Obama care website is finaly working.

Don't worry, Wesley Mouch will be along any day now to issue Directive 10-289, that'll fix everything.

'Gimp
 
Matthew said:
I was seeing, and hearing firsthand, stories of many doctors talking about retiring or changing professions rather than staying in and dealing with this. I was wondering if we'd see a big influx of foreign doctors.
Click to expand...

Unless there is a big change of how licensing and training accreditation is being done, I doubt that will happen.

Now, the great leader Hugo Chavez 'fixed' the problems in his healthcare system by importing a division of cuban 'doctors'. Who knows, maybe we see that happen here as well ;) .

What you will see is a much larger involvement of midlevels. Healthcare is being pushed into the hands of the hospitals, and they just love midlevels (PAs and nurse-practicioners). They are much easier to 'handle' as employees than doctors.
 
AuntPeggy said:
Shall I tell you about the diabetic in my family who must decide whether to keep the unreliable insulin pump she has or to pay for a new one by not letting her child continue playing in the soccer league. She is hoping that the child's native talent in soccer will get her a scholarship and enable her to go to college someday.
Click to expand...

What does this have to do with ObamaCare?

Has she signed up for one of the new plans and gotten a new pump yet? Did she pay less than her plan from last year?

If not, why not?
 
cowtowner said:
Those that believe this law is a good piece of legislation, just wait a year.

As has been said over and over again in this thread....you can't change math.

When the cancellation notices start coming next fall for those in that have employer sponsored health coverage, even the liberal democrats will start running from this law.
Click to expand...

They already are.
 
AuntPeggy said:
How in the world is it discriminatory for someone to tailor seating in the bus according to his own needs and desires? How in the world is it discriminatory for someone to decide that only men get to play sports in college? How in the world is it discriminatory for someone to decide that pay and housing and other benefits cannot be tailored to the individuals with the most clout?

Where is the rock you have been living under for the past 50 years?
Click to expand...

And how do any of those examples relate to the statement given? :dunno:

Were you hit by that rock?! :eek:
 
SCCutler said:
As an employer who buys health insurance for all my employees, I can tell you: as a direct result of the ACA-mandated changes, our cost of coverage (with aggressive shopping, and increased deductibles) has gone up enough that, with the difference, we could have hired san other full time staffer (and would have). Since we had not hired this person yet, I don't know who to tell that their job was forfeit in exchange for the ACA. This is repeated across many, many employers.

This is the thus-far untold story.

This thing is a staggering disaster, in slo-mo. If you read and understand the law and its implementing regs, you learn so much more. It cannot succeed; math tells us this.
Click to expand...

Could you share how many employees you have?

If less than 50, you might need a new accountant as you are missing the tax benefits enacted under ACA.
 
Matthew said:
I was seeing, and hearing firsthand, stories of many doctors talking about retiring or changing professions rather than staying in and dealing with this. I was wondering if we'd see a big influx of foreign doctors.
Click to expand...

I am seeing, first hand, the affects of cut throat, competitive pre-med students fighting for slots to. Med Schools.

I would love to meet a Dr quitting because he is going to have more patients and a chance at healthier patients (ACA requires wellness coverage). The Drs I know right now all seem to be selling their practices to large hospitals, buying new Mercedes and getting new boobs for their new wives.
 
cowtowner said:
Those that believe this law is a good piece of legislation, just wait a year.

As has been said over and over again in this thread....you can't change math.

When the cancellation notices start coming next fall for those in that have employer sponsored health coverage, even the liberal democrats will start running from this law.
Click to expand...

As an employer, I would LOVE to quit offering employer sponsored health care, there is no logical reason that I should be involved in the procurement of health insurance for other people. That ain't my expertise.

Unfortunately, we have had had a quirk in the laws for 70 years that provides tax reasons to do so, and they continue under ACA. Employers ain't dropping healthcare due to ACA.
 
cowtowner said:
And for those that say this law hasn't created job losses....a little over a year ago, my wife's company shut their doors because of the medical device tax within this law.

Over 100 people on the street.
Click to expand...


Can you explain how that worked?

What product was ended because of that tax?
 
AcroGimp said:
FWIW .

My wife just survived breast cancer earlier this year - had we had the Obamacare coverage this year instead of the plans we had, it would have meant $8,000 more in health care spending, with a smaller network to choose from. Because of my income I am ineligible for subsidies, even though my taxes continue to increase to pay for subsidies for others to pay for their increased health plan costs. Could you afford an extra $8000 per year?

.
Click to expand...

Sorry to hear about your wife.

