And you and over half the country voted for whom?

Look at what voting and even non-voting population are now protesting. SURPRISE!

They love the plans (if they even think about them since Mama takes care of that stuff).

Like everything they are against they don't even have to pay for the stuff. What's not to love?

Of course once you have to worry about "What's FICA and why the hell is it coming out of my paycheck?" things look a little different.

". . .prepackaged what precisely must be insured, and allowed no room for flexibility. This is one reason premiums rose so much so fast. Insurers simply tallied up the benefits and the risks and dished out new terms. You had no choice in the matter."

Which is one definition of universal coverage; no matter what your malady - from birth to death - you're covered.
He does some sleight of hand with logic here. Insurance companies know you won't need pediatric dental care or prostate exams, so totalling up the added risk was easy, even though you are theoretically covered.

I have not yet participated in the ACA and I'm hoping it will be replaced with something more rational in the next few years.

To be fair to the ACA -- a very difficult task -- these things aren't as straightforward as they seem.

Take getting old. If insurance companies were allowed to price in risk, then, like life insurance, health insurance would skyrocket out of sight as we get into our sixties.

So, almost all people live to die of old age, then all people will go through all stages of life; therefore, the risk doesn't exist at some instant in life, but rather is the sum of all risks throughout life.

Okay -- take that as read. Applied in the ACA, death spirals result.

Pro-tip: hard problems don't become easy through government fiat.

You may not worry about it too much longer... Paul Ryan is talking about taking a Obamacare repeal vote before the end of the year. I actually think it's too soon, though. The issue is that you can't just yank it out without deciding what comes next. There needs to be a new package. I propose that it contain:

* A federal law that pre-empts state restrictions on selling policies across state lines. (A legitimate use for the Commerce Clause!)

* A sunset date on the pre-existing conditions mandate. Say, two years from now. This gives everyone one more chance to get something locked in.

* Normalize the tax treatment of employer-provided, individual, and ad-hoc cooperative plans.

* Eliminate all restrictions on what can or cannot be offered in a plan.

Dave: One thing I would add to the list:

* Allow year-round open enrollment for state exchanges. If someone who got on Medicaid through the exchange and decides he is financially able to upgrade to a subsidized plan, he should be allowed to switch without being told he must wait until the open enrollment period begins.

Fayd, I'll go with that. Enrollment periods are an artifact of the way employer-provided plans are budgeted. There is absolutely no reason for any other kind of plan to have a restricted enrollment period.

The idiots who passed this thing also didn't untie healthcare from the workplace. That needs to happen -- especially in an age where few people stay very long at a job."

Don't forget those idiots also made themselves exempt from Obamacare - they have their own nifty Cadillac healthcare plan paid for by us taxpayers.

I have no idea why you're still talking about "insurance", and "plans".

Medical insurance was invented because some procedures were too expensive for the patient.

Somehow, it has mutated into "someone else" paying for part or all of everything. That's not insurance, and you know it.

Everybody enjoys the idea of getting something for "free" so much that they stop thinking. Not only is there no such thing as "free", you're not getting a damned thing. This is to pay doctors, not you.

We can use credit to pay doctors for the bulk of their work. Don't you want to stop lying about "coverage" that really isn't until you're out thousands of dollars?

Yeah, it's right here. Not clickbait, not monetized.

My memory (and Googling doesn't contradict this) says that health insurance was not legally attached to employment until Obamacare. Companies did it because it was good for them.

Years ago I saw a presentation on why large groups signing up for insurance together is a real benefit for insurance companies. Risk grows slower than income. Not something that makes to me at the moment, but when they worked through the numbers I couldn't see any error.

Oh and there was something about why work groups often make good groups for insuring as well, though that was more empirical analysis -- they guessed it had to do with the grouping tended to have certain diversities as opposed to certain other groupings.

Thus, it has generally been economics that have tied insurances to employment. So to untie them there would probably have to be a law -- and going to individuals would probably cause the cost to go up for those currently getting insurance through employment.

"My proposal is simple. Get rid of the government mandates over what can and cannot be part of what is called health insurance."

Stupid liberal, you just suggested repealing Obamacare

That means you are a racist

Banker you are off by a bit. Medical insurance has been tied to employment since WW2. When price controls prevented employers from raising wages they began to offer benefits as a way to lure good employees to their firms. Not long after WW2 employer based health plans were made tax exempt but individual plans were not (a 20%-30% discount). That is where insurance became tied to the job. Not Obamacare. Obamacare mainly focused on the individual market and for the most part didn't get applied to employer based group plans. Which humorously made those employer based plans even more valuable.

Fayd, if there is no Obamacare there are no state exchanges, no subsidies, and no enrollment periods. Prior to Obamacare your could start a plan at any time. Why do you need a state exchange? Just call up the company you want to do business with. They all have web sites and will give you a quote online. We don't have state exchanges for car insurance. Why do we need them for health 'insurance'?

Ben, I think part of the motivation for the exchanges was that, unlike car insurance, you can't buy health insurance across state lines. Either you have to buy within your state, or if you have an employer-provided plan, that policy is underwritten in the state where the company or the subsidiary is headquartered. That's why, for instance, every state has their own variation of Blue Cross.

That is what I was saying...there was not a law that said companies had to offer medical insurance. It made economical sense for them to.

And auto insurance can not be sold across state lines. Yes, it will cover you for out of state incidents -- just like most health insurance will cover emergency issues that happen out of state. I experienced this myself when I moved...my new home in the neighboring state didn't allow my current provider to sell insurance there until they were licensed or something like that.

Also, some states do have exchange like things for things like "high risk" drivers.

CD,

No, the motivation was to have complete government control over the marketplace. You will do business in the government specified way at the government specified place so we can keep an eye on you.

As TFB said, you usually can't buy auto, home, or other insurance across state lines. You typically don't have state marketplaces unless there is a state controlled monopoly going on. Yes, even before Obamacare many states had high risk health pools. That is not the same as the state marketplace. Those were just plans of last resort.

Incidentally look up the prices on those plans. You will find that is what Obamacare is going to charge soon. Ocare effectively made all individual plans that were not high risk plans illegal.