The bombshell that just dropped is not 4th of July fireworks – it was the White House announcing that it was delaying enforcement of the employer-mandate in ObamaCare until 2015. For a public inured to craven political decisions trumping policy, even this was a stunner.
Can the president simply ignore the law? Technically the mandate is not gone, but the administration has great latitude to determine its priorities in enforcing the law. It will simply be much too busy to penalize those violating the mandate, an executive power grab that is familiar from their playbook on education, climate change, and elsewhere.
The policy implications are fairly straightforward. Essentially for calendar 2014 the act of dropping coverage and dumping employees into the exchanges is on sale. Drop and dump, but no penalty. Accelerating the rush of employers to the exits is bad news for taxpayers. At a minimum, the federal revenue from fines is gone. More realistically, the costs of already-bloated insurance subsidies will escalate and the red ink will rise.
Viewed from a health insurance perspective, the implications are mixed. For some, it may well be the case that the new, exchange-based insurance is a better combination of coverage and cost. But it will come at the cost of even greater churning in insurance coverage – which translates into switching provider networks and interrupting health care. (The laughing you hear in the background is those remembering the president’s promise that “if you like your insurance, you can keep it.”)
Harm to health care, interrupted health insurance, bigger federal deficits, and brazen disregard for the law of the land sounds like a bad idea. Why do it?
Politics. Democrats no longer face the immediate specter of running against the fallout from a heavy regulatory imposition on employers across the land. Explaining away the mandate was going to be a big political lift; having the White House airbrush it from the landscape is way better.
It helps with ObamaCare in other ways as well. The administration was flailing to find high-profile allies (e.g., the National Football League) to advertise the wonders of ObamaCare. In a single masterstroke it has given every company a reason to explain its existence (“don’t worry, you’ll be fine in the exchanges”) and created a de facto advertising campaign of enormous scale and reach. Deviously brilliant.
Finally, those on the paranoid right and central-planning left will see this as a willful acceleration of the transition to exchanges full of Americans that are ripe to be transformed into a single-payer system. It will be read as another blow struck in the meta-fight over the size and scope of the federal government.
The announcement is a surprise but bad policy, dreadful governance, and slippery politics are not.
I thought I posted this here earlier today, but I cannot find it, so I am reposting now.
Did all you anti-ObamaCare posters see where House Speaker John Boehner himself took out and ObamaCare policy today? The word was that he thought he would try the website, and when he got the website to lock-up or fail somehow, he would then go on the national news and report its failure. Lo and behold, Mr. Boehner is now an official ObamaCare policy holder. I wonder now how many more times he will try to repeal the ACA. Any bets?
This additional message is for Mr. Holtz-Eakin the author himself. Your chastising President Obama and the Democrats for this push into "socialistic medicine" and a total upset of our current healthcare system, is simply a less-than-effective attempt to solve nothing. WHERE is your or the Republican plan that even offers one of the benefits the ACA has already put into effect? You sure can harp about a problem or problems, but offer absolutely zero in terms of how to solve the misfortunes you so vainly try to explain.
This is not a dictatorship or even anything close to that, it was and is an honest method of providing real health insurance to every American. No one can be denied. Are you happy with your old insurer? If the answer is yes, it is because you never had a pre-existing condition or reached a maximum benefit number for some illness. I have and thus I am speaking from a real life experience. So if you are happy, STAY happy and if you ever reach what USED TO BE the maximum benefit for any treatment or series of treatments, make sure you write a personal thank you note to President Obama for providing that for you. With ObamaCare, the nation wins.
@michaels39301 That's because CONGRESS IS REQUIRED TO GET INSURANCE THROUGH THE EXCHANGE! What you didn't mention is that Obama IS GIVING THEM A 72% SUBSIDY. MORE AND MORE CORRUPTION! BLOW THIS THING UP!
@michaels39301 Look, I'm retired and was a Business Systems Analyst/Engineer. I worked on the largest 'Big Bang' implementation of SAP in the world for the world's largest oil company.
The website was a debacle. Now 5 million canceled policies, and more to come, will need to enroll. They announced that soon the website will be able to handle 50,000 simultaneously users. So between Jan 1 and Dec 1 there are 30 days. That means if everyone enrolled perfectly it will take 100 days. And enrolled doesn't mean you have insurance. The payment system on the website hasn't been built yet. So many of those people will not be insured!
But even though the website is a major debacle it is minor compared to what's coming. Wait till they finally get the cost and that your specialized doctor and hospital are not in-network!
@michaels39301 Why does there have to be a plan by government?
The plan is to get the federal and state governments out of the health care business. Then it can be made affordable.
You should give more than two hoots about Medicare - Obama has gutted about $500 billion in 10 years for Medicare. It's coming off the hide of doctors, hospitals and, oh you're going to love this, certain procedures - it's called rationing! Many doctors today don't see Medicare patients.
@michaels39301 There were many but Harry Reid tabled all of them. The same for the House before 2010 which of course was too late.
Michael put the facts together by yourself!!!
You are wrong...wrong, wrong, wrong. I have had a pre-existing condition for over 35 years and was never denied coverage. Our daughter had a pre-existing condition and was never denied coverage. Our family coverage premium is $253 a month, and covers dental, eye, and $4 prescription on any medicine we use for treatment. Cancellation came in November...went to Healthcare.Gov to apply. For the same price, we get 40% coverage???we had 90% coverage on old plan.The ObamaCare plan for 90% coverage is over $1440...three times more than what we paid originally. Can't afford it...it is more than my house payment! SO we will have to pay the penalty! Now, my daughter will not get the care and medicine for her epilepsy seizures, and without my treatment and care, I'll be dead in six months.....now how can that be right???!!! We aren't rich people...low middle class. People are going to be dropping like flies. How can you support a president or government that will "kill" people, instead of helping them. I don't understand why you can't see that. And let's not even get in the subject of losing our doctors we have trusted for our care for almost 40 years! If you are a healthy person, you probably don't need it at all...but what about people/children who have cancer and are receiving treatment? There is an eight year old girl who gets her treatment the same days I do (or did)...and her parents policy was "cancelled!" First of the year, she will not be able to receive treatments. ObamaCare signed her death warrant too! And we are Democrats! I want the president to look into the eyes do these parents and tell them they can keep their plan, because it is a lie....they could not keep it...or her doctors!
@michaels39301 You clearly have not read the ACA. Unlike the politicians who passed this bill, I DID have to read it because of my profession. The misinformation out there is astounding, not just from the media, but from the politicians we voted in that passed it without reading it. I don't know where you got your info, but it is not factual. The ACA is about TAXING, (hence the supreme court ruling), not about making health care affordable in way shape or form. There is NOTHING in the 2000 plus pages about improving healthcare, or making it more affordable. IT is FULL of new taxes, (disguised as penalties and excise taxes) and its effect IS to make people provide healthcare for others who don't pay for it. Hence the subsidies. It will unfold disastrously for the middle class, as it was not intended to help American citizens. It was intended to help politicians get more taxes, to grow government, to line their own pockets, and to pay off campaign donors.