Does she (or you) value the fact that she can no longer be denied coverage due to the pre-existing coverage?
 
JoseCuervo said:
Unfortunately, we have had had a quirk in the laws for 70 years that provides tax reasons to do so, and they continue under ACA. Employers ain't dropping healthcare due to ACA.
Click to expand...

Why didn't we use this 'tax law' to do away with that nonsense and make individual insurance premiums fully tax deductible (maybe with a cap set at the median premium for a run of the mill low-deductible $25 copay plan) ?

Oh right, this was not about doing something that would promote individual choice and responsibility for ones healthcare :mad2:.
 
JoseCuervo said:
Your accountant wants to charge you 2 hours to count your employees?


You might need a new one.

Best of luck.
Click to expand...

It seems like you haven't actually looked at what it takes to get the credit.
 
weilke said:
Why didn't we use this 'tax law' to do away with that nonsense and make individual insurance premiums fully tax deductible (maybe with a cap set at the median premium for a run of the mill low-deductible $25 copay plan) ?

Oh right, this was not about doing something that would promote individual choice and responsibility for ones healthcare :mad2:.
Click to expand...

Lots of things this law didn't do. And the old system didn't do lots of stuff.

If you think the old system was working, then you probably didn't see a need and don't see the benefits.

I think the old system was broken, expensive, unsustainable, and ineffective. Tough for me to support the worlds most expensive healthcare system and got poor results compared to the rest of the developed world.
 
JoseCuervo said:
My accountant does that.

I pay him to do that.


See how that works?
Click to expand...

I thought it was as simple as 'counting your employees' ? Do you need an accountant to count ?
 
And all along I thought this was about getting uninsured people insured.
 
EppyGA said:
And all along I thought this was about getting uninsured people insured.
Click to expand...

Who told you that ?

Oh right, the goverment. And the goverment can't say anything that isn't true. I read that on the internet :yes: .
 
I see many posts proclaiming about how ACA does away with the pre-existing condition problem but no one seems to be bringing up the point that under the HIPPA law in place since 2004 you could not be denied coverage for pre-existing conditions if you could show prior coverage. So they only way it matter was if you never had any coverage at all then decided you wanted to get coverage. Sort of like not having car insurance then asking for quotes after you had a accident to cover the damage from the accident.

http://www.dol.gov/ebsa/newsroom/fshipaa.html
 
Dear JoseCuervo,

Let me introduce you to the multi quote button. It is in the bottom right of each post. It looks like a sheet of paper with a double quote mark, and a plus sign. You can click on all of the posts you want to respond to and then press Quote on the final post and it will quote ALL of the them in one reply.

Jim
 
jtheune said:
I see many posts proclaiming about how ACA does away with the pre-existing condition problem but no one seems to be bringing up the point that under the HIPPA law in place since 2004 you could not be denied coverage for pre-existing conditions if you could show prior coverage. So they only way it matter was if you never had any coverage at all then decided you wanted to get coverage. Sort of like not having car insurance then asking for quotes after you had a accident to cover the damage from the accident.
Click to expand...

Dont confuse people with facts please.
 
AuntPeggy said:
What it means is that you want it to cost more for those who want their insurance to cover, say, birth control. Or, say, testicular cancer.
Click to expand...

Is that such a bad thing, Peggy? Basing premiums on risks across a population is commonplace in every other kind of insurance. Why not for health insurance.

Young men pay more for car insurance because statistically, they're greater accident risks.

Self-employed, working-age men pay more for short-term disability insurance because they tend to get hurt more often.

Middle-aged and old men pay more for life insurance because they don't live as long as women.

It's also true that working-aged boys and men pay more, in effect, for Social Security and Medicare while they're working because statistically, they don't live as long to enjoy the benefits once they retire.

So why is it unfair for health insurance premiums to take into account little facts like a man's inability to become pregnant, or a childless single person's (or a childless married couple's, for that matter) not needing pediatric coverage?

The other problem with the scope of coverage is that it's just too broad and includes too many things that are more lifestyle choices than medical necessities. Maybe some of these things are "nice to have," but they're certainly not medically necessary.

I include pretty much everything lumped under the heading of "Complementary and Alternative Medicine" in this category. I say this as someone who actually uses some of those treatments. For example, I use quite a few herbal remedies (with my doc's approval) rather than synthetic derivatives. That's a personal decision on my part, and I don't expect other people to pay for it. Why should I have to pay for their yoga lessons? Why not add faith healing why we're at it?

