Affordable Care Act: Real Reform or More Bureaucracy?

[Kelly]

http://www.healthcare.gov/law/index.html Read the law here...

http://commonsense2.com/2012/08/hea...otection-and-affordable-care-act-for-dummies/

http://www.healthcareandyou.org/what-is/

At this moment, I honestly do not know if this is going to be a positive thing for our country or not. I have not seen much of the positive as of yet, but I will continue to wait and hope.

 

[Kelly]

Obamacare 'Glitch' Allows Some Families To Be Priced Out Of Health Insurance

 

[enterthemadness]

I haven't read those links yet. I did read a headline from rt.com...that said something like 'Poorest Americans will be fined in USA by not having Obamacare'

Which means Imma be fined. Oh, joy.

And starting in 2014, it's either have Obamacare or get fined/taxed? Won't be any other health insurance?

 

[Paradoxium]

Glorious news comrades.

They only realize now, merely calling it "Affordable" does not make it affordable. It's a good thing they didn't read the fine print. Thanks for helping us screw you.

Some Unions Grow Wary of Health Law They Backed

Union leaders say many of the law's requirements will drive up the costs for their health-care plans and make unionized workers less competitive.

To offset that, the nation’s largest labor groups want their lower-paid members to be able to get federal insurance subsidies while remaining on their plans. In the law, these subsidies were designed only for low-income workers without employer coverage as a way to help them buy private insurance.

The Sheet Metal Workers International Association helped push for passage of the health law. Mr. Beall said he still believes everyone should have health insurance, but worries the law is undermining the union's ability to offer coverage.

"If we're not offering our members insurance and pension, why would you want to be union?" he asked.

Central Blacktop Co., a Hodgkins, Ill., road builder that employs members of operating engineers Local 150, provides health benefits by paying $13.45 per hour that each member works, said Joseph Benson, the company's chief financial officer. That averages nearly $19,000 a year per worker.

"Ultimately any increase in expense to the fund is going to come from us down the line," he said.

 

[Kelly]

Glorious news comrades.

They only realize now, merely calling it "Affordable" does not make it affordable. It's a good thing they didn't read the fine print. Thanks for helping us screw you.

Some Unions Grow Wary of Health Law They Backed

And those same unions are all getting waivers. It is AMAZING, the amount of people who VOTED FOR THIS DAMN THING, and are getting waivers for their big money groups. It's kind of sickening actually.

 

[Fading]

I haven't read those links yet. I did read a headline from rt.com...that said something like 'Poorest Americans will be fined in USA by not having Obamacare'

Which means Imma be fined. Oh, joy.

And starting in 2014, it's either have Obamacare or get fined/taxed? Won't be any other health insurance?

Yeah, when I had someone do my taxes they said if you don't have a certain mark showing you have proper health care you will receive an added fine next year on taxes.




Personally, I'm on the fence about it. A lot of ppl are over reacting, it will not cost Denny's, Walmart, or Papa John's anywhere near the amount it would need to for them to act the way they are. I think everyone having health care is good morally, and preventatively. A kid shouldn't die because his family is too poor to afford health care, especially in a country as abundant as ours. I also think in the long run we'll save cash by catching, and treating diseases in early stages for undr $1,000, rather than waiting until it's too late, and racking up $100,000 in hospital fees. There's also things that can be done to bring down the costs with drug company, and medical treatment costs being much higher than they should be.

On the other hand, I'm not happy with who shoulders this burden, the poor mainly. Walmart underpays. When this hits, they will needlessly slash hours, and fire employees. It won't affect their bottom line much, but they will still fire many minimum wage earners. Meanwhile those not making 40 hours will be forced to shop for, and purchase costly insurance on their own. Many ppl are barely getting by as is, and the last thing they need is another bill, or less hours.