NEVER believe a politician does anything to benefit you. They don't care about you. They care about power, and taxpayer money is how they get that. They baited us with the "keep your 26 year old adult kids on", "no lifetime limits", no "pre-existing conditions" limits, "you can keep your policy", and on and on.....but all of that COSTS money. And when they run out of other people's money, they will have to RATION health care. Like they do in Canada, England, and all the other socialized medicine countries. My friend in Canada has prostate cancer. He will die from it, as he cannot get into the system. It is rationed, especially at his age. My father-in-law in the states lived 25 years beyond diagnosis of prostate and bladder cancer...because he got treatment. Yes, he had to pay for it thru buying his own insurance, etc.
but health care is not a RIGHT. The minute you say you have a RIGHT to something that someone ELSE has to provide for you, you are making that someone else a slave (whether it is the doctor, or the taxpayers who provide it to you at below cost). You only have a RIGHT to things that you can provide for yourself....and life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. That's it, like it or not.
Dude, this is socialism! GOVERNMENT SHOULD NOT BE DICTATING WHAT HEALTH INSURANCE PEOPLE MUST HAVE. IF YOU WANT TO LIVE LIKE THAT, GO TO CUBA!
and @Veronica Combs
Another two who think they know what is best for other people! You don't know all the circumstances.
What about loosing your cancer specialist and hospital because you've been cancelled because of Obamacare.
It's very complex. And, as always, people believe the government can do a better job.
I hope you two will be one of the 50 to 100 mllion who will lose their employer heath insurance. It's coming!
@michaels39301 That is the best description I've heard of the quality of the insurance policies that are being cancelled, as well as the reason why people still "like" them.
@Jesus Serna @michaels39301 I assume you are talking about the ACA. Anyway, if the government wasn't involved there would be no ACA, nothing other than the old insurers that could charge what they wanted, deny who they wanted, and drop any policy holder they wanted. Thus, the ACA has had some good results for those who need insurance, things that would NEVER have happened if it weren't for President Obama. Medicare is just fine, and the $500 billion you are referring to is another right wing lie. That $500 billion is real, but it is actually from the savings of removing graft and crime from the system, and streamlining care and removing duplicate procedures, where possible. So I will sit back in my easy chair, or hop on my riding lawnmower and know with peace of mind that life is good.
@Jesus Serna @michaels39301 Oh yes, I remember the Republicans put up bills that supposedly addressed healthcare issues. Like the one that addressed pre-existing conditions by saying that THOSE people could be put in the high-risk pools that currently exist. All that did was give them access to insurance at some exorbitant rate. What good would that do? Yes, they COULD get insurance, but only if they were to forego their rent, house payment, and/or groceries each month. That is NOT a solution, only the cause of another problem. Some of these Republican efforts also included their famous "ability to buy insurance across state lines". What good would this do? None of the states covered pre-existing conditions, so whether I shopped in Alaska or Hawaii, I still would find zero coverage.
In addition, every single time the Republicans offered some bill for consideration, it ALWAYS included the end of the President's healthcare law, which everyone knows had zero chance of passing. Thus, even if the Republican Plans (if you can actually call them plans) offered some real advantage, which they did not, they still would have failed because they also included the end of the ACA.
Don't know if you the prices include tax subsidies, if you qualitfy. However, with tax subsidies it doesn't look much better. The deductibles are horrendous.
@AshtonKate2 No way, I too was always covered for my pre-existing condition, just like everyone else WAS, if it was a group policy. Just try to buy individual coverage, and every single insurer would say NO, you have a pre-existing condition. I know this because I experienced it. And I am not alone. I even offered to pay both BC/BS and United Healthcare whatever they wanted to charge for my coverage, but they still turned me down. Both these companies had covered me under group plans while I was working. But when I retired, they refused.
If you cannot afford the specific plan you want, and you can prove that with your tax and income records, then they will definitely subsidize your payments. If your records do not prove the need, then the ball is in your court to choose a plan that you can afford, and that best suits your needs. I certainly wish you the best with your efforts.
One more point. If you can't keep your doctor, it is because he chooses not to accept payment from the ACA insurer. Perhaps you need to seek a physician that is actually more concerned about patient outcomes than money.
@AshtonKate2 Pre-existing means something that came up before you ever had insurance, and was hidden when you applied. Not something that was long-term and known.. that could be insured and has been. The new Obama rules are different. It says, don't buy insurance, but wait until you are sick and then buy it just before you need the services. That is fraud, not insurance. What you describe is a normal insurance package covering a known problem and has always been available. So, it's too bad so many people without thinking voted for Obama - HOPE and CHANGE remember??
I've come to believe that politicians are now extortion artists! They now solicit campaign funding (extortion) from people and groups wanting favors. The Tea Party is the only group trying to make government of the people, by the people, and for the people,
@KerryWallace @michaels39301 Mr. Wallace, sadly you are just another of those right wingers who believe that anyone who feels entitled to ANYTHING is a taker. Consider yourself one as well.....don't you feel you have a "right" to breathe? And who has to provide it for you? I hope you can see that your argument, in fact, almost anyone's argument, has exceptions.
Most of the world, at least the free world, has universal healthcare, or as you call it, socialized medicine. I'm sure you see Medicare as evidence of that here in the U.S. I have Medicare, and I pay monthly for it, as does my wife. However, we paid into it during our working years when we were not old enough to draw any benefits. I guess that is where you say it is socialized medicine, because others are helping pay for current users. But that is just how heath insurance is designed. Because the total care needed is more than each "individual" can usually pay, the contributions of those less likely to be using it at their earlier ages, is very helpful and necessary for the system to work as intended for all ages. This need will continue for those who are younger today, up to and well past the time that THEY are the ones receiving this help from the younger payees, when they reach the age of greater need them selves.
So yes, I do believe healthcare is a right. Not just a freebie, but the same right that will someday be enjoyed by those that are paying now and NOT receiving, who in their times of need, will be reliant upon the younger citizens working at that time.
@Brucew56 Get out of town yourself. The government is not dictating the KIND of insurance you must get, they are only stating what minimums MUST be covered in order to avoid emergency room usage by uninsured individuals, and thus the bills being passed on to the rest of our society. And the ACA assures that. I am only assuming that any reasonable person does not want to have the majority paying 100% of healthcare for the minority. The ACA lets them pay what they can afford.
Healthcare is very complex and the ACA is not the ideal solution. It has improved access to insurance but has done nothing about cost.
I heard a doctor from Massachusetts talk about "the coming chaos" - meaning Obamacare and the new patients in the system. He said that just this year, his last uninsured patient got coverage. He also said that they have had to tweak the law every two years or so. It is a long process. Obama gets credit for getting the process started, if not for getting it right.
