Affordable Care Act (AKA Obamacare)

[AWvsCBsteeeerike3]

Still, this scenario seems like both a best case and worst case, at the same time.

It's a best-case scenario, because you're assuming that diabetes is and always will be the only medical issue that this person has to deal with. I mean, if this person has diabetes AND breaks an arm (or some other major medical expense), then they'll probably be happy that they had insurance.

It's a worst-case scenario also, because it sounds like there are a lot of unusual circumstances (pumps and such) that come into play when we're talking about diabetes.

Forget about all that and focus on this...

It's an illustration of how the plans that are available , especially to people with pre-existing conditions, aren't really worth much. The insurance companies managed to completely limit their liability (what they'll pay for) while still ensuring that they make their money upfront (premiums). When they do that, they make money and the consumer loses money. This is a money making system for them.

Really, it's just a bad system, and this is another bullet point in the fodder that says as much.

Also, it should be noted, insurance companies have a personal limit for which they are responsible on each patient of something like $30-$50k. After that, the government is picking up the tab. The insurance companies may or may not have to pay for this re-insurance. I think it's free for the first couple years. Then it'll cost something but iirc the insurance companies just got an extension on that deadline.....

[Socnorb11]

Well, of course insurance companies are fixing the system to make a profit. They wouldn't be able to stay in business if they didn't do that. That's one reason why we need single-payer system, really.

Battle cancer, and tell me that insurance isn't worth much. Have a heart bypass and tell me that your insurance isn't worth much.



This is no different than how insurance worked before the ACA, really.

[AWvsCBsteeeerike3]

Right, perhaps they shouldn't have sold it as something it's not...though. Instead of pre-existing conditions will be covered they should have said pre-existing conditions will be covered, but not in a beneficial way

If you're forcing people to get health insurance, and their life is worse off for it, have you really done any good? A $50k surgery with the kind of coverage people have through the exchange is not going to be affordable with or without the insurance.

As SW points out, people can't even afford/pay their deductibles.

[Socnorb11]

Right, perhaps they shouldn't have sold it as something it's not...though. Instead of pre-existing conditions will be covered they should have said pre-existing conditions will be covered, but not in a beneficial way

If you're forcing people to get health insurance, and their life is worse off for it, have you really done any good? A $50k surgery with the kind of coverage people have through the exchange is not going to be affordable with or without the insurance.

As SW points out, people can't even afford/pay their deductibles.

So people should just have a $50,000 surgery, and not worry about any of it being paid for? You can give examples of where it's not working perfectly, obviously. It's new.......... definitely needs to be tweaked as we go, just like everything else. However, insurance companies are ALWAY going to receive more money than they pay out. That's how insurance works. They aren't intended to be a savings plan for people.

I'm forced to have auto insurance that I've never used. Is that really doing me any good? Of course not. I certainly understand why I need to have it, though.

Heck, even the example that YOU are using doesn't reach your conclusion. You say "if you're forcing people to get health insurance and their life is worse off for it, have you really done any good"? Your original post on this (the link that you provided) pointed out that the ACA hadn't worked perfectly for this particular guy, but it had actually saved his life. I think you're closing your eyes to the gap between "doesn't do any good" and "works perfectly".

A friend of mine was diagnosed with Leukemia. Shortly after that, she lost her job. Thanks to the ACA, she won't have hundreds of thousands of dollars worth of medical bills to worry about once they finish the treatments, bone marrows, etc. She thinks it's fairly beneficial, even if you don't. It's not going to be ideal for everyone, but it's a start. Maybe Congress should stop spending time and money trying to repeal it, and instead spend some time & money trying to refine it.

[pioneer98]

I read through a lot of this discussion and I agree Obamacare is really not that great or affordable. One of the only things worse than it is the system we had before.

[MrSaigon]

Wrt diabetes, novolog just had its patent expire and lantus goes in august. Apparently generic rights are exclusive ro one company for 6 months because of bureaucracy, and the real deep savings take a couple years, but this is still very good news. The devices, which I really hope to have, I don't know if those will ever be affordable.

[Socnorb11]

Wrt diabetes, novolog just had its patent expire and lantus goes in august. Apparently generic rights are exclusive ro one company for 6 months because of bureaucracy, and the real deep savings take a couple years, but this is still very good news. The devices, which I really hope to have, I don't know if those will ever be affordable.

That's a big deal, Saigon! Very good!

[AWvsCBsteeeerike3]

Wrt diabetes, novolog just had its patent expire and lantus goes in august. Apparently generic rights are exclusive ro one company for 6 months because of bureaucracy, and the real deep savings take a couple years, but this is still very good news. The devices, which I really hope to have, I don't know if those will ever be affordable.

Luckily sanofi has Toujeo, which I'm sure is better, ready to replace it. Right in time!!! What are the odds.

http://www.marketwatch.com/story/sanofi ... _news_stmp

[AWvsCBsteeeerike3]

Wrt diabetes, novolog just had its patent expire and lantus goes in august. Apparently generic rights are exclusive ro one company for 6 months because of bureaucracy, and the real deep savings take a couple years, but this is still very good news. The devices, which I really hope to have, I don't know if those will ever be affordable.

That's a big deal, Saigon! Very good!

It's nice, in a way, that 'better' insulin options will soon be cheaper. That's a good thing. But, at the same time, they're the leftovers. The 'not as good' options if you will.

Wrt diabetes, I don't know why we're content with not having the best options available to everyone, especially when 'worse' treatments will inevitably result in increased long term health care costs and decreased life expectancy rates. Sure, the equipment can cost a lot upfront. But a couple dialysis treatments, inevitably when people age and are on medicare/govt insurance anyway, will cost well more than a pump and CGM now. Throw in an amputated leg and all sorts of heart meds? It not only makes sense from an ethical/humane standpoint to give everyone the best possible treatment now, which should be enough; it makes sense from a financial standpoint as well.

Wrt to the entire population...I feel the same way. It's a lot easier for me to talk about it in terms of diabetic supplies/situations because I deal with it daily. But, surely this isn't a unique situation.

I'm with 98. This is not a great system. It's terrible, but it is better than the old system.

[IMADreamer]

Well, of course insurance companies are fixing the system to make a profit. They wouldn't be able to stay in business if they didn't do that. That's one reason why we need single-payer system, really.

Battle cancer, and tell me that insurance isn't worth much. Have a heart bypass and tell me that your insurance isn't worth much.



This is no different than how insurance worked before the ACA, really.

The problem is insurance, well maybe medical providers more so are making obscene profits. That's why hospitals like Barnes are planning billion (with a B) dollar expansions. Obscene profits.

Not to mention with most insurances you are stuck with who your employer provides you. Nic had "good insurance" through work. After it was all said and done she still owed six figures herself after insurance. How was that in any way affordable to anyone? If you have insurance you shouldn't come out of a major battle for your life owing what a house costs.

Universal health care is the only way to go. We already have it, it's just the most expensive way possible Anyone that doesn't see that I don't have much use for.