You miss the point. I find your 95% figure reasonable--but that's the very nature of insurance! The problem is you don't know if you're in the 95% or the 5%. Under the old system, if you were in the 5% you probably died.
Suppose you extend Medicaid to those barred by pre-existing conditions--net result is a whole bunch of money moves from the ACA to Medicaid. The spending doesn't go away--if anything it probably increases. This has been an expensive year, nearly 9k in insurance premiums and I hit the stop-loss at nearly 9k. Thus 18k out of pocket that would have been Medicaid spending under your system.
And note that killing those 5% appears to be a Republican *goal*. Eugenics.
Except that's why it isn't insurance at all, because people DO know. That's the idea of pre-existing conditions. People with pre-existing conditions don't need health insurance. They need healthcare. The whole healthcare masquerading as insurance is the problem.
>a whole bunch of money moves from the ACA to Medicaid
Not really, Medicaid pays very low rates for treatments. The "ACA" money just goes to insurance companies which are incentivized to pay high rates for everything because their profit is set as a percent of their expenditures by the ACA.
> Under the old system, if you were in the 5% you probably died.
This is also not accurate at all either, you just had to pay more money. You could still get insurance with pre-existing conditions, it just wasn't cheap. ACA plans though are now ~10-15x more than older plans and the deductibles are way higher with much worse coverage.
>This has been an expensive year, nearly 9k in insurance premiums and I hit the stop-loss at nearly 9k. Thus 18k out of pocket that would have been Medicaid spending under your system.
I don't understand this, are you saying you paid 9K in premiums and then hit your MAX OOP at 9K as well?
I'm not sure why you are translating that cost directly to Medicaid, but realistically your insurance actually paid more than the 9K right? But Medicaid simply wouldn't pay out nearly as much. But even then I'm not saying it would be cheap. It would just be far more logical than the ridiculous system set up to preserve insurance company profits. Medicare for all would be even better.
My family cost 1000/month for each person and we have a 10k cross family out of pocket max. Have a kid or two means more than 50k a year. Only some can afford this if you're paying it for yourself. We chose to go cobra instead of ACA last year. If I wasn't in the software engineer world I wouldn't be able to continue.
Suppose you extend Medicaid to those barred by pre-existing conditions--net result is a whole bunch of money moves from the ACA to Medicaid. The spending doesn't go away--if anything it probably increases. This has been an expensive year, nearly 9k in insurance premiums and I hit the stop-loss at nearly 9k. Thus 18k out of pocket that would have been Medicaid spending under your system.
And note that killing those 5% appears to be a Republican *goal*. Eugenics.