ObamaCare aka "Patient Protection & Affordable Care Act" (1 Viewer)

[Sand]

Since you refuse to deal with the FACTS and you wont give us your information I am make some assumptions.

Go sleep off whatever it is you're on.

I am on the truth. You can see for yourself. I just ran it for a family of 4 making 35K. They will never be able to afford the deductibles or maximum even if their premium is small. Show me wrong instead of insulting me. Go ahead.

Says the guy that started an earlier post with "hey morons"?

--

Chicago Tribune today had an even stronger editorial on the ACA. They are upset with the piecemeal deferrals (some of which are illegal), and call for new legislation that takes the lessons from the ACA process and tries to do it right.

Well when you just keep posting opinions pro and cons about obamacare when the tools are out there to actually run real world numbers then the term is pretty apt.

Refusal to acknowledge that all the opinions that keep getting re-hashed over and over and over again, when all you have to do is look for yourself is pretty moronic don't ya think.

Apparently no one has been able to run the numbers and dispute the FACTS. Just whistling past the graveyard is all I hear.

How about you, you want to run the numbers and tell us all how lucky we will be to have obamacare, maybe you are the exception, but I doubt it.

Can we get this jackass a timeout?

-----

To throw in some numbers, here is a good one - 29.5. The number Forever 21 is reducing a number of employees to. Just the start of a massive wave of companies ducking under the ACA.

 

[matttyl]

Just what I was saying earlier.....

http://www.cnbc.com/id/100972664

Companies will end up dropping their employer offered coverage to allow their employees to get a tax subsidy paid for by the rest of us when they enroll on the exchanges. I thought that the ACA was meant to give uninsured individuals options, not give cheaper options to those who already have health insurance at the expense of John Q. Taxpayer.

 

[Joe T]

Just what I was saying earlier.....

http://www.cnbc.com/id/100972664

Companies will end up dropping their employer offered coverage to allow their employees to get a tax subsidy paid for by the rest of us when they enroll on the exchanges. I thought that the ACA was meant to give uninsured individuals options, not give cheaper options to those who already have health insurance at the expense of John Q. Taxpayer.

I also thought the insurance you have now won't change.

 

[snogger]

Just what I was saying earlier.....

http://www.cnbc.com/id/100972664

Companies will end up dropping their employer offered coverage to allow their employees to get a tax subsidy paid for by the rest of us when they enroll on the exchanges. I thought that the ACA was meant to give uninsured individuals options, not give cheaper options to those who already have health insurance at the expense of John Q. Taxpayer.

I also thought the insurance you have now won't change.

IMO, if you read between the lines, you realize this was the plan along..

They couldn't pass "Single Payer" system that they wanted...

So they came up with this plan, that will push more and more people into the new care system.. at some point there won't be enough money going in to pay for the subsides.

Then they will have their weapon to say "sorry, we have no choice but to go to a single Payer system so as to afford Health care for all".

 

[SaintsInDome2006]

Hey I do think your mental impressions are valid, can't dispute that, they are what they are, and I respect that.

"Make hay" is a common expression which means to take advantage of and profit from. By that I meant that Democrats who were in states and districts that were on teh fence about the ACA when confronted with opposition deflected arguments by claiming taht they too would be covered.

"Cast aside" means to blithely discard a principle (in such a situation where a principle is at stake) after it has served its purpose.

The Grassley amendment (and the NR article supports this) requried that those covered under the Congresional health plan would be required, when the ACA came into effect, to forego their federally subsidized HC plans while they transitioned onto the government health care exchanges created by the ACA. The position put forward by teh Democrats - now, later when the law is one the eve of having effect, not then when it was being debated - was that the insureds would get to retain their contributions (ie subsidies) previously created under the old plan. Now in my opinion, that does not make very much sense. The point of the Grassley Amendment was to bind those making HC insurance decisions for all Americans to those very same effects of those decisions. It would not make sense to say, they would be bound by the exchanges but not really bound (because gosh we get these fantastic subsidies no one else gets access to).

Now if you want me to get into a linkage battle, with left vs right sites, not really sure I see the point in that (because they all reference each other's wing mostly). I referenced the NR article which is pretty liberal I'd say (and even NR does that same quoting of the echo chamber but anyway), glad to go elsewhere though. Thanks.

The bolded is completely wrong. And I don't need left vs. right links to do it. I'll give you primary sources and simple explanations:

This is the Grassley Amendment. If you don't feel like reading, here's the plain language summary according to all parties involved. Grassley is basically saying to the Dems: "You think the coverage under these exchanges is so great? Fine. YOU use them. The government will continue to make contributions to cover some of these costs (see subsection (D)(ii)), but you are restricted to those plans available on the exchanges. No more FEHB for you. Other large employers can provide their own health care for their employees as they see fit, but you made this bed so you lie in it."

To which the Dems responded "Fine. It's a deal."

There is zero debate from anyone about the intention of the amendment here. Nobody wanted to cut off health care benefits for members and staff completely. There is not one word of the amendment that could be interpreted that way, and nobody involved in the process has claimed that was their intent.

Later, some people pointed out that the amendment could present some bureaucratic issues depending on how it's applied, because the exchanges aren't really set up in such a way as to allow employer contributions. The Office of Personnel Management was asked to reconcile this issue and give effect to the intent and meaning of the law, as federal agencies are often directed to do. I'll stop here and point out that the Office of Personnel Management has nothing to do with Congress. Here's a link to help you understand that.

