Beta

Slashdot: News for Nerds

×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

White House: Get ACA Insurance Coverage, Launch Start-Ups

timothy posted about 4 months ago | from the have-your-neighbors-pay-the-rent-too dept.

Businesses 578

dcblogs writes that the Obama Administration is urging tech entrepreneurs "to sign up for health insurance under the Affordable Care Act, and said having the coverage will give them the 'freedom and security' to start their own businesses. 'There is strong evidence that when affordable healthcare isn't exclusively tied to employment, in more instances people choose to start their own companies,' wrote White House CTO Todd Park in a post to launch its #GeeksGetCovered campaign. Bruce Bachenheimer, a professor of management at Pace University and director of its Entrepreneurship Lab, said the effort is part of a broader appeal by the White House to get younger and healthier people to sign-up for Obamacare, and is in the same vein as President Obama's recent appearance on Between Two Ferns." Removing the tax structures that make companies by default intermediaries in the provision of health insurance, and allowing more interstate (and international) competition in health finance options would help on that front, too, aside from who's actually footing the insurance bill.

cancel ×

578 comments

I went back to corporate America because Obamacare (2, Interesting)

xxxJonBoyxxx (565205) | about 4 months ago | (#46472555)

I was on my own with a full-time consultancy, but I scaled it back to off-hours and went back to a forty-hour-a-week corporate job for the health insurance. The cost of individual health care plans was insane, and the crappy ACA plans provide worse coverage with fewer providers - and they're even more expensive!

I really think what the feds are up to here is trying to kill off as many individual and small business operators as possible. After all, it's a lot easier to monitor and tax large corporate entities than it is to chase after a bunch of little ones.

Re:I went back to corporate America because Obamac (1, Troll)

DogDude (805747) | about 4 months ago | (#46472625)

was on my own with a full-time consultancy, but I scaled it back to off-hours and went back to a forty-hour-a-week corporate job for the health insurance.

I call bullshit. You had a "full-time consultancy" but couldn't afford a few hundred bucks a month for health care? Right.

Re:I went back to corporate America because Obamac (5, Insightful)

xxxJonBoyxxx (565205) | about 4 months ago | (#46472657)

>> few hundred bucks a month for health care

You don't have a family with kids..who occasionally get sick and broken bones, do you?

Re:I went back to corporate America because Obamac (2, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 months ago | (#46472713)

Most of the ACA plans include all kinds of shit for kids, which is why single young people don't want it, but for you it's actually a great deal, so as DogDude said, I call bullshit.

Re:I went back to corporate America because Obamac (4, Informative)

xxxJonBoyxxx (565205) | about 4 months ago | (#46472849)

>> but for you it's actually a great deal

Now there's the BS - you sound like the people who encourage everyone else to ride public transportation (without riding it themselves) right now.

Trust me - I did the math. ACA's benefits, including access to providers, were well below what I was getting with my expensive individual insurance policy a few years ago. With a couple of kids doing sports and the occasional illness, the difference between paying out of pocket for my own health insurance vs. snuggling back up to a megacorp (and dodging the self-employment tax) made it a no-brainer.

Before we continue, please tell me that you already signed up and paid for your ACA policy, and love what it does for you.

Or Preexisting conditions. (5, Informative)

FearTheDonut (2665569) | about 4 months ago | (#46472941)

I was with a start-up for a little over a year. One of the conditions I had for joining with them was that they would cover my COBRA expenses, because a) I couldn't afford it with my start-up salary and b) I couldn't get independent coverage because of a few preexisting conditions with me and my family. People forget about that clause. And lord help you if you are pregnant or have a pregnant wife (or want to get pregnant soon). Impossible to get coverage (or so I was told by two different brokers). Say what you want about Obamacare, but just the change of getting reasonably priced insurance even with preexisting conditions is enough for some people to have the freedom to jump into start-ups. Whether it's "right" or "wrong" is a completely different story.

Re:Or Preexisting conditions. (4, Insightful)

pnutjam (523990) | about 4 months ago | (#46473043)

I've turned down jobs with small companies because the insurance was enough to wipe out a 20% pay increase, going from a midsize company.

/say yes to single-payer (you would if you saw what the economies of scale allow large companies to pay for insurance)

Re:I went back to corporate America because Obamac (0)

pnutjam (523990) | about 4 months ago | (#46472981)

So you had private insurance pre-obamacare? I am skeptical, but if so, you are lucky. What you don't realize is how unlikely it was that your insurance would have helped if something had seriously gone wrong.

Most pre-obamacare individual policies were the functional equivalent of the rock I keep in my pocket to ward off tigers. They made you feel good and may have actually helped with small emergencies, but they were useless when the serious issues that you thought you were covering actually came up.

Re:I went back to corporate America because Obamac (1, Interesting)

andyring (100627) | about 4 months ago | (#46473125)

I'm definitely calling BS on this one. By huge margins, people were happy with their insurance plans pre-Obamacare (statistics bear this out). I was, and many people I know were too.

Now, I am worried what will happen when all the regs finally do kick in. I have a great plan now through work for my family and I, and I know if ObamaCare isn't changed or repealed, my out of pocket costs will absolutely jump by hundreds of dollars. Why? Because our plan now doesn't technically cover all the things that ObamaCare mandates (but crap we don't need and never will need like contraceptives, maternity, etc. etc. etc.). Once it's required to cover those things, the costs will absolutely increase, there's no getting around it.

Re:I went back to corporate America because Obamac (3, Informative)

bigbbri (265021) | about 4 months ago | (#46472749)

I too could not afford it, it's not a "few hundred bucks!" I have a family of 4 total and it was going to cost me $1800 /month with a $5,000 - $10,000 deductible. I don't remember the exact deductible but I recall it being of $5K. It did not pay for doctor visits until I hit the deductible amount. Basically a High Indemnity plan for $1800.00 a month! I had just left a corp. so I signed up for COBRA which gave me a PPO for $1400.00 /month and a $800 deductible with $35 doctor visits. But COBRA is temporary, it expires.
The ACA plans are joke!
         

Re:I went back to corporate America because Obamac (0)

Grishnakh (216268) | about 4 months ago | (#46472969)

This is exactly what I saw, and I'm just married without any kids. Huge monthly fees (not as high as yours though, remember I don't have kids), and ridiculously high deductibles. And I'm in a blue state. I went back to work in corporate America, but I'm a contractor so I don't get free healthcare.

Re:I went back to corporate America because Obamac (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 months ago | (#46472797)

afford a few hundred bucks a month for health care

Try from 250-750 (depending on what you had) to an additional 250+ per month for some people (I have seen as high as 1200 a month for some). Depending on what you have and prior health history it can be even higher. If you are related to someone who has cancer for example.

Do not for one second think ACA was to help you. It has directly helped the bottom line of every insurance company out there. They took the opportunity to trim out plans which made them little to money and blame the president at the same time. Prices will also go up as there is now more money in the system for them to pay out to doctors. Doctors/hospitals will naturally find they can raise prices and keep the same level of people coming in.

The same thing happened when they enacted 'hillarycare'. Where every employer over 50 was mandated to offer insurance. Prices went thru the roof. My dad sold medicare supplements to old ladies. Usually it was 50-100 a month. After the employer mandate went in it went 200-400 a month. My dads business of helping little old ladies find insurance cratered in 3 years. They couldnt afford it anymore.

