Obamacare
i know plenty of you here LOVE obama. personally, i think he could be a one term dude and i'd be happy with that. rail me if you want but you will not "change" my views. however, healthcare has been an issue for decades. this "forced"
healthcare program he is trying to do is not right.
At issue on Day 2 of three days of oral arguments before the justices was the health care mandate, the requirement that with few exceptions all individuals must have health insurance or pay a penalty via their income taxes.
i can afford insurance now. 6 months ago i could not. since i returned from my hiatus from society i could not. not until i got a decent paying job. so basically he's saying that if i cannot afford healthcare then it's going to be taken from my tax return. gee. really.
oh and here's another thing....i had to be taken to the emergency room about a year and a half ago. i chose the "free" hospital because i did not have insurance. i still get bills to this day for their sorry ass service.
Verrilli defended the mandate by saying Congress found it to be the best way to insure the more than 40 million Americans who lack insurance and end about $43 billion a year in cost shifting – the amount of free care provided to the uninsured that hospitals ultimately make up through a taxpayer-funded government program and raising insurance rates.
i never saw such things. i'm white. i will never see that.
yeah i said that. rip me one. i'm not gonna care. i am jaded. very. and i usually stick to my own self but every now and then i've had enough and have to voice my opinion.
now back on subject:
Verrilli argued that any healthy person is only a car accident or a cancer diagnosis away from needing hugely expensive health care. Requiring health coverage only when people become sick would blow a hole in the insurance industry’s risk-pool model and make health insurance unaffordable to many, Verrilli said.
ok lets see here. insurance companies. yyyyyeah. they are in it for what people? your best interest? i think not. money. they want to turn a profit for their shareholders. they could give a rats ass whether you die or live tomorrow. unless you are on their policy. then they care.
i understand obama's interest in making sure everyone has insurance but lets be real. in america.......snot gonna happen.
and this is the dude that took my first return in as many years but i agree with him here: (and on taking my tax return actually)
ETA: for the states fuck up in my child support payments when they didn't take enough out
“We knew that if we could get the court to agree to focus (on how the law) infringed on individual liberty, we had chance of winning,” said Texas Attorney General Greg Abbott, who attended the court session. “We were pleased to walk out of the courtroom today knowing that five justices of the United States Supreme Court focused their powerful questions against the U.S. government on that very issue.”
wow. they're stating the obvious now:
Sen. John Cornyn, R-Texas, who also was in the courtroom, said: “As government grows, individual freedom shrinks. That’s what this case is all about.”
I'm on Fred's side on this. The Congress has been abusing the heck out of the commerce clause ever since Teddy Roosevelt's administration. Back then, the Supreme Court sharply limited the government's power. Since then, every President has packed the Court with as many appointees as he could, tilting the Court ever more toward an activist Court which has granted more and more power to the Congress and President. There is an excellent article on this subject
here.
I, too, want everyone to have health insurance. But I would much rather see everyone get it through their job, rather than forced upon them. Unlike Fred, I have to pay for mine every month but I have a really low bill and a decent company stemming from my days in the service. So, unless I am REALLY broke, I will always have it. It isn't perfect but it does what we need it to do most of the time so I cannot complain.
The thing is, it's the principle, darnit! Giving the government such broad powers is foolish in the extreme. They can do much more than take a penalty out of your tax return. They can reach into your bank account and take money out, too. Think of what a $500 bite would do to your household budget. Or even $100. They could also monitor your spending. There are many things to dislike about that bill. But there is no guarantee on how the Court will rule.
I strongly suspect the Supreme Court will rule only narrowly on the Individual Mandate portion and leave stand the rest of the bill. I might be wrong but this Court is not the Court of a century ago. It is rare that the SC does NOT cede more power to the government.
I certainly hope, for America's sake, that the entire bill is struck down.
My brother in law is in his early 40s and has never had medical insurance in his adult life. Last year, he was in a bicycle accident and went to the emergency room for treatment. He never paid a penny for that, but the cost was in the thousands of dollars. I'm sure he continues to get bills from them, but knowing his financial situation, those bills are unpaid.
He's probably never going to voluntarily buy insurance, and we taxpayers are going to continue to pay for his sporadic emergency room visits.
I'd like to see him forced to chip into the pot. I'm in favor of a mandate. especially since going hand in had with a mandate is the elimination of pre-exisiting conditions exclusions.
By brother in law is a good guy, and I wish him well. But he's the kind of guy who is a drag on the system. He should pull his weight.
I, too, want everyone to have health insurance. But I would much rather see everyone get it through their job, rather than forced upon them.
Why do you want to burden businesses with paying for health insurance costs? Think of the small business owners who will be bankrupted. If a business can't or won't provide healthcare insurance for their employees, what happens?
I don't view this as a power grab by the government. It's an attempt to fix an unfair system that is broken, and to help Americans when they are unwell. It's certainly not perfect (that would be a system like the UK's or Canada's, IMHO), because it had to pass through congress, and Democrats wanted bipartisan approval. Remember, this plan is similar to the plan put forth by republicans in the early nineties.
Fred, you need to do some more research, and be less racist.
It's certainly not perfect (that would be a system like the UK's or Canada's, IMHO),
Single payer, baby. I'm not sure a socialized medicine system like the UK's would work in the US, but I
know single-payer would.
Fred, you need to do some more research, and be less racist.
If I'm using the term properly, single-payer would be superior to the mandate. Guaranteeing insurance companies a profit and forcing their products on people seems the greater sin. I don't think severing insurance from work does any great harm to peoples motivation. It may in fact make people more willing to risk starting businesses.
Why do you want to burden businesses with paying for health insurance costs? Think of the small business owners who will be bankrupted. If a business can't or won't provide healthcare insurance for their employees, what happens?
I don't view this as a power grab by the government. It's an attempt to fix an unfair system that is broken, and to help Americans when they are unwell. It's certainly not perfect (that would be a system like the UK's or Canada's, IMHO), because it had to pass through congress, and Democrats wanted bipartisan approval. Remember, this plan is similar to the plan put forth by republicans in the early nineties.
Fred, you need to do some more research, and be less racist.
spexx, i'm not racist. far from it actually. that comment came from experience. the lady next to me when i was leaving just got her food stamps approved and she was all happy, don't blame her, but lo and behold she got in her 2009 Escalade and trucked it on down the road. i was denied stamps due to the fact that i'd cashed in a 401k recently and lived with someone who was retired and "deemed fit to support me" is i believe what the lady told me? anyway, point/counterpoint, we could go back and forth all day with quotes and quips and still not get anywhere. just saying. having been on both sides of the spectrum rich/poor to damn near broken, it's been my experience that unless you know how to "work the system" you won't get what is supposedly there to help you. government needs to fix what it fouled up in the first place.
President Nixon, John Erlichman and Edgar Kaiser are the ones to blame. i remember my father talking with fellow doctors in the doctors lounge about how their proposal was going to throw a monkey wrench in the healthcare system.
i do hope it gets fixed. will it? no. unfortunately not. there are too many executives and shareholders out there with insurance companies to allow it to happen. change? not gonna happen here.
once again, sorry if i sounded racist. i'm not.
1.) Obamacare is ruled unconstitutional
2.) Obama wins a second term
3.) With nothing to lose, and proof that compromises just implode on themselves, the Democrats are now able to say "Fuck bipartisan support" and force a single-payer system through Congress.
That's what I'm hoping, anyway. Hooray!
Let's face it. Free markets are the best way. If you cannot pay in the hospital or Wal-Mart, you do not get the service or product. That is fair. It is unfair and illegal to require any hospital to serve you if you cannot pay. Constitutionally they have the right to put you out on the sidewalk if you cannot provide proof of payment.
These wacko extremists who want all costs dumped on hospitals must be drinking from Limbaugh's Oxycotin cup.
If free markets are best, and "it's unfair and illegal to require hospitals to serve you",
is there agreement to removing their non-profit status so they pay a fair share
of property taxes, and income taxes, and they stop being reimbursed by Medicare ?
And, maybe reconsider their legal rights to put a lien on the patient's home for whatever unpaid bill
the patient incurs out of services and supplies priced at the hospital's discretion of "regular and customary rates"
We might just see how many would survive in the "free market".
In reality, most hospitals and physicians and their medical aides are given a special place in society,
and are not simple retail businesses subject to fair-market competition, freedoms, and restraints.
As such, they have other responsibilities to their community.
So sayth this wacko extermist. ;)
In my opinion, all health care and medical costs are a complete and utter ripoff. There is NO reason to charge $129 for a box of Kleenex in the hospital or $86 for an Ace bandage. A prescription that cost $3 to manufacture should not cost $180 per month. A broken ankle should not cost $5,000 to fix. Of course, if expenses like these were reasonable, insurance policy costs would not be through the roof and just maybe your average Joe could afford to buy it.
Wait. Where is this "free hospital" filthy speaks of? I need to
check that out.
Americans feel they are entitled to excellent healthcare whether
they csn pay or not. Like Glatt's example. If everyone had to
bear some cost it would be a better system.
In my opinion, all health care and medical costs are a complete and utter ripoff. There is NO reason to charge $129 for a box of Kleenex in the hospital or $86 for an Ace bandage. A prescription that cost $3 to manufacture should not cost $180 per month. A broken ankle should not cost $5,000 to fix.
Part of the cost issue is that you are paying for your band-aid
and the band-aid of the guy who doesn't have insurance...
and part of the cost for the band-aid of the person who is covered by medicare or medicaid. :/
Of course, Lamp, you understand you're confusing 'free market' (unrestrained, unrestricted, transactions between, among, of, individuals) with 'capitalism' (the free market's stunted, retarded, drooling, shitting itself, lil brother, the one that mates with its sister, socialism, spawning even more horrific monsters in the manner of Lilith)...you 'do' get the difference between the two, yes?
Probably not...*shrug*
i can afford insurance now. 6 months ago i could not. since i returned from my hiatus from society i could not. not until i got a decent paying job. so basically he's saying that if i cannot afford healthcare then it's going to be taken from my tax return. gee. really.