I think it's a good idea on paper, but not implemented well in practice. The income gaps, and cost of living will shift the burden on the most vulnerable who it's designed to help. In a perfect world drug companies, amongst others, would vharge fairer rates making this less of a burden on employers. Employers also wouldn't over react by assuming the worst before they read it, and slash hours, and fire to protect profits. Yet they do, and ultimately their employees will shoulder the burden. An article said Papa John's only need to raise each pizza's cost by 3 cents to cover the cost, instead they will fire 100's, and keep several more at 39 hours to avoid coverage. Yet that's their right to do so, even if it's morally lousy, IMO.

 

[enterthemadness]

Yeah, when I had someone do my taxes they said if you don't have a certain mark showing you have proper health care you will receive an added fine next year on taxes.




Personally, I'm on the fence about it. A lot of ppl are over reacting, it will not cost Denny's, Walmart, or Papa John's anywhere near the amount it would need to for them to act the way they are. I think everyone having health care is good morally, and preventatively. A kid shouldn't die because his family is too poor to afford health care, especially in a country as abundant as ours. I also think in the long run we'll save cash by catching, and treating diseases in early stages for undr $1,000, rather than waiting until it's too late, and racking up $100,000 in hospital fees. There's also things that can be done to bring down the costs with drug company, and medical treatment costs being much higher than they should be.

On the other hand, I'm not happy with who shoulders this burden, the poor mainly. Walmart underpays. When this hits, they will needlessly slash hours, and fire employees. It won't affect their bottom line much, but they will still fire many minimum wage earners. Meanwhile those not making 40 hours will be forced to shop for, and purchase costly insurance on their own. Many ppl are barely getting by as is, and the last thing they need is another bill, or less hours.

I think it's a good idea on paper, but not implemented well in practice. The income gaps, and cost of living will shift the burden on the most vulnerable who it's designed to help. In a perfect world drug companies, amongst others, would vharge fairer rates making this less of a burden on employers. Employers also wouldn't over react by assuming the worst before they read it, and slash hours, and fire to protect profits. Yet they do, and ultimately their employees will shoulder the burden. An article said Papa John's only need to raise each pizza's cost by 3 cents to cover the cost, instead they will fire 100's, and keep several more at 39 hours to avoid coverage. Yet that's their right to do so, even if it's morally lousy, IMO.

Well, Govt Run Healthcare is bad imho. People shouldn't be forced to buy from the Govt. I agree with the businesses, although I'm a ass who hates pretty much anything the two party system does.

http://www.nypost.com/p/news/opinion/opedcolumnists/wheels_coming_off_QPojjZX0Bd8BU80hDpcKZP

40 Million uninsured in 2016 under ACA. lol fail.

 

[NerdsList]

When is the last time Congress passed legislation that actually made the country a better place to live?

I'm going to say that it was many decades ago when they cleaned up the environment.

 

[Kelly]

When is the last time Congress passed legislation that actually made the country a better place to live?

I'm going to say that it was many decades ago when they cleaned up the environment.

They cleaned up the environment?????? where??????

I would say the Civil Right's Act....and even the some of Johnson's social reforms until certain groups hijacked them and turned them into fiscal leeches.

 

[Figs]

I haven't read those links yet. I did read a headline from rt.com...that said something like 'Poorest Americans will be fined in USA by not having Obamacare'

Which means Imma be fined. Oh, joy.

And starting in 2014, it's either have Obamacare or get fined/taxed? Won't be any other health insurance?

Hey, it's what the majority of fools wanted. I feel sorry for all the people who can't get a job and have little to no money and will have to pay at the end of the year. Well, I feel sorry for the ones that didn't have their head up their ass and voted against Obama.

 

[Webfoot Hero]

And people were wondering why so many conservative/libertarian-types were fighting tooth-and-nail against Obamacare. It's the cost. People can be so stupid in trusting politicians when they say what a program will cost and how to pay for it. Almost every time a new program is put in, it ends up costing 2-5 times the amount originally stated.

