Healthcare

[magisme]

part time is the new full time

[AdriftatSea]

Love that hopium.

Whatever. It's already happening in medicare and social security benefits....and that's just the tip of the iceberg. More people insured = healthier country = less claims = less premiums. (Obviously, there's a lot more to it, such as less hospital/doctor charge offs for the uninsured will also mean that they can eventually charge less for their services, since they are getting paid from those that were previously uninsured, etc.)

WHAT? Explain how this works for me with my husband that has had the following in the last couple of years:

1. bacterial pneumonia - lost the bottom lobe of his right lung - almost died / intensive care for 12 days / one week regular hospital / 92k bill

2. torn Achilles tendon

3. blood clot in his leg

4. broken shoulder

5. torn rotator cuff

6. torn biceps muscle

7. cancer - twice he's been treated for and must have regular testing now - once was malignant / and that's the last two years. Internal. He's had skin cancer much more than that.

And I'm sure I'm leaving something out here.

So how is "more people insured = healthier country = less claims = less premiums", just how is that going to help us? What does that mean to us? NOTHING! It means absolutely nothing. I couldn't give a rats ass if people 20 years down the road have a smaller premium when ours has jumped through the roof. We now have an incredibly high premium not to mention our co-pays plus everything over 80% is kicking our ass, plus medication.

I'm sorry you and your husband had to go through that, I hope he's better now, but no disrespect, Adrift but you should be thanking God you had insurance... because if you think your co-payments were high over the past few years, imagine what your insurance paid out to take care of your husband? You out of all people shouldn't be complaining about having to pay a premium, you certainly cashed in on it....probably 1000x over. And you should be thanking God for the ACA, since your insurance can't drop you for a pre-existing condition now.

Our Life Insurance damn sure did drop us. And they wouldn't have before. Obama forgot to cover that. We've had life insurance forever. Now they tell us Because of ACA they are part of the same company that provides our medical insurance and they cannot keep underwriting life insurance for people anymore. No, we don't have ACA. It has nothing to do with our medical insurance. And NO we didn't cash in, no, we've paid them for many, many years. We certainly didn't cash in. This is what you were speaking of, the many healthy people that pay for insurance, and then there are people like us that actually use their insurance. We didn't cash in. Do you seriously think insurance companies are not supposed to pay up if someone needs that insurance? Cash in my ass!

Yes, Adrift, you are covered by the ACA and the laws written within it. Do yourself a favor and read up on what the ACA is and stop listening to bullshit, right-wing propaganda.

Someone in your situation, with what you and your husband went through are among the ones that benefit the most from it. If it wasn't for the ACA, your insurance company could have dropped you....and good luck finding insurance at a decent rate after the claims you filed.

We have the same insurance company now but it's corporate. They don't drop you. And it isn't ACA.

I've got to work on my voting list... stop pissing me off KK. kidding

The ACA is a law, not insurance. And yes, you are protected by it. Just because you didn't use the website to go through it, your insurance company still has to be in compliance with the ACA. So yes, you are "part of the ACA". Like I said, read up on it.

I'm speaking of our corporate insurance. No, they won't drop us as long as he works for the corporation. He's been with this company for about a year, but corporations don't drop you as long as you work for them. It's been that way since before Obamacare. ACA has nothing to do with it. If it comes to a point where he is no longer able to work, we certainly couldn't afford Obamacare or any other insurance. Obamacare has done nothing for us except drive premiums up for us and everyone we know.

I understand that part of the law. That's not what I'm talking about. I'm talking about the insurance, not the law. The insurance is too expensive. If someone loses their corp insurance, they can't afford to purchase one of the tiers of Obamacare insurance. It's outrageously expensive. And corp insurance prices have risen because of Obamacare.

We were getting along so well.

Edited November 20, 2014 by AdriftatSea

[Ace Nova]

Love that hopium.

Whatever. It's already happening in medicare and social security benefits....and that's just the tip of the iceberg. More people insured = healthier country = less claims = less premiums. (Obviously, there's a lot more to it, such as less hospital/doctor charge offs for the uninsured will also mean that they can eventually charge less for their services, since they are getting paid from those that were previously uninsured, etc.)

WHAT? Explain how this works for me with my husband that has had the following in the last couple of years:

1. bacterial pneumonia - lost the bottom lobe of his right lung - almost died / intensive care for 12 days / one week regular hospital / 92k bill

2. torn Achilles tendon

3. blood clot in his leg

4. broken shoulder

5. torn rotator cuff

6. torn biceps muscle

7. cancer - twice he's been treated for and must have regular testing now - once was malignant / and that's the last two years. Internal. He's had skin cancer much more than that.

And I'm sure I'm leaving something out here.

So how is "more people insured = healthier country = less claims = less premiums", just how is that going to help us? What does that mean to us? NOTHING! It means absolutely nothing. I couldn't give a rats ass if people 20 years down the road have a smaller premium when ours has jumped through the roof. We now have an incredibly high premium not to mention our co-pays plus everything over 80% is kicking our ass, plus medication.

I'm sorry you and your husband had to go through that, I hope he's better now, but no disrespect, Adrift but you should be thanking God you had insurance... because if you think your co-payments were high over the past few years, imagine what your insurance paid out to take care of your husband? You out of all people shouldn't be complaining about having to pay a premium, you certainly cashed in on it....probably 1000x over. And you should be thanking God for the ACA, since your insurance can't drop you for a pre-existing condition now.

