Good news for us re: Obamacare/ACA

[Junior]

Heh.

Forty-six percent oppose Obamacare and 37 percent oppose ACA.

http://www.cnbc.com/id/101064954

Ignorance is bliss. Or something.

http://www.politico.com/story/2013/09/lindsey-graham-hillary-clinton-obamacare-97324.html

Sen. Lindsey Graham says he’s going to start calling health care reform “Clintoncare,” predicting that Obamacare could hurt Hillary Clinton politically if she runs in 2016.“Hillary Clinton decided today to own Obamacare, so in 2016 when this thing falls apart and the economy is in shambles, because of Obamcare, I am going to hereafter call it ‘Clintoncare’,” Graham said Tuesday on Fox News’s “On the Record.”

 

[carlfense]

Heh.

Forty-six percent oppose Obamacare and 37 percent oppose ACA.

http://www.cnbc.com/id/101064954

Ignorance is bliss. Or something.

http://www.politico....care-97324.html

Sen. Lindsey Graham says he’s going to start calling health care reform “Clintoncare,” predicting that Obamacare could hurt Hillary Clinton politically if she runs in 2016.“Hillary Clinton decided today to own Obamacare, so in 2016 when this thing falls apart and the economy is in shambles, because of Obamcare, I am going to hereafter call it ‘Clintoncare’,” Graham said Tuesday on Fox News’s “On the Record.”

"And once it's working really well, I guarantee you they will not call it Obamacare." -Barack HUSSEIN Obama

 

[HUSKER 37]

Feeling even better about not getting health insurance at work..

My Boss just went to his Dr who complained about spending around $200 in office work, and waiting over 6 months to get paid by this insurance company (in past dealings) and out of a $129 bill they are only going to pay $18.

My boss now fears his DR will "drop" this company causing him to be out of the "preferred coverage system" (I forget the terminology) and in turn my boss will have to find another Dr.

 

[carlfense]

Feeling even better about not getting health insurance at work..

My Boss just went to his Dr who complained about spending around $200 in office work, and waiting over 6 months to get paid by this insurance company (in past dealings) and out of a $129 bill they are only going to pay $18.

My boss now fears his DR will "drop" this company causing him to be out of the "preferred coverage system" (I forget the terminology) and in turn my boss will have to find another Dr.

The bold isn't uncommon. Particularly if his doctor isn't part of a larger provider network. It's not too difficult for insurance companies to push around a solo practitioner.

Also, FWIW, this goes back decades.

 

[Junior]

Feeling even better about not getting health insurance at work..

My Boss just went to his Dr who complained about spending around $200 in office work, and waiting over 6 months to get paid by this insurance company (in past dealings) and out of a $129 bill they are only going to pay $18.

My boss now fears his DR will "drop" this company causing him to be out of the "preferred coverage system" (I forget the terminology) and in turn my boss will have to find another Dr.

The bold isn't uncommon. Particularly if his doctor isn't part of a larger provider network. It's not too difficult for insurance companies to push around a solo practitioner.

Also, FWIW, this goes back decades.

I've lived in Champaign, Illinois for oh... 8 of the last 11 years with a 3 year break in the middle spent in Ann Arbor. In Champaign, there are no solo practitioners and hasn't been as long as I've known. All doctors are associated with one of two hospitals, each of which is associated with essentially their own insurance plan. It seems you either have coverage to go to Provena or coverage to go to Carle hospitals. No outside practitioners are covered, unless you pay a steep out of network cost. So no, this is nothing new.

 

[carlfense]

Probably one of the better big picture descriptions that I've seen:

The public remains unconvinced, although feelings are more mixed than Senator Ted Cruz would have you believe. While poll results vary depending on wording and source, people tend to have negative views of the law but don’t want Congress to defund it or block implementation; they support the component pieces but doubt the whole package will help them personally. One reason for the ambivalence is confusion: Most people don’t know what the law really does. Americans are also reacting to the unrelenting, frequently dishonest attacks by the law’s opponents. Two weeks ago, this campaign of misinformation reached a new level of absurdity whenBetsy McCaughey, a discredited advocate from the 1990s, suggested that Obamacare would turn doctors into “government agents” demanding information about patients’ sex lives. The claim is not true. It went viral anyway.
Still, some misgivings about Obamacare are reactions to what’s actually in the law, because pretty much everybody can find something in it not to like. Liberals are disappointed the law doesn’t cover everybody—and won’t guarantee everybody’s insurance is adequate. That’s true. Conservatives are furious that Obamacare means higher taxes and more regulation. That’s also true. Some employers will alter company benefits or hours for part-timers. Some people will pay more for insurance. Some of the fancy new websites for buying insurance won't be fully functional, maybe for a while. These are real problems, even if they affect relatively few people.

