# Tried to sign up for health insurance today



## Nimrod (Jun 8, 2010)

I went to the MNsure website. You have to search for the application. (don't they want folks to sign up??) It took about 3 tries to get through the first page that asks for your basic info. About 4 more to get through the second page that want a bunch of security info and to sign you up for an account. The problem is that ,if you make one mistake, you start that page over from the beginning. 

Finally got to the application itself. I am using an old computer monitor. The new ones have a wider aspect ratio. The program is set up for the new monitors. I couldn't read the right hand side of the screen or move on to the next pages. I wound up downloading the application and filling it out off line. I am mailing it in tomorrow. 

The site said the whole process should take about 15 to 20 minutes. I breezed right through it in 2 hours. 

So how much did this computer program cost??? :hammer:


----------



## fordy (Sep 13, 2003)

Nimrod said:


> I went to the MNsure website. You have to search for the application. (don't they want folks to sign up??) It took about 3 tries to get through the first page that asks for your basic info. About 4 more to get through the second page that want a bunch of security info and to sign you up for an account. The problem is that ,if you make one mistake, you start that page over from the beginning.
> 
> Finally got to the application itself. I am using an old computer monitor. The new ones have a wider aspect ratio. The program is set up for the new monitors. I couldn't read the right hand side of the screen or move on to the next pages. I wound up downloading the application and filling it out off line. I am mailing it in tomorrow.
> 
> ...


 
.......................About the same as it would cost to teach Obama to run a chain saw ! , fordy:yuck:


----------



## arabian knight (Dec 19, 2005)

Nimrod said:


> I went to the MNsure website. You have to search for the application. (don't they want folks to sign up??) It took about 3 tries to get through the first page that asks for your basic info. About 4 more to get through the second page that want a bunch of security info and to sign you up for an account. The problem is that ,if you make one mistake, you start that page over from the beginning.
> 
> Finally got to the application itself. I am using an old computer monitor. The new ones have a wider aspect ratio. The program is set up for the new monitors. I couldn't read the right hand side of the screen or move on to the next pages. I wound up downloading the application and filling it out off line. *I am mailing it in tomorrow. *
> 
> ...


----------



## Shygal (May 26, 2003)

Sorry but you can blame your STATE for that one, not Obama. i signed up yesterday on NY 's site and had no problem whatsoever, and only a few questions to answer.

It really chaps me that everyone jumps on the bandwagon of blaming Obama when its your STATE that is the one to blame.


----------



## fordy (Sep 13, 2003)

Shygal said:


> Sorry but you can blame your STATE for that one, not Obama. i signed up yesterday on NY 's site and had no problem whatsoever, and only a few questions to answer.
> 
> It really chaps me that everyone jumps on the bandwagon of blaming Obama when its your STATE that is the one to blame.


 
.............The entire dysfunction of the national Healthcare website falls directly on Obama's shoulders ! Responsibility for the problems in all aspects for the initiation and implementation relative to Obama care , accrue to his administration . It can't be otherwise ! , fordy


----------



## Shygal (May 26, 2003)

So its Obama's fault that people have old computer monitors, and that the states that MAKE the website don't do a good job. Alrighty then.


----------



## fordy (Sep 13, 2003)

Shygal said:


> So its Obama's fault that people have old computer monitors, and that the states that MAKE the website don't do a good job. Alrighty then.


 ..............IF the state(s) website can't accommodate OLD equipment and or operating systems then the folks seeking to enroll would naturally , turn to the National website thinking that <IT> should have been able to handle their requests !, But , alas , Mr. 'O' didn't have enough sense to hold his underlings and the subcontractors fully accountable and look how it ended UP . 
.............Almost a billion wasted taxpayer dollars on Psycho programming with no functionality or continuity of information flow to successfully enroll those needing such . , fordy


----------



## Tricky Grama (Oct 7, 2006)

fordy said:


> .............The entire dysfunction of the national Healthcare website falls directly on Obama's shoulders ! Responsibility for the problems in all aspects for the initiation and implementation relative to Obama care , accrue to his administration . It can't be otherwise ! , fordy


I think it would be more appropriate to blame thi entire administration. Its not JUST Obama. Or, hey, blame BUSH!
This is a failure from the beginning...40+ illegal changes? C'mon, man!
And you don't actually have to sign up b/4 31st. You can wait til you have an illness & sign up. Or if you don't want to sign up at all, you can fill out a hardship waiver. 
It's come down to not really a law at all.


----------



## Ambereyes (Sep 6, 2004)

Wonder if the national site ever got the Spanish site right. Last I heard it was not translated properly and hard to understand.


----------



## Twobottom (Sep 29, 2013)

Shygal said:


> It really chaps me that everyone jumps on the bandwagon of blaming Obama when its your STATE that is the one to blame.


Obama implemented the policy!! Am I wrong or isn't he forcing everyone to use it and cancelling the competing policies that he doesn't like?? Obama is the reason people have to use the site in the first place.


----------



## Twobottom (Sep 29, 2013)

Shygal said:


> So its Obama's fault that people have old computer monitors, and that the states that MAKE the website don't do a good job. Alrighty then.


No its Obama's fault for forcing everyone to use the system! Do we all have to run out and buy the latest computer technology to keep up with Obama's mandates??

*I swear sometimes I think I have been transported to another planet*


----------



## fordy (Sep 13, 2003)

.................Really , this is a 'People' issue even though the accountability or responsibility is interwoven within the political process . It's about parents and their children and old folks having access to healthcare previously unavailable so they can afford to maintain their health and Keep on working even if the government classifies them as the "Working Poor" . You'd think the politicans would have 'Bullet' proofed the system from the getgo . , fordy:smack


----------



## Twobottom (Sep 29, 2013)

fordy said:


> .................Really , this is a 'People' issue even though the accountability or responsibility is interwoven within the political process . It's about parents and their children and old folks having access to healthcare previously unavailable so they can afford to maintain their health and Keep on working even if the government classifies them as the "Working Poor" . You'd think the politicans would have 'Bullet' proofed the system from the getgo . , fordy:smack


The funny thing is many parents and children will suffer from the higher premiums and fines. When the federal medicare subsidy ends how will the states pay for the expanded coverage? Raising property taxes? Sales taxes? Income taxes? How will this effect hard working families? This is a typical government/socialist solution..fill a tub by taking water from one side and pouring it into the other. It will never get full. There is no net gain to society, it simply shifts the burdens and the hardships from one group to another.


----------



## fordy (Sep 13, 2003)

Twobottom said:


> The funny thing is many parents and children will suffer from the higher premiums and fines. When the federal medicare subsidy ends how will the states pay for the expanded coverage? Raising property taxes? Sales taxes? Income taxes? How will this effect hard working families? This is a typical government/socialist solution..fill a tub by taking water from one side and pouring it into the other. It will never get full. There is no net gain to society, it simply shifts the burdens and the hardships from one group to another.


 ............I agree with your economic analysis , the state(s) will have to cough up the disparity when the fed funds dry up ! But , I believe there is a positive in that health care for those previously not covered will pay dividends in later years esp. when the full benefits of preventative care become obvious and measurable . 
............Prior to Obama care the states were still picking up their share of the costs of the only source of health care available to the Uncovered.......The hospital Emergency Room , where a simple aspirin cost 10 bucks . The facet that I can't abide is the forced participation by virtue of legislative dictate...........but this is nothing new so we all participate and , over time , maybe some good will emerge , let's hope so . , fordy


----------



## badlander (Jun 7, 2009)

I started trying to get new insurance on the website when it first opened. Didn't want to, my current insurance was dropped because it wasn't compliant and it was overpriced. 

What happened over the past 5 months now gives me the official diagnosis of hypertension...go figure.

To make a long story short, I spent well over 10 hours of my life that I will never get back on the telephone trying to get the whole process straightened out and finalized over the next 5 months. It was likened to having to go for a root canal over and over without anesthetic. Slow and painful.

The total failure of the website astounded me. We can do complex open heart surgery, we can send a man to the moon, we can build computers the size of a cell phone but nobody seemed to be able to make that silly website work or communicate with the insurance companies involved.

Now, over 5 months after my initial contact with healthcare.gov, with my premiums paid up to date and my insurance cards safely tucked into my purse, I am still getting emails from the site saying that my application needs finished and please contact the site. So I called. They looked at my application and said, no, everything is fine, my application is completed and shows no problems. They cannot figure out why I keep receiving these emails but ignore them.

Pa-leeze!gre:For the love of the most Holy, go to a middle school, grab any 5 kids out of a computer class, set them down in front of a computer and let them fix the silly system! It amazes me that nobody can seem to make the site work. It's almost insulting to the technical talent that exists in this country.

No,wait! Wasn't the contract to build the site given to a big political donator of you know who?

Well, THAT explains everything.:run:


----------



## Twobottom (Sep 29, 2013)

fordy said:


> ............I agree with your economic analysis , the state(s) will have to cough up the disparity when the fed funds dry up ! But , I believe there is a positive in that health care for those previously not covered will pay dividends in later years esp. when the full benefits of preventative care become obvious and measurable .


Will those dividends offset the terrible toll it will take on the families struggling to pay for this? No, because the costs to society are exactly equal to the benefits. If you take $40 from a person and then buy him dinner with it, has he gained anything? No of course not. Worse than that the effect of confiscating people's production has certain effects on their incentive to produce. Taking resources away from productive sectors of society and giving them to unproductive sectors comes with a price. You undermine the productive process.

I dont see anyway this can benefit a society at the very LEAST it will benefit some and hurt others in equal proportion. At the very worst it undermines the productivity and creates disincentives for people to succeed. So far I see me and my family in for a lot of pain from this. I honestly don't know where I will get the money the government is demanding from us, and I fear we may lose our farm, our meager savings, and end up in a very bad way. I guess that doean't matter as long as some other family somewhere gets our payments.


----------



## Wendy (May 10, 2002)

I have tried at least 5 times to get through the site & have had no luck. Keep getting error messages. My computer is maybe 5 years old. 

I am not doing it again. From what I did get out of it, the premiums will be way more than we can afford, like 85% of our income. We do not qualify for subsidies because of our lower income & we do not qualify for state medicaid because we make too much according to them. Indiana did not expand their medicaid coverage. So, we are still without coverage & all I wanted to do was put a hammer through the computer screen when I was trying.


----------



## Nevada (Sep 9, 2004)

Wendy said:


> We do not qualify for subsidies because of our lower income & we do not qualify for state medicaid because we make too much according to them. Indiana did not expand their medicaid coverage. So, we are still without coverage & all I wanted to do was put a hammer through the computer screen when I was trying.


I'm really sorry you are in that position. Republicans really seemed to believe that states getting tough by not expanding Medicaid was a good thing, but it's hurting a lot of people.


----------



## L.A. (Nov 15, 2007)

I got through it in about an hour,,,,then I couldn't afford it,,,no way!!!

It sure ain't this states fault,,,,This is Wyoming !!!!! Gods country,,,,

I know cause I talk with him everyday,,,,,
:sing:


----------



## Jokarva (Jan 17, 2010)

Twobottom said:


> So far I see me and my family in for a lot of pain from this. I honestly don't know where I will get the money the government is demanding from us, and I fear we may lose our farm, our meager savings, and end up in a very bad way. I guess that doean't matter as long as some other family somewhere gets our payments.



Honestly curious here, if your family were to get hit with a major medical occurrence would you also end up in a very bad way? We pay what I consider an enormous amount for health insurance (which is compliant, so hasn't changed or increased) but we're not willing to risk the inability to get care, or the possible bankruptcy, that might come without decent coverage. I've been a nurse a long time and seen folks hit with stuff they never saw coming....too risky.

I'm very thankful we haven't needed to try the website, it sounds FUBAR.....heads should roll over that.


----------



## badlander (Jun 7, 2009)

Personally, as far as Medicaid is concerned, take care in what you wish for.

In MO, there are reported incidents where a husband or wife on Medicaid has died and the state is reported as having gone after the surviving spouse's property to recover dollars spent on the deceased's health care.

In all do respect, this is not a Republican problem. I take offense, being a Republican/Libertarian, and being catagorized as somebody who doesn't want people who needs help getting it. The exact opposite is true. I oppose the system being abused 100%. Frankly, the states who are expanding the program, like IL, my former state of citizenship, has more people on welfare than they do working and paying taxes to support the system. Where is the money going to come from to pay for the increased enrollments? Oh, I forgot, the Anointed One is just going to declare an executive order and just have more money printed. That will take care of everything! In a rat's hat it will!

Melissa, sorry for the rant. I sure don't want this to turn into a General Chat free for all. I really sympathize with you given what you went through and the position you are in. You are caught in the proverbial crack in the floor. It will probably be cheaper for you to just pay the fine and grin and bare it. My husband can confirm that the whole situation made me physically ill. I would hate to see you risk your homestead and all you have worked for in the name of insurance.


----------



## Guest (Mar 29, 2014)

Nevada said:


> I'm really sorry you are in that position. Republicans really seemed to believe that states getting tough by not expanding Medicaid was a good thing, but it's hurting a lot of people.


Democrats really seemed to believe they were smart enough to draft a better health care system & for some unknown reason they thought they were smart enough to build a working system to implement it .


----------



## Packedready (Mar 29, 2011)

Just call it Socialism, that is what the Affortable Care Act is and you wonder why you have problems.


----------



## Nevada (Sep 9, 2004)

Packedready said:


> Just call it Socialism, that is what the Affortable Care Act is and you wonder why you have problems.


To be precise, socialism is government ownership of business, not regulation or the handing out of subsidies. The ACA doesn't involve government ownership of any business so it's not socialism.


----------



## Nimrod (Jun 8, 2010)

I just wanted to relate my experience with the web site. I put it here in the hopes we wouldn't get into a contentious discussion.

A thought for those who can't afford health care under Obammacare. I have read that the fine er tax imposed on folks that don't sign up will be collected by the IRS but they can not can not send the SWAT team to impound your car, house, and first born to collect it. All they can do is use your tax refund to pay it. SO DON'T GET A TAX REFUND. Increase your deductions so that your withholding just covers your tax. You do have to be careful because it's against the law to make your deductions so high that you owe them money every year.

I wish someone would teach O to run a chainsaw. He is so inept that he could well have a fatal accident.


----------



## badlander (Jun 7, 2009)

No, IMHO, it's BIG government at it's best or worse depending on how you want to look at it. We need more rules and regulations to make life better in their opinion. We are no longer adults who can make our own logical, mature, intelligent decisions about anything without there being a law, doctrine, executive order, regulation or whatever to help us.

Many of us have embraced the Homesteading mentality because of the desire to live our own lives the way we want, less dependent on 'the grid'. As far away from rules and regulations as we can get. Living good decent lives within the law and doing the best we can to get by.

Their solution? Make government bigger.

Which just perpetuates the problem. I keep apologizing for rants but seriously. The whole system, medical, government, whatever is broken and nobody seems to know how to fix it anymore.

I spent the last 7 years dealing with insurance companies. I hate them. Due to insurance, doctors, hospitals and providers wind up taking a hit on how much they are paid. The way to counter the hit is to raise costs. The cash paying patient is out of luck, covering the rising costs out of their own pockets while the insurance companies, and I'm including medicare here, keeps cutting the pay back to the providers. Yes, I have experienced this first hand in my own career. It's a perpetual circle of the head biting the tail.

I don't know what the answer is, but the problem goes on and forcing, yes forcing people to buy insurance is not the answer. 

I keep remembering an old saying, I think it was quoted in an old Star Trek movie. The more complex the plumbing, the easier it is to stop up the drain. This drain is plugged and overflowing and I do not like the smell at all.


----------



## ErinP (Aug 23, 2007)

Wendy said:


> I have tried at least 5 times to get through the site & have had no luck. Keep getting error messages. My computer is maybe 5 years old.
> 
> I am not doing it again. From what I did get out of it, the premiums will be way more than we can afford, like 85% of our income. We do not qualify for subsidies because of our lower income & we do not qualify for state medicaid because we make too much according to them. Indiana did not expand their medicaid coverage. So, we are still without coverage & all I wanted to do was put a hammer through the computer screen when I was trying.


_You're_ who qualifies for the "hardship exemption." (I'm not sure where the idea comes from that just anyone can get it.) ...those who are in that spot that their state's expanded Medicare was _supposed_ to pick up, but who don't make enough to get the standard subsidized coverage like everyone else, seem to be the real need for the exemption. 



Twobottom said:


> I honestly don't know where I will get the money the government is demanding from us, and I fear we may lose our farm, our meager savings, and end up in a very bad way.


From the non-insured tax??? How much will it actually be for you, that it could wipe out your savings and bankrupt you?? 
If your income is really that low, I'm going to bet you're figuring something wrong in your math...


----------



## Packedready (Mar 29, 2011)

Nevada said:


> To be precise, socialism is government ownership of business, not regulation or the handing out of subsidies. The ACA doesn't involve government ownership of any business so it's not socialism.


The medical profession is a business and the ACA controls what services doctors can be provide, what can be charged and taxation if an individual does not participate in the mandate. The government is in control of our health care.


----------



## Wendy (May 10, 2002)

I do worry about what would happen if we had a huge hospital bill. We simply can't afford the premiums on my husband's income. I have a hard enough time now paying the bills we have with the cost of everything else rising. 

In my opinion, insurance is nothing more than a huge racket. They want you to pay, pay, pay, but when it's time to collect they will find every reason under the sun not to pay the bill. This includes all insurance, not just health insurance. 

I don't know what the answer is, but there are a lot of people just like us that are falling through the cracks. Can't get a subsidy & can't get help through the state. 

There are more & more employers not offering insurance now. That was the first thing dh's employer dropped in 2008 when the business slowed way down. They almost closed. He will not get it again as they only have about 9 employees & they can't get a good rate. Business is better & dh's hours are back to normal, but who knows how long that will last.

There is another company in town that will be closing in January. A GE warehouse actually. My BIL works there & a lot of people I know. They have excellent benefits, but come January they will all be out of a job & will lose their benefits when their severence package is done. So there will be 50 + people looking for jobs & they won't find any around here making anywhere near what they make now. 

This is reality for a lot of people. This is what the government didn't think of. They keep spouting that everyone will have insurance that is affordable. That is just not reality & they are so out of touch with the common people. They don't have a clue what it is like to struggle because they have coverage thanks to all of us working people.

OK, rant over!


----------



## Nevada (Sep 9, 2004)

Packedready said:


> The medical profession is a business and the ACA controls what services doctors can be provide, what can be charged and taxation if an individual does not participate in the mandate. The government is in control of our health care.


The healthcare debate in this country is far too politically charged. It's not about what's best for Americans, it's all about making Obama look good or bad. The losers in that won't be republicans or democrats, it will be us.


----------



## ErinP (Aug 23, 2007)

> They have excellent benefits, but come January they will all be out of a job & will lose their benefits when their severence package is done. So there will be 50 + people looking for jobs & they won't find any around here making anywhere near what they make now.
> 
> This is reality for a lot of people. This is what the government didn't think of. They keep spouting that everyone will have insurance that is affordable.


That's why the subsidy is direclty tied to income. Income goes down, subsidy goes up. Income goes up, subsidy goes down...


----------



## badlander (Jun 7, 2009)

Ummmm Erin? I don't think that was my quote. It's a mis-quote me thinks.


----------



## Packedready (Mar 29, 2011)

Nevada said:


> The healthcare debate in this country is far too politically charged. It's not about what's best for Americans, it's all about making Obama look good or bad. The losers in that won't be republicans or democrats, it will be us.


We unfortunately already are losers. I have first hand knowledge of the problem and others will soon. I went for my anual physical and was denied all but basic blood work and also denied an anual pap smear. The doctor said I was only qualified every 3 years. My DH was denied a PSA test of any type, the doctor said the test is inconclusive. This was a university medical center and the doctors were the professors, chiefs.

I have a friend that is an American citizen, she was also denied a pap smear and mamogram. She was very upset and went to Mexico to get the services she needs.

I helped a friend get insurance, she couldn't figure out how to work the system. It took me 5 hours and about 3 hours over on hold over the phone to get the mission accomplished. I am not sure what she really has. 

Our medical care is much worse than what it was last year, we had all better stay healty.


----------



## ErinP (Aug 23, 2007)

badlander said:


> Ummmm Erin? I don't think thing that was my quote. It's a mis-quote me thinks.


Yep! Sorry about that. I just copied the quote instead of hitting the button, but when I glaced back to see who'd said it, I grabbed the wrong name. 
Fixed it.


----------



## JoePa (Mar 14, 2013)

Obama has been a disaster to this country - the thing that worries me most is that so many people are too dumb to realize it - until it's too late -


----------



## badlander (Jun 7, 2009)

ErinP said:


> Yep! Sorry about that. I just copied the quote instead of hitting the button, but when I glaced back to see who'd said it, I grabbed the wrong name.
> Fixed it.


Thanks, E! Have a good, healthy weekend. Lord knows none of us can afford to get sick anymore!:yuck:


----------



## fordy (Sep 13, 2003)

................We'll , if the elephants hold the house and win the senate They could repeal Obama care I suppose ! But , before they repeal ACA they've got to enact a comprehensive plan that allows younger folks or anyone for that matter to opt out , as well as restoring the coverage(S) that companies were providing for their employee's , before ACA . 
................Then , we're back to approximately 40% with NO coverage . That is Unacceptable as well so where do we go from here ? The answer is SO complex I don't think , in a free society , that anyone can formulate a solution that is Politically feasible . , fordy:hammer:


----------



## Jokarva (Jan 17, 2010)

Packedready said:


> We unfortunately already are losers. I have first hand knowledge of the problem and others will soon. I went for my anual physical and was denied all but basic blood work and also denied an anual pap smear. The doctor said I was only qualified every 3 years. My DH was denied a PSA test of any type, the doctor said the test is inconclusive. This was a university medical center and the doctors were the professors, chiefs.
> 
> I have a friend that is an American citizen, she was also denied a pap smear and mamogram. She was very upset and went to Mexico to get the services she needs.
> 
> ...



I don't know about the PSA (my DH has a PSA every year without insurance quibbling about it), but the standard for paps has been every 3 yrs for a while now, every year only if abnormalities found. I love it...the less time I spend in those stirrups the happier I am


----------



## Kmac15 (May 19, 2007)

my sister signed up last week and we got the first bill yesterday. A little back ground. She has a learning disability that makes getting a full time job hard. the last one ended when the store she worked at burned to the ground. She is now working part time with no benefits. She has multi health problems that require constant and expensive meds. She is now going to a free clinic that also supplies her meds from a program with the drug makers. She applied for medicaid but because she does not have any children she cant get it. While getting her taxes done the person doing them ran a quick program that spit out a form and phone number for her to call for coverage information. When she called and spoke to an agent in 30 minutes she had her coverage applied for. With out subs. she would be paying $435 a month but with the breaks she only pays $37 this is for BCBS. she could have gotten a new unknown company for as little as $16 a month. She can afford this since she is living with us and we help with her bills. She got the first bill and the amount is indeed $37. 
I have been against this policy from the first. But even I have to admit that for her, this is the best thing.


----------



## susieneddy (Sep 2, 2011)

The company I work for stopped offering insurance because the owners will be 65 this yr. They are getting on Medicare and picking up a supplement insurance. The rest of us were left to fend for ourselves. The guy who had been doing the insurance for the company came in to help the rest of us out. The policy he picked was exactly the same as what we did have through the company. I wanted to be sure I was getting a good policy so I went to the healthcare.gov website and found the exact same policy. You do not have to log in to see what policies they offer. The price difference was nothing. 
You folks who are losing your insurance may want to check with the agent who handled your insurance before it was cancelled

Now I am paying more for the insurance on my own but that is because the company isn't paying half anymore. At work the total price was approx 560.00 per month split between the employer and me. Now I pay 404.00 per month. That is a 28% savings from the group policy I had. The deductible stayed the same. Oh BTW I am 63 so my price is on the high end compared to people at work who are in their 20's. The policy price is 150.00 a month.

I do have to wonder why the insurance company couldn't have offered us this policy before the ACA went into effect?


----------



## MO_cows (Aug 14, 2010)

Nevada said:


> I'm really sorry you are in that position. Republicans really seemed to believe that states getting tough by not expanding Medicaid was a good thing, but it's hurting a lot of people.


Not so much republicans as people who can do math! The feds are sweetening the pot for the Medicaid expansion at first, then the states are on the hook to pay for it into infinity. Here in Missouri we have a D governor but still didn't set up an exchange.


----------



## Nevada (Sep 9, 2004)

MO_cows said:


> Not so much republicans as people who can do math! The feds are sweetening the pot for the Medicaid expansion at first, then the states are on the hook to pay for it into infinity. Here in Missouri we have a D governor but still didn't set up an exchange.


Come-on. Let's keep it real. In Missouri it's the republican legislature that blocked it.

_Yet Missouri's Republican-led Legislature has repeatedly rejected Medicaid expansion proposals over the past two years and shows little inclination of embracing one now._http://www.waynesvilledailyguide.com/article/20140328/News/140328668#ixzz2xNuZKYk5

I love this sort of thing. Republicans block programs, then when it's pointed out that it's hurting people they try to shift the blame to democrats. Look, the republican stand is that they refuse to spend the money to provide Medicaid for the poor. OK fine, they own it now. They can't have it both ways.
​


----------



## arabian knight (Dec 19, 2005)

Nevada said:


> I'm really sorry you are in that position. Republicans really seemed to believe that states getting tough by not expanding Medicaid was a good thing, but it's hurting a lot of people.


It is A Very Good thing that states like WI didm;t accept that money. Cause in less then two years all those starts that DID take it will have to Fund the sucker themselves and That is going to hurt not only those states but millions of people as well.


----------



## Nevada (Sep 9, 2004)

arabian knight said:


> It is A Very Good thing that states like WI didm;t accept that money. Cause in less then two years all those starts that DID take it will have to Fund the sucker themselves and That is going to hurt not only those states but millions of people as well.


The truth is that refusing to expand Medicaid will not only deny healthcare coverage for the poor, but will actually cost taxpayers billions.

_states that refuse Medicaid expansion will continue to be on the hook for billions in uncompensated care costs â as when uninsured residents visit the emergency room. By refusing to expand Medicaid, Texas will forgo $9.2 billion in federal funding in 2022, the authors said. Florida, another state that has said it wonât expand Medicaid, stands to lose more than $5 billion._
http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs...pansion-will-cost-states-billions-of-dollars/

*As for Wisconsin, it will cost them about $1 billion.*

But the conservative leadership in those states know it. They don't care what it costs or who gets denied insurance, they're only interested in boosting their conservative credentials. And it's YOU that's paying for that boost.


----------



## Packedready (Mar 29, 2011)

When the truth comes out about the Obama Care, most of us will find we have less care and a much higher cost than what we paid and received last year, I already have. My premium went up from $548 to $700 for one person and I received a physical that was much less than last year. They say all of the preventative care is part of the plan - now try to get it. Many will find out that they don't qualify.


----------



## arabian knight (Dec 19, 2005)

Nevada said:


> The truth is that refusing to expand Medicaid will not only deny healthcare coverage for the poor, but will actually cost taxpayers billions.
> 
> _states that refuse Medicaid expansion will continue to be on the hook for billions in uncompensated care costs â as when uninsured residents visit the emergency room. By refusing to expand Medicaid, Texas will forgo $9.2 billion in federal funding in 2022, the authors said. Florida, another state that has said it wonât expand Medicaid, stands to lose more than $5 billion._
> http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs...pansion-will-cost-states-billions-of-dollars/
> ...


Ah yes the left lies from a liberal mag.
And not all folks on Medicaid had to go to the exchanges. Medicaid is still alive and well in WI.


----------



## Wendy (May 10, 2002)

> That's why the subsidy is direclty tied to income. Income goes down, subsidy goes up. Income goes up, subsidy goes down...


And how many of them will fall through the cracks like we do? No subsidy at all yet too much money to get help from the state.


----------



## Ambereyes (Sep 6, 2004)

I asked permission from my friend to post this.

She is on Medicaid, has degenerative spine disease. She has been seeing several doctors, tests and lots of driving from one place to another to get it all accomplished, very hard on her. She has been scheduled for surgery, went in go finalize (pre-admission) things. Long drive she gets there and surgery has been cancelled!

They tell she should ask her doc to work on an alternative treatment, this is the only treatment according to several specialists that is viable. They just shut her out, what is going on? 

So in pain and tired she makes the long trip home. Calls doc and he told her might could see her in 6 weeks. She has about had it with all this. She is only 63 and not ready for a wheel chair which where the doc said she would be without surgery.


----------



## Nevada (Sep 9, 2004)

Wendy said:


> And how many of them will fall through the cracks like we do? No subsidy at all yet too much money to get help from the state.


You really need to talk to your lawmakers about that. In most states you would be covered. But you might still get it.

http://www.ibj.com/pence-sebelius-to-meet-on-health-care-expansion-proposals/PARAMS/article/45057


----------



## Nevada (Sep 9, 2004)

Ambereyes said:


> Long drive she gets there and surgery has been cancelled! They tell she should ask her doc to work on an alternative treatment, this is the only treatment according to several specialists that is viable. They just shut her out, what is going on?


I'm sorry. That's a heartbreak, but she's evidently not a good candidate for that particular surgery.

I went through that with Alma. She saw a spine surgeon several times while contemplating surgery to correct her spinal compression fractures. He was considering kyphoplasty. In the end he decided that she wasn't a good candidate for that procedure. Alma eventually found herself in a wheelchair. But really, what could we do about it?


----------



## Ambereyes (Sep 6, 2004)

Actually she went to 4 specialists, plus all the testing. They all urged her to do the surgery, she was not keen on it at all. As she told me she will just continue as she has been, no choice, if she can't do what is needed medically, it's done. 

Her kids are trying to beg, borrow or sell everything they have, which isn't much to get her help out of country.


