Politics Obamacare

i'm sure many american's would rather have their current plans that 'suck ass' than the new plans that they literally cannot afford.

 

I'm sure that the 40-50% of those who lose their insurance but will get subsidies or tax credits resulting in lower costs will like it.

I'm sure all of those losing insurance with high annual out-of-pocket costs will like the new lower out-of-pocket limits if they were to experience higher than anticipated medical costs over the course of the year. And, I'm sure that those who would have their coverage dropped as soon as they are diagnosed with a serious illness will like the prohibition against having their policy rescinded.

And I would guess, many others will like having far more options at varying prices with guaranteed and easy to understand benefits than having a policy with lots of fine print and exclusions.

 

Every time I hear/read someone state "my rates and deducible are increasing 1000%" or some such thing it's either found out to be untrue or misleading at best. When I've been told by someone that they would have to pay some really high rate and their deducible was going to be nuts I've asked them their details and entered it into the system, which has worked for me most every time and found a least two or more plans that would be way less then they claimed. I think Sean Hannity was shown to be completely full of shit recently when he had several couples on his show who complained they were being screwed by the ACA. When reporters looked into each of their individual situations they found all of them had plans available to them better then they claimed. Another thing they don't seem to understand the plans their able to purchase have to come with things like yearly screenings, counseling, tests and shots, preventive care at no additional cost/deducible. One couple hadn't even looked into the ACA options available to them, just stated "we hate Obamacare and want nothing to do with it." If it's so bad for so many why did Hannity not put one couple or person on his show who was really getting shafted? I think I know the answer to that. Should have been easy to find a few true victims of the act, have them vetted and put them on air. Instead the people he put on might as well have been actors with improv guides.

I'm surrounded by Canadians (send help please.) Several of them lean rather right politically. One keeps sending me Glen Beck clips stating "see how the US is headed in a completely awful direction?" Oh, yeah Glen Beck's the guy to solve a counties problems. I've told this guy several times "you like Glen some much invite him up to Canada so he can guide your country to the promised land." And every one of the right leaning Canadians who claim to hate their own health care system and speak of the horrors they know are coming due to the ACA because they "know how bad things can get when government gets involved/controls health care." Every one of those saying that sure do use do use the system they say sucks. Many are being dishonest about the amount of time they are spending in Mexico each year so they can fly home and have their medical needs taken care of and paid for by a system they bitch and moan about. I'm not Canadian so I'm not really sure how it works but I've been told they must be a resident, actually live in Canada, a certain number of months or they lose their coverage. A lot of these folks are living here year round and fly home every few months to get Rx refills and at times such things as knee replacements etc... Recently some have been found out and warned they can't live elsewhere and maintain their coverage, they say that sucks too. I told one guy (Glen beck fan man) "well if you're not living there you're probably not paying into the system are you?" He told "you have no idea, taxes in Canada are really high and the cost of things like liquor and cigarettes is cray due to the health care system." "Do you buy your smokes or vodka in Canada?" Dead silence and cold a stare before he walked off in a huff. I have a feeling if the system they say sucks ended tomorrow they'd be pissed and want answers.

 

I'm also sure that there are many americans who can afford plenty of insurance for themselves and their children who choose not to.

 

I little perspective on those "many" Americans:

So, 95 percent of Americans are not impacted by this -- the 80 percent on an employer (group) plans and the 15 percent in Medicare/Medicaid.

Of the remaining 5%, every year prior to the ACA, 83%t already did not have the same plan for two years in a row; the plan was either canceled by the insurance company (no reasons needed) or the consumer chose to cancel (perhaps got a job with a plan) and of the 17% that were able to keep their plan, only 17 percent of those were able to keep it in the following year and the year after that...

And of those 5% who had their planned canceled, 40-50 percent would qualify for a subsidy under the ACA...leaving 2+% of all consumers with a potentially higher costs (and some probably with lower costs if they took the time to look), but all with better benefits.

I get it that it is no consolation to the relatively few, not many, who would pay more.

But a program that benefits 97+% of consumers in numerous ways other than costs (95% unaffected by the dropped plans and 2% percent who were dropped but will now receive subsidy) is reasonable public policy by any measure.

 

I don't need to ask them, never did either. They've made it very clear they have no interest in losing their Canadian health care. Some have gone to rather odd methods to avoid having the fact they live full time here come to the attention of the Canadian government. People who have been living for 10-15 year plus talk about doing thing like requesting every new place they visit, even inside the same country (say a trip to an island nation with several islands) stamp their passport. Thus filing up the pages of the passport and making reading the stamps or adding new made it difficult and customs then could not really see how long they were or where they were. Now with the computers tracking everything they complain that no longer works. And the Canadian government has began to crack down and many think it's BS, have no problem stating it. I heard several discussing this at a Halloween party Thursday night. I heard one couple who'd lived here for over 12 years had to recently *gasp* move home because the man wash having heart problems and the officials in Canada sent them a letter informing them their medial insurance would be terminated if they did not maintain at least X number of days per year residency in Canada. Evidently the letter even had the nerve to detail what "residency" meant. So they had to leave the place they come to know as home and move back to a cold miserable place.