You mentioned a woman's dilemma regarding her insulin pump earlier. That's a medical necessity. That would be covered under any halfway-decent basic or major medical policy. Unfortunately, she's not allowed to buy a basic / major medical policy anymore because Big Brother says so. How does that make any sense?

Just for the sake of argument... if Big Brother simply must mandate a level of coverage, why not make that coverage deep in the areas of basic and major medical, so it will cover things that are truly necessary for the vast majority of people; rather than broad in terms of covering things like chiropractic, acupuncture, yoga, and so forth that most people won't need? If they do want that coverage, let them pay for a rider.

I personally don't know anyone for whom either their rates haven't gone up dramatically under Obamacare, or whose coverage hasn't been canceled. Even the policy the local Chamber of Commerce used to offer has drastically increased in cost. Ironic, huh, considering that this law is officially titled the "Affordable Care Act?"

Here's another interesting and sad thing that's happening. I know a lot of young people at the college whose parents have informed them that they're taking them off their health insurance policies because they simply can't afford it under the new rates. They're allowed to keep their kids on the their policies until they're 26, but they have no legal obligation to do so; and many of them simply can't afford to.

Apparently, as best as I can determine from this confusing mess, this doesn't apply if parents also have minor dependents covered under their policies. The adult child, in that case, continues to be covered along with the other children. But if their only "dependent" is the adult college student, more than a few parents are canceling their dependent coverage, and telling the adult children that they're on their own.

So being healthy young people, what are these students doing? Many of them are saying, "Screw it," and not buying any health insurance at all. And frankly, that's the smart decision. They're unlikely to become seriously ill, they can't be turned down, and driving-related injuries would be covered under their car insurance; so why bother with health insurance? For the great majority of them, it's just money down the drain every month.

When I first attended college, there were cheap health plans available to students. Typically they covered basic health care at the campus clinic, major medical coverage at a few local hospitals, and emergency care anywhere. These policies were dirt cheap: I think I paid something like $12.00 a month for mine. But they were perfectly adequate for a typical college student. Alas, those policies are illegal now, as well.

Somewhere along the line, the focus of this law morphed from "affordability" to something quite the opposite. And ironically, there were perfectly good models, that could have worked, that were ignored.

New York's HealthyNY program, for example, used to be an excellent program. It provided excellent basic medical, major medical, and prescription drug coverage -- but nothing else -- through a private company of the insured's choice. The coverage was identical no matter which insurer you chose, but the premiums and doctor / hospital choices varied from company to company. I used it for a year or two when I first went into business for myself, until my business outgrew the income parameters. I was very happy with it.

The coverage offered under HealthyNY was excellent, but because of its limited scope (basic medical, major medical, and prescription drug), it was very cheap. I just checked my old records, and the premiums were $153.00 a month for singles, $226.00 / month for couples, and $256.00 / month for families when we signed up. Kids got some additional benefits that adults didn't get, but I don't remember what they were offhand. I think dental and eyeglasses, but I wouldn't swear to it.

Here's some irony for you. Out of curiosity, I just checked the HealthyNY Web site to see how they are affected by Obamacare. And guess what: All individual and sole prop HealthyNY policies are being canceled effective December 31 of this year.

Ain't that a slap in the mug. Even the State of New York's very excellent, very successful, model health insurance program for individuals and sole proprietors isn't exempt from the Obamacare axe.

The demise of HealthyNY is actually pretty sad to me. Although I haven't had HealthyNY coverage in quite some time, I always considered it an example of something that the government actually got right. It cost the taxpayers very little. The low cost of the coverage was mainly a result of its scope being limited to essential services.

Even though I no longer use it, I'm very disappointed that this program will soon be no more. It should have been the model for Obamacare, not a casualty of it.

-Rich
 
JoseCuervo said:
Sorry to hear about your wife.

Does she (or you) value the fact that she can no longer be denied coverage due to the pre-existing coverage?
Click to expand...
Since we were already covered by our existing plans, which we liked, and which we were told we could keep, repeatedly over the last 3 years, and if we had to change I would have put her on my employer plan where pre-existing conditions have been covered as a matter of law for many years now so no, the changes in the law that add nothing to our actual situation are no value, but the loss of coverage we liked and could afford does matter. The loss of choice of plan and Dr does matter. The increased cost and lesser freedom does matter.

I could fly a lot more on $8K a year, or support more worthy charities, or save for my eventual retirement, or start a business, etc, etc.

Again, that is $8K per year, in addition to the $10K per year we are already spending - you can buy a house for less than that, even in California.