----------



## Ambereyes (Sep 6, 2004)

Nevada said:


> I'm sorry. That's a heartbreak, but she's evidently not a good candidate for that particular surgery.
> 
> I went through that with Alma. She saw a spine surgeon several times while contemplating surgery to correct her spinal compression fractures. He was considering kyphoplasty. In the end he decided that she wasn't a good candidate for that procedure. Alma eventually found herself in a wheelchair. But really, what could we do about it?


What you seem to have missed was her surgery was approved and scheduled.


----------



## Nevada (Sep 9, 2004)

Ambereyes said:


> Her kids are trying to beg, borrow or sell everything they have, which isn't much to get her help out of country.


I question the wisdom of doing that. If the surgeon's decision was purely financial then having it done overseas is a consideration, but this sounds more like the surgeon decided that she wasn't a good candidate for medical reasons. If that's the case, bypassing the surgeon's recommendation by taking her overseas isn't smart.

This surgeon makes his living doing that kind of procedure. He's going to maintain a full surgical calendar with or without her. For some reason he's decided that it's a good idea for her. I would like to know more about why.


----------



## Nevada (Sep 9, 2004)

Ambereyes said:


> What you seem to have missed was her surgery was approved and scheduled.


But then the surgeon decided not to do it. You didn't say why.


----------



## Ambereyes (Sep 6, 2004)

Nevada said:


> But then the surgeon decided not to do it. You didn't say why.


According to the surgeons it was the hospital. They still recommend the surgery.


----------



## Nevada (Sep 9, 2004)

Ambereyes said:


> According to the surgeons it was the hospital. They still recommend the surgery.


The hospital doesn't select surgical candidates, the surgeon does. The only reason for hospital involvement in whether the procedure will take place is if she can't pay for it. She has Medicaid, so it should be paid 100%.

But the surgeon wouldn't have scheduled the surgery at all without authorization from Medicaid. Since it was authorized I don't see why the hospital would object.


----------



## Ambereyes (Sep 6, 2004)

Nevada said:


> The hospital doesn't select surgical candidates, the surgeon does. The only reason for hospital involvement in whether the procedure will take place is if she can't pay for it. She has Medicaid, so it should be paid 100%.


This early in the year I don't think the hospital is restricting Medicaid patients yet. But who knows if she needs an escort for a foreign trip I have no problem taking her.


----------



## Farmer Willy (Aug 7, 2005)

Shygal said:


> So its Obama's fault that people have old computer monitors, and that the states that MAKE the website don't do a good job. Alrighty then.


 
It's his fault for upsetting the entire health care system as it stood. I understand how apologists will run to his defense, but hey, somebody needs to point out that the emperor has no clothes in regards to this and other matters.

You can try to gild a turd, but dig into the thing and it will still smell like a turd.


----------



## Farmer Willy (Aug 7, 2005)

Nevada said:


> To be precise, socialism is government ownership of business, not regulation or the handing out of subsidies. The ACA doesn't involve government ownership of any business so it's not socialism.


Let's see if you can sing that same tune in a couple years. Have you not heard the crowing about this being the first step towards a single payer system? That my friend WILL put them in ownership of healthcare, and it WILL be socialism.

It's not far fetched. They will just "deem it" to be so, and it will be.


----------



## Raeven (Oct 11, 2011)

Farmer Willy said:


> Let's see if you can sing that same tune in a couple years. Have you not heard the crowing about this being the first step towards a single payer system? That my friend WILL put them in ownership of healthcare, and it WILL be socialism.
> 
> It's not far fetched. They will just "deem it" to be so, and it will be.


Gosh. Just like Medicare and Social Security.


----------



## arabian knight (Dec 19, 2005)

Raeven said:


> Gosh. Just like Medicare and Social Security.


Ya and you can see how that is turning out. Badly. Both are broke in a few years. And now with even more people into Medicare that time will be shortened even more. What a waste this government is.


----------



## ErinP (Aug 23, 2007)

Wendy said:


> And how many of them will fall through the cracks like we do? No subsidy at all yet too much money to get help from the state.


Who knows? 
Again, that's why the hardship exemption seems to exist; to give a way out to those folks who got hooked by their states. :shrug:


----------



## Wendy (May 10, 2002)

So then this affordable healthcare act still isn't helping a lot of people that need it. It still will not help me if I need care. All it gives me is a headache when I have to try to figure it out!


----------



## ErinP (Aug 23, 2007)

Fortunately, there are a lot of states that DIDN'T hook their residents. ...As well as the people who make enough to qualify for the subsidized version on the federal exchange. 
It's picked up a _lot_ of the people who needed it. 

I can't see throwing the baby out with the bathwater.


----------



## Nevada (Sep 9, 2004)

Wendy said:


> So then this affordable healthcare act still isn't helping a lot of people that need it. It still will not help me if I need care. All it gives me is a headache when I have to try to figure it out!


Of course you have options. Indiana is completely bordered by states that expanded Medicaid. Moving might make sense.


----------



## Wendy (May 10, 2002)

> Moving might make sense.


I am not going to pack up my family & sell our home what we have worked years to get, just so I can get healthcare from some other state. Why should we have to move away from our family & friends, give up a job my dh likes, & give up everything we have worked for just because this dumb law was passed?


----------



## JillyG (Jan 6, 2014)

Wendy said:


> I am not going to pack up my family & sell our home what we have worked years to get, just so I can get healthcare from some other state. Why should we have to move away from our family & friends, give up a job my dh likes, & give up everything we have worked for just because this dumb law was passed?



Funny, so many on the right are perfectly ok telling others to " Move to where the jobs are" but it is a hardship when they are not in the right location. Everything should change to suit them.

The fact of the matter is the ACA was designed in a way that accounted for ALL states to expand Medicaid. When SCOTUS allowed states to not accept the money, money which is taxpayer money going back into taxpayer hands in the form of free healthcare, they really are only hurting the citizens of that state. Paid for 100% for the first 3 years then 75% after that, Where is the problem.


----------



## Tricky Grama (Oct 7, 2006)

Twobottom said:


> Obama implemented the policy!! Am I wrong or isn't he forcing everyone to use it and cancelling the competing policies that he doesn't like?? Obama is the reason people have to use the site in the first place.


 Yup. Seems like a correct summation.


----------



## Tricky Grama (Oct 7, 2006)

fordy said:


> ............I agree with your economic analysis , the state(s) will have to cough up the disparity when the fed funds dry up ! But , I believe there is a positive in that health care for those previously not covered will pay dividends in later years esp. when the full benefits of preventative care become obvious and measurable .
> ............Prior to Obama care the states were still picking up their share of the costs of the only source of health care available to the Uncovered.......The hospital Emergency Room , where a simple aspirin cost 10 bucks . The facet that I can't abide is the forced participation by virtue of legislative dictate...........but this is nothing new so we all participate and , over time , maybe some good will emerge , let's hope so . , fordy


 Fordy, didn't you see the 'CBO' ( I think thats what the gov't budget-nonpartisan-is called) said? 20% of the country will be helped by obamacare & 80% will have higher premiums/deductibles to pay for them.
Its the largest tax hike EVER in our history to be slammed on the middle class.


----------



## Tricky Grama (Oct 7, 2006)

Twobottom said:


> Will those dividends offset the terrible toll it will take on the families struggling to pay for this? No, because the costs to society are exactly equal to the benefits. If you take $40 from a person and then buy him dinner with it, has he gained anything? No of course not. Worse than that the effect of confiscating people's production has certain effects on their incentive to produce. Taking resources away from productive sectors of society and giving them to unproductive sectors comes with a price. You undermine the productive process.
> 
> I dont see anyway this can benefit a society at the very LEAST it will benefit some and hurt others in equal proportion. At the very worst it undermines the productivity and creates disincentives for people to succeed. So far I see me and my family in for a lot of pain from this. I honestly don't know where I will get the money the government is demanding from us, and I fear we may lose our farm, our meager savings, and end up in a very bad way. I guess that doean't matter as long as some other family somewhere gets our payments.












You & 80% of the country, Two.


----------



## Tricky Grama (Oct 7, 2006)

Nevada said:


> To be precise, socialism is government ownership of business, not regulation or the handing out of subsidies. The ACA doesn't involve government ownership of any business so it's not socialism.


Sorry, Nevada, but you are really describing Fascism. A form of socialism is taking from those who have a little bit more & giving to the minority. Like the 'redistribution of wealth' you hear so much about. The UNhealthcare act is JUST that. Taking $$ from many, by force btw, and giving it to others.

And it was just reported not many days ago, that the vast majority of those who DID NOT have ins b/4 the law STILL will not have it! As well as a big % of uninsured who don't want it nor will even go to the site to try.
They say 6 mill have 'signed up'? They 'say' they don't know how many of these have actually paid. Gosh. What will happend when those folks try to use what they haven't paid for?

How can you-or anyone here-say this is better when we still not have more folks than b/4 w/ins.?


----------



## Tricky Grama (Oct 7, 2006)

fordy said:


> ................We'll , if the elephants hold the house and win the senate They could repeal Obama care I suppose ! But , before they repeal ACA they've got to enact a comprehensive plan that allows younger folks or anyone for that matter to opt out , as well as restoring the coverage(S) that companies were providing for their employee's , before ACA .
> ................Then , we're back to approximately 40% with NO coverage . That is Unacceptable as well so where do we go from here ? The answer is SO complex I don't think , in a free society , that anyone can formulate a solution that is Politically feasible . , fordy:hammer:


 According to everything I've read on it, we'll have 40% w/o ins if the law stands...whatever it is now, 40+ changes made illegally.
Those who are fearful of not going to the site & buying ins that's more$$ & higher deductibles, you can get a hardship 'opt-out'. For any reason. Or if you want to just wait til you have a horrible disease, then sign up, you can.


----------



## arabian knight (Dec 19, 2005)

JillyG said:


> Where is the problem.


THAT is the problem. Those on the left can't SEE the problem for the trees, and all the promises that have not been kept.


----------



## fordy (Sep 13, 2003)

...............The true Irony of Obama care is by the time the presidential elections get here all of the pain caused by the passage of the ACA is going to be......KNOWN , and it will be attributable to the Dems , exclusively !!! 
...............Which means of course , that , IF a republican wins the White House it will be largely the Dems who made it possible ! Further , this also means that the R's will NOT be in any hurry to Fix the ACA piecemeal prior to the pres. election . The Law Of Unintended Consequences has NO better example than the ACA . I can't think of any specific piece of legislation in the last 40 years that has caused so much hardship when it was supposed to help rather hurt the folks who had no ins. coverage of any kind . 
................The potential for repeal of the ACA grows day by day as I read about all of the problems caused by this law set out over the last 3 pages of this thread . , fordy


----------



## Kasota (Nov 25, 2013)

Health care costs have risen in response to ACA, not decreased. Many of the people who have signed up did so because their old policies were cancelled because they were not compliant with what the government said they had to have. Many of the people who signed up already qualified for Medicaid. No one knows how many people are actually covered for the first time. You can't cancel people's policies and force them to sign up and then count them as one of the people who are newly covered - but that is what the government is doing. 

Many of the people who signed up are now stunned to find out they can't see their doctor or go to the hospitals they used to. For some people that is not a huge deal but for others it is a disaster, is NOT better for them and they had no choice in the matter. There is no information at all about how many who did sign up have actually paid. It used to be that an 80/20 policy was pretty standard. Now the "affordable" standard is a very high deductible plan that many people with chronic illness will not be able to come up with. 

And this is just the tip of the iceberg. The government will ration care in ways the insurance companies would never have been allowed to. JMO. 

A friend of mine was on MNCare prior to Obamacare. Subsidized because she is partially disabled and can only work a few hours a day but she works as much as she is able to. On MNCare she could get a particular medication that works best for her. Under Obamacare she cannot. Her monthly insurance rate is twice what they originally told her it would be. The option for her down the road is to simply quit working and take a totally free ride, but she wants to do as much as she can to pay her own way. She doesn't have any really good choices. 

Wendy, I'm so sorry you are in such a difficult place. I went for years with no insurance at all and I know how frightening that can be. (((hugs)))


----------



## JillyG (Jan 6, 2014)

Why is it a problem to you that all Americans have access to healthcare?


----------



## Ambereyes (Sep 6, 2004)

Nevada said:


> Of course you have options. Indiana is completely bordered by states that expanded Medicaid. Moving might make sense.


That is just one cold hearted comment.


----------



## Ambereyes (Sep 6, 2004)

JillyG said:


> Why is it a problem to you that all Americans have access to healthcare?


Did you miss Wendy's post?


----------



## Dutchie (Mar 14, 2003)

fordy said:


> ..............IF the state(s) website can't accommodate OLD equipment and or operating systems then the folks seeking to enroll would naturally , turn to the National website thinking that <IT> should have been able to handle their requests !, :


You cannot blame the disfunction of old equipment, old OS and slow connections to the government. 

I live in Oklahoma and have a fairly slow DSL connection (the best available to me) and I had no problem signing up. It took me longer to decide on which plan to choose than it took to fill out the information.


----------



## badlander (Jun 7, 2009)

Social Security is a bit different. Think about it for a second. As you work you pay into the system. Once you retire, you get your money back, hopefully, as long as the system stays fluid, which they suspect won't for very much longer. 

Plus, people have to WORK to pay into the system. Ain't happenin, not with the medicaid abuse that is going on.

Before we retired, the town we worked in had 60% of the students in the public school system on PA. Think about that! More than likely that meant that the parents were also on PA also. Maybe, let's just speculate here for a minute, that 15% of that 60% are actually working and just making too little money to get off the system. That leaves 45% who are contributing nothing.

Now, what percentage of that 45% really needs to be on PA? I dare say that the number may surprise you. 

Once again, I am not talking about the disabled, chronically ill, the small children and others who really need it, I am talking about the malingerers, the fraud specialists and the generational recipients who know no other way of life.

I try really hard to stay away from the doctor. Chronic health problems make me have to show up at the office every 3-4 months for a checkup. I try to stay healthy and avoid accidents so I can keep my distance from hospitals and try to fall back on our own medical educations whenever I can so we can take care of ourselves. For me, Insurance is a necessary evil. I hate insurance companies with a screaming red passion but recognize the fact that a catastrophic health problem/accident would be just that...catastrophic. So I look upon it as a safety net of sorts. As long as I balance on that tight wire and stay in good health, I won't need it. So that's what I strive to do.


----------



## Dutchie (Mar 14, 2003)

I am not sure what your point is. the Affordable Care Act is not free. In fact, if you earn below a certain amount they have no plans for you and they refer you to your state's Medicaid programs.

I was uninsurable for many years because of pre-existing issues. When I was diagnosed with breast cancer the first time I was lucky enough to be able to get coverage under the Federally mandated Cervix and Breast Cancer program of my state's medicaid (Sooner Care). 

As soon as the ACA was implemented I signed up, thereby getting off Medicaid. I think that is a great thing for the tax payers. I am sure there are many more women in this position who will no longer be forced to take a form of welfare.


----------



## Packedready (Mar 29, 2011)

I know a person that owns 5 million dollars in residentual real estate in many houses. Her income is low and she just signed up for Obama Care on the Platinum plan. She has many health issues and her premium is $300 per month. On the same plan my premium would be $750. Now all she does is brag how Obama and the Dem's have taken care of her. It seems to me she should have to sell a house so she could pay her own way. 

That means all of the rest of us are supplementing her income. When you insurance rate goes up remember the type of person that is causing it. I am sure this story is happening all over the country.


----------



## Nevada (Sep 9, 2004)

Wendy said:


> I am not going to pack up my family & sell our home what we have worked years to get, just so I can get healthcare from some other state. Why should we have to move away from our family & friends, give up a job my dh likes, & give up everything we have worked for just because this dumb law was passed?


If moving is not an option then you have to accept what your lawmakers decide to do. Your legislature has decided to cut you out of healthcare reform. While I believe that's unfair, you'll have to live with that.


----------



## arabian knight (Dec 19, 2005)

So true. And now there are millions that are getting FORCED into signing up with Medicare!
That along with bam a stealing money From Medicare to pay for this ObamaNoCare is really going to be a problem in short order for the entire Medicare program.


----------



## OUVickie (Mar 8, 2003)

I carry my DH on my insurance and the premiums are pretty expensive, but the deductible is pretty low since it's an HMO.
So I thought I'd just compare the premiums on the AHC website. 
Holy Cow, there is no way I'll switch over. The premium is about $100 less but the deductible for the lowest plan was like $6K per year for one person. Our deductible now is $300 per person, per year.
Oklahoma refused the government subsidy money, so there's no break there. I just decided to leave DH on mine and call it good for now.

I think insurance is a racket too, but we are both in our 50s and I don't want to lose everything because of a medical disaster. 
We are very fortunate we can afford insurance. I truly feel for those who are falling between the cracks of the system.


----------



## Nevada (Sep 9, 2004)

Kasota said:


> Many of the people who signed up are now stunned to find out they can't see their doctor or go to the hospitals they used to.


They signup without checking the provider directory? Why are people doing that?


----------



## Nevada (Sep 9, 2004)

arabian knight said:


> That along with bam a stealing money From Medicare to pay for this ObamaNoCare


Politifact.com gave that claim a Mostly False rating in their Truth-O-Meter.

http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-m...d-president-obama-steal-500-billion-medicare/


----------



## arabian knight (Dec 19, 2005)

Nevada said:


> Ploitifact gave that claim a Mostly False rating in their Truth-O-Meter.
> 
> http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-m...d-president-obama-steal-500-billion-medicare/


And you are going to rely on a liberal piece like that written 3 YEARS AGO?
Wow, just Wow, is all I can say about that.


----------



## arabian knight (Dec 19, 2005)

And this is from the left side The Washington Post. Sometimes called The Washinton COMpost. LOL )
Romneyâs right: Obamacare cuts Medicare by $716 billion. Hereâs how.









And this was written a year and a half ago, and more cuts have been since this was written from Obama directly related to HIS ObamaNoCare program



> As to how the Affordable Care Act actually gets to $716 billion in Medicare savings, that's a bit more complicated. John McDonough did the best job explaining it in his 2011 book, "Inside National Health Reform." There, he looked at all the various Medicare cuts Democrats made to pay for the Affordable Care Act.
> *The majority of the cuts, as you can see in this chart below, come from reductions in how much Medicare reimburses hospitals and private health insurance companies.*


http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/wonkblog/wp/2012/08/14/romneys-right-obamacare-cuts-medicare-by-716-billion-heres-how/


----------



## ErinP (Aug 23, 2007)

Tricky Grama said:


> You & 80% of the country, Two.


Only if they can't do math.


----------



## MO_cows (Aug 14, 2010)

Nevada said:


> Come-on. Let's keep it real. In Missouri it's the republican legislature that blocked it.
> 
> _Yet Missouri's Republican-led Legislature has repeatedly rejected Medicaid expansion proposals over the past two years and shows little inclination of embracing one now._http://www.waynesvilledailyguide.com/article/20140328/News/140328668#ixzz2xNuZKYk5
> 
> ...


Missouri also has a balanced budget amendment. To expand Medicaid, cuts have to be made elsewhere or taxes raised or both. Missouri can't just print more money like the feds.......


----------



## Nevada (Sep 9, 2004)

MO_cows said:


> Missouri also has a balanced budget amendment. To expand Medicaid, cuts have to be made elsewhere or taxes raised or both. Missouri can't just print more money like the feds.......


That's fine. All I want is for them to own up to what they did; including both positive and negative consequences. We have a member posting in this thread who was hurt badly by Indiana not expanding Medicaid, so they have to take ownership of that.


----------



## MO_cows (Aug 14, 2010)

It isn't like one or two "rogue" states didn't set up their own exchange. It's about half and half. Another example of why a plan that re-structures one of the biggest industries in the country, and one that is literally a matter of life and death, should not have been shoved down our throats in the first place. Now I am not denying there were too many people who fell thru the cracks between Medicaid and being able to afford health insurance on their own, but Ocare has done more damage than problem solving. If it was a good plan, there wouldn't be this much collateral damage, period. Those of you who have benefited from it can sing its praises til the cows come home, but you are the minority.


----------



## TheMartianChick (May 26, 2009)

Kmac15 said:


> I have been against this policy from the first. But even I have to admit that for her, this is the best thing.


I helped someone to sign up for the ACA last fall. NY has its own exchange and though the site had a few issues in the beginning, those bugs seem to have been worked out. Last week, I helped him to make arrangements to pay for his policy.

He is a diabetic with high cholesterol and he has been without real health insurance for years. In fact, a couple of years ago, he passed out in his apartment as a result of having undiagnosed diabetes. He has always worked, but in recent years, he can only work part time hours because he cares for his profoundly disabled adult son. 

His employer offered him an insurance policy after he collapsed because his hospital stay was in the neighborhood of $15k. He was paying $282 per month for a policy that had a very high deductible and offered no preventative care. While NY has always had Medicaid and a few other options for folks who earn too much to qualify for Medicaid...He wasn't eligible for those plans because his son receives Social Security and it is just enough to push him over the limit by a few dollars. Incidentally, his son is eligible for Medicaid. 

Prior to the ACA, he would have been eligible for coverage if he committed his son to a facility. The facility would have been the recipient of his SS check and the cost to taxpayers would be thousands per month to care for his son. Instead, for the monthly rate of $76, this man can keep his family together and have access to preventative medical care. His subsidy amount was $200 and something per month.

Along the way, he was given a lot of misinformation from the (not free) clinic that he was pointed to for care after his hospital stay. They told him that the policy he'd signed up for didn't pay for any real care and that he'd have to go 20 miles (or more) out of the way to find a doctor that would accept the insurance. Online, we were able to find many offices that accept the policy and confirmed what was covered. While he was trying to figure out which office to call first, a phone number jumped out at me. It seems that my doctor's office accepts this policy and with a one quick phone call, he was accepted as a patient! 

For him, the ACA is a blessing!


----------



## Nevada (Sep 9, 2004)

TheMartianChick said:


> I helped someone to sign up for the ACA last fall. NY has its own exchange and though the site had a few issues in the beginning, those bugs seem to have been worked out. Last week, I helped him to make arrangements to pay for his policy.
> 
> He is a diabetic with high cholesterol and he has been without real health insurance for years. In fact, a couple of years ago, he passed out in his apartment as a result of having undiagnosed diabetes. He has always worked, but in recent years, he can only work part time hours because he cares for his profoundly disabled adult son.
> 
> ...


I suspect we'll hear more and more success stories as the ACA advances. The dust will settle before long and the ACA will look a lot better to everyone.


----------



## po boy (Jul 12, 2010)

Shygal said:


> So its Obama's fault that people have old computer monitors, and that the states that MAKE the website don't do a good job. Alrighty then.


 It's Obama and the lib's fault because they came up with this silly scheme causing the state to make a silly web site in order to comply.

Per Obama: " You can keep your old monitor"


----------



## 7thswan (Nov 18, 2008)

Nevada said:


> To be precise, socialism is government ownership of business, not regulation or the handing out of subsidies. The ACA doesn't involve government ownership of any business so it's not socialism.


Socialism is control of people. Obamacare controls people(individual mandate) and it controls the HC companys. Communism is the control of both people and business. Union ideology is communist theory, control of the Business , how much they pay,benifits. Now maybe you see why it matters that O is a Marxist, so were his Parents,Mentors and his favorite subject in school. He admits it himself, look it up, and no, not on that mess called wiki.


----------



## arabian knight (Dec 19, 2005)

Ya and more and more stories like this one will be popping up also, to over shadow the few good ones.
*
Rural residents confront higher health care costs
*


> DENVER (AP) -- Bill Fales wants a new baler and a better irrigation system for the 700-acre ranch where he raises grass-fed beef cattle, but after seeing his new health insurance premiums, those plans have been set aside.
> 
> His Cold Mountain Ranch is in western Colorado's Rocky Mountains, a rural area where outpatient services are twice as expensive as the state average. Fales recently *saw his monthly premiums jump 50 percent*.


http://www.weau.com/home/headlines/Rural-residents-confront-higher-health-care-costs-253121891.html


----------



## no really (Aug 7, 2013)

For some the few with pre-existing conditions and difficulty affording insurance the ability to get help is great.

My insurance changed to comply and the cost is just to much to justify it. The company I work for has a predominantly young group of employees. Most of us were pretty much in support of the ACA. But than we found out how much change there was in the mandated coverage. It did not go over well. Our company pays 50% of our costs for insurance and had 4 different coverages available.

This company is a multinational and has offices in 5 states. The HR director was excited about the new policies. He got let down greatly, he later told our supervisor that in the under 40 group there was only about 4% to interested. Those were mainly individuals with health issues and me. Around 400 employees would not sign up. Again we are talking young very health savvy people, the bulk of which are male.

I plan to cancel my insurance this week, it is just not feasible to pay that much for so many things I would never have gotten anyway. I will do what the rest of my family do and go to Mexico for medical care. It is about the same distance as the stateside doc. Besides my work includes lots of travel, the new insurance is pretty sad for out of network care and that policy was the middle of the pack cost wise. I will be leaving in about six weeks to work overseas for a year, why spend all that money for something I can't access.

Wish you all luck with your insurance, but unless the younger crowd sign on it is going to get costly.


----------



## MO_cows (Aug 14, 2010)

TheMartianChick said:


> I helped someone to sign up for the ACA last fall. NY has its own exchange and though the site had a few issues in the beginning, those bugs seem to have been worked out. Last week, I helped him to make arrangements to pay for his policy.
> 
> He is a diabetic with high cholesterol and he has been without real health insurance for years. In fact, a couple of years ago, he passed out in his apartment as a result of having undiagnosed diabetes. He has always worked, but in recent years, he can only work part time hours because he cares for his profoundly disabled adult son.
> 
> ...


Sounds like he was a very good candidate for a private charity to offer him some help. Yes, of course it's a good thing he has coverage now, but was it worth millions of others losing their health care, seeing their premiums go up painfully, or ending up on the dole and ashamed of that, having to accept a subsidy? Not to mention the stress and inconvenience of "if you like your plan you can keep it" turning out to be false. For every "this person was helped by Ocare" story, there is more than one where it had the opposite effect, what I have observed so far.


----------



## elkhound (May 30, 2006)

rural folks...read this if you have a strong stomach


http://news.msn.com/in-depth/rural-residents-confront-higher-health-care-costs


----------



## Nevada (Sep 9, 2004)

elkhound said:


> rural folks...read this if you have a strong stomach
> 
> 
> http://news.msn.com/in-depth/rural-residents-confront-higher-health-care-costs


That's always been true. I've been tracking what things might have cost if I have stayed in Elko, up in northern Nevada. Health insurance is 1.5 to 2 times the cost of similar coverage in Las Vegas.

It's not because they hate people in rural areas, it's because they're heavily invested in urban areas. Basically, they invest in hospitals and operate their own medical clinics. There's no money in doing that in rural areas.


----------



## Coco (Jun 8, 2007)

imam healthy as of now but I can't afford what they want me to pay, I just don't have the money to pay this bill. so I'm going uninsured and I pray I don't get sick.

I work but I don't have the money to pay the bill.


----------



## Wendy (May 10, 2002)

> If moving is not an option then you have to accept what your lawmakers decide to do. Your legislature has decided to cut you out of healthcare reform. While I believe that's unfair, you'll have to live with that.


So that's your answer? Everyone shold run to a state that will cover them with medicaid?? I prefer to stay here where we have worked hard to build our home & life. We have always paid our own way. I shouldn't have to worry about losing my home because of a huge hospital bill. It may take me years, but I have always paid any hospital bill I have had. Now I am just supposed to give that all up & move to a state so I can mooch off of some other tax payers? 

I have seen the reality of this law & it is hurting a lot of people. A LOT! We can't all just quit our jobs & move our families to another state that expanded medicaid. This is going to fail at some point. The states that expanded medicaid are supposed to be able to handle a mass exodus of people that decide to pack up & move so they can take advantage of it? Do you realize how dumb that sounds? Your solution is for us to move so we can live off the taxpayers of another state. I don't want to move. I want to stay here & keep doing what I am doing. I would love to find coverage that would be even close to something we can afford. So far, it hasn't happened. 

It may have worked out well for you & some people just love it. The reality is, for a huge amount of people this has been a headache & is costing them more than it did before.


----------



## ErinP (Aug 23, 2007)

_So opt out_!

Near as I can tell, you're in no better or worse place than you were before...


----------



## notwyse (Feb 16, 2014)

It is costing more for a lot of people. And I acknowledge that. But if you happen to be one of those folks who could not get insurance before this is a godsend.


----------



## Terri in WV (May 10, 2002)

Nevada said:


> That's always been true. I've been tracking what things might have cost if I have stayed in Elko, up in northern Nevada. Health insurance is 1.5 to 2 times the cost of similar coverage in Las Vegas.
> 
> It's not because they hate people in rural areas, it's because they're heavily invested in urban areas. Basically, they invest in hospitals and operate their own medical clinics. There's no money in doing that in rural areas.


But...those rural people have to go to those urban areas for the same specialized treatment, therefore they should get the same rate, or close to it.


----------



## Molly Mckee (Jul 8, 2006)

Our DD and SIL lost their insurance because of obama care. They are among the lucky ones that can afford to buy insurance themselves, not on the exchange so they know what they have and what the coverage is. Of course it is much more expensive, but they are covered for a lot of things they will never need. Here in WA state the cancelled policies can't be re-issued. The insurance commissioner announced that WA will not allow people to keep policies another year. This leaves a lot of people here with no coverage they can afford. Since about 3/4 of the people that signed up for coverage on the WA exchange get Medicaid, so there are many people that have no coverage themselves, but they are going to be paying for other families to have coverage. There is something very wrong with this picture. 

And for those of you who think that if the federal government picks up the tab for a few years it won't cost you anything, remember that the federal money comes from us, the same way the states money does.


----------



## Wendy (May 10, 2002)

> _So opt out_!
> 
> Near as I can tell, you're in no better or worse place than you were before...


Except when I try to go somewhere & they won't treat me because I don't have insurance. I hope that doesn't happen, but I can see it coming to that. 

