Politics Obamacare

What the hell, I just got an e-mail saying all insurance for spouses is illegal under the ACA. You mean that's not true?

 

Krugman sums it up for me....half a loaf is better than none.

--- merged: Oct 26, 2013 at 11:28 AM ---

 

The problem is with all the spin and covertly trying to get what one side wants over the other, but not explaining what is really going on, or attacking the people/companies that are causing the problems. And even though it is a big law, they can't go into the details because some people might get pissed off that things will change for them.

What I want to know is, if I quit my job and decide to take a year or two off, how much will my premiums be? If I want to start up a business and have no idea if it will make lots of money or not, how much will my premiums be? If my high school friend who had a bulge in his aorta that could burst anytime killing him, would be able to get it fixed? Who is going to lose their jobs to computers and technology to make treatment outcomes better and to bring down the costs? Will my coworker who has had a heart attack and is overweight and needs diabetes medicine be covered or will they now see it as cheaper to do weightloss stomach surgery?

 

I was watching Meet the Press the other day and this post came to mind....how scare and fear rhetoric does not always present a full picture.

Floridians currently with Florida Blue plans will be transitioned to better Florida Blue plans..and many at lower costs.

300,000 dropped from coverage? How about the rest of the story?

 

Now we know that the President knowingly lied regarding people who liked their current insurance plan being able to keep it. He was told many people with individual plans would not be able to keep them, yes told assuming he was not able to figure it out from reading his signature piece of legislation. And yes there are people who understood what they had and want to keep it. And yes there are people who do not need or want coverage for prescription drugs, or routine care. There are even people who would prefer to self-insure - i.e. a person worth multi-millions/billions may choose to use their own resources for medical expenses. There are people who only want catastrophic coverage.

No choice. With the full force of government you all will do what the government wants you to do, forget the Constitution. If you are young, healthy, with a good income you will subsidize others. And yes, we are talking the full force of government. At first they make it seem like everyone is benefiting, getting stuff at low cost or no cost, getting subsidies - understand that failure to comply is serious. tax issues can get out of control real fast. When applying you do so under the penalty of perjury! If you get a subsidy that you should not be getting, eventually it will be caught and will be paid back - I would expect with penalties and interest. It will be around tax time in 2015 before employer verification of offers of employer coverage may trigger a problem if a subsidy is claimed in error or fraud.

We are just seeing the tip of the iceberg regarding the problems people will face. The website issues are trivial. We will get reports on how many people visit the website, how many sign up, etc. - the bottom line is that everyone has to have coverage or pay a tax/fine. Of course everyone without insurance needs to visit the website or get the information - and responsible people will not violate the requirement.

Government officials are in over their heads regarding running health insurance. It appears that the insurance industry wrote most of the Obamacare legislation and they did so in a manner where they have absolutely nothing at risk, are guaranteed profits and will have about 30 million new customers.

Obamacare was a mess from the beginning and needs to be repealed or completely redone in a manner consistent with the Constitution and free market principles.

 

it still is a lie when obama said if you liked your insurance plan you get to keep it. there are plenty of people who are getting dropped, and there are plenty of people who are seeing insane premiums/deductibles. not everyone is getting subsidized. 'many people' getting better plans at lesser costs isn't specific at all. i would guess 'many people' is far far less than people who are getting increased premiums and deductibles. also it's admitted that this whole system depends on young healthy people signing up. doesn't that create a huge problem considering this demographic is having a hell of a time finding well paying full time employment? can't fund it if you dont have income

 

Oh geez, Ace....consistent with the Constitution?

The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence[and general Welfare of the United States...​

 

This from a CEO who wants market share! Understand a basic flaw in how the incentives work in this law. There is a basic 80/20 split. Insurance companies get 20% to cover admin/profits/etc. the way they grow the 20% is to increase the premium base, to increase medical costs! 20% of a billion is $200 million. 20% of 2 billion is $400 million. Connect the dots - he wants people to buy more expensive plans!

 

this healthcare.gov situation is sad because, that was the easiest part of obamacare to get right. a freaking website.... we can only begin to imagine what other atrocities lie beneath this flawed website and crazy premium/deductible issue that we are finding out about.

 

The Blues have plans at all three levels and consumers can choose on their own...and in most cases, they will get more comprehensive coverage that the current Blue plans and in Florida, most will get some level of tax credit.

added:

I found 106 different health plans in one county in FL.

That is competition that never existed before.

 

They are misleading people. They say the above like young people have a choice, they do not. Given that this is government, they will force the premiums to go up or increase taxes/fines to make it work - I bet both will occur with the taxes/fines to be higher than what is currently in the law for those who think they will go that route.
--- merged: Oct 29, 2013 at 12:01 PM ---

Do you think that is all there is to the Constitutional question regarding Obamacare? Do you think anyone who questions the Constitutionality of the law does so without a legitimate basis? Or, clarify what you trying to say.

 

Nope...they dont have a choice.,..even though a majority of young (under 35) uninsured are likely to qualify for some level of subsidy or tax relief.

Big bad government and the power of taxation so that the rest of us dont pay the health care costs of the uninsured !


--- merged: Oct 29, 2013 at 12:02 PM ---

No, Ace...I am saying you and the Tea Party dont determine the constitutionality of laws (only laws you like). That is the role of the Supreme Court.
--- merged: Oct 29, 2013 at 12:05 PM ---
The free market?

106 different plans in Florida for the uninsured...most likely with better coverage and certainly with far more consumer protections than ever existed before....with some level of assistance in form of subsidies and tax relief for many working families who dont get the benefit of a employer contribution.

 

I agree.

But in the current political environment, 'one small step" was the best that could be accomplished in the form of a more regulated free market....expanding the closed market in many states (where 1-2 insurers have a 75% percent market share) and greater consumer protections that benefit all, not only the uninsured.

One day, we'll take the "giant leap" to single payer....but I dont expect it before I become Medicare eligible in 13 yrs.

 

First, those 26 and younger may be required to be on their parent's plan before they would qualify for a subsidy. So, now we are talking about those between 27 and 35 - so if they do qualify for a subsidy what is it really going to mean. If they are healthy with no medical issues their out of pocket net payments will subsidize others. As the system matures, we can play a shell game with the numbers but in the end what are the out of pocket costs going to be for these people? subsidy - $500, premium $3,000 compared to subsidy $1,000, premium $4,000 - do you get excited about the bigger subsidy???? Of course not!

Dude, the costs are already imbedded in the system - all Obamacare does is shift costs around. It does nothing to lower the costs, some argue costs will go up. I know that all you have is that people won't go to the emergency room - here is a clue, people will still go to emergency rooms. People with insurance currently do it when needed already.

Straw-man argument.

compared to....

Who defines "better"? How do you know what is better for a person in Florida you don't know?

Every insurance plan in every state had to be approved by state regulators - so the state regulators were a problem but federal regulators are the solution? Is the federal government going to regulate health insurance better than they regulate banks?

You continually imply people get healthcare coverage, portions of healthcare coverage, or some medical services for free. There are costs, even for employer contributions...I would prefer a full wage and the ability to handle my own health insurance. But, I believe in choice. I do not believe in a one size fits all approach to problems. I support free market principles.
--- merged: Oct 29, 2013 at 1:18 PM ---

Yes, let's have that debate. I agree, either true single payer or free market.

More specifically, the bill was drafted in a manner that primarily benefits the healthcare insurance and healthcare industries.
--- merged: Oct 29, 2013 at 1:21 PM ---

Democrats made the mistake of not passing a bill with bi-partisan support. A bill with bi-partisan support would have ended up being smaller in scale and less complicated.

 

First (well actually, the forth or fifth or sixth...time), you are incorrectly describing a provision of the law.

Those 26 and younger are NOT required to be on their parent's plan. It is an option.

Of the 7.2 million uninsured between the ages of 18 and 35, CBO estimates that 40% will be eligible for a subsidy that would bring the premium costs down for many of those folks to as low as $50-$100/month depending on the level plan selected. Another 1+ million would be Medicaid eligible (previously singles were not eligible).

The rest is just rehashing the same old ideological argument against a bill that has passed Congress, signed by a president who was re-elected in part on the law, affirmed (except for one provision) by the Supreme Court. It is the law of the land and IMO, Republicans would be wise to be more constructive in offering specific proposals to improve the law rather than wasting time and money with 44 votes to repeal, shutting down the govt at a cost of $24 billion, and holding witch hunt hearings. But I know better.

I am thankful that there was no Tea Party extremists in 1965 when Medicare was enacted!

 

There is no reason for elected officials to craft bad law that favors industry over the public. And it is my view that good government attempts to be neutral and not select favorites at the expense of others - i.e., young healthy subsidizing others who can pay their own way. I have no objection of a social contract that helps the elderly, children and the disabled. I can also be supportive of some short-term social safety nets for able bodied adults in times of need. Obamacare goes far beyond what I would support in terms of a social contract.

 

Just because you are 27-35 doesn't mean that you don't get sick or can't have an accident. And, yes, some might see it as a 'waste of money' if they don't use it, but it is the only way to move to a lifetime coverage policy nationwide. That way, you know that you will be covered where ever you are.

And most 27-35 year olds don't have enough saved to handle a $100,000 medical bill. It isn't very common that it would happen, but it isn't impossible. Now, why it costs $100,000 is another topic.