This is neither 'affordable' nor 'care' and it has actually never been about health, it is about radical idealogues nationalizing 1/6 of the largest economy on Earth, the 1/6 that directly effect life and death for more than 300 million people - those who do not know history are doomed to repeat it, this has happened before and it nevers goes well, espeially for those it supposed to 'help'.

'Gimp
 
Last edited:
Kiddo's Driver said:
Dear JoseCuervo,

Let me introduce you to the multi quote button. It is in the bottom right of each post. It looks like a sheet of paper with a double quote mark, and a plus sign. You can click on all of the posts you want to respond to and then press Quote on the final post and it will quote ALL of the them in one reply.

Jim
Click to expand...

Thank you for your dedicated service as Thread Cop. This country is a better place because of people like you.

Could you show me where this button is?

upenesad.jpg
 
AcroGimp said:
Since we were already covered by our existing plans, which we liked, and which we were told we could keep, repeatedly over the last 3 years, and if we had to change I would have put her on my employer plan where pre-existing conditions have been covered as a matter of law for many years now so no, the changes in the law that add nothing to our actual situation are no value, but the loss of coverage we liked and could afford does matter. The loss of choice of plan and Dr does matter. The increased cost and lesser freedom does matter.

I could fly a lot more on $8K a year, or support more worthy charities, or save for my eventual retirement, or start a business, etc, etc.

Again, that is $8K per year, in addition to the $10K per year we are already spending - you can buy a house for less than that, even in California.

This is neither 'affordable' nor 'care' and it has actually never been about health, it is about radical idealogues nationalizing 1/6 of the largest economy on Earth, the 1/6 that directly effect life and death for more than 300 million people - those who do not know history are doomed to repeat it, this has happened before and it nevers goes well, espeially for those it supposed to 'help'.

'Gimp
Click to expand...

Why didn't you have her on your plan to begin with? That likely would have been cheaper.
 
JoseCuervo said:
I am seeing, first hand, the affects of cut throat, competitive pre-med students fighting for slots to. Med Schools.

I would love to meet a Dr quitting because he is going to have more patients and a chance at healthier patients (ACA requires wellness coverage). The Drs I know right now all seem to be selling their practices to large hospitals, buying new Mercedes and getting new boobs for their new wives.
Click to expand...

How's the Koo-Aid tasting?
 
EppyGA said:
And all along I thought this was about getting uninsured people insured.
Click to expand...

Yes, and to get those 15 million uninsured insured, we only had to cancel insurance or raise premiums/deductibles for 129 million.

It's all very logical.
 
JoseCuervo said:
Thank you for your dedicated service as Thread Cop. This country is a better place because of people like you.

Could you show me where this button is?

upenesad.jpg
Click to expand...

In tapatalk just tap all the posts you want to quote before hitting the quote button at the top.

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SGH-I337 using Tapatalk
 
I guess one of the perks of being retired military is not having to deal with this stuff.
 
The truth from the guy behind ObamaCare:

“Insurance companies don’t want, insurance companies don’t want the individual market as it’s constructed. They see the future. That individual market is going away. They don’t want to invest in it. http://www.thegatewaypundit.com/201...re-the-individual-market-is-going-away-video/

I guess that the government will just have to step in and save the day. Get ready for a lot of intrusive rules to get covered. Physicians have had to deal with being micromanaged. It won't be long before that extends to patients.
 
LDJones said:
Yes, and to get those 15 million uninsured insured, we only had to cancel insurance or raise premiums/deductibles for 129 million.

It's all very logical.
Click to expand...


When was the last year your premiums didn't rise? That has been happening every year since I can remember paying $20-something a month for a $100 deductible.
 
JoseCuervo said:
When was the last year your premiums didn't rise? That has been happening every year since I can remember paying $20-something a month for a $100 deductible.
Click to expand...

But the President promised that premiums would go down an average of $2,500 for the average family. I guess he "misspoke" again there, eh?
 
LDJones said:
How's the Koo-Aid tasting?
Click to expand...


Not sure what KoolAid. I think ObamaCare was a horrible idea.

Of course, I also think the previous system was broken and horrible.

Not sure why a huge gift to Insurance companies was the best this country could do.
 
JeffDG said:
But the President promised that premiums would go down an average of $2,500 for the average family. I guess he "misspoke" again there, eh?
Click to expand...

Have your premiums ever gone down?
 
JoseCuervo said:
Have your premiums ever gone down?
Click to expand...

Not the question.

The President said they'd go down $2,500 for the average family. Let's analyze:

1) That was false
2) The President knew it was false when he said it

It meets the definition of a "Lie"
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top