I am just wanting the affordable health insurance that has been promised me.


----------



## Wendy (May 10, 2002)

I thought this was appropriate!

View attachment 26104


----------



## ErinP (Aug 23, 2007)

Wendy said:


> I am just wanting the affordable health insurance that has been promised me.


*Obama* tried. Unfortunately, *your state* did not.


----------



## arabian knight (Dec 19, 2005)

ErinP said:


> *Obama* tried. Unfortunately, *your state* did not.


 And it was because of the strings attached that many states did not bite on what Obama flashed as a carrot in front of them. But many states say right through him. Good thing too as so many states will be in so much trouble in just a few years that it will be frightening. Obama did not have to do any of this kind of slide of hand, but he did, and now millions will suffer because of it.


----------



## JillyG (Jan 6, 2014)

Wendy said:


> Except when I try to go somewhere & they won't treat me because I don't have insurance. I hope that doesn't happen, but I can see it coming to that.
> 
> I am just wanting the affordable health insurance that has been promised me.


Your state chose not to allow you not have affordable health insurance . Have you complained to them?


----------



## JillyG (Jan 6, 2014)

arabian knight said:


> And it was because of the strings attached that many states did not bite on what Obama flashed as a carrot in front of them. But many states say right through him. Good thing too as so many states will be in so much trouble in just a few years that it will be frightening. Obama did not have to do any of this kind of slide of hand, but he did, and now millions will suffer because of it.


The strings attached, pay for the program 100% for the first 3 years then 75% after that.
Any idea what the Federal Government was paying those states prior to ACA for their Medicaid?


----------



## Tricky Grama (Oct 7, 2006)

Nevada said:


> Politifact.com gave that claim a Mostly False rating in their Truth-O-Meter.
> 
> http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-m...d-president-obama-steal-500-billion-medicare/


Sorry, Nevada, but you pulled up the most PRO-obummerUNcare link there is...the TRUTH of the matter is, 780+BILLION has been taken from medicare. So while you're happy over your subsidized ins. for the next couple yrs, by the time you are medicare eligible better pray you don't need any home health care. That is what is hit 1st.
I read something about the blow-back over reducing docs pay-if y'all will look at what they get for medicare, its too low in the 1st place-so they're trying to back peddal on that. Meaning other stuff for Sr.s will be cut.


----------



## Tricky Grama (Oct 7, 2006)

ErinP said:


> Only if they can't do math.


 So you think the CBO cannot do math? Or 80% of the country?

Why do you supposse only 10% of the previously UNinsured are/have signed up? Have you done the math on how many are still uninsured? Do you think 6 mil-& that is NOT how many have paid premiums-is a success when 40 mil were supposedly w/o ins. b/4 this all began? Then add the 6 mil that LOST their ins? They have said that the sign-ups only include a % of those that were droppped. Do the MATH.

You know, the one's who LIKED their ins and WANTED to keep it? Like my DH. What about the PROMISE that ins premiums would go DOWN by $2500 per family? Was that a lie too? (I'll give you a hint: YES it was a big lie. SEVERAL big lies got this administration in office a 2nd term.)


----------



## Tricky Grama (Oct 7, 2006)

MO_cows said:


> It isn't like one or two "rogue" states didn't set up their own exchange. It's about half and half. Another example of why a plan that re-structures one of the biggest industries in the country, and one that is literally a matter of life and death, should not have been shoved down our throats in the first place. Now I am not denying there were too many people who fell thru the cracks between Medicaid and being able to afford health insurance on their own, but Ocare has done more damage than problem solving. If it was a good plan, there wouldn't be this much collateral damage, period. Those of you who have benefited from it can sing its praises til the cows come home, but you are the minority.


----------



## Tricky Grama (Oct 7, 2006)

Nevada said:


> I suspect we'll hear more and more success stories as the ACA advances. The dust will settle before long and the ACA will look a lot better to everyone.


 Of course, there will be some successes, like the goberment says, 20% will be helped!


----------



## Ambereyes (Sep 6, 2004)

From what I have read the expanded Medicaid support from the Feds is until 2022, after that the states are on their own.


----------



## Tricky Grama (Oct 7, 2006)

notwyse said:


> It is costing more for a lot of people. And I acknowledge that. But if you happen to be one of those folks who could not get insurance before this is a godsend.


 Of course. DH finally got ins has 1 kidney full of stones, actually nearly one big stone that 'chips' off a peice now & then...also 2 ruptured discs.
Had-fortunetly-gone a few yrs w/o seeing a doc about these 'pre-existing-& had a great policy w/BC&BS. something like 330/mo. It was cancelled, of course, b/c a 63 y'o man has to have maternity care & free b/cs. When the biggest lie of the year was discovered-ya know, if you LIKE your ins you can keep it. PERIOD, he lost that coverage. Then in try to fix the lie, it was said theat folks could get their policies back. Unhuh. For nearly twice the am't.

So I'm asking all of you, for whom is it better now than b/4? I'll tell ya-for TWENTY % it is better. For EIGHTY % it is NOT.
Keep on telling us your success stories here & there. B/c there are 4 times as many bad stories.


----------



## Nevada (Sep 9, 2004)

Tricky Grama said:


> Had-fortunetly-gone a few yrs w/o seeing a doc about these 'pre-existing-& had a great policy w/BC&BS. something like 330/mo. It was cancelled, of course, b/c a 63 y'o man has to have maternity care & free b/cs.


I'm the same age as your husband. I couldn't find insurance for $330/month before ACA, and I don't have any health issues besides seasonal allergies. I'm not doubting your word, but there was just nothing available in that ballpark for NV or AZ. Maybe things are just more expensive out west.

Most of my insurance quotes over the past 10 years have been in the $500 to $700 range, and the last few years have been even higher than that.


----------



## painterswife (Jun 7, 2004)

Nevada said:


> I'm the same age as your husband. I couldn't find insurance for $330/month before ACA, and I don't have any health issues besides seasonal allergies. I'm not doubting your word, but there was just nothing available in that ballpark for NV or AZ. Maybe things are just more expensive out west.
> 
> Most of my insurance quotes over the past 10 years have been in the $500 to $700 range, and the last few years have been even higher than that.


Same here in Wyoming. 63 years was 600.00 plus per month and a 7500.00 deductible.


----------



## Wendy (May 10, 2002)

> From what I have read the expanded Medicaid support from the Feds is until 2022, after that the states are on their own.


Yeah, which will most likely mean higher sales tax, higher property tax, etc. to cover what they are no longer getting from the feds. Then, people like us who fall through the cracks, will be paying even more out of our income to cover those that can get all the perks & we will be worse off than we were & still without insurance.


----------



## arabian knight (Dec 19, 2005)

Well that is what you get when government sticks their fingers into things. What should have taken pale is the States make sure there were no holes before all this went down. So some could get the coverage they needed. I am fortunate to still have my medicaid coverage in WI because their is a program for disabled people that lets them dues a small amount of work and literally buy their way in. Which I am doing, and that program is not affected by ObamaNoCare and we can stay o it without having to go to exchanges, but then I am also on Medicare so even if that program would have stopped I would still have health coverage.
But people should be working within their prospective states top get things changed and not on the federal level.


----------



## notwyse (Feb 16, 2014)

People act like there will never be another change to this system. I am pretty sure that the only way to reform insurance was to push something thru and work on tweeking it in years to come.


----------



## arabian knight (Dec 19, 2005)

How many lives are being ruined now because this was not thought through, but it was Rammed Through?


----------



## Nevada (Sep 9, 2004)

Wendy said:


> Yeah, which will most likely mean higher sales tax, higher property tax, etc. to cover what they are no longer getting from the feds. Then, people like us who fall through the cracks, will be paying even more out of our income to cover those that can get all the perks & we will be worse off than we were & still without insurance.


Yes, that's exactly the place your lawmakers left you in.


----------



## painterswife (Jun 7, 2004)

arabian knight said:


> How many lives are being ruined now because this was not thought through, but it was Rammed Through?


How many lives were ruined before?


----------



## Molly Mckee (Jul 8, 2006)

Wendy said:


> Except when I try to go somewhere & they won't treat me because I don't have insurance. I hope that doesn't happen, but I can see it coming to that.
> 
> I am just wanting the affordable health insurance that has been promised me.


People have been finding out that a lot of the hospitals and doctors will not take the new insurance, so everyone's money is being wasted. 

The latest reports show that the payments side of the program has not even been written so getting paid may be hard to impossible for hospitals and doctors. The people have three months to pay their premiums and it has been suggested that the hospitals and doctors might want to pay the premiums if they treat someone who hasn't paid but the insurance company has approved care so they can get paid. 

This mess is only going to get worse. I don't see how it can work long term. But maybe that was the plan all along.


----------



## Guest (Mar 31, 2014)

notwyse said:


> People act like there will never be another change to this system. I am pretty sure that the only way to reform insurance was to push something thru and work on tweeking it in years to come.


Buy now pay later type scheme ? Those usually work out well .


----------



## arabian knight (Dec 19, 2005)

Molly Mckee said:


> People have been finding out that a lot of the hospitals and doctors will not take the new insurance, so everyone's money is being wasted.
> 
> The latest reports show that the payments side of the program has not even been written so getting paid may be hard to impossible for hospitals and doctors. The people have three months to pay their premiums and it has been suggested that the hospitals and doctors might want to pay the premiums if they treat someone who hasn't paid but the insurance company has approved care so they can get paid.
> 
> This mess is only going to get worse. I don't see how it can work long term. But maybe that was the plan all along.


 So true I talked to a guy just last week he was going to one of our bigger hospitals in the area for years. Now that he was FORCED under law, to go with this fiasco called ObamaNoCare he HAS to switch to a completely different hospital, losing ALL of the doctors he had been going to for years. That IS not right.
And that is not a job of the US Government to have this happen to him and millions of others like him in this country.


----------



## Melissa (Apr 15, 2002)

Please keep in mind that we allow discussion of just about any topic, but you are not allowed to attack another poster, or make sarcastic or rude posts. I understand this topic can be very emotional. I think good informational posts that help each other figure out a way to deal with the laws are best. Don't personally slam another poster.


----------



## Nevada (Sep 9, 2004)

Molly Mckee said:


> People have been finding out that a lot of the hospitals and doctors will not take the new insurance, so everyone's money is being wasted.


I don't know why they would just be finding that out. I checked the provider directory before I selected a policy. That way I knew that I could keep my doctor, use my pharmacy, and go the the hospitals I want.

The Nevada exchange says there's a 30 day grace period for premiums before being canceled. It could be 3 months on the national exchange. I wouldn't know.


----------



## ErinP (Aug 23, 2007)

> So I'm asking all of you, for whom is it better now than b/4? I'll tell ya-for TWENTY % it is better. For EIGHTY % it is NOT.


People keep throwing this statistic out, but I've never seen _anything_ this specific in the news, etc. Even non-specific doesn't seem to be even remotely this high.
Can you tell me where this number is coming from?


----------



## Wendy (May 10, 2002)

> Your state chose not to allow you not have affordable health insurance


Maybe because they realized in a few years when they aren't getting as much money from the feds, they would not be able to cover everyone.


----------



## Melissa (Apr 15, 2002)

I think the law is going to continue to evolve. I am expecting that if the states don't expand Medicaid there will be a remedy to that over the next year or so. This is not over by a long shot.


----------



## Nevada (Sep 9, 2004)

arabian knight said:


> So true I talked to a guy just last week he was going to one of our bigger hospitals in the area for years. Now that he was FORCED under law, to go with this fiasco called ObamaNoCare he HAS to switch to a completely different hospital, losing ALL of the doctors he had been going to for years. That IS not right.


Of course the trend for affordable care is to provide care through HMOs & PPOs, since those plans offer the most care at the lowest price. But those programs have strict provider directories, and you pay a substantial penalty to use out-of-network providers. That's because they want you to only use providers that your insurance company has a contractual relationship with. That's not surprising.

What's surprising to me is that people are caught off guard by that. If a hospital isn't a network provider then subscribers will have to either find an alternate hospital or a different insurance provider. The fact that a subscriber might have gone to that same hospital or doctor for years isn't really relevant, although your post seems to suggest that it should be. The only thing that's relevant is whether those providers are included in their provider directory.

For example, here is the HMO provider directory for my ACA plan, offered through Health Plans of Nevada (UnitedHealthcare).

http://www.healthplanofnevada.com/documents/HPN%20COMM%20SN%20PD%200516%20September%202013.pdf

If you browse that document you will not find Sunrise Hospital listed, which is a major hospital facility in Las Vegas. That's because the hospital and insurance company couldn't reach an agreement for a contract. But I knew that before taking out insurance with them. There are plenty of acceptable alternatives in Las Vegas, so it's not really a problem for me.


----------



## Nevada (Sep 9, 2004)

Melissa said:


> I think the law is going to continue to evolve. I am expecting that if the states don't expand Medicaid there will be a remedy to that over the next year or so. This is not over by a long shot.


I'm certain you are correct about that.


----------



## PricklyThistle (Feb 6, 2014)

Never had health care a day in my life. Never will. Won't pay for the privilege of continuing that either.


----------



## Kasota (Nov 25, 2013)

I personally know physicians who haven't received any information about what their payments would be under Obamacare. Some of them have found their names on lists of providers but they never agreed to be a provider for that policy. They are as confused as everyone else. Many of the hospitals are also still without enough information to make an intelligent decision on whether or not they should accept Obamacare policies or not. 

The grace period to pay premiums is going to cause financial difficulties all the way around. A doctor or hospital may perform treatment thinking a person is covered when they may or may not be. They are working blind. 

It is going to be interesting to see what the rates do next year. The actuarial departments in the insurance companies are working hard and fast to crunch numbers - but they don't have adequate numbers to crunch yet - to figure out just what the "pool" consists of. They don't know how many people are in or out, how many have paid and how many have not, or what the outlay is going to be. This is one of the reasons they have been fighting to have the government provide stop-loss dollars for these exchange policies. 

People are also under the mistaken notion that at any time of the year if they should get sick they could practically call an agent on the way to the hospital in an ambulance and get covered because there is no exclusion for prior conditions. It doesn't work that way. At best it would be the month afterwards.


----------



## Kasota (Nov 25, 2013)

I also have several elderly people in my family told that they can have their Medicare Advantage policy this year but they have to find something else for 2015 because it's being dropped.


----------



## Nevada (Sep 9, 2004)

Saw my doctor for the first time today. I've seen her dozens of times before, since it's the same doctor who took care of Alma, but this is the first time I've discussed my health.

She wants me to lose weight and get a colonoscopy. I talked her out of the colonoscopy, at least for now. We're going to do a little blood work and talk about it again in a month.

Blood pressure is 120/80 and EKG is normal. Not bad for 63.


----------



## Nevada (Sep 9, 2004)

Kasota said:


> I personally know physicians who haven't received any information about what their payments would be under Obamacare. Some of them have found their names on lists of providers but they never agreed to be a provider for that policy. They are as confused as everyone else. Many of the hospitals are also still without enough information to make an intelligent decision on whether or not they should accept Obamacare policies or not.


To be clear, there is no insurance called Obamacare. It's just a nickname for the ACA. All of the insurance policies offered at the exchanges is through private insurers. If private insurers are listing providers who never agreed to be in their networks then that's fraud.


----------



## Ambereyes (Sep 6, 2004)

Ambereyes said:


> I asked permission from my friend to post this.
> 
> She is on Medicaid, has degenerative spine disease. She has been seeing several doctors, tests and lots of driving from one place to another to get it all accomplished, very hard on her. She has been scheduled for surgery, went in go finalize (pre-admission) things. Long drive she gets there and surgery has been cancelled!
> 
> ...



Update on friends quest for medical care.... Local philanthropist has kicked in to help her, he recommended a spinal care center in Mexico that he used. Her records have been forwarded to the doctors there. If they can help the philanthropist is going to fly her there and family support plus he is going to foot most of the costs for surgery, if it is decided by the doc's it is helpful. There is already a fund raising action started in her community so things are looking up..


----------



## Tricky Grama (Oct 7, 2006)

notwyse said:


> People act like there will never be another change to this system. I am pretty sure that the only way to reform insurance was to push something thru and work on tweeking it in years to come.


 Well, how many laws have you seen go thru 40 changes? Oh, & NOT thru congress, just someone in the admin saying there's a change...unconstitutional, BTW. Even when the POTUS is a dictator this is illegal. Did you know? What do the supporters of this law & administration think about that?


----------



## Tricky Grama (Oct 7, 2006)

painterswife said:


> How many lives were ruined before?


So is this your justification? ALmost as many lives ruined b/4 as now? What good is it if just as many are w/o ins after the dust settles? That is what the CBO says. Oh, except now 80% will be paying for 20%. 
But the ones that are in the 20% are gleeful that they're taking from the rest.
How UNAmerican is that? 
Its socialistic, but I'd say 9 of 10 "Ds" I've spoken to & read about are all for socialism.
It is NOT what America was founded on nor is it the wants of 80% of the country.


----------



## painterswife (Jun 7, 2004)

Tricky Grama said:


> So is this your justification? ALmost as many lives ruined b/4 as now? What good is it if just as many are w/o ins after the dust settles? That is what the CBO says. Oh, except now 80% will be paying for 20%.
> But the ones that are in the 20% are gleeful that they're taking from the rest.
> How UNAmerican is that?
> Its socialistic, but I'd say 9 of 10 "Ds" I've spoken to & read about are all for socialism.
> It is NOT what America was founded on nor is it the wants of 80% of the country.


At least the Dem's had the guts to make a move forward. The Status quo was not working. I don't think this was the right move forward but I respect them for trying. I know you have a problem with any socialistic policy but other countries and even this one can make them work for the betterment of all. To many here talk about that but spend all their time cutting the other side down instead of providing a solution that actual works.


----------



## ErinP (Aug 23, 2007)

Tricky Grama said:


> So is this your justification? ALmost as many lives ruined b/4 as now? What good is it if just as many are w/o ins after the dust settles? That is what the CBO says. Oh, except now 80% will be paying for 20%.
> But the ones that are in the 20% are gleeful that they're taking from the rest.
> How UNAmerican is that?
> Its socialistic, but I'd say 9 of 10 "Ds" I've spoken to & read about are all for socialism.
> It is NOT what America was founded on nor is it the wants of 80% of the country.


Again, you are throwing out numbers... 


Where are they coming from???


----------



## Nevada (Sep 9, 2004)

The administration now says they'll make the predicted 7 million mark when the tallying is done. The talking heads think that seem to think is on the level.

http://www.cnn.com/2014/04/01/politics/obamacare-signups-target/index.html?hpt=hp_c2

It's also reported that at least one poll shows that Obamacare is above water now.

http://www.msnbc.com/rachel-maddow-show/poll-shows-aca-its-head-above-water

It seems to be turning around for the ACA, and the Fox News promise of an Obamacare "death spiral" doesn't appear to be materializing.


----------



## Packedready (Mar 29, 2011)

It makes me soooo happy to pay for other peoples insurance, I am sure the government will find some other good ways for me to donate my hard earned dollars, whether it is my choice or not.


----------



## ErinP (Aug 23, 2007)

I'm not sure how you think insurance works, but I've ALWAYS paid for other peoples' insurance. 
The irritating part was that I've also had to pay for other peoples' LACK of insurance. :grump:


----------



## arabian knight (Dec 19, 2005)

Ah yes a success? Hmmmm seems to me that is FAR short of the 45 MILLION that this was all about from the beginning. Success? Yes Success at failing. LOL


----------



## Molly Mckee (Jul 8, 2006)

WA statistics are showing that 80% of the sign ups are medicaid, 20% are buying policies (with subsidies). Here, the statistics haven't changed since the first reports. This is going to be very expensive for a lot of people.

One of the reasons the high numbers here is simple, the Insurance Commissioner refused to let any canceled policies to be reinstated. Companies that had to cancel non-conforming policies before they didn't have to, could not get coverage at a reasonable price, so that left employees without insurance.


----------



## arabian knight (Dec 19, 2005)

Molly Mckee said:


> WA statistics are showing that 80% of the sign ups are medicaid, 20% are buying policies (with subsidies). Here, the statistics haven't changed since the first reports. This is going to be very expensive for a lot of people.
> 
> One of the reasons the high numbers here is simple, the Insurance Commissioner refused to let any canceled policies to be reinstated. Companies that had to cancel non-conforming policies before they didn't have to, could not get coverage at a reasonable price, so that left employees without insurance.


And I would bet that is the same State after State after State. The Majority already HAD health coverage. Who has this helped. very very very few that is who. But in the process it has ruined many lives because of making them PAY more for their insurance now then what they were completely happy and satisfied with. Shame on the government, Shame on this Sham, and Shame on this Scam that has been pulled on the American People.


----------



## Molly Mckee (Jul 8, 2006)

ErinP said:


> I'm not sure how you think insurance works, but I've ALWAYS paid for other peoples' insurance.
> The irritating part was that I've also had to pay for other peoples' LACK of insurance. :grump:


I'm not sure why you think you won't still be paying for people without insurance. There are still millions without insurance, millions of illegals without insurance as well.


----------



## ErinP (Aug 23, 2007)

Molly Mckee said:


> I'm not sure why you think you won't still be paying for people without insurance. There are still millions without insurance, millions of illegals without insurance as well.


Of course. 
But this law ensures that _far_ more people than previously either have to get their own insurance _before_ they rack up unexpected bills, or they have to pay a tax in order to offset the fact that they don't have it.


----------



## Nevada (Sep 9, 2004)

Molly Mckee said:


> I'm not sure why you think you won't still be paying for people without insurance. There are still millions without insurance, millions of illegals without insurance as well.


I suppose there will always be people without insurance until we get single payer, but the more people contribute to their healthcare the less burden is on the government. That means that the more people who are insured the less taxpayers will have to pay for the uninsured.


----------



## arabian knight (Dec 19, 2005)

ErinP said:


> Of course.
> But this law ensures that _far_ more people than previously either have to get their own insurance _before_ they rack up unexpected bills, or they have to pay a tax in order to offset the fact that they don't have it.


Ah that was a funny. I needed that . Far more having insurance? Wow now that is a funny, as now those that HAD insurance before have Higher then even rates, or can't afford it now or can't go to their own doctors they had for years. A few more Ya right that is a laugh. 2 million at BEST have insurance now that didn't have it before. 7 Million? that is Cooked Books at best, as the Great majority of those 7 million Already HAD coverage. So they can't be ,and should not be counted~


----------



## Nevada (Sep 9, 2004)

arabian knight said:


> Ah yes a success? Hmmmm seems to me that is FAR short of the 45 MILLION that this was all about from the beginning. Success? Yes Success at failing. LOL


Who do you think pay the medical bills for those 45 million uninsured right now?


----------



## painterswife (Jun 7, 2004)

The premise of insurance is a group of people pay for service they might or might not need. Some get their moneys worth some don't. Anyone who has every had health insurance buys it knowing that they might take advantage of the money that someone else paid or they might have someone take advantage of the money they paid. Hardly ever does it come out even.

Those that are complaining about the government requiring that everyone has heath insurance don't have a leg to stand on unless they have never had health insurance.


----------



## Wendy (May 10, 2002)

> Those that are complaining about the government requiring that everyone has heath insurance don't have a leg to stand on unless they have never had health insurance.


They are requiring something that is out of reach for a lot of people. Health insurance is way too expensive for the majority of people. With everything else going up in price I sure don't have another $800-$1000 a month to pay for health insurance & neither do most people.


----------



## painterswife (Jun 7, 2004)

Wendy said:


> They are requiring something that is out of reach for a lot of people. Health insurance is way too expensive for the majority of people. With everything else going up in price I sure don't have another $800-$1000 a month to pay for health insurance & neither do most people.


I have no problem with those that can't afford it. That is a serious problem that the ACA does not really address properly. I do however think that some of those could really afford it if they made different choices.

I have a problem with those that can afford insurance complaining that others should not be part of the system because somehow it is coming out of their pocket. That is how insurance works. Those that are more healthy pay for those that are not.


----------



## 7thswan (Nov 18, 2008)

Nevada said:


> The administration now says they'll make the predicted 7 million mark when the tallying is done. The talking heads think that seem to think is on the level.
> 
> http://www.cnn.com/2014/04/01/politics/obamacare-signups-target/index.html?hpt=hp_c2
> 
> ...


You really believe all the lies comeing from this regime? How does one pick and chose which lie to believe?


----------



## Nevada (Sep 9, 2004)

Wendy said:


> They are requiring something that is out of reach for a lot of people. Health insurance is way too expensive for the majority of people. With everything else going up in price I sure don't have another $800-$1000 a month to pay for health insurance & neither do most people.


That's exactly the problem that the ACA seeks to address.


----------



## painterswife (Jun 7, 2004)

Nevada said:


> That's exactly the problem that the ACA seeks to address.


It does, but it still has a long way to go.


----------



## Nevada (Sep 9, 2004)

painterswife said:


> It does, but it still has a long way to go.


Yes, mainly since it doesn't really do anything about rising healthcare costs. But I read somewhere that the Mass healthcare system has had 6 revisions large enough to require legislative action. I expect the same for the ACA.


----------



## MO_cows (Aug 14, 2010)

painterswife said:


> The premise of insurance is a group of people pay for service they might or might not need. Some get their moneys worth some don't. Anyone who has every had health insurance buys it knowing that they might take advantage of the money that someone else paid or they might have someone take advantage of the money they paid. Hardly ever does it come out even.
> 
> Those that are complaining about the government requiring that everyone has heath insurance don't have a leg to stand on unless they have never had health insurance.


Don't have a leg to stand on? How about the Constitution? They had to play word games with the penalties to get it past the Supreme Court. It just barely squeaked past the constitutional challenge.

This plan is a miserable failure. It has caused more people to lose their insurance than those who were previously uninsured and have now gained coverage. The President went around for months shouting, "If you like your plan you can keep it." That turned out to be total fantasy, undermining the faith of the people in their government that much more. The launch of the web site couldn't have gone much worse unless it was part of a 3 Stooges movie. All the changes and extensions and delays are mounting evidence of how poorly conceived and executed it was.

And just wait - we have only been dealing with the individual mandates so far. Remember, the employer mandates were delayed past the next election cycle. (What an amazing coincidence!) A friend of mine, her employer is eliminating full time jobs in advance of the employer mandate kicking in. This was already a trend and Obamacare just creates that much more incentive to eliminate full time jobs. Insurance rates are going to rise again and people are going to lose their jobs. 

But wait - there's more! The Medicare cuts which are supposed to help fund this boondoggle have been postponed. When the doctors and hospitals take that big pay cut from all their Medicare patients, they are going to have to raise rates on everybody else. What happens? Health insurance rates will rise some more, because the non-Medicare payers will have to make up the difference. 

A very ironic side effect of the AFFORDABLE Care Act - causing health insurance rates to go UP.

I don't know whether to laugh or cry at how hard some are defending this goat roping. A few people were helped, while the majority of the American people and their employers are getting drug thru a knothole. Slowly and painfully. The ends just don't justify the means on this one.


----------



## Ambereyes (Sep 6, 2004)

IMHO the ACA is failing, if it was not we would see the numbers posted widely. Not just the political numbers but the ones that give an actual breakdown of who has paid for their coverage. The young healthy ones that are the needed group that is needed to keep it above water. Take out the Medicaid, the individuals that lost insurance due to compliance issues and publish the real numbers on newly insured.

As it stands this mandate is here for awhile along with bailouts for big insurance companies. It will help some for a short time but I feel when the real numbers are in the costs will jump, it won't be good. 

As hard as it's going to be hang on and do the best you can to take care of yourself and family. Got a feeling there will be options come available, keep your eyes open.


----------



## Molly Mckee (Jul 8, 2006)

So many people think because enrollment is sort of over for this year and they are saying the numbers meet the goals everything is working well. They seem to forget that just last week they said the backside or payment side hasn't been written yet. 

How long will it be before hospitals and doctors cannot keep serving patients that they don't get paid for? They have already had a big cut in Medicare payments due to the sequester. Forcing more cuts in Medicare will simply cost the patients more out of pocket or we will see cost cutting that will destroy patient care. The myth than the government has been promoting that the profit margins are huge in medicine is just another lie.


----------



## Nevada (Sep 9, 2004)

Molly Mckee said:


> They seem to forget that just last week they said the backside or payment side hasn't been written yet.
> 
> How long will it be before hospitals and doctors cannot keep serving patients that they don't get paid for?


Under the ACA the government doesn't make payments to medical providers. All ACA insurance is private, so medical bills are handled by private insurance companies.


----------



## Molly Mckee (Jul 8, 2006)

Nevada said:


> Under the ACA the government doesn't make payments to medical providers. All ACA insurance is private, so medical bills are handled by private insurance companies.


It seems the insurance companies don't know who many of their insured are, or what coverage they have. Here the medicaid ( state pay) people are 80% of the obamacare covered people. WA is broke, we don't have the money to pay medical bills. In all probability, they will go unpaid until the feds pay. Of course, they are broke as well.


----------



## Wendy (May 10, 2002)

> That's exactly the problem that the ACA seeks to address.


It should never have been pushed through until they had all their ducks in a row & everything worked out.


----------



## Molly Mckee (Jul 8, 2006)

Wendy said:


> It should never have been pushed through until they had all their ducks in a row & everything worked out.


Yes, and it seems to me they could have added a subsidized insurance to the existing programs without destroying the system. We have clueless people trying to run a very complex system.


----------



## Kasota (Nov 25, 2013)

It's all about control...


----------



## Tricky Grama (Oct 7, 2006)

Nevada said:


> Yes, mainly since it doesn't really do anything about rising healthcare costs. But I read somewhere that the Mass healthcare system has had 6 revisions large enough to require legislative action. I expect the same for the ACA.


Funny thing about MA, revisions are done legally.
The near 40 changes to Obamacare have been...what? ALL illegal. 

Doncha live the exemptions? Doncha love the extensions til after election? Doncha love it that now anyone can sign up anytime? Wait til you get really sick or a near fatal disease, then sign up. 

