Originally Posted by GGT
Come on, seriously? The exchanges are designed to hide the cost of subsidies from the top-level price that people are seen. And the exchanges also direct people into the Medicaid welfare program. Just because they package the thing up with a fancy Web site and call it an exchange doesn't mean it's not a welfare program. Oh wait, the site is so fancy it doesn't work too well.
Look, if you don't like the PPACA, then you either don't like your own employer-subsidized, group health insurance benefits, with falsely low premiums....or you don't want others to have access to the same benefits you enjoy. Which is it?
Come on, seriously? The exchanges are designed to hide the cost of subsidies from the top-level price that people are seen. And the exchanges also direct people into the Medicaid welfare program. Just because they package the thing up with a fancy Web site and call it an exchange doesn't mean it's not a welfare program. Oh wait, the site is so fancy it doesn't work too well.
What's wrong with informing people they might qualify for Medicaid, and directing them to MMS? Do you also object to parents being informed about subsidized food programs when they enroll their child in public school?
The federal web site had a disastrous debut. Everyone knows that. Probably didn't help that congress underfunded the program, or spent more time trying to repeal the law than making it better. The Republican-controlled states that refused to create their own state exchanges are crying in their own soup.
Because, combined with the subsidies, it's an example of how the ACA is a fancy welfare program.
But your idea that the ACA is somehow "underfunded" is nonsense. The law is jam-packed with slush funds and billion dollar coding.
http://www.alexmarchant.com/blog/201...omparison.html
http://www.alexmarchant.com/blog/201...omparison.html
The subsidies are based on income, so even the working-poor and folks buying their own policies will have access to the same health care that you enjoy. Some of those people will qualify for expanded Medicaid, depending on the state. We're talking about peoples' lives... you can't wave that away by using buzzwords like "welfare". Your own group, employer-subsidied insurance is fancy "corporate welfare".
The PPACA isn't the website.But your idea that the ACA is somehow "underfunded" is nonsense. The law is jam-packed with slush funds and billion dollar coding.
Democrats controlled the house and the senate when Obama care passed. You can't pin this on Republicans unless your just blindly partisan.What's wrong with informing people they might qualify for Medicaid, and directing them to MMS? Do you also object to parents being informed about subsidized food programs when they enroll their child in public school?
The federal web site had a disastrous debut. Everyone knows that. Probably didn't help that congress underfunded the program, or spent more time trying to repeal the law than making it better. The Republican-controlled states that refused to create their own state exchanges are crying in their own soup.
Hello? Republicans passed the unfunded Medicare D program that added to our deficit, and rolled out a totally fucked up website during the Bush administration. Democrats agreed to help fix that mess, even though they'd voted against it, as a matter of bipartisanship and good governance.
Yes, it's perfectly reasonable to "pin" some of the responsibility on Republicans. Especially since senate minority leader McConnell (R-Ky) stated the main GOP mission was to prevent President Obama from having a 2nd term....and 2012 (R) Presidential hopefuls ran on a platform to repeal-and-replace "Obamacare". Lose/lose.
It's worth noting that states who created their own health insurance exchanges, including Kentucky, don't have many complaints. What's the Texas excuse gonna be? Your state has one of the highest numbers of uninsured, children living in poverty, and low rankings for maternal/child health and morbidity/mortality. Yet, your governor and legislature refused to (a) expand Medicaid, AND (b) create an insurance Marketplace for Texans.
Let me make sure I understand your logic.Hello? Republicans passed the unfunded Medicare D program that added to our deficit, and rolled out a totally fucked up website during the Bush administration. Democrats agreed to help fix that mess, even though they'd voted against it, as a matter of bipartisanship and good governance.
Yes, it's perfectly reasonable to "pin" some of the responsibility on Republicans. Especially since senate minority leader McConnell (R-Ky) stated the main GOP mission was to prevent President Obama from having a 2nd term....and 2012 (R) Presidential hopefuls ran on a platform to repeal-and-replace "Obamacare". Lose/lose.
It's worth noting that states who created their own health insurance exchanges, including Kentucky, don't have many complaints. What's the Texas excuse gonna be? Your state has one of the highest numbers of uninsured, children living in poverty, and low rankings for maternal/child health and morbidity/mortality. Yet, your governor and legislature refused to (a) expand Medicaid, AND (b) create an insurance Marketplace for Texans.
1. Republicans opposed Obama Care.
2. Republicans campaigned against Obama Care and tried to prevent it from passing, they made it a central piece of their campaign against Obama's 2nd term.
3. Democrats passed Obama Care over the objections from the Republicans that it wasn't going to work, it would cost too much money and American's won't like it.