But compromises, trade-offs, and, yes, unintended consequences have been part of every reform in American history. The minimum wage and child labor laws took money out of the pockets of employers. Social Security raised taxes on workers. Today, Americans cherish those programs because the good far outweighs the bad—because what the country gained, in economic security, health, and freedom, more than made up for what it lost. The same standard should apply today.

http://www.newrepubl...theyre-worth-it

Edit: Too many good quotes but I have to include this part. Good perspective.

Consider this set of headlines about our health care system:
FEWER EMPLOYERS COVERING HEALTH

HEALTH COSTS CLOBBER SMALL FIRMS

WORKERS TO PAY MORE FOR HEALTH CARE

TRAIN WRECK

If you’ve followed the debate over Obamacare, then you probably recognize these headlines, particularly the last one. Ever since Senate Finance Chairman Max Baucus worried aloud about the possibility of an implementation “train wreck,” critics have turned the phrase into a slogan. But these headlines aren’t from the last two years. They are from 2005 and 2006. That should tell you something. People were making the same complaints long before Obamacare came along. For the U.S. health care system, dysfunction is a pre-existing condition.

 

[TGHusker]

Feeling even better about not getting health insurance at work..

My Boss just went to his Dr who complained about spending around $200 in office work, and waiting over 6 months to get paid by this insurance company (in past dealings) and out of a $129 bill they are only going to pay $18.

My boss now fears his DR will "drop" this company causing him to be out of the "preferred coverage system" (I forget the terminology) and in turn my boss will have to find another Dr.

The bold isn't uncommon. Particularly if his doctor isn't part of a larger provider network. It's not too difficult for insurance companies to push around a solo practitioner.

Also, FWIW, this goes back decades.

very true - I've know of a couple of docs who aren't part of a network now going to cash or have closed their private practice to work for a medical group.

 

[HUSKER 37]

Feeling even better about not getting health insurance at work..

My Boss just went to his Dr who complained about spending around $200 in office work, and waiting over 6 months to get paid by this insurance company (in past dealings) and out of a $129 bill they are only going to pay $18.

My boss now fears his DR will "drop" this company causing him to be out of the "preferred coverage system" (I forget the terminology) and in turn my boss will have to find another Dr.

The bold isn't uncommon. Particularly if his doctor isn't part of a larger provider network. It's not too difficult for insurance companies to push around a solo practitioner.

Also, FWIW, this goes back decades.

That's just it..This DR WAS part of our provider network, but I doubt he will stay in it for long..I'd heard he stated it's even harder to get money out of this insurance company than from welfare? for uninsured patients...

I suspected this had been going on for more than decades...I guess I was just hoping there will be (in the future) some sort of benefit to "Obamacare" that will help keep Insurance companies "Honest"?

This is one of the many reasons I don't want health insurance..The hassle of paperwork..Taking time off work..Waiting hours to spend 3 minutes with someone who's had maybe two more Semesters of Microbiology than me tell me to take some pills to lower my cholesterol with a probable side effect of killing me much sooner.. or if I'm lucky...She'll poke me in the naughty parts again..

 

[Fuzzy]

Is it true that terminally ill folks over the age of 56 will no longer be given treatments but rather medication to make them "comfortable"? I think the only exception is cancer, where the cutoff is 76.

 

[krill]

Is it true that terminally ill folks over the age of 56 will no longer be given treatments but rather medication to make them "comfortable"? I think the only exception is cancer, where the cutoff is 76.

Absolutely true, along with Tuesdays being solyant green day for folks over the age of 56 on food stamps.

 

[carlfense]

Relevant considering the recent turn in the conversation . . .

But all of this speaks to why the Republican Party is so frightened. Until now, Obamacare has been an abstraction. You can repeal an abstraction. Tomorrow, it becomes a reality. And reality is a lot harder to repeal.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/wonkblog/wp/2013/09/30/wonkbook-obamacares-october-surprise/

 

[carlfense]

That's just it..This DR WAS part of our provider network, but I doubt he will stay in it for long..I'd heard he stated it's even harder to get money out of this insurance company than from welfare? for uninsured patients...