Our Life Insurance damn sure did drop us. And they wouldn't have before. Obama forgot to cover that. We've had life insurance forever. Now they tell us Because of ACA they are part of the same company that provides our medical insurance and they cannot keep underwriting life insurance for people anymore. No, we don't have ACA. It has nothing to do with our medical insurance. And NO we didn't cash in, no, we've paid them for many, many years. We certainly didn't cash in. This is what you were speaking of, the many healthy people that pay for insurance, and then there are people like us that actually use their insurance. We didn't cash in. Do you seriously think insurance companies are not supposed to pay up if someone needs that insurance? Cash in my ass!

Yes, Adrift, you are covered by the ACA and the laws written within it. Do yourself a favor and read up on what the ACA is and stop listening to bullshit, right-wing propaganda.

Someone in your situation, with what you and your husband went through are among the ones that benefit the most from it. If it wasn't for the ACA, your insurance company could have dropped you....and good luck finding insurance at a decent rate after the claims you filed.

We have the same insurance company now but it's corporate. They don't drop you. And it isn't ACA.

I've got to work on my voting list... stop pissing me off KK. kidding

The ACA is a law, not insurance. And yes, you are protected by it. Just because you didn't use the website to go through it, your insurance company still has to be in compliance with the ACA. So yes, you are "part of the ACA". Like I said, read up on it.

I'm speaking of our corporate insurance. No, they won't drop us as long as he works for the corporation. He's been with this company for about a year, but corporations don't drop you as long as you work for them. It's been that way since before Obamacare. ACA has nothing to do with it. If it comes to a point where he is no longer able to work, we certainly couldn't afford Obamacare or any other insurance. Obamacare has done nothing for us except drive premiums up for us and everyone we know.

I understand that part of the law. That's not what I'm talking about. I'm talking about the insurance, not the law. The insurance is too expensive. If someone loses their corp insurance, they can't afford to purchase one of the tiers of Obamacare insurance. It's outrageously expensive. And corp insurance prices have risen because of Obamacare.

We were getting along so well.

If your husband lost his job prior to the ACA, then you probably would not of been able to afford it (if you could get it at all) because of his pre-existing conditions and/or prior claims. Thanks to the ACA (Obamacare), insurance companies can no longer deny coverage because of pre-existing conditions and/or prior claims. Meaning, someone in your particular situation should be thanking the high heavens for the ACA.

Also, the ACA is based on your income level (and it's through the SAME private insurance companies, it's not and has never been its own insurance).... so if you had to go that route, yes, you would be able to afford it.....it's the entire point.

Edited November 20, 2014 by Kasanova King

[Ace Nova]

You radical liberals need to stop talking down to Adrift like she's some ignorant idiot, she's an intelligent adult woman who knows exactly what she's talking about because she's lived it and she's still living it. Hasn't she and her husband been through enough without you insulting her by ordering her to "Thank God for the ACA" and telling her what she can and can't afford.

"And you should be thanking God for the ACA, since your insurance can't drop you for a pre-existing condition now." "If it wasn't for the ACA, your insurance company could have dropped you" ---- Really KK? You've probably had employer sponsored health insurance for how many decades, and yet you somehow don't know that employees and their families NEVER COULD be excluded from or dropped from employer sponsored health insurance for pre-existing conditions or any other reason for that matter??? Bullshit you didn't know, you're just trying to bully Adrift into bowing down to Obamacare.

And Mags, that Humana notice was crystal clear ... a fuckin' 12-year-old could understand the 2015 policy premium went up $274.16 therefore the 2015 expected monthly payment using the same 2014 APTC also went up $274.16 and OF COURSE the pre-credit policy premium has to be reflected separately so the tax credit amount being applied is crystal clear and also so if something changes during the year (income, marital status, etc) and the insured is no longer entitled to the full tax credit they will know how much it will cost to keep the same plan.

It's the radical liberals around here who try to shove their biased beliefs down everyone's throat that give all Democrats a bad name. I never thought anything could actually get me turned off to this forum, but all the radical liberal bullshit certainly is.

This place needs some balance, Adrift for Mod. She'd make a damn good one.

Radical liberal? I am 100% independent in my views. Moderate as it gets.

We were discussing a hypothetical situation of Adrift's husband losing his job:

"I'm speaking of our corporate insurance. No, they won't drop us as long as he works for the corporation. He's been with this company for about a year, but corporations don't drop you as long as you work for them. It's been that way since before Obamacare. ACA has nothing to do with it. If it comes to a point where he is no longer able to work, we certainly couldn't afford Obamacare or any other insurance."

When I initially stated that she should be grateful, we hadn't gotten into "employer sponsored" health insurance yet. So I was assuming she had her own independent policy.

And yes, she should be grateful for the ACA in the situation that she is in. She and her husband will NEVER be without health care now, thanks to the ACA. Had she or he lost their jobs, gone through what they went through, without the ACA, there was a chance that she wouldn't have health insurance. What part of that don't conservatives get? The ACA benefits people like Adrift the MOST.

Leave it to a right winger to come out, call (probably one of the most moderate members of this forum) a radical liberal, insinuate that I'm "bullying" another member, when in reality I'm enlightening her with KNOWLEDGE, based on FACTS.

Name ONE thing that I have stated about the ACA that is inaccurate. Name ONE.

Edited November 20, 2014 by Kasanova King

[Dazey]

Excuse the ignorant Englishman here but doesn't the government step in and cover some or all of an individual's insurance costs if they are unable to afford it themselves? I thought it was predicated on a person's income?

