Should the The Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (PPACA), commonly called the Affordable Care Act (ACA) or, colloquially, Obamacare, be repealed?

Yes No see voting resultssaving...
5 opinions, 18 replies
Add your opinion:
Preview:
(mouse over or touch to update)
Add your opinion
71
7 votes
Mar 22, 2016

A subsidized health insurance plan isn't going to reduce costs of healthcare enough if it is still privatized. we either need to get rid of it or give universal healthcare to all, preferably the later

subscribe
::unhide-discussion::
100
main reply
1 vote,
Mar 22, 2016

There is something wrong with a government program that calls the VA Healthcare System the :minimum standard of essential care" under the law. I pay a dental premium every month and so far it has not covered all the pre-existing dental conditions I have. I paid $2400 this month for a bridge which means I have to wait 8 months before I see the dentist again for more treatments I need. Meanwhile, I AM PAYING FOR EVERYONE ELSE and I live in a camper... even as I pay off a student loan I got under the GI Bill which is NOT FREE, not even interest free! I do not have an ideological opinion about it at all... just LIFE AS I KNOW IT.

subscribe
::unhide-discussion::
100
1 vote,
Mar 22, 2016

I agree. VA can not even keep up with the GI who need it now we want a national health care system.

subscribe
::unhide-discussion::
-1
1 vote,
Mar 22, 2016

Minium standard of essential care refers to health care, not dental care.

subscribe
::unhide-discussion::
50
main reply
2 votes,
Mar 22, 2016

While I do not oppose the ACA on an idealogical basis, I think that trying to create a centralized healthcare system for a nation as large and as populous as the United State will be disastrous. What Congress should have done was passed a bill that required the states to ensure that all of their citizens should have access to quality healthcare. America is a federation, so trying to adapts the national healthcare systems of nations like France or the UK would by like trying to put a square block through a circular hole.

We should adapt the national systems of nations like France and the UK on a state level, but only to comparable populations. The UK's system may work for a state like Texas (22 million) or California (35 million), but probably would be unsuccessful in a state like Louisiana (4.7 million).

Obviously, mine is not a complete solution, so feel free to add or subtract from it.

subscribe
::unhide-discussion::
100
1 vote,
May 3, 2016

This is a very mobile society. People move from one state to another for jobs, to be closer to family, etc. If I move from say, California to New Mexico for a job opportunity, will New Mexico welcome me and my pre-existing conditions with open arms? Also, what if a person lives in Texas, but has a heart attack while on a business trip to Washington, D.C.? Will a state-based health care system work in another jurisdiction? Will there be 50 (or 51) different sets of rules about how to reimburse medical expenses for a person from one state who is hospitalized in another?

The problem with both our health care system before ACA and now under the ACA, is that it is too complicated and therefore too inefficient and therefore too expensive. Whatever we do to reform or replace ACA should simplify the system, not make it more complicated. Health insurance should not be through one's employer and doctors and patients should both know what a procedure costs before it is performed. Apart from emergency care, a patient ought to be able to shop around for blood tests, MRI's and maybe even surgeries.

subscribe
Load more (7) in reply to Aesir 123's post (While I do not oppose the ACA on an idealogical basis, I think that trying to create a centralized healthcare system for a nation as large and as populous as the United State will be disastrous. What...)
::unhide-discussion::
0
main reply
0 votes,
Mar 22, 2016

We need to make things simpler, not more complicated. Get rid of employer-paid health plans. Insurance needs to be portable, and employers need less excuses not to hire people or give them raises. Everybody gets a Health Savings Account policy with a $5000 deductible, and a tax deductible Health Saving Account to save up money to pay for every day expenses. We subsidize the poor and we subsidize the chronically ill like diabetics, schizophrenics, and people with Multiple Sclerosis. Insurance only works when people pool their money for an occasional payout to some of the insured. Everyone goes to the doctor for a check up or if they're sick or injured. It doesn't make sense for insurance to pay for those visits because instead of just paying the fee to the doctor you're paying the fee to the doctor + doctor's administrative costs for getting reimbursed by insurance + administrative costs for the insurance company to reimburse the doctor + profit for the insurance company. Everyday medical expenses could be a lot cheaper if we paid for them 100% out of pocket instead of running them through insurance all the time. Insurance companies are the middle man. Cut out the middle man wherever you can. Most of us could save up a $5000 deductible by the time we needed it if we weren't paying such high insurance premiums to begin with. Those who can't because of poverty or chronic illness would be subsidized with our tax dollars, NOT every individual who makes less than $46,000 and every family that makes less than $60,000, but everyone who actually NEEDS a subsidy.

