker Aug 2016 #20
Then you don't agree with me. Stubborn Aug 2016 #36
I agree that Politifact leans conservative. All the more reason that chart is impressive. nt SunSeeker Aug 2016 #50
Then why the "LOL"? SunSeeker Aug 2016 #66
And if you don't get such "assurance"? George II Aug 2016 #38
I'm sure I will! It's a positive issue! grahamhgreen Aug 2016 #48
Since she's been advocating for it since 2001 KMOD Aug 2016 #5
'Advocating' = 'co-sponsoring?' elleng Aug 2016 #7
As opposed to doing nothing? KMOD Aug 2016 #8
No, NOT as opposed to doing nothing. elleng Aug 2016 #9
Ellen, I love you, but your criticism of her has been off the wall. KMOD Aug 2016 #12
My 'criticism' of HRC has barely been apparent, elleng Aug 2016 #13
Ellen, when you were posting rw blog shit, KMOD Aug 2016 #15
To some, maybe you LiberalLovinLug Aug 2016 #22
No, she actually posted right wing blog shit KMOD Aug 2016 #23
That's right the primaries are over LiberalLovinLug Aug 2016 #24
Right. KMOD Aug 2016 #25
+1 GreenPartyVoter Aug 2016 #34
Malarkey! elleng Aug 2016 #31
anyone who refuses to see KMOD Aug 2016 #47
and I know no one who refuses to see tramps sexism, elleng Aug 2016 #54
To some maybe, not all. nt sheshe2 Aug 2016 #16
"barely been apparent"? SunSeeker Aug 2016 #18
Darn right. elleng Aug 2016 #32
Please don't make me dig up your past posts. The primary is over. SunSeeker Aug 2016 #51
Post removed Post removed Aug 2016 #52
Good grief. /nt think Aug 2016 #57
Maybe she was not your favorite candidate, but if you're a Democrat she now IS your candidate. George II Aug 2016 #39
+1000! sheshe2 Aug 2016 #63
Please stop accusing people of hating. As MY idol said in Two Cheers for Democracy: cali Aug 2016 #30
Yes. And that bill is just one example of her advocacy over the last 25+ years. George II Aug 2016 #41
Finally, something Hillary absolutely CAN lead on... ConservativeDemocrat Aug 2016 #14
Good news! Can she provide a waiver as President, or is it given by some other entity? grahamhgreen Aug 2016 #19
Section 1332 would be negotiated by HHS, but ultimately the President signs off on it ConservativeDemocrat Aug 2016 #21
Yup. The ACA gave the insurers a chance to show they could manage this. If they can't, pnwmom Aug 2016 #26
It's starting to look like they can't. white_wolf Aug 2016 #27
Apparently, they can't! grahamhgreen Aug 2016 #58
$200 million in losses...out of how much in profits?? flor-de-jasmim Aug 2016 #28
On the ACA members, none mythology Aug 2016 #33
Try "billions". Loki Aug 2016 #44
This is all about the DOJ refusing the Aetna-Humana merger. seaglass Aug 2016 #45
791 million, I believe. grahamhgreen Aug 2016 #59
Good. We need a public option. NT Adrahil Aug 2016 #35
Trust me, Loki Aug 2016 #43
Good. I'm in favor of a public option (though not single payer) auntpurl Aug 2016 #64
Go Bernie! These billion dollar corporations don't give a shit about us or health. Initech Aug 2016 #65
If we have to buy it under penalty of law, TransitJohn Aug 2016 #72
Latest Discussions»General Discussion»Sanders revs up ‘public o...»Reply #49