Everyone I know is talking about their premiums going up. These are not some 'crap plans' either. They are very standard plans. Notice not one has said it went down?

We wanted to help people get healthcare. This is exactly the right way to do it the most expensive way with more 1% people getting more money. For what we spent fighting about ACA we could have bought healthcare for millions. For the waste that will be built into ACA (we added more middle men which always drives up cost) we could buy more healthcare for millions.

Re: I went back to corporate America because Obama (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 months ago | (#46473127)

Doctors' pay is going down, not up. My wife is a doctor.

Re:I went back to corporate America because Obamac (4, Informative)

Charliemopps (1157495) | about 4 months ago | (#46472967)

A few hundred? Try $800/month which is the cheapest plan the ACA offers where I live. And that plan was total garbage, didn't cover half of what you'd expect and had huge co-pays.

The problem with ACA is that it MANDATED HMO's... Not health insurance. Some people don't need an HMO... if you're running a moderately successful home business you're usually making enough money to cover your families medical expenses out of pocket. What you couldn't afford is catastrophic injuries like car accidents, cancer, heart attacks, etc... So you'd get a very limited policy for that. It wouldn't pay for prescriptions and such but if you started getting $200k hospital bills it would kick in. Those plans were pretty cheap... in the $200/range.

ACA made those kinds of plans illegal. Now you have to buy plans that cover all those things you didn't need... and they cost a fortune. If I tried to get the plan I have with my employer through the ACA exchange it would be over $1600/month. That's insane! And yes, I actually looked it up.

Ironically, one type of small business is flourishing because of all of this. My best friends father is an insurance salesman. When the ACA passed he was terrified... he'd go out of business. He's an older, cranky, eastern European man and hates democrats so that made it even worse. But when the reality finally dawned on him and everyone's insurance policies got canceled, he suddenly LOVES Obama. You see, he makes a commission on insurance sales. Because all of his clients now have to re-sign up for their insurance, he's basically making back all the money he already made off all of his clients the first time he signed them up.

Re:I went back to corporate America because Obamac (3, Interesting)

cayenne8 (626475) | about 4 months ago | (#46472629)

I found a few years ago...while doing 1099 through my S corp, that it wasn't that bad for insurance.

I had (at the time) a high deductible plan, basically what used to be called "major medical", for needs if I got hit by a bus, etc.. The deductible was only about $1200.

I coupled that with a HSA (Health Savings Account) which unlike the FSA's are not use it or lose it, they roll over annually. I socked away about $3K pre-tax annually and out of that, I paid my routine med visits and drugs.

I really liked this, it only cost me about $240/mo for premiums. This is what would usually best server young people, which I'm not....I got this and was happy with it and I have pre-existing conditions.

I'm looking to go that route again, but man...I looked at the health sherpa site that shows what obamacare offers in my area, and deductibles on anything but near gold plans is over $3K?!?!?

I would end up on many plans paying about $3K a year in premiums AND $3K+ in deductibles before I started having any insurance kick in. WFT?

I looked at the GOLD plan with no deductible, and it is about $590/mo...but no deductible and 100% pay. Interesting range of choices, no?

Sadly, I think we're stuck with obamacare, and it won't be repealed, but it needs to seriously be altered. Why not remove so many of the minimums for the insurance coverage (as an older man, I don't really need prenatal coverage), and open up insurance competition to allow it to cross state lines. I mean, I can buy motorcycle insurance from a national company across lines, why can't I buy health ins across state lines?

I think we're good with disallowing the pre-existing conditions, but aside from that, I can't see much that helps me or most people at my level of IT income or stage of life that is good about ACA as it currently stands...

Re:I went back to corporate America because Obamac (0, Troll)

sandytaru (1158959) | about 4 months ago | (#46472663)

$6K/year is about right for real health insurance. What you had previously was "junk insurance" - them paying for and covering the bare minimum. If you were diagnosed with leukemia, your HSA would have been wiped out in the first week and your insurance company would have dropped you as soon as it could legally get away with it. A course of leukemia is going to set them back a cool million bucks, so they'd do ANYTHING they could to retroactively decide you lied on your insurance application and they didn't have to do anything.

Re:I went back to corporate America because Obamac (4, Insightful)

cayenne8 (626475) | about 4 months ago | (#46472761)

$6K/year is about right for real health insurance. What you had previously was "junk insurance" - them paying for and covering the bare minimum. If you were diagnosed with leukemia, your HSA would have been wiped out in the first week and your insurance company would have dropped you as soon as it could legally get away with it. A course of leukemia is going to set them back a cool million bucks, so they'd do ANYTHING they could to retroactively decide you lied on your insurance application and they didn't have to do anything.

Not true, I know how to read for myself my policies. I had the same good coverage for an emergency that I have now on a W2 gig. The chief difference was that I just paid my own way for routine Dr. visits and meds.

Insurance is supposed to be there for EMERGENCIES, not to run you $10 copay for routine Dr. visits. That needs to be something you save and pay for, just like any other necessity of modern life, like utilities, food and gas.

This is the type of policy and situation that is usually perfect for healthy younger folks that don't need tons of coverage for routine things.

Re:I went back to corporate America because Obamac (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 months ago | (#46472865)

Key difference is that your premiums would have been adjusted upwards or policy canceled whenever your health has deteriorated.

Re:I went back to corporate America because Obamac (2, Informative)

sandytaru (1158959) | about 4 months ago | (#46472877)

The vast majority of bankruptcies in America were related to medical bills as recently as last year, even with people who had insurance. [nerdwallet.com]

Depending on where you go, a "routine" doctor's visit can range from $50 to $200. Still, it's much cheaper for both you and an insurance company to cover a once a year "wellness" visit and catch anything early on than it is for you to skip the yearly visit since it costs an extra $50, and then suddenly learn you've had a slow growing tumor in your ear and now you're going deaf.

Re: I went back to corporate America because Obama (5, Interesting)

cy (22200) | about 4 months ago | (#46472727)

Minimums are needed because cross subsidisation is rather integral to having affordable healthcare for everyone. Meaning those who are in the stage of their life that don't need much medical care pay more, but those that do are able to afford it.

I definitely agree with the suggestion that you need to break the link between healthcare and employment. Because there's obviously a very strong link between unemployment and needing medical care. I love living in a country with universal healthcare funded by taxation. Sure it means that I end up paying a lot more than I otherwise would, but it provides a safety net for everyone - including me should I happen to get unlucky and end up sick and unemployed. People don't end up having to declare bankruptcy because of medical bills or go without life saving medical care. And everyone is able to access a reasonable standard of healthcare (and the wealthier are not restricted from getting gold plated service if they wish to pay for it). But hey I realise that for a lot of Americans that concept is just communism so it'll never happen

Re:I went back to corporate America because Obamac (1)

jeff4747 (256583) | about 4 months ago | (#46472785)

Keep in mind deductibles are not the same as they used to be.

The deductible you're talking about in your old plan would pay nothing until you reached the deductible.

The deductible in an ACA plan does not apply to a large number of routine procedures. Those are covered with a co-pay instead. For example, instead of paying full price for a check-up because you haven't hit the deductible, you pay around $10-40 depending on plan.

