ElneClare wrote:
I've been on Medicaid before ACA and will be if they repeal it. The problem is they are talking about changing the way Medicaid is funded.
They plan to change funding to block grants to states and the problem with that is each state will have only a limited amount to spend each year on Medicaid. If suddenly more people qualified due to economic downturn, the states will have to decide either to change the income limits, or services they cover or take from state funds to cover people.
Who is "they"? I think part of the problem is that "they" is usually a bunch of people opposed to anything the GOP is planning, and they're selling you the absolute worst case super scary scenarios to make sure you oppose it as well.
As to changing how it's funded, isn't block grants how it's always been funded? Honestly not sure, but is that really an issue? The blocks to states are based on aggregate state need, so if there's a downturn in your state, and more people in need, the block size increases. There's no real difference except that perhaps your state has a bit more control over how the money gets spent and can tailor the assistance to the wants and needs of the citizens in your state. Which is usually a good thing.
Quote:
They also want to cut Social Security programs and I'm afraid one area that they will feel they can cut without caring how it will affect millions of people is Supplemental Security Income (SSI)
Again, who is "they"? And this isn't specifically about the repeal of the ACA. You're lumping a bunch of "scary things" into one basket to make it appear larger. Let's stick to just this one thing for the moment.
Quote:
So why most people who have a decent job security and health insurance, may not have to worry much, Disable American's who have benefited from the passing of the ACA do worry with good reasons.
Disabled Americans, by and large, did not actually benefit from the passage of the ACA though. That's the starting premise that is affecting your conclusion. Prior to the ACA, medicare and medicaid provided health care to retired and disabled Americans. So if you were in one of those categories, you were covered. With the passage of the ACA, funding for those things got "shared" into funding for "everyone without health insurance". In other words, the ACA actually took money earmarked for disabled and retired Americans and handed it to other people to use to buy health insurance. They took money out of those funds in the range of half a trillion dollars.
By any objective measure, you were actually harmed by the passage of the ACA, not helped. I know that the rhetoric is pretty thick, and you've been likely sold a whole lot of roses and puppies about Obamacare, but the reality is that it was a massive shift of funds from the existing medicare and medicaid programs to the public health care co-ops, most of which have subsequently failed and gone bankrupt, leaving the funds that you were supposed to depend on for your health care in danger. Obama screwed you over. And you're screaming for it to continue. Which is what I find astounding.
The only people actually benefited by the ACA was the small percentage of people who were unemployed or underemployed, who could not afford to purchase health insurance directly, but who did not qualify for either medicare or medicaid. That's not you btw.
Quote:
Anyone with preconditioning conditions need to worry.
Again though, this is a phrase that gets bandied around and misused. Most people hear "pre-existing condition" and assume that anyone with an ongoing illness is refused coverage (or even used to be) if they attempt to obtain health insurance. That's not what it means in this context though. In this case, it really means "a major and expensive condition that existed prior to ever obtaining any health insurance at all during your entire lifetime". If you have insurance X, and you have an existing condition, when you transfer to insurance Y, that company will cover you. It's always been like this because the industry is treated as a whole unit in this regard.
The only case of denying coverage is when someone never pays for any health insurance for their entire life, and then only when they contract some major illness they show up and want to pay a standard premium and have the insurance cover their expenses. This is the equivalent of buying home insurance after a fire burns down your house. No one's going to cover you after the fact. It's up to you to be responsible and make a choice to buy insurance ahead of time. It's your risk to take.
I'll also point out that not having health
insurance is not the same as not receiving health
care. If you show up with a health problem, you will be provided for, at least to the point of life saving treatment. And there are a host of methods to provide for those who can't afford treatment as well. The big lie of the ACA was that the absence of a big government program to provide that treatment meant that it didn't exist at all. While there certainly were people who fell between the cracks, the correct solution should have been to find and fill the cracks, not completely remake the whole system in such a way as to create more problems than were solved.
Quote:
All my friends who have diabetes and use insulin are worried, that they will no longer be able to afford it.
Will they actually not be able to afford it? Or are they just worried that they wont? Were they able to obtain insulin prior to the passage of the ACA? Why then assume they wont when it's repealed? Again, it sounds like a whole lot of fear and not a lot of foundation for that fear.
Quote:
Yes we are scared and I belief rightly so.
I don't believe so. I think the "world is ending" hysteria is very much a creation of scare tactics the Left is tossing out there for everyone to build on. The ACA provided very few actual tangible benefits, a whole lot of negatives, but has been painted as though it's the salvation of sick people nation wide. It's amazing to me how often I'll talk to someone who's playing up the virtues of Obamacare, and talking about how great is it that finally we can all have health care now that the ACA exists. I always ask them "So you didn't have health care before the ACA?". To which I usually get a reply like "Oh. I did. But I know there's a bunch of people who didn't, so it helps them". To which I ask "Ok. Who? Do you know anyone directly?". It's always "Someone I know, knows someone who was benefited by Obamacare". But you talk to that person, and it's also "someone I know, knows someone", etc, etc, etc.
And yes, I know there are people on the public exchanges. But here's the thing. The vast majority of those on those exchanges either didn't want to or need to be there (ie: the mandate forced them to buy health insurance they didn't want to buy), or they would have received health insurance coverage via employment or direct purchase if the ACA hadn't passed, but went on the public exchange because it did. So that 20 million number? Probably 15-18 million of them would have had health insurance via alternative means if the ACA had never been passed. It didn't actually benefit them. The numbers are just rigged to make it look like it did.
And the 100+ million people who saw their health insurance premiums increase by 30-50%, and their deductibles double, and their coverage range shrink? They got screwed. They're paying more for less. All to provide a freaking illusion of covering more people.
It was a terrible law from day one. It was
designed to be a terrible law. The obvious intent of the ACA was to break our health care system so badly, that in 10-15 years the public would demand a fully socialized system. It was never intended to make health care or coverage "better". Which is why it's so amazing that so many people still try to praise it like it's the second coming or something. It was a bad law. It should never have been passed. Repealing it is a very good thing.
While I'm not going to cheer lead for the GOP on this issue either, they are at least presenting proposals that might make the actual issues afflicting our health care system "better". Ironically, it's the same things they proposed back in 2009, but where ignored. Things like allowing insurers to compete across state lines (so more choices for the consumer, which is always a good thing). Things like tort reform. And yeah, they'll look into alternatives to help out people who find themselves falling through the cracks of the system as well. How many of these things will get done? I don't know. How well will they work? Also don't know. But at least their plans and proposals don't actually break anything.
And that's a good thing.