Wait, if you don't have a decent paying job, you won't be paying any taxes and so no tax return. No?
Also, pay less tax then there's no tax return for them to take. Aim for a $0 tax return. Why are you giving the government a free loan? Especially if you don't support its policies? As long as you don't end up owing tax you're good.
A little biased perhaps, but made me smile (not saying this is you, philthy)
In reality, most hospitals and physicians and their medical aides are given a special place in society, and are not simple retail businesses subject to fair-market competition, freedoms, and restraints.
Nonsense. Hospitals have gone bankrupt and closed. Hospitals have even conducted massive firings of surgeons due to insufficient funds. At least one of those doctors I know (a heart surgeon) was applying for jobs just like everyone else.
We must decide whether we want socialized medicine (ie UK's National Health Service) or a working free market medicine (ie Affordable Health Care currently being implemented). Otherwise the best solution is to let people die in the streets if they cannot pay.
The current system is why a box of Kleenex must cost maybe $125. Due to a perverted and disfuctional system, openly advocated by many with a poltical agenda. Medical services must charge excessively so that the few pay for all others. And to pay for a bloated bureacracy necessary to make cost redirection work. This is the system that extremists want to protect.
Medicine is not a charity. It is a business. A service just like any other business whose purpose is the advancement of mankind. Even non-profits must balance the books.
We must decide whether we want socialized medicine (ie UK's National Health Service) or a working free market medicine (ie Affordable Health Care currently being implemented).
what do you have against single payer?
what do you have against single payer?
Where did I say I was against (or for) any solution? Defined was only the problem with multiple directions that can be taken. Your quote did not include all directions.
your phrasing, "we need to X or Y. otherwise, Z." seems to me to imply just those two options... Sorry if I assumed too much?
your phrasing, "we need to X or Y. otherwise, Z."
Putting people who cannot pay on the street to die is a reasonable option. I don't understand why those who advocate free markets ignore that option. Only other viable solutions define how the hospital can be assured of payment.
No way around it. Either a hospital knows it will be paid. Or can refuse service. 'Refuse service' is only 'not an option' when one is entertaining emotions. Refusing service is a viable option considered when one is actually confronting the problem That option should be default should we choose to ignore the problem.
No other business would offer services that cannot be paid for. Nor should any business be expected to. Especially when all other options are viable and proven. That means I stated no preference for any. I even think leaving people to die on the street is a viable option. Because it solves the problem.
Wait, if you don't have a decent paying job, you won't be paying any taxes and so no tax return. No?
Also, pay less tax then there's no tax return for them to take. Aim for a $0 tax return. Why are you giving the government a free loan? Especially if you don't support its policies? As long as you don't end up owing tax you're good.
no,no, now i have a good paying job. six months ago i did not. i paid taxes while on that assignment (QA/QC of panel fabrication and wiring, see the gnomie thread beginning, he went to work with me while i worked there. it was a stepping stone back into engineering) so i did get a tax return. granted it was taken by the government for a government mistake when child ransom, errr support, was re-organized and mis-calculated.....by who? mhm. the gubbmint.
as far as aiming for a zero tax return, yeah, i see that approach. i like it actually, however having dealt with the IRS in the past, it's better to feed the mafia and get a return than to wind up owing it.
ETA - good comic monie, loved it!
Putting people who cannot pay on the street to die is a reasonable option.....
..... No way around it. ..... I even think leaving people to die on the street is a viable option. Because it solves the problem.
you think maybe we could all chip in and buy an island to ship these people to?
[SIZE="4"]i'm kidding!!!!!![/SIZE]
seriously, now i know we've had our differences before and i want to keep this as civil as possible. if you, for example, had a great job but now you're either unemployed or underemployed and you get sick -no insurance anymore - and could die from your ailment .....you're basically saying put me out in the street for "bring out your dead" instead of help me? nah man, i get what you mean, a darwinism effect if you will, but dude, really. humane.
i remind you of the hippocratic oath:
I swear to fulfill, to the best of my ability and judgment, this covenant:
I will respect the hard-won scientific gains of those physicians in whose steps I walk, and gladly share such knowledge as is mine with those who are to follow.
I will apply, for the benefit of the sick, all measures [that] are required, avoiding those twin traps of overtreatment and therapeutic nihilism.
I will remember that there is art to medicine as well as science, and that warmth, sympathy, and understanding may outweigh the surgeon's knife or the chemist's drug.
I will not be ashamed to say "I know not", nor will I fail to call in my colleagues when the skills of another are needed for a patient's recovery.
I will respect the privacy of my patients, for their problems are not disclosed to me that the world may know. Most especially must I tread with care in matters of life and death. If it is given to me to save a life, all thanks. But it may also be within my power to take a life; this awesome responsibility must be faced with great humbleness and awareness of my own frailty. Above all, I must not play at God.
I will remember that I do not treat a fever chart, a cancerous growth, but a sick human being, whose illness may affect the person's family and economic stability. My responsibility includes these related problems, if I am to care adequately for the sick.
I will prevent disease whenever I can, for prevention is preferable to cure.
I will remember that I remain a member of society with special obligations to all my fellow human beings, those sound of mind and body as well as the infirm.
If I do not violate this oath, may I enjoy life and art, be respected while I live and remembered with affection thereafter. May I always act so as to preserve the finest traditions of my calling and may I long experience the joy of healing those who seek my help.
so i hope you don't contract herpigonnasyphillaids. the end result could be painful. just sayin.
I think tw is being hyperbolic to satirize conservatives who really DO believe that if you get sick and can't pay for it you SHOULD just die.
edit: i take that back. I hope that. I have no idea what sort of android or savant or whatever tw is... i can NEVER tell when he's being facetious or if he even ever is.
Nonsense. Hospitals have gone bankrupt and closed.
Hospitals have even conducted massive firings of surgeons due to insufficient funds.
At least one of those doctors I know (a heart surgeon) was applying for jobs just like everyone else.
<snip>
Medicine is not a charity. It is a business.
A service just like any other business whose purpose is the advancement of mankind.
Even non-profits must balance the books.
"Nonsense" is nonsense. Hospitals and medicine are businesses,
but have special supports and advantages that other forms of business do not have.
Medicine, and especially hospitals, survive in part, on the charity of the public.
As such, they have advantages because certain things (obligations) are expected of them.
What other free-market, service-business gets tax-free properties,
donations from the public, support by religious organizations, volunteers,
governmental reimbursement at rates that vary by location,
grants to employees for working in relatively isolated communities,
county- or volunteer-provided supplemental assistance such as ambulance services, etc.
And in some communities are allowed monopolistic business practices.
Likewise, there is state-support Schools of Medicine and Nursing to train hospital employees
that cause the tax payers far more than what the tuition and student loans.
TW, As you said in another post, "I never said...."
I too never said anything like "no hospital has gone bankrupt".
Of course some have, and physicians and hospital staff have been fired.
I too can give a specific examples of a hospital that fired it's entire
janitorial staff so aides and voluteers would do that work,
and in the same month increased the CEO's salary by $100,000.
I agree with you that Medicine is not a charity, but it can not be a free-market business either.
Of course, they have to balance their books.
But if when a hospital is in the red at the end of the fiscal year,
they can have a campaign asking for public donations to balance their books.
And, they can go to state and federal agencies asking for "emergency funds"
How many truly free-market businesses can compete on such unequal playing fields ?
As said before, hospitals have a special place in society, and as such,
have some special (non-emotional) expectations and obligations to serve the public.
ETA: I forgot to mention "training hospitals"
Some hospitals get special compensations from governments
by providing "training" to medical personnel.
As such, they are often (very often) getting high-trained employees
for below-market salaries.
i can NEVER tell when he's being facetious or if he even ever is.
Reality is facetious. All medicine must cease - the Hypocratic oath must be violated - if medical facilities cannot pay their bills. All businesses including non-profits and even the Catholic Church must pay their bills. Otherwise they must cease to exist. Denying that is facetious.
Does not matter if the building is tax free. It is still a business. It must pay its bills. It must pay its employees. Or it must cease to exist even if desperately needed. Why are so many churches closing? As with any business, even if needed. It must cease to exist if the bills are not paid.
Without a system where customers can pay, then a hospital should be expected to refuse service. Otherwise medicine gets denied to so many more. Free market is the American way in any and every business. But to not fix the system only perverts a free market. Customers did not die because hospitals are evil. They died because we did not fix what is obviously a worst system in the world. Adversarial politicians caused those deaths by wanting bad economics and a political agenda.
Americans pay double what anyone else in the world pays because we think it is fair to seek medical services without paying. Foolishly think charity is a permanent solution. How to guarantee no medical services? Americans are somewhere down between 25 and 50 on the list of successful medicine. American medicine is that poor. Costs twice as much as any other nation. Deaths directly traceable to economic mismanagement. Facetious is that reality if it also was not so sad.
If we do not have a workable solution, then the most honest and decent people have no other option. Deny service to anyone who cannot pay. That is free markets gone bad because so many leaders would exercise a political agenda rather than address a problem. People are already dying because bills cannot be paid.
If our system cannot guarantee payment, then the Hypocratic oath is violated. Nothing works if the bills are not paid.
you think maybe we could all chip in and buy an island to ship these people to?
[SIZE="4"]i'm kidding!!!!!![/SIZE]
That solution is better than many promoted in our Congress. It is a reasonable option considering the political agendas currently promoted.
you're basically saying put me out in the street for "bring out your dead" instead of help me? nah man, i get what you mean, a darwinism effect if you will, but dude, really. humane.
First, the most humane attitude is to be blunt, logical, and unemotional. People die because so many would entertain their emotions like a child rather than ruthlessly deal with a reality like an adult.
You deserve death if our leaders could not bother to fix a world's worst medical system. If you end up dead, well, bad economics killed you. Being humane or charitable solves nothing. Emotions and charity do nothing to fix bad economics.
No acceptable reason for an ‘unemployed person unable to pay’. Every working system (so many different and working systems exist) means unemployed people can always pay their medical bills. You cannot pay only because our leaders worry more about their political agendas rather than fix the problem. When leaders cannot compromise, then you become an example of what must happen. People must die.
