Angel!
Senior Associate
Politics Admin
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 11:44:08 GMT -5
Posts: 10,722
|
Post by Angel! on Jun 8, 2011 13:07:39 GMT -5
Ok, we are on the same page then. But, have they actually released details of how this will work? I think it is a good idea to put insurance choices into the hands of seniors, but the details in how they intend to accomplish this make all the difference. I will admit I haven't done much research into this because Ryan's plan has no chance of getting through right now & I am 30+ years away from medicare, so I am far more worried about my health insurance tomorrow & next year than 30 years from now.
|
|
Angel!
Senior Associate
Politics Admin
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 11:44:08 GMT -5
Posts: 10,722
|
Post by Angel! on Jun 8, 2011 13:13:36 GMT -5
I don't really see a huge downside to employers dropping coverage - they will have to increase pay to remain competitive, but now I have a entire marketplace of insurance options to pick from. I no longer have the single option offered by my employer, but can pick a plan that meets my insurance needs. This makes no sense Angel. Does your company demand that you must purchase their insurance instead of utilizing the entire marketplace of insurance options you currently have now. They don't demand I purchase insurance through them. But they do cover 90% of my premiums & 50% of my family's & provide a deposit into my HSA. They won't increase my takehome should I decline coverage. I also have pre-existing conditions that make pretty much impossible to find private coverage. So between the difficulty in finding coverage & the fact that coverage would be far more expensive, it is not in my best interest to declines my employer's single insurance option. Should my employer just drop insurance benefits, then they will have to compensate me in other ways or else I could choose to look for a new job with a better salary/benefits package. Since private insurance could no longer decline me due to pre-existing conditions, then I would have multiple options for my family's insurance. I don't really have a problem with my employer's insurance though, I am just pointing out getting your coverage dropped is not the huge downside people are trying to make it out to be.
|
|
cme1201
Junior Associate
Tennis Elbow, Jock Itch, and Athletes Foot, every man has a sports life!
Joined: Apr 6, 2011 13:55:07 GMT -5
Posts: 5,503
|
Post by cme1201 on Jun 8, 2011 13:17:48 GMT -5
Ok, we are on the same page then. But, have they actually released details of how this will work? I think it is a good idea to put insurance choices into the hands of seniors, but the details in how they intend to accomplish this make all the difference. I will admit I haven't done much research into this because Ryan's plan has no chance of getting through right now & I am 30+ years away from medicare, so I am far more worried about my health insurance tomorrow & next year than 30 years from now. I have read a bit about it, Ryan's plan wasn't meant to really go anywhere (IMO) it was to get people to the table to discuss these issues. Angel D you may be 30 years away from receiving, yet the whole time if you work you pay into it and the money just will not be there by the time you, I or anyone from our generation would be able to collect. I would like to take the money I pay in every week and place it somewhere that it would actually be useful to me ( in an HSA if that is what I choose). [q]I am 30+ years away from medicare[/q] It's this type of thinking that has unfortunately for many years kicked the can down the road leading us to the Trillions of unfunded Liabilities that Meicare faces.
|
|
floridayankee
Junior Associate
If You Don't Stand Behind Our Troops, Feel Free to Stand in Front of Them.
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 14:56:05 GMT -5
Posts: 7,461
|
Post by floridayankee on Jun 8, 2011 13:48:06 GMT -5
So between the difficulty in finding coverage & the fact that coverage would be far more expensive, it is not in my best interest to declines my employer's single insurance option. So...basically you made the best choice for you. I keep hearing how evil and greedy corporations are. Why would they compensate you more? That would just offset their savings. I also hear how impossible it is to find a new job. Just where do you think you're going to go? Maybe you should just stay there demand a better wage, picket, and go on a hunger strike. (Yes, I'm being facetious...in case you couldn't tell)
|
|
Angel!
Senior Associate
Politics Admin
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 11:44:08 GMT -5
Posts: 10,722
|
Post by Angel! on Jun 8, 2011 14:01:55 GMT -5
Do others make choices that are not in their best interest? Anyone who claims otherwise is either lying or stupid. I'll admit I support the reform because I feel it is overall in my best interest to see it passed. Although I believe it has flaws, I still like it over the do-nothing alternative & have seen nothing substancial suggested by republicans.