When you have politicians like Pelosi saying things like, "We have to pass it so you can find out what's in it," it should have sent up red flags that something was wrong with it. If it was such good legislation, it should have had much wider support in Congress. I have a clear conscience knowing that I didn't vote for people pushing this program, although it'll probably screw me anyways.

 

[Webfoot Hero]

Hey, it's what the majority of fools wanted. I feel sorry for all the people who can't get a job and have little to no money and will have to pay at the end of the year. Well, I feel sorry for the ones that didn't have their head up their ass and voted against Obama.

Shows that the majority can also be quite stupid, blind, and wrong.

 

[Kelly]

Hey, it's what the majority of fools wanted. I feel sorry for all the people who can't get a job and have little to no money and will have to pay at the end of the year. Well, I feel sorry for the ones that didn't have their head up their ass and voted against Obama.

No it's not, and polls have shown that time and time again as people actually find out what was in the bill.

They wanted Health Care Reform, yes.....they didn't want this. Those are two VERY DIFFERENT THINGS.

 

[Victarion]

The bill is hurting those who really wanted the reform.

 

[Figs]

No it's not, and polls have shown that time and time again as people actually find out what was in the bill.

They wanted Health Care Reform, yes.....they didn't want this. Those are two VERY DIFFERENT THINGS.

The thing is Kelly, for anyone with common sense who actually reads into things, unlike a lot of the blind Obama supporters, it was clear as day that this is what was going to happen, that this was part of the Obamacare plan. That you would get billed(heh, I consider it a fine or punishment from the government) if you don't have health care either from a job, or a program like Cobra insurance for those who don't have a job(even though Cobra is quite expensive and if you have no money...you can't really pay for it.)

What polls are you talking about exactly? As far as I'm concerned it was blind Obama supporters who lack intelligence that didn't think about Obamacare all the way through and what it would lead to.

All they heard was "HEALTH CARE FOR EVERYONE!" and they flocked to it like lemmings without reading into it more.

 

[chaseter]

The past 4 years were the give Obama a chance years. These next 4 I think will be the slap in the face that the people need to wake up out of their hype daze. He has had over 4 years and we are basically right at where we started when he entered office. I would say we are probably a tad worse as more people have dropped out of the unemployment stats than when he started.

 

[Kelly]

The thing is Kelly, for anyone with common sense who actually reads into things, unlike a lot of the blind Obama supporters, it was clear as day that this is what was going to happen, that this was part of the Obamacare plan. That you would get billed(heh, I consider it a fine or punishment from the government) if you don't have health care either from a job, or a program like Cobra insurance for those who don't have a job(even though Cobra is quite expensive and if you have no money...you can't really pay for it.)

What polls are you talking about exactly? As far as I'm concerned it was blind Obama supporters who lack intelligence that didn't think about Obamacare all the way through and what it would lead to.

All they heard was "HEALTH CARE FOR EVERYONE!" and they flocked to it like lemmings without reading into it more.

Polls that take the specifics of Obamacare into the light and the polls show that as these specific things are seen, the majority of the people are not happy with them. I have to agree, I honestly don't understand how anyone could have voted for him again, UNLESS it was a vote against Romney, which as far as I could see, we weren't really going to get anything different from what we have had over the last 4 years, so I had no reason to vote for him either...but, if it was a vote that was a slap on the back to Obama, "hey buddy, you've been doing a great job, we want you for another 4 years..." in my opinion.....pretty dumb vote. If it was a vote because he had a (D) next to his name? pretty dumb vote......if it was a vote against the guy with an (R) next to his name....pretty dumb vote. But, if it was a vote against, whatever policies you saw that Romney had and didn't like those policies, you can discuss those policies, debate the policies, etc????? then ok....I can understand that.... I have a feeling the majority of Obama's votes were the first two. But, honestly....we just didn't have much choice this time. Hopefully the government will do little in the next 4 years, and we can take another crack at this with more viable candidates for President.

