Put this where you can see it:

The "Affordable Care Act" canceled CANCER treatments for thousands of Americans.

How long do YOU want to wait?

Here's what you're going to hear, as it has been demonstrated: "Sick? The clerk is not sick. Fill out this form. Is the form filled out? Then, the system is working perfectly. Sit down and wait - you will be called when you may be treated. No, you may NOT seek treatment anywhere else. Why would you? The system is working perfectly."

Puke.

Of course, where this is all leading to is rationing, with everything that that implies. Substandard care, not available in a timely manner. Access varies greatly depending on political influence. Favored people and groups will receive preferred treatment. Politically weak people and groups will be cut off from the system and left to their own devices. Just wait until someone "discovers" some provision in the ACA that makes outside-the-system care illegal.

Those old plans are labeled "substandard" because many of them are.
A lot of people think they have insurance, but it fails them when
they need it most. Per CNN, 60% of all personal bankruptcy is due
to medical bills. Of those due to medical bills, three quarters of
those people had "medical insurance".

http://www.cnn.com/2009/HEALTH/06/05/bankruptcy.medical.bills/

He means people were free to choose insurance that wasn't designed to serve his social equity and income redistribution goals.

Equity - A word used by people to justify the theft of others money/opportunity/property when they find that EQUALITY did not reward them as richly as they thought they deserved to be

Gah..same old same old. A gets together with B to help D at the expense of C.

C would be us.

Ah the old substandard bs again. Just remember, in a certain socialist country, the Yugo was the standard, anything else was substandard, like a Ferrari.

And as for that silly 60% bankruptcy thing, so what should cause the majority of bankruptcies? Something has to, by definition. So if a major life changing illness shouldn't in your opinion, what should?

sorry, Ron. That CNN number is at best cherry picked, at worst a statistic fuly manipulated. M. McArdle has done a fair buncha debunks on this, and here is one article:
http://www.theatlantic.com/business/archive/2010/02/a-little-more-about-medical-bankruptcy/35919/

OTOH, WHY do you think ANYTHING would be different with Obamacare? Deductibles are higher, Dr's are fewer, and there will be rationing. Do you think patients will still go bankrupt trying to pay for services their insurance doesn't cover? Garundamnteed.

Especially the 60something who has fabulous maternity insurance, but has to wait forever to be seen for the lump in her chest.

"Those old plans are labeled "substandard" because many of them are."

My new work plan cancels things I had that were useful to me - dental - and gives me things that I have absolutely no use for - dental and vision coverage for my kids. I have no kids! At least if I squint hard I can see the justification for mandating pregnancy coverage for someone who doesn't want it if they are in prime childbearing years (I don't agree with it, but I can see a modicum of logic). But coverage for people who don't even exist? At an extra $2400 a year?

SwissArmyD: Thanks for the cite. It does put a different slant on
those numbers.

Why do I think anything would be different? Two bad problems
are solved.

One: Policies that had a low price but low limits are gone. With
this type of policy, a catastrophic illness leaves you on your own
when medical expenses get really high.

Two: The standard sleazy practice of alleging "existing conditions".
You hit a serious and expensive problem and the company tries to
claim that it's not covered because it existed when you signed up,
years ago. A lot of these were bad-faith allegations, but it would
cost the policy holder long and expensive litigation to try to
prove that the denial was bogus.

I don't like all of the pieces of ACA. For instance, there really
should have been a provision for Major Medical, where the policy
pays nothing until you reach the plan minimum, then covers you
against the big bills. However, ACA does address real ills in
the insurance business as-was.

A lot of these were bad-faith allegations, but it would cost the policy holder long and expensive litigation to try to prove that the denial was bogus. -- Ron at December 2, 2013 3:23 PM

I take it you never watch any TV outside of prime time on major channels. I hear any number of ambulance chasing lawyers advertise that are more than willing to take your case for a percentage. And then the latest one is the companies that are will finance you until your case is settled.

I don't like all of the pieces of ACA. For instance, there really should have been a provision for Major Medical, where the policy pays nothing until you reach the plan minimum, then covers you against the big bills. However, ACA does address real ills in the insurance business as-was. -- Ron at December 2, 2013 3:23 PM

The problem is that the [un]ACA cannot survive if they allow major medical. They need about 2.7 million healthy young people to sign onto the program with to fund it. So if you have the under 26 crowd that is on their parents insurance and another large percent is go to look at $250 per month compared to the $300 penalty ($40K * 1%) and say fuck it. Especially because if they have an accident and pre-existing conditions don't matter. That's what happened in Massachusetts.

You have to realize that people are going to take advantage of any system in any way they can. Look at the Obamaphone. I knew a few people who bought beat up trucks during cash for clunkers. So I would suggest you do more research before you approve of it.

I hear any number of ambulance chasing lawyers advertise that are more than willing to take your case for a percentage

That does not contradict "long and expensive". Even assuming you
win, and win the full amount, the typical contingency fee is in the
ballpark of 33%. If the insurance company was holding back on
paying a million in medical expenses, the lawyer's cut would be
$333,333. That's the amount you're left on the hook for. Good luck
avoiding bankruptcy!

I hear any number of ambulance chasing lawyers advertise that are more than willing to take your case for a percentage

That does not contradict "long and expensive". Even assuming you
win, and win the full amount, the typical contingency fee is in the
ballpark of 33%. If the insurance company was holding back on
paying a million in medical expenses, the lawyer's cut would be
$333,333. That's the amount you're left on the hook for. Good luck
avoiding bankruptcy!

Posted by: Ron at December 2, 2013 10:24 PM

Whatever the problems are with the current insurance system in the US, i think it has been amply demonstrated to any thinking individual that Obamacare is not the solution to any of them, and will, in fact, just make things worse.

You know what is far worse than getting your insurance cancelled because of a pre existing condition?

Not being able to get treatment at all because you have been squeezed into a system that rations care, and your so called "insurance" doesn't cover anything that you actually need or want.

So you pay 12k a year for insurance that wont be accepted for doctors and hospitals in your area, and then pay cash for the treatment you have to have. This is an improvement?

That does not contradict "long and expensive". Even assuming you win, and win the full amount, the typical contingency fee is in the ballpark of 33%. If the insurance company was holding back on paying a million in medical expenses, the lawyer's cut would be $333,333. That's the amount you're left on the hook for. Good luck avoiding bankruptcy! -- Ron at December 2, 2013 10:24 PM

You are correct in a general sense. But I have seen more than one person who sold/transferred property to a "distant" family member and was smart enough to plan when they had to declare bankruptcy.

I also will not go to my nearest hospital unless I am unconscious. Between them and my insurance provider I was fucked on a bill I owed. Somehow $75 became over a $500 bill. The problem is that there is no honesty in the system as it stands. And every single state encourages that dishonesty.

"The problem is that there is no honesty in the system as it stands. And every single state encourages that dishonesty."

And I'll add:

Because there is 'someone else's money' being used, no one is actually in custody of it.