Advertisement

Archive for Tuesday, June 25, 2013

Letter: ACA misperceptions

June 25, 2013

Advertisement

To the editor:

I participated in Senator Pat Roberts’ town hall meeting on June 20. One man thought the Affordable Care Act would reduce his Medicare access. Sen. Roberts could have corrected this man’s misunderstanding by listing the benefits to Medicare under the ACA: 1) more preventive services without charge, 2) lower cost on drugs in the “donut hole,” 3) more support for doctors to assure treatments are consistent, 4) maintained Medicare-covered benefits and continued choice of doctors, and 5) extended life of the Medicare Trust fund at least 12 years.

Sen. Roberts could have said that the ACA was originally a Republican idea and is similar to former Gov. Mitt Romney’s “Romneycare.” After six years, more businesses have provided insurance coverage for their employees, costs are not rising as fast as before it was enacted, more people are covered, and after a short adjustment time, wait times for patients have returned to normal.

Sen. Roberts could have mentioned that the ACA will help reduce costs as more people are insured, preventive care is stressed, and there’s more competition between insurers. The ACA allows children under the age of 26 to stay on their parents insurance and no one will be denied coverage for being sick.

But Sen. Roberts instead said that the October marketplace deadline might not be met, giving Congress an opportunity to get rid of the ACA, so we can go without these benefits and still be the country with the highest health care costs for the lowest of outcomes.

Comments

Liberty275 1 year, 3 months ago

"Sen. Roberts could have said that the ACA was originally a Republican idea"

They are already blaming the ACA on republicans. That makes me smile.

2

Kate Rogge 1 year, 3 months ago

I think requiring private insurers rather than expanding Medicare is a pretty big Republican fingerprint.

0

Kate Rogge 1 year, 3 months ago

An ACA waiver doesn't exempt an employer from complying with ACA requirements. Waivers are granted when the company's heath care benefits package exceeds that which is required by the Affordable Care Act so that their employees' benefits are not reduced to ACA requirement levels.

0

Richard Payton 1 year, 3 months ago

The ACA has reduced cost in California but the ACA has increased cost in Ohio insurance policies by 80 percent. Most states don't know which direction cost will go at this point. The writer points out some benefits of the ACA in which I agree are benefits. I believe Senator Roberts was correct in not addressing the access issue. From what I've witnessed recently access has been reduced by doctors not accepting new Medicare patients. The ACA is hoping to offer more help by expanding coverage of Medicare to more individuals.

0

hillsandtrees 1 year, 3 months ago

One reason mentioned for Ohio's insurance rates to change so much is that the companies have been so good at denying coverage, the current rates are artificially low.

http://www.wksu.org/news/story/35897

2

Leslie Swearingen 1 year, 3 months ago

Cille, thank you for this letter is which you cite the facts about the ACA. It is the facts that should be debated.

Fascism a. A system of government marked by centralization of authority under a dictator, stringent socioeconomic controls, suppression of the opposition through terror and censorship, and typically a policy of belligerent nationalism and racism.

http://www.thefreedictionary.com/fascism

The United States does not have a dictator, we have a three pronged checks and balances system of the executive, legislative and judicial branches. We have a congress composed of a house and senate where laws are initiated and debated. We have access to how our representatives and senators vote. There is no censorship of ideas and no one have ever accused President Obama of belligerent nationalism.

0

George Lippencott 1 year, 3 months ago

Thank you for pointing out all the improvements that the ACA generated for my Medicare. The preventative care is real and one has to ask why it took the ACA to provide it. I did not know that I was going to lose my benefits and my doctors. Exactly what did the ACA do to prevent that??

The trust fund only applies to one part of Medicare and the latest data (completely bogus) says two years. It is bogus because the trustees must use the assumptions provided by the Congress– like Medicare costs being reduced by 20% next January or the major reductions in annual costs that resulted from arbitrary reduction to the program caused by the Congress “sourcing” Medicare for $600 Billion ( I wonder where that comes from??).

I look forward to all the other improvements you listed (I might observe they apply to just about everybody with insurance) and not so much to Medicare recipients. Of course they are all illusions because they are mostly in the future and assume medical costs for everyone will decrease without any significant loss of services and further erosion of the doctor base providing those services.. Most experts question those assumptions.

Maybe it is just us old folk that can count (the old math)? If you add requirements then there is no other outcome except increased costs or reductions in services for all of us.

I commend your zeal and spirit in attempting to find a way to provide medical care to the uninsured. Unfortunately seniors see rationing, service delays and major cost increases for those on Medicare as the result of the ACA (as currently understood). Your generation will probably be winners in this game. We seniors are likely to be losers. Of course you will be seniors someday. Good luck.

0

hillsandtrees 1 year, 3 months ago

Are you talking to the letter's author, who is a senior?

0

George Lippencott 1 year, 3 months ago

Yes. If she really believes what she wrote. Now if all the ACA assumptions come true - well she may be right. But believing in the Easter Rabbit does not make it real.

0

Mike Ford 1 year, 3 months ago

again, playing the amnesia card works well for the gop.

2

Richard Heckler 1 year, 3 months ago

I am not a fan of Obamacare.

I am certainly not a fan of what preceded Obamacare which was a whole lot less user friendly,saw double digit increases annually and could cut anyone off at any moment = real bad coverage and the repub choice.

Having said all of the above Obamacare is not increasing the cost of premiums. The medical insurance industry is increasing the premiums.

We're talking about an industry that can afford high dollar CEO's, BOD's, shareholders,generous golden parachutes, 8 lobbyists per elected official in the beltway alone plus special interest campaign money. And lots of advertisement money.

Not only that the industry was spending $1.4 million healthcare dollars a day to keep Medicare Single Payer Insurance off the table. Those $1.4 million healthcare dollars a day were being funneled through the Chamber of Commerce. Not to mention that more than a trillion tax $$$$$ a year go to the industry.

Blame it all on the insurance industry.

2

Commenting has been disabled for this item.