Obamacare is a Complete Failure

[fancymylotus]

Weren't Democrats proud to call it Obamacare during the campaign? What changed?

How many of those 11 million people had employer based health insurance but got cancellation notices and had to go to the exchange? Are u counting them as new people who got insurance?

I should have gotten Obamacare.


(totes jk)

---

Members don't see this ad.

 

[charmiedermie]

Yes I count them

So people who already had health insurance but bc of Obamacare cancelling plans, they were forced to get exchange plans, which u count as new people who never had insurance before? That isn't very ethical.

Nowhere close to 40 million, by the way.

 

[GunnerBMS]

So people who already had health insurance but bc of Obamacare cancelling plans, they were forced to get exchange plans, which u count as new people who never had insurance before? That isn't very ethical.

Nowhere close to 40 million, by the way.

Rome wasn't built in a day

 

[charmiedermie]

Rome wasn't built in a day

This law was sold as taking care of the uninsured problem and lowering healthcare costs. It hasn't done either.

But since you're counting previously insured people as uninsured who benefited from the law then that explains it.

 

[acceptmeplease]

The fact that you all call the Affordable Care Act as Obamacare shows that there is already a fox news/conservative bias clouding people's judgments on the matter. Really its not a failure. Ask the 11 million people who have healthcare today because of the ACA. I really hope you don't call the ACA, Obamacare in your interviews.

Its real name is the Patient Protection and Affordable care act; calling it the ACA is as much of a nickname as Obamacare.

If I'm not mistaken, this is a Medical Student forum meaning a lot of us are already past the whole interview-acceptance-matriculation thing.

Also, I'm including a link to a CNN article which, in addition to not being a conservative news channel, also refers to "Obamacare".

http://money.cnn.com/2015/01/02/news/economy/obamacare-employers-health-insurance/

 

[Psai]

Calling it the affordable care act makes as much sense as calling the war department the department of defense. We currently live in an orwellian society folks

 

[GunnerBMS]

Its real name is the Patient Protection and Affordable care act; calling it the ACA is as much of a nickname as Obamacare.

If I'm not mistaken, this is a Medical Student forum meaning a lot of us are already past the whole interview-acceptance-matriculation thing.

Also, I'm including a link to a CNN article which, in addition to not being a conservative news channel, also refers to "Obamacare".

http://money.cnn.com/2015/01/02/news/economy/obamacare-employers-health-insurance/

CNN is conservative. Also, ACA is not a politicized nickname like Obamacare. If you want to make a false equivalency like that then shame on you.

 

[acceptmeplease]

CNN is conservative. Also, ACA is not a politicized nickname like Obamacare. If you want to make a false equivalency like that then shame on you.

According to pew polls, you're wrong on CNN.

Here's the New York Times.

http://mobile.nytimes.com/2014/12/0...ying-the-democratic-party.html?referrer=&_r=0

http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/...acare-who-was-helped-most.html?abt=0002&abg=1

 

[Mad Jack]

Medicaid wasn't built in a day

ftfy

 

[charmiedermie]

CNN is conservative. Also, ACA is not a politicized nickname like Obamacare. If you want to make a false equivalency like that then shame on you.

Have u actually watched CNN?

 

[fancymylotus]

Have u actually watched CNN?

I'm gonna go with no.

I like BBC a lot*


*bbc has cricket coverage and I'm a huge fob so...yeah

 

[Ismet]

CNN is conservative. Also, ACA is not a politicized nickname like Obamacare. If you want to make a false equivalency like that then shame on you.

Lol @ CNN being conservative.

Who cares what you call it. You're referring to the same thing. And if you're talking to patients about it, I bet you the majority of the time they'll refer to it as Obamacare and have no idea what this "affordable care act" thing is.

 

[Roxas]

CNN is conservative. Also, ACA is not a politicized nickname like Obamacare. If you want to make a false equivalency like that then shame on you.

Troll harder bro. You're currently hovering around 0.5/10

 

[Ed Tom Bell]

Maybe we should try to approach this conversation in a one sub-topic at a time manner? % uninsured, out of pocket cost, overall healthcare costs, historical trends, and at some point maybe even discuss the protections that are provided by Obamacare/ACA vs. what was lost. State opinion, note sources, and see where that gets us?

 

[Roxas]

Maybe we should try to approach this conversation in a one sub-topic at a time manner? % uninsured, out of pocket cost, overall healthcare costs, historical trends, and at some point maybe even discuss the protections that are provided by Obamacare/ACA vs. what was lost. State opinion, note sources, and see where that gets us?

