What about this law do You object to?

2015-10-02T10:49:49-04:00

About the Law
The Affordable Care Act puts consumers back in charge of their health care. Under the law, a new “Patient’s Bill of Rights” gives the American people the stability and flexibility they need to make informed choices about their health.

View Key Features of the Affordable Care Act or read a year-by-year overview of features.

Coverage
Ends Pre-Existing Condition Exclusions for Children: Health plans can no longer limit or deny benefits to children under 19 due to a pre-existing condition.
Keeps Young Adults Covered: If you are under 26, you may be eligible to be covered under your parent’s health plan.
Ends Arbitrary Withdrawals of Insurance Coverage: Insurers can no longer cancel your coverage just because you made an honest mistake.
Guarantees Your Right to Appeal: You now have the right to ask that your plan reconsider its denial of payment.
Costs
Ends Lifetime Limits on Coverage: Lifetime limits on most benefits are banned for all new health insurance plans.
Reviews Premium Increases: Insurance companies must now publicly justify any unreasonable rate hikes.
Helps You Get the Most from Your Premium Dollars: Your premium dollars must be spent primarily on health care – not administrative costs.
Care
Covers Preventive Care at No Cost to You: You may be eligible for recommended preventive health services. No copayment.
Protects Your Choice of Doctors: Choose the primary care doctor you want from your plan’s network.
Removes Insurance Company Barriers to Emergency Services: You can seek emergency care at a hospital outside of your health plan’s network.
For More Information
Read the Full Law
Find detailed technical and regulatory information on the Patient’s Bill of Rights.

Response by 1stSgt Private RallyPoint Member made Oct 2 at 2015 10:53 AM

2015-10-02T10:53:06-04:00

Having to pay for maternal care. No need for it for my family.

Response by SGT David T. made Oct 2 at 2015 10:56 AM

2015-10-02T10:56:37-04:00

I don't like the individual and employer mandates as well as the tax on medical equipment. Those three factors make the very thing they are trying to make cheaper more expensive. I also have an issue with the exchanges not going over state lines. Increased competition will drive costs down.

Response by COL Jean (John) F. B. made Oct 2 at 2015 10:58 AM

2015-10-02T10:58:11-04:00

Sgt Jay Jones - What is wrong with it is that it made people change policies and doctors they had had for a long time, despite promises from Obama that would not occur; made them get higher-priced policies with less coverage and/or coverage they did not need; drastically increased premiums on everybody to cover those who could not pay for insurance (many by choice, not ability); and was forced on the majority of Americans who opposed it by lies and political BS by the Democrat controlled Congress. Other than that, it is great, much like all the other liberal policies of the Obama Administration that are destroying our country.

Response by Sgt Aaron Kennedy, MS made Oct 2 at 2015 11:03 AM

2015-10-02T11:03:14-04:00

Conceptually it sells it sells itself as making Health Care Insurance Affordable, whereas it doesn't actually do that, because it has a few requirements require "non-discrimination" even though there is statistically relevant reason to discriminate based on demographic.

1) This means that Males will end up offsetting the higher health cost of Females, because females have more health issues (as a class), and live longer (having more end of life health issues).

2) This means the young will end up offsetting the higher health cost of the old, because the old have more health issues (as a class).

These two issues combine to result in HIGHER prices for everyone, especially when you add the individual mandate. Of course the system falls apart without the mandate.

This isn't to say there aren't some good "concepts" in it, but it tried to do too much too quickly, which resulted in "bad law" which will be challenged continually until the threads are pulled apart, and we end up with something has all cost, no benefit.