OPM recently took a step towards fulfilling their function by issuing a proposed rule providing that, as the Amendment clearly intends, members and staff may only use health plans offered in the exchanges, but that they will still receive contributions from their employer. This is still just a proposed rule, so you and everyone else in America can feel free to comment if you like I assume- I apologize that the link to the text of the proposed rule isn't working right now, but I gave you the link to the press release on it, best I could do.

Now as to your ridiculous statement that they "get these fantastic subsidies that no one else gets access to" ... you realize that if you're a member of Congress or Congressional staff the federal government is their employer, don't you? They're not subsidies, they're employer contributions to health care coverage. Are you saying that no other employees of large employers in America get contributions towards their health care coverage from their employers? Because I'm pretty sure that's not true.

If you're willing to read one of those left-wing commie pinkos from the Washington Post explaining to you how this is a bunch of nonsense, here you go. And next time, ignore Rush. He's full of ####.

Ok, first of all - I'm happily off right/left talk radio (news, well I might listen to NPR, or WBOK (it's to the left of liberal and is openly about black issues) or WSMB/sports ESPN, in New Orleans), so let's leave that out of it. I read this in my morning paper (AP feed a couple days old I would think, since or rag now just publishes three tiems a week), with my coffee, a few days ago, and the read the New Republic article out of curiosity. The NR article

But Grassley suggested an exception. He introduced an amendment that would force members of Congress, and their advisers, to give up federal employee coverage and buy through the new exchanges instead.

Grassley insisted he wanted only to promote good public policy. If members of Congress were dependent on the exchanges, he suggested, they’d have a direct stake in their success. But Grassley was also the ranking Republican on the Finance Committee. And, by that point in the debate, he’d all but committed himself to opposing legislation. He almost certainly figured the Democrats would vote down his amendment, rather than relinquish federal employee coverage. And that would give Republicans a chance to pounce. If Obamacare coverage is good enough for you, the Republicans could then tell voters, why isn’t it good enough for them?


As it turns out, Grassley was wrong. Democrats didn’t reject the amendment. They accepted it, and now it’s part of the law. But that created a very weird situation. The federal government, like most large employers, not only provides the opportunity for its workers to get insurance. It also pays a large portion of the premium. Now that lawmakers and their advisers were going into the exchanges, what would happen to that contribution? Would they just lose the money?

The answer, the administration decided last week, is no. Lawmakers and their staffs could keep their employer contributions, and apply that money towards the cost of whatever insurance they buy in the exchanges.

So, recognizing what the OPM did (and realizing that its chief is indeed appointed/nominated by the president), I wasn't exactly comfortable about the idea that an executive branch bureau had decided to resolve the ambiguity the way it did.

I have to say i appreciate you're posting the actual law, which is refreshing.

any employer contribution under such chapter on behalf of the President, the Vice President, any political appointee, any Member of Congress, and any Congressional employee may be paid only to the issuer of a qualified health plan in which the individual enrolled through such Exchange and not to the issuer of a plan offered through the Federal employees health benefit program under such chapter.

Now, (a) that's not very ambiguous, why would the OPM need to rule in the first place.

And, (b) it does not sound like much of a sacrifice from those who voted for it in Congress since the real value of what they were getting befroe and now is in the contribution. And yes since it comes from the federal government I'd call that a subsidy (especially to the extent it goes beyond what most get most places).

I think the contention is that I am treating the FEHBP as including a contribution. Meanwhile, you also state above that the essence of the Grassley amendment was: "No more FEHBP for you." If the contribution was part of the FEHB that does indeed seem contradictory.

And when you say, "They're not subsidies, they're employer contributions to health care coverage. Are you saying that no other employees of large employers in America get contributions towards their health care coverage from their employers?" ... I perfectly understand you. My point is that the federal contributions are super gold plated, fantastic, beyond what most Americans get. So my point is, when Congress, Demos and Repubs alike, signed off on this thing, they did it with the purpose of either defending themelves (D's) or to attack (R's), but apparently in the end no one was ever really sacrificing anything. Really, just a shell game, and no I don't exclude the GOP'ers from that.

Because the law is equally unambiguous that the federal government contributions to health care coverage of members/staff would continue unabated. It's a poorly drafted amendment that essentially required OPM to do something; it was literally impossible to give effect to both things. The agency resolved it by abiding by what it considered to be the obvious intent of the amendment. Nobody involved in the drafting process, including the member, has disputed their interpretation. And it's my personal belief that you can't actually read the amendment and think anything different. This is what was wanted- for members and staff to have to get coverage through exchanges, not for them to lose their employer contributions to health care coverage completely.

As to your second point, that the contributions are "super gold plated, fantastic, beyond what most Americans get": you're certainly welcome to that opinion. And to some extent I agree with you. it is a great plan. But (1) that has nothing to do with the ACA or the amendment, it's a completely separate subject, and (2) for members and staff at least, those contributions, and the security that they'll always be there, make up for waaaayyyy below market salaries. You think Congress is bad now? Imagine what would happen if you slashed the biggest perk of the compensation package. Those hard-working staffers, many of whom could make 4x as much in the private sector, would run away from the Hill like it was on fire.

Ok, this is the point.