Why does America have some of the highest infant mortality rates? Because our economics are defective. Too many people entertain empathy, sympathy, games of liberal vs conservative, and humane conclusions rather than deal ruthlessly like an adult to fix what is only an economic problem. People stop dying when the ruthless finally want a solution. When people stop entertaining their feelings (also called a political agenda).
Highest infant mortality rates? Site please.
More on infant mortality rates.
Someone still has to explain to me how we let it come to the point that Canada can purchase medicines from U.S. companies cheaper than the U.S. government can, because the U.S. government has been deliberately denied the ability to consolidate and negotiate better prices.
So that we must spend more of our tax dollars than is necessary.
Oh wait, I do know. It's called bribery.
:D
[COLOR="Wheat"]TW, Congratulations, that was great GMT timing in New Zealand [/COLOR]
.
already posted in the "impeding changes" thread:
Spending more on health care increases the infant mortality rate
According to a 2002 analysis by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, at least a third of all infant mortality in the United States arises from complications of prematurity; other studies assert the figure is closer to half. Thus—at the risk of oversimplifying—infant mortality in the United States principally is a problem of premature birth, which today complicates just over one in 10 pregnancies.
To reduce infant mortality, then, we need to prevent premature births, and if that fails, improve care of premature babies once born. (Prematurity is also linked to other problems; for example, it's the leading cause of mental retardation and cerebral palsy in children.) But modern medicine isn't good at preventing prematurity—just the opposite. Better and more affordable medical care actually has worsened the rate of prematurity, and likely the rate of infant mortality, by making fertility treatment widespread.
And infant mortality rates are measured by percentage of live births, not percentage of people:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_infant_mortality_rate
And the question typically posed isn't "Why is the US worst?" it's "Why is the US 48th and apparently all other first-world countries better?"
Infant mortality as a benchmark of quality of health care for a nation made sense in the 1950s, before fertility treatment.
Today the benchmark is only used to bash the US system.
Someone still has to explain to me how we let it come to the point that Canada can purchase medicines from U.S. companies cheaper than the U.S. government can, because the U.S. government has been deliberately denied the ability to consolidate and negotiate better prices.
Its Bush's fault. no, really it is.
As long as it is overturned it matters not who is at fault.
SCOTUS decision today - WOW !
President Obama came on national TV this morning and spoke about the SCOTUS decision.
I've not yet found a video source to post here.
Once again, he identified the politics of the situation, but for perhaps the first time,
he laid out the specifics of the law in layman terms.
Atlanta Journal Constitution
Thursday, June 28, 2012
The Associated Press
Obama response to Supreme Court on health care
Good afternoon. Earlier today, the Supreme Court upheld the constitutionality of the Affordable Care Act
- the name of the health care reform we passed two years ago.
In doing so, they've reaffirmed a fundamental principle that here in America
- in the wealthiest nation on Earth - no illness or accident should lead to any family's financial ruin.
I know there will be a lot of discussion today about the politics of all this, about who won and who lost.
That's how these things tend to be viewed here in Washington.
But that discussion completely misses the point.
Whatever the politics, today's decision was a victory for people all over this country
whose lives will be more secure because of this law and the Supreme Court's decision to uphold it.
[COLOR="DarkRed"]And because this law has a direct impact on so many Americans,
I want to take this opportunity to talk about exactly what it means for you.[/COLOR]
<SNIP>
His presentation of the specifics in the law and the remainder
of his speech are in the link... I highly recommend it to everyone.
.
.
.
Here ya go...
[YOUTUBE]b5zU1y_0Geo[/YOUTUBE]
There is a chart circulating of what the ruling means
Thank's Classic, for finding the video...
It will probably go unnoticed in the grande scheme of things, but I thought he gave a great speech.
...and you're welcome.
Here is the latest (new) issue coming up for Oregonians... and the US.
The headline is a little misleading about the real issue...
IMO, the Illinois law mentioned below seems a very good start.
The Oregonian
Nick Budnick,
11/3/12
Hospital charity care in Oregon sinks as debate over standards grows
In 2009 the recession was in full swing, and
as the number of unemployed and uninsured shot up,
Legacy Health System ratcheted free care to the needy
in the Portland area to a new high.
Legacy wrote off $67 million in area patients' bills last year,
a nearly 25 percent jump since 2009, more than 6 percent of revenue.
That may not have been a smart business move, but "we have a mission" to help others,
says Dave Eager, chief financial officer of the nonprofit.
Other tax-exempt hospitals in the state did not follow suit,
according to newly released state records.
From 2009 to 2011, 31 of Oregon's tax-exempt hospitals cut free care to the poor as a percent of revenue.
The numbers pushed Eager into the growing chorus across the country that says government
should [COLOR="DarkRed"]set minimum expectations on not-for-profit hospitals that enjoy lucrative tax breaks[/COLOR]
in exchange for community service, including Legacy itself.
<snip>
Oregon has one of the smallest for-profit hospital sectors in the country,
says Jessica Curtis, who tracks charity care for the Massachusetts-based
health watchdog group Community Catalyst.
She called Oregon's declining charity care numbers "curious considering the state of the economy."
In return for caring for people like Casey [a named patient example], Oregon's tax-exempt hospitals
-- both not-for-profit and government-affiliated hospitals like Oregon Health & Science University
-- receive significant benefits:
• money can be borrowed at a discounted rate, a privilege worth millions;
• tax exemptions from state and federal corporate and capital gains taxes, and property taxes collected by counties;
• any contributions to them are tax-deductible, which encourages giving.
[COLOR="DarkRed"]Acquisitions by hospitals are a major reason municipal tax bases are "under siege,"
[/COLOR] according to the November issue of Governing Magazine.
The Oregon reporting law was one of the nation's earliest.
In Texas, lawmakers required hospitals provide 4 percent
of their budget in charity care and other help for the poor,
and Illinois recently required that charity care exceed property taxes.
[COLOR="DarkRed"]However, the federal health reform that kicks in 2014
is expected to make charity care even less common as the number
of uninsured is expected to drop sharply. [/COLOR]
But under the new law, hospitals will be asked to submit plans
for how they will improve their community's overall health.
I really don't understand all this crap. But I pay about $99 bucks a month for medicare. Also folks who make $80,000.00 pay the same. Hey I get about, now 18,000. So I never use mine, because I'm a vet. WHERE does my part go????
NY Times
ROBERT PEAR
November 20, 2012
Administration Defines Benefits That Must Be Offered Under the Health Law
WASHINGTON — The Obama administration took a big step on Tuesday
to carry out the new health care law by defining “essential health benefits”
that must be offered to most Americans and by allowing employers to offer
much bigger financial rewards to employees who quit smoking or adopt other healthy behaviors.<snip>
Under the rules, insurers cannot deny coverage or charge higher
premiums to people because they are sick or have been ill.
They also cannot charge women more than men, as many now do.<snip>
The rules lay out 10 broad categories of essential health benefits,
but allow each state to specify the benefits within those categories,
at least for 2014 and 2015. <snip>
The rules limit insurers’ ability to charge higher premiums based on age.
Under the rules, the rate for a 63-year-old could not be more than
three times the rate for a 21-year-old.
Many states now allow ratios of five to one or more, the administration said.<snip>
The rules also give employers new freedom to reward employees who participate
in workplace wellness programs intended to help them lower blood pressure,
lose weight or reduce cholesterol levels. <snip>
The rules include several provisions to prevent discrimination against employees.
Employers must, for example, allow workers to qualify for rewards in other ways
if it would be “unreasonably difficult” for them to meet a particular standard.<snip>
The new law seeks to protect consumers by limiting what they must
pay for health care before insurers begin to pay.
In the small-group market, these deductibles are limited to $2,000 for individuals
and $4,000 for family coverage.
<snip>
insurers cannot deny coverage or charge higher
premiums to people because they are sick or have been ill.
They also cannot charge women more than men
The rules limit insurers’ ability to charge higher premiums based on age
.
On the face this seems great, but in reality, those who were paying less will be paying more to compensate.
Women historically paid more because they used more. Maternity coverage, for example.
Those who are sick used it more also when compared to those who were not. And also older people typically had more AND more expensive treatments than their younger healthier counterparts.
The gross cost will remain the same, now those who were healthier will pay more to compensate for the lost premiums because of this.
Its like car insurance - Should the person with 5 accidents and 2 DUI's pay the same as the person with a clean record?
Those who are sick used it more also when compared to those who were not.
Maybe we should debate this some more. :)
I don't think the gross costs will remain the same. I think the gross costs will go down.
If you have no money and no health insurance now and are having a health crisis, you go to the ER and get treated there. You can't pay the bill, so the rest of us pay for it with higher hospital prices. Under Obamacare, you will have health insurance and go to a doctor instead. Maybe even sooner, where you will get it treated for a lower cost. Gross costs will go down.
Plus, getting people paying into the system who have not been in the system before will be an extra source of revenue. It's not a bad thing to have everyone paying in. Sure, for that healthy 27 year old, it will seem like a waste of money, but what they are buying is the promise that they will be taken care of when they get older and are sick. It's kind of like a forced savings account (where your money is given to other people now and then later, other people's money is given to you.)
Its like car insurance - Should the person with 5 accidents and 2 DUI's pay the same as the person with a clean record?
But in that analogy, it's the health problems that are due to irresponsible choices (poor driving) that should be the determining factor, not whether someone is a woman, or old (which would be more like getting hit when it's not your fault.) So smokers and the obese should be paying more for health insurance in that scenario, not the old lady.
So smokers and the obese should be paying more for health insurance in that scenario, not the old lady.
Agreed, but they won't be.
If you have no money and no health insurance now and are having a health crisis, you go to the ER and get treated there. You can't pay the bill, so the rest of us pay for it with higher hospital prices. Under Obamacare, you will have health insurance and go to a doctor instead. Maybe even sooner, where you will get it treated for a lower cost. Gross costs will go down.
In theory, yes. We shall see.
Yeah. We won't know if Obamacare works until it's fully phased in in 2018. That's a hell of a long time to wait.