4. Its the Republicans fault Obama Care isn't working smoothly.
/boggle
That's not "my logic", but a reflection of political reality. Obamacare was designed around Republican theories and initiatives, from Heritage Foundation to RomneyCare in Massachusetts, using the private Insurance Industry to administer health benefits in an open market/exchange....with regulatory requirements for insurance carriers, and mandates for businesses and individuals.
Previous insurance models weren't giving more people better healthcare. Using Hospitals and ERs for primary care, and basic care, was proven unsustainable. Health insurance policies didn't mean "healthcare"....and didn't protect insured people from medical bankruptcies.
Lewk, please answer my question about the State of Texas, and the status of millions of Texans looking for healthcare.
Eh what question? Texas's excuse for the federal government not enforcing immigration laws? Unlike you I don't think its the governments job to provide health care to everyone with a pulse.
The ACA wasn't impacted by shutdowns or sequesters. It's been fully funded as legislated for the past three years. The idea that this is a result of Republican "obstructionism" is nonsense. Democrats broke it; democrats own it.The PPACA isn't the website.
"It's worth noting that states who created their own health insurance exchanges, including Kentucky, don't have many complaints. What's the Texas excuse gonna be? Your state has one of the highest numbers of uninsured, children living in poverty, and low rankings for maternal/child health and morbidity/mortality. Yet, your governor and legislature refused to (a) expand Medicaid, AND (b) create an insurance Marketplace for Texans."
That question. About your home state, with horrible health data compared to other states. Doesn't Texas give a flip about its residents who don't have insurance, preventive or primary care, and enter the system sicker --- using more expensive ER and specialty services? What happened to your previous stance that everyone should have insurance policies and not "mooch" off the ER, since those exorbitant costs are shifted to the insured, and hike everyone's premiums?
<BTW, the ACA doesn't "provide" the health care, or even the insurance products -- that's done by the private sector (with the exception of Medicaid administration via MMS). Remember, the Insurance Industry helped craft the law, looking forward to all those new policies and underwriting.>
You're not reading. I said...."congress should have spent the last 3 1/2 years in oversight and improvements". That is their job! Not wasting time on gridlock and shutdowns and political posturing. It's disingenuous of them to complain about certain aspects of the law at this late date, especially since the 2012 election and SCOTUS reaffirmed the law.
That'd be like a senior college student acting shocked they haven't met degree requirements, because they were distracted and busy organizing student protests against freshman year curricula, or something.
Republicans have been saying for 3+ years its not going to work, its bad and it will hurt the country. They have shouted it from the roof tops and have tried every legislative tactic to stop this from going through.... and now that it is here and doesn't work properly its somehow their fault. Amazing.
Yes, it's amazing...that Republicans were for it, until they were against it....because it wasn't enacted by a Republican congress with a Republican President.
That'd be like a senior college student acting shocked they haven't met degree requirements, because they were distracted and busy organizing student protests against freshman year curricula, or something.
And yes, HHS is like the college senior you've described. They've spent the past three years spending a fat marketing budget and sitting on a bunch of rules for the utopia they were seeking to build. And now it turns out they aren't ready for the real world.
Actually, thank you, you've sorta outlined a great analogy for the Dept of Health and Human services.
http://news.yahoo.com/sticker-shock-...133652630.html No one saw this coming...
Hope is the denial of reality
pfft, the insurance carriers saw this coming 3 1/2 years ago, and did a crappy job of educating their policy holders. Same for 'investigative' journalists who chose to cover the politics instead of fully informing the public.
That's not to say the Obama administration did a good job of messaging or information, either. There's no excuse for all the confusion and misinformation flying around right now....that just flames peoples' fears.
*The term cancellation is misleading and downright disingenuous. Individual policies (like the ones mentioned in that yahoo piece) expire every 12 months, then are either renewed -- or not. Those 'renewals' have come with premium increases and/or benefit reductions for years, decades. The individual market was like the Wild West of health insurance, with no protections for the buyer, and nowhere else to go.
*Insurance carriers/medical underwriters could treat a new diagnosis as a pre-existing condition, to shave coverage in the renewal. People need to read the fine print, understand what new 'exclusions of coverage' actually means, and not simply focus on the monthly premiums or deductibles. That's how folks ended up with junk policies and medical bankruptcies.
*"Deductibles" is another term being misused, often conflated with co-pays or OOP costs. Yet another example of the 'chaos' in the individual market, and the Insurance Industry capitalizing on that confusion to sell policies to folks like the Griffins. (Who, btw, will be eligible for Medicare and Medicare supplemental policies in one year.)