Losing your cancer specialist and hospital is sad, but how can you say you've been cancelled because of ObamaCare? Did the Dr. AND hospital tell you we are not seeing you any more right now, because of ObamaCare? I don't understand how that can be since ObamaCare has not yet officially started. I retired and received a benefit from it in 2010, immediately after it began, because I had been denied coverage for private insurance, not cancelled or refused to renew, but DENIED period, and I had the letterS to prove it. Yes plural, multiple letters from multiple insurance companies, all saying coverage denied because of my pre-existing condition. ObamaCare covered me after I contacted them, and paid as advertised for my surgery less than 10 days after my policy began. And I had paid only 1 month's premium. Show me any U.S. insurer that would have done that in 2010. It is the law now, but because of ObamaCare. And you will never reach a maximum benefit either, again because of ObamaCare. After a short time, I was eligible for and began receiving Medicare, so my worries are over.
So Jesus, you are the one who doesn't know all the circumstances. This plan was a financial lifesaver for me, and I would guess millions of others as well, and it is only in its infancy. If you don't like it or want it, fine, just don't apply. Stick with you old insurer and be sure and send President Obama a thank-you not for ever reaching a life-time max.
@Brucew56 @michaels39301 Nope, it makes no difference to me unless it effects me. I have worked long enough and saved enough to be totally comfortable for however long I might have to live. My house and new vehicles are my own, and I owe zero money. As long as the government doesn't try and delve into my bank accounts or investment accounts, I couldn't care less.
I agree! It must be repealed, and as I've said before some real reforms are needed.. tort reform, interstate competition, removability of coverage from employers etc. Such things could actually help.
@disenwit @michael39301 disenwit, you are totally correct. But, you know what, Obumble could care less. Healthcare isn't really the issue or the goal! The BIG PRIZE is what he and his cronies have in their sights - and that is turning America into a socialist state with a huge government with most people dependent on it for everything and following it's every command. HEALTHCARE IS THE CORNERSTONES OF GETTING THIS CONTROL. After that, the rest is relatively easy. THAT is why the ACA must be repealed. If it succeeds, America as we think of it is doomed! We need to fight this to the end!
One other note.. there are more uninsured people today than there were when Obama took office, and that number is increasing daily, not going down.. and that number will accelerate in 2014 as employer insurance gets cancelled. And of course those newly without insurance because of Obamacare will incur debts, and/or die because of this, and it will be Obama's fault, and I assume you will praise him for Obamacare nevertheless. And yes, I do think you're lying about your scam to get surgery for one month's premium, since you've obviously taken lessons from Obama on how to set forth your arguments.
And then you said, "Oh sure we believe you...NOT." Honestly, and I am honest, I couldn't care less if you believe me or not.
If you need the Doctor's name and Hospital phone number to verify my statements just ask, I have them right here, otherwise, well just never-mind.
@disenwit @michaels39301 @Jesus Serna Yes I say that I retired and tried to get insurance with the same company that insured me while I was working, as well as the only other insurer here in my state. I was on Cobra for 18 months first, then it expired and that is when I first tried to purchase individual coverage. They both denied me, so I was just stuck waiting for something to happen, but fortunately it didn't. I closely followed the President's approach to the ACA, and saw how bitterly Boehner and every Republican was against it. As soon as it passed, that very month, I applied for it but was told I had to have a recent letter from an insurer denying me coverage. Thus I applied to both of them again, and received virtual duplicates of my previous letters. Upon submitting one of them, I was issued a policy and coverage began the first of the next month. I went to a new cardiologist, my old one wouldn't take ObamaCare, and he saw me the 1st of September 2010, and said I needed a new pacemaker battery, since the old one was past expiration. He scheduled my surgery for the 8th of the month and all went fine. And they paid exactly as advertised.
I do believe God provided me with this $18,000 plus savings, and no I don't think Obama is God, but God's agent. And not JUST for me, but millions of others. Just think if He would have allowed Mitt to win. There would still be 40+ million uninsured, and insurers would still be able to impose lifetime caps, and insurers could drop anyone at anytime. I thank you Lord for your actions.
Your comment about $300,000 is out-of-whack, at least to me. If a doctor has to pay that much for malpractice insurance, he is in the wrong career. I imagine it is tax deductible as a work expense, but how many doctors actually have to use the coverage? Seems almost worth the risk of going without. If I were a doctor with all their income, I would just save the $300K, and insure myself. Do you think dentists, chiropractors, and every doctor does this? Just try to imagine how many $300Ks that would be for the insurers each year.
@michaels39301 @disenwit @Jesus Serna So you say, that after years of looking for insurance and being denied that you went ahead and paid the premium and then within 9 discovered you had a problem and had surgery and that you had no idea before that 9 days that there was anything wrong? Oh, sure we believe you... NOT! And if you think Obamacare is salvation, then I guess you believe Obama is God! Right? And by the way, the $300,000 must be paid, no choice since it is a pre-existing condition that doctors will be attacked by malpractice lawyers class actions and so they have to pay the premiums in advance, not wait till the suit starts like you did with your suregery, and of course the health insurance industry and the patients must fork over the money to actually pay the $300,000 just like they have to fork over the $600 million for Michelle's friend's website construction. Of course, in your opinion all of that saves a lot of money, right??
@disenwit @michaels39301 @Jesus Serna I said nothing about providing anyone insurance. How many individuals could think about having, let alone paying, $300K? You say I "waited till you paid the 9 days to have the surgery, knowing you were screwing the insurance company and you are proud of it." Just read what you wrote, it makes zero sense, just like you. How in the world could I pay the 9 days? The fact is, I never had any idea I needed a surgery. I had no problems or issues, and the only reason I went to the doctor is because I hadn't been there in 3 years. Those wonderful insurance companies wouldn't cover me. They still wouldn't if it wasn't for Obama. I think ObamaCare is the salvation of this country, salvation from the republican/T.P.ers and 12 "down-the-tubes" years from the Bush administrations.
@disenwit @michaels39301 @Jesus Serna Who suggested that a 12 year old WAS/IS a 26 year old? All I was saying is that you suggested that anyone in their 20s should get a job and pay their own insurance bill. Many have decided to get a college education first, perhaps in hopes of more that a grocery-sacker's career. I am saying that, INSURANCE-WISE, a 12 year old dependent and a 26 year old dependent are/can be the same. When I was 26, I had 2 kids and a wife, so I would never have qualified for this benefit. I also had a job and a college degree. No one handed me anything.
Who would ever expect a car insurer to cover an accident if the insurance was purchased after the accident? I never heard of such a thing as "dependency" in the car insurance industry.
And again you are wrong about lifetime caps. Lifetime caps are gone after the ACA. And if, as you say, this will encourage higher fees, you are wrong again. What good are higher fees to the doctors and hospitals if insurance payments are based on lower fees? Accepting insurance payments automatically limits the "allowable" charge to what the insurer covers, so any balance is based on that "allowable" charge as well. This is how Medicare works, and all insurance should be the same. If a procedure is billed by the doctor or hospital at $1,000 but the insurer says the allowable amount for that procedure is $500, than the insurer will pay its percentage (depending on the individual plan), say 70% or $350, and the patient would be responsible for the remaining $150, not the $650 difference between the charge and the insurer's payment. Your suggestion that IF a lifetime cap is reached, the patient should then go on welfare is plain idiotic. To be on welfare, one cannot have much of anything in terms of assets, so this patient that you suggest reaches his/her lifetime max, will then have to sell their house and car, as well as any other assets, just to get their medical bills paid by their state. Where can they live or how can they get to work?