1. I still believe in democracy. Dumb I know, but Congress should vote on it. Laws should not be changed or "clarified" by a bureau whose head is appointed by the chief executive. This happens a lot I know, but there it is, it's a political favor with a benefit to Congressmen. I do not exclude Goppers from this, Dems and Rep's both here, both pretended on this law for the sake of looking good but the whole time they were hoping to back out, it's a sham.

2. The whole substantiation of this - and note all I've read on this opinion-wise is the New Republic article - is an anonymous staffer. We don't know who or whether they are D/R. and actually I'm fine with that kind of sourcing. But in the end the whole thing is self-serving.

3. The question of there being no point to the amendment without this works both ways; there was no point to the GOP proposing and the Dem's accepting this if there was no sacrifice on the part of Congress voting for it. I do believe it's possible that the Goppers were doing a rope-a-dope, saying they were forcing all in Congress to sacrifice something when they really weren't, I don't exclude that, because after all they knew it could be passed and they did not want to get stuck with that. But I do not believe at all that these crafters of this amendment did not foresee, could not possibly imagine that the contributions would be at stake. It's not even closely, remotely possible they did not think of it. They left it out because they knew if they left it in then they knew would be attacked on it as being a sham on both parties at the time - and people doing so would have been right. (My guess is there was a prior version where this provision was in, but then taken out, but you will never get the answer to that.). The way laws work is that if language is left out on something this important, this obvious, that it's because it was meant to be excluded. This whole thing makes a joke out of the democratic process.

- Btw, I agree this is not a big deal on the list of things. It's just one item, a small one in the scope of what's wrong with this law and really it belongs in a discussion of "What Stinks on the Potomac" more than the value of this law.

 

[Sand]

UPS drops 15,000 from healthcare rolls, citing Obamacare.

Oof. The train is starting to roll down the tracks.

 

[Joe T]

UPS drops 15,000 from healthcare rolls, citing Obamacare.

Oof. The train is starting to roll down the tracks.

oof is right.

"If you like your health care plan, you will be able to keep your health care plan. Period. No one will take it away. No matter what." - Barack Obama

 

[matttyl]

What you'll actually pay for Obamacare -

http://money.cnn.com/2013/08/21/news/economy/obamacare-subsidies/index.html?hpt=hp_t2

A California making $46k or more a year will pay $364 each month for the 2nd cheapest Silver Plan. That, along with a $2,000 annual deductible would be roughly 14% of his before tax paycheck. Assuming he's paying 20% in taxes, though, it's more like 17% and I'm not taking into account a single office visit, prescription or any other out of pocket cost.

"Affordable"?!

 

[matttyl]

UPS drops 15,000 from healthcare rolls, citing Obamacare.

Oof. The train is starting to roll down the tracks.

oof is right.

"If you like your health care plan, you will be able to keep your health care plan. Period. No one will take it away. No matter what." - Barack Obama

Honestly, I think the headline may be misleading. I believe what they are saying is that UPS will no longer pay for these dependent spouses. They may be "dropping" the employer subsidy for adding dependents (they likely pay 50% of the dependent cost currently).

A company like UPS, though, is large enough to (a certain extent) write their own rules on their group plan, so maybe they are in fact changing their plan to not have any spouses on it at all.

 

[Foosball God]

What you'll actually pay for Obamacare -

http://money.cnn.com/2013/08/21/news/economy/obamacare-subsidies/index.html?hpt=hp_t2

A California making $46k or more a year will pay $364 each month for the 2nd cheapest Silver Plan. That, along with a $2,000 annual deductible would be roughly 14% of his before tax paycheck. Assuming he's paying 20% in taxes, though, it's more like 17% and I'm not taking into account a single office visit, prescription or any other out of pocket cost.

"Affordable"?!

This article is written by someone that doesn't even understand healthcare.

"His deductible would be $2,000 a month"

Deductibles aren't monthly they are annual. It also says a 40 year old Californian would pay $294 a month for the SLCSP.

 

[matttyl]

What you'll actually pay for Obamacare -

http://money.cnn.com/2013/08/21/news/economy/obamacare-subsidies/index.html?hpt=hp_t2

A California making $46k or more a year will pay $364 each month for the 2nd cheapest Silver Plan. That, along with a $2,000 annual deductible would be roughly 14% of his before tax paycheck. Assuming he's paying 20% in taxes, though, it's more like 17% and I'm not taking into account a single office visit, prescription or any other out of pocket cost.

"Affordable"?!

This article is written by someone that doesn't even understand healthcare.

"His deductible would be $2,000 a month"

Deductibles aren't monthly they are annual. It also says a 40 year old Californian would pay $294 a month for the SLCSP.

I get that, which is why I wrote "$2,000 annual deductible" in my post. The numbers in the top chart are from Covered California and are published rates.

 

[jamny]

Our Oxford plan is going up 30% next year. They are considering something similar to what UPS is doing.

 

[tommyGunZ]

UPS drops 15,000 from healthcare rolls, citing Obamacare.

Oof. The train is starting to roll down the tracks.

oof is right.

"If you like your health care plan, you will be able to keep your health care plan. Period. No one will take it away. No matter what." - Barack Obama

Your interpretation of this statement was that employers were banned from changing the health care plans they offered their employees?

 

[Joe T]

UPS drops 15,000 from healthcare rolls, citing Obamacare.

Oof. The train is starting to roll down the tracks.

oof is right.

"If you like your health care plan, you will be able to keep your health care plan. Period. No one will take it away. No matter what." - Barack Obama

Your interpretation of this statement was that employers were banned from changing the health care plans they offered their employees?

No. His statement said nothing like that so your interpretation is moronic.

 

[matttyl]

UPS drops 15,000 from healthcare rolls, citing Obamacare.

Oof. The train is starting to roll down the tracks.

oof is right.

"If you like your health care plan, you will be able to keep your health care plan. Period. No one will take it away. No matter what." - Barack Obama

Your interpretation of this statement was that employers were banned from changing the health care plans they offered their employees?

My interpretation of the statement is that "you will be able to keep your health care plan, period. No one will take it away, no matter what."

Pretty simple. People either had their health care plan though an employer, or as an individual. Roughly half of individuals will lose their current plans and have them replaced by the ACA itself, and many people with employer based coverage (like UPS employee spouses) will lose their coverage as it won't be offered any longer - while other smaller employers will drop their plans altogether.

Are you interpreting the statement differently?

 

[tommyGunZ]

UPS drops 15,000 from healthcare rolls, citing Obamacare.

Oof. The train is starting to roll down the tracks.

oof is right.

"If you like your health care plan, you will be able to keep your health care plan. Period. No one will take it away. No matter what." - Barack Obama

Your interpretation of this statement was that employers were banned from changing the health care plans they offered their employees?

My interpretation of the statement is that "you will be able to keep your health care plan, period. No one will take it away, no matter what."

Pretty simple. People either had their health care plan though an employer, or as an individual. Roughly half of individuals will lose their current plans and have them replaced by the ACA itself, and many people with employer based coverage (like UPS employee spouses) will lose their coverage as it won't be offered any longer - while other smaller employers will drop their plans altogether.

Are you interpreting the statement differently?

So your interpretation is that even if Blue Cross Blue Shield went out of business altogether, somehow you were going to be able to keep your Blue Cross Blue Shield health care plan for eternity?

 

[Sand]

UPS drops 15,000 from healthcare rolls, citing Obamacare.

Oof. The train is starting to roll down the tracks.

oof is right.

"If you like your health care plan, you will be able to keep your health care plan. Period. No one will take it away. No matter what." - Barack Obama

Your interpretation of this statement was that employers were banned from changing the health care plans they offered their employees?

My interpretation of the statement is that "you will be able to keep your health care plan, period. No one will take it away, no matter what."

Pretty simple. People either had their health care plan though an employer, or as an individual. Roughly half of individuals will lose their current plans and have them replaced by the ACA itself, and many people with employer based coverage (like UPS employee spouses) will lose their coverage as it won't be offered any longer - while other smaller employers will drop their plans altogether.

Are you interpreting the statement differently?

So your interpretation is that even if Blue Cross Blue Shield went out of business altogether, somehow you were going to be able to keep your Blue Cross Blue Shield health care plan for eternity?

Too big to fail. They'd get a bailout.

 

[matttyl]

So your interpretation is that even if Blue Cross Blue Shield went out of business altogether, somehow you were going to be able to keep your Blue Cross Blue Shield health care plan for eternity?

Obviously not, and that's not happening.

What IS HAPPENING, though, is that people who had an BCBS plan will have to CHANGE THEIR CURRENT PLAN yet still stay with BCBS. That goes DIRECTLY against what was promised.

 

[36th Chamber]

Just found out last week in 2014 our rate (self+spouse) is going up from $200 a month to over $600 a month and a new flat $5,700 deduct. Until we meet the deduct insurance will only cover 20% with all types of limitation at that. First time in the history of coverage for myself, and or self + spouse, I haven't had a $20 or less copay to see a primary care DR.

So unless one of us ends up in the hospital for a few days or more (knock on wood twice, never happened) we are essentially getting robbed.

CHEERS

 

[Rush Limbaugh Fan]

Just what I was saying earlier.....

http://www.cnbc.com/id/100972664

Companies will end up dropping their employer offered coverage to allow their employees to get a tax subsidy paid for by the rest of us when they enroll on the exchanges. I thought that the ACA was meant to give uninsured individuals options, not give cheaper options to those who already have health insurance at the expense of John Q. Taxpayer.

I also thought the insurance you have now won't change.

IMO, if you read between the lines, you realize this was the plan along..

They couldn't pass "Single Payer" system that they wanted...

So they came up with this plan, that will push more and more people into the new care system.. at some point there won't be enough money going in to pay for the subsides.

Then they will have their weapon to say "sorry, we have no choice but to go to a single Payer system so as to afford Health care for all".

 

[matttyl]

Interesting read I found today.....

The single reason why we might not see a delay of Obamacare's individual mandate:

There is something President Obama and his party want more than anything, and which virtually ensures the individual mandate portion of Obamacare will no see a delay in the same way the president broke his own law and extended the start date for the employer mandate.

The one "thing?" The vote.

There states announced they will use federally funded navigators - unlicensed workers who will sign up people for free and subsidized health insurance through online exchanges - to register new voters in the areas served by community and social services organizations.

Just in time for 2014's mid0term elections.

Although voter registration is not part of the Affordable Care Act, HHS incorporated voter registration into federal draft forms for subsidy applications. Interesting, because federal law leaves the responsibility for registering voters up to states.

So far, Connecticut, Vermont and California said they will instruct navigators to register voters when they help people sign up for health insurance through their online marketplaces, which each state is creating.

What is unclear is if (more like, when) the Obama administration will make voter registration part of the online health insurance exchanges in the 27 state where the federal government is creating exchanges, including Pennsylvania, New Jersey, Virginia and in part, Delaware.

Regardless, states will share in nearly $150M in federal funding to enlist navigator groups, and, in select sates, register voters. These navigator groups include faith based organizations, community health providers, and cultural organizations. They will go into communities, give people free health insurance or subsidies, and then ask recipients if they want to register to vote...presumably for the party providing the giveaways.

In the three states so far that will "navigate" and register voters, more than $24M will be spend on those efforts. One can assume more states - or even the federal government itself - will register voters as well.

Many of those who will be encouraged to register likely have never voted before, and may not be informed of the important issues in upcoming elections.

The opportunity to put health insurance, subsidies, and voter registration cars in the hands of millions of potential backers and voters is on the Obama administration would be loathe to pass up. Delaying the individual mandate - and missing the opportunity to register millions in time for midterms is as unlikely as pigs flying.

- Tony Ondrusek, publisher of Insurance & Financial advisor

 

[Foosball God]

Just found out last week in 2014 our rate (self+spouse) is going up from $200 a month to over $600 a month and a new flat $5,700 deduct. Until we meet the deduct insurance will only cover 20% with all types of limitation at that. First time in the history of coverage for myself, and or self + spouse, I haven't had a $20 or less copay to see a primary care DR.

So unless one of us ends up in the hospital for a few days or more (knock on wood twice, never happened) we are essentially getting robbed.

CHEERS

Do you get insurance through your company or individually?

 

[Foosball God]

Interesting read I found today.....

The single reason why we might not see a delay of Obamacare's individual mandate:

There is something President Obama and his party want more than anything, and which virtually ensures the individual mandate portion of Obamacare will no see a delay in the same way the president broke his own law and extended the start date for the employer mandate.

The one "thing?" The vote.

There states announced they will use federally funded navigators - unlicensed workers who will sign up people for free and subsidized health insurance through online exchanges - to register new voters in the areas served by community and social services organizations.

Just in time for 2014's mid0term elections.

Although voter registration is not part of the Affordable Care Act, HHS incorporated voter registration into federal draft forms for subsidy applications. Interesting, because federal law leaves the responsibility for registering voters up to states.

So far, Connecticut, Vermont and California said they will instruct navigators to register voters when they help people sign up for health insurance through their online marketplaces, which each state is creating.

What is unclear is if (more like, when) the Obama administration will make voter registration part of the online health insurance exchanges in the 27 state where the federal government is creating exchanges, including Pennsylvania, New Jersey, Virginia and in part, Delaware.

Regardless, states will share in nearly $150M in federal funding to enlist navigator groups, and, in select sates, register voters. These navigator groups include faith based organizations, community health providers, and cultural organizations. They will go into communities, give people free health insurance or subsidies, and then ask recipients if they want to register to vote...presumably for the party providing the giveaways.

In the three states so far that will "navigate" and register voters, more than $24M will be spend on those efforts. One can assume more states - or even the federal government itself - will register voters as well.

Many of those who will be encouraged to register likely have never voted before, and may not be informed of the important issues in upcoming elections.

The opportunity to put health insurance, subsidies, and voter registration cars in the hands of millions of potential backers and voters is on the Obama administration would be loathe to pass up. Delaying the individual mandate - and missing the opportunity to register millions in time for midterms is as unlikely as pigs flying.

- Tony Ondrusek, publisher of Insurance & Financial advisor

Complete BS. This is not going to be part of the Exchanges/Marketplaces. The only relationship appears to be these groups that are helping people get on the Exchange also will help people register to vote. It won't be part of the same system at all.

 

[matttyl]

It won't be part of the same system at all.

Actually, it already is (back from March of this year)....

Washington, DC – Today, Ways and Means Oversight Subcommittee Chairman Charles Boustany Jr., M.D. (R-LA) wrote to Health and Human Services (HHS) Secretary Kathleen Sebelius regarding the inclusion of a voter registration application form in HHS’s application for federal Exchange subsidies under ObamaCare.

As if the insurance application process will not be complicated enough, HHS’s proposed application includes an inquiry about something totally unrelated to health insurance – a question seeking information from the applicant about their voter registration status. After completing the online application and learning of their eligibility status for various insurance policies, the applicant is then asked on page 59 [form is at bottom of this page], “Would you like to register to vote?” The placement of the question could lead some to think their subsidy eligibility is contingent on voter registration.

Additionally, since many of these applications will be administered by “navigators,” which may include politically active tax-exempt organizations such as Families USA, AARP or associations like the now-defunct ACORN, it raises questions as to why HHS is gathering voter information, how the agency intends to use such information and how the information could be used by the navigators.

 

[tommyGunZ]

OMG, we're asking poor people if they want to register to vote AND get health care!?!?!??

WTF?

 

[Foosball God]

It won't be part of the same system at all.

Actually, it already is (back from March of this year)....

Washington, DC – Today, Ways and Means Oversight Subcommittee Chairman Charles Boustany Jr., M.D. (R-LA) wrote to Health and Human Services (HHS) Secretary Kathleen Sebelius regarding the inclusion of a voter registration application form in HHS’s application for federal Exchange subsidies under ObamaCare.