Another POV ...
If Obamacare is successful, the cost of Medicare may go down.
If Obamacare is not successful and the Republicans have their way
with Medicare (and other entitlements), there will be a lot of hurt to go around... not just $.
We won't know if Obamacare works until it's fully phased in in 2018. That's a hell of a long time to wait.
Thats two presidential elections away and it will likely look very different than it does today by then.
"If Obamacare is successful, the cost of Medicare may go down."
"If Obamacare is not successful, the cost of Medicare may go up."
Agreed, but they won't be.
Actually, they have been.
As a former smoker and former obese individual who pays for insurance, I can testify to this. I no longer smoke, drink, or am obese, and my costs have gone down.
Insurance penalizedStormie - not sure I get your point. Are you saying that smokers are going to be surcharged under the PPACA?
Stormie - not sure I get your point. Are you saying that smokers are going to be surcharged under the PPACA?
A partial answer (
here) is, Yes, except it is worded in the opposite direction
The rules also give employers new freedom to reward employees who participate
in workplace wellness programs intended to help them lower blood pressure,
lose weight or reduce cholesterol levels. <snip>
That would be incorrect Mr. Lamp.
The correct answer is NO. No one is penalized at all for anything.
Links
here and the summary
here are to the complete law and the summary.
No, I'm not saying it's GOING in that direction, I am saying that smokers and obese individuals have paid more in insurance costs, already.
From 2006:
Higher Insurance Rates
If you are/were not a smoker, you may not even have noticed, but all the questionaires you fill out when you purchase insurance ask if you smoke, or have smoked, in X# years. And then, how much you smoke. And drink, and BMI, etc. If you check yes to these, your rates are higher than if you say no. It has been this way for years.
(I get to answer NO to all of them, finally!)
If you have no money and no health insurance now and are having a health crisis, you go to the ER and get treated there. You can't pay the bill, so the rest of us pay for it with higher hospital prices. Under Obamacare, you will have health insurance and go to a doctor instead. Maybe even sooner, where you will get it treated for a lower cost. Gross costs will go down.
You're assuming certain behaviors (i.e. people who have health insurance will go to the doctor instead of using the ER for non-urgent problems), but many people prefer the ER for reasons I'd rather not get into. Unfortunately, costs will go down only if there's a penalty for using the ER when you could have gone to the doctor, and penalizing people for ER use is a tough political sell. More often, the hospital and/or doctors get penalized when people use the ER inappropriately. That saves money (if person A turns up five times in seven days and his/her insurance refuses to pay for more than the first visit) but results in hospitals closing ERs wherever possible.
(The disincentive in Ontario ERs is that in an urban center you'll typically wait 12+ hours or more to be seen. That's good for filtering out those who ought to go to an Urgent Care; not so good for those who are urgently/emergently sick. But I digress.)
Unfortunately, costs will go down only if there's a penalty for using the ER when you could have gone to the doctor, and penalizing people for ER use is a tough political sell.
There is a penalty for doing that. It's much more expensive. What other penalty would you be talking about?
That would be incorrect Mr. Lamp.
The correct answer is NO. No one is penalized at all for anything.
Links here and the summary here are to the complete law and the summary.
:D
I had a boss years ago that just that same strategy
(but he used the most up to date references available)
It's not more expensive (to you) if your copay is $3 and you refuse to pay it, and your premiums don't go up no matter how much you use the ER, and there's no limit on the number of ER visits you can make. You still have to be seen. But you're right, people with private insurance and hefty ER co-pays already get penalized for frivolous ER use.
Part of Obamacare is to get more people on private insurance.
If you don't have insurance, and you don't have money, your options may be a $1200 ER visit you can't afford, or a $300 doctor visit you can't afford. You can't afford either, so you might as well go to the one that is set up to accept walk-ins.
If you have insurance, a new option is added - a doctor visit with a $20 copay.
Not everyone will take advantage of it. The people you'd rather not get into, perhaps. But many will. Once the hurdle (sometimes mental as much as financial) of getting enrolled is overcome, it's much easier to do it.
I am saying that smokers and obese individuals have paid more in insurance costs, already.
OH, gotcha. Yep, I know all about that. I had poison ivy last spring, lost my job and had to buy individual insurance in the fall. I was rated because I had a "skin condition."
If you have insurance, a new option is added - a doctor visit with a $20 copay.
OR ... Dr. visit with a $20 co-pay vs ER with a $20 copay. If the copays are the same, the behavior will likely not change. However if the Dr. visit has a $20 copay and the hospital has a $100 copay, the behavior may change.
Same goes with meds. generic vs name brand where available.
Total aside, I did read an article about some doctors group advocating that birth control should be available over the counter. THAT makes a lot of sense & removes the whole religious "whatever" from that situation. Seems like a win-win idea to me.
ER copay is usually more, and on top of the actual ER cost, instead of in lieu of it.
I'm aware of that HM. With a son like mine the ER staff are not strangers, not by a long shot. Did you get the point I was making though?
Total aside, I did read an article about some doctors group advocating that birth control should be available over the counter. THAT makes a lot of sense & removes the whole religious "whatever" from that situation. Seems like a win-win idea to me.
The only issue is, I'm not okay with that if it means that low-income/impoverished people do not have access to birth control without paying out-of-pocket. That and the potential for accidental or uninformed misuse, without a doctor making sure the treatment is taken correctly. Birth control - like ALL medical care - should have little or no out-of-pocket cost. the only things that should cost anything at ALL, and even then maybe less than what it costs now, are things to treat mild mild mild ailments not worth seeing a doctor, like a cold or a headache or gas or indigestion.
alls I know is that my rent went down 22 dollars about 2 weeks before he got reelected
Part of Obamacare is to get more people on private insurance.
Not everyone will take advantage of it. The people you'd rather not get into, perhaps. But many will. Once the hurdle (sometimes mental as much as financial) of getting enrolled is overcome, it's much easier to do it.
Yes, many will (hopefully) take advantage of the chance to get private insurance and will behave as you expect. The mental hurdle you mention, though, is significant. The healthy 20-somethings who choose not to have insurance now, because they feel the odds of needing it are low, will resent paying premiums and copays. They aren't likely to take on that expense unless forced to, when they've been getting along without. (There are quite a few young adults in smalltown who work full-time, decline to enroll in the health insurance their employer offers because it would cost them $20/month although they choose to spend funds on smoking 2 ppd, and still expect to be seen in less than an hour at the local ER while fully intending never to pay for that service. This is very common in the smalltown area.)
Another part of Obamacare is expanding eligibility for MA. This sounds like a good thing on the surface; however, it will be a serious problem for hospitals. At the moment they can write off non-payment from self-pay patients. If the percent of MA patients they see goes up substantially they will get the MA rates (which are less than overhead for both private practices and hospitals), no copays even at $3, no writeoffs, and they'll go bankrupt. Especially when there are no limits to the number of ER visits on MA - there are individuals, and not just a few, who have 200 ER visits/year in smalltown.
Please understand, this isn't a rant at self-pay or MA patients. One of my sons is on MA and I see the system from his perspective as well as from that of a provider. But people don't always behave as you'd expect, and there are always unexpected results from programs that seem beneficial at first glance.
The healthy 20-somethings who choose not to have insurance now
They are part of the problem.
This group will have no choice but to get health insurance once obamacare is completely implemented. And that's good for the system as a whole.
At first, if they don't get health care, they will look at the penalties and do the math and see that the penalty is the better deal, but the penalties get more and more severe as obamacare is phased in. And when it is fully implemented in 2018, the healthy 20 somethings will have to decide whether they want to pay an arm and a leg for nothing or an arm and a leg for healthcare.
And the policies offered at the exchanges will be subsidized based on need.
It always devilishly amusing to read David Brooks in the NY Times.
He wants so badly to be a leader, a guru, or at least be on the winning team.
He's just not sure which team will win.
Today, he joined the Limbaugh team...
It's going to fail HOORAY ! YEA! YEA! ... I told you so
NY Times
DAVID BROOKS
April 25, 2013
Health Chaos Ahead
It was always going to be difficult to implement Obamacare,
but even fervent supporters of the law admit that things are going worse than expected.
<snip>
I’ve been talking with a bipartisan bunch of health care experts,
trying to get a sense of exactly how bad things are.
In my conversations with this extremely well-informed group
of providers, academics and former government officials, I’d say
[COLOR="DarkRed"]there is a minority,[/COLOR] including some supporters of the law,
who think the whole situation is a complete disaster. They predict
Obamacare will collapse and do serious damage to the underlying health system.
But wait a minute, David.
After showing us your width of knowledge... yada, yada, yada
You go on to say:
[COLOR="DarkRed"]But the clear majority, including some of the law’s opponents,[/COLOR]
believe that we’re probably in for a few years of shambolic messiness,
during which time everybody will scramble and adjust,
and eventually we will settle down to a new normal.
<snip>
Over all, it seems likely that in some form or another Obamacare is here to stay.
But the turmoil around it could dominate politics for another election cycle, and the changes after that
— to finally control costs, to fix the mind-boggling complexities and the unintended consequences
— will never end.
Regulatory regimes can be simple and dumb or complex and sprawling.
When you build complex, it takes a while to work through the consequences.
So which is it, David ... CHAOS ... or just take a while ?
Next month David will be telling us of all the benefits and success
that he predicted for Obamacare.
.
We will all know when Obamacare has succeeded when the first Republicans go back to calling it it The Affordable Care Act. This of course will not work well, since they have spent years attaching Obama's name to it.
You know it's too late when wiki puts in a redirect ....
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Obamacare
If they had tried this bullshit decades ago, Social Security would be called Roosevelt Security.
BTW, Brooks is right about one thing. Obamacare is a sea change. It is not a band-aid. For good or ill is an at least partial overhaul of an entire system. There will be adjustments. We will see the real result in 5-10 years. There will always be detractors, even if there is a consensus that it turns out to be an improvement. But then again, some of the people who disagree with Obamacare still think the Earth is only 10,000 years old.