Personally, my fav was : "If you LIKE your insurance you can keep your insurance. PERIOD!" 37 times the liars-all of 'em-said it. 
2nd fav was: "If you like your doctor you can keep your doctor. PERIOD". 3rd is: "Costs of premiums will go down $2500/yr per family." Maybe that was my fav...
THe whole law was passed by ONLY "Ds" based on ONLY lies. As was the last election! NO one can disagree w/that.

I tried to find the info on only 20% being truly helped but that was on the news so long ago. This is all I can find now, I'm probably not putting in the right phrases.

http://www.datehookup.com/Thread-1299706.htm
https://www.care2.com/news/member/907581929/3719785


----------



## BigHenTinyBrain (Apr 4, 2013)

Just to include my own 2 cents- working poor, 2 income family, no insurance. Kids qualify for the state medicaid program, but we make bout $75 a month too much for adults to qualify. Signed up for the ACA coverage (Obamacare) via the Federal website. Took about 45 minutes with one annoying glitch. Now have insurance. 
Next time one of us is hurt and goes to the ER and has an insurance plan to cover it, you are welcome. Because otherwise we'd still go to the ER, rack up an ungodly bill and be unable to pay it, thus passing it along to the rest of you.

Is it a perfect solution? Nope. Is it absolutely fair to everyone in the whole country? Nope. Is it better to try an imperfect plan then it is to just let a thoroughly broken system continue? Yep, in my book it is. 
Obamacare may not solve the problems our healthcare system has, but at least _someone_ is doing _something_. Do you have a better suggestion? Don't just complain, offer it!


----------



## Tricky Grama (Oct 7, 2006)

MO_cows said:


> Don't have a leg to stand on? How about the Constitution? They had to play word games with the penalties to get it past the Supreme Court. It just barely squeaked past the constitutional challenge.
> 
> This plan is a miserable failure. It has caused more people to lose their insurance than those who were previously uninsured and have now gained coverage. The President went around for months shouting, "If you like your plan you can keep it." That turned out to be total fantasy, undermining the faith of the people in their government that much more. The launch of the web site couldn't have gone much worse unless it was part of a 3 Stooges movie. All the changes and extensions and delays are mounting evidence of how poorly conceived and executed it was.
> 
> ...












Can no one do the math?

6 mill LOST their ins last Oct. so seems to me IF there's really 6 mil that have signed up (& those of you who don't listen to any credible news we can point you to links that show how many of those 'sign-ups' have ACTUALLY PAID for their ins or completed the sign up) They haven't even broke even yet. There's far LESS folks w/o ins than b/4

And just wait for the employer mandate to kick in-if they ever quit postponing it...millions more will be w/o ins.


----------



## Ambereyes (Sep 6, 2004)

Interesting article on the numbers of signups and who they are.

The RAND report appears to corroborate the work of other surveys. Earlier this month, McKinsey reported that 27 percent of those signing up for coverage on the individual market were previously uninsured.

http://www.forbes.com/sites/theapot...-sign-ups-were-from-the-previously-uninsured/


----------



## Ambereyes (Sep 6, 2004)

This little snippet from the link is significant.. Significant being the key word as to cost increases.

This is a problem that may get worse over time, as the cost of plans continues to go up. In the McKinsey survey, of those who had decided _not_ to sign up for Obamacare, the most common reason was the &#8220;affordability&#8221; of the offered plans. Indications from insurers like Aetna and WellPoint is that the premiums on the exchange will go up substantially next year.

http://www.forbes.com/sites/theapot...-sign-ups-were-from-the-previously-uninsured/


----------



## sidepasser (May 10, 2002)

Ambereyes said:


> This little snippet from the link is significant.. Significant being the key word as to cost increases.
> 
> This is a problem that may get worse over time, as the cost of plans continues to go up. In the McKinsey survey, of those who had decided _not_ to sign up for Obamacare, the most common reason was the &#8220;affordability&#8221; of the offered plans. Indications from insurers like Aetna and WellPoint is that the premiums on the exchange will go up substantially next year.
> 
> http://www.forbes.com/sites/theapot...-sign-ups-were-from-the-previously-uninsured/



It only makes sense that the premiums will go up as there are not enough healthy YOUNG people signing up to carry the sicker, OLDER more in need, people.

I don't think most people understand that a system designed to be a risk pool requires that the majority of people in that risk pool be LOW risk so as to manage the risk for all people in the pool.

It's like having one strong swimmer trying to rescue three people who cannot swim at all..they all drown together.

On the other hand, corporations being the capitalist enterprises they are, are not going to take a beating on profits that will erode their stockholder's value for very long. The only reason a corporation exists is to MAKE MONEY for stockholders. No other reason. Sure they spout "love and happiness" for all, green team membership, and Water Day, and other mantras of social responsibility - those ideas help sell their products to segments of the population who might not buy otherwise. Ultimately when the Ocare begins to affect the bottom line to the point of stockholder losses..those corporations will pull out and discontinue to offer this insurance.

Then what? Everyone goes on Medicaid? If you think I'm making this up..
well there is this little snippet:

_There is so much uncertainty about Obamacare that Aetna, the U.S.'s third-largest insurance provider, may be forced to double its rates or opt out of the program, the company's CEO, Mark Bertolini, told CNBC on Thursday._
http://www.entrepreneur.com/article/231351

Founded in Hartford, Conn., in 1850, Aetna withdrew its application to participate in that state on Monday, the _Hartford Courant_ reported. The company said it was withdrawing from there and in Georgia and Maryland because limitations the state governments would impose on their rates would not allow them to make money.
&#8220;We have spent considerable time identifying those states in which we can be competitive and add the most value to the market,&#8221; Aetna said in a statement. &#8220;As a result of our analysis, we have reluctantly concluded that we will withdraw certain Individual Exchange filings for 2014, including filings in Connecticut, Georgia and Maryland.&#8221;
&#8220;This is not a step taken lightly, and was made as part of a national review of our Exchange strategy,&#8221; the company said. &#8220;Unfortunately, we believe the modifications to the rates filed by Aetna will not allow us to collect enough premiums to cover the cost of the plans and meet the service expectations of our customers.&#8221;
- See more at: http://cnsnews.com/news/article/blu...flee-obamacare-exchanges#sthash.Bs3xWO3U.dpuf

I think as more companies lose money, there will be more that opt out of providing coverage. Currently Blue Cross, Aetna, United and Humana have decided not to participate in state exchanges where they will not be able to make a profit.



http://cnsnews.com/news/article/blu...flee-obamacare-exchanges#sthash.Bs3xWO3U.dpuf


----------



## Molly Mckee (Jul 8, 2006)

Nevada said:


> Under the ACA the government doesn't make payments to medical providers. All ACA insurance is private, so medical bills are handled by private insurance companies.


Who is paying the insurance companies? Very little insurance has been sold here with out being subsidized and 80% is Medicaid. If the government doesn't get the payment part of the program working it's going to be a disaster.


----------



## Nevada (Sep 9, 2004)

sidepasser said:


> Then what? Everyone goes on Medicaid?


Sure, some kind of single payer system.


----------



## Ambereyes (Sep 6, 2004)

Molly Mckee said:


> Who is paying the insurance companies? Very little insurance has been sold here with out being subsidized and 80% is Medicaid. If the government doesn't get the payment part of the program working it's going to be a disaster.



It is a disaster, when the increases on premiums hit the few that did sign up the fireworks will be wild.


----------



## sidepasser (May 10, 2002)

I just read this article regarding anticipated rate hikes. It appears that the insurance companies are already telling Obama that there will be hikes and the rate increases may be dramatic. 

_But insurers have already said that the first group of new enrollees under Obamacare, as the law is widely known, represent a higher rate of older and costlier members than hoped. To keep their health plans from losing money in the coming years, many expect monthly premium rates to rise by double-digit percentages in some parts of the country._
_That could set the stage for a public outcry ahead of congressional elections this year, giving ammunition to Republicans and creating new friction with the White House that could endure into the 2016 presidential election._
_"I do think that it's likely premium rate shocks are coming. I think they begin to make themselves at least partially known in 2015 and fully known in 2016," said Chet Burrell, chief executive officer of CareFirst BlueCross BlueShield. "That will be different in different parts of the country. I don't think it will be uniformly the same."_


_http://news.yahoo.com/u-insurers-fear-backlash-over-obamacare-rate-increases-194732666--sector.html_


Insurers know that if they do not get enough young, healthy people to sign up, they will lose money. Now they are trying to figure out how to keep from being the scapegoat in all this.

_The average monthly insurance premium in 2014 for an individual is $328 nationwide, according to government data. But the figures varied widely by state, and within states. More than 80 percent of people signing up for Obamacare this year were also eligible for government subsidies, in the form of tax credits and cost-sharing assistance, to offset their monthly costs._
_At the same time, several million Americans who were already insured under the individual market faced the cancellation of their policies this year, creating a political firestorm for Obama, who had promised that consumers who liked their existing plans could keep them._
http://news.yahoo.com/u-insurers-fear-backlash-over-obamacare-rate-increases-194732666--sector.html


----------



## Kasota (Nov 25, 2013)

Three Broken Promises:
If you like your doctor you can keep your doctor. 
If you like your plan you can keep your plan. 
Rates will decrease. (remember that 2500.00 savings per family?) 

One True Statement:
You have to pass the bill to find out what's in it. 

If a business pulled this - told you their services would cover xyz for a given price and they failed to deliver - it would be breach of contract at the least and fraud at the worst. 

Add to that the disaster unfolding for Medicare recipients as Medicare funds are looted to pay for Obamacare. Yes, I said Obamacare. He owns this. 

Just sayin'


----------



## Tricky Grama (Oct 7, 2006)

Molly Mckee said:


> Who is paying the insurance companies? Very little insurance has been sold here with out being subsidized and 80% is Medicaid. If the government doesn't get the payment part of the program working it's going to be a disaster.


 The law provides for the gov't to subsidize the ins co.s w/infinite am't of $$$. 
Isn't that great!


----------



## Tricky Grama (Oct 7, 2006)

Ambereyes said:


> It is a disaster, when the increases on premiums hit the few that did sign up the fireworks will be wild.


Premiums are already set to double in many areas.


----------



## Tricky Grama (Oct 7, 2006)

Kasota said:


> Three Broken Promises:
> If you like your doctor you can keep your doctor.
> If you like your plan you can keep your plan.
> Rates will decrease. (remember that 2500.00 savings per family?)
> ...


----------



## davel745 (Feb 2, 2009)

Shygal said:


> So its Obama's fault that people have old computer monitors, and that the states that MAKE the website don't do a good job. Alrighty then.


so not only are we being forced to buy something we cant afford or want but now we are being forced to buy a new computer to sign up NOT


----------



## TheMartianChick (May 26, 2009)

I can't speak for other areas, but in NY you can apply online, via phone, by mail or you can go into a Social Service-type office to do it in person. Do the other states not have those options?


----------



## Molly Mckee (Jul 8, 2006)

You can here, but when the computer goes down nothing can be entered. So you have no idea if you have insurance or how much the cost is.


----------



## Nevada (Sep 9, 2004)

Molly Mckee said:


> You can here, but when the computer goes down nothing can be entered. So you have no idea if you have insurance or how much the cost is.


I think we have the option of either online or by phone here in Nevada. But I'm not clear if the phone signup is just having the clerk signup online for you. Either way the cost would be obvious.

But I have other specific complaints about the exchange. I'm not blaming the ACA or the state exchange for anything. I blame the contractor, Xerox. I'm beginning to suspect that it's being done deliberately, possibly even political sabotage.

First, people making between 133% and 250% are eligible for reduced copays (Cost Sharing Reductions, or CSRs), but only if they signup for a silver plan. Some incomes only have a 6% copay, better than gold or platinum copays. But if a low income person signs up for a gold or platinum plan he will pay more and get less than if he got a silver plan. The exchange website doesn't indicate that at all. It's as if they don't want you to know.

The other problem is that if you qualify for CSRs the insurance company isn't honoring the reduced copays. The insurance company representatives say they've never heard of CSRs. I filed a complaint with the exchange about that on January 20th and have made two follow-up calls, but nothing has been done. I'm not really getting any help from the exchange on this.

There is no real ACA grievance procedure except to complain to the exchange. But, as you can imagine, that doesn't do a lot of good when the complaint involves the exchange.


----------



## sidepasser (May 10, 2002)

There appears to have been no risk management or quality control involved with the companies who were in charge of creating exchanges. I read where Maryland is going to dump their state exchange after spending 125 million to get it going and will be paying for a system similar to the CT exchange. 

I believe that had there been people who understood IT in charge of the project working with the companies that were creating the exchanges, a great deal of money could have been saved and the exchanges would likely work better.

The average person has no clue how coding works, infrastructure is built, etc. and to place "government officials" with no background in these areas in charge of this project was pretty stupid in my opinion. Thank goodness these folks are not in charge of private businesses..they would drive a good company into bankruptcy! From a tech point of view, I have been in many meetings where a design has been in progress for weeks, then someone will pipe up and want to "just add this feature" without any knowledge of what "just adding this feature" entails. It will generally create cost over runs, bad code or a rework of a system entirely. It is VERY important to map out a process from start to finish and include the details so that those who are in development have a clear understanding of what the system is supposed to do. Deviations can be made, but should not be made at the last minute and for goodness sake, test the system for weeks in advance (we test at every major milestone) and do risk management.

It's no wonder the whole thing isn't working properly, I bet there were umpteen changes thrust upon Xerox and I will bet dollars to donuts that Xerox did try to push back and probably told the government that "this is going to cost X and probably will not work" and we need to do testing before we do X and good ole pencil pushing government officials thought a magic fairy was going to make "everything ok"..sigh..


----------



## sidepasser (May 10, 2002)

Another fallout of Ocare is that after the enrollment period ended - no one can purchase insurance even if they have the funds to do so until the next enrollment period next year.

that means everyone who wants insurance cannot walk into an ins. company and plunk down cash and buy a policy. Nope, nada, nothing..sucks to be you who gets laid off mid-year w/o insurance...

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/201...o-buy-insurance-year-round/?intcmp=latestnews

_Here's more fallout from the health care law: Until now, customers could walk into an insurance office or go online to buy standard health care coverage any time of year. Not anymore. _
_Many people who didn't sign up during the government's open enrollment period that ended Monday will soon find it difficult or impossible to get insured this year, even if they go directly to a private company and money is no object. For some it's already too late. _
_With limited exceptions, insurers are refusing to sell to individuals after the enrollment period for HealthCare.gov and the state marketplaces. They will lock out the young and healthy as well as the sick or injured. Those who want to switch plans also are affected. The next wide-open chance to enroll comes in November for coverage in 2015. 
_


I believe that most think that March 31 was the deadline to enroll in Ocare and did not realize that it also is the deadline for purchasing insurance on one's own with out going through the exchanges. Ins. co. are not selling new policies due to the risk involved.


----------



## Nevada (Sep 9, 2004)

sidepasser said:


> I believe that most think that March 31 was the deadline to enroll in Ocare and did not realize that it also is the deadline for purchasing insurance on one's own with out going through the exchanges. Ins. co. are not selling new policies due to the risk involved.


I think open enrollment is already to generous. In fact I believe it's so generous that it will eventually be modified to be more restrictive.

You see, during open enrollment each fall subscribers can change to any plan they wish. If you couple that with the provision that they can't turn you down for pre-existing conditions, it spells trouble.

The problem is that if someone is carrying catastrophic insurance and is diagnosed with cancer he can simply change to a platinum plan during the next open enrollment period. This is possible because some health problems unfold at a slow pace, even though your doctor might be able to make an accurate prognosis for years in advance. Taking out platinum insurance after being diagnosed with cancer would be analogous to getting better fire insurance after your house catches fire.


----------



## sidepasser (May 10, 2002)

You are correct, but if there is no restriction on pre-existing conditions, then would it affect the insured to switch to a better plan? I know the insurer will be affected as they will have to pay out more to cover the insured.

I just read that the White House has delayed closure of open enrollment until April 15, 2014 due to the glitches that people encountered trying to enroll last week.

So..there is another 2 week period for those that do not have ins. to get some through the exchanges.


----------



## Nevada (Sep 9, 2004)

sidepasser said:


> You are correct, but if there is no restriction on pre-existing conditions, then would it affect the insured to switch to a better plan?


So far as I can tell anyone can change to any plan during the open enrollment period. The premiums will be higher for a platinum plan, but cancer patients will be happy to pay a little extra for platinum benefits.


----------



## cast iron (Oct 4, 2004)

Something I've been wondering about is if the folks who qualified for subsidies have started receiving them yet? My understanding is you need to choose between two methods, one is a calculated monthly subsidy payment and the other is to have the subsidy determined on your year end taxes.

Just curious if there have been any reports of folks who selected the monthly option successfully receiving the payments?


----------



## Nevada (Sep 9, 2004)

Wayne02 said:


> Something I've been wondering about is if the folks who qualified for subsidies have started receiving them yet?


Sure. The insurance plan I selected costs about $550/month, but I only pay about $50/month. I pay my share to the exchange each month, then the exchange pays the entire premium to the insurance company. So I've been getting the $500/month subsidy each month since Jan 1.


----------



## Tricky Grama (Oct 7, 2006)

Here's a link saying what most of us have been for some time...

http://www.newsmax.com/Newsfront/Pe..._mail_job=1563197_04042014&promo_code=17162-1

But while Republicans were alarmed, Democrats for the next three years were inspired and "would carry on like blithering idiots making believe they'd read the bill and understood its implications," wrote Noonan. 

The White House, meanwhile, "lied in a way so specific it showed they knew exactly what to spin and how," Noonan said, including President Barack Obama's promises that Americans could keep their healthcare plans and doctors.

However, that wasn't true, as "your existing policy had to pass muster with the administration, which would fight to the death to ensure that 60-year-old women have pediatric dental coverage," said Noonan.

But the bill has not insured tens of millions of uninsured Americans, as promised, but it "has terrorized millions who did have insurance and lost it, or who still have insurance and may lose it," she said.



​


----------



## Melissa (Apr 15, 2002)

If you lose your insurance during a time that is not open enrollment, you can't apply at all?


----------



## ErinP (Aug 23, 2007)

Yes. That's one of the life-change exceptions that's allowed (just like adding new kids, a new marriage, etc.)
Contrary to what keeps showing up in this thread, there are only a few exceptions that allow for policy shopping between open enrollments. ...An illness is _not_ one, but loss of insurance IS.


----------



## Ambereyes (Sep 6, 2004)

If I lose insurance, oh well. Just continue seeing my doctor in Mexico. Don't qualify for subsidies anyway so no biggie. :dance:


----------



## parthy (Mar 17, 2008)

Nevada said:


> Sure. The insurance plan I selected costs about $550/month, but I only pay about $50/month. I pay my share to the exchange each month, then the exchange pays the entire premium to the insurance company. So I've been getting the $500/month subsidy each month since Jan 1.



I am surprised no one has commented on this. I have relatives in the States who have been blown away with their premiums and they are no where near being rich. $500 a month subsidy is $6000 a year. Multiply that by a few million or many million and that adds up to a whole lot of money. I couldn't come up with 6 grand a year extra if you held a gun to my head. If I stopped eating it would only help by $2400. 

I guess what I am saying is the numbers are all over the place depending on where you live apparently. Or something. I am really confused about all this.


----------



## TheMartianChick (May 26, 2009)

ErinP said:


> Yes. That's one of the life-change exceptions that's allowed (just like adding new kids, a new marriage, etc.)
> Contrary to what keeps showing up in this thread, there are only a few exceptions that allow for policy shopping between open enrollments. ...An illness is _not_ one, but loss of insurance IS.


I was just about to post this! On the NY exchange, instead of the Enroll Here button, there is now one that says Life Changing Events (or something to that effect). If you lose your job and no longer have coverage, then that is considered to be a qualifying event. If your insurance was through your spouse and he/she loses a job, you can visit the exchange to get signed up. Adopting a child, having a baby and having a drop in income that no longer makes you eligible for the policy that you signed up for will allow you to re-visit the exchange to make changes.


----------



## Nevada (Sep 9, 2004)

parthy said:


> I guess what I am saying is the numbers are all over the place depending on where you live apparently.


Actually, $550/month to insure a 63 year old person isn't bad. I ran my numbers for northern Nevada where I used to live and insurance would be more like $800/month


----------



## ErinP (Aug 23, 2007)

That was something else that got tossed though; that of coverage being available across state lines.


----------



## Coco (Jun 8, 2007)

I just want to chime in here, I was injured at work , last May, I chose the option of Chiropractic along with physical therapy. Apparently it costs was more than my family can afford. Our insurance hit the roof, so my husband took employee only, the rate is 20 per week for only him. If I could have stayed on the insurance our premiums would have been$1000 per week. go figure. I signed up for Obama care and guess what , My insurance alone was going to cost over $1000 per month and a high decut. Over 10,000. We can't afford it, I will have to just give up when I can't afford to be productive anymore. 
And Shy please stop making a scene, you have no CLUE what this is doing to families. It
is going to break the banks of most of us that work and make under 75,000 per year.


----------



## Nevada (Sep 9, 2004)

ErinP said:


> That was something else that got tossed though; that of coverage being available across state lines.


Insurance companies are free to operate across state lines now. They just have to follow state insurance regulations. Some insurance companies don't want to do that for all states.


----------



## Coco (Jun 8, 2007)

moi have affordable health care for my family, I just can't have it for me for under 1000 per month, and you are all right that thinks they are trying to dispose of the useless eaters. I'm one of them and I can't even quailfily for obama care that was to to be free to us the have to pay and give and there is enough money to help with treatments, I know I do not quilfily for any kind of treatment but I will go with GOD and I will be happy


----------



## Tricky Grama (Oct 7, 2006)

Another 'glitch'...
http://www.theblaze.com/stories/201...e-that-will-leave-many-americans-out-of-luck/

With limited exceptions, insurance companies have stopped selling until next year the sorts of individual plans that used to be available year-round. That locks out many of the young and healthy as well as the sick and injured, even those who can afford to buy without government subsidies.


----------



## Dixie Bee Acres (Jul 22, 2013)

To everyone signing up for Ocare, let me say, you are welcome.
It is my pleasure to have to help pay for your insurance. Would amy of you like to return the favor and help pay my property taxes? Or phone bill? How bout grocery bill?
Of course that brings up another one, I am probably helping to buy groceries for some people too.


----------



## painterswife (Jun 7, 2004)

Dixie Bee Acres said:


> To everyone signing up for Ocare, let me say, you are welcome.
> It is my pleasure to have to help pay for your insurance. Would amy of you like to return the favor and help pay my property taxes? Or phone bill? How bout grocery bill?
> Of course that brings up another one, I am probably helping to buy groceries for some people too.


How do you know you are paying for their insurance?

Do you know how much they already pay or have paid in taxes? Is your health insurance company provided and therefore before tax while theirs is after tax.


----------



## Dixie Bee Acres (Jul 22, 2013)

Socialized medical care is socialized medical care no matter how you look at it. Don't try selling me a lump of coal when you are holding a big turd.


----------



## painterswife (Jun 7, 2004)

Dixie Bee Acres said:


> Socialized medical care is socialized medical care no matter how you look at it. Don't try selling me a lump of coal when you are holding a big turd.


I guess that means you have no answers. For all we know you are getting subsidies or tax free heath insurance (subsidized by other tax payers) from your company.


----------



## Dutchie (Mar 14, 2003)

Dixie Bee Acres said:


> To everyone signing up for Ocare, let me say, you are welcome.
> It is my pleasure to have to help pay for your insurance. Would amy of you like to return the favor and help pay my property taxes? Or phone bill? How bout grocery bill?
> Of course that brings up another one, I am probably helping to buy groceries for some people too.


You do realize that you were already subsidizing uninsured people who would utilize emergency rooms and Medicaid before they had private insurance available to them, right?


----------



## Molly Mckee (Jul 8, 2006)

People that don't need subsidies are getting them--you really think someone that makes over $70,000.00 a year need subsidies? Or all the new medicaid, really need it, especially those that had insurance partly paid for by their employer's? Now it's all on us, but some of us don't qualify for help. And it varies from state to state. And you will still be "paying" for those millions that do not have insurance. When you factor in all those who lost their insurance because it was not good enough, all the numbers I've seen show a net loss of insured. 

If the millions and millions of dollars that went into this disaster had been used to add some type of low cost insurance to our mostly working medical care system, it would have been a lot more benefit to more people.


----------



## sidepasser (May 10, 2002)

ErinP said:


> Yes. That's one of the life-change exceptions that's allowed (just like adding new kids, a new marriage, etc.)
> Contrary to what keeps showing up in this thread, there are only a few exceptions that allow for policy shopping between open enrollments. ...An illness is _not_ one, but loss of insurance IS.


Are you saying this is not true?


_http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2014...cmp=latestnews

Here's more fallout from the health care law: *Until now, customers could walk into an insurance office or go online to buy standard health care coverage any time of year. Not anymore. *

Many people who didn't sign up during the government's open enrollment period that ended Monday will soon find it difficult or impossible to get insured this year, even if they go directly to a private company and money is no object. For some it's already too late. 

*With limited exceptions, insurers are refusing to sell to individuals after the enrollment period for HealthCare.gov and the state marketplaces. *They will lock out the young and healthy as well as the sick or injured. Those who want to switch plans also are affected. The next wide-open chance to enroll comes in November for coverage in 2015. 
_


----------



## ErinP (Aug 23, 2007)

Tricky Grama said:


> Another 'glitch'...
> http://www.theblaze.com/stories/201...e-that-will-leave-many-americans-out-of-luck/
> 
> With limited exceptions, insurance companies have stopped selling until next year the sorts of individual plans that used to be available year-round. That locks out many of the young and healthy as well as the sick and injured, even those who can afford to buy without government subsidies.


That's not a glitch. 
They've been telling us flat out for several YEARS now that this would function like a group insurance in that there would be a period for open enrollment and if you choose not to do it then, you're out of luck until the next period of open enrollment. 
I know folks here have been telling YOU that, for months, every time you claimed that people would be able to sign up after they were sick.
Why do you think so much was made about the March 31st deadline? What do you think "deadline" _means_? 



Dixie Bee Acres said:


> To everyone signing up for Ocare, let me say, you are welcome.
> It is my pleasure to have to help pay for your insurance. Would amy of you like to return the favor and help pay my property taxes? Or phone bill? How bout grocery bill?
> Of course that brings up another one, I am probably helping to buy groceries for some people too.


This indicates both a confusion of the ACA itself, as well as who the taxpayers are in this country... :shrug:


----------



## ErinP (Aug 23, 2007)

sidepasser said:


> Are you saying this is not true?
> 
> 
> _http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2014...cmp=latestnews
> ...


It's completely true. It's exactly what I said. 

(why are people surprised by this? Why is this considered the latest news? Are people just not paying attention??)
It was _intended_ to function like employer-based insurance--enrollments at certain times of the year ONLY except in the case of life-changing events, like new babies or new employees. And the subsidies are comparable to the employer picking up part of the cost, in that instead of the employer, it's the tax base.


----------



## Molly Mckee (Jul 8, 2006)

What hasn't gotten publicity is that you can't buy private insurance once the enrollment period was over. Not from the exchange, from your neighborhood insurance sales man.


----------



## arabian knight (Dec 19, 2005)

Molly Mckee said:


> What hasn't gotten publicity is that you can't buy private insurance once the enrollment period was over. Not from the exchange, from your neighborhood insurance sales man.


And that alone Stinks.
Even People that on Medicare can Switch Anytime they want IF you Move Up, or stay on a even keel. But you can't go to a cheaper policy but You Can Move up to a better one, as long as it is rated I believe it says 5 stars on the Medicare site.


----------



## painterswife (Jun 7, 2004)

arabian knight said:


> And that alone Stinks.
> Even People that on Medicare can Switch Anytime they want IF you Move Up, or stay on a even keel. But you can't go to a cheaper policy but You Can Move up to a better one, as long as it is rated I believe it says 5 stars on the Medicare site.


It stinks but it is the decision of the Insurance Companies.


----------



## Nimrod (Jun 8, 2010)

I was told that I am eligible for Medicaid at any time. I sent in the application to MNsure before the March 31 deadline but I have not signed up for anything yet. I am waiting for the official determination of what insurance I qualified for. It's sort of like they pulled a Polosi on me. I had to fill out the app with all my info before they will tell me what I can get.

In states like MN, where they expanded Medicaid, the only requirement is that you make a very low income. You could own a McMansion or a few sections of land but still get Medicaid. There is something wrong with the taxpayers paying for insurance for someone that could buy their own.

In my own case, I had a small stroke 7 years ago and don't have the energy to work. I had to quit my job. I couldn't prove disability so I didn't get it. I could not afford insurance so I went without. I could not get Medicaid because I had a house. I used the equity I had in the house to support myself until I got close to getting SS retirement, then sold the house and moved to my 5 acres with an old mobile home. I am now getting SS retirement and can live on it because I am living cheaply. I have no mortgage, water bill, sewer bill, garbage bill, and fees. Taxes are $150 a year. I heat with wood. I am glad that I can get Medicaid but I think there should be an asset limit to get it. I figure that my having my land and old mobile home allows me to live as cheaply as possible. After working since I was 14, I should not be homeless. Medicaid needs an asset cap that is just big enough so someone can have a cheap place to live.


----------



## Nevada (Sep 9, 2004)

arabian knight said:


> And that alone Stinks.
> Even People that on Medicare can Switch Anytime they want IF you Move Up, or stay on a even keel. But you can't go to a cheaper policy but You Can Move up to a better one, as long as it is rated I believe it says 5 stars on the Medicare site.


I thought you could only change Medicare Advantage and Medicare Part D policies during the annual open enrollment period.


----------



## Nevada (Sep 9, 2004)

sidepasser said:


> Are you saying this is not true?
> 
> 
> _http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2014...cmp=latestnews
> ...


ehealthinsurance.com is still selling plans online, and it's a week after March 31. Prices are somewhat higher (~$25/month) than exchange prices, but policies are available.