Response by 1SG Private RallyPoint Member made Oct 2 at 2015 11:22 AM

2015-10-02T11:22:17-04:00

What is wrong with that law is what is not mentioned in the question posed -
Special considerations for Louisiana and Nebraska, simply to purchase the votes of their lawmakers.
Nobody read the bill, and Congressional leaders admitted as much. It is full of special kickbacks to political allies.
It forces people to engage in interstate commerce, in order to regulate health care as interstate commerce.
All that and more sucks, but I can boil it down to one thing:
Before the law was passed in 2009, my health insurance premium for a family of four was $562/ month. It is now $1018/month. That is more than my mortgage, or any of my other bills. My deductible increased dramatically. In the six years since passage of the ACA, I have paid approximately $50,000 in health insurance premiums. I have received about $10,000 in benefits, most of which happened around the birth of my youngest son. I was told that the "average family of four would save $6000 a year" on health care costs. I am pretty average, have a family of four, and I would estimate that the ACA along with other health care related mandates has cost me an additional $5000 per year. That is a conservative estimate.
So, the conclusion drawn by me and many others is pay the tax penalty and go without health insurance. Because short of catastrophic illness or being hit by a bus, there is absolutely no chance I will come out ahead. It is not insurance, it is a shakedown. And it is completely unaffordable.
I suspect very strongly that the intent of many of the co-authors was exactly what I am saying - demolish the previous health system, replace it with something that is anything but affordable, and from that garner support to blow the whole thing up and go to a single-payer system.
That is precisely the opposite of what was publicly stated by Congress or the President. It is very difficult to believe that it was unintentional.

Response by SrA Jonathan Carbonaro made Oct 2 at 2015 11:24 AM

2015-10-02T11:24:14-04:00

I object to the law itself. In the Declaration of Independence Thomas Jefferson stated that we have the Right to Life, Liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. These ideas were taken from an English philosopher named John Locke, who stated that we have the Right to Life, Liberty, and Property.
What do we not own as Innate human Beings other than our own body? Our Bodies, are owned by no one, no cooperation, and no government; our bodies are owned by the individual.

In the Military, we lose control of our bodies and are forced to have shots, whether we want them or not. When I joined the military I knew I was going to lose some of my Rights; I did NOT expect my family to lose the same rights that I lost.

If we as a people sit ideally by and allow politicans in Washington pass a law that they did not read, taking control of our body, which is what they did, are we truly free?

Response by SSG Private RallyPoint Member made Oct 2 at 2015 11:28 AM

2015-10-02T11:28:14-04:00

Well... my biggest objection is that it wasn't a nationwide single-payer/"Medicaid for all" program, but then I'm coming from another perspective.

Response by Capt Private RallyPoint Member made Oct 2 at 2015 12:17 PM

2015-10-02T12:17:51-04:00

My main objection was that ir was passed based on lies and bribes.

If it were right would that have been necessary?

The end result is that those who tended to their business, had healthcare got punished with higher premiums, and deductibles and may have been forced to change plans and doctors.

Response by TSgt Kenneth Ellis made Oct 2 at 2015 12:39 PM

2015-10-02T12:39:08-04:00

lets see for first. The government cant force you to buy anything. Obama called it a penalty not at tax. Obama would not work with the Republicans won. When he went to discuss there ideas Obama said you lost I won get over it. And millions of people lost there coverage. Obama knew that would happen. Second You know I could go on. but I want to ask you a question. Obama is making the Little sisters of the Poor pay for contraceptive. It is against there religion. But Obama says if you pay a third party to do it then you are not responsible. And you have committed no sin in the eye's of God. Slaves were leased from a third party to build the White house. So under Obama logic we were not responsible for any wrings done. It is a stretch but I think what Obama is doing to this Nuns makes me sick.

Response by MCPO Roger Collins made Oct 2 at 2015 3:01 PM

2015-10-02T15:01:28-04:00

Its a transfer of wealth from those that have to those that don 't have. Most of us have earned what we have while many did nothing to prepare for the future "Heritage: Taken together, the number of Americans with health insurance increased by 8.38 million during the first nine months of 2014, but growth in Medicaid accounted for 89 percent of that gain."

In 2016 the cost of Expanded Medicaid government reimbursement will go from100% to 90%. Doesn't sound like much but estimates are coming in at double of projected numbers for the those participating.
When ACA was being sole, they claimed there were up to 48M without coverage. The CBO projects around 30 million will be without coverage in a decade of so. All that cost for 12-15 million people? We could have gotten them full coverage for less than that. There were some good provisions in the flawed plan, but rather than that Obama and the Democrat Congress decided in their infinite wisdom to eat the elephant in one huge bite. No worries for me, at this time anyway, with Medicare and TFL, my wife and I are good (real good compared to some). My concern is that my grandkids will be left out in the cold. It will never be repealed, but I hope we get it right through legislation before we have the situation they have in the UK and Canada.