I got an email today saying Obamacare should be run by walmart. :facepalm:
I got an email today saying Obamacare should be run by walmart. :facepalm:
One of the most efficient delivery systems of goods and services to consumers that exists today, with an almost across the board presence in the U.S. . I can see the pros and cons.
Add in Costco, Sam's Club, B.J.'s, and everyone in the US is probably 30 minutes from a store.
They're the worst thing to happen to the United States since the Vietnam war.
They're the worst thing to happen to the United States since the Vietnam war.
Ummmm. My entry for the worst thing is in three words...
The next time you go to a doctor's office or a hospital or any kind of health center,
check the I.D. badge of the person interviewing you before (?) you are seen by your physician.
That person may then even give you a diagnosis and write a Rx for you,
and you may not ever meet "your" licensed physician (M.D., D.O, etc)
That person was a
Certified Medical Assistant
Graduates of medical assisting programs accredited by the
Commission on Accreditation of Allied Health Education Programs (CAAHEP)
or the Accrediting Bureau of Health Education Schools (ABHES)
are eligible to take the CMA (AAMA) Certification Exam.
<snip>
A greater number of employers are preferring (or even insisting)
that their medical assistants be CMAs (AAMA).<snip>
Sounds pretty innocuous, doesn't it ?
At least until you find out that your cute little 20-something's
education only amounted to what would otherwise be called an A.A.
(Community College) degree via an "accelerated program".
And, they are programs being heavily touted now by the
"for profit" colleges, universities, and on-line centers of "education"
Google "Medical Assistant certification" for more info.
OK, so doctors have had assistants and secretaries for years. So what ?
Well, aside from the competence of your CMA, the real rub is when it comes time for your billings.
The physician or hospital can charge for that CMA's time and service at the
[COLOR="DarkRed"]same $ rate as "your" physician would have charged for their own
time and service as if they, he/she, had actually provided your service.[/COLOR]
Thus, the physician or hospital can have "legal clones" of themselves
seeing patients and practicing medicine, and earning $ at any
number of different locations (offices/clinics) and times (24/7)
and the $-income is at the highest level commensurate with
that physicians "local and customary" charges,
and Medicare/Medicaid must reimburse these charges without question.
If these charges are higher than is covered by your own insurance,
you get the bill for your excess part of this scheme.
So, pay attention to who actually is treating your medical problems.
Maybe you would want to insist on seeing a doctor in person.
these are the same doctors and hospitals that for decades have had a problem with the idea of 'nurse practitioners'?
*shakes*head*
these are the same doctors and hospitals that for decades have had a problem with the idea of 'nurse practitioners'?
*shakes*head*
Yes, it's the same idea as was the original concept of a "licensed nurse practitioner",
but there the LNP was a graduate RN, so there was/is a great deal more education and experience.
L.P.N.'s now are setting up their own practices, billings, etc. with only
a modicum of physician medically relevant oversight.
The R.N. is something of an endangered species, particularly
those who graduated out of a 2-year post-graduate program.
The Schools of Nursing are in the process of eliminating the 2-yr programs,
and defining the RN as a 4-yr graduate degree and licensure.
The CMA is a financial gimmick to multiply (literally) the $ earnings of physicans.
This is not a result of a government requirement or Obamacare...
it is strictly the workings of capitalism and physicians efforts to
maintain and/or improve their standard of living.
My friend got her LPN then went back for her RN and was told her credits wouldn't transfer so she basically had to start over.
Do you think that's why some stay at LPN and don't go further?
I'll see the NP for a cold or something. Not been real impressed with them. The PAs, I like, and will see them in a pinch. But if it's for my chronic illness I insist on seeing my D.O.
I may be talking out my...I didn't read EVERYTHING. ;)
Sorry, my senior-moment fingers typed on their own again.
In my post above, I was referring to Licensed Nurse Practitioners,
which should be abbreviated as L.N.P.
But then I typed L.P.N, which (to me) means Licensed Practical Nurse.
I'm not sure, but I think the L.P.N programs have been phased out.
They were also 2-year under-graduate programs, while R.N.'s
were 2- or 4-year post-graduate degrees/licensures.
But I do agree with business about non-transfer of credits.
My daughter has a 4-year R.N. + many years of experience + a Master's of Nursing degree.
She too was told by some Schools of Nursing that her Master's degree credits were not transferable.
To get her L.N.P. license she would essentially have to start over as if she were at the RN level.
She is just finishing her 4-semesters of full-time course work and 600 clinical training hours
... next is the State Boards Exam and she'll be a full-fledged L.N.P. :cheerldr:
I also meant by NP 'nurse practitioner' which really had nothing to do with my question about LPN vs RN. So my comment about NP, PA, and DO were actually irrelevant. :blush:
If they're phasing out LPN what will the proprietary schools do? Those credits don't transfer so certainly they shouldn't also offer RN.
I thought LPNs just did 'lesser' duties (for want of a better word) than an RN, in hospitals and such.
<snip>
I thought LPNs just did 'lesser' duties (for want of a better word) than an RN, in hospitals and such.
Now, as opposed to years ago, the Licensed Nurse Practitioner, is/can be essentially equal to an M.D.
Legally, I think they still must have some sort of oversight connection to an M.D.,
but beyond that they see patients, make diagnoses, write perscriptions, etc., etc.
Let me try again:
I thought Licensed Practical Nurses (not Nurse Practioners) did 'lesser' duties (for want of a better word) than an RN, in hospitals and such.
Let me try again:
I thought Licensed Practical Nurses (not Nurse Practioners) did 'lesser' duties (for want of a better word) than an RN, in hospitals and such.
Yes, I agree with this.
Sorry, sometimes I can't read straight.
Shit, I hope you two aren't preparing MY medication! ;) :p: :D
Sometimes you just need to go to the doc to get a medical certificate saying, yep, you've got a cold, take a few days off work. DownUnda, a nurse in the Dr's practice can assess this, and sign the forms. They know to be on the lookout for more serious conditions - such as meningitis - but they bloody well better not be charging Doctors rates for it!
My co-pay is the same no matter who I see. Hmmm...
Health Care Exchange application forms: (
Under Forms/April 30, 2013)
My co-pay is the same no matter who I see. Hmmm...
Probably so, but my rant above was about how much your physician bills
the government (Medicare) or your insurance company when you are seen by a Medical Assistant.
You, yourself, might not see any of this until the billings exceed
the amounts Medicare or your insurance company is willing to pay for that service.
For those of us that are retired and on Medicare, we get a statement
every month from US Social Service showing the dates of medical care,
the amounts billed by the service provider, and the amounts paid by the patient.
Sometimes, the service provider charges are ridiculous
... e.g., $500 for one of our office visits was less than 30 min.
but we had paid only the co-pay of $15.
I was thinking it should be cheaper than 25 bucks when I see the nurse and she barely looks at my throat, though I hadn't thought of that until your posts. It's just the cost for an 'office visit' I guess.
I honestly must take insurance for granted, I never thought about if it actually costs less.
And I certainly won't complain about my insurance: I've made good use of it. Then again, about 13 years ago I was paying the same premium for a 'family' plan (just me and my husband) as the guy whose wife was on baby number 10. I guess it all comes out in the wash, usually, eventually.
(Which makes me wonder what my options will be if I am soonly unemployed!) Dammit.
Your options would be stay healthy or else :neutral:
<snip>
(Which makes me wonder what my options will be if I am soonly unemployed!) Dammit.
Hey, we've gone full circle.... your option is: [SIZE="3"][COLOR="DarkRed"]Obama[/COLOR] ;) [COLOR="Blue"]care[/COLOR][/SIZE]
I know, then I would have to think about stuff, and stuff. Ugh. I'm not good at doing real life grown up stuff, like planning.
Regardless of the mindless mindset of the GOP to shut down our government,
Obamacare will finally become a reality in people's lives next week.
It is time to truly understand what it is and how to make
it's many facets work for the BEST EFFECT on our own personal lives.
If someone is lazy and puts it off until after March 31, 2014,
they will have only themselves to blame if things don't go the way they hope/expect.
Here is an very good article that can be a gateway into understanding
the "whats-in -it-for-me" and "what-should-I-do"...
NY Times
ARA SIEGEL BERNARD
9/27/13
A Guide to the New Exchanges for Health Insurance
Given all of the rhetoric about the Obama administration’s health care law,
it’s not surprising that many consumers are confused about how
the new insurance exchanges will actually work.
Some states that oppose the law have gone as far as intentionally
limiting the information that trickles out to its residents.
But after much anticipation, the curtain will finally rise on the exchanges next week,
providing millions of consumers with an online marketplace to compare
health insurance plans and then buy the coverage on the spot.
The exchanges are likely to be most attractive to people who qualify for subsidized coverage.
Individuals with low and moderate incomes may be eligible for a tax credit,
which can be used right away, like a gift card, to reduce their monthly premiums.
People with pre-existing conditions will no longer be denied coverage
or charged more (this applies to most plans outside the exchanges, too).
And all of the plans on the exchanges will be required to cover
a list of essential services, from maternity care to mental health care.
Q. Where can I apply or get more information on the exchanges?
A. [COLOR="DarkRed"]To avoid fraud artists, enter through the front door: Healthcare.gov.[/COLOR]
From there, you can find links to the exchange offered in your state.
There may be technical glitches as the program gets started,
so alternatively, you can call 1-800-318-2596.
Q. What sort of coverage will be offered?
A. All plans will have to provide the same set of essential benefits,
including prescriptions, preventive care, doctor visits, emergency services and hospitalization
(this also applies to most individual and small-employer group plans sold outside of the exchanges).
But plans can offer additional benefits, or different numbers of services
like physical therapy, so you’ll need to do a side-by-side comparison to see what fits your needs
— or at least the needs you can anticipate.
Q. Are the plans sold on the exchange more comprehensive than plans outside?
A. There are four plan levels, each named for a precious metal.
They all generally offer the same essential benefits, but their cost structures vary.
The lower the premium, the higher the out-of-pocket costs.
The bronze level plan, for instance, has the lowest premiums,
but will require consumers to shoulder more costs out of pocket.
They generally cover 60 percent of a typical population’s out-of-pocket costs,
and include deductibles, co-payments and coinsurance.