To answer your other points, let me suggest that you actually read this article by a Harvard Professor. It is filled with facts that shove your points right out the window. Simply go to:
@michaels39301 @disenwit @Jesus Serna So let's see, you would provide insurance where you would have to pay $300,000 for surgeries and such after the person, knowing he had the problem had paid $100 for the month's insurance policy - pre-existing you know. And my kids didn't have health insurance in college, and neither did I... and we didn't borrow money because there were no federal loan guarantees (and that's why college costs so much - same thing that will happen with Obamacare) And obviously you waited till you paid the 9 days to have the surgery, knowing you were screwing the insurance company and you are proud of it. Just like a Democrat. And of course you think there should be no eye doctors and no surgeons and no family medicine doctors since they all have to pay malpractice premiums in that ball park.. some a bit less and some more... and so you don't want them to stay in a job where they have to pay for insurance before going to work.... sounds like you don't like Obamacare! And obviously you're one of the rich guys that Obama hates~!!
@michaels39301 @disenwit @Jesus Serna 1. A 12 year old is not 26 years old. 2. Pre-existing means you buy the car insurance after the accident not before. 3. It is dependency, simple as that. 4. Lifetime caps help prevent the huge fees for procedures that the government policies encourage. And if it is reached then welfare takes over, but not before. 5. John Edwards got over $40 or $50 million in malpractice lawsuits, that were phony, and of course he was only getting maybe 30% so the costs to the insurance companies was 3 or 4 times that, and all phony costs. And there are literally thousands of lawyers making millions of $$ and raising the cost of healthcare and reducing the actual healthcare available. and of course John Edwards is a perfect Democrat, like you. And if you are projecting savings, how is the expenditure of $600 million and growing, and hiring of IRS agents, navigators, regulation writers and enforcers reducing the costs? Please explain that!
@Jesus Serna @michaels39301 You must be dreaming when you write. ObamaCare, if you would do some research, has a multitude of choices for every individual. Depending on your job, your income, your age, your health status, etc., you may get assistance with your premiums, or you may choose a plan with lower deductible or higher levels of coverage, depending what best suits you. It is not a "one size fits all" operation. And don't try and tell me that if a covered patient needs heart or brain surgery, they can't have it because those doctors are out of network.
Sorry, I can't drink any more Kool-Aid, you drained the pitcher.
Ryan's plan--if one dares to call it a plan--is nothing but a joke. There are a multitude of kids in their twenties who are in college, and thus have no income while incurring rather heavy debt. Can you imagine YOUR child going to college, and still working full time to pay for his/her own health insurance? I agree that if they are in the workforce, they should be responsible enough to have their own insurance, but there are just too many American youngsters in this age group to just forget about them.
As for my surgery 9 days after taking out the policy, I tried for over 3 years to get insurance, but neither of the two insurers in my state would cover me. So, it was not like I had planned it that way, it was the Lord's Providence that it happened that way. And I continued paying my monthly premium until I turned 65 and got Medicare.
As for your neighbor having to pay over $300K for malpractice insurance, tell him to find another line of work. Would you stay in a job where you had to pay $300K before you even went to work? Some people. Anyway, I don't have to fight. I am retired, happy, healthy, and financially set.
1. Kids can, should, and will be on their parents' policies. I guess YOU expect a 12 year old son to go out and maybe start digging graves to earn his money to pay for a health insurance policy? What a wonderful father you are or would be.
2. If anyone you know who has been cancelled for a pre-existing condition after the official start of this ACA on January 1, 2014, oh wait, that hasn't occurred yet, so wait until it does and then there can be legal recourse. Why would you expect every single one of the facets of the ACA to be in effect before the actual official starting date? As for getting coverage for one month's premium, I realize that this may be difficult for you to understand, but that is how insurance works. If you buy car insurance and get in a wreck or accident on the way home from the insurance office, you ARE covered. The medical insurers never wanted this to apply to them...i.e. pre-eisting condition clauses...but now they HAVE to cover all clients from day ONE...Jan. 1st, 2014.
3. Insurance for everyone is coming NOW. It is not a dependency on government, everyone on ObamaCare pays according to their capability. If you so love you insurance now, and it is not a junk policy, simply stay with it and don't worry about what other people are doing or getting. Police you own life, not mine or others.
4. Let's say you reach had your lifetime cap. Whether or not this leads to default on your bill is up to your own situation but it still leads to lack of coverage because you now have no coverage. Let's see you go to another insurer who will cover you.
5. Is John Edwards an insurer? I never found is name under "Insurance" in the yellow pages. And watch the news once in a while. The projected cost savings from ObamaCare has now been officially increased due to the already downward trending projections of healthcare costs.
@michaels39301 @Jesus Serna You forgot to mention the many wrong things about Obamacare. Who cares if ;pre-existing conditions are accepted if the premiums and deductibles are un-affordable. Obamacare has turned 20% into winners and 33% with much higher premiums and deductibles (you pay 30% out-of-pocket). And 100% have seen their doctors & hospitals network shrink. Doctors and hospitals for specialized care (high cost care) for serious conditions will no longer be covered because of the shrinking network needed to control the cost of insurance from being extremely high. Specialized doctors & hospitals who treat cancer, heart surgery, brain surgery, burns, transplants, etc. will be out-of-network.
Keep drinking the Kool-Aid! Adios SUCKER!
@michaels39301 @Jesus Serna Ryan's plan does not dictate dependence for kids... why does any kid who is 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26 years old need to continue as a dependent on Mom and Dad? These are not disabled kids, or poor kids or any other category of kids, they are just irresponsible because Obamacare allows them to be! Pre-existing conditions are taken care of by pools, high-cost granted, which allow folks in who have been beating the system for a while and not paying in... that's the way it has been and should be not a free ride without ever paying anything till you want it for your surgery 9 days later. And lifetime caps are something that was, and is, designed to get some control over the huge discrepancy in medical costs created by existing laws... tax deduction for employer insurance, Cobra plans, and many other things that dictate how doctors practice, by specifying costs for each procedure etc. that have hidden and raised costs.... and don't forget malpractice class actions... our opthamologist neighbors pay over $300,000 for malpractice insurance and so have to charge that much to break even before renting the office, paying the staff or anything else... works out to $100 per patient or more... Obamacare does nothing about that, but Ryan would.. so if you like dependence, malpractice attorneys etc. just keep fighting.