Man you really want to talk about this. Don't you have like a conservative uncle or something you could argue with?

 

[Ed Tom Bell]

Man you really want to talk about this. Don't you have like a conservative uncle or something you could argue with?

I could think of one or two, yes. But this seems like the best place. And this has nothing to do with anger.

 

[Roxas]

I could think of one or two, yes. But this seems like the best place. And this has nothing to do with anger.

Perhaps you could try the exercise of writing from the opposition's viewpoint. Why do you think so many are opposed to Obamacare? As both a citizen and a future physician.

 

[Ed Tom Bell]

Perhaps you could try the exercise of writing from the opposition's viewpoint. Why do you think so many are opposed to Obamacare? As both a citizen and a future physician.

I suppose we could try that. I would be an honest participant. I also recognize that many on this thread are up to their ears in school work. So, if you're OK with it, I'd like to take it one step at a time. Paced and reasonable. I really do like your suggestion though. Let's see what everybody else thinks.

 

[Roxas]

I suppose we could try that. I would be an honest participant. I also recognize that many on this thread are up to their ears in school work. So, if you're OK with it, I'd like to take it one step at a time. Paced and reasonable. I really do like your suggestion though. Let's see what everybody else thinks.

I can't promise the same, given that I have an exam tomorrow (well...today) I'm staying up tonight for.

 

[Ed Tom Bell]

I can't promise the same, given that I have an exam tomorrow (well...today) I'm staying up tonight for.

Good luck. One foot in front of the other. Fight the good fight until the bitter end. And then get some sleep.

 

[MajorBubblez]

@Ed Tom Bell

I've been following the thread relatively passively, so I was wondering whether I could get your perspective (as someone who doesn't perceive the ACA as the end of the world) on a couple things. First and foremost, I (and a few other entering med students) are concerned that whilst we'll go through the training, get our MD/DO, etc. we still won't really be practicing medicine. Healthcare (at least to us) seems to be moving in a direction that places doctors in an almost administrative position, leaving a lot of the actual "doctoring" or caring for patients to midlevels. Now obviously this isn't all inclusive or across the board, but it's still a huge impact. Do you think this is an impact of the ACA or just a natural (and unfortunate) direction medicine was inevitably going?

You also seem to be saying that while their are noticeable hiccups with the EMR system, the system as a whole will be smoothed out over time. The whole "Rome wasn't built in a day". I agree that a new healthcare medical records system was probably needed, as healthcare can't stay locked in the past. It just seems to me that these 'hiccups' aren't simple obstacles that will be smoothed out over time- enough physicians have decided to leave healthcare over them, which isn't exactly a small or easy decision. Maybe it can be fine tuned over the next 10+ years or so- but at that point, how much damage will be done, especially as we may be at a point wherein we need an altogether new system.

I'd also love to get your thoughts regarding physician compensation. I've seen that while coverage has significantly increased since the roll-out of the ACA, that doesn't necessarily translate into more people being seen. It's relatively well known that many physicians can't afford to see medicare/medicaid patients as they often cost more to see than the physician makes from seeing them. That's not a stable model, nor is cutting compensation when we're going to need more docs than ever over the next several years. Again, I appreciate costs need to be cut to prevent our government hemorrhaging money, but surely there's a better way to do that than targeting physicians.

Thanks for the input, I'm personally rather against the ACA but I'll admit your responses have given me a new perspective.

 

[Lawgiver]

I really hope many of you leave healthcare and more of you change your mind altogether about starting, due to the ACA. High levels of hysteria is probably not a quality a physician should espouse.

 

[NickNaylor]

I really hope many of you leave healthcare and more of you change your mind altogether about starting, due to the ACA. High levels of hysteria is probably not a quality a physician should espouse.

Your moral superiority is duly noted and subsequently ignored.

 

[Roxas]

I really hope many of you leave healthcare and more of you change your mind altogether about starting, due to the ACA. High levels of hysteria is probably not a quality a physician should espouse.

Neither is seeking of additional government interference

 

[Baller MD]

http://www.nytimes.com/2015/03/01/opinion/sunday/the-phony-legal-attack-on-health-care.html

I wonder what the outcome of this is going to be.

 

[NickNaylor]

http://www.nytimes.com/2015/03/01/opinion/sunday/the-phony-legal-attack-on-health-care.html

I wonder what the outcome of this is going to be.