[Ace Nova]

Excuse the ignorant Englishman here but doesn't the government step in and cover some or all of an individual's insurance costs if they are unable to afford it themselves? I thought it was predicated on a person's income?

Yes, that's exactly right. Amazing an Englishman gets what apparently half the country doesnt...lol.

Excuse the ignorant Englishman here but doesn't the government step in and cover some or all of an individual's insurance costs if they are unable to afford it themselves? I thought it was predicated on a person's income?

Only if the individual has little or no income, which is exactly why the working middle class in the states is getting their collective arses kicked. In the US of A if you're not rich you are better off being poor.

Subsidies begin at 400% above the poverty level. .

[Ace Nova]

You radical liberals need to stop talking down to Adrift like she's some ignorant idiot, she's an intelligent adult woman who knows exactly what she's talking about because she's lived it and she's still living it. Hasn't she and her husband been through enough without you insulting her by ordering her to "Thank God for the ACA" and telling her what she can and can't afford.

"And you should be thanking God for the ACA, since your insurance can't drop you for a pre-existing condition now." "If it wasn't for the ACA, your insurance company could have dropped you" ---- Really KK? You've probably had employer sponsored health insurance for how many decades, and yet you somehow don't know that employees and their families NEVER COULD be excluded from or dropped from employer sponsored health insurance for pre-existing conditions or any other reason for that matter??? Bullshit you didn't know, you're just trying to bully Adrift into bowing down to Obamacare.

And Mags, that Humana notice was crystal clear ... a fuckin' 12-year-old could understand the 2015 policy premium went up $274.16 therefore the 2015 expected monthly payment using the same 2014 APTC also went up $274.16 and OF COURSE the pre-credit policy premium has to be reflected separately so the tax credit amount being applied is crystal clear and also so if something changes during the year (income, marital status, etc) and the insured is no longer entitled to the full tax credit they will know how much it will cost to keep the same plan.

It's the radical liberals around here who try to shove their biased beliefs down everyone's throat that give all Democrats a bad name. I never thought anything could actually get me turned off to this forum, but all the radical liberal bullshit certainly is.

This place needs some balance, Adrift for Mod. She'd make a damn good one.

Radical liberal? I am 100% independent in my views. Moderate as it gets.

We were discussing a hypothetical situation of Adrift's husband losing his job:

"I'm speaking of our corporate insurance. No, they won't drop us as long as he works for the corporation. He's been with this company for about a year, but corporations don't drop you as long as you work for them. It's been that way since before Obamacare. ACA has nothing to do with it. If it comes to a point where he is no longer able to work, we certainly couldn't afford Obamacare or any other insurance."

When I initially stated that she should be grateful, we hadn't gotten into "employer sponsored" health insurance yet. So I was assuming she had her own independent policy.

And yes, she should be grateful for the ACA in the situation that she is in. She and her husband will NEVER be without health care now, thanks to the ACA. Had she or he lost their jobs, gone through what they went through, without the ACA, there was a chance that she wouldn't have health insurance. What part of that don't conservatives get? The ACA benefits people like Adrift the MOST.

Leave it to a right winger to come out, call (probably one of the most moderate members of this forum) a radical liberal, insinuate that I'm "bullying" another member, when in reality I'm enlightening her with KNOWLEDGE, based on FACTS.

Name ONE thing that I have stated about the ACA that is inaccurate. Name ONE.

You want an example of a moderate? Look a few posts up at what Bran had to say, THAT'S an example of a moderate. He's not denying Obamacare in it's current form is crap.

Both Adrift and I responded to your statements about how her husband's employer sponsored insurance cannot be dropped "because of the ACA" which is 100% false. You wrote it, I quoted it. It's not a coincidence that both Adrift and I immediately picked up on it. That's the ONE INACCURATE THING you requested.

If her husband loses his job because of his health issues, they likely would have been able to go on Medicaid (assuming she doesn't work, I have no idea if she does). The ACA has NOTHING to do with their eligibility for Medicaid, because Texas is one of several states that rejected the expanded Medicaid coverage provided by the ACA.

And like Adrift has already said, why do you always have to make it a political party thing? I'm an independent thankyouverymuch, just because I don't always tow the Democratic party line that doesn't make me a righty. But anyone that isn't a radical liberal in this forum is automatically labeled a righty, ain't that so? You are absolutely bullying Adrift, telling her that you know what's good for her and her family more than she does ... how is that not bullying? She's telling you that the ACA has made life for her and her husband much more difficult, and you're telling her she's wrong - that is extremely disrespectful no matter how you try to sugarcoat it.

Apparently you missed the part where I stated, WE HADN'T SPOKEN ABOUT EMPLOYER SPONSORED HEALTH INSURANCE WHEN I INITIALLY REPLIED TO HER COMMENTS. Maybe if I capitalize it, you will read it properly.

So NO, that was not an inaccuracy. If she had her own policy, which I assumed at the time (she hadn't mentioned that it was a company plan yet) , then YES, she or her husband could have been dropped from it.

And to assume that she would automatically have qualified for medicaid if her husband had lost his job just shows how little you know about medicaid.

"As of 2013, Medicaid is a program intended for those with low income, but a low income is not the only requirement to enroll in the program. Eligibility is categoricalthat is, to enroll you must be a member of a category defined by statute; some of these categories include low-income children below a certain age, pregnant women, parents of Medicaid-eligible children who meet certain income requirements, and low-income seniors. The details of how each category is defined vary from state to state."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Medicaid

(If Texas is anything like Florida, unless you're a single mother, unemployed and with small children, you're not qualifying for medicaid.)