Re:I went back to corporate America because Obamac (1)

cayenne8 (626475) | about 4 months ago | (#46472919)

The deductible in an ACA plan does not apply to a large number of routine procedures. Those are covered with a co-pay instead. For example, instead of paying full price for a check-up because you haven't hit the deductible, you pay around $10-40 depending on plan.

This does not seem to be the case for any of the plans I looked at. And even when I hit deductible, the insurance on most of these plans seem to only pay about 70% tops of the bills.

Re:I went back to corporate America because Obamac (2)

sandytaru (1158959) | about 4 months ago | (#46473033)

The absolute maximum yearly out of pocket allowed under the ACA is $6700 iirc. So your insurance company is required to cover 100% of any bills once you've hit that cap.

Re:I went back to corporate America because Obamac (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 months ago | (#46473077)

And keep in mind too that in addition to all costs increasing for everybody, you have simply gotten older. It costs a *lot* more to insure and fully cover an older population than a younger one (which is why, as another poster mentioned, the whole system falls apart unless the young subsidize the old to some extent). The vast majority of 20-somethings in a rich country like ours are very, very cheap to cover with insurance (though you still must have coverage because a simple car accident or appendectomy can bankrupt you). After the warranties run out, many 40-somethings and 50-somethings cost more than they pay in. Above that in age, costs skyrocket to an extent that would have citizens of most other rich countries in flat-out revolt.

The article rings true to me. Lack of portable health care at any non-outrageous cost was a huge part of my decision to stick with larger employers instead of pursuing entrepreneurial innovations. I look forward to seeing what the next generation comes up with, no longer living in a country where one health emergency leads to bankruptcy.

Re:I went back to corporate America because Obamac (0)

judoguy (534886) | about 4 months ago | (#46472889)

Sadly, I think we're stuck with obamacare, and it won't be repealed, but it needs to seriously be altered. Why not remove so many of the minimums for the insurance coverage (as an older man, I don't really need prenatal coverage), and open up insurance competition to allow it to cross state lines. I mean, I can buy motorcycle insurance from a national company across lines, why can't I buy health ins across state lines?

Sadly, this has nothing to do with healthcare. It has everything to do with pumping money into the healthcare industry. Under the guise of Socialism. You have to pay for prenatal care for other people. That's the very DEFINITION of Socialism, take from those that have and give to those that want.

What!? you don't want to buy insurance for other people?! Greedy bastard to think that your concerns matter more than "the children"!

Re:I went back to corporate America because Obamac (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 months ago | (#46473063)

That's the very DEFINITION of Socialism, take from those that have and give to those that want.

Better drop that God-forsaken car and homeowner socialist tripe as well.

Re:I went back to corporate America because Obamac (4, Insightful)

zarthrag (650912) | about 4 months ago | (#46472939)

The government doesn't set prices for procedures. The fed could extend the medicare pricing list to everyone instead of having to deal with each insurance company's "negotiated pricing" and arcane "most favored nation" contract rules. Or maybe employers could be required to offer up the cash that would have been spent on the company health plan so you can shop for yourself. Shopping for insurance across state lines would certainly be nice! Also, repealing state regulations that limit the size/capacity of hospitals.

My HSA should stay that way, if it's my money, no one should be able to take it but me! ...Actually, I wish my HSA could be grown and used as some kind of bond-like health insurance that also lowers my own premiums over time.

There are lots of political problems that could be fixed without repealing the ACA. 99% of it is removing greed, the #1 killer in America.

Re:I went back to corporate America because Obamac (1)

fodder69 (701416) | about 4 months ago | (#46472951)

I am sure you won't be swayed, but this is bullshit: "I mean, I can buy motorcycle insurance from a national company across lines, why can't I buy health ins across state lines?"

You can buy motorcycle insurance that conforms to your states laws as far as coverage they have to provide. Not the same thing as you are saying.

And then the argument would be that it would just be a race to the bottom where companies would just set up shop wherever the politicians were cheapest and they could maximize profits.

Re:I went back to corporate America because Obamac (1)

pnutjam (523990) | about 4 months ago | (#46473001)

$240 a month is pretty close to $3k a year. Where you including your HSA payments?

HSAs and high deductibles (2)

sjbe (173966) | about 4 months ago | (#46473003)

I'm looking to go that route again, but man...I looked at the health sherpa site that shows what obamacare offers in my area, and deductibles on anything but near gold plans is over $3K?!?!?

I got a technically silver PPO plan (effectively gold if I stay in network with Blue Cross) that is compatible with an HSA. (HSAs are great) Cost to me is about $300/month and I get no subsidy. $4800 out of pocket max and $3K deductible. Everyone worries about the deductible but that isn't the important bit. The important bit is the out of pocket max. Health insurance isn't supposed to be to pay for your regular checkup. It's to keep you from going bankrupt if something serious happens.

I would end up on many plans paying about $3K a year in premiums AND $3K+ in deductibles before I started having any insurance kick in. WFT?

That's what an HSA is for. You put in $3K pretax and use that to pay the deductibles. Any plan compatible with an HSA has a minimum deductible of $1250/year. Only "high deductible" health insurance plans are compatible with HSAs.

Sadly, I think we're stuck with obamacare, and it won't be repealed, but it needs to seriously be altered

Sadly? I disagree. I think changes will (and should) be made in due time, but the basic goals it accomplishes are good ones. It removes the tie between employment and health insurance, it eliminates the pre-existing conditions problem and it prevents insurance companies from dropping you when you get sick. We can debate the details of how to deliver those things but the fact that they are possible now is a Good Thing.

I think we're good with disallowing the pre-existing conditions, but aside from that, I can't see much that helps me or most people at my level of IT income or stage of life that is good about ACA as it currently stands...

You are missing the other really important bit, namely that your insurance is no longer tied to your employer. No one should lose health insurance simply because they lost their job.

Re:I went back to corporate America because Obamac (0, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 months ago | (#46472689)

You need to call the GOP... I hear they're having real trouble finding ACA horror stories that don't turn out to be utter bullshit after thirty seconds of digging. Your story isn't utter bullshit like all the others, is it?

Re:I went back to corporate America because Obamac (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 months ago | (#46472753)

Just keep claiming that REAL stories like the ones posted are bullshit, because every time you do another wave of voters gets turned off by your savaging of real people just like them...

Re:I went back to corporate America because Obamac (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 months ago | (#46472931)

No more utter bullshit than the planted ACA sunshine up your butt stories, like this article, talking about how great and liberating it is.

But I hear the DNC is having real trouble getting their propaganda over because the reality is people don't like it. Perhaps you need to call the DNC and tell them how it is?

Re:I went back to corporate America because Obamac (2)

interkin3tic (1469267) | about 4 months ago | (#46472791)

I'm skeptical of any anecdotes I hear about obamacare. On top of the fact that anecdotes aren't real evidence, there have been several well-publicized obamacare horror stories that have turned out to be far-right funded lies.

The other way is also true. The "strong evidence" that obamacare is going to make many more startups doesn't seem to be much more than a theory. Here's the study they're referring to. [rwjf.org] Seems odd that they don't show self-employment increasing in Massachusetts, given that Romneycare is basically Obamacare and happened there eight years ago.

Been terrific for me and my employees (4, Informative)

sjbe (173966) | about 4 months ago | (#46472829)

The cost of individual health care plans was insane, and the crappy ACA plans provide worse coverage with fewer providers - and they're even more expensive!

