Healthcare Reform

[Archy1221]

12 hours ago, Born N Bled Red said:

3. Refusal to take the ACA’s Medicaid expansion funding

The ACA scheduled Medicaid expansion to take effect at the beginning of 2014. But at that point, half the states had opted against expansion, despite the fact that the federal government paid the full cost of expansion for the first three years (and nearly all of it after that). Even now, as of early 2020, there are still 15 states that have not expanded Medicaid, although Nebraska will expand Medicaid eligibility as of October 2020, with enrollment starting in August.

The fact that a third of the states continue to refuse federal funding to expand Medicaid obviously has a negative impact on people living in poverty, but it’s also deleterious to the individual insurance markets in those states. Medicaid expansion allows adults with income up to 138 percent of the poverty level to enroll in Medicaid. In states that have not expanded Medicaid, however, the state’s regular eligibility guidelines apply, and generally prevent able-bodied childless adults from enrolling, regardless of how low their income is.

And ACA premium subsidies in the exchanges don’t apply to people with income below the poverty level, as those applicants were supposed to be eligible for Medicaid instead. So in 14 of the 15 states that have not expanded Medicaid (all but Wisconsin), there is no financial assistance available for people with income below the poverty level who don’t qualify for Medicaid based on each state’s strict eligibility guidelines. That creates a coverage gap, into which 2.3 million people currently fall.

Those 2.3 million people should have coverage, according to the ACA. But they don’t, because GOP-led states sued the Obama Administration to block the ACA, and the result was that Medicaid expansion became optional. Fifteen states still haven’t expanded Medicaid, despite the fact that their decisions leave 2.3 million people with no realistic access to health insurance coverage.

But what about the people with income between 100 percent and 138 percent of the poverty level? In states that expanded Medicaid, those individuals are eligible for Medicaid. In states that have not expanded Medicaid, people in that income bracket are eligible for substantial premium subsidies in the exchange, but not Medicaid.

An August 2016 HHS Research Brief indicated that in states that had not expanded Medicaid, people with income between 100 percent and 138 percent of the poverty level account for nearly 40 percent of total exchange enrollment – the highest percentage of any income category in those states. In contrast, people at that income level make up just 6 percent of the exchange enrollment in states that had expanded Medicaid.

Long winded way of states saying able bodied childless adults probably shouldn’t have incomes below the poverty line and therefore be part of the Medicaid system.  It also says those people have substantial premium subsidies in the ACA exchange.  Those people have an income issue more than anything if they are indeed able bodied adults.  My 18 yr old averages $16-$18 an hour after gas money delivering for Door Dash.  Doing that 8 hrs a day for 6 days a week with 3 weeks off is $40k a year.

 

This is saying that more people are enrolled in the actual ACA exchanges with substantial premium subsidies in states without Medicaid expansion than states with Medicaid expansion in those income ranges listed.  I thought we wanted people in the ACA who didn’t have other insurance??  Now we are saying just put them on Medicaid? 

[Archy1221]

Just now, Archy1221 said:

Long winded way of states saying able bodied childless adults probably shouldn’t have incomes below the poverty line and therefore be part of the Medicaid system.  It also says those people have substantial premium subsidies in the ACA exchange.  Those people have an income issue more than anything if they are indeed able bodied adults.  My 18 yr old averages $16-$18 an hour after gas money delivering for Door Dash.  Doing that 8 hrs a day for 6 days a week with 3 weeks off is $40k a year.

 

This is saying that more people are enrolled in the actual ACA exchanges with substantial premium subsidies in states without Medicaid expansion than states with Medicaid expansion in those income ranges listed.  I thought we wanted people in the ACA who didn’t have other insurance??  Now we are saying just put them on Medicaid? 

How is that Sabotage when those governors are basically pushing  those folks into the ACA. 

[Ratt Mhule]

On 11/30/2020 at 3:14 PM, Archy1221 said:

Maybe it would come if there was no Obamacare to fall back in.  I think you know as well as I that our elected officials tend to do not much of anything until they are on a deadline.  Well, a repeal of Obamacare would have forced the Rep and Dem to come together with their best ideas and compromise on something better than Obamacare. Republicans have outlined ideas of what they want and some Rep groups have actual plans ready to be voted on. 

 

However:

 

I wouldn’t want a Republican only plan without Dem ideas as a part of that plan, just like it didn’t work to have a Dem only plan in  Obamacare.  It obviously hasn’t worked.  