@michaels39301 @disenwit @Jesus Serna 1. stop teaching kids to be dependent welfare victims of their parents - if they need healthcare insurance buy it themselves. 2. He hasn't stopped cancellations for pre-existing, so he lied again there. What he's done is denied any extra cost for pre-existing conditions which simply means that those who just don't bother with insurance and don't pay anything until they need it, get coverage for one month's premium - simple fraud... for real quick pre-existing there can be pools set up, at higher costs to allow coverage, but that would require negotiation with the industry and as Obama says I WILL NOT NEGOTIATE ON OBAMACARE. 3. The elimination of 40 million uninsured in this country will be done only when the idea that the government will provide everything for you is gone, and people become responsible instead of slaves to government. 4. Lifetime caps lead to defaults on the bills, and not to a lack of coverage, and there has to be some control over the costs, which now are artificial because of Medicare and insurance rules and regulations...if the losses are thrown back on the health providers, instead of the taxpayers, and the regulations changed to allow charges for services instead of for procedures, this would control costs. And 5. deal with class action medical malpractice claims and costs... the Alabama county that granted billions in such cases was just fraud... John Edwards, one of your Democratic hero's make multi-millions suing on phony medical evidence about caesarean section births, or lack thereof, and then almost became President... typical problem, but not solved by Obamacare because it's also a Democratic idea and you want more John Edwards types... so there... and when are you going to show that Obamacare actually reduces costs? So far all you're doing is spending hundreds and thousands of MILLIONS of dollars, most of it so far to Canada.
@Jesus Serna @michaels39301 80% of which people? Are you including those with no insurance, those with lifetime caps, those with insurance that only covered things other than their pre-existing conditions, or those 500,000 to 1,000,000 that signed up for ObamaCare in the last 2 days? In these groups I just mentioned we are dealing with millions of Americans. And then add the 10s of millions that will be signing up in the next few weeks. I bet 100% of them are happy with their insurance.
I also want to ask you about the Republican's plan, or Ryan's plan, or whatever it might be called. Answer me this. Does it accept pre-existing conditions, does it allow children to remain on their parent's policy until their 28th birthday, does it eliminate lifetime caps, does it do all of these things, and if it does, what additional things does it offer to make it better than ObamaCare? I think I know the answer to these questions, and it is just like you---full of hot air.
@michaels39301 80% of the people were happy with their health care. Now with Obamacare it's the other way around.
@disenwit @michaels39301 @Jesus Serna And, like Obama just said so wonderfully on his press conference: If you don't like the new Healthcare Act, just tell him what changes you would make that would stop cancellations for pre-existing conditions, that would allow children to remain on their parent's policies until their 28th birthday, that would allow no lifetime cap limits on their healthcare, and that would eliminate the 40+ million of un-insured Americans in our country. If you have that plan to do all these things, then just show it to him and he will give you a chance. Otherwise, and no one has had anything to show him yet, he says he will continue to improve and support this act for the next three years.
You all are so bold about talking down this law, why don't you come up with something better? The answer to that is simple----you cannot.
@michaels39301 @Jesus Serna Duh! If the surgery is paid for only by the insurance premiums, when they have taken advantage of the - no pre-existing ailment rules - and so paid only for a month (9 days actually) like Michaels39301 brags about, then of course there won't be any money to pay the surgeons... maybe they will all be put on federal minimum wages of $9 per hour to make this work!! Of course, that won't pay for the $300,000 or so of government sponsored loans that they had to borrow to become surgeons, but we'll worry about that later.
@michaels39301 @Jesus Serna and so Michaels39301 thinks that Obama, the competent, has actually found and prevented $500 billion in fraud and waste in just a couple of months... oh, no then he says it's going to take 10 years.. well let's see we'll apply the website rule to that, and double or triple it or even eliminate it, since Obama's skills at doing what he says he'll do are well established. And of course, Michael39301, being a true believer, thinks that Medicare beneficiaries (which is a welfare term by the way) won't suffer, just the healthcare providers.. In other words, screw the doctors and nurses for the fraud and waste is the rule. That sounds wonderful for improving healthcare.
@Jesus Serna @michaels39301 Did you ever learn how to read? If so, look up and read, trying to comprehend, where the $500 billion came from. It was not taken, removed, stolen or even borrowed from Medicare but rather reaped from eliminating waste and graft in the program. The $500 billion figure comes from the difference over 10 years between anticipated Medicare spending (what is known as “the baseline”) and the changes the healthcare law makes to reduce spending. The savings actually are wrung from health-care providers, not Medicare beneficiaries.
And I have no need for any supplemental insurance, I have a Medicare advantage plan.
@michaels39301 With Obamacare removing $500 billion many doctors won't perform those procedures under Medicare & Medicaid. They may take it depending on your supplemental insurance. If they you will pay out-of-pocket.
@michaels39301 Under Obamacare many of those procedures are going to be curtailed. Don't you ever think of the future? This is all what we're arguing about! Man are you uniformed!
@Jesus Serna And three of the procedures that we had were as follows: 1. She had a knee replacement procedure. 2. She had open heart surgery 14 weeks later. 3. I had a pacemaker implant surgery. Like I said, all three were paid for exactly as advertised, and there were zero warnings issued about our over-use of expenses. Coverage was at 100%, and with her supplemental and my advantage plans, we paid ZERO out of pocket.
@Jesus Serna Just one more fact that refutes your statement above. IF, and again I say this is NOT true, IF the ACA would have gutted Medicare by $500 billion, why then have both my wife and I never been refused or denied a single one of the doctor ordered procedures were were prescribed? I'll tell you why. It is because the money and the coverages are still in place, and they will be.
@Jesus Serna @disenwit and if there is a takeover for something in excess of real insurance, that is one of the causes of higher costs, because, as with any guarantee of anything, if you are the recipient of the guarantee (think of college professors whose students are guaranteed to get a loan) you can raise your prices at will since it's guaranteed you'll be paid.
@disenwit I'n not advocating for a welfare state. Everyone has insurance with health savings account. But once you go over a certain high limit, cancer treatments for example, a government program takes over. There's not that many cases like this to radically change the health care system like Obamacare.
@Jesus Serna You can believe whatever you like, just don't tell me I don't understand business. I spent 40 years working in a slew of different businesses, so I am well-aware of a multiplicity of different situations. Let's look at your example of buying insurance across state lines. I live in Ms. near the Al. border. Are you telling me that if I were to cross into Al. and buy health insurance, but still receive my coverage/treatment in Ms. that my rates would go down? And if you think so, lease explain why? I see no logical reason why they would.
@Brucew56 @michaels39301 @Jesus Serna Bruce, I surely can see the truth in most of your statement, but I will address the exceptions. First, the PPACA was originally a Republican idea, and as you said, the Democrats "tweaked" it somewhat, especially by NOT making it single-payer, into its finished product. I imagine their hope was to foster some Republican support, but they received none.
Secondly, buying insurance across state lines has not been done or even tested, so how can you say it will result in reduced premiums? To me, that is an unproven hypothesis. Also, before the ACA, buying health insurance across state lines would certainly not of allowed those with pre-existig conditions to get insurance. Show me ANY state that allowed this before the ACA.