----------



## arabian knight (Dec 19, 2005)

Nevada said:


> I thought you could only change Medicare Advantage and Medicare Part D policies during the annual open enrollment period.


 can't remember which insurance company but they even advertise this 5 star move on Radio and TV ads. It says on that ad even Don't believe you have to wait till open enrollment to make a move especially if you are going to a better coverage. Moving UP to a 5 state company.



> 5-Star special enrollment period
> Medicare uses information from member satisfaction surveys, plans, and health care providers to give overall performance star ratings to plans. A plan can get a rating between 1 and 5 stars. A 5-star rating is considered excellent. These ratings help you compare plans based on quality and performance. The ratings are updated each fall and can change each year.
> 
> Note
> You can switch to a 5-star Medicare Advantage Plan, Medicare Cost Plan, or Medicare Prescription Drug Plan once from December 8&#8211;November 30.


 That is lacking one week of being a full years time. One switch is allowed in that time period.

http://www.medicare.gov/sign-up-change-plans/when-can-i-join-a-health-or-drug-plan/five-star-enrollment/5-star-enrollment-period.html


----------



## ErinP (Aug 23, 2007)

Nevada said:


> ehealthinsurance.com is still selling plans online, and it's a week after March 31. Prices are somewhat higher (~$25/month) than exchange prices, but policies are available.


All I'm seeing for my state are short-term plans from companies I've never even heard of (that are designed to carry you through to the next open enrollment). Otherwise, you need to click on a "qualifying life event" in order to sign up for a plan. I was just there last week, before we completed our marketplace sign-up. It's a completely different process now.



Molly Mckee said:


> What hasn't gotten publicity is that you can't buy private insurance once the enrollment period was over. Not from the exchange, from your neighborhood insurance sales man.


:hrm:
yes, it did... 
Like I said, what do you think "deadline" means?


----------



## Nevada (Sep 9, 2004)

ErinP said:


> All I'm seeing for my state are short-term plans from companies I've never even heard of (that are designed to carry you through to the next open enrollment). Otherwise, you need to click on a "qualifying life event" in order to sign up for a plan. I was just there last week, before we completed our marketplace sign-up. It's a completely different process now.


Hmmm. For my zip code it takes me to regular plans. I even see the plan I signed up for at the exchange in there, just for a little higher price.


----------



## Tricky Grama (Oct 7, 2006)

Maybe some of you should google 'unintended consequences of Obamcare'.
Here's another-

About 1,800 families in New Jersey received letters last week informing them their children would be losing their health coverage because the Affordable Care Act effectively eliminated a state program for low-income residents.​ 
According to *NJ.com*, Obamacare's new mandated requirements forced the closure of New Jersey's low-cost children's insurance coverage plan, FamilyCare Advantage. 
The plan, offered by Horizon Blue Cross Blue Shield of New Jersey, was designed for children whose parents make too much money to qualify for Medicaid but too little to buy a policy on their own. It offered medical, dental, and vision coverage for just $144 a month. ​


----------



## Nevada (Sep 9, 2004)

Tricky Grama said:


> Maybe some of you should google 'unintended consequences of Obamcare'.
> Here's another-
> 
> About 1,800 families in New Jersey received letters last week informing them their children would be losing their health coverage because the Affordable Care Act effectively eliminated a state program for low-income residents.​
> ...


But since NJ expanded Medicaid, won't they be picked up by Medicaid?


----------



## Kasota (Nov 25, 2013)

snip from that article on NJ.com:



> Vitale said he tried for several months to broker a deal between Horizon and the U.S. Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services, but neither side could agree on how to make it affordable and legal. The program ended last week.
> 
> People who tried to buy a plan on the health exchange would have been hit with sticker shock, Vitale said. FamilyCare Advantage had no deductible, compared with the less generous Horizon plan on the exchange that has a minimum deductible of $1,500. And most people would not have qualified for subsidies through the exchange because they earned too much money, he said.


----------



## MO_cows (Aug 14, 2010)

painterswife said:


> I guess that means you have no answers. For all we know you are getting subsidies or tax free heath insurance (subsidized by other tax payers) from your company.


Back the truck up! When someone gets health insurance from their employer, it is NOT being subsidized by the other tax payers. It is being subsidized by the COMPANY. 

Just because something exists and the govt. does not (yet) tax it, does not make it subsidized!


----------



## painterswife (Jun 7, 2004)

MO_cows said:


> Back the truck up! When someone gets health insurance from their employer, it is NOT being subsidized by the other tax payers. It is being subsidized by the COMPANY.
> 
> Just because something exists and the govt. does not (yet) tax it, does not make it subsidized!


When someone gets something tax free, while others have to pay tax on it, it is subsidized. The employee get employment compensation without paying SS and medicare and income tax on it. The company gets to not pay SS and medicare.


----------



## Nevada (Sep 9, 2004)

MO_cows said:


> When someone gets health insurance from their employer, it is NOT being subsidized by the other tax payers.


Actually, it is. In fact the $1 trillion cost of the ACA over the next 10 years pales in comparison to the employer insurance subsidy. Employer insurance is subsidized by the federal government to the tune of $250 billion each year ($2.5 trillion over 10 years), amounting to 2 1/2 times the cost of Obamacare.

_Government for decades has directly subsidized individuals&#8217; costs of employer-based health care, to the tune of roughly $250 billion every year &#8211; sums far greater than the annual costs of the subsidized insurance coverage provisions of the Affordable Care Act._
http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs...uge-health-care-subsidy-everyone-is-ignoring/


----------



## fordy (Sep 13, 2003)

painterswife said:


> How do you know you are paying for their insurance?
> 
> Do you know how much they already pay or have paid in taxes? Is your health insurance company provided and therefore before tax while theirs is after tax.


 ..............Every dollar the gov't spends that adds to the deficit creates a general liability for ALL tax payers until it is paid off ! , fordy


----------



## Kasota (Nov 25, 2013)

Then make health insurance premiums tax deductible for all, regardless of whether they are partially paid for by an employer or not. I have long been an advocate of that! Or if the preference is to have taxes paid on all health insurance dollars spent - then make the subsidies people get through Obamacare taxable. Can't have it both ways. 

Government is inherently inefficient. How much of every dollar taxed goes to government processing and wages for people working in the IRS, etc? How much of every dollar ACTUALLY goes to pay for road, bridges, and expensive camel structures in foreign countries? The fewer dollars that get funneled through the federal and state governments to accomplish the same end the more efficient and cost effective the spending of those dollars becomes. How much does it cost business to jump through all the hoops to comply with overly burdensome regulations? If they didn't have to spend all those dollars over compliance issues they would have more money to invest in their business and hire more workers. I would rather keep it simple and close to home. 

My insurance premiums through work now have an ACA transition tax, so I'm paying to subsidize other people's premiums. Should I have to pay taxes on the money used to pay a tax so that other people can have tax-free subsidies?

We can go round and round on the tax issue until the cows come home. One could also argue that funds paid to cover an employee's share of employer sponsored health insurance reduce their SS benefit - something that doesn't impact other people who are getting their premiums subsidized by money that comes out of my pocket. 

This is one of the reasons I'm all for a flat tax. Once you start picking and choosing who has to comply and who has to pay taxes and who doesn't you end up with a system that is going to be "unfair" so someone...at least in the other party's eyes.


----------



## Tricky Grama (Oct 7, 2006)

painterswife said:


> I guess that means you have no answers. For all we know you are getting subsidies or tax free heath insurance (subsidized by other tax payers) from your company.


Is that mandatory that you sign up?
Is there any choice in what you get?
Is there a penalty-actually a TAX-if you don't?

Is your employer ins the largest tax hike EVER on the American people?

The FACT that 6 mill people were dropped from their ins. AND THEY LIKED their ins.-in order to insure 1/1 million is a travesty in itself.


----------



## Tricky Grama (Oct 7, 2006)

Dutchie said:


> You do realize that you were already subsidizing uninsured people who would utilize emergency rooms and Medicaid before they had private insurance available to them, right?


Sooo, where will the 40 million who are now/still uninsured get their medical care now?


----------



## Tricky Grama (Oct 7, 2006)

Nimrod said:


> I was told that I am eligible for Medicaid at any time. I sent in the application to MNsure before the March 31 deadline but I have not signed up for anything yet. I am waiting for the official determination of what insurance I qualified for. It's sort of like they pulled a Polosi on me. I had to fill out the app with all my info before they will tell me what I can get.
> 
> In states like MN, where they expanded Medicaid, the only requirement is that you make a very low income. You could own a McMansion or a few sections of land but still get Medicaid. There is something wrong with the taxpayers paying for insurance for someone that could buy their own.
> 
> In my own case, I had a small stroke 7 years ago and don't have the energy to work. I had to quit my job. I couldn't prove disability so I didn't get it. I could not afford insurance so I went without. I could not get Medicaid because I had a house. I used the equity I had in the house to support myself until I got close to getting SS retirement, then sold the house and moved to my 5 acres with an old mobile home. I am now getting SS retirement and can live on it because I am living cheaply. I have no mortgage, water bill, sewer bill, garbage bill, and fees. Taxes are $150 a year. I heat with wood. I am glad that I can get Medicaid but I think there should be an asset limit to get it. I figure that my having my land and old mobile home allows me to live as cheaply as possible. After working since I was 14, I should not be homeless. Medicaid needs an asset cap that is just big enough so someone can have a cheap place to live.


Prayers & good thoughts, Nimrod.


----------



## no really (Aug 7, 2013)

I decided to just cancel my insurance, it took to large a jump in costs and when it had to meet compliance regs, I found there was just to much junk in it that I couldn't or wouldn't use. The deductibles became high, out of pocket and co-pays were a joke.

I am one of the younger, the target group. In my company a large proportion of the employees are in the under 40 bracket, seems most did not keep their policies. The sticker shock was just to much. 

But I am able to use the VA or simply trot over the border and use care there. I travel a lot for work and the out of network side is not worth the trouble.


----------



## Nevada (Sep 9, 2004)

Tricky Grama said:


> Sooo, where will the 40 million who are now/still uninsured get their medical care now?


I think it's fair to ask at this point why conservatives are so concerned about the uninsured today. This is in stark contrast to a complete lack of concern for uninsured Americans before the ACA. Have the uninsured suddenly gained status that they didn't used to have?

I was uninsured before the ACA. Why weren't conservatives this concerned about my situation?


----------



## susieneddy (Sep 2, 2011)

no really said:


> I decided to just cancel my insurance, it took to large a jump in costs and when it had to meet compliance regs, I found there was just to much junk in it that I couldn't or wouldn't use. The deductibles became high, out of pocket and co-pays were a joke.
> 
> I am one of the younger, the target group. In my company a large proportion of the employees are in the under 40 bracket, seems most did not keep their policies. The sticker shock was just to much.
> 
> But I am able to use the VA or simply trot over the border and use care there. I travel a lot for work and the out of network side is not worth the trouble.


I have no idea how old you are but the younger people (20-30) where I work got insurance for 160.00 a month. One guy even added dental insurance so his monthly bill is 180.00. That price sure beats the old price he was paying and it didn't include dental


----------



## mnn2501 (Apr 2, 2008)

Nevada said:


> I think it's fair to ask at this point why conservatives are so concerned about the uninsured today. This is in stark contrast to a complete lack of concern for uninsured Americans before the ACA. Have the uninsured suddenly gained status that they didn't used to have?
> 
> I was uninsured before the ACA. Why weren't conservatives this concerned about my situation?


Because they knew you were able to get a job.


----------



## Nevada (Sep 9, 2004)

susieneddy said:


> I have no idea how old you are but the younger people (20-30) where I work got insurance for 160.00 a month. One guy even added dental insurance so his monthly bill is 180.00. That price sure beats the old price he was paying and it didn't include dental


That's true. I've looked at insurance rates for 20-somethings and it's a whole lot less than insurance for an old guy like me. Of course it also makes a difference where you live.


----------



## Nevada (Sep 9, 2004)

mnn2501 said:


> Because they knew you were able to get a job.


But it wasn't just me, it was also tens of millions of other Americans without insurance.


----------



## MO_cows (Aug 14, 2010)

painterswife said:


> When someone gets something tax free, while others have to pay tax on it, it is subsidized. The employee get employment compensation without paying SS and medicare and income tax on it. The company gets to not pay SS and medicare.


Just because the govt has not specifically levied a tax on something, doesn't make it subsidized! 

The premiums for health insurance, life insurance, disability, whatever the employer offers, are not considered wages and therefore not subject to income tax, SS or MC. 

It used to be chump change, but now that health insurance has gotten so expensive it is a substantial amount of money and apparently now the tax and spend side is drooling over it.


----------



## MO_cows (Aug 14, 2010)

Nevada said:


> I think it's fair to ask at this point why conservatives are so concerned about the uninsured today. This is in stark contrast to a complete lack of concern for uninsured Americans before the ACA. Have the uninsured suddenly gained status that they didn't used to have?
> 
> I was uninsured before the ACA. Why weren't conservatives this concerned about my situation?


Your situation was self inflicted. You decided to retire early but didn't have all your ducks in a row.

To be fair, the conservative side *should* have put some effort into helping the people who were falling thru the cracks. And, seeing what could be done to help control costs for everybody. Pressuring the insurance companies to improve the rate of coverage, looking at state programs for ideas, tort reform, there was room for action without the collateral damage the ACA has done.


----------



## Nevada (Sep 9, 2004)

MO_cows said:


> Your situation was self inflicted.


I believe that's an honest answer. In fact that's pretty much the conservative view of all people who were without insurance. They were people who found themselves uninsured through their own doing, one way or another. In a broad sense that's probably true.

But isn't the same true for the uninsured after the ACA? If they don't want to go along with the ACA then that's kind of their own doing, isn't it?


----------



## painterswife (Jun 7, 2004)

MO_cows said:


> Just because the govt has not specifically levied a tax on something, doesn't make it subsidized!
> 
> The premiums for health insurance, life insurance, disability, whatever the employer offers, are not considered wages and therefore not subject to income tax, SS or MC.
> 
> It used to be chump change, but now that health insurance has gotten so expensive it is a substantial amount of money and apparently now the tax and spend side is drooling over it.


Right! Those individual that are paying for their own health insurance are paying more because they are paying with after tax dollars. Those that get it through their company ( whether they pay the costs or the company does) are paying less taxes.

Chump change? The amount of money not paid on that employment income by the companies and the employees is huge. 

However in the end it is the same thing no matter what you call it. Their tax money is coming back to them after they buy health insurance instead of being taken off before when it is purchased through a company plan.

By the way it is all considered employment compensation( wages) some is just tax free at this time. That loop hole should come to a close.


----------



## Deacon Mike (May 23, 2007)

MO_cows said:


> Just because the govt has not specifically levied a tax on something, doesn't make it subsidized!
> 
> The premiums for health insurance, life insurance, disability, whatever the employer offers, are not considered wages and therefore not subject to income tax, SS or MC.
> 
> It used to be chump change, but now that health insurance has gotten so expensive it is a substantial amount of money and apparently now the tax and spend side is drooling over it.


 
Employer provided health coverage certainly is subsidized. The employer deducts it as an expense, just like your wages.


----------



## 7thswan (Nov 18, 2008)

Nevada said:


> I think it's fair to ask at this point why conservatives are so concerned about the uninsured today. This is in stark contrast to a complete lack of concern for uninsured Americans before the ACA. Have the uninsured suddenly gained status that they didn't used to have?
> 
> I was uninsured before the ACA. Why weren't conservatives this concerned about my situation?


It's not that they weren't concerned. The Repubs didn't want to mess with something and make it WORSE. Obama is glad to do that ,just like he has done with everything else to turn us into a 3rd world country. Anyone would have known he'd wreck things if they had looked into his real life.


----------



## Nevada (Sep 9, 2004)

7thswan said:


> It's not that they weren't concerned. The Repubs didn't want to mess with something and make it WORSE.


But it's not worse. I'm insured.

Before the ACA I wouldn't have been eligible for a lot of cancer or heart treatments. Fortunately I remained healthy, but it could have gone the other way. I don't see how the medical system could be worse than that.



7thswan said:


> Obama is glad to do that ,just like he has done with everything else to turn us into a 3rd world country. Anyone would have known he'd wreck things if they had looked into his real life.


I already know how passionately you dislike Obama, but this isn't about him.


----------



## MO_cows (Aug 14, 2010)

Deacon Mike said:


> Employer provided health coverage certainly is subsidized. The employer deducts it as an expense, just like your wages.


I guess by that logic, toilet paper and coffee are also subsidized.


----------



## Nevada (Sep 9, 2004)

MO_cows said:


> I guess by that logic, toilet paper and coffee are also subsidized.


Employer-subsidized health insurance costs the government 2.5 times what the ACA will cost. In fact employer-subsidized health insurance costs the government $250 billion/year. That's pretty serious money.


----------



## Molly Mckee (Jul 8, 2006)

Nevada said:


> I think it's fair to ask at this point why conservatives are so concerned about the uninsured today. This is in stark contrast to a complete lack of concern for uninsured Americans before the ACA. Have the uninsured suddenly gained status that they didn't used to have?
> 
> I was uninsured before the ACA. Why weren't conservatives this concerned about my situation?


Your situation was you own choice. You had the ability to change your situation.

I am conservative. I spent three years as the director of a non-profit that provided food, medicine, clothes, housing for those in need. We spent hundreds of hours setting up a free medical clinic and staffing it. I did not receive a penny in salary, neither did all the volunteers that gave thousands of hours as well. The vast majority are conservative. I think that is true everywhere. 

What many of us object to is the vast waste of money the government puts into every program. They have a huge numbers of middle and upper management they don't need, as well as pay top prices for things they buy. So much more good could be done with the money if so much simply was not wasted.


----------



## Nevada (Sep 9, 2004)

Molly Mckee said:


> I am conservative. I spent three years as the director of a non-profit that provided food, medicine, clothes, housing for those in need. We spent hundreds of hours setting up a free medical clinic and staffing it.


OK then. Can't people who are uninsured after the ACA goes into effect use free clinics like you describe?


----------



## Molly Mckee (Jul 8, 2006)

Nevada said:


> Employer-subsidized health insurance costs the government 2.5 times what the ACA will cost. In fact employer-subsidized health insurance costs the government $250 billion/year. That's pretty serious money.


Even if that number is correct, I believe it is the total cost of the employee health insurance, not the amount of tax collected if it were taxable income.

Self employed are allowed to deduct the cost of their health insurance now, and they certainly don't get the price breaks large corporations do-- look at the possible tax money there.


----------



## 7thswan (Nov 18, 2008)

Nevada said:


> But it's not worse. I'm insured.
> 
> Before the ACA I wouldn't have been eligible for a lot of cancer or heart treatments. Fortunately I remained healthy, but it could have gone the other way. I don't see how the medical system could be worse than that.
> 
> ...


Sure it is, go look up the u-tube videos before he was pres about wanting socialized med. then go look where he lied about keeping our Dr. and Ins.


"Four years of Obamacare have shown what arrogance, deception, and top-down control can accomplish. No wonder voters want to see if Republicans can do better."


http://www.newsmax.com/Newsfront/Ob...-insurance/2014/04/08/id/564265#ixzz2yJYN0w9R 
Urgent: Should Obamacare Be Repealed? Vote Here Now!


http://www.newsmax.com/Newsfront/Ob...insurance/2014/04/08/id/564265/#ixzz2yIyZLeFk


----------



## Nevada (Sep 9, 2004)

Molly Mckee said:


> Self employed are allowed to deduct the cost of their health insurance now


Actually, the self-employed are now eligible for ACA subsidized insurance.


----------



## 7thswan (Nov 18, 2008)

Nevada said:


> But it's not worse.
> You can't even begin to go there because the whole thing isn't enacted
> . And Obama is going around the Law(35+ times) just for the midterm elections, so most won't even realize how bad this is going to destroy the HC system and our Econemy.


----------



## Molly Mckee (Jul 8, 2006)

Nevada said:


> OK then. Can't people who are uninsured after the ACA goes into effect use free clinics like you describe?


Yes they can, as long as they live in the served zip codes. All of Harris county (Houston) is divided into areas served by zip code due to the large numbers of "professionals", that went from place to place taking whatever they could get free. As long as you have any kind of proof of residency, you are welcome.


----------



## Nevada (Sep 9, 2004)

7thswan said:


> Sure it is, go look up the u-tube videos before he was pres about wanting socialized med. then go look where he lied about keeping our Dr. and Ins.
> 
> 
> "Four years of Obamacare have shown what arrogance, deception, and top-down control can accomplish. No wonder voters want to see if Republicans can do better."
> ...


This isn't the Politics forum. If this thread is used as a political sounding board it will be closed. We have to stay on topic here.


----------



## Nevada (Sep 9, 2004)

Molly Mckee said:


> Yes they can, as long as they live in the served zip codes. All of Harris county (Houston) is divided into areas served by zip code due to the large numbers of "professionals", that went from place to place taking whatever they could get free. As long as you have any kind of proof of residency, you are welcome.


Unfortunately we didn't have a free clinic here. I've read that one has opened in Las Vegas during the past month, but I don't need it now.


----------



## 7thswan (Nov 18, 2008)

Nevada said:


> This isn't the Politics forum. If this thread is used as a political sounding board it will be closed. We have to stay on topic here.


Messing with people's HC isn't political until Obama made it that way. Now you understand why it matters that he is an embaressing fake. So may people have been hurt, the media and the government is not going to tell the truth now, when they haven't all along.


----------



## no really (Aug 7, 2013)

susieneddy said:


> I have no idea how old you are but the younger people (20-30) where I work got insurance for 160.00 a month. One guy even added dental insurance so his monthly bill is 180.00. That price sure beats the old price he was paying and it didn't include dental


I am 34, no pre-existing conditions, no smoking. My insurance would have been nearly 600.00 a month after the 50% employer contribution. Checked the ACA I don't qualify for subsidies. This was a totally barebones policy.


----------



## Nevada (Sep 9, 2004)

no really said:


> I am 34, no pre-existing conditions, no smoking. My insurance would have been nearly 600.00 a month after the 50% employer contribution. Checked the ACA I don't qualify for subsidies. This was a totally barebones policy.


Pre-existing conditions won't affect your premiums. They shouldn't even be asking.

But that's really expensive. I'm a 63 year-old nonsmoker and my insurance (silver plan HMO) is about $550 before subsidy. For a 35 year-old in Las Vegas the same HMO plan I have is $228/month, with a bronze plan for $175.

I checked El Paso,TX zip codes and find that insurance is considerably less expensive than Las Vegas. For your age Bronze plans start at $139/month. Generous silver HMOs start below $200. It's only slightly higher in Midland, TX, but still considerably less than Las Vegas.

If you give me your zip code I can get more precise.


----------



## Molly Mckee (Jul 8, 2006)

I will have to give the credit to our local hospital administrator for making our clinic possible. We could not have done it without his support. The doctor's malpractice insurance limited the number of charity patients they could see. The hospital made doctors give at least 1/2 day a year in the clinic a requirement to be on staff at the hospital, so the hospital insurance would cover them, we could not have afforded malpractice insurance for anyone. 

Several local pharmacies also donated meds, and persuaded drug companies and their salespeople to help as well, as did the doctors. It was a community effort.


----------



## painterswife (Jun 7, 2004)

no really said:


> I am 34, no pre-existing conditions, no smoking. My insurance would have been nearly 600.00 a month after the 50% employer contribution. Checked the ACA I don't qualify for subsidies. This was a totally barebones policy.


Could you share the deductibles and copay's ? I live in one of the most expensive states and that price is very high for a 34 year old. Extremely high.


----------



## no really (Aug 7, 2013)

Yeah it's high, I will have to check on deductibles and co-pay. I totally freaked over the monthly costs, especially since I am leaving to work overseas for about a year. I do use the VA most of the time, which is very seldom. Last time I saw a doc was about two years ago. That was a job related visit also.


----------



## painterswife (Jun 7, 2004)

no really said:


> Yeah it's high, I will have to check on deductibles and co-pay. I totally freaked over the monthly costs, especially since I am leaving to work overseas for about a year. I do use the VA most of the time, which is very seldom. Last time I saw a doc was about two years ago. That was a job related visit also.


There is something really off about those numbers. It should be more like 600.00 total per month not 1200.00 ( and that is with almost no deductible).


----------



## no really (Aug 7, 2013)

painterswife said:


> There is something really off about those numbers. It should be more like 600.00 total per month not 1200.00 ( and that is with almost no deductible).


I never used it so really have no idea what it covered, some of the other employees say it was excellent insurance, my previous policy that is. Never had the time to check on it. Spent most of my time out of the country. The out of network coverage was very good.


----------



## painterswife (Jun 7, 2004)

no really said:


> I never used it so really have no idea what it covered, some of the other employees say it was excellent insurance, my previous policy that is. Never had the time to check on it. Spent most of my time out of the country. The out of network coverage was very good.


Maybe it has insurance that covers you in other countries and that is why it is so high.


----------



## no really (Aug 7, 2013)

painterswife said:


> Maybe it has insurance that covers you in other countries and that is why it is so high.


Could be most of us spend at least 2/3's of our time in travel including overseas. Most of the overseas travel is not in areas where good medical care is available.


----------



## Nevada (Sep 9, 2004)

no really said:


> Most of the overseas travel is not in areas where good medical care is available.


Yeah, I've seen a few camel doctors overseas too. LOL


----------



## no really (Aug 7, 2013)

Nevada said:


> Yeah, I've seen a few camel doctors overseas too. LOL


Yeah it's the ones that smell like camels that worry me. :huh:


----------



## KnowOneSpecial (Sep 12, 2010)

I'm thankful for the ACA. 

Dh has to close his company. He's a subcontractor for a company and the company is going to do it all in house now. DH also has prostate cancer. He had it out a year ago last December and his PSA never went to zero. He got it checked this past week and it was .19. If it was .2 it would officially be considered as 'recurring'. He's only 47 years old. Thankfully there's a large cancer center near us that is doing a prostate cancer study and DH is about to be accepted into it. This same cancer center gave my Bestie an additional 3 years of life, so we really trust them. DH will start the trial in late April or early May. 

Our insurance runs out on April 30th. If we chose to get COBRA it would cost us $1,600 a month just for him. We went through the website and are getting one of the top tier plans for around $480 a month. It has a family max deductible of $1500 a year-an amount that will be eaten up quickly when you figure in 6 weeks of radiation. This new plan also starts on May1st and they can't deny us for a pre-existing condition. Under the old system I doubt we would have found insurance at all. Now at least he can get his cancer treatments. 

There is no way we could afford the $1,600 COBRA wanted us to pay. That's more than our mortgage! But we can swing $480. Will it be tight? YES. Especially considering our pay is being cut 40%. but it's a sacrifice we're willing to make. Some people want more animals or land. We want good insurance. It all comes down to what you want and what you want to spend your money on.


----------



## MO_cows (Aug 14, 2010)

Nevada said:


> Employer-subsidized health insurance costs the government 2.5 times what the ACA will cost. In fact employer-subsidized health insurance costs the government $250 billion/year. That's pretty serious money.


2.5 the cost of ACA is a made up number. Nobody knows yet what ACA is really costing, so saying something else is 2.5 times its cost is extrapolating wildly on what was a guess to begin with.

Employer-paid health care SAVES the government money. Keeps people off Medicaid, keeps people off Medicare if they work past 65, keeps the municipalities who own/operate hospitals from having to cover as many uninsured, etc. Private insurance pays out more than Medicare/Medicaid to doctors and hospitals. They would be demanding more compensation from Unkle aka the taxpayers if not for private insurance. 

I know of a case right now where a hospital is paying $1800 a month in health insurance premiums for a patient. Why? Because the difference in the private plan payment for services versus this patient going on Medicaid still makes them money after the $1800 expense. And saves the taxpayers a LOT of money by not going on Medicaid. 

I'll say it again, employee benefits started out as nickels and dimes so the govt never wrote them into the tax code. Fast forward to today, it is a lot of money and they are just drooling over getting a piece of it. 

If they do change the tax code to include it, it will do a LOT more harm than good. It will push people into a higher tax bracket who never saw a dime in their pocket. It will create even more incentive for employers to have all part time labor and not even mess with full time employees and benefits. Even if they do keep full time employees, they would have extra incentive to get the cheapest, crappiest policies they can find. When both parents work, it is pretty common for both to carry health coverage on their children. So would they get double taxed for that?

It is just a whole can of worms we don't need to open. Fixing something that isn't broken. If benefits became taxable tomorrow at 100%, the goobers in Washington would blow thru that money in a heartbeat and still be looking for more. They are drunk on spending and have been for some time. Instead of looking for new things to tax, they need to look for ways to cut spending. And shame on those of you who are enabling them!


----------



## macmad (Dec 22, 2012)

A bill of this magnitude should have never been passed on a partisan vote. Nothing should be allowed to move forward on a purely partisan vote. This is the result of an inability to work together for the good of all the "people." Wiser folk would have put the brakes on it until they had a bill that was agreeable to the largest number of senators and representatives. 

There were options for addressing the health care issues like pre-existing conditions and the cost of healthcare. Hard line positioning by both political parties kept them from being seriously considered. The expression, "throwing out the baby with the bath water" come to mind as I continue to study this legislation though.


----------



## Molly Mckee (Jul 8, 2006)

Insurance costs very a lot from state to state. WA state has required insuring pre-exsisting conditions for years. That and the few companies that write policies here make it much more expensive to buy insurance.


----------



## cast iron (Oct 4, 2004)

MO_cows said:


> I'll say it again, employee benefits started out as nickels and dimes so the govt never wrote them into the tax code. Fast forward to today, it is a lot of money and they are just drooling over getting a piece of it.
> 
> If they do change the tax code to include it, it will do a LOT more harm than good. It will push people into a higher tax bracket who never saw a dime in their pocket. It will create even more incentive for employers to have all part time labor and not even mess with full time employees and benefits. Even if they do keep full time employees, they would have extra incentive to get the cheapest, crappiest policies they can find. When both parents work, it is pretty common for both to carry health coverage on their children. So would they get double taxed for that?


