Yes, I've been goggling as well.
Exchanges are state run and there is no requirement I can find that makes the states set them up. The feds reserve the rights to run them if the states decline (oh boy).
There is a fear these exchanges will do the opposite of what is intended since the regulation and minimum insurance requirements have increased. And there is also a fear policies in the exchanges will be skewed to higher price point coverage.
On self insurance it seems from limited study the same applies, much greater restrictions and regulation.
In any case lets just agree to disagree on the value of the ACA. It will get sorted out one way or the other at the ballot box.
You made assertions. You can produce no facts to back your assertions up, and so you state 2x you are fearful of what *might* happen.
Thanks for sharing that. Iím fearful too, but can provide facts as to why.
Having paid into a system that has gone up over 135% in the last 10 years, while offering reduced services for my added expense, I shudder to see what the next 10 years could bring, without MAJOR changes to the system. Can you imagine a system that requires a typical healthy adult to pay over $1,000 per month, every month just for health insurance? That is where we are headed, without a major change.
Meanwhile, many of our local ďnon-profitĒ health providers have stock piled billions of dollars. They too claim being fearful. http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/localnews/2017460805_surplus09m.html
Iím pretty sure the same phenomena can be found across the country.
The insurance and medical industry is wealthy nearly beyond the ability to count largely because some people are just too fearful to think for themselves. These same people will believe anything these greedy groups tell them to believe.
As far as self-insurance, greater oversight of self-insurance plans is a good thing. I know of some groups who use self-insurance, and theyíve done extremely well as a consequence. The $$$ that would otherwise go into the coffers of insurance companies stays with the company and lets them re-invest it. That permits the company to grow more readily. Thatís fine with me.
Any company that is big enough to self-insure, probably will, unless, their employee population puts them at risk for losing $$ due to being self-insured. That kind of risk is why strict oversight is important and the risk is why insurance exists in the first place.
The real tragedy is that that health care has become nearly guaranteed path to ruin for anyone who really needs it, especially without insurance. Heck, the cost of delivering a baby is over $30K per the WSJ. http://online.wsj.com/article/SB124165279035493687.html
How about the cost of a trip to the ER to fix a simple broken arm? Accordingly that can be anywhere between $2.5K to over $16K. http://health.costhelper.com/broken-arm.html
Now letís look at some fairly common life events. Roughly 80% of men will have serious lower back problems in their lives. Typical cost to repair a herniated disk can be between $8K and $150K. http://www.herniateddiscbacksurgery.com/spine-surgery-cost.shtml
Typical cost of some forms of cancer treatment: Lung cancer treatment: over $40K. Prostate cancer: over $18K. Recurrent breast cancer: around $55K. http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/06/10/AR2008061001987.html
There are endless examples. The point is if one doesnít have health insurance, entirely predictable life maladies can financially destroy nearly anyone. If people canít afford insurance, then ultimately the cost falls to the tax payers.
You really want this trend to continue unchanged? A political party that encourages that is what I fear.