We started on a $1500 indv / $3000 fam deductible PPO in 2014 for about $800/mo for two people. In 2015 the premiums went down maybe 0.5%. In 2016 the premiums have gone up 6% and the out of pocket max went up $500 per person to $4k.

ACA has absolutely been a net positive in my life. I had cancer in 2012 and so it would have been literally impossible for me to get health insurance outside of a group plan. With ACA I've been able to go independent, start my own business, choose my own clients, and fully control my destiny.

The ability to get insurance for an affordable price (the parameters of which I realize people differ on) with pre-existing conditions outside of group plans has been one of the big wins of ACA. It's at least reasonable to argue that particular problem could have been addressed outside of the massive and controversial implementation that was ACA as a whole.

I agree. The Federal subsidies should actually be limited to subsidizing pre existing condition coverage. I am willing to allow tax dollars to cover the difference of pre-existing condition coverage since it would be a net gain for everyone. The problem is that the subsidies are available for everyone, regardless of prior insurability, thus, just like student loans have accelerated college cost inflation, subsidies for almost everyone in the middle classes have resulted in price increases.

Essentially, pre-existing condition insurability is where the government could have make a huge impact with minimal disruption to the overall system. Much like there are government mortgage guarantees available for higher risk borrowers, the same kind of system could have helped the pre-existing conditions people get coverage while not throwing the baby out with the bath water.

The alleged goals of the ACA were to get everyone insured. However it shouldn't have taken thousands of pages to accomplish that. A good portion of ACA has nothing to do with insurance at all.

I wish there was some scope restriction on bills. For example the latest highway bill contained passport revocation provisions for those with delinquent taxes. This forces politicians to reluctantly vote for something they don't like because the overall bill is important. Poison pill amendments are often not poisonous enough so we get stuck with a bunch of really bad laws.

> The alleged goals of the ACA were to get everyone insured. However it shouldn't have taken thousands of pages to accomplish that. A good portion of ACA has nothing to do with insurance at all.

My own view is "getting insured" shouldn't really have been the goal, at least not with the current 'insurance' system in place. The goal should be making sure people have access to care/service, not access to purchase insurance. I have insurance, I'd be hard pressed to use it outside of a catastrophic event, because I have such a high deductible. Headaches with blurred vision... I may eventually go, but... I don't really want to be on the hook for $10k+ in bills just to find out "oh, it's nothing, get some rest".

Expanding medicaid would have ensured that more people would have had more direct access to care with minimal disruption to everything else.

> Yeah, it's pretty crappy in NC.

That's because your state is run by people who want desperately for the ACA to fail, and so they are intentionally making it as crappy as they can.

For comparison, my state's ACA plan is the same as Medicaid (several choices of insurance providers and I believe no cost for prescriptions).

The more surprising part was our Republican Governor was the one that advocated for it and pushed it through the party line (with a lot of grumbling). His argument was it would save the state quite a bit of money and so far I believe it has.

> Apparently some/much of this has to do with our state choosing to opt out of dealing with increased medicaid funding, so... yay... I guess they get to show obama how bad ACA is by... digging in their heels while we all just pay insanely increasing pricing?

Let's be fair here. The ACA said that the feds would match the expanded medicaid enrollment for a few years, but after that the states would need to continue to sustain the larger enrollment on their own. Medicaid is a significant chunk of state budgets, and doing that meant raising taxes, or lowering expenses in other areas, or taking on debt.

It's not as simple as "screw obama, and screw poor people we ain't doing it." In the post-crash years, while money was scarce, there was some real concern over where the money would come from, how much it would need to cost, and how states would cope.

If your state can't sustain something with the federal government funding 90% of your expanded costs, then maybe you need to rethink the state you're in. It's no doubt, most likely in the "south" in some form, so I'm not surprised the government can't operate correctly.

> Apparently some/much of this has to do with our state choosing to opt out of dealing with increased medicaid funding, so... yay... I guess they get to show obama how bad ACA is by... digging in their heels while we all just pay insanely increasing pricing?

Well, the increased Medicaid funding is temporary, but comes with permanently higher Medicaid spending. So a state might reasonably not want to accept that offer.

Doesn't the federal government continue to cover 90% of the costs beyond 2020? That's still a pretty huge increase in funding.

To clarify, yes. After 2020, the federal government continues to cover 90% of the cost (compared with 60% normally) of the expansion indefinitely. So, for a state government, it is likely the cheapest way to ensure a large number of low income people are insured.

60% is not the normal federal share; the normal federal share varies by State, depends on state economic performance relative to other states, and is a minimum of 50% for certain populations, 65% for other populations.

What you said doesn't contradict the 60%. 60% is the normal federal share. I had a job that specifically involved forecasting state budgets (which obviously involved looking at historical trends) and forecasting the ACA's impact.

To clarify, these variations have historically averaged around 60%, and likely will continue to (sans ACA expansion): http://kff.org/medicaid/state-indicator/federalstate-share-o...

There's a difference between 60% being the normal federal share, and a variable amount that, averaged across all states, averages to about 60%, being the normal federal share, particularly when addressing particular states policies, since the share for any particular state tends to be pretty consistent over time (e.g., the California regular FMAP has been the minimum, 50%, because of the states better-than-average economic health for long enough that I frequently have to remind who work on systems where it matters that that's not a fixed amount) and maybe be significantly different than the average.

The increased Medicaid funding is permanent, though the 100% federal funding share for the expansion population drops in stages down to its permanent level, which is "only" 90%.

My premiums have gotten lower (in one case they were completely covered by my employer). My father is going through some very expensive medical care right now for cheap and my mother has insurance for the first time in more than a decade. What has gone up is my providers increasing their charges with the final negotiated price being something like 50% higher than before.

I'm paying less out of pocket now than my share at my last job, with netter coverage... though this year I'm paying as much for a plan with $1k more for deductible... it's pretty sad... I keep it because I'm on a few medications that would be far more out of pocket.

Something needs to happen with USPTO, especially medicine at this point.

Something needs to happen with tort reform and the cost of FDA approvals. The FDA process is hugely expensive and inefficient. Contrast the FDA with Switzerland.

The patent system is essential for medicines. I know many people don't like that reality but who will invest in pharma companies if their investment could quickly be nullified due to the loss of intellectual property? Would you invest in a company when the competitive advantage that company is immediately rendered moot?

However, there are definitely places for reform, so I am not fully defending the USPTO system, I am simply suggesting that a strong patent system is a fundamental motivator of pharmaceutical innovation.

Pharmaceutical companies still make generic medications that are no longer covered by patents as well as over the counter medications. As for approval costs, the biggest cost for these companies is marketing, plain and simple. The actual people doing the research, I'm guessing are not solely guided by their pay or patents for that matter. I would presume that many people just want to make society better.

I am not suggesting that patents go away entirely, but their scope should definitely be reduced... extension patents in particular should not receive the same 20 years that original patents receive. The patent system has resulted in generations of gaming the system to the point where it no longer works.

I'm unconvinced that patents serve the public good in this day and age. I am convinced, however, that the vast majority of patents granted should not have been.

"Bring on single payer" - like the veteran's administration? Because that works so well?

Those #s are insane