I have exactly the opposite experience. I got a better plan for roughly the same cost and I had numerous to choose from. I also was able to get a Health Savings Account which is a great deal if you are eligible for one. My out of pocket maximum is around $4800 per year which I can easily manage if I have to. Most importantly my ability to get and keep health insurance is no longer tied to a specific employer which is LONG overdue. It should never be the case that losing your job should cause you to lose your health insurance. That's just morally wrong.

I really think what the feds are up to here is trying to kill off as many individual and small business operators as possible.

I run a small business (a manufacturing company) and the Affordable Care Act has been hugely helpful to us. Our employees were able to get similar coverage to what they had with our company plan, usually for less money out of pocket. Plus the company did not have to pick up any of the cost which saves our company roughly $10,000 per year. Basically we were paying roughly $550 per employee per month and the company picked up half the cost for an HMO. Now our employees are paying between $130-250/month out of pocket and the company doesn't have any of the cost.

Re:Been terrific for me and my employees (2)

pnutjam (523990) | about 4 months ago | (#46473137)

Any of those savings (which could be considered part of an employees salary) get passed on to the employee?

Re:I went back to corporate America because Obamac (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 months ago | (#46473041)

I would expect an small business owner to know the difference between net and gross. Healthcare had nothign to do with this. the gross costs are pretty much the same whether you're on your own, or your employer is footing the bill.

Basically it just tells me you weren't good enough to ask high enough rates for your own business to be able to pay for employer and employee contributions to you healthcare plan.

Poor Record on Health (1, Informative)

mrspoonsi (2955715) | about 4 months ago | (#46472573)

"A study last year found that in many American counties, especially in the deep South, life expectancy is lower than in Algeria, Nicaragua or Bangladesh. The U.S. is the only developed country that does not guarantee health care to its citizens; even after the Affordable Care Act, millions of poor Americans will remain uninsured because governors, mainly Republicans, have refused to expand Medicaid, which provides health insurance for low-income Americans. Although the federal government will pay for the expansion, many governors cited cost, even though the expansion would actually save money. America is unique among developed countries in that tens of thousands of poor Americans die because they lack health insurance, even while we spend more than twice as much of our GDP on healthcare than the average for the Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD), a collection of rich world countries. The U.S. has an infant mortality rate that dwarfs comparable nations, as well as the highest teenage-pregnancy rate in the developed world, largely because of the politically-motivated unavailability of contraception in many areas." Read more: http://www.rollingstone.com/po... [rollingstone.com]

Re:Poor Record on Health (2)

cayenne8 (626475) | about 4 months ago | (#46472709)

Hmm...rolling stone magazine? The bastion of unbiased objective news, eh?

:)

he U.S. has an infant mortality rate that dwarfs comparable nations, as well as the highest teenage-pregnancy rate in the developed world, largely because of the politically-motivated unavailability of contraception in many areas."

Seriously? I don't know of anywhere in the US where contraception is not available. They sell rubbers at all drug stores and most every grocery store I've ever been to. I'm born and raised in the south of the US, and I've never seen anywhere that doesn't have multiple forms of contraception unavailable with or without a prescription. There are no cities I know of that ban them by law.

millions of poor Americans will remain uninsured because governors, mainly Republicans, have refused to expand Medicaid, which provides health insurance for low-income Americans.

And as for the Rep. govenors that refused the Medicaid expansion, they did the cost analysis. It basically is a ticking time bomb of yet another unfunded Federal Mandate type deal. Sure they give you money at first, but that is limited and after that runs out, and the states have expanded (greatly) the Medicaid rolls, they states are then on the hook to pay for it ALL themselves, when the fed money spigot shuts off.

Some governors plan long term and not just short term.

Hell, many if not most states right now are in budgetary crisis, and not needing to heap this on top of an already bad fiscal situation.

Re:Poor Record on Health (2)

Shados (741919) | about 4 months ago | (#46472763)

Availability is a loaded word in this case. Go buy condoms as a 14 years old in an area where religious people want to burn people who use contraceptive on a stake....good luck (of course IMO they shouldn't need it at that age but the reality is different). You may also be in an area where your doctor will try to convince you not to get contraception. They'll prescribe it if you INSIST....

Compare that to an area where schools have someone on staff who can prescribe pills, or doctors will insist you consider it...

You end up with 2 totally different world. They're available in both cases, its just a different definition of available.

Re:Poor Record on Health (1)

cayenne8 (626475) | about 4 months ago | (#46472867)

Compare that to an area where schools have someone on staff who can prescribe pills, or doctors will insist you consider it...

Where in the word do you live at, where anyone at a school can fucking prescribe medication?!?!??!

Availability is a loaded word in this case. Go buy condoms as a 14 years old in an area where religious people want to burn people who use contraceptive on a stake....good luck (of course IMO they shouldn't need it at that age but the reality is different). You may also be in an area where your doctor will try to convince you not to get contraception. They'll prescribe it if you INSIST....

I have lived in some VERY religious communities in the deep south, like only eclipsed by somewhere like Utah with the Mormons, I can't speak for them.

But no one has a problem buying condoms at the local store. No one ever flinches or bats an eye. I'm guessing you're saying all of this, without first hand informatiion what it is actually like in areas like this. I grew up in the states with many areas that were dry, and where the Sunday blue laws still survive today. There is no problem.

And what Dr. should be insisting one way or the other that someone should used contraception? That is a personal choice....things don't get much more personal than that.

You seem to be conflating something being available, and that thing being promoted and PAID for by everyone else.

Two different issues here. No one is, nor should they be...holding a gun to your head to go down either path.

Re:Poor Record on Health (1)

CanHasDIY (1672858) | about 4 months ago | (#46472893)

Availability is a loaded word in this case. Go buy condoms as a 14 years old in an area where religious people want to burn people who use contraceptive on a stake....good luck (of course IMO they shouldn't need it at that age but the reality is different). You may also be in an area where your doctor will try to convince you not to get contraception. They'll prescribe it if you INSIST....

Compare that to an area where schools have someone on staff who can prescribe pills, or doctors will insist you consider it...

You end up with 2 totally different world. They're available in both cases, its just a different definition of available.

FWIW, those both sound like horrible, horrible places, and I'm glad I don't live there.

Around these parts, which I like to refer to as the Buckle of the Bible Belt, they lock the "generic" contraceptives (condoms, spermicide, etc.) up in a glass cabinet (because of theft), and I'm pretty sure you have to be at least 16 to buy them. For the "strong stuff," i.e. birth control or Plan B, you've got to go talk to either your doctor, or the nice folks down at Planned Parenthood.

Ignore the one guy sitting on the sidewalk with a protest sign, here's there every week.

Re:Poor Record on Health (1)

CanHasDIY (1672858) | about 4 months ago | (#46472901)

here's there every week.

Plugh.

Brain not work right; need more caffeine.

Re:Poor Record on Health (1)

cayenne8 (626475) | about 4 months ago | (#46472963)

Around these parts, which I like to refer to as the Buckle of the Bible Belt, they lock the "generic" contraceptives (condoms, spermicide, etc.) up in a glass cabinet (because of theft), and I'm pretty sure you have to be at least 16 to buy them. For the "strong stuff," i.e. birth control or Plan B, you've got to go talk to either your doctor, or the nice folks down at Planned Parenthood.