Discontinuing coverage for the spouses is probably one of the first steps. And towards the increase in part-time labor will be creative use of 'contract employees'. 

The best and brightest have been attracted to employers who offer a challenging and rewarding work environment, and good salary and benefits. The healthcare aspect of the benefit part of the equation has become increasingly important to prospective employees. The large companies that can sustain paying for good coverage for employees and their families will be the place to seek employment. Quality employees who might like to work for a smaller outfit that offers more responsibility and challenges than a corporate giant are going to defer to the company that can offer healthcare as a benefit.


----------



## Nevada (Sep 9, 2004)

MO_cows said:


> It is just a whole can of worms we don't need to open.


No, it was a can of worms alright, but it had to be opened. Medical care was fast becoming a luxury item that only the wealthy could afford. A lot of people were being excluded from the process, including myself.

A lot of people ask why we can't go back to the system we had in the 50s & 60s, back when insurance was affordable. The answer is that we can't. Medical care has become more comprehensive, complicated, and expensive than it was back then. We can't return to the kind of care we had back then because we've become accustomed to people surviving things like heart attacks and cancer.

Take my grandfather for example. I never met him because he died before I was born. In early 1950 he had a heart attack. They couldn't do much for heart victims back then. They put him in a hospital bed, started oxygen, then loaded him up on morphine. After that all they could do was wait to see if he lived or died. While he survived that event, there still wasn't much they could do for him. There was no bypass surgery, no heart valve replacement, no stent, and certainly no heart transplant. All the doctor could do was tell him to go home to get his life in order. He died within 6 months.

http://www.findagrave.com/cgi-bin/fg.cgi?page=gr&GRid=110515885

Contrast that to today. We have a local Las Vegas story that received national attention recently, where a man had an insurance mix-up leaving him with a heart attack medical bill of $407,000.00 that wasn't paid (the insurance company eventually paid-up).

http://www.reviewjournal.com/news/obamacare-leaves-las-vegas-man-owing-407000-doctor-bills

But just imagine -- $407,000.00, and nobody is really surprised at the size of the bill! Compare that with the cost of loading my grandfather up on morphine for a few days.

Could we go back to that? Sure, but we wouldn't have a lot of our loved ones around us today. I don't see that as an acceptable answer to the problem, so healthcare reform was a can of worms that I believe had to be opened.


----------



## arabian knight (Dec 19, 2005)

MO_cows said:


> 2.5 the cost of ACA is a made up number. Nobody knows yet what ACA is really costing, so saying something else is 2.5 times its cost is extrapolating wildly on what was a guess to begin with.
> 
> Employer-paid health care SAVES the government money. Keeps people off Medicaid, keeps people off Medicare if they work past 65, keeps the municipalities who own/operate hospitals from having to cover as many uninsured, etc. Private insurance pays out more than Medicare/Medicaid to doctors and hospitals. They would be demanding more compensation from Unkle aka the taxpayers if not for private insurance.
> 
> ...


 You bet this should have never been able to tear completely what was working, sue a few had falling through you fix THAT so THOSE that not getting covered covered. You don't rip into something 85% liked, and now the whole country is at war with something that is a nightmare to say the least.


----------



## MO_cows (Aug 14, 2010)

The can of worms I was referring to is employer-paid health care benefits. 

Unless you really want to knock the economy in the head with a baseball bat, best leave that one closed. Besides the fairness aspect of the government doing a "bait and switch" after benefits have become part of the landscape of good employment for many, many years.

Yes, part of the problem of health care becoming so expensive was advances in the care itself which cost more. But there are other factors besides, it isn't nearly that simple.


----------



## Nevada (Sep 9, 2004)

MO_cows said:


> The can of worms I was referring to is employer-paid health care benefits.


Employer-subsidized health insurance is a leftover from dangerous industrial workplaces before OSHA. They used to have terrible industrial accidents and this was a small way of making up for it. It may have outlived it's usefulness, particularly since we don't really have an industrial base in this country any longer.


----------



## MO_cows (Aug 14, 2010)

Nevada said:


> *Employer-subsidized health insurance is a leftover from dangerous industrial workplaces before OSHA.* They used to have terrible industrial accidents and this was a small way of making up for it. It may have outlived it's usefulness, particularly since we don't really have an industrial base in this country any longer.


No, it isn't. My recollection is, more white collar jobs had "benefits" before the blue collar did. Outlived its usefulness?? Hardly. We still have workers dying in coal mines, highway workers getting struck by cars, etc. It doesn't have to be a steel mill to be a potentially dangerous workplace. 

And, that makes me realize yet another unfairness about taxing benefits. People who work in a higher risk environment would pay extra taxes because their health coverage would cost more than someone who works in cubicle-land.


----------



## painterswife (Jun 7, 2004)

MO_cows said:


> No, it isn't. My recollection is, more white collar jobs had "benefits" before the blue collar did. Outlived its usefulness?? Hardly. We still have workers dying in coal mines, highway workers getting struck by cars, etc. It doesn't have to be a steel mill to be a potentially dangerous workplace.
> 
> And, that makes me realize yet another unfairness about taxing benefits. People who work in a higher risk environment would pay extra taxes because their health coverage would cost more than someone who works in cubicle-land.


Workers Comp pays for those costs. The higher risk the job, the more the company pays. The more claims on the companies account, the more the company pays. 

Health insurance does not pay for work related injuries. THe insurance companies make sure.


----------



## Molly Mckee (Jul 8, 2006)

Not only do doctor's have much higher costs than they did in the 50's, many more procedures are available. Doctors did not have to carry malpractice insurance, for some specialties malpractice insurance can cost almost $100,000.00 a month now. The dollar is worth a whole lot less than it was then as well, comparing real costs for health care should reflect that.


----------



## Nevada (Sep 9, 2004)

Molly Mckee said:


> Not only do doctor's have much higher costs than they did in the 50's, many more procedures are available. Doctors did not have to carry malpractice insurance, for some specialties malpractice insurance can cost almost $100,000.00 a month now. The dollar is worth a whole lot less than it was then as well, comparing real costs for health care should reflect that.


Actually, that's not really the case.

_what if I told you that your health insurance probably costs more than your doctor's malpractice insurance? I'm serious._
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/david-belk/medical-malpractice-costs_b_4171189.html


----------



## Wendy (May 10, 2002)

> A lot of people were being excluded from the process, including myself.


And a lot of people still are, including myself!




> Workers Comp pays for those costs. The higher risk the job, the more the company pays.


And yet another dumb thing. My family owns a sawmill business. They pay a ridiculous amount in workman's comp because it is considered a high risk business. Yes, mills years ago were. Today's bandsaw mills are much safer & you would almost have to be a complete idiot to get hurt on it. Who decides what is high risk & what isn't? You got it, the insurance companies. From statistics taken from years ago most likely & they still apply it to today.


----------



## Nevada (Sep 9, 2004)

Wendy said:


> Nevada said:
> 
> 
> > A lot of people were being excluded from the process, including myself.
> ...


You have no healthcare insurance?


----------



## Wendy (May 10, 2002)

Nope!


----------



## Molly Mckee (Jul 8, 2006)

Nevada said:


> Actually, that's not really the case.
> 
> _what if I told you that your health insurance probably costs more than your doctor's malpractice insurance? I'm serious._
> http://www.huffingtonpost.com/david-belk/medical-malpractice-costs_b_4171189.html


Actually, it is, at least in some states.


----------



## painterswife (Jun 7, 2004)

Wendy said:


> And a lot of people still are, including myself!
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Incorrect. They run the stats every year and adjust the rate you pay up or down. Every December you receive paperwork with your new Workers Comp. Rate for the next year.


----------



## ErinP (Aug 23, 2007)

mnn2501 said:


> Because they knew you were able to get a job.


What does that have to do with whether one does or doesn't have insurance? 

Most of the uninsured _are_ employed...


----------



## Molly Mckee (Jul 8, 2006)

painterswife said:


> Incorrect. They run the stats every year and adjust the rate you pay up or down. Every December you receive paperwork with your new Workers Comp. Rate for the next year.


Varies with the state. Here we were paying workers comp based on old Kaiser Aluminum statistics, even tho the most dangerous thing we used was an angle grinder and never had an injury. Yes, we appealed, but we were "manufacturing" metal and that was the closest thing they could find in our area, they even inspected our shop.


----------



## Wendy (May 10, 2002)

> Incorrect. They run the stats every year and adjust the rate you pay up or down. Every December you receive paperwork with your new Workers Comp. Rate for the next year.


Not according to my dad. They pay over $35,000 a year just for workman's comp & they have 5 employees. That is crazy!


----------



## Nevada (Sep 9, 2004)

Wendy said:


> Nope!


Deleted question.

I remember now. You got bit by your own state's decision to not expand Medicaid.

I'm doing like 8 things at once today so I forgot...


----------



## arabian knight (Dec 19, 2005)

ErinP said:


> What does that have to do with whether one does or doesn't have insurance?
> 
> Most of the uninsured _are_ employed...


Then if that is correct. Where are all those NOW?
Less them one million NEW folks have signed up.
Where are those many that are working and have no insurance? Where? Why have they not been signing up in droves then?


----------



## Nevada (Sep 9, 2004)

arabian knight said:


> Then if that is correct. Where are all those NOW?
> Less them one million NEW folks have signed up.
> Where are those many that are working and have no insurance? Where? Why have they not been signing up in droves then?


I suspect that a lot of them are in states that refused to expand Medicaid.

But where did that one million figure come from?


----------



## Deacon Mike (May 23, 2007)

arabian knight said:


> Then if that is correct. Where are all those NOW?
> Less them one million NEW folks have signed up.
> Where are those many that are working and have no insurance? Where? Why have they not been signing up in droves then?


 
You might want to update your numbers:







> The analysis presented here examines changes in health insurance enrollment between September 2013 and March 2014; overall, we estimate that 9.3 million more people had health care coverage in March 2014, lowering the uninsured rate from 20.5 percent to 15.8 percent.​


----------



## arabian knight (Dec 19, 2005)

You can look up sop many rebuttals about that report and this is just one of them. LOL 
ESI and Medicaid both drew more uninsured than the exchanges did Kind of throws a monkey wrench in whatever some other stats say. No matter how many times folks tweak twist, leave out information that is valuable in the final count. No matter how may times it is tweaked ACA is a Huge Failure bar none.
*
Software Bug Implicated in Massive Duplication of Obamacare Enrollees: Actual Enrollment Less Than 4 Million*
Now why doesn't that surprise me?


> <National Report>Initial reports from an independent audit of the Obamacare enrollment records has revealed bad news for the Obama administration. While it was initially reported that enrollment had exceeded the goal of 7 million individuals, it appears that as many as 3 million of those enrollees may simply be duplicated names.
> This shocking miscount was revealed in an independent audit performed by the accounting firm Bryce and Brynwalter. In their report, which will be released publicly next week, the firm details the massive miscount and offers some insights as to how it occurred.


- See more at: http://nationalreport.net/software-...llment-less-4-million-2/#sthash.KgDUHsuv.dpuf


----------



## MO_cows (Aug 14, 2010)

painterswife said:


> Workers Comp pays for those costs. The higher risk the job, the more the company pays. The more claims on the companies account, the more the company pays.
> 
> Health insurance does not pay for work related injuries. THe insurance companies make sure.


Of course they try to put everything on WC that is work related. But they still consider your occupation into their rates.

Not everyone is covered by Workman's Comp. If you have less than X employees, and there are other exemptions. 

And, Workman's Comp insurance weasels out of paying everything they can, too. My niece slipped and fell on a hard tile floor at work (restaurant), hurt her knee. At first she went home to rest it, but it kept swelling and hurting worse so a couple hours later she sought medical attention. Workman's Comp said, nope, you didn't go straight from the workplace to Workman's Comp clinic when it happened, we aren't responsible.


----------



## Cornhusker (Mar 20, 2003)

Bottom line is that a corrupt government never made anything better for anyone, and Obamacare is no exception.
It's a boondoggle, a scam and it's all about control.


----------



## Tricky Grama (Oct 7, 2006)

Nevada said:


> I think it's fair to ask at this point why conservatives are so concerned about the uninsured today. This is in stark contrast to a complete lack of concern for uninsured Americans before the ACA. Have the uninsured suddenly gained status that they didn't used to have?
> 
> I was uninsured before the ACA. Why weren't conservatives this concerned about my situation?


Conservatives helped out the uninsured b/4 Obamacare. Conservatives give more $$$, more time and more blood to charities than do liberals. Studies prove that.
However, w/tax increases like Obamacare, the middle class will be crushed & unable to help as much. 
I'll ask you why you were concerned b/4 but not now. Seems that the point of this law was to insure everyone, no?
NO! This law is the largest tax increases ever in our history & no more will be insured, in fact LESS! Just wait for the employer mandate to kick in!


----------



## Tricky Grama (Oct 7, 2006)

Nevada said:


> But it wasn't just me, it was also tens of millions of other Americans without insurance.


DH was one also. He had ins off & on thru either my work or his, then individually. 

Have you not read that only a small percent of those 40 mill actually WANT ins? And 12 mil are illegal aliens. One of the reasons only a little over one mill have actually PAID for their ins now, thru Obamacare. Remember 6 million were kicked off their individual plans. Sooo, there's a NET LOSS of nearly 5 mill.
What success! NOT!


----------



## Tricky Grama (Oct 7, 2006)

MO_cows said:


> Your situation was self inflicted. You decided to retire early but didn't have all your ducks in a row.
> 
> To be fair, the conservative side *should* have put some effort into helping the people who were falling thru the cracks. And, seeing what could be done to help control costs for everybody. Pressuring the insurance companies to improve the rate of coverage, looking at state programs for ideas, tort reform, there was room for action without the collateral damage the ACA has done.


Lots of suggestions were given, a book was written & given to the POTUS, b/4 this monstrosity debacle was signed but the "Ds" wanted NO part of any of those suggestions. 
I might point out, again, that conservatives helped many who had no ins. However, many chose not to, Nevada was one of those.
One of our own, Melissa, DID have ins, but somewhat inadequate when she had leukemia-tons of us on HT sent support! Like when someone in your community needs medical care & cannot afford it.


----------



## Tricky Grama (Oct 7, 2006)

Molly Mckee said:


> Your situation was you own choice. You had the ability to change your situation.
> 
> I am conservative. I spent three years as the director of a non-profit that provided food, medicine, clothes, housing for those in need. We spent hundreds of hours setting up a free medical clinic and staffing it. I did not receive a penny in salary, neither did all the volunteers that gave thousands of hours as well. The vast majority are conservative. I think that is true everywhere.
> 
> What many of us object to is the vast waste of money the government puts into every program. They have a huge numbers of middle and upper management they don't need, as well as pay top prices for things they buy. So much more good could be done with the money if so much simply was not wasted.


----------



## Tricky Grama (Oct 7, 2006)

Nevada said:


> This isn't the Politics forum. If this thread is used as a political sounding board it will be closed. We have to stay on topic here.


So what is the topic?
Obamacare.
What are the FACTS about Obamacare?
The FACTS are that it only passed b/c of LIES.
Obama had to lie even to "Ds" to get it passed.
Not to mention:"If you like your insurance you can keep your insurance. PERIOD!"
"If you like your doctor, you can keep your doctor. PERIOD!"
"Insurance premiums will go down $2500 for familes!"

I'm not even sorry, Nevada, that you do not like seeing these outright lies. Those are the FACTS about Obamacare.


----------



## Nevada (Sep 9, 2004)

Tricky Grama said:


> Remember 6 million were kicked off their individual plans. Sooo, there's a NET LOSS of nearly 5 mill.


You assume that all of the people who lost policies didn't get another policy. We know that many did. For example, we know that Julie Boonstra lost her insurance, but then got an ACA policy for half what she was paying before.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs...fordable-gets-downgraded-to-three-pinocchios/

I don't think it's fair, or even reasonable, to count all people who lost policies as uninsured. It simply isn't true.


----------



## Deacon Mike (May 23, 2007)

arabian knight said:


> You can look up sop many rebuttals about that report and this is just one of them. LOL
> ESI and Medicaid both drew more uninsured than the exchanges did Kind of throws a monkey wrench in whatever some other stats say. No matter how many times folks tweak twist, leave out information that is valuable in the final count. No matter how may times it is tweaked ACA is a Huge Failure bar none.
> 
> *Software Bug Implicated in Massive Duplication of Obamacare Enrollees: Actual Enrollment Less Than 4 Million*
> ...


Dude, the National Report is a fake news site, like the Onion. You've been had. 




Tricky Grama said:


> However, w/tax increases like Obamacare, the middle class will be crushed & unable to help as much. !


How has the ACA raised your taxes? I'll admit, it's had zero impact on mine. 




Tricky Grama said:


> NO! This law is the largest tax increases ever in our history & no more will be insured, in fact LESS! Just wait for the employer mandate to kick in!


It's not the largest tax increase in history, not even close. And Rand Corp, Urban Institute and Gallup all report decreases in the number of uninsured. 









Y



Tricky Grama said:


> One of our own, Melissa, DID have ins, but somewhat inadequate when she had leukemia-tons of us on HT sent support! Like when someone in your community needs medical care & cannot afford it.


First, Melissa is very fortunate to have friends. However, thanks to the ACA, no insurance will be "somewhat inadequate". All policy now have minimum coverage standards. She won't have to worry about being denied coverage due to a pre-existing condition, as that is a thing of the past. Neither she, nor anyone else, need worry about hitting coverage maximums, as those no longer exist. And thanks to subsidies, coverage is affordable (except for those in states that didn't expand Medicaid as those states decided that the working poor don't deserve healthcare)


----------



## Melissa (Apr 15, 2002)

I am very thankful for the pre-existing condition clause. I did not have prescription coverage, and who would think any medication would cost over $200 a day. Now I know that prescription coverage is very important!!!!


----------



## Wendy (May 10, 2002)

> First, Melissa is very fortunate to have friends. However, thanks to the ACA, no insurance will be "somewhat inadequate". All policy now have minimum coverage standards. She won't have to worry about being denied coverage due to a pre-existing condition, as that is a thing of the past. Neither she, nor anyone else, need worry about hitting coverage maximums, as those no longer exist. And thanks to subsidies, coverage is affordable (except for those in states that didn't expand Medicaid as those states decided that the working poor don't deserve healthcare)


Sorry, but there are still a lot of us that have to worry about those things because we still do not have coverage, despite the fact that Obama said everyone would get healthcare that they could afford. Not quite sure what planet he is from, but it's not this one. I haven't found any healthcare even close to being affordable. How many states that did expand Medicaid are going to find themselves in a lot of financial trouble once they have to start footing most of the bill? Perhaps the states that didn't expand were actually thinking about the future & how they would cover so many more people. Might not have been so dumb on their part. Hurts those of us that don't qualify for subsidies though. 

This was by far the least thought out plan ever. There are so many things going wrong with it that they didn't even consider. For those that it helped, it's the best thing since ice cream. For those of us that fall through the cracks, it's a nightmare! And I am pretty sure there are more having trouble than there are getting benefits.

My brother signed up, got his coverage, & waited to get his paperwork. He waited, & waited, & finally got a letter saying his coverage was being canceled because he had never paid his premiums. He NEVER got anything from the company about paying. No statements, no nothing. So he thought he had coverage & now he doesn't. Yeah, working great, isn't it??


----------



## ErinP (Aug 23, 2007)

Melissa said:


> I am very thankful for the pre-existing condition clause. I did not have prescription coverage, and who would think any medication would cost over $200 a day. Now I know that prescription coverage is very important!!!!


Me too. We've been self-insured for years. Our premiums stayed about the same, even with the subsidy, because we're at the top end of the income bracket, so we're paying the bulk of the premium just like we were before. 
OTOH, I'm now fully covered. I had kidney stones, and a gallbladder removed, in 2001. Consequently, anything related to either has had an exclusionary rider attached ever since.  (Even though I haven't had any issues since then!)


----------



## Nevada (Sep 9, 2004)

Melissa said:


> I am very thankful for the pre-existing condition clause. I did not have prescription coverage, and who would think any medication would cost over $200 a day. Now I know that prescription coverage is very important!!!!


Doing away with annual & lifetime caps will also help a lot of people.

I usually watch Monk reruns on Friday evenings, since they show 2 back-to-back episodes each week. Last night the story-line in one episode had Adrian in a bind because his health insurance was cutting off his therapy sessions with his psychiatrist, since he had reached the lifetime maximum of 2,000 sessions. I couldn't help but think that the ACA made that story-line obsolete today.


----------



## Molly Mckee (Jul 8, 2006)

If 2000 sessions had not helped, do you really think this is a wise way to spend money? Sounds like it was time for another approach a long time ago.


----------



## Ambereyes (Sep 6, 2004)

Molly Mckee said:


> If 2000 sessions had not helped, do you really think this is a wise way to spend money? Sounds like it was time for another approach a long time ago.


:sing::sing: That is hysterical, laughed till I hurt.. :bow:


----------



## Nevada (Sep 9, 2004)

Molly Mckee said:


> If 2000 sessions had not helped, do you really think this is a wise way to spend money? Sounds like it was time for another approach a long time ago.


Oh, Monk is completely hopeless. Besides, if he was cured they wouldn't have a show. Monk is afraid of everything, but that's why I watch.

[ame]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QX43PU2qO0Y[/ame]


----------



## ErinP (Aug 23, 2007)

Molly Mckee said:


> If 2000 sessions had not helped, do you really think this is a wise way to spend money? Sounds like it was time for another approach a long time ago.



lol
You've never seen Monk, have you


----------



## mmoetc (Oct 9, 2012)

Molly Mckee said:


> If 2000 sessions had not helped, do you really think this is a wise way to spend money? Sounds like it was time for another approach a long time ago.


Sort of like saying if 2000 doses of insulin haven't cured your diabetes continuing treatment would be a waste of money. Some illnesses, even mental ones, can't be cured but can be managed.


----------



## Ambereyes (Sep 6, 2004)

mmoetc said:


> Sort of like saying if 2000 doses of insulin haven't cured your diabetes continuing treatment would be a waste of money. Some illnesses, even mental ones, can't be cured but can be managed.



And with some illnesses it is a very lucrative endeavor to treat indefinitely.


----------



## TheMartianChick (May 26, 2009)

I have a friend who watches Monk and also sees a therapist and acupuncturist on a regular basis. I guess that he can relate to the ongoing issue of needing continued, long-term care. Though he isn't obsessive compulsive about cleaning, his issue is related to a violent crime that was committed against him many years ago. As a result, he has anxiety and needs both therapy and medication to manage his conditions. I'd hate to see the mess that he'd be without those things. Luckily, he is covered by Medicare and hasn't had to worry about reaching lifetime limits. I do know that he is incredibly compassionate about trying to help others. I suppose it comes from the lack of compassion that others have shown to him over the years.


----------



## Packedready (Mar 29, 2011)

My advice, anyone that voted for ACA, when they come up for re-election vote against them - get them OUT!


----------



## Nevada (Sep 9, 2004)

Packedready said:


> My advice, anyone that voted for ACA, when they come up for re-election vote against them - get them OUT!


It could go the other way. Americans might get used to it, learn to like it, and even rely on it. That's what happened to Medicare despite hard opposition on the right.


----------



## Packedready (Mar 29, 2011)

Nevada said:


> It could go the other way. Americans might get used to it, learn to like it, and even rely on it. That's what happened to Medicare despite hard opposition on the right.


In this country everyone votes their pocketbook. Your rates went down because you got a subsidy that the tax payers have to pay for, so you like it, our rates went up, with less coverage.

It hasn't worked in Canada and England - It won't work here. Vote them out.


----------



## Nevada (Sep 9, 2004)

Packedready said:


> In this country everyone votes their pocketbook. Your rates went down because you got a subsidy that the tax payers have to pay for, so you like it, our rates went up, with less coverage.


Maybe not. There is hardly anyone who doesn't know someone who really needed healthcare insurance. These are close relatives, friends and neighbors. I think more people will go along with this that you think.


----------



## arabian knight (Dec 19, 2005)

80% just remember that. As that is % that DON'T want it, don't likes it, and Will vote accordingly against it. 2014 elections can't come to soon. And then just wait till 2016. YEAH.


----------



## Nevada (Sep 9, 2004)

arabian knight said:


> 80% just remember that. As that is % that DON'T want it, don't likes it, and Will vote accordingly against it. 2014 elections can't come to soon. And then just wait till 2016. YEAH.


Got a reference on 80%?


----------



## ErinP (Aug 23, 2007)

Packedready said:


> In this country everyone votes their pocketbook. Your rates went down because you got a subsidy that the tax payers have to pay for, so you like it, our rates went up, with less coverage.


Mine stayed the same and I have better coverage to show for it. 

So far as "tax payers," *most* of the tax payers in this country qualify for a subsidy. (A family of four has to make something like $94K before they're over the line. Singles have to make over $50K)


----------



## Packedready (Mar 29, 2011)

ErinP said:


> Mine stayed the same and I have better coverage to show for.
> So far as "tax payers," *most* of the tax payers in this country qualify for a subsidy.


Did you get a subsidy?


----------



## no really (Aug 7, 2013)

ErinP said:


> Mine stayed the same and I have better coverage to show for it.
> 
> So far as "tax payers," *most* of the tax payers in this country qualify for a subsidy. (A family of four has to make something like $94K before they're over the line. Singles have to make over $50K)


Wonder who will pay for all those subsidies, if everyone gets one. :yuck:

By the way I am single and don't qualify for a subsidy.


----------



## ErinP (Aug 23, 2007)

You either make too much money, or your state didn't do the Medicaid expansion.


----------



## no really (Aug 7, 2013)

ErinP said:


> You either make too much money, or your state didn't do the Medicaid expansion.


Yeah, I make to much money. Cancelled my employer provided insurance due to the limits on out of network, will use the VA.

Point being not everyone gets subsidies.


----------



## Pauline (Jan 28, 2003)

Wendy I also am in the boat with you of no insurance when i went on to the ACA website it wouldn't even let me look at plans due to income level it sent me to the state and my state is one of the ones that did not expand so me and my oldest 2 will continue without insurance and pay cash if we need to go to the Dr and hope and pray nothing major happens that we would need hospitalization for


----------



## Wendy (May 10, 2002)

> Wendy I also am in the boat with you of no insurance when i went on to the ACA website it wouldn't even let me look at plans due to income level it sent me to the state and my state is one of the ones that did not expand so me and my oldest 2 will continue without insurance and pay cash if we need to go to the Dr and hope and pray nothing major happens that we would need hospitalization for


So much for everyone having affordable healthcare, huh??


----------



## Tricky Grama (Oct 7, 2006)

Nevada said:


> You assume that all of the people who lost policies didn't get another policy. We know that many did. For example, we know that Julie Boonstra lost her insurance, but then got an ACA policy for half what she was paying before.
> 
> http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs...fordable-gets-downgraded-to-three-pinocchios/
> 
> I don't think it's fair, or even reasonable, to count all people who lost policies as uninsured. It simply isn't true.


Of course you have to count those who lost their ins! What are they to do? remain uninsured, go to former ins. co. & pay DOUBLE than b/4? Yeah, I am just sure most did that...most did not even go to obamacare, the stats show that only a fraction of that # who SIGNED up-NOT PAID!-were UNinsured.


----------



## Tricky Grama (Oct 7, 2006)

Packedready said:


> My advice, anyone that voted for ACA, when they come up for re-election vote against them - get them OUT!


Watch & wait.
The "Ds" thought '10 was a massacre...


----------



## Tricky Grama (Oct 7, 2006)

no really said:


> Wonder who will pay for all those subsidies, if everyone gets one. :yuck:
> 
> By the way I am single and don't qualify for a subsidy.


That's the "Ds" way: have MORE IN the cart than pulling it. No one remembers Greece? I really cannot believe the # of HT'ers who are for this...you'd think those who advocate self-staining principles would also follow what our country was founded on. And its NOT being supported by the gov't!


----------



## Packedready (Mar 29, 2011)

ErinP said:


> Mine stayed the same and I have better coverage to show for it.
> 
> So far as "tax payers," *most* of the tax payers in this country qualify for a subsidy. (A family of four has to make something like $94K before they're over the line. Singles have to make over $50K)


I am not sure where you get your information that most tax payers in this country qualify for a subsidy. If that were the case there would be no one to pay for it. It is the tax payers that are paying for the people that are accepting the subidies and getting the free rides.

Anyone that is one the "free rides" I think it is a conflict of interest to even post on this forum about how wonderful ObamaNoCare Act is. You should just be thankful.

There are many that didn't qualify for a subsidy, even though they should have. I have a friend that makes $12,000 per year with a child and couldn't get a subsidy and that is in liberal California.

Most have not even tried to use ACA yet and don't know what there coverage isn't. I know for a fact that many doctors will not even see you. 

I am not opposed to the people that have prior conditions receiving insurance but the people that are cheating the system need to say "thank you for your donation" to rest of us that are paying your way.

For the uninsured that were suppose to get insurance under Obama, if they didn't get insurance they now cannot get any insurance at all. You have to prove there is a major life change. Before the socialist ObamaNoCare a person could apply for insurance anytime of the year and if qualified get insurance. Now if you want insurance you will have to wait until November 2014.

The government knows what is best for all of us.


----------



## painterswife (Jun 7, 2004)

Packedready said:


> I am not sure where you get your information that most tax payers in this country qualify for a subsidy. If that were the case there would be no one to pay for it. It is the tax payers that are paying for the people that are accepting the subidies and getting the free rides.
> 
> Anyone that is one the "free rides" I think it is a conflict of interest to even post on this forum about how wonderful ObamaNoCare Act is. You should just be thankful.
> 
> ...