Damn! And I was just about to start on my hunger strike.
|
|
floridayankee
Junior Associate
If You Don't Stand Behind Our Troops, Feel Free to Stand in Front of Them.
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 14:56:05 GMT -5
Posts: 7,461
|
Post by floridayankee on Jun 8, 2011 14:39:57 GMT -5
Do others make choices that are not in their best interest? lol....All the time. Smokers do on a daily (hourly) basis. Just look around you...you'll find more. But you're arguing for choice when you already have it. That's what doesn't make sense to me. Sure, your choice may be as bad as the choices in any given presidential election (aka, the worst of two evils, dumb or dumber, fric or frac), but there is no sure guarantee that they will get any better either. I'll defer to J's Law of Humanistics.... The First Law: Most people are stupid. Corollary to the First Law: Able-bodied doesn't mean able-brained.
The Second Law: Most people don't realize that the first law applies to them.
Corollary to the Second Law: If you know you're subject to the First Law, you're ahead of the game.
The Third Law: Give a man a fish and he'll eat for a day. Give a man a soapbox and he'll talk until he proves he's subject to the first law of humanistics.
The Fourth Law: Most people think they get smarter and wiser as they age. In reality, they just prove themselves subject to the Second Law of Humanistics more often.
Corollary to the Fourth Law: Beauty is fleeting. Stupid lasts forever.
The Fifth Law: The greater the number of people in a group, the dumber their ideas.
The Sixth Law of Humanistics, also known as the Limerick Law: Some people are full of hot air If you're one, do not despair If you talk loud enough And you use enough fluff People will believe you're Voltaire
|
|
hello fromWarsaw
Senior Member
Hiya! Wake UP!!
Joined: Feb 13, 2011 1:24:04 GMT -5
Posts: 2,044
|
Post by hello fromWarsaw on Jun 8, 2011 14:45:33 GMT -5
As Pelosi said, you won't get it till you get it. Try and remain calm. ;)The WSJ editorial page is full of it. ;D
|
|
floridayankee
Junior Associate
If You Don't Stand Behind Our Troops, Feel Free to Stand in Front of Them.
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 14:56:05 GMT -5
Posts: 7,461
|
Post by floridayankee on Jun 8, 2011 14:46:38 GMT -5
I'll admit I support the reform because I feel it is overall in my best interest to see it passed. Although I believe it has flaws, I still like it over the do-nothing alternative & have seen nothing substancial suggested by republicans. Well, if it works anything like Romneycare did in MA, expect rates to keep rising...possible even sharper than they already do. The Boston globe did a report a few years back stating that MA became the most expensive state to purchase insurance in after several years of romneycare. I'm not quite sure too many people are all that interested in paying even more for insurance.
|
|
floridayankee
Junior Associate
If You Don't Stand Behind Our Troops, Feel Free to Stand in Front of Them.
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 14:56:05 GMT -5
Posts: 7,461
|
Post by floridayankee on Jun 8, 2011 14:48:12 GMT -5
As Pelosi said, you won't get it till you get it. Try and remain calm. ;)The WSJ editorial page is full of it. ;D And Pelosi is way too eager to give it too us too. Hope she at least uses lube.
|
|
Angel!
Senior Associate
Politics Admin
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 11:44:08 GMT -5
Posts: 10,722
|
Post by Angel! on Jun 8, 2011 14:49:32 GMT -5
But you're arguing for choice when you already have it. That's what doesn't make sense to me. It may come across that way, although I see the benefit, I'm not too caught up in the choices. I merely point it out because the entire thread is about how horrible it is that 78 million are going to get dropped from their companies plan & I say - not that big of a deal. Really if the health care reform boiled down to - requiring that pre-existing conditions be covered, not allowing companies to reject people, requiring minimum standards for insurance, & subsidizing premiums for the poor, then I would be happy. Opening up people's choices for health insurance is just a side effect of these changes. Right now I really have no choices as the only way I can get coverage is through a group plan. So, no early retirement for me. Gotta love the Laws of Humanistics ;D
|
|
pepper112765
Well-Known Member
Joined: Jan 9, 2011 15:55:30 GMT -5
Posts: 1,812
|
Post by pepper112765 on Jun 8, 2011 15:08:07 GMT -5
But you're arguing for choice when you already have it. That's what doesn't make sense to me. It may come across that way, although I see the benefit, I'm not too caught up in the choices. I merely point it out because the entire thread is about how horrible it is that 78 million are going to get dropped from their companies plan & I say - not that big of a deal. Really if the health care reform boiled down to - requiring that pre-existing conditions be covered, not allowing companies to reject people, requiring minimum standards for insurance, & subsidizing premiums for the poor, then I would be happy. Opening up people's choices for health insurance is just a side effect of these changes. Right now I really have no choices as the only way I can get coverage is through a group plan. So, no early retirement for me. Gotta love the Laws of Humanistics ;D There some, even if they have a plan with their employer can't afford the premiums. Way before Obama and "Obamacare" my insurance premiums have gone up every year, or there were certain things that had to be negotiated, i.e., deductibles to keep the premium lower. When I first started working at my present employment,which will be 12 years in August, I started with no deductible, then to $300/600 and now I have a $1000/2000 deductible. I have had providers opt out of accepting my insurance, yada, yada, yada. However, my employer pays for me and a portion of my "family coverage." If I to pay it all myself, it would be over $1300 a month. I pay just shy of $500. I am grateful for the coverage I do have. To me, it is a necessity, just like housing and food and if it is something that I have to pay for, I will. The alternative is not something I would even fathom. My son had an emergency appendectomy early this year. The bills on those, had I not had insurance would have been astromical.
|
|
Angel!
Senior Associate
Politics Admin
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 11:44:08 GMT -5
Posts: 10,722
|
Post by Angel! on Jun 8, 2011 15:16:36 GMT -5
Well, if it works anything like Romneycare did in MA, expect rates to keep rising...possible even sharper than they already do. The Boston globe did a report a few years back stating that MA became the most expensive state to purchase insurance in after several years of romneycare. I'm not quite sure too many people are all that interested in paying even more for insurance. The biggest problem in MA is they required deductables to be too low (the flaw is in Obama's reform also). MA's insurance isn't that highly priced for the coverage you get. A quick glance at some of their coverage options shows I can get insurance for $240/month for a 2K deductable & good coverage. That isn't bad at all. In fact, my current plan has a 4K deductable & costs about twice that much. The only flaw is they should allow a 4K deductable or more & that would drop rates significantly.
|
|
Angel!
Senior Associate
Politics Admin
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 11:44:08 GMT -5
Posts: 10,722
|
Post by Angel! on Jun 8, 2011 15:19:04 GMT -5
As Pelosi said, you won't get it till you get it. Try and remain calm. ;)The WSJ editorial page is full of it. ;D That is just stupid. As a politician it is her job to be able to explain the legislation to the public. Telling people to just wait & see & then they will like it reminds me of my Mom trying to convince me to eat something gross - "just take 1 bite, you will like it". This is a big problem with the democrats, they couldn't even adequately express what was good about the bill, so arguments over stuff like death panels took headlines.
|
|
hello fromWarsaw
Senior Member
Hiya! Wake UP!!
Joined: Feb 13, 2011 1:24:04 GMT -5
Posts: 2,044
|
Post by hello fromWarsaw on Jun 8, 2011 15:27:34 GMT -5
It's simple really- it's the opposite of what the Pub propaganda machine says. No 78 million losing coverage, no huge costs, no death panels, no losing your doctor, no Marxism. Remain calm.
|
|
floridayankee
Junior Associate
If You Don't Stand Behind Our Troops, Feel Free to Stand in Front of Them.
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 14:56:05 GMT -5
Posts: 7,461
|
Post by floridayankee on Jun 8, 2011 15:29:19 GMT -5
There some, even if they have a plan with their employer can't afford the premiums. And that's one of my main objections of Obamacare. Most people are concerned about the cost of insurance....and rightfully so. Obamacare was modeled after Romneycare which has done absolutely nothing to lower medical costs and/or insurance premiums. And perhaps somebody might have caught it if they had actually read the damned thing before shoving it up our collective backsides. IMHO, the health concerns of my family are too important to risk over bullshit partisan politics. I'm all for finding a viable solution over this biased political POS that couldn't pass on its own merits and had to rely on purchased votes and parliamentary workarounds to get through.
|
|
hello fromWarsaw
Senior Member
Hiya! Wake UP!!
Joined: Feb 13, 2011 1:24:04 GMT -5
Posts: 2,044
|
Post by hello fromWarsaw on Jun 8, 2011 15:32:43 GMT -5
Obamacare DOES have cost controls, and more will come. Something has to be done. And this is it ;D
|
|
hello fromWarsaw
Senior Member
Hiya! Wake UP!!
Joined: Feb 13, 2011 1:24:04 GMT -5
Posts: 2,044
|
Post by hello fromWarsaw on Jun 8, 2011 15:36:12 GMT -5
|
|
Angel!
Senior Associate
Politics Admin
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 11:44:08 GMT -5
Posts: 10,722
|
Post by Angel! on Jun 8, 2011 15:36:24 GMT -5
I don't know about Romneycare, but Obamacare subidizes premiums that exceed a % of your income for most people. While this does nothing to lower overall costs, it does help people that have trouble affording insurance.
I'm guessing that politicians knew this fact, but viewed it as protecting us from ourselves. It could be too that the generally public doesn't understand the cost savings in premiums with having a higher deductable, so they are too misinformed to be able to tell their representatives what they want from insurance. Or maybe I am one of the few that believes higher deductables & HSAs are a good idea.
|
|
Angel!
Senior Associate
Politics Admin
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 11:44:08 GMT -5
Posts: 10,722
|
Post by Angel! on Jun 8, 2011 15:40:07 GMT -5
I disagree. I think higher deductables encourage people to consider pricing & what healthcare is worth. It could help lower the overall cost of healthcare in this country to have people realize the cost difference between a visit to a doc & a visit to an ER. When you learn the visit to the ER will likely cost you several hundred extra (if not more), then you might reconsider whether or not your sinus pain can wait until tomorrow morning.
|
|
hello fromWarsaw
Senior Member
Hiya! Wake UP!!
Joined: Feb 13, 2011 1:24:04 GMT -5
Posts: 2,044
|
Post by hello fromWarsaw on Jun 8, 2011 15:48:27 GMT -5
Bernie Sanders's low cost clinics are even better...
|
|
pepper112765
Well-Known Member
Joined: Jan 9, 2011 15:55:30 GMT -5
Posts: 1,812
|
Post by pepper112765 on Jun 8, 2011 15:59:54 GMT -5
I disagree. I think higher deductables encourage people to consider pricing & what healthcare is worth. It could help lower the overall cost of healthcare in this country to have people realize the cost difference between a visit to a doc & a visit to an ER. When you learn the visit to the ER will likely cost you several hundred extra (if not more), then you might reconsider whether or not your sinus pain can wait until tomorrow morning. I know it does for me. I learned the hard way earlier last year when the $1000/2000 deductible started to apply, by taking my daughter to the ER instead of the urgent care, which is signficantly less for better service, in my opinion. That ER visit cost about $500.00. I have also found that with the urgent care, the costs are less, the wait definitely less and they run all labs, etc., that are needed. And the whole operation where I go is clean, efficient, the staff is friendly and polite and the doctors are great.
|
|
EVT1
Junior Associate
Joined: Dec 30, 2010 16:22:42 GMT -5
Posts: 8,596
|
Post by EVT1 on Jun 8, 2011 19:38:59 GMT -5
You can make smartass replies, but the last paragraph of the article sums it up pretty well. ObamaCare is a disaster. It's the worst piece of legislation in American history- maybe even human history It's the end of the world! Modest reforms kill nation! The whole topic is BS backed up by a link to an opinion piece obviously penned by an agenda driven moron. Come on- list it out- what is wrong with the reform bill exactly? What- other than the mandate the GOP is clinging on to since they have no other avenue of attack- do you take issue with? You don't like regulating thieves that are supposed to operate ethically? They better be glad they are even allowed to continue operating as the first stage in real reform would be to shut their doors.
|
|
hello fromWarsaw
Senior Member
Hiya! Wake UP!!
Joined: Feb 13, 2011 1:24:04 GMT -5
Posts: 2,044
|
Post by hello fromWarsaw on Jun 8, 2011 23:19:21 GMT -5
;D
|
|
NoMoreLunacy
Well-Known Member
Joined: Jun 8, 2011 23:21:57 GMT -5
Posts: 1,293
|
Post by NoMoreLunacy on Jun 8, 2011 23:25:21 GMT -5
Why should I care if other Americans lose their health insurance? I have my health insurance intact. Hopefully this will lower caseloads and I will be able to get an appointment more easily with my doctor. The entitlement attitude of some people really irks me. Just buy your own health insurance.
|
|
hello fromWarsaw
Senior Member
Hiya! Wake UP!!
Joined: Feb 13, 2011 1:24:04 GMT -5
Posts: 2,044
|
Post by hello fromWarsaw on Jun 8, 2011 23:26:57 GMT -5
Pubs lie like heck- the good of the country is nothing to them...fact ;D
|
|
floridayankee
Junior Associate
If You Don't Stand Behind Our Troops, Feel Free to Stand in Front of Them.
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 14:56:05 GMT -5
Posts: 7,461
|
Post by floridayankee on Jun 9, 2011 6:55:47 GMT -5
I don't know about Romneycare, but Obamacare subidizes premiums that exceed a % of your income for most people. While this does nothing to lower overall costs, it does help people that have trouble affording insurance. Which only proves that people are all to happy to accept something "for free" and let others pay the bill. It was projected that Romneycare cost overruns will exceed $2 billion over 10 years. This is one, relatively small state. Can you even slightly imagine the cost overruns of a national, Obamacare program? Freedom grants everyone the chance to succeed. The problem with freedom is it also comes with the chance at failure. The only way to protect us from ourselves and remove that chance of failure is to reduce your freedom. Is it worth it? For some....it sure is. For those that like to control their own lives and make their own decisions...no, it's not. I don't care to have big daddy government protecting me from myself because I know it is going to cost me some of my freedom of choice.
|
|
Deleted
Joined: May 6, 2024 20:25:58 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 9, 2011 7:05:53 GMT -5
About that awesome Obamacare.. www.foxnews.com/politics/2011/06/08/key-challenge-to-obama-health-care-law-heard-by-federal-court/?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+foxnews%2Fpolitics+%28Internal+-+Politics+-+Text%29Politics Federal Judges Raise Questions About ObamaCare Mandate By Lee Ross Published June 08, 2011 | FoxNews.com ATLANTA, Ga. – The public policy and legal fight over the legitimacy of President Obama’s historic 2010 health care overhaul took sharp focus in an ornate federal courtroom in Atlanta on Wednesday with two-and-a-half hours of arguments that may ultimately serve as a preview of what’s to come at the Supreme Court. The Obama administration was faced with the difficult task of convincing at least two of the three federal judges hearing an appeal to overturn a January ruling invalidating the entire heath care law. “Clearly, we believe the most difficult issue in the case is the individual mandate,” Eleventh Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals Judge Joel Dubina announced at the outset. Indeed, most of the argument time focused on whether the law’s requirement for nearly all Americans to purchase health insurance is constitutional. Dubina also noted that part of the difficulty of determining the legal viability of the Affordable Care Act is that the Supreme Court has never issued a ruling on the application of the Commerce Clause that directly matches up with what Congress passed last year. “If we uphold the individual mandate in this case, are there any limits on Congress’s power left?" Dubina asked. June 8: Mike Griffith, of Canton, Ga., holds a sign during a protest against President Barack Obama's health care reform plan outside the 11th Circuit Court of Appeals in Atlanta. A three-judge panel of the 11th Circuit Court of Appeals was hearing arguments on whether to reverse a Florida judge's ruling that struck down the law. Judge Frank Hull later asked whether Congress could pass a similar law which could require Americans to buy certain types of cars or solar panels to comply with federal energy policy. Her question encapsulated the fear shared by many: that if the law is upheld it will open the door to unprecedented federal intervention in people’s lives. But, Acting Solicitor General Neal Katyal said, “Absolutely not.” The Obama administration’s chief legal advocate defended the law and said there is no chance for a slippery slope towards increased government regulation. He vigorously argued the law’s propriety and purpose: to make sure uninsured Americans have coverage and that insurance companies offer broader protections. Judge Stanley Marcus offered his own hypothetical scenario, trying to find out if the government could force Americans to buy a coverage plan for long-term health care. Again, Katyal said that was a step too far from what Congress could do. The law’s opponents already believe Washington lawmakers went too far in passing the legislation. “If you give Congress the power to regulate people who are not in the relevant market, then you’ve given them the power to literally regulate anything,” warned lawyer Michael Carvin, representing the National Federation of Independent Business, the plaintiffs in the case. Katyal didn’t take well to his naysayers arguments saying “[T]heir solution is to ban the uninsured from the hospitals and leave bleeding victims, trauma victims and pregnant women at the door.” For many, the fundamental debate is whether the Commerce Clause, which allows the feds to regulate interstate economic commerce, also allows the government to force people who don’t have health insurance to buy coverage or pay a penalty. In short, it’s a question over whether not having health insurance is an ‘activity’ and whether the government can regulate that decision. “I would say that sitting in your living room and making an economic decision not to engage in the activity of purchasing health insurance cannot under plain English be economic activity,” said Carvin. The other key plaintiffs in the case are the 26 states that sued to stop the law from taking effect. They were represented by Bush administration-era Solicitor General Paul Clement. “[The government has] a lot of authority to regulate health insurers and a lot of authority to regulate people who voluntarily purchase health insurance,” Clement said to a question from Judge Marcus. “But I would submit they don’t have the authority to compel people to engage in the transaction.” At the end of the case, Hull hit upon another controversial matter over the penalty that’s imposed on people who don’t buy insurance. She noted with some derision the government’s enforcement mechanism for collecting fines: essentially trusting that people who don’t comply with the law will tell the truth on their tax returns. “How is that penalty even more collectible in any way than an unpaid medical bill?” Hull asked. Five of the plaintiff states’ attorneys general attended the arguments and added another spin on that issue, with Texas Attorney General Greg Abbott telling the media the administration was levying a new tax on Americans; one it never revealed during the health care debate. The judges also spent time examining whether the individual mandate can be separated from other provisions and if expanding the umbrella of Medicaid eligibility puts too much of a burden on the states. The judges aren’t expected to issue an opinion until summer’s end. Before departing the courtroom, Judge Dubina offered this prediction about the case ultimately ending up at the Supreme Court, “I doubt this is the last time we’ll be arguing this case.”
|
|
ugonow
Senior Member
Joined: Dec 21, 2010 10:15:55 GMT -5
Posts: 3,397
|
Post by ugonow on Jun 9, 2011 8:08:00 GMT -5
Which only proves that people are all to happy to accept something "for free" and let others pay the bill. During the last administration,when the issue of healthcare reform came up,many GOP members repeated the president's assertation tghat everyone in the US has healthcare,just use the emergency room.I really don't see how that is less accepting something for free and "letting others pay for it" than co-ops and mandating everyone to buy insurance.
|
|
Angel!
Senior Associate
Politics Admin
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 11:44:08 GMT -5
Posts: 10,722
|
Post by Angel! on Jun 9, 2011 10:25:50 GMT -5
Which only proves that people are all to happy to accept something "for free" and let others pay the bill. What is a better solution? Subsidizing premiums is far cheaper than covering ER bills of the uninsured, which is what we do now.
|
|
NoMoreLunacy
Well-Known Member
Joined: Jun 8, 2011 23:21:57 GMT -5
Posts: 1,293
|
Post by NoMoreLunacy on Jun 9, 2011 11:07:17 GMT -5
Which only proves that people are all to happy to accept something "for free" and let others pay the bill. What is a better solution? Subsidizing premiums is far cheaper than covering ER bills of the uninsured, which is what we do now. Why do we cover ER bills for the uninsured? Why can't we stop that?
|
|