Thirdly, pre-existing conditions. I have one, so I know quite a bit about it. I was born with mine, as I assume many are, but it was not discovered until I was in my thirties. Back in my youth, children were included on their parents' plans no matter what. Plus, once mine was discovered, I was insured under GROUP insurance plans at work, and coverage was never an issue. However, once I retired and before I reached 65, that is when the same insurers that HAD been covering me under a group policy, decided that they would not cover me, for ANY price, under an individual policy due to my pre-existing condition. So you are right in that "I did panic", not having medical coverage and being my 60's. If you haven't experienced it, you cannot intelligently discuss it.
Lastly, you say the socialist approach kills jobs and the freedom of choice. If that is true,then Medicare kills jobs and offers no choices, but I know from experience that is not true.
@michaels39301 @Jesus Serna How do you know what the Republicans proposed? They weren't even included in the "negotiations" of the original bill. The resulting PPACA is a totally Democratic creation. Buying insurance across state lines would have allowed more competition and reduced premiums. Pre-existing conditions are an interesting argument. The question I would ask, is why people would not have health insurance to begin with, before their condition began? Wasn't it important enough to have until one got sick? And then people panic - "I don't have health insurance"? There are lots of situations and millions of stories. Nothing is perfect, and there will always be those who need more assistance. But the PPACA is a socialist approach to painting everyone the same, killing jobs, and people's freedom of choice! Democrats will sink or swim with this monstrosity!
You are someone who doesn't understand business. Insurance was regulated by States. With Obamacare it remains the same. By buying across state lines competition increases between insurance companies thereby lowering costs. Because of Obamacare, some counties have only one insurance plan to select from.
@michaels39301 @Jesus Serna Insurance is just that.. a policy that protects one against unexpected events... paying for existing illnesses, without having purchased insurance before they occur is simply welfare, not insurance. So, all you are arguing is that there should be a welfare system, not an insurance system in place, so that no one would have to pay anything until they are sick.. and then someone else pays for them. So, you are simply arguing for the welfare state and nothing else.
We'll then, let's rephrase this.....while I was covered under medical insurance, and had been for awhile, I was diagnosed with chronic hypertension, breast cancer.
@disenwit @michaels39301 @Brucew56 @KerryWallace Very true, the need for surgery was totally unexpected because I hadn't been to a doctor in over 3 years. With no insurance, you get zero coverage, so why would I go if I absolutely didn't have to? How often do you go to the doctor just because you haven't gone in a long time? I was not and am not screwing any insurance company, all the screwing was done BY them and TO me. Yo try and sound like an expert, but let me assure you that your mind has no expertise.
@michaels39301 @Brucew56 @disenwit @KerryWallaceTo quote Michaels39301 "They paid for my surgery after only 1 month's premium and only 9 days after the start of my policy." So, I guess what he's saying is that the need for surgery was totally unexpected and came up in the 9 days after his policy started. Since he's arguing that the elimination of the pre-existing limitations are good, that obviously is not the case and he knew he was screwing the insurance company.. but of course they are the money grabbers not him!! And then like Obama, he says, oh, I misspoke, or gee, I never meant that!! and tries to avoid the quoted statement.
@Brucew56 @disenwit @michaels39301 @KerryWallace Hey Bruce, try reading some of my other posts, who ever thought I waited until I had a problem until I signed up for coverage? I had coverage all my life (group coverage while working) until I retired. Then I applied with these same companies that HAD already insured me, but they still refused me coverage as an individual. That's the point of the ACA. It stops these ridiculous money-grabbing insurance companies from taking on risk, and forces them to do it. That WAS absolutely ridiculous, but no longer because of ObamaCare.
@michaels39301 @disenwit @Brucew56 @KerryWallace Michels, it is a freebie for many people. There are many people who will receive more than what they put in. Many on Medicaid have not put in much to the system and they're taking benefits now, some at a very young age. Those that die early pale in comparison to the baby boomers retiring at the rate of 10,000 per day. AARP says there are 44 million on Medicare & 79 million projected by 2030.
If you are relying on Medicare not being revised in the coming years you haven't planned your retirement that well. I planned it where I don't need Medicare or Social Security for the rest of my life. If it's there it will be a bonus.
@michaels39301 @disenwit @KerryWallace No, that's not insurance. If you signed up and paid one month's premium knowing that surgery was scheduled, that is welfare, not insurance. The definition of insurance is to pay for protection from unexpected events. You just paid a premium while the house was on fire and got a new house... that is not insurance. And so we know you are on welfare and like it and that is the source of all your support for your God, Obama!
@disenwit @michaels39301 @Brucew56 @KerryWallace I've done the math multiple times disenwit, and I am not even close to receiving the amount I paid in......43 full years after I received my degree, plus multiple summers during high school and college before had my degree, and I have only been drawing for 13 months now, so YOU do the math and surely you can begin to realize that I am not even approaching that point yet. I am sure that there are many millions of Americans who never reach that point, as well as millions that never draw one dime because both of these groups do not live long enough to do so. And you can also swallow your own words about my defending the act of getting something for nothing, because I am not, nor have I defended that position. Just wait until you are old enough to draw out of what you paid in. I dare you to turn it down because you say it is a freebie and you are against freebies.
Do the math michaels39301... take every payment you made over 40 years, and give yourself interest at 4% (the long term inflation rate) until you start collecting on each years tax from the year paid, and you will arrive at a total. That total will be paid to you, including the compound interest within about 5 years after starting. Actuarialy, then you will be on the dole for about 15 to 20 more years as a welfare recipient and I'd be willing to bet that you are already on the dole, since you defend getting something for nothing so much..
@disenwit @michaels39301 @KerryWallace I signed up for the ACA as soon as it passed (8/2010), as I had been retired over 3 years without health insurance. They paid for my surgery after only 1 month's premium and only 9 days after the start of my policy. How is that NOT receiving healthcare? And yes, it IS insurance, because I paid monthly premiums and got the coverage they advertised. Do you have insurance? Do you pay a monthly premium? If you say that is not insurance, please tell me what your definition of insurance is.
And lastly, yes I do talk to God multiple times daily. However, no one including myself, can TELL Him to do anything. I guess you could tell Him, but I seriously doubt He would exactly do as you say. Why not try telling someone as lowly as the President to do something? Would you expect results from any President?
Bruce you say the Tea Party is the only group trying to make government of, for, and by the people.From all I’ve seen of this Tea Party, their MAIN objective is the impeachment of the President.My God, the PEOPLE elected him by an excess of MILLIONS of votes.That is BY the people, so impeaching him is NOT by the people.Logic is amazing isn’t it?
And how is Medicare a re-distribution of wealth?Everyone pays into it, and thus everyone who does is entitled to its benefits.Medicaid is a different story though, but we all have a responsibility to tend to the most needy among us.
You write: “The politicians have the people subservient to what they give us.” Other than Medicaid, what exactly is it they “give” us?The government doesn’t give me anything.I get a S.S. check, but I paid into it for 40+ years. And I pay taxes on that income.
