Affordable Care Act

I once went to the Dr with flu symptoms and blood tests revealed a much much more serious condition. That was caught early and arrested because I went to the Dr with a "runny nose".

Good for you. Point being you didn't health INSURANCE for your runny nose. But you do need it for the serious illness.

Why shouldn't women get birth control covered under her health insurance?

They certainly can if they want to pay for it. But why should I help subsidize it?

I had a condition to my maleness a few years back that required a very expensive surgery. Does a woman have the right to the same qualms you show them over birth control?

Women's health insurance should cost more than men's because women use health insurance at a higher frequency and severity
 
And if they cannot afford to pay more, we shouldn't mind letting them waste away and/or expire, because hey: we have the great moral high-ground of being god-damn mother-****ing EARNERS.

You mad?

It is not my responsibility to ensure an old man is taken care of. I will one day be old as well. I intend to have health insurance. People should be fine if they plan accordingly... Same argument for retirement...
 
1. Not sure why that is relevant.

2. He waited 6 weeks because the government standards for allowing such a procedure, his dad didn't "qualify" for the urgent procedure. You know those "death panel" thingies people always make sarcastic comments about? Well this was pretty much it. A few bureaucrats set a minimum standard for what should require such a surgery to happen. His dad, for whatever reason, didn't qualify.

3. I think you missed the point. The point was that in the US, you can get the health care you want/need when you want it. My boss' family didn';t want to take the risk of his dad having a hear attack, so they came to the states because the states has better health care.

To your last point... the elderly SHOULD be paying more because they are more likely to need it. Why do you liberals think that doctors and insurance companies should run a charity? Doctors give up a huge portion of their lives and learn something that few people in the world do - they should be compensated for that. Insurance companies should not be running a program where they are going to lose money on every patient.

I agree with the caveat that the cost of coverage should be on a sliding-scale that is sensitive to income. I"ve been for means-testing all along on Social Security and Medicare. But try getting that broad-based support for that anywhere. Even polls of Tea Partiers show strong support for not touching Social Security or Medicare. They are viewed as middle class entitlements and, as I stated earlier, change here will require sacrifice by some and that's a non-starter these days.

Robert Kuttner (anti-means testing), then of The New Republic and Charles Peters (pro-means testing) of The Washington Monthly had this debate in the 1980s. Both left-of-center guys and Kuttner's view has maintained its status through the administrations of Presidents of different parties and Congress of all stripes.
 
November 19, 2013
Americans Like Obamacare Where They Can Get It
Posted by John Cassidy

As the Washington press corps reports that the Obama Administration is failing—and threatening to take down with it the entire philosophy of liberalism—a funny thing is happening out there across the country. In a number of states that have working online health-care exchanges, more and more people are signing up for the insurance coverage that is available under the Affordable Care Act.

In California, where local officials have launched a campaign to remind residents that the state’s new Web site, Covered California, is separate from the troubled federal site healthcare.gov, enrollment is rising fast. During the first two weeks of November, almost sixty thousand people signed up for private insurance policies or for Medi-Cal, the local version of Medicaid. That’s more than twice the figure for all of October. “What we are seeing is incredible momentum,” Peter Lee, the director of Covered California, said at a press conference on Monday.

Similar things are happening in other states across the country. An article in Tuesday’s Los Angeles Times cites Connecticut, Kentucky, Minnesota, and Washington as on track to exceed their enrollment targets. Here in New York, too, there are positive signs. Last week, officials reported that close to fifty thousand people had signed up for health insurance through the state’s new Web site, NY State of Health, with about half of them taking out private plans and half enrolling in Medicaid. “I would say we are seeing great interest in New York, and we are very pleased with our enrollment numbers,” Danielle Holahan, the deputy director for NY State of Health, said.

What these states have in common are state-run Web sites that are working pretty well; they are also all controlled by Democrats who are pushing the new reform. This progress points to something that has been absent in much of the reporting about the troubled rollout of healthcare.gov and the cancellation of individual policies: in places where Americans know about the comprehensive and heavily subsidized health coverage available under the Affordable Care Act and can easily access it, they are doing so in substantial numbers.

That’s hardly surprising. Prior to the reform, close to fifty million Americans didn’t have any health-care coverage, and many others were stuck with policies that had large gaps. The online insurance exchanges and the effort to make more people eligible for Medicaid were designed to remedy this situation, and in some places that strategy is working more or less as planned.

For many low-to-middle-income individuals and families who don’t qualify for Medicaid, the provision of generous subsidies means that they can afford new private insurance policies. Consider, for example, a family of four in Sacramento, California, with two thirty-five-year-old adults who earn a combined fifty thousand dollars a year, which is roughly the median household income nationwide. If this family took out the “silver level” plan offered on the Covered California exchange, it would pay about two hundred and eight dollars a month, according to the Kaiser Foundation’s cost calculator. (Most of the policy would be covered by the federal government, which would send the insurer a monthly check for about nine hundred and eighty dollars.)

Where private insurance plans are affordable and readily available, they are sure to be popular. And that’s only part of the story. The success some states are having enrolling people in Medicaid is another development that deserves more attention. In Oregon, for example—which is one of twenty-five states registering adults who weren’t previously qualified for the jointly funded federal-state program—more than seventy thousand people have already been signed up. It’s probably fair to assume that prior to last month many of these folks didn’t have any coverage.

