The Expat Obamacare Debate

[steveinbsas]

It's not a panacea, but it's a start. Many millions more will have good coverage, but it still leaves too many out.

Here is a good example of a start" that will result in good coverage for millions:

http://www.forbes.com/sites/theapothecary/2013/12/14/government-takeover-white-house-forces-obamacare-insurers-to-cover-unpaid-patients-at-a-loss/?partner=yahootix


There are millions that are losing their good coverage as a result of the "start" of Obamacare.

 

[Ries]

Here is a good example of a start" that will result in good coverage for millions:

http://www.forbes.co...artner=yahootix


There are millions that are losing their good coverage as a result of the "start" of Obamacare.

Every year or two for the last 20 years, I have "lost" my coverage in exactly the same way- that is, the insurance company sent me a letter saying they were changing my policy, or dropping my current policy, and replacing it with a new one. And, every time this has happened for the last 20 years, the "new" policy cost more- EXACTLY like Obamacare- why, its almost as if Obamacare was so powerful and evil it could reach back into the past and ruin health care in the 80's and 90's and 2000's!

The dogs bark, the caravan moves on.

 

[steveinbsas]

Every year or two for the last 20 years, I have "lost" my coverage in exactly the same way- that is, the insurance company sent me a letter saying they were changing my policy, or dropping my current policy, and replacing it with a new one. And, every time this has happened for the last 20 years, the "new" policy cost more- EXACTLY like Obamacare- why, its almost as if Obamacare was so powerful and evil it could reach back into the past and ruin health care in the 80's and 90's and 2000's!

That is not at all what is happening here. And the President is putting pressure on insurance companies to provide free (unpaid) coverage to those who cannot pay their premiums...but not because they don't have the money...but because the ACA is so seriously flawed there is no system in place for them to pay. There is also no system in place for the government to reimburse the insurance companies for the coverage they are being "asked" to provide.

I'm sure your insurance company always provided you with a way to pay...

 

[camino no tomado]

Here is a good example of a start" that will result in good coverage for millions:

Whenever an article is as "liberally" peppered with scare quotes as that one was, it's a sign that it should be read very carefully. Sure enough, upon scrutiny one discovers a rather gigantic logical flaw in its argument. Namely it equates "... urging issuers to give consumers additional time to pay their first month’s premium ..." with "... muscling insurers to provide free or discounted care ...". Not the same thing. Not even close to the same thing. Unfortunately, the rest of the piece builds upon that initial logical error, rendering it--on the whole--a worthless attempt at analysis.

What I don't understand is this: with all of the blatant and obvious flaws in the Affordable Care Act, why do politicians and pundits who oppose it continuously seize upon either trivial or even invented issues to illustrate their displeasure? The whole furor over the web site is a good example. It's got nothing whatsoever to do with the policy enacted by the legislation, and in coming years is bound to be forgotten. On any policy, whenever I encounter people harping solely on ancillary issues, it immediately makes me think they've got no good argument against the policy itself. And in this case, no alternate solution.

 

[ajoknoblauch]

Social Security also engendered a furiously irrational response at the beginning, but turned out to be a resounding success. The ACA will need tweaks, and will certainly move toward a single-payer system, and that's all to the good.

 

[ajoknoblauch]

Whenever an article is as "liberally" peppered with scare quotes as that one was, it's a sign that it should be read very carefully. Sure enough, upon scrutiny one discovers a rather gigantic logical flaw in its argument. Namely it equates "... urging issuers to give consumers additional time to pay their first month’s premium ..." with "... muscling insurers to provide free or discounted care ...". Not the same thing. Not even close to the same thing. Unfortunately, the rest of the piece builds upon that initial logical error, rendering it--on the whole--a worthless attempt at analysis.

What I don't understand is this: with all of the blatant and obvious flaws in the Affordable Care Act, why do politicians and pundits who oppose it continuously seize upon either trivial or even invented issues to illustrate their displeasure? The whole furor over the web site is a good example. It's got nothing whatsoever to do with the policy enacted by the legislation, and in coming years is bound to be forgotten. On any policy, whenever I encounter people harping solely on ancillary issues, it immediately makes me think they've got no good argument against the policy itself. And in this case, no alternate solution.

The people harping on those ancillary issues do have a solution: they want a return to the status quo, so those "freeloaders" will just go bankrupt and die doing so.

 

[ghost]

In the Republic of Texas they give biology textbooks to senior citizens and they immediately die laughing. Problem solved the Lone Star way.

 

[camino no tomado]

... those "freeloaders" will just go bankrupt and die doing so.

That triggered a memory. I'm in the first generation of Canadians who cannot recall life before single-payer health insurance. I remember discovering this fact in my mid-teens, causing me to ask older family members what healthcare was like under the "old" system. One such conversation--with my grandparents, who were of decidedly average means--went as follows:

Grandma (wistfully): "Doctors made house calls back then."

Grandpa (eyebrow raised): "But by the time we called for one, it was a tossup between a doctor or a priest."

 

[steveinbsas]

The people harping on those ancillary issues do have a solution: they want a return to the status quo, so those "freeloaders" will just go bankrupt and die doing so.

It is impossible to "return to the status quo" because the "status quo" refers to the present....aka the existing state of affairs or the way things are now.

It is possible to refer to the "status quo ante Obamacare" (the way things were before Obamacare), but you have to use the word "ante" for your statement to mean what you desire.

Please learn to use "Latin exp<b></b>ressions" correctly if you are going to use them.

 

[John.St]

Now, after almost 3 months of Obamacare and according to its critics, app 14 million Americans should have died of its consequences.

Luckily nothing ever became of Obamacare, as the Affordable Care Act was implemented instead, probably saving 3 million lives, thus only 11 mio. dead.

Warning: sarcasm may occur in the above.