Your part of the bible belt sounds much different than my notch in the bible belt I've lived in and grew up in.

It was Church of Christ country where I grew up, where we thought the Baptists were too liberal and no contraception was under lock and key (that didn't require a prescription that is).

I live in these areas and you can easily see the condoms, etc on display at most any grocery store, drug store or hell, even the fucking 7-11 has them out for easy pickings.

Re:Poor Record on Health (1)

Anon-Admin (443764) | about 4 months ago | (#46473065)

I was born and raised in Texas, and you are full of shit!

Sure, they argue and do not teach sex ed in some schools because of the religious idiots but every kid out there can get condoms. As simple as walking into any 7-11 and paying for them. For the record, I had no issue doing it 30 years ago and my kids had no issue doing it in the last couple of years.

Re:Poor Record on Health (1)

fodder69 (701416) | about 4 months ago | (#46472929)

Not sure why I am bothering posting since you clearly won't be swayed by facts. But...

What contraceptives can you get without a prescription? I am sure as a male you are very familiar with the options, right?

And the medicaid expansion has the fed. government paying all of it for the first few years and then scales it back to the feds paying 80%. Not exactly all. Plus the simple fact that it brings a lot of money into those states and lets face it the states that have denied the expansion are the 'moochers' in that they receive a lot more federal dollars than they send in revenue. Those states could actually use the extra money that would be spent in the state.

Your poor record on facts (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 months ago | (#46473061)

Not sure why I am bothering posting since you clearly won't be swayed by facts. But...

Just like yourself then?

What contraceptives can you get without a prescription?

Condoms retard, which anyone of any age can get at a 7-11.

Or also the morning after pill.

Now don't you feel like an idiot? No? Why not? If you don't feel any shame at this point, you are a real piece of work.

It's political grandstanding (1)

sjbe (173966) | about 4 months ago | (#46473089)

And as for the Rep. govenors that refused the Medicaid expansion, they did the cost analysis.

I call bullshit on it having anything to do with a cost analysis. This was ALL about politics. This is simply republicans dragging their heels at the expense of a bunch of poor people for political grandstanding. I live in a state with a Republican governor and a republican majority legislature and they passed the medicaid expansion because it makes financial sense. The terms of the deal are quite clear and the cost of providing medical care to those poor people isn't going to go away whether or not the medicare expansion gets passed.

Some governors plan long term and not just short term.

Then you would expect to see states led by democrats doing the same thing. The fact that all the refusals are coming from the opposition party tells you everything you need to know about this issue.

Re:Poor Record on Health (5, Interesting)

Shados (741919) | about 4 months ago | (#46472715)

It is the same problem as in poor parts of Africa too. People don't WANT to be helped.

If you look in the areas that are against that kind of healthcare, its often poor people in the south, and the ones that are for it are frequently upper middle class in rich cities.

I'm in Boston. Pretty much everyone is for universal healthcare. No one (in my circles) would benefit from it. We all have pretty much perfect company funded healthcare with little to no deductibles, often with premiums paid by our employer, which let us go to one of the best hospital in the world (MGH) for pretty much no money. If they were to get the money from it from taxes, the same people would be disproportionately affected by them (already in upper tax brackets, at the bottom end of the groups affected by AMT....it hurts)

Yet these same people who would get NO BENEFIT from it, and would lose a lot of money in the process, are in favor of it. And those who'd get the free lunch are against.

Now, don't get me wrong. In its current implementation they have a point sometimes: poor people who aren't poor enough to get subsidies and now have to pay premiums are getting hit hard by them, especially if they see themselves invincible and haven't seen an hospital bill in their life. But that wouldn't be an issue if it was fully funded healthcare, not just the bastardized in between that we currently have.

Re:Poor Record on Health (1, Offtopic)

Marxist Hacker 42 (638312) | about 4 months ago | (#46472839)

This article explains the hidden urban thought completely [pjmedia.com] and why rural thought is different.

Re:Poor Record on Health (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 months ago | (#46472927)

That was the biggest load of crap I've ever read.

Re:Poor Record on Health (1)

CrimsonAvenger (580665) | about 4 months ago | (#46472925)

In its current implementation they have a point sometimes: poor people who aren't poor enough to get subsidies and now have to pay premiums are getting hit hard by them,

Also the poor people who are TOO POOR for subsidies. My daughter (single) comes in just under the income required to get subsidies. And just over the income required for Medicaid.

If she gets a decent raise this year (not a great chance, but possible), she'll be eligible for subsidies, and everything will be fine.

Or if she gets pregnant, since a baby will make her eligible for Medicaid.

If not, she can't afford health insurance and will just have to suck it up and pay the tax penalty. And hope she stays lucky.

Re:Poor Record on Health (1)

Shados (741919) | about 4 months ago | (#46472991)

Yeah there's that too. Since people were too busy trying to make sure a system like this was never implemented, they didn't get to put in the work to make sure it was implemented correctly.

Re:Poor Record on Health (2)

CrimsonAvenger (580665) | about 4 months ago | (#46472857)

mainly Republicans, have refused to expand Medicaid, which provides health insurance for low-income Americans. Although the federal government will pay for the expansion, many governors cited cost, even though the expansion would actually save money.

You must have skipped the fine print on this one.

The Feds will pay for the Medicaid expansion for the FIRST THREE YEARS. After that, the State is on the hook to cover it.

Which is why cost is an issue, since the States are generally in the same shape as the Feds in regards to budgets - not enough money, too many obligations.

Re:Poor Record on Health (1)

kqs (1038910) | about 4 months ago | (#46473017)

The Feds will pay for the Medicaid expansion for the FIRST THREE YEARS. After that, the State is on the hook to cover it.

Technically true. The federal government will pay 100% of the cost for the first three years, then 95% of the cost, dropping to a minimum of 90% of the cost in 2020. So the state is on the hook to pay... 10%!

Sure, it's crazy that a state should have some responsibility for it's citizens, even a 10% responsibility. As you say, we should give all responsibility and money and power to the federal government.

Re:Poor Record on Health (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 months ago | (#46472955)

So in a system where the States are not suppose to be dependent on the Federal Government, it is evil that the governors of those States are refusing to expand their dependency on the Federal Government by expanding programs that rely on money supplied by the Federal Government which has shown through numerous similar circumstances to tie the "doing its will" to the continued receipt of those funds?

Yes, Congress figured out that they can give money to the States on conditional terms that the States do certain things regardless of whether the State wants to and have thus created some dependency. For instance, Congress has affected the drinking age nationally this way, as well as speed limits - both by tieing them to funding for road infrastructure. They have been doing the same with Welfare, Medicaid, Medicare, and School Funding - using those things to push the Federal agenda onto States.

In this case, a number of governors (generally Republican) have said that they don't want to expand the programs because they don't want to increase the State's dependency on Federal money, thereby decreasing the sovereignty of the State itself.

Total, Utter, Unequivocal BS (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 months ago | (#46472595)

I don't have the stomach to read the original article. I already know the truth.

I've owned my own business for 12 years. My Blue Cross Blue Shield insurance policy is being cancelled at the end of 2014 because it doesn't meet ACA standards. It's been just fine. Now my options are considerably more expensive. I can raise prices or make less money each money. I decided to cancel DirecTV and eat out less.