I apologize . . . "provider network" probably isn't the most clear label. What I was trying to get at was whether your doctor was operating his own practice or if he is affiliated with a major health care provider system like Alegent. (Not referring to your insurance company's approved health care providers.)

I suspected this had been going on for more than decades...I guess I was just hoping there will be (in the future) some sort of benefit to "Obamacare" that will help keep Insurance companies "Honest"?

They will be more highly regulated but I doubt that this legislation will make your particular issue disappear.

This is one of the many reasons I don't want health insurance..The hassle of paperwork..Taking time off work..Waiting hours to spend 3 minutes with someone who's had maybe two more Semesters of Microbiology than me tell me to take some pills to lower my cholesterol with a probable side effect of killing me much sooner.. or if I'm lucky...She'll poke me in the naughty parts again..

I went a couple years without health insurance in college. Fortunately the gamble paid off for me. I think that I'd have coverage if I were in college now with the subsidies that will soon be available.

 

[Mierin]

I'm not very knowledgeable on this topic but I looked up the catastrophic insurance choice and it would cost me around $100/month. I'm a college student and I work very few hours and the penalty for not getting insurance will cost me less per year than the insurance costs per month.

You're probably eligible for some pretty sizable subsidies to help cover (or cover entirely) your insurance.

No, I'm not.

http://www.npr.org/b...-our-calculator

and quote for me:

"If your state does not expand Medicaid

You will not be eligible for subsidies in the exchanges because your income is below 100% of the federal poverty level"

Nebraska's not expanding Medicaid.

f#*k I'm kind of pissed off now. If I made 100% of the poverty level exactly, no more or less, I would get $2,424 in subsidies and pay for $230 myself, per year, which would be awesome. I make 3/5 of the poverty level working part time 'cause I'm a full-time student, so I get $0 in subsidies. Couldn't they have put it on a curve?!

 

[carlfense]

Nebraska's not expanding Medicaid.

Time to drop a note to your friendly local GOP representatives . . . (but I wouldn't really expect them to care.)

f#*k I'm kind of pissed off now. If I made 100% of the poverty level exactly, no more or less, I would get $2,424 in subsidies and pay for $230 myself, per year, which would be awesome. I make 3/5 of the poverty level working part time 'cause I'm a full-time student, so I get $0 in subsidies. Couldn't they have put it on a curve?!

I'd be pissed too. Don't worry though . . . they're proving a point of some kind.

 

[Mierin]

Nebraska's not expanding Medicaid.

Time to drop a note to your friendly local GOP representatives . . . (but I wouldn't really expect them to care.)

They already didn't pass it in May.

LINCOLN — On the eve of legislative debate about expanding Nebraska's Medicaid program, Gov. Dave Heineman is calling the proposal “unaffordable and unsustainable.”“This bill should not pass,” he said Monday. “We cannot be all things to all people.”

The governor suggested healthy habits and private charities could help low-income people who cannot qualify for Medicaid now and cannot afford health insurance.

And in a letter from Heineman:

The Department of Health and Human Services estimates that the expansion under LB 577 will result in yet another group of approximately 95,000 new Medicaid clients through Fiscal Year 2020 at an additional cost of $2.7 billion to Nebraska taxpayers.This is an unaffordable and unsustainable burden to place upon Nebraska’s taxpayers.

These advocacy groups will tell you that it’s “free” federal money, but they conveniently forget to tell you that it’s your tax dollars. It’s not free federal money. It’s our tax dollars. They say the federal government will pick up 90% of the cost and the state will only have to pay 10% of the cost.

However, they don’t want you to know that 10% is hundreds of millions of dollars of new state spending.

I've noticed whenever they want to make the $ look high they use some arbitrary year in the future. It'll cost $2.7 billion. But multiply that by .1 and divide by 7 and divide by 1.7 million and the average cost per Nebraskan is $1.89 per year + the federal $8ish. So $10 a year.

Also, I haven't gotten sick in 2 years but that's probably not going to stop me from being hit by a bus.

Here's an article that sort of explains how this happened. In short, the Supreme Court ruling made Medicaid a state by state choice. It was originally mandatory for anyone under the 138% poverty level. But I only skimmed it and I didn't see any mention of people below 100%, so maybe they were never supposed to get help:

http://www.governing...re-mistake.html