 

[Figs]

Polls that take the specifics of Obamacare into the light and the polls show that as these specific things are seen, the majority of the people are not happy with them. I have to agree, I honestly don't understand how anyone could have voted for him again, UNLESS it was a vote against Romney, which as far as I could see, we weren't really going to get anything different from what we have had over the last 4 years, so I had no reason to vote for him either...but, if it was a vote that was a slap on the back to Obama, "hey buddy, you've been doing a great job, we want you for another 4 years..." in my opinion.....pretty dumb vote. If it was a vote because he had a (D) next to his name? pretty dumb vote......if it was a vote against the guy with an (R) next to his name....pretty dumb vote. But, if it was a vote against, whatever policies you saw that Romney had and didn't like those policies, you can discuss those policies, debate the policies, etc????? then ok....I can understand that.... I have a feeling the majority of Obama's votes were the first two. But, honestly....we just didn't have much choice this time. Hopefully the government will do little in the next 4 years, and we can take another crack at this with more viable candidates for President.

I agree with everything here. Sorry if my original post came off a bit too harsh. I just can't stand certain blind Obama supporters, like you mentioned, people who thought he did a great job in his first four years.

 

[Handsome Rob]

From the Los Angeles Times:

States Worry About Rate Shock During Shift to New Health Law

http://www.latimes.com/health/la-na-insurance-costs-20130218,0,1731504.story

Insurance regulators in California, which has enthusiastically embraced the law, cautioned the Obama administration in a recent letter about "rate and market disruption."

Oregon's insurance commissioner, another supporter of the law, said new regulations could push up premiums for young customers by as much as 30% next year.He urged administration officials to slow enactment of the new rules.

. . .


And regulators in Massachusetts, which was the model for Obama's law, recently warned that although many residents and small businesses in the state "will see premium decreases next year, a significant number will see extreme premium increases."

You voted for it. Now you get to own it. And all the college students and people in their 20s who voted for Obama because he was so cool and black . . . well, now you get to find out what happens to your premiums when limits on what seniors can be charged for their premiums kick in. They have to make it up somewhere, you know. Welcome to math. t:

But don't worry: federal subsidies will help with lower income people (including those only four times above the poverty level), and federal subsidies are FREE!!

 

[Baramos]

I think a lot of people complaining that poor people "are now being forced to pay for health insurance" are overlooking the fact that under Obamacare people at 138% of the poverty line or below are supposed to be covered under a Medicaid expansion.

The problem is going to occur if individual states refuse this Medicaid expansion for their citizens and opt out of it (basically the state government turning down federal money that will cover these poor people because they hate Obamacare).

The people it may hurt are people making more than 138% of the poverty line yet somehow working less than 30 hours a week (if you work over 30 hours a week your employer HAS to cover you). I'm not sure who falls into this "donut hole", maybe contractors?

Anyway, the main problem is states refusing to go along with the federal plan and instead attempting to implement their own health care laws/coverage that is supposed to "match" the federal plan, which is an option for them.

http://www.forbes.com/sites/bernard...se-to-enlarge-this-coverage-to-its-residents/

The Supreme Court decision gives individual states the option of expanding Medicaid by changing enrollment requirements. Under the expansion, anyone 133 percent above the federal poverty line will qualify for increasing coverage to low-income individuals, meaning that 17 million currently uninsured would gain Medicaid coverage. The new law will simplify eligibility for enrollment by eliminating the pre-existing categories that one must currently fall under to qualify for Medicaid. Moreover, before the ACA, the federal government shared Medicaid costs with the states, with the federal government paying roughly 57 percent of the total amount. If individual states accept this provision to expand Medicaid, the federal government will cover the total cost for Medicaid expansion for three years. States that consent to the Medicaid expansion will receive funds to pay their residents’ health care bills, which could also reduce the number of hospitals and physicians left with uninsured patient bills. The 100 percent match rate from the federal government will decrease after the first three years: in 2017, the federal government will pay 95 percent of the cost, and in 2020, the federal government will cover only 90 percent of the bill.4

From the Los Angeles Times:

States Worry About Rate Shock During Shift to New Health Law

http://www.latimes.com/health/la-na-insurance-costs-20130218,0,1731504.story

You voted for it. Now you get to own it. And all the college students and people in their 20s who voted for Obama because he was so cool and black . . . well, now you get to find out what happens to your premiums when limits on what seniors can be charged for their premiums kick in. They have to make it up somewhere, you know. Welcome to math. t:

But don't worry: federal subsidies will help with lower income people (including those only four times above the poverty level), and federal subsidies are FREE!!