ACA is hurting the people it was supposed to help. My nephew manages a hospital's cleaning services. All employees (except 3rd shift) have been moved off of full time work to avoid ACA. Now, these people need two part-time job and are working more hours before just to stay afloat.

Re:Total, Utter, Unequivocal BS (1)

ebno-10db (1459097) | about 4 months ago | (#46472673)

Then push for an intelligent universal health care system, like the Commie Canucks have (instead of a hammer and sickle they put a moose and maple leaf on their flag). Getting employers out of health insurance is good for both large and small businesses, as well as people. About the only ones worse off are the insurance and drug companies.

BTW, despite the glorification of small business in the US, Europe actually has a larger percentage of its economy in small business. I'd be very surprised if that wasn't in part because health insurance isn't tied to employment.

Re:Total, Utter, Unequivocal BS (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 months ago | (#46472733)

If it were intelligent, why is it that people come down to the US from Canada for healthcare.

Oh, that's right...that doesn't validate how you feel about things...so it doesn't exist.

Re:Total, Utter, Unequivocal BS (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 months ago | (#46472923)

Who the fuck comes from Canada to the US for healthcare? That is the most pathetic Republican myth since Jesus Christ. You know the reality? Americans desperate for drugs ordering them from Canada!

Re:Total, Utter, Unequivocal BS (1)

mellon (7048) | about 4 months ago | (#46473007)

About 46k people came down from Canada to the U.S. to get health care in 2011. Quite a bit of that was paid for by the Canadian health care system, not out of pocket. That's pretty much in the noise. Statistics on how many people come down from the U.S. to get health care in Mexico because they can't afford to get it in the U.S. are harder to come by because people who do that generally pay out of pocket, but the number is comparable, and the reason is different: U.S. citizens going to Mexico are doing so because they can't afford health care in the U.S.; Canadians are taking advantage of excess capacity in the U.S. system to shorten waits, with the financial support of the Canadian national health insurance system. Despite sending a small number of Canadians south each year, Canadian health care is still hugely cheaper than American health care. Many U.S. citizens also go to Canada to purchase prescription drugs because they can't afford them in the U.S.

Point being, while what you said is true, it doesn't lead to the conclusion you are suggesting.

Re:Total, Utter, Unequivocal BS (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 months ago | (#46473047)

Why use anecdotes about people coming to the US for healthcare?

You can use the hard data.

In Canada, the life expectancy is 81.57 years.
In the US, the life expectancy is 78.62 years.

That's roughly the same. Canada does a bit better (by almost 3 years).

In Canada, the per capita healthcare costs are 4,522 (PPP), that's 17.7% of the GDP.
In the US, the per capita healthcare costs are 8,508 (PPP), that's 11.2% of the GDP.

That's not the same. Canada is far cheaper.

That's a quick overview, and Canada comes out better. If there were two health plans on the market, the "C" plan and the "U" plan, and the "U" plan was $4,260/yr*, while the "C" plan was $2,700/yr, and the life expectancy was better under the "C" plan, what would you choose?

In-depth studies seem to show a rough parity between outcomes in the US and Canada. You can argue the numbers (and there are areas where Canada is behind the US, as well as areas that the US is behind Canada), but as a general rule, the overall outcome between the two countries are the same. (And if you are interested in healthcare, looking at the disparities is interesting, both countries' healthcare systems have areas of failure.)

So - why would a Canadian come to the US for healthcare? I could think of several reasons. It could be to find a specific treatment center that has a better outcome for a disease, it could be for elective procedures, it could be because of a shorter wait time for non-critical procedures, it could be because of a procedure that isn't approved of in Canada but is approved of in the US, it could be a matter of geography (some parts of Canada are closer to US centers of population than Canadian centers of population), it could even be because of the effect that people perceive more value in service and goods when they pay more.

It's probably similar to the reasons why Americans go to other countries for healthcare. Except that there is one reason Americans go to other countries that Canadians do not: Cost.

* 17.7% of the median individual income in the US among the population > 18.

Re:Total, Utter, Unequivocal BS (1, Insightful)

cayenne8 (626475) | about 4 months ago | (#46472817)

BTW, despite the glorification of small business in the US, Europe actually has a larger percentage of its economy in small business.

And the policies of the current administration are a LARGE reason we're losing small business in the US.

We almost seem to be actively trying to make it impossible for US small businesses to succeed with ACA and too many regulations and endless paperwork and taxation.

A major drag on our economic recovery IS the lack of small businesses coming back to life in the US due to governmental oppression of them.

Re:Total, Utter, Unequivocal BS (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 months ago | (#46472853)

Have you ever tried to get healthcare in Canada? Have you tried to get your birth control prescription renewed that ran out 3 months ago because your doctor isn't seeing anyone and appointments are books out 4 or 5 months? Canada doesn't have a moose on its' flag moron.

Re:Total, Utter, Unequivocal BS (1)

sandytaru (1158959) | about 4 months ago | (#46472945)

When that happens in the US you try to fill the prescription anyway and the pharmacy calls the doctor's office to get a "pre-authorization" - usually within two days. They don't do that in pharmacies in Canada?

Re:Total, Utter, Unequivocal BS (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 months ago | (#46473085)

There are far more horror stories in the US than there are in Canada. My mom worked for Schneider National (the trucking company) and got to know a lot of Canadian drivers, not one of them would exchange their healthcare for the healthcare in the US. I'm sure there are horror stories in Canada but I personally haven't heard any and there doesn't seem to be evidence to support the theory that your average Joe that doesn't need an ultra rare surgery is better off here than there.

Re:Total, Utter, Unequivocal BS (1)

CrimsonAvenger (580665) | about 4 months ago | (#46472999)

I'd be very surprised if that wasn't in part because health insurance isn't tied to employment.

Blame WW2 for that. Wage & Price Controls in WW2 made it impossible to compete for talent, so companies started offering free health insurance to sweeten their offers.

It worked, then. Alas, it became so embedded in our culture that getting rid of it is becoming nearly impossible.

I still think that the way to have gone for the ACA was to lower the age of eligibility of Medicare by five years per year, and make anyone under 26 eligible for Medicaid. That would take care of children through college, and phase out private health insurance in eight years.

same here. My employees and I liked our Blue Cross (2)

raymorris (2726007) | about 4 months ago | (#46472885)

I'm in exactly the same situation. We had a group plan with Blue Cross / Blue Shield of Texas. We spent a good amount of time shopping for a plan that fit our needs well, with the right coverage and the right deductible for us. In the last two years the cost has nearly doubled. I left the business I'd had for 17 years and am now working for a government agency related to security.

Re:Total, Utter, Unequivocal BS (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 months ago | (#46472905)

Agreed.

I have friends in the medical industry (nurses, radiology techs) and they've all been going through several rounds of layoffs over the past 2 years and the remaining employees are being stretched thinner to cover increasing services because the hospitals can't cover the costs anymore because of the ACA.

Heck, in my state (and this is probably true of all of them) the insurance companies divvied up the markets like cable companies so certain insurance providers only cover certain hospitals in an area so they have practically defacto cable monopolies.

That's not good for anybody.

record # of comments on 1 story being breached? (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 months ago | (#46472601)

badtoll of the skinflint tightends http://news.yahoo.com/house-backs-bill-sue-president-over-laws-210926368.html could have done it here if not for /beta?

Here in Europe (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 months ago | (#46472641)

Here in Europe we get free healthcare and awesome welfare when we are unemployed. Many of my tech colleagues (and myself included) take advantage of this to create start-ups all the time. It's really easy to start a business when you don't have to worry about housing, feeding, or taking care of yourself. It always blows my mind how Americans think socialism isn't business friendly.

Re: Here in Europe (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 months ago | (#46472699)

It's not free. The people who are working are paying for it through their taxes.

Here in the U.S. (was Re:Here in Europe) (1)

WillAdams (45638) | about 4 months ago | (#46472739)

In the U.S., if you're working independently, or even trying to, you're not eligible for unemployment.

There's a lot of push-back against people ``double-dipping'' by both drawing un-employment and working independently --- actually, it's considered fraud. I've always been somewhat offended by Judy Chicago having at least one of her ``workers'' working on the ``The Dinner Party'' while he was on unemployment (and she couldn't even see the need to have him teach others how to do what he was doing).

The big difference is the U.S. tax rate is about a quarter of the G.D.P., while in Europe it's over a third, but the number of government checks in the U.S. is going up as noted in a recent story.

Re:Here in the U.S. (was Re:Here in Europe) (2)

Marxist Hacker 42 (638312) | about 4 months ago | (#46472823)

In Oregon, there's actually a program to make "Double-Dipping" legal. Basically, if you can find a way through self employment to earn up to 25% of your unemployment check, you can. If you earn more than 25%, your check is reduced dollar for dollar to 125%, at which point it disappears (and presumably, at which point you're the equivalent of fully employed at about $1 over minimum wage anyway, and no longer need the check).

Re:Here in the U.S. (was Re:Here in Europe) (2)

cayenne8 (626475) | about 4 months ago | (#46472997)

In the U.S., if you're working independently, or even trying to, you're not eligible for unemployment.

I ran into this myself and was shocked.

I paid quite a lot into the unemployment system while working through my own company, but when I lost contracts and was in between job, I could not collect unemployment, even though I'd paid into the system.

Honestly, if I ever win the powerball, I'd take the money to hire legal guns and fight shit like this just on principal.

Here in Reality (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 months ago | (#46472977)

Here in Europe we get free healthcare and awesome welfare when we are unemployed. Many of my tech colleagues (and myself included) take advantage of this to create start-ups all the time.

If that were true why are there a lot more start-ups in America than Europe?

I see Slashdot finally got around to (2, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 months ago | (#46472665)

Spreading the government propaganda.

Get paid for that?

You know what would help startups?

LOWER TAXES, LESS REGULATION and a government doing its job by enforcing the laws equally between the little guy and the mega corp... rather than giving preferential treatment to whomever pays the most.

Like advertising for Obamacare.

Re:I see Slashdot finally got around to (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 months ago | (#46472903)

Which is exactly why all the best startups are based on low-tax, low-regulation countries. Oh.. wait..

Re:I see Slashdot finally got around to (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 months ago | (#46473025)

Which is exactly why you see the best startups coming from socialist economies. Oh...wait...

Great Logic (1)

tsqr (808554) | about 4 months ago | (#46472675)

There is strong evidence that when affordable healthcare isn't exclusively tied to employment, in more instances people choose to start their own companies

Worker gets laid off, loses employer-provided health plan. Worker can't find full-time employement; becomes consultant to pay bills; buys health insurance. Conclusion: buying health insurance motivates worker to become consultant!

Removing the tax structures that make companies by default intermediaries in the provision of health insurance, and allowing more interstate (and international) competition in health finance options would help on that front, too

Translation: if we can remove one of the incentives for companies to provide health care plans, then more people will be forced to buy private health insurance! Yay!

We're with the government (2)

JWW (79176) | about 4 months ago | (#46472687)

We'll provide you with health care through the ACA and you'll be able to start your own business!

Then after you realize that government regulations are so onerous that its really difficult to get a business started, you'll have to go back to working for a big company.

Re:We're with the government (1)

DogDude (805747) | about 4 months ago | (#46473049)

Then after you realize that government regulations are so onerous that its really difficult to get a business started, you'll have to go back to working for a big company.

Like what regulations, exactly?

There is a silver lining with the ACA (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 months ago | (#46472707)

The American public can finally see, first-hand, just how incredibly expensive healthcare is in this country. It's incredibly easy to forget if you have a large company to help buffer the cost. Maybe, hopefully, if enough people get pissed/fed up/tired, we can talk about tackling the root causes instead of the symptoms.

They're getting desperate (1)

smooth wombat (796938) | about 4 months ago | (#46472711)

A failed web site launch, failure to meet their initial sign-up goal, failure to meet their predicted sign-up goal, continual fudging of implementation dates for random portions of the ACA.

It's just like having Bush all over again.

Hopefully people have finally gotten the message and aren't handing over their money to private companies just because the government says you have to.

Re:They're getting desperate (0)

DogDude (805747) | about 4 months ago | (#46473071)

Hopefully people have finally gotten the message and aren't handing over their money to private companies just because the government says you have to.

Why are you "hopeful" that people are not buying health insurance, and instead paying the tax penalties and living without health care? Sociopath, maybe?

Why is it people utterly ignore history? (5, Insightful)

jeff4747 (256583) | about 4 months ago | (#46472717)

allowing more interstate (and international) competition in health finance options would help on that front, too

Yeah, how'd that work out for banking? Interstate competition was supposed to do things like drive down credit card interest rates.

Instead, almost every credit card in the US is issued out of Delaware or South Dakota. And interest rates are quite high. Why? Interstate competition also means competition between state legislatures for laws that are most favorable to banks.

So what would happen with interstate health insurance? Legislatures would compete for the most insurance company-friendly laws. Which would be the least consumer-friendly laws.

It worked great thanks. (1)

SuperKendall (25149) | about 4 months ago | (#46472841)

Yeah, how'd that work out for banking?

Pretty well until government protection of giant banks along with imposition of regulations smaller banks could not keep up with, meant all of the smaller banks got bought up or shut down.

Meanwhile, instead of competition we have Obamacare mandating that very expensive insurance plans be bought from a handful of providers, reducing competition further.

Re:Why is it people utterly ignore history? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 months ago | (#46472907)

Yep interest rates suck for people with crappy credit. I think you should look at rates in other countries. If you are in the USA you are blessed.

I'm actually glad to see the ACA do this (1)

Applehu Akbar (2968043) | about 4 months ago | (#46472771)

Because the crisis, by exposing the clubby and monopolistic nature of the current healthcare process, will cause its economic model to collapse. The feds will undoubtedly try to impose price controls, because this is the only way they know how to respond in such a situation. At that point, healthcare will FINALLY have to accept the more open-market approach that so many of us have suggested: prices "on the wall" for all procedures so the consumer can make open choices, freedom to shop around worldwide for better drug prices, freedom of entry to the field for technical specialists (nurse/practitioners, midwives, et. al.), and an end to artificially limited med school openings and artificial barriers to employment in the field when practitioners move to different states.

I'll be glad to see the old insurance companies go, too. How often have you had to go on a road trip with half the right number of pills because you have to wait until a certain calendar date to get a refill?