subscribe
50
6 votes
Mar 22, 2016

No. The Affordable Care Act is better than what come before and is better than the single payer approach. There are definitely parts about the law that need to be changed. It requires everyone to get health insurance. It provides subsidies to those who cannot afford it. Each state is required to build an exchange to create a functioning marketplace in their state. If a state can do better by covering more people at a lower cost, the state has the option to implement those changes

subscribe
::unhide-discussion::
17
main reply
6 votes,
Mar 22, 2016

Repeal the law, do away with any attempt at the single payer system, reduce regulations, and let the free market do its thing. stop insurance companies from being able to control the medial field at the same time, up date tort reform to reduce cost. You should be able to go to the hospital or doctor with a need for a millionaire bank account.

subscribe
::unhide-discussion::
67
3 votes,
Mar 22, 2016

Before Obamacare, we let the free market work. It got us insurance and health care that costs more than the rest of the world and delivers the same or similar results with more people uninsured. Insurance companies have contracts with medical providers. If they do not like what insurance companies do, they can write new contracts or do not accept the insurance companies' money. The free market is still working. You need to expand coverage before you can deal with costs.

Also, tort reform does not work. Sure, sounds OK. It will not be effective. Capping liability costs does not work, Clink on the link Texas did that and premiums did not decrease and coverage did not increase.

subscribe
::unhide-discussion::
33
3 votes,
Mar 22, 2016

Actually Texas as done tort reform and guess what it has drawn more doctor into Texas and has actually reduced the cost to some degree, but getting government out of it would help a lot. Did you know if you live in Vietnam and you become sick you can just go by the pharmacy who will give you what is considered prescription drugs in this country without the need to see a doctor. As for Free market this system has not been under free mark every since Kennedy opened up HMO which changed the system and drove cost up.

subscribe
::unhide-discussion::
100
1 vote,
Mar 22, 2016

Nope, there are more doctors here because of population growth, not because of tort reform. Where is the evidence of reduced costs? Tort Reform sounds like a good idea but there is no proof that it lowers costs for those who use health care. See my link above. The cost of insurance in Texsa continue to increase at same rate as the rest of the country after tort reform.

The HMO ACT of 1973 did not no such thing. Before HMO Act, most employers who gave health insurance benefits had insuanrce called traditional indemnity health insurance. It was more like a PPO. The difference between traditional indemnity health insurance and the HMO is a physician that acts as gatekeeper. Because HMOs have this gatekeeper, HMO are usually cheaper than traditional indemnity health insurance. HMO ACT of 1973 stops states from barring doctors from HMOs and required employers with 25 employers or more who offered insurance to provide options on traditional indemnity health insurance and HMOs. The market share for HMO increased because HMOs were usually cheaper. HMO ACT of 1973 helped with the marketing of HMOs, and did not affect the costs of health care.

subscribe
::unhide-discussion::
-1
1 vote,
Mar 22, 2016

You must have not been working in 73 I was most health insurance provided by employers were 20/80 major medical. The only reason employers even offered health insurance was because of the Government Act in which they limited wages so company started offering things like cars, health insurance. Again Government involved in things they should have stayed out of. Just like the minimum wage.

subscribe
100
User voted Yes.
1 vote
Mar 22, 2016

We need to replace it, but not with universal healthcare, which had fail in every country that has tried it. What universal healthcare really means is that you can get on a list for heath care and if you don't die they will treat you sooner or later.

What's sad is there was a plan that would have offered coverage to anyone who wanted it, the policy was a cost plus, that is insurance companies only got paid if they approved procedures, so they would be enticed to find way to cover people, no to deny them. Now to entice people to get coverage, hospital would be allowed to deny treatment to those who can't pay. We would also have a program to help the poor pay for coverage. A Win, win, you don't have to have coverage, but you can't get treatment unless you pay, so the rest of us won't get stuck with the bill.

subscribe
67
3 votes
Mar 22, 2016

I feel it will improve with time. SS also had a very difficult start up. Many now have coverage that they previously could not afford. And the pre existing situation really needed fixing.

subscribe
-1
1 vote
Mar 22, 2016

While I would prefer universal healthcare, I feel the ACA is at least a step in the right direction.

subscribe
Add your opinion
Challenge someone to answer this topic:
Invite an OpiWiki user:
OR
Invite your friend via email:
OR
Share it: