Welcome to Our Forums. Once you've registered and logged in, you're primed to talk football, among other topics, with the sharpest and most experienced fantasy players on the internet.
If they make less than 133% (I think) of the federal poverty guideline, they not only get a subsidy for the premium of their plan of choice, they also get "cost sharing" subsidies that pay for their deductibles, co-pays and other out of pocket costs. If you're poor enough, you can pretty much have 100% of your health care costs covered.
Wow. I did not know that. So free healthcare if you can't afford it and more expensive healthcare if you can. No wonder so many people are upset about this. What a huge load of crap.
That's part of it. healthcare.gov was originally supposed to be just a portal to the state exchanges; validating citizenship, etc. After that, visitors were to be sent to the individual state run exchange sites, which never got built by 27 states because of their opposition to the law, so the Feds had to build those for them. That's all fine and good, but to measure the success or failure of the national program based on the failings of those states is ridiculous. They didn't want it in the first place and it was all part of a very public and concerted effort during the election to undermine the law and politically damage all things Obama. They can govern however they want, but it isn't hard to understand that uncooperative states will have a rough time at roll out. Those states that aren't a part of the solution are very much a part of the problem. If they cared about helping their citizens get access to healthcare, they've showed no willingness to do it. Kind of hard to take their concerns and complaints seriously at all.Are you guys talking about the "gap" between the medicaid qualifiers and where ACA kicks in? There's a gap there and the federal government offered to pay for the people in that gap for a period of three years while they adjusted ACA. I thought it was 26 states rejected the money on the premise that they thought the plan sucked, so instead of helping the folks in that gap, they've basically turned their backs on them. I suppose they could play the "but what if we don't reach a deal and have to start paying for them after three years" card, but I'm not sure they gave it that much thought. It's also interesting that ALL those states are already states who take more from the government revenue wise than they give....they just drew the line at ACA I guess??So the Fed passed the buck to the states by creating the ACA. Then some states said no thanks and passed the buck back to the Fed. But you find it appropriate to blame the states even though this problem was created by the federal government originally. Got it.
If this isn't what you guys are talking about, carry on....I'm thinking of a different topic. I'll get Tim to start a new thread on it
Right now if I'm too poor I get free healthcare anyway - and then the Hospital can pass along the costs to covered individuals hiding the amount they are charging. Now it's going to be out in the open on someone poor and they will have to run those charges through the insurance provider in a normal "what's covered/whats paid" plan. Hopefully poor users will go to the right place to get treatment rather than initially waiting and heading to a hospital ER. It will help a bit in controlling costs and eventually you will get premium breaks after the CEO of the insurance company gets his bonus.
I'll bet you anything you like that each and every year over the next 10 my premiums, and those of the vast majority of Americans will still go up, not down.
If premiums would have gone up 10% in the old scenario and now only go up 5% - is that a premium break?
I'm surprised people aren't getting more up in arms over this crap. I guess they're more concerned with political fodder than the realities??That's part of it. healthcare.gov was originally supposed to be just a portal to the state exchanges; validating citizenship, etc. After that, visitors were to be sent to the individual state run exchange sites, which never got built by 27 states because of their opposition to the law, so the Feds had to build those for them. That's all fine and good, but to measure the success or failure of the national program based on the failings of those states is ridiculous. They didn't want it in the first place and it was all part of a very public and concerted effort during the election to undermine the law and politically damage all things Obama. They can govern however they want, but it isn't hard to understand that uncooperative states will have a rough time at roll out. Those states that aren't a part of the solution are very much a part of the problem. If they cared about helping their citizens get access to healthcare, they've showed no willingness to do it. Kind of hard to take their concerns and complaints seriously at all.Are you guys talking about the "gap" between the medicaid qualifiers and where ACA kicks in? There's a gap there and the federal government offered to pay for the people in that gap for a period of three years while they adjusted ACA. I thought it was 26 states rejected the money on the premise that they thought the plan sucked, so instead of helping the folks in that gap, they've basically turned their backs on them. I suppose they could play the "but what if we don't reach a deal and have to start paying for them after three years" card, but I'm not sure they gave it that much thought. It's also interesting that ALL those states are already states who take more from the government revenue wise than they give....they just drew the line at ACA I guess??So the Fed passed the buck to the states by creating the ACA. Then some states said no thanks and passed the buck back to the Fed. But you find it appropriate to blame the states even though this problem was created by the federal government originally. Got it.
If this isn't what you guys are talking about, carry on....I'm thinking of a different topic. I'll get Tim to start a new thread on it
It's not like we have to "wait" for this to show itself...it's staring us right in the freakin' face.
Where did that ever happen? Quite possibly over time they went up that much, so did a lot of things like cars and gas and houses and such. No one was getting 90% increases year to year....till now.
It's not wrong. Unfortunately, with something like health care, and perhaps ONLY health care, the principle can break down at some point.