Most of these people talk about all the ways they can avoid paying the extremely high taxes (often referred to as "freaking insane Canadian taxes" Especially when it comes to alcohol and cigarettes) which if they'd cut back on or quit they might not need so much health care. They remind me of the US GOP in many ways, they want stuff, just have interest in paying for the stuff they want. Granted the US GOP wants stuff like more military, seven hundred mile twenty foot border walls. And the Canadians seem to want their health care. the common thread is neither wants to pay for what they want. Not sure what the Canadian do to rationalize this, in the states they just come up with BS bogey men that are sucking the budget dry. You know like immigrants, poor people or public employees. A few years back the GOP in Wisconsin convinced a enough voters that teachers pensions were a major problem. Yeah, those damn greedy teachers, living like kings they were. Meanwhile raising the tax on millionaires and billionaires 2% was a crazy and evil idea that would hurt people just for working so hard they were successful. I mean it's not like most majorly wealthy people were born it to it or something, right?

 

I first read your post on my phone and thought it said you were going to start quoting what I posted. I was seriously concerned about you. When a person who edits books for a living starts quoting something I've authored they probably need a vacation or possibly a CAT scan. But I heard they're a real problem in Canada getting tests such as CAT scans so maybe that wouldn't have been an option?

I do like the quote you posted and will use it elsewhere. Who's John Kenneth Galbraith.

 

I kid... I know you guys don't have a problems with CAT scans.

And I will look him up, seriously never hear of him.

 

A new study from Kaiser Family Foundation released today:

More evidence that the ACA will benefit a significant number of those who need it most...the uninsured and working individuals/families stuck with junk plans out of choice or necessity.

 

One reason for the employer delay is because everyone who understand the law knows that many employees will be forced into the exchanges. They will not be keeping their plans - and of course it won't be Obama's fault, it will be the employers who made the decision.

Many unions are concerned about Obamacare, those that have "Cadillac" plans. Many of these plans will not be available after Obamacare's full implementation. And of occurs it won't be Obama's fault, it will be the Union's fault if some are not willing to pay the additional taxes and other costs.

And people who understand the law know these plans are not so called "junk plans". Truth and honesty is not what we are getting from the President and his advocates. After the current set of lies run their course, a new set will surface. It is going to be drip, drip, drip...the only way Obamacare could get the support to pass and the only way Obama was going to get re-elected was for his administration to manage the deceptions. Obamacare was bad legislation, and will not address the issues they said it was meant to address. We need to try to understand what the real objective is.

 

There is no data to support this. CBO, Rand and other non-partisan studies suggest otherwise.

I would urge you read what Consumer Reports has to say about

​

Many people who believe they have adequate health insurance actually have coverage so riddled with loopholes, limits, exclusions, and gotchas that it won't come close to covering their expenses if they fall seriously ill, a Consumer Reports investigation has found.​

Hazardous health plans​

​

And the $400 billion spent on lies and misinformation by ACA opponents and the people whose insurance was cut and trotted out by FOX News and others as examples only for it to be determined that they in fact, would likely get a better plan for less money...given that 40-50% would qualify for subsidies.

 

Right, it is my problem. But it is posted, we can revisit this issue in the future. I recall clearly writing that the President lied regarding certain statements regarding Obamacare long before it was picked up in the media.

​

​

Loopholes? It is a contract. If you argue that people enter into contracts without reading and understanding the contract that is one thing, the president lies is another. If you argue there was fraud in the inducement (deception in marketing or getting people to enter an agreement) ...how is that different than what Obama did to sell Obamacare?​

Hazardous health plans​

​

 

Ace...where is the data that would show that employers will drop coverage in large numbers (or even small numbers). That is all I am asking.
--- merged: Nov 8, 2013 at 1:10 PM ---
Ace...since you are so fond of anecdotal "evidence"

Why do you think it is good policy for employers to move full time workers to part time or eliminate health benefits when it leads to worse productivity, more turnover (resulting in more training), particularly when employers offer health benefits instead of higher salary (at a much lower costs to employers as a result of 33% tax deductions in employerpayroll and income taxes)

 

Another ACA promise kept and one that specifically addresses Republican priorities of reducing gun violence.