*No one is required to use a state or federal exchange, or apply for subsidies. The people in that yahoo story can contact any insurance company to find a policy that suits their needs and budget. They can even stay with their previous carrier -- who had the legal option to Grandfather their old policy year-after-year, as written -- but chose not to. See, third parties know the gig is up for selling new, worthless, cheap, junk policies, that leave people sick or broke. It's just a matter of time and information before the public figures that out, too.
Pretty sure Republicans called it.
But oh yeah its their fault for this happening. At least according to GGT.
Last I checked almost no Republicans were in favor of a national plan - instead if they liked Romney care they thought it should be handled on a state by state basis. Its amusing how what one Republican governor does in one deep blue state is somehow on the national agenda for the party. Doesn't work that way - and furthermore Obama care does a lot of other crap that wasn't in Romney Care.Yes, it's amazing...that Republicans were for it, until they were against it....because it wasn't enacted by a Republican congress with a Republican President.
You're entitled to your own opinion, but not your own facts.
The PPACA isn't a "national health insurance plan". It's government regulation of the private Insurance Industry, with legislation mandating individual participation, and tax credits for certain income groups. That's RomneyCare/MassCare in a nutshell.
Those basic fundamentals were created by conservative academics, think tanks (and Republicans) in the 90's, in opposition to "HillaryCare" proposals that might have created a National Health Plan like Medicare-for-All, or something similar. Romney said the Mass model should be expanded/adopted by all states, and that's what the law set out to do.
States that refused to create their own MarketPlace Exchanges knew damn well their residents would be forced to use the Federal site by default. So they can't really whine in their own soup.
BTW, what "other crap" is in the ACA that isn't in MassCare? Specifics, please.
Attack on Health Savings Accounts for one.
Little things like extra taxes on things like tanning companies that I don't think were in the Romney plan - though I could be wrong I'm by no means an expert on Romney care. Also little bull shit stuff like the 1099 $600 requirement that has thankfully been fished was also shoved into the massive bill.
For me personally the rule stating that insurance companies were required to keep former dependents on their parents insurance for EIGHT YEARS after reaching adulthood was a ridiculous joke.
What attack on HSAs?Carriers were required to give parents the option of keeping children on family policies up to age 26 because that demographic might be a college student, or may not make enough income to buy their own policy and/or qualify for Medicaid.
I don't see why you have a beef with that....since the parents also pay higher premiums for that coverage. Plus, their adult child doesn't have to go without health insurance, pay the fine, then hope like hell they don't get sick or injured--and end up filing for medical bankruptcy. Do you have a better solution?
I'm beginning to think that our legislators are more clueless about the individual insurance market than their constituents, who are complaining about "cancellation notices" and asking for help.
There's a new "bipartisan" proposal aimed at allowing people who liked their old policies to keep them. Mostly in response to Obama's blanket promise, and holding him to it. But that just doesn't make sense....because it's the insurance carriers that decided to end those (crap) policies.
https://www.ehealthinsurance.com/aff...-care-act/faqsWhat attack on HSAs?
I don't see why you have a beef with that....since the parents also pay higher premiums for that coverage. Plus, their adult child doesn't have to go without health insurance, pay the fine, then hope like hell they don't get sick or injured--and end up filing for medical bankruptcy. Do you have a better solution?
"The Affordable Care Act did make some changes to Health Savings Accounts – also called HSAs – and how they will work:
First, the law eliminated one’s ability to use money in their HSA account to buy over-the-counter drugs
The second big change is that the law increased the penalty for withdrawing funds from your HSA before you reach age 65. The early withdrawal penalty increased from 10% to 20%"
Also the whole 26 thing irritates me because the mentality is that kids should still be dependent on their parents EIGHT years after they have reached adulthood. EIGHT years? Really? Eight years of being out on their own and working and they are still dependent on their parents. That's the wrong message to send on a cultural level.
My HSA has never covered over the counter medications without a prescription (otherwise it becomes stupid easy to get around the withdrawal penalty), and its always carried a 20% penalty for as long as I've been enrolled with it.
"In a field where an overlooked bug could cost millions, you want people who will speak their minds, even if they’re sometimes obnoxious about it."
I can't comment on each plan but its not a disputed fact that Obamacare is making these changes.
But its only a change if you ignore what the plans already offered.
besides the wording of your quote presents the change incorrectly. You can still use hsa funds for over the counter meds, the difference is the prescription requirement
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Over-the-counter_drug
Over-the-counter (OTC) drugs are medicines sold directly to a consumer without a prescription from a healthcare professional, as compared to prescription drugs, which may be sold only to consumers possessing a valid prescription.
You can have a prescription for over the counter meds
Brevior saltare cum deformibus viris est vita
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