The silver plans cover 70 percent; gold, 80 percent;
while platinum covers 90 percent (and therefore carries the highest premiums).
Q. Will I be eligible for a premium tax credit (subsidized coverage)?
A. People with income between 100 percent of the poverty line
(or about $23,550 for a family of four) and 400 percent of poverty ($94,200 for a family of four)
are eligible for a tax credit to defray premium costs.
(All income eligibility is based on your modified adjusted gross income;
the online version of this column links to a guide explaining how that is calculated).
Q. Can I get help with my out-of-pocket expenses, like deductibles?
A. People with incomes between 100 percent of the federal poverty line
($23,550 for a family of four) and 250 percent ($58,875 for a family of four)
are also eligible for cost-sharing reductions, which means you’ll pay less
for items including deductibles and co-payments, and you’ll have lower out-of-pocket maximums.
<SNIP>
etc.
etc.
etc.
Some interesting questions about Obamacare.
1. Once Obamacare goes into effect, it will be impossible to substantially cut it back. Both sides seem convinced of this -- Republicans in terror, Democrats in glee.
~snip~
Entitlements are hard to roll back, but it is clearly not impossible, because it’s been done.
Some interesting questions about Obamacare.
A problem is that the underlying assumption within that link (Bloomberg) is not valid,
or at least it was not the primary raison-d'etre for the Affordable Care Act.
Most the issues in that link are based on a thesis of "saving $". For example:
Here’s another interesting observation I heard the other day,
this time from a participant in the recent Brookings' papers:
[COLOR="DarkRed"]it’s not clear that ACOs are going to save money[/COLOR].
But the primary basis of the ACA / Obamacare primarily was to insure
the (15 ?) millions of people who did not have their own health insurance,
and then to support these newly "insured" by inducing larger numbers
of relatively healthy (working younger people) to buy into their own
health insurance instead of going without.
It's a matter of POV.
AFFORDABLE Care Act.
No, the idea was to get skyrocketing medical costs under control by getting everyone covered and having more efficiency. That should have been single payer instead of the hodge-podge we got. But as I said before, it can be fixed as we go.
I agree that getting "skyrocketing medical costs under control" is part of the ACA,
but that was proceeding under Medicare even before the ACA was passed.
My issue was with the premise of the various "observations" in the link.
We are probably in agreement also on "should have been single payer
instead of the hodge-podge we got."
But that was just one of the options being considered, but that obviously
would have been far more of a upheaval in the US economy
than the more limited transformations of the current form of the ACA.
This editorial is from Forbes...
Forbes
Todd Essig
9/29/13
Let's Get Personal: Obamacare Really Is Good For The Young And Healthy
<snip>
What really embarrasses me is that we’re supposed to be looking out,
taking care, making it easier for those coming up to build a good life.
Instead, bloviating blowhards dispense lies, half-truths, cherry-picked facts,
distortions, and ideological flourishes all designed to confuse and mystify.<snip>
So, let’s shower the crud off ourselves before the marketplace opens
and get personal about whether the Affordable Care Act is a good thing
for people who are young and healthy.
Here are 4 reasons why the answer is “yes, it is.”
<snip>
It is left to the reader to explore this man's calmly stated
and sensible approach to health insurance...
.
.
Just heard on the radio that Aetna (CA's biggest medical insurer with 48% of the market), has dropped out of the exchange for ObamaCare.
This is going on in many states: Iowa (lost their largest insurer), New Hampshire and West Virginia have no health care provider, at all.
The larger health insurers are reluctant to get into this because it's unknown territory for them. On the one hand, the law prevents them from raising the rates above a certain level, but on the other hand, they have to provide a certain level of care to those that they cover.
To top it off, if the healthy people don't need to buy it (maybe paying the IRS penalty will be a better alternative for them), then the whole insurance plan idea, goes out the window. Insurance can't work that way. The risk has to be spread around an adequate base of subscribers.
The national health care plan is a good one, but I wish they would have done more planning and studying, before they decided to pass it into law. So many things - like all these exemptions, etc., they make for a very poor start for it.
To top it off, if the healthy people don't need to buy it (maybe paying the IRS penalty will be a better alternative for them)
The way this is being phased in, the penalties for not buying insurance in the first year are relatively small. (At least the last time I looked into it several months ago.) So it's probably wise from a financial point of view to sit on the sidelines until next year when the penalties become real, and health care will be cheaper than the fine. Of course, if you pay for the health care, then you can use the health care. If you opt for the fine, you get nothing in return.
Debating Obamacare is kind of funny that way, because it's only being phased in slowly, so it will be a few years before we know exactly how it's going to pan out.
Debating Obamacare is kind of funny that way, because it's only being phased in slowly, so it will be a few years before we know exactly how it's going to pan out.
So why are so many easily brainwashed Limbaugh disciples telling me ObamaCare has damaged the economy? You mean these "hate all Americans" Americans do not think for themselves?
The way this is being phased in, the penalties for not buying insurance in the first year are relatively small. (At least the last time I looked into it several months ago.) So it's probably wise from a financial point of view to sit on the sidelines until next year when the penalties become real, and health care will be cheaper than the fine. Of course, if you pay for the health care, then you can use the health care. If you opt for the fine, you get nothing in return.
Debating Obamacare is kind of funny that way, because it's only being phased in slowly, so it will be a few years before we know exactly how it's going to pan out.
Bill King, a health care insurance broker (sells plans for scads of companies), was doing a commercial today (first time I've heard this), saying that EVERY health care plan premium is going up by 30% to 100%.
You can avoid that, by re-upping your plan for another year, before 2014, with one insurer only, allowing the old rates until 2015.
There's your Affordable Health Care Act in Action.
A local DJ (not a conservative), was saying he will have a 99% increase in his health care premium, and his fiance will have a 66% increase (she earns considerably less than him). The people who really do well with Obama Care, are the very low income wage earners.
The middle class and up, will get soaked, as they are finding out. Thus their dissatisfaction with it.
Sounds like BS to me. They are required by law to spend 85% of premium money on providing patient care. So raising the rates would just result in them having to give more refunds.
Sounds like BS to me. They are required by law to spend 85% of premium money on providing patient care. So raising the rates would just result in them having to give more refunds.
It would be better if you called Bill King's office, directly at this (toll free) number:
Call Bill King - 800.442.5464.
Or swing by his office in Carlsbad if you're close by in So. CA.
His website:
http://kingbenefits.com/
I'm not sure how the medical insurance companies will structure their premiums, under Obama Care.
glatt doesn't have to call anyone, since that part of the law went into effect last year. He's not just listening to some asshole on the radio, he has already experienced the refund.
A local DJ (not a conservative), was saying he will have a 99% increase in his health care premium, and his fiance will have a 66% increase (she earns considerably less than him).
People who do this stuff professionally recently discovered costs were not only reduced. But were reduced by more than originally predicted. Informed posters quote from people who actually learn facts. The naive so hate America as to routinely recite claims from a least informed and wacko extremists.
He quotes hearsay from a DJ. After all, when something comes from a voice on a radio, it must have more credibility. It must be true. It came from a magic box.
A friend loved promoting scams to the most religious. The most naive automatically believe what they are told rather than learn how to become a patriotic American - an informed moderate.
Limbaugh said, "We want America to fail." Adak still believes it.
Remember a TV show called "Threes Company"? Wacko extremists told their disciples that ABC was corrupting American morals. So their disciples called ABC in mass numbers complaining about how much they hated that show they just saw. One small problem. The first episode of "Threes Company" had not aired yet. Would not air until the next day. Amazing how disciples of wacko extremists could view a TV show a day before it aired.
Brainwashing the most naive is that easy. The law has not even taken effect. But the most dumb and naive claim ObamaCare has done major damage to the economy BEFORE it even started. Same naive also know ObamaCare has raised costs before it even started.
This is Saddam's WMDs all over again. With the most anti-Americans (dumb and uneducated manipulated by hearsay) claiming a disaster has done harm BEFORE anything even started.
His expert is a radio DJ. No wonder he believes "We want America to fail."
glatt doesn't have to call anyone, since that part of the law went into effect last year. He's not just listening to some asshole on the radio, he has already experienced the refund.
This ASSHOLE is a professional medical insurance broker. He deals with many of the major insurers, in this state.
Why don't you call the toll free number and see what the FACTS are about NOW, in THIS area?
It's free, and then you might be a more tolerant fellow, when people state something you don't want to believe in.
If glatt is in the lower middle class income range, or below, he should receive a nice reduction in his premium costs, under Obamacare. Those rates will vary widely from state to state. Tennessee for instance, has rates that are about half the rate for Wyoming, according to that "asshole" Dr. Gupta on the TV.
So sure, some people will pay less. Others will pay more. If you are in So. CA, and earn above average, you will pay a lot more.
Bill King, a health care insurance broker (sells plans for scads of companies), was doing a commercial today (first time I've heard this), saying that EVERY health care plan premium is going up by 30% to 100%.
You can avoid that, by re-upping your plan for another year, before 2014, with one insurer only, allowing the old rates until 2015.
This ASSHOLE is a professional medical insurance broker. He deals with many of the major insurers, in this state.
Yeah, a lot of insurance companies and agents are trying to get people to renew their plans under the old rates. Probably not out of the goodness of their hearts. Bill King is paid on commission.
This ASSHOLE is a professional medical insurance broker. He deals with many of the major insurers, in this state.
Duh, he's a fucking [COLOR="Red"]salesman[/COLOR].
Buy a policy and get a second policy [COLOR="red"]free[/COLOR], [SIZE="1"]
just pay an second shipping and handing. [/SIZE]
As seen on [COLOR="red"]TV[/COLOR].
Call within 10 minutes and we may use some [COLOR="red"]lube[/COLOR].
[YOUTUBE]sx2scvIFGjE[/YOUTUBE]
Fox News themselves found THAT REPUBLICAN voters were MORE THAN fifty percent MORE FAVORABLE to factual evidence, like the Affordable Care Act, than they were to made-up things, like Obamacare.