When Adrift comes here and makes comments like this, "So how is "more people insured = healthier country = less claims = less premiums", just how is that going to help us? What does that mean to us? NOTHING! It means absolutely nothing. I couldn't give a rats ass if people 20 years down the road have a smaller premium when ours has jumped through the roof. We now have an incredibly high premium not to mention our co-pays plus everything over 80% is kicking our ass, plus medication."

She's admitting to having benefited (tremendously) from having insurance but at the same time she's angry because her premiums increased. Do you not see the contradictory nature of her remarks? I was pointing out that she should be grateful for having had insurance and that she benefited from it.....so if I was her (me personally) I certainly wouldn't be making statements like, "I don't give a rats ass if people 20 years down the road have a smaller premium when ours jumped through the roof"

And then she made this comment, "If it comes to a point where he is no longer able to work, we certainly couldn't afford Obamacare or any other insurance."

And I clarified how the ACA works and that she would indeed have insurance.

If that's bullying, so be it.

Edited November 20, 2014 by Kasanova King

[Ace Nova]

Excuse the ignorant Englishman here but doesn't the government step in and cover some or all of an individual's insurance costs if they are unable to afford it themselves? I thought it was predicated on a person's income?

Yes, that's exactly right. Amazing an Englishman gets what apparently half the country doesnt...lol.

Excuse the ignorant Englishman here but doesn't the government step in and cover some or all of an individual's insurance costs if they are unable to afford it themselves? I thought it was predicated on a person's income?

Only if the individual has little or no income, which is exactly why the working middle class in the states is getting their collective arses kicked. In the US of A if you're not rich you are better off being poor.

Subsidies begin at 400% above the poverty level. .

Yeah, a person in Texas making $40K gets a whopping $33 credit. Like I said, the ACA is helpful only when there's little or no income.

Why would a single person making 40k a year (most likely with a company sponsored insurance plan, which pays at least half of his/her premium) need any credit at all?

Edited November 20, 2014 by Kasanova King

[magisme]

You radical liberals need to stop talking down to Adrift like she's some ignorant idiot, she's an intelligent adult woman who knows exactly what she's talking about because she's lived it and she's still living it. Hasn't she and her husband been through enough without you insulting her by ordering her to "Thank God for the ACA" and telling her what she can and can't afford.

"And you should be thanking God for the ACA, since your insurance can't drop you for a pre-existing condition now." "If it wasn't for the ACA, your insurance company could have dropped you" ---- Really KK? You've probably had employer sponsored health insurance for how many decades, and yet you somehow don't know that employees and their families NEVER COULD be excluded from or dropped from employer sponsored health insurance for pre-existing conditions or any other reason for that matter??? Bullshit you didn't know, you're just trying to bully Adrift into bowing down to Obamacare.

And Mags, that Humana notice was crystal clear ... a fuckin' 12-year-old could understand the 2015 policy premium went up $274.16 therefore the 2015 expected monthly payment using the same 2014 APTC also went up $274.16 and OF COURSE the pre-credit policy premium has to be reflected separately so the tax credit amount being applied is crystal clear and also so if something changes during the year (income, marital status, etc) and the insured is no longer entitled to the full tax credit they will know how much it will cost to keep the same plan.

It's the radical liberals around here who try to shove their biased beliefs down everyone's throat that give all Democrats a bad name. I never thought anything could actually get me turned off to this forum, but all the radical liberal bullshit certainly is.

This place needs some balance, Adrift for Mod. She'd make a damn good one.

What drives me nuts is that they're not even radical liberals. Nothing about what they're saying is liberal is any real sense of the term. It's more radical "repeat whatever the Obama administration/CNN tells me." It's just talking points and promises about the future based on nothing whatsoever.

[downzy]

You radical liberals need to stop talking down to Adrift like she's some ignorant idiot, she's an intelligent adult woman who knows exactly what she's talking about because she's lived it and she's still living it. Hasn't she and her husband been through enough without you insulting her by ordering her to "Thank God for the ACA" and telling her what she can and can't afford."And you should be thanking God for the ACA, since your insurance can't drop you for a pre-existing condition now." "If it wasn't for the ACA, your insurance company could have dropped you" ---- Really KK? You've probably had employer sponsored health insurance for how many decades, and yet you somehow don't know that employees and their families NEVER COULD be excluded from or dropped from employer sponsored health insurance for pre-existing conditions or any other reason for that matter??? Bullshit you didn't know, you're just trying to bully Adrift into bowing down to Obamacare.

And Mags, that Humana notice was crystal clear ... a fuckin' 12-year-old could understand the 2015 policy premium went up $274.16 therefore the 2015 expected monthly payment using the same 2014 APTC also went up $274.16 and OF COURSE the pre-credit policy premium has to be reflected separately so the tax credit amount being applied is crystal clear and also so if something changes during the year (income, marital status, etc) and the insured is no longer entitled to the full tax credit they will know how much it will cost to keep the same plan.

It's the radical liberals around here who try to shove their biased beliefs down everyone's throat that give all Democrats a bad name. I never thought anything could actually get me turned off to this forum, but all the radical liberal bullshit certainly is.

This place needs some balance, Adrift for Mod. She'd make a damn good one.