As if the insurance application process will not be complicated enough, HHS’s proposed application includes an inquiry about something totally unrelated to health insurance – a question seeking information from the applicant about their voter registration status. After completing the online application and learning of their eligibility status for various insurance policies, the applicant is then asked on page 59 [form is at bottom of this page], “Would you like to register to vote?” The placement of the question could lead some to think their subsidy eligibility is contingent on voter registration.

Additionally, since many of these applications will be administered by “navigators,” which may include politically active tax-exempt organizations such as Families USA, AARP or associations like the now-defunct ACORN, it raises questions as to why HHS is gathering voter information, how the agency intends to use such information and how the information could be used by the navigators.

Funny, I'm looking at the Individual App screens right now and there are no questions about voter registration.

 

[SaintsInDome2006]

Just found out last week in 2014 our rate (self+spouse) is going up from $200 a month to over $600 a month and a new flat $5,700 deduct. Until we meet the deduct insurance will only cover 20% with all types of limitation at that. First time in the history of coverage for myself, and or self + spouse, I haven't had a $20 or less copay to see a primary care DR.

So unless one of us ends up in the hospital for a few days or more (knock on wood twice, never happened) we are essentially getting robbed.

CHEERS

This merits a response.

 

[SaintsInDome2006]

It won't be part of the same system at all.

Actually, it already is (back from March of this year)....

Washington, DC – Today, Ways and Means Oversight Subcommittee Chairman Charles Boustany Jr., M.D. (R-LA) wrote to Health and Human Services (HHS) Secretary Kathleen Sebelius regarding the inclusion of a voter registration application form in HHS’s application for federal Exchange subsidies under ObamaCare.

As if the insurance application process will not be complicated enough, HHS’s proposed application includes an inquiry about something totally unrelated to health insurance – a question seeking information from the applicant about their voter registration status. After completing the online application and learning of their eligibility status for various insurance policies, the applicant is then asked on page 59 [form is at bottom of this page], “Would you like to register to vote?” The placement of the question could lead some to think their subsidy eligibility is contingent on voter registration.

Additionally, since many of these applications will be administered by “navigators,” which may include politically active tax-exempt organizations such as Families USA, AARP or associations like the now-defunct ACORN, it raises questions as to why HHS is gathering voter information, how the agency intends to use such information and how the information could be used by the navigators.

Funny, I'm looking at the Individual App screens right now and there are no questions about voter registration.

It's apparently in draft form on the W&M Congressional site:

http://waysandmeans.house.gov/uploadedfiles/pdf_cms_1_031313.pdf

I take it is proposed for 2014 implementation.

 

[Dr Oadi]

1000 deductible 0% coinsurance $20 copay.

$2,000 a year.

Thanks Obama!

 

[MaxThreshold]

1000 deductible 0% coinsurance $20 copay.

$2,000 a year.

Thanks Obama!

Where did you get these numbers?

 

[matttyl]

OMG, we're asking poor people if they want to register to vote AND get after getting free (or subsidized) health care!?!?!??

WTF?

Fixed. If you don't see a problem with that, there really is no hope for you.

Further, voter registration is for the states, not for the federal government. This isn't the time or the place for federal funds to be used for voter registration.

 

[SaintsInDome2006]

OMG, we're asking poor people if they want to register to vote AND get after getting free (or subsidized) health care!?!?!??

WTF?

Fixed. If you don't see a problem with that, there really is no hope for you.

Further, voter registration is for the states, not for the federal government. This isn't the time or the place for federal funds to be used for voter registration.

It's also arguably campaign activity by an executive department that has absolutely nothing to do with voting in the first place.

 

[derek245583]

OMG, we're asking poor people if they want to register to vote AND get health care!?!?!??

WTF?

Should go back to having to own land to vote

 

[tommyGunZ]

OMG, we're asking poor people if they want to register to vote AND get after getting free (or subsidized) health care!?!?!??

WTF?

Fixed. If you don't see a problem with that, there really is no hope for you.

Further, voter registration is for the states, not for the federal government. This isn't the time or the place for federal funds to be used for voter registration.

With the way several states are taking measures to disenfranchise voters, I think it's absolutely the time and the place to get folks registered to vote.

Why are you guys so scared to let poor folks participate in our democracy? (that's a rhetorical question - we all know the answer)

 

[SaintsInDome2006]

OMG, we're asking poor people if they want to register to vote AND get after getting free (or subsidized) health care!?!?!??

WTF?

Fixed. If you don't see a problem with that, there really is no hope for you.

Further, voter registration is for the states, not for the federal government. This isn't the time or the place for federal funds to be used for voter registration.

With the way several states are taking measures to disenfranchise voters, I think it's absolutely the time and the place to get folks registered to vote.

Why are you guys so scared to let poor folks participate in our democracy? (that's a rhetorical question - we all know the answer)

I count ten suppositions there, impressive.

 

[BigSteelThrill]

They couldn't pass "Single Payer" system that they wanted...

It was actually conservatives who "came up" and the current system.

 

[MaxThreshold]

OMG, we're asking poor people if they want to register to vote AND get after getting free (or subsidized) health care!?!?!??

WTF?

Fixed. If you don't see a problem with that, there really is no hope for you.

Further, voter registration is for the states, not for the federal government. This isn't the time or the place for federal funds to be used for voter registration.