@michaels39301 @KerryWallace Michaels39301 Not one of those who sign up for Obamacare will have received any healthcare! All they got was enrollment in a welfare program that says that they get it when they need it. That is not insurance by the way. The only exception will be those that are in need of immediate healthcare, either now or years from now, who enroll when the problem comes up, having saved all that money of paying for insurance over the years since they no longer need insurance, but can just enroll for the healthcare welfare whenever they need it. And also, since you talk to God frequently apparently, why don't you just tell him to make all have equal income, and free stuff... and maybe just kill off anyone who has more that someone else, since that's a proof of evilness!
@KerryWallace @michaels39301 Kerry, I'm with you on these comments. The government has taken over way too much control of our lives. Before there were pension plans from business, government decided to take care of people with social security. It is just a tax on everyone that redistributes wealth to those who didn't or couldn't save because they couldn't afford to. Medicare, too, is a social program for working people that could not afford health insurance; Medicaid for the poor or those unable to work. But, the government found a way to make these into "entitlement programs" to buy political support - again, the EXTORTION GAME! It is so easy for the population to have been sucked into
"the government safety net is there for you".
And it goes on and on - food stamps, subsidies to giant farms, ethanol, oil, solar, you name it. The politicians have the people subservient to what they give us.
This is NOT FREEDOM!
All the "good" parts of the ACA, coverage of preexisting conditions. no lifetime limits, no one can be refused coverage are all just another nail in the coffin of America.
I'm 64 years old, and have 8 grandchildren. ages 2 months to 11 years of age. What will be left for them when the country is BROKE and how many TRILLION IN DEBT? THE MADNESS NEEDS TO STOP!
The government needs to stop mandating what the people don't want and let capitalism work. Stop giving breaks to corporations that pay no tax. Do away with the income tax and go to a a flat tax or consumption tax. The country belongs to the people, not the government!
@KerryWallace @michaels39301 Well Ms. Wallace, I do apologize for assuming you were a male. I am afraid that I have to disagree with your point that YOU say the ACA is about taxing, NOT about healthcare. Let's say the 20-30 million without health insurance do sign up for this program, at least a majority of them. Do you think even ONE of these enrollees would agree with your statement? I can relate to them because I have been in their shoes, at least for several years. It is totally scary to NOT have health insurance, especially during one's older years. The ACA does expect its members to pay what they can afford, but what is wrong with that? Don't Americans with health insurance pay for their coverage? These 20+ million people are, for the most part, not even close to being the wealthiest of Americans. That is the reason they don't have healthcare. If they all had the money, the insurance companies would have covered them and they would be even wealthier companies today. Just how do you think that these 20+ million people could have saved and invested their money to afford healthcare?
Insofar as my right to breathe comment goes, I was trying to compare that to the right to healthcare. The right to breathe is a God-given right, and I believe that since He gave humans that right and He provides the air (at least I believe He provides my air), He also expects that human advances in medical care and technology should be applied and available to the entire human race.
@michaels39301 @KerryWallace You have made a LOT of assumptions about me, as well as insults. As Dolly Parton once said, she was not offended by "dumb blonde jokes" because quote "I know am not dumb, and I know I am not blonde."
I would love to straighten out the healthcare mess; I believe reform is necessary. But the ACA is not about healthcare; it is about taxes. THERE IS ABSOLUTELY NOTHING IN THAT BILL THAT MAKES HEALTHCARE MORE AFFORDABLE, MORE AVAILABLE, or BETTER. It simple adds TAXES (medicare and excise and penalties) and hides behind some feel-good promises. Social security and medicare did the same. Failures, both of them.
(For instance, the bill adds an excise tax on medical devices....tell me how that makes healthcare more affordable for you and me? That cost gets PASSED on to you and me!) Do you really believe that politicians (or anyone for that matter) want to take care of you??????? I would call that magical thinking.
One of your own arguments "because total care needed is more than each individual can usually pay..." proves that IT WON"T WORK!!! How can it be sustainable if care needed is more than you can pay over your lifetime? MATH doesn't add up on that one.
1. You assume I am a male, I am female ( (did you see the picture?)
2. You called me "right winger"...which clearly you believe is a derogatory word, and hence MEANT TO INSULT ME AND therefore you are calling me a name. I was a democrat that gave up on the democratic party during the Clinton years, not a right-winger by any stretch of the imagination. I find it interesting that liberals want "civil discourse", no name calling, no bullying, etc.....but they are the most guilty of those transgressions of all. ONE FINGER POINTING AT SOMEONE ELSE, but 3 pointing BACK!!
3. I never mentioned a THING about medicare; re-read the post. You ASSUMED I thought it socialized, when I never addressed that issue at all. I kept my comments limited to OBamacare ONLY. (which, by the way CUTS medicare DRASTICALLY). I do NOT believe medicare is an entitlement program. It's simply a mess. And the "free world" you talk about with socialized medicine ("universal" as you call it)? It is a MESS and NOT working anywhere that I know of. I gave one example of it not working, and I have many more....do you have any of it working?
4. You say, in reference to a "taker", that I should quote: "consider yourself one as well"..(which I am not, I am a giver) and your basis for that comment is that I am a taker because I have the "right" to breathe ; and then your proof for your argument is: "who has to provide it for you?"
I do believe that proves MY point, not yours. Because NO ONE has to provide me with the air I breathe! We are only entitled to that which we can provide for ourselves; plus life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. I do have a right to life (which is air) and so do you and I am not taking that from anyone.
When I was a child, my dad used to tell me that I had rights all right. But those rights only extended to the point that I interfered with the rights of others. Since I was only 5, his example was "you have the right to extend your arm out as far as you want, unless of course it means you are hitting someone else."
I AGREE WITH YOU ON SOME THINGS:
You brought up Medicare (which only came into effect in 1965). I agree it was not intended as an "entitlement" program (the politicians just lied to us--it was really just another tax) and those who are employed (including me) are paying "into it" in order to get it later, but It is going completely bankrupt because it was NOT based on contributions, it was based on benefits and the benefits were UNLIMITED. When there is a third party payer, there is no feedback and so costs go out of control. Our politicians are scared to DEATH about it, and don't know what to do about it. Obamacare cuts medicare, and increases medicare tax drastically because it is NOT SUSTAINABLE. Tell me how that makes healthcare more affordable? Costs far exceed what is coming into the system. Doctors refuse it because reimbursements are less than cost, and that problem is going to get worse because Obamacare cuts reimbursements again.
If you had saved the money that the government was taking from your paychecks in medicare tax, and put it into a health savings account of your OWN, and used if for buying your own health insurance, you'd be better off. You would have more money available, and you would care about what your bills were ...and the healthcare system would have to be accountable to YOU, the payer.