Hehehehehehe.   Good contribution to a healthcare discussion forum. 

You do know “obamacare” was Mitt Romneys plan, correct? So it was a republican plan. But bc of politics they have to dupe people like you to believe it is a terrible plan, even though it was theres. 

[Ratt Mhule]

On 11/30/2020 at 12:33 PM, Archy1221 said:

There are no death panels. 

The consumer has choices if they believe the insurance carrier does not cover the appropriate medical conditions or procedures. 
 

“Those who get care are bankrupted by it”. So you are saying everyone who gets care goes into BK because of the cost of that care?  Awful bold statement. 
 

Bankruptcies are a tough situation and medical bankruptcies And those illness related bankruptcies ties to out of work situations are even more so.  
 

Hopefully people are looking closer at their plan and choosing ones with an out of pocket maximum that fits their income and needs along with long term disability insurance 

Someone doesnt know how insurance works. First of all, most people get their insurance through work so they have no choice. I know i know, just quit and find a job with better benefits even if youre happy at your job. The ole republican argument of find a better job or leave the country and go somewhere else if youre not happy. 
 

Second, if people find their own insurance it is much more expensive if you want good coverage. That shouldnt even be a thing. Ill forgo heart attack coverage for cheaper premiums. How dumb does that sound? Well to you and your ilk it sounds reasonable. 
 

The lower the deductible and the lower the out of pocket maximum, the higher the premium will be. The lower the premium, the higher the deductible and out of pocket costs will be. If its a low premium and low deductible and out of pocket, then your plan most likely covers jack squat and you will be severily under insured. So like usual, the republican “healthcare” plan is just dont get sick and you will be fine.

[Ratt Mhule]

20 hours ago, Archy1221 said:

so far I have learned that insurance companies raised their rates far greater than what they needed to in 2018.  
 

“So in a round-about way, the federal government is still funding CSR. They’re just doing so via larger premium subsidies, instead of directly reimbursing insurers.”  healthinsurance.org link provided by original poster. 

 

I have learned that the smaller rate increases in 2019 were in response to insurers increasing rates more than they had to in 2017, 2018 and that the individual mandate change has not had much of an effect on the loss ratios of insurance companies, the individual market did not get sicker in 2019 from the change, and the risk pool has stabilized.  
 

I also learned that shortly after the ACA marketplace opened for business, a minimum of hundreds of thousands of people got cancellation Notices on the insurance plans they already had in place.  (Factcheck.org)

 

more to come on the other points.  

Oh jeez, who would have thought that the bloodsucking middle man that gets in between you and your doctor would write a bill that allows them to rip more people off and make more money off of them. Yes, insurance companies had a seat at the table during negotitations and wrote a lot of the actual bill. Dems f#&%ed up in that regard and didnt even get a public option. 

[Archy1221]

1 hour ago, Frott Scost said:

You do know “obamacare” was Mitt Romneys plan, correct? So it was a republican plan. But bc of politics they have to dupe people like you to believe it is a terrible plan, even though it was theres. 

Obamacare was Obama’s plan.  Not sure why don’t know that. It was a template that ultimately failed.  
 

https://www.politico.com/story/2014/05/massachusetts-romneycare-health-care-exchange-106362

 

“RomneyCare’s pioneering health insurance exchange is headed for the scrap heap. 

Bay State officials are taking steps this week to junk central parts of their dysfunctional health insurance exchange — the model for President Barack Obama’s health care law — and merge with the federal enrollment site HealthCare.gov.”

 

just cause Romney came up with a plan in Mass, doesn’t mean Republicans nationwide thought it was great. 

[BigRedBuster]

Individual mandate was originally a Republican idea back in the 90s.  Obama put it in and all of a sudden it's the worst socialistic evil thing the world has ever seen.

 

Amazing how that works.

[Archy1221]

1 hour ago, Frott Scost said:

Someone doesnt know how insurance works. First of all, most people get their insurance through work so they have no choice. I know i know, just quit and find a job with better benefits even if youre happy at your job. The ole republican argument of find a better job or leave the country and go somewhere else if youre not happy. 
 

Second, if people find their own insurance it is much more expensive if you want good coverage. That shouldnt even be a thing. Ill forgo heart attack coverage for cheaper premiums. How dumb does that sound? Well to you and your ilk it sounds reasonable. 
 