Duh, he's a fucking [COLOR="Red"]salesman[/COLOR].
Buy a policy and get a second policy [COLOR="red"]free[/COLOR], [SIZE="1"]
just pay an second shipping and handing. [/SIZE]
As seen on [COLOR="red"]TV[/COLOR].
Call within 10 minutes and we may use some [COLOR="red"]lube[/COLOR].
I understand why the references to job and perhaps, to character, but I don't understand why the continual return to sexual innuendos. Can't you argue a point of view without them?
Yes, Bill King is a broker - so a glorified salesman. Let's look at that. He 's paid on a commission - I don't know that, but it's very likely how he's paid. So, why would a salesman who's paid on commission, want you to buy the cheaper policy?
With the higher priced policy, he would make more commission, yet he's not trying to get us to buy the higher priced policy.
It sounds like he's trying to increase his market share, by giving us a valuable heads up on a future increase in policies, that has been announced by some companies.
In the ad, he names the companies - by name. Which one's will be increasing their rates this year in January, and which one will be increasing it's rate next year.
You could check that out and see if it was true or not, with a free phone call, but you're not interested.
When the facts conflict with your desired beliefs, the facts get ignored, and swept out of sight, and out of mind. It must be that tension it builds, that brings out the sexual innuendos.
Obviously, the facts can't be correct - of course not.:rolleyes:
No wonder you fall for this shit, you can't tell the difference between sex and rape.
You're concerned insurance rates are going up? Well duh, they've been going up way faster than the inflation rate for years. They've been driving the inflation. That's why the AFFORDABLE Care Act was passed. Now they will fall or at least level off across the country. I'm sorry they aren't in your neighborhood yet, like they have in glatt's.
Wait, no, I'm not sorry... you deserve it for your spreading half-truths and lies.
Well duh, they've been going up way faster than the inflation rate for years. They've been driving the inflation.
Yes! I have been working for the same company for 7 years (through this recession). Included in that time are a couple of raises and a promotion (totaling 22%-average of 3.14%/year). And yet, I take home less today than I did 7 years ago, thanks in large part to my insurance costs (which have more than doubled!).
Yes! I have been working for the same company for 7 years (through this recession).
Included in that time are a couple of raises and a promotion (totaling 22%-average of 3.14%/year).
And yet, I take home less today than I did 7 years ago, thanks in large part
to my insurance costs (which have more than doubled!).
I suspect many employers have been reducing or holding flat
their contributions to their employee's health care programs.
Certainly the counter-balance of unions during labor negotiations has declined.
I happen to get my family's health insurance through the same non-profit
agency as retired State employees, some teachers unions, etc.
Our premiums have gone up, but not nearly the % that you have experienced.
Also, policies do change (both more and less benefits) what
they offer and what they cover, along with co-pays, fees, etc.
Until the ACA came along, it was either take what your employer gives you,
or go back to college to get an MBA so you can compare the policies of different companies.
At least now there is a bit of common ground (the metal ratings) to compare one to another.
:rolleyes:
And yet, I take home less today than I did 7 years ago, thanks in large part to my insurance costs (which have more than doubled!).
Forty years ago, similar problems existed in auto insurance. Costs increasing because the laws created reasons for increasing costs. Finally states began a major rewrite of auto insurance rules. Then auto insurance rates stopped increasing almost exponentially.
We finally have a solution for medical insurance. We should be moving onto other reasons for increases. Instead, many extremists want to destroy government like a child who takes home the baseball because he thought he was safe at first base. (Extremists often don't use the part of a brain that only exists in adults.)
While wackos have distorted the waters, many never noticed another reason for increasing health costs. He claimed he was fixing things. He also blamed Joe Paterno for pedophilia while not doing any investigation? He subverted discovery for some 14 Vioxx lawsuits - a drug that was killing people. Subverted discovery to protect profits and to keep selling a killer drug.
Once 42 major drug companies existed. Each averaged 7 drugs in the innovation pipeline. Merck, once a most innovative company (because its management were doctors), is now a laggard. Must increase profits by increasing profit margins while, well, Merck only has two innovative drugs in the innovation pipeline. So Merck must rape the public with higher prices.
Once 42 companies were doing seven new drugs. MBAs have successfully merged those companies into 13 with only 3 new drugs in the innovation pipeline. So your medical costs for drugs must increase.
Ken Frazier, a lawyer, was preaching he had greatest respect for scientists. Nonsense. He had so little respect for anyone as it even get Joe Paterno blamed by doing no investigation. He should have been disbarred for subverting discovery on so many Vioxx cases. Instead they made him Merck's president. He has subverted the innovation drug pipeline. Same problem is in most other drug companies.
In a responsible market, costs for a new product drop each year. Because every year, innovation makes the product better. Profit margins can be less as the product ages - is eventually replaced with new innovations. Profits no longer have to pay for the initial product development costs. But in a drug industry now run by management that stifles innovation, prices increase every year even as the patent expires. And as we protect those companies by not blaming management who does not come from where the work gets done.
Drug companies have even paid generic drug companies to NOT market their equivalent. To increase profit margins. To protect an industry that does not innovate like it used to.
Another reason why medical costs and insurance rates increase. Frazier is now downsizing Merck because, as a lawyer, he successfully stifled innovation. Trials of new Merck drugs have not been going well. He is spinning downsizing as if it is a corporate refocus.
Frazier is another reason why your insurance and medical costs will increase. Just like in the auto industry, he will continue to subvert your standard of living - to protect and enrich himself. Using the same knowledge that even blamed Joe Paterno for pedophilia. Making decisions without learning anything about the problem.
With the waters so muddied by extremists attacking health insurance, did you notice another of your enemies spinning his excuses?
An industry that once had more than 250 new drugs in the innovation pipeline now has less than 40 - because these companies are now more concerned with profits than with the products. Your medical costs must then increase.
Has anyone made use of the 'exchanges' and did you get a good deal on coverage?
From the lack of responses: I'm guessin' no one has made use of the exchanges.
Why not?
I have employer-provided healthcare.
Personally, we haven't used it because we are one of the lucky ones with employer-paid insurance. I know other people who have used them, but I don't know what kind of a "deal" they got (though I would have to assume it was better than what they were paying before, otherwise they wouldn't have gone for it.)
My mother-in-law is going to use the state exchange, because preliminary searching shows that she will get a much better deal than what she is currently having to pay, but right now she is procrastinating. Supposedly it is because the site has been slow as millions of people try to use it all at once, but in reality it is because she really, really doesn't want to believe that Obamacare could work out to be a good thing for her.
I have employer-provided healthcare.
If your employer (for whatever reason) chooses to terminate your coverage (or you), you'll use the exchanges, yes?
I expect I will. I'll at least check them out and compare prices with non-exchanges.
If fired, I'd compare them to COBRA. They'll probably be cheaper (COBRA is more about continuity than affordability), but I'd factor in the hassle of changing providers compared to how long I'd expect to be out of work. The next employer will probably provide coverage, and changing providers twice in a short time might not be worth it.
If healthcare were just dropped by my employer, I'd use the exchange. That's what it's there for.
Like HM, I'd first look into COBRA because right now we have a plan that was specifically tailored to our unique medical needs (because Mr. Clod's employer was very clear that he wanted to keep him happy, and added certain coverages just for him.)
But yes, if everything fell apart and Mr. Clod were for some reason unemployed for a long time, we would certainly use the exchange.
We have employer paid insurance but now we can keep our daughters on ours until they get their own or age out at what 26? Thanks Mitt!
I am waiting until the website problems are sorted out.
Would any one just opt to pay the fine and be done with it?
As I understand: for the first year it's 95 bucks or 1% of your income.
At least for now: is that a better option than the exchanges?
But then you are uninsured.
The fines are low for this first year. But they will go up the next year. They are getting phased in.
I imagine you would think it is, since you also believe that you have no need for emergency services paid for with tax money that you resent having had "stolen" from you.
But any reasonable risk assessment of life would come to the conclusion that we all get sick eventually, or perhaps get hit in an auto accident that wasn't our fault, but nonetheless leaves us with massive medical bills. There could be zero fine, and buying medical insurance would still be a good deal, when comparing risk vs. reward.
Clod,
I asked a question...I wasn't makin' a point by way of the question.
I didn't bring myself into the question, you did.
And: no, I resent nuthin' cause I ain't payin' nuthin.
Now...
As I understand it: the point of the fine is to cover those expenses one may incur if using medical resources without insurance.
Leaving aside that one may be able to pay his or her own way without resorting to insurance (out of pocket), at least for the first year might it be the better deal to just pay the fine?
It's just (a line of) questions, folks...I'm curious how people are doing all of this (what choices they're makin'), is all.
I'd imagine that would work, if you only encountered run of the mill health problems. Antibiotics, inhalors, maybe even a bone reset after a break. But if you end up in a hospital bed for a few nights, or you have a sudden and unexpected need for chemotherapy and the like, I expect it would get cripplingly expensive quite fast.
It'd be a gamble. But then I guess that's the point of an insurance system in the first place. The insurance companies gamble that you will never need more treatment than would fall under the copay limit. And you gamble that you might just need a hospital stay at some point.
So, as long as you don't get seriously ill or have an accident requiring a complex medical response, it might well be more cost effective to pay the fine and be uninsured.
"as long as you don't get seriously ill or have an accident requiring a complex medical response, it might well be more cost effective to pay the fine and be uninsured"
I must have gotten sumthin' wrong in my readings 'cause I assumed the fine (which goes up to astronomical levels down the road) would cover you no matter the nature of a medical treatment (no matter how costly).
Again: isn't the point of the fine to cover those expenses one may incur if using medical resources without insurance?
If not: then what's the fine for?
It's for not following the law, liker most fines are.
The only way it "covers" you is by adding to the governments coffers, from which it pays the subsidies for poor people buying insurance. Those people having insurance makes it easier for the hospital to manage the people who get emergency care, and can't pay.
So, if you decide to pay the fine instead of getting coverage, you'll be in the same boat as you are now if you have no insurance, but a bit of the pressure is taken off of the hospitals.