With the way several states are taking measures to disenfranchise voters, I think it's absolutely the time and the place to get folks registered to vote.

Why are you guys so scared to let poor folks participate in our democracy? (that's a rhetorical question - we all know the answer)

I count ten suppositions there, impressive.

Some men, you just can't reach.

 

[MaxThreshold]

They couldn't pass "Single Payer" system that they wanted...

It was actually conservatives who "came up" and the current system.

You still spouting this nonsense? It appears you've said it enough that you actually believe it now.

 

[BigSteelThrill]

They couldn't pass "Single Payer" system that they wanted...

It was actually conservatives who "came up" and the current system.

You still spouting this nonsense? It appears you've said it enough that you actually believe it now.

Its absolutely true.

And I dont think Ive said that before. Maybe once, ever. You must be mistaking me for someone else.

Are you going to try and do a rewrite? Is that you BGP?

 

[Foosball God]

It won't be part of the same system at all.

Actually, it already is (back from March of this year)....

Washington, DC – Today, Ways and Means Oversight Subcommittee Chairman Charles Boustany Jr., M.D. (R-LA) wrote to Health and Human Services (HHS) Secretary Kathleen Sebelius regarding the inclusion of a voter registration application form in HHS’s application for federal Exchange subsidies under ObamaCare.

As if the insurance application process will not be complicated enough, HHS’s proposed application includes an inquiry about something totally unrelated to health insurance – a question seeking information from the applicant about their voter registration status. After completing the online application and learning of their eligibility status for various insurance policies, the applicant is then asked on page 59 [form is at bottom of this page], “Would you like to register to vote?” The placement of the question could lead some to think their subsidy eligibility is contingent on voter registration.

Additionally, since many of these applications will be administered by “navigators,” which may include politically active tax-exempt organizations such as Families USA, AARP or associations like the now-defunct ACORN, it raises questions as to why HHS is gathering voter information, how the agency intends to use such information and how the information could be used by the navigators.

Funny, I'm looking at the Individual App screens right now and there are no questions about voter registration.

It's apparently in draft form on the W&M Congressional site:

http://waysandmeans.house.gov/uploadedfiles/pdf_cms_1_031313.pdf

I take it is proposed for 2014 implementation.

Interesting, I don't see it on the actual wireframes.

 

[Todd Andrews]

They couldn't pass "Single Payer" system that they wanted...

It was actually conservatives who "came up" and the current system.

You still spouting this nonsense? It appears you've said it enough that you actually believe it now.

It is sad to see people like you....so uninformed, yet so sure they know stuff....so KooKy.....just a pathetic and sad thing to witness.

Obamacare and specifically the individual mandate was the primary Republican/conservative healthcare plan for almost two decades, to the extent they even had a plan for healthcare. Almost every potential candidate for the GOP nomination in 2008 supported it at one point or another, most right up until the time Obama did. Mitt Romney passed it as a national model of Republican healthcare reform in Mass. It was touted far and wide as a market based personal responsibility measure, right up until the point that President Obama purposefully adopted it as a compromise position when single payer was obviously out of reach. At which point, true only to their GOP no principle hypocritical hearts, all of the KooKs promptly turned and claimed it was socialism.

 

[snogger]

They couldn't pass "Single Payer" system that they wanted...

It was actually conservatives who "came up" and the current system.

You still spouting this nonsense? It appears you've said it enough that you actually believe it now.

It is sad to see people like you....so uninformed, yet so sure they know stuff....so KooKy.....just a pathetic and sad thing to witness.

Obamacare and specifically the individual mandate was the primary Republican/conservative healthcare plan for almost two decades, to the extent they even had a plan for healthcare. Almost every potential candidate for the GOP nomination in 2008 supported it at one point or another, most right up until the time Obama did. Mitt Romney passed it as a national model of Republican healthcare reform in Mass. It was touted far and wide as a market based personal responsibility measure, right up until the point that President Obama purposefully adopted it as a compromise position when single payer was obviously out of reach. At which point, true only to their GOP no principle hypocritical hearts, all of the KooKs promptly turned and claimed it was socialism.

there is an outside chance I'd give your post more weight. But your continued use of KooK is beyond now that all I see is KooK blah....blah....blah.. KooK.

 

[Aerial Assault]

Not to get in the way of a good solid, toothy conservative meme, but . . . UPS is only indicating that they won't insure spouses who are eligible to get insurance from their own jobs. Any spouse who can't do so won't be dropped. (Some companies have such a rule in place already concerning spouses who can get covered by their own jobs.)

I know, I know, that doesn't quite make for the same breathless, Obama-hating story, but them's the breaks.

 

[matttyl]

Not to get in the way of a good solid, toothy conservative meme, but . . . UPS is only indicating that they won't insure spouses who are eligible to get insurance from their own jobs. Any spouse who can't do so won't be dropped. (Some companies have such a rule in place already concerning spouses who can get covered by their own jobs.)

I know, I know, that doesn't quite make for the same breathless, Obama-hating story, but them's the breaks.

Though it will be forcing families to deal with 2 seperate deductibles rather than one family deductible. If these spouses already had a better option through their own employers, they would have taken it. Instead, they will now be forced to take this less desirable option.

"If you like your health insurance plan, you can keep it", yeah right.