Interesting op ed. I find it somewhat amusing that the editorial board demonizes those pushing the suit forward for simply lobbying for their legislative goals. I'm also not really convinced of the "phoniness" of the suit as alleged by the op ed. If you look at the filing linked there, the fact that different courts have arrived at different conclusions itself reveals that there is sufficient legal controversy (despite the claim that several judges have dismissed the suit). NYT may see the "correct" conclusion as obvious, but clearly that isn't the case. That they so quickly dismiss the argument that Congress wouldn't make the appropriate changes to correct this issue ignores the whole purpose of the legislative system. They're advocating for the epitome of judicial activism: if the legislature won't do x, then the judiciary should. That seems like a dangerous precedent to go down and erodes the value of electing representatives in the first place. What's the point of having a legislature that represents a variety of interests if courts can manufacture law (or, perhaps in this case, extend law in a way that perhaps wasn't initially intended by the legislature)?

I'm no legal scholar, but the argument as outlined in the suit is pretty compelling. I imagine the decision will be a close vote (liberals siding with decisions that support continuing to give subsidies, conservatives the opposite), but we'll see. It'll be interesting. The portrait painted by the NYT seems somewhat disingenuous at best, though.

 

[charmiedermie]

I really hope many of you leave healthcare and more of you change your mind altogether about starting, due to the ACA. High levels of hysteria is probably not a quality a physician should espouse.

So you think premeds, med students, and physicians shouldn't be concerned about a law that affects physician salaries, the way they practice medicine, and impacts their patients in a serious way? Get off your soapbox.

 

[charmiedermie]

http://www.nytimes.com/2015/03/01/opinion/sunday/the-phony-legal-attack-on-health-care.html

I wonder what the outcome of this is going to be.

So they support the law, but only reported about the bill's real consequences after it was passed. The same paper that supports wage equality between men and women for the same job, except when it came to their own paper. Please.

I don't think anyone cares what the Editorial Board at the NY Times thinks on legislative issues.

 

[MajorBubblez]

So they support the law, but only reported about the bill's real consequences after it was passed. The same paper that supports wage equality between men and women for the same job, except when it came to their own paper. Please.

I don't think anyone cares what the Editorial Board at the NY Times thinks on legislative issues.

Unfortunately published pieces garner more attention then they should. People will assume because it's in the NYT it's worth considering and therefore caring about.

 

[Darth Doc]

So people who already had health insurance
Nowhere close to 40 million, by the way.

Just an FYI... Every inmate in the United States has been signed up (or is being signed up) for ACA/Obamacare. I know this because when the law passed part of my job was to tell them they were required to sign the paperwork to apply for it. There was no opt out. They all signed. They didn't care. None of the prisoners use it because the money for their healthcare comes out of another bucket.

That's another 2 million names on the books that aren't actually using it or receiving any benefit.

 

[Darth Doc]

West Virginia benefits second best of all the states with ACA/Obamacare, but some republicans in the state legislature are trying to make it illegal to enforce the federal law. I don't care which side you're on in this debate, this logically makes no sense.

Edit: I now have read the bill, and what they're mostly saying is that Obamacare violates the Constitution so they want to prevent it from being enforced in West Virginia. I just hope they have a way to help provide the necessary medical services.

 

[PikminOC]

Unfortunately published pieces garner more attention then they should. People will assume because it's in the NYT it's worth considering and therefore caring about.

Does the NYT have a slant?
Anyone read the articles on physicians it has?

 

[notbobtrustme]

i agree, the ACA is a failure, just like when integrated blacks and hispanics. that muddled the races and led to the downfall of america.

 

[fancymylotus]

i agree, the ACA is a failure, just like when integrated blacks and hispanics. that muddled the races and led to the downfall of america.

Where's my violin?

 

[Dash2021]

West Virginia benefits second best of all the states with ACA/Obamacare, but some republicans in the state legislature are trying to make it illegal to enforce the federal law. I don't care which side you're on in this debate, this logically makes no sense.

Edit: I now have read the bill, and what they're mostly saying is that Obamacare violates the Constitution so they want to prevent it from being enforced in West Virginia. I just hope they have a way to help provide the necessary medical services.