What drives me nuts is that they're not even radical liberals. Nothing about what they're saying is liberal is any real sense of the term. It's more radical "repeat whatever the Obama administration/CNN tells me." It's just talking points and promises about the future based on nothing whatsoever.

Fair enough. Anyone who reads this thread and thinks anyone is radical anything is way off base.

But as annoying as I may be for preaching the White House line, it's also frustrating when people post one instance of the law not working for someone as proof that the ACA is an entire failure. It's both broad and deep in scope, and undoubtedly it will negatively effect many individuals. I do acknowledge that ACA supporters err when we trivialize the negative consequences. But it's also a mistake to point out one or two inflated premiums as proof that the law is a failure.

[downzy]

Also, the most recent studies indicate that the notion that the ACA is pushing full time employees into part-time work is a gross exaggeration bordering on myth:

http://www.cleveland.com/business/index.ssf/2014/09/obamacare_not_forcing_workers.html

I'm sure it's happening, but according to two comprehensive studies it's not systemic. Part time work is up, but much of it can be attributed to trends and forces that were present long before the passage of the ACA. Coincidentally, many older workers are choosing part time work over full time work because they can now obtain health insurance through the exchanges. It's a phenomenon called job-lock, and something that's best avoided

[Rustycage]

Anecdotal evidence >>>>>>> everything else

/sarcasm

[magisme]

You radical liberals need to stop talking down to Adrift like she's some ignorant idiot, she's an intelligent adult woman who knows exactly what she's talking about because she's lived it and she's still living it. Hasn't she and her husband been through enough without you insulting her by ordering her to "Thank God for the ACA" and telling her what she can and can't afford."And you should be thanking God for the ACA, since your insurance can't drop you for a pre-existing condition now." "If it wasn't for the ACA, your insurance company could have dropped you" ---- Really KK? You've probably had employer sponsored health insurance for how many decades, and yet you somehow don't know that employees and their families NEVER COULD be excluded from or dropped from employer sponsored health insurance for pre-existing conditions or any other reason for that matter??? Bullshit you didn't know, you're just trying to bully Adrift into bowing down to Obamacare.

And Mags, that Humana notice was crystal clear ... a fuckin' 12-year-old could understand the 2015 policy premium went up $274.16 therefore the 2015 expected monthly payment using the same 2014 APTC also went up $274.16 and OF COURSE the pre-credit policy premium has to be reflected separately so the tax credit amount being applied is crystal clear and also so if something changes during the year (income, marital status, etc) and the insured is no longer entitled to the full tax credit they will know how much it will cost to keep the same plan.

It's the radical liberals around here who try to shove their biased beliefs down everyone's throat that give all Democrats a bad name. I never thought anything could actually get me turned off to this forum, but all the radical liberal bullshit certainly is.

This place needs some balance, Adrift for Mod. She'd make a damn good one.

What drives me nuts is that they're not even radical liberals. Nothing about what they're saying is liberal is any real sense of the term. It's more radical "repeat whatever the Obama administration/CNN tells me." It's just talking points and promises about the future based on nothing whatsoever.

Fair enough. Anyone who reads this thread and thinks anyone is radical anything is way off base.

But as annoying as I may be for preaching the White House line, it's also frustrating when people post one instance of the law not working for someone as proof that the ACA is an entire failure. It's both broad and deep in scope, and undoubtedly it will negatively effect many individuals. I do acknowledge that ACA supporters err when we trivialize the negative consequences. But it's also a mistake to point out one or two inflated premiums as proof that the law is a failure.

I hope you know that I'm savvy enough that I'm not posting an individual premium statement and thinking that proves anything on a broad scale. Most of my posts are meant as a counter to the trivializing you mention, not as rock solid evidence that the law is a complete disaster.

[downzy]

Fair enough. I do appreciate your social gadfly like presence around here.

[magisme]

Fair enough. I do appreciate your social gadfly like presence around here.

Socrates used to compare himself to a gadfly. I'll take it.

[Ace Nova]

Fair enough. Anyone who reads this thread and thinks anyone is radical anything is way off base.

But as annoying as I may be for preaching the White House line, it's also frustrating when people post one instance of the law not working for someone as proof that the ACA is an entire failure. It's both broad and deep in scope, and undoubtedly it will negatively effect many individuals. I do acknowledge that ACA supporters err when we trivialize the negative consequences. But it's also a mistake to point out one or two inflated premiums as proof that the law is a failure.

I agree 100%. I've already stated how it has increased my premium, as well as the premiums of most of the people I know. So yes, in this sense, it is affecting us "negatively" for the time being. I'm living through it as well.

The problem with situations like these, is that most people don't want to admit (now) that the previous system was headed for disaster. Something had to be done....and the funny part is that this entire concept was a conservative response to the left's "Hillary Care" system. The ACA was the result of a bi-partisan effort to "save" the U.S. healthcare system....thought up originally by conservatives. Now, those same conservatives are spreading an absolutely deceptive campaign of misinformation. That's the part that pisses me off the most. They got what they wanted and now act as if they had nothing to do with it. Shameful.

Edited November 20, 2014 by Kasanova King

[AxlisOld]

God I'm sick of first ladies acting like they matter.

[Ace Nova]

God I'm sick of first ladies acting like they matter.

What will you do when one of them becomes president in 2016?