To be sure, we need more information about who is signing up, particularly for private plans. For the new insurance exchanges to work properly, the risk pool has to be a broad one. It could be problematic if the enrollees are mainly elderly, or people with preëxisting conditions. But that doesn’t detract from the news that, in some places, the launch of A.C.A. is actually going along pretty well.

Nationwide, the big problem with the rollout is that many of the potential winners from the reform don’t yet have access to it. Many of them live in Republican-controlled states, which haven’t set up their own online exchanges and which refused the Obama Administration’s offer to meet most of the costs of expanding Medicaid. For these folks, the only option is trying to get onto healthcare.gov, or calling one of the federal help lines, and it's not one that their local political leaders have encouraged them to pursue. As a result, the take-up has been dismal. In Texas, for example, only about three thousand people have signed up for new individual plans, and the state isn’t expanding Medicaid.

That’s an indictment of the Republican Party, and it’s also an indictment of the Obama Administration, which was well aware of how much hinged on healthcare.gov working properly. The news that, back in March, some consultants at McKinsey & Co. warned Administration officials that the rollout of the site was at risk because of insufficient time for testing, among other issues, is another damaging revelation. (Quite how bad isn’t clear. At least some of the consultants’ warnings appear to have been addressed.)

So, by all means, let’s find out who screwed up and why it happened. But let’s also keep in mind the bigger picture. Before the passage of the Affordable Care Act, America’s health-care system, particularly the individual-insurance part of it, was not functioning well. At this early juncture, neither is its replacement. But in those parts of the country where Obamacare is up and running, there are some encouraging signs.

Above: Janelle Arevalo, an insurance agent with Sunshine Life and Health Advisors, makes a house call to sign up Sandra Berrios for an insurance plan under the Affordable Care Act. Photograph by Joe Raedle/Getty
 

Naw: just trying to score some comedic points.

It is not my responsibility to ensure an old man is taken care of. I will one day be old as well. I intend to have health insurance. People should be fine if they plan accordingly... Same argument for retirement...

My ideal society isn't nearly as callous or unforgiving as you are, but hopefully your callous and unforgiving worldview – since I'm optimistic that society is moving towards a place of less general callousness and more forgiveness – can have some benefit when blended and reconciled with the less callous and more forgiving majority.
 
Naw: just trying to score some comedic points.

My ideal society isn't nearly as callous or unforgiving as you are, but hopefully your callous and unforgiving worldview – since I'm optimistic that society is moving towards a place of less general callous and more forgiveness – can have some benefit when blended and reconciled with the less callous and more forgiving majority.

You need folks like me to balance folks like 57 out
 
I agree with the caveat that the cost of coverage should be on a sliding-scale that is sensitive to income. I"ve been for means-testing all along on Social Security and Medicare. But try getting that broad-based support for that anywhere. Even polls of Tea Partiers show strong support for not touching Social Security or Medicare. They are viewed as middle class entitlements and, as I stated earlier, change here will require sacrifice by some and that's a non-starter these days.

Robert Kuttner (anti-means testing), then of The New Republic and Charles Peters (pro-means testing) of The Washington Monthly had this debate in the 1980s. Both left-of-center guys and Kuttner's view has maintained its status through the administrations of Presidents of different parties and Congress of all stripes.

And THAT's why I believe the Tea Party is a joke... They are all for shrinking government - but they don't want to tough SS, Medicare, or Defense - which is our government!
 
And THAT's why I believe the Tea Party is a joke... They are all for shrinking government - but they don't want to tough SS, Medicare, or Defense - which is our government!

Agree. In other words, they're really not for truly shrinking government. I think, for the most part, the Tea Party is the conservative branch of the AARP.
 
You mad?

It is not my responsibility to ensure an old man is taken care of. I will one day be old as well. I intend to have health insurance. People should be fine if they plan accordingly... Same argument for retirement...

hahaha

you will get gov't healthcare when you are old cause there isn't an insurance company that would give insurance to an old person

but hey, "plan accordingly", talk to ya in 50 years about it so i can laugh again
 
That was meant to be a rhetorical question. I meant to imply that that question will always be there, because it can never be fixed. The system will eventually collapse on itself. The only solution is to delay the collapse as long as you can. Some think it will take longer than others. Maybe one day when the government turns us all into robots the problem will go away.

You consistently state on this board that you work to live rather than live to work. Well, the only way to sustain huge social programs is to have a strong and consistent work force that pay taxes. Talk about living to work. As you get further and further away from the free market you get deeper and deeper into living to work.

Also, one of the other reasons you'll never get these fixes you seek is because both sides work too hard to increase their voter base. Everything the dems do is to increase their voter base... welfare, immigration, etc. And for the pubs its religion, military, etc. It's all about votes.

now we seem to be getting somewhere

those bases could be secured by having things run well though. that is the point of working and paying taxes. it isn't to score points for one side or the other.

and yes, work to live, don't live to work. we aren't on the planet to be slaves to rich people
 
You mad?

It is not my responsibility to ensure an old man is taken care of. I will one day be old as well. I intend to have health insurance. People should be fine if they plan accordingly... Same argument for retirement...

Its just amazing that we are now forced to help others take care of themselves. Why shouldn't people help themselves?
 
as the dust begins to settle -as it always does- this report this morning:
.....
The impact of Obama's health care reform law on the price of health insurance has been hotly contested, especially as many households are learning that their current policies won't be available next year and that, in some cases, replacements will be costlier. But these hardships aren't as common as they seem, the Families USA analysis suggests.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/11/21/obamacare-cancelations_n_4317628.html
 
Back
Top