This......is why I have a problem listening to the chicken little arguments concerning the ACA. No body's happy with the ACA, let's be honest. Dems wanted to push for a single payer system but settled for what they could get, which is the worst of both worlds. But above it all the Republicans have opposed reform w/out any plan whatsoever. It would be easier to take the criticism seriously if there was any plan whatsoever to replace it, and there isn't. 6 years into this presidency and no concrete plan has been put forth by the republicans to replace the "worst law ever passed". This is the opinion piece for this week concerning the court case linked above: http://www.washingtonpost.com/opini...925502-becc-11e4-8668-4e7ba8439ca6_story.html . You'll notice that that is the Republican leadership authoring the piece. You'll also note that the extent of the "plan" is to let people keep the insurance they have now, then, ya know, let the states figure it out. Which is to say, there is no plan.

This lawsuit has virtually no chance of succeeding, especially considering the prior court cases were much stronger and didn't manage to accomplish anything meaningful. Even then, when there was a real chance the law could have been overturned, there was no plan B proposed. Had the SCOTUS struck down the law in its entirety, healthcare in this country would have been a wreck for years. In my state, in which ACA is incredibly popular as long as it's not called Obamacare, our Senator was asked what would happen to the state exchange website (which, again, is incredibly popular if not linked to the president) if/when he and his compatriots repealed Obamacare. His response: "The website can continue if they want it to." Despite the fact that the website wasn't worth the domain space w/o the rest of the law.

As a independent I honestly don't give two ****s what happens to ACA. However, should the law be repealed/modified going forward and we go back to the old system of health care, great. As future physicians we'll benefit from increased revenue. If the law remains intact, great. Compensation won't be as great as the golden years, but the mandate will ensure that at least some of the services billed for can be collected meaning stable billings. What pisses me off about the republicans isn't their refusal to have even a basic outline of a plan after 6 years of rhetoric, but how blatant they are about using the ACA as the boogeyman to stir up the base. Of course there's no plan to replace ACA if it gets repealed, they don't want it to be repealed. They just want to talk about repeal in order whip up votes. If it actually gets repealed/replaced then they have to work hard to find a new scary monster.

 

[endtheleftwing]

:troll:

 

[kenjixshadow]

:troll:

This thread was dead by March 3, 2015. Why did you pump it when no one has been trolling ever since? But thanks, I can go on liking spree for @Mad Jack.

 

[endtheleftwing]

I blame it on capitalism /s

 

[Anicetus]

You get what you vote for kids.

 

[Lawgiver]

I'll assume most of you are literate when it comes to graphs. I'll also assume some of you will remain completely blinded by your ideology.

 

[acceptmeplease]

I'll assume most of you are literate when it comes to graphs. I'll also assume some of you will remain completely blinded by your ideology.

All I see is about 4% of the country losing their jobs, and then 7% of the country getting Medicaid.

 

[Stagg737]

I'll assume most of you are literate when it comes to graphs. I'll also assume some of you will remain completely blinded by your ideology.

Thank you, for that revelatory single statistic. Clearly being insured will solve all the problems of our healthcare system!

 

[InsertMemberNameHere]

All I see is about 4% of the country losing their jobs, and then 7% of the country getting Medicaid.

What? Unemployment has been steadily dropping since Obama took office.

BLS Data: http://data.bls.gov/timeseries/LNS14000000

Thank you, for that revelatory single statistic. Clearly being insured will solve all the problems of our healthcare system!

Insuring people is certainly a start. Did you think Obamacare would magically fix all of the problems of the healthcare system? This is a step.

I'll assume most of you are literate when it comes to graphs. I'll also assume some of you will remain completely blinded by your ideology.

Thank you for sharing this data. The ACA has helped insured 16 million people and counting now. And with a conservative Supreme Court backing it in two critical cases, it is likely here to stay - at least for a decent amount of time.

The ACA isn't perfect but it is constitutional, and it is insuring millions of Americans.

 

[Mad Jack]

I'll assume most of you are literate when it comes to graphs. I'll also assume some of you will remain completely blinded by your ideology.