Well, three years after graduating college I still only make minimum wage as a substitute teacher and I have no health insurance at all, so, yeah, not regretting it at all since now I'll have some sort of basic coverage?

Like you are speaking directly to a block of voters who are mostly going to benefit from the government subsidized part, so why would they have to now "own it" when they still aren't making enough money to regret it?

I have no health insurance, so I have no premiums to have "skyrocket".

 

[Kelly]

No, they (the State) will opt out because they can't afford it, and it is less of a hit for them to not get the Federal funding they will not receive.

You don't have health insurance, but YOU WILL, WHETHER YOU WANT IT OR NOT. So yeah, you are about to have less money in your pocket. Good Luck with that...

And you are not talking to a block of voters who are mostly going to benefit. This huge health care bill was written for less than 15% of the population in this country, and that 15% are not big voters...except for maybe the 25 year old college students who do not have health insurance. I was one of those years ago, and it was out of choice that I didn't have health insurance. As soon as I got my first teaching job, I had insurance.

 

[Baramos]

Well he said, "You college students are going to reap what you sowed" but they are the ones benefiting, so...?

I'm surprised you've chosen not to have health insurance if you could afford it. I never could afford it, so it wasn't really a choice with me.

Also how is it saving the state money if they turn down federal funding? The law still requires their state to have a comparable healthcare system that covers the same people, except it will have to be funded out of the state budget now instead of the federal. The federal budget was going to pay 100% for three years, and then 95% and then 90% in the future. So instead these governors are saying, "No, we want to pay 100% forever". It's just playing politics to garner votes and ultimately costing many of the citizens in these particular states more money in state taxes to cover the state healthcare system they come up with.

It'd be one thing if it was, say, California, rejecting the federal to create a state system, but you are seeing this mostly in states where a huge swathe of the population are the ones the law was created to cover! So now the few rich citizens of those states will foot the bill instead of the rich citizens of other states where there are more rich people. It's just playing politics at the cost of their own state citizens.

 

[Handsome Rob]

Well he said, "You college students are going to reap what you sowed" but they are the ones benefiting, so...?

I'm surprised you've chosen not to have health insurance if you could afford it. I never could afford it, so it wasn't really a choice with me.

Not all college students will be poor after college. Some, within a few years, will be making enough to not be eligible for subsidies but not enough to beconsidered wealthy or rich. That's when the substantially higher prices from Obamacare will hit them hard in the pocketbook. That's when the math will become real and something they can no longer ignore. Reality is a harsh teacher, sometimes.

 

[ericadawn16]

Hopefully, any problems will either be ironed out or encourage people to set up a government and/or non-profit medical system like we have with police and firefighters. Most of us don't pay an annual premium for our local firefighters and police to defend us, it's included in our taxes.

 

[Baramos]

Not all college students will be poor after college. Some, within a few years, will be making enough to not be eligible for subsidies but not enough to beconsidered wealthy or rich. That's when the substantially higher prices from Obamacare will hit them hard in the pocketbook. That's when the math will become real and something they can no longer ignore. Reality is a harsh teacher, sometimes.

But what job are they going to have where this health insurance isn't partially paid for by their employer? It's a very specific income "donut hole" you are talking about. They have to be working less than 30 hours a week for their employer and yet making more than 138% of the federal poverty line. Like I said, it's probably going to mostly be affecting some business owners (those with 50 or more employees, and those employees working 30 or more hours a week) or self-employed people like contractors.