You can get insurance now. It is the same insurance you could get before. It does not meet ACA guidelines or cover existing illnesses or get you off the hook with the IRS but you can still get insurance.


----------



## Packedready (Mar 29, 2011)

painterswife said:


> You can get insurance now. It is the same insurance you could get before. It does not meet ACA guidelines or cover existing illnesses or get you off the hook with the IRS but you can still get insurance.


I have insurance, I was checking for the friend that didn't get insurance and only makes $12,000 per year. I went into Anthems site and it said that if you didn't get insurance by 3-31-14 the only way that you can get insurance is a major life change, like divorce, job change etc until 11-14. 

For someone that feel through the cracks in the system, they are without insurance until 11-14 when you can apply.


----------



## Nevada (Sep 9, 2004)

painterswife said:


> You can get insurance now. It is the same insurance you could get before. It does not meet ACA guidelines or cover existing illnesses or get you off the hook with the IRS but you can still get insurance.


That's true. Insurance companies can sell any insurance they want to sell, it just might not be ACA compliant. In the eyes of Obamacare you aren't insured with a non-compliant policy. All that means is that you'll be subject to the fine.


----------



## painterswife (Jun 7, 2004)

Packedready said:


> I have insurance, I was checking for the friend that didn't get insurance and only makes $12,000 per year. I went into Anthems site and it said that if you didn't get insurance by 3-31-14 the only way that you can get insurance is a major life change, like divorce, job change etc until 11-14.
> 
> For someone that feel through the cracks in the system, they are without insurance until 11-14 when you can apply.


Not true. You can get insurance just not ACA complaint insurance. You need to do more research.


----------



## TheMartianChick (May 26, 2009)

Packedready said:


> I have insurance, I was checking for the friend that didn't get insurance and only makes $12,000 per year. I went into Anthems site and it said that if you didn't get insurance by 3-31-14 the only way that you can get insurance is a major life change, like divorce, job change etc until 11-14.
> 
> For someone that feel through the cracks in the system, they are without insurance until 11-14 when you can apply.


Your friend needs to call to apply, rather than attempt to sign up on the website. The $12,000 income should qualify them for Medicaid.

For most people, access to a new policy through ACA is no longer available until November, but there are exceptions. This information is currently on the NY exchange site and the reference to a Child Health Plus policy won't apply to those in other states, as it is a NY thing:



> Open enrollment for 2014 ended on March 31st. If you have taken steps to apply for coverage before April 1st, the Marketplace will provide additional assistance to help you complete your enrollment by April 15th. *After April 15th, you can enroll in coverage if you qualify for a special enrollment period. Individuals eligible for Medicaid or Child Health Plus and American Indians/Alaskan Natives can enroll at any time during the year.*


Edited to add: I just visited the California website and found this similar statement:



> *You may still qualify for Medi-Cal or have a qualifying life
> event that makes you eligible for coverage through a special- enrollment period*. Small businesses can sign up for health insurance plans year-round.
> 
> https://www.coveredca.com/


----------



## Nevada (Sep 9, 2004)

Packedready said:


> I have insurance, I was checking for the friend that didn't get insurance and only makes $12,000 per year.


That's a low enough income to qualify for Medicaid, even for a household of one. I agree with TheMartianChick, your friend should call the exchange and ask.

It's my understanding that people who signup or make changes during the open enrollment period in the fall won't be eligible for the new policy until Jan 1.


----------



## ErinP (Aug 23, 2007)

Wendy said:


> So much for everyone having affordable healthcare, huh??


I'm not understanding something here. Are you saying you want the fed to force your state to expand Medicare? 
I agree that you should be frustrated. Nothing whatsoever changed for you. 
But, at the same time, nothing whatsoever changed for you...



no really said:


> ... use the VA.
> 
> Point being not everyone gets subsidies.


Of course not. :shrug: Where are you getting the idea they do? 
However, aside from employer-sponsored coverage, the fact that you're able to access the VA means you _have_ coverage. 
You were never one of the people this was intended for in the first place...


----------



## ErinP (Aug 23, 2007)

Packedready said:


> I am not sure where you get your information that most tax payers in this country qualify for a subsidy. If that were the case there would be no one to pay for it. It is the tax payers that are paying for the people that are accepting the subidies and getting the free rides.
> 
> Anyone that is one the "free rides" I think it is a conflict of interest to even post on this forum about how wonderful ObamaNoCare Act is. You should just be thankful.
> 
> ...



You're confusing a multitude of issues--



1. Not everyone will qualify for a subsidy because of insurance _availability_. That is, if their employer provides a group policy, they're out of luck. This law was designed for the uninsured/self-insured. 
There are also those who are in the range of the Medicaid expansion. That is, they're below the standard insurance coverage and were supposed to be picked up by their state's Medicaid expansion (see pages 1-8 for a review). 

2. Of those who now have to purchase insurance (who previously didn't have it _because that's really who the law is addressing_), most will indeed qualify for a subsidy because that's simply the demographics of this country. 
For example, a family of four who makes *more than $50K, but less than $94K* will be BOTH a taxpayer as well as qualify for a subsidy. (...Since a family of four has a zero tax liability below $50K or so)

3. Given the fact that the average household income in this country is around $50K, most people, WHO ARE NOW NEEDING COVERAGE, will qualify for a subsidy. 

4. Your friend, as Martian Chick has already stated, qualifies for traditional Medicaid. She doesn't even need to worry about being in a state that did or didn't expand. That low of an income has been covered by Medicaid for _years_...


----------



## Nevada (Sep 9, 2004)

ErinP said:


> 4. Your friend, as Martian Chick has already stated, qualifies for traditional Medicaid. She doesn't even need to worry about being in a state that did or didn't expand. That low of an income has been covered by Medicaid for _years_...


Depends on household size. People making less than federal poverty level (FPL) qualify for traditional Medicaid, while those who are between 100% and 133% of FPL are in the Medicaid expansion group. If the friend has a household size of one then that would put the friend at just over 100% of FPL, since FPL for a household size of one is $11,670. That's $330 above the 100% mark.


----------



## ErinP (Aug 23, 2007)

She told us this was a single mom of one with a $12K income. She qualifies for traditional Medicaid.


----------



## Nevada (Sep 9, 2004)

ErinP said:


> She told us this was a single mom of one with a $12K income. She qualifies for traditional Medicaid.


Sorry, I missed that. A household of 2 at that income will qualify for traditional Medicaid. The Obamacare deadline shouldn't have any impact on her.


----------



## Packedready (Mar 29, 2011)

I had her signed up for Med-cal I thought, but then they lost all of her paper work. I went on the Anthem site and this is what is says:

Please be aware that the open enrollment period to apply for Individual coverage ended on March 31. After that date, you must experience a life qualifying event in order to apply for coverage*. Examples of life qualifying events include but are not limited to; births, adoptions, marriage, divorce and involuntary loss of coverage. If you don't have a life qualifying event, you must wait until the next open enrollment period in November to submit an application. If you don't know if you qualify because of a life qualifying event, please contact your agent or the number at the top of the screen.
*NV residents may apply for an Off-Marketplace plan without a qualifying event but will be subject to a waiting period outside of open enrollment.


----------



## TheMartianChick (May 26, 2009)

Packedready said:


> I had her signed up for Med-cal I thought, but then they lost all of her paper work. I went on the Anthem site and this is what is says:
> 
> Please be aware that the open enrollment period to apply for Individual coverage ended on March 31. After that date, you must experience a life qualifying event in order to apply for coverage*. Examples of life qualifying events include but are not limited to; births, adoptions, marriage, divorce and involuntary loss of coverage. If you don't have a life qualifying event, you must wait until the next open enrollment period in November to submit an application. If you don't know if you qualify because of a life qualifying event, please contact your agent or the number at the top of the screen.
> *NV residents may apply for an Off-Marketplace plan without a qualifying event but will be subject to a waiting period outside of open enrollment.


That only applies if you are trying to get a regular insurance policy. Have your friend re-apply to Med-Cal via phone or in a Social Service office.


----------



## Packedready (Mar 29, 2011)

TheMartianChick said:


> That only applies if you are trying to get a regular insurance policy. Have your friend re-apply to Med-Cal via phone or in a Social Service office.


When I signed her up for Medi cal they said she would have a choice of insurance companies like Anthem etc. Now they can't find her paperwork. She is a young person and isn't good at these type of phone calls and dealing with this type of thing. That is why I tried to do it for her. I told her to follow through and call them, she never did.


----------



## TheMartianChick (May 26, 2009)

Packedready said:


> When I signed her up for Medi cal they said she would have a choice of insurance companies like Anthem etc. Now they can't find her paperwork. She is a young person and isn't good at these type of phone calls and dealing with this type of thing. That is why I tried to do it for her. I told her to follow through and call them, she never did.


It is good that you are trying to help her. It demonstrates that you are a caring person. 

With that being said... You can lead a horse to water, but you can't make him/her drink. Unless your young friend has a disability, she needs to do this herself. If you are right there when she makes the call, you can lend moral support. If needed, she can give her permission so that they can speak to you if you she is doing a lousy job of articulating the situation. 

Since she has a child, she's going to have to learn to do this and be responsible for follow-up. It is a life lesson.


----------



## Packedready (Mar 29, 2011)

TheMartianChick said:


> It is good that you are trying to help her. It demonstrates that you are a caring person.
> 
> With that being said... You can lead a horse to water, but you can't make him/her drink. Unless your young friend has a disability, she needs to do this herself. If you are right there when she makes the call, you can lend moral support. If needed, she can give her permission so that they can speak to you if you she is doing a lousy job of articulating the situation.
> 
> Since she has a child, she's going to have to learn to do this and be responsible for follow-up. It is a life lesson.


Thanks for the advice. When I signed her up it took about 5 hours. I had more time on my hands at that point. 

Currently I am caring for a mother with COPD that just got much worse and a dad with Alzheimer's. I also am preparing for a very difficult state exam that only 38% pass, that I will be taking in May.

She needs to do this herself.


----------



## TheMartianChick (May 26, 2009)

Packedready said:


> Thanks for the advice. When I signed her up it took about 5 hours. I had more time on my hands at that point.
> 
> Currently I am caring for a mother with COPD that just got much worse and a dad with Alzheimer's. I also am preparing for a very difficult state exam that only 38% pass, that I will be taking in May.
> 
> She needs to do this herself.


I knew that you were a caring individual! Best of luck to you on your exam and I hope that your parents' health stabilizes.


----------



## Molly Mckee (Jul 8, 2006)

I wonder how many additional people could have been insured if we expanded that exsisting programsand used all the money spent on obamacare on insurance for those that needed it? And for how many years?

People making 50,000.00-94,000.00 do not need subsistized insurance. That is simply a vote buying scam.


----------



## Wendy (May 10, 2002)

> I'm not understanding something here. Are you saying you want the fed to force your state to expand Medicare?
> 
> 
> 
> ...


No, I didn't say that. I am fine with paying for my own bills. What I do worry about now is no one even seeing me or my husband because we don't have insurance. I think that is going to be a problem. It never was before, but I can see it being one now.

My nephew has some things wrong with his teeth. He is not quite 2. My brother & his wife had him checked at a dentist & was told he would nee to be put out to fix them. For the hospital, anesthesiologist, & dentist it would be close to $20,000!!!! To fix a few baby teeth, that is just crazy! They also have no coverage & were told it would need to be paid up front before anything is done. Would not even talk about a payment plan of any kind. She is switching jobs in June & will have insurance after that. So, they are going to wait.

That is the thing I am talking about. Of all the times I have had babies or surgery, I was always able to work out a payment plan & pay my bills. Now because of this fiasco, that may not be an option. I guess if something major happens I will just say good-bye to my kids & go curl up in a corner & die.


----------



## painterswife (Jun 7, 2004)

Wendy said:


> No, I didn't say that. I am fine with paying for my own bills. What I do worry about now is no one even seeing me or my husband because we don't have insurance. I think that is going to be a problem. It never was before, but I can see it being one now.
> 
> My nephew has some things wrong with his teeth. He is not quite 2. My brother & his wife had him checked at a dentist & was told he would nee to be put out to fix them. For the hospital, anesthesiologist, & dentist it would be close to $20,000!!!! To fix a few baby teeth, that is just crazy! They also have no coverage & were told it would need to be paid up front before anything is done. Would not even talk about a payment plan of any kind. She is switching jobs in June & will have insurance after that. So, they are going to wait.
> 
> That is the thing I am talking about. Of all the times I have had babies or surgery, I was always able to work out a payment plan & pay my bills. Now because of this fiasco, that may not be an option. I guess if something major happens I will just say good-bye to my kids & go curl up in a corner & die.



Just because one doctor or dentist won't take a payment plan does not mean all will not. Nor does it mean that is what the future holds. That is fear mongering at it's worst. Curl up in a corner and die? If I remember correctly you are the one who said that you could survive if your husband passed. I guess you have a good reason now to look for employment so you can pay for insurance instead of curling up and dying.

I am fine with people worrying that they may not be able to pay their bills but equating the ACA with not being able to get medical care in an emergency does not make any sense.


----------



## painterswife (Jun 7, 2004)

no really said:


> Wonder who will pay for all those subsidies, if everyone gets one. :yuck:
> 
> By the way I am single and don't qualify for a subsidy.


You do however get care from the VA.


----------



## tiffnzacsmom (Jan 26, 2006)

A dentist not taking a payment plan for oral surgery is pretty standard procedure and has been for years. 35 years ago when I knocked out my front teeth that was already the case. 

Dental coverage for children is something usually covered by state's Medicaid programs and if they don't qualify for that then one of the parents should have been job hopping for insurance. I took a massive pay cut to have better and cheaper insurance 8 years ago. These are choices parents need to make with or without the ACA.


----------



## Nevada (Sep 9, 2004)

Wendy said:


> What I do worry about now is no one even seeing me or my husband because we don't have insurance. I think that is going to be a problem. It never was before, but I can see it being one now.


Yes, access to care is the problem, so that's where your concern should be.

I was without insurance for a very long time, although my health was good. But I wondered what would become of me if I had been diagnosed with cancer or some other expensive malady. You can go to the ER for a lot of things, but not cancer treatments.

As far as the bill is concerned, if you acquire a $500,000 medical bill that you can pay, then you can't pay. It's a simple as that. They can't get blood from a turnip. But your access to more care is going to be limited.


----------



## Molly Mckee (Jul 8, 2006)

There is no guarantee doctors or hospitals will take obamacare either Wendy. When they get stung a few times by the limited payments or the approval, when people people are behind on the premiums, then canceled, so they don't get paid, they may start limiting or refusing obamacare. If the current statistics continue, where the Medicaid people do over 90% of the suing, people on Medicaid may find it hard to find service.


----------



## Nevada (Sep 9, 2004)

Molly Mckee said:


> There is no guarantee doctors or hospitals will take obamacare either Wendy.


Medical providers are not dealing with the exchanges, they're dealing with private insurance companies. I don't see how a hospital would even know if I bought the policy through the exchange, through an employer, or on the open market. The same policy I have is sold all 3 ways.


----------



## Molly Mckee (Jul 8, 2006)

It will depend on if the government get things working and the insurance company getting their payments in a timely manor and even knowing who they are insuring. The gov't has already sent out a letter explaining that people will be allowed to be 3 months behind on their insurance payments before they are canceled, but since they can get approval for treatment until actual cancellation, the service provider may want to make the payments for the patient so they will get paid. Service providers will get stung a few times this way, and you better believe they are going to know how the patient buys his insurance. I would guess the date of insurance and group and individual numbers with make this information plain.

I have also read that the payments section is not even completely written, so no one knows if this will work, or how long it will take to work. If this is the truth there will be real problems with some insurance companies not getting paid on time , but still expected to pay by the service providers. 

One very large problem with obamacare is it was based on untruths, one being there is so much waste in our medical system that fixing it will pay for a lot of care. Another untruth is that the rich doctors and hospitals can absorb the cost of a lot of care and they can still function.This is simply not true.

If the problems are not fixed, the insurance companies paid on time, the service providers paid in a timely manor, it will be very hard to find practitioners that will take obamacare. This does not address the problems all the additional medicaid patients will cause. This will very from one state to another, but in general, medicaid is slow pay and pays a very low percentage of actual approved charges. Oh, and the fact that medicare payments are supposed to be cut as well. This is going to add up to a disaster for all involved.


----------



## Wendy (May 10, 2002)

> I guess you have a good reason now to look for employment so you can pay for insurance instead of curling up and dying.


I am unable to get a full time job because I have to take my son back & forth to his job. I do several part time things, but none of them make enough to pay the outrageous premiums that insurance companies want. We aren't lucky enough to get subsidies like some people. If I can't get treatment, I can't get treatment. Not a lot I'll be able to do about it. If I die, I die. I'm not too concerned about when my time comes. 

So many people like to say, get a job that offers insurance, move to a state that expanded medicaid, get a different job. A lot of places are not offering insurance anymore. I'm sure states that exanded medicaid would just love to have a bunch more people move there so they can fork out more money. Jobs are not easy to come by anymore. It seems for every job out there, there are 100 people applying for that same job. Several businesses have closed locally & another big one is closing in January. 

Like I said, for those that get the subsidies, this is wonderful. For most people it is not.


----------



## Molly Mckee (Jul 8, 2006)

Wendy, we got Melissa the help she needed, I'm sure you would get help if you need it.


----------



## Tricky Grama (Oct 7, 2006)

Nevada said:


> That's true. Insurance companies can sell any insurance they want to sell, it just might not be ACA compliant. In the eyes of Obamacare you aren't insured with a non-compliant policy. All that means is that you'll be subject to the fine.


And this, my friends, is why you'll see lots of conservatives who'll sign up. They will be compliant b/c it is the law...even tho it has been changed ILLEGALLY by this POTUS's pen/word. 
But of course the "Ds" do not care how its done, they just want this "signature legislation" to stand. Constitution- phfffft!


----------



## Nevada (Sep 9, 2004)

Wendy said:


> I am unable to get a full time job because I have to take my son back & forth to his job. I do several part time things, but none of them make enough to pay the outrageous premiums that insurance companies want. We aren't lucky enough to get subsidies like some people. If I can't get treatment, I can't get treatment. Not a lot I'll be able to do about it. If I die, I die. I'm not too concerned about when my time comes.
> 
> So many people like to say, get a job that offers insurance, move to a state that expanded medicaid, get a different job. A lot of places are not offering insurance anymore. I'm sure states that exanded medicaid would just love to have a bunch more people move there so they can fork out more money. Jobs are not easy to come by anymore. It seems for every job out there, there are 100 people applying for that same job. Several businesses have closed locally & another big one is closing in January.
> 
> Like I said, for those that get the subsidies, this is wonderful. For most people it is not.


You have what I consider to be the most legitimate complaint with the ACA of anyone. The fact is that you aren't getting equal protection under the law. I don't think it's fair, or even legal, to expand Medicaid in some states and not others.


----------



## Melissa (Apr 15, 2002)

I think once the election is over, something will be done to expand Medicaid in the states that have not expanded it on their own. 

So far our insurance has not changed much. A few years ago they changed the number of hours (300 more per year) that were necessary to qualify, then they sent out another notice and lowered it by a hundred hours. Our deductibles and coverages have remained consistent.


----------



## Molly Mckee (Jul 8, 2006)

Since Medicaid is basically a state program, I don't think the federal government is currently able to force an expansion. At the cost of Medicaid, on every level this expansion is going to be very expensive, the states, the federal assistance, the medical professionals.
I don't see how it is going to work, long term. 

About 10 years ago, in OR, medicaid paid 13% of the approved charges. They averaged 10 months to pay. You cannot run any type of medical system with many patients like that. Which is one reason why many doctors don't accept new medicaid patients. The other major problem is the fact that the vast majority of lawsuits are filed by medicaid and charity patients. There are no "fixes" in obamacare for either problem. 

I think the system was either designed to fail, or simply a really good example of why committees can not design things that work. Too many people involved had no experience in any kind of health care to build a workable system, IMO.


----------



## Melissa (Apr 15, 2002)

Basically, the government seems to be able to create any sort of program they want to create. I am about 90% positive that there will be some kind of Medicaid type program implemented for those states that did not choose to expand Medicaid and I imagine those states will get a cut in funding for something else. Expect it and plan accordingly...


----------



## Molly Mckee (Jul 8, 2006)

I would think the reasonable thing to do would be cut out subsidies over a reasonable income amount, and use it for people that really need help paying for health care. However if they don't do something soon, medicaid will not be worth much, unless you live in a state that has public hospitals. For profit hospitals don't like medicaid patients now, non profits are having a hard time staying out of the red now. At some point they will have to limit their losses, or close.


----------



## Nevada (Sep 9, 2004)

Molly Mckee said:


> I would think the reasonable thing to do would be cut out subsidies over a reasonable income amount, and use it for people that really need help paying for health care.


Wouldn't cutting subsidies make it just that much harder for people to comply with the insurance mandate?


----------



## Molly Mckee (Jul 8, 2006)

I think the people making 50,000.00 to 90,000.00 could manage.


----------



## ErinP (Aug 23, 2007)

> I would think the reasonable thing to do would be cut out subsidies over a reasonable income amount, and use it for people that really need help paying for health care.


That's exactly how they work. 
People at the top end of each bracket get a couple bucks a month worth of a subsidy. People at the bottom end, _pay_ a couple bucks a month AFTER theirs...


----------



## Molly Mckee (Jul 8, 2006)

A couple of dollars a month for someone making over $90,000.00??? Processing costs more than that, and they certainly do not need it!


----------



## Nevada (Sep 9, 2004)

Molly Mckee said:


> in general, medicaid is slow pay


We've got a situation with Medicaid here in Las Vegas. Medicaid settlements used to come from county social services, but under the new system they're paid by the state. University Medical Center (UMC) isn't sure how long payment from the state will take, so UMC requested an emergency loan from the county for $25 million to see them through to this summer.

http://www.lasvegassun.com/news/2014/apr/14/clark-county-considers-hospital-loan/

The county commissioners will consider the loan tomorrow.


----------



## Molly Mckee (Jul 8, 2006)

Can you imagine what will happen when a significant number of hospitals have the same problem? What about the doctors?

Another thing that could be problematic is the fact that when you get medical care you agree to pay if your insurance doesn't , it's on the insurance form you sign. What is going to happen if the insurance company decides not to pay and people are expected to?


----------



## Kellkell (Nov 19, 2004)

Molly Mckee said:


> Another thing that could be problematic is the fact that when you get medical care you agree to pay if your insurance doesn't , it's on the insurance form you sign. What is going to happen if the insurance company decides not to pay and people are expected to?


Exactly what happens now when they don't have insurance and don't pay, the hospital eats it.


----------



## Tricky Grama (Oct 7, 2006)

Molly Mckee said:


> I think the people making 50,000.00 to 90,000.00 could manage.


If you're a family making 50K/yr you cannot afford 1-2K/mo ins. tho...
Plus heard last eve of several states raising Obamacare premiums by 100%, 50%, and some 30%. Wonderful. Then in another couple yrs, another raise like that. 
Yeah. "affordable" my rear.

Here's some links to what the real signup #s are.

http://blog.heritage.org/2014/04/02...7-1-million-obamacare-enrollees-phony-number/

http://townhall.com/tipsheet/guyben...snt-reached-five-million-enrollments-n1810463

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs...t-numbers-what-we-know-and-what-we-dont-know/


----------



## ErinP (Aug 23, 2007)

Molly Mckee said:


> A couple of dollars a month for someone making over $90,000.00??? Processing costs more than that, and they certainly do not need it!


The point is simply that the subsidy goes down as income goes up. :shrug:
That was your complaint that I posted in response to, remember?


----------



## Molly Mckee (Jul 8, 2006)

No, I wasn't complaining, I was suggesting. I do not think people that earn decent incomes need subsidies. It just trains people to want something more from the government, so you get into debates about things like the birth control argument. No one wants to take birth control pills off the market, they just think you can buy your own. But many people don't think they can pay for their own health care, if the government doesn't pay, they can't have it. I think it's a way of training people, not helping them. Or simply buying votes.


----------



## Nevada (Sep 9, 2004)

Kellkell said:


> Exactly what happens now when they don't have insurance and don't pay, the hospital eats it.


That's what we've been led to believe. But it seems that Las Vegas hospitals found a loophole that allows them to send undesirable (uninsured & underinsured) patients to UMC (our county hospital).

http://www.lasvegassun.com/news/2013/jul/17/state-officials-las-vegas-hospitals-sloughing-pati/

The loophole is that if a patient arrives at the ER and needs a specialist that's not available that they have to transfer the patient to a hospital that has it. But it's the ER's call if a specialist is really needed. What they are finding is that a high percentage of patients (as many as half) transferred to UMC to get a specialist were uninsured or Medicaid patients. Patients who can pay tend to stay at private ERs, and the ones that can't pay go to UMC.


----------



## Deacon Mike (May 23, 2007)

Wendy said:


> Sorry, but there are still a lot of us that have to worry about those things because we still do not have coverage, despite the fact that Obama said everyone would get healthcare that they could afford. Not quite sure what planet he is from, but it's not this one. I haven't found any healthcare even close to being affordable. How many states that did expand Medicaid are going to find themselves in a lot of financial trouble once they have to start footing most of the bill? Perhaps the states that didn't expand were actually thinking about the future & how they would cover so many more people. Might not have been so dumb on their part. Hurts those of us that don't qualify for subsidies though.
> 
> This was by far the least thought out plan ever. There are so many things going wrong with it that they didn't even consider. For those that it helped, it's the best thing since ice cream. For those of us that fall through the cracks, it's a nightmare! And I am pretty sure there are more having trouble than there are getting benefits.


I'm still quite confused by your reactions to the situation. The law as written covers you and your family. The law as interpreted by SCOTUS could cover you and your family. Your state made the decision that you would not have coverage. Coverage that would not cost that state anything. From 2014 to 2016 the Feds pay the entire cost. From 2017 to 2019 the Feds by 95% of the cost, and from 2020 on, the Feds pay 90% of the costs. 



Packedready said:


> In this country everyone votes their pocketbook. Your rates went down because you got a subsidy that the tax payers have to pay for, so you like it, our rates went up, with less coverage.
> 
> It hasn't worked in Canada and England - It won't work here. Vote them out.


It works in every modern country in the world. The US before this law went into effect spent more per capita and got worse results. And we didn't cover everyone. And frankly, I truly doubt you have less coverage.



arabian knight said:


> 80% just remember that. As that is % that DON'T want it, don't likes it, and Will vote accordingly against it. 2014 elections can't come to soon. And then just wait till 2016. YEAH.


That's totally untrue



Nevada said:


> Got a reference on 80%?


Maybe the National Report? No, he doesn't have a source



Molly Mckee said:


> There is no guarantee doctors or hospitals will take obamacare either Wendy. When they get stung a few times by the limited payments or the approval, when people people are behind on the premiums, then canceled, so they don't get paid, they may start limiting or refusing obamacare. If the current statistics continue, where the Medicaid people do over 90% of the suing, people on Medicaid may find it hard to find service.


When you sign up for a policy, you can find a list of which doctors and medical facilities that are in the network. Those will accept your insurance, period, end of story. The insurance companies will pay the negotiated rates just like they do now. Not much is changing in regards to that. You perception of how it will work is simply incorrect.



Nevada said:


> You have what I consider to be the most legitimate complaint with the ACA of anyone. The fact is that you aren't getting equal protection under the law. I don't think it's fair, or even legal, to expand Medicaid in some states and not others.


It may not be fair, but it's certainly legal. The Supreme Court said so.



Melissa said:


> I think once the election is over, something will be done to expand Medicaid in the states that have not expanded it on their own.





Melissa said:


> Basically, the government seems to be able to create any sort of program they want to create. I am about 90% positive that there will be some kind of Medicaid type program implemented for those states that did not choose to expand Medicaid and I imagine those states will get a cut in funding for something else. Expect it and plan accordingly...


I think you're hopelessly optimistic. Anything like that would require Republican votes, and that's just not going to happen



Molly Mckee said:


> I think the people making 50,000.00 to 90,000.00 could manage.


I don't think you have a real good concept of what insurance costs. Here's a chart for a family of 4.










Even at an income of 94.2K, they'd still be spending 9.5% of their income on insurance. And at 94,201, no subsidy. Zero. Of course the good news in that case is that they'd be exempt from the penalty due to affordability. The bad news is they may not have insurance.


----------



## Packedready (Mar 29, 2011)

Deacon Mike said:


> I'm still quite confused by your reactions to the situation. The law as written covers you and your family. The law as interpreted by SCOTUS could cover you and your family. Your state made the decision that you would not have coverage. Coverage that would not cost that state anything. From 2014 to 2016 the Feds pay the entire cost. From 2017 to 2019 the Feds by 95% of the cost, and from 2020 on, the Feds pay 90% of the costs.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


 
You do not have your facts correct. I have a grandfathered Anthem policy that has the same terms this year as last year. My cost went up by 25% bringing my premium to $700 for 1 adult.

I thought my coverage would be the same, but the doctors are instructed not to provide the same care as what they provided last year. I had a physical, which *I have to pay* for and instead of 8 vails of blood they took 2 vails. The doctors are instructed to limit their time with patients in order to see more. If you need more care you have to make separate appointments so that the doctors can get paid what they did before.

My GYN sent me a prescription to take before my pap smear this year in 2013, guess what they refused to do the pap smear. They thought I needed it last year but decided I did not need it this year.

I disagree with you that this type of medicine works all over the world. If it did the Canadians would not be coming here for health care. The English with money wouldn't pay doctors that are not in their system. It doesn't work - and will not work.

I thought health care worked just fine in the past. There will be a lot of deaths that will be attributed to ObamaNoCare.


----------



## Molly Mckee (Jul 8, 2006)

If you have a decent income you budget-- is the government supposed to help with food and housing as well? Why even work?

Some of the listed doctors/ hospitals were not even consulted before being listed. They may not take the insurance, especially if the insurance doesn't pay them. Read the fine print on your admittance form -you are responsible if the hospital isn't paid.