Insured in no way equals accessible care.
http://thinkprogress.org/health/2015/04/17/3647982/obamacare-racial-gaps/
https://www.wsws.org/en/articles/2015/08/07/acap-a07.html
http://www.washingtontimes.com/news...o-ops-flailing-falling-behind-loans/?page=all
http://www.thefiscaltimes.com/2015/07/16/Obamacare-Plans-Offer-34-Percent-Fewer-Choices
http://thehill.com/policy/healthcare/248075-fewer-choices-of-doctors-under-obamacare-study-finds
http://www.theguardian.com/money/us-money-blog/2015/jul/12/health-insurers-premium-increases
http://www.washingtonpost.com/natio...c84e20-4bb4-11e3-ac54-aa84301ced81_story.html

I mean, I could keep posting for days. These aren't sensationalist articles. Premiums are increasing, and those who have coverage are able to see far less providers than before. The market is consolidating, and premiums will likely increase if certain future mergers are approved. Having insurance and having quality insurance are two totally separate things. With sky-high deductibles and tiny provider panels, many poor people with Obamacare plans may as well have no coverage at all, as their coverage is hard to use and the deductibles alone would bankrupt them.

 

[Stagg737]

Insuring people is certainly a start. Did you think Obamacare would magically fix all of the problems of the healthcare system? This is a step.

Obviously not, but there's a huge difference between being insured and being able to receive adequate care, or any care at all. Besides, there are still many people that are incapable of getting insurance through the ACA and are forced to either remain uninsured or have to just buy private insurance like before the ACA was enacted, myself included. It may be a first step, but considering it was implemented over a year ago and they've had to make numerous concessions to even keep it afloat (even in areas which were largely unopposed by republicans) I find the entire situation inadequate at best.

 

[InsertMemberNameHere]

Insured in no way equals accessible care.
http://thinkprogress.org/health/2015/04/17/3647982/obamacare-racial-gaps/
https://www.wsws.org/en/articles/2015/08/07/acap-a07.html
http://www.washingtontimes.com/news...o-ops-flailing-falling-behind-loans/?page=all
http://www.thefiscaltimes.com/2015/07/16/Obamacare-Plans-Offer-34-Percent-Fewer-Choices
http://thehill.com/policy/healthcare/248075-fewer-choices-of-doctors-under-obamacare-study-finds
http://www.theguardian.com/money/us-money-blog/2015/jul/12/health-insurers-premium-increases
http://www.washingtonpost.com/natio...c84e20-4bb4-11e3-ac54-aa84301ced81_story.html

I mean, I could keep posting for days. These aren't sensationalist articles. Premiums are increasing, and those who have coverage are able to see far less providers than before. The market is consolidating, and premiums will likely increase if certain future mergers are approved. Having insurance and having quality insurance are two totally separate things. With sky-high deductibles and tiny provider panels, many poor people with Obamacare plans may as well have no coverage at all, as their coverage is hard to use and the deductibles alone would bankrupt them.

First of all, health insurance premiums increase every year. This was true before Obamacare, even in the private market.

http://www.ncsl.org/research/health/health-insurance-premiums.aspx

Second of all, of course Obamacare plans offer fewer choices of doctors than other health insurances. This has been true for Medicaid and Medicare as well. Obamacare isn't premium health insurance; it's basic coverage.

Obamacare no doubt started off very shaky. It's only just started to turn the corner in March/April of 2015 as it rolled out another set of coverage to millions of Americans.

As you said, of course you could go on and on. You can find find articles both trumping and criticizing the ACA. This is 2015; the information era. If you want to find anything good or bad to fit a preconceived narrative about a topic, you're only a Google search away.

The real truth about the ACA is that it is very complicated. It is much too early to declare it a complete success or failure at this point, like you are trying to do (see - thread title). The truth is that it's been a little bit of both. More states have started to expand their coverage and accept national subsidies so the cost has been decreasing. It started off shaky (especially around 2013), but now we are starting to see decreased hospital admissions and preventable deaths among poorer populations that had higher rates of being uninsured.

We've seen premiums go up a little more than average, but not by much, and it's important to note they went up steadily every year even before the ACA - even in the private market.

 

[acceptmeplease]

What? Unemployment has been steadily dropping since Obama took office.

BLS Data: http://data.bls.gov/timeseries/LNS14000000



Insuring people is certainly a start. Did you think Obamacare would magically fix all of the problems of the healthcare system? This is a step.



Thank you for sharing this data. The ACA has helped insured 16 million people and counting now. And with a conservative Supreme Court backing it in two critical cases, it is likely here to stay - at least for a decent amount of time.

The ACA isn't perfect but it is constitutional, and it is insuring millions of Americans.