The lower the deductible and the lower the out of pocket maximum, the higher the premium will be. The lower the premium, the higher the deductible and out of pocket costs will be. If its a low premium and low deductible and out of pocket, then your plan most likely covers jack squat and you will be severily under insured. So like usual, the republican “healthcare” plan is just dont get sick and you will be fine.

Who doesn’t understand how insurance works?

 

Those bolded isn’t actually a thing.  I’ve read through many insurance policies and have yet to see one that specifically says “heart attack coverage” 

 

millions of healthy young people want high deductible low premium plans because they do not use health resources and it helps them save up money for later in life. 

[Archy1221]

8 minutes ago, BigRedBuster said:

Individual mandate was originally a Republican idea back in the 90s.  Obama put it in and all of a sudden it's the worst socialistic evil thing the world has ever seen.

 

Amazing how that works.

and it is not really a thing anymore is it. 

[BigRedBuster]

53 minutes ago, Archy1221 said:

and it is not really a thing anymore is it. 

 

Did you catch the back draft of that flying over your head?

[Archy1221]

43 minutes ago, BigRedBuster said:

 

Did you catch the back draft of that flying over your head?

No

[Born N Bled Red]

I'm sorry @Archy1221, but I'm not going to let you shift the conversation the way you would like. Thank you for taking the time to utilize right wing talking points to attempt to absolve republican lawmakers from their active sabotage of the ACA. And I truly mean that. I know it took you some time to do so. 

 

However, please explain to me what you feel the right wing intent of these acts of obstruction of the law was and the ultimate legislative impact they were trying to achieve on the meta-level. 

[DevoHusker]

7 minutes ago, Born N Bled Red said:

I'm sorry @Archy1221, but I'm not going to let you shift the conversation the way you would like. Thank you for taking the time to utilize right wing talking points to attempt to absolve republican lawmakers from their active sabotage of the ACA. And I truly mean that. I know it took you some time to do so. 

 

However, please explain to me what you feel the right wing intent of these acts of obstruction of the law was and the ultimate legislative impact they were trying to achieve on the meta-level. 

 

"The Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (ACA) was passed by a Democratic Congress and signed into law by a Democratic president in 2010. Republican congressmen, governors, and Republican candidates have consistently opposed the ACA and have vowed to repeal it."

 

No offense Born N Bled Red, but R's said from the jump that they would oppose ObamaCare, and do everything in their power to overturn/repeal it. This is nothing new. 

 

 

[Born N Bled Red]

22 minutes ago, DevoHusker said:

 

"The Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (ACA) was passed by a Democratic Congress and signed into law by a Democratic president in 2010. Republican congressmen, governors, and Republican candidates have consistently opposed the ACA and have vowed to repeal it."

 

No offense Born N Bled Red, but R's said from the jump that they would oppose ObamaCare, and do everything in their power to overturn/repeal it. This is nothing new. 

 

 

@DevoHusker- that's exactly my point, so no offense taken. Archy1221 feigned ignorance about the many many avenues R's have taken in an attempt to destroy the ACA. I want to see if he will admit their intent was to sabotage the law from the get go. 

[Archy1221]

9 minutes ago, Born N Bled Red said:

I'm sorry @Archy1221, but I'm not going to let you shift the conversation the way you would like. Thank you for taking the time to utilize right wing talking points to attempt to absolve republican lawmakers from their active sabotage of the ACA. And I truly mean that. I know it took you some time to do so. 

 

However, please explain to me what you feel the right wing intent of these acts of obstruction of the law was and the ultimate legislative impact they were trying to achieve on the meta-level. 

My words speak for me.  They are not right wing talking points.  I don’t get correspondence from the RNC on how to answer a question on Huskerboard.  
You asked me to look at and respond to what you have posted.  I have done so partway.  Still have more to get to.  
 

Please give me the respect of knowing what I post is what I think based on what I research and look at and not “right wing talking points”. 
I read and listen to news from both sides of the spectrum and make decisions on my thought process based on what makes sense to me.  As I stated before, I listen to more left leaning media like CNN and MSNBC and read more right leaning media.   I may be way off base from reality, I may be completely wrong, I may be absolutely correct or somewhere in-between.  But it’s what I think based on what I believe to be correct subject to additional info to change my mind. 
 

appreciate the civilized discussion.