It is not universal. There is a coverage gap just below the poverty line, between losing eligibility for Medicaid, and becoming eligible for ACA premium subsidies. Just a complete lack of coverage for the people with the greatest need.
(Edit: to be fair, that gap was supposed to be filled by Medicaid expansion, but that largely fell through)
The fundamental reliance on private insurers is the biggest gap in universality. Public healthcare is subject to the private sector’s willingness to permit treatment. With some companies boasting >30% denial rates, that “gap” is a gaping chasm.
What you learned is incomplete: the coverage gap only exists in states that chose not to expand Medicaid coverage, aka those with republican legislatures. As written, the ACA would subsidize an increasing fraction of health insurance cost until someone’s income was a certain level above the poverty line. If their income fell below this level, they would get coverage through Medicaid instead.
Medicaid historically didn’t cover people with incomes this high, so the ACA expanded coverage to higher income residents. The federal government covered 100% of the cost of Medicaid expansion for the first ~decade, and then 90% after that. Several states sued and the supreme court struck down part of the law that required states to go along with this. So they had to opt in to Medicaid expansion. The ones that didn’t (republican state govts) now have a coverage gap.
Its unfortunate because it harms those who needed help the most, but its a consequence of republicans at the state level for refusing expansion, and at republicans at the federal level for refusing to allow any changes to the ACA that would fix the issue.
It’s not universal, it’s based on income. When I signed up for the ACA I put down my income at $3,000 a month, which makes my monthly bill $30.19 a month. If my average income for the year exceeds $3,000, I owe the difference to the government.
My small income works for me because I live alone and don’t have any dependents. But if I had kids I would need to double or triple my income to support them, in which case my monthly ACA payment would also increase. It’s possible for people with families to be priced out of the ACA.
Washington State. My deductible is $600. It’s income based, so my low rate requires me to make very little. That is fine with me, since I have no desire to work more than 32 hours a week and I’ve learned how to live cheaply.
The insurance my job offered me is $100 a month with a $4,500 deductible, which is absolutely awful in comparison.
What I especially love is that providers charge a much higher price if you use insurance. A $100 procedure becomes a $1000 procedure if you try to use insurance to pay for it. Then your insurance says “sorry, you haven’t reached your deductible”, and the provider bills you the full amount.
No, it’s neither universal nor garbage. You didn’t bother to read my comment. If you had, you would’ve seen me mention how I pay $30.19 a month for health insurance. That is a fantastic deal. The ACA works well for people like me, it just has a limited scope and sends tax payer dollars to greedy health insurance companies.
That is not a fantastic deal. When insurers are denying 1/3 of claims, and providers are charging insured rates 10 times higher than uninsured rates, that is not a good deal at all.
It is a travesty that government props up this horseshit system. They should be arresting everyone involved with the health insurance industry for perpetrating a massive fraud on the American people.
It is universal. I guarantee you Obama would agree 100% with a European style single payer system, which is what I think you mean.
It is not universal. There is a coverage gap just below the poverty line, between losing eligibility for Medicaid, and becoming eligible for ACA premium subsidies. Just a complete lack of coverage for the people with the greatest need.
(Edit: to be fair, that gap was supposed to be filled by Medicaid expansion, but that largely fell through)
The fundamental reliance on private insurers is the biggest gap in universality. Public healthcare is subject to the private sector’s willingness to permit treatment. With some companies boasting >30% denial rates, that “gap” is a gaping chasm.
Good old “welfare cliff”. It works this way with a lot of low income benefits.
Welp I learn something every day. Thanks for sharing.
What you learned is incomplete: the coverage gap only exists in states that chose not to expand Medicaid coverage, aka those with republican legislatures. As written, the ACA would subsidize an increasing fraction of health insurance cost until someone’s income was a certain level above the poverty line. If their income fell below this level, they would get coverage through Medicaid instead.
Medicaid historically didn’t cover people with incomes this high, so the ACA expanded coverage to higher income residents. The federal government covered 100% of the cost of Medicaid expansion for the first ~decade, and then 90% after that. Several states sued and the supreme court struck down part of the law that required states to go along with this. So they had to opt in to Medicaid expansion. The ones that didn’t (republican state govts) now have a coverage gap.
Its unfortunate because it harms those who needed help the most, but its a consequence of republicans at the state level for refusing expansion, and at republicans at the federal level for refusing to allow any changes to the ACA that would fix the issue.
It’s not universal, it’s based on income. When I signed up for the ACA I put down my income at $3,000 a month, which makes my monthly bill $30.19 a month. If my average income for the year exceeds $3,000, I owe the difference to the government.
My small income works for me because I live alone and don’t have any dependents. But if I had kids I would need to double or triple my income to support them, in which case my monthly ACA payment would also increase. It’s possible for people with families to be priced out of the ACA.
It’s definitely not universal.
Where are you getting $30 a month? When i looked at it, the cheapest is like $300 with a $10k deductible
Washington State. My deductible is $600. It’s income based, so my low rate requires me to make very little. That is fine with me, since I have no desire to work more than 32 hours a week and I’ve learned how to live cheaply.
The insurance my job offered me is $100 a month with a $4,500 deductible, which is absolutely awful in comparison.
lol do you guys seriously still have deductibles with the affordable care act? God I feel for you guys sometimes.
What I especially love is that providers charge a much higher price if you use insurance. A $100 procedure becomes a $1000 procedure if you try to use insurance to pay for it. Then your insurance says “sorry, you haven’t reached your deductible”, and the provider bills you the full amount.
That sounds like a fucking nightmare.
You can wake up from a nightmare.
$300 before or after the subsidy?
True, it’s universal but garbage. So not really universal.
No, it’s neither universal nor garbage. You didn’t bother to read my comment. If you had, you would’ve seen me mention how I pay $30.19 a month for health insurance. That is a fantastic deal. The ACA works well for people like me, it just has a limited scope and sends tax payer dollars to greedy health insurance companies.
That is not a fantastic deal. When insurers are denying 1/3 of claims, and providers are charging insured rates 10 times higher than uninsured rates, that is not a good deal at all.
It is a travesty that government props up this horseshit system. They should be arresting everyone involved with the health insurance industry for perpetrating a massive fraud on the American people.
Nah that would hurt our GDP too much and eliminate too many jobs.
Yeah might as well feed all those poor people to the GDP machine.
Think about the poor GDP!
You know how we can help the GDP? I’ll kick you in the nuts for $100, and then you can punch me in the nose for $100.
Then we’ll have increased the GDP by $200!