No, it hasn't. It rose quite a bit and then dropped a little.

http://www.tradingeconomics.com/united-states/unemployment-rate

Couple that with underemployment statistics, and it accounts for what I said .


http://www.forbes.com/sites/louisefron/2014/08/20/tackling-the-real-unemployment-rate-12-6/

 

[----------12c]

http://www.nytimes.com/2015/02/08/sunday-review/insured-but-not-covered.html

I'll open by saying idgaf that its real name is the ACA, for anyone that wanted to drop that revelatory piece of information as a follow-up. This abomination deserves to be named after its insistent creator, so I'm sticking with it. Now, why does it suck?

Insurers may be forced to enroll people, but that doesn't mean they'll actually get coverage. To limit their costs, insurers have been pruning their coverage networks to a ridiculous degree- something they'd planned on doing before Obamacare, but accelerated once it became law. Premiums are still growing faster than wages, and patients are paying more out of their own pockets than ever before. The sorts of people that the exchange was designed to help most (those with expensive preexisting conditions) find themselves unable to access the specialists and hospitals that are best equipped to handle their conditions.

Patients have less options and coverage than before the law, higher premiums, and much higher out of pocket fees. Physicians are seeing lower reimbursement or no reimbursement at all due to network exclusion, as well as less mobility due to the inability of many specialists to enroll in provider networks, and of course there is the ever decreasing autonomy as new docs are forced to be employees due to the high costs of mandatory EMR and billing coupled with the difficulty of gaining access to a provider network as a solo practitioner.

Who won? Insurance companies and drug companies. Maybe a dem or two that can say they delivered on one of their promises while lying through their teeth. Patients lose. Hospitals lose. Doctors lose. Obamacare is a failure of epic proportions, and one that has likely caused a degree of damage that can never be undone, even by repeal, because insurers have realized what they can get away with and aren't likely to go back to their old ways.

The biggest reason we should all care is that this is the market we might be graduating into. One where you can be an ENT doc that can't find an insurance company willing to add you to their panel, so you're forced to take an employed position with a hospital group or nothing. One where you can be a PCP that is forced to send your patient to a city four hours out because the only specialist your insurance company covers in the county happens to be there.

Obamacare is stupid. I lost money!!! Not that I'm only in the medical field for money. Just throwing in an honest two cents out there.

 

[Stagg737]

First of all, health insurance premiums increase every year. This was true before Obamacare, even in the private market.

http://www.ncsl.org/research/health/health-insurance-premiums.aspx

Second of all, of course Obamacare plans offer fewer choices of doctors than other health insurances. This has been true for Medicaid and Medicare as well. Obamacare isn't premium health insurance; it's basic coverage.

Obamacare no doubt started off very shaky. It's only just started to turn the corner in March/April of 2015 as it rolled out another set of coverage to millions of Americans.

As you said, of course you could go on and on. You can find find articles both trumping and criticizing the ACA. This is 2015; the information era. If you want to find anything good or bad to fit a preconceived narrative about a topic, you're only a Google search away.

The real truth about the ACA is that it is very complicated. It is much too early to declare it a complete success or failure at this point, like you are trying to do (see - thread title). The truth is that it's been a little bit of both. More states have started to expand their coverage and accept national subsidies so the cost has been decreasing. It started off shaky (especially around 2013), but now we are starting to see decreased hospital admissions and preventable deaths among poorer populations that had higher rates of being uninsured.

We've seen premiums go up a little more than average, but not by much, and it's important to note they went up steadily every year even before the ACA - even in the private market.

To address your point of 'of course ACA plans offer fewer choices': this wouldn't be an issue if it was just previously uninsured individuals going on those plans. However, the problem arises when a significant number of people with insurance lose their old coverage and convert to the Obamacare plans which provided worse coverage for a similar price. Though the number isn't certain, factcheck showed that it was pretty safe to say it's in the millions:

http://www.factcheck.org/2014/04/millions-lost-insurance/

You summed up the plan best by saying "it's complicated". Which is exactly the problem. On the whole, the bill is far to complicated with far too many intricacies and aspects that have nothing to do with healthcare. It's an embarrassment to the U.S. gov that such a ridiculously long, convoluted, and at points arbitrary bill would pass when it has implications which would literally impact every person in the country. Are there some aspects to it that are positive? Sure, but there's so much nonsense and poor legislature surrounding it in the 1,000+ pages that navigating, let alone comprehending, the full scope of the bill is nearly impossible.

 

[TexasDoc2388]

My employer's insurance has pretty low deductibles for me and my family. My mother's insurance also has pretty low deductibles. Moral of the story, don't get on Obamacare if it doesn't work for you. If your employer pushes people towards that, find a new one. You're physicians, you have leverage.