I don't think social security is an "entitilement" either, as far as retirement goes, because we paid into that system. But we were TRICKED again. The politicians sold us a bill of goods.....that we should give them our money and they would SAVE it FOR us for our rainy day and old age. But that is not what they did. It was a disguised tax. They took our money and didn't invest it in anything. The government "borrows" from social security for its deficits...so now social security is in trouble and there is no "savings" there! Imagine if a bank did that to you?You gave them your money, and then when you went to get it back, they said "sorry, we used it elsewhere." Most people are not getting back from social security what they put it, when you consider the time value of money and how they could have invested it.
We all would be better off if we had saved and invested that money ourselves. We have to honor the people that are now stuck with that old promise, but our children and grandchildren would be better off, I believe, if we changed the system and let them KEEP their money and invest for themselves. Getting a reward for your work is very motivating!
To paraphrase Ben Franklin: "He who gives up freedom for safety deserves neither. "
I believe we need government (to protect us from each other, not from ourselves however!), but when we give our money to others (our government in this context),we give away our power. They control us when they get our money. Just like the schools (government) now telling parents that the lunch they send to school with their child isn't good enough. Really? I don't want the "government"" telling me what to eat, or determining what healthcare I deserve or get. No more than I want my neighbor telling me what I should or shouldn't do. And the "government" is just other people....they aren't "all knowing and wise." They are just people. And many of them power and money hungry.
I prefer my liberty over security. I do the best I can, and let the devil take the hind end. It isn't anybody's responsibility but mine. I want to own everything I do in life, and then I can say it was all my doing...the bad and the good!
@michaels39301 @KerryWallace most of the world has lousy healthcare compared to here, but don't worry Obamacare will drag us down to the lower levels of most of the world and will damage good healthcare by making health insurance a government monopoly where the poor get nothing and the rich get less... not to worry, things will get worse, just give Obama time and hope for change!!
Kerry, thanks for your comment. It is amazing how many people have totally bought into the ACA propaganda. It is simply a segway to single payer health system and control of 1/6th of the economy. Doctors will soon not take patients with this insurance and new people will not become doctors because of it. Healthcare should be between the doctor and patient. But, those who think government is the answer to everything believe this is another right for them. Medicare should be revised to a "means tested" program, as should social security. People who don't need these programs should not be given benefits and based on all income, not just earned income.
@michaels39301 @Brucew56 this is a completely incorrect statement. Obamacare (aka ACA) does NOT address the issues of affordability or uninsured using er's. It merely is a tax and control mechanism. I would be pleased if you could reference the sections that address the issue you refer to. And It does INDEED proscribe what insurance policies must cover and it isn't about emergency rooms. It is about preventative, birth control, abortion, lifetime max, pre existing conditions, 26 year old dependents. etc. Your car insurance doesn't cover maintenance, it covers accidents. Healthcare shouldn't cover maintenance...like checkups and birth control...it should cover the weird and unexpected bad luck. And what if the government told car insurance companies that they had to give you insurance AFTER you had an accident? I don't know about you, but I'd wait until after I had an accident to get insurance! That's what Obamacare motivates people to do. Pay the penalties (way less than insurance at the moment, but they will go up too), and then if you really do get sick or hurt, then get insurance. I can't picture that working.
Really, I dare you to read the bill.
@michaels39301 @Brucew56 They are mandating that you have insurance & they are controlling you and the medical profession by limiting procedures and tests. The regulations for doctors are enormous. For Medicare & Medicaid they now have 18,000 codes the doctors must choose from when applying for reimbursement. It won't be long that this will be imposed on private insurers under Obamacare. I could go on and on but .....
@Jesus Serna @michaels39301 @Veronica Combs Jesus, I will address only your last point here now, BUT if these Saudis, British, and others came to the U.S. to have major surgery done, who paid for it? I'm sure U.S. hospitals do not accept Saudi Arabian or English based insurance companies as providers, we citizens have a hard enough time getting our own insurance companies to pay. I just cannot see a U.S. hospital willing to try and fight a foreign-based insurance company over charges for some procedure.
@michaels39301 @Brucew56 Breach of contract is not a crime, it is a civil matter. And the crime is that the ACA says clearly that what Obama said about keeping your doctor and insurance is a lie, and a lie for personal benefit that causes damage to someone else is a crime, called criminal fraud, and it has been done by Obama frequently!!
@Brucew56 If I were to receive an immediate cancellation on an insurance policy, which is a contract, I would be getting my attorney on the phone immediately as well. Is that not a breach of contract? That is a crime the last time I looked. I thought the ACA said that if a plan did not meet the minimum standards, a plan that DOES had to be offered in its place. This tells me that the cancelled policyholder has legal recourse against the insurer.
Some people were advised that they were cancelled immediately, not Dec 31, 2013. Taking people's insurance send physicians away is socialism. There should have been a different method to provide insurance for people with preexisting conditions and high cost conditions. Medicaid expansion would take care of low income people. But destroying people's insurance and doctor choices is not the way to do it.
@michaels39301 @Jesus Serna @Veronica Combs The new health care plans don't have the same doctor or hospital as per the so-called subpar health insurance plans. Existing plans have been cancelled starting Jan 1 and people have been looking for insurance under Obamacare and found that the specialist doctor or hospital are not listed..
Michael you were under a special program set-up in July 2010 to cover pre-existing conditions until Jan 1, 2014.. That program ran out of money in 2012 so they could not enroll new patients..
Obamacare is a radical change. Pre-existing conditions could have been taken care of by other means - for example such people could have put in a special program and paid for by tax revenue. Obamacare is not about health insurance or your health care. It is to control doctors and you.
The problem for Obamacare and previous insurance plans is that you do not know the cost of going to a doctor, tests or hospitals & therefore do not shop around or question the care. This is why health insurance was high and will be higher with Obamacare because it covers birth control & maternity leave even if you are a single guy or your wife is 55 years old. Also sicker people pay the same price as the healthy. In addition the young will be paying for sicker older people. The young are the ones that will suffer the most with Obamacare.
I was in the hospital in June for 8 days because of a heart attack. I requested a CPAP machine but couldn't use it. I actually asked for the bill and sure enough they charged $4,600 for one day of use for the CPAP. I told the hospital & my health insurance that I did not use the machine and they would investigate. I later received a notification that the insurance company would not be charged the $4,600. How many people do that, probably a handful, in the US because it doesn't affect the patient directly.
This is what conservatives mean when they say that health insurance should be between the patient and the medical profession. In other words the patient should have some skin in the game (health insurance savings) - this is called patient centric health insurance and not health insurance controlled by the govt (state or federal). State and Federal running health insurance cut the overall cost by denying procedures and tests. Sort of like a death panel.
I worked in Saudi Arabia for 30 years with expatriates from all over the world. British, Irish, Columbians, Argentinians, etc. All of them said that government run health care really sucked. An operation normally takes an average of 6 months. Doctors are of poor quality because they get paid by the hour and are overworked. Money doesn't flow into the right places, etc., etc., etc. A lot of Saudis, British and others went to the US to have major surgery done. They didn't trust the doctors there and, because of delays, they were scared they were going to die.