The day it is cheaper to have my own insurance (2)

Marxist Hacker 42 (638312) | about 4 months ago | (#46472775)

Is the day I'll sign up for my own insurance.

Right now, the market is so muddled I can't even tell from my non-functioning state website whether I qualify for subsidies or not, let alone be willing to put 1/6th of my paycheck towards health insurance that has such a huge deductible it will only pay if I get in a major accident.

Why? (0)

BCW2 (168187) | about 4 months ago | (#46472777)

Why would anyone think the Government could run healthcare? Is there any sign of competence or efficiency in Medicare, Medicade, or the VA? All are inefficient and fraud ridden with time wasted by reams of worthless paperwork. There is not one single thing that the Government of the US has ever done more efficiently than the private sector.

Re:Why? (1)

CanHasDIY (1672858) | about 4 months ago | (#46472959)

Why would anyone think the Government could run healthcare? Is there any sign of competence or efficiency in Medicare, Medicade, or the VA? All are inefficient and fraud ridden with time wasted by reams of worthless paperwork. There is not one single thing that the Government of the US has ever done more efficiently than the private sector.

Sure there is! National parks and the military, for example.

OK, so maybe just those two things...

Re:Why? (1)

sandytaru (1158959) | about 4 months ago | (#46472979)

Anyone who was in the US military or was a dependent of the US military can tell you they did a pretty good job with Tricare. Healthcare was an invisible cost to me when I was a kid. If I was sick, I went to the doctor, no questions asked (and got a visit to my father who worked civil service in the Army hospital after he retired.)

They've been messing with the model due to budget cuts over the last few years, and I hear it's not as rosy as it used to be. But for the first 18 years of my life, I never realized that being sick could cost so much.

ACA Coverage is shit, raises cost of all others (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 months ago | (#46472837)

I know someone who own's their own business. Their insurance pre Abomination-care was expensive, but they could cover it without cringing too much.

Since our Abominable president pushed this garbage through, their rates have tripled and out of pocket expenses have doubled. Not one single ACA program will give them the coverage they had prior to this festering boil of putrescent legislation was passed.

It needs to be revoked, immediately.
 

Core Problem: Employer Paid Insurance Warps Market (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 months ago | (#46472913)

Since /. is all about armchair observation, here is mind on the whole thing: Giving businesses a tax break in the form of employee health insurance is a big huge problem. It warps the market and creates an unhealthy (pun!) situation.

Since /. also likes their car metaphors: Car insurance would be just as warped and loony if it turned out that the fed gave corporations big tax breaks for providing it for you. Instead of being a couple of hundreds of dollars for several months for an individual which could be paid out of pocket who knows how crazy expensive it would be because the car insurance industry would reorient themselves to having corporations as customers instead. Trivial things like oil changes and dent fixing become close to free when covered but thousands uninsured. And then you run into the problem of your employer having some justification in what you do with your car. "Are you driving too much? Maybe you should walk" and "Maybe you should take a different route too and from work" and "You should only buy these cars" and all sorts of pestering and intrusion. Would people tolerate it if they had this much interference with their vehicles but take it with their health?

Back to reality, this study has a point that for all of the faults in ACA there is a segment of the population that are stuck at their job because of their employer paid health insurance. They might have an idea and the skills to run their own business but can't start because entering the market solo is crazy expensive due to preexisting conditions or whatever. They are forced "sit tight" at their old job and have no alternatives. In this situation the ACA can provide cover and coverage to them but it is still the same old problem where the entrepreneur is providing health insurance for themselves because they are running a business and employing themselves instead of the true reason to use insurance as a hedge against disaster.

This is why I left the US (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 months ago | (#46472921)

I have a hereditary liver illness, which gives has a median of 15 years to a liver transplant from the date of diagnosis (I'm 8 years in). I'm totally ineligible for any insurance, but my yearly costs are quite low, since there is no medication and really nothing that can be done about it. As a dual citizen, I left the US for my home country in Scandinavia, precisely because I wanted to start my own company, but couldn't do that in the US, because I could not get good insurance coverage.

Oh, I grew up in abroad and came to the US for a Ph.D. Got a NSF graduate student grant that cost the US around $250k. Great use of taxpayer money.

Healthcare in the UK (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 months ago | (#46472949)

I do symapthise with you guys over there in the USA.

We are lucky here in the UK to have a national health service provided by our government.

Private health cover is also available and I think that because the private health companies have to compete with the free NHS health service, this makes them all the more competetive- especially business packages.

Dan Midwinter
Director, Completely Care Ltd
http://www.completelycare.co.uk

Launch diddly (2)

PPH (736903) | about 4 months ago | (#46473087)

People, particularly young people, who want to start their own businesses, usually have to scrimp and save to come up with the initial capital. One method of doing this was to forgo health insurance for a few years, or to buy catastrophic medical coverage.

No more. Cheap, high deductible policies are no longer allowed. And if you forgo coverage, the gov't will take it out of you in the form of a penalty.You can sign up for low income assistance, but forget trying to amass any startup capital or you'll run afoul of the means test.

I feel sorry for young people who are trying to get ahead. I've been self insured for years and now, thanks to the ACA, my medical insurance costs will be passing my housing costs. And I don't live in a cheap area. I can practically spit on Bill Gates house from here.

Not just startups (1)

T.E.D. (34228) | about 4 months ago | (#46473113)

Back when I worked for one of the top defense contractors, they really didn't pay us very competitively. I was looking around, and encouraged a good friend of mine to do so as well. He was a really good engineer, and deserved better. Unfortunately, he told me he couldn't.

You see, a few months after hiring on right out of college, he discovered he had diabetes. Our employer's insurance continued covering him (because they had to), but if he tried to go anywhere else nothing diabetes-related would be covered, as it would be considered a "preexisting condition". He was trim, and healthy and kept good care of himself, but every 2 years or so something would go wrong and he'd end up in the hospital for a couple of weeks. Without coverage for this, he'd be a financial disaster. He was stuck working there.

This is the point where a person starts to wonder how many other folks like him were out there. How many people had developed conditions that made them essentially indentured servants? And how much had this situation screwed over the natural economy that our country should have?

I know "pre-existing condition" exceptions are outlawed now. But our current Congress tried to reinstate them more than 50 times, last session. We're just one good Republican election away from getting them back.

ACA != Afforable Access to Health Care (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 months ago | (#46473143)

Want to really make sure people have coverage so they can start more small business? Repeal the ACA and replace it with universal healthcare. Eliminate personal and corporate income taxes and replace it with a national sales tax that everyone pays, including corporations, on items that are not for manufacture or resale (i.e. equipment and office supplies). So that takes care of the double whammy of self-employment tax. Then legal marijuana nationwide and tax it to pay for health care!!!

Load More Comments
Slashdot Account

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?

Don't worry, we never post anything without your permission.

Submission Text Formatting Tips

We support a small subset of HTML, namely these tags:

  • b
  • i
  • p
  • br
  • a
  • ol
  • ul
  • li
  • dl
  • dt
  • dd
  • em
  • strong
  • tt
  • blockquote
  • div
  • quote
  • ecode

"ecode" can be used for code snippets, for example:

<ecode>    while(1) { do_something(); } </ecode>
Create a Slashdot Account

Loading...