Slideshow Advisers debate potential changes to the ACA

Published
  • May 29 2015, 11:28am EDT
8 Images Total

Overview

The Affordable Care Act is spurring debate this week. With the legality of subsidies in question and the definition of the small-group market set to change, EBA readers weigh in on the potential impacts to the industry.

[Image: Fotolia]

ACA made a mockery

“I was a big proponent of the concept behind the ACA. I am quite sad at what the government and payers have done to it. They have made a mockery out of all of us and are rolling in dough and not paying claims.”

Posted by Helene S

Read the article: Employer groups urge repeal of ACA small group market expansion

[Image: Fotolia]

Content Continues Below


Are we headed toward a single-payer system?

“The goal of Washington is standardization of plan designs, rating, administration, etc. I am guessing that the administration will stand firm against trying to change the definition back down to 50 lives and if anything will look to expand the role of Washington (vs. states) in determining the rules for health insurance. It's all about pushing us towards the ultimate goal of a single-payer system.”

Posted by Bill H

Read the article: Employer groups urge repeal of ACA small group market expansion

[Image: Fotolia]

Full repeal needed

“Enough with the piecemeal dismantling of this abhorrent law. Repeal the whole thing and put it (and us) out of its misery. Hopefully, SCOTUS will hurry this along with the proper resolution of King v. Burwell.”

Posted by Vincent P

Read the article: Employer groups urge repeal of ACA small group market expansion

[Image: Fotolia]

Content Continues Below


Health care too expensive

“We're hearing that people with coverage through the exchanges are ‘under insured,’ which is a euphemism for they can't afford the high deductibles and out-of-pockets mandated by the ACA in the first place. I guess the people who voted for the law should have read it first instead of following the advice of ‘we need to vote for the bill to find out what's in it.’”

Posted by John D

Read the article: Will a loss of ACA subsidies spur economic growth?

[Image: Fotolia]

No mandates means more choice

“States that do not set up exchanges will of course see an economic boom compared to those states with subsidies. In states without a state exchange/federal subsidies, there is no employer penalty if employees don't get insurance. Everyone has more choice since you will not have to follow Obamacare mandated benefits.

“I agree with several other posters here, the best outcome is Obamacare collapsing under the weight of its own stupid mandates and dishonest math.”

Posted by Frances R

Read the article: Will a loss of ACA subsidies spur economic growth?

[Image: Fotolia]

Content Continues Below


Loss of subsidies will lead to dropped coverage

“Capitalism is the driving force in this country (meaning profits) so there is no reason to believe employers will suddenly increase wages and hire more employees because of changes in the health care laws. The people at the bottom of the food chain simply do not have funds available to pay for health care as proven by the fact that they didn't have insurance before the ACA was put into effect.

“What will happen is most of the now insured under the subsidies program will drop the insurance and go back to using the emergency room as their doctor's office. Guess who gets to pay for that?”

Posted by Jeff T

Read the article: Will a loss of ACA subsidies spur economic growth?

[Image: Fotolia]

FINRA head to blame for 'false narrative'

“Ketchem in heading FINRA is directly responsible in creating and advancing the false narrative of the brokerage lobby that has denied ‘retail investors’ (who need to most help) the same consumer protections accorded to all other investors. Ketchem is part of the problem and not a credible source for a solution.”

Posted by Stephen W

Read the article: FINRA chief pans DOL fiduciary proposal

[Image: Fotolia]