You might want to do a little research, on your own, not just look at canned information.


----------



## Melissa (Apr 15, 2002)

I can see some sort of Medicaid expansion occurring that does not require a vote. I am not being optimistic about it, I just expect something will happen so that more people can participate in the program. How it is all going to work out in the end, I am not sure about...


----------



## Nevada (Sep 9, 2004)

Packedready said:


> You do not have your facts correct. I have a grandfathered Anthem policy that has the same terms this year as last year. My cost went up by 25% bringing my premium to $700 for 1 adult.


But is it the same policy? Can they cancel you? Do you have annual & lifetime maximums?


----------



## Nevada (Sep 9, 2004)

Packedready said:


> I thought health care worked just fine in the past.


You really don't think the system is broken? You don't think the system was working for some but not others?


----------



## arabian knight (Dec 19, 2005)

It was working just fines for the 85%. And 80% of the uninsured never even bother to sign up. Why? because the systems NOW stinks ands they are wising up to that fact.


----------



## Kellkell (Nov 19, 2004)

Yes Molly, you are liable for the service if the doctor isn't paid by insurance. You need to confirm with the office if they are a participating provider in your insurance prior to your appointments, and know the terms of your insurance. Providers may be listed in a booklet, but they are no longer contracted with that insurance company.

Nevada, it isn't a loophole if it is illegal. What they were doing was an EMTALA violation. If the hospital is a private hospital, they have to treat and stabilize all patients. But they do not have to accept non-insured patients beyond that. If the patient requires continued treatment beyond stabilization, they can be transferred to an accepting facility. Then if the patient doesn't pay for the service, and the hospital is unable to collect in some way, it is a loss. UMC was clearly be duped into accepting patients for transfer.

Medicaid patients will find it harder and harder to find accepting physicians because the reimbursements are a joke. I know of doctors who don't even bother billing for medicaid patients because the cost to process the claim exceeds the reimbursement.


----------



## Nevada (Sep 9, 2004)

arabian knight said:


> It was working just fines for the 85%.


The fact that 85% might have been insured doesn't mean that it was working fine for them. Americans pay way too much for healthcare, and don't get much in return.

But what about that 15%? That's 45 million Americans left out of the system altogether, and doesn't include those who are underinsured. Millions more Americans are insured today than were before the ACA. I'm among them.



arabian knight said:


> And 80% of the uninsured never even bother to sign up. Why? because the systems NOW stinks ands they are wising up to that fact.


The healthcare reform issue is way too politically charged.


----------



## Molly Mckee (Jul 8, 2006)

The state of WA figures show that there are fewer people with health insurance than before. 80% of the people that signed up got Medicaid. Many of these had insurance from employers before but that was cancelled. Medicaid is not insurance, it is charity.


----------



## Packedready (Mar 29, 2011)

Nevada said:


> But is it the same policy? Can they cancel you? Do you have annual & lifetime maximums?


The only way they can cancel me is for undisclosed health information at the time they issued the policy and non-payment.


----------



## Nevada (Sep 9, 2004)

Molly Mckee said:


> The state of WA figures show that there are fewer people with health insurance than before.


I'd like to learn more about that. Can you direct me to a reference?


----------



## Packedready (Mar 29, 2011)

In the planning stages of ACA Senators, Congressmen that voted for the law and Obama decided that there are far too many medical tests that are being ran. They decided that they are not needed and by cutting back on these tests they could save money to help pay for ACA.

They assumed that the doctors didn't know what they were doing by ordering these tests and they knew better. They know more than the professionals. You better stay healthy. We all need the uninformed politicians to make our medical decisions for us.


----------



## Nevada (Sep 9, 2004)

Packedready said:


> In the planning stages of ACA Senators, Congressmen that voted for the law and Obama decided that there are far too many medical tests that are being ran. They decided that they are not needed and by cutting back on these tests they could save money to help pay for ACA.
> 
> They assumed that the doctors didn't know what they were doing by ordering these tests and they knew better. They know more than the professionals. You better stay healthy. We all need the uninformed politicians to make our medical decisions for us.


I thought the ACA made many screening tests available at no copay.

http://www.drfiola.com/news/questions-and-suggestions/


----------



## Packedready (Mar 29, 2011)

Nevada said:


> I thought the ACA made many screening tests available at no copay.
> 
> http://www.drfiola.com/news/questions-and-suggestions/


They do but they want to limit the tests because they believe that many are unnecessary and wasting money that could be used to pay for ACA. Originally that was one way they were going to pay for the plan.

There is no co pay but you will not get the same amount of testing that you would get before ACA.


----------



## MO_cows (Aug 14, 2010)

Nevada said:


> The fact that 85% might have been insured doesn't mean that it was working fine for them. Americans pay way too much for healthcare, and don't get much in return.
> 
> But what about that 15%? That's 45 million Americans left out of the system altogether, and doesn't include those who are underinsured. Millions more Americans are insured today than were before the ACA. I'm among them.
> 
> The healthcare reform issue is way too politically charged.


If there were 45 million people left out of the system, and only 7 million new signups, how can you say more are insured today? That is a net loss and doesn't even count the millions who lost their policy because it was found to be non-compliant.


----------



## Nevada (Sep 9, 2004)

Packedready said:


> There is no co pay but you will not get the same amount of testing that you would get before ACA.


I'm going for blood tests this week for the first time in 20 years. That shows you how much testing I got before the ACA! LOL


----------



## Nevada (Sep 9, 2004)

MO_cows said:


> If there were 45 million people left out of the system, and only 7 million new signups, how can you say more are insured today?


You must have meant something different than you typed...

But the number of uninsured has been reduced a lot more than the 7 million new signups. There are also about 3 million fewer uninsured resulting from previously uninsured young people being added to their parents' insurance. The number of uninsured has been reduced by more like 10 million.

http://thinkprogress.org/health/2014/03/31/3420881/millions-uninsured-americans-coverage/

The number of uninsured people who had their insurance policies canceled is small because most took out new policies.


----------



## arabian knight (Dec 19, 2005)

Nevada said:


> I'm going for blood tests this week for the first time in 20 years.


 Who's fault is that? LOL


----------



## Nevada (Sep 9, 2004)

arabian knight said:


> Who's fault is that? LOL


OK. Then if ACA insurance won't pay for blood tests as frequently as you would like, whose fault is it if you skip the tests?


----------



## Packedready (Mar 29, 2011)

I have to pay for all my blood tests and all medical care until I meet my deducable of $550 and then I pay 30% until I reach my out of pocket of $3,000. 

I didn't limit the doctor on the tests he ordered. He ordered less because the government doesn't think they are necessary and that the doctors are over testing. I would be happy to pay for additional tests.


----------



## MO_cows (Aug 14, 2010)

Nevada said:


> You must have meant something different than you typed...
> 
> But the number of uninsured has been reduced a lot more than the 7 million new signups. There are also about 3 million fewer uninsured resulting from previously uninsured young people being added to their parents' insurance. The number of uninsured has been reduced by more like 10 million.
> 
> ...


----------



## Nevada (Sep 9, 2004)

Packedready said:


> I have to pay for all my blood tests and all medical care until I meet my deducable of $550 and then I pay 30% until I reach my out of pocket of $3,000.


The Obamacare policy I selected is an HMO. Normally HMO's provide routine & preventative care at no deductible. The deductible only applies to major services, such as ambulance, hospitalization, and surgery. Things like doctor visits, lab, & x-ray are provided with a modest copay and no deductible.


----------



## Nevada (Sep 9, 2004)

MO_cows said:


> Now, after all the agony of rolling out this thing, we only have 10 million more people with insurance. 30% of those are because mommy and daddy are paying for it.
> 
> That is not exactly a success story!


10 million more Americans insured? Sure, I call it a success story. And it's going to get better.


----------



## Packedready (Mar 29, 2011)

Nevada said:


> The Obamacare policy I selected is an HMO. Normally HMO's provide routine & preventative care at no deductible. The deductible only applies to major services, such as ambulance, hospitalization, and surgery. Things like doctor visits, lab, & x-ray are provided with a modest copay and no deductible.


I am happy for you, it is great for you to have coverage. You haven't had care for 20 years, so it is really something you need. You probably will not get the routine & preventative care that you would have gotten last year had you had insurance. 

You will not understand what you are missing as the people who have had coverage are receiving much less than last year, before ACA. These are some of the reasons that people on this board have such strong opinions on the subject. 

The people without subsidy's, health care is costing them a lot more and they are receiving a lot less. If I were a young person I would do without health care. $95 on a tax return is nothing.


----------



## Molly Mckee (Jul 8, 2006)

How is it going to get better? 

If a procedure is normally billed at $120.00, is approved by insurance companies at $100.00 and they normally pay 80-100%, but medicaid pays 13% so they pay 13.00 out of every 100.00 approved. Or less if they are short on money. This % varies from state to state, but it is the lowest pay as well as the slowest.

If the rest of the country doubled the medicaid numbers as WA did, you have huge numbers of patients expecting a lot of care at the government's expense. The government isn't paying fair market price, or even meeting the cost of care. How can that work long term? And you have huge amounts of subsidies to pay as well. Where is the money going to come from?


----------



## Nevada (Sep 9, 2004)

Molly Mckee said:


> How is it going to get better?


I meant that the number of insured will continue to improve.



Molly Mckee said:


> If a procedure is normally billed at $120.00, is approved by insurance companies at $100.00 and they normally pay 80-100%, but medicaid pays 13% so they pay 13.00 out of every 100.00 approved. Or less if they are short on money. This % varies from state to state, but it is the lowest pay as well as the slowest.


Insurance contracts with providers is normally for around 30% of the billed amount. So if a service is billed at $120 they will normally settle for around $40. It's billed at $120 because if the bill is never paid they can deduct $120 from their gross income as a bad medical debt, which will take about $40 off their tax bill. The bill gets paid one way or another.


----------



## Nevada (Sep 9, 2004)

Packedready said:


> You will not understand what you are missing as the people who have had coverage are receiving much less than last year, before ACA. These are some of the reasons that people on this board have such strong opinions on the subject.


Insurance hasn't really changed that much under ACA. The significant changes are accepting everyone regardless of pre-existing conditions, not ever being dropped for health reasons, and having no annual & lifetime maximums. Of course those things cost a little extra.


----------



## Packedready (Mar 29, 2011)

Molly Mckee said:


> How is it going to get better?
> 
> If a procedure is normally billed at $120.00, is approved by insurance companies at $100.00 and they normally pay 80-100%, but medicaid pays 13% so they pay 13.00 out of every 100.00 approved. Or less if they are short on money. This % varies from state to state, but it is the lowest pay as well as the slowest.
> 
> If the rest of the country doubled the medicaid numbers as WA did, you have huge numbers of patients expecting a lot of care at the government's expense. The government isn't paying fair market price, or even meeting the cost of care. How can that work long term? And you have huge amounts of subsidies to pay as well. Where is the money going to come from?


What is happening is doctors are not accepting patients, there will be less care and less care. Before you know it we will be like England and have to go to doctors that are not on the plan, and there will be many and pay for our care.


----------



## Nevada (Sep 9, 2004)

Packedready said:


> What is happening is doctors are not accepting patients


I haven't observed that problem. I have options that I had never even heard of before. In addition to having a primary care physician and hospital ERs, my insurance also covers urgent care clinics, Walmart walk-in clinics, and even telemedicine (doctor visit from home via video computer session).


----------



## MO_cows (Aug 14, 2010)

Nevada said:


> 10 million more Americans insured? Sure, I call it a success story. And it's going to get better.


Good job on the selective quote snip! You took out what you didn't want repeated, eh?

I'll say it again, when we started out with 45 million uninsured and only 10 million of them have been covered, that means we have been thru all this agony and LESS THAN 25% OF THE ORIGINAL PROBLEM HAS BEEN SOLVED. 

I would hardly call that a success and I think the only people who do call it a success have either a) personally benefited, or b) they are dedicated pom pom wavers for the D party (or both). 

If I was only 25% effective at my job, I wouldn't have one for very long!

I guess when all else fails, lower your standards.


----------



## Packedready (Mar 29, 2011)

Nevada said:


> I haven't observed that problem. I have options that I had never even heard of before. In addition to having a primary care physician and hospital ERs, my insurance also covers urgent care clinics, Walmart walk-in clinics, and even telemedicine (doctor visit from home via video computer session).


It all sounds good and I hope you are right, but my first hand experience was far less than what you describe. What you will find is your insurance does cover all of this care, but when you go to use it they want to give you a lot less, because it is cheaper.

My insurance has full coverage also. With the type of coverage I have to Drs. and hospitals get a lot more money than what they will get with your type of insurance. Who would they rather treat?


----------



## Molly Mckee (Jul 8, 2006)

Nevada said:


> I meant that the number of insured will continue to improve.
> 
> 
> 
> Insurance contracts with providers is normally for around 30% of the billed amount. So if a service is billed at $120 they will normally settle for around $40. It's billed at $120 because if the bill is never paid they can deduct $120 from their gross income as a bad medical debt, which will take about $40 off their tax bill. The bill gets paid one way or another.


No that is not true, unless it's in obamacare. The cost of service generally is set so that the medicare approved amount is the amount they expect. Many insurance companies use the Medicare reimbursements, and some have contracts with large care providers. So basically,care providers expect to get about 80% of the billed amount, unless they have a contract with your insurance company, which involves certain payments and cost controls dictated by the insurance company. When the state decides to pay 13 or whatever percent of the approved charge, the medical provider is losing money. If they have too many medicaid patients they are going to have to stop seeing all medicaid patients, or get large subsidies, and I do not believe there is any provision for that. The last time I looked the state of WA is broke and so is the federal government.

Some medical malpractice insurance companies limit the number of medicaid patients you can see because they are the largest group that sues. That cuts the number of medicaid patients that can be seen as well. The only way that is going to change is tort reform, or sky rocking medical malpractice rates, which doctors will not be able to afford.


----------



## Tricky Grama (Oct 7, 2006)

Packedready said:


> You do not have your facts correct. I have a grandfathered Anthem policy that has the same terms this year as last year. My cost went up by 25% bringing my premium to $700 for 1 adult.
> 
> I thought my coverage would be the same, but the doctors are instructed not to provide the same care as what they provided last year. I had a physical, which *I have to pay* for and instead of 8 vails of blood they took 2 vails. The doctors are instructed to limit their time with patients in order to see more. If you need more care you have to make separate appointments so that the doctors can get paid what they did before.
> 
> ...


And Britain would not be trying everything to change their system, they're not believing what we're getting into here.


----------



## Tricky Grama (Oct 7, 2006)

Packedready said:


> They do but they want to limit the tests because they believe that many are unnecessary and wasting money that could be used to pay for ACA. Originally that was one way they were going to pay for the plan.
> 
> There is no co pay but you will not get the same amount of testing that you would get before ACA.


In all fairness, excessive testing HAD become the norm. But mostly due to mal-practice cases. Docs too afraid NOT do everything there is to do. Tort reform may have helped that. I shudder to think what Obamacare has cut in the 780 billion of medicare cuts. Ezekial Emanuel was one of the architechs as was John Holgren.
Both advocate forced abortions, and followed "The Complete Lives System" when writing Obamacare. They have the belief that only productive citizens are 'worthy'.
B/4 everyone jumps on this, go search Holgren's writings along w/Ezekial. Holgren wrote about birth control in the drinking water. He just didn't know how to get the dose right.


----------



## Nevada (Sep 9, 2004)

Packedready said:


> What you will find is your insurance does cover all of this care, but when you go to use it they want to give you a lot less, because it is cheaper.


That's how insurance companies make money. As Erlichman told Nixon, "the less care they give them, the more money they make."

[ame="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RmHTte8jRLk"]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RmHTte8jRL[/ame]


----------



## Nevada (Sep 9, 2004)

MO_cows said:


> I'll say it again, when we started out with 45 million uninsured and only 10 million of them have been covered, that means we have been thru all this agony and LESS THAN 25% OF THE ORIGINAL PROBLEM HAS BEEN SOLVED.


A large part of the uninsured gap isn't going to be solved until the Medicaid expansion problem is resolved. That's a self-inflicted problem.


----------



## Molly Mckee (Jul 8, 2006)

How do you propose fixing medicaid expansion??


----------



## Wendy (May 10, 2002)

I think I'm going to go to Washington & find one of those money trees that seems to be growing there.


----------



## Molly Mckee (Jul 8, 2006)

Get me one too, please!


----------



## Nevada (Sep 9, 2004)

Molly Mckee said:


> How do you propose fixing medicaid expansion??


One way or another, everyone should be eligible for the same federal benefits. It's not fair for people in one state to get a benefit that people in other states can't have, particularly when all states contribute.

As Melissa suggested, they'll fix it somehow.


----------



## Molly Mckee (Jul 8, 2006)

I don't think you can just expand medicaid, it doesn't pay well enough to cover the cost of most medical care. If you do that you will have to increase the payments and if you increase the payment and cover millions more, it's going to be cost prohibitive. 
I think you will have to do major tort reform while leaving room for real malpractice suits, and maybe going to government funded medical school and residencies. I don't think you are going to get great doctors if they go into practice with hundreds of thousands of dollars in debt, and face huge malpractice insurance payments, and not much chance of making a good living. Medical equipment is so expensive, one reason being the cost of suits.

I don't know the answers, I don't think anyone does. I do think people working on the revamp should be medical professionals and maybe economists, not politicians and special interest groups. To be effective, you have to understand the current system and know what will happen when you change one thing and how it will also change something else.


----------



## Nevada (Sep 9, 2004)

Molly Mckee said:


> I don't think you can just expand medicaid


I don't know why not. Both your state and mine expanded Medicaid.


----------



## arabian knight (Dec 19, 2005)

ya and just wait for two years when more and more expense of that Medicaid expansion gets put on your state and see how well they like. LOL


----------



## Nevada (Sep 9, 2004)

arabian knight said:


> ya and just wait for two years when more and more expense of that Medicaid expansion gets put on your state and see how well they like. LOL


Doesn't involve me. I don't have Medicaid, and I'll be in Medicare in less than 2 years.


----------



## MO_cows (Aug 14, 2010)

Nevada said:


> A large part of the uninsured gap isn't going to be solved until the Medicaid expansion problem is resolved. That's a self-inflicted problem.


That's the solution??? Just make more people a burden to the taxpayers?? 

We are fast approaching the tipping point where there are more people riding in the wagon than there are people left to pull it. The cash cow that is the average taxpayer is already milked dry. 

The long term answer isn't to expand Medicaid, it is to reduce the need for Medicaid in the first place. 

There could be a fund created, similar to the banking industry and its FDIC/FSLIC, to help bridge the gap between Medicaid and those who can afford private insurance. The industry that is making a handsome profit off of all our health care needs could contribute to the fund to provide coverage for more people. In the long run it would earn them more profits because more people will be able to seek and receive health care services.


----------



## Nevada (Sep 9, 2004)

MO_cows said:


> That's the solution??? Just make more people a burden to the taxpayers??


The cost of all this is a major concern. I've got some ideas on how to provide medical services for less, but all would impact medical provider or insurance company income. The problem is that all the right people are getting rich right now and nobody in Washington wants that to change.

Obamacare will remain solvent for 10 or 20 years, then costs will overrun the system. Cost effective medical care will have to be left for the next generation to fix.


----------



## Molly Mckee (Jul 8, 2006)

Nevada said:


> I don't know why not. Both your state and mine expanded Medicaid.


Yes WA did expand medicaid, of course they are broke so paying for it in the future is going to be a problem. We also have a large group of people on the west side that approve all sorts of things there is no money for and it doesn't stop them. They just plan to let the "rich" pay for it. I guess they don't realize they are the "rich".

It is very hard to find doctor that will take a medicaid patient here on the east side of the state. All the medicaid in the world will not do you any good if no doctors take medicaid patients.


----------



## cast iron (Oct 4, 2004)

I think Molly and others are correct in that the chickens will come home to roost in regards to the Medicaid situation. 

For Washington state as of April 8th:


> ACA Enrollment Exceeds Half a Million!
> 
> More than 550,000 Washingtonians have enrolled in Affordable Care Act coverage through the Washington Health Plan Finder during the first open enrollment period. About 146,000 of these people enrolled in commercial insurance through the Exchange and about 404,000 enrolled in Medicaid...
> 
> Data through the end of February indicate that more than two-thirds of those enrolling in commercial insurance chose a Premera plan. A majority of the enrollees chose âsilver plansâ â plans that offer a âmid-levelâ of premium price and cost-sharing, and a majority were also over the age of 45. More than 80% of enrollees received a premium subsidy.


https://www.wsha.org/weeklyReportDetails.cfm?EID=2014-04-10 00:00:00.0&#article6924

The budget for Washington state public hospitals was released a few weeks ago and does not include any cuts to public hospital-owned clinics, at least not yet. If you read up on this it's clear that they are looking at the coming wave of new medicaid recipients with great concern over how it will all be paid for, and I expect they will be ultimately be looking at WA tax payers for part of the solution.

I did not realize how much the hospitals have taken over the healthcare world. And because these are public hospitals they are required to accept medicaid patients at these clinics. These clinics are not sub-par in terms of facilities and equipment.

I had occasion to meet with a women who is a retired physician and now a consultant in the healthcare field with particular experience in these hospital-owned clinics. She did not paint a pretty picture for our future healthcare. She said the doctors in these clinics are paid based on how many patients they see in a given time frame, usually measured as X patients per day. She said they are called 'turn and burn' doctors or 'swinging door' doctors. When we talked about the ACA and medicaid in WA specifically, she said that while they would like to provide care for everybody who had a need the bottom line is from a financial perspective the math doesn't work and it's not even remotely sustainable.

And there is this quote from my doctor (who is not shy about sharing his views on this subject). Sarcastically... "You are a paying customer, your payments help pay for the guy who shows up to the ER for treatment of a sinus infection to the tune of $800. Thanks for your payment and have a nice day"...


----------



## Molly Mckee (Jul 8, 2006)

Nevada said:


> The cost of all this is a major concern. I've got some ideas on how to provide medical services for less, but all would impact medical provider or insurance company income. The problem is that all the right people are getting rich right now and nobody in Washington wants that to change.
> 
> Obamacare will remain solvent for 10 or 20 years, then costs will overrun the system. Cost effective medical care will have to be left for the next generation to fix.


I haven't seen any projecting that obamacare will be solvent. The GAO says it will cost something like 1.3 trillion dollars in 10 years.

There isn't the profit people think in the health care system. The average family practice doc makes something like $120,00.00 a year. Considering the amount of money and time he has invested in his education, this isn't going to get them rich any time soon. If insurance companies do not make money for their stockholders--many of our pension funds and savings--they go out of business. You can't expect the medical people to absorb the cost of medical care. That is like expecting the grocers to absorb the cost of feeding the country.


----------



## Nevada (Sep 9, 2004)

Molly Mckee said:


> Yes WA did expand medicaid, of course they are broke so paying for it in the future is going to be a problem. We also have a large group of people on the west side that approve all sorts of things there is no money for and it doesn't stop them. They just plan to let the "rich" pay for it. I guess they don't realize they are the "rich".


I've got a daughter in Spanaway and close friends in Sequim. They're not what I would call rich, but they aren't on Medicaid either. If makes you feel any better they're all pretty liberal and approve of Obamacare.


----------



## Molly Mckee (Jul 8, 2006)

Nevada said:


> I've got a daughter in Spanaway and close friends in Sequim. They're not what I would call rich, but they aren't on Medicaid either. If makes you feel any better they're all pretty liberal and approve of Obamacare.


The majority of the west side of the state approves of obamacare. The majority of those on the east side do not. But if all of us on this side of the state voted together we still can't out vote the west siders. Healthcare isn't the only problem, we get to pay for things that don't benefit us, like the new alaskaway viaduct and pro sports stadiums. We really have no vote higher than the county level on the eastern part of the state. OR has the same problem. There isn't much we can do to change it, but then we don't have to deal with the Seattle traffic or all the silly local laws either.


----------



## Nevada (Sep 9, 2004)

Molly Mckee said:


> The majority of the west side of the state approves of obamacare. The majority of those on the east side do not. But if all of us on this side of the state voted together we still can't out vote the west siders. Healthcare isn't the only problem, we get to pay for things that don't benefit us, like the new alaskaway viaduct and pro sports stadiums. We really have no vote higher than the county level on the eastern part of the state. OR has the same problem. There isn't much we can do to change it, but then we don't have to deal with the Seattle traffic or all the silly local laws either.


I really should have told you that Obamacare is moot for both my daughter and my friends in Sequim. My daughter is married to a regular Army guy, so she and my grandkids have Tricare. My friends in Sequim are retired and on Medicare.

But the tail wags the dog in a lot of states. The Las Vegas vote runs Nevada, and California can't really get anything done that the L.A. basin won't support.


----------



## Tricky Grama (Oct 7, 2006)

Molly Mckee said:


> I don't think you can just expand medicaid, it doesn't pay well enough to cover the cost of most medical care. If you do that you will have to increase the payments and if you increase the payment and cover millions more, it's going to be cost prohibitive.
> I think you will have to do major tort reform while leaving room for real malpractice suits, and maybe going to government funded medical school and residencies. I don't think you are going to get great doctors if they go into practice with hundreds of thousands of dollars in debt, and face huge malpractice insurance payments, and not much chance of making a good living. Medical equipment is so expensive, one reason being the cost of suits.
> 
> I don't know the answers, I don't think anyone does. I do think people working on the revamp should be medical professionals and maybe economists, not politicians and special interest groups. To be effective, you have to understand the current system and know what will happen when you change one thing and how it will also change something else.


This is so true. The other day in the paper a doc wrote into 'letters to the editor'. He said he had a great staff, had 'whittled' the overhead/costs down as much as humanly possible. ONE patient visit costs $190! For most medicaid he gets around 100 to 130 depending on what is done. He can only do so many at that loss.


----------



## Melissa (Apr 15, 2002)

From what I understand, in Ohio, if you are on Medicaid, you are now enrolled with an insurance plan. Medicaid must pay the insurance company and the insurance negotiates with the doctors/hospitals. I wonder if the payments are better this way?


----------



## Molly Mckee (Jul 8, 2006)

Melissa said:


> From what I understand, in Ohio, if you are on Medicaid, you are now enrolled with an insurance plan. Medicaid must pay the insurance company and the insurance negotiates with the doctors/hospitals. I wonder if the payments are better this way?


It would be interesting to know what they are doing. Here they just expanded medicaid. I would think the cost of increasing payments would be simply cost prohibitive, but the payments do vary from one state to another. They are calling medicaid "insurance" but here and in many states it really isn't. The state just pays a percentage of the bill.


----------



## Kasota (Nov 25, 2013)

The other thing to realize is that medicaid and programs like CHIP may come with an insurance card from an insurance company but they are not necessarily covered by that insurance but rather that insurance company is a third party administrator for a government program.


----------



## Deacon Mike (May 23, 2007)

Molly Mckee said:


> I haven't seen any projecting that obamacare will be solvent. The GAO says it will cost something like 1.3 trillion dollars.


Look a little harder. A simple Google search should work.













> Those estimates address only the insurance coverage provisions of the ACA; they do not constitute all of the actâs budgetary effects. Many other provisions, on net, are projected to reduce budget deficits. Considering all of the provisionsâincluding the coverage provisionsâCBO and JCT estimated in July 2012 (their most recent comprehensive estimates) that the ACAâs overall effect would be to reduce federal deficits.


----------



## Molly Mckee (Jul 8, 2006)

I don't know where you found that but it doesn't agree with what I have read, and it doesn't make much sense. It is from the Congressional Budget Office, not noted for being truthful. However, as you dump the cost of medicaid back on the states, maybe it is partially true. Here in WA 4/5 of the obamacare "insured" are getting medicaid, not insurance and will be paid for by the state. However the state can set the amount of reimbursement, which makes medical professionals hesitant to take it. Not being able to find a doctor or hospital that will accept your insurance makes it pretty worthless.


----------



## Nevada (Sep 9, 2004)

Molly Mckee said:


> Not being able to find a doctor or hospital that will accept your insurance makes it pretty worthless.


My doctor takes Medicaid. :shrug:


----------



## Molly Mckee (Jul 8, 2006)

None of mine take new medicaid patients, they will continue care for a current patient that has to go on medicaid. 

Depending on how your state reimburses for medicaid, and the malpractice insurance requirements, doctors sooner or later will have to quit taking medicaid or go under.


----------



## arabian knight (Dec 19, 2005)

Molly Mckee said:


> I don't know where you found that but it doesn't agree with what I have read, and it doesn't make much sense. It is from the Congressional Budget Office, not noted for being truthful. However, as you dump the cost of medicaid back on the states, maybe it is partially true. Here in WA 4/5 of the obamacare "insured" are getting medicaid, not insurance and will be paid for by the state. However the state can set the amount of reimbursement, which makes medical professionals hesitant to take it. Not being able to find a doctor or hospital that will accept your insurance makes it pretty worthless.


The ObamaNoCare will never be a money maker. Never~!. Already raided Medicare to help pay for this scam. And Taxes already have been collected these past two years to pay for the highest ever Tax Increase on the American people, to pay for this monstrosity. They did that just to make so called Numbers look good to Fool so many that don't even want to know the truth much less look for the truth. Just take the good old government on its word.
Well the books have been cooked for so many years now even the government is starting to believe its own lies as the truth.


----------



## Nevada (Sep 9, 2004)

arabian knight said:


> The ObamaNoCare will never be a money maker. Never~!


Obamacare was never intended to me a money maker. It's a subsidy program.


----------



## Tricky Grama (Oct 7, 2006)

Now its revealed that good ol' Obama has reported the YOUNG sign ups to include ALL children under age 34...as in people's kids on their plans!! They have NOT 'signed' up! They do NOT PAY for a plan! 
BWhahaha!
Y'all that support this monstrosity, this boondoggle, really do not care, I know, but why don't you care about the lies?


----------