[Ace Nova]

First thing's first, today's acknowledgement from the lovely people who brought us the ACA:

http://news.yahoo.com/oops-administration-erred-health-law-sign-ups-190538101.html

WASHINGTON (AP) — The Obama administration acknowledged Thursday it has been over-reporting the number of people signed up under the health care law, a discrepancy that congressional Republicans seeking to repeal the program say they uncovered.

It's another credibility problem for the administration after video surfaced recently of former White House adviser Jonathan Gruber suggesting that deception was used to pass President Barack Obama's signature law.

Health and Human Services Secretary Sylvia M. Burwell called the latest lapse "unacceptable."

"The mistake we made is unacceptable," Burwell said on Twitter. "I will be communicating that clearly throughout the (department.)"

Administration spokesman Aaron Albright said that the overcount involved about 400,000 people.

Those consumers have separate dental coverage in addition to a medical plan, and were double-counted by mistake, said Albright. They had purchased both the medical and dental plans through HealthCare.gov and state insurance markets created under the law.

That means the correct number of people enrolled for medical coverage as of Oct. 15 is about 6.7 million, not the 7.1 million that Burwell has been citing.

The discrepancy was uncovered by Republican investigators for the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee, poring over sign-up spreadsheets.

Chairman Darrell Issa, R-Calif., said in a statement that he believes the administration was deliberately trying to disguise the rate at which people have been dropping out of the program, either because they don't meet eligibility requirements or weren't paying their premiums.

"Faced with large numbers of Americans running for an exit from Obamacare, instead of offering the public an accurate accounting, the administration engaged in an effort to obscure and downplay the number of dropouts," said Issa.

Not sure how this is relevant in what we're discussing. I'm not defending the Obama Administration, the roll out of the ACA or how it's being reported. I am stating what the ACA is and refuting a lot of the misinformation about the ACA.

[AxlisOld]

God I'm sick of first ladies acting like they matter.

What will you do when one of them becomes president in 2016?

Wake up from a nightmare and be glad that it didn't happen.

[bran]

First thing's first, today's acknowledgement from the lovely people who brought us the ACA:

http://news.yahoo.com/oops-administration-erred-health-law-sign-ups-190538101.html

WASHINGTON (AP) — The Obama administration acknowledged Thursday it has been over-reporting the number of people signed up under the health care law, a discrepancy that congressional Republicans seeking to repeal the program say they uncovered.

It's another credibility problem for the administration after video surfaced recently of former White House adviser Jonathan Gruber suggesting that deception was used to pass President Barack Obama's signature law.

Health and Human Services Secretary Sylvia M. Burwell called the latest lapse "unacceptable."

"The mistake we made is unacceptable," Burwell said on Twitter. "I will be communicating that clearly throughout the (department.)"

Administration spokesman Aaron Albright said that the overcount involved about 400,000 people.

Those consumers have separate dental coverage in addition to a medical plan, and were double-counted by mistake, said Albright. They had purchased both the medical and dental plans through HealthCare.gov and state insurance markets created under the law.

That means the correct number of people enrolled for medical coverage as of Oct. 15 is about 6.7 million, not the 7.1 million that Burwell has been citing.

The discrepancy was uncovered by Republican investigators for the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee, poring over sign-up spreadsheets.

Chairman Darrell Issa, R-Calif., said in a statement that he believes the administration was deliberately trying to disguise the rate at which people have been dropping out of the program, either because they don't meet eligibility requirements or weren't paying their premiums.

"Faced with large numbers of Americans running for an exit from Obamacare, instead of offering the public an accurate accounting, the administration engaged in an effort to obscure and downplay the number of dropouts," said Issa.

Not sure how this is relevant in what we're discussing. I'm not defending the Obama Administration, the roll out of the ACA or how it's being reported. I am stating what the ACA is and refuting a lot of the misinformation about the ACA.

we will not know what the impacts of ACA are for years. a lot of mandates dont kick in until january. not to mention what the cost of this is going to be in the future.

[Ace Nova]

we will not know what the impacts of ACA are for years. a lot of mandates dont kick in until january. not to mention what the cost of this is going to be in the future.

Thank you for being a "voice of reason" around here. You personally hate the ACA for its immediate effects on the people around you, yet you still are "open minded" enough to understand that we still don't know how this will work itself out in the end. For that, I applaud you. Thanks for not being an idiot. You are a breath of fresh air around here.

BRAN FOR MOD!!!

[AdriftatSea]

Love that hopium.

Whatever. It's already happening in medicare and social security benefits....and that's just the tip of the iceberg. More people insured = healthier country = less claims = less premiums. (Obviously, there's a lot more to it, such as less hospital/doctor charge offs for the uninsured will also mean that they can eventually charge less for their services, since they are getting paid from those that were previously uninsured, etc.)

WHAT? Explain how this works for me with my husband that has had the following in the last couple of years:

1. bacterial pneumonia - lost the bottom lobe of his right lung - almost died / intensive care for 12 days / one week regular hospital / 92k bill

2. torn Achilles tendon

3. blood clot in his leg

4. broken shoulder

5. torn rotator cuff

6. torn biceps muscle

7. cancer - twice he's been treated for and must have regular testing now - once was malignant / and that's the last two years. Internal. He's had skin cancer much more than that.

And I'm sure I'm leaving something out here.

So how is "more people insured = healthier country = less claims = less premiums", just how is that going to help us? What does that mean to us? NOTHING! It means absolutely nothing. I couldn't give a rats ass if people 20 years down the road have a smaller premium when ours has jumped through the roof. We now have an incredibly high premium not to mention our co-pays plus everything over 80% is kicking our ass, plus medication.