We don't have to provide every possible treatment to keep people alive (DEATH PANELS!!!) but for a reasonable cost we can provide good health care for a vast majority of people. Canada provides a basic level of insurance for everybody but if you want more services you can pay for a private health insurance supplement. It seems to work pretty well for them.
it would have been cheaper to just grant free insurance to the 10-20 Million uninsured citizens and set up some sort of free/subsidized health care voucher system for illegal aliens.
Actually, it is a better plan. Over the course of time, specifically starting in year 14, your $112 plan will cost more than the one that starts at $200.
Not to mention all of the consumer protections that folks like mattyl are all enjoying now (no pre-existing conditions, 80% rule, no caps, kids on plan to 26, free-riders finally having to chip in, etc.)
A Democratic controlled Congress, FTRThat's exactly what many of us were pushing for but couldn't get through Congress.
You should see the pathetic software I am given as a teacher. Nothing works right and it has the interface of AOL 98. It's a joke. Nice work big government. Between this health care issue and the spying on international leaders, our we look like clowns. Our government is a joke.
Odds that Reid and others actually catch hell for forcing a government shutdown over refusing to delay the mandate if they decide to delay the mandate?Schlzm
Yes it is a giant turd. But anyone should have seen this coming. Anyone that voted for Obama has no room to complain, IMO.
Catch hell from who? As bad as this rollout has been, all I've seen from supporters is excuses that deflect blame and responsibility. There will be no accountability. Just more finger pointing.
There will be the same accountability with this as there has been with Fast and Furious, the IRS scandal and Benghazi...O'Reilly touched on this last night:
Barack say Code Monkey very diligent,
What about the people in that gap between medicaid and ACA? Who's helping those folks? I can't find that anywhere.
None of you guys are making any sense here at all. The reason that the Republicans demanded the mandate delayed for a year, after having their demand to defund Obamacare rejected, had nothing to do with the all of the implementation problems (which they were unaware of at the time.) It was because they wanted to weaken or destroy Obamacare itself, and were counting on the threat of shutdown/debt ceiling to do so. Even if delaying the mandate had been a good idea at that time, Obama could never have agreed to it under those circumstances- that would have been giving into blackmail. if Obama decides to delay the mandate now, that doesn't make those Republicans any more right.
This was by design to prevent Obama from implementing national exchanges since those are a set pretty close to single payer.So the Fed passed the buck to the states by creating the ACA. Then some states said no thanks and passed the buck back to the Fed. But you find it appropriate to blame the states even though this problem was created by the federal government originally. Got it.
I've got to assume someone knew there were going to be roll out issues, especially someone in the administration. Why fight so hard to keep a deadline you know you're going to have a very hard time hitting? Oh yeah, political posturing.
Sounds more offensive. Thank God it was a (D) that said it.Is Monkey Court like Kangaroo Court?
I did this is another thread as schtick, but people like drew are actually serious about this line of reasoning.
No it wouldn't. How would it? How in the world is $122 a month more than a comparable plan (same deductible) with a premium of $200 a month?!
I NEVER HAD ANY PRE-EX conditions!! I've had continuous health insurance my entire life, so therefor there was nothing "pre-existing". That is not at all a new benefit to me, or to anyone who's had continuous coverage for 12 months or more.
It may be fixed for a lot, maybe even most, but certainly not all, and definitely not by DECEMBER 15th when people would need to enroll by for coverage to start Jan 1st as was promised to them. Even if they miss that, they'd have to be enrolled by Valentine's Day to have coverage long enough in 2014 to avoid a fee/tax.
Any reason you've moved this type of discussion to the thread about the problems with the website instead of the other thread where you've been posting. I'm interested to hear how you think the white paper you posted in the other thread relates at all to the ACA.
What gap? Medicaid is the bottom, ACA with premium subsidies and with cost sharing subsidies goes up to 133% of the FPL, and ACA with only premium subsidies goes up to 400% of the FPL. Above that, they think you can afford these high rates.
I just thought it was appropriate to match the business mandate delay and all the waivers the President was giving.
I'm sorry, I don't follow. I posted the above about the website disaster here in the thread about the "Obamacare Rollout disaster". I've posted in many if not all of the ACA threads here in the FFA.
As I wrote in the other thread. That whitepaper is a case study of states that introduced GI and Community Rating in the 1990s without a key feature of the ACA. The individual mandate. As your own white paper notes, the problem with GI is that it encouraged people to wait to sign up for health insurance only after they developed health problems. Which is the very reason why Mass. adopted a individual mandate in 2006.
I thought the same thing.Sounds more offensive. Thank God it was a (D) that said it.Is Monkey Court like Kangaroo Court?
Talked a lot about how screwed up Medicaid is in Texas because Rick Perry won't accept government money to help fund it.
There's supposedly a substantial gap between being medicaid poor and wealthy enough to afford ACA. They don't overlap, so I'm assuming that's true. The federal government felt it was true as the offered to pay all states to cover that gap for 3 years. Several states rejected the funds essentially choosing to ignore this segment of the population. Oddly enough....a lot of the states that rejected the funds are states who are already taking more from the federal government than they are giving back, which is kinda sad actually.