 

[quickhands]

Just what I was saying earlier.....

http://www.cnbc.com/id/100972664

Companies will end up dropping their employer offered coverage to allow their employees to get a tax subsidy paid for by the rest of us when they enroll on the exchanges. I thought that the ACA was meant to give uninsured individuals options, not give cheaper options to those who already have health insurance at the expense of John Q. Taxpayer.

I also thought the insurance you have now won't change.

IMO, if you read between the lines, you realize this was the plan along..They couldn't pass "Single Payer" system that they wanted...

So they came up with this plan, that will push more and more people into the new care system.. at some point there won't be enough money going in to pay for the subsides.

Then they will have their weapon to say "sorry, we have no choice but to go to a single Payer system so as to afford Health care for all".

then the feds can treat us as good as they treat the armed forces retirees through the VA.

top notch thinking

 

[Sand]

Not to get in the way of a good solid, toothy conservative meme, but . . . UPS is only indicating that they won't insure spouses who are eligible to get insurance from their own jobs. Any spouse who can't do so won't be dropped. (Some companies have such a rule in place already concerning spouses who can get covered by their own jobs.)

I know, I know, that doesn't quite make for the same breathless, Obama-hating story, but them's the breaks.

Though it will be forcing families to deal with 2 seperate deductibles rather than one family deductible. If these spouses already had a better option through their own employers, they would have taken it. Instead, they will now be forced to take this less desirable option.

"If you like your health insurance plan, you can keep it", yeah right.

No matter, just a couple thousand extra out of pocket. Nothing to see here.

 

[Foosball God]

Not to get in the way of a good solid, toothy conservative meme, but . . . UPS is only indicating that they won't insure spouses who are eligible to get insurance from their own jobs. Any spouse who can't do so won't be dropped. (Some companies have such a rule in place already concerning spouses who can get covered by their own jobs.)

I know, I know, that doesn't quite make for the same breathless, Obama-hating story, but them's the breaks.

Though it will be forcing families to deal with 2 seperate deductibles rather than one family deductible. If these spouses already had a better option through their own employers, they would have taken it. Instead, they will now be forced to take this less desirable option.

"If you like your health insurance plan, you can keep it", yeah right.

I'm not even sure why UPS is even in the discussion, they are not a small group employer. I'd say the "rising health care costs" are more a factor in UPS' decision than Obamacare is.

 

[Mr Two Cents]

Not to get in the way of a good solid, toothy conservative meme, but . . . UPS is only indicating that they won't insure spouses who are eligible to get insurance from their own jobs. Any spouse who can't do so won't be dropped. (Some companies have such a rule in place already concerning spouses who can get covered by their own jobs.)

I know, I know, that doesn't quite make for the same breathless, Obama-hating story, but them's the breaks.

Though it will be forcing families to deal with 2 seperate deductibles rather than one family deductible. If these spouses already had a better option through their own employers, they would have taken it. Instead, they will now be forced to take this less desirable option.

"If you like your health insurance plan, you can keep it", yeah right.

I'm not even sure why UPS is even in the discussion, they are not a small group employer. I'd say the "rising health care costs" are more a factor in UPS' decision than Obamacare is.

United Parcel Service Inc. plans to remove thousands of spouses from its medical plan because they are eligible for coverage elsewhere. The Atlanta-based logistics company points to the Affordable Care Act, or Obamacare, as a big reason for the decision, reports Kaiser Health News.

Citing ObamaCare as a reason, the the University of Virginia has announced that spouses of University employees who have access to health insurance through their own jobs will no longer be eligible for health insurance coverage.In its announcement, President Obama's healthcare plan is specifically mentioned by UVa as a reason for the rising costs that forced the university to drop working spouses. ObamaCare is expected to add $7 million to the university's health care costs.

 

[Aerial Assault]

Not to get in the way of a good solid, toothy conservative meme, but . . . UPS is only indicating that they won't insure spouses who are eligible to get insurance from their own jobs. Any spouse who can't do so won't be dropped. (Some companies have such a rule in place already concerning spouses who can get covered by their own jobs.)

I know, I know, that doesn't quite make for the same breathless, Obama-hating story, but them's the breaks.

Though it will be forcing families to deal with 2 seperate deductibles rather than one family deductible. If these spouses already had a better option through their own employers, they would have taken it. Instead, they will now be forced to take this less desirable option.

"If you like your health insurance plan, you can keep it", yeah right.

As has already been pointed out to you in this thread, UPS is not being forced to do anything: it is choosing to do this. The president does not control that. Instead of yet another Obama-directed attack, why aren't you railing against a corporate giant, which is swimming in profits, nickel and diming its employees?

Of course, they could also go on to one of the exchanges, but you don't want to talk about that.

The fact that UPS - an organization run by a rabid rightwinger - cites the ACA as the reason for its decision does not mean that it's true. They would almost certainly have done this anyway as a result of the search for the almighty corporate buck. Again, doesn't trouble you, right?

I do think it's funny that now you're retreating to the "hey, but there are two deductibles now!!!!1111" position when I'm pretty sure that wasn't the meaty headline you were going for at first.

 

[Sand]

I do think it's funny that now you're retreating to the "hey, but there are two deductibles now!!!!1111" position when I'm pretty sure that wasn't the meaty headline you were going for at first.

As if this is the only example, past or present or future. This is but the start of a long, long wave of employers dropping health care and cutting employees back to 29 hours to avoid the fines.