The fine is a stick to get you to join the program. It doesn't grant you access to anything.
The insurance companies gamble that you will never need more treatment than would fall under the copay limit. And you gamble that you might just need a hospital stay at some point.
Strictly speaking, the insurance companies don't gamble. They are like bookies; they can adjust the rates so that they always come out with a moderate profit no matter who wins or loses. Too many people start losing, they just raise everybody's rates to cover the loss.
As I understand it: the point of the fine is to cover those expenses one may incur if using medical resources without insurance.
Leaving aside that one may be able to pay his or her own way without resorting to insurance (out of pocket), at least for the first year might it be the better deal to just pay the fine?
The point of the fine is to help offset the medical costs of
other people who did buy into the plan, a plan which only works if enough people participate. When you pay the fine, you are not securing any medical care for yourself. You will still be responsible for the entire bill should you become ill. The ER will take a bullet out of you and restart your heart, just as they do now. But they will send you a bill. And just like an uninsured person before Obamacare, you will not get life-saving surgery, you will not get cancer treatment, you will not get therapy to walk again, etc.
It's true that if you do have the means to pay out-of-pocket, you will probably save money by simply paying the fine. But very few people really have those means. They think they do, but they don't truly understand how quickly medical bills can add up. My dad is a soft libertarian who has been playing that gamble his entire life. He has excellent self-discipline, and does indeed live well below his means so that he can keep savings in the five digits earmarked for self-pay medical costs. He did even have to pay out once in a major way when he had an unexpected heart clot and spent a day in the hospital. But he never spent time in an ICU, never got cancer. Had that happened, his 5-digit savings would have been laughable, and he would have been fucked. He shrugs and says, "Well, that's life," and asserts that if he's that bad off he'd be okay with just dying. But my experience is that when face-to-face with death, most people find (too late) that they'd rather stay alive after all.
I'd actually be a fan of the "fine" subscribing you to medicare, and charging you the cost.
IE, single payer.
Okay: I got it now.
Thanks.
I'll have more questions (as they come to mind).
Even the Democrats are upset about the Obamacare website.
But does that stop them from being mistaken when it's time to shift the blame ?
http://www.politico.com/story/2013/10/obamacare-website-hearing-takeaways-98815_Page2.html
Politico
10/24/13
Obamacare website hearing takeaways: Missing word was ‘sorry’
<snip>But other Democrats made it clear they weren’t about to let
the Obama administration off the hook for anything.
Anna Eshoo of California said the contractors’ explanation that
the website had high volume ”sticks in my craw.”
“I represent Silicon Valley, and I find this very hard to follow.
This is the 21st Century. It’s 2013. There are thousands of websites that handle
concurrent volumes far larger than what HealthCare.gov was faced with,” said Eshoo.
[COLOR="DarkRed"]“Amazon and e-Bay don’t crash the week before Christmas, and ProFlowers
doesn’t crash on Valentine’s Day.”[/COLOR]
Well Anna, maybe not the week before Christmas, but during this past summer.
How long have these websites been up and running, but yet:
.
[ATTACH]45811[/ATTACH]
(
from here)
The Affordable Care Act is a big deal, both in it's significance to our society and government as well as a big deal in terms of it's scope. Much has been made of the crucial impact young healthy people will have on the financial aspect of the law. Of course, we all have a financial aspect to our lives, and many people make choices with the costs in mind. The immediate costs of the premiums are easy to quantify, easy to see; you pay them right away. The longer term costs of care for an illness or an injury are much harder to quantify because they're not known with nearly as much certainty. Injured? Sick? Me?? Pfffft... no way man.
But. All of us can imagine, can imagine an accident and these brilliant commercials help us envision circumstances when we take a chance, and what the consequences *might be*.
Just brilliant!
[YOUTUBEWIDE]s0YzmwrszPY[/YOUTUBEWIDE]
[YOUTUBEWIDE]B5upna_k_ck[/YOUTUBEWIDE]
They do get your attention !
Has anyone made use of the 'exchanges' and did you get a good deal on coverage?
I have researched the exchange here for myself and my son. The bronze plan is really awful and still far more expensive than the plans we have now which are being discontinued because of UN-ACA regulations.
Would any one just opt to pay the fine and be done with it?
As I understand: for the first year it's 95 bucks or 1% of your income.
At least for now: is that a better option than the exchanges?
But then you are uninsured.
The fines are low for this first year. But they will go up the next year. They are getting phased in.
For 2014, the fine is 1% of your gross income. It appears that I will have no other choice at this time. I'm still hoping to finagle something, but currently being self-employed, there are no affordable alternatives.
What is looking to become the big issue is that, by far, the vast majority of those who are signing up are old and/or unhealthy. All those young healthy people needed to make this magically somehow work so that millions more get insurance while not driving up the costs (remember that?) are apparently not doing so. If thats the case come March, then the costs are going to skyrocket. Apparently all of this was known and it was a gamble.
We'll see how this works out. By next March we'll have a far better indication of what will happen in 2015.
As for the 6% who are like me and are self-employed. We're such a small group that we weren't really factored into the equation. No one cares about us ... Oh wait 6% of the US is about 15 MILLION people. Thats a pretty damn significant group. Many are getting the letters like I did. Just chalk us up as the unintended consequences.
Additionally, keep in mind that the exemption for employers will expire as well. Once that happens companies will have to determine if they can/want to continue offering coverage as an added benefit to its employees. *IF* all those young people DON'T sign up and the rates for 2015 are astronomical, then LOOK OUT! Many companies will not be able to afford the added cost.
I must not Obama.
ObamaCare is the job-killer.
. . .
When the Obama is past, I will turn my mind's eye to see its path, where there will be nothing. Only I will remain.
All those young healthy people needed to make this magically somehow work so that millions more get insurance while not driving up the costs (remember that?) are apparently not doing so. If thats the case come March, then the costs are going to skyrocket.
My brother and all his friends are in this category. Their general take on it is yes, they'll sign up, but they're not in a hurry. Expect most of the young people to get it done last-minute, just as in everything else they do.
When do you lose your current plan? Is it immediate, or end of the year, or next March?
March for me & May for my son. At this point, I may have to fudge some numbers and see if we can get medicaid. If that doesn't work I'll have to roll the dice and just insure one of us. Ya think I should go with him because he has a long life ahead or me who is old and fat... He's a lot cheaper than I as well.
I have an Obamacare question.
I'm not working right now, though I hope I will land a job soon. Naturally, I don't have any employer-based insurance. I can imagine a situation where I'll buy insurance (for a year, the regular term for such policies) for myself via my state's exchange or through a broker or via the phone or paper or whatever, the method's not important. Anyhow, say I buy a policy. Say I subsequently get a job (HOORAY!) and part of the job compensation is employer provided/sponsored/subsidized health insurance. What then? Could I cancel my individual plan and go with what my employer is providing, saving me the direct expense of paying for my own insurance? I know that previously, certain "life events" were reasons to change a policy outside of the open enrollment period, like marriage, a new baby, divorce, etc. And naturally, changing jobs is a super-common reason people change insurance. So, I won't be changing my individuality, but I might be getting another option. Does anyone know about this? Could I cancel my individual policy if I'm getting different insurance through work?
"Could I cancel my individual plan and go with what my employer is providing"
Yes. Individual policies basically run month to month. you may cancel at any time. When your new employer plan starts is up to the company. Typically it is 90 days from your FT hire date.
month to month? wow. Ok, thanks for the answer!
...pay your premiums monthly and you assure yourself of that. ;)
Aside from that there used to be a company called Golden Rule who offered short term policies .... 3 month 6 month etc. That may be an option for some as well. If they are still around. NO, you cannot just keep buying from them indefinitely.
Golden Rule is definitely still around; they are one of the few plans that has excellent ABA (behavioral therapy for autism) coverage. I know at least a dozen people on it. It is not cheap, but if you have massive healthcare costs, it is worth it. The people I know pay approximately $16,000 per year between the policy cost and the co-pays/deductible, and in return are getting $100,000 to $150,000 in actual medical costs per year covered.
Sorry for the confusion - poorly written post on my part.
I know the company is around, I was referring to their temp plans.
...
Anyhow, say I buy a policy. Say I subsequently get a job (HOORAY!) and part of the job compensation is employer provided/sponsored/subsidized health insurance. What then? Could I cancel my individual plan and go with what my employer is providing, saving me the direct expense of paying for my own insurance?
You are expected to. In fact if you don't you'll pay more.
I know that previously, certain "life events" were reasons to change a policy outside of the open enrollment period, like marriage, a new baby, divorce, etc. And naturally, changing jobs is a super-common reason people change insurance. So, I won't be changing my individuality, but I might be getting another option. Does anyone know about this? Could I cancel my individual policy if I'm getting different insurance through work?
A new employer is a "life event", so yes.
Oh now I get it dep't:
I did not make enough documentable income last year to qualify for O-care.
Hmmm
Hmmmmmm
You are probably in the Medicare hole. Make too much for pre-ACA Medicare, but not enough for an exchange subsidy? Thank Corbett.
I blame only myself for whatever hole I may be in.
That's fine, but you can still thank Corbett for this particular opportunity to blame yourself.
I guess, did you look that up in your handy-dandy 50-state partisan blame chart? I'm against the guy 100% but a brief Googling says he is looking to expand Medicaid.
You are probably in the Medicare hole. Make too much for pre-ACA Medicare, but not enough for an exchange subsidy? Thank Corbett.
Same here
I guess, did you look that up in your handy-dandy 50-state partisan blame chart? I'm against the guy 100% but a brief Googling says he is looking to expand Medicaid.
Still looking? Been looking for three years. I think he's a pompous ass. Met him, his wife, the State AG, treasurer and a few other administration peeps at a speech I did with my son. We got to hobnob and all that with them.
Remember that saying Birds of a feather...?
In any case I am not in this particular hole.
If he's looking to expand Medicaid now, it's because he turned it down as soon as the Supreme Court said he could. States that didn't turn it down don't have to "look to" do it.
So its all the
States' fault now.
If Corbett is looking at anything its only to further himself.
I hope he does, because I am in that hole.