I'm sorry you and your husband had to go through that, I hope he's better now, but no disrespect, Adrift but you should be thanking God you had insurance... because if you think your co-payments were high over the past few years, imagine what your insurance paid out to take care of your husband? You out of all people shouldn't be complaining about having to pay a premium, you certainly cashed in on it....probably 1000x over. And you should be thanking God for the ACA, since your insurance can't drop you for a pre-existing condition now.

Our Life Insurance damn sure did drop us. And they wouldn't have before. Obama forgot to cover that. We've had life insurance forever. Now they tell us Because of ACA they are part of the same company that provides our medical insurance and they cannot keep underwriting life insurance for people anymore. No, we don't have ACA. It has nothing to do with our medical insurance. And NO we didn't cash in, no, we've paid them for many, many years. We certainly didn't cash in. This is what you were speaking of, the many healthy people that pay for insurance, and then there are people like us that actually use their insurance. We didn't cash in. Do you seriously think insurance companies are not supposed to pay up if someone needs that insurance? Cash in my ass!

Yes, Adrift, you are covered by the ACA and the laws written within it. Do yourself a favor and read up on what the ACA is and stop listening to bullshit, right-wing propaganda.

Someone in your situation, with what you and your husband went through are among the ones that benefit the most from it. If it wasn't for the ACA, your insurance company could have dropped you....and good luck finding insurance at a decent rate after the claims you filed.

We have the same insurance company now but it's corporate. They don't drop you. And it isn't ACA.

I've got to work on my voting list... stop pissing me off KK. kidding

The ACA is a law, not insurance. And yes, you are protected by it. Just because you didn't use the website to go through it, your insurance company still has to be in compliance with the ACA. So yes, you are "part of the ACA". Like I said, read up on it.

I'm speaking of our corporate insurance. No, they won't drop us as long as he works for the corporation. He's been with this company for about a year, but corporations don't drop you as long as you work for them. It's been that way since before Obamacare. ACA has nothing to do with it. If it comes to a point where he is no longer able to work, we certainly couldn't afford Obamacare or any other insurance. Obamacare has done nothing for us except drive premiums up for us and everyone we know.

I understand that part of the law. That's not what I'm talking about. I'm talking about the insurance, not the law. The insurance is too expensive. If someone loses their corp insurance, they can't afford to purchase one of the tiers of Obamacare insurance. It's outrageously expensive. And corp insurance prices have risen because of Obamacare.

We were getting along so well.

If your husband lost his job prior to the ACA, then you probably would not of been able to afford it (if you could get it at all) because of his pre-existing conditions and/or prior claims. Thanks to the ACA (Obamacare), insurance companies can no longer deny coverage because of pre-existing conditions and/or prior claims. Meaning, someone in your particular situation should be thanking the high heavens for the ACA.

Also, the ACA is based on your income level (and it's through the SAME private insurance companies, it's not and has never been its own insurance).... so if you had to go that route, yes, you would be able to afford it.....it's the entire point.

#11224

Kasanova King

Posted Yesterday, 01:02 PM

FRONTMAN

• 
• SILVER
• 
• 13,669 posts
• 02-December 04

Dazey, on 19 Nov 2014 - 12:14 PM, said:

magisme, on 19 Nov 2014 - 12:11 PM, said:

Apologies, I married a Texan. I'll have to clue her up on that when she's done castrating the hogs.

Yeah, how do political discussions go with the in-laws, btw? I can't imagine too many Texan families being all too progressive.....

• +1

KASANOVA KING

The above comment shows how closed minded you are. This is why I don't put a lot of stock into what you say. You are wrong about your above comment and you are wrong about Obamacare. It isn't based on your income. And many members of my large Texan family are extremely progressive.

[Ace Nova]

• +1

KASANOVA KING

The above comment shows how closed minded you are. This is why I don't put a lot of stock into what you say. You are wrong about your above comment and you are wrong about Obamacare. It isn't based on your income. And many members of my large Texan family are extremely progressive.

Adrift, the "above comment" was a joke....Daisy and I have been exchanging these types of jokes for YEARS....long before you were here...so I understand why you didn't "get it".

And yes, the ACA is based on income.

Please read and understand what the ACA is.....(I'm really trying to be nice here....and that's only because I think your intentions are genuine).

Overview of provisions of the ACA....

Main article: Provisions of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act

The President and White House Staff react to the House of Representatives passing the bill on March 21, 2010.

The ACA includes numerous provisions that take effect between 2010 and 2020. Policies issued before 2010 are exempted by a grandfather clause from many of the changes to insurance standards, but they are affected by other provisions.^[16][17] Significant reforms, most of which took effect on January 1, 2014, include:

• Guaranteed issue prohibits insurers from denying coverage to individuals due to pre-existing conditions, and a partial community rating requires insurers to offer the same premium price to all applicants of the same age and geographical location without regard to gender or most pre-existing conditions (excluding tobacco use).^[18][19][20]That means you and your husband have absolutely NOTHING to worry about now.
• Minimum standards for health insurance policies are established.^{[21][22][23][24][25]}- Meaning no one will have coverage that doesn't (at least) cover them for most major illnesses or injuries.
• An individual mandate^[26][27] requires all individuals not covered by an employer sponsored health plan, Medicaid, Medicare or other public insurance programs (such as Tricare) to secure an approved private-insurance policy or pay a penalty, unless the applicable individual has a financial hardship or is a member of a recognized religious sect exempted by the Internal Revenue Service.^[28] The law includes subsidies to help people with low incomes comply with the mandate.^[29]
• Health insurance exchanges operate as a new avenue by which individuals and small businesses in every state can compare policies and buy insurance (with a government subsidy if eligible).^[30] In the first year of operation, open enrollment on the exchanges ran from October 1, 2013 to March 31, 2014. The original purchase deadline date to be covered for January 1, 2014 was December 15, 2013, but the deadline was pushed back, first to December 23, 2013 and later to December 24, 2013.^{[31][32][33][34]} For plans starting in 2015, the proposed enrollment period is November 15, 2014–February 15, 2015.^[35]
• Low-income individuals and families whose incomes are between 100% and 400% of the federal poverty level will receive federal subsidies on a sliding scale if they purchase insurance via an exchange.^[36] Those from 133% to 150% of the poverty level will be subsidized such that their premium costs will be 3% to 4% of income.^[37] In 2013, the subsidy would apply for incomes up to $45,960 for an individual or $94,200 for a family of four; consumers can choose to receive their tax credits in advance, and the exchange will send the money directly to the insurer every month.^[38] Small businesses will be eligible for subsidies.^[39]
• Medicaid eligibility expanded to include individuals and families with incomes up to 133% of the federal poverty level, including adults without disabilities and without dependent children.^[40] The law also provides for a 5% "income disregard", making the effective income eligibility limit for Medicaid 138% of the poverty level.^[41] Furthermore, the State Children's Health Insurance Program (CHIP) enrollment process is simplified.^[40] However, in National Federation of Independent Business v. Sebelius, the Supreme Court ruled that states may opt out of the Medicaid expansion, and several have done so.
• Reforms to the Medicare payment system are meant to promote greater efficiency in the healthcare delivery system by restructuring Medicare reimbursements from fee-for-service to bundled payments.^[42][43] Under the new payment system, a single payment is paid to a hospital and a physician group for a defined episode of care (such as a hip replacement) rather than individual payments to individual service providers. In addition, the Medicare Part D coverage gap (commonly called the "donut hole") will shrink incrementally, closing completely by January 1, 2020.^[44]
• Businesses which employ 50 or more people but do not offer health insurance to their full-time employees will pay a tax penalty if the government has subsidized a full-time employee's healthcare through tax deductions or other means. This is commonly known as the employer mandate.^[45][46] In July 2013, the Internal Revenue Service delayed enforcement of this provision for one year.^[47]\

[AdriftatSea]

You radical liberals need to stop talking down to Adrift like she's some ignorant idiot, she's an intelligent adult woman who knows exactly what she's talking about because she's lived it and she's still living it. Hasn't she and her husband been through enough without you insulting her by ordering her to "Thank God for the ACA" and telling her what she can and can't afford.

"And you should be thanking God for the ACA, since your insurance can't drop you for a pre-existing condition now." "If it wasn't for the ACA, your insurance company could have dropped you" ---- Really KK? You've probably had employer sponsored health insurance for how many decades, and yet you somehow don't know that employees and their families NEVER COULD be excluded from or dropped from employer sponsored health insurance for pre-existing conditions or any other reason for that matter??? Bullshit you didn't know, you're just trying to bully Adrift into bowing down to Obamacare.

And Mags, that Humana notice was crystal clear ... a fuckin' 12-year-old could understand the 2015 policy premium went up $274.16 therefore the 2015 expected monthly payment using the same 2014 APTC also went up $274.16 and OF COURSE the pre-credit policy premium has to be reflected separately so the tax credit amount being applied is crystal clear and also so if something changes during the year (income, marital status, etc) and the insured is no longer entitled to the full tax credit they will know how much it will cost to keep the same plan.

It's the radical liberals around here who try to shove their biased beliefs down everyone's throat that give all Democrats a bad name. I never thought anything could actually get me turned off to this forum, but all the radical liberal bullshit certainly is.

This place needs some balance, Adrift for Mod. She'd make a damn good one.

Thank you so much Linguini! I wouldn't make a good mod. But thanks! Plus, I would rather eat a bag of nails!

And as far as what they are saying to me, you are correct, but I truly don't think they know what they are saying to me. They don't understand where I'm coming from. And they aren't trying. They are trying to shove the kool-aid down my throat. They are like all the other liberals that stood outside in the rain with all the other 'We are the 99%' with their ipads, their iphones, their ipods and their gap clothes and slept in their tents and protested for what? What did they protest? This is how I feel when they insult me for my personal experience I am explaining; my personal experience with how the new healhcare program has affected my life. They don't know what they are talking about because they haven't had it directly affect them. Just like the 99% claiming they are doing without when they have a lot more than they realize. They don't know what they speak of. You can spout how you perceive laws to read (congress does it every day), regurgitate what you read all day long, post links to prove what you are saying, but until you live it, and surprise, it just 'ain't' like that, you will not understand.

They say, "Educate yourself!" I've had hands on training, not what they have read in the news. As I've said, I've lived it. Do they think insurance is for healthy people alone. Young people aren't buying Obamacare insurance. Maybe the young people that have terminal cancer and a lot of money are buying it, but that's probably the only ones that are. Tell me I should be thankful? Thankful for what? Thankful that I'm paying a lot more money to have less of what I had in coverage?

Is there one single person here that is on Obamacare? Is there? If not, stop preaching the merits of the program to me. Just the extra charges for medicine